what is a god hater?
haters of God will always make sport of the truth because they love darkness rather than the light. God’s Word exposes their lifestyle of sin and they hate that so what do they do attack the God of the Bible (Spaniard VIII)
The Bible has a tendency to caricature ‘evil’ in a manner that leaves some Christians confused about real-life humans. Many atheists are concerned about ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ because we are interested in improving human society.
Maybe we’re concerned that we live in societies that provide the most comfortable lives for ourselves and our children, or maybe we don’t enjoy seeing other people suffering, or maybe we just like the idea that life could and should be better for everyone experiencing it.
Maybe, because we don’t believe that ‘evil’ exists as an entity, we have hope that through the search for knowledge and education, humans can eventually learn to treat each other and rest of our world with a lot more respect. We know there is no evil spirit tricking us to be ‘bad’ and we are not born innately ‘bad’. We are sentient creatures born with a capacity for love and concern, and we are capable of building strong and peaceful, mutually supportive societies.
We are also capable of turning in fear from one another and building up resentments and hatred that can spiral into violent conflicts, killing and causing the suffering of millions of our fellow humans. But hopefully we can continue to learn from the circumstances that lead to these situations, which are beneficial to no-one, and one day be in the position to avoid them completely.
When I ‘attack’ the god depicted in the Bible, I am criticising immoral behaviour. I am disgusted that people today still think homosexuality is evil, because it’s condemned in an old book. I am disgusted that women are told to be submissive in their adult partnerships, allowing men to make all the decisions, because it’s encouraged in an old book. I’m disgusted that parents are physically violent towards their children, because it’s encouraged in an old book.
I don’t ‘hate’ this Old Testament god, who clearly doesn’t exist. But I do hate some of the behaviour that is inspired by the words written about him.
However, when it comes to much of the story of Jesus, I’d have to remove myself from the hate list altogether. I’m quite taken with the story of the unlikely saviour of a suppressed people. He spread examples of co-operative societies, of abandonment of material possessions, and of all people being essentially equal. He encouraged us all to show respect, love and forgiveness to our fellow human beings.
So if Christians have to continue with their misguided, archaic supersitious beliefs, if they truly need that reassurance from the invisible beyond to make sensible and empathetic decisions about the way they live, I just hope that within the vast realm of possibilities that Christianity offers, they’ll choose to concentrate their efforts on the story of their man god on Earth. Because in my atheist life of alleged ‘sin and hate’, this example of love is one I quite appreciate.
When textual criticism of the Bible grew out of rationalism in the 17th century , many Biblical Scholars were calling their contemporaries “evil” and “wolves in sheep’s clothing”
There’s nothing new here. There will always be the “Old Guard” of Christian Fundamentalism who refuse to live in the 21st century . In this aspect , they are no different than other religious fundamentalists.
What they fail to see is the more rational today’s Christians become, they are either remaining in the Church as “Progressives” or they are abandoning their faith all together.
LikeLike
I always find it interesting that they assume atheists are, relative to them, living a debauched life of ‘sin’. I do think Christianity has a tendency to attract quite messed up people with low self-esteem who have difficulty controlling themselves – it’s the only thing that accounts for this kind of projection.
LikeLike
Hey chief-
Perhaps in your ‘new and improved’ progressive view of the world, you can do better than the tribesmen who recognized the 24 hr day, 7 day week, 60 seconds in a minute, 365 day year, the citing of male and feMALE, the man and woMAN………
Didn’t think so. What have you contributed to the new and improved keeping of time? Or the identifying of the sexes? Oh that’s right, let’s just keep with what the idiots discovered.
And oh, did you notice that woman and female are just as the scriptures depict???? OF the man? Stop embarrassing yourself with pretended knowledge.
LikeLike
Wow, that’s amazing, I’d never thought of it like that! If the Bible hadn’t identified men and women we’d be in an awful muddle! Thanks ColorStorm.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Vi
Are you missing the point? How do YOU account for the naming of the sexes apart from scripture?
Are you not in disarray that man and woMAN are so identified?
Why not ‘beans’ for the man, or ‘sprouts’ for the woman? You are not purposefully being dense are you?
Or are you saying that your godless ‘evolution’ named the sexes by mistake? One would think you would take offense at being called woMAN……….
Quite the dilemma you have, and you brush it off as meaningless. Too bad.
LikeLike
Wow ColorStorm, that’s comment of the month material. Are you monolingual? Was the Bible written in English? Do you understand what words are?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes ColorStorm really is special.
LikeLike
“Why not ‘beans’ for the man, or ‘sprouts’ for the woman? You are not purposefully being dense are you?”
No I’m not purposefully being dense nor do I make it a habit of being condescending to someone I’m trying to have a conversation with. You don’t have to result to belittling others simply because you’re unable to support your own argument . This seems to be the only defense you have when engaging others. Very sad actually.
LikeLike
Seriously chief?
Maybe you can explain HOW and WHY the determination of male and feMALE or man and woMAN came into being if not for the Designer who made them so?
LikeLike
You are monolingual, aren’t you? Do you understand what language is, at least?
LikeLike
I’m sorry V if you do not understand the ramifications of such simplicity. You gotta back up before language V; you gotta go to the owner of the Alphabet.
You make complicated things that are simple. It’s sad really.
LikeLike
I’m sorry you don’t understand how language evolves. Here’s a little lesson on the English terms for the two biological sexes of our species.
“The term ‘woman’ does come from the Old English ‘wifman’, as ‘man’ was used to refer to humans of all genders; men were referred to as ‘wermen’ – hence the term ‘werewolf’ (man wolf).[1][2]
As for ‘male’ and ‘female’, ‘female’ was later remodeled around the word ‘male’, so again this isn’t entirely (or even mostly) wrong, but it prior to this there wasn’t a shared etymological root; ‘male’ came from the old French ‘malle’, which itself came from a diminutive of the Latin ‘Masculus’; whereas ‘female’ came from the Old French ‘Femele’, which came from the diminutive of the Latin ‘Femina'”
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/76901/were-the-words-woman-and-female-produced-after-the-words-man-and-male
LikeLike
That’s nice Violet. As if all languages are not interchangeable.
My original point is irrefutable to common sense.
GOD determined the sexes, not Oxford. Wake up.
And the illustrious Mr Webster of dictionary fame simple borrowed what already was.
LikeLike
Really funny ColorStorm. In my native Finnish language a man is “mies” and a woman is “nainen”. You see, two distinctly separate words that do not derive their meaning from any scripture at all. The Finnish language is very old, one might even say archaic in structure. By the way, we do not have any gender on the pronoun him/her. We only have this totally neutral pronoun “hän”. It is not really different from your plural of the pronoun him/her – them, wich is also totally gender neutral. I have never heard anyone complaining it causing any problems. Have you? Do you see where this is going?
In Russian they have gender identity on most words. They percieve even inanimate objects as male, or female and it seems totally random wich words are of wich gender. For example, a knife is “finka”, and it is in a feminine gender. (As it happens, it also means a Finnish woman in Russian.)
However, language affects the way we think, rather than the opposite, as language is the product of the thinking of past generations. Be wary of language letting language presuppositions and other cultural prejudices taking the better of you.
LikeLike
@rautakyy
Tkx, but it appears this has gone over your head also. We both can cite 50 languages all meaning the same thing with different spellings or dialects.
So what.
The ORIGIN of male and female is God’s work, not a dictionary’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm, you are obviously mistaken, as all scientific evidence points to the direction, that the origin of division into male and female among us animals, is due to the evolutionary process. There is no evidence at all, that any gods were involved in biological entities turning into sexual procreation. Any claim by ancient books, that some gods were involved are not only mutually contradictionary, but also quite obvious works of superstitous fiction.
In addition, most advanced animals, such as us humans, have also evolved into social beings, so that though the procreation is sexual, the survival of social animals as species is greatly advanced also by empathy and adoption.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for defending me, and asking for an apology. When I asked whether a fascist could say anything of value, I was not trying to catch SoM out in fascistic values, but rather wondering whether he found “Fascist” a short cut so that he need not consider anything I said. Few people are wrong about everything. Hitler was a vegetarian. I don’t want to trawl Hitler’s statements for something I might agree with, it would be horrible, but I am sure he said something I might find thought-provoking and valuable, perhaps in an unguarded moment.
LikeLike
CS, did your God also create males the ability to become females ?
LikeLike
Are you specifically asking about species alone, or man and woman?
LikeLike
what difference would that make ?
LikeLike
Uh hello?
Every difference in the world. I do hope that VIOLET WISP and the other fans are watching, and reading carefully.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
So…………there is no difference between a male dog and a man dog?
There is no difference between a female cat, and a woman cat? Hello?
Man and WoMAN are isolated to humans thank you very much. Perhaps the atheist makes no distinction, in which case, I rest my case that further dialog is impossible.
Hyenas are not ‘man and woman,’ but ‘male and female.’
Yes, it makes a difference.
LikeLike
man and woman are of the Homo sapien species. However I never mentioned man and woman in my original question.
I asked ,”CS, did God also create males the ability to become females ?” Here in SW Florida the Snook fish are protandric hermaphrodites and change sex from male to female. There is currently no scientific explanation for this.
I would assume you would give God the credit for creating such a fish since you give him credit for everything else?
LikeLike
CS, I’m not trying to trick you. I am interested on your take since you seem to know a lot about the Christian God . My previous question was a segue to this question.
Do you believe God created the Intersex Human ?
LikeLike
Anything outside of the norm is an aberration of nature. A man with 6 toes or a man 9 ft tall would be a fine example. No difference with your ‘intersex’ human.
God knows all about the wrong choices people make, but He is not to blame.
LikeLike
“Anything outside of the norm is an aberration of nature. A man with 6 toes or a man 9 ft tall would be a fine example. No difference with your ‘intersex’ human.”
A man with 6 toes is still a man. An Intersex human might not be either a man or a woman.
Do you really disregard science when it goes against your Christian understanding of life ?
If God is the creator of all life, why aren’t you willing to concede that God created Intersex Humans ?
LikeLike
All science is under God’s omniscience. Nothing surprises Him.
But it looks like you missed the point about aberrations.
LikeLike
It is you who missed the whole point.
CS, “God knows all about the wrong choices people make, but He is not to blame.”
Intersex is not a choice , CS. You better go take a biology refresher course.
LikeLike
Of course it is a choice. He/she is the result of all things and choices that preceded.
Rather simple. There is a very good chance that a child raised by thieves will be a thief.
So the baby thief is an aberration. So yes. A choice. A poor one at that.
LikeLike
I think it’s time to end this conversation. Your mindset is troubling CS. The hope that I have is that generations after us will become more rational and less indoctrinated.
Good night
LikeLiked by 1 person
I forgot to comment on this. CS, “Rather simple. There is a very good chance that a child raised by thieves will be a thief.”
Yes and there is a very good chance that a child raised by religious fundamentalists will grow up to fly planes into buildings, murder abortion Doctors, make 1,000 people drink Koolaid laced with poison, and the list goes on and on and on.
LikeLike
Aah but chief, your entire theory just went kaput, for millions of Chinese are turning to the true God…….and living their faith as Christians, not Islamites, not fearing death, so it would appear your misunderstanding of the one and only living God is on display.
Nice try though.
LikeLike
CS, “Aah but chief, your entire theory just went kaput, for millions of Chinese are turning to the true God…….and living their faith as Christians, not Islamites, not fearing death, so it would appear your misunderstanding of the one and only living God is on display.”
Islamites ? It’s OK to just say Muslims. 🙂
Evangelism as a tool is usually most effective when offering hope to people who have no hope and are poorly educated and hungry.
There are millions of non-Christians throughout Europe. Why aren’t Christian organizations concentrating their efforts there anymore ? You know and I know why.
Nice try CS.
LikeLike
Why Islamites?
Because Christians do not fly planes into building as you suggested, so I corrected you.
Christians are not born into the world to eradicate Jews or blow people up chief.
Ever read the New Testament? Do show us unlearned ones where Christ commanded to ‘kill thy neighbor………’
You may as well stop looking.
LikeLike
CS, do you ever take the time to read comments before you respond ?
CS, “Because Christians do not fly planes into building as you suggested, so I corrected you.”
I never said Christians fly planes into buildings. I said “religious fundamentalists fly planes into buildings” amongst other things.
kcchief1, “Yes and there is a very good chance that a child raised by religious fundamentalists will grow up to fly planes into buildings, murder abortion Doctors, make 1,000 people drink Koolaid laced with poison,”
CS, “Ever read the New Testament? Do show us unlearned ones where Christ commanded to ‘kill thy neighbor………’
Again I was referring to religious fundamentalists NOT the New Testament.
I do wish you would take the time to read and more importantly comprehend what you read.
You’re very tiring, CS !
Good night
LikeLike
One last thing CS.
You can brag about China all you want but, “Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and is expected to outstrip Christianity by the end of the century. The number of Muslims will grow more than twice as fast as the world’s population from now until 2050, the Pew Research Center has said.Dec 10, 2015”
Good luck swimming upstream.
LikeLike
Not bragging about China. Just putting things in perspective per your faulty comparison.
God and His word have never lost a single argument.
LikeLike
CS, “God and His word have never lost a single argument”
Always the safe bet since no one has ever seen or heard the word of God. Keep drinking the Kool Aid , CS.
LikeLike
Just a correction chief if I may. There is no poison in living water. Now the rancid well of godlessness…..that’s another story.
LikeLike
You are quite the judge CS. Looks like you have some competition however with Citizen Tom and Spaniardviii .
Spaniardviii thinks he alone holds “The Truth” as he just rebuked Citizen Tom.
So CS, which one do I believe ? Apparently 2 of you haven’t been receiving the memo’s from the “Big Guy” lately . Hmmmmmm
LikeLike
Maybe you never read chief of the correction Paul provided to the apostle Peter…..yep………..
So what. You can go ahead and try to write off God’s word because of a mere neighbors fence dispute.
As for me and my house. We will serve the Lord. See how easy. I did not accept your bait.
LikeLike
Violet,
If you truly think that man is a product of a godless natural world than you absolutely must view homosexuality as a sexual disorder.
If everyone were homosexual the human race would go extinct, naturally.
Since over 97% of the population is heterosexual the human races continues to be fruitful and multiply, just like the Bible says and just like nature intended.
LikeLike
In much the same way as infertility in heterosexual couples, or people choosing to abstain from sex, it makes no sense to condemn natural inclinations simply because they don’t follow the majority experience of life. I’m sure it would put you in a precarious position, wouldn’t it?
LikeLike
Uh hello Violet? Anybody home in there?
The albino deer is a pariah among the herd. It is unnatural, and poses a threat to the well being of what is natural. What you call ‘natural’ would be laughed at by the deer who are on high alert for drawing attention to themselves.
‘Nature’ is indeed a wonderful teacher.
There is another word more suited to your point of view, and that word is ‘unnatural.’ A man after a man or a woman after a woman is ‘unnatural.’ You can cloak it in many ways, you can laugh at it, you can get support from your customers here, but facts are facts.
LikeLike
So what’s your cure for infertile couples and people who choose to abstain from sex? Should we shun them until they can breed or simply stone them?
LikeLike
Yes, Violet.
Those are examples of reproductive disorders.
And they those disorders do not infer special human rights on people who want to pretend that they are not disorders.
LikeLike
So you believe your god on Earth had a ‘reproductive disorder’ much like homosexuality when he chose not to have sex?
LikeLike
Violet,
Okay, I pissed you off.
I had no idea you were so sensitive.
LikeLike
I’m not annoyed. Just asking a simple question based on what you’ve told me so far. Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Violet,
You are purposefully trying to debase Christianity because you cannot explain your irrational stand on homosexuality.
At once you claim to believe in the order of the natural world and that a clear and obvious sexual disorder like homosexuality ordered to nature.
Getting pissy with Christianity won’t solve your problem with being irrational.
LikeLike
Actually, if you are prepared to extend this premise its logical conclusion and are emphatic we are products of a god-made supernatural world then the omniscient deity you genuflect to is perfectly all right with homosexuality as he made all creatures great and small.
LikeLike
Ark,
That’s right.
God is okay with people who are homosexuals just like he is okay with all people who suffer from disorders.
LikeLike
So do you think he is happy with your asinine comments, sarcasm, crass ignorance and general all round screwed in the head behaviour?
LikeLike
Ark,
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask God and find out for yourself?
LikeLike
I do not beleive in gods, yours or anyone else’s. But you are Christian, albeit not a True Christian but a Catholic, and believe in prayer etc, so maybe it would be better if you asked directly?
Unless you have somehow already been given an answer, and in which case please reveal its source?
LikeLike
Ark,
Then shut the hell up and quit asking me how the God you don’t believe in feels about things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SOM.
Then shut the hell up and quit telling people that the god you believe in has any real interest in what people do with their genitals.
LikeLike
Ark,
Sexual reproduction is at the heart of human nature and also at the heart of most religions.
You can’t hallucinate way the importance of ordered sexuality.
LikeLike
I never said one could.
But nature is the way it is.
What you going to do, stone all the gays?
It’s not as if there are gangs of gay men and women driving around suburban neighborhoods in minivans at night terrorizing ”straights”.
I think we should be a lot more concerned about pedophile Catholic Priests and your church’s continued hand waving and also their refusal to fully sanction contraception.
LikeLike
Ark,
Like your sisters Clare and Violet, you also get pissed off when you reach a point where you can’t explain your religious faith.
LikeLike
I have no religious faith SOM. Please explain why you feel so threatened by gays?
Do you walk around squeezing the cheeks of your backside … just in case?
And tell me why you are not in the least bit vocal about pedophile priests?
Surely members of your own clergy forcing little boys to engage in fellatio and anal sex is of much greater concern than what sexual active consenting adults do?
You are a lot more concerned about pedophile priests and the Catholic Church’s barbaric stance on contraception aren’t you SOM?
Are you just a little shy or embarrassed to discuss it with us?
We don’t mind, really.
Seriously though, does the thought of two adult homosexual women making love revolt you more than imagining a Catholic Priest fondling and sucking the genitals of a young boy, on the threat that if he refuses he will burn in hell for eternity?
LikeLike
Ark,
Some of my best friends are gays.
What makes you think I feel threatened by gays?
LikeLike
Because people who are not threatened by homosexuals and claim some of their best friends are gay do not write things like this ….
Well, not honest people anyway.
So, nothing about pedophile priests then I take it?
LikeLike
Ark,
Me stating the obvious is not me being threated.
Me stating the obvious is you, Clare and Violet being threatened.
LikeLike
No, SOM, you are most definitely threatened.
Another reason why you are silent about child-raping Catholic Priests.
Reality actually is your friend but it means facing it, and dealing with truth.
The obvious is that homosexuality is part of life.
If you think that it is such a major problem then why have you not even offered a ”solution”, rather than simply vilify it in your own unique way.
In no way does it threaten you, or demean you,or harm you.
Clergy raping little boys and girls is something that is of much greater concern and you should be burning with shame for not even acknowledging this fact here on Violet’s blog.
LikeLike
Ark,
One of the hallmarks of Western Civilization is how it systematically promoted the development of man’s capacity to reason.
Understanding the natural world especially through the study of modern science eliminates fear and replaces it with understanding.
Atheism is a rejection of reason, the natural world and science; consequently, fear is all you, Clare and Violet have.
You try to hide it by projecting it upon others.
LikeLike
The please use your capacity to reason and explain to me why Catholics have used fear throughout the millennia and your priests are using it still to rape children?
LikeLike
Ark,
I just explained your hatred.
You puking out more of it is unhelpful.
LikeLike
I do not hate, It is a useless emotion, and certainly not your make believe god, irrespective which manifestation we are discussing.
All you are doing is trying to defend the indefensible, and failing spectacularly.
Now please use your capacity to reason and explain why you have this fear of homosexuality and why you refuse to stand up and condemn the pedophile priests across the globe?
LikeLike
Hey ark:
Maybe SoM is waiting for you to condemn all the atheists across the earth for not engaging the God given brain, in which case, you may beein a better position to answer your own question.
just sayin.
LikeLike
Why would anyone condemn atheists?
My brain is a product of evolution … as is yours.
Will you condemn Pedophile priests, and the barbaric stance of the Catholic Church regarding contraceptives, CS?
After all, to as far as you are concerned SOM is not a True Christian.
Please let us all hear/read you condemn their actions.
If you aren’t against the then you must be for them.
LikeLike
If your brain is a product of evolution, that explains why you do not give God the courtesy of existing. The fog has not lifted.
And no, I will not accept your bait to cast aspersion of SoM. Perhaps you have never heard: ‘in my Father’s house are many mansions.’
If you would leave the dark ages of your basement, and come up to the living room, you would see and understand.
All unrighteousness is sin, pedophilia, thievery, lying, rebellion, covetousness, adultery, and especially the egregiousness of saying ‘there is no God.’
You are guilty just as well, and your own mouth has tightened the noose around your ignorance. Sad but true.
LikeLike
Sin is a religious concept. I do not recognise it.
So you accept that SOM is a True , Christian then, am I correct?
May I ask why you have not converted to Catholicism in this case?
LikeLike
That’s ok if you do not recognize it. Your own commentary proves otherwise.
Thus do the facts of reality indict you. Now if you were to say that turtles can’t sin, I would agree. But maybe you make no distinction between man and beast………
But those snickering hyenas…….they sure come close eh? Still, close but no cigars.
LikeLike
Wrong. You have a very poor understanding of the definition of sin if you believe this.
Or you are either being disingenuous or simply lying?
You need to start being honest and truthful before you write such fallacious nonsense.
So why don’t you go off and read and then come back and copy and paste the definition of sin?
Off you go, and we’ll see you in a moment or two, okay?
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
Time-keeping standards originated with Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek astronomers.
Why Are There 24 Hours In A Day And 60 Minutes In An Hour? (Sources listed at bottom of article)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh interesting, and here we thought that the people of the past were idiots! Meanwhile, they surpass us in intelligence and common sense.
But time keeping standards originated with God. Period.
He owns the day, the week, the hour, and the year. After all, there is that moon cycle thing, 28 days and all that……..
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
The average topical year is approximately 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 45 seconds long (365.24219 days), but it can vary by almost half an hour:. It was 365 days, 5 hours, 35 minutes and 5 seconds long in 1912. It will be 365 days, 6 hours, 1 minutes and 6 seconds long in 2093. This year (ending 20 March 2017) it is 365 days, 5 hours, 44 minutes and 56 seconds long.
The average lunar month is 29 days 12 hours and 44 minutes (29.53059 days) long, but can vary by 12 hours. The longest lunar month of this century is 29 days 19 hours and 47 minutes long and occurs between the December 2017 and January 2018 new moons. This century’s shortest lunar month takes place in between the new moons of June and July 2053, a period of 29 days 6 hours and 35 minutes.
The Jewish calendar year can be 353, 354 or 355 days, alternates between 12 lunar months consisting of 29 and 30 days, and adds a “leap” day and/or “leap” month about once every every 3 years.
The seven-day week is based on the seven heavenly bodies; the Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn
A solar day is 24 hours long, but a sidereal day is only 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds long.
In other words, there’s no simple, convenient mathematical relationship between days, weeks, months and years without resorting to the use of complicated calculations. If your god is indeed responsible for all the above, he’s not a very organized timekeeper.
.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ron
You are working waaaay to hard to ignore the obvious.
God created time. Period. And He gave His creatures brains to understand what He did. Period.
LikeLike
Not so fast CS. you said to me earlier ,
“Hey chief- Perhaps in your ‘new and improved’ progressive view of the world, you can do better than the tribesmen who recognized the 24 hr day, 7 day week, 60 seconds in a minute, 365 day year,”
I think Ron just proved to you that man has indeed recognized that time isn’t always the same .
You can’t have it both ways CS. That would be talking out of both sides of your mouth and I know you wouldn’t want anyone to think that !
LikeLike
Yes. It’s quite obvious that humans came up with a multitude of non-standard weeks and calendars until God sorted things out. Unfortunately, the Chinese people and Orthodox churches didn’t get the message.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does rebellion come natural to you, or do you have to work at it?
God set in motion time, and people of all ages have used the God given brain to sort out the details. How hard can it be………….
LikeLike
God? I’m afraid you worship the wrong deity. Every KNOWS the universe was created by the Cosmic Jelly Donut and Homer ( D´OH!) is his prophet.
LikeLike
People understand others through their own experience, and Born-Again types have limited experience. My colleague had led what she now thought was a chaotic, evil lifestyle of drinking and casual sex, and now she was plugged in to the Rules her sect discerned in the Bible. Sometimes people like that cannot understand any way of being- either chaotic and valueless lives, or Born Again.
If Spaniardviii met you, s/he might realise there are other ways human beings can be. You don’t clearly fit either of those two boxes. On line, we are far more likely to confirm our prejudices.
LikeLike
That’s seems about right. Sounds like the kind of experience Tiribulus had, from the way he talks about his life before Christianity hit him. I guess it’s fear of going back that makes them so rabid.
LikeLike
Violet,
May it is the fear of going forward that makes people like you, Clare and br’er Ark so rabid.
You really are at least as judgmental as the people you are criticizing.
LikeLike
It is possible that both are correct: there are people who reject the existence of God because they feel it as a sort of intrusion, but there is no reason to believe those people are representative of the whole.
LikeLike
Both what are correct?
LikeLike
“Hatred of god” exists. So do people who don’t believe in god without any hate.
LikeLike
I doubt there’s much hatred of any gods these days. When people become disillusioned with the religion of their culture, they either find another one or content themselves with none. Certainly in times gone by, when no other explanation existed, people might have felt hatred towards the god of their culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know… on the one hand people are conditioned to not believe in the supernatural so there is a growing indifference, on the other it seems to me like the temptation to hate god is typically modern. God is a limit on human autonomy, and therefore the enemy: basic Sartre.
But you can’t use a line from scripture to condemn all unbelievers as hating God, it doesn’t work like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dpmonahan, you could be right, but do you hate Allah? Or do you simply dismiss him as a conceptual thing? There might be atheists who resent Allah and YHWH as despicable concepts as much as they hate Sauron. Do you percieve yourself as hating Thor?
LikeLike
Of course I’m right.
All due respect to Tolkien and our Teutonic ancestors, neither Sauron nor Thor is a powerful idea. No one does anything because of Thor or feels anything about Thor. The analogy is weak.
As for Allah, I don’t know much about Islam and don’t want to comment.
LikeLike
Dpmonahan, what do you mean by saying, that Sauron or Thor are not powerfull ideas?
Tolkien has inspired generations of westerners. The only differences between Sauron and the Devil as mythological characters really is, that Sauron is younger, and people realize that he is a fictional character, because there is no tradition of taking him for real inhereted from ignorant superstitious ancestors, nor a systematic relgion built around him. Already millions of people take Xenu for real, even though from a literary point of view Sauron is much more powerfull idea. Is he not?
As for Thor he was worshipped by the Vikings who conquered lands and founded countries, like the Nordic kingdoms and Russia. What was weak about the idea? There are still people who believe in him, called the Asatru religion. The reason why Thor lost competition to Jesus, is not because Thor was a weak idea, but because of several factors. The better organized and more populous nations of the south gave their economic and military support to usurpers in Germanic lands if they also turned to Christianity. Christianity was more agressive in killing people who believed differently, than the Asatru. Those who believed in Thor were not interrested in turning other people into their religion. Do you mean that an idea is weaker, if the supporters of the idea are not as ready to kill those who believe differently because of their beliefs?
I do not think your god is a powerfull enough idea to be worthy of hate any more than Thor, or Sauron, nor Allah really. Why would you think it is? Or would you?
If you know enough about Islam to make the claim, that Allah is not true, then you are perfectly qualified to asses wether or not you personally hate Allah. It takes a lot less effort. If you do not know wether you hate Allah or not, then you simply do not hate Allah. It is simple as that. Is it not?
LikeLike
Some ideas move history; Sauron did not move history.
I know enough about Islam to know it is an attempt to rationalize the monotheistic religions of the sixth century and sell it to Arabs, but for me to comment on the positive and negative aspects of their concept of God would mean I’d have to know what true Islam is and be familiar with their internal debates.
LikeLike
I doubt there is “true Islam” any more than there is “true Christianity”. In both cases people seem to disagree on what they think a particular god thinks, wich is something totally unknowable. Even if we would not consider the fact, that we do not know any gods to exist (wich is why all religions demand faith, rather than recognition of the obvious or even the observable), we would not have any even remotely reliable method to evaluate what a god thinks. Would we?
What you say about Sauron could have been said about Jesus in the early days of Christianity and in his lifetime, if he even was an actual historical person. Would it have been true then?
Even though we do not know how much impact the literal works of Tolkien are going to have on society in the future, you can not dismiss Thor as not having moved history as an idea. But my question is really simple: Do you hate Thor? If you do not have any feelings about Thor, you do not hate Thor. Right? Not even though the followers of Thor murdered scores of defenseless people. No gods came to help those people. Not Thor, equally as not yours. Did they? Not to our knowing, at least. All we know is that people who were killed by the adherents of Thor suffered, just like people were killed by the holy inquisition suffered, and the people who caused the suffering thought in all sincerety, that their gods approved, or even demanded them to murder and torture. Right?
After having come to the conclusion, that Thor is most likely a fictional product of the human mind, just like Allah, YHWH, Krishna, Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Ilmatar and the rest of them, regardless wether Zoroaster, Alexander, Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha were historical human beings, is it not easy to dismiss them, rather than to hate them any more than one hates the conceptual entity Sauron?
I may hate the evil done in the name of Jesus, but I bet so do you. Do you not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zzzz..
If you can’t tell the difference between a novel and a religion, even supposing both have no factual basis, you haven’t thought about it enough.
LikeLike
Dpmonahan, I am sorry, but you lost me there. What do you mean? Are you simply evading the point of my question?
Of course there is a difference between a fictious literary character in a novel from a fictious literary character in a religion. However, that difference does not make you think Thor or Allah are any more true than Sauron. Does it? The mere fact that more people have thought and think Thor and Allah are true (and that as a result such beliefs have had more impact on history) does not make Thor, or Allah any more true suggestions, than any character in a novel. Does it? Same applies to YHWH. Does it not?
If Sauron is in a different category from other imaginary entities in literature, like gods, then forget about him, and simply answer my question about Thor. Do you think you hate him, or not?
Do you hate Allah? Do you think you are capable of claiming, that Allah most likely does not exist? Wether we are talking about the version of Allah, that is the version some (as of yet unidentified by us both) “true” Islam presents or some other form of Islam, if you are capable of evaluating wether you are atheistic about any version of Allah, you surely can also asses wether you really hate the version of Allah, you do not believe exists. Are you not?
Being an atheist means that the person does not believe gods exist. Hating someone as a real person, requires we think that person is real. Does it not? If we hate someone as a literary concept, wether how much that concept has had impact on history, only amounts to hating the literary concept, wether the concept is from a novel or from a religion.
The amount of actual harm the concept may have caused, because people believed in it, like for example the torture and burning people alive by the Inquisition, crusades against pagans, infidels, other Christians, may affect the depth of hatred and resentment a person feels towards the concept, but it does not mean that they really hate conceptual idea as they hated a person.
Do you hate the evil done in the name of Jesus like I do?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not the one arguing that the sole motivation for atheism is hatred of God, that was some fundamentalist. I pointed out that SOME people resent the intrusion on their autonomy that the existence of God would represent, and so they choose not to believe.
You put yourself in a category of not hating God because God does not exist, but rather hating the outbreaks of religious violence that would strike Europe every once in a while. Great, but your feelings have nothing to do with my assertion and I see no reason why I should address them.
LikeLike
Yes, Dpmonahan and to that I said, that you might be right. However, I asked you a relatively simple question, wich led to our subsequent discussion. My point was, that the idea of even SOME atheists being atheists because they resent the intrusion on their authonomy may be quite unlikely. If you do not hate something that you do not think even exists. How likely is it, that anyone does so? Of course, you might be more logical than SOME atheists in this issue, but I merely tried to point out, that as though it may seem like an explanation to the way some people behave, it may just as equally well be something that does not happen at all, or is so rare, it is a moot point of view. I would have liked to say, you are more logical, than the possible atheist who hates a particular god, as if that god existed, but since you wehemently did not want to discuss wether you hate Sauron, Thor, or Allah, the discussion led to a nother path.
As I already said, you might be right, but you should first be able to present even one atheist who fits that description. At the moment the question is quite “academic” in that we do not know if it is true at all. Much like any god, or what those gods may think, or wich version of any given religion is the “true” one. Do you see what I mean?
Now, I do not think, that it would be easy to find even one example of such a person, who is an atheist simply because they resent the idea of an entity intruding on their autonomy, as it might be subconscious on their part. Especially, since there are not so many religions, that claim humans do not have autonomy. Are there? That is usually the excuse they give for their god not appearing anywhere, exept in folklore (like the Bible), or for the evil things that happen in the real world. That does not mean that it was impossible to find a person who was so confused, they were atheists simply because they hated the idea of a god having a capacity to intrude their lives. There are all sorts of looneys out there atheists and Theists alike. Yes? Yet, I think the moment to believe something to be true, is closer to when we can actually provide evidence that it actually is. Is it not?
Having any faith in that there are such atheists who became or are atheist simply because they resent the (rathe remote) possibility of divine intrusion in their personal lives or on their autonomy, does not make the idea any more real, just as having faith in Thor, Allah, or YHWH makes them any more likely to be actually true. Does it?
What I actually wanted was to find some logical common ground between us. Did I fail?
LikeLiked by 1 person
For example, Jean Paul Sartre.
LikeLike
Why would you think Sartre fits the description?
LikeLike
He says as much. Can’t think of any lines off the top of my head but God can’t exist because that would imply a limit to human freedom. I don’t think he ever bothered with a rational justification for it.
LikeLike
Well, Sartre was an exeptional thinker and famous for it. Yet, he has had many followers, some of wich may have been atheists and understood his views just as you have. However, I do not know any and I doubt that any of them became atheists because of the claim you think he made. But as I already said, there are all sorts of looneys, among atheists and Theists alike, so it is possible.
I can not remember Sartre very well either, but I thought he said something more like, that since there is no god, nothing can set limits on the autonomy of the individual human mind.
I do not know, if Sartre ever made any arguments for a god not to exist. As a philosopher of his calibre, it should have been only too easy for him to acknowledge, that the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, that a particular god exists rather on the person who asks for evidence for the claim to be even remotely true. Right? After all, it is a claim, that there is this entity, that does not really manifest in the reality other, than as a sort of pan-explanation to everything in this particular ancient folklore. Is it not?
A pan-explanation, is idiotic, because it explains nothing, it only removes the explanation to any question from where the question can be examined in the real material world to a level of a metaphysical guesswork explanation, that can not be examined. That is one of the reasons why blind faith is offered as some sort of virtue in all religions. Is it not?
LikeLike
I have to ask, interresting though our conversation about Sartre might be, what if he did said what you think he did? That hardly counts as hating god. Does it? It is merely a blunt statement with no emotion at all attached to it. Is there?
LikeLike
It makes God the enemy of human happiness, that is “hate” whether expressed emotively or not.
LikeLike
No, it is not. Hate and hatred are deep EMOTIONAL dislikes.
Even if a god existed, that restricted human existence, it could represent a form hatred this said god expressed towards humans. Not the other way around. A human who believed this is what an actually existing god does, could have deep emotional dislike towards such a god. However, an atheist does not think any gods even exist. If a person really thinks something does not exist, then they are unlikely to have deep emotional dislikes towards what this nonexistant entity supposedly does, other than on conceptual level. That takes us back to Sauron. Does it not?
LikeLike
Love and hate are primarily dispositions of the will, secondarily emotions, which is why people can act for the benefit or harm of another contrary to their own inner emotional state.
You have a very shallow notion of what people talk about when they refer to God or a god. A god like Thor is a limited, contingent being and sort of a larger version of ourselves. Thor or Zeus derive their authority and legitimacy from vast cosmic cycles and sources of being, and that is why it is wrong to resist Zeus, not so much because of who he is but because of what he serves, the cosmic order.
In monotheism the one God is himself the source of being and the cosmic processes. He is not a larger version of us but the source and goal of all existence, so it is natural and good for all being, particularly human beings, to put themselves at his service. There is no contradiction between what is good for God and good for man, because the concepts God-Goodness are ultimately interchangeable.
Now you might think that is all false, but you should at least understand the systems of thought you are trying to critique.
LikeLike
Interesting conversation. So what you’re saying dp is that depending on how adherents view their invisible god, what special features they bestow on it, you are able to determine if unbelievers ‘hate’ the god they don’t believe in, or just criticise the actions the god is depicted to have taken?
I’d love to see you have a conversation about Allah with a Muslim and them try and convince you that you hate Allah for similar or more silly reasons! 😀
LikeLike
Seems like the conversation went right over your head, as I never claimed any of those things. See above for my comments on Islam, which are not what you seem to think.
LikeLike
Ah okay, so a Muslim could conclude you love Allah?
LikeLike
I don’t know, ask a Muslim.
LikeLike
Do you love Allah?
LikeLike
Islam seems to be an attempt to rationalize the monotheist religions of the 6th century and sell them to an Arab audience, so I don’t buy it.
But you are essentially asking if the God presented by Mohammed is of some value, if it is an image of the real God that is more, rather than less, adequate; if somewhere there is some authentic ray of truth, and the answer is…
I am not in a position to judge.
LikeLike
I see, because you have a precarious grasp on your own god, you obviously don’t want to sneak a peak at anyone else’s. Understandable. The fact is that you don’t love Allah, at all. And therefore a Muslim would quite rightly conclude you hate their understanding of your god.
Oh, or maybe you’d just think it’s wrong. Like all atheists think your god view is wrong (without hating the error).
LikeLike
I give an honest answer and you try to turn into a dishonest one, which is itself an act of dishonesty.
Bye.
LikeLike
Nothing to do with honesty or dishonesty – it’s all about perspective. I’m showing you how it looks to other god believers. You can’t ‘hate’ Allah – you’re sure he’s not real. Same for atheists. The only difference is that our interest in particular god depictions vary from person to person, usually dependent on the dominant god in our culture.
LikeLike
Did I say that “I am sure Allah is not real”? No.
Did I give any indication that I am cringing in fear because I suspect Islam might be the one true religion? No.
Because it is not a binary option, there are in fact other possibilities if you care to think about it, but you don’t.
LikeLike
Dpmonahan, you can not claim someone hated a god, if they never expressed any hatred. That is nonsensical. Especially if they, like Sartre, specifically expressed, that they did not even believe a god existed. They may have hated the notion of a god as a concept, like I already told you. But hating a concept and hating an actual existing person are two completely different things. Are they not?
The entire idea, that someone disbelieves something, because they do not even believe it exists, is like saying a climate change denialist disbelieves climate change because they hate climate change. Surely they have to have an actual reason to think it does not exist, be that good or (more likely) a bad reason? Do they not? Or can people be such nincompoops, that they deny the existance of something obvious regardless of consequenses, just because they hate it?
I may have a shallow understanding about what people talk about when they refer to a god. However, since no gods have ever appeared to provide me with any deeper understanding of themselves, and since most people who claim they have a deeper understanding of their specific god mostly have that as part of their cultural heritage, rather than any divine revelation, and ad to injury, since after having read a good number of the sole interactions these varying gods have provided their believers, such as holy scriptures, have not provided me with any deeper understanding, I am left to conclude, that the gods are nonexistant and that the people are convinced of “deeper” notions are most likely mistaken.
It seems by far more likelier, that the “depth” of the understanding the Theists think they have is just subjective rationalizations on something they already believed for other reasons, than by their specially accurate understanding of their specific gods, be those gods more monotheistic gods like Allah, or less monotheistic gods, like Thor, Jesus and his family. The scale of any god does not really make it any more likely to be true. Supernatural altogether is an unnatural proposition, that simply has not met it’s burden of proof.
Most people who believe in Jesus for example relate to him as and his alledged father in very humane terms. I have even heard priests boast how their religion is more humane and closer to the individual believer, because Jesus was god incarnate to a human being. That is, by your terms, “just a bigger version of ourselves”. Thor represented the divine aspect of the unexplainable powers of nature, and you referring to him as merely “a bigger version of ourselves”, shows how shallow your understanding of other religions other than the one from your cultural heritage.
Of course I should understand the systems I have to critique. I expect you to enlighten me, since no gods have chosen to. For some reason. What would you think that reason was? You do not think it is because I have not read the right books, because I have read the Bible. It did not impress me much. I found the literary value of Tolkien by far surpassing. Because I was not born into the right family? Because I was never in such a voulnerable state, that I would have become easy prey for some Mormon missionary? Or what?
What made your understanding so deep, that you think you are qualified to defend these systems from curious critics like me who may or may not have a shallow understanding of the systems?
LikeLike
I suspect Sartre was not interested in the theoretical problem of the existence of god, I’ve never heard of him addressing it. God is the enemy for Sartre, so he can’t exist. It isn’t a theoretical problem for him but an existential, personal one.
Sorry if you felt insulted when I said you had a shallow understanding of religion, I don’t mean you are stupid.
If you want to learn more about religious systems you shouldn’t be considering me or any blogger as a source, I’m just another internet blowhard, it says so on my avatar.
LikeLike
Dpmonahan, for something to represent itself as an enemy to us does not require us to hate it at all. I do not hate Russia, or Russians, yet I am painfully aware, that Russia has been for several times, and potentially is the enemy of my nation. If we were to end up in war with the Russians, if they attacked us, it would still not lead me to hate the Russians or Russia, even if I had to fight them. They would simply become our enemy. Nothing emotional such as hatred is involved at all in this reasoning, other than how much I value the values my country represents. Does not the same apply to Sartre and the concept of a restricting god? The only difference is, that to an atheist, a god is an imaginary concept, while to all of us Finns Russia is a very concrete thing to behold in this observable and measurable material universe. What does that tell you?
I am not offended. Nor did I mean to offer you an insult, or even think you are stupid, when I said you have a shallow understanding of the systems of religion either. I simply think you are very much mistaken, both about my and that of your own depth of understanding of religions. What I meant before, was that you seem to think you have a deeper understanding of something while what you think is greatly limited because of your preconception about religions in assuming your own cultural heritage to be somehow exclusive among religions. What you offer as a special feature is nothing I had not heard before. Nor is it anything especially special among religious thinking. Every religion is different, but the differences are not in any deeper understanding of reality between them, rather in different ways of expression and detail. Ultimately they are all founded on guesswork and storytelling.
You and I have a different understanding of religions, because you have an emic insider view on one of them and I have an etic outsider view on all of them. Your insider view restricts you, though differently, at least as much as my outsider view restricts me. You are a capable writer and you have an interresting insight on your religion, hence you are also a worthy source for how religious people percieve the world. I would not rely solely on any singular source in the internet even on such trivial matters as superstitions. However, you are as good a source on what a singular religous person thinks, that the other religious person. Religions in general represent one of the most widespread series of consensus agreements about a totally subjective and unmeasurable conceptual world, that directly affects how people in the real world act. This is why I am interrested in religions and discussions about gods, in the first place, even though I think they are complete nonsense.
LikeLike
Sorry I didn’t see this before.
I had not thought about the war paradigm where it is possible to have a mortal enemy that you do not have feelings of hatred for, but that just affirms my assertion that hatred is not primarily a feeling.
The argument over Sartre is getting tiresome because 1) neither of us is an expert in Sartre and 2) the underlying discussion is over something contingent anyway and therefore not resolvable here.
As for the rest, it is all very mutual. We find each other repetitive, unoriginal, and all too typical – though your appreciation of martial traditions is a little unusual for the European center-left.
LikeLike
I love watching you lose an argument and attempting to sum it up as if its stalemate. And there’s nothing about Raut that is unoriginal or typical. Although I’ll agree with that assessment of you. 😉
LikeLike
Well, I am not going to go out and buy the complete works of Sartre to win an internet argument.
I hope I’ve never claimed originality, that would be arrogant, even for me. Think for myself, on occasion, but not original.
Speaking of books, right at this moment I am trying to come up with a list of challenging books to read once I get out of school for the summer. Any ideas? I’m stumped.
LikeLike
What kind of challenge are you looking for? John Zande’s book is very good.
LikeLike
Snort. If you enjoy reading colossal blowhards. Thinking more literary or historical.
LikeLike
“Snort. If you enjoy reading colossal blowhards.”
You don’t sound like a person who has ever read one of Zande’s books cover to cover.
LikeLike
AMAZING! I AM ONE OF THE 7.5 BILLION PEOPLE WHO HAS NOT READ ONE OF HIS BOOKS!!!! HOW DID YOU KNOW????
LikeLike
It was rather obvious you knew nothing about Zande.
LikeLike
Except that he’s a foul-mouthed and vapid blowhard who googles bible verses to look smart while actually knowing next to nothing about the text and who invokes Poe’s law a lot.
But hey, we all have our flaws. Mine is smug superiority.
LikeLike
You appear to be a teenager masquerading as an adult. Nothing more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I actually meant no disrespect. Just an observation .
LikeLike
He kills squirrels for fun, so no-one has high expectations of him
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry for blowing your mind in India; Down and Out in London and Paris by George Orwell for brilliance; Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell, loved it at the time but if you’ve seen the film it might be rubbish. I’ve just finished The Glass Blowers by Daphne du Maurier and the context of the French Revolution was really interesting. You read anything good? I’m always looking for recommendations. Actually, I did a post years ago about that, maybe time for another one.
LikeLike
Actually those are good suggestions. The last really good book I read was The Scarlet City by Hella Hasse.
LikeLike
Silly me. I forgot Chabon’s The Adventures of Cavallier and Clay. It is sort of an historical-critical / Freudian examination of a fictional comic-book character of the 1940s, and a great adventure. Lots of fun.
LikeLike
@Colorstorm
I don’t think she is, Colorstorm. Truly I don’t . You see, you are a certifiable Dickhead and Christian scripture was not needed for that particular epithet.
LikeLike
Aah and right on cue comes more tales from the crypt from the littlestonegod with the cement hat, as he tries to unseat the living God.
It was God, and not your other gods Neil Tyson, Nye, and Hawking, who determined and identified the sexes. As I told V, quite the dilemma for the godless to suffer through such ahem degradation as woMAN…………..oh what a crime to live in such stone age times……….
………..unless of course there is no crime, for male and female created He them.
LikeLike
And right on cue, immediately your moth eaten mangy mane gets caught in the mangle you spew forth a meaningless stream of diatribe.
You deserve a new title: Reverend Irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And once more the Divine Surgeon has found the disease. His word is sure and steadfast.
But no reverend here.
LikeLike
”His” word?
Surely you mean the words written by Bronze Age men who beat their goats and screwed their slaves?
Or was that the other way around?
*Shrug* Probably both were true at some point.
Phew! Thank the gods for that, right?
Imagine you in the pulpit?
It would put a whole new meaning on the need to be ”saved”.
*The Ark Shudders*
LikeLike
@Colorstorm
Indeed it is … and you surely must be aware that albinos pop up among humans as well?
Now, for an albino among the ”white” race, someone such as the former blues guitarist Johnny Winter for example, it is of little social consequence, but among many Africans it is a major cultural issue and as you have noted this person is often regarded as a pariah among their won. Try to imagine for a few moments what it was like for albino Africans during Apartheid!
So, do we as supposed rational, compassionate human beings embrace diversity and declare Viva la Difference!
We should, of course , but albinos have been vilified, driven out, ostracized and even murdered by their own for superstitious reasons.
Although there are, I believe, a few cultures that have celebrated them.
Their pigmentation is simply a fact of nature.
And so is homosexuality.
It is really unfortunate that you are simply not mature enough to realise this.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“I just hope that within the vast realm of possibilities that Christianity offers, they’ll choose to concentrate their efforts on the story of their man god on Earth. Because in my atheist life of alleged ‘sin and hate’, this example of love is one I quite appreciate.”
Violet, I must tell you that you are right on when you make suggestions about us humans following the image portrayed by Jesus, as He walked among us…fully human, and yet fully God…
All of us who call ourselves Christians, are called to be disciples of Christ… And the Word (Jesus Himself) tells us this, in…
John 8:31-32… So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (ESV)
The problem with so many so called Christians, is that they are Christians in name only… Many believe they must do their best to obey the 10 Commandments…and are trying to work their way into heaven…
But the Bible is clear, that God’s grace is through saving faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ…
Ephesians 2:8-9… For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)
So much for the “Council of Trent” back in the 1500’s, where the Catholic list of sacraments was set in stone…
With much research on Catholicism, and this Council of Trent” I found this in the 6th session, Chapter 16 – CANON XXIV… “-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
Basically, if the Catholic believes as we Protestants, that it is grace through saving faith alone…they are to be kicked out of the Catholic church until they come to their senses, and conform to this CANON XXIV…
Abiding in the Word, means one reads, understands, and then becomes a doer of the Word…through the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit given by God Himself to dwell within the new born again Christian… Without the indwelt Holy Spirit…the Christian is only a Christian in their mind…and in name only…
This is why you see so many co called Christians with hate, and bitterness…and anger…and sin in their lives… It takes the love of Christ withing the heart of the true believer, to help them to love even those who do their best to bring the Spirit filled Christian down…Ephesians 5:18-20…
Christ in us, is greater than satan or the world… 1 John 4:4… Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. (ESV)
Blessings in Christ, bruce
LikeLike
So, therefore from your explanation, and to clarify for my own peace of mind, Bruce, is it correct to state that you do not consider someone such as SoM, who is a devout Catholic, and probably believes he is sincere, to be a genuine, bona fide Christian?
LikeLike
” is it correct to state that you do not consider someone such as SoM, who is a devout Catholic, and probably believes he is sincere, to be a genuine, bona fide Christian?”
Ark, I am positively not painting a broad brush, saying ALL Catholics are not born again Christians… I know a few, still going to Catholic church, which I believe have the Holy Spirit living within them… The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is what defines us humans as a redeemed child of God…who can truly call themselves a Christian…
It is not the name of the church one goes to, that determines their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ…
But those Catholics that believe they have to work their way to get into heaven…with a… “I hope I am good enough to walk through those pearly white gates when I die”…I do not believe, have the Holy Spirit living within them… It is not a “hope I am good enough”… It is a 100% assurance that they are indeed a redeemed child of God…
The apostle Paul pens this, in…Romans 8:15-16… For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, (ESV)
Ark, these aren’t just words in a book…they are indeed exactly what happened to me on that morning almost 15 years ago !!
I knew the exact moment that God indwelt the Holy Spirit in me… June 2nd, 2002, at 11:45 am in church…after I prayed to the Lord with ALL my heart, soul, and mind…asking Christ to come into my heart, and direct my life…
I truly appreciate Violet allowing me to respond to her post, without unkind word and remarks made to put me down… All I can do is share what happened to me, with love and concern for anyone not yet filled with the Holy Spirit…to the praise and glory of the Lord !!
bruce
LikeLike
Fine, then as SoM is a devout Catholic, and from what I been able to gather since I first began reading him, then he is, most definitely NOT a True Christian.
On this basis, I am very interested to understand what you, as a True Christian , genuinely beleive will happen to SoM after he dies?
LikeLike
“I knew the exact moment that God indwelt the Holy Spirit in me… June 2nd, 2002, at 11:45 am in church…after I prayed to the Lord with ALL my heart, soul, and mind…asking Christ to come into my heart, and direct my life…”
May I ask what was this overwhelming evidence that “God indwelt the Holy Spirit in me” ? Did you speak in an unknown tongue or was it something else ?
LikeLike
No kcchief1… I have never spoken in tongues… The gift of tongues, along with the other 8 Baptismal gifts of the Holy Spirit, are given to true Christians’ as the Holy Spirit wills… I am reading a book now on the 9 additional extra gifts of the Spirit… I do, however, believe I have the extra gift of special faith given to some believers…
On the day God graced me with salvation…I knew in an instant that I was just filled with the Holy Spirit, and confirmed that indeed I was just then a redeemed child of God…
It is hard to describe…but impossible to forget… It was as if the tremendous weight that had been on my shoulders all my life, was lifted off…and most spectacularly…my addiction to pornography was gone… It will be 15 years this June 2nd…and I have not ONCE revisted any porn sites…
What I believed to be most important in my life…the stuff of the world, like a new car in my driveway every couple of years was changed in that moment of time… My swearing with foul language was gone…and having money was replaced by desiring to live for Christ…
I do not believe this porn addiction could have been stopped immediately, and completely…without the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit…
bruce
LikeLiked by 1 person
God’s,
Catholic doctrine does NOT hold that a person can work his way to heaven.
That idea is in fact a heresy that goes way, way back and has long been dispelled.
LikeLike
So, Catholicism doctrine states that, By grace alone, then, yes?
LikeLike
Catholic doctrine … sorry SoM
LikeLike
Ark,
Again, I recommend that you read the Bible.
LikeLike
Oh, I have. And you know I have as I’ve told you on several occasions.
And I know there are several Fundamentalist Christian position that flatly deny that Catholicism is even Christianity!
Answers in Genesis is one ( I believe) and CARM, definitely.
Now I don’t want to be accused of misinterpretation …. so,
Why not simply lay it out for us?
It would make things so much easier and dispel any ambiguity once and for all.
LikeLike
@SoM
How would you respond to a comment like this pearler from Tiribulis?
Does this not run into conflict with Catholic doctrine?
LikeLike
silenceofmind, please fill me in on exactly when Catholics changed from believing good works done in the name of the Lord were needed (and weighted equally)…along with saving grace given by God ??
The Council of Trent in the 1500’s established the Catholic doctrine… There must be something link this, written…to have changed the exact requirements given the laws of the Catholic church…including the listing of the 7 Sacraments…
bruce
LikeLike
God’s,
I think “along with” goes a long way to resolving the issue.
Jesus stated flat out that the way to eternal life was to follow the commandments.
Also, Saint James is quite clear that both faith and works are necessary for salvation.
The Pelagian heresy is that man can earn his way to heaven.
The Protestant heresy is that man gets to heaven only by grace.
The Pelagian heresy is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus.
And the Protestant heresy is inconsistent with both human nature and Gospel teachings.
LikeLike
I asked you to specifically give me the link to the fact that The Council of Trent’s verdict that it MUST me a combination of grace and good works to be deemed justified by God…
Council of Trent 6th session Chapter 16
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
Surly, there must be something concrete to overturn this doctrine ??
bruce
LikeLike
God’s,
Since when is doing anything you ask worthy of anything?
And for the link to mean anything to you, you must first understand it.
Which you don’t.
LikeLike
I don’t know Bruce, I think all Christians really need to stop judging each other. If your god really did exist, the relationship is personal and there’s no point in speculating who is doing it ‘right’ and who is doing it ‘wrong’. I’m not sure how your comment is helpful is overcoming that kind of attitude.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, you are absolutely right in saying becoming a Christian in God’s eyes is accomplished by a personal one on ONE relationship with God, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ…
I have already commented, that I know a few Catholics still going to Catholic church…that are born again Christians… I don’t know the heart of anyone… But God does… I am not here to judge anyone’s heart…but the Bible is clear that what comes out of the mouth defiles the heart…
When the believer is Walking in the Spirit…with the full power of the Holy Spirit in charge of their actions, their words, and their deeds…it will be noticed by those around them…
bruce
LikeLike
Violet,
You and Clare guilt trip me (judge me) all the time for not being your kind of Christian.
Why is it okay for you and Clare to judge Christians but it isn’t okay for Christians to judge Christians?
LikeLike
Because we’re judging your behaviour, not your faith, by empathetic and logical standards of decency towards fellow human beings. Christians judge Christians based on guesses and varying interpretations of what you think an invisible god wants. Quite different.
LikeLike
Violet,
You are so full of it.
Fascists like you are the most judgmental people in human history.
Your modern brand of fascism still has you as mankind’s master race.
That’s why you think you can judge others.
LikeLike
Goodnight SOM, don’t stay up too late.
LikeLike
Violet,
You aren’t bitch enough to judge a commoner like me.
And every time you and comrade Clare judge me I’m going to shove it right back down your throats.
That you expect Christians to bend over and grab their ankles in the face of your constant judgements and insults is despicable.
LikeLike
Of course, we should point out that Clare is a Christian who uses empathy and logic to guide her interpretation of the Christian faith. You should try doing that too, instead of blindly accepting Catholic doctrine (which you do until it clashes with your USA doctrine, then you choose a nation-based faith interpretation – curious dual brain-washing!)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good Violet,
I think what we have here is a teachable moment:
In spite of your most civilized and enlightened efforts, have I not clearly illustrated a strong, passionate, visceral rejection of your way of thinking?
And I am a well educated, civilized, Christianized human being.
Can you even imagine how utterly useless your way of thinking would be to a NAZI or Imperial Japanese or in own time period, a Jihadi?
Yesterday, I was watching an old documentary that recounted FDR’s herculean efforts to settle the European conflict that was being instigated by Adolf Hitler.
FDR followed all of your ways and methods EXACTLY.
And during a huge speech, der Furher took great care to make a complete mockery of FDR.
Hitler had everyone (thousands of people) laughing in disdain as he recited the name of each nation in the “collective” of nations from a letter FDR had written to him.
Here is clip from Mel Gibson’s, Hacksaw Ridge.
It’s a true story about a real person, a Christian conscientious objector, serving as a medic during the Battle of Okinawa.
The brutality of the battle is only a part of the story but it shows the insane, genocidal madness encountered by young Americans as they were being blown to pieces.
LikeLike
A teachable moment – how thrilling! Do you think SOM that your understanding of world events might be narrow? You see great walls of evil in complicated situations preceded by years of build up, and in particular cultural contexts. Yes, there are times (including now) where people commit horrendous acts of violence – but analyse what has led them there, don’t imagine is a wall of Evil Boogeyman.
LikeLike
Violet,
Mostly, with the intellectually crippled atheist, I deal in the obvious.
And so far, you have shown that the obvious is totally beyond you.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, you keep saying that word, but I do not think it means, what you think it means – Fascism. There is nothing Fascistic about how Violetwisp has treated you. You should stop the name calling, at least as long as you do not even know what the word means. Look it up before you use it any more, and please look it up before you even read my comment further, otherwise you will be unable to understand what I am referring to.
You wrote: “Hitler had everyone (thousands of people) laughing in disdain as he recited the name of each nation in the “collective” of nations from a letter FDR had written to him.”
Indeed, and how did that work for Mr. Hitler (the product of Roman Catholic school upbringing) in the end?
I am a reservist soldier, because I think that sometimes we need to answer violence with violence, but in order to overthrow Fascism, we do not need to become Fascists ourselves. That would defeat the purpose. Would it not?
It is an interresting point, that you would bring up one Christian consciencious objector, while most nazis sincerely thought themselves just as Christian, or maybe more so. And they also thought that they were on a Crusade against the Jews and atheistic Communists.
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
Fascism is a political philosophy.
You, good Violet, Clare are all fascists because that is what you believe.
I am not trying to be insulting.
I do get a little PO’d when you jokers try to lay your guilt trips on me by calling me a bad Christian.
But hey, I am only human.
LikeLike
What fascist characteristics or beliefs do you think I share?
I won’t hold my breath for a straight answer. Fascism covers a broad range, from the South American authoritarians the USA supported, Dr Salazar’s Estado Novo, Franco, Marine Le Pen…
I am not authoritarian but libertarian: do as you wilt, as long as you harm none; but I have a respect for truth, and want people to seek the truth as best they can, and I want to help them see truth better.
LikeLike
Clare,
One tell tale sign of fascism is the belief that you and those of your kind are naturally and morally superior (ubermensch) and that the others are defilements (untermensch), stains upon humanity so to speak.
That means, without batting eye, you can make the same exact arguments in favor of the abortion holocaust as NAZI fascists made to justify their genocide of the Jews:
1. They don’t look like us.
2. They don’t think like us.
3. They aren’t aware like us.
4. They don’t have the same needs as us.
5. They are parasites dependent on human hosts.
Also, you are so convinced of your superiority that you hold as an article of faith that the ends justify any means in order to enforce your superior morality upon all of mankind.
Thus, hoaxes like:
1. Global warming
2. LGBT human rights
3. ObamaCare (nationalized medicine)
4. Socialism
5. Atheism
All of the above hoaxes work to ensure iron fisted control of the untermensch.
LikeLike
Thank you for your clear explanation.
Can a fascist (as you see them) ever say anything of value? Other than “I repent, I was wrong” or words to that effect?
LikeLike
Clare,
Such a question as yours is own a fascist would ask.
That is because the value is not determined by the person who speaks it.
LikeLike
I was inviting you to determine the value yourself. Value might be determined by consensus, or by infallible judgment, but we can all make independent judgments of value.
LikeLike
Clare,
I have studied science, mathematics, philosophy and Catholic theology all of which provide objective standards that can be used to determine value.
Things don’t have value just because I say so.
LikeLike
So, as you see it, can someone you call “fascist” ever say anything of value? Can you imagine it possible, or do you think it impossible? Other than repentance, after which they might no longer be fascist.
LikeLike
Clare,
I already answered that question and clearly, you have no idea what I’m talking about.
But let me boil it down for you:
Yes, a fascist can say something of value.
LikeLike
Could you explain to me? Perhaps you were saying that Catholics were fascists?
LikeLike
Clare,
Insulting my religion is also hallmark fascism.
Any other questions?
LikeLike
I did not insult your religion, only you. It would be charitable to imagine you are stupid; but I fear you are deliberately twisting my words.
LikeLike
Clare,
Thank you for portraying the fascist mindset so well.
You could have insulted me a million ways, but you used my religion.
Substitute Jew for Catholic in your comments and then connect the dots.
You, Violet and Ark lay out the fascist political philosophy ever so clearly.
LikeLike
I have not really studied science, mathematics, philosophy or Catholic theology, just read a bit now and then, but I would have thought using science to determine value was trying to derive “ought” from “is”.
What comments have I made about Catholics? You’re not confusing me with Ark and Tiribulus, are you?
LikeLike
Clare,
Science and mathematics are about what is.
Ought falls within the realm of philosophy and theology.
LikeLike
Mathematics is often about what isn’t, such as i.
LikeLike
All I am doing is pointing to stupidities in your comments. Are you stupid? The evidence is mounting…
LikeLike
Clare,
Like Ark, you have proven yourself a complete waste time.
When your aren’t insulting people’s religion you move on to insulting their intelligence.
The next thing fascists do is move on to insulting someone’s mental health.
Clare, you are a laboratory case of a pure fascist.
LikeLike
Well, your closed mind may indicate some personality disorder. Are those classified as mental health problems now? At one time, they were not.
LikeLike
Silence of Mind, the evidence is in. You are stupid, closed minded and probably personality-disordered. It is entirely unsurprising that you would make baseless allegations of fascism. The only question is whether anything you say could ever have any value. I fear the answer is no.
LikeLike
Clare,
I gave you the criteria for what a fascist is and you proved my point exactly by demonstrating that you are pure fascist.
What other topic may I teach you about?
LikeLike
Don’t worry SOM, when everyone else turns their back on your work, I’ll still appreciate you (probably). 🙂
I didn’t follow the conversation too closely, so I’m not sure why I’m a fascist, but I’ll certainly try and keep it in check.
LikeLike
Violet,
You are what you are.
You can no more deny your fascism than I can my Christianity.
LikeLike
Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
I’m really not clear what part of that relates to my world view. To be completely honest, it sounds more like something you would like.
LikeLike
Violet,
You need to learn how think and make connections for yourself, instead of letting google be your brain.
I can help you with that.
Let me teach you.
LikeLike
Okay, thanks. What’s the real definition of ‘fascism’? And why do dictionaries not do the job? Are you creating a new language? 😉
LikeLike
You may not teach me of any topic, I am afraid, beyond your closed-mindedness, ignorance, and stupidity. I have been exchanging comments with you not because you teach me anything, but because you are interesting as a specimen.
LikeLike
Let’s all be friends. 🙂
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyting
LikeLike
How dare you attempt to teach me
What I have never understood
My life is a lesson in peach tree
My fruit will soon be my food
LikeLike
Rautakky tries explanation
I use insults for fun
I only require adoration
for showing how commenting’s done.
LikeLike
But if SOM isn’t engaged in flyting maybe he’s genuinely perplexed by the conversation. He seems to have good intentions. Take his most recent comment. 🙂
LikeLike
It wasn’t bad, was it? It reminds me of the last (chronologically) section of Cloud Atlas.
Globalisation is inevitable, but two ways are before us:
the Merkel/Macron way, with strong democratic governments regulating the market to serve the environment, workers and consumers;
and the Trump/May/ way, probably SOM’s, with no taxation or regulation of capital, but people regulated and policed- hard for us to cross borders, our social media monitored, no welfare state but the survival of the richest.
Strong local communities, with people supporting each other in the Transition Towns model, may mitigate the damage.
Where is the British political movement for the Merkel/Macron way forward? The Greens? The Liberal Democrats? Nicola Sturgeon seems closest.
LikeLike
Thanks for reminding me about David Mitchell, haven’t read one of his books for years. I’ll have to read Cloud Atlas again too to see if it’s amazing as I thought it was first time round.
Apart from that, wow, you find depth in his comments. I think we swing back and forth on a pendulum and we’ve not realised there are other directions.
LikeLike
Clare,
What I have been attempting to demonstrate through dialog is that there can be no peace between people who don’t want it.
The irreconcilable differences between us cannot be resolved through mutual understanding as you and Violet have shown with all your insults.
What has happened here is proof that your would view is unrealistic and unreasonable.
If you can’t bring me, a simpleton around to your way of thinking about world peace and harmony among men, your powers of persuasion will certainly have not affect whatsoever on ruthless leaders of nations.
LikeLike
I agree, Silenceofmind, that there can be little conversation between people if one of them does not even want to have a conversation. Both of us however, have been voluntary participants in this conversation, so I assume we may have a conversation after all and despite our disagreements.
You are very right, that you can not let google be your brain for you. However, that does not mean you get to invent a subjective world of your own and claim it is objective without a challenge. To have some conversation worth of anything people need to understand each other. An important aspect of this is using terminology that both can understand. Concepts such as Fascism have been defined quite objective and google can be our aid in understanding what that term is supposed to mean. So, here it is once again:
“Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.”
As none of those values Fascism represents describes Violetwisp, Clare Flourish or I, we are not Fascists. You have made several claims, that you think define us into being fascistic. Let us examine those.
1. Above you say Violetwisp is being fascistic because she is judgemental. While I see how you may have come to this conclusion, you are simply mistaken. Being judgemental, even if you were the most judgemental person in the world, would not alone make you a fascist or even particularly fascistic.
A completely separate issue is wether Violetwisp is particularly judgemental at all, simply for disagreeing with you. To be a Fascist she would also have to be at the very least a nationalist, and very much opposed to liberalism and represent some right-wing values. Wich, I do think neither of us thinks she does. Does she?
Judging from our past discourses, it seems to me, you have much more in common with the Fascists, than any of the rest of us in this tread. You hold right-wing values, do you not? You have some nationalistic inclination, do you not? You are opposed to Marxism, are you not? You certainly do not support Anarchism, do you? What are your views about liberalism? And though I do not think this is even relevant to wether you have something in common with the Fascists, you are judgemental are you not?
2. You call Clare Flourish a Fascist, because she asks wether you think a Fascist could have anything of value to say. You are being silly. Her question was obviously pointed at wether you had fascistic values, not to put forward a fascistic value. I can not fathom how you could be so thik, that you could not see that. Or was it just tactics on your part? It was a perfectly valid question, since you appealed to our alledged fascism in the sense, as if you did held true the fascistic value – you yourself explained – that a quality of a nother person, a label – be it a Fascist for example – could defeat any point the other person made. You fell to your own trap, and that is precisely why Clare called you stupid. Not so much in the sense there could not be anything of value you said. (I really am having trouble thinking that this needs to be explained to you, but here you are.)
If you really think it is fascistic to announce, that what a nother person says is of no value because of a label one can stick onto their forehead, then stop throwing out such labels, it makes you look like a Fascist according to your own definition of one. Can you see why someone would think such a behaviour exposes stupidity?
3. You called me a Fascist because that is what you think I believe, but you never gave any justification to label me so. Nor did you even explain why is it that you think I am one. You are very much mistaken. As for the record, I do not identify as a Fascist any more than Clare Flourish, or Violetwisp do. I do not hold any recognized fascistic values, nor do they as far as I can tell by this conversation or many before this one. Infact I am opposed to those and I expect all of us are. In this light it merely seems you pulled the Fascism card out just as simple name calling in my case at least. Is that what happened? Or did you put it forward to nullify what we said? To give us a lable by wich you could stand on the moral highground, as the übermench and us as the untermench as in your example about the nazies? Now is your time to put your Christianity to test and be honest about this.
4. You compared Violetwisp being a Fascist to you being a Christian. It was silly of you, though not necessarily fascistic other than under your own terms of what is fascistic.These two are not mutually excluding positions. By far most people who have indentified as a Fascist also indentified as Christians. However, Violetwisp has never identified on any level to be a Fascist, called for any facistic values to be held, nor even acted towards you in any fascistic terms. But you have identified to be a Christian. Therefore calling you out on your Christianity or on Christian values is not fascistic. It might be sadistic, if you were a simpleton who could not make rational choises, but not fascistic as such.
It seems you are throwing out the word Fascist as simple name calling as if you thought by using the word and some minor traits of expression you think could be used to tie in with the terminology could somehow nullify the facts as expressed the people you would call Fascists. Disagreeing with you does not make anyone a Fascist, nor even fascistic.
I do believe you owe us an apology.
LikeLike
Rautakky,
Clare is a fascist because of the ideas she professes, not because she asked me something.
That type of terrible reason is your own and has nothing to do with me.
Likewise, Violet is fascist because of what she believes, not because of some comparison you hallucinate that I made about atheism and Christianity.
That is but another example of your ridiculous way of thinking or stated more precisely, your way of hallucinating.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, who is the parrot now? I must be hallucinating, or you have utterly failed to show or even name what ideas Clare professes, that would make her a Fascist in any known sane sense and meaning of the word. Same applies to the beliefs you claim I and Violetwisp hold. You may claim as many times as you please, that we are Fascists, or that a particular Middle-Eastern god concept is actually an existing entity, but untill you provide any evidence for either, your assertions do not supernaturally (or otherwise unnaturally) become true any more than they do here in the actual natural reality. Do they?
Do you feel you have dodged the actual topic by calling us Fascists? If you do, do you also think that somehow legitemises your opinions about it?
Now, I ask once again, what belief do you suppose to know, that I have, that would somehow justify you calling me a Fascist? Please do name one, if you possibly can. Can you? If you do not, what other conclusion is there, than that you can not? I bet anybody sane reading this has already reached that conlusion, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide you with an opportunity to show what you mean, instead that you have simply reverted to name calling. Have you?
I am growing a bit weary of asking, mind you. But even if you once again fail to produce any evidence at all for your opinions, and I happen to grow too tired to ask again, that does not mean any of your claims became any more true. Does it?
LikeLike
Rautakky,
It isn’t up to me to name the beliefs of others.
Clare and Violet express themselves very clearly.
LikeLike
Yes, indeed Silenceofmind. I agree with you, that Violetwisp and Clare express themselves avidly, but nothing either of them, nor I say makes our beliefs even seem like remotely fascistic. Quite the opposite, I would like to add.
So how did you divine, that we our beliefs made us Fascists? Were you inspired by the divine, or did any of us write anything, that caused you to think we believe in Fascism or even hold fascistic beliefs? What was it?
If it is indeed not up to you to name the beliefs of others, then why do you do it?
You have once again failed to explain why you retorted to this name calling tactics of ad hominem, and thus I expect your apology.
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
I studied basic political philosophy at grad school.
The difference between grad school and undergrad is that at grad school we were treated to the actual primary sources whereas undergrads have to swallow what their hack professors shove down their throats.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, that could be interresting information about you as a person as such. However, it has none what so ever bearing on what we are discussing here. Has it?
Are you trying to put yourself as an expert on what I, Clare Flourish and Violetwisp believe, or why did you bring up your level of education? Small wonder, that Clare Flourish called you “stupid”. Because at this point it is a definition hard to awoid. Perhaps you have a rational explanation for this nonsense you now put forth?
I am still waiting for an apology for calling me, Clare Flourish and Violetwisp Fascists. Or at least an explanation as to why would you even think any of us was something we firmly deny. I wait in wain, it seems. Have you no sense of shame?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never seen anyone dedicate so much time patiently to SOM. I find when he gets carried away a ‘Thanks SOM’ comment seems to calm him down. I think Ruth taught me that. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for the advice Violetwisp, but I think Silenceofmind is a person and deserves to be treated as one. Your approach may indeed be the best we can offer him on such a forum as this, yet I have this lingering hope, that his rationality could kick in and the discussion could have a less one sided aspect to it.
The problem we are here facing is pretty much a question of understanding language, that we all so often so wantonly use. Calling someone stupid is an expression of the commenters subjective view on things, since stupid is a lable we put on behaviour and we reflect it through several different often subjectively or collectively assessed measures. While a Fascist is a rather precise description of an ideology. Throwing it out as just means to undermine the other person or as an insult is extremely insulting, unless that person really subscribes to some fascitic ideals when it actually stops being an insult at all – at least if they are aware that those ideals are fascistic.
This is also about conversations. If a person has something to offer in any given discussion, like I think Silenceofmind could have, then what ever it is, could be so much more, if they are able to recognize when they are wrong. It seems to be the hardest thing to do.
People who base their conception about the reality primarly on personal experience, or on anecdotes and especially on faith have (as Tildeb might say) a bad methodology. That is a situation in wich the person often not only comes to make bad conclusions, but also they feel that accepting things like not knowing, or being sometimes wrong, or even apologising are expressions of weakness. I do not know if that is the case with Silenceofmind, but there seems to be a correlation between his understanding of history and the values he holds to other people who defend similar values and have as limited understanding of history – namely Fascism, in this case – and throwing such words as Fascism at people as an insult because they love the idea that the other person finds it insulting, rather than that it actually fits the description. A sort of form of unintentional trolling.
This sort of behaviour is not much different from the dude at the street corner who calls a woman, who did not appriciate the dude’s initial approach of sexual innuendo, a whore. The dude very well knows that the woman’s behaviour not to appriciate the sexual innuendo is opposite to calling her a whore. However, as the dude thinks he is justified in his initial approach because of some message the woman never even meant to send, only the dude misread the woman to have sent some message the dude would have liked her to send – like for example by wearing a miniskirt – he feels himself justified in calling her a whore. Meanwhile in reality, the dude feels hurt, and lashes out as much as he possibly can, in terms of not being legally punished, he calls out the worst namecalling that is meant to insult and make the woman feel intimidated. The dude is not trying to be right about the situation, he is simply trying to get even, or even dominate the woman by hurting her on emotional level.
There are good reasons as to why the woman in my example does not stop to demand an apology, but I think when one has offended a nother person on a personal level we should be able to apologize to be seen as adult members of the human society. The thing is, that by merely existing the atheist actually causes to many of the Theists an offence. It is not much different from the Jew causing an offence merely by existing to the nazi. It is then up to the individual theist and a nazi to be able to differentiate such offences they get from other people existing from the insults they actually offer and recognize the justifications for someone calling them stupid, or for example a Fascist.
A person who recognizes to be a Fascist should not at all be offended by being called one. I certainly am not offended for being called an atheist or a socialist. A person might also hold values that are fascistic, but before one can actually call anyone a fascist, unless they have themselves subscribed to such, they should be able to demonstrate it. Silenceofmind seems to have invented his own, or maybe he has been taught by some autority, a completely different set of indicators of Fascism from the rest of us. I would not be surprized how did this happen as such. After the extremely right-wing ideology Fascism was widely recognized as harmfull to human society, many right-wing people who held some fascistic values, but varied from it on other issues tried hard to re-invent Fascism, in order to grow a gap between themselves and it, simply to escape from re-evaluating their own values as these values were already a part of their identity.
Thus far he has tried to indicate some form of Fascism in your comments and in those of Clare Flourish and totally failing at it. Maybe he has managed to satisfy himself by this feat, but he has certainly not satisfied me, and he has not even attempted to explain why he would think I am a Fascist. Wich is weird if he really believes I am. This makes me think, he thinks I am as much a Fascist, as the dude in my example thinks the woman who refused them is a whore. Perhaps I am wrong and he can somehow demonstrate, that any of us are Fascists while we do not even know it ourselves. It is within the realm of possibilities, as people who hold fascistic values sometimes have hard time to recognize them as what they are, but I am “not holding my breath” at the moment in anticipation of such a demonstration by him. Not even though I am curious as to what made him think that of – out of all people – me.
LikeLike
“Your approach may indeed be the best we can offer him on such a forum as this, yet I have this lingering hope, that his rationality could kick in and the discussion could have a less one sided aspect to it.”
It hasn’t happened over the past 3 years and 4 or 5 blogs I have seen him post on.
Now if you’re like his God , 1000 years is but a day, he might turn around but not in my lifetime. 🙂
LikeLike
A useful exercise to be sure. Silenceofmind definitely has some interesting things to say – there have been a couple of comments that have pleasantly surprised me and a few that have had me laughing for quite some time. But sometimes I get the feeling he’s just looking for a reaction and will say anything to get it – I feel bad for you if you’re spending so much of your time patiently explaining things, only to get a set phrase back. But keep going, you obviously know what you’re doing.
LikeLike
Kcchief1, that is sad. Is it not? But it is somehow curious also. With most people regardless of their religious views or understanding of history one can reason up to a point at least. I have only engaged, or read Silenceofmind on this blog and on occasion on his own. He at least claims to have an actual education, and what I find particularly interresting is how much of his world view is a result of his education and how much of it is of his own creation. Not so much because of him as an invidual, but him as a representative of a particular culture and what they teach to people.
LikeLike
” every time you and comrade Clare judge me I’m going to shove it right back down your throats.”
I have to tell you silenceofmind, that this is not what Christians filled with the love of Christ and the Holy Spirit would say…no matter how much criticism people give you… We are called to love the unlovable by Jesus Himself, in Matthew 5:43-44… “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”
Without the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit…nobody can return love in the face of persecution…
Has anyone on this or any other blog ever heard me say unkind words, no matter how much abuse is thrown my way ??
Blessings in Christ, bruce
LikeLiked by 1 person
God’s,
There you go, judging me just like your self-righteous, godless comrades.
Instead of continuing with your self-righteousness atop your toilet throne please see my comment to good Violet about how this is not a moment for self-righteous, toilet throne judgement but a teachable moment.
LikeLike
SOM
It doesn’t seem to matter what the subject matter is or who’s blog you’re on, you’re all blow and no show.
LikeLike
“SOM
It doesn’t seem to matter what the subject matter is or who’s blog you’re on, you’re all blow and no show.”
That’s one of his charms, don’t you think? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There you go, judging me just like your self-righteous, godless comrades”
SILENCEOFMIND, I am not judging you… The Bible (Jesus) clearly teaches us this, in…
Matthew 15:17-20a… Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person.” (ESV)
As my brother in Christ, I am called to share with you the fact that you are not being nice to these ladies…what did you say…”I am going to cram something down their throats” ??
The apostle Paul pens this, in…Galatians 6:1… Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. (ESV)
Just doing what the Lord has asked me to do brother… 🙂
Blessings in Christ, bruce
LikeLike
God’s,
We could go around and around spitting Bible quotes at each other.
I favor the example set by Jesus where he rebuked both the wicked and religious phonies like you.
There is nothing wrong with calling out evil and putting it to shame.
LikeLike
“I favor the example set by Jesus where he rebuked both the wicked and religious phonies like you.”
You know Silence…you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with this nasty remark… I just might add you to my daily prayer list, like so many of the others on Violet’s and Ark’s blog…
Please don’t respond with another negative remark… We are called to speak words of encouragement and love to edify and build one another up…not bitterness and hate… As Christians…we are both on the same team here brother !!
Blessings in Christ, bruce
LikeLike
God’s,
I am not being nasty.
I just refuse to accept your abuse.
You use toxic shame like a weapon of mass destruction.
LikeLike
Logical she says 😀 😀 😀 😀
This is a rare instance 5 years ago when I thought it might be interesting to try a moral line of argument with Brian Hanson over HERE
Read what you want of course, including nothing, but Brian and I had a specific dialog going for a minute in that thread that you may find interesting Violet.
He was dangling there by the same noose you are. Just as unaware of it as you are too. That’s how it works in God’s world. You never do get it until He saves you from your sin and gives you a new heart.
LikeLike
Are you saying Violet isn’t saved ?
LikeLike
Here’s the sum of your argument as you state it: ” If there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal then all of life is meaningless.”
I think this goes to the core of what many Christians feel when they either project what life without gods must mean (without fully understanding or experiencing it) or if they project back to a life they had before their conversion. It’s sad. We can only tell you that you’re wrong and give our reasons. We’re here, we feel, we experience – that is meaning. We’re part of something we don’t fully understand, I can accept that and live my life based on what I see and feel around me, based on what I know other people feel.
But in your case particularly, I can see you are so desperate not to return to whatever living choices you made before your conversion, and the thought of doing so (which you believe you would be powerless to stop without this invisible god) is terrifying for you. I don’t know your life story Tiribulus, so I can’t guess what events have formed these opinions, or what you see in your community around you that makes you despair so much of humans.
LikeLike
I have been commenting a great deal on Violet’s latest flurry of posts. (Thank you Violet, yours are my favourite comment thread debates.) Where did I last judge you? What judgments of mine of you do you object to?
Is a disagreement on theology a judgment, do you think?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s okay Clare.
All in a day’s work.
LikeLike
So, you object to me judging you, but can’t quote a single example?
LikeLike
Clare,
If you have to ask that question it means that you have no self awareness.
If we go down the rat hole of examples you will simply deny, deny, deny.
It’s what atheists do.
LikeLike
If you give an example and I deny it, do you not imagine that MonoDrizzle and Godsman will back you up? Do you think you need my agreement before you can win a point?
LikeLike
Clare,
I don’t need back up.
And I don’t need your agreement.
LikeLike
You don’t need to respond to my challenges, either, but at the moment you are left with an accusation you have made without anything to justify it.
LikeLike
Clare,
Your comments speak for themselves.
If you need an example of you being almighty judge, just read your own comments.
LikeLike
ARK IS BACK!!!!!
——————————-
There are two kinds of people on this earth.
The first are those who have been born dead in the first man Adam, and who are by nature children of wrath and haters of God. That’s everybody except Jesus of Nazareth because Adam was not His father.
The second are those who have been born again and raised into new and everlasting life in Christ. These are new creatures, who have been given new hearts and been made partakers of the divine nature by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
You can tell which are which by what they believe and what they do. Those in Christ will love what God loves and hate what God hates according to a historico-exegetical exposition of the bible, regardless of who or what it costs them and or makes them wrong about.
God is not a tolerant broadminded postmodernist who thinks everybody is just groovy who does nice things for others. He is also the only one authorized or qualified to define what love is. Everybody except Him gets it wrong.
Having sent His Son to pay for sin, anybody who offers their own works as a plea for acceptance before Him is the most offensive to Him of all and will have their place in the lake of fire.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can’t fault your theology, but you paint a picture of ‘God’ that makes him a figure who is more like a mafia standover merchant that a being to loved or worshipped.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s what He’s supposed to sound like until He saves you from the sin that makes you see Him that way.
Any God that unbelievers can love is not the true and living one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You mean he will make you a deal you can’t refuse?
LikeLiked by 2 people
You can’t fault that theology? Sounds like an even wonkier science fiction book than the standard version.
LikeLike
Violet our friend Tiribulus has (in my opinion as a former ordained Christian minister) a good handle on theology and thus shows just how shocking the the theology of the Bible is when taken to its logical conclusion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you Peter. As I said, it’s supposed to be shocking to those dead in sin. Stoopiddest most ridiculous thing they’ve ever heard.
What is your former affiliation btw?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could I prevail upon you to tell me your former affiliation Peter? By whom were you ordained.
LikeLike
@Tiribulus
So Yahweh is not a fan of Simon and Garfunkel? For shame! Looks like your make believe bridge over troubled water is as simply nothing but a capricious arse.
Oh, dear, is that the sound of silence I hear as you are homeward bound, just slip slidin’ away! You really are a most peculiar man.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ark says: “Looks like your make believe bridge over troubled water is as simply nothing but a capricious arse.”
Looks like I still don’t have a definition of “probability” from you going into now I believe our third year together Ark. When you can tell me how and why 1+1=2… well… you’ll be a Christian. A thing that would bring great joy to my heart as well as all the angels of heaven.
Until then, I guess I’ll have to keep settling for these sophomoric jabs.
—————————————————-
You mean he will make you a deal you can’t refuse?
He doesn’t make deals. He gives orders. As the only being who commands light and matter to exist from nothing, He does so from a position of singular distinct advantage.
There are two kinds of people in this world. Those born dead in the first man Adam who are temporarily telling Him to get lost, and those born again in Jesus Christ whose greatest joy is to obey Him and greatest sorrow when they fail.
You can tell which is which by their attitude toward and handling of His mind and will recorded in the ancient Christian scriptures. That being the case, most clamming to be Christians today, are anything but.
This is called “apostasy,” That means “falling away.” A falling away from looooooong established Gospel truths. Satan’s weapon of choice right now is the worldly philosophy of “postmodernism.” Wherein the certainly of God’s word is eroded away to make room for the subjective tolerance and emotional broad-mindedness of sinful man. in the world, this is a matter of course. The tragedy is that this spiritually subversive poison is also welcome inside the gates of the church, with exhibits like “The Shack” being ready evidence.
We are however told to expect this. Guess where
Thank God, there has always been a remnant. Just as He promised and is faithful to fulfill. From Noah, through the whole old covenant age, through all of church history, right to this very day. Just as Jesus Christ said:
Matthew 7:
” 13 – “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 – “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
The narrow gate is the true Christ of the bible. The broad way is anything or anyone else.
Today’s American church is too busy swooning over the oscars and congratulating itself on how inclusive and “loving” it is to take any of this seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, I thought the use of Simon and Garfunkel song titles quite funny.
Meantime I suppose we will have to leave this dangling conversation until late in the evening as I have other work to do.
I guess until you evolve a sense of humour I’ll have to keep settling for the jabs of the indoctrinated mind-screwed.
Oh, and thank the gods I am not an American, then, right?
LikeLike
Until then, I guess I’ll have to keep settling for these jocose and jocular jabs.
Is that better 😀
LikeLike
@ Tiribulus.
What say you, oh wise one?
James 2:24 that “man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
James is talking about justification as displayed before men and Paul is talking about justification as in the fulfillment God’s law and punishment. The Greek grammar even points in that direction.
My friend Pastor Jim Butler, a first rate exegete and expositor of the bible, can HELPin detail if you’re interested. He did a fine job of laying this out.
LikeLike
The Catholics consider this is perfectly valid scripture.
So you are actually saying that James is incorrect? He is teaching false doctrine?
LikeLike
The Catholic pope and college of bishops mangle the scriptures worse than anybody. (well, almost) You’ll get more accurate biblical exposition from a restroom wall in a truck stop somewhere.
James is not incorrect. The bible butchers at the Vatican are incorrect. That’s what the reformation was all about, see? The fact that most of the western church world has forgotten that is a very large component in this apostasy I was telling you about.
That’s not the same as saying that every individual in communion with the false Romanist is automatically lost, God is that merciful and patient, but that IS a false church.
LikeLike
Interesting. Reading that verse from James it seems perfectly straight forward to me, and to the laymen I would say the Catholics got it right first time.
Unless you hold with the belief that James is fraudulent?
Well, do you?
In fact, one of the sources I read when researching the whole sola fide thing suggested it was the Protestants who have butchered and mangled biblical text, largely in protest(sic) of the Catholic theology and their objection to Papal law (and excesses) etc.etc.
After all, it was the Roman Catholics who invented your religion, and quite possibly because Marcion got the jump on them, were prompted to get their backsides into gear and get a proper Bible out there.
If we are being perfectly honest, yes?
LikeLike
You are going to believe absolutely ANYTHING that you feel provides you escape from moral accountability to your creator Ark.
Anything.
LikeLike
And just what frak has suggesting I have no moral accountability got to do anything, you rather silly man, let alone the passage in James?
All you have done is slight it and the Catholics.
If you cannot offer a reasonable well thought out argument to explain it then I am afraid it simply means you do not understand the text properly and thus, have no argument.
And as far as I, an atheist, is concerned, you just got your arse handed to you on a very large serving dish, Tiribulus.
One for the Catholics!
Faith and works is where it’s at.
Luther and his minions can screw themselves!
LikeLike
Tiberius,
Your clarity on Protestant theology is astonishing!
Keep up the good work.
I really mean that.
It is undeniable that the Protestant Reformation ushered in the modern world.
LikeLike
“James 2:24 that “man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” I’ll put in my 2 cents here… James also says “Faith without works is dead”, in…James 2:14-26…
Good works done in the name of the Lord AFTER being saved by grace alone, is evidence that one is truly a redeemed child of God…
How can anyone argue with Ephesians 2:8-9… For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)
Or this scripture warning by Jesus Himself…about believing good works will get you into heaven ??
Matthew 7:21-23… “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (ESV)
BTW.. You asked where one would go upon their death…if not a redeemed child of God saved by grace…
You know Ark… I don’t have to tell you…nor do I use an eternity in the lake of fire to urge someone to believe and receive the Lord Jesus Christ… These people that seek the Lord want a ticket to heaven, so as not to be sent elsewhere…
Becoming a Christian in God’s eyes is all about understanding the “good news” message of the cross…and obeying the Gospel of Christ… Not a prayer for fear of your eternal destination…
bruce
LikeLike
Tiribulus,
1+1 doesn’t always equal 2. It can also equal 0, 1, 10 and ∞
And if you’re a Christian, 1=3 and 3=1. 🙂
LikeLike
How many fingers?
And if you’re a Christian, 1=3 and 3=1. 🙂
We’ve been through all this friend, but alas you were not here, so you can’t be faulted for not knowing that.
The utterly unique equal ontological ultimacy of singularity and plurality of the Christian Godhead, is the solution to the otherwise unsolvable PROBLEM OF THE ONE AND THE MANY as first formally observed by the ancient Greeks.
In the phenomenological reality where we live, 1+1 is always 2. We don’t live in the quantum world and we’ve been over that too.
Kant’s divide is at once oh so close and yet so eternally far from the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus,
I can’t answer how many fingers until you tell me whether or not:
– you’re referring to the fingers within the picture,
– your definition of “finger” includes the thumb,
– it matters in which direction they’re pointing,
– they must be fully visible.
See, it’s all about qualifying your assumptions before diving into the problem.
If we’re talking about NAND logic gates, 1+1=0.
If we’re talking about chemistry, combining one atom of carbon with one atom of oxygen yields one molecule of carbon monoxide (CO).
If we’re talking about mixing ingredients, adding one tablespoon of salt to one cup of water yields one cup of salty water.
If we’re talking about mathematical equations we need to know what base we’re using, because 1+1=10 in a binary number system, but 2 in a non-binary system.
If we’re talking about the visual placement of two “1” digits, then 1+1=11.
If we’re talking about war, one missile strike plus one populated area equals thousands (if not millions) of casualties.
Get the gist?
The Trinitarian doctrine is left for theists to sort out. I only included it for levity.
Cheers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Look friend 🙂
If you really care about anything I say, (which I doubt) please look through the posts from this site on THIS series of pages. I really can’t take time for this kinda meandering sophistry.
Where you live every single second of your life, 1+1=2 every single time or NOTHING in this world, including the computer I’m typing this on, could function, or even exist.
Try rubbing two synapses together without assuming that whatever makes 1+1=2 is inescapably at work while you so.
LikeLike
Tiribulus,
Your reply illustrates the very point I was trying to make. What makes you assume I’m not already acquainted with your viewpoints and comment history? I chose your math argument because it presented the least controversial avenue from which to challenge your views.
Yes, to those familiar with math, 1+1=2. But that wasn’t the locus of my argument.
My point was that bringing hidden assumptions—especially assumptions concerning your interlocutor’s private thoughts and motives&mtash;to the table silently sabotages any hopes of conducting a meaningful exchange.
Finally, facts don’t care about your feelings. “If you really care about anything I say, (which I doubt)” is an appeal to emotions, not a sound argument in favor of your position. Please don’t wield it as a shield to deflect against criticism to your position.
LikeLike
“What makes you assume I’m not already acquainted with your viewpoints and comment history?..”
If you are, then I have no explanation for your detailed response evincing no knowledge of the point I was making whatsoever.
LikeLike
Tiribulus,
I’m very familiar with the point of that argument. But again, I wasn’t attempting to address your argument per se, so much as using it as a springboard to highlight how unvoiced assumptions can foul up a discussion.
LikeLike
Ron,
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
1 + 1 = 0 in base 2 (binary)
1 + 1 = 2 in base 10 ALWAYS
(except if you happen to be an atheist who is by faith and creed sworn to ingrained, willful ignorance)
And nobody except you EVER uses visual placement (another atheist hallucination) when making the statement,
1 + 1 = 2.
The rot gut ignorance religiously preached by atheists is only eclipsed by your lack of common sense.
Even a 6 year old has enough sense to know that 1 + 1 = 2.
Get a brain a brain of your own, train it think rationally, than get it educated.
LikeLike
Make that 1 + 1 = 10 in binary
Since atheists don’t have the common sense of an 6 year old, I recommend using fingers from your own hand to prove to yourself that 1 + 1 = 2.
Only don’t make like a stooge and pock your eyes out once solved this horrifically difficult problem.
LikeLike
Which is why I wrote:
“If we’re talking about mathematical equations we need to know what base we’re using, because 1+1=10 in a binary number system, but 2 in a non-binary system.”
Reading comprehension, SOM. Try it out sometime.
LikeLike
Common sense and common usage Ron.
LikeLike
Truth be told, I consider “Graceland” Paul Simon’s best work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, I want to thank you for a great post ! I’m not sure any minds were changed but CS did tone down his condescending and belittling comments.
He might make a good de-convert yet ! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
CS has a style of his own. 🙂
LikeLike
I am jumping into this conversation late but I think the term God-hater is, generally speaking, reserved for anyone who doesn’t believe in the God of the Bible. It’s sort of an “if you aren’t with him you’re against him” sort of idea. Anyone who isn’t a believer has set themselves up as enemies of YHWH. If you don’t love YHWH you obviously hate him.
LikeLiked by 4 people
RUTH!!!!!
You still come up in conversation my dear. Even in the last few weeks. (not here)
By the way, where is Victoria guys?
LikeLike
I’m not good at the blogging community thing Tiribulus, you’ll find that people regularly drop off, or perhaps just get bored. You can find her round her place though. You should pop by, I’m sure she’d love that. 😀
LikeLike
FFS, VW.
LikeLike
Hi Victoria … 😳
LikeLiked by 1 person
With friends like you, who needs enemies? LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure you’ve missed him. When was the last time someone starting rambling about 1+1 round your place?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha
LikeLike
And now dear Victoria too!!
Just like old times! 😀
THESE have been an invaluable help to me to this very day. I promise you I intend zero sarcasm by my saying so.
Who are we still missing aside from Archaeopteryx!? (I don’t mean to slight anybody)
LikeLike
I do hope you heard that Archaeopteryx!? is no longer with us. Victoria can give you all the details if you don’t already know.
LikeLike
Aw, that’s nice. Tiribulus has obviously missed you loads. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
That contradicts Jesus quoted in Luke 9:50: “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
Jesus also said, Matthew 12:30: Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
These can only be non-contradictory if I read them as addressed to me. I have to ensure I am for Jesus, but cannot judge whether anyone else is. We observe that many people just don’t care one way or the other.
LikeLike
Pingback: Juicy fruit | The Lions Den
For those who may be interested, Spaniard has had a bit of an interaction with Bruce Gerencser.
It is hilarious reading how a born again fundamentalist tries to ”educate” a former Evangelical Christian pastor!
https://brucegerencser.net/2017/02/randy-the-atheist-turned-evangelical-talks-smack-about-bruce-gerencser/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, how do you manage to trudge through posts like that! I could hardly keep my eyes open.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I speed read ….
LikeLike
KCChief1 says: “I do hope you heard that Archaeopteryx1 is no longer with us. Victoria can give you all the details if you don’t already know”
No sir, I have no idea what you’re talking about, but it doesn’t sound good. 😦
LikeLike
He passed away a few months ago of cancer.
LikeLike
Oh that’s terrible!! 😦 😦 😦
I’m very sorry to hear that. Like I say. I had no idea.
LikeLike
Ark says: “And just what frak has suggesting I have no moral accountability got to do anything,…”
I would never suggest that you have no moral accountability. You stand guilty before the law and throne of your God.
“One for the Catholics!
Faith and works is where it’s at. Luther and his minions can screw themselves! “
See? Catholicism is no threat to you because it’s a false religion and according to this current “pontiff”, who is apostate even by RCC standards, you may be fine just as you are. What you CANNOT have, is the truth of the gospel of sovereign electing grace as actually proclaimed in the bible.
We’ll never see: “one for the reformation!” from you until and unless Jesus saves you, thus revealing you to the rest of us as one of those given to the Son by Father before creation.
LikeLike
And yet you still will not offer a reasoned argument against the Catholic position and the passage in James.
Resorting to theological posturing does not improve your standing in this regard one iota.
That I do not beleive in any religion or any gods has no bearing on my ability to recognise fraud and religio/political machination.
Don’t sit there in your ivory tower espousing your doctrine to me … I believe none of it.
Present an argument that at least shows why your side is right and the Catholics are wrong.
If you can’t do this then you do not understand the argument well enough and have little or no credibility.
Step up to the plate and explain it properly or take your toys and go sit in the corner.
LikeLike
How bout that video chat Ark? We can talk about all of this?
It’s so much easier than all this typing that I’m no good at and I would then have the pleasure of “meeting” you as well.
We’ll make it a group and these guys can come too. I’m serious about this. Always have been.
LikeLike
I do not do video chats with anyone, thanks all the same.
Now, stop dancing and let’s see some integrity.
State your case in defense of the Protestant, Faith Only position in an open forum
LikeLike
You are asking for a time commitment that I cannot honorably give you Ark. (this blog comprises maybe 1% of what I do online) We could accomplish in an hour of conversation what would take weeks of typing.
In the meantime, I sent you to a SERMON that answers the question you ask.
Butler does a fine job. He actually knows how to study the bible. One passage does not make a doctrine when numerous other passages address that same doctrine.
You probably won’t, but see EPHESIANS 1 and EPHESIANS 2 for instance.
James and Paul were both theopneustos apostles and scripture writers of the same God. They agree completely, but 2000 years hence in different cultures and speaking different languages than them, it takes work to derive a proper understanding of God’s mind in those glorious writings.
By His grace and mercy, I have taken that time. It can’t always be relayed in a couple concise paragraphs.
Whether you believe that or not is beyond my control, but that’s how it is.
LikeLike
Considering the amount of space you have dedicated to not offering a rational explanation it is nothing short of farcical that you now say it would take more than a couple of concise paragraphs.
So, in other words, you do not actually understand it, but are simply toeing the Protestant line.
Now that I can fully understand.
LikeLike
Yes, that must be what it is. You really have my number.
LikeLike
Well, for all the time you claim have not got to make a reasoned argument, you seem to have plenty of time to make asinine comments.
LikeLike
To be done properly would take a few hours of work to put together a text based post addressing the relationship of salvation in Paul and James.
I intend no sarcasm when I say that you really don’t understand that. You really don’t.
BUTLER does though.
LikeLike
Wrong!
If you cannot simply address the text in James in two paragraphs as to why faith and works is false doctrine then you are spinning doctrine, and you simply cannot offer a reasoned argument.
I am not interested in listening to Butler at this juncture. I want you to offer at least something that makes sense, but something tells me I doubt you are able to, are you?
LikeLike
James is talking about justification as displayed before men and Paul is talking about justification as in the fulfillment God’s law and punishment. The Greek grammar even points in that direction.
Both are God’s perfect word. They are simply talking about 2 inextricably related aspects of the same thing.
Beyond that, to be done properly would take a few hours of work to put together a text based post addressing the relationship of salvation in Paul and James.
JIM BUTLER explains this beautifully. I would also be happy to talk to you about it as this would be a far more efficient mode of such communication.
I intend no sarcasm when I say that you really don’t understand how any of this works. The fact is, you really don’t. Not because you’re a dummy, but because you haven’t been interested enough to understand it. You still aren’t.
If you were, you would avail yourself of the two perfectly reasonable means I have offered for your for doing so.
LikeLike
That is not an explanation as to why faith alone and not faith and works.
And now you have wasted even more time and space that you cannot afford.
And it seems the more you write the more you demonstrate that you do not understand why your doctrine is supposedly the right one … as I noted up front.
LikeLike
Ark and Tiribulus
According to my New Testament and Translation Commentary (A commentary on the variant readings of the Ancient NT Manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations)
the only major differences to James 2:24 is the word to describe faith without works. Faith is either 1.) useless 2.) dead 3.) empty
Not much butchering there of the early manuscripts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Precisely! Thank you Ken!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is not an explanation as to why faith alone and not faith and works.
And now you have wasted even more time and space that you cannot afford.
And it seems the more you write the more you demonstrate that you do not understand why your doctrine is supposedly the right one … as I noted up front.
THIS
Nice try though.
LikeLike
And you are still not offering a coherent explanation and yet you still have plenty of time after all it seems.
And Ken has explained it in one paragraph.
You really do not understand your religion do you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This isn’t gonna work on me Ark.
LikeLike
I am not trying to make anything ”work on you”.
What a ridiculous thing to say!
The object of the exercise has been to demonstrate how ignorant you are. Also to show that you are indoctrinated and too willfully ignorant to be able to exercise critical thought.
And on this score we have more than succeeded.
Understand that nobody … and I mean nobody, holds your views in any regard whatsoever.
Thank you for playing ….
LikeLike
Try this ..
LikeLike
Ark attempts to trick me with the following:
“This tells the would-be follower of Christ that the Christian commitment is a serious one and cannot be entered into half-heartedly. It also establishes a requirement for following Christ: self-denial. Self-denial is an act (or a series of acts becoming habitual). If to follow Christ it is necessary to deny oneself, and if following Christ is necessary for salvation (which it is), then self-denial is necessary for salvation. Since self-denial is a work, then at least this work is necessary for salvation. Consequently, the proposition “Faith alone” fails.”
That is Roman Catholic works righteousness theology my friend.
LikeLike
Of course I know what it is … I wasn’t trying to trick you at all, hence it was in quote form.
You want the link too?
The text shows that your faith alone is simply a crock.
And how come you suddenly have so much time?
The Catholic Faith and Works is spot on.
Your evangelical Faith-Alone is simply unbiblical and unChristian.
Admit it.
You are little more than a heretic.
And not a very well-educated one at that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
Video chat.
When?
Our RCC friends are MORE than welcome too.
LikeLike
You are a disingenuous ignoramus.
LikeLike
That’s not very neighborly after all we’ve been through together Ark.
It also doesn’t establish much beyond your deplorable judgment of character. 😀
Come on man. Think of how much fun it would be to excoriate me face to face. How can you turn that down?
LikeLike
You see, because I have more respect than you can imagine for Violet, is the only reason I am not calling you a obnoxious Dickhead or worse.
You have no genuine response to the question and never have.
The Catholic position of Faith and Works is the correct one.
My dog has more intelligence and more integrity than you … and she is far better looking.
I don’t think I can muster any more genuine character descriptions without telling you politely to have sex and travel.
LikeLike
Here you go, Senor Dipshit, if you want to let off some steam, come play …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does THIS mean you’re not going to read my treatment of 1st Corinthians 5? (OR listen to my friend Jim Butler?)
Why then would I spend hours putting together an article you won’t read either?
Try this:
Romans 3
Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.
—————————————————
Or this
Romans 4
4 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, tour forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but unot before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? v“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now wto the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but xbelieves in2 him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
—————————————————–
Or this:
Romans 5:5,
“To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.”
—————————————————-
Or:
THE WHOLE 3RD CHAPTER OF GALATIANS
—————————————————-
(There’s more)
Those are a real problem Ark. But not for me. If you do a little digging (which you won’t) just wait til you see how those butchers in Rome handle these passages. What they have over there is a pagan religion built upon the very principles of works righteousness that Jesus Christ came to save us from. The law was to condemn us and show us our need for Him. (Gal. 3:24) James and Paul are simply emphasizing two aspects of the same thing as I brought out in that old piece above.
The occasion of the writing of the glorious epistle of Paul to the church at Galatia was that some were teaching that CIRCUMCISION was necessary for salvation. Circumcision was a legit OLD covenant rite commanded by God Himself to Abraham 2000 years before Christ.
The apostle tells that church that those who would add ANYTHING to faith alone, by grace alone in Christ alone for right standing with God, including circumcision, were accursed of the Lord (anathema 1:9), separated from Christ and fallen from grace (5:4) and he hoped that they castrated themselves (5:12). ALL for simply affirming circumcision as a work in addition to faith. (and people think I’M unloving?)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is positively erupting with additions to Paul’s gospel on page after page. That is another gospel sir. One that the inspired apostle called “ANATHEMA.” Trust me, I have heard every fathomable attempt at RCC explanation for this.
It all comes down to:
“we’re the only true church and you ain’t, so only WE can know what the scriptures actually say.”
With this model, all bets are off. The text can mean literally anything that is convenient to them for it to say. Oh they’ll vehemently deny that, but there it is, right in front of our eyes.
All you care about Ark is that I BE WRONG, even if it means the Romanists being right. ANYTHING except the truth as it is in Christ Jesus.
Just like the Bible says.
LikeLike
“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say?”
Time and again in James 2 the Bible can’t be any more clear about faith and works. James 2:17, “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is DEAD”
James 2:26, “For just as the body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
Isn’t that the beauty of the Bible ? We have the ability to argue from either side because the Bible provides scripture for either side.
In my humble opinion, I think Christians are too quick to build their theology from the scriptures which best suits them. But then they want to make a hammer out of those scriptures so they can attempt to pound everyone else into submission according to their will, not God’s.
I consider myself an agnostic these days though my blog says deist.
agnostic = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Again, it’s only my opinion but I think we’re all agnostics.
LikeLike
<a href="https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/what-is-a-god-hater/#comment-31637"kcchief1
I promise you sir, I build my theology on all of scripture.
James and Paul fully agree. It just takes honest study.
LikeLike
Oh, oops, you mean THIS.
Yeah, building theology on the etymology of a single word is where cults come from.
Exegesis = what does it say.
Hermeneutics = what does it mean.
Exposition = how does it apply today.
Seemingly difficult passages and or areas of theology can require significant study to arrive at a reliable conclusion. Along these lines please hear the Westminster confession of 1646.
Ch.i sect VII:
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
LikeLike
Here Ark. I’m copying and pasting this from my blog from a few years ago. Confronting some libertine antinomians at the time.
=============================================
One can never be more justified than the moment God declares him so. He is also then positionally sanctified in the sense of being irreversibly set apart and sealed against the day of final redemption. This external reality is ALWAYS accompanied by regeneration and a living faith. Which is the internal reality of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and new life in Christ.
Personal sanctification is the inevitable lifelong though usually uneven progress of this internal reality working itself outward in word, thought and deed.
Conversion would be this whole process that begins at justification and ends at the resurrection. (in a nutshell)
Lazarus is the perfect illustration. He played absolutely NO part in raising himself from death to life. However, once raised, he DID walk outta that tomb. Had he laid there stiff and stinking with no heartbeat or respiration, NObody would have believed he had been raised and quite rightly so. There are certain universally present characteristics among the living. That this goes for new life in Christ just as well, is everywhere proclaimed in scripture.
I do NOT preach works righteousness and neither do I lay undue, anti-gospel, legalistic burdens on anybody.
My heartbreak is the false, Satanic, anti-Christian assurance being handed to multitudes that will have them shocked at the judgement seat when they find out some libertine anti (third use) nomian heretic told them they were justified despite the utter non existence of any biblical support for that claim.
Ya’ll do what you want. You can bring me one thousand quotes from your Dr. so and so seminary professors and you will never EVER overthrow what I have just said from Scripture. One more time. The Roman’s 7 war is the greatest evidence that one’s faith is living and true. A person not engaged in that war, yet with the name of Jesus on their lips is a liar and anyone aiding and abetting that lie will pay for their lies just like the one they are aiding and abetting.
1 Cor 5 absolutely COMMANDS this kind of judgement. For the good of the individual, the church and the reputation of the risen Christ. A person waging the Romans 7 war evinces new life in Christ. A man who tells me to f***off in Jesus name if I call him on his flagrant unrepentant sin is a false convert. At least he is to be treated as such at present or 1 Cor. 5 is a lie. I humbly challenge you to read THIS
==============================================
LikeLike
Please do read that long link at the end Ark. That represents 10-12 hours of work. What you are asking me for is at least that involved. I cannot do that now. I will not tell you that I can and then not do it and I won’t shortcut it either.
BUTLER has you answers.
LikeLike
If you cannot explain it in two paragraphs you don’t understand it. Period.
The passage/s in James is/are succinct and unambiguous.
The Catholics got it right. You are wrong.
LikeLike
Oh 🙂
LikeLike
To add to the Romanist debate here. (without beating up on any one person individually)
THIS SITE carries to this day, the fully authoritative “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur”, ultimately descended from the “holy see” of the “one true and holy apostolic church.” at Vatican City.
If you want an authoritative definition for anything Roman Catholic, that’s your one stop shop.
I would encourage a reading of the articles on TRENT and the solemn ANATHEMA to start.
Any Catholics worthy of the name will know what the “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur” mean. Especially together. Short of a formal declaration of dogma, (which rarely happens) this is as authoritative as it gets in the RCC universe.
VAT II upheld Trent too btw.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, HERE is the full English text of the “Canons and Decrees” of the Council of Trent. This official ecumenical council finally closed in 1563, (long story)
Please note, these are “canons and decrees” of a magisterial ecumenical council under the authority of the pope and college of bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.
Very VERY awkward to attempt to repudiate or even significantly alter any of this today. That’s why they don’t. They simply rely on postmodern confusion to try to say that what their current pontiff is preaching is somehow the same as this. (that doesn’t pass the snicker test btw)
The old joke used to be when trying to illustrate how obviously true a thing was, was to say:
“Is the Pope Catholic?” 😀
That doesn’t really work anymore because we’re not sure.
None of this matters though. All that matters is that they do nice things for people.
There.
God’s happy.
LikeLike
Tiribulus, “I promise you sir, I build my theology on all of scripture.”
You will be the first one ever to do this . But you keep believing that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you certainly aren’t the first to allege this.
I will keep on believing that. Thank you. 🙂
LikeLike
LikeLike
The Bible gives interesting guidance about judging that is backed up by what we experience in the world. When someone commits a crime they are put on trial and the best case for and against their guilt is given, with trained decision makers or representative group of their peers making the final judgement. Judging is a serious business that requires lots of evidence, a balance of views and expertise.
When we judge other people on a casual, individual basis, we are never in possession of all the relevant facts, and we have our own bias and misconceptions thrown into the mix. The guidance to ‘judge not lest you be judged’ is fairly sound logically – it throws up a metaphorical mirror and makes us think about the complexity of own actions and behaviour.
Therefore, from a purely pragmatic point of view, it makes sense not to judge other people in their entirety, although commenting on the harmful outcomes of specific actions had validity. The problem we’re highlighting here with Christians is that it’s even more foolhardy if you believe in a personal relationship with an invisible entity to attempt to judge the experience of other individuals.
By their fruit you shall know them? Never that simple. We’ve had a terrible scandal in the UK recently of a long-standing knighted celebrity who spent immense amounts of time raising millions for charities. For any observer of his work, the fruits of self-sacrifice brought relief and support to thousands of people. And yet following his death, there have been revelations of hundreds of cases of truly horrendous sexual abuse. The ‘fruits’ people place on public display often tell us nothing.
LikeLike
Like I said. Do yourself a favor. Stick to whatever it is you’re good at. Biblical expositor is not in the top 1000 Violet.
You have no idea what fruit means either.
LikeLike
Is the ‘fruit’ shiny and invisible like your god and like that special feeling you get knowing that most of the rest of humanity will suffer eternal torture? We can all see why the invisible god God chose you Tiribulus. But honestly, I’m glad you think he did. I can’t imagine how awful you’d be without a rule book of some sort to follow.
LikeLike
“…Clare is a Christian who uses empathy and logic to guide her interpretation of the Christian faith….
Violet, you make a perfectly good (and endearing) God hating pagan. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to play theologian by pretending you have any idea whatsoever what Christianity, or a Christian is. It’s embarrassing. You don’t get to create God in Claire’s image.
Corrupted autonomous human empathy and logic are broad way and death itself. They are exactly what the one true and narrow Gospel saves us from.
—————————————————–
Please hear Jesus Christ Himself:
Matthew 7 as in the above image:
13“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14“For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
—————————————————-
I understand that you hate that. You’re supposed to hate it.
There IS a God, and HE dictates to YOU … well… everything,
When you call a universe into existence by fiat command, somebody might be justified in being impressed with you opinion. Until then, your 3 pound brain and starving spirit, dead in sin, are simply one in a vast sea of self exalting self delusion.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If your god created people to be confused by logic and empathy, I’m not sure what you’re doing praising him. 😀
LikeLike
“If your god created people to be confused by logic and empathy, I’m not sure what you’re doing praising him. 😀”
You’ve have not paid the slightest particle of attention to anything I’ve said Violet. Nothing.
Don’t forget. I am here because YOU invited me.
I have listened carefully to every word anybody has ever said to me here. Because you are fellow bearers of the image and likeness of our God and I care about you.
You have not put forth even the bare minimum of effort to even have the bare minimum of understanding of anything I’ve said,
That is your right and this is your house. DO PLEASE however stop trying to play theologian by pretending you have any idea whatsoever what Christianity, or a Christian is. It’s embarrassing.
LikeLike
Au contraire mon ami, your nasty interpretation of the Bible is embarrassing – you can’t possibly think that a ‘nice’ creator would make so much eternal suffering, and choose people like you over a starving child in Africa, can you? Being a Christian is a thing of many paths, like every religion, subject to the cultural and individual whims of every believer. You are no ‘correct’ while so many others are ‘wrong’. It’s sheer arrogance to think so. Open your eyes Tiribulus. If you have to believe such nonsense at least do it in a contemplative way like the Quakers – make it fit in with reality.
LikeLike
God is not “nice” Violet. He is holy and He IS love. He is also the one who defines those for you and not the other way around.
Your emotions are killing you. You continue in our prayers.
LikeLike
Ah yes, holiness, love and torture come naturally together. At least you’re not in an age where you have to kill for him. We can breathe a sigh of relief that the cultural interpretations have brought us this far.
LikeLike
Well. It’s settled then.
LikeLike
You’ve inspired a new post Tiribulus. I hope it helps you. 🙂
LikeLike
So many people, talking about me!
I don’t think you understand the broad and narrow way, Tiribulus. The broad way is following the herd, or fashion, doing what others do. The narrow way is being truly and idiosyncratically you, as God created you.
LikeLike
I don’t think you understand the broad and narrow way, Tiribulus. The broad way is following the herd, or fashion, doing what others do. The narrow way is being truly and idiosyncratically you, as God created you.
No.
That is the deconstructed, hip n groovy, postmodern perversion of that passage. I urge you to repent of it, forsake this unholy pursuit of SELF, surrender all that you are and all that you have to the one true and Risen Christ, and live.
It’s not too late.
If you don’t, the death you are walking in now, will follow you for all of eternity 😦 You just can’t know how much I hope and pray this does not happen. 😦
LikeLike
On the bus between Cardiff and Newport, there was an old man who tried to convert travellers with such ranting. No-one valued his words; when he pressed himself upon women, their male friends might threaten him with violence. To forestall such violence, and because I find eccentrics interesting, I listened to him; but nothing he said had any more value than your gibberings. Open your heart and your mind, and read Jesus’ words again.
LikeLike
Success in the kingdom of God is not measured by results my friend. It’s measured by obedience.
Noah preached 120 years and God killed everybody except him and his family.
The mighty prophet Jeremiah preached 40 years to a whoring backslidden Israel,( that looked pretty much like today’s western church btw) and nobody listened. We find him in the book of Lamentations, weeping as he watches his beloved Jerusalem burn to the ground.
These men were completely successful in their God given assignments. They did what they were told. The results were God’s problem.
I do the same. I preach His word. Who listens is not up to me.
In today’s whoring backslidden, bible butchering church world, faithful believers expect to be scorned and dismissed by the vast majority. If not, we wouldn’t be telling the truth. If you liked my “gibberings” in your unrepentant state, I would be the one who needed repentance.
God is not open minded, but the devil sure is.
The thing is. It’s always been this way. Since Genesis 3. Like I said above in the post with my Titanic meme.
LikeLike
You ascribe too much power to the Devil.
LikeLike
You ascribe too much power to the devil. Your “remnant” meme was repulsive, calling Christians non-Christians, and you carry on here. Noah is a Sumerian myth, altered by Jews for theological purposes. You are deliberately ignorant: consider all the evidence in the rocks that the world is billions of years old. It is easily available on line. God has an open mind- by closing yours, the devil has ensnared you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
THAT was very instructive. Thank you.
You know why you don’t just pick a different religion that will let you believe and do whatever you want? There’s plenty of em out there.
Because that toothless devil. in whose power you most assuredly do lie( a, b, c) very much prefers that you defile the true one. You are much more useful to him with the name of Jesus on your lips than you would be staring at a crystal.
It is not too late while their is breath in your lungs. Repent. Do it today. Tomorrow is not promised to you.
………………………………………………..
a ) 1 John 5:19 – “We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”
b ) Ephesians 2:2 – “in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.”
c ) 2nd Corinthians 4:4 – “in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
LikeLike
Thank you. I will add those verses to my collection.
LikeLike
Where does it say Noah preached for 120 years? According to the Genesis account, Noah had less than a century to build the ark between the time he fathered his sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) and the day our kind, merciful and loving creator drowned every living thing on earth in a fit of jealous rage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are varying accountings of the number of years, but it makes no difference exactly how many.
His mercy is His to give or withhold.
Once one understands God’s holiness and man’s sin, the question is not about why God damns people. The question is why He saves anybody at all.
One bite from a piece of forbidden fruit is infinitely more than enough to earn eternal perdition for every man, woman and child who would ever exist.
He owes nobody anything except a one way ticket to the lake of fire. He is gracious and merciful indeed in having chosen a people for a bride for His Son.
God doesn’t need me to help Him find ways to get people to believe in Him. He is not wringing His hands in frustration wishing they would. He IS saving HIS people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21)
They are HIS. He bought them with His blood. They cannot be lost. Those that are not, cannot be saved. Only HE knows which is which. Therefore I tell everybody. The results are up to Him. I will not get my wish, but I want them all as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tiribulus
Props for confronting the unpleasant aspects of your theology that other Christian apologists are wary to acknowledge, much less address.
However, it doesn’t explain why an all-powerful and all-knowing being would create sinful humans in need of saving to begin with. Is God a sadist?
And what does it say about the moral character of those who would joyously embrace such a monstrous entity with open arms?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now those are dern good questions Ron. Ones I actually have answered before , but I will try before the evening is out to get something here for you.
You will never find me running from any passage or trying to get the King of kings outta jams He’s not in. He is God and we are not. I’m not worried about how you’re going to respond. I’m worried about being faithful to His word.
Here’s a teaser. “freewill” is not the ultimate answer.
LikeLike
Alas Ron, I did get started (I accidentally pinged it back), but unforeseen circumstances got the best of me.
This has turned into a special project actually, but it’s almost 2 am here and we have church tomorrow.
LikeLike
http://tiribulus.com/wordpress/the-problem-with-the-the-problem-of-evil/
LikeLike
Here’s GOD’S COLLECTION
Nobody’s perfect, including Davis (and myself), but THIS FINE INTRODUCTION will be a few hundred thousand light years closer to the truth that what you are doing to the bible now. (I have to try)
Arthur W. Pink is more right now than ever. This was 80 years ago.
————————————————————-
“Christianity is the religion of a Book. Christianity is based upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture. The starting point of all doctrinal discussion must be the Bible. Upon the foundation of the Divine inspiration of the Bible stands or falls the entire edifice of Christian truth.—“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3). Surrender the dogma of verbal inspiration and you are left like a rudderless ship on a stormy sea—at the mercy of every wind that blows. Deny that the Bible is, without any qualifications, the very Word of God, and you are left without any ultimate standard of measurement and without any supreme authority.
It is useless to discuss any doctrine taught by the Bible until you are prepared to acknowledge, unreservedly, that the Bible is the final court of appeal. Grant that the Bible is a Divine revelation and communication of God’s own mind and will to men, and you have a fixed starting point from which advance can be made into the domain of truth. Grant that the Bible is (in its original manuscripts) inerrant and infallible and you reach the place where study of its contents is both practicable and profitable.
It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of Scripture. This is the strategic center of Christian theology, and must be defended at all costs. It is the point at which our satanic enemy is constantly hurling his hellish battalions. Here it was he made his first attack. In Eden he asked, “Yea, hath God said?” and today he is pursuing the same tactics. Throughout the ages the Bible has been the central object of his assaults.
Every available weapon in the devil’s arsenal has been employed in his determined and ceaseless efforts to destroy the temple of God’s truth. In the first days of the Christian era the attack of the enemy was made openly—the bonfire being the chief instrument of destruction—but, in these “last days” the assault is made in a more subtle manner and comes from a more unexpected quarter.
The Divine origin of the Scriptures is now disputed in the name of “Scholarship” and “Science,” and that, too, by those who profess to be friends and champions of the Bible. Much of the learning and theological activity of the hour, are concentrated in the attempt to discredit and destroy the authenticity and authority of God’s Word, the result being that thousands of nominal Christians are plunged into a sea of doubt.
Many of those who are paid to stand in our pulpits and defend the Truth of God are now the very ones who are engaged in sowing the seeds of unbelief and destroying the faith of those to whom they minister. But these modern methods will prove no more successful in their efforts to destroy the Bible than did those employed in the opening centuries of the Christian era. As well might the birds attempt to demolish the granite rock of Gibraltar by pecking at it with their beaks—“For ever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven” (Ps. 119:89)”
LikeLike
“So many people, talking about me!”
NOthing and NObody can erase the image and likeness of the Lord your God.
Do please believe that I have no self righteous disdain or hatred of you whatsoever. 😦 Quite the opposite actually. How lonely and lost does somebody have to be? 😦
——————————–
Have to go for now folks.
LikeLike
I don’t detect disdain, just ignorance- of the Bible, God, reality, human nature, Hell, everything, really. Here you are trying to save me from something which you fantasise, while you have no understanding at all of how Christ could liberate you. It is wearing. I tell you of Christ’s words, and you say they are post-modern. Surely someone understood Christ before 1950!
LikeLike
Actually far more understood Him before 1950.
LikeLike
Again, the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08hpmmf
Listen and get an idea of quite how much evidence there is in the rocks. Your false interpretation of the Bible is wilful ignorance and blasphemous disrespect for God.
LikeLike
No it isn’t.
LikeLike
Listen to the programme. A little cognitive dissonance will do you good.
LikeLike
You have my word.
What are the chances of reciprocation?
LikeLike
What would you like me to read or hear?
I would be interested to hear what you thought of the programme.
LikeLike
I have listened to your program.
I sincerely do not intend this as sneering derisive dismissal, but the intellectual dishonesty displayed by these people is spectacular to behold.
I am no scientist, but I clearly understood everything they are claiming. One doesn’t have to be a scientist however to spot the glaring method bias and out of hand pre-conclusions taken to the data in this arena of study. Well, every arena of study by unbelievers actually.
You, like them, embrace this meandering speculation (it seriously really is) because you think it provides you escape from moral accountability to your Creator and a license to believe and live as YOU please.
Fairness gives me 49 minutes and 47 seconds. I’m still deciding on what to send you.
LikeLike
Clare, would you be willing to read something that took approximately 49 minutes and 47 seconds to read? As opposed to audio or video that long? If not, that’s fine. I’m just asking.
LikeLike
Name it. Remember that I would be thinking about it and analysing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: lacking love | violetwisp
Pingback: THE PROBLEM WITH THE “THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.” | TRIB'S TANTRUMS
Pingback: An open mind | Clare Flourish
Claire says: “Name it. Remember that I would be thinking about it and analyzing it.”
I am having an unusually hard time making up my mind.Try THIS please.
Nobody’s perfect, including Dr. Beeke, but this sermon was a homer.
LikeLike
I have only just seen this comment. I will consider it now.
LikeLike
Here are my notes on it. I found it slow and repetitive, but mostly unobjectionable- his plugging of three of his books and the fact that his mother would neglect him, using prayer to hide from him when he was getting ready for school rather than being with him and praying later, bothered me.
I remember my own family worship, which led me into reading the New Testament so many times, and the Old Testament several times.
Notes:
It is absolutely critical that dad and mom exemplify holiness within the family. Usefulness in every sphere of life is wedded to family holiness. In the home spiritual life thrives or fails.
Book on Ephesians 5. Holy vision for family life. I have edited it. What was Googe really like? Preached 3x a week, one day a week served Poor, served in Westminster assembly. Prayer in home, 13 children, knew great sorrows and great Christ. Magnify Christ and humble himself. Family worship half hour a day. No-one, his wife, children or servants ever observed an angry countenance or heard an angry word from him.
What impression are you leaving on your children. FH begins with Dad and Mom. David in Ps 101 I will walk perfectly in uprightness of my heart in my own house. Lead family with mercy and justice. Also personal devotion. Children know they are prayed for, and meditation- half way between scripture and prayer. Meditate on Scripture. Impact on self and family. My parents were prayerful, for us.
Mum could not speak to me because praying. 11.50. GOdliness is contagious. FH of parents cannot be erased. Pray at table. Cannot miss Lamb in Heaven make our lives a preparation, let us and children be undivided family in Heavenly bliss on the great day.
Walk with Godly integrity in own home. If walk contradicts talk walk is visible. Destroy all he has built. Walk with integrity not hypocritical religion. Not sinless perfection but sincere Godly piety. Who are you when alone with GOd?
FH means guard purity of own home. Will not cleave to Satan. No corrupting influences in private lives or homes. Age of images. Surrounded by pictures, lurid and idolatrous,not let into own homes- porn, worldliness. Limit the images. Deny ourselves bad influences.
FH- Key- wher ethere is Godliness in the home, is grounded in daily perpetual consistent intentional prayerful earnest family worship. Christian bookshop has Church growth books- not a single chapter on family worship. Best growth is internal growing of families. Children marry and stay in church. Sometimes people come in for 3-4 years, but start agitating then gone. Best deacons are children of believers. Odd that people don’t see this. 75% of children leave church- would not if dads had sustained daily worship.
Parents’ 50th anniversary- all five children thanked Mum for prayer, Dad for family worship. Half hour from Pilgrim’s Progress every Sunday night. Never doubted existence of God. Saw father when three and thought of God.
Challenger Space Shuttle commander was Rick Husband, a Christian. Videos for children, not to miss family worship while in Space.
FW all over world people think doing good if FW half the time. Should be daily. World around us degenerated so far that we think doing good. 1677, Dorchester, Mass., covenant- to reform families and maintain FW. As goes FW, so goes home, church, nation.
Ungodly becoming more ungodly. Godly becoming more godly, wonderrful time to live. Most important thing I do is FW. Not a substitute for other parental duties. Foundation of childrearing.
Duty of FW- Joshua was 100, leave legacy behind. My household will worship. He knows because he always has. Children would continue. First son got married, I advised him, I won’t advise any more unless you ask, but then told him to promise to continue FW- but I crossed it off list, because of course he will continue, just like brushing teeth. Things degenerate in a worldly culture like ours.
Duty to do daily instruction from Word of God; diligently; be full of zeal for eternal truth. Dad loved my soul. Should not be more excited about a football game. Daily prayer to throne of God to sanctify everything. God’s fury on those families which do not pray. Everything good comes from God. Children need to hear you. Daily singing of the praise of God. We know these things are good for family, deep in our consciences, but problem is our busy culture.
Clothed with holy authority. Owe our children priestly authority and guidance. How? Need to prepare. Sing from the Psalter. Aim for brevity. Don’t provoke children. 15-20 mins usually long enough, unless children want longer. When 6,4,2 yo children, 8 mins worship. Never skip it. It will bear fruit. Never indulge in any excuse to avoid it.
Should not yell at child or lose temper-
Firm fatherly hand and soft penitent heart. Expect great things from Great God. Nothing interrupts.
Practical guidance. Plan for scripture. Miracles, parables, stories, histories, not Ezekiel. When 7-10, give them whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation. We have published a study bible with take-aways from every chapter. Ps 22 for Sunday morning. Ps 121 before vacation. Whole family in reading. Divide up reading.
Biblical instruction is important. Talk to children every day about Bible. Most Christian men do not do this at all. Unbelieveable. Christian schools can, but fathers are main teachers. Church of Scotland 1647- reprove family of sin. Comfort, embrace, present the promise. Start discussion. Ask each child a question. In Latvia two guys assaulted me, took keys for seminary and stripped it of computers. I thought they would kill me, lay there 45 minutes, with man standing on me. Started thinking of family, ministry, book store and seminary, and prayed for them. Lord’s promises flowed through my mind: I had said everything to children I wanted to say.
Be relevant. Make God real today. Ps 31:15, my times in thy hands. Woman thrived with peace and joy in the Lord throughout her cancer and death. Tell about how God uses Bible today. Be affectionate in manner. Proverbs is great book for leading children. Warn of wayward woman, tell of Jesus Christ. I felt convicted to use this affectionate approach. Them on my knee.
Require attention. Do not allow children to do anything else, 3yo had to sit up straight. Command reverence.
Prayer- be short, 5 mins is average, enough. All the family needs. Use ACTS- Adoration Contrition Thanksgiving Supplication. Be simple, but not shallow. I asked my wife what petitions to make for children. Be a trainer: have kids on lap, when aged 3 children took turns to pray. Their friends joined us.
Sing doctrinally pure songs. Not Arminian. Psalms first. Substantive, not just repetitive. Remember Calvin- psalms give balance. Sing heartily and with feeling, and make sure children do.
Objections- we don’t have time. This is the most important thing in life. We don’t get together- children off at sports. Do best you can. Pray when they come home. Our family is too small- no, 2-3 gathered together. Too diverse- everyone needs prayer, child of 3 feels if does not understand. Do it, practice, and get better at it. God will help you. I have books here, an extension of my talk today. Follow what I say.
Motivations: the eternal welfare of your loved ones. Satisfaction of good conscience. Means you can trust your child is saved. It helps child-rearing- talk about everything, keeps open communication for teenagers. Twice a day. 7300 times if daily. Those years will be gone like that, but a lot of opportunities to speak of God.
Conclude: an example. John Paton, a missionary to cannibals. Godly father- when he left for University he wrote how his father had walked with him and prayed for him, and decided never to let father down.
LikeLike
I found it very boring. I found three things particularly objectionable:
that he kept plugging his own books, at least three of them, and once referred to one being on sale;
that his mother neglected him, choosing to absent herself when he was getting ready in the morning on the specious excuse that she was praying. She should have got up earlier to pray, so she could be available for him. He has rationalised that as loving, but it does not sound that way.
His claim that he can’t make converts. People come to his church, but leave after three or four years. Only if they are thoroughly indoctrinated throughout childhood will they stay. That indicates a poor pastor. To use his metaphor, if you are taught to clean your teeth throughout childhood, you will keep it up; but if you were properly taught to clean your teeth for the first time as an adult, you would keep it up fanatically, for you would know how much better your mouth felt.
If that is typical of your sources of Christianity, I see why you are to be so greatly pitied. You are ignorant of God. Open your heart to Christ!
LikeLike
Pingback: The Problem With “The Problem of Evil” – Reformation Charlotte