Beck's false inclusivity

Hi RCofield,

Great posts to Walter. Having listened to many debates with the four horsemen I share your view about their poor and inaccurate foray into history.

One of the articles I read recently on the Founding Fathers identified that only 3 of the 55 were deists, with one unknown. Also, Thomas Jefferson was not a deist but a unitarian. It also broke down the denominations of the fathers, with the majority, as you said, being Calvinists/ Protestant.

Here it is again,

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

Greg goes on,

"The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson--or any of our Founding Fathers--isn't whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.

What Did the Founding Fathers Believe and Value?
When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:
• Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
• The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
• The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
• Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
• Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.
However...
• The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
• They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity--or any other faith--as the religion of our nation.

WALTER,

"Under the banner of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the French Enlightenment philosophes, Encyclopédistes, and liberal economists managed to effectively criticize proslavery economic policy of the French government."

LOL. Yes we all know the French are quite the “critics.” They talk a pretty good game, but when it comes to actually getting their soft little hands dirty...

I recall someone once saying that a "critic" is someone who never actually accomplishes anything themselves and wants to make sure no one else does either.

My point was, where were all these "Enlightened" folks when Wilberforce (a Christian) was waging a 26 year battle to abolish the British slave trade....oh...yes...I remember now. They were busy cutting one another's heads off during that great period of the Enlightenment known as the Reign of Terror.

WALT: "so, many (not NONE) enlightenment thinkers opposed slavery. and as far as i can tell, it was montesqueiu, voltaire, rousseau, diderot, along w/quakers and mennonites who had to drag "great awakening" mainstream (southern) christians thinkers like george whitehead kicking and screaming into the post-slavery age."

Oh boy….. You have been "googling" again. SOUTHERN Christians were the "mainstream" of the Great Awakening?! BOTH the first AND second "Great Awakenings" in America were concentrated in the New England states!

And George "Whitehead?" Don't you mean George "Whitefield"...who, incidentally, was British, NOT a "southerner." And to typify him as having to be "dragged kicking and screaming" on the slavery issue is extremely disingenuous, for his preaching and journals were liberally sprinkled with deep, impassioned concern for the plight of American slaves. Good grief, man. Sometimes your bias is painfully obvious.

This is the sort of "revisionist" history that often characterizes the New Atheism rhetoric. Frankly, it not only lacks factual integrity, it is often flat-out dishonest. I will presume you just found it somewhere on the 'net and didn't do any fact-checking.

WALTER,

“well, i don't know. i think the gospel HAS been preached (just not embraced) in every country. is there a country where christians haven't proselytized?”

I was using the term “nations” in the biblical sense—tribe/kindred/dialect…people-groups. Estimates indicate there are still over 2000 people-groups who have not heard the gospel. We know who they are......and we are on it.

Peter,

Thanks for your prayers. My family and I appreciate it.

test

Hi RCofield,

My thoughts and prayers are with you and your daughter. Hope she gets better soon!

PS. I lost Post 5. It registered as too many post submitted at the same time.

Hi PSolus,

Sorry, again I'm thinking this is pointless to continue our conversation, since my days are getting busier and I want to engage in meaningful conversation. There is no effort on your part to engage. You give no credible thought or argument to why you can justify what you believe, and you even deny that you even have a world-view. If we are living thinking beings it is impossible not to have a view of life that has been constructed on core, basic beliefs. You refuse to examine yours to see how well they hold up, and yet you are highly critical of mine.

You call it myth, a silly magical book, a fair tail, a children's story, superstition, and yet you are not willing to give any evidence for your beliefs as to what makes them so or what makes them true. It is like saying it is so because you make it so, not because there is any evidence that supports your view. You are not living giving real evidence to justify your statements, but just wishful thinking. Anyone can do that.

"It is true that I can fly by flapping my arms. Let me demonstrate as I jump off the Empire State building." You may believe it but the evidence does not support such a conclusion. I'm asking you to show me that you can support what you say, that there is some truth to it, that it is meaningful and does make a difference. Can you do that?

What you have given me so far just confirms that you are a victim of postmodernist, a world-view that can only be lived within the mind. It doesn't work in the real world.

Postmodernism is a view that constructs its own truth, makes it up, then deconstructs that which is real. It is like a form of Buddhism that believes that the world is illusion, but those holding that view still look both ways when they crosses the road. They understand they can't deny that actual bus coming towards them, even if their thoughts say it is not real. What they think betrays how they live, just like you do.

As I said before, you need to think more about why you think the way you do and try justifying that it is actually true, actually so, actually the way things really are.

Let me give this one last effort to your posts unless you show me you are willing to engage meaningfully.

PART 3

ME: "How can you be aware of it if you are ignorant of it???"

PSOLUS: "Three question marks; you must be really confused by this."

Not at all. I understand the futility of the way you think. I'm asking you to explain it, however, so that what you say can be tested and seen for what it is. Virtually every reply you give me is a failure to answer anything I ask of you. That is why I am asking you to get real. Let's have a meaningful conversation. Are you willing? How about it?

PSOLUS: "If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you."

I believe I do. The ball is in your court to answer the questions.

ME: "You call it a 'superstitious belief' without having knowledge of it????"

PSOLUS: "Four question marks; your confusion appears to be increasing."

No, I'm looking for an answer from you. You keep dodging the questions that I ask so I put more question marks.

How can you call it superstitious belief without a knowledge of it?
Do you have an answer?

ME: "How can you know this is a superstitious belief unless you did actually have knowledge of it???"

PSOLUS: "Back to three question marks; congratulations."

Nice non-answer! A waste of my inquiry.

PSOLUS: "If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you."

Give it a try, unless you think I'm really stupid and incapable of understand anything you say. If that is the case why bother replying to anything I say. It is a waste of your time.

ME: "You keep contradicting yourself."

PSOLUS: "I'm sure that you believe that."

It is self evident.

PART 4

ME: "In that case show me how you can make a statement that conveys an idea without having a foundation that it rests on. Can you do that? Did that statement come from nothing?"

PSOLUS: "No, that statement came from me."

Yes, it came from you, but what were those ideas built from? They didn't construct themselves from nothing did they? You had a core of beliefs as to what the words I conveyed meant, right? In this way you knew enough to formulate a response. You believed that I conveyed something or else you would not have responded.

ME: "You have stated that it is a 'superstitious belief' among other things. The implication is there since a superstition is not based on fact. Why would you state something as superstition unless you believed it to be so?"

PSOLUS: "I don't need to believe anything."

But you do. You are not a vegetable or a stone that doesn't comprehend anything because it doesn't have a mind.

PART 5

Another example:

ME: "Are you certain of that???"

PSOLUS: "Back to three question mark confusion."

Another non-answer, just a statement. This again shows me your lack of willingness to engage in a meaningful conversation.

ME: "Yes, I understand you like to play games. I continue our conversation in the hope of pointing out the absurdity of your thinking to you will spur you to think a little deeper."

PSOLUS: "Well, that is just right nice of you, padre."

More mockery, but no willingness to engage in a meaningful conversation.

ME: "Why is your reference point of good 'good'? What makes it so?"

PSOLUS: "If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you."

I believe I do. I'm asking you to explain what makes your concept of 'good' true, even part of the time. If everybody was like you who believed that they made up their own idea of good this world would be unlivable. The more relative we become the more we are apt to have arguments, have fights, go to war, devalue human worth. If there is no ultimate, absolute, unchanging standard then anything goes. It just depends on who controls the culture. Hitler's German is just as good as any other human convention as long as the force is there to control the culture.
Do you feel Hitler's Germany was good and how do you justify this belief whichever way you go?

PART 6

ME: "To an extent I can know how you live because God's word is true. (Romans 1:18-20; Psalm 14:1-4)"

PSOLUS: "Oh, you and your childishly superstitious belief-system; what else does your silly magical book of fairy stories tell you about how I live?"

An easy statement to make, but extremely hard to justify. Give me good solid reason why this statement of yours is true.

PSOLUS: "Does it list my CD collection? My DVD Collection? Does it say whether I'm a PC or a Mac? Does it say whether I wear boxers or briefs?"

It answers the important questions of life like why is there injustice, or is there justice for all the wrongs practiced in life, or how can I be right with God, or is it possible to have a relationship with Him, or what happens to a human being once they are dead, or how has God revealed Himself to His creation, or what is good.

What you wear or what you have is unimportant in the big picture. You are not the center of the universe, neither am I. It doesn't revolve around us (figure of speech).

WALTER,

WALT: “in fact, the kind of restricted inbreeding that hitler imagined (much like that moses, and david imagined) would lead to genetic problems.”

RCO: (LOL) I gotta give you one thing. You are nothing if not consistent with your wild interpretations of the bible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WALT: “the enlightenment produced the united states and freedom of religion. good ideas, no?”

RCO: I have watched with interest the exchange between you and Peter on this issue. I don’t see America as having been established as a purely Christian nation, nor was it established purely as a product of the Enlightenment. The founding of our nation was more an amalgamation of Calvinian/Puritain Protestantism (Christian) and Deism (product of Enlightenment). It should be noted that history clearly demonstrates that the Christian influence was more prevalent than the influence of Deism…and that Deism is certainly not secularism, nor is it atheism as you seem wont to contend.

Either way, Christianity has never been dependent upon the government of a nation for its existence, for Christ said he would build his church and the very powers of hell would never prevail against it. However, I do find it interesting that you take Peter to task for contending that this nation was formed on the basis of his Christian worldview and then turn around claim it was founded on the basis of YOUR Enlightenment/Atheistic worldview. If you see his worldview as “needy” and “dependent” for desiring predominance in the government of this nation, what does that make your worldview?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And the “Enlightenment” was certainly not without its own particularly vicious brand of blood-letting—i.e. the “Reign of Terror” in France, which was, to no small degree, directed at Christianity.

WALTER,

Peter and I are not taking your “cultural chromosome” concept “literally.” It is you who are taking the presumed principles (concepts, if you prefer) of evolution and applying them to society, claiming that we are "evolving" socially. The cross-pollination of evolutionary concepts into social constructs has a sobering history of violence.

Further, when leading proponents of your particular brand of Enlightenment Atheism/Darwinism/Anti-theism are writing entire books stating that Christians are “delusional” and have “a mind-virus” (Dawkins) and that Christianity “should be abandoned altogether” (Dennett) and that Christianity is “evil” and should be “eradicated altogether” (Harris)….well, you will just have to excuse me for calling your “metaphors” into question.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WALT: “as far as social darwinism....ooooooh ....scary.... just because evolution explains how breeding works, doesn't mean we HAVE to breed people. we can choose not to. it certainly doesn't mean darwin endorsed anything like the racism or genocide. just because einstein formulated e = m(c^2) doesn't mean he wanted to bomb everybody with nuclear weapons.”

RCO: Yet….you support a woman’s “right” to abort her child….a practice that is without question influenced by Social Darwinism and even racism and genocide. Lest you become unnerved again by my raising this issue, may I remind you that I only raise it to demonstrate to you the dangers of your belief that morality is a subjective construct. Despite your contention that murder is morally wrong, you don’t think that it is unilaterally wrong because you make an exception in the case of some abortions.

You raise the banner of the UDHR, yet the UDHR does not extend to the child in the womb. The UDHR is utilitarian in nature, and Dr. Peter Singer (professor of bioethics at Princeton University) is a leading utilitarian who contends that infanticide is not murder because a child is not human until they are self-aware (3-4 years old?). Additionally, he contends that euthanasia is not murder. When individuals like yourself begin defending such evolutionary/utilitarian worldviews (whether out of ignorance or not) you can bet your boots there will be those of us who will raise a red flag and point to the horrific abuses that this kind of thinking has produced in the past.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WALTER,

My daughter is critically ill and in the hospital right now, hence the delay. Will get back at it as soon as I can.

In the meantime, you asked "what am i not responding to?" I will post a partial list below. Remember as you are reading this that the point in contention here is whether or not morality is subjective/evolving or objective/fixed. This is the point I engaged you on way back, and I have not deviated from it, though you have offered many distractions.

While I know you don't want to talk about the abortion issue, it is a classic example of "subjective/evolving" morality, and as such it is a glaring and persistent weakness in your argument. I don't see how you can continue to contend for the superiority of "modern" morality without dealing honestly with this issue.

The list of points I made to which you never responded:

test

peter, that's it?

your gymnastics get a 1.5 from the atheist judge....

just wondering, you know how you claim other cultures "borrowed" commandments 5-10 and other "good things" from the bible? did they borrow slavery too? i.e., did yahweh invent slavery? i mean, if it's your position that he invented "don't murder/lie/steal", you should also embrace and try to take "credit" for "buy/sell/own people", right?

'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (lev25:44-)

there's a lot to "unpack" there. first, this is god telling the israelites they can (should) have slaves. some good, eternal, unchanging, objective standards there, no?

not only is there slavery, but is this where people "learned" about discrimination"? - the idea that it's ok to treat some people one way and other people another way based on religion, nationality, race etc...?

now, i don't think people "borrowed" slavery from the bible. i think that's just the (horrible) way things were back then. our morals are much better now. but, if you contend that we get "honor your father" from the bible, then you've got to say we get slavery and discriminatory morality from the bible.

also, those are anything but "eternal, objective, unchanging" standards, right? any right-minded person today would find those sentiments repugnant, but 3000 or even 300 years ago, that's just the way things were.

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters [i.e., masters who are christian] are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them. (1tim6)

isn't that sweet? slaves should serve their christian masters "even better"...

slavery: yahweh endorsed it, jesus regulated it, christians now condemn it.

eagerly awaiting rco's gymnastic performance.

PETERHUFF,

"Yes, I do, and it is based on your confessions."

So, am I one of your gods?

"You state such things, you make judgments on such things, and without
researching enough to know what you are talking about. It confirms your bias and lack of understanding."

That is some funny stuff.

"How can you be aware of it if you are ignorant of it???"

Three question marks; you must be really confused by this.

If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you.

"You call it a 'superstitious belief' without having knowledge of it????"

Four question marks; your confusion appears to be increasing.

If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you.

"How can you know this is a superstitious belief unless you did actually have knowledge of it???"

Back to three question marks; congratulations.

If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you.

"You keep contradicting yourself."

I'm sure that you believe that.

"Yes you do. You talk of it as a 'superstitious belief' and at the same time you talk of not knowing about it. Which is it???"

Three question marks; the confusion continues.

If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you.

"How would you know unless you had investigated it???"

More three question mark confusion.

If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you.

"Amen!"

Hallelujah!

"Yes, but you continue to talk about them in your ignorance of them."

Right.

"Your decision that Christianity is a sham, a childish superstition. How can you know that unless you had looked into it? But you have said that you haven't, which I find hard to believe, but if true then you are prejudice for you are basing your decision on a lack of understanding."

Would you believe it if I told you that it was written in a magical book of fairy stories?

"In that case show me how you can make a statement that conveys an idea without having a foundation that it rests on. Can you do that? Did that statement come from nothing?"

No, that statement came from me.

If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you.

"You have stated that it is a 'superstitious belief' among other things. The implication is there since a superstition is not based on fact. Why would you state something as superstition unless you believed it to be so?"

I don't need to believe anything.

"Truthfully?"

Falsely?

"Are you certain of that???"

Back to three question mark confusion.

"Yes, I understand you like to play games. I continue our conversation in the hope of pointing out the absurdity of your thinking to you will spur you to think a little deeper."

Well, that is just right nice of you, padre.

"Why is your reference point of good 'good'? What makes it so?"

If you don't already understand that, I doubt that I can help you.

"To an extent I can know how you live because God's word is true. (Romans 1:18-20; Psalm 14:1-4)"

Oh, you and your childishly superstitious belief-system; what else does your silly magical book of fairy stories tell you about how I live?

Does it list my CD collection? My DVD Collection?

Does it say whether I'm a PC or a Mac?

Does it say whether I wear boxers or briefs?

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "You seem to have got yourself into quite a huff over my comments."

You might say it is my nature - a huff.

ME: "I believe it is you who is speaking from ignorance, as you have revealed in your September 14, 2010 8:25 AM post."

PSOLUS: "I'm sure that you do believe that; you believe many things."

Yes, I do, and it is based on your confessions. You state such things, you make judgments on such things, and without
researching enough to know what you are talking about. It confirms your bias and lack of understanding.

PSOLUS: "And, I am aware of what I am ignorant - I don't pretend to know what I don't know by hiding behind superstitious beliefs."

How can you be aware of it if you are ignorant of it???

You call it a 'superstitious belief' without having knowledge of it???? How can you know this is a superstitious belief unless you did actually have knowledge of it??? You keep contradicting yourself.

PSOLUS: "I do not talk of christianity, you do."

Yes you do. You talk of it as a 'superstitious belief' and at the same time you talk of not knowing about it. Which is it???

PSOLUS: "And yes, I would consider your thinking ignorant."

How would you know unless you had investigated it???

PSOLUS: "Ignorant again."

Amen!

PSOLUS: "Did we not already establish that there are things of which I am ignorant?"

Yes, but you continue to talk about them in your ignorance of them.

ME: "You are basing your decision on your prejudice without looking into the other side of the matter."

PSOLUS: "I am basing what decision on prejudice?"

Your decision that Christianity is a sham, a childish superstition. How can you know that unless you had looked into it? But you have said that you haven't, which I find hard to believe, but if true then you are prejudice for you are basing your decision on a lack of understanding.

ME: "You make up your own truths all the time, for instance, that you have no belief,..."

PART 2

PSOLUS: "That is not a truth, that is a statement of my thinking."

In that case show me how you can make a statement that conveys an idea without having a foundation that it rests on. Can you do that? Did that statement come from nothing?

ME: "...that Christianity is a sham,..."

PSOLUS: "That may well be true, but I have never stated that as a truth."

You have stated that it is a 'superstitious belief' among other things. The implication is there since a superstition is not based on fact. Why would you state something as superstition unless you believed it to be so?

PSOLUS: "I have no idea what you are talking about."

Truthfully?

ME: "For any certainty you do."

PSOLUS: "I don't need certainty."

Are you certain of that???

ME: "Think of what can you actually know if there is no objective standard."

PSOLUS: "OK, I'm thinking..."

Yes, I understand you like to play games. I continue our conversation in the hope of pointing out the absurdity of your thinking to you will spur you to think a little deeper.

ME: "Do you know what is good or bad,..."

PSOLUS: "Sometimes."

Why is your reference point of good 'good'? What makes it so?

ME: "And yet you live as though you do know, for you make judgments showing that there is an ethical basis to you after all."

PSOLUS: "Really? You know how I live? Or, do you simply believe that you know how I live?"

To an extent I can know how you live because God's word is true. (Romans 1:18-20; Psalm 14:1-4)

Hi Walter,

ME: "On hearing these teachings of Jesus these Jews failed to listen or accept the message. Their pride and self-sufficiency were greater than the wisdom of God. How can that be? Well it can't, as much as they may have thought that they were wiser. The same lesson can be learned from our day and age, but the message is again not for the many. They are slaves to their sinful nature, just as the Israelites were slaves to theirs in the dessert. They too refused to believe God and go in and take the land that was promised to them. That generation never entered the Promise Land, only the few who had believed and heard the message. Times have not changed (Romans 10:3-21)."

WALTER: "seems to me like jesus should have said something like while he was going on about being "slaves" to our sinful nature, he could have thrown in something about actual slavery."

WALTER: "you ended with something about how "times have not changed."

WALTER: "absolutely they have: real physical actual slavery is now no longer acceptable, whereas it was so commonplace in jesus's day that he felt no need to comment on it - except to use it an object lesson or a vehicle for his parables.
-------------------------------------------

You don't seem to understand what I'm getting at. Yes, there was actual slavery in the history of the Jews, both as perpetrators and as victims, and both in the OT and NT. Jesus/God used this slavery in their past and present to illustrate and pinpoint a spiritual reality. Human slavery is more than physical bondage and ownership by someone else. We are also slaves to our mind and sinful nature.

Yes, there were many reasons for it such as being a captive of war, by birth, to pay a debt, to escape poverty, etc., just as there were many types of slave owners such as cruel and harsh or kind and considerate.

Jesus goes deeper in speaking of human slavery as to whoever/whatever controls you is what you are in bondage to, as well as to recognizing that service to God is something that is worthy of a benevolent Creator, in that the lesser serve the Greater, for he owes the Greater everything, but it is a service that is offered up in love for the Creator, just as Christ offered Himself up in love on behalf of His people.

Service to God is truly freeing and liberating for He is truly majestic and unsurpassed in His grace, wisdom, knowledge and power. He deserves the honor.

Yes, Jesus recognizes slavery in His and other cultures, but the type of slavery you are talking about is a slavery that comes from our sinful nature. It does not seek its neighbors good; it seeks its own good, its own pleasure, its own way.

peter et. al.,
let's go here next:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/09/shouting_peace_peace_where_there_is_no_peace.html

hopefully there won't be an active conversation there. if there is, we'll choose another thread from there.

PETERHUFF,

You seem to have got yourself into quite a huff over my comments.

"I believe it is you who is speaking from ignorance, as you have revealed in your September 14, 2010 8:25 AM post."

I'm sure that you do believe that; you believe many things.

And, I am aware of what I am ignorant - I don't pretend to know what I don't know by hiding behind superstitious beliefs.

"If you don't pretend to know there is NO certainty in it. Your argument is from ignorance."

"Certainly" in my comment is an adverb, which modifies the verb "appears".

"Another argument from ignorance. How do you know the questions are worth asking?"

I didn't write that I know the questions are worth asking; I wrote that it appears to me that the questions are worth asking.

Do you not understand the difference?

"Again, you don't know. You are ignorant of what tomorrow will bring."

Yes, I have established that there are things of which I am ignorant.

What, exactly, is to occur in the future is one of them.

"Point made again."

So you believe; but then, you believe many things.

"You talk of things you know nothing of. Would you not consider such thinking ignorant then?"

I do not talk of christianity, you do.

And yes, I would consider your thinking ignorant.

"Ignorant again."

Did we not already establish that there are things of which I am ignorant?

Scroll up a bit.

"You are basing your decision on your prejudice without looking into the other side of the matter."

I am basing what decision on prejudice?

The other side of what matter?

"Do you think I have made my point yet?"

No, but I am pretty sure that you believe that you have; you believe many things.

"But I am aware of your position. I have thought long and hard about it and I base my case not only on my experience and limited knowledge, but also on a higher authority than yours, in fact on the highest authority there is - God's Word."

Again, I am sure that you believe that; I don't.

"You make up your own truths all the time, for instance, that you have no belief,..."

That is not a truth, that is a statement of my thinking.

"...believe nothing,..."

That is not a truth, that is a statement of my thinking.

"...that Christianity is a sham,..."

That may well be true, but I have never stated that as a truth.

"...and that last conclusion without examining the evidence, for you have admitted as much."

I have no idea what you are talking about.

"For any certainty you do."

I don't need certainty.

"Think of what can you actually know if there is no objective standard."

OK, I'm thinking...

"Can you know what is good or bad,..."

Sometimes.

"...right or wrong,..."

Sometimes.

"...true or false?"

Sometimes.

"And yet you live as though you do know, for you make judgments showing that there is an ethical basis to you after all."

Really? You know how I live? Or, do you simply believe that you know how I live?

To be continued...

Continued:

"If you are impressed by him, then you must know something about him and his teachings, and ergo I bet he has influenced you greatly in how you look at things."

You can believe that if you wish; you believe many things.

"Are you sure?"

Pretty sure. Are you going to tell be that I'm not sure?

"I mean you find Darwin impressive."

No, I find his accomplishments impressive; I really don't know that much about him personally.

Are you equating being impressed by someone's accomplishments to answering the deeply philosophical questions of life?

"You have to an extent in your existential nothingness philosophy. Something drove you to your nihilist position."

Please, tell me more about what you believe about me.

"Then don't rule out Christianity just because your parents or others turned you from it."

Thank you; what else do you believe about me?

"For something to be known there must be a certainty somewhere, an objective ideal, an unchanging standard and reference - God. He is necessary, otherwise all you have is fluctuating human opinion. And yet we do know things."

You appear to believe that you know a lot; but then, you believe many things.

"What you know, what is right, what is true, your philosophy of life. It does seem to make a difference to you. Am I right?"

Many things make a difference to me.

"If all we are is a bunch of unguided random material atoms banging around why is there such things as ethics and laws?"

Perhaps, because they are useful?

"If there is no ultimate purpose or meaning why are you on an 'On Faith' forum looking for some?"

What makes you believe that I am looking for ultimate purpose or meaning?

Perhaps I'm here because I can't afford to go to the Argument Clinic.

"Why is your purpose to engage RCofield or myself in a conversation on these issues?"

I think you meant to ask "What is your purpose in engaging RCofield...", or "Why are you engaging RCofield...".

And, again, do you have any idea what the Argument Clinic charges?

"What does it matter if nothing is knowable, nothing ultimately matters?"

Indeed.

"Why do you do it?"

Because it's there?

"Be honest with yourself, if you can."

Oh, you...

"Then how can you rule out the Christian position,..."

Because it is a childishly superstitious position.

"...and I believe I can show you have done this from previous posts as well as your next statement."

You believe many things.

"You have admitted your ignorance of it, so how can you rule it out?"

Because it is a childishly superstitious position.

"How can you rule out something that you don't understand?"

It is a childishly superstitious position.

"What world-view/s are you aware of?"

I keep hearing about a lot of superstitious ones.

PETER: "How well have you answered the deeply philosophical questions of life,..."

PSOLUS: "Actually, I haven't even attempted to."

PETER: Are you sure? I mean you find Darwin impressive.
--------------------

darwin IS NOT a philosopher!

oops...thought i finished that thought before submitting....

i said,
"you obfuscate about how jesus came here for this or that reason, not to reform..."

let me continue: ...not to reform society. or you bring up a different issue when you talk about "bondage of the mind" or "slavery to earthly pleasures" and so forth.

seems to me like jesus should have said something like while he was going on about being "slaves" to our sinful nature, he could have thrown in something abour actual slavery.

you ended with something about how "times have not changed."

absolutely they have: real physical actual slavery is now no longer acceptable, whereas it was so commonplace in jesus's day that he felt no need to comment on it - except to use it an object lesson or a vehicle for his parables.

and, since you asked, i am no longer a "slave" to cigarettes - though i often wish i were.

peter, pter peter... "enslaved to earthly pleasures.."?!?!?!

REAL slavery, please.

or are you saying jesus - the source of all moral thoughts - used slavery as a way of getting people to think about others....? any modern first-grader can tell you that's not fair.

omg...that's all you've got? that's the best idea god could come up? it's pretty ham-handed, no? actually, it's a pretty darned bad idea.... and why the change of heart of god's part? why was slavery fine and dandy in jesus's day, but not anymore?

you obfuscate about how jesus came here for this or that reason, not to reform

In fact Walter, in John 6:60 and onwards, Jesus is talking about Himself being the bread of life and that they must eat His body and drink of His blood to receive life. He is bringing to mind the Passover where they ate the lamb in haste for the journey and sprinkled the blood over the doorway and frame in order for the angel of death to passover them. But look what they did in the wilderness. They grumbled and though that they were worse off than they had been in Egypt. They grumbled at God's act of providence, just as they grumbled when Jesus brought the point home about eating His body and drinking His blood (John 6:53-58). Of course, the historical narrative in the flesh counted for nothing for the words Jesus spoke to them are spirit and they are life (John 6:63) and they come from the Spirit. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

On hearing these teachings of Jesus these Jews failed to listen or accept the message. Their pride and self-sufficiency were greater than the wisdom of God. How can that be? Well it can't, as much as they may have thought that they were wiser. The same lesson can be learned from our day and age, but the message is again not for the many. They are slaves to their sinful nature, just as the Israelites were slaves to theirs in the dessert. They too refused to believe God and go in and take the land that was promised to them. That generation never entered the Promise Land, only the few who had believed and heard the message. Times have not changed (Romans 10:3-21).

Walter, what are you doing up so late? (^8

I'll try to get to your post tomorrow night except to make comments on your one statement.

WALTER: "500-1500 years later, in the new testament, yahweh/jesus doesn't really (at all) advocate killing and/or conquering and/or enslaving anybody, adversaries. but when the NT does mention slavery it is taken for granted and regulated. but jesus still never bans slavery is bad."

Do you think Jesus sees slavery as a way of loving your neighbor or putting others before yourself? If He is telling us to love our neighbor and those who wrong us, how can He see slavery as a good thing?

He implies that we are slaves to whatever controls us (Luke 18:18-25; Matt. 6:21; Luke 12:34; Pr. 27:19), and that we cannot serve God who alone is worthy of our praise and service and also serve another master (Matthew 6:24).

He called His twelve disciples to follow Him and we are told on a number of occasions they left everything immediately to follow Him. Are you willing to do that or are you enslaved to earthly pleasures and your desires over His?

PART 2

The promise was that those who did give up all that binds them in following Him would be given so much more of what is important, not only in the present age, but also in the one to come (Luke 18:29-30)? By holding to His teachings they would prove to be true disciples and THEN they would know the truth and the truth would set them free (John 8:31-32).

Walter, are you willilng to do that or has something enslaved you to the basic principles of this earth?

He also said to His followers to count the cost, deny themselves and take up their cross and follow Him. On many occasions the many following Him turned away because His teachings were hard. Something else had control of their hearts for they never responded to His words of life (John 6:60-71). The many were enslaved to their old ways and were following Him for the wrong motives. When the going got tough and He exposed those motives their old master reared its ugly head and they departed from His company (John 6:60,66). They were following Him for the wrong reasons, thinking that He would take the kingdom by force from the Romans or supply them with physical needs (John 6:15, 26).

Jesus said what would it profit a man if he gained the whole world and yet forfeited his soul? Pleasure can be a slave that we cannot break free of. There are many more pleasures I could name some, such as sexual pleasures or gluttony - eating yourself into obesity. That can be a cruel slave to overcome. I've witnessed it in my family.

"The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's laws, nor can it do so [that is slavery]. Those controlled by the sinful nature [KJV = flesh] cannot please God. [That is slavery] (Romans 8:7-8)

No matter how much a person might try he could not live up to God's standards/laws/commandments. How many do you break every day Walter? For those who want to live by God's law, that is slavery, in not being able to do the very thing you want to do, as in the case of Paul. As Paul says, 'Who will rescue me from this body of death?' (Romans 7:24b) And then he gives the answer of the only One who can.

PS. As for physical additions, do you still smoke? Does it still have control of your mind or have you been able to free yourself from this habit because I know you waned to?

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "You speak only from a position of ignorance, and your own mindless, superstitious beliefs."

I believe it is you who is speaking from ignorance, as you have revealed in your September 14, 2010 8:25 AM post.

ME: "Is death the final curtain?"

PSOLUS: "I don't pretend to know, but it certainly appears that way."

If you don't pretend to know there is NO certainty in it. Your argument is from ignorance.

ME: "Does science have all the answers?"

PSOLUS: "I don't pretend to know, but it appears to me to have the questions that are worth asking."

Another argument from ignorance. How do you know the questions are worth asking?

ME: "Will tomorrow be like today or will things constantly fluctuate and change in as many unconceivable directs as there are stars in the heavens?"

PSOLUS: "We'll see tomorrow."

Again, you don't know. You are ignorant of what tomorrow will bring.

ME: "How much research have you done into the history of Christianity?"

PSOLUS: "None at all."

Point made again. You talk of things you know nothing of. Would you not consider such thinking ignorant then?

ME: "How many of the conservative scholars have you read and who are they?"

PSOLUS: "Don't know who you're talking about."

Ignorant again. You are basing your decision on your prejudice without looking into the other side of the matter.

ME: "How influenced are you by nineteenth century liberal higher critics?"

PSOLUS: "Don't know who you're talking about."

Do you think I have made my point yet?

But I am aware of your position. I have thought long and hard about it and I base my case not only on my experience and limited knowledge, but also on a higher authority than yours, in fact on the highest authority there is - God's Word.

ME: "...making up their own truths, just like PSolus...."

PSOLUS: "Name a single "truth" that I have made up."

You make up your own truths all the time, for instance, that you have no belief, believe nothing, that Christianity is a sham, and that last conclusion without examining the evidence, for you have admitted as much.

ME: "You need to draw up a list of what you can actually know is certain without an objective standard?"

PSOLUS: "Actually, I don't need to do that."

For any certainty you do. Think of what can you actually know if there is no objective standard. Can you know what is good or bad, right or wrong, true or false? And yet you live as though you do know, for you make judgments showing that there is an ethical basis to you after all.

PART 2

ME: "How influenced are you by Darwin and his train of thought?"

PSOLUS: "I'm impressed, especially considering that he lived and worked in the nineteenth century."

If you are impressed by him, then you must know something about him and his teachings, and ergo I bet he has influenced you greatly in how you look at things.

ME: "How well have you answered the deeply philosophical questions of life,..."

PSOLUS: "Actually, I haven't even attempted to."

Are you sure? I mean you find Darwin impressive.

You have to an extent in your existential nothingness philosophy. Something drove you to your nihilist position.

ME: "...such as why are we here,..."

PSOLUS: "I don't pretend to know."

Then don't rule out Christianity just because your parents or others turned you from it.

ME: "...how do we know,..."

PSOLUS: I don't know that we do know, let alone how."

For something to be known there must be a certainty somewhere, an objective ideal, an unchanging standard and reference - God. He is necessary, otherwise all you have is fluctuating human opinion. And yet we do know things.

ME: "...what difference does it make..."

PSOLUS: "What difference does what make?"

What you know, what is right, what is true, your philosophy of life. It does seem to make a difference to you. Am I right?

If all we are is a bunch of unguided random material atoms banging around why is there such things as ethics and laws? If there is no ultimate purpose or meaning why are you on an 'On Faith' forum looking for some? Why is your purpose to engage RCofield or myself in a conversation on these issues? What does it matter if nothing is knowable, nothing ultimately matters? Why do you do it? Be honest with yourself, if you can.

ME: "...and what happens when we die?"

PSOLUS: "I don't pretend to know."

Then how can you rule out the Christian position, and I believe I can show you have done this from previous posts as well as your next statement. You have admitted your ignorance of it, so how can you rule it out? How can you rule out something that you don't understand?

ME: "What world-view is able to answer such questions as these on meaning and purpose of life?"

PSOLUS: "None that I am aware of."

What world-view/s are you aware of?

PETER: "You fail to see that you are in slavery to whatever has you in bondage, whatever controls you and your mind, whether that is physical, mental, or both (John 8:34), and this is the point being made oh so often in the Testaments..."

WALTER: "oh god, seriously....peter. "...bondage...whatever controls your mind..."!!!"

PETER: Yes, seriously Walter, for an physical addiction is something that has control of your mind and body, just as an erroneous/faulty/untrue view of life controls and burdens a mind. Both are a bondage...."

NO NO NO! "physical addiction"? what? " "control of mind and body"?!? stop doing that. i'm just talking about slavery of the BODY... where one person owns another person....like a possession.

now, you suppose that god's morals are "eternal and objective and unchanging", but slavery is ALL over the old testament. yahweh brags about taking people as slaves (or killing them)...even pregnant ones...

500-1500 years later, in the new testament, yahweh/jesus doesn't really (at all) advocate killing and/or conquering and/or enslaving anybody, adversaries. but when the NT does mention slavery it is taken for granted and regulated. but jesus still never bans slavery is bad.

and of course for 1500-1800 years after jesus, slavery was pretty much ok with the church and hopefully they given sort of "geneva convention" level of treatment. it was possible to be a slave owner and a "good christian".

then, as rco points out, some christians, along with some rationalist/enlightenment thinkers, began to think more humanistically, empathetically, and see that slavery is inherently bad. so "good christians" can't have slaves anymore.

a similar thing has happened with "racism". until recently it was possible to be a racist and a "good christian". i think that's much much harder these days. same with "sexism". at my church women cannot vote in congregational meetings. all males over 21 (i think) get to vote, but no women get to vote.... unmarried women have no vote, and married women have to "share" a vote, hopefully, with her husband... seems weird and backward to me...but at least they're not required to wear hats in church(as paul would have them do).

seems kind of like relative, shifting, evolving morals to me. mind you, i think it's a good thing. i think they're evolving in the right direction. to keep them going that way, we must be vigilant and empathetic.

(please please please don't respond with something about mental slavery...)

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "peter,
give me a day or two to respond."

That is fine, take your time. Actually I'm interested to see where your discussion goes with RCofield on the slavery issue.

I do see a difference between a servant and a slave however in the case of Jesus' life. Jesus came to serve and give His life in service for others WILLINGLY. A slave, at least your idea of a slave, is of one who is owned by another and HAS to serve him because he is the helpless victim of someone who dominates him.

I don't think Paul uses the word in this latter context when he refers to himself as a slave or servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. He does use the language of your type of slavery at times, like when he says we have been brought with a price/purchased (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:22,23) and we are no longer our own, but the taskmaster is different from a human taskmaster. There is true freedom in serving God. His burden is light for He is gentle and humble in heart whereas human taskmasters are not usually so (Matthew 11:28-30).

Paul actually says,

"You were bought with a price; do not BECOME slaves of men." (vs 23)

But if that is the situation that you find yourself in then remain in it unless you can gain your freedom.

Jesus also says that "...a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it [God's family] forever. So if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed." (John 8:35-36)

PART 2

Galatians also expands on what is to be taken figuratively, the two women's positions of which one was a slave and the other free. Those of the first covenant are slaves to it because they cannot meet the standards of the law and they think they can earn them by their good works and their own merit. The second covenant represents those who are free, who have meet the fully standard of the law in Christ and abiding in Him.

"Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." (Galatians 4:21)

Does this teach slavery, Walter?

In fact, we are told "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance of the free woman's son." (Vs. 30)

Paul reminds the Galatians that in Christ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, SLAVE NOR FREE, male nor female, for you are all one in Christi Jesus." (3:28)

There is no distinction, we are all one. Why would a Christian make that distinction? Does not Paul say to Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother, not a slave? (Philemon 16)

Does Paul not say to treat others better than ourselves, echoing the very words of Jesus? (Romans 12:9-21, esp. 12:10 and 13:8,9) "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (13:10)

From such teachings and many more on loving your neighbor and doing what is best for him/her, does this not imply treating him/her as an equal or better, not submitting them to slavery, BUT freeing them from it. These are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more examples that can be referred to. They are what have been brought to mind for this occasion.

"Anyway, Christ won't return until the Gospel has been preached to all nations, and we still have a ways to go yet (though we have made remarkable progress, wouldn't you agree?) :-)"

well, i don't know. i think the gospel HAS been preached (just not embraced) in every country. is there a country where christians haven't proselytized?

oops, forgot about the second part:
"Those who commit atrocities in the name of Christianity do so in direct violation of the clear commandments of Jesus Christ."

yes. well, hitler was in clear violation of enlightenment principles.

rco,
what am i not responding to? - besides abortion, which i've already told you i'm not going there.

you mean this?
"The difference that the evolutionary law of “survival of the fittest,” red in tooth and claw, lends itself to such extremism. Those who commit atrocities in the name of Christianity do so in direct violation of the clear commandments of Jesus Christ."

"survival of the fittest" - in the way you
are conceiving it, with all that "tooth and claw" stuff - is not a model for theeory of government or politics.

but, IF we were to make a political metaphor, i would say that "fit" doesn't mean "strongest" or "fastest" or "meanest" or "most selfish" "most likely to clobber you over the head". it means most likely to reproduce. dictators, despots, kim jong-ils, and kingdoms are governments that are not likely to reproduce. as soon as the intense coersion of the state is removed, that kind of society falls apart. and for a society that has been democratic is really hard to "go back". "going back" can only be achieved with expensive coercive measures which are bound to sink the regime.

in this day and age of the internet and global communications it's even less likely places will "go back". you talk about china (or was it peter...)...china is better, i.e. freer and more respectful of human rights than 50 years ago.

anyway, is that what i didn't address?

WALTER,

WALT: "i found this kind of funny:"

RCO: "I fear that the aforementioned amalgamation of worldviews used in the formation of this great nation will be our undoing. The influence of the Deists built into our constitution a number of inherent weaknesses. If I don’t miss my guess, we are seeing our country begin to unravel as a result of these weaknesses."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You ARE selective in what you respond to, aren't you? Must be that "natural selection/survival" thing. :-)

Before you gleefully run too far down this road, let me assure you I am not part of the "Left Behind" pre-millennial crowd. Virtually none of that school of "non-thought" can be supported by scripture. And as a father and grandfather (and hopefully a great-grandfather eventually) I am in no great hurry for Christ to return. I intend, by the grace of God, to leave a legacy of godliness that extends to several generations. You atheists are not the only ones "teaching your children well."

Anyway, Christ won't return until the Gospel has been preached to all nations, and we still have a ways to go yet (though we have made remarkable progress, wouldn't you agree?) :-)

So...this single side-note is the only thing you found in that rather extensive post worthy of response? I think it is safe to say there is a pattern developing here. Rather than respond to the primary points raised you pick out something that is hardly more than an after-thought and ignore the rest.

I challenged you on the slavery issue thinking that you would eventually respond to the aforementioned post, but it appears you now only want to chase the "slavery" rabbit instead. This tactic (if it even is a tactic) is the reason Peter and yourself have been all over creation (his sentiment) in your discussions.

I know...I know...I'm being a "smart@$$." I'll oblige you on the slavery issue, but in the interest of having a meaningful discussion I think you should return the favor and address the issues I raise as well.

peter,
give me a day or two to respond.

rco,
i did see your 3-part post from sep12. i know you don't really think i'm a nazi because i understand the scientific theory of evolution.

as far as the enlightenment stuff, i think we're getting into that now, and i've addressed many ""enlightenment issues" w/peter.

i found this kind of funny:
"I fear that the aforementioned amalgamation of worldviews used in the formation of this great nation will be our undoing. The influence of the Deists built into our constitution a number of inherent weaknesses. If I don’t miss my guess, we are seeing our country begin to unravel as a result of these weaknesses."

well, cool! - it could "phase 2" or 3 whatever of jesus's long awaited end of the world.

people have been thinking they are living in horrible, amoral (possibly, hopefully, apocalyptic!) times for millenia. it's almost cliche - you know, "kids these days" and all.

there's a crazy, but really nice, guy from our literal fundamentalist church who sends out these "blast" emails where he writes about some aspect of christian theology. i got one the other day where he said he hopes the world ends really soon...

rco,
slavery is bad because i wouldn't want someone to make me a slave - because i'm entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ("servant" = "slave".)

here, jesus uses the institution of slavery to make a point about...well... something like doing what you know the boss wants or taking full advantage of resources or something. he totally misses out on a great chance to say, "don't have slaves!"

luke 12:
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

(that last part sounds a bit marxist/socialist/communist, no? - but that's another discussion...)

here paul tells slaves and masters to be good to each other, w/o at all broaching the idea that slavery itself is bad:

Ephesians 6:5-9:
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

ok, so, i'm curious to hear why jesus didn't say anything like "don't have slaves."

PETERHUFF,

These weren't addressed to me, but, just for grins:

"...making up their own truths, just like PSolus...."

Name a single "truth" that I have made up.

"You need to draw up a list of what you can actually know is certain without an objective standard?"

Actually, I don't need to do that.

"Is death the final curtain?"

I don't pretend to know, but it certainly appears that way.

"Does science have all the answers?"

I don't pretend to know, but it appears to me to have the questions that are worth asking.

"Will tomorrow be like today or will things constantly fluctuate and change in as many unconceivable directs as there are stars in the heavens?"

We'll see tomorrow.

"How much research have you done into the history of Christianity?"

None at all.

"How many of the conservative scholars have you read and who are they?"

Don't know who you're talking about.

"How influenced are you by nineteenth century liberal higher critics?"

Don't know who you're talking about.

"How influenced are you by Darwin and his train of thought?"

I'm impressed, especially considering that he lived and worked in the nineteenth century.

"How well have you answered the deeply philosophical questions of life,..."

Actually, I haven't even attempted to.

"...such as why are we here,..."

I don't pretend to know.

"...how do we know,..."

I don't know that we do know, let alone how.

"...what difference does it make..."

What difference does what make?

"...and what happens when we die?"

I don't pretend to know.

"What world-view is able to answer such questions as these on meaning and purpose of life?"

None that I am aware of.

rco, where the hell do you get this idea about enlightenment thinkers and slavery?:
"And apparently NONE of them came down on the "right" side of this issue."

Under the banner of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the French Enlightenment philosophes, Encyclopédistes, and liberal economists managed to effectively criticize proslavery economic policy of the French government. The philosophes, armed with arguments from reason, morality, and satire, propagated a liberal social and economic ideal despite the general indifference toward slavery as a normal institution and despite the French government's profitable vested interests in its colonial slave trade. The two decades from 1748–1765 saw the first phase of the philosophes' attack against slavery: 1748 seeing the publication of the philosophe Montesquieu's L'Esprit des lois, 1751–1765 seeing the appearance of those volumes of the Encyclopédie crucial to the themes of slavery and liberty.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=910&chapter=99927&layout=html&Itemid=27

so, many (not NONE) enlightenment thinkers opposed slavery. and as far as i can tell, it was montesqueiu, voltaire, rousseau, diderot, along w/quakers and mennonites who had to drag "great awakening" mainstream (southern) christians thinkers like george whitehead kicking and screaming into the post-slavery age.

Hi Walter,

peter, you said,
"You fail to see that you are in slavery to whatever has you in bondage, whatever controls you and your mind, whether that is physical, mental, or both (John 8:34), and this is the point being made oh so often in the Testaments..."

WALTER: "oh god, seriously....peter. "...bondage...whatever controls your mind..."!!!"

Yes, seriously Walter, for an physical addiction is something that has control of your mind and body, just as an erroneous/faulty/untrue view of life controls and burdens a mind. Both are a bondage in that the one is a burden manifests itself physically and you cannot shake it, while the other is a bondage in that you do not see life as it really is. You live in a delusion, as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris would say in all their wisdom.

WALTER: "i mean REAL actual physical bodily slavery. are you saying god was teaching us a lesson by letting people be real, actual physical bodily slaves... how nice for us... sheesh."

It is what life is when man thinks he controls his destiny - slavery. It was man in the first place who thought he knew better than God. Look at the world around you and man's inhumanity to man. He imposes his false beliefs on others, each man his own idol, an idol being anything that is false.

You have such a rosy picture of mankind, in that you feel that man is capable of evolving to that higher plateau outside of God. You forget that your UDHR's are not shared by most of the world. Chine, the most populous nation, has its own agenda, as do the Muslims and the American's, or India and Pakistan, and the national interests of all nations that put their peoples of the utmost priority. And then you have splinter groups within these nations that in turn push for their own self-interests and agendas, and so on down the line it goes.

China is just starting to flex her military might now. America is so lost in relativism and postmodernism that people are making up their own truths, just like PSolus or you do. There is no standard higher than each persons human reason or irrationality, or so it is thought. You are your highest authority, as I have said many times before. You seem to think that you can figure this out by using your own ability as the ultimate benchmark.

I remind you again that truth is objective and it is universal. Truth can never be false. You have yet to show that it is so from your subjective world-view.

PART 1

WALTER: "peter, you said,
"Christians have that objective standard. We KNOW what is good..."

WALTER: "well, i'll grant that you all THINK you've got the objective standard, and w/in your (false) world view i can see how/why you'd think that."

Walter, that standard is God. He is THE necessary standard for objectivity, for truth, on the impossibility of the contrary and you have yet to show me anything to the contrary of that position.

You need to draw up a list of what you can actually know is certain without an objective standard? Is death the final curtain? Does science have all the answers? Will tomorrow be like today or will things constantly fluctuate and change in as many unconceivable directs as there are stars in the heavens?

You are asking all these questions, but first take inventory of your own world-view and see where it leads you and what kind of hope it offers.

Again Walter, think about it. Use the mind God has given you, humble yourself and ask for His guidance.

PART 2

WALTER: "funny thing is there are hundreds/thousands of different versions (religions) of these "objective" standards. that very fact proves they are not objective. i mean, seriously, if they were objective, it would not be a matter of opinion, right?"

That is true Walter, but where you find true contradiction you find that all truth claims are not equal. Christianity is miles above any other in truthfulness. How much research have you done into the history of Christianity? How many of the conservative scholars have you read and who are they? How influenced are you by nineteenth century liberal higher critics? How influenced are you by Darwin and his train of thought? How well have you answered the deeply philosophical questions of life, such as why are we here, how do we know, what difference does it make and what happens when we die? What world-view is able to answer such questions as these on meaning and purpose of life?

No, it is true what the Bible says about the unbeliever - they suppress the truth of God and exchange that truth for a lie.

WALTER: "IF you have magically picked the right version of god, at least you've got to admit that he's a terrible communicator. i mean, we've been killing ourselves over misunderstandings (i suppose) about him for millenia now..."

No He is a most fantastic Communicator. He is patient and kind towards His children. Your world-view will not let you listen to what it is that He is saying. Your heart is hard and you won't humble yourself and ask Him to confirm His word, the Word that is Spirit and is life. (John 6:63)

WALTER: "i keep mentioning this, but you keep right on assuming you've got the right version. i mean what are the odds? of all the gods all the people have experienced over the millennia, you are arrogant enough to say you got the right one? i'm sure muslims and jews and baalists and [insert religion here] have a different opinion."

Again, gods are man made idols, whereas Jesus Christ is the one true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20-21).

It is a matter of what or whom you place your highest authority in, is it not? Yours is in a relative standard. It has to be because everything you know changes or is subject to change. You don't know what the future holds or even if it will be like the past.

The problem Walter is that you want God to play by your rules and you want to be as God and be the judge whereas in fact it is the other way around. It is a problem of pride and self-sufficiency, the same problem that manifested itself in the Garden of Eden. You keep saying that God should play by your rules, as if the Creator is obligated to play by your relative standard. He has graciously given you life and breath and everything else and you want to play by whose rules?

"Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (Romans 9:20)

WALTER,

Did you see my 3 part post to you below beginning @ September 12, 2010 8:58 PM?

WALTER,

This (from my previous post) went unanswered and unacknowledged:

RCO: "My point here is that you seem much enamored with the "Enlightenment" as opposed to Christianity. My question is: Where were all the supposedly "enlightened" deists/agnostics/atheists/darwinists at in the effort to abolish the slave trade?"

Hmmmmmm......

WALTER,

"surely you know what the slavery verses are."

Yes, I do. I just don't know which ones YOU are referring to.

"are you just giving me some kind of assignment?"

Not at all. You have stated an argument. I am just asking you to support it.

"tell you what: i'll do this if you'll find me a jesus verse with the sentiment, "slavery is wrong.""

Ok. But so that I can post relevant passages, I will need you to define what about slavery you view as wrong. There were at least 3 different types of slavery that were common during the lifetime of Christ. I need to know which one you are referring to.

rco,
"OK. You are speaking in rather broad, general terms here. So...let's get specific. Why don't you first define what is wrong with slavery in your view. Then, as you refer to Jesus' "talking" about slavery, post a few of these passages."

surely you know what the slavery verses are. are you just giving me some kind of assignment?

tell you what: i'll do this if you'll find me a jesus verse with the sentiment, "slavery is wrong."

WALTER,

"well, no, he (Jesus) wasn't pro-slavery... and he wasn't anti-slavery....but his teachings certainly DON'T PRECLUDE slavey...

paul (inspired by jesus?!) talks about how slaves and masters should be nicer to each other. jesus talked about how fair and equitable punishment for slaves should be commensurate with their offenses. all of that assumes, not precludes, slavery...

don't you think that's disappointing? it seems like jesus didn't really notice slavery as anything horrible - it's just the way things were.... don't you think god himself could have bothered to say "slavery is bad - christians should never own slaves.""
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK. You are speaking in rather broad, general terms here. So...let's get specific. Why don't you first define what is wrong with slavery in your view. Then, as you refer to Jesus' "talking" about slavery, post a few of these passages.

Let's see if your case holds up under scrutiny.

WALT: "as for christians abolishing slavery, you know who all abolitionists (christian and otherwise) had to fight tooth and nail: christians quoting bible verses."

My point here is that you seem much enamored with the "Enlightenment" as opposed to Christianity. My question is: Where were all the supposedly "enlightened" deists/agnostics/atheists/darwinists at in the effort to abolish the slave trade?

I can find no evidence that "Enlightenment" proponents were instrumental in this effort at all.

I don't think you have nearly the case on slavery that you seem to think you have. Given that Christians were almost solely responsible for the abolishing the slave trade industry (with little or no help from "your side of the table") I would think you would be slightly embarrassed by your Enlightenment predecessors' lack of involvement.

You are aware that many of them had to be "fought tooth and nail" as well, right? And apparently NONE of them came down on the "right" side of this issue.

So why all the chest-thumping?

WALTER,

"HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!"

That was a nail-bitter, wasn't it?!

"(or, being a darwinist nazi, should i say "heil"?)"

Did you see my 3 part post to you below beginning @ September 12, 2010 8:58 PM?

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "(one COULD make the case that jesus didn't bother to reform slavery because he thought "the end is near"... mk13, mt24, lu21...)"

I would suggest that you read R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus.

http://bible.org/article/last-days-according-jesus

This book gives evidence that the end times, the end of the age, that Jesus speaks about was fulfilled by 'this' generation that lived in the first century. If you want I can go into it more with you, but we have already been there.

peter, you said,
"You fail to see that you are in slavery to whatever has you in bondage, whatever controls you and your mind, whether that is physical, mental, or both (John 8:34), and this is the point being made oh so often in the Testaments. There is a moral lesson in slavery taught throughout the history of the Bible. We have broken God's good standard and are no longer capable of living free by it because each person outside of Christ is a subjective relativist determining his own 'good' standard."

oh god, seriously....peter. "...bondage...whatever controls your mind..."!!!

i mean REAL actual physical bodily slavery. are you saying god was teaching us a lesson by letting people be real, actual physical bodily slaves... how nice for us... sheesh.

peter, you said,
"Christians have that objective standard. We KNOW what is good..."

well, i'll grant that you all THINK you've got the objective standard, and w/in your (false) world view i can see how/why you'd think that. funny thing is there are hundreds/thousands of different versions (religions) of these "objective" standards. that very fact proves they are not objective. i mean, seriously, if they were objective, it would not be a matter of opinion, right?

IF you have magically picked the right version of god, at least you've got to admit that he's a terrible communicator. i mean, we've been killing ourselves over misunderstandings (i suppose) about him for millenia now...

i keep mentioning this, but you keep right on assuming you've got the right version. i mean what are the odds? of all the gods all the people have experienced over the millennia, you are arrogant enough to say you got the right one? i'm sure muslims and jews and baalists and [insert religion here] have a different opinion.

PETERHUFF,

"She was pro-life at that point in time that she learned of her pregnancy, for she gave you the thumbs up!!!"

You don't know that; you simply don't have the necessary intelligence to realize that you don't know that.

"That is pro-life."

Again, you don't know that; you simply don't have the necessary intelligence to realize that you don't know that.

"You were not aborted."

Apparently not.

"You were given the chance to grow in your humanity. You were not murdered."

Now you're getting hysterical; do try to unbunch your little panties.

"You are still alive, just as you were in her womb."

Once again, you don't know that; you have simply deluded yourself into believing that you know that.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

At the time that I was born, it was difficult, if not impossible, for most women to terminate their own pregnancies, mostly because of ignorant, superstitious men like you, who have deluded themselves into thinking that they know what their imaginary magical gods want them to do, be it preventing people from getting the medical care that they need, or burning their fellow believers' books of fairy tales.

You speak only from a position of ignorance, and your own mindless, superstitious beliefs.

peter,
i'll get to your comments as time permits.

RCO said: "One man is historically credited with virtually single-handedly abolishing the slave trade industry in the Western Hemisphere."

WALT: "was it jesus? what changed?"

RCO: You seem to want to portray Jesus as being pro-slavery, yet any number of His teachings necessarily preclude the abuses of slavery to which you object.
---------------------

well, no, he wasn't pro-slavery... and he wasn't anti-slavery....but his teachings certainly DON'T PRECLUDE slavey...

paul (inspired by jesus?!) talks about how slaves and masters should be nicer to each other. jesus talked about how fair and equitable punishment for slaves should be commensurate with their offenses. all of that assumes, not precludes, slavery...

don't you think that's disappointing? it seems like jesus didn't really notice slavery as anything horrible - it's just the way things were.... don't you think god himself could have bothered to say "slavery is bad - christians should never own slaves."

(one COULD make the case that jesus didn't bother to reform slavery because he thought "the end is near"... mk13, mt24, lu21...)

really, my larger point is about evolving morals. it's much harder for me to find "bad" slavery verses in the new testament than in the old testament. the old testament is full of slavery (and all kinds of bad "isms"). the new testament is much better. there are no "kill the infidel" verses in the new testament.

an outsider like me could easily make the case that god grew up a bit between the old and new testaments.... (really, it's just that the human authors' morality had evolved a bit.)

as for christians abolishing slavery, you know who all abolitionists (christian and otherwise) had to fight tooth and nail: christians quoting bible verses.

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!
(or, being a darwinist nazi, should i say "heil"?)

Hi PSolus,

RCO: "You weren't aborted, were you?"

PSOLUS: "No, but that does not necessarily mean that my mother was pro-life, or that she was not pro-choice, for that matter."

She was pro-life at that point in time that she learned of her pregnancy, for she gave you the thumbs up!!! That is pro-life. You were not aborted. You were given the chance to grow in your humanity. You were not murdered. You are still alive, just as you were in her womb.

Hi Walter,

PART 1A (Sorry, I didn't realize that dividing my thoughts into three parts was not enough, thus the expansion of 1A and B)

ME: "History is a story of the conquerers making the vanquished slaves. And you are yourself a slave to your world-view. It is not physical but a conceptual slavery."

WALTER: "big big big difference btwn "conceptual" and actual "physical" slavery. yes in real actual physical history people USED TO take slaves and kill conquered people. even in jesus's time and for centuries afterward. even in the "christian world". you never/rarely see that anymore."

You fail to see that you are in slavery to whatever has you in bondage, whatever controls you and your mind, whether that is physical, mental, or both (John 8:34), and this is the point being made oh so often in the Testaments. There is a moral lesson in slavery taught throughout the history of the Bible. We have broken God's good standard and are no longer capable of living free by it because each person outside of Christ is a subjective relativist determining his own 'good' standard.

These people, who were under the law, did not realize their slavery to the law in that unless they met every measure of its good command they were under its yoke and answerable to God.

Jesus Christ set us free from the curse or penalty of the law by taking the condemnation that was rightly ours and by fulfilling its every requirement on our behalf (Romans 8:1), giving us positionally as well as relationally (with a new nature) the ability to meet its requirements, in Him.

PART 1B

What is more, all those lessons in the OT about man's slavery to his fallen nature by actual historical references or histories are always pointing to a better way, and that way is Christ who has set us, who believe in His merit, free from the penalty of the law, free from establishing 'good' by our own subjective standards and then trying to live by them to gain merit by what we have done. 'Look at me. See how good I am!' But all along the motive is wrong.

Hence, the NT teaches a freedom from our wrongful actions done by the old nature that was crucified on the cross with Christ, and the change that comes from the new nature in its openness and desire to receive the things of God, the things that are spiritually discerned and are taught by the Spirit Himself, through the Word of God.

It was passages like Philemon 8-20 or the Golden Rule that teach us to treat others with the same respect we treat ourselves and even better, to go the whole nine yards for them, or maybe even a mile. (^8

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. THERE IS NEITHER Jew nor Greek, SLAVE NOR FREE, male nor female, for you are ALL ONE IN CHRIST." (Galatians 3:26-28 and ensuing Scriptures).

"Formally, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." (Galatians 4:8)

"So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of this world...." (Galatians 4:3)

Christians grow into the understanding of their sonship in Christ as to what that adoption into His family really means. As young children we do not fully understand it, but as we mature (if we do) the Spirit brings us understanding into all the whats Christ has set us free from.

PART 1

WALTER: "everyone knows it's wrong to own slaves. this is a HUMANIST idea. i don't really know if that's technically "humanism", but it's the idea that we owe it to each other, to humans, to be good. good could be thought of as god.... almost the same word, right? i concede it's a bit "harder" w/o god watching and keeping score..."

Without God good is the flavor of the month, the social convention that your particular group happens to find itself setting. As RCofield has pointed out, when humanism has been taken to its radical extreme you have a lot worse that the biblical idea of slavery (outside of war) in which a man became indebted to another and agreed to pay off the debt or support his family by becoming his slave. After seven years the man was freed from his debt.

We have a similar kind of principle at work today in the relationship between an employee and employer in that we enslave ourselves to performing what is required by the employer in order to make ends meet.

PART 2

PETER: "And the very concepts of UDHR are Christian in nature. You are borrowing from our standards."

WALTER: "it might seem like that to you, it's really the other way around. or...if you prefer...humanism AND christianity "tap" that same "do unto others" idea."

No, a shifting or relative standard has not made a standard that is morally binding to all people. But as creatures of God who have that innate sense of right and wrong that so many suppress, as you do in your denial of God, Christians have that objective standard. We KNOW what is good, we don't make it up to suit our group or convention or to control the power game.

The point to be made is that the ideal is God, and in principle the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself, which follows the first - love God with all your heart, mind, body and soul. What Jesus was doing here is summarizing the Ten Commandments. The first four are concerned with our relationship with God and the next six are concerned with our relationship with men. They are a product of love that we treat others with the deepest respect in not breaking these commands, for every human is made in the image and likeness of God, no matter how much he has disfigured himself by ignoring God.

WALTER: "i really think that's all you need. there are many humanist ideas in christianity. when jesus said "what you do to the least of these you do to me" - that's a humanist idea. the good samaritan is a humanist story. jesus expressed those ideas, but he didn't "make them up"."

No, you have it backwards. Its a God idea that has been adopted by some humanists and religionists, but very unsuccessfully in most cases.

WALTER: "...so that's [abolishing slavery, sexism, racism] an example of "changing" as being a GOOD thing. see? our concepts about fairness and freedom and equality EVOLVED."

That is just the point. In your world-view they were not always considered good. You claim they evolved and there is no guarantee that they will continue to evolve in this upward trend.

PART 3

PETER:"'Good' by the fluctuating standard that you perceive as good at this moment. And again, who are you to determine what 'good' is in a relative world? Why is your standard the 'good' standard and not that of the Mule? As a relativist he thought his was good."
-------------

WALTER: "don't you think "no slavery" is a good thing? i'll gosh darn bet ya 90% of the world thinks it's a good thing."

Yes, I do think no slavery is a good thing because God has revealed that to love your neighbor and treat him well is a good thing, not because of some humanists fluctuating standards that change with the whether - one minute good, the next bad again.

You have yet to show that this evolving higher standard will remain so because history, up to this point, has a dismal record in mans inhumanity to man. (The humanist did not retain the knowledge of God but suppressed the truth of God and bought into the lie - deny, deny, deny - Romans 1:18 onwards)

WALTER: "that's WAY WAY more than the percent of people who derive their morality from the "fixed standard" of the bible."

You mistake the actions that people make as something that the Bible teaches, but the fact of the matter is that we can both point to cases that we see varying for the standard in each world-view. It is just that yours is not fixed, ours is, and you constantly buy into our standard in the promotion of what is good without any solid defense as to why it 'ought' to be so in an evolving world that is constantly changing.

I can point to as many abnormalities of the 'good' in your humanist manifesto, and the way it has been lived by those who espouse no god, maybe more, but the point is why 'ought' it be so, not why it 'is'.

WALTER: "(why do you think jesus didn't bother to say, "no slavery"...?)"

If you followed His teaching you would always strive to love and put your fellow man above your own needs and wants, for that is what He taught. As such, by implication slavery is not the ideal. The thing is that outside of you being 'in Him' it is impossible to live, for He lives through you and you are dependent on Him.

WALTER: "i haven't read that azimov thing, so i don't know what "mutation" you're talking about... "

The Mutant was a being hell bent on ruling the universe according to his rules, just as the militant atheist is hell bent on living life according to the rules he is trying to enforce, which is his relative standard on the rest of society (He is intolerance toward Christianity and religion in general. I'm thinking of the Four Horsemen who act as their own god, determining their own 'oughts' as they see fit - its a power game).

RCofield, you mention Dr. Peter Singer. Now he is a fine piece of work, isn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA&feature=related

RCOFIELD,

"You weren't aborted, were you?"

No, but that does not necessarily mean that my mother was pro-life, or that she was not pro-choice, for that matter.

Most pro-choice women choose to, or are forced to, bring their pregnancies to term, and some pro-life women choose to terminate their pregnancies, if they have the means to do so.

"Or are you posting on this thread from an alternate reality....Come to think of it that might explain the content of your dialogue. :-)"

Well crafted.

"Were YOU a fetus before you became a child?"

I was almost certainly born as a child; that child was a fetus in my mother's uterus before the child was born.

When, exactly, that I came into existence as a human being, I do not pretend to know.

I have no memories previous to when I was about four or five years old, so I can't be certain of what happened up to that time.

RCOFIELD,

"Though I can't speak for Peter, I would guess the wildly inconsistent dichotomy you make between fetus/child."

I'm guessing that anything that you are unable or unwilling to believe is a "wildly inconsistent dichotomy".

Also, I did not realize that I had such power over your and PETERHUFF's thinking.

I will try to use it responsibly.

RCOFIELD,

"You "pretend" to be pretty certain it doesn't start before birth."

Wrong again; at best, that is simply something that you have inferred.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Of course, the one bright spot in all of this for you is the fact that your mother was pro-life."

PSOLUS: "How do you know that this is true? Or, do you simply believe it to be true?"

RCO: You weren't aborted, were you? Or are you posting on this thread from an alternate reality....Come to think of it that might explain the content of your dialogue. :-)

Were YOU a fetus before you became a child?

PSOLUS,

PETERHUFF: "If it was taken out of the mothers womb (cesarean birth) at seven months unnaturally, and lived, instead of nine months naturally, and lived, why is it any less human inside as opposed to outside or at seven instead of nine months?"

PSOLUS: "What makes you think of such a thing?"

RCO: Though I can't speak for Peter, I would guess the wildly inconsistent dichotomy you make between fetus/child.

WALTER,

RCO said: "One man is historically credited with virtually single-handedly abolishing the slave trade industry in the Western Hemisphere."

WALT: "was it jesus? what changed?"

RCO: You seem to want to portray Jesus as being pro-slavery, yet any number of His teachings necessarily preclude the abuses of slavery to which you object.

...And I did say the Western Hemisphere....

Google William Wilberforce, but don't limit your research to the ever-popular but often inaccurate "wikipedia."

PSOLUS,

PETERHUFF: "How do you know where humanness starts?"

PSOLUS: "I don't pretend to know that."

RCO: You "pretend" to be pretty certain it doesn't start before birth.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

WALT: "cultural chromosome" is a metaphor. you guys take everything literally (except mt24...) there is no ACTUAL chromosome, there is no actual "religion gene", etc...it is a bit like that meme concept - which is just a concept...”

RCO: Well, I’ll say it again. Peter and I are not taking your “cultural chromosome” concept “literally.” It is you who are taking the presumed principles (concepts, if you prefer) of evolution and applying them to society, claiming that we are "evolving" socially. The cross-pollination of evolutionary concepts into social constructs has a sobering history of violence.

Further, when leading proponents of your particular brand of Enlightenment Atheism/Darwinism/Anti-theism are writing entire books stating that Christians are “delusional” and have “a mind-virus” (Dawkins) and that Christianity “should be abandoned altogether” (Dennett) and that Christianity is “evil” and should be “eradicated altogether” (Harris)….well, you will just have to excuse me for calling your “metaphors” into question.

WALT: “as far as social darwinism....ooooooh ....scary.... just because evolution explains how breeding works, doesn't mean we HAVE to breed people. we can choose not to. it certainly doesn't mean darwin endorsed anything like the racism or genocide. just because einstein formulated e = m(c^2) doesn't mean he wanted to bomb everybody with nuclear weapons.”

RCO: Yet….you support a woman’s “right” to abort her child….a practice that is without question influenced by Social Darwinism and even racism and genocide. Lest you become unnerved again by my raising this issue, may I remind you that I only raise it to demonstrate to you the dangers of your belief that morality is a subjective construct. Despite your contention that murder is morally wrong, you don’t think that it is unilaterally wrong because you make an exception in the case of some abortions.

You raise the banner of the UDHR, yet the UDHR does not extend to the child in the womb. The UDHR is utilitarian in nature, and Dr. Peter Singer (professor of bioethics at Princeton University) is a leading utilitarian who contends that infanticide is not murder because a child is not human until they are self-aware (3-4 years old?). Additionally, he contends that euthanasia is not murder. When individuals like yourself begin defending such evolutionary/utilitarian worldviews (whether out of ignorance or not) you can bet your boots there will be those of us who will raise a red flag and point to the horrific abuses that this kind of thinking has produced in the past.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 3

WALT: “and certainly, just because i believe the science of biological evolution best explains the diversity (and unity) of life, doesn't i'm a nazi, or i support nazis or i'm logically required to defend hitler.”

RCO: (LOL!) I certainly don’t think you are a Nazi. I am just pointing out that your embrace of subjective morality leaves the door wide open for such abuses.

WALT: “surely you understand that hitler is not the first horrible person in history who sought to extinguish whatever group of "other" people or who thought his particular group of people was better. hitler just found justification in evolution - the way others have found justification in religionism, nationalism or whatever straw they could grasp. actually, come to think of it, the old testament strikes me as a very racist book. there are different rules for hebrews slaves and non-hebrew slaves. (this is wrong, as my daughter says, "on so many levels".) ugly exclusive thinking has been around since long long long before Darwin.”

RCO: The difference that the evolutionary law of “survival of the fittest,” red in tooth and claw, lends itself to such extremism. Those who commit atrocities in the name of Christianity do so in direct violation of the clear commandments of Jesus Christ. And your conclusions about the Old Testament are influenced by the anti-theistic glasses you read it with. Sound exegetical interpretation of the text will refute your conclusions every time (just as with Exodus 21).

WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

WALT: “in fact, the kind of restricted inbreeding that hitler imagined (much like that moses, and david imagined) would lead to genetic problems.”

RCO: (LOL) I gotta give you one thing. You are nothing if not consistent with your wild interpretations of the bible.

WALT: “the enlightenment produced the united states and freedom of religion. good ideas, no?”

RCO: I have watched with interest the exchange between you and Peter on this issue. I don’t see America as having been established as a purely Christian nation, nor was it established purely as a product of the Enlightenment. The founding of our nation was more an amalgamation of Calvinian/Puritain Protestantism (Christian) and Deism (product of Enlightenment). It should be noted that history clearly demonstrates that the Christian influence was more prevalent than the influence of Deism…and that Deism is certainly not secularism, nor is it atheism as you seem wont to contend.

Either way, Christianity has never been dependent upon the government of a nation for its existence, for Christ said he would build his church and the very powers of hell would never prevail against it. However, I do find it interesting that you take Peter to task for contending that this nation was formed on the basis of his Christian worldview and then turn around claim it was founded on the basis of YOUR Enlightenment/Atheistic worldview. If you see his worldview as “needy” and “dependent” for desiring predominance in the government of this nation, what does that make your worldview?

That having been said, I fear that the aforementioned amalgamation of worldviews used in the formation of this great nation will be our undoing. The influence of the Deists built into our constitution a number of inherent weaknesses. If I don’t miss my guess, we are seeing our country begin to unravel as a result of these weaknesses. I do hope I am wrong.

And the “Enlightenment” was certainly not without its own particularly vicious brand of blood-letting—i.e. the “Reign of Terror” in France, which was, to no small degree, directed at Christianity.

"One man is historically credited with virtually single-handedly abolishing the slave trade industry in the Western Hemisphere."

was it jesus?

what changed?

PETERHUFF,

"Yes - credible, true, ultimate, absolute, certain answers."

Perhaps to you, but not to me.

[Miscellaneous god-speak, bible-speak, absolute-truth-speak, etc. here.]

Mere beliefs, not worth addressing.

"How do you know where humanness starts?"

I don't pretend to know that.

PETERHUFF

"You are trying to be consistent with your world-view, but it doesn't work because your world-view doesn't work and is not consistent but self refuting.

My view is that women have the right to terminate their own pregnancies; women have that right in most civilized countries of the world.

"For instance, how can a baby be thought of as a fetus one minute before birth and a human one minute after birth?"

A baby can be thought of as anything that the thinker wishes, but a baby is not a fetus.

"If it was taken out of the mothers womb (cesarean birth) at seven months unnaturally, and lived, instead of nine months naturally, and lived, why is it any less human inside as opposed to outside or at seven instead of nine months?"

What makes you think of such a thing?

"Have you answered these questions, or do you make a game of everything in life and reduce all meaning and purpose to nothingness?"

I have no need to answer all of your questions, yes, I try to make a game of most things in life, and, no, I simply do not have the power to reduce all meaning and purpose to nothingness.

"You can reduce ethics to games..."

That entire paragraph is crying out to be rewritten.

"But the Christian does have a message of the greatest importance,..."

Here we go...

"...your view has resulted in roughly 800 million murdered worldwide since 1920."

My views today have affected events for the past 90 years?

Are my views that powerful?

"Of course, the one bright spot in all of this for you is the fact that your mother was pro-life."

How do you know that this is true? Or, do you simply believe it to be true?

"I became a grandfather recently...."

Are you sure that you are not confusing appearance with reality?

"You will never convince a mother or father (or grandfather, for that matter) ... that the “fetus” in the womb is not a child."

I have no need to.

"But then, of course, the fact that you are convinced is the only thing that matters to you…..and I am sure reality will adjust itself unilaterally and the universe will totally re-calibrate itself to accommodate your pithily established point of view."

Once again, you are wrong.

WALTER,

WALT: "well, as i noted, jesus didn't "ban" slavery, so we're lucky humans later decided to."

You have raised the issue of slavery in this manner several times. This betrays your lack of historical knowledge on this issue.

One man is historically credited with virtually single-handedly abolishing the slave trade industry in the Western Hemisphere. Do you have any idea who this man was? More to the point, do you have any knowledge of what worldview motivated him to dedicate most of his life to the abolishment of the slave trade?

PSOLUS,

PSO: A child that does not exist does not have the right to exist.

RCO: "Precisely when does a child begin to "exist?""

PSO: When he or she is born.

RCO: And what is he or she one minute before birth?

PSO: A fetus

RCO: Define "exist."

PSO: EXIST: to have actual being; to have life or animation; live. (from dictionary reference.com)

RCO: So...a child does not have "actual being"..."life"...or "animation" one minute before it is born?

PSO: Again, a child cannot exist one minute before he or she is born, just as that child cannot exist one year before he or she is born.

RCO: So a fetus is never a child and a child is never a fetus?

PSO: That is correct: A fetus is not a child; a child is not a fetus.

RCO: Have you ever seen a 3D ultrasound?

PSO: I don't own any 3D glasses, so I'm guessing no.

RCO: Does a fetus have the right to exist?

PSO: Not that I am aware of.

RCO: I think any objective reader of your posts can see that you are playing a rather childish game of semantics to justify the slaughter of unborn children.

Godwin’s Law notwithstanding, this is precisely the kind of thinking that resulted in the wholesale annihilation of 6 million Jews. They weren’t really human; therefore their extermination was not murder. In your view “fetuses” are not human; therefore their extermination is not murder. The only difference between your view on abortion and Hitler’s view of Jews is the numbers: Hitler’s view resulted in 6 million murdered; your view has resulted in roughly 800 million murdered worldwide since 1920.

Of course, the one bright spot in all of this for you is the fact that your mother was pro-life.

I became a grandfather recently. During the course of my daughter’s pregnancy we had the privilege of seeing several 3D ultrasounds of my unborn granddaughter. Each of them clearly demonstrated the presence of a child in my daughter’s womb, replete with all the features of a child, including facial expressions and a few kicks in response to the probing of the ultrasound wand.

You will never convince a mother or father (or grandfather, for that matter) who has had the privilege of witnessing such an ultrasound that the “fetus” in the womb is not a child.

But then, of course, the fact that you are convinced is the only thing that matters to you…..and I am sure reality will adjust itself unilaterally and the universe will totally re-calibrate itself to accommodate your pithily established point of view.

Hi Psolus,

You are trying to be consistent with your world-view, but it doesn't work because your world-view doesn't work and is not consistent but self refuting. I believe that most people will see through your charade, your act, the game you play, the deception you are caught in.

PSOLUS: "What is an "unborn child"?"

One that has not been born yet; a being that is in the mother's womb.

ME: "You need to think about this more."

PSOLUS: "How much have I thought about it so far?"

I don't know, but not enough to discern any truth from your position.

PSOLUS: "At what point will I have thought about it to your satisfaction?"

When you think about it logically. For instance, how can a baby be thought of as a fetus one minute before birth and a human one minute after birth? If it was taken out of the mothers womb (cesarean birth) at seven months unnaturally, and lived, instead of nine months naturally, and lived, why is it any less human inside as opposed to outside or at seven instead of nine months? Have you answered these questions, or do you make a game of everything in life and reduce all meaning and purpose to nothingness?

You can reduce ethics to games until it becomes personal, then it matters to you. When someone tells you to hand over your wallet or they will shoot you, then the issues of relativism (i.e., truth is whatever you make it) become meaningful, then the issue takes on purpose. When someone cuts in front of you in a line you think to yourself that this person has not acted ethically or with regard to anyone but him/herself. Then some things actually do matter. And this is where your world-view betrays you, for you can't live by it consistently. You keep borrowing from the Christian world-view where things actually do matter, where they do mean something, where the actions are not nothing after all, but something. Meaning does matter. If it did not you would not be trying to promote your position over mine, or showing how clever your wit is.

But the Christian does have a message of the greatest importance, for God has revealed it through His Word, Son and Spirit. It is a matter of life and death ultimately.

PART 2

PSOLUS: "If I were to agree with your beliefs, will I then have thought about it enough?"

Not necessarily, for as I said before, your deepest base beliefs, your foundation, the core that everything rests on, your filter in which you look at the world through, is usually something that stops you from seeing what is true, what is actual, what is correct. The reason it stops you is because those base belief are non-negotiable or else they would not be your basis.

But if you don't understand my beliefs I contend you have not thought the issue through thoroughly.

ME: "Your thoughts are tangled in illogical and irrational philosophy much of the time."

PSOLUS: "You know my thoughts, do you? Can you list my thoughts for today?"

Only what you have revealed through your correspondence, what you have put down in your posts.

But I learned a long time ago, that, as a man thinks, so he is. What comes out of your mouth reveals what is in your heart or mind. Also you can learn much about a person by finding out who has influenced them. Ideas don't happen in a vacuum. They are tried and tested by the reason and ability to think through the issues in many cases.

But your core beliefs, just like mine, are something you take by faith. You believe in gravity, but you can't touch or taste it; it is not empirical, but a concept, and yet it makes sense of and explains what actually is. You can't prove that the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago (you weren't there), but some people take it by faith based on evidence, evidence that is interpreted and built on from where your foundation starts, such as from God or from energy and matter. Those are two base positions. No one come to the table (so to speak) without bias or from neutrality. You take a side and you build your house, the structures of your thinking, upon the evidence piece by piece from that point of view. The basic premise, the core belief, the ultimate beginning is how the evidence is filtered.

But outside of God all world-views are faulty and come crashing down (Matthew 7:24-29), for these basic core values and presuppositions cannot be made sense of ultimately outside of God. He is necessary to ultimately make sense of anything. What He says is truly authoritative.

Truth has to be true always if it is true at all. Something that is true can never be false for then it would contradict itself logically and be self-refuting. It is like saying this apples is totally/completely red and this apple is totally green? How can it be, in totality, both? It is either one or the other. A dog is a cat is a self refuting statement, just like all bachelors are married or circles are square are self-refuting. These defy logic and are senseless.

PSOLUS: "Can you list my thoughts for yesterday?"

Only what you have revealed in your posts from yesterday and other yesterdays.

ME: "You need to break from such a faith."

PART 3

PSOLUS: "I have no faith."

Sure you do. Your ideas are not built on nothing. There is a foundation for them, however much it is built on error. As I mentioned to RCofield, you have faith that when you write something down those words do convey meaning and that someone else will be able to understand the meaning you convey. If that were not so no communication would take place. I wouldn't be able to understand what it is you are expressing, but I can.

ME: "(It appears to have no credible answers)"

PSOLUS: "Does your faith have credible answers?"

Yes - credible, true, ultimate, absolute, certain answers.

ME: "Who is protecting the rights of the unborn?"

PSOLUS: "What rights do the "unborn" have? Who or what has granted any rights to the "unborn"?"

The unborn has the right to exist, the right to be protected, the right to be loved, for God has granted human beings the right to exist, develop and be loved. He has, however, not granted individuals the right to murder or take another human life, no matter how underdeveloped such a life may be. And His concern is that we would love Him first and foremost, and also that we would love our neighbors and do good to others from a sincere heart; one that does not seek its own way, but looks out for that of others.

God gives and only He has the right to take life away, for we are His creatures - He made us.

PSOLUS: "What have you done lately to protect any rights that the "unborn" may have?"

I've given you the truth about what an unborn is, for God has defined truth and He is the unsurpassed standard of truth. In Him we see and know truth for He is light and He is understanding. Outside of Him we speculate and quibble about which standard or measure to believe, which is 'right'. Without Him all there is is someone enforcing their feelings or beliefs on another - no right or wrong - just personal preference where truth is never known because everyone has a different idea of what it is.

Truth is objective, yet you and I are subjective beings. We need a source that transcends us, a source that is ultimate and objective and absolute in order for there to be truth. The Christian God is that source.

"You will BE WITH CHILD and give birth to a Son...When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the BABY LEAPED IN HER WOMB..." Luke 1:31, 41)

From such a definition we know that life does not start outside the womb but inside; that humanness is part of being before birth. How do you know where humanness starts?

rco, you said,
"The Enlightenment is precisely the era that began producing your particular brand of atheism--replete with a rather sordid history of tyranny and tyrants."

the enlightenment produced the united states and freedom of religion. good ideas, no?

rco, peter,
"cultural chromosome" is a metaphor. you guys take everything literally (except mt24...) there is no ACTUAL chromosome, there is no actual "religion gene", etc...it is a bit like that meme concept - which is just a concept...

as far as social darwinism....ooooooh ....scary.... just because evolution explains how breeding works, doesn't mean we HAVE to breed people. we can choose not to. it certainly doesn't mean darwin endorsed anything like the racism or genocide. just because einstein formulated e = m(c^2) doesn't mean he wanted to bomb everybody with nuclear weapons.

and certainly, just because i believe the science of biological evolution best explains the diversity (and unity) of life, doesn't i'm a nazi, or i support nazis or i'm logically required to defend hitler.

surely you understand that hitler is not the first horrible person in history who sought to extinguish whatever group of "other" people or who thought his particular group of people was better. hitler just found justification in evolution - the way others have found justification in religionism, nationalism or whatever straw they could grasp. actually, come to think of it, the old testament strikes me as a very racist book. there are different rules for hebrews slaves and non-hebrew slaves. (this is wrong, as my daughter says, "on so many levels".) ugly exclusive thinking has been around since long long long before darwin.

besides, there is nothing in ACTUAL evolutionary theory that would support hitler's attempts to build a master race. infact, the kind of restricted inbreeding that hitler imagined (much like that moses, and david imagined) would lead to genetic problems. to do that right, you'd need a mixture of genes from all over the world....it's kind of funny actually...

PETER:" In your world-view slavery is again a possibility in the future. IT IS RELATIVE. IT IS SUBJECTIVE. IT HAS NO OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE SOURCE."

well, as i noted, jesus didn't "ban" slavery, so we're lucky humans later decided to. you know, all we can do is teach our children. i suppose there is a theoretical possibility of humans re-instituting slavery... whether or not there are christians. (and just because you want there to be an "objective outside source" doesn't mean there is...but, it's great if it helps you behave.)
-------------------------------

WALTER: "certainly you can find instances of these things nowadays, but the perpetrators are extremely secretive about it - and instantly deny it if found out: lest they be roundly condemned by the vast vast majority of people in the world."

PETER: "You mentioned instances of these things today, so let's take child exploitation..."

ok. there are no countries where "child exploitation" is legal. no country (i know of) freely permits child abuse, though some religions certainly have "interesting" definitions of "child" and "wife".

test

PETERHUFF,

"PSolus, you know that living beings are said to exist. And as such, an unborn child is a living being - it exists."

What is an "unborn child"?

"You need to think about this more."

How much have I thought about it so far?

At what point will I have thought about it to your satisfaction?

If I were to agree with your beliefs, will I then have thought about it enough?

"Your thoughts are tangled in illogical and irrational philosophy much of the time."

You know my thoughts, do you?

Can you list my thoughts for today?

Can you list my thoughts for yesterday?

"You need to break from such a faith."

I have no faith.

"(It appears to have no credible answers)"

Does your faith have credible answers?

"Who is protecting the rights of the unborn?"

What rights do the "unborn" have?

Who or what has granted any rights to the "unborn"?

What have you done lately to protect any rights that the "unborn" may have?

Hi RCofield, Walter, PSolus,

RCofield, your last two posts to Walter - right on brother!

Walter, I'll try and post on Sunday evening. Just one thought on a recent post. You said,

WALTER: "i’m not saying this “us vs. them” mentality is what we OUGHT to do, i’m just saying it IS what we do. we are enlightened enough to see that we should treat people in “our group” well - just for the sake of it AND because it improves our own lives. but we’re not quite at the point where we can see all of humanity as “our group”."

Again, I must emphasis this point, as RCO did, and that is what you have said above is not prescriptive, just descriptive. Your world-view does not make the distinction between 'is' and 'ought.' How can something be 'ought' without a unchanging measure? Your relative framework cannot justify what is 'good' without borrowing from the Christian world-view. Why are you, or why is your group, the 'enlightened ones? Why not the Muslims or the Nazis or the communists?

WALTER: "as far as “my group” making a law that baby-eating is a-ok, it's a theoretical possibility, but i’m not too concerned about it happening."

Exactly - it could happen. It all depends on who controls your group.

WALTER: "the large-scale global trend over the centuries is definitely toward more human rights, not less - except in parts of the religious (esp. muslim) world."

Trends change. I'm thinking of one of the more recent ones - gay marriage. Another is abortion. Who is protecting the rights of the unborn?

PSolus, you know that living beings are said to exist. And as such, an unborn child is a living being - it exists.

You need to think about this more. Your thoughts are tangled in illogical and irrational philosophy much of the time. You need to break from such a faith. (It appears to have no credible answers)

RCOFIELD,

"Does a fetus have the right to exist?"

Not that I am aware of.

WALTER: "now, there's no way the world is going back to allowing slavery. there may be individual countries or jurisdictions whose governments get taken over by "rebels" or something who might conceivably allow/have slaves (or torture or oppression etc...) - but they would be universally condemned, people would try to escape that country and so on."

PETER: "History is a story of the conquerers making the vanquished slaves. And you are yourself a slave to your world-view. It is not physical but a conceptual slavery."

big big big difference btwn "conceptual" and actual "physical" slavery. yes in real actual physical history people USED TO take slaves and kill conquered people. even in jesus's time and for centuries afterward. even in the "christian world". you never/rarely see that anymore. or if you do it's rare and it's highly frowned upon and kept secret. everyone knows it's wrong to own slaves. this is a HUMANIST idea. i don't really know if that's technically "humanism", but it's the idea that we owe it to each other, to humans, to be good. good could be thought of as god.... almost the same word, right? i concede it's a bit "harder" w/o god watching and keeping score...

PETER: "And the very concepts of UDHR are Christian in nature. You are borrowing from our standards."

it might seem like that to you, it's really the other way around. or...if you prefer...humanism AND christianity "tap" that same "do unto others" idea. i really think that's all you need. there are many humanist ideas in christianity. when jesus said "what you do to the least of these you do to me" - that's a humanist idea. the good samaritan is a humanist story. jesus expressed those ideas, but he didn't "make them up".

WALTER: "...so that's [abolishing slavery, sexism, racism] an example of "changing" as being a GOOD thing. see? our concepts about fairness and freedom and equality EVOLVED."

PETER:"'Good' by the fluctuating standard that you perceive as good at this moment. And again, who are you to determine what 'good' is in a relative world? Why is your standard the 'good' standard and not that of the Mule? As a relativist he thought his was good."
-------------
don't you think "no slavery" is a good thing? i'll gosh darn bet ya 90% of the world thinks it's a good thing. that's WAY WAY more than the percent of people who derive their morality from the "fixed standard" of the bible.

(why do you think jesus didn't bother to say, "no slavery"...?)

i haven't read that azimov thing, so i don't know what "mutation" you're talking about... i suppose you're imagining a future time where people just start to think stealing and lying and slavery are "ok"?

PSOLUS,

PSO: "Children cannot be aborted."

PSO: "A child that does not exist does not have the right to exist."

Last question.

Does a fetus have the right to exist?

RCOFIELD,

"Have you ever seen a 3D ultrasound?"

I don't own any 3D glasses, so I'm guessing no.

PSOLUS,

"That is correct: A fetus is not a child; a child is not a fetus."

Have you ever seen a 3D ultrasound?

RCOFIELD,

"So a fetus is never a child and a child is never a fetus?"

That is correct: A fetus is not a child; a child is not a fetus.

PSOLUS,

So a fetus is never a child and a child is never a fetus?

RCOFIELD,

"So...a child does not have "actual being"..."life"...or "animation" one minute before it is born?"

Again, a child cannot exist one minute before he or she is born, just as that child cannot exist one year before he or she is born.

A child exists only after he or she has been born.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

WALT: "somewhere down there, when he managed to talk about other than abortion, rco wondered if i had any other "schools of thought" besides atheism and evolution...and claims he's unable to identify any others... he's not been paying attention because i've mentioned the enlightenment as a "school of thought" i value. i've mentioned that the universal declaration of human rights is a pretty good expression of those values. any society which lives up to those values is almost by definition better than any medieval society."

RCO: So...you are "done" with me...except to refer to me in the third person? :-)

I didn't "miss" your reference to the so-called Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is precisely the era that began producing your particular brand of atheism--replete with a rather sordid history of tyranny and tyrants. I don't get the impression that you are aware of the sobering history of the social consequences of much of your thinking. For example, you state to Peter:

"jesus christ! ...again, you're confusing/conflating biological evolution with societal evolution."

And then, in the very next sentence:

"remember how pam and i talked about biological evolution predisposing most humans (possibly with selfish motivations) to be social and cooperative? that's just the very very start of "good" behavior. much of it is learned - i.e., stored on our cultural chromosome..."

Peter and I are not confusing/conflating supposed biological evolution and "societal" evolution. It is you who are taking the presumed principles of evolution and applying them to society, claiming that we are "evolving" socially.

Your "cultural chromosome" concept is very similar to Dawkin's "meme" theory--as Peter would say, it is based entirely on an evolutionary frame-work. You are presupposing that the (supposed) principles of biological evolution are at work at the societal level as well. This is known as "Social Darwinism," and it has an equally, if not more sordid past than Enlightenment Atheism.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

Which brings me to two points that I have raised repeatedly, one of which seems to have seriously gotten under your skin. First, you state:

WALT: "hitler was evil because he did not respect all those hard-earned human rights of the enlightenment first established in the us constitution and elaborated on in the UDHR."

RCO: Actually, Hitler was considered evil because he violated quite a few of the clear commandments of our Creator. I don't think people of that era were wont to say that Hitler was not "respecting" Enlightenment principles, or the US Constitution or the yet unwritten UDHR (which obviously was written in response to the atrocities of WWII). But the question is WHY did he do what he did. And history clearly shows that he was, in no small part, motivated by the principles of Social Darwinism made popular in Germany by Friedrich Nietzsche--namely the "preservation of the favored races." Though his hatred of Jews obviously stemmed from other sources, he used the principles of Social Darwinism to justify his actions.

And secondly, as I have tried to point out to you, there is an evolutionary ideology behind modern abortion. Margaret Sanger's "women's reproductive rights" work was driven by her views of Social Darwinism, namely the "preservation of the favored races." Hence, among many other things, the vast majority of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities are located in MINORITY neighborhoods.

Both of these are just the tips of what is a very large iceberg of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory-influenced social policy and thought. Social Darwinism is alive and well, despite the fact that the term has been largely purged from our vocabulary since WWII.

And all appearances indicate that you (and many who are embracing what is being dubbed "The New Atheism") have bought into this worldview, seemingly unaware of its sordid past.

So...shall we continue, or are you still "done" with me because I raised the issue of abortion?

PSOLUS,

PSO: A child that does not exist does not have the right to exist.

RCO: "Precisely when does a child begin to "exist?""

PSO: When he or she is born.

RCO: And what is he or she one minute before birth?

PSO: A fetus

RCO: Define "exist."

PSO: EXIST: to have actual being; to have life or animation; live. (from dictionary reference.com)

RCO: So...a child does not have "actual being"..."life"...or "animation" one minute before it is born?

RCOFIELD,

"Define "exist.""

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exist

PSOLUS,

PSO: A child that does not exist does not have the right to exist.

RCO: "Precisely when does a child begin to "exist?""

PSO: When he or she is born.

RCO: And what is he or she one minute before birth?

PSO: A fetus

RCO: Define "exist."

RCOFIELD,

"And what is he or she one minute before birth?"

A fetus.

peter, you said,
"...why do you think that from your system of thought this view [the UDHR] will remain to be so in the future? You have no idea which way people will be 'evolving' in the future."

well, just like christianity is learned, we must teach the virtues expressed in the udhr...in homes, schools and in churches...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ_MOIIdWrw&feature=related

You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye.

Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

And you, of tender years,
Can't know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.

Counter Melody To Above Verse:
Can you hear and do you care and
Cant you see we must be free to
Teach your children what you believe in.
Make a world that we can live in.

Teach your parents well,
Their children's hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

PSOLUS,

"When he or she is born."

And what is he or she one minute before birth?

RCOFIELD,

"Precisely when does a child begin to "exist?""

When he or she is born.

PSOLUS,

"A child that does not exist does not have the right to exist."

Precisely when does a child begin to "exist?"

peterhuff,

"...so let's take child exploitation."

OK.

"Look at abortion."

Uh... I thought you said child exploitation... But, we can look at abortion insead.

"That is child exploitation."

Actually, you believe it is child exploitation. By definition, it is not.

"It is exploiting the child's right to exist."

A child that does not exist does not have the right to exist.

"Do you feel that abortion is a practice that is condoned over much of the world today, over the majority of cultures; condoned by the WHO?"

To the best of my knowledge, abortion is legal in most countries of the world.

Hi Walter,

ME: "Your system is relative, your ethics are relative, and as such you have no fixed standard or measure, hence they are nothing more than personal preference/choice or enforced behavior. There is nothing good about them. They constantly change and are at the mercy of the next evolutionary quirk."

WALTER: "the "fixed standards" would be documents like the UDHR. now, you may say that's "too new" to be a "fixed standard" and it's certainly not "eternal" or "objective".
------------------------------------------

Yes, that is my line of thinking. But more so, why do you think that from your system of thought this view will remain to be so in the future? You have no idea which way people will be 'evolving' in the future. History is replete with radical thinkers, some of whose ideas are still the standard for many parts of the world today, but the point is that these ideas in many instances were bought about by conquest. Did you ever read the books by Issac Asimov, the Foundation series - Foundation, Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation? I'm thinking of the Mule, the Mutant, revealed in the last two books. How do you know that evolution will not cause a mutation along these lines rather than along the lines as you see as happening now with the UDHR?

So to you this UDHR is just a relative phase that the evolutionary process is taking many through in the world today. And you have no guarantee that it will remain so or that some rogue nation will not take you back into such a scenario as presented by the barbarian Mutant in 'Foundation and Empire.'

That is one of the major problems with your relative world-view. It has no 'fixed' foundation, no ultimate, absolute, objective measure, and no final reference.

PART 2

WALTER: "...so that's an example of "changing" as being a GOOD thing. see? our concepts about fairness and freedom and equality EVOLVED."

'Good' by the fluctuating standard that you perceive as good at this moment. And again, who are you to determine what 'good' is in a relative world? Why is your standard the 'good' standard and not that of the Mule? As a relativist he thought his was good.

WALTER: "now, there's no way the world is going back to allowing slavery. there may be individual countries or jurisdictions whose governments get taken over by "rebels" or something who might conceivably allow/have slaves (or torture or oppression etc...) - but they would be universally condemned, people would try to escape that country and so on."

History is a story of the conquerers making the vanquished slaves. And you are yourself a slave to your world-view. It is not physical but a conceptual slavery.

And the very concepts of UDHR are Christian in nature. You are borrowing from our standards.

WALTER: "i mean really, you keep saying things like "there are no fixed standards" to human-based moral codes. do you really think the WORLD is in danger of reinstituting slavery? to condoning murder? to embracing child exploitation?"

No I don't think there are no fixed standards, only that your world-view cannot produce one. In your world-view slavery is again a possibility in the future. IT IS RELATIVE. IT IS SUBJECTIVE. IT HAS NO OUTSIDE OBJECTIVE SOURCE.

WALTER: "certainly you can find instances of these things nowadays, but the perpetrators are extremely secretive about it - and instantly deny it if found out: lest they be roundly condemned by the vast vast majority of people in the world."

You mentioned instances of these things today, so let's take child exploitation. Look at abortion. That is child exploitation. It is exploiting the child's right to exist. Do you feel that abortion is a practice that is condoned over much of the world today, over the majority of cultures; condoned by the WHO?

Hi Walter,

I'm just mulling over your latest posts. I'll answer shortly. I still see RCofield's points on abortion/Nazi Germany as being intricately related. I see your difficulty in justifying your world-view on these points, so I understand your desire to avoid this subject. I feel it is indefensible for a rationalist. I think RCO is doing a good job in unraveling and getting to your basic beliefs on this subject. As I said, your justification of your position is really weak (Sorry, but I'm just being honest in expressing my opinion).

Hi RCofield,

Yes, I have seen the Hitchens/D'souza debate if this is the one you mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8

I think D'souza brings up a lot of the salient points we are discussing with Walter. I also see how Hitchens keeps talking over D'souza and not asnwering his questions.

Have you seen the Wilson/Hitchens written debates on Christianity Today (last year), or the Bahnsen/Stein debate (A classic)?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW4LXxTZ0S4

There are other subjects of interest developed by Bahnsen, such as neutrality of a worldview, something relevant to our discussions with PSolus, or his other debate with an atheist, such as with George Smith.

peter, you said,
""Your system is relative, your ethics are relative, and as such you have no fixed standard or measure, hence they are nothing more than personal preference/choice or enforced behavior. There is nothing good about them. They constantly change and are at the mercy of the next evolutionary quirk."

i addressed this earlier, but i'd like to revisit it.

the "fixed standards" would be documents like the UDHR. now, you may say that's "too new" to be a "fixed standard" and it's certainly not "eternal" or "objective".

well, yes, it is pretty new. it incorporates things like "no sexism", "no racism", "no slavery" etc... as great as our founders were they could not manage to get "no slavery" into the constitution. some wanted something like that in there, but it just wasn't a politically viable idea. it took us another 100 years to get there. so that's an example of "changing" as being a GOOD thing. see? our concepts about fairness and freedom and equality EVOLVED.

now, there's no way the world is going back to allowing slavery. there may be individual countries or jurisdictions whose governments get taken over by "rebels" or something who might conceivably allow/have slaves (or torture or oppression etc...) - but they would be universally condemned, people would try to escape that country and so on.

consider sadaam hussein: he did all kinds of bad things to his citizens. he violated just about every UDHR principle - and he was roundly condemned by just about the entire world. the only people who defended him were other dictators... his regime was held in place by force. there were no elections. (actually, i once read somewhere that sadaam was constantly re-elected with 100% of the vote... that's clearly not a "free and fair" election.)

i mean really, you keep saying things like "there are no fixed standards" to human-based moral codes. do you really think the WORLD is in danger of reinstituting slavery? to condoning murder? to embracing child exploitation?

certainly you can find instances of these things nowadays, but the perpetrators are extremely secretive about it - and instantly deny it if found out: lest they be roundly condemned by the vast vast majority of people in the world.

peter, you quoted d'souza quoting adams:
"John Adams wrote: “What do we mean by the American Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people…a change in their religious sentiments.” Those religious sentiments were forged in the fiery sermons of the First Great Awakening." [Did you get that Walter?]

hhhmmm.... i'm not sure that adams quote says what you and apparently d'souza thinks it does. i read it to say that the "change in their religious sentiments" was to get religion OUT of the government - where it had dominated since time immemorial.

you're really on shaky ground here trying to portray jefferson and adams as pro-christian. jefferson thought jesus may have been a fine philosopher, but certainly not the son of god. have you heard this jefferson quote:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

this is from a letter to john adams.

and here's adams in "a defense of the constitutions of government of the united states":

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

did ya get that peter? these were enlightenment men, whose principles are MUCH more derived from the "age of reason" that the "first great awakening".

now, one COULD make an argument that these guys thought most people NEED RELIGION (a la an "opiate"...) in general, and locally speaking, christianity, in order to BEHAVE - but that's entirely different than saying american laws and principles are based on christianity.

oops.... i said,
"...the biological science of evolution does not say anything about apply..."

but meant to say:
the biological science of evolutions does not say anything about POLITICS.

peter, you said,
"For you Walter, it all depends where you are living and to what kind of system you buy into. In North Korea a dictator calls the shots based on an evolutionary framework in which people are disposable."

jesus christ! ...again, you're confusing/conflating biological evolution with societal evolution. remember how pam and i talked about biological evolution predisposing most humans (possibly with selfish motivations) to be social and cooperative? that's just the very very start of "good" behavior. much of it is learned - i.e., stored on our cultural chromosome...

kim jong-il, is violating all kinds of enlightenment rights. surely you know that. his society is not atheistic: kim jong-il IS the national deity. he's not elected, there's no constitution, there's no freedom of religion, press, assembly, speech etc... thomas jefferson et. al. would be appalled... now, you may call these enlightenment human rights "arbitrary" or whatever, but they're much much less arbitrary than any religious admonitions.

again with the conflation... the science of biological evolution has nothing to say about politics. so, korean society is not "based on an evolutionary framework" and people are not "disposable" in an "evolutionary framework" - because the biological science of evolution does not say anything about apply...

"Your system is relative, your ethics are relative, and as such you have no fixed standard or measure, hence they are nothing more than personal preference/choice or enforced behavior. There is nothing good about them. They constantly change and are at the mercy of the next evolutionary quirk."

yes, my system is relative - and that's a good thing. i understand this is scary for you. it's relative and it's changing - i.e., evolving - as humans "grow up". you call it "personal choice", like that's a bad thing. personal choice is a good thing. it's about personal choice - but NOT at the expense of somebody else's rights. that's an enlightenment value. there may be little tiny fluctuations in this as certain political parties get or lose control, but the overarching trend is toward more personal rights.

when you say "evolutionary quirk" do you mean biological evolution or societal evolution or is it all the same to you?

peter, you said,
"How do you break down what constitutes society: by nation, by groups, by common language, by geographical divisions, by political divisions, by religion, by race, by what?

i suppose it could be any of those. i think the most meaningful, in terms of protecting/infringing on human rights would be "nation" - in that a "nation" makes laws about personal and public behavior, and can put you in jail (take your freedom away) if you break those laws.

"If by nation, then why was Hitler's Germany evil in its actions to the Jews, or was it? Is it evil just because you live in North America, or Britain or some other country that agrees with your standards of evil? Or is it evil regardless of what any country 'feels?' If so, then where do you get this ultimate standard from, because evolution cannot and has never offered one?"

hitler was evil because he did not respect all those hard-earned human rights of the enlightenment first established in the us constitution and elaborated on in the UDHR.

WALTER: "i still believe that society today is much more humane than at anytime in our history."

PETER: Which society is your measure, which groups in society, which individuals? Iran, for one among many, feels that your society (America) is wicked. Is it just in its assessment? Why is it's ideal of goodness more or less valid than yours? Why do you or your society get to make this judgment on what evil is? Why is your, or your societies judgment binding for other societies?

many many questions there.

consent of the governed (an improvement over the divine right of kings). that seems obvious and fair right? this is the idea that we the people grant authority to the government - not the other way around. society labored under this "other way around" thing for millenia. somewhere down there, when he managed to talk about other than abortion, rco wondered if i had any other "schools of thought" besides atheism and evolution...and claims he's unable to identify any others... he's not been paying attention because i've mentioned the enlightenment as a "school of thought" i value. i've mentioned that the universal declaration of human rights is a pretty good expression of those values. any society which lives up to those values is almost by definition better than any medieval society.

(i get the feeling you guys confuse the word "evolution", say, as applied to philosophy or politics, with the science of biological evolution.)

anyway, i mentioned how society has undergone an "evolution" of morals. this seems incredibly obvious to me, but somehow, you're still longing for the "good old days" of...of...religion's involvement with government? NO THANKS. (see iran!) we tried that for thousands of years and it brought us witch trials, crusades and the divine right of kings...to abuse their subjects any way they wanted to.

you posed iran as an example, i think, of an oppressed society. yes, it's a perfect case study. it's run by a religion. there's no freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly etc... it is a BAD government. i'll bet you just about every irani knows that. the "elections" are a sham, their rights are controlled by a board or religiously-inspired men. this is probably how almost all societies were prior to the enlightenment. iran is a good "old-fashioned" country.

PSOLUS,

I am soooo deeply wounded by your rapier-like wit I fear I shall never recover. :-)

PETERHUFF, RCOFIELD,

You two remind me of a couple of female chimps I saw recently on a nature show on PBS; after a skirmish with other chimps, they huddled together and groomed each other to recover from the fight.

WALTER,

In your post last night at 8:33 PM you ask the question: "what does abortion have to do with evolution?"

I responded 4 hours later to that question with two posts, 12:44 AM and 12:54 AM. You then post this morning:

"what part of "i'm not feeding your obsession with abortion anymore..." don't you understand. if this is the only thing you can talk about, then we're done."

Shall I presume you just haven't had your morning coffee yet? :-) Or was it the simple question "why?" that I posted at 2:01 AM........?

i'll reply to other comments as time permits.

rco,
what part of "i'm not feeding your obsession with abortion anymore..." don't you understand.

if this is the only thing you can talk about, then we're done.

WALTER,

"i've said i am not 'in favor of' abortion, and would not condone the abortion of a fetus i had fathered..."

Why?

Hey PETERHUFF,

Good to hear from you. Thanks for the encouragement, though I am not being as thorough as I would like to be. Struggling with severe constraints on my time right now.

Have you heard from Pam? It would be really interesting to get her involved here with the three of us, as well as evening up the odds on Walter's behalf. Speaking of the devil (just kidding Walter) I hope he doesn't get discouraged with both of us coming at him all the time.

PSOLUS is a piece of work. I guess I engage him from time to time because I enjoy the concise sparring. Sometimes I wonder if we don't cover our points (although they are usually not very complex) more thoroughly with this type of exchange than with the rather protracted exchanges I have with Walter.

Although PSOLUS thinks he is playing his hand so closely to his vest that no one can pin him down, I think you are right that he reveals a good deal more than he realizes. And you never really have to wonder very long where he stands.

Ah well. You never know. God may open his heart at any time. Even the "king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will."

Have you seen D’Souza's debate with Hitchens?

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "i've said i am not "in favor of" abortion, and would not condone the abortion of a fetus i had fathered, but that we should get a woman's opinion on whether it should be legally allowed/prohibited. the "it's my body" argument has some merit."

That is a crazy way of thinking. If it all boils down to each persons choice then why is murder wrong? On the basis of your argument above, it's my life and I can murder if I want to. And if my society or my government condones murder, then so much the better. There is nothing wrong with the North Korean leader murdering for he sets the rules. There is nothing wrong with the genocide in Rwanda, nothing wrong with the genocide in Serbia, nothing wrong with the genocide that happened in Russia, China, Germany, or for that matter in the USA in the abortion mills. It is just where you live that makes it right or wrong, and for how long?

WALTER: "abortion is not the only measure of morality."

You are still not getting the message nor equating it to murder. Do you not think that it is taking/murdering a human being?

WALTER: "i still believe that society today is much more humane than at anytime in our history."

Which society is your measure, which groups in society, which individuals? Iran, for one among many, feels that your society (America) is wicked. Is it just in its assessment? Why is it's ideal of goodness more or less valid than yours? Why do you or your society get to make this judgment on what evil is? Why is your, or your societies judgment binding for other societies?

How do you break down what constitutes society: by nation, by groups, by common language, by geographical divisions, by political divisions, by religion, by race, by what? If by nation, then why was Hitler's Germany evil in its actions to the Jews, or was it? Is it evil just because you live in North America, or Britain or some other country that agrees with your standards of evil? Or is it evil regardless of what any country 'feels?' If so, then where do you get this ultimate standard from, because evolution cannot and has never offered one?

WALTER,

Part 2 of my reply to you is a little further down.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

WALT: “i'm sorry i replied unpleasantly...”

No offense taken. I know I sometimes come across as a…well…smarta$$, though that is never my intention. I usually get this response when I am being purposely provocative for the sake of driving home a point (or two). Doesn’t bother me. The issues at hand are far too important for me to be thin-skinned in the midst of the fray.

WALT: “what does abortion have to do with evolution?!”

First, you contend that we have “evolved” to the point that we are “being about as good to each other as we have ever been:” this despite the fact that abortions worldwide are estimated at over 800 million since 1920. That is a number close to 15% of the current estimated world population (rough numbers here, but you get the picture). Are you aware of any numbers (from human-induced causes) in the prior history of mankind that even approach these percentages? (And this does not even take into account the hundreds of millions of lives lost in the wars of the twentieth century.) Even if you were to draw the line on abortion at the first trimester, the wholesale murder of the most innocent, defenseless among us is still both staggering and inexcusable. I know I have asked this before in several different ways, but you have never answered: How is this an “upward” evolution of morality? How is this substantially different than the child sacrifice of the Canaanites? How is this not the legal sanction of murder? How is this us "being about as good to each other as we have ever been?"

Secondly, read some background information on Margaret Sanger. She was the matriarch of the organization that is currently known as “Planned Parenthood,” the largest single abortion provider in the world—which, by the way, is subsidized by your tax dollars and mine. It is irrefutable that her motivation was the Darwinian concept of “the preservation of the favored races.” Almost 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s facilities are located in MINORITY neighborhoods. One simply cannot divorce abortion from the influence Social Darwinism. I know you don’t agree with Social Darwinism (almost nobody does nowadays, at least not publicly), but that does not change the fact that it lives on in the abortuaries of this nation. The fact that you are “pro-choice” creates a glaring inconsistency in your worldview, especially in the area of your anti-theism defences. Much, much more could be said on this point, but I will expand on this as our discussion develops.

Hi RCofield,

I'm enjoying your posts to Walter. Walter and I are always hop-scotching all over the place, partly my fault. It is nice to see you digging into the nitty-gritty of his world-view and holding him there. I also appreciate that he is willing to discuss it too.

I find his statements on abortion really weak when he tries to differentiate between when a baby is a baby, and human, and alas when it is not. Also that he is able to differentiate between 1st and 2nd/3rd trimesters in this babies humanness.

WALTER: ""there's a difference between a first trimester fetus - which is not at all viable outside the womb - and a baby. there's even a difference between a first trimester fetus and a second/third trimester fetus. i understand it's nuanced...and i understand there's no big, bright, clear, fundamentalist line there, but there's a difference."

On such logic then one minute before birth the baby is not a baby and one minute after it is. One minute before it is not human and one minute after it is.

How do you know this Walter?

Also Walter fails to tie the two knots together about ethics and evolution, about the decisions of Nazi Germany and those of abortion in America. How in the world does he see man's evolution as progressing? Millions are still being murdered every year.

For you Walter, it all depends where you are living and to what kind of system you buy into. In North Korea a dictator calls the shots based on an evolutionary framework in which people are disposable. In North America there is still some influence from the Judeo-Christian values in which man is considered of greater worth and dignity.

Your system is relative, your ethics are relative, and as such you have no fixed standard or measure, hence they are nothing more than personal preference/choice or enforced behavior. There is nothing good about them. They constantly change and are at the mercy of the next evolutionary quirk.

PART 2

As for PSolus I agree totally with your assessment of his belief about both children/abortion and having no belief, all the while he contradicts it. His ultimate commitment is so utterly irrational and I feel that most people reading his posts will think the same thing. When he says, "For the record, I believe nothing," as you point out, it is in itself a belief. He believes that he believes nothing.

There are certain basic things that he would have to believe in order to make such a statement. For example, that logic is necessary for communication, that 2) language has meaning and that he understands the concept of the word 'belief' in order to make the claim of no belief, that 3) in putting the words together in such a manner that he is conveying a message, and 4) in order to come up with the concept of 'belief' he would have to first build on an even more basic foundation of words and ideas in order to have understanding. It doesn't start in a vacuum.

Notice how he contradicts himself by your question,

RCO: "You deny that children are brutally aborted when you know full well they are."

PSO: "No, I know full well that children can't be aborted, brutally or otherwise."

Here is a belief. How does he 'know' full well? He would have to have beliefs and those beliefs would have to be based on truth/reality/what really is for his belief to be true. Of course, he never says how he 'knows' this. His belief has no rational to it, nevertheless, it is a belief.

Here again,

RCO: "Reality does not adapt to what one "chooses" to believe."

PSOLUS: "That is correct; it appears to me that you speak from disappointment."

That is a belief - one he says he doesn't have. (He believes the statement of yours is correct and then he adds a belief of his own that you speak from disappointment)

In the case of a chair, he would have to believe that the chair was real and actually there and that it would support his weight in order to sit in it. No - he has all kinds of beliefs that he kids himself that he does not have. He would have to believe that he needed food in order to live and since he is still alive this has to be the case. That is a basic belief that he has built on. There are an unimaginable amount of basic beliefs that he would have to have that have not only contributed to his survival but also to his nihilism.

My opinion is that the only thing that you can do is let his statements speak for themselves, for they expose the inconsistency of what he says on a constant basis. My feeling is that he is not serious about having a reasonable conversation at this particular time in his life, but I could be wrong for he keeps engaging you in debate. I feel that there could be reasons for this. He could be playing a charade, a game of oneupmanship, or he really is looking for meaning and purpose in life. I hope it is the latter. The question is Does he want to get real with himself?

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2

WALT: “evolution does not equal atheism.”

Agreed, though evolutionary theory often leads to atheism. Loooong line of refuting argument there…maybe later. The only reason I linked “evolution/atheism” is because you sometimes argue from evolution, sometimes from atheism. In fact, these are the only two schools of thought that I have been able to identify to this point in our discussion. Are there other influences on your worldview that I should be aware of?

WALT: “btw, of course "jeez" (and even "jiminy cricket") is just a figure of speech. just a way we talk. i blaspheme all the time...! i'll give ya that. christianity is the basis of many of western society's swear words...”

Yes, I am all too aware of this. Just find it mildly interesting that people who don’t even believe He exists often refer to Jesus/God when angered/frustrated/under duress. Never have been able to make much sense of this, though I do have a few “theories”…….Ahhh. It’s late. I digress.

Peace

rco, you said,
"...to try and get you to think past the "canned" rhetoric of evolution/atheism."

1) what does abortion have to do with evolution?!

2) evolution does not equal atheism.

btw, of course "jeez" (and even "jiminy cricket") is just a figure of speech. just a way we talk. i blaspheme all the time...! i'll give ya that. christianity is the basis of many of western society's swear words...

rco,
i said, "jeez, you're an unpleasant smarta$$ - and will get what you give."
---------
i'm sorry i replied unpleasantly...

WALTER,

"jeez, you're an unpleasant smarta$$"

Nah. Just not going to let you shift the discussion because you are uncomfortable with my line of argumentation.

"i'm not feeding your obsession with abortion anymore..."

No obsession here. Just using a glaring inconsistency in your argumentation to try and get you to think past the "canned" rhetoric of evolution/atheism.

"there's a difference between a first trimester fetus - which is not at all viable outside the womb - and a baby. there's even a difference between a first trimester fetus and a second/third trimester fetus. i understand it's nuanced...and i understand there's no big, bright, clear, fundamentalist line there, but there's a difference."

So...you are absolutely certain there is a difference/line....you just don't know where the line is? That is absurd. We are talking about the "difference/line" that distinguishes murder, after all. It seems to me that reason would demand if you don't know where the line is.......

"....if i believed in your childish concept of god.....

You really have very little understanding of my "concept" of God.

And who is this "jeez/jesus" fellow you mention every time you get flustered?

More later.

RCO:"And secondly, how is the practice of aborting our children (offering them on the altar of “personal choice”) substantially different from the practice of the Canaanites? Is it not deeply disturbing to you that 50 million children have died in the abortuaries of our nation ALONE over the past 40 years? (Only God knows how many have taken place world-wide…I weep at the very thought…). And how on earth can you contend that this is “enlightened” and “evolved” morality by which “we're being about as good to each other (moral) as we've ever been???”

WALTER: i'm not feeding your obsession with abortion anymore - except in what i say here:

there's a difference between a first trimester fetus - which is not at all viable outside the womb - and a baby. there's even a difference between a first trimester fetus and a second/third trimester fetus. i understand it's nuanced...and i understand there's no big, bright, clear, fundamentalist line there, but there's a difference.

i've said i am not "in favor of" abortion, and would not condone the abortion of a fetus i had fathered, but that we should get a woman's opinion on whether it should be legally allowed/prohibited. the "it's my body" argument has some merit.

abortion is not the only measure of morality.

i still believe that society today is much more humane than at anytime in our history.

RCO:"Sigh.....Yet again you either miss altogether or intentionally obfuscate the primary points of my last posts to you. This despite the fact that I summarized my points and asked you specific questions pertaining to them......"

"I will re-post them here for your convenience."

WALTER: jeez, you're an unpleasant smarta$$ - and will get what you give.

=====================================

RCO:"Now, here is my point. It is two-fold. First, you recognize that Hitler’s atrocities were morally reprehensible, and you seem pleased that he “got his comeuppance” (i.e. he was rightly “judged” for his crimes). Why do you fault God for judging the Canaanites for their equally heinous atrocities? Were you UNAWARE of their behavior? If were AWARE of their behavior, why the double standard?"

WALTER: i hold the 3000-years-ago cannanites to a different (lower) moral standard than modern-day hitler. while i think the canaanites had rules about "murder", "sacrifice" appears to be different. i believe i covered this in my previous answer. didn't you read that? or, did you miss that part altogether?

i said how it's commendable that israelites shunned human sacrifice. that still doesn't mean it was ok to supposedly destroy temples of and MURDER people of other religions.

furthermore, if i believed in your childish concept of god, i would hold him to a much HIGHER moral standard than the canaanites or even hitler. yet, according to the bible, god punished david by killing his new-born baby. there are lots of cases of god killing babies, ordering the killing of babies, or promising to kill babies in the bible. i recall one, maybe in hosea (maybe? not sure, i'll find it for you if i must) where the LORD your god warns of ripping open the bellies of pregnant (infidel) women... so, you can't really say the god of the bible is really all that concerned about babies....

were you UNAWARE of this, or if you were AWARE of it, why the double standard?

RCOFIELD,

"I am skeptical of that statement."

Well done.

"Godwin's Law says nothing of consequence."

OK.

"Probably why you find it interesting."

Perhaps, among other things.

"And you seem to have a penchant for denying reality."

I have a penchant for disbelieving your beliefs; you simply believe that to be denying reality.

"This is usually the result of the "counselor" bypassing counsel and prescribing medication..."

Are you speaking from experience?

"...OR....the embrace of existential nihilism...."

Perhaps.

"Peace"

War.

RCOFIELD,

"Are you taking medication that may affect your grasp of reality?"

No.

"Reality does not adapt to what one "chooses" to believe."

That is correct; it appears to me that you speak from disappointment.

"You "believe" that you believe nothing."

No, I choose to believe nothing.

"Any number of statements from your own posts clearly demonstrate otherwise."

No, you simply choose to believe that.

"Your above statement is a statement of belief and is thus self-contradictory."

No, you have simply chosen to believe that.

"And reality is uninfluenced by what you believe or do not believe."

Again, I believe nothing.

"Then prefer away to your heart's content."

OK.

PSOLUS,

"Skepticism is not a tactic."

I am skeptical of that statement.

"We really must update and expand Godwin's law."

Godwin's Law says nothing of consequence. Probably why you find it interesting.

"You appear to have an unhealthy fascination with these kinds of photographs; I would suggest that you get some counseling."

And you seem to have a penchant for denying reality. This is usually the result of the "counselor" bypassing counsel and prescribing medication....OR....the embrace of existential nihilism.... :-)

Peace

PSOLUS,

RCO: "You deny that children are brutally aborted when you know full well they are."

PSO: "No, I know full well that children can't be aborted, brutally or otherwise."

RCO: Are you taking medication that may affect your grasp of reality?

RCO: "That, my friend, is "seeing what you want to see" and "believing what you want to believe.""

PSO: "No, that is my not seeing what you choose to see, and my not believing what you choose to believe."

RCO: Reality does not adapt to what one "chooses" to believe.

PSO: "For the record, I believe nothing."

RCO: You "believe" that you believe nothing. Any number of statements from your own posts clearly demonstrate otherwise. Your above statement is a statement of belief and is thus self-contradictory. And reality is uninfluenced by what you believe or do not believe.

RCO: "That is the nature of UNBELIEF."

PSO: "I prefer disbelief, and I prefer to not use all uppercase."

RCO: Then prefer away to your heart's content. :-)

RCOFIELD,

"Yours is a tactic often used by "pro-choice" advocates."

Skepticism is not a tactic.

"Interestingly, Holocaust deniers (such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) use the same tactic.

We really must update and expand Godwin's law.

"For the validity of (and additional) abortion photos see here:"

You appear to have an unhealthy fascination with these kinds of photographs; I would suggest that you get some counseling.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "...these are photos of ABORTED CHILDREN."

PSO: "You do not know that; they may well be photographs of children that were born, and then subsequently killed."

RCO: "And this is happening in a "friendly neighborhood abortion clinic" near you EVERY SINGLE DAY."

PSO: "I don't think that the "friendly neighborhood abortion clinics" near me photograph aborted fetuses. That is why I am skeptical of those photographs."

======================================

Yours is a tactic often used by "pro-choice" advocates. Interestingly, Holocaust deniers (such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) use the same tactic.

For the validity of (and additional) abortion photos see here:

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/where_do_abortion_pictures_come_from/

RCOFIELD,

"That is laughable."

Then, laugh away to your heart's content.

"You deny that children are brutally aborted when you know full well they are."

No, I know full well that children can't be aborted, brutally or otherwise.

"That, my friend, is "seeing what you want to see" and "believing what you want to believe.""

No, that is my not seeing what you choose to see, and my not believing what you choose to believe.

For the record, I believe nothing.

"That is the nature of UNBELIEF."

I prefer disbelief, and I prefer to not use all uppercase.

PSOLUS,

PSO: "You are seeing what you want to see, and believing what you want to believe."

That is laughable. You deny that children are brutally aborted when you know full well they are. That, my friend, is "seeing what you want to see" and "believing what you want to believe."

That is the nature of UNBELIEF.

WALTER,

Sigh.....Yet again you either miss altogether or intentionally obfuscate the primary points of my last posts to you. This despite the fact that I summarized my points and asked you specific questions pertaining to them......

I will re-post them here for your convenience.

=====================================

Now, here is my point. It is two-fold. First, you recognize that Hitler’s atrocities were morally reprehensible, and you seem pleased that he “got his comeuppance” (i.e. he was rightly “judged” for his crimes). Why do you fault God for judging the Canaanites for their equally heinous atrocities? Were you UNAWARE of their behavior? If were AWARE of their behavior, why the double standard?

And secondly, how is the practice of aborting our children (offering them on the altar of “personal choice”) substantially different from the practice of the Canaanites? Is it not deeply disturbing to you that 50 million children have died in the abortuaries of our nation ALONE over the past 40 years? (Only God knows how many have taken place world-wide…I weep at the very thought…). And how on earth can you contend that this is “enlightened” and “evolved” morality by which “we're being about as good to each other (moral) as we've ever been???”

RCOFIELD,

"...these are photos of ABORTED CHILDREN."

You do not know that; they may well be photographs of children that were born, and then subsequently killed.

"And this is happening in a "friendly neighborhood abortion clinic" near you EVERY SINGLE DAY."

I don't think that the "friendly neighborhood abortion clinics" near me photograph aborted fetuses.

That is why I am skeptical of those photographs.

"You are either terribly uninformed on this issue or you are willfully denying the horrifically obvious."

You are seeing what you want to see, and believing what you want to believe.

That is the nature of the believer.

PSOLUS,

PSO: "I have no idea; I don't know who took those photographs, when the photographs were taken, where the photographs were taken, or under what conditions the photographs were taken.
My point still stands - children cannot be aborted."
________________________________________

Let me help you here. Let's see...there are heads with eyes, nose, ears, etc....torsos with ribs, internal organs, etc....arms with hands and fingers....legs with feet and toes........these are photos of ABORTED CHILDREN.

And this is happening in a "friendly neighborhood abortion clinic" near you EVERY SINGLE DAY.

You are either terribly uninformed on this issue or you are willfully denying the horrifically obvious.

RCOFIELD,

"View a few of these photos and tell me what you think they are."

I have no idea; I don't know who took those photographs, when the photographs were taken, where the photographs were taken, or under what conditions the photographs were taken.

My point still stands - children cannot be aborted.

RCO:"...you state that “the fact israelites didn't do human sacrifice ….(is a) beneficial mutation of the religion gene on our cultural chromosome....” You elsewhere contend that Israel’s morality was “borrowed” from more ancient cultures, yet you here acknowledge that Israel was more “evolved” morally than their neighbors who descended from these more ancient cultures."

yes. i know it's difficult, because it's nuanced... a culture can "borrow" some things AND contribute some things. there can be good things AND bad things about a culture.

also, i'm not specifically saying moses et. al. "borrowed" "do not lie/steal/murder" from any particular culture. i'm just not letting moses take credit for bringing those ideas to humanity. everybody knew these things by then. "do not lie/steal/murder" is just a common-sense prerequisite for communal living. when the israelites heard those parts of the 10 commandments, they must have thought, "duh." do you really think humans had to be told this in the 1400s (or 700s) bc? i imagine even the human-sacrificing canaanites had laws about murder... i imagine they didn't see child sacrifice as murder (just like jephthah mustn't have).

"You accept biblical citations which you attempt to use to castigate God/Christianity/Noah/Joshua etc., so you should have no problem with me citing the biblical narrative on the details of the (so-called) atrocities to which you refer."

let's be clear that i don't think there was actually a general joshua as described in joshua. i see all that as fanciful cultural myth-making. i certainly don't think god actually killed all of humanity except noah et.al. around 2300 bc (or at anytime). i just refer to those "events" because you believe in them. all my statements about adam/noah/abraham/joseph/moses/joshua/david etc... should be prefaced with something like "supposedly" or "according to the bible...".

are you really trying to make the case that the destruction of infidel places of worship was motivated by concern for infidel children?

peter,
i'll get to your comments as possible.

PSOLUS,

PSO: "Children cannot be aborted."

RCO: "Do tell?"

PSO: "I just did"

RCO: OK. I'll engage you. Go here:

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/index.cfm

View a few of these photos and tell me what you think they are.

test

Hi Walter,

Dinesh D’Souza has this to say about equality as a Christian principle that shaped the western world,

http://publisherscorner.nordskogpublishing.com/search/label/Dinesh%20D%E2%80%99Souza

"For those who think of American history only or mostly in secular terms, it may come as news that some of its greatest events were preceded by massive Christian revivals. What historians call the First Great Awakening swept the country in the mid-eighteenth century, and helped lay the moral foundation of the American Revolution. Historian Paul Johnson describes the War for Independence as “inconceivable…without this religious background.” By this he means that the revival provided essential support for the ideas that fueled the Revolution. Jefferson, let us recall, proclaimed that human equality is a gift from God: we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Indeed there is no other possible source for them. And Jefferson later wrote that he was not expressing new ideas or principles when he wrote the Declaration, but was rather giving expression to something that had become settled in the American mind.

Likewise John Adams wrote: “What do we mean by the American Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people…a change in their religious sentiments.” Those religious sentiments were forged in the fiery sermons of the First Great Awakening. [Did you get that Walter?]

The Second Great Awakening, which began in the early nineteenth century, left in its wake the temperance movement, the movement for women’s suffrage, and most importantly the abolitionist movement. It was the religious fervor of men like Charles Finney, the Presbyterian lawyer who became president of Oberlin College, that animated the abolitionist cause and contributed so much to the chain of events that brought about America’s “new birth of freedom.”

And finally, fast forwarding to the twentieth century, the Reverend Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech referred famously to a promissory note and demanded that it be cashed. This was an appeal to the idea of equality in the Declaration of 1776. Remarkably, King was resting his case on a proclamation issued 200 years earlier by a Southern slave owner. Yet in doing so, he was appealing to a principle that he and Jefferson shared. Both men, the twentieth-century pastor and the eighteenth-century planter, reflected the influence of Christianity in American politics.

PART 2

Continuing Dinesh's quote,

"The ideas that define Western civilization, Nietzsche said, are based on Christianity. Because some of these ideas seem to have taken on a life of their own, we might have the illusion that we can abandon Christianity while retaining them. This illusion, Nietzsche warns us, is just that. Remove Christianity and the ideas fall too.
Consider the example of Europe, where secularization has been occurring for well over a century. For a while it seemed that secularization would have no effect on European morality or social institutions. Yet increasingly today there is evidence of the decline of the nuclear family. Overall birthrates have plummeted, while rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births are up.

Nietzsche also warned that, with the decline of Christianity, new and opposing ideas would arise. We see these today in demands for the radical redefinition of the family, the revival of eugenic theories, and even arguments for infanticide.

In sum, the eradication of Christianity—and of organized religion in general—would also mean the gradual extinction of the principles of human dignity. Consider human equality. Why do we hold to it? The Christian idea of equality in God’s eyes is undeniably largely responsible. The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief."

It is crumbling with the postmodern deconstruction of the Christian faith and the introduction of such ideas as marriage as something other than between man and woman, or with the acceptance of a womans right to chose the fate of the unborn LIFE she carries. It is no longer a question of equality, for the unborn baby has no one to represent him/her, other than upon the whim of the mother, or her sense of justice and right, which varies depending on which side of the moral equation she embraces.

The very balance that your Constitution fought to preserve, the equality of all, including the unborn citizen in its mother's womb is being denied.

The very power that your constitution fought to preserve, the balance between federal, state and local government seems to be eroding with each new president, as he tries to push his own personal agenda on your nation. What one instates the other unravels, what one deems good the other deems bad, but the scary thing in some cases is What does the presidents values ultimately rest upon?

If it is not God then the idea of good or equality is always up for grabs, always subject to evolving standards that shift back and forth in a battle that ultimately has no meaning.

Hi Walter,

In the last post, first paragraph 'interpolation' should have read 'interposition.'

Hi Walter,

The doctrine of interpolation is something that John Eidsmoe talks about as derived from the Bible and involved in the Constitution. Here are some of his thoughts,

http://publisherscorner.nordskogpublishing.com/2008/01/eidsmoe-john-doctrine-of-interposition.html

"The Declaration is perhaps the most famous act of interposition in all history. It begins by asserting that the colonies are entitled to independence by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and acknowledges that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The Declaration then sets for the basic principles upon which the United States is founded, the "self-evident" truths: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, that governments are instituted to secure these rights, that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and that when government becomes destructive of these ends, the people have the right to alter or abolish that government and replace it with another."

Eidsmoe also says,

http://www.americanheritageresearch.com/pdfs/JohnEidsmoe,ACalltoStand.pdf

The rule of law means we submit to lawful authority.
But just as strongly, the rule of law means we resist unlawful authority. For the rule of law restrains both the people and their rulers. Where law does not restrain the people, the
result is anarchy. Where law does not restrain the rulers, there is tyranny."

Those who believe in the rule of law must be equally opposed to both.

During the American War for Independence, America's clergy led the way for their
people to become involved. In Boston the "Father of the American Revolution," Sam
Adams, proclaimed independence, and he was echoed by the "Black Regiment," the
black-robed New England clergy who preached independence in pulpits throughout New England. Throughout the colonies, clergy of many faiths called upon their parishioners to answer their country's call."
Today [2003] Alabama faces a constitutional crisis of similar proportions: Are we subject to the
higher Law of God? Or is law simply what the government says it is? Are human rights unalienable because they are the gift of our Creator, or are they simply negotiable privileges that government can give or take away at will?"

The Declaration certainly believes the former in that America is subject to the law of God and human rights are unalienable because they are a gift of God.

Blocked "WOODSTOCK-41" et al from Posting?

MARTHA WOODROOF & CO., Is So Jealous;

That She/He Suuucks!

RESPONSE When POSTING:

"Other views on religion in the news.

Thank you for commenting.

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Return to the original entry.

Note: WAPO: STOP Steeling BLOGGERS WORK/Ideas/POSTS!

It Is High Time That WE Old Time Blogers Bloggers Should start Getting paid {via Pay Pal] For Providing "CONTENT" to THIS/These Parasites on ONFAITH or WAPO et al and posting "iNTELLECTUALL Ideas as WE[i] Post!" W/out US bloggers YE art DEAD! DEAD! Please File For Bankruptcy!

LAST TiME

Fuuuck Jon Meacham, David Waters, Lisa Miller & Sally Quinn & CO (ONFAITH.NET). in VA. somewhere & D.C!

Else "ONFAITH" Ye Will DIE For Blogger-Abuse!

RCOFIELD,

RCO: Do tell?

I just did.

Hi Walter,

PART 1

I'm glad that RCO is keeping you on track since you and I always seem to digress from the topic we start with.

However, I will admit that David Barton is a controversial figure. I could have chosen a host of others, whom I'm sure you would also dig deep into your atheist archives to discredit what they have to say, because, as I have said before, neither one of us comes to this debate neutrally minded. More to the point is which side of the debate is closer to the truth.

WALTER: "david barton... david barton! you mean the known quote inventor? don't trust anything he says."

Are you discrediting every one of the quotes he lists from source documents, or just those that someone like Chris Rodda exposes?

PART 2

Here is what Greg Koukl had to say concerning the founding fathers,

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

Greg goes on,

"The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson--or any of our Founding Fathers--isn't whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.

What Did the Founding Fathers Believe and Value?
When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:
• Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
• The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
• The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
• Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
• Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.
However...
• The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
• They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity--or any other faith--as the religion of our nation.

WALTER: "and i'm sure you must know "in god we trust" was added to american money after the civil war - not by the founders - and that "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 50s."

No, I didn't know that, but it makes no difference. Like Greg said, the ultimate debate is over 'what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation' by the founding fathers.

PART 3

ME: "The principles - Equality, liberty are some that the videos mention, along with the destiny of a nation is in God's hands, that laws that are good are a reflection of God's righteous decrees."

WALTER: ""equality" and "liberty" are NOT "christian principles"."

Yes they are. You just don't recognize them as such. I like what John A. Eidsmoe had to say on YOUTUBE,

"True freedom is the result of making right choices."

Those words are similar to the words of Paul or Peter in Romans 6:18 or 1 Peter 2:16. We, as Christians have the liberty and responsibility to live as free men, no matter what our position in this world, for Christ has set those free who follow Him (John 8:31-32).

Walter, how do you make a right choice when your postmodern society is always shifting the idea of what right is???

I could give you dozens of examples as to God and both freedom and equality, but for the sake of brevity, here are a few,

In Christ, not in the world, we are equal. Here is one of those equality principles in Scripture,

1 Corinthians 12:12-27, esp. 25.

It actually goes beyond equality to thinking of those around you as of first priority.

Here is another principle of equality taught in Scripture,

Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS."

Paul encourages Philemon to accept Onesimus not as a slave but as a brother, one of equal worth, not one in submission (Philemon 15-19).

WALTER: "i mean seriously, are you going to say "democracy" is a christian principle? how 'bout "one man one vote"? how 'bout "breathing"?"

Yes, breathing.
Romans 17:25b, 26. "...because He Himself gives all men life and BREATH and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determines the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."

WALTER: "the united states is a product of that horrible (in your opinion) period in society's evolution called the enlightenment."

It is more the product of people who have embraced Christian principles in which to live by.

PART 4

WALTER: "that "nation in god's hands" crap is just, well, crap. the u.s. constitution mentions "god/religion" ONLY to limit its role in government. we're a nation in god's hand only in the sense that if there is a god then every nation is "in god's hands"."

As John Eidsmoe said, "The Declaration set forth the ideals the nation was founded on. The Constitution sets forth the practical mechanism by which those ideas are to be realized."

Please listen to the last four minutes of
Part 1 for the above and more (5:40-9:14)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9XYDsjIxL4&feature=related

Or here,

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=gpts&keyword=History+of+the+Constitution&keyworddesc=History+of+the+Constitution
There are some good videos on this very subject of limited government and the division between church and state and what it means.

See Part 3 (2:10-5:15of John Eidsmoe on separation of church and state and what that means in regard to your Constitution, as well as its relation to OT Israel.

WALTER: "like i said, certainly many of the founders were christian (and many weren't),

Over 90 percent if you go by their religious affiliations.

WALTER: "but the principles the u.s. was founded on were secular."

Rubbish.

PSOLUS,

"Children cannot be aborted."

RCO: Do tell?

RCOFIELD,

"...the practice of aborting our children..."

Children cannot be aborted.

1 of 2

Shame on self{serving CO{Defendants or Part{ners within the Federal, State & Local Governments in Crime who got away Scott free during the Depression and laughing at US Voters while Laughing all the The way to the Bank Worry-Free, for Causing AMERICAN's financial HARDSHIP's (Broken Hearts, mind Anquish, Broken-Spirots, mass homelessness, Embarrassment, Humiliation, low esteem etc] via Selfish Elected-Officials [as if GANGS/Hooligans/Bandits] thus creating Sweet America's (opps Sour'd) Tsunami" via them U.S. FED RESERVE people & U.S. TREASURY too! Includes the, turning other Cheek, S.E.C. & I.R.S. & CO., gang/people.

Secret: Psychology: All Those U.S. Victims, Especially U.S.A. Kids Whom was a Victim & their Parents For What Happened during Bush's & Clinton's, Will Become Extremists, Radicals & Worse Revolutionaries! a/k/a America's Silent future CIVIL-WAR!? And

Pleazza, BUSH & Clinton Lovers, Do NOt call these good American Kids who will eventually grow-up [Terrorists when ye have to turn the Malitia against them] when they Rise-Up against US, the Establishment in the Next 10 Years! It will be like a bunch of Frankin-Steins or Worse a Bunch Of TiMOTHY McVAY's (Clinton/Bush made) going mad all at once or sporadically. Soo

Only SARA PALIN & Or MITT ROMNEY Can Help Them [Prevent Future Terrorists to not be terrorists] by Correcting The Clinton Admin & Bush/Reagan Admin & Bush Admin SINS of the National-Fathers; To Heelll with Bibles story's! Atleast i[WE] warned You. Note: This is NOt a Cartoon. It is More Than That!

Note: If This was China, They All Would/ve Been Shot Already. And If It Was Russia They would be working in the Gulags. And If it was Saudi Arabia, They [COMMISSIONERS] Would've already got their Hands Chopped-Off for STEALING/Enriching selves!

2 of 2

PS: And Now; It is highly Recommended That the CIA & The NSA & The PENTAGON Take Over The "WHITE-HOUSE". And that this Current Presidency's "EXECUTIVE POWERS" via "Executive-ORDERS" (Abuses,& Recklessness) should Be Snuffed-out or Stopped!

AMERICA Should Have a "GENERAL ELECTION" In 2011, Not 2012: Under NATIONAL [Financial] EMERGENCY Reasons or Find some Other Pretexts to do so, "INSTEAD OF CONSTITUTION"! AND

The U.S. Constitution Needs To Be REPEALED, or Fixed or Tweake'd for the 21/22nd Century+; Especially To ONLY ALLOW a President to Serve up to 2-Two, 3-Three Years-Terms (max of 6 years not 8)! Or Maybe up to 3 Times 3 (for 9 years Total if HE or SHE is really good, Like Roosevelt {pbuh}, Lincoln {pbuh et al})

AND Congress Shall Establish a "U.S. RELIGIOUS POLICE" with Powers to "LIMIT" Mosques, Synagogues, Temples Building etc.. so to Police Their "Tax-Exempt" Leaderships More Closely! AND

Ex- SEN. Hillary Rodman Clinton should be IMPEACHED for Usurping U.S. CONST. 1:6 et al. And Prez Borack H. OBAMA should be Censored for Kissing The Hand Of a G-d Player, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia & for other Oss kiss'ngs or negotiating with Foreign Terrorists agents.

DEAR Fellow American(s) & Friendly's:

Note: As Ye/Yo can See; Once WE[i], i[WE] Elect these two-face WORD-MERCHANTS of certain Politician-GANGs aka "USURPER"s, Then THEY DO WHAT They WANT. So There is

NO U.S. or State CONSTITUTION!! YES, Things Must Change, Not only Yes We Can hot air. DO, No Talk!!

Maybe SARA PALIN Ms. RIGHT is right (Not Wrong)?! Sarai Ain't Afraid to Break or Dirty Her finger Nails. Now That's Tough; So Sara Ain't No "Manicure-Babby", but a Lipstick Momma! eeeeeehaaaa!

Note: Sisstar SARAi is starting to look really good ('Platform/ticket', not only Lipstick & looks) soo maybe she should be our 1st LADY President, aye? OR/b>

Maybe Brother MiTT ROMNEY is the ripe Mr. RiGHT (NOt Wrong). Likewise; MITT is looking & Sounding GOOD too. A Good Politician & a Great BUISINEES MAN Who Will Save AMERICA from Poverty & out of Debt? Fix Amerika MITT! [Maybe "Joe The Plumber" can fit-in Somewhere, aye].

Note: MITT maybe should be our 1st MORMON (A Xrstian , but Persecuted People, NOt only AFRO-Americans) Prez aye??.

"WE, The People" Need To Take Our Nation Back & fix the Sick Constitution? This is NOt a Test! This is Real!!

Note: And GLENN BECK might be 1/2 or 3/4 right (NOt Left, oopps Wrong)? Hint; HE needs to REPLACING 'God', NOt "Restore" God" That's the Problem.

See What Happens When Obama & Ventriloquists Negotiate With Terrorists Orgs contrary to Policy's???

SUGGESTION: Maybe Ms. Sara Palin & Mr. Mitt should Marry (Politically) and Run as PREZ & V.PREZ ALL IN ONE (1 Ticket, 1 Platform!) aye? PS: With Obama & Clinton, There Will NO [permanent] PEACE in MIddle-East Just Yet. Maybe only a Patch-up Job so Hillary & Gang/Crony's can Fool "The-People" again? and get RE-Elected on a slate.

___VOTE:

"Peace/Huggs Rock-n-Roll, MiTT Romney"!!!

"Peace/Huggs Rock-n-Roll, MiTT Romney"!!!

"Peace/Huggs Rock-n-Roll, MiTT Romney"!!!

___ OR

"Peace/Dance Rock-n-Roll, With SARA"!!!

"Peace/Dance Rock-n-Roll, With SARA"!!!

"Peace/Dance Rock-n-Roll, With SARA"!!!
--
GOOD-BYE OBAMA & CO! GOOD RIDDANCE NEPOTISTic Hillary et al!! Time fo a Real Man, or a Real woMan Prez!! Ya Ya!
--
Hailaluya! Praise the Holyi NO MON/WOM!

LOVE AMERICA LOVE AMERICA THE 1 WE USED TO KNOW! ..!

WALTER,

Re: Child sacrifice--Part 1 of 2
___________________________________

RCO: "Walter, are you not aware of what was going on at these "non-jewish" places of worship?"

WALTER: i assume you're going to say child or human sacrifies? how do you know that's the case? from the bible? or do you have other sources...? sources that had no need to justify destroying other people's places of worship?
--------------
and i would add: it wouldn't surprise me too much if some canaanites or any ancient society had human as well as animal sacrifices. in fact it would illustrate my point. the fact israelites didn't do human sacrifice and the fact that NO ONE does human sacrifice nowadays are beneficial mutations of the religion gene on our cultural chromosome....
religion evolves too.

POSTED BY: WALTER-IN-FALLSCHURCH | AUGUST 27, 2010 7:51 PM
===========================================

RCO: I want to take this up later on, but you state that “the fact israelites didn't do human sacrifice ….(is a) beneficial mutation of the religion gene on our cultural chromosome....” You elsewhere contend that Israel’s morality was “borrowed” from more ancient cultures, yet you here acknowledge that Israel was more “evolved” morally than their neighbors who descended from these more ancient cultures. As I am relatively familiar with how “evolution” supposedly works, this seems inconsistent to me. Did the “religious gene” somehow skip over the descendants of the “more ancient” cultures and somehow cross-pollinate into the “cultural chromosome” of the Israelites?...Hmmmm. We both know that is not how evolution supposedly works. Seems to me you just admitted that there was something distinctive about the morality of Judaism after all….. :-)

Anyway, while adequate extra-biblical evidence exists that child-sacrifice was common in ancient Mesopotamia/Palestine (google “Molech”), this should not be necessary in this case. You accept biblical citations which you attempt to use to castigate God/Christianity/Noah/Joshua etc., so you should have no problem with me citing the biblical narrative on the details of the (so-called) atrocities to which you refer.

Your contention that David—“Taliban-like” destroyed all the “non-Jewish” places of worship AND your accusation of “Joshua’s jihad” both demonstrate about as much interpretive accuracy as your “God-is-not-anti-abortion” argument from Exodus 21. (To your credit, you did retract that one, but it was VERY telling.) And it just so happens that the David/Joshua issues are very much related.

Prior to Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, the Canaanite peoples had for centuries committed horrific atrocities, not the least of which was the practice of sacrificing their children to their “god” Molech on altars of fire. We find God promising judgment on said atrocities as far back as Genesis 15:16, some 400 + years prior to Joshua.

WALTER,

Re: Child sacrifice--Part 2 of 2

Through-out the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy God warned Israel in advance not to participate in these wicked religious practices of the Canaanites once they had taken possession of the land. And much of this barbarism took place at the “non-Jewish places of worship” that you fault David for destroying—“Taliban-like.”

The Israelite conquest of Canaan was, in part, God’s judgment on the Canaanites for their atrocities. I can’t help but believe if you had witnessed the offering of a single child as a sacrifice you would have cried out for judgment on such heinous barbarity. And this had been going on for centuries.

Sadly, despite David’s destruction of these barbarous “religious” practices, after living comfortably in the Promised Land for a few hundred years, the hearts of many within the nation of Israel turned toward the very barbarism that God had warned them about before they were given the land, and they too began offering their children on the altars of Molech (Jeremiah 32:35). And God judged Israel by casting them out of the land, just as He had the Canaanites.

Now, here is my point. It is two-fold. First, you recognize that Hitler’s atrocities were morally reprehensible, and you seem pleased that he “got his comeuppance” (i.e. he was rightly “judged” for his crimes). Why do you fault God for judging the Canaanites for their equally heinous atrocities? Were you UNAWARE of their behavior? If were AWARE of their behavior, why the double standard?

And secondly, how is the practice of aborting our children (offering them on the altar of “personal choice”) substantially different from the practice of the Canaanites? Is it not deeply disturbing to you that 50 million children have died in the abortuaries of our nation ALONE over the past 40 years? (Only God knows how many have taken place world-wide…I weep at the very thought…). And how on earth can you contend that this is “enlightened” and “evolved” morality by which “we're being about as good to each other (moral) as we've ever been???”

I will try to respond to your reply to my 5 points soon. As a precursor to those responses, I will say I find your “cultural chromosome” concept…..useful. :-)

PS. Good luck with your ‘Skins. I think Shanahan will eventually turn the team around. He is a real no-nonsense kinda guy—I think Denver has rocks in their heads for letting him go. If Snyder will let him run the show I think you will soon be pulling for a very solid ball club.

WALTER,

Re: Child sacrifice--Part 2 of 2

Through-out the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy God warned Israel in advance not to participate in these wicked religious practices of the Canaanites once they had taken possession of the land. And much of this barbarism took place at the “non-Jewish places of worship” that you fault David for destroying—“Taliban-like.”

The Israelite conquest of Canaan was, in part, God’s judgment on the Canaanites for their atrocities. I can’t help but believe if you had witnessed the offering of a single child as a sacrifice you would have cried out for judgment on such heinous barbarity. And this had been going on for centuries.

Sadly, despite David’s destruction of these barbarous “religious” practices, after living comfortably in the Promised Land for a few hundred years, the hearts of many within the nation of Israel turned toward the very barbarism that God had warned them about before they were given the land, and they too began offering their children on the altars of Molech (Jeremiah 32:35). And God judged Israel by casting them out of the land, just as He had the Canaanites.

Now, here is my point. It is two-fold. First, you recognize that Hitler’s atrocities were morally reprehensible, and you seem pleased that he “got his comeuppance” (i.e. he was rightly “judged” for his crimes). Why do you fault God for judging the Canaanites for their equally heinous atrocities? Were you UNAWARE of their behavior? If were AWARE of their behavior, why the double standard?

And secondly, how is the practice of aborting our children (offering them on the altar of “personal choice”) substantially different from the practice of the Canaanites? Is it not deeply disturbing to you that 50 million children have died in the abortuaries of our nation ALONE over the past 40 years? (Only God knows how many have taken place world-wide…I weep at the very thought…). And how on earth can you contend that this is “enlightened” and “evolved” morality by which “we're being about as good to each other (moral) as we've ever been???”

I will try to respond to your reply to my 5 points soon. As a precursor to those responses, I will say I find your “cultural chromosome” concept…..useful. :-)

PS. Good luck with your ‘Skins. I think Shanahan will eventually turn the team around. He is a real no-nonsense kinda guy—I think Denver has rocks in their heads for letting him go. If Snyder will let him run the show I think you will soon be pulling for a very solid ball club.

Navin1,

I've done plenty of research. Go to the link I posted. Get your head out of the sand. Name-calling me won't end the slavery, rape, human sacrifice, lynching of the hundreds of millions of Dalit.

Go to the link. Then, if you'd like, I'll post an extensive bibliography. This is the ugliest face of oppression on the face of the earth.

The ugliest. Bar none.

Farnaz

Hillarious. And waht is the litmus test in Israel? Perhaps you can explain the litmus test in China? Not a non-jew, not one of 100 million enslaved, bought and sold, raped, human sacrificed? But the nonjew cannot go underground can they, Farnaz. And so you have your missionaries, your Christians and Catholics and islamists.

Your nazi boy scout drum beat keeps going.

Do some research, then cast blame. Oh I forgot, you only seem to care of rhetoric, not reason. Don't forget to make loans while you are traveling.

hariaum

Aseem,

"I have argued before that a religious litmus test most certainly exists in this country-and the litmus paper only reads two colors: Christian or the other. Indian Americans recently elected to national office,"

Hilarious. And what is the litmus test in India? Not a Dalit, not one of three hundred million enslaved, bought and sold, raped, human sacrificed? But the Dalit cannot go underground can they, Aseem. And so you have your missionaries, your Christians and Catholics.

"End Dalit Trafficking. Make slavery history."
http://www.dalitnetwork.org/

ASEEM, will you helps to make slavery history?

http://groundzeromosquetheamericanway.blogspot.com/