Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Pat Robertson Gives Advice

Hat tip goes to The Friendly Atheist for this YouTube gem.



When I came out with my wife's family about being an atheist, I was terrified that there would be this kind of advice given to my wife or her family. My in-laws have known me quite well for 8 years and I have never had any conflict with them at all. I trust them. If they were to judge me on what they know about me, then I should be fine. However, each one of my in-laws have pastors that they talk to and I trust those guys about as far as I can throw them.

My story is a bit different than Pat's viewer. I identified as an agnostic when I met my wife, but returned to going to church soon after. I have only been identifying as an atheist for the last two years. Maybe, Pat's advice would be different in the case of us already being married. But, I wouldn't count on it.

P.S.: Did you notice to not-so-subtle statment that atheists serve Satan? You'd think someone as learned as Robertson would know better. Well, then again that is Pat Robertson we're talking about.

104 comments:

Lorena said...

Oh heavens! I cringe, cringe, cringe, and cringe again.

"There is no middle ground," he says.

His "serving Satan" statement is, I think, related to the "He who is not with us is against us," verse.

That said, I hate to disagree with you but his advice is twisted yet correct. Living with a Christian--even a quiet one--like my husband is no piece of cake. Sometimes I think that if it wasn't because our lives are so intertwined (finances, property), I would consider divorce.

I find it very difficult to respect a man who believes in a 6-day recent creation and the literality of the Noah's Ark story.

I think the atheist should be running for his life. There will be too many people in his marriage: Jesus, the church, the ministry, the pastor, the elders, her parents.

The Rambling Taoist said...

Just a head's up about embedding YT videos. You can choose a small size that fits with your template/layout. You click on the asterisk looking button to the right of the embed field and this will allow you to choose a different size.

Lorena makes a very good point. Still, Robertson is a hateful moron.

Robert Madewell said...

I don't know taoist,

I tried that. It's still is trying to take up the whole page. I think it's because of the wide screen video.

Robert Madewell said...

The thing is, Robertson is giving that advice without knowing the entire situation. It's possible that the guy is a jerk and Roni needs to make for Dodge, but Robertson does not know that. He heard the word atheist and assumed that nothing could come out of that relationship. Sadly, he can use the Bible to back his hateful advice.

My wife is a christian, but she's not the 6000 year old earth, the bible is 100% true, glossolalia spouting kind. So, I do get along with her very well. Of course, there's been a few problems with my irreligiosity. Mostly, because I don't know when to shut up sometimes (I admit it), but we have always found that common ground and understanding. Robertson's advice would be stupid considering how good our relationship is right now.

Also, I wonder if Pat's advice would have been different if the couple had been married. I had found a Lee Strobel video some time ago that explored that scenario. Lee didn't advise divorce. Of course, Lee advocated prosyletizing to the unbelieving mate, a situation I'd find unbearable. I wonder if Pat would give similar advice in that case.

Robert Madewell said...

Taoist,

I got it to work by hacking the code. I don't know why I couldn't get it to work the other way.

Anonymous said...

Lorena I would agree with, true christians are likely never to change. A common trait among all humans is to stand up for what we believe, are ego's stand in our way. Christians can say we never see reality either. ( athiets, agnostics ) No one wins, and underlining tit for tat shows it's ugly face in relationships.
Pat Robertson may just be correct but for the wrong reasons.
ibex

Lorena said...

Pat Robertson may just be correct but for the wrong reasons.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Pat is giving solid, biblical advice. I think The underlying questions here are: Is God real, and is the bible God's Word?

We are all given free will, we can choose to believe what we want.

Let's take Robert's wife for a moment.

"My wife is a christian, but she's not the 6000 year old earth, the bible is 100% true, glossolalia spouting kind."

Why would someone claim to believe in God, but think the all-powerful being that created the universe was subject to laws like gravity? Without that belief that God is all-powerful the bible is a sham.

So that is just a quick example of why it is an all or nothing "no middle ground" concept. Also, Christianity is a faith. Faith is believing something without proof.

Robert Madewell said...

"Why would someone claim to believe in God, but think the all-powerful being that created the universe was subject to laws like gravity? Without that belief that God is all-powerful the bible is a sham."

I don't know where you got that idea. I just asked her if she believes that God is all-powerful and she said, Yes.

I find it very helpful to ask people what they believe before I criticize what I think they believe.

"Faith is believing something without proof."

In that case, I have this bridge and I'm willing to let it go cheap. What do you say? $1000 and it's yours.

Robert Madewell said...

"Let's take Robert's wife for a moment."

I can't believe I missed that opportunity for a joke!

"Take my wife ...Please." --Henny Youngman

The Prophetic Observer said...

"I don't know where you got that idea. I just asked her if she believes that God is all-powerful and she said, Yes."

Well, I quote what you said once again:

"My wife is a christian, but she's not the 6000 year old earth, the bible is 100% true, glossolalia spouting kind."

And I replied that either the bible is 100% true or it isn't. I admittedly don't know what parts of the Bible your wife doesn't agree with.

Can you agree that if God is real, and all powerful, that he could not only write a book, but see to it that it is preserved without error? Hopefully you see where I'm going with this.

The Rambling Taoist said...

Prophetic Observer,
Can you agree that if God isn't real, and thus not all powerful, that humans could write a book, pretending to be inspired by some invisible and unknowable entity? Hopefully you see where I'm going with this.

Robert Madewell said...

Observer, I quote you again, "Without that belief that God is all-powerful the bible is a sham.

My wife believes that God is all-powerful. You accused her of not believing that. However, I do agree with you. I do not believe in God so it follows that I do not believe he is all powerful. Thus, the bible is a sham. There, you have it from me, so leave my wife alone.

You said, "Can you agree that if God is real, and all powerful, that he could not only write a book, but see to it that it is preserved without error?"

Hypothetically, Yes.

Have you read the bible? I have. Twice. Trust me, it is not without error. Here's three examples of errors in the bible.

Robert Madewell said...

Observer,
We have strayed from the subject a bit. So, I want to ask you this. Do you believe that my wife should divorce me, because I am an atheist?

The Prophetic Observer said...

Let's try this again:

Do you see the contradiction between (your wife) saying God is all-powerful on one hand, but the Bible is not 100% accurate on the other?

The "three mistakes" you speak of are easily debunked by doing a cursory Google search.

When trying to make a point I find it helpful to research contrary opinions. You might benefit from this method in future posts. Suffice to say, there are a lot more than three supposed "errors" in the Bible.

The Prophetic Observer said...

"We have strayed from the subject a bit. So, I want to ask you this. Do you believe that my wife should divorce me, because I am an atheist?"

Just to be clear, on spiritual matters I derive my opinions from the Bible. If I am not sure, I consult the Bible. So when you ask in my opinion on this matter I must quote scripture.

And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1 Corinthians 7:13-14 (KJV)

Robert Madewell said...

"Do you see the contradiction between (your wife) saying God is all-powerful on one hand, but the Bible is not 100% accurate on the other?"

No. The bible is a book. Her concept of God is probably not based entirely on the bible. Also, her God is not restrained by the bible either.

"The "three mistakes" you speak of are easily debunked by doing a cursory Google search."

Are you waving that hand at me? Hi! I see you!

"When trying to make a point I find it helpful to research contrary opinions."

I did. I found the explainations lacking and stretching believability. Especially, the Judas hanging himself and falling thus bursting his bowels open explaination.

"Suffice to say, there are a lot more than three supposed "errors" in the Bible."

Agreed, there's lots more errors in the bible.

We can go on and on, but we gotten a bit off subject.

I ask again, "Would you suggest that my wife divorce me, because I'm an atheist and she's a christian?"

Robert Madewell said...

Observer,
Thanks for that answer and the verse. I now have some ammunition against dumbkoffs like Robertson.

I really didn't expect that answer. I was expecting just the opposite.

Temaskian said...

I think Pat Robertson is scared of atheists, and their ability to deconvert his sheep. He had to make it vehemently clear to his sheep that they must avoid atheists when looking for a marital partner, otherwise his sheep might all turn into wolves, and his income will be affected.

Lorena said...

Robert,

That conversation was hilarious. I just laughed outloud the whole time.

"Leave my wife alone"
"Take my wife"

I just found it hilarious that he was arguing with your wife...the Christian. Geezz!

Robert Madewell said...

Yeah Lorena,

He had a bigger problem with my wife not being his brand of True Christian™ than with me being an atheist. Go figure.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Lorena,

Robert said:

"No. The bible is a book. Her concept of God is probably not based entirely on the bible. Also, her God is not restrained by the bible either."

See, the Bible is our only guide to who God is and His laws. If we start cherry picking the parts we like and rejecting what we don't we are serving a god of our own creation.

Sad to say, if his wife does not believe the Bible is 100% accurate she is worshipping a false Christ. That is what I wanted to clarify.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"He had a bigger problem with my wife not being his brand of True Christian™ than with me being an atheist. Go figure."

No, I am concerned for her not being God's brand of Christian. Shoot the messenger does not work Robert. Play the ball.

Also, You've mentioned twice now that I was going off subject. Does defending your beliefs make you uncomfortable? I can stop if you want.

The Prophetic Observer said...

I just wanted to add that Pat Robertson was merely sharing biblical doctrine. If you want to attack effectively, attack the doctrine, not the man.

Not that I am any Pat Robertson fan, he has said some really dumb stuff in the past...

Robert Madewell said...

"See, the Bible is our only guide to who God is and His laws. If we start cherry picking the parts we like and rejecting what we don't we are serving a god of our own creation."

All christians I know, do pick and choose their bible verses. Some admit it and others don't. You don't advocate stoning disobedient children, of course (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). You don't tell unmarried men to castrate themselves (Matthew 19:12). Of course, you guys have all kinds of apollogetics explaining why, but the point is that you don't live by every verse in the bible. You pick the verses that are more applicable to today's society. Most Christians do. Not all will admit it.

"If you want to attack effectively, attack the doctrine, not the man."

I'm seriously getting tired of christians throwing around the attack word. How many times must I say it. Criticism is not attacks. It's not violent. If a fat middle aged hillbily can attack you from his office chair, then you have a real problem.

Really, all I intend to do is open honest discussion. Sometimes, I don't understand everything theological, but I promise I'll try to. If someone is offended by my criticism, then it's his/her right to be offended. However, nobody has the right not to be offended. If my irreligosity is offending you, don't read it, and delete my comments from your blog like most christians do (TY for not doing that, btw).

"Not that I am any Pat Robertson fan, he has said some really dumb stuff in the past..."

I agree. Robertson says lots of dumb stuff. The advice in this video is a good example, IMO.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"You don't advocate stoning disobedient children, of course (Deuteronomy 21:18-21"

Old testament Mosaic law Robert. We certainly advocate punishment however.

Robert said:

"You don't tell unmarried men to castrate themselves (Matthew 19:12)"

I don't imagine many people actually castrate themselves these days Robert, but if someone had a serious sexual problems that they felt unable to control a severe solution like that could help. Certainly many countries castrate deviants, whether it be chemically or surgically. It is certainly not a commandment.

Robert said:

"Criticism is not attacks"

Criticism is the attack of ideas. Criticize the idea, not the person. I did not take it personally, if you prefer to substitute the word "criticize" for "attack" my point still stands.

Robert Madewell said...

Observer,

You just proved my point. You do pick and choose what you want to believe and practice from the bible. The fact that you can tell me why you don't follow Verse X and opposed to Verse Y does not change the fact that you still only regard parts of the bible as fit to follow. The big difference between you and my wife is that she admits it. Every christian that I know are cafeteria christians whether they admit it or not.

"Criticize the idea, not the person."

I see little difference between the two. Especially, since Robertson has based his whole life around those ideas. IOW, Robertson is his ideas. That's what he make his living on.

Lighten up a little, Observer. Much of my ranting is snark. Don't be a humorless old codger like Robertson. I feel the tone is getting a little ripe.

Lorena said...

Sad to say, if his wife does not believe the Bible is 100% accurate she is worshipping a false Christ. That is what I wanted to clarify.

Prophetic Observer
I hate arguing with Christians. I really do.

But read your own posts, for goodness sake. Haven't you noticed that just about every Christian has his/her own idea of what THE BIBLE MEANS?

Is she not a TRUE Christian just because she doesn't practice YOUR brand of Christianity?

Do you have special, personal meetings with the Almighty so as to be sure your interpretation of the Bible is better than any other?

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert Said:

You just proved my point. You do pick and choose what you want to believe and practice from the bible. The fact that you can tell me why you don't follow Verse X and opposed to Verse Y does not change the fact that you still only regard parts of the bible as fit to follow. The big difference between you and my wife is that she admits it. Every christian that I know are cafeteria christians whether they admit it or not.

Robert, you are equating the Bible being 100% accurate with meaning 100% of the people have to follow it 100% of the time. Take the classic misquoted "shellfish argument". That commandment was addressed to the Israelites. I am not an Israelite, I am a gentile.

Robert said:

"Criticize the idea, not the person."

I see little difference between the two. Especially, since Robertson has based his whole life around those ideas. IOW, Robertson is his ideas. That's what he make his living on.

Well you really need to make that distinction. Christians are accused of being hateful because some in society cannot understand how a Christian can for instance hate homosexuality but not homosexuals. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Robert said:

Lighten up a little, Observer. Much of my ranting is snark. Don't be a humorless old codger like Robertson. I feel the tone is getting a little ripe.

The tone on my part is serious because, well, I take this stuff seriously. I am certainly not angry or upset. You have conducted yourself as a gentleman throughout or conversation and I appreciate it.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Lorena said:

"I hate arguing with Christians. I really do."

I really enjoy debating by beliefs, because it helps me to refine and understand them better. Challenging my morals helps me on my road to becoming a better person.

Lorena (hopefully not Bobbitt) said:

"But read your own posts, for goodness sake. Haven't you noticed that just about every Christian has his/her own idea of what THE BIBLE MEANS?"

As Christians we are required to constantly examine our beliefs and mold them to the example of the Bible. It is a process that never ends. We are all sinners.

Lorena said:

"Is she not a TRUE Christian just because she doesn't practice YOUR brand of Christianity?"

The Bible is the Christian's guide. It is all we have. We cannot pick and choose which parts are accurate and which are not. There may be parts that do not apply to us, but that doesn't take away from the books accuracy. Common sense tells us if the Bible is not 100% accurate in matters of doctrine, it is rubbish.

So I can say with authority that someone who doesn't believe this is not a true Christian, but mixing their own morals in when where it suits them. A good example is homosexuality. A great many people that would support all gay rights would admit that it is condemned in the Bible, yet there are many out there calling themselves "Gay Christians". They simply deny the verses condeming it apply to them. This makes about as much sense as calling yourself a "meat eating vegan".

Lorena said:

"Do you have special, personal meetings with the Almighty so as to be sure your interpretation of the Bible is better than any other?"

I have the Holy Spirit, which bears witness. I'm sure you have no idea what that means.

Robert Madewell said...

"The Bible is the Christian's guide. It is all we have. We cannot pick and choose which parts are accurate and which are not. There may be parts that do not apply to us, but that doesn't take away from the books accuracy. Common sense tells us if the Bible is not 100% accurate in matters of doctrine, it is rubbish."

I glad to hear you admit that not everything in the bible applies to you.


"They simply deny the verses condeming it apply to them."

Ok, here's the problem. Since, you admit that not all of the bible applies to people today, how do you know that the homophobic parts of the bible do apply today? How do you know what parts are the ones that apply and which ones don't?

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"I'm glad to hear you admit that not everything in the bible applies to you."

Of course not. For instance seeing as I am a man I don't worry about being impure for three days after my period. We exercise common sense.


"They simply deny the verses condeming it apply to them."

Ok, here's the problem. Since, you admit that not all of the bible applies to people today, how do you know that the homophobic parts of the bible do apply today? How do you know what parts are the ones that apply and which ones don't?

That's usually easy. It is always within the context. Something like homosexuality is reiterated multiple times in the Bible, both old and new testaments as an abomination. Some behaviors are considered sinful but are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, or are murky. In those situations we are to follow our conscience. But if you cannot condemn homosexuality based on the overwhelming scriptural evidence you cannot condemn anything.

Robert Madewell said...

"Something like homosexuality is reiterated multiple times in the Bible, both old and new testaments as an abomination."

Yes, it is!

"Some behaviors are considered sinful but are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, or are murky. In those situations we are to follow our conscience."

OK

"But if you cannot condemn homosexuality based on the overwhelming scriptural evidence you cannot condemn anything."

Maybe, we shouldn't be condemn people and their behaviour based upon a bronze aged barely readable book. Maybe, we should base what we promote as good and bad by following our consciences. I think the human race and modern society can do alright. I think most people know what's good and bad, independantly of a 3000 year old badly interpreted book.

Myself, I'm going to stop condemning people. Because, it's not within my power to say what's a sin or not. People should be punished only for crimes that are actually crimes.

However, I will continue to ridicule the ridiculous and criticize people who (like Robertson) judge others unfairly. I don't feel that that is condemnation on my part.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"Maybe, we shouldn't be condemn people and their behaviour based upon a bronze aged barely readable book. Maybe, we should base what we promote as good and bad by following our consciences. I think the human race and modern society can do alright. I think most people know what's good and bad, independantly of a 3000 year old badly interpreted book."

Well, you can do that if you want. Mankind has been following their conscience a lot and this world is going down the toilet. Seeing as most our laws are in accordance with if not derived from the "bronze aged barely readable book" we will have to strike down the laws against murder, bestiality, incest, stealing to get your "bronze aged barely readable book" free Utopia.

Ohh wait, your conscience rings bells on murder? OK, we can keep that law then. What about the people whose consciences are piqued by sodomy? Screw 'em. One doesn't need to be a Christian to be nauseated by the very thought of sodomy, no matter how much one stamps their foot and blathers on about "homophobes" with self-righteous indignation.

You are aware of an organization called NAMbLA, right? How does their method of "following their consciences" fit into your plan?

Our consciences can lie. We will rationalize them away because our sin feels good. Surely you already know this instinctively. (1st Timothy 4:1-2)

Robert said:

"Myself, I'm going to stop condemning people. Because, it's not within my power to say what's a sin or not."

Cop out.

"People should be punished only for crimes that are actually crimes."

Sodomy was and still is an actual crime in many parts of the world. What is your definition of a crime? Was it a crime to call black people only 2/3 of a human being? Was segregation a crime? No, it was the law of the land! Man's laws change, God's laws don't.

Robert said:

"However, I will continue to ridicule the ridiculous and criticize people who (like Robertson) judge others unfairly. I don't feel that that is condemnation on my part."

Ridicule is a form of condemnation whether you acknowledge it or not.

Robert Madewell said...

"You are aware of an organization called NAMbLA, right? How does their method of "following their consciences" fit into your plan?"

Homosexuality is an act between consenting adults. Pedophilia is not. Equating the two, is just purposely trying to upset people. I think I'm done with you.

"Ridicule is a form of condemnation whether you acknowledge it or not."

Nope. I don't say that Robertson is going to hell for what he's doing. I don't even say he deserves punishment. I just say he's wrong. And, your wrong too. That is not condemnation. However, saying that I'm going to hell and deserve it, is condemnation.

Lorena said...

I have the Holy Spirit, which bears witness. I'm sure you have no idea what that means.Oh, really? You figure 20 years warming pews in church and reading the Bible more than 5 times isn't enough for me to know what you mean by Holy Spirit?

But of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. There isn't very much you seem to understand.

El Erbmocnoc Euqsam said...

@pathethic observer: I am absolutely willing to bet that you've had a dick in your ass at some point in your life, and that you loved it. And I'm sure you can't wait to do it again.
Recent political history has proven that the most vociferous anti-gay xtians are closet gays.
Watch the movie Outraged for more details.
You really need to go see a psychiatrist. Hopefully you can be deprogrammed of your pathetic delusions.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"Homosexuality is an act between consenting adults. Pedophilia is not."

You can have a gold star for your politically correct answer, but you completely avoided the question. Let me refresh your memory.

You said:

"Maybe, we should base what we promote as good and bad by following our consciences. I think the human race and modern society can do alright."

And I ask once again: How does NAMbLA fit into your concept of people just following their consciences?

Robert said:

"Equating the two, is just purposely trying to upset people."

I didn't equate the two, you just did.

Robert said:

"I think I'm done with you."

Surely you aren't going to throw in the towel so easily? I have just barely scratched the surface.

Robert said:

"I don't say that Robertson is going to hell for what he's doing. I don't even say he deserves punishment. I just say he's wrong. And, your wrong too. That is not condemnation. However, saying that I'm going to hell and deserve it, is condemnation."

But as someone that seemingly grew up in a Christian household, you should know that we are all sinners and deserving of Hell. Robertson gave Biblically sound advice, I already pointed that out to you. Why are you attacking him? It is the Bible that you have a problem with, he is just quoting it, as I am. It is the Bible that condemns you, not me or Pat Robertson. You are perfectly free to say "I don't believe the Bible", and you do. Do you see my point yet?

Let me put it another way. If you told me Unicorns were going to take me to Hell according to your Unicorn book, I wouldn't get upset. See, you are reacting as if you actually believe in Hell. If you don't why bother?

The Prophetic Observer said...

Lorena said:

"Oh, really? You figure 20 years warming pews in church and reading the Bible more than 5 times isn't enough for me to know what you mean by Holy Spirit?"

Twenty years in the pews and reading the Bible five times doesn't mean you ever personally experienced the Holy Spirit. If reading the Bible made for getting the Holy Spirit Robert here would be preaching on street corners.

So, why ask me if I have "special, personal meetings" with God if you are already familiar with the Holy Spirit?

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"Thanks for that answer and the verse. I now have some ammunition against dumbkoffs like Robertson.

I really didn't expect that answer. I was expecting just the opposite."

You are welcome, however it only applies for married people, not dating or engaged. Robertson was right in this case, scriptually that is.

The Prophetic Observer said...

El Erbmocnoc Euqsam said...

"I am absolutely willing to bet that you've had a dick in your ass at some point in your life, and that you loved it. And I'm sure you can't wait to do it again.
Recent political history has proven that the most vociferous anti-gay xtians are closet gays."

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently.

Temaskian said...

Hi Prophetic Observer,

How does the bible even define marriage? Or does it?

GCT said...

Pro. Obs.
"Seeing as most our laws are in accordance with if not derived from the "bronze aged barely readable book" we will have to strike down the laws against murder, bestiality, incest, stealing to get your "bronze aged barely readable book" free Utopia."

Wow, flat out ignorant. Please show me where our laws are attributed to god or the Bible, because I don't remember any mentions of god or the Bible in the Constitution. Further, you are ignorant of the legal basis of things like the Code of Hammurabi. Only a subset of the 10 Commandments are even in our laws, and they were given to the Israelites anyway...you did say that you are a gentile, did you not?

"One doesn't need to be a Christian to be nauseated by the very thought of sodomy, no matter how much one stamps their foot and blathers on about "homophobes" with self-righteous indignation."

Your personal ick factor does not negate the rights of consenting adults to do what they want so long as they cause no harm to the rights of others.

"Sodomy was and still is an actual crime in many parts of the world. What is your definition of a crime?"

Not to speak for Robert, but he's probably referring to victimless "crimes." Sodomy has no victim so long as the participants are adults and willing.

"Surely you aren't going to throw in the towel so easily? I have just barely scratched the surface."

I think he's done with you due to your blatant hatred of gays. And, yes, I'm familiar with hate the sin love the sinner, but it's rather hard to hate the sin without hating the sinner when the sin is a natural part of the person that they did not choose. It would be like if you claimed that being black was a sin, and then claimed to love black people.

"But as someone that seemingly grew up in a Christian household, you should know that we are all sinners and deserving of Hell."

You mean to say that some sects of Xianity teach this. Not all Xians believe this. And, it's logically false anyway, since no one is actually deserving of infinite punishment for any finite crime committed during this lifetime.

Lastly, I'm glad that you claim to have the secret, magic decoder ring to decipher the Bible in the "correct" way, but so do many other people, and they disagree with you. Claiming that you can tell who is or is not a true Xian is simply fallacious.

And, the comment X was directed to a specific person or group is also fallacious, since all comments were directed at specific people or groups. Jesus spoke to Jews about what Jews are to do. If you are going to claim that certain things don't apply to you because they were addressed to the Jews, then what Jesus said also does not apply. Else, you are doing exactly what deride others for doing - picking and choosing from the Bible. Don't worry too much about it though, because just about every Xian does it, which I contest makes the Bible superfluous and useless.

El Erbmocnoc Euqsam,
Although there are studies that suggest that homophobes struggle with homosexual tendencies, a closeted gay may have never had homosexual contact, so it's a pretty unsafe bet to take that p.o. has "had a dick in [his] ass." Further, I don't know that p.o. has given us a gender, so having a dick in p.o.'s ass may not even be a homosexual act. Lastly, even though the messages coming from p.o. (you deserve hell, homos are bad, etc) are pretty bad, it generally doesn't help to come back with comments about dicks in asses. I'd rather see defenders of rationality take the high road in all but the worst cases.

Robert Madewell said...

"Not to speak for Robert, but he's probably referring to victimless "crimes." Sodomy has no victim so long as the participants are adults and willing."

Thank you, GCT. That is correct.

Nambla style pedophilia, however, is not a victimless crime. To say that a pedophile is just following his conscience when he rapes a little boy or girl, is to ignore the victim and the victim's conscience.

Apostacy and blasphemy are also victimless crimes, seeing as there is no God to victimize.

Robert Madewell said...

El Erbmocnoc Euqsam said, "I am absolutely willing to bet that you've had a dick in your ass at some point in your life, and that you loved it. And I'm sure you can't wait to do it again."

I would apreciate it if you keep the discussion nice. As likely or not as that statement is of being true, it's just crude. I am usually tolerant of cussing, but outright crudeness is a bit abrasive. I have never deleted a comment, but my own and I don't plan to and I am usually tolerant of cussing, but outright crudeness is a bit abrasive.

There is one thing that I do respect about PO. He didn't delete my comments on his blog. If he had, I probably would have rethought my no-delete policy.

The Prophetic Observer said...

GCT:

I read your comment, however I saw no points worthy of refuting. I'll leave it to you to find the assumptions, broad generalizations, ad hominem and logical fallacies for yourself.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"Nambla style pedophilia, however, is not a victimless crime. To say that a pedophile is just following his conscience when he rapes a little boy or girl, is to ignore the victim and the victim's conscience.

That is correct. That is why we cannot depend on 'our consciences' as the only barometer of what is right and wrong. Some people's consciences are clearly broken, or 'seared with a hot iron' as the Bible says. We need laws to guide us, and punishment to serve as a deterrent.

GCT's blathering aside, it is irrefutable that many of our laws were derived from the Bible. We don't need it to say 'derived from biblical law' in the Constitution to see that it is.

And Robert, you are ignoring the fact that there are crimes where society at large is the victim. For instance, do you believe an incestual relationship should be legal? If there are people that enjoy murdering and people that want to commit suicide should we allow them to get together and do so? Maybe we can make a website devoted to linking them together? Perhaps they can videotape these as events for public consumption? After all, there is no 'victim', right?

The Rambling Taoist said...

PO,
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or do you just enjoy being argumentative?

And Robert, you are ignoring the fact that there are crimes where society at large is the victim. For instance, do you believe an incestual relationship should be legal? If there are people that enjoy murdering and people that want to commit suicide should we allow them to get together and do so?

You consider incest to be solely a societal problem? What about the children who are destroyed from these nefarious acts? You appear to have a strange sense of priority!!

Murder impacts the rights of other people, therefore it's not a victimless crime. How could any rational person not understand the distinction?

Personally, I think suicide should be legal, but that's for another discussion.

GCT's blathering aside, it is irrefutable that many of our laws were derived from the Bible.

I'll grant you that point. However, a great deal of the US Constitution is modeled after the unwritten constitution of the Iroquois Nations. So, maybe we should be praying to the Great Mother Earth!

The Prophetic Observer said...

The Rambling Taoist said...

"You consider incest to be solely a societal problem? What about the children who are destroyed from these nefarious acts? You appear to have a strange sense of priority!!"

RT, where did I say that is was *solely* a societal problem? I have a reading comprehension problem?

RT said:

"Murder impacts the rights of other people, therefore it's not a victimless crime. How could any rational person not understand the distinction?"

You missed my point entirely.

RT said:

"Personally, I think suicide should be legal, but that's for another discussion."

I thought my point was completely obvious: If someone 'enjoys killing people' and someone 'wants to be killed' is that not a victimless crime?

Robert Madewell said...

"If someone 'enjoys killing people' and someone 'wants to be killed' is that not a victimless crime?"

People with suicidal thoughts/tendencies do not want to be killed. Suicide is caused primarily by major depression which I had to endure much of my adult life. Major depression makes life unbearable, but doesn't make someone want to be killed. If you've never been through it, I dont expect you to understand. The act of suicide is usualy thought of by the suicidal as a last resort. Major depression is a disease and it's a painful one.

People who "enjoy" killing probably wouldn't want to kill someone who wants to die anyways.

PO, I'm begining to think you're as unfeeling and unsympathetic as Robertson. You're not thinking about the arguments, you're thinking about how to make me look wrong and you're talking about things you know nothing about. You have not made a good case for your religion (or your god) at all.

Before you go and say that I won't listen to any religious argument and think about it, I want to direct you to the Fallen and Flawed blog in the right sidebar.

Demian is a good writer and makes a good case for religion. The big difference between him and you is that he is nice and thoughtful and presents his arguments with utmost respect. He comes across as actually wanting to learn something from atheists and I have learned alot from that Christian. I also respect him because he earned it. You however have not earned that kind of respect. That is also why your blog is not on my blogroll and his is. Go visit him, you can learn alot from him.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"People with suicidal thoughts/tendencies do not want to be killed. Suicide is caused primarily by major depression which I had to endure much of my adult life. Major depression makes life unbearable, but doesn't make someone want to be killed. If you've never been through it, I dont expect you to understand. The act of suicide is usualy thought of by the suicidal as a last resort. Major depression is a disease and it's a painful one."

You are lumping in the people that want to die because of emotional problems with those who would choose the manner of their death, like the terminally ill. Are you against Kevorkian type suicide?

Robert said:

"People who "enjoy" killing probably wouldn't want to kill someone who wants to die anyways."

Complete speculation on your part.

Robert said:

"PO, I'm begining to think you're as unfeeling and unsympathetic as Robertson. You're not thinking about the arguments, you're thinking about how to make me look wrong and you're talking about things you know nothing about. You have not made a good case for your religion (or your god) at all."

Robert, I know it disturbs you to examine the possible consequences of your broad generalizations, but it is important that you recognize them as such.

You say that we should all just follow our own consciences, but refuse to acknowledge that some people do not have a working conscience.

You say "Maybe, we shouldn't be condemn people and their behaviour based upon a bronze aged barely readable book." yet refuse to acknowledge that most all our law is actually largely based on this book.

Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all live by a moral code. Whether it is derived from the Bible, the Laws of the land, our consciences, or a mixture thereof.

As I have tried to point out, laws can be immoral, conciences can be broken, but the Bible stands as an unchanging guide that we can live by, as we have done for millenia.

Temaskian said...

The bible is derived from our innate moral code, and not the other way round.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Just wanted to add that probably instead of the Bible I should have said 'religious beliefs'.

Also there is the situation like yours Robert where you at least initially shared your parent's morals, but I would count that as our own.

Government, Religion or of our own making, did I miss any?

Temaskian said...

Yes, religious beliefs, bibles, government laws all derive their rights and wrongs from our own innate sense of right and wrong. You got it.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"PO, I'm begining to think you're as unfeeling and unsympathetic as Robertson. You're not thinking about the arguments, you're thinking about how to make me look wrong and you're talking about things you know nothing about. You have not made a good case for your religion (or your god) at all."

I was thinking a bit more about what you said here. I feel you may have misunderstood my motives or purpose. I am not an apologist, and have no desire to become one. I am not here to convince you that I am right and you are wrong. Some people enjoy debating Christianity, but I personally feel it is a huge waste of time. I have never heard of anyone becoming a Christian simply because another person made a better logical argument for God's existance. And that is my burning desire, to see people saved.

That is why I inquired about your wife, I felt as someone professing a faith in Christ I could pass on my experience to her. I hope you didn't see it as a personal attack.

And I wasn't trying to make you look wrong, I was trying to build a dam to block the flow and direct your thought pattern outside of the box a bit.

Robert said:

"Before you go and say that I won't listen to any religious argument and think about it, I want to direct you to the Fallen and Flawed blog in the right sidebar."

I wanted to thank you for that link to Fallen and Flawed, looks like a very interesting site.

Temaskian said...

The Prophetic Observer,

Earlier you said,"I really enjoy debating by beliefs, because it helps me to refine and understand them better. Challenging my morals helps me on my road to becoming a better person."

Now you're saying,"Some people enjoy debating Christianity, but I personally feel it is a huge waste of time."

GCT said...

P.O.
"I read your comment, however I saw no points worthy of refuting. I'll leave it to you to find the assumptions, broad generalizations, ad hominem and logical fallacies for yourself."

Wow, you're going to have to try harder than that. If you want to accuse me of all those things, you'll have to support your case, because they simply aren't there. Of course, it's much easier to simply hand-wave away critical arguments instead of addressing them, but whatever.

"GCT's blathering aside, it is irrefutable that many of our laws were derived from the Bible. We don't need it to say 'derived from biblical law' in the Constitution to see that it is."

Nor do we need to see "Derived from Hammurabi" to see that the laws are drawn from Hammurabi's code, or the Magna Carta, etc. Your claims are simply false.

"Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all live by a moral code. Whether it is derived from the Bible, the Laws of the land, our consciences, or a mixture thereof."

It is surely not derived from the Bible, else we would stone people for disrespecting their parents. The rules of the Bible have not changed, yet our morals have. Slavery is allowed in the Bible, but not now. Subjugation of women is allowed in the Bible, but not now. Simply put, the Bible is not our moral guide. If it ever was, we've surely outgrown it and replaced it with better morals (from my modern standpoint and the objective standpoint that allows for more freedom and rights for all people).

GCT said...

Good catch Temaskian.

GCT said...

BTW, P.O., at the time the Constitution was written, the religious leaders of the time largely derided it as an atheistic document. Apparently, it wasn't obvious at all to them that the Constitution was based on the Bible as you claim.

Temaskian said...

Thanks, GCT. High five. =~)

Your answers are well formulated; I can see that you have a wealth of information to back up what you're saying. Excellent work.

The Prophetic Observer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Prophetic Observer said...

Temaskian said...

Earlier you said,"I really enjoy debating by beliefs, because it helps me to refine and understand them better. Challenging my morals helps me on my road to becoming a better person."

Now you're saying,"Some people enjoy debating Christianity, but I personally feel it is a huge waste of time."

Rather simple if you had thought about it for a moment before posting...

I enjoy debating my morals, but not Christianity. I enjoy debating why I believe them, but not whether the Bible is the Word of God, or if He is real. That is what an apologist does, he makes the case for God. The case is closed for me, and as I said before no one becomes a Christian because they lost a debate.

It is not the job of the Christian to convince others that God is real, that is God's job. My job is to confess what He has done for me and to urge others to find the truth for themselves.

This is why GCT's comments are not worth my time. The Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on our federal buildings and court decisions, not Hammurabi's code, or the Magna Carta, "In God We Trust" inscribed on our currency, the Bible was read daily in all public schools. Indeed, these things have changed for the most part, but someone that would ignore such irrefutable evidence cannot be relied upon to engage in honest debate.

Temaskian said...

TPO,

"I enjoy debating my morals, but not Christianity. I enjoy debating why I believe them, but not whether the Bible is the Word of God, or if He is real."

So why do you believe your morals?

"The case is closed for me, and as I said before no one becomes a Christian because they lost a debate."

In fact, I have always felt the same way myself, that no Christian will ever become an atheist just because he lost a debate. At least not immediately. And not until he realises that he has lost the debate. No one likes to believe that he has lost a debate.

"It is not the job of the Christian to convince others that God is real, that is God's job."

Looks like God has failed then, with a lot of folks not believing in him.

"My job is to confess what He has done for me and to urge others to find the truth for themselves."

I have already found the truth for myself, that is that there is no God, and that the bible is just a book written by men, not by God, and that it is not 100% perfect.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Temaskian said...

"In fact, I have always felt the same way myself, that no Christian will ever become an atheist just because he lost a debate. At least not immediately. And not until he realises that he has lost the debate. No one likes to believe that he has lost a debate."

I cannot lose the debate. I already know God exists, I have an ongoing personal relationship with him. Can I convince you your mother doesn't/didn't exist? Debating God's existance is futile. It is a matter of faith. Spiritual matters are spiritually discerned.

Temaskian said...

"Looks like God has failed then, with a lot of folks not believing in him."

As Mark chapter 4 (which Robert writes about in another post) demonstrates, God is not going to reveal Himself to anyone unless they are seeking. It is your job to seek the Truth. Once you seek Him He will reveal Himself. So if you don't believe it is because you failed to seek Him, not God. (Revelation 3:20)

Temaskian said...

"I have already found the truth for myself, that is that there is no God, and that the bible is just a book written by men, not by God, and that it is not 100% perfect."

We'll see how that works out for you once God's judgments start coming to pass in the next few months. As the saying goes "There are no Atheists in foxholes".

Temaskian said...

I've been a christian for 2 years now. No judgement.

And there must be many who have been atheist for much longer than I have.

TPO, you're probably being superstitious, even though you don't realise it.

Temaskian said...

I've been an atheist, I meant. Typo error.

The Rambling Taoist said...

PO declared I already know God exists...

This phrase -- above ANY other -- is the one that confuses me most about Christianity. Supposedly, the Christian religion is built upon the edifice of faith, yet faith becomes immaterial if a person KNOWS something. What in the hell does it really mean to have faith in what you know for certain to be absolutely true?

Robert Madewell said...

"We'll see how that works out for you once God's judgments start coming to pass in the next few months."

Is that a testable claim, PO?
Sounds like it to me! Please tell us what's going to happen, so I can check it off as it does. If your judgment doesn't happen, then we may not know if God is real of not, but we'll know if you are right or not.

However, you need to be specific. Just saying "bad things will happen" doesn't cut it. What bad things are going to happen? You're the prophet here, so prove it to me.

If you want, I'll post a new article for you to make your predictions on.

GCT said...

P.O.
"This is why GCT's comments are not worth my time. The Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on our federal buildings and court decisions, not Hammurabi's code, or the Magna Carta, "In God We Trust" inscribed on our currency, the Bible was read daily in all public schools."

First off, I made lots of comments about lots of things, not just this, so if you think you can jettison them all simply because you disagree with my comment here, then you are the one who is dishonest.

Secondly, prayer in public schools does not equate to our laws being based on the Bible. Having "In god we trust" on our money also does not equate, nor was it even on our money until the 1850's or so, and only on limited currency.

As for the 10 commandments in courthouses, that's a reflection of Xians trying to shoehorn their beliefs into the state, a state that was intended to be separate. That we have taken our laws from Roman common law, code of Hammurabi, Magna Carta, etc is pretty well established. You can continue to simply wave it away, but it doesn't buttress your case.

"I cannot lose the debate. I already know God exists, I have an ongoing personal relationship with him."

Oh really? Let's play a little game. You seem to think that supernatural entities exist, including (but maybe not limited to) god and the devil (as evidenced by your response elsewhere). You claim to have a personal relationship with god, but how can you tell? Let's assume that some supernatural entity is in relationship with you. How would you ever know that it is god and not some other entity, like the devil perhaps? You can't possibly know that. Perhaps it is Baal, and your error-prone human senses are interpreting everything wrong and making you think you are speaking to Jesus/Yahweh.

But, let's go a step further, how can you know that it's supernatural to begin with? What evidence do you have that the sensations you are attributing to the supernatural are really sourced from there and not simply a part of how your brain works?

"Can I convince you your mother doesn't/didn't exist?"

Yes, with suitable evidence you could. Problem is that we happen to have plenty of evidence of the existence of our mothers, objective evidence that is verified. We can't say the same for god.

"I already know God exists, I have an ongoing personal relationship with him...Debating God's existance is futile. It is a matter of faith."

god's existence is a matter of faith, but you know it is true somehow? Will you make up your mind please?

"As Mark chapter 4 (which Robert writes about in another post) demonstrates, God is not going to reveal Himself to anyone unless they are seeking. It is your job to seek the Truth."

How very convenient, but ultimately empirically false. The amount of atheists that used to be Xians (you can't claim that none of them actually sought out god) is evidence that shows your claim is false...unless you wish to further claim that god picks and chooses which people to reveal himself to out of the set of people searching for him. But, that just makes him a right bastard, doesn't it?

"Once you seek Him He will reveal Himself. So if you don't believe it is because you failed to seek Him, not God."

Wrong for the same reason above, and I see you aren't arguing that god only reveals to a subset of the set of seakers. That makes you wrong as empirically shown.

"We'll see how that works out for you once God's judgments start coming to pass in the next few months."

Are you saying (s)he's going to die in the next few months? And, I always love it when the apologist relies on the threat of hell. Yup, believe in god or burn in hell, because that's a compelling argument.

Temaskian said...

TRT,

Good point.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

"Is that a testable claim, PO?
Sounds like it to me! Please tell us what's going to happen, so I can check it off as it does. If your judgment doesn't happen, then we may not know if God is real of not, but we'll know if you are right or not."

Read all about it in Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation. 9/11 was just God clearing His throat. God's people were warned weeks before 9/11 and we are ready for the next disaster, which is gonna make 9/11 seem like nothing. Cities are going to burn. As bad as Sodom and Gomorrah were they never tried to legalize gay marriage. IF God doesn't punish us for this abomination He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

Robert said:

"However, you need to be specific. Just saying "bad things will happen" doesn't cut it. What bad things are going to happen? You're the prophet here, so prove it to me."

You are still trying to get proof? You silly man, I simply give you the info and try to point you in the right direction, if you want the truth you need to find it for yourself. Go back and read Mark 4 again and again, perhaps God will have mercy on you and open up your understanding.

And I'm not a prophet, I simply observe prophecy and report it. Which makes calling me Pathetic Observer over at bay-of-fundies all the more hilarious.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Once again GCT, nothing worth my time in your post. The established fact of our laws and society being largely derived from the Bible and it's teachings is overwhelming and irrefutable.

I must admit though that I find All your fist shaking and foot stomping to be terribly amusing. :o)

The Rambling Taoist said...

9/11 was just God clearing His throat.

God has a throat? Hmm. A throat lozenge might be in order then.

Actually, 9/11 had nothing to do with the big G. I really don't think he was piloting those planes. If a deity did have a hand in it, it would the great Allah (but I don't think we can really blame him either!).

That said, the most likely explanation for 9/11 was failed American foreign policy.

GCT said...

PO,
"Once again GCT, nothing worth my time in your post. The established fact of our laws and society being largely derived from the Bible and it's teachings is overwhelming and irrefutable."

Then it shouldn't be too hard to conjure up some evidence, which you refuse to do like a typical apologist. Oh, and don't think I missed you shifting the goal posts.

"I must admit though that I find All your fist shaking and foot stomping to be terribly amusing."

And I find your inability to answer any objections to be pathetic and typical.

Robert Madewell said...

That's right, PO.

9-11 was God's punishment on America for letting O'Hair take prayer out of school. Puh-Leeez!

I suppose it had nothing to do with religious fundamentalists and terrorists.

GCT said...

Oh, and Robert, don't forget that armageddon is right around the corner. Don't let the fact that people have been making this prediction and getting it wrong for thousands of years now dissuade you from the fact that it's going to happen any day now.

Oh, and gay marriage is an abomination. I mean how dare they want to be together and happy! How dare they want to share their lives together and be in love. But, remember, I have nothing against gays.

/snark

The Prophetic Observer said...

GCT said:

"Then it shouldn't be too hard to conjure up some evidence, which you refuse to do like a typical apologist. Oh, and don't think I missed you shifting the goal posts."

I have explained why I offer no evidence *several times now*, you obviously have serious reading comprehension problems. Thanks for the laugh though.

The Prophetic Observer said...

GCT said:

"Oh, and Robert, don't forget that armageddon is right around the corner. Don't let the fact that people have been making this prediction and getting it wrong for thousands of years now dissuade you from the fact that it's going to happen any day now."

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2nd Peter 3:3-5 (KJV)

Robert Madewell said...

PO quotes 2 Peter 3:3-5, Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: "


I love the SAB commentary on this passage.

"The author of 2 Peter is aware of the failed expectations of early believers. He knows that Jesus, who was to come soon, didn't come at all. Many have begun to ask, "Where is the promise of his coming?" He tries to cover for Jesus by claiming that "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years"

This is what I call an "Obvious Prophecy". If you are making way out extraordinary claims, it's a sure bet that someone will criticize your claims. So, just say that when people are criticizing my claims, that means that my claims are actually coming true.

GCT said...

P.O.,
"I have explained why I offer no evidence *several times now*, you obviously have serious reading comprehension problems."

It's really because you can't. It's much easier to offer scorn and derision and act like you can answer challenges than it is to actually engage them. It's the sign of a weak argument when one has to attack the person as you have done and hasn't the ammunition to attack the argument.

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?"

People have been saying that for years too.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Robert said:

I love the SAB commentary on this passage.

"The author of 2 Peter is aware of the failed expectations of early believers. He knows that Jesus, who was to come soon, didn't come at all. Many have begun to ask, "Where is the promise of his coming?" He tries to cover for Jesus by claiming that "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years"

This is what I call an "Obvious Prophecy". If you are making way out extraordinary claims, it's a sure bet that someone will criticize your claims. So, just say that when people are criticizing my claims, that means that my claims are actually coming true.

This is just another example of the futility of trying to comprehend profound spiritual truths using human reasoning. If one is going to attempt such a thing they must take all scripture into account.

Most of the prophecy that precedes the coming of the Lord has already been fulfilled, perhaps the most stunning is Israel becoming a state again. However Jesus cannot return until all the prophecies are fulfilled.

Also the fact of God's timetable being different to humans should be immediately obvious to a critical thinker. Our concept of a day is tied to the earth's relationship to the sun. God exists outside of this.

Robert Madewell said...

"This is just another example of the futility of trying to comprehend profound spiritual truths using human reasoning. If one is going to attempt such a thing they must take all scripture into account."

The problem is that all scripture is also human reasoning. PO, if you haven't figured it out yet, I do not accept the Bible as the word of any god. The Bible isn't any better than using human reason. As a matter of fact, it is human reasoning from a time when humans knew a lot less about the universe than we do now.

Of course, there are good stuffs in the bible. But, the good stuff is the stuff we already know and it's not exclusive to christianity or judaism. The fact that there are verses like Deuteronomy 21:18-21 in the bible should be reason enough to reject the doctine of inerrancy.

"Also the fact of God's timetable being different to humans should be immediately obvious to a critical thinker. Our concept of a day is tied to the earth's relationship to the sun. God exists outside of this."

True, our concept of a day is tied to the earth's relationship (orientation would be a better word) to the sun.

How can the fact of God's timetable being different to humans be immediately obvious when the fact of God is not imediately obvious? First we need to establish that there is even a god before we can say anything about how he/she/it perceives time.

God exists outside of space and time right? God is transcendant! That explains everything, now I'm supposed to shut up, right? Here's what a christian way back when said about God.

"We do not know what God is. God himself doesn't know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being." ---Johannes Scotus Eriugena

To me that looks alot like not existing at all.

The Rambling Taoist said...

PO says, Our concept of a day is tied to the earth's relationship to the sun. God exists outside of this.

If there is a God and he, in fact, lives outside of the earth's relationship to the sun, then this fact alone negates your argument!

Out in the great void, there is no time. So, to say God's time is different than human time says nothing. Consequently, from this we can infer that, if God wrote the bible and he indicated a certain time period, he was referring to man's conception of time. This means CGT's argument still stands and you're going to have to find a different argument to try to refute it.

The Prophetic Observer said...

The Rambling Taoist said...

"If there is a God and he, in fact, lives outside of the earth's relationship to the sun, then this fact alone negates your argument!

Out in the great void, there is no time. So, to say God's time is different than human time says nothing. Consequently, from this we can infer that, if God wrote the bible and he indicated a certain time period, he was referring to man's conception of time. This means CGT's argument still stands and you're going to have to find a different argument to try to refute it."

God exists outside of earth time. The Bible gives His time as a day to 1000 earth years. So His concept of time is tied to something, just not the sun. It isn't difficult to understand if you try.

When we discuss time, spiritual concepts like Daniel's 70 weeks also come into play. And the time of the Jews vs. the times of the Gentiles. And the 5 kingdoms represented by Nebuchadnezzar's great image. We are currently at the end of the times of the Gentiles, Daniel's 70th week is about to begin.

God's time is not man's time, He gave us the signs of His coming, they are outlined in Matthew 24, and other areas in the Bible.

The Prophetic Observer said...

The fact that there are verses like Deuteronomy 21:18-21 in the bible should be reason enough to reject the doctine of inerrancy.

You are making an argument similar to the shellfish argument. If you want to pretend we are under old law you should go try and buy yourself a black slave, after all, that was in the law once too.

Christ negated that type of severe punishment in the beatitudes and the story of the woman being stoned for adultery.

If you wanted to make that type of argument you would be better off using slavery, which old and new testament condone.

The Rambling Taoist said...

The Bible gives His time as a day to 1000 earth years.

Hmm. I don't recall any such wording in the bible. Want to provide a citation?

The Prophetic Observer said...

The Rambling Taoist said...

"Hmm. I don't recall any such wording in the bible. Want to provide a citation?"

If you want to argue scripture perhaps you should learn to search it for yourself. Robert just quoted it, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find.

The Rambling Taoist said...

OK, I've gone back through ALL of Robert's comments in this thread and NOWHERE do I see the quote you allude to. Besides, you're the one making the point about 1 day = 1,000 years. The citation should be on the tip of your tongue. If you're going to make such points, you need to back them up.

The Rambling Taoist said...

OK, I see the problem. The citation offered was for 2 Peter 3:3-5 when, in fact, the correct citation is 2 Peter 3:8. That's what threw me off.

However, the operative word in that passage is "as". In this context, "as" means "for instance" or "like". If the author had intended explicitly to state that 1 earth day = 1,000 years (for God), there would no reason to include the word "as". He would have simply written, "is", not "is as".

GCT said...

"We are currently at the end of the times of the Gentiles, Daniel's 70th week is about to begin."

If 1 day = 1000 years...70 weeks would be 490000 years. Want to rethink your calculations?

"You are making an argument similar to the shellfish argument. If you want to pretend we are under old law you should go try and buy yourself a black slave, after all, that was in the law once too."

If we are not under "old law" then why do you hold that the 10 Commandments are important to the legal system of a nation supposedly set up to be Xian? And, where did Jesus outlaw slavery?

"Christ negated that type of severe punishment in the beatitudes and the story of the woman being stoned for adultery."

You do realize that the story of the woman being stoned for adultery (let he who is without sin cast the first stone) was made up and inserted as a very late addition, right?

The Prophetic Observer said...

GCT said:

"We are currently at the end of the times of the Gentiles, Daniel's 70th week is about to begin."

If 1 day = 1000 years...70 weeks would be 490000 years. Want to rethink your calculations?

Nope. You are going to blow a gasket trying to figure this prophecy stuff out with your limited understanding. I would say study prophecy, but that would be futile for a non-believer. Try researching prophecy that others have unveiled if you are really interested. Just Google "Daniel's 70 weeks". Otherwise you end up looking foolish.

GCT said:

"If we are not under "old law" then why do you hold that the 10 Commandments are important to the legal system of a nation supposedly set up to be Xian?

It is important because we still use them as a guide. The 10 commandments are reiterated throughout the new testament, and by Jesus Himself in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5).

GCT said:

"And, where did Jesus outlaw slavery?"

He didn't. God has allowed His own people to become slaves in Egypt, as punishment. We are all equal in God's eyes, however He has allowed people's to become slaves for a time as punishment throughout history.

GCT said:

"You do realize that the story of the woman being stoned for adultery (let he who is without sin cast the first stone) was made up and inserted as a very late addition, right?"

LOL! Silly man.

GCT said...

PO,
"Nope. You are going to blow a gasket trying to figure this prophecy stuff out with your limited understanding. I would say study prophecy, but that would be futile for a non-believer."

Yeah, it's futile because all the special pleading doesn't impress me.

"Try researching prophecy that others have unveiled if you are really interested. Just Google "Daniel's 70 weeks". Otherwise you end up looking foolish."

The mental gymnastics needed to alter things to the point where you can make a "prophecy" appear to have been correct is simply ridiculous.

"It is important because we still use them as a guide. The 10 commandments are reiterated throughout the new testament, and by Jesus Himself in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5)."

IOW, you're engaging in more special pleading. We don't have to follow them, since they aren't binding when it suits you, but we do have to follow them when it suits you to say that.

"He didn't. God has allowed His own people to become slaves in Egypt, as punishment."

Exactly, he didn't. And, god sees fit to put people into bondage for punishment? How moral of him.

"We are all equal in God's eyes, however He has allowed people's to become slaves for a time as punishment throughout history."

How racist of you. You just stated that god was angry at all black people.

"LOL! Silly man."

How so? Do you really think that the story of the adultress was an original piece of the gospels? You need to read up on the latest Biblical scholarship.

The Prophetic Observer said...

GCT said:

"Yeah, it's futile because all the special pleading doesn't impress me."

If you are going to latch on to a term such as "special pleading" you should probably understand what it means. Have Robert explain it to you.

GCT said:

"The mental gymnastics needed to alter things to the point where you can make a "prophecy" appear to have been correct is simply ridiculous."

Are you referring to something in particular? Or just blathering again?

GCT said:

"IOW, you're engaging in more special pleading. We don't have to follow them, since they aren't binding when it suits you, but we do have to follow them when it suits you to say that."

The Ten commandments are reiterated in the new testament, there is no special pleading involved. I, nor any Christian has ever said we do not need to follow the Ten commandments. You are totally confused.

GCT said:

"Exactly, he didn't. And, god sees fit to put people into bondage for punishment? How moral of him."

I thought God didn't exist? Are you drifting towards Agnosticism again? :grin: It is perfectly moral for God to punish us however He sees fit, just as it is moral for a parent to punish a child. God's punishment is always just and fair.

GCT said:

"How racist of you. You just stated that god was angry at all black people."

I didn't mention black people, you did. As a matter of fact I alluded specifically to the Jewish people. Many peoples have been slaves, not just black people. And all black people were not slaves. You are showing your ignorance again.

GCT said...

PO,
"If you are going to latch on to a term such as "special pleading" you should probably understand what it means. Have Robert explain it to you."

I understand it quite well. If it's not special pleading, then it's simply painting the bulls-eye around the already fired arrow. Either way doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny.

"Are you referring to something in particular? Or just blathering again?"

Yes, I'm referring to the mental gymnastics required to try and paint the 70 weeks as something meaningful.

"The Ten commandments are reiterated in the new testament, there is no special pleading involved. I, nor any Christian has ever said we do not need to follow the Ten commandments. You are totally confused."

Actually, some Xians when pressed will claim that there are only 2 commandments (love god and one another). You did claim that the old law was tossed out - which now apparently doesn't include the 10 commandments. Don't blame me for being confused that you can't figure out how to get your story straight.

"I thought God didn't exist? Are you drifting towards Agnosticism again?"

Sorry Robert, but I'm going to be a little direct here:

PO, are you really that stupid? Haven't we gone over this before? Given that you believe in god, and that this god doesn't say anything about the morality of slavery and even institutes rules for it (thus condoning it) and even uses it as a tool of oppression over people means that if this god of yours did exist, then he would not be moral. It's a very simple concept. Why can you not understand it when someone points out the logical conclusion of your arguments?

"It is perfectly moral for God to punish us however He sees fit, just as it is moral for a parent to punish a child. God's punishment is always just and fair."

Bzzzt, wrong. It is not moral for a parent to kill their child, is it? Yet, that's what god supposedly does and has done (if your god exists, which I add because you are too stupid to understand that I'm speaking about your conception of god). Justice is a concept of meting out what one deserves, where the punishment fits the crime and where we seek to rehabilitate instead of simply seeking vengeance. Sending people to hell for eternity is nothing more than vengeance. There's no justice in it. Punishing us for being born is not justice either. If that is your conception of justice, then I'm glad that people who are more morally advanced than you set up our criminal justice system.

"I didn't mention black people, you did."

You just claimed that he allowed people to become slaves for punishment. Blacks were slaves for many, many years. I can only conclude that god was punishing them according to you.

"Many peoples have been slaves, not just black people. And all black people were not slaves. You are showing your ignorance again."

I never said all blacks were slaves, but we do see that blacks in this country were brought here as slaves, apparently under the watchful and approving eye of your god. Unless god was making sure that only the "bad" blacks were taken as slaves, then maybe he only hated a large number of them. Also, during that time, there's not much white slavery going on, so it seems that god had a big hate going for black people in that he made them slaves and upset their families and culture, etc disproportionately to whites.

The Prophetic Observer said...

GCT:

I know you either hate God, or believe He doesn't exist, depending on your mood at the moment. You call me a racist, then imply God is a racist. You try to argue prophecy and scripture even though you are totally ignorant on both subjects. You vacillate between Atheism, Agnosticism and Paganism as it suits you. If you think God is evil you are a Pagan, not an Atheist.

I have tried to accommodate you, however you've really ceased making any sense a while back, Perhaps you should leave the heavy cerebral lifting for Robert in the future.

GCT said...

PO,
"I know you either hate God, or believe He doesn't exist, depending on your mood at the moment."

I believe he does not exist. There is no dependence on mood, and it's impossible to hate something you don't believe exists.

"You call me a racist, then imply God is a racist."

No, I said that your argument lends itself to racism, and that if god is as you describe then we might rightly call him racist.

"You try to argue prophecy and scripture even though you are totally ignorant on both subjects."

Only in your mind, and only because I don't agree with you. Not agreeing with you is not the same as being ignorant.

"You vacillate between Atheism, Agnosticism and Paganism as it suits you."

I have done no such thing, you are simply incapable of understanding simple argumentation.

"If you think God is evil you are a Pagan, not an Atheist."

One more time, and I'll try to use small words and simple sentences so that you might be able to understand. OK, here goes:

If god exists and is the being that you describe, then god is evil.

Nowhere in there have I implied that I believe this god exists.

"I have tried to accommodate you, however you've really ceased making any sense a while back, Perhaps you should leave the heavy cerebral lifting for Robert in the future."

These are tall words coming from someone who can't understand the simple concept of if/then. But, hey, let's ask him. Robert, do you think I need you to do my "heavy cerebral lifting?"

Robert Madewell said...

"Robert, do you think I need you to do my "heavy cerebral lifting?"

Nope. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty much fed up with Observer. You go for it GCT.

The Prophetic Observer said...

GCT said:

If god exists and is the being that you describe, then god is evil.

Nowhere in there have I implied that I believe this god exists.

GCT, I hate to break this to you, but starting off a sentence with "If god exists..." implies that you are Agnostic. Do you even know what Agnostic means? If you cannot grasp this simple concept I am afraid there is little hope for you...

The Rambling Taoist said...

OK PO, I get it now. (I can sometimes be a little slow on the uptake.) You purposely are being as obtuse as a person can be!

I suggest we ignore this person from now on as he/she isn't genuinely interested in a discussion; all he/she really wants to do is to talk about anything and everything except the topic at hand.

GCT said...

PO,
"GCT, I hate to break this to you, but starting off a sentence with "If god exists..." implies that you are Agnostic. Do you even know what Agnostic means?"

I'm fully aware of what it means. I'm also fully aware that you still can't grasp some very simple concepts.

1. You can't grasp if/then statements. Simply because I say, "If god exists," it does not mean anything about my beliefs when I'm discussing your arguments.

2. Even if I agree that there is a chance that some god may exist, that does not mean that I'm not an atheist (do you even know what atheist and agnostic mean?)

"If you cannot grasp this simple concept I am afraid there is little hope for you..."

I'm starting to think that TRT is right and that you are being obtuse on purpose. I mean, no one can be as stupid as you seem to be. Of course, I know that's not true, and you probably are that stupid, especially since I've met a few theists in my time that are just as stupid. Maybe someday you'll be able to converse with the grown-ups, but so far it looks like it'll take some work on your part to be on par with the rest of us.

The Prophetic Observer said...

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, I'm done with you now.

GCT said...

"Thanks for confirming my suspicions, I'm done with you now."

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. If anything it makes you look even more foolish.

The Rambling Taoist said...

With all due respect GCT, I took PO's last comment as a compliment. Obviously, PO realizes that he/she is dealing with highly intelligent folks who are both rational and contemplative -- The kind of people who make well-reasoned arguments and who don't allow themselves to become distracted by obtuseness.

GCT said...

When it comes to the vacuity of PO, I'm reminded of a recent post by PZ.

PO can't touch this.TRT,
I suspect he was being condescending and idiotic, just as he's been all thread long.