Friday, December 4, 2009

Dan Barker...Da Pimp Of Atheism!


Former Christian Dan Barker and Dinesh D'Souza Debate

Former Christian Dan Barker now turned anti-Christ advocate and Dinesh DSouza debate the existence of God. If you have a couple of hours go through the complete video. Also, at least Dinesh understands the Philosophical Metaphysical Naturalism and atheism of Darwinian evolution as you will hear him argue in the vid. The scientific principles that we've discussed in "Is Evolution Science" and "Does Science Presuppose Atheism" and other posts such as "Unnaturally Selected, 150 Years Of Deception" provide a good foundation for understanding the arguments and reading between the multiple lines of Barker's obfuscations.

The atheists claim that Dinesh was emotional, and threw red herrings and ad hominems. Quite the opposite was true. Barker threw out all kinds of red herrings. I guess the godless say anything to try to divert from the truth that Dan Barker was HANDLED, and that atheism, as a world view, makes some fanciful leaps of unfounded faith as Dinesh allows Barker to reveal. 

Barker Makes 5 Assertions 4 Of Which  Get Blown To Smithereens:

1- There are no good arguments for Christianity. Any argument for Christianity is a bad argument.
2- We can't know God because he is undefined and undefinable
3- There is no agreement in the Christian community on God's nature, moral principles and what God supposedly says (this topic went undeveloped)
4- There are no good replies to arguments against God such as the problem of evil arguments.
5- There is no need for God for man to live morally


You see, Barker claims morality without God. This is what he said in an interview earlier this year:
“You can be truly moral as a nonbeliever, instead of just following orders,” ... “People who don’t believe in a god — millions of good Americans — have happy, productive, moral, charitable, meaningful lives, without a belief in a god.”
Is that so? Yet at the beginning of his statements he claims that he receives royalties off of work that he did while he was a Christian. In fact, he is quite happy to receive income from a purpose (Christianity) which he says damages the world and every human being. I ask, where is ANY MORALITY in that? Is that what his godless standard of morality allows?

In other words, Barker, the atheist champion, feels totally justified receiving MONEY from something he believes is destroying humanity. The question is that if one doesn't believe in God and also believes that belief in God is damaging, how is it morally acceptable under any circumstance to make a living off of it? In other words while he claims to be good without God, he doesn't realize that he is committing and touting the most immoral act imaginable...He's PIMPIN' the church!

I say this Mr. godless morality...GIVE THE MONEY BACK! What a FARCE! And I might add that I won't even get started on these supposed morally equal atheists that encourage him.

Blessed!

71 comments:

  1. SORRY,

    I'm having some functionality problems and the video wouldn't diplay. I'll work with this again to see what can be done. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "There are no good replies to arguments against God such as the problem of evil arguments."

    I think there are good replies to the problem of evil arguments.I see no incompatability with the God of the Bible and the existence of evil. The arguments that I have read assume that God is under obligation to be merciful to His creation. But as I have said in other places God is never, never, never, never obligated to be merciful to sinners. In fact God is under no obligation to be merciful to anything that He has created. Grace is unmerited favor. It is never owed and God is therefore never unjust by witholding it. This is the Divine prerogative. God reserves the right to have mercy on whomever He pleases. Whether we are talking saving grace or common grace. It's by grace that God created and sustains creation. You cannot deserve as a non-being to be created. And since grace is unmerited favor God owes it to nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cole wrote: But as I have said in other places God is never, never, never, never obligated to be merciful to sinners.

    But in all of the places I've seen, you have yet to explain why God is never obligated. You just merely assert it as a means to "solve" the problem.

    Let's call God doing good things "grace" then claim that grace is unmerited. This simply does not follow.

    You've merely pushed your food around on your plate, then claimed you've ate it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scott,

    I didn't make up the concept of grace as being unmerited favor. It comes from divine revelation. The word "grace" used in the English Bibles is a translation of the Greek word "charis" . "Charis" means "free undeserved favor". In the Bible, it means "God's unmerited favor".


    New International Version

    And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

    New Living Translation

    And since it is through God's grace, then it is not by their good works. For in that case, God's grace would not be what it really is--free and undeserved.

    New American Standard Bible

    But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

    International Standard Version

    But if this is by grace, then it is no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.


    American King James Version

    And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

    American Standard Version

    But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.

    Bible in Basic English

    But if it is of grace, then it is no longer of works: or grace would not be grace.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also one thing I was glad for in the video of this debate is that there were a room full of kids and young people.

    They need to hear this stuff and develop ideas and opinions on this stuff. barker claims that he didn't know anything until he started reading anti-Christian dogmas. What he did was loos his mind because he didn't know anythhing from the beginning.

    These kids are becoming equipped and that's a good thing. The next generation of Christianity will be better and stronger as a result.

    Thank God for that!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cole,

    Again, here's the problem. First you say God doesn't have to demonstrate that he is good to be good. But then you say that you know God is good because he told you that he's good.

    But he didn't even need to do that to be good. In fact, he could have lied to you and said he was evil and still would have been good. Do you see the contradiction here?

    There appears to be nothing God could do that would result in him being evil.

    He could withhold his revelation from you, as he supposedly does from me, and still be good. He could have not created anything or anyone and still be good. He could make promises to us and break them and still be good. He could create us in the vacuum of space where we would freeze to death in mere seconds and still be good.

    So what value is there in calling God good? Why does he get a pass, because he said so?

    In fact, who's to say I have to do good things to be good? You might say, I don't have infinite knowledge like God, therefore I cannot be good.

    But this implies that God is perfectly good because he has infinite knowledge. And If I had infinite knowledge then I'd be perfectly good as well. Surely, you don't believe this.

    Furthermore it implies my lack of goodness would be directly due to the fact that God didn't make me with infinite knowledge.

    Last, it implies God does have to demonstrate he is good because the evil he allows must ultimately result in demonstrable goodness. So God does have to do something to be good. He just doesn't need to do good in any way we could ever qualify before we die. How convenient.

    So, again, it appears that theists have done nothing more than...

    …call God doing good things "grace" then claim that grace is unmerited.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scott,

    you said:So what value is there in calling God good? Why does he get a pass, because he said so?

    So if good exists wehere did it come from? From evil? Does evil have the ability to produce good? Is it a metaphysical necessity of evil to produce good?

    If somethign exuists the cause must at least have the capacity to produce it right? I mean that's what you say MOST times until you make your special pleae to God and spirituality don't you.

    QUIT this IDIOTIC line of questioning. The man has answered your silliness EVERYTIME consistently...so what you fail to understand.

    If good exists at all then whatever created that good has the capacity for it...Get a LIFE!

    ReplyDelete
  8. For those who follow the arguments:

    If good exists in the world it is because somthing other than a natural process has placed it there. There has never been any naturalistic metaphysical process or anything ever identified as being good! Rocks and trees are neutral and offer no moral value. If we identify good it's because it was infused by something other than what we see and know to exist.

    we gladly cliam god as the source of that and that is EXACLTY what ios laid out in the text. now these so called critics pride themsleves with such a modern argument, but it baffles their mind that for over 3,000 years there was a wruitten declaration claiming the goodness fo God. In other words they are arguing a point that was addressed thousands of years ago, yet they say it's antiquated...What a FARCE!

    I'm about at the end of my patience with this character...his comments are about to see that little garbage can underneath them in a minute. All he does is argue the same "we don't know truth" garbage. then how can anything he says be credible, according to him it's not even true!

    Waste of TIME!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scott,

    I don't remember saying any of those things. Go back and re-read what I said. You just can't take it because there is no incompatability with a God of grace and the existence of evil and suffering. This is the God of the Bible. God doesn't lie. He freely chooses to keep His promises of future grace-He's not obligated to but He does so anyway. Trusting and relying on God and His promises is what purifies us from sin. Not having infinite knowledge. There is a Creator creature distinction. We are finite and God is infinite. God is self-sufficient we are not. God is all-knowing we are not. God is all powerful we are not. God is everywhere at once we are not, etc. etc. Trying to be like God in every way possible leads to pride and arrogance. There are ways I'm to be like God and ways I'm not. This is obvious. I'm not God. He alone is the Creator. He alone is God. He's morally pure and perfect. He's distinct. He's the Holy Other.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scott,

    Let me put it to you this way. Before Adam and Eve sinned animals, along with Adam and Eve, experienced God's grace not as a response to their demerit but still without deserving it. You cannot deserve as a non-being, to be created and put on this earth to have all your needs met by God. So, before Adam and eve sinned the animals as well as Adam and Eve lived on grace. Grace is something that not even the animals deserve. Grace by definition is unmerited favor and therefore, God is never obligated to treat animals or humans with any kind of grace, whether it's common grace or saving grace. If He was it wouldn't be grace. So, God does nothing wrong by withholding grace. The charge of injustice on God's part can't even arise for allowing evil and suffering because we are talking about grace. God is never obligated to show grace. For grace to be grace it must be freely given. So, when God allows humans and animals to suffer He does nothing wrong. God obviously has many rights and prerogatives that we do not. He's the Creator we are the creatures. He alone is God. God reserves the right to have mercy on whomever and whatever He pleases.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scott,

    I wasn't saying that God is good because He has those properties. I was just listing some of the ways that God is different than us. When I said God was the Creator I wasn't saying that He had to create in order to be good. I was just showing you that there is a distinction between us and God. We don't deserve anything from GOD. There is a vertical relationship I have with God and a horizonal relationship I have with humans. If I get thrown into prison for a crime I didn't commit clearly I recieve injustice from man on the horizonal level. But I recieve no injustice from God for Him allowing it. God does nothing wrong by allowing it. God doesn't owe me mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A good example of this is found in the scripture:


    Genesis 50:20

    "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.


    The intentions on the part of man were evil and God held them responsible for their evil deed. Yet the actions on the part of God were good in allowing the evil.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scott,

    when you return and make REASONABLE arguments instead of the stupid repetitive ones you make you can come back until then GOODBYE!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not gonna let you take up all the time saying teh same thing over and over as if it makes it any better the 15th time...YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE JACKED UP and you have no sense of acquience when you've been defeated AS YOU REGULARLY ARE!!!

    You can't even offer a truth because you don't believe in truth...in fact we can't know truth according to you...IN YOUR VIEW I CAN'T EVEN POSSIBLY BE WORNG...so why are you here if for no other reason than to take up time?

    LATER!

    ReplyDelete
  15. David Deutsch is a HOMOSEXUAL with absolutely NOTHING of value to add to the conversation and nothing I haven't heard before...don't come back here with that SWINE!

    Even he makes ONE correct observation..."the UNSEEN does not have to resemble what is seen"...That's EXACTLY why God isn't subject to what we see now...he's greater than it and all current laws, but blind bats like scott have no clue and can't hear or understand even what they say themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cole,

    Don't waste your time with someone who doesn't have a clue to begin with...you've explained your position well and over and over...he's a jackleg and gets two thumbs down around here until he can associatiate instead of trying to spread his GARBAGE!

    This cat given you a hard time about what you don't know and he knows NOTHING and admits it...that he doesn't know what the truth is...HE'S A WASTE OF TIME!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Give the money back. What a farce." LOL, LOL. That statement just made my day!! The poor guy probably doesn't realize what a hypocrite he is by continuing to accept those christian book royalties.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Harvey wrote: Don't waste your time with someone who doesn't have a clue to begin with...you've explained your position well and over and over…

    Harvey, I've asked Cole a simple question: why is God's grace unmerited.

    But every time I do this, he replies with..

    1. A list of God's properties (all knowing, all seeing, etc)
    2. He doesn't try to be like God and that he is humbled because he isn't God
    3. God is distinct.

    But when I ask him if these are the reason's why God's grace is unmerited, he always says no!

    Then he goes on to include uncreated people, Adam and Eve and you and I as people who do not deserve God's grace. But when I ask if being uncreated, sinful, etc. is the reason these people do not deserve God's grace, he again says no! There is no qualification. No one must do anything to not deserve it.

    Despite this fact that these are supposedly NOT reasons, he always includes these points in his reply, so they must have some relevance. Right?

    I mean, why would he always included them if they had no significance? I'm just trying to figure out how.

    So, It's unclear how Cole has actually explained his position well or that I'm not trying to "associate" when he keeps giving me the same non-answers.

    Perhaps you think non-answers are examples of a good explanation of one's position? What other conclusion should I reach?

    ReplyDelete
  19. David Deutsch is a HOMOSEXUAL with absolutely NOTHING of value to add to the conversation and nothing I haven't heard before...don't come back here with that SWINE!

    Harvey, unless you can produce a reference to show that David actually is a homosexual, this would be a flat out assertion on your part.

    Furthermore, should this be the case, it would appear to be another flagrant attempt to discredit someone who does not hold your view. This is something you've done on several occasions, but not in such a overt way.

    Again, is this what you consider a clear response?

    If so this seems to explain why we keep going back and forth. This is NOT the kind of response I'd expect from someone who genuinely wants to discuss a topic. Yet you claim to want to have a discussion.

    Furthermore, you then turn around and claim that I'm the one who doesn't want to add to the conversation, despite resorting to ad hominem attacks those who disagree with you.

    Quite frankly, this is an example of the kind behavior that has turned me against Christianity in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Give the money back. What a farce." LOL, LOL. That statement just made my day!! The poor guy probably doesn't realize what a hypocrite he is by continuing to accept those christian book royalties.

    Aderonke,

    It's likely that Barker cannot stop his work from being performed or published due to contractual agreements. Even if he rejects the royalty payments.

    So he can either reject the payments, which would just put more money in the pockets of the Christian publisher or music label to advertise his earlier work or he can accept the royalty payments and use them to help fund his speaking work.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Harvey wrote: Also, at least Dinesh understands the Philosophical Metaphysical Naturalism and atheism of Darwinian evolution as you will hear him argue in the vid.

    To show that I wasn't just merely making an assertion that D'Souza actually does support common ancestry with apes, here's an article by IDEA (which promotes Intelligent Design) that discusses D'Souza's views on this topic in detail.

    Dinesh D’Souza's Misunderstandings About Intelligent Design

    Again, D'Souza thinks that God directed evolution to create human beings.

    I'm not just making this stuff up and posting it here to be difficult. I'm attempting to correct what is clearly an misinterpretation of what D'Souza position which you posted on your blog.

    I mean, you want the information on your blog to be accurate, right?

    ReplyDelete
  22. After trying re-reading Cole's comments here and elsewhere in an attempt to make sense out his position, I think I see what Cole is trying to say. But he seems to be making a unjustified leap from what Bible says to "solve" the problem of evil.

    Cole seems to be giving examples where the Bible describes God doing good for people without them doing any particular work deserve it. An example of this is uncreated people. They couldn't possibly have done any work because they did not yet exist. As such, in these examples, these acts are called "grace"

    However, Cole then makes the leap that these depictions imply God doesn't have to do any good at all to be good in any situation. Therefore, the problem of evil, which is part of the original topic, isn't really a problem.

    So I'm asking how he makes the leap to say that God need not do anything good to be good from God having been depicted doing good things for people without merit in the Bible?

    I mean, I've done good things for people without them having done anything to deserve it. Why cant I call these acts "grace", then make the leap that I need not do anything good ever because my grace is unmerited?

    This seems to be a key point in Cole's defense against the argument from evil, which does not follow.

    Cole, does this make my question clearer?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Scott,

    "However, Cole then makes the leap that these depictions imply God doesn't have to do any good at all to be good in any situation."

    That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that when God gives grace it's good. When He witholds grace it's good. He's not obligated to give it. If He witholds it He does nothing wrong. This is the Divine Preogative. He reserves the right to have mercy on whomever and whatever He pleases. He has rights and prerogatives that we don't. Nothing or nobody deserves His grace. Humans don't earn it. They are fallen sinners who don't deserve it. In fact nothing in creation can earn it. Creation itself doesn't do anything to earn God's favor. He's never obligated to give grace.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Scott,

    We are not to be like God in every way. We are purified by trusting and relying on Him and His promises.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What I'm saying is that when God gives grace it's good. When He witholds grace it's good. He's not obligated to give it. If He witholds it He does nothing wrong. This is the Divine Preogative.

    Cole,

    How is this any different than saying God doesn't have to do anything good to be good? It just seems like a "fancy" way of saying the same thing. And you seem to be relying on this interpretation to "solve" the problem of evil in your eyes.

    As someone looking from the outside, I don't see any difference. Instead, you seem to be making a leap from depictions where God has done a number of good things which were unmerited, which were called "Grace." But that God need not do anything good at all, in any situation, to be good doesn't seem seem to an interpretation which is explicitly supported by the verses you quoted.

    But, again, I've done good things for people that were "unmerited" as well, why can't I call these instances "grace", then make the same leap?

    He has rights and prerogatives that we don't.

    I'm asking why this is the case, because you define him that way? Because he's all knowing and all powerful? Because he's distinct? But these are supposedly not why God's grace is unmerited.

    You seem to think that God need not do anything at all, include create human beings an still be good. He could create human beings then walk away at any point and still be good. So, if this were the case, then it seems that God need not do anything good to be good.

    However, I don't want to put words in your mouth. If this is not what your trying to say, then please explain the difference.

    We are not to be like God in every way. We are purified by trusting and relying on Him and His promises.

    As I mentioned earlier, clearly you seem to think this is somehow important. I'm not denying this. What I'm trying to figure out how it's related.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Scott,

    God is self-sufficient in the trinity. He doesn't have to create in order to be good. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father with perfect love. The Spirit of love that flows between them is the Holy Spirit. God is complete in the trinity. When God does create it's by the overflow of His grace. This is so because you cannot deserve as a non-being to be created.

    Does this answer the question you keep asking? Or did I miss it again?

    Here's the point:

    There is no incoherence with a God of grace and evil and suffering.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Scott,

    Aside from teh fact that you don't know when to quit you offer the most lame excuses for your own decisions in life:"Quite frankly, this is an example of the kind behavior that has turned me against Christianity in the first place."

    This is LAME! You are patthetically weak if that's what turned you away from Christainity to an obscure if not IRRELEVANT version of truth that you believe can't be known...PLEASE spare us!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Scott,

    More pathetic rambling:"So he can either reject the payments, which would just put more money in the pockets of the Christian publisher or music label to advertise his earlier work or he can accept the royalty payments and use them to help fund his speaking work."

    You don't know JACK about why he's taking royalties so don't try to make excuses for this charlatan. The problem is you feel taht he has some kind of integrity because he's not a Christian, he has no INTEGRITY because he's a God-rejecting charlatan and SINNER...

    He's an excuse maker like you...

    So far as Dinesh's views on evolution taht has no effect on DESTROYING your NonChristian arguments like he does to your atheistic heroes. He calls you what you are and I love it...a bunch of God hating complainers who simply superimpose your ideas without basis...

    You didn't mention that he aslo feels the EXACT same way I do about the metaphysical atheistic premises in science...WHY NOT MENTION THAT SCOTT? Since you want people to know the truth...Oooh I forgot the truth is only what's convenient to your God hatred...The truth can't be known....

    SCOTT GET OFF THE BORAD WE'VE WASTED FAR TO MUCH TIME WITH YOU!

    ReplyDelete
  29. SCOTT,

    You're a waste of time here, NOONE is under any obligation to explain anything to you because we understood what Cole was saying LONG ago...you seem to be the only one in a brain fog...so I'm sutting you down from futher engagement...

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I can't figure out this guy Scott.

    He presents to US a homosexual that claims he's found something out new about life and how knowledge is gained. He's found out that we simply don't just gain knowledge about things through our sensory perception or through merely physical processes...That's essential what he claims.

    NO KIDDING! Christianity and the bible in general teaches that from beginning to end and Scott clings to this as some supposed NEW information....That charlatan has NOTHING NEW to tell us and what he knows we know the truth of.

    It's like a college graduate taking instruction from a kindergartner...Yet Scott thinks that he has something to offer...

    What you don't realize is that when one rejects God they loose something that they can't get outside of themesleves. This is what Dinesh D'Sousa has to say about those like him in a debate with Dan Dennett. This is when Dennet's arguments were blown up in front of his atheist affirming friends. You'll find that HERE along with D'Sousa's sharp points on what atheism has really done for the world HERE and HERE Dennett, doesn't want to claim the atheistic murderers because those murders were't done in the "name of atheism"...EXCUSES of the DUMB and in DENIAL!

    Then my favorite about why the atheist even acts morally...certainly not because of any eviolution, it's because of mimmicking Christianity...That's HERE

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dinesh also addressed the multiple religion objection that scott and others consistently raise...

    He basically states that even in the natural world when we have multipl variances of opinion over philosophical issues and otherwise, NONE actiing rationally stands up and says that the views don't exist simply because they are diverse...However they make a special bleeding heart pleading to deny God simply because there are multiple religions. That's HERE.

    And this is the CORRECT understanding of what Dinesh thinks about ID and evolution

    That's the futility of atheism, making leaps into areas when none are necessary.

    Scott I can delete your GARBAGE all day...you may as well quit shoveling...I have nio concern for anyone that won't engage the truth, stay ons subject and doesn't know when to quit because they are an idiot!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Scott,

    You see it's FUTILE to argue with an IDIOT who doesn't even believe that we can know truth such as you...What point does it make?

    In fact EVERY ASSERTION that you can level at me or about ANY SUBJECT THAT WE DISCUSS, CAN'T BE TRUE according to your world view and belief...In fact You're UNBELIEVEABLE and UNTRUSTWORTHY because there is nothing fixed in your world. YOU ONLY MOVE THE PIECES TO FIT AND SUIT YOUR NEEDS...

    We don't need or want those jackleg arguments around here...that's why I say you're a COMPLETE waste of time...Besides that because we can't know the truth, why BOTHER us any longer with your dribble...it's INSANE. I'm beginning to think that the reason you have to subdue your mind in your profession is because you're on DRUGS all day...That's the TRUTH as I can see it from you!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Would you look at this guy????

    Scott what don't you understand...your questions are CLOSED to everyone...you don't address andy FACTS...You want to do something...address your version of TRUTH...If it can't be known YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT COLE OR ANYONE ELSE IS SAYING...until then IT'S FUTILE TO DIALOGUE WITH YOU!

    LATER!

    ReplyDelete
  34. In fact EVERY ASSERTION that you can level at me or about ANY SUBJECT THAT WE DISCUSS, CAN'T BE TRUE according to your world view and belief..

    So, this is your response? I mean, your just going put words in my mouth that I did not say and call me an idiot for saying them? Please show me where I said this or explain the logic behind this statement.

    Otherwise, it just appears to be an attempt to avoid the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Scott you've said OVER AND OVER..."we can't know the truth"

    Are you on drugs scott? Are you smoking a FAT BLUNT RIGHT NOW? I believe so...

    I can go back to almost every post you've made and see this comment..."We can't know the truth"

    Does anyone see this guy...I guess that's another truth that we can't know, even when he writes it???

    ReplyDelete
  36. Here's one of the more recent assertions you said to Laura:

    "Laura, I realize you think there is only one truth. But how do you decide what that truth is? That there is one truth, doesn't me that God actually exists. That there is one truth doesn't mean that you can know it. This does not follow."~ [Is hell eternal pt. 2 December 2, 2009 10:37 AM ]

    This is just one example...you've left a hefty trail...need I go on?

    If we can't know the truth it's no sense in you talking or us listening to you...LATER Scott!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Would you look at this guy????

    I'd suggest you take a good look at yourself instead. How this is Godly behavior is beyond me. Kettle meet pot.

    Apparently your "absolute morality" is nothing more than a justification to call people who do not share your beliefs homosexuals without any basis, misquote them, etc.

    You've shown your true colors and made my point for me, yet again. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

    Or is this kind of behavior you think God want's you to exhibit? I mean, if God commanded an entire culture be put to the sword, including women and children, then what's wrong with calling people who do not share your views homosexuals, right?

    Laura, Paul, Cole,

    Is this what you think God want's you to do as well? Is this your idea of absolute morality?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I wrote: "Laura, I realize you think there is only one truth. But how do you decide what that truth is? That there is one truth, doesn't me that God actually exists. That there is one truth doesn't mean that you can know it. This does not follow."~

    Harvey, the fallacy here is that Laura makes the leap that just because an absolute truth exists, that she must know what that absolute moral truth is. Clearly she thinks this the case because she called her 2+2=4 question a "stumper". This does not follow.

    Instead, I'm asking, out of all of the absolute moral standards that have been supposedly "revealed" by various concepts of God or Gods, why she knows that the Bible actually is THE absolute moral standard in reality? How does she know that any concept of God represents an accurate description of God or his commands?

    That Bible is absolute moral standard because it says it's absolute moral stander is circular. All of the other absolute moral standard make the exact same claim.

    In fact, each and every claim of absolute moral truth must include the claim that it is absolute truth by definition, or they couldn't be an absolute moral standard, could it?

    So, it can't be true just because it says it true. Because they all say they are true. Clearly this cannot be the qualification.

    As for absolute truth (not just the subset of morality) it would be impossible for anyone who is not infinite to know the absolute truth about absolutely everything. Only God, as you define him could know everything about everything. Right. Or do you think Laura is an infinite being?

    Again, that there is some absolute truth in reality, doesn't mean that we MUST know it, moral or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Furthermore, even if there is some absolute moral truth, which I'm not ruling out, this does not mean that a supernatural, non-material being is actually responsible for it. An absolute moral truth could be based on other foundation, such as the fact that we live in a physical universe.

    So, I'm merely pointing out what appear to be unqualified "leaps" which do not necessarily follow.

    I invite you to fill in the blanks to explain how you're reached these conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Scott,

    Don't try to spin it now, ALL you've done since you've been here is CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY not address the issues that you disagree with, change standards to suit your needs, OBFUSCATE the TRUTH with terms and equivocations that you use as demonstrated...YOU ARE A FARCE...caught, and still try to hide the FACT that you left for yourself...

    Scott this type of reasoning is UNWELCOME...Did you get that? We don't need to waste time with anyone who feels that truth can't be found and has no epistemological basis...

    Ours is DEMONSTRABLE so what you don't like it...this is not A MILLION QUESTION SESSION for SCOTT to antagonize... Simply make your point and SHUT UP! or MOVE ON!

    The point has been made you don't know what you're talking about and that has nothing to do with us. You reasoning using UTILITY is thoroughly REJECTED...there is a moral base to truth that has been demonstrated and is falt out common sense wto which you demonstrate that you have none...You consistently overlook the TRUTH with STUPIDITY that you think is logical...you KNOW no logic reasoning and it's is proven by your own statements.

    END OF STORY!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Scott,

    So that's your last POST in this section, I'll not continue to let you CLUTTER up the blog sections any longer...

    THANK YOU!

    ReplyDelete
  42. See this is another example of why I wil no longer all ow thuis guy to comment... he says:As for absolute truth (not just the subset of morality) it would be impossible for anyone who is not infinite to know the absolute truth about absolutely everything."

    See the changing of the goal post? I'm not even talking about knowing absolutely everything, that's not in question so far as we're concerned...we're simply talking about knowing TRUTH abosutely...he changes that to the quantity of truth that we can't know and that WAS NEVER in question...

    He's a slight of hand artist and thinks everyone is less intelligent than he and can't see or understand his lies...This is EXACTLY what I mean and he's done this type of thing in EVERY agrument in which he's been refuted and overturned and it only leads to a million questions and taking up more post thread...

    IGNORAMOUS...I've never done that on anyone's site...I've been an antagonist regading the argument bu to do what he does is RIDICULOUS!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Harvey,

    I think I'm going to have to agree with you. People do this to me all the time about knowing the truth. They think that just because you believe in truth and that you believe we can know some truths that you think you know everything about reality or even God. It's very frustrating for me at times because alot of these people are Christians. I was led to believe that I thought that I had it all figured out and was being controlled by fear by a couple of Christians. I guess part of it's my fault for being so easily mislead.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Cole,

    Can you imagine if a person equivocated like that on marriage. I mean one minute he'd say to his fiancee, "You're the perfect person for me", then the very next minute he'd day, "well I haven't met all the women in the world yet so my fiance may not be the perfect person in the world for me...there may be someone better"...Then as soon as he finds a "better" he starts the whole process over again...over and over through a state of confusion because he believes that the "perfect" person can only be found when all possible choices have been discovered and exhausted...

    That's the epitome of FOOLISHNESS!

    The is the rationalle of Scott. He believes absolute truth can only be established when all absolute truth's have been accounted for exhaustively...STUPIDITY...or at least that's what he wants us to believe when it comes to God and knowing moral truth...

    It would be an IDIOT who applies that principle in their life. A person would never do anything with the fear that there's something better that can be done...they wouldn't buy a car because there's always a lower price on the same or comparable model somewhere...they wouldn't buy a house for the same reason and everything they do they would go through the same process...this is called MENTAL ILLNESS.

    This is what Scott wants us to believe, that mental illness is normal at least when it comes to knowing truth and especially biblical truth. The mentally ill are better off than a person who describes truth in the terms that Scott does, because a lot of the mentally ill aspire to normal paths of thinking, Scott does just the opposite...he tries to figure out how far out there and crazy he can get and still sound sane...

    I still think he's either crazy or on drugs!

    My spelling was jacked in the previous one...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Something that annoys me is that scott is trying to persuade us that we might be wrong and offers no alternative other than to become someone that is tossed to and fro by whatever wind blows! thats utter madness.

    Give us something we can sink our teeth into (even though It would not sway us a bit, for we have found truth) if you are going to reason is a mature manner but this rhetoric is very silly. Its offers no hope but wants to persuade people who stand on the foundation of Christ to believe in nothing, no truth?!

    Madness!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Paul wrote: Something that annoys me is that scott is trying to persuade us that we might be wrong and offers no alternative other than to become someone that is tossed to and fro by whatever wind blows! thats utter madness

    Paul,

    What annoys me is that you seem to expect moral truth to be spelled out to you in black and white. Otherwise, you'd be "lost in the wind!" Heaven forbid you'd have to actually think about the situations you find yourself in and make a decision on your own.

    The problem is that the universe we live in is NOT black and white. If a 2,000 year old "checklist" is all you have, then there will be situations where this list simply isn't up to the task because it's authors were either unaware future situations or were influenced by their own bias.

    Give us something we can sink our teeth into (even though It would not sway us a bit, for we have found truth) if you are going to reason is a mature manner but this rhetoric is very silly.

    Paul, you've just claimed to know every possible thing you need to know. Beyond your belief in God, everything else is essentially of no consequence. As long as you follow the "list", then you've done your part.

    If this is your position, then my beliefs are irrelevant. Until this changes, you can learn nothing new of any significant value.

    Because you think God is all knowing, he couldn't possibly have left anything out of the Bible that was important. So, you couldn't possibly learn anything of value from me, another culture, religion or future discovery. It's simply not even a possibility.

    To quote David's TED talk,

    In every aspect of their lives, they wished for progress, just as we do. But they failed, almost completely, to make any. They didn't know how to. Discoveries like fire happen so rarely, that from an individual's point of view, the world never improved. Nothing new was learned.

    Before the scientific revolution, they believed that everything important, knowable, was already known, enshrined in ancient writings, institutions, and in some genuinely useful rules of thumb -- which were, however, entrenched as dogmas, along with many falsehoods.

    So, here we have concrete examples of people who thought they knew everything, but only realized they did not after changing the way they thought. We may think we're "different" than they were but we're much more alike than you think. Again to quote from David's talk...

    These were people with brains of essentially the same design that eventually did discover all those things. But that ability to make progress remained almost unused, until the event that revolutionized the human condition, and changed the universe.

    Furthermore, I've already posted links to videos from Sam Harris and Robert Wright, which seem to indicate there might be some kind of absolute truth. It's a complex subject, which isn't going to solve itself over night.

    Until then, I'm unwilling to go about my life pretending I know what absolute morality is out of utility. Nor do I go around murdering or raping people. We have to wake up and take responsibility for our actions.

    Furthermore, I do not think absolute moral truth would be in the form of some kind of "list" that is frozen in time. Anything we might conclude should be reviewed for bias, refined and expanded to fit new situations and new discoveries. Otherwise, we're just repeating the same mistakes we've made in the past.

    And how do we do this? Again David's talk talks about better ways of explaining explanation and gives concrete examples that show how we can more accurately know about what is unseen.

    That the truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world. It's a fact that is, itself, unseen, yet impossible to vary.

    However, I get the feeling that, unless someone gives you a black and white description of moral truth, you're simply not interested. It's too much work.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Scott said - Paul, you've just claimed to know every possible thing you need to know. Beyond your belief in God, everything else is essentially of no consequence. As long as you follow the "list", then you've done your part.

    In Christ I have all I need to know that is true, if not then provide me with the truth or atleast a better alternative. You just saying, how do you know you are right, does nothing for a man that wants truth. Give me something concrete.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You say I cannot learn anything new with all the countless lenghthy posts you have posted you havent given anything concrete.

    Please dont quote Ted because this dude didnt give anything concrete either, he like you was based on suppositions and disbelief but never offered any concrete alternative as to where we came from and to why we are here. He says that man is good, that nullifies his arguement totally, how ignorant is that?

    Tell me, if man is so good and can be left to himself why do we have jails? why is evil rampant, why is that, since man is inherently good? funny thing is the more we take God out of everything the worse it gets!

    You see scott I dont want a bunch of what ifs, I want you to tell me WHAT IS THE RIGHT WAY?

    When a man finds the truth why on earth would he keep searching? thats madness. If there is truth to be found and if there is a God then there must be one truth, we believe we have found it, whats yours?

    I heard a preacher who was raised muslim, who said "when I found truth" he gave the message of salvation to a Muslim who later recieved Christ as her Savior and she said "all I wanted was to be holy and have peace". I know a woman who was raised Hindu and all her family, she claims Christ to be THE TRUTH.

    This is what we claim to be truth, what is yours. NO long comment is needed, what is it?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Scott said However, I get the feeling that, unless someone gives you a black and white description of moral truth, you're simply not interested.

    Are you saying I should be interested in knowing something thats unknowable or atleast something that you have found out as yet but yet you are telling me I should be more open like you who dont know anything? are you serious?!

    So I should base my eternity (If there is one) on nothing? You offer me no hope but you want me to be open to you hopelessness.

    Again, are you serious!

    If I am wrong, atleast I stuck to something in order to be right while you just float around uncommitted. Your openess to know is the easy way out, its not to be commended in the least. NO resposnsibilty, you see.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You just saying, how do you know you are right, does nothing for a man that wants truth.

    Paul,

    I'm a man who want's to get as close as truth as possible. But I realize that, before this can happen, we have to qualify our methods of determining truth. We have to step back and ask ourselves, given our track record in the past, what is the best way to explain things unseen going forward?

    Give me something concrete.

    God is not "concrete." If he was, it wouldn't make sense to require a belief that he exists to receive eternal reward.

    Based on what we observe, there could be more than one God, a battle between a perfectly good God and his evil twin, etc. We vary the properties and motives of God(s) and still explain anything that we observe.

    So, I'm suggesting that your current "truth" isn't actually concrete in the first place. This means your demand for something as equally "concrete" as you perceive God is unrealistic. God has evolved over time to have properties that ensure this will never happen. What you ask for is impossible by design.

    You say I cannot learn anything new with all the countless lenghthy posts you have posted you havent given anything concrete.

    These two things are not mutually exclusive. That I supposedly haven't provided you with what you conceder a "equal" substitute for God does not change the fact that, if you think you know all there is to know, you can never learn anything new.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Please dont quote Ted because this dude didnt give anything concrete either, he like you was based on suppositions and disbelief but never offered any concrete alternative as to where we came from and to why we are here.

    This is an unreasonable demand as "where we came from and to why we are here" was NOT the topic of David's talk. As such, it's unclear why a lack of such information would invalidates his argument. This does not follow.

    Instead, David's talk was about how we can better know things unseen. And he gives concrete examples of something simple, such as the seasons, which we can easily understand. However, everything in the universe, including the morality of human beings, isn't this this simple.

    His key point is that explanations that are hard to vary have been historically shown to be more successful in revealing knowledge about things unseen.

    As I've illustrated above, we can easily vary God's properties, which are unseen, to explain what we observe. That you belief that God has a specific set of properties doesn't mean that some other God couldn't be used to explain everything. in fact, history is littered with such different versions of God which they thought was just such as good of an explanation.

    He says that man is good, that nullifies his arguement totally, how ignorant is that?

    First, where does he actually say that? If you lean nothing from me, I hope you at least realize this is an unqualified version of David's position. Furthermore, I'm not going down this rabbit trail only to be accused of derailing the subject.

    You see scott I dont want a bunch of what ifs, I want you to tell me WHAT IS THE RIGHT WAY?

    Paul, you can't say you know everything you need to know, but claim to be genuinely interested in my position. This is disingenuous and I'm not falling for it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. When a man finds the truth why on earth would he keep searching?

    Because he finds a better way to explain things "unseen." And this way is shown to be better based on historical discoveries in the past. However, if you think you know everyone you need to know already, then there cannot be any "better" way.

    This is what we claim to be truth, what is yours. NO long comment is needed, what is it?

    The truth consists of that which is seen and unseen. And the better our understanding of what is unseen, the better equip we are to maximize our own well being and the well being of others. I think that when we really pay attention, we realize personal well being and collective well being is interdependent. It need not be zero sum. In fact, I think maximized well being means it must not be zero-sum.

    One needs knowledge of how a car operates to make it run well. One needs knowledge about how the human body works to be healthy. We can say the same thing about the understanding the brain and human well being. The two cannot be separated as they are interdependent. You think God explains consciousness and defines well being. I think the brain explains consciousness and defines well being. We agree that which is unseen is important. We disagree on exactly what is unseen and how we can know more about it.

    To quote Robert Wright,

    I would say we've been there before and we're there now. That, you know, we are approaching a global level of social organization. And if people do not get better at acknowledging the humanity of people around the world in very different circumstances, and even putting themselves in the shoes of those other people then we may pay the price of social chaos. So the system is set up that way. And that's just an intriguing fact to me that seems to create a kind of moral axis that we can't help but orient ourselves toward or try to orient ourselves toward.

    Are you saying I should be interested in knowing something thats unknowable or atleast something that you have found out as yet but yet you are telling me I should be more open like you who dont know anything? are you serious?!

    Would you please stop making unqualified straw men out of my arguments?

    I'm NOT saying I do not know anything at all. Understating our limits is knowledge. To quote Shakespeare, "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."

    Being truly interested in truth, and saying you already know everything you need to know IS mutually exclusive.

    If I am wrong, atleast I stuck to something in order to be right while you just float around uncommitted. Your openess to know is the easy way out, its not to be commended in the least. NO resposnsibilty, you see.

    First, you're arguing from utility. Did you not read where Harvey ranted about how "awful" this argument is? Or is it only a bad argument when I make it?

    Second, this is another straw man as I do not think the absence of God means I'm free to do whatever I want. The fact that the vast majority of all non-theists do not go around murdering or raping people is proof of this.

    I am responsible for my actions. There is no non-material, evil, supernatural being that tempts me do evil things or uses me as a pawn against God. Nor are my good deeds dependent on whether a supernatural God extends or withholds his "grace." The buck stops with me. I'm the causal proximate source of my actions or lack their of.

    ReplyDelete
  53. And what I find disturbing is how NONE of you have called Harvey on calling Deutsch a homosexual without any factual basis. I mean, it's right their in black and white.

    Either people....

    A. Doesn't see just how transparent this ad hominen attack really is
    B. You see though it, but approve of slurring people who disagree with you
    C. You disagree but not strongly enough to challenge Harvey on it as it might weaken his position, which you agree with.

    Either way, I find this incredibly hypocritical from people who argue that their IS some kind of absolute morality.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Scott,

    you said:There is no non-material, evil, supernatural being that tempts me do evil things or uses me as a pawn against God. Nor are my good deeds dependent on whether a supernatural God extends or withholds his "grace." The buck stops with me. I'm the causal proximate source of my actions or lack their of.

    How do you know this? and who or what caused your actions before you had this grand epiphany that you were your own cause?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Scott, what is the truth? Give me an alternative to Christ, whom I see as absolute so give me an absolute.


    I dont want to actually know but to tell me I maybe wrong and offer no alternative is empty. If I am lost the right thing to do is show me the way, no?

    Scott you want your truth from what I can see. Jesus said you will know the truth and it will set you free. You will be free from confusion is you find truth in Christ. You may say you are not confused but you have nothing concrete and also switch up si I cannot see how not.

    You can end your search, Christ is the ONLY truth!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Scott you dont get, it is not within man to know truth, its bigger than you, its beyond your comprehension. Thats why you will not find it because you believe your finite mind and intellect can contain it, it cant! until you humble yourself you will never find. Get your intellect out of the way and ask God to show you truth, He will!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Scott, when a man finds truth he stops seeking and give all to it, there is nowhere else to go.

    Matthew 13:44-46 (New King James Version)

    44 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
    The Parable of the Pearl of Great Price

    45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, 46 who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it.



    You see there are thousands of differnt ways so am I supposed to try each and every "truth" before I can say I found truth, thats impossible, no?

    Matthew 7:13-14 (New King James Version)

    The Narrow Way

    13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.



    Another thing, what I see is you are suggesting that If God is real He just remains obscure and waits for us to come to Him,He leaves all of the seeking up to us, not so.

    John 15:16 (New King James Version)
    16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.


    The reason why Jesus told the disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel is because He wants all men to hear it, it is He who is doing the seeking.

    Luke 19:10 (New King James Version)
    10 for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”


    John 6:44 (New King James Version)
    44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.



    You say you want truth but to me you want your own truth, even your truth is not constant, its changes to suit you. If absolute truth is, its beyond man as mans truth, morals, right and wrong are relative to what they think it is. GOD MUST REVEAL IT TO YOU!

    Matthew 16:13-18 (New King James Version)

    Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ

    13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
    14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
    15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
    16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
    17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for FLESH AND BLOOD has NOT REVEALED this to you, but MY FATHER who is in heaven.


    You may be responsible for the actions you think are right or what the law says but I am talking about something you see as absolute that you are subject to.

    You say I really dont want to know your way, thats true to an extent but if you want me to doubt my way without giving me an absolute alternative is it not you who are not genuine? You dont care for my soul! If I now give up my faith and I was right initially where does that leave me? Must I put my soul in the balance and you offer me not hope in eternity?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I said: There is no non-material, evil, supernatural being that tempts me do evil things or uses me as a pawn against God. Nor are my good deeds dependent on whether a supernatural God extends or withholds his "grace." The buck stops with me. I'm the causal proximate source of my actions or lack their of.

    How do you know this?

    Harvey, I've made it clear that I cannot be absolutely and completely sure in earlier comments. That I don't preference every single statement with "I'm not 100% sure" doesn't mean it's not implied.

    What I'm referring to is one of the ways the Bible explains suffering: the Apocalyptic response, which appeared to explain suffering about 150 years before the birth of Christ.

    The Apocalyptic response implies that God has revealed the heavenly secrets that can make sense of earthly realities. This represents an explanation of things unseen, which includes that God has a personal opponent in Satan and presented the dualistic view that you are either for God or against God.

    Jump to 23:40 in this video on how the Bible explains suffering by Bart Ehrman.

    The Apocalyptic response laid the the foundation for Christ's teaching, including the idea that the current age would end and a new age would arrive where God will right everything wrong, restore our body, give us eternal life, etc. Jesus was an Apocalyptic Jew.

    Why do I think it's wrong?

    First, specific explanation by which these Apocalyptic Jews explain suffering though God's unseen heavenly "secretes" can be easily varied. It's a bad explanation.

    Second, it's a perfect example of such variation in action. When Jesus, Paul and other biblical figures are wrong about when this new age will appear, Christians simply vary their explanation to account for it's failure to materialize. The term generation is redefined, etc.

    and who or what caused your actions before you had this grand epiphany that you were your own cause?

    Are you asking what did I used to believe? Or are you suggesting that, what cased my actions some how changed in reality since my gradual change in view?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Paul wrote: Scott, what is the truth? Give me an alternative to Christ, whom I see as absolute so give me an absolute.

    Paul, did you even read my comments? Because this question suggest that you either did not read them or you do not understand them.

    Scott you dont get, it is not within man to know truth, its bigger than you, its beyond your comprehension. Thats why you will not find it because you believe your finite mind and intellect can contain it, it cant!

    If we cannot know remotely any kind of truth because we are finite beings that are so broken, fallen and "lost", then how could you possibly recognize God's truth when you see it? If you personally should be rewarded for recognizing God's "truth" then it must be your finite fallen self that ultimately make that decision. Otherwise God is making the choice for you and It's not "you" who believes.

    So, why is that you can recognize truth but I can't?

    You say you want truth but to me you want your own truth, even your truth is not constant, its changes to suit you.

    Paul, why haven't you called out Harvey on calling Deutsch a homosexual without any factual basis? I've given him ample time to provide a source, which makes it a disingenuous ad hominen attack. How is this consistent? How is this not a truth that is "convent" because Deutsch doesn't share your beliefs?

    Harvey admits that Barker's acceptance of royalty payments really isn't the issue. Instead, he presupposes Barker has no integrity because he doesn't share his beliefs. To quote Harvey,

    [Barker] has no INTEGRITY because he's a God-rejecting charlatan and SINNER…

    Your silence on this issue speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Scott, if the man is not homosexual I dont agree with Pastor Harvey. I was silent because it was not important.

    What I got was that the man takes the monies and has no integrity because he is a sinner. If a man that claims Christ is false is still recieving monies from christian writings isnt something wrong with that?

    What I am telling you is that YOU cannot understand truth outside of the HOLY SPIRIT giving you that understanding, thats so simple. You are trying to find truth on your own,but you have none, if you do what is it specifically? you have none.

    2 Corinthians 4:3-7 (New King James Version)
    3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.



    1 Corinthians 2:09-15 (New King James Version)
    10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
    13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[b] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



    I have to yeild myself to the truth of God, thats my part but without the Holy Spirit moving the blindness I wouldnt have a chance.

    Colossians 1:12-14 (New King James Version)
    12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood,[a] the forgiveness of sins.


    God has delivered, man has not delivered himself.

    Anyway, more that anything else its obvious you have no truth to offer, I will make you have me going in circles so please stop disingenuously trying to get people to doubt there faith in Christ. You may be sincere but its evil and If you would please refrain.

    Be Blessed!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Scott,

    You said:Harvey, I've made it clear that I cannot be absolutely and completely sure in earlier comments. That I don't preference every single statement with "I'm not 100% sure" doesn't mean it's not implied

    This was in response to you previously saying this:There is no non-material, evil, supernatural being that tempts me do evil things or uses me as a pawn against God."

    So what you're basically saying is that you're AGNOSTIC on the question of a "non-material, evil, supernatural being that tempts me do evil things or uses me as a pawn against God"?

    But yet you answer it like it's an absolute statement. So we are to put a cursor over all your statements from here on saying that YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW?

    Why don't you do this for us...provide a disclaimer on the top of every statements that you make in the blog saying that...I AM AGNOSTIC ON ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING POST WHETHER THEY SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT OR NOT"

    That will let us know to simply skip over your non information-LOL-LOL-LOL!!!

    You said:"I'm the causal proximate source of my actions or lack their of."

    I asked:and who or what caused your actions before you had this grand epiphany that you were your own cause?

    You asked in response to my question:Are you asking what did I used to believe? Or are you suggesting that, what cased my actions some how changed in reality since my gradual change in view?

    Maybe I'm being a little more technical and literal than necessary and I really don't mean to do that unnecessarily, but you CLAIM that YOU are the "causal proximate source" of your own actions etc...SIMPLY how do you know this?

    Also to do away with this one: Paul, why haven't you called out Harvey on calling Deutsch a homosexual without any factual basis?

    Just LOOK at the man, the story tells itself-LOL There's no psychological exam or anything else necessary...Isn't it YOUR VIEW that seeing is believing, or empirical observation is the only way facts can be attained? That's empirical observation and I'll BET if you do the research it'll confirm the initial findings!

    So go back to the ORIGINAL observation, why are YOU AFRAID to hold your atheist champions to a so called godless standard of morality, or is that standard like "the flavor of the day" for atheists?

    ReplyDelete
  62. What I am telling you is that YOU cannot understand truth outside of the HOLY SPIRIT giving you that understanding, thats so simple.

    Paul, my point which I've been making all along, is simple as well. You can't learn anything new if you assume you already know everything worth knowing.

    I need not appeal to any kind of "spirit" to explain this as you yourself make claim you think you know everything worth knowing. It's true by definition.

    What I find confusing is that you expect me to accept the spiritual revelation of the Christian God while, at the same time, you reject the spiritual revelation of other God's which you do not personally believe in.

    You say their God's "spirt" leads them to falsehoods, but your God's spirit leads you to truth. But they make the same claim in reverse. Since these revelations conflict with each other, we have at least one concrete example of someone who is falsely perceiving a spirit as being revealing "truth." I'm going one further and saying both revelations are false.

    Before references to the Holy Spirit appeared in the Bible, it was common for people in the near-ancient east to cast lots to receive revelation from their God, including the Israelites and pagans. This was the modern day equivalent to rolling dice. It's referenced over 70 times in the Bible. So, why was this necessary? Was the Holy spirit something new that didn't exist before?

    Again, you think the Bible is the work of an all knowing being. As such, it would be impossible for God to have left out anything of importance from the Bible. Therefore, you cannot learn anything from me, other cultures or other religions.

    I mean, isn't this what you believe? Am I putting words in your mouth?

    Anyway, more that anything else its obvious you have no truth to offer,

    My earlier comments address these issues in detail. Please address them as the issue has already started to drift regarding the Holy Spirt.

    I will make you have me going in circles so please stop disingenuously trying to get people to doubt there faith in Christ. You may be sincere but its evil and If you would please refrain.

    Again, please don't pretend that you're open to new ideas when you've been perfectly clear that you..

    A. Won't except anything but an exact replacement for God. It's unrealistic.
    B. Think you already know everything you need to know
    C. View anything that isn't "with" God as evil.

    The dualistic idea that you are either with God or against God arose about 150 years before the birth of Jesus as part of the Apocalyptic response. Please see the Bart Ehrman video in my response to Harvey.

    ReplyDelete
  63. So what you're basically saying is that you're AGNOSTIC on the question of a "non-material, evil, supernatural being that tempts me do evil things or uses me as a pawn against God"?

    I'm an agnostic atheist. Even Dawkins admits he's not 100% sure. As I've mentioned before, I cannot rule out the existence of a non-material being that hides from us and does nothing. It's impossible by definition. However, when specific claims are made about supposed actions of God or other supernatural forces in the physical world, we can falsify them.

    But yet you answer it like it's an absolute statement.

    It's as if you only read part of my comment and ignored the part where I suggest it's unreasonable to expect me to prefix my statements with the words "I'm only 99.9999% sure that…"

    That will let us know to simply skip over your non information-LOL-LOL-LOL!!!

    So, by merely prefixing my statements with "I'm 100% sure" they become information? Is this how you determine truth? That would explain allot.

    you CLAIM that YOU are the "causal proximate source" of your own actions etc...SIMPLY how do you know this?

    Again, you only seem to read the part of my comments. I've ruled out that God or some kind of evil force is behind my actions. This sort of thought arose from the Apocalyptic revealing. If I take this option of the table, what else is left? I don't think you're referring to mind control devices or brain washing.

    Just LOOK at the man, the story tells itself-LOL

    This though never even crossed my mind until you brought it up. Just because people do not fit the stereotypical male image you might hold, it doesn't mean they are gay. You really need to get out more.

    Nor will I perform research you should have BEFORE making this statement. Again, where is your source for this?

    So go back to the ORIGINAL observation, why are YOU AFRAID to hold your atheist champions to a so called godless standard of morality, or is that standard like "the flavor of the day" for atheists?

    Harvey, please rephrase your question. You've essentially asked me the equivalent of "When will you stop beating your wife?", which is a another fallacy.

    Perhaps you mean why do I conceder Barker to have integrity? But I've already answered that question, but you deleted my comment. Furthermore, you admitted that Barker's accepting royalty checks is irrelevant to as he must have no integrity as he doesn't share your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Scott,

    I DELETED it again...a homosexual can't advise me spiritually just like you a sinner can't advise or enlighten us spiritually...how can you you're blind and don't believe you even have a spirit...and whatever knowledge you dole out may be useful in the natural world but it's only contained to three dimensions because that's all you know...

    Then when a person is living in an abomination what can they tell me? NOTHING but where Jesus is.

    These are concepts that fly over your materialistic little head...now I've ALLOWED you to continue but that's just for now...

    Argue a RELEVANT pint not a point about me.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Scott,

    You said:"I'm an agnostic atheist. Even Dawkins admits he's not 100% sure."

    No what they used to call that is a "Yellow Belly" that's all that is.

    You said:I've ruled out that God or some kind of evil force is behind my actions.

    So once again you're even an agnostic about this issue and have no clue basically...I'll only say, if you're the progenitor of all that you do how are you an anomaly in this universe of causality? I mean that the one principle that is consistent throughout all the universe so how are you EXEPMT from this and what makes you so special that your actions are self caused and makes you the causal agent? I mean I thought I'd spell it out sense you are lagging behind (as usual).

    You said:This though never even crossed my mind until you brought it up

    It's called being BLIND to sin. that's a little something that sinners don't have and God rejecters loose when they walk away from him, kind goes along with discernment.

    To the point, Barker claims he can be moral without God. He deplores Christianity and says it's dangerous and no good for the whole world. YET he receives fat checks off of the work he did when he was a Christian.

    You and your godless friends don't see a conflict here do you? You feel that business is simply business and it doesn't stir a moral bone with you right?

    I suppose your sentiment is why some politicians can say they will eliminate and reduce crime while at the same time funding crime and drug Lords...This is called "flavor of the day" morality and is the perfect example of SUBJECTIVE morality. If something is wrong it's wrong ALL THE TIME. Receiving money from something that he has a conviction that is wrong is IMMORAL...

    Now DO YOU have enough NERVE to call his actions that, IMMORAL, or is he your hero?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Argue a RELEVANT pint not a point about me.

    So you're not a Christian? You're not subject to absolute morality? You're somehow immune?

    Now DO YOU have enough NERVE to call his actions that, IMMORAL, or is he your hero?

    You delete my comments, but claim I don't have the nerve? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  67. What I got was that the man takes the monies and has no integrity because he is a sinner. If a man that claims Christ is false is still recieving monies from christian writings isnt something wrong with that?

    Do you think this because Harvey said so or because you actually have a reason why doing such a thing is actually wrong? How much do you actually know about the recording industry?

    I don't think what Barker is doing is wrong because I know how the music industry works. This knowledge is important in how we interpret Barker's actions. It's not black and white.

    As I mentioned in an earlier comment that Harvey deleted, Barker's work was published though ASCAP by a company called Mana Records, which is no longer in operation. ASCAP will occasionally send out a check with his name on it mail when enough people plays one of his songs on the radio, uses one his plays, etc. He does not invoice anyone. It's an automated process.

    I know this because I have a friend that used to be in a Christian rock band in the 80's. His music isn't being produced or sold anymore, yet he still occasionally receives checks from ASCAP in the mail due to radio airplay, etc. Since Barker's work was produced in the 70's it's likely his situation is similar.

    He can ether throw away the checks or cash them. Either way, his works woulds still be played. To stop this from happening, he would need to either buy exclusive rights to his music or take legal action to prevent it from being played, etc. Either option would be an expensive proposition.

    So, given this information, it's unclear exactly what Barker is doing wrong by cashing an occasional check sent by ASCAP for work which was published 30 years ago.

    Or perhaps you simply don't like the fact that Barker isn't a Christian any more, yet he's still getting checks for his work? What absolute moral principal are you basing this claim on?

    ReplyDelete
  68. No what they used to call that is a "Yellow Belly" that's all that is.

    Is this an argument? Because it looks like childish name calling to me.

    I wrote: :I've ruled out that God or some kind of evil force is behind my actions.

    So once again you're even an agnostic about this issue and have no clue basically...I'll only say, if you're the progenitor of all that you do how are you an anomaly in this universe of causality? I mean that the one principle that is consistent throughout all the universe so how are you EXEPMT from this and what makes you so special that your actions are self caused and makes you the causal agent? I mean I thought I'd spell it out sense you are lagging behind

    Huh? What am I supposedly the exception to? I can't find it anywhere in this paragraph. Do you even know what proximate cause means?

    I wrote You said:This though never even crossed my mind until you brought it up

    It's called being BLIND to sin. that's a little something that sinners don't have and God rejecters loose when they walk away from him, kind goes along with discernment.

    Jumping to conclusions that people being homosexuals sounds more like paranoid homophobia to me. Again, unless you actually have a shred of evidence that Deutsuch is a homosexual, then please present it. Otherwise it seems you'e stooped to name calling yet again.

    YET he receives fat checks off of the work he did when he was a Christian.

    How do you know these check are FAT? Jumping to conclusions yet again.

    Receiving money from something that he has a conviction that is wrong is IMMORAL...

    Then you should have no problem showing me the exact absolute moral Biblical principal Barker is "breaking."

    AGAIN, merely refusing these checks would not stop these 30 year old songs from being played. He'd have to pay significant amount of money to stop them from being played and buy who know how many copies that have already been sold.

    Since he can't stop his work from being played, he can at least use what little money he gets to support his speaking work. Given his conviction, this clearly is the best use of the money. If he did not cash the checks the music would still be played. He be leaving money on the table that he could use to speak out against Christianity.

    Furthermore, did you not say ...

    BUT I heard an older Saint once say, "why should I leave the monetary things that I rightefully deserve?"

    In your Tiger Woods post?

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.