Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the court ruling against homeschooling, “Parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.” I didn’t see anything in the constitution about abortion, but that didn’t seem to be a hindrance.
I knew this was coming. It was inevitable as more and more people have chosen to homeschool their children to avoid the brainwashing “socializing” of their kids by the government’s secular worldview. After all, who has a better interest in your own kids than the government?
The government funded education system has less and less control on the indoctrination of your children so the only logical move for them to make was to make it illegal. Honestly, I was beginning to wonder what was taking them so long.
Read the article here.
Christ Alone Wyoming 
Even some public school teachers I know thought that this was wrong on so many levels. Hopefully, this ruling gets overturned, or the parents are, at the very least, able to put their kids in Christian schools, or at the very most, leave CA.
LikeLike
I realize that this is a Christian blog, and not a political blog, yet one has to wonder which of the myriad state/federal abuses gives the founders the most cause to roll in their graves…by this point they must be in perpetual merry-go-round mode.
Welkommen to Amerika, mein Amerika!
As I recall it was no less than Hitler who had the avant garde notion that Der Schtaat should control the indoctrination, er, I mean, education of the nation’s children to ensure that they were being taught the “common values” of the broader culture and therefore mandated by law the government controlled indoctrination, er, I mean, education of the masses.
And oh my! What a success! Why, surely you remember the Hitler Youth and the League of German Maidens, right? Such an overachieving group of lads and lasses – hanks to Der Schtaat of course!
LikeLike
Must have been finger trouble – I’ll try again!
Personally, I believe Justice Croskey got this one exactly right. It’s much better for kids to mix with the rest of the human race from the word go – we evolved down the milennia as social human animals by doing that, way before organised religion came along. It’s natural human behaviour.
And trust me, atheist parents like me do not eat their young, or yours. You have nothing to fear from us.
It’s self-evident (now those words sound familiar from somewhere, where was it …?!) that all formal teaching should by qualified (or credentialled, as it looks like you guys in the US say) teachers. Otherwise, who knows what they could be taught!
Freedom of religion is important – even atheists like me can see that. Live and let live. But kids’ freedom _from_ religion is vital too. There are cases I know of here in England where kids being homeschooled are filled with terrifying ideas about hell. There’s no evidence for the existence of hell, so why scare them? Can you imagine doing that to the defenceless mind of a child? Homeschooling is just too open to abuse like that. Allow me to raise a glass in Justice Croskey’s general direction.
And Coram Deo, it’s ‘Willkommen’; and ‘Staat’, not ‘Schtaat’.
LikeLike
Coram Deo,
Never ceases to amaze me when people say they believe in Freedom of religion, but then try to qualify that remark by adding the underlying premise that freedom of religion is only acceptable provided we don’t teach things like “hell” or “damnation” or “the wrath of God”!
If as homeschoolers, we taught our kids things like “safe sex” or “witchcraft” or “build your self-esteem” or “the religions of the world like Islam or Hinduism” — well, that would be perfectly acceptable for we are teaching our impressionable children the value of accepting all people regardless and the state will never then have to worry about our God-given heritage (children) becoming too narrow minded.
Fifth Horseman you said, “Homeschooling is just too open to abuse like that.” My friend, having lived in England and taught in government schools, I feel that Justice Croskey made a Freudian slip. What he actually meant to say was that state teachers should be qualified or credentialled to teach! Most of them no longer teach, they indoctrinate, and the coursework is of such that would make all of Hitler’s efforts seem pitifully small.
The bottom line is that the communists years ago said, “Give me a child until they are seven and I will give you a communist for life!” Nothing new under the sun.
The governments of the world are now revising to that say, “I will TAKE your child and raise them because you are nothing but a social human animal. Your kind need to be eradicated and to help do that we will indoctrinate these little ones and we will make them a God-hating, Bible-rejecting humanist for life!”
God forgive those parents who give in to such drivel! May more take a stand for the truth of God’s Word regardless of the consequences!!
Loathing Humanistic Drivel,
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
Dearest, no, sorry, ‘Desert’ Pastor,
Substitute ‘Allah’ (or for that matter ‘Hitler’) where you have ‘God’ in your final sentence. Can you now see why teaching kids that sort of worldview in home school might just be a teensy bit iffy?
Religion is just like sex and alcohol – simply too dangerous for children to be exposed to. When they’re 18, or 21, or whatever it is in your State, they’re mature enough to drink, drive (not at the same time, of course), make love and go to church. Not before.
OK, that’s a bit extreme, the no-church-under-18 bit anyway, I freely admit that. My point is that since you have no evidence for your God, or for Poseidon, or for Allah, you have zero justification for using, let alone creating, schools to teach Christianity as _fact_ when, as with all other religions, there isn’t a smidgeon of objective evidence.
Are you a creationist and a believer in Intelligent Design? (There’s a chance you may not be – I hope you aren’t.) But if you want ID taught in schools you must, logically, also endorse teaching Avian Transfer Theory in biology class. You might recognise that as the Stork Theory of where babies come from. And there’s about as much evidence for that as there is for ID.
I as an atheist, however, have nothing – no thing – that I have to prove. Whereas you believers do. And so it’s you, not me, that are the ones who want unfettered access to defenceless young minds. What matters to me is to keep such minds, especially my own daughter’s, well away from people like you until she’s an adult and old enough to weigh things up for herself. What is wrong with that?
Some of the dedicated teachers at my daughter’s school – which is a Church of England school, by the way – would be very disappointed to have their – standard UK – coursework and methods compared to Hitler’s. (Do you honestly stand by that absurd comparison, or were you just a bit tired and emotional late at night?) The other teachers would probably just laugh at you and get on with their job. And what a good job they do. A politer, friendlier and better-adjusted set of 9-year olds than my daughter’s class you will not find anywhere.
I have no evidence for the assertion I’ve just made about my daughter’s class, of course. But luckily for you, you can dismiss that assertion of mine without fear of the eternal conscious punishment in hell which you, also without evidence, would (I guess) hold out as in store for me as an atheist. Think about it.
Beliefs are what divide us in the world – shared humanity is what unites us. Humour unites us all too, and it’s noticeable that extremist religion fears well-aimed humour as vampires fear the light. For example, we shouldn’t fear the jihadis who planted the London bombs on the Tube in July 2005, but ridicule them, stick red noses on them and otherwise make their poisonous beliefs an object of fun. Mock them, and suicide bombers wouldn’t look quite so macho and attractive to new recruits. I’m sure you and I can agree in saying that those Danish newspaper editors were very brave in printing those cartoons.
I bet those London bombers, like the 9/11 ones, were taught extreme Abrahamic, monotheistic religion at a very early age. Your Abrahamic, monotheistic religious views are (imho) extreme too. But I know you won’t start killing people, will you, like sectarian Catholic and Protestant groups in Belfast did up until what seems like last week? No? Oh good. Thanks awfully.
LikeLike
Dearest, no, sorry, Desert’ Pastor
Try your last sentence with ‘Allah’, (or Hitler, for that matter, where you have written ‘God’.
Can you see now why teaching that sort of worldview in home school might just be a teensy bit iffy?
LikeLike
Fifth Horsemen,
Are you taking your e-name from the new “Four Horsemen of Atheism”: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens? If so, very creative.
I know it’s a bit off-topic, but you claim that you have nothing, nay “no thing” to prove regarding your worldview. Can you explain to me the origin of life? From where did we arise? Do you have an explanation?
Jason
LikeLike
Jason,
Yes I am, but I’d be the first to admit that I have not a fraction of their articulacy or intellectual capacity. Even if all they do is make people challenge religious belief, or stop and reconsider the basis of their own, that’s got to be good.
No, of course I can’t explain the origin of life or where we came from. I don’t pretend to. But one day, we will be able to. The point is that just because we don’t yet know how it all started is no reason to postulate a God who did it. ‘I personally don’t understand it, therefore God did it’ is a very weak argument.
Medieval people thought thunder and lightning were a sign of God’s wrath. We now know that it’s got nothing to do with God and everything to do with easily explicable meteorological processes. Similarly, one day, maybe in 25 years, maybe in 300 years, people will think, ‘some early 21st Century people still thought something called ‘God’ created the world! How crazy is that!’
Just to clear one thing up – I thought my long (maybe too long) post – no 5. in here – had been chewed up by the system, so I posted a slimmed down no.6.
LikeLike
Regardless of what people may say in 25 or 300 years, in eternity, the Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth will still have the following to say,
Ps. 14:1, “The fool says in his heart that there is no God.”
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
Fifth Horseman – you said, “The point is that just because we don’t yet know how it all started is no reason to postulate a God who did it. ‘I personally don’t understand it, therefore God did it’ is a very weak argument.”
I am afraid your premise is backwards. As not only a Biblical creationist, but more importantly as a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I cannot start with flawed human wisdom which is what you, Dawkins, and millions of others sadly are doing.
The above statement you made is like using one many use in error, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” Nope, wrong answer! Whether we believe it or not, God said it and THAT SETTLES IT.
It is NOT because we do not understand how the world came into being that we have chosen to create a God of our choosing and state that He did it. It is because we humbly accept that there is a Supreme Being far greater than mere mortals who chose for no other reason than His own glory to create the heavens and the earth. In doing so, He even included the ONLY aspect of creation which does not recognize His sovereignty – MAN!
Rejoicing in the Creator,
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
Atheists might actually be a formidable lot if it weren’t for the fact that they’re so universally unlikable and condescending.
I’d posit that a genuinely introspective, fun loving, kind hearted atheist would be an especially attractive commodity in the world market; has anyone ever met one of those?
LikeLike
Fifth Horseman,
As a believing Christian who puts his faith for salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ, I can tell you that I, for one, DO NOT believe in God only because I do not understand scientifivally how life began.
In fact I know form my own studies in science that Evolution is fact. I also accept the fact that the bible contains scientific errors, contradictions, stories of events that never occured… The list goes on…
The Bible points us to Salvation in Christ; It is NOT a science book! It is time for Christians to accept the Bible for what it is and was always meant to be.
So, from where do I get my faith? Very simple! God has revealed himself to me! When I was a non-believer, a friend challenged me to pray for The Lord our God to reveal himself to me, and so, with an honest and open heart and an open mind, I did just that, and God did indeed open my eyes to the Truth. I do not expect you to understand it, I guess you just have to experience it.
Now, you will find that there are people like Cora Deo out there who will only attack you for your beliefs. You should see how I was responded to on this board when I expressed belief in evolution! From my fellow Born Again Cristians, no less! It is indeed a black eye on Christianity that these people are out there and say the things they do, when they should only be trying to HELP good folks like you discover the One True Living God!
I pray the the rude and condesending remarks make CD and the like do not prevent you from seeking the Lord.
Take care and I wish you all the best!!!
LikeLike
Rusty,
A belief in the false theory of evolution and a belief in the veracity of the whole counsel of God as contained in the 66 books of the Holy Bible are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive belief sets.
Portions of one or the other must be rejected outright in order to maintain such a worldview, and in your own words you’ve rejected God’s Word as the reliable, plenary and infallible truth that it claims itself to be in favor of a man made “scientific” invention.
When the junk science of neo-Darwinism has long since been relegated to the dustbin of history where it belongs, God’s Word will still be standing eternally immutable and true.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
Rusty,
I have found a number of troubling statements in your response to this and other blog posts, not the least of which is this:
“In fact I know form(sic) my own studies in science that Evolution is fact. I also accept the fact that the bible contains scientific errors, contradictions, stories of events that never occured… The list goes on…”
1. Evolution is not a fact. It is called the “Theory of Evolution”. In order to be a “scientific fact” the results of a theory must be demonstrable and repeatable. No one has ever spontaneously created life, nor do we have one shred of evidence for macroevolution. That is an extremely uneducated and erroneous statement, and even our atheist participant would neglect to call evolution a fact.
2. Which parts of the Bible contain errors? Which events did not occur? Where are there contradictions? Please demonstrate these instances using a full analysis of the Greek or Hebrew text, supporting verses, scholarly research and all other documentation.
God reveals Himself to us through His Word. If you do not believe in the inerrant, sufficient nature of the Bible, your “revelation” was not from God. Beware.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1:8-9
Please pray about these things, examine yourself and make sure you are not making an extremely grave error. (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5) Based on your responses here, I would be concerned…
Jason
LikeLike
“I’d be the first to admit that I have not a fraction of their articulacy or intellectual capacity.”
Pretty optimistic (and unrealistic).
Check out this post on the intellectual Dawkins.
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
Spot on Jason M. Long!
LikeLike
Jason,
You are 100% spot on when you said “Evolution is not a fact”. What I meant by my statement is that I have seen enough evidence to be convinced and I personnally view it as fact (my opinion). It is certainly not science-fact, but a theory! Sorry for the miscommunication.
You are in error to assume that i believe that life was “spontaneously created”. You are also in error to think that this is a part of the evolution theory. Evolution does not account for the origins of life.
Biblical innacuracies:
Sun revolves around the earth
Earth is flat
Moon gives off it’s own light
Earth sits on pillars
Bible speaks of the “Firmament”, a dome shapped structure in which the stars are imbedded. it separated the waters below from the waters above. Windows in the firmament were openned when it rained
It is well known that MANY ancient cultures including Jews believed litterally in everything listed above. It is not stated figuratively in the Bible.
Creation took more than 6 litteral days
Great Flood did not happen
The Massacre of the innocents (in Matthew) did not happen
The genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts of creation are contradictory
The four gosspels have differing accounts for:
Why Jesus’ parrents traveled to Bethlahem
Jesus first appearance after resurection
Who saw Jesus first?
Who is the father of Joseph?
What was Jesus given to drink on the cross?
Did he drink it?
What were his dying words?
There are lot’s more!
I do not reject Christ because of these problems. I see no reason to pretend they do not exist, though. The Bible was written by an ancient culture of ancient minds and I do not expect all stories to be spot on or 100% factual. I don’t expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate, either.
That’s just me though…
LikeLike
Out of curiosity, where do the ‘scientist’ get their ‘science’ from?
LikeLike
Thank you Doreen.
It is a gift from God as is our inquisitive nature and our intellect.
I acknowledge God for the whole natural order and for the development of science for kowing the details of that order.
LikeLike
CD, Rusty, Jason, Pilgrim, thanks for your comments. You’ll understand if I don’t pick up on everything you’ve raised; I’d be here all night. A few things though.
Rusty, thanks for your kind wishes! Coram Deo – I’ll turn the other cheek to being called ‘unlikeable and condescending’. Judge not, etc.
I listened to the Dawkins interview on the ‘Way of the Master’ radio programme. Of the 16 minutes, only about 2 were Dawkins. The other 14 were the interviewer, or more often the presenter, editorialising about how rubbish he was. Come on chaps, play cricket: allow him to string a few sentences together!
‘Atheism as a mass 20th Century killer’: Hitler and Stalin both killed in the name of dogmas (Nazism, Communism) that brooked no more deviation, apostasy or dissent than your God does. Like Abrahamic monotheism, these dogmas had their High Priests, their ‘sacred’ rituals and martyrs, and the same distasteful attitude to women (in Islam, mainly), gays, and people of other races that your Abrahamic God displays (Joshua was the prototype ethnic cleanser). Atheism displays none of those characteristics; it doesn’t ask anything of anyone.
‘A Creation implies a Creator’. But even if it was a God (huge ‘if’), how can even you be sure it was _your_ God? You (collective you) are presumably as atheistic as I am when it comes to Poseidon. But this is an age of Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis and rising sea levels. Watch out guys, the points of that trident look pretty sharp to me.
I’m joking of course. You have nothing to fear from Poseidon. Yet, without evidence, you probably or certainly see me as destined for hell because I reject the Holy Spirit (in case you were in any doubt). You only believe in your God (and not Allah, Poseidon etc) because you were born in 20th Century USA as oposed to Iran or pre-Christian Rome. And you can dismiss what I say without me preaching hellfire at you. I say ‘live and let live, whatever you believe’: I really doubt if you would say the same.
One more point. Please don’t quote from Scripture in the hope that it will bolster your argument. It won’t, any more than an argument of mine would register with you if I backed it up by quoting from the Koran. The Bible – Authorised Version only – is a remarkable book containing language of unsurpassed power and beauty (although the Book of Common Prayer runs it close). Bach’s St Matthew Passion invariably reduces me to tears and did so again tonight (try the ‘Erbarme Dich, mein Gott’ aria early in Part Two). All three are supreme examples – of purely human genius.
Final final point (!), back nearly on topic – none of you has picked up on my question of whether it’s unreasonable of me to keep my daughter’s immature mind (she’s 9) away from views like most of you espouse until she’s a grown-up and able to give as good as she gets.
Seriously, keep the responses coming; I’m rather enjoying this.
LikeLike
Hello again FH,
Just a few thoughts:
I’ll turn the other cheek to being called ‘unlikable and condescending’. Judge not, etc.
Because you don’t understand the scriptures you’ve simply misused this verse, but don’t feel too badly, most professing Christians misuse and abuse the verse as well. I can’t count the times I’ve seen this proof text flung about as I’m confronting Biblical error that’s espoused by a professing Christian.
In point of fact you are being unlikable and condescending . I don’t think you could possibly be unaware of the fact that your posts are positively dripping with sarcasm and contempt; but if so this sad fact would only serve further to demonstrate your utter lack of introspection.
I listened to the Dawkins interview on the ‘Way of the Master’ radio programme. Of the 16 minutes, only about 2 were Dawkins. The other 14 were the interviewer, or more often the presenter, editorialising about how rubbish he was. Come on chaps, play cricket: allow him to string a few sentences together!
I didn’t particularly care for the audio clip either. I found it to be particularly unhelpful because Roman Catholics are damnable heretics and I personally don’t see the value in one hell bound unbeliever (a Catholic) arguing with another (an atheist).
‘Atheism as a mass 20th Century killer’: Hitler and Stalin both killed in the name of dogmas (Nazism, Communism) that brooked no more deviation, apostasy or dissent than your God does. Like Abrahamic monotheism, these dogmas had their High Priests, their ’sacred’ rituals and martyrs, and the same distasteful attitude to women (in Islam, mainly), gays, and people of other races that your Abrahamic God displays (Joshua was the prototype ethnic cleanser). Atheism displays none of those characteristics; it doesn’t ask anything of anyone.
There’s really too much error bound up in this to bother sorting out except to say that one merely needs to look at history to see that secularism has an incomparably higher civilian mortality rate than theism, even when allowing for the false religionists. Again, it’s nothing personal; just the facts.
‘A Creation implies a Creator’. But even if it was a God (huge ‘if’), how can even you be sure it was _your_ God? You (collective you) are presumably as atheistic as I am when it comes to Poseidon. But this is an age of Hurricane Katrina, tsunamis and rising sea levels. Watch out guys, the points of that trident look pretty sharp to me.
This one is easy, the creation not only implies, but demands a Creator and only the God of Christian Theism could possibly “fit the bill” for that Creator, therefore true Christians are well within their rights to claim that “our God” is the One True and Living God, mainly because He is.
I’m joking of course. You have nothing to fear from Poseidon. Yet, without evidence, you probably or certainly see me as destined for hell because I reject the Holy Spirit (in case you were in any doubt). You only believe in your God (and not Allah, Poseidon etc) because you were born in 20th Century USA as oposed to Iran or pre-Christian Rome. And you can dismiss what I say without me preaching hellfire at you. I say ‘live and let live, whatever you believe’: I really doubt if you would say the same.
See previous post regarding the One True and Living God, and no I can’t let your comments go without preaching hellfire to you because you’re presently on a one way trajectory there and I think that it’s my duty to warn you of this fact; please reconsider your course.
One more point. Please don’t quote from Scripture in the hope that it will bolster your argument. It won’t, any more than an argument of mine would register with you if I backed it up by quoting from the Koran. The Bible – Authorised Version only – is a remarkable book containing language of unsurpassed power and beauty (although the Book of Common Prayer runs it close). Bach’s St Matthew Passion invariably reduces me to tears and did so again tonight (try the ‘Erbarme Dich, mein Gott’ aria early in Part Two). All three are supreme examples – of purely human genius.
Scripture is God’s Word and every man who hears it knows, in his heart of hearts, that it is true because the spirit that God placed within man testifies to the truth of scripture. Certainly sinful man can – and inevitably does – reject God’s revelation as contained uniquely within the Holy Bible, but this fact does nothing to undermine the eternal, immutable, and absolute truth of the Holy Bible.
I’m unsurprised by your adoration of “purely human genius”, but you’re simply ascribing glory to the gift instead of the Giver which is precisely what an atheist must do, illogical and irrational as that circular reasoning may be. I’m always amazed at how incoherent atheists truly are.
Final final point (!), back nearly on topic – none of you has picked up on my question of whether it’s unreasonable of me to keep my daughter’s immature mind (she’s 9) away from views like most of you espouse until she’s a grown-up and able to give as good as she gets.
You can’t hide your daughter from God. If He has purposed to save her then He will, and if He has not purposed to save her then she will burn in hell for eternity in righteous judgment of – and punishment for – her wickedness as is befitting for all unregenerate human beings.
This being said FH, how did you, personally, arrive at the conclusion of atheism? For example, would you say that you weighed all the available evidence by tests of logical coherence and empirical observation, similar to employing the scientific method? Perhaps you would say that such a hypothesis as “The God of Christian theism is the One True and Living God” must be treated as any other hypothesis being subjected to and tested by such evidence before accepting it; is this correct?
In your mind would it be fair to say of claims about the God of Christian theism, or the truth claims of the Holy Bible, or claims of fact about anything and everything else, that “The use of logic or reason is the only valid way to examine the truth of falsity of any statement which claims to be factual”?
Seriously, keep the responses coming; I’m rather enjoying this.
Me too.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
I just want to be clear.
I think homeschooling is a rediculous idea. I proudly send my 10 year old daughter to public school and I support the public schools. I do NOT indoctrinate her. She knows what I believe and Itrust she will make good decisions as she matures.
Fifth Horseman, you are correct to point out that poeople generally adhere to the religiouse beliefs they grew up with. My mormon and JW friends werte raised mormon and JW… Shocking news!!! I don’t wantmy daughter only believing because daddy did. As a former un-believer, I see the importance of letting people find Truth as a natural part of their lives.
BTW, I RUN from christian Dogma as fast as I can. I am quite capable of reading and understanding the Bible on my own. I reject the common teaching of hell based on my own thourough studies on the topic. Hell is death. Not burning, not torment, just Death!
To answer your final point. i actually agree that a decision on religious matters are best made by mature individuals. Children are too impressionable, and they will believe anything tought by people they trust. It’s as easy as that! Let your daughter mature and support her in the decisions she makes. It is a personal decision between her and God.
I’m preparing myself to get blasted! LOL
Take care.
LikeLike
Rusty, thank you, that’s really refreshing.
Now let’s see what the others think – if you’re flamed for writing that, imagine what they’ll do to me.
Good luck to you and your daughter!
LikeLike
Rusty,
Did you get a chance to listen to Hell’s Best Kept Secret? What did you think?
Bill
LikeLike
Rusty says:
Biblical innacuracies:
Sun revolves around the earth
Earth is flat
Moon gives off it’s own light
Earth sits on pillars
Bible speaks of the “Firmament”, a dome shapped structure in which the stars are imbedded. Windows in the firmament were openned when it rained.
Creation took more than 6 litteral days
Great Flood did not happen
The Massacre of the innocents (in Matthew) did not happen
The genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts of creation are contradictory
The four gosspels have differing accounts for:
Why Jesus’ parrents traveled to Bethlahem
Jesus first appearance after resurection
Who saw Jesus first?
Who is the father of Joseph?
What was Jesus given to drink on the cross?
Did he drink it?
What were his dying words?
There are lot’s more!
I say: Prove it with scripture!
You should know that you’re guilty of intentionally perverting God’s Holy Word, which is an unfathomably serious offense. I pray that you will tread very, very carefully.
You are also guilty of repeatedly espousing outright lies and gross inaccuracies about God’s Word, including the nearly blasphemous action of calling Jesus Christ Himself a liar by denying His stark and plain teachings about an eternal place of punishment known as hell. Did you know that Christ taught more of hell in the NT than He taught of heaven?
Let’s be candid here Rusty, your mind is clearly darkened and deluded and you are presently in bondage to the idolatry of the heart. You’ve simply built your own man-made religion, just like every other Christ-rejecting human being who’s ever lived.
It’s more than obvious from your multiple bizarre and heretical comments that you are not a true, regenerate born again Christian, or else you would demonstrate the fruit of the spirit. Instead your bitter fruits demonstrate that you are a pawn of the enemy.
I pray that you’ll utterly reject your arrogant false spirituality and fall on your face in true repentance and humble obedience before the One True and Living God, the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe as He has infallibly revealed Himself within the Holy Bible.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their’s also was – 2 Tim. 3:1-9
LikeLike
Why am I bad for pointing out the obvious???
“I say: Prove it with scripture!”
You have a Bible. Read it. Prove me wrong.
We are all literate. We all have eyes. We can all read.
What exactly is the point in pretending to be blind to something that is completely obvious?
Why is it so importantant for Christians to blindly believe that every word of the Bible is perfect and “infallible” when it is so obviously flawed in certain areas?
LikeLike
CD
I’m no longer enjoying this. How dare you write about my daughter’s ‘wickedness’ in that breathtakingly and personally offensive way? She is 9 years old, for goodness’ sake.
She uses this computer too. I had this page bookmarked, but have now un-bookmarked it to ensure she doesn’t find this thread.
I am hostile to the concept of religion, as you can clearly see. But I would never, ever, write about you, or anyone else, in the way you’ve written about my delightful, happy, intelligent and considerate daughter.
This is an interesting debate. But please try to conduct it in a decent, civilised way.
LikeLike
Rusty,
You’re making baseless accusations so the burden of proof is on you, but you can’t prove your assertions because they are untrue.
FH,
I can’t think of anything more civilized than to urgently tell you the truth, and the truth is breathtakingly personal. Furthermore the truth of the cross of Christ is an offense to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God unto salvation.
I too am hostile to the concept of religion because in every case with the lone exception of the TRUE religion of Christianity man made religion leads mankind to eternal torments in hell, doing nothing but salving their seared consciences on the way. Christianity is not a man made religion, it’s the personal truth revealed from our personal Creator to the praise of His glory forever.
I want you to know the truth about you, your daughter, myself, Pilgrim, and each and every person who ever lived apart from repentance and saving faith in Jesus Christ – we are all by nature born wicked and deserving of eternal damnation.
My comment about your daughter is true and is true of every person apart from being found in Christ. It’s a hard teaching, but it’s true. If you loved your daughter you would tell her the truth about Jesus Christ and His offer of salvation from sin to all who are sinners. You ought to rejoice at His offer because you are a sinner. And so is your daughter, and so is every human being who ever lived. With this in mind you qualify for the offer.
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. – Psalm 58:3
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. – 1 Timothy 1:15
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. – John 3:16
You see, the eternal life offered by Jesus Christ to His own necessitates an eternal punishment to those who reject and despise Him. This ought to be clear enough using a simple analogy from our own earthly legal systems which are an extension of the very conscience of good and evil, right and wrong, mercy and punishment, and justice that our Creator has placed within each of us.
If you (or your daughter) were to steal a stick of gum you may get a slap on the wrist or be forced to pay for the stick of gum. If you (or your daughter) were to punch a police officer in the face you’d expect and would receive a stiffer punishment than for the stick of gum incident. I think any reasonable person would expect increasingly serious punishments to follow increasingly serious infractions.
Now consider if you (or your daughter) punched the Queen of England or the Prime Minister in the face. Again I suspect you would realize and expect worse repercussions than you received for hitting the police officer. Now, assume the punch was no harder or malicious or damaging in any of the three latter cases. Why would we expect to receive more severe consequences for punching the Queen or the Prime Minister than for a local police officer?
It’s because of their PERSON. In the eyes of the law the person of the Queen or the Prime Minister is more important than the person of the local officer. We may argue whether or not this ought to be so, but it is so nonetheless.
Now consider the INFINITELY greater Person of God Himself. He is infinitely good, perfect, just, righteous and holy. We can’t even conceive of this in our limited, finite mortal minds, but He tells us these facts about Himself just the same in the Holy Bible. This means that every sin you (or your daughter) commits against God, being sins of commission (intentional rebellion against Him) or sins of omission (unintentional rebellion against Him) is an INFINITELY damnable offense against the Most High God worthy of infinite justice which takes the form of eternal torments in an eternal place commonly known as hell. This is the truth.
The more glorious truth is that God Himself, our Creator, took on the form of human flesh and entered into the world in the Person of Jesus Christ in order to pay the sin debt for all those who would believe on Him by grace through faith alone.
This is the Eternal Gospel. It will never change. God will never change His mind. God will never accept or devise another way to forgive sins except a man (or woman) is found in Christ.
Gospel means “good news”, and the good news really isn’t that good unless the bad news really is that bad.
I’m glad you reacted so strongly about your daughter, FH, because it shows me that you are sensitive and that fills me with hope that the bright light of God’s truth, the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ, may penetrate your hardened heart to the praise and glory of God alone.
I don’t tell you these things to be hateful or unloving, but precisely the opposite. Your real enemy, Satan, would lie to you and tell you that I’m evil or hateful, but he is a liar and a murderer and he would gleefully destroy you and your daughter by deceiving you with his clever schemes and blasphemous lies. He would keep you in his kingdom that leads to eternal damnation because he hates you and your daughter.
Perhaps until now you’ve been duped, but now you’ve been told the truth and you are personally responsible for what you do with this truth. I’m praying for you and your daughter, FH because even though I don’t know you, my God does – and He knows you personally and completely.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
Dear Rusty:
I’ve been reading your comments over the last couple weeks and have discovered a disturbing trend. You continually come out on the wrong side of every issue.
You have shown yourself to be so far to the left in what you’re espousing that you make “liberal Christians” look like Calvinists!
There’s no better barometer as to whether or not you’re in the truth than the reaction received by of those of the world.
The Fifth Horseman who–in his own words admits to being hostile to the concept of religion,(i.e. God)–has found encouragement in your stance and has more in common with you than anyone else on this blog.
I have a serous question for you:
Do you find anything disconcerting (or does it even remotely bother you) that those who love God, study His word, strive to live holy lives unto the Lord, and seek to bring Him glory are the ones who have the most contention with, while the scoffers and the hostile to God seem to find a kindred spirit with you?
What is the deal Rusty, seriously?
Respectfully,
– The Pilgrim
Woe to you when all men speak well of you . . . (Luke 6:26)
LikeLike
It would appear as though we have a difference of opinion.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t see any value in in being rude or condesending to an unbeliever. It certainly won’t bring him any closer to the truth.
I am CONVINCED that places like this do not do a single thing for the Christian cause. Your web site is completely useless!!! Everywhere I look it’s a mean spirited condesending article or comment to anyone with a difference of opinion or a person of a different faith.
Are you honestly surprised that Fifth Horseman responds to you guys the way he does??? Look at the things you say to him! I am a firm believer that a kinder more gentle message is in order here.
Win them over with love, not hate!
LikeLike
Rusty,
Men don’t “win over” other men; on the contrary God alone by His boundless mercy and pity translates sinners from spiritual death unto spiritual life by His unmerited grace.
Your opinions don’t matter and I don’t care anything about your opinions. I think it would be fair to say that each of the contributors to DefCon feels the same way. In fact I think it would probably be true to say the contributors to DefCon feel the same way about one another’s opinions – they just don’t matter.
The only rule, the only truth, the only thing that matters is what God’s Word says. It is His Word that is the final authority for all things, period.
The only hate I’ve seen on this site is from unbelievers spewing their venom and lies about God, His Word, His Christ, and His adopted children. I number you among the unbelievers who visit this site because you’ve demonstrated your lack of love for the Lord by rejecting His Word time and time again. If you loved the Lord you would believe what He says in His Word, but since you hate Him you refuse to believe Him and as a result you end up rejecting His Word and not trusting in Him alone, feeling it necessary to “supplement” or “modify” His Word with your own sinfully corrupted and reliably wicked reasoning powers.
You’re a very confused person, Rusty. If you don’t like this site, or find it to be unworthy of your time and attention, then by all means please leave and don’t return. No one is forcing you to visit here, read the articles, or leave comments. You’re free to stop coming here anytime.
You would do well to remember that you are a guest here, and your behavior should reflect that. I hope you don’t visit other people’s houses and complain and berate them about their homes not meeting your personal, subjective standards of approval.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
Coram Deo,
My appreciation to you for continuing your lengthy replies to this post in the face of those who have no desire for God’s truth. I commend you for taking a stand, and you are correct that we do not care about the opinions of others.
Opinions will only keep a person lost in the total depravity of their wicked hearts. It will ever and always only be the truth of Scripture that will convict the hearts and bring them to the knowledge of the Saviour.
As for Rusty’s comment about a “kinder more gentler message being in order”, he would do well to read how the Lord Jesus Christ Himself addressed those self-righteous Pharisees and others who thought they could get to heaven any way other than through Christ alone!
Those who do not come God’s way – by grace, through faith alone, falling humbly at the foot of the cross in repentance over the wickedness in their heart and acknowledging their need of the Saviour – WILL NEVER INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE! God’s thoughts on the matter – NOT man’s opinion!
The above goes whether they be atheists, Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or even so-called evangelical Christians.
Following the Way of the Master,
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
CD,
You’re spot on in your presentation of the Gospel, brother. We can argue creationism, ID, or any other hot topic, but when it comes down to it these folks are hardened in their hearts and blind due to being unregenerate. No amount of reasoning about those things will change that, only the Holy Spirit can do that by revealing to them their sinfulness and regenerating them. Keep the focus on the Gospel, and God’s Word won’t return void.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Jordan
LikeLike
Amen and Amen! “Let God be true and every man a liar!” I really appreciate the stand that you men take according to God’s Word! It matters not what man says; however, it does matter what God says. 2 Tim. 2:13, 14 tells us, “If we are faithless, yet He remains faithful: He cannot deny Himself. Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.” Praise the Lord, He is always true and faithful to His Word! Once again, THANKS!
LikeLike
Guys, guys (and the Dearest Pastor’s wife)
Put on some jazz, or a Mozart string quartet, pour yourselves a drink, and chill out. Watch the sunset. Get my name humourously wrong, if you want. Laugh, dance, sing, and stop taking everything so seriously.
The belief system you outline amounts to a kind of celestial North Korea, featuring a Big Brother with a 24/7 surveillance camera in the sky. I don’t want any part of it. Mr Deo – you say I can’t hide my daughter from God. But I can hide her from you, and I just have.
I’m quite capable of behaving well, and loving my neighbour, without being ordered to by a God, because it’s self-evident that that’s the way to build human happiness – and was self-evident, long before Moses.
Name me one good action performed, or an uplifting thought, that could not have occurred to, or been done by, an atheist just as easily as a theist. Albert Camus (peace be upon him) said – ‘if I was asked to write a book on ethics, there would be 100 pages. The first 99 pages would be blank. On the hundredth, I would write; ‘I know of only one duty, and that is to love’. Better known to you chaps as ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’. The point is, it’s obvious to us all.
Mr Deo – is that your real name, by the way? I never can tell with your American names:-) – what you see as ‘venom’ is merely me taking a contrary position. I suspect you aren’t used to having your views challenged quite as directly as I’m doing, and I also suspect you don’t like it very much.
But you must deal with reasoned criticism in – I say again – a civilised way. In the UK, no one dares to criticise Islam, for fear of precisely the same rage from extremists that you, and not only you, exhibit when I criticise your view of Christianity. Can you see a parallel there?
You dish it out, to me and Rusty. You should therefore take it when I (or we) answer back, and not accuse me of hate, venom, wickedness and so, tediously and counter-productively, on. This was Rusty’s point, and very well he made it.
Another difference between us is that I won’t say repugnant things about those you love most – your daughter, or your mother, for example. I gave you the chance to apologise a few days ago for your gross bad manners and gauche lack of propriety, and you didn’t take it.
You asked (about 3,471 posts ago) how I became an atheist. Two reasons: (1) zero testable evidence for any God, only hearsay. If it’s the life-changing decision you say it is, some firmer evidence would be nice (British understatement).
And (2) even if there is a God and I pick the ‘right’ one (ie., in your error-prone, fallen and ‘wicked’ opinion, your God) out of the thousands mankind has had to choose from, I would reject it because I would find divine silence, in the face of human evil or suffering, to be repugnant. The whole idea of original sin and redemption by vicious punishment of the innocent is morally pretty questionable too. I should be judged by attainable standards of human behaviour, just as I am here on earth.
Which takes me nicely to my final point. Mr Deo, you outlined a series of incrementally greater punishments according to the status of the person I (hypothetically) punched. I follow your reasoning – up to where you talk of crimes against God being ‘infinitely damnable’ and worth of ‘eternal torment’.
No worries, for me – or you. Blasphemy, as the witty Seattle bumper sticker has it, is a victimless crime. So, no punishment.
Now for goodness’ sake go and think about something else; get some friends round and talk about food, maybe; or places in the world you’d like to see. Watch a Monty Python film. Or put some blues on – I’m listening to Eric Clapton and B.B. King at the moment: highly recommended, especially for late at night as it is here. Goodnight!
LikeLike
You know FH, I’m not in the least bit disturbed or surprised by your spiritual position nor I’m I taken aback by your tiresome and worn protests about Christian theism because they are – by nature – the standard default position of all men. Methinks thou doth protesteth too much!
Atheists aren’t scary boogey-men that send the unthinking “Bible-thumpers” fleeing; heavens no! Atheists, in my view, are the modern equivalent of the old children’s story “The Emperors New Clothes”. Atheists simply “borrow from” the Christian theistic worldview not unlike a philosophical parasite…they secretly mug Christian theism in a dark alley and come out on the other side with the credentials they’d like to use while discarding the rest.
You see, atheists are fundamentally no different than any other false religionist since there are only actually two religions, Christian theism and everything else. Atheism, animism, polytheism – pick your “ism”…they’re all simply variations on standard unbelief. Same-same, nothing new here, carry on!
The reason you’re opposed to Christian theism is nothing like “a lack of evidence” since the evidence for the God of Christian theism is overwhelming and inescapable in both the natural order and the guilty sin-consciousness God placed within all men since all men bear God’s image within them wherever they go – and wherever they may attempt to flee.
Furthermore your disdain of the One True and Living God’s absolute authority over your life has nothing to do with the so called “problem of evil” (POE) as you falsely imply. You simply hate the thought of being accountable to Him, but you are, and there’s no escaping this fact.
Since you claim that you possess the innate capability to “do well”
(behaving well, loving your neighbor, etc.), and since you ask what “good” a Christian theist can do that an atheist cannot do, and since you profess to “find divine silence, in the face of human evil or suffering, to be repugnant” — since you make these claims as an atheist and therefore as it were, in a metaphysical vacuum; I would ask you; nay, I would challenge you to define good and evil objectively from your atheistic worldview.
In point of fact I find it quite fascinating that you, as an atheist, would find any reasonable grounds -apart from secretly borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview – upon which to even speak of such immaterial, metaphysical propositions as good and evil. Please elucidate here, I’m most interested in hearing you maintain a rational coherence and cohesiveness within an atheistic worldview and still speak of “good” and “evil” as though such things actually mean anything within your professed worldview.
I say that you cannot do this and therefore I advise you to reject atheism so that you can, at a bare minimum, not continue to defy the very laws of logic and reason that you seem to hold so near and dear. You’ve placed yourself on the horns of quite the dilemma.
Please think critically here before launching into your explanation, because whether or not you realize it, you’ve already dug your metaphysical hole pretty deep thus far…a logical blunder which I admit has brought me no small amount of amusement – and without a musical accompaniment no less!
The sad and simple fact FH is that you reject the One True and Living God because you must. No other option is available for you because you love your sin and detest the light which exposes your sin.
All men, by nature, are God haters and are fleeing from Him as quickly as they possibly can, so again, you present not only an unsurprising example of unbelief, but rather the commonest, most predictable, and basest garden variety unbeliever.
You’re not special, your kind is a dime a dozen…in fact I personally wouldn’t venture a dime for a dozen of your kind, but that’s because I’m a fallen creature who struggles with a sin nature – however God Himself entered the world in the Person of Jesus Christ and died a horrific and humiliating death on a Roman cross for sinners like me, and you, and your daughter in order to pay the sin debt that me, and you, and your daughter could never repay – even by spending an eternity suffering in hell.
The fact that you despise this truth and hate God for this unspeakably glorious and unmerited offer of grace is a damning indictment of and evidence for your radically perverse and sinful nature.
Good luck with your life FH! Good luck with your singing and dancing, and your worldly friends, music and film. I know that in your heart of hearts that these silly, frivolous, and temporary pleasures don’t bring any real solace to your guilty and constantly accusing conscience, but maybe they can help to soothe you somewhat as you rush madly towards certain destruction.
I’m sure you won’t mind – since you don’t believe in any of this “God stuff” anyway – but I’ve not stopped praying to my God for you and your daughter that He might translate you from spiritual death unto spiritual life and extend divine mercy to you instead of the holy justice that you and all unregenerate sinners deserve.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
Thanks Desert Pastor! Soli Deo Gloria!
LikeLike
Amen Jordan!
LikeLike
Dear Rusty:
You are right, there is no value in being “rude” or “condescending” to an unbeliever, nor is their value in that type of behavior displayed to those spreading heresy within the church. However, if you apply “rude” and “condescending” to any attempts to defend the truth and tell the truth (which is offensive) then that I can not and do not apologize for that.
With that said, if I have made any comments that are genuinely rude or condescending, allow me to be the first to apologize.
Dear Fifth Horseman:
You said that you are hiding your daughter from Coram Deo (and his comments). You believe what he has said is offensive and thus, you have chosen to exercise your right to shield her from what you deem harmful to her.
This is the exact thing that many of us are doing when it comes to the highly offensive, godless, public school system. In this case many of us want to exercise our rights to shield our children from the government’s indoctrination of our children that we have deemed harmful (which was the original topic of this thread: Homeschooling).
I find this to be a great irony and now maybe you can understand us a little better on this issue. Is this a one-way street, or do you extend the same grace in our desire to protect our children that you do in your desire to protect yours?
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
Fifth Horseman,
You said, “Final final point (!), back nearly on topic – none of you has picked up on my question of whether it’s unreasonable of me to keep my daughter’s immature mind (she’s 9) away from views like most of you espouse until she’s a grown-up and able to give as good as she gets.”
Having taught in government AND Anglican schools in the UK, I know what I am speaking about far better than most parents who have no idea what these schools are pushing on their precious little children.
So let me give the readers an idea of the things that 9 year old immature minds are being fed in British schools which Fifth Horseman, you do not appear to object to which shows a bias toward anything other than true Christianity.
The following aspects being taught are directly from syllabuses used in UK schools and forced on children as young as 5 and 6 years old!
1. Eastern religions
2. Foreign culture to the exclusion of British heritage
3. Acceptance of anything but the Christianity which has pervaded English culture for centuries since brought by Roman soldiers in the 1st century.
4. Sex education (minus abstinence) and the promotion and acceptance of all sexual deviant behaviours that are contrary to the Word of God and even common decency.
5. Lack of Christian ethics and morals even in many Anglican schools.
6. Witchcraft and pagan worship – (But, this would of course be acceptable in a country where the Arch-Druid of Canterbury is a practicing pagan!)
I could fill the minds of the readers with horror stories of the devolution of British society, morals, etc. to include things like Britain having the highest underage drinking problem, highest drug problem in Western Europe, highest teenage AND under-teen pregnancy rate in the Western world, but I will spare your sensitivities.
Although I am British by birth, and I love my homeland, I detest what the UK has become and unfortunately the US is not far behind. When a country deliberately AND willfully moves away from God, it will only find itself moving down the road towards ultimate decline.
The one thing we learn from history is that we NEVER learn from history! All major civilizations have collapsed in major part due to the severe decline of its morals and its removal of true religion from within its midst.
So, FH, tell me what is it about God and Christianity that you find so much more offensive than the garbage/filth/rubbish the government, the schools, and the British media is deliberately filling the mind of your precious daughter with in the hopes of making her a wonderful part of an all-accepting British society (with the exception of us narrow-minded bigots, of course!)??
Pilgrim, you are very correct in your last question – To many parents, this is a one-way street and no there will be NO GRACE extended to us true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Standing for truth!
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
CD and DP,
Thanks for your comments and for the valid, worthwhile questions you ask (good/evil as seen from an atheistic perspective, and – DP – yours about what it is about God that I find more offensive than the ‘filth’ etc in British schools.
They’re serious questions and deserve a proper response, which I can give! Thing is, I’m really busy in my life right now and it might take me a few days! Please bear with me.
Yours in the spirit of common humanity that binds us all 🙂
FH
LikeLike
Whoops – Pilgrim, I’ll get to yours too about whether it’s a one-way street or not.
Any other atheists out there who can take some of this up for me!? I’m fighting on too many fronts at once! But I can handle it …
LikeLike
Dear 5th Horseman:
My question to you was rather simple. It does not need a long drawn-out lengthy explanation. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice. I will ask it again:
Do we Christians have the same right to protect our children from the theological filth of evolution, secular humanism and Atheism that’s so prevalent in the government-run public school system as you have to protect your children form what you deem harmful to them?
Yes? No?
And by the way. I took the liberty to delete your last comment. If DefCon will not permit a venomous attack of its writers, expect even that much more will we not permit your inflammatory remarks about our God and King, our Savior and Redeemer (your Creator)! Your comments are precisely why I choose to never argue with an Atheist.
If you want to discuss the issues, have at it (although you’re not convincing anyone). But the caustic hatred for God that springs forth from your heart will not have a platform on this blog. Not today; not ever.
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
Proclaiming the Truth works better than debating:
“…I’m also making this my last post, partly because I have other, more worthwhile, calls on my time, and partly because I’m a little irritated…” 5th Horseman on Reformation Nation, Feb. 28, 2008
The fact that he is caught between running and hiding, and an inability to stay away, is symptomatic of someone who is under conviction by the Holy Spirit. (John 16:8-9)
LikeLike
Hats off (as we say in the UK) to my old friend Ministry Addict – though I have to say I’m surprised it took him this long to find me. But I admit it, here I am and he has me bang to rights. Maybe I could wriggle out by saying that my 28 Feb post (which he quotes) was indeed my last – on that thread …
The thing is, there is something about how impossibly, implacably, mercilessly far you people take your Christianity that fascinates me. And yes, it has brought me back for more.
Be assured that I spend time on, for example, the ‘official’ Richard Dawkins site as well – which I sincerely commend to you. Go on the blogs there and do what I’m doing here! It’s important we all try to understand the other side and test our beliefs against theirs. Mr Addict – debating is always better than proclaiming a ‘truth’ without evidence.
Let me repeat what I said to not only you but also to a real-life friend (despite our yawningly wide theological differences) here in the UK: I’m not, repeat not, under conviction by the Holy Spirit; instead, I reject it. What I tell you three times is true, as Shakespeare said.
Another reason I visit this site stems from my dismay (occasional; I don’t lose sleep over it) at how most people in both our countries never give any thought to where they might have come from, or to asking ‘what it’s all about’. That apathy disappoints me, and I think it disappoints you (all) too, judging by the DefCon home page. What fascinates me is how we have drawn diametrically opposite conclusions, and where, if anywhere, we can find a meeting of minds.
I’m under no illusions about changing your minds – and nor should you be about changing mine. But let me say this: I believe that, unlike you, I know precisely what would change my mind.
I know a two-year old boy whose lower arm had to be amputated when he was 6 months old. The stump now comes about two inches below his elbow.
All God has to do, for Doubting Thomases like me, is make that arm grow again (over a period of a few weeks, so we can all see for ourselves that it’s happening – you know, really gather the evidence), put a hand on the end of it, and make it clear that it’s _that_ God (not Odin, Poseidon, Ra etc) that has made it happen. Give me something unequivocal and – here’s the crucial point – testable, and I would of course believe. What we have is just not enough.
In a hypothetical court case as to God’s existence, the burden of proof would be not on me, but on you believers. As Ministry Addict may remember me arguing, if I want to claim something extraordinary, say that it’s psycho-kinetic energy, not petrol, that moves my car up hills, I’m free to make that claim. But I wouldn’t expect you or anyone to believe it unless I could visibly and fairly demonstrate it, on command, and at will. The resurrection is not testable in that way, and nor is any other non-natural Scriptural ‘event’.
LikeLike
One down. Two to go – actually about four, as I really do intend to answer CD, DP and Pilgrim’s very valid questions of a week ago, but life just keeps getting in the way.
For example, last night we went to a concert in London by Tinariwen, a blues/rock band from the Sahara Desert. On they came, in full tribal gear, with the best bass guitarist I’ve seen for quite a while. London is the most culturally and racially diverse city in the world, and I’m proud of that. It’s in gatherings like last night’s that we can find hope for this world.
Similarly, I’m also going to be busy later this month as I’m taking the choir I sing in to Transylvania. (No, I don’t believe in vampires; that’s just fun.) We’ll sing wonderful sacred music (Brahms, Schuetz, Mozart) in a fortified medieval Saxon church to people who have probably never met British people before. Building bridges. Finding common ground that unites us as humans. What do you all do in your society that is like that? You must do something.
Anyway, to the point. Pilgrim, fair enough, you’re the boss on this site, you make the rules here, and if you want to delete an entire post of mine, then do.
But it’s disappointing that you did so, for two reasons. Firstly, the sentence from Dawkins that I quoted, and which riled you, has been translated into 40 languages and probably sits on a bookshelf in someone’s house not very far from where you live. You can’t put Dawkins’ thought back into the bottle. And is your faith really so weak that it has to muzzle the opposition like that? Frankly I think removing my comment was a bit spineless.
And secondly, all of the adjectives Dawkins uses are soundly based in scripture! I won’t list them all in case you deep six this post of mine too, so here’s just three, with Scriptural back-up.
‘Jealous and proud of it’ – Exodus 20:5. Even you will find it hard to argue about that one.
‘Genocidal’ – Book of Joshua, passim; but Joshua 11 v 14, and 6 v 21, make the point nicely. So does Deuteronomy 20, vv 16-17. And so on and so on.
‘capriciously malevolent’: Numbers 15: 32-36. Numbers 31:18. Judges 11, vv 34-39.
Seriously, Pilgrim, what kind of role model is this?
LikeLike
FH,
I think we’ve pretty well established that you loathe “religionists” and hold the One True and Living God in utter contempt. Furthermore it’s abundantly clear that you are “disappointed” and “dismayed” by the “impossibly, implacably, mercilessly” fundamental beliefs demonstrated by the Christian theists at this blog.
I think I speak for the DefCon team when I say we take you at your word on all these points. Your subjective emotionalism and breathless protestations are duly noted and are a matter of public record.
So then, let’s move things along shall we? My charges against you from my prior post stand, as of the writing of this comment, without response.
I submit – once again – that you cannot and do not maintain a rational, coherent, logical worldview as an atheist apart from secretly borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview. I submit that you are, by nature, forced into logical absurdity and irrationality by denying the One True and Living God of Christian theism, and this fact shall be demonstrated by your own words – assuming of course that you actually carry your professed worldview to its logical conclusion when pressed.
I posit that you cannot objectively define “good” or “evil” from within your professed atheistic worldview even though you casually throw them around as though they actually mean something to you. Due to this fundamental weakness I further posit that you are therefore at a complete loss with respect to your ability to explain the so-called “problem of evil” (POE) which in fact is no problem whatsoever for the Christian theist.
The One True and Living God whom I serve certainly isn’t afraid of you or Richard Dawkins. Nor is He perturbed or unsettled in the least by the whole combined intellectual onslaught of all the atheists who have ever lived, are alive today, or who ever will live – in point of fact He laughs you to scorn.
Take up the challenge, FH; come along and test your atheistic worldview against the transcendent self revelation of the One True and Living God of Christian theism and perhaps by His boundless oceans of mercy, pity, grace and love it may be that your spirit will be quickened and translated from spiritual death unto spiritual life.
This is my prayer for you; that you might come to know Him.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
Dear FH:
I thought I explained it fairly well as to my reason for deleting your comment. I will not allow you or anyone else to call God names or blatantly insult Him on this blog even under the notion of, “I’ve got Scripture to support it.” (The very Scripture–I might add–that you abhor and tell us we shouldn’t quote to you because you’ve dismissed it.)
It’s not a matter of being “spineless” or “putting a muzzle on the opposition” by deleting your Dawkins quote. This is very disingenuous and disturbing to accuse me of that, especially since you’ve had unlimited rein on this blog to give all your anti-God comments. I deleted that one particular quote because you chose to insult and berate God with your comment. Now you accuse me of deleting it for other reasons? This is very deceptive and you should be a little ashamed of employing that type of tactic in this ongoing debate.
When an unregenerate, completely sinful, morally corrupt, fallen human race tries to tell its Creator how He should be, and expect Him to think, behave, and act as we do, of course there will be no understanding of His nature by those who reject Him. He is not and will not ever be subject to us. Period.
And again, this go-nowhere argument between those who submit to their Creator and those who shake their fist at their Creator may interest others, but I tire of it rather quickly. I just thought I’d offer you the courtesy of explaining why I deleted your comment since the point was missed in my previous explanation.
Now back to my very simple yes or no question so I can retire my comments on this thread:
Do we Christians have the same right to protect our children from the theological filth of evolution, secular humanism and Atheism that’s so prevalent in the government-run public school system as you have to protect your children form what you deem harmful to them?
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
OK, I’m off to work now, but tonight.
Whether I’ll have time tonight to answer all the questions from all three of you – and large questions they are, as you will admit – I’m not sure, but I’ll make a start.
LikeLike
FH: Thanks for the “hats off.” Just by way of reference, Daniel’s friends were told “hats on” (and coats and hosen and other garments, as well). (Daniel 3:21)
But, to correct you, I didn’t technically “find” you. I simply followed the link from Reformation Nation to here a while back, and, then, a few weeks later, I was surprised and overjoyed (American overstatement) to see you back. It’s probably a Divine appointment.
Nothing against the site’s authors – I obviously like the site – but, if you’re feeling “teamed-up on,” don’t include me with those who are posing questions to you. I don’t think I asked you any questions. And, no offense to you, either, but you wouldn’t have any real “answers” unless you quoted the Bible. Psalm 19:7-8
As to the young boy you mention, no amount of debating, or getting diverse people together in counterfeit unity, is going to help him get a miraculous new arm. God graciously gave him two good legs, one good arm, two good eyes, two good ears, a heart that beats without any effort on the part of those who care for him in this world, and numerous other amazingly complex organs and systems, not to mention a brain and a consciousness – and the professing atheist is dissatisfied because God doesn’t make his missing arm grow back! Typical – charging God foolishly. (Job 1:22)
You use the term “wriggle” off-handedly, but it’s a good description. You wriggled away, but were drawn back to a site where you’ll be faced with the Truth, not because of mere fascination, but because on the atheist sites you find death, and where the Word of God is proclaimed, deep down, you sense there is Life. (Ephesians 2:1-5)
LikeLike
OK, here we go.
Like King Arthur in ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’, I’ve been asked 3 questions. Before I start I thought it would be useful if we all agreed what they were, and had them in one place. If I’m misrepresenting your questions – especially 2 and 3, because it’s past midnight and I won’t get to them tonight – please say.
1. From CD, posts 35 and 47. Can I define ‘good’ and ‘evil’ objectively from my atheistic worldview? Do the words / concepts ‘good’ and ‘evil’ actually mean anything within my professed world view, or am I simply borrowing from Christianity?
2. From Pilgrim, posts 39 and 48: I’m shielding my daughter from CD (or more accurately, from his views). Do Christians therefore also have a right to shield their children from things they deem harmful?
3. From DP who, in post 40, lists 6 things he says are taught in UK schools and asks what it is ‘about God and Christianity’ that I find ‘so much more offensive’ than the ‘garbage / filth / rubbish’ represented by those 6 things.
I hope that’s a fair summary. Pilgrim – you did say I could answer your question with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. You won’t fall off your chair in amazement when I say to you that the answer is ‘no’, or at least ‘only up to a very limited point’. I could just leave it at that, but I’d like to explain why I think that’s the answer.
I’ll answer question 1 now in a new post. (Aside: am I missing something, or can you make the text edit box on here a bit bigger, please?) Finally, you may well want to respond to what I say, and despite all the undoubted hard words we’ve exchanged these last few weeks, I hope you will. But I’ll answer the other two questions before I get to anything you say back to me about the first one, if you see what I mean.
LikeLike
On ‘good’ and ‘evil’. No, atheism does not borrow from Christianity. On the contrary, Christianity borrowed from what predated Christianity. Did the Children of Israel really make it all the way to Mt Sinai unaware that killing people and stealing was intrinsically wrong? Of course not. They already knew right and wrong (but, like humans everywhere and at all times, they didn’t consistently apply it).
Atheist morality overlaps with Christian morality in any areas. But atheism’s humane, humanistic, secular ideals both predate and – in that atheism doesn’t recommend, say, stoning people – postdate Christian morality. And I believe atheist ideals, by being grounded in truth, compassion and reason, make the world a kinder place.
Mosaic Law is, in my opinion, brutal, present-day Taliban-like, and no basis for the civilised, humane, modern societies we are nowadays fortunate enough to live in. Do any of you really think adulterers, practising gays, and apostates should be stoned to death, as the Bible commands us to do? Again, of course not; we’re more civilised now. (Sudden thought – maybe some of you _would_ like to see a few such stonings. If so, that would have a material bearing on question 2, as I hope you can see.)
All in all the Old Testament God displays some pretty unattractive characteristics, as I’ve argued in my last two posts, of which only no.46 still sees the light of day. (Another aside: Pilgrim – the link to Dawkins in your post 48 is emphatically not ‘my’ Dawkins quote – the one which you deleted. You are misrepresenting me!)
In July 1941, the SS began murdering Jews in Ukraine in precisely the same genocidal way in which Joshua’s Jewish armies behave in the Bible. How are we to distinguish morally between the two campaigns? The SS genocide was evil; there really cannot be any sensible doubt about that. Why therefore is Joshua’s ‘Lebensraum’ campaign not vilified in the same way? Because it was God who was behind it, and God is on ‘our’ side, on the side of the chosen people, so it’s OK? Come on. Do tell me that’s not the answer.
My point is that wherever we humans get our present day morality from, only a part of it comes from the Bible. The Bible reflected contemporary morality – some of which today’s world would regard as ‘good’ (charity, tolerance, loving your neighbour), and some of which we regard, I trust, as ‘bad’, like stoning people, and genocide.
The Bible captured that pre-modern era’s same instinctive, intrinsic, human understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, by which we assess today that charity is still ‘good’ but that, unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, stoning people for adultery is no longer ‘good’. Admittedly imperfectly, the human race has moved on from such barbarism. As such, parts – and obviously by no means all – of Biblical morality has been superseded. No one wants to go back to the full gamut of laws and customs of Biblical times – although, in their way, the Taliban are trying hard. The Bible does not give us all our morality.
Change of tack. You’ll be aware of recent events in Burma and China. God could have prevented both of those, just as he could have usefully intervened during the seven minutes the Asian Tsunami took to hit land on Boxing Day 2004. But he didn’t, and now he won’t even quietly sway the Burmese junta’s mind to allow anyone in to help save lives.
Any human causing or allowing destruction on such a scale would undoubtedly, and rightly, be considered evil, as you know perfectly well. God is omnipotent, you say; yet the very best that can be said is that he failed to intervene to prevent or, in Burma, even mitigate these heart-rendingly tragic events. Why? To whose benefit?
These are all questions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. CD, it’s perfectly clear which is which, whether you have a faith or you don’t.
But if your fundamentalist viewpoint is going to make any headway, you’ve really got to start supplying some persuasive answers to questions like this and not shrug your shoulders and say, ‘it’s not for me to interpret the mind of God’. You’re the first to interpret God’s mind and whistle up Scripture when it suits you – I must have had half the Bible quoted at me over the last 3 weeks.
OK, it’s 2.00 a.m. here, so I’ll call it a night. With luck, I’ll have something (briefer, we can all of us hope) for you on question 2 which is, after all, the topic on which we all came in.
LikeLike
First line of para two – that should of course be ‘many areas’, not ‘any areas’.
Now I’m really going to bed.
LikeLike
FH,
Evidently it’s my turn to be disappointed and dismayed. You certainly used quite a lot of space and many words, but if I’m reading your response correctly the closest you came to defining “evil” is pointing toward the God of Christian theism and saying, “He’s evil”; ostensibly because of your present conundrum with the “problem of evil” POE which you manifestly cannot resolve, as evidenced by your response.
Have you ever heard of circular reasoning, FH? Methinks you’re engaged in a turbo charged version that frankly gives me vertigo when attempting to sort it all out.
I’ll admit that I was most amused by your bald assertion that atheistic morality predates monotheism and by inference “religious” morality in general. Pray tell, who were these fantastic pre-historic atheistic people groups to whom you refer? Where are they in the archeological record? Where is their “book” so that we might compare it to the Holy Bible? Perhaps Richard Dawkins actively channels the spirit of this kinder, gentler, nobler Atlantian atheist race even today?
But I digress. I’m still hopeful that you’ll give me a plain definition of “good” and “evil” from your professed worldview; and I hope you’ll admit that your fevered high noon fantasy of a pre-historic atheist morality cult is a mythical fabrication of your own mind.
You insist on continuing to speak of things like good and evil, humane and barbaric, right and wrong as if they actually mean something within a rational, material, atheistic universe when in fact they can’t and don’t. You point at lots of things that you personally find to be admirable or loathsome and then waffle on about why you think or feel the way you do; perhaps part of it came from the Bible you say; you allude to an “instinctive, intrinsic human understanding of right and wrong, good and evil” as though such a concept is totally acceptable from within your professed worldview when in reality such a hypothesis ought to startle a rational-material atheist and make him quite uncomfortable. Whether or not you realize it you are brushing against, and in some cases bashing your head against the metaphysical which is, I’m sorry to say, off limits to the rational materialist unless he wishes to borrow massive portions his worldview from another source, as you’re guilty of doing here by secretly borrowing from Christian theism.
This is enough for now because as I expected you’re already following the illogical, irrational pathway to epistemic absurdity that you must follow as a God rejecting atheist. I’m going to go read some scriptures and pray and I’ll be back a little later to share more of the transcendent self revelation of the One True and Living God of Christian theism with you, FH.
I thank my God whom I serve that you continue to visit here, FH; that you might be exposed to His truth to the praise of His glory alone forever and evermore.
In Christ,
CD
P.S. – I didn’t see any questions posted in your thread that troubled me or that I would find the least bit difficult to reconcile with the character of the One True and Living God as He has revealed Himself in the Holy Bible. By God’s providence Ministry Addict had already presciently addressed the bulk of your complaints in his post #50. Soli Deo Gloria!
LikeLike
Dear FH:
In response to my question:
Do we Christians have the same right to protect our children from the theological filth of evolution, secular humanism and Atheism that’s so prevalent in the government-run public school system as you have to protect your children form what you deem harmful to them?
You finally replied, “no.” Thank you. I was fairly confident that there was a double standard and I just wanted to clarify that.
Sincerely,
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
Pilgrim – be fair. That wasn’t all of my answer, and I offered to explain, when time lets me.
Before I answer in full, it would be helpful for me to know this: if it was in your (earthly) power, would you support stonings for any / all of adulterers, apostates or practising gays?
LikeLike
Dear FH:
There needs to be no explanation, I just wanted to clarify that you did not extend the same courtesy to me as you expect for yourself. I’m not holding it against you or going to make a big stink about it, I just wanted to clarify it because I was fairly certain that there was a double standard.
With all due respect I have no interest to further this discussion. I keep trying to move on but it’s taken so long to get an answer and now you want to keep going. Ugh!
Of course I would not support the murder of apostates, adulterers, gays, nor grandpa in the nursing home or the unborn. Not even you FH. But I think you already know that.
LikeLike
Pilgrim says, in post 57: ‘Of course I would not support the murder of apostates, adulterers, gays …’
The Bible, however, teaches differently:
(Gays): Leviticus 20, v.13: ‘… they shall surely be put to death …’
(Adulterers): Deuteronomy 22, v 22: ‘ … then they shall both of them die …’
(Apostates): Deuteronomy 13, v.9: ‘But thou shalt surely kill him …’
So there we are. On three counts, Pilgrim sees fit to reject unequivocal Biblical teaching.
Ouch.
Pilgrim, no wonder you also say in your most recent post that you want no further discussion.
LikeLike
Fifth Horseman,
I am beginning to understand why others choose not to play these little games, especially when the Bible is taken out of context by someone like yourself trying to make a point. Let’s make this easy for everyone –
1. The Mosaic Law was given by God to the Jews only to show them that it was NOT possible to get to God by their own good deeds/works/etc.
2. Israel was given these commands under a theocratic rule of government (meaning God rule). Israel later decided they would rather have an earthly king and did not want God to rule over them (should sound familiar!).
3. The Old Testament was given for us as Paul said to the church at Corinth for our learning as an example. God never commands the believers in the New Testament to adhere to the Mosaic law and kill such as apostates, adulterers, and sodomites/homosexuals (to use the correct Biblical terms).
4. Pilgrim also realizes what you do not, the Church is under the covenant of grace and Paul told the Romans that they were to submit to the government that God allowed to be in power over them. Therefore, as long as a government is not telling/commanding us to do something contrary to the Word of God, then we are to obey the rulers for they bear not the sword in vain!
5. However, before you go rushing off there is coming a day which will be the Millennium Age where Jesus Christ Himself will rule and reign for a 1000 years literally on this earth. To Him alone shall every knew bow and He WILL REIGN with a rod of iron. The theocracy will be brought back and justice will be meted out to all who choose to live their lives as an abomination before the Almighty!
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
FH says: So there we are. On three counts, Pilgrim sees fit to reject unequivocal Biblical teaching.
As The Desert Pastor correctly pointed out these are not unequivocal Biblical teaching, they are conditional and covenantal teachings which have absolutely zero application to the church age wherein we presently live. Of course we can’t expect a spiritually dead, blind, and sin enslaved unbeliever to make any sense of such truths, but truths they remain nonetheless. The doe-eyed, platitude spouting, kissy-huggy hippy Christ of the modern world is a farce and a fabrication. He is the exalted King of Kings and Lord of Lords and He is angry with sinners every day. His omnipotent hand of holy justice against sin is stayed only by His omnipotently merciful restraint and compassion.
But, for the satisfaction of all interested the very same God of the Old Testament Who justly commanded death for the sins listed is the same unchanging God of the New Testament Who will one day (prayerfully soon) pour out His unspeakably holy wrath and exact His hot vengeance against those unrepentant sinners who despise and reject His immutable, eternal truth and worship the created more than the Creator.
In this day His enemies will be utterly destroyed with a great slaughter, the kind which the earth has never seen. His Word promises He will shatter the kings of the earth and execute justice in the earth, filling the nations with corpses (Psalm 110).
Yes, The Amen Himself says there is certainly a day coming which is the great and terrible Day of the Lord, and who shall stand?
LikeLike
Wrong again Fifth Horseman . . . and again, and again, and again.
I’ve been trying to get out of this “discussion” (pointless game) of yours for a little while now. Don’t you recall me getting up and walking to the door when I said in this comment:
“And again, this go-nowhere argument between those who submit to their Creator and those who shake their fist at their Creator may interest others, but I tire of it rather quickly. I just thought I’d offer you the courtesy of explaining why I deleted your comment since the point was missed in my previous explanation.”
Perhaps you didn’t get the big hint in that statement but don’t you recall my hand on the door knob when in this comment I asked no further questions of you and did not press you on any further issues? But as usual you set-up, twist, and manipulate every possible angle you can. Do you ever tire of this game?
Growing weary of casting pearls before swine
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
Pilgrim, you really are rather rude.
You have deleted me, twice misquoted me and failed to acknowledge as much when I point it out, and now you have called me a swine, all in the last week or so.
Atheist sites everywhere, and a decade or two of my own personal experience, told me that the religious will eventually resort to cheap shots and personal abuse like that as their arguments are so weak and impossible to substantiate, so it’s not a surprise. Clearly, to quote the classic UK sitcom ‘Dad’s Army’: ‘they don’t like it up ’em, Captain!’
No one is asking you to continue to participate on this thread. If you’re tired of it, just stop coming back!
LikeLike
I find it amusing that the person who continually misquotes, twists, and in general causes some of the problems (including having said that he doesn’t believe Christians should be able to raise their children in a godly manner although he thinks the ungodly way he raises his own is ok) begins to WHINGE because he’s been caught in his own particular circular reasoning, taking things out of context, and twisting and misquoting everyone else.
By the way, casting pearls before the swine is a saying directly from Scripture and used about those people who hate the truth. The truth is the pearl and the swine is a term (used by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself) about those who hate the truth!
The Bible does declare that those people who are not saved already have the wrath of God abiding on them. On this earth, you may think that true believers are the scum of the earth but one day you will find out quite differently. One day you will face God as your judge and you will give an account as to why you rejected Him. On that day, you will have no excuse outside of your own selfishness and that will not be a good enough excuse! You will live in eternity where the fire is not quenched and will forever regret your rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is not Pilgrim that is causing the problems but you, FH. This is a Christian site and your doctrines come straight from the pits of hell itself. You don’t realize that Satan himself is laughing at you and one day you will realize that you’ve participated in the biggest double cross there ever was. When you do realize it, it will be too late for you unless you are willing to seek forgiveness from the Sovereign Creator and Lord of your life (whether you want to admit it or not).
How sad for you and how sad that you continue to shake your fist in God’s face but one day (as was said previously) God will laugh at you in derision because you will have gotten what you deserved. On the other hand, if you repent, then God will give you what none of us deserve (heaven and eternity with the Lord Jesus Christ!)
Praise God Who alone is worthy to be praised!
LikeLike
Wow, The DP’s Wife stole all my thunder. :o)
Anyway, 5H, Apparently you are NOT getting tired of playing your games.
You’re beginning to concern me with your displacement of blame for the very things that you’re doing. I find it scary how the very things that you are accusing me of is the very thing that you have been actively engaged in since the day you first graced us with your God-hating rhetoric.
You also have ignored Coram Deo’s questions and, like a rabid dog, have come after me with increased fervor. I’m not sure if it’s because you’re trying to keep the attention away from your inability to answer Coram, or if it’s because you got caught espousing your views of a double standard reminiscent of Orwell’s Animal Farm. But it really doesn’t matter what the excuse is, it really doesn’t.
So let me explain this again (for the umpteenth time):
1. I’ve had to delete your previous comment for a very legitimate reason (which I already explained here and here, and I’m finding I’m having to explain it AGAIN). You said I’ve deleted two comments, and although I don’t remember the other one, I have no reason to doubt your claim. This doesn’t help your case, though. It only shows my enduring patience for you and your rudeness by not banning you yet. My patience, however, is not everlasting.
2. Your incessant ad hominem attacks have gotten old and they’re not amusing and thus, your expiration date on DefCon is fast approaching.
3. The last sentence of your last comment was very odd. You said, “No one is asking you to continue to participate on this thread. If you’re tired of it, just stop coming back!” Uh, perhaps you forgot whose blog this is.
Because you cannot practice self-control, you twist everything that is said to the point you even confuse yourself, you can’t seem to debate without insults, you have shown no desire but to attack, attack, attack, and you have an utter inability to recognize when you’ve overstayed your welcome at a place where you weren’t invited and have done nothing but insult the guests since you’ve got here, take this as your final warning. Continue in your behavior and you will no longer be permitted to comment on here.
I suggest you read DefCon’s Rules of Engagement and consider yourself on probation.
Your future comments will be moderated and if you still (after all my attempts to explain this to you) can’t understand this, then my suggestion is find another blog to waste your time on, or start your own.
I will not explain myself again.
Finished casting pearls before swine,
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
OK, let’s take this bit by bit. Don’t forget there are about four of you, and only one of me. Please cut me some slack if I can’t keep up with all of the questions (like CD’s of a while ago) quite as fast as you (or I) would like. I’m busy. Look at the times I generally send my posts, like this one, and work out what time that must be in the UK.
Two things, then, for tonight.
First … Pilgrim, my answer to your ‘do Christians have a right to homeschool their children – and so shield them – in the way you [secularists] ask for yourselves’ question was as follows:
” … no, or at least ‘only up to a very limited point’. I could just leave it at that, but I’d like to explain why I think that’s the answer.”
You ignored my qualification, and just said that my answer was a straight ‘no’.
I don’t think that was fair of you. Can we agree on this, at least?
Second thing for tonight (which, now I read it back, I didn’t mean to be so long. But please bear with me; you might be surprised).
I accept entirely that I challenge a faith, and certain values, that are hugely important to you, and that I am often very forthright, to say the least, in doing so. I also accept that I’m on a Christian site and that you have the perfect right to bar me if and whenever you choose – indeed, I’ve already as good as said this, earlier on.
I may not have a faith, but believe you me, I have values. And I’m here because in certain key respects, your values and mine are in opposition. I hold my values every bit as strongly as you do yours. When you attack my secular values (as ‘filth’, for example), it upsets me just as much as I can see it upsets you when I attack your faith. I hope you can accept that.
We are all incredibly fortunate to live in a tolerant society, which for the purposes of this thread I’ll define as one that guarantees freedom _of_ religion equally with freedom _from_ religion. My concern, and the ultimate reason I’m here on this site at all, is that I consider your conservative, fundamentalist religious views to be socially regressive and that, if they were ever allied with serious political power, I would not be allowed anything like the same freedoms that Western democracy and secularism rightly accord to you. I know that’s debatable, but that is my perception. We can all name countries where political power and conservative, monotheistic religion have come together with dreadful social consequences.
Pilgrim – this is where I’m coming from when I say that I consider _unregulated_ homeschooling (ie. by parents with no recognised and/or tested teaching skills or qualifications) to be a threat. If, however, the homeschooling teachers are qualified and professionally-trained, I see no reason at all to argue against homeschooling, whatever the teachers’ views about God may be. I may still not like the idea all that much, but it is your right.
You (plural, now) and I each believe passionately, and with absolute sincerity, in our respective values. You believe that your religious views are absolutely correct and immune from any criticism; and that, in fact, any criticism is ‘God-hating’ more or less by definition.
But, just this once, look at it from my point of view. I don’t accept that you have a monopoly on truth, any more than I do. Given my sincerely held start point, there isn’t anything about your, or anyone’s, religious values that makes them any more immune from criticism than, say, your political values, your taste in music, or your thoughts on alternative medicine. Your religious faith is just as much up there for discussion and challenge as my secular values, or my lack of faith.
I’ve tried hard here. I hope that, for once, you’ll maybe recognise that I, too, am sincere, that I have feelings too, and that I’m delighted for you to get on with what you want to believe and practise – provided my own life is not affected.
If you’ll acknowledge this effort of mine to explain why I say what I do, and do so without being too damning about me, I might even get to DP’s list of things taught in UK schools – question 3, iirc.
Best be quick though, I’m off with my choir to Transylvania and Dracula’s castle soon. aaooooo!
LikeLike
Dear 5H:
Some points to address from your comment:
“Please cut me some slack if I can’t keep up with all of the questions (like CD’s of a while ago) quite as fast as you (or I) would like. I’m busy.” I cannot help but find this particular remark a little dishonest. You lament time and time again about not having the time to answer anyone’s questions, however, you seem to have found all the time in the world to attack me and attempt to set me up with your, “So there we are. On three counts, Pilgrim sees fit to reject unequivocal Biblical teaching.”
You also said, “You believe that your religious views are absolutely correct and immune from any criticism; and that, in fact, any criticism is ‘God-hating’ more or less by definition.” No, it’s your God-hating comments that I have found to be God-hating, not your mere “criticism.” And it is your hate for God that has betrayed your true intentions couched in innocent criticisms.
You also said, “I hope that, for once, you’ll maybe recognise that I, too, am sincere, that I have feelings too, and that I’m delighted for you to get on with what you want to believe and practise – provided my own life is not affected.” I never questioned that you weren’t sincere in what you believe, nor passionate about it. I also am not affecting your life outside of what goes on here.
I hope that now you can quit using me as an excuse for being too busy and proceed in obliging the others on here who had questions for you.
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
Pilgrim,
You’re right, I got sidetracked; and I shouldn’t have done. These are emotive issues we’re discussing here. I still owe DP an answer – in fact it’s long overdue.
I did answer your question, however, in my last post, on Tuesday evening; but you didn’t acknowledge that. I’m genuinely interested to know your reaction to it. And of course I answered CD’s question several days ago now. afaia that just leaves DP – though I’d like to answer some of CD’s further questions too.
The latest delay is my daughter’s tenth birthday, and nothing is more important to me than my family, as the exchanges between CD and me three weeks ago should confirm. So tomorrow night we’re taking her and her best friend to see their favourite band perform live in Birmingham.
DP, if you’re still there, thanks for your patience, and I will get to your question before Monday when the next distraction will kick in – the choir tour … Life is rich and varied. I recognise my good fortune.
FH
LikeLike
FH,
You manifestly DID NOT provide any coherent, logical, or rational reply to any of my questions and the fact that you claim you did so strikes me as being disingenuous as best, or delusional at worst.
I plead with you again to please, please consider your reply carefully because I don’t think you’ve realized that with each subsequent post you’re only digging your epistemic hole deeper and deeper.
If you are truly a rational material atheist as you claim then your worldview cannot account for things like “good”, or “evil” or even the laws of logic themselves which you purport to hold and I can demonstrably, objectively, and irrefutably prove this assertion using simple logical tests.
If you can’t even grasp this most foundational truth then I think our discussion has reached an impasse.
At any rate I will no longer allow you to stand upon my worldview in order to attack it with metaphysical concepts that are not even allowable from within your own professed worldview. You need to either admit that you are secretly borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview or quit using its presuppositions.
But at the end of all this is the sad fact that you are either unwilling or unable to discontinue your well established pattern of compulsive and comprehensive irrationality. I posit that you can’t stop borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview because to do so would be tantamount to committing epistemic suicide and to be faced with the inherent irrationality of your actual professed worldview.
I’m still praying for you and your daughter asking the One True and Living God Whom I serve to miraculously translate you from spiritual death unto spiritual life. May I share the Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ with you? It would be my honor to do so and if you are willing you can e-mail me at axeroot@hotmail.com
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
I am going to do something completely radical here . . . I am going to attempt to steer this thread back to its original topic with a simple question (I know, I’m just talking crazy now).
In post number 65, the Fifth Horseman said, “If, however, the homeschooling teachers are qualified and professionally-trained, I see no reason at all to argue against homeschooling, whatever the teachers’ views about God may be.”
My question to you is very simple 5H. What “qualifications” and “professional training” would my wife and I need to homeschool our children that would be to your satisfaction?
And please refrain from saying that it’s up to each state’s standards, I want your opinion.
Thanks.
– The Pilgrim
P.S. Sorry Coram, I hate to keep diverting 5H from your question, but I needed to ask him that question.
LikeLike
DP, CD, Pilgrim
Pilgrim – your last post is a perfect example of why I asked to be cut some slack! I feel I really must get to DP’s initial question before coming back to the issues you and CD raise.
CD, I’ll just say now that I manifestly did answer your question; it’s there in post 52. I appreciate that you didn’t _like_ the answer, and I’ll get to that. But an answer it nevertheless was.
DP. To recap, yuo asked the following (back when Adam were a lad, as they say in Yorkshire):
”The following aspects being taught are directly from syllabuses used in UK schools and forced on children as young as 5 and 6 years old!
1. Eastern religions
2. Foreign culture to the exclusion of British heritage
3. Acceptance of anything but the Christianity which has pervaded English culture for centuries since brought by Roman soldiers in the 1st century.
4. Sex education (minus abstinence) and the promotion and acceptance of all sexual deviant behaviours that are contrary to the Word of God and even common decency.
5. Lack of Christian ethics and morals even in many Anglican schools.
6. Witchcraft and pagan worship – (But, this would of course be acceptable in a country where the Arch-Druid of Canterbury is a practicing pagan!)”
– and goes on to ask what it is about Christianity that I find ‘so much more offensuive’ than this ‘garbage / filth / rubbish’.
1. Eastern religions. It’s correct that my daughter learned (the absolute basics) about the three Abrahamic monotheisms and iirc Hinduism in Year 2 or 3 (about 6/7 years old). We can argue about what age is appropriate, but whether you believe in any of these faiths or not, the existence of these faiths is fact. Ignorance is the biggest social destroyer there is (which is why we have education in the first place) and ignorance of others’ faiths, in a post 9/11 world, is right up there with the worst of them as a force for division, mistrust, and hate. And you can’t wish these faiths away by ignoring them all except the one you believe in. No one at my daughter’s school was/is _promoting_ Eastern religions. But the _existence_ of these religions is taught, and I have no problem with that, even though (as you would expect) I have a big problem with what Eastern religions profess to believe.
2. Wrong. Just quite simply wrong, and as the father of a ten-year old English girl, I should know. Just one example of literally thousands I could give: all this term, her class are studying the Victorians, and by my elbow right now is my daughter’s bulging project on the composer Gustav Holst, who was born less than fifty miles away from where I write this. And besides that, it’s vital that UK kids learn about foreign culture too, for all of the building-tolerance reasons in my last paragraph. The US is an amazing country; I’ve been there 10 times and visited a dozen or more states from New Jersey and Texas to California. But I wish more of you knew and understood more about the world outside the US and could speak languages other than English. Understanding foreign culture matters, if we’re to get along in this world.
3. What’s your basis for saying this? It just sounds like a simple, unevidenced assertion which I shouldn’t have to refute until you can first build an argument to back yourself up. One thing though – brave indeed would have been any Roman soldiers proselytising Christianity in 1st Century Britain. (This reminded me of another bumper sticker, also from Seattle: ‘So many Christians, So Few Lions’.) St Augustine’s arrival in 597AD is the accepted date for the beginnings of Christianity in my country.
4. Again wrong – show me a syllabus that has sex education on it for 5/6 year olds. With great reluctance, the Headmaster of my daughter’s school sought and secured parental consent (including from me) to start sex education for my daughter’s class at the end of Year 5 (ie when all of the class have reached their tenth birthday). That’s younger than I was when sex education came my way. But the biological fact is that girls in particular are reaching puberty sooner, and it’s started to several of the girls in my daughter’s class. Because the other kids didn’t know or understand what was going on, these girls were getting laughed at and humiliated, and so the Headmaster brought sex education forward by 6 months, partly but not only to try to limit / prevent this. And I’ve seen the presentation. Abstinence _is_ promoted.
I did smile at the wonderful ‘and even’ in your sentence. You can work out why, I’m sure. I won’t get drawn further into that, other than to say that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes does not harm you and is no business of yours or mine. Don’t be homophobic.
5. This is essentially the same argument that I’m having with Pilgrim and CD, so I’ll save what I’ve got to say until I can get to his question. Let me just say here that my daughter’s school, and our house, are in a nice, middle-class area where she can (for example) walk to school with no problem. Because it’s daylight round here till 9.30 at night, I let her out to play until 9.00pm last Thursday with two other friends in her class, who we know, just on the street – a calculated, but tiny, risk. As for the kids themselves, they are the nicest, politest and most thoughtful you could wish for – or will be, once they know not to laugh at the way some girls are hugely self-conscious because they are the first to develop breasts.
6. Witchcraft to 5 year olds. Don’t be preposterous. Prove it. But I’m no admirer of Rowan Williams either – a learned and decent enough man, but incapable of communicating clearly.
My daughter’s been waiting patiently (now not quite so patiently) for a go on the computer, so I’ll close there for now. Transylvania is just around the (chronological if not geographical) corner for me, but if I get any more time today, CD – I’ll come to you next. Pilgrim, I hope that’s OK; he was the next in line, so to speak.
FH
LikeLike
Fifth Horseman,
I have waited patiently for your reply and I thank you for getting to my questions. Just to preface my own reply, may I reiterate that I have not only spent years in the UK, I am British by birth (still hold a current passport to prove it), in fact, my grandmother’s family is all from North Yorkshire so I know all about “back when Adam were a lad!” LOL
I have also (in case you missed my earliest post have also taught in UK schools and have had access to all the syllabus material not available to parents, but also that which most teachers and headmasters do not give out to parents! So, I do not speak from ignorance.
Let me briefly address each of your 6 points that were in response to my points.
1. Eastern religions – There is no question that other religions will be taught in government run schools (especially when the British government has such a desire to be all inclusive of all that crosses the border into the UK. My concern was that MANY of the same schools teaching these religions from the East have stopped teaching any Protestant or evangelical Biblical material for the sake of offending a VERY small minority group. Try to get permission for a godly, evangelical pastor to come in to your daughter’s school and teach what he believes on creation, the atonement of Christ, etc. WILL NOT HAPPEN IN MOST SCHOOLS! However, the other religions and their leaders are given free access to the minds of our children! When I was living in the UK, this was still spelled D-O-U-B-L-E S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D!
2. If your daughter’s school continues to teach British culture, that’s great and I commend your headmaster for taking such a stand. However, I have seen the syllabus directing teachers to not only pride in British history and British culture to rise above the needs of foreign culture. That is one thing I like about the USA. Patriotism, pride of being American, etc. – practically NON-EXISTENT in the UK (except once a year maybe at “BBC’s Last Night at the Proms” when everybody sings “Land of Hope and Glory!” People in the UK are afraid of the foreign cultures taking over what is distinctly British and this cannot be denied, even the government has vague statistics showing this to be the case!
3. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Christianity gained a foothold in Britain by the MID-SECOND CENTURY, but had yet to gain anything approaching religious supremacy on the island.” The date to which you referred was the acceptable date by the Roman Catholic Church which was not the original Biblical New Testament church anyway. Yes, it would have been a brave Roman soldier, but that is what having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ does for you. It provides the courage necessary to take a stand for what is right even in the face of pagan opposition which is what happened.
4. Again, if your Headmaster has the gall to stand in the face of fierce opposition to both government mandates as well as media and cultural opposition – then my hat is off to him (or her as the case may be)! They are one of the few. Again, I have seen the education requirements put forth by the government education standards departments and the goal is to bring in sex education beginning with Reception Year (similar to Kindergarten in the USA).
FH, with respect, if you or other parents do NOT believe this is happening, then you have your heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich. As for abstinence being promoted – WRONG AGAIN except in a few places. The UK has one of the most appalling rates of pregnancy in the western world in girl UNDER THE AGE OF 13!! 11 and 12 year old girls having a baby of their own is no longer a rare occurrence!
As for what happens in the privacy of somebody’s home, you are right that is between them and God. However, how you managed to translate what I said into labelling me as “homophobic” is beyond me. For the record, I would state that not only is homosexuality wrong AND is an abomination before God, but the Bible also makes it clear that ALL SEX outside of marriage is contrary to the laws of God.
5. Again, herein lies your double standard, I clearly indicated that Christian ethics and morals are not being taught (notice I did not say – to the exclusion of anything else). You stated in Point 1 that the existence of the Eastern religions is a fact and that while you don’t like it – you accept it. However, you are not willing to give that same respect to those who wish to teach the God of the Bible to your daughter.
You see, FH, that is the problem with the world’s standards. Get rid of everything that stands for truth – namely God and His Holy Word. They are willing to except everything else but they know there is a danger in teaching what I, Pilgrim, Coram Deo, etc believe.
The double standard sounds like this — “Let the schools teach Hinduism, take the children to visit mosques for the sake of Islam, bring in saffron-robed Buddhist monks for that will help our children to be part of an all-inclusive society!”
“WHAT??!! Teach my child from the Bible (the Holy Scriptures) – NO, you can’t force that religious stuff on my children. We are an enlightened society living in the 21st century. We don’t need God or His morals!”
6. I said, “Witchcraft and pagan worship” and that the list of 6 I gave was being taught to children as young as 5 and 6 years old. It may not be in your school, but it is in the syllabus and IT IS COMING TO A SCHOOL NEAR YOU! The evil one (satan, the devil) will have his way in a country that continues to deny its godly heritage just as will happen here in the USA.
If you don’t believe that witchcraft is being taught, I dare you to go to reception year or Year 1 and find out how many teachers have encouraged their students to go watch Harry Potter, have read the books, and have even had discussions about the good things that white witchcraft can do in a modern society!
FH, I am sorry my friend, but you have been blinded just as millions of other parents in the UK have been blinded. Foreign culture is quietly and quickly taking over Britain, along with the introduction of every religion (but true Christianity) in the UK. However, I rest assured in the Word of God that tells us that God is still sovereign and He is still on the Throne of heaven. One day He is coming back and HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD! The question left now is – Will you be ready?
One final thought – “If what we believe is wrong, and what you believe is right – what difference does it make in the light of eternity??”
—— However, “If what we believe is right, and what you believe is wrong – what difference does it make in the light of eternity?”
I hope you enjoy your upcoming trip!
The Desert Pastor
LikeLike
CD, I’ll just say now that I manifestly did answer your question; it’s there in post 52. I appreciate that you didn’t _like_ the answer, and I’ll get to that. But an answer it nevertheless was.
If you really believe this FH then I am forced to repeat what I’ve already said; “You manifestly DID NOT provide any coherent, logical, or rational reply to any of my questions and the fact that you claim you did so strikes me as being disingenuous at best, or delusional at worst.
I’ll admit that I still don’t know if your circular reasoning is the product of the former or the latter of the possibilities listed above, and it could in fact be a combination of both.
There was nothing about your post that I either liked nor disliked, it simply failed to address the basic thrust of my argument, which I can only surmise you still fail to grasp even after I’ve repeated the issue at hand time and again, namely a rational material atheist universe BY DEFINITION cannot account for things such as “good” or “evil” or even logic itself! These are metaphysical in nature and are not allowable in your professed universe so we once again find unreconciled and unresolved absurdity pervading your professed rational, materialistic, atheist worldview.
It would seem that perhaps they don’t teach rhetoric or logic in the UK anymore.
We have evidently reached the impasse I feared we would reach because you are, as I suspected, either unable or unwilling to follow your professed worldview to its logical conclusion, preferring instead to stop short and take up camp upon the Christian theistic worldview while simultaneously assaulting the very foundation upon which you stand! Amazing, yet predictable.
Given your refusal or inability to recognize or acknowledge the fact that you’ve locked yourself upon the horns of the logical fallacy known as “begging the question” I don’t think we are able to continue this discussion any further.
In Christ,
CD
LikeLike
He Coram, does this mean 5H is free to answer my simple question from comment # 69 now ?
What “qualifications” and “professional training” would my wife and I need to homeschool our children that would be to your satisfaction?
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike
Good evening chaps. Romania was fab and I have now caught up with my sleep again.
I’m more than willing to answer these follow-up questions, but only if my views are no longer subject to moderation.
I consider your (that’s a collective ‘you’) fundamentalist Christian views to be just as poisonous and corrosive to society as you no doubt consider mine to be.
However, the views you have all expressed in this debate, if expressed on an atheist site, would never be deleted or moderated as mine have been here.
Pilgrim, your call.
LikeLike
5H:
It seems that every time we have hope that you’ll actually engage the conversation, you let us down by diverting us onto another rabbit trail. Now you begin setting conditions on whether or not you’ll comment. Do you tell people how they should decorate their residence and how they should run their households when you are a guest in their home?
We accept but we do not “need” your comments. This blog is for Christians by Christians. Delusions of grandeur aside, your comments on here are not an expected right, but a gracious privilege.
None of your comments have ever been edited. One has been deleted because you can’t control yourself.
I am thoroughly getting tired of the whining. Either abide by the house rules and quit sniveling about them, or feel free to start your own Atheist blog. I simply don’t know what other advice to dispense.
The Rules of Engagement stand.
– The Pilgrim
LikeLike