NoGodBlog.com

Note to governor Perry:

Amorality ? Godlessness:

Please see the previous thread for evidence.

That's supposed to be a "does not equals" sign between Amorality and Godlessness in the previous post (don't know what symbol each browser sees...)

cjn

I find it extremely ironic that these people are considered the moral and righteous ones when it has been proven time after time that most of them don't follow their own hate manual that well. Statements like this prove that our country had taken just as many steps backwards ideologically as it has forward. Concerning, to say the least.

Of course you can't legislate morality - you can't even get everybody to agree what it is!

I think the rule of thumb when it comes to laws should be: if it hurts anybody else that is bad.

So murder, fraud, assault etc are all covered but if I want to have consensual sex it is my business.

This doesn't work perfectly but I don't think it is a bad starting point. It starts to get really murky when people want to argue you are hurting yourself. Which would seem to be where the religious proselytising types would jump in to try and control people’s choices.

How do you save children from a "culture of godlessness? By converting them all to evangelical Christianity? How ignorant some people are-- believing that there can be no morality or ethics in a "culture of godlessnes".I know one atheist who is a rabid antisemite and homophobe-- all the others are very decent kind ethical people.I also know one prominent atheist who is a Confederate sympathyzer but I'll save that subject for later.

It's almost comical the way some of our home grown bigots and hypocrites in (any) office would try and convince others that they even know what morality or ethics amount to much less what they should do with them. I saw Judge Judy on Larry King awhile back running off her big, unethical, and unjust old bag mouth about Patrick Kennedys accident. She practically tried and convicted Kennedy on tv without facts or even hearing the case. What is ethical, just, moral, or appropriate for any loudmouth in office (in or out of a robe) convicting or passing ignorant and unrequested judgement calls at their personal and obnoxious leisure?

Texas, at least I am FAR away from those crazy bastards!

Another fine example of the fact that politicians know nothing of freedom, but only know of power and money. They will invariably accomodate superstition to achieve their goal, whether they are actually supersitious themselves or not.
Since we have exchanged freedom for money, politicians should provide equal amounts for all. I'm betting these African American ministers agree.

God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion!
-Superintendent Chalmers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Seymour_Skinner%27s_Baadasssss_Song

Seemed appropriate.

Just moved to Texas a few months ago (aaaaarrrrgh!!!), and believe me, all of the candidates for governor here (except maybe the Libertarian) have played up their faith big time to appeal to the voters. Perry is the worst, but there's even a Jew who wants to be our good shepherd and post the ten commandments in schools. Give me a break.

Voted early last week, and I've never voted for so many Libertarians in my life, plus a couple of Democrats and Independents. Anything but Republican!! I've always considered myself an Independent, and usually pick and choose between the parties (not that there's much to choose), but this state is so overwhelmingly Christian and Republican it makes me ill.

Tarma:

Just moved to Texas a few months ago (aaaaarrrrgh!!!)… this state is so overwhelmingly Christian and Republican it makes me ill.

If that’s the case, then I have to ask, why don’t you move back to where you came from?

jcc:

If that’s the case, then I have to ask, why don’t you move back to where you came from?

Gee, that's real friendly. Not that it's any of your business, but job related and not for the rest of my life. Hey, all states are overwhelmingly Christian, it's just that Texas is much more in your face about it than the left coast. And it's Shrub and his cronies that have pushed me over the edge with Republicans. I suppose I should put a positive spin on it and call it a target rich environment. At least no one's messed with my "so many Christians, so few lions" bumper sticker yet :)

Drchris,

Amorality ? Godlessness

They seem to get confused and think that A-Theism is the same as A-Morality. Perhaps a’s are particularly confusing letters. (shrugs)

I moved to Dallas, and I take every opportunity to point out that I'm an atheist - and I get in their face instead of them in mine! Works great. :) Texas needed a militant atheist around here.

Nobody messed with my Satan fish, my "bush is a dumbass" sticker, and another sticker I've got on my car. :)

Ha! I knew I was right about jcc being from Texas... oh and that he is a shameless hypocrite.

Tarma:

Gee, that's real friendly.

Actually, it’s just real curiosity. Nothing else.

At least no one's messed with my "so many Christians, so few lions" bumper sticker yet :)

May I ask, do you count among your friends anyone whom you know to be, or claims to be, a Christian?

jcc:

I would say that 90% of the people I know are, or claim to be, Christian - though my closest friends and immediate family are atheist or agnostic. And no, blockhead, I don't literally want the Jesus freaks to be eaten by lions (well, maybe a couple of them). No sense of humor, eh?

Jcc is too busy being pious and self-righteous to have a sense of humor.

Jcc,

"Actually, it’s just real curiosity. Nothing else."

Sheesh! That is about as disingenuous a post as I've seen from you in a while - had to quickly try and mask your 'shut-up or leave' attitude, I guess.

Tarma:

And no, blockhead, I don't literally want the Jesus freaks to be eaten by lions (well, maybe a couple of them).

Oh, now I understand. Bumper stickers like that are first and foremost meant to be humorous—with of course, for the exception of the “couple” of people you really feel that way toward. That makes sense—especially in light of all the acrimony toward Christians that this thread has elicited.

I just wonder what kind of reactions I’d get here if I were to brag about displaying a hostile, anti-atheist bumper sticker…and could I to refer to anyone questioning my doing so as a humorless, “blockhead” and not be berated for doing so? It’s very interesting how selectively the term hypocrite is applied and accepted here.

I think I agree with jcc here. "so many Christians, so few lions" would be an example of an 'in' joke. One not to be shared with the general xian populace.

I'm impressed that the good folks of texas have not yet run you outta town, or at least defaced your bumper sticker....

jcc:

You really should try to cultivate a sense of humor. You do make me laugh, though :)

Everywhere one turns, it is superior Christian values (ha!), in god we trust, pledge allegiance to one nation under god, prayers (Christian, of course) in public schools and government assemblies, ten commandments posted in public buildings, tax dollars spent on faith-based programs, and of course, everyone's favorite, neverending bloody warfare based on religion. Personally, I have to laugh, or I'd cry.

HeatheNZ:

I'm impressed that the good folks of texas have not yet run you outta town

Could it be said that “tolerance” is a “family value” and “hate” (as demonstrated by remarks about Christians on this blog) is a Democrat value?

HeatheNZ:

I think I agree with jcc here. "so many Christians, so few lions" would be an example of an 'in' joke. One not to be shared with the general xian populace.

Gee whiz, it got lots of compliments in Arizona, even from Christians. Not one negative reaction, ever! That goes for my "fish n chips" fish emblem, too ;)

jcc

Could it be said that “tolerance” is a “family value” and “hate” (as demonstrated by remarks about Christians on this blog) is a Democrat value?

jcc, you do yourself a disservice.

Anything can be 'said to be' but to be a reasonable statement it needs grounded in reality. The reality in this situation is that most people regardless of religious or political leanings are tolerant people.

Similarly every group has its share of sympathizers that revel in hate.

I'm not too sure what 'family values' means. I think it might be one of those useless terms that can mean whateverthehell you want it to mean.

Tarma,

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a humourous sticker. I'm just not so sure that I would were I a xian - especially if I was a xian who bought into the whole persecuted xian complex.

Now fish'n chips is just funny.

Personally I have a t-rex eating a fish and reality bites fish on my car. Occasionally I get a reaction - but not very often. The most expressive has been when a girl pulled up beside me, gesticulated to roll down my window then proceeded to shout at me the "jesus love you anyway"

I just smiled politely

HeatheNZ:

jcc, you do yourself a disservice.

Actually, I was sarcastically referring to the ubiquitous, anti-Republican bumper sticker “Hate is not a family value” I used to see in Seattle throughout the Clinton years.

…Lest I be accused of being utterly devoid of humor again…

"so many Christians, so few lions"

Haruuumph! Nobody seems to even care how the LIONS feel about this! They actually prefer something that tastes more natural, and less hypocritical.

I have a new bumper sticker that reads:
I have a perfect body,
but it's in the trunk and it's beginning to smell.

I've only received smiles, giggles and compliments on it.
Even bodies everywhere seem to be incredibly tolerant of it. ;)

then proceeded to shout at me the "jesus love you anyway"

I gotta admit, HeathNZ, this one elicits the "yeah, well he thinks you're an asshole" response from me (shamelessly stolen from I don't know where).

karen, where can I get that bumper sticker? I love it! I have an "urn" desk at work, "ashes of auditors" (I have to admit to hiding that one when Texas and South Dakota auditors show up - no sense of humor - go figure).

oops.

end blockquote.

karen:

Haruuumph! Nobody seems to even care how the LIONS feel about this! They actually prefer something that tastes more natural, and less hypocritical.

Point well taken!!

I think your new bumper sticker is very funny, too.

I just finished reading through this blog and I forgot what the topic was.

I'm kind of new to this blog and to admitting who I am. Although, I've always known. I'm slowly emerging from the closet.

I would think though that our time and energies would be better put to use by supporting each other and keeping the fight to the real issues. We could probably affect change better united. We're all on the same team here, I think.

Just my ramblings. I look forward to future postings, bloggings,etc...

Frank

ah, i see Darth Disruptor is back trying to stir the pot. maybe he should try smoking some instead.

"One too many jccs, wish I had a lion"

Bones
The bumper sticker was a gift from my best friend. I think she got it at a "naughty" boutique. I'll find out for ya.

Frank
Welcome. Sorry you were confused about the topic. We stray far afield quite a bit. Sometimes early in a thread, sometimes after it has run its course.
Sometimes on our own, and somewtimes with a little help from those under the lions' paws.

We talk often of the need to be united. This is one of the few places we find unity. Maybe you can lead us in that direction. Hope you like it here.

Tarma
Glad you got the point about the lions. :)

saving children from a "culture of godlessness

Lovely. I should tell my children they need saving.

:)

I CAN SUM ALL THIS IN 2 WORDS.TED HAGGARD.

"One too many jccs, wish I had a lion"

“Atheists on nogodblog.com show that hate is an atheist ‘value’”

jcc,

“Atheists on nogodblog.com show that hate is an atheist ‘value’”

How about removing the generalization and dialing back abit on the persecution complex?

HeatheNZ:

How about removing the generalization and dialing back abit on the persecution complex?

Generalization?—perhaps you’re right; but could you remind me, besides yourself and karen, how many other atheists here have remained civil to me? And I’ll “dial back on the “persecution complex” just as soon as I can stop imagining the personally derogatory and hate-filled remarks that are posted about me…

"some people are pathetic cry babies who can't take it when a bit of their own heat is reflected back at them."

jcc,
Nobody here hates you. Well, how would I know that? Some probably do. Well, maybe they hate what you say.

I don't hate you; I hate what you represent: The superstitious blindness which allows you to think that you have "The Truth" and that atheists cannot possibly see how misguided they are. I hate the proselytizing and the need to tell me that I cannot be moral without a power outside myself. Not just any power, but that which you feel is the one and only true power. Most of all I hate the intellectual dishonesty which allows theists to pick and choose how much of their particular religion they will follow. I Hate the hypocrisy.

I suppose theists never make rude jokes about atheists. That would be unchristian, yes?

"Too many sanctimonious know-it-alls, not enough self reflection"

"This is fun"

remy

I don't hate you; I hate what you represent

Damn, that sounds awfully like: "Love the sinner, hate the sin".

jcc,
I personally agree that the invective is sometimes over the top - but then so are those of theists (including yourself) at times. However, lion comments aside, do not mistake dissent, disagreement and argument for hatred, especially generalized hatred. They are very different beasts.

who can't take it when a bit of their own heat is reflected back at them.

Obviously, a huge aspect of my “persecution complex” involves me calling people names, wishing them harm and constantly referring to their lack of intelligence on a regular basis.

remy:

Well, maybe they hate what you say.

Nice rationalization.

I hate what you represent

I don’t “represent” Christianity—I am a Christian—it’s how I live my life, ergo if you hate Christianity, you hate me.

HeatheNZ:

I personally agree that the invective is sometimes over the top - but then so are those of theists (including yourself) at times

Refresh my memory as to when I have gone “over the top” with personal insults?

However, lion comments aside, do not mistake dissent, disagreement and argument for hatred, especially generalized hatred.

Remarks wishing I were dead are merely “dissent?” Derogatory remarks referring to my personal lack of mental capabilities are merely points of “argument?”

"Too many sanctimonious know-it-alls, not enough self reflection"

Gets my vote for “most accurate description of those making personally caustic posts here”

jcc,

I don’t “represent” Christianity—I am a Christian—it’s how I live my life, ergo if you hate Christianity, you hate me.

OK, I must hate you. In fact, if you are indeed christianity, I hate you with every fibre of my being. You are responsible for so much death and suffering and pain. Please go away so that we can live happy loving lives free from your inane beliefs.

If they were able to collect all the excrement of every christian who ever lived the stench would pale in comparison to the nonsense you preach.

jcc

In reading most of the posting you make on this blog,it seems to me that you are quite the antagonist.
The replies you receive are not hateful just simple "tongue in cheek"responses.
As your good book will tell you "as ye sow, so shall ye reep"
Atheist's are just as loving and compassionate as any religious people,and not out of fear or reward

JONBOY:

In reading most of the posting you make on this blog,it seems to me that you are quite the antagonist.

I certainly won’t deny having an antagonistic approach here—but that being the case, then it seems to me, a great number of atheists here tend to think that, “turnabout is fair play” does not apply to them.

The replies you receive are not hateful just simple "tongue in cheek"responses.

Ah, I see, people wishing my mother had aborted me is just “tongue-in-cheek.” (I wonder what they’d say if they really did hate me?)

Atheist's are just as loving and compassionate as any religious people,and not out of fear or reward.

Based on what’s been written about me here, I’d have to argue that to be the object of atheists’ “love and compassion” is strictly conditional on whether or not one thinks as they do.

I don't really wish you were dead, jcc. go take a few deep breaths or something - it's only blog.

jcc, here's my problem, WITH YOU, not with your religion.

it seems that even HERE, on OUR blog, you come and spew your bullshit. For that's what we think it is.....the bible, christianity, etc. BULLSHIT.

And yet, it seem to make you feel better to come in here and bait us to see if we'll respond. Guess what? We do.

Go spread your ridiculous word elsewhere. It's part of the problem. Your religion tells you to "spread the word". We tell you it's not wanted or appreciated here.

Yet you persist. THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH YOU. Now go away.

JCC, even if we debate the point about me being christian or not, I'm most certainly a theist. Actually, I'm reading Elaine Pagel's "Gnostic Gospels" and there's a lot of the same type of discussion that we have that was being had by the early church, which I find fascinating. In any event, as a theist who claims there is a god, I don't really experience hate here. I'm not sure you represent the entirety of christianity. What people object to is how belief manifests itself.

I think it's true that there is a lot of pent-up anger in the American atheist/agnostic/humanist/bright/whatever community, and personally I think that's inevitable. There's been a lot of discussion about this on the Dawkins book tour forums.

Anyway, if you come in here with the general attitude of "I'm the standard bearer of 'Objective Reality' and I am always right and you people are nothing but a bunch of potty-mouthed children" then you better expect to experience some of that simmering atheist anger.

jcc
A while back, we had a christian who attacked everyone right and left. Actually, he was a very unbalanced troll.
He attacked me visciously. I can't remember what he called me. Something to do with fat, and gravy sweat.
I didn't moan about it. I just rolled with it and kept going.
(Well, I did try to slit my wrists, but the gravy kept making the butter knife slip.)
Anyway.
If you're going to walk into someone's home and preach at them, when you know they don't want to hear it, and you do it with an air of superiority, some of them are bound to get nasty with you, no matter what beliefs they hold.

So lighten up a little.
Live, love, laugh. Including at yourself and your beliefs. We do. Life's too short to take it too seriously.

Bones:

it seems that even HERE, on OUR blog…

Well, someone needs to tell the webmaster of your blog that membership has been open to anyone since it started.

spanders:

as a theist who claims there is a god, I don't really experience hate here.

Given that you seem to share more, ideologically, (especially political ideology), with atheists than you do with Christians, is it any wonder that you don’t?

Given that you seem to share more, ideologically, (especially political ideology), with atheists than you do with Christians

Well gee whiz, who's lumping all the Christians into one bucket now?

I wonder, JCC, if that begs the question if it's theistic differences or if it's political differences that are objected to. Additionally, I it would be interesting to define if the political idealogy of christians. Are we one monolithic group who all vote the same way? That has not been my experience. Again, idealogic differences exist among many groups of christians, so I think it's difficult to pin down exactly what is the political or other types of idealogy of what christians think. You represent one aspect, I represent another and neither of us represent perfectly an entire group.

jcc
I think the reasons spanders is more welcomed are because he is willing to discuss theological issues without preaching; he almost always states that it is his opinion, not TRUTH, he has a sense of humor, and he does share the ideolgical values of life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness.

This is not meant as a knock at you, but he does have more people skills than you do, which you admitted you were working on.

Is it a goal of yours to be accepted here?

rainbows4dinosaurs:

if you come in here with the general attitude of "I'm the standard bearer of 'Objective Reality' and I am always right and you people are nothing but a bunch of potty-mouthed children" then you better expect to experience some of that simmering atheist anger.

My intent in coming here is to point out to you (atheists, and spanders) the logical necessity of responsibly acknowledging that an “objective” reality does indeed exist for everyone and that just because you may disagree with how I respond to it, doesn’t in fact, prove that my response is automatically, and always wrong.

It’s quite odd that I am monolithically perceived as the one who thinks himself as never being wrong, when your writings indicate exactly that about you. I have, on many occasions, humbly admitted mistakes, and even issued apologies. But, am I afforded the same treatment by you and others? Am I treated as civilly as I treat you?

Well gee whiz, who's lumping all the Christians into one bucket now?

Correction, I should have said, “Conservative Christians,” or the “Religious Right,” or “Fundamentalist Christians.”

Additionally, I it would be interesting to define if the political idealogy of christians.

oof, that was bad. Let me try that again.

Additionally, it would be interesting to define what is the political idealogy of christians.

Hopefully that makes more sense.

karen:

I think the reasons spanders is more welcomed are because he is willing to discuss theological issues without preaching;

Just because I refuse to back down from a position that I can intellectually and logically defend is preaching to you? Have I ever come to a thread with a “if you don’t repent, you’ll burn in hell” attitude? I believe my posts virtually always consist of responses to misperceptions, and (what I consider) out-right misrepresentations about me and/or Christians.

he almost always states that it is his opinion, not TRUTH

I aways provide logical support for what I claim to be true. I’m the first to acknowledge that no one is immune from the biases of personal, relative truths, but the fact is, objective truths exist as well.

he has a sense of humor

And you’ve never seen evidence of mine?

Is it a goal of yours to be accepted here?

No. But I would like to be treated with the same respect that I treat all of you.

spanders:

I wonder, JCC, if that begs the question if it's theistic differences or if it's political differences that are objected to.

Great point! There was a time that I thought that personal, political ideologies could be neatly compartmentalized from theological ones. But as I learned and understood more about, not just the historical aspects of Christianity, but its deeper, core theological tenets, I’ve come to realize that personal, political ideologies are manifested from antecedent (a)theological presuppositions and beliefs. That, upon introspection, one cannot intellectually separate the two concepts—one is derived from, and subordinate to, the other; and that derivation comes in a specific order: (a)theology followed by politics.

jcc

My intent in coming here is to point out to you (atheists, and spanders) the logical necessity of responsibly acknowledging that an “objective” reality does indeed exist for everyone and that just because you may disagree with how I respond to it, doesn’t in fact, prove that my response is automatically, and always wrong.

I guess I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this. You started off by stating that there is an objective reality, which fundamentally I agree with (though my experience with you has led me to believe that the term is actually code speak for 'God', but that's beside the point.) Then you go on to claim that I should not automatically discount your 'response' to reality -- I take this to mean your interpretation of the data? Well, kind sir, do you grant us the same privilege; that our interpretation is just as valid as yours? Somehow I doubt that - that's just too post-modern for you... or me for that matter. And what about those many times when you present us with faulty or downright misleading data sets? Do I need to respect those interpretations? What good is one's response to reality if their perception of reality is skewed? That's precisely why we should always test our perception.

t’s quite odd that I am monolithically perceived as the one who thinks himself as never being wrong, when your writings indicate exactly that about you.

Hmmm... is that so? Here's a 'response to objective reality' for ya: You're a terrible listener.

have, on many occasions, humbly admitted mistakes, and even issued apologies.

And so have I. I have to say though, I can't seem to remember a time were you admitted a mistake on your actual "response to objective reality," at least not to me. Perhaps my perception is skewed. Wouldn't surprise me, really.

But, am I afforded the same treatment by you and others?

Oh, come off this ridiculous martyrdom complex, will you? We all make our own beds.

Am I treated as civilly as I treat you?

I have often treated you quite civilly and with plenty of respect and we've even had some fairly intersting conversations in the past, but then you proceed to piss me off anyway. No, I'm not perfect and I'm not even sure I wish to be. No, I'm not always right - that would be boring anyway.

I think what it really comes down to is you're not an easy person to get along with. I have a feeling that this would be true even if you were 'one of us.' This is just my opinion, of course. Nobody enjoys tolerating preachy, condescending attitudes.

Correction, I should have said, “Conservative Christians,” or the “Religious Right,” or “Fundamentalist Christians.”

Okay, I'll give you that. So are those Christians the only 'true' Christians? Is an opposing 'response to objective reality' equally valid?

jcc to karen

Have I ever come to a thread with a “if you don’t repent, you’ll burn in hell” attitude?

You know what? That's a good point. You've never done that.

jcc

an “objective” reality does indeed exist for everyone

And that would be what exactly?

Just because I refuse to back down from a position that I can intellectually and logically defend is preaching to you?

We don't see what you call logical as logical. You've called me out for basing my arguments on feelings, yet you do the same thing. You have nothing concrete to back up your position. That makes it preaching, IMO.
Have I ever come to a thread with a “if you don’t repent, you’ll burn in hell” attitude?
Can't remember. But I didn't say that, did I? There are different forms of preaching. You have said many times things to the effect that what you believe is the only right way, because God said, did, made, whatever. Or so I interpreted.

I believe my posts virtually always consist of responses to misperceptions, and (what I consider) out-right misrepresentations about me and/or Christians.

Fair enough. But I think you should stick to the defense of yourself, as you see with the recent response about spanders and the lumping of Christians, how they cannot be defended as a group.
Personally, I feel that very few people should call themselves Christians. Rather they should refer to themselves as "aspiring" christians. I know of noe who actually do all that Christ admonishes in the bible. And there is no agreement on what it takes to BE a Christian. If there is no definition, how can you defend it?

I aways provide logical support for what I claim to be true. I’m the first to acknowledge that no one is immune from the biases of personal, relative truths, but the fact is, objective truths exist as well.

Tomayto- tomahto. Logical-illogical.
Objective truth is, as HZ said, 2+3=5. There is no objective truth concerning the supernatural. How could there be?

And you’ve never seen evidence of mine?

Yes, I have! Please, coax it out more often! ;)

No. But I would like to be treated with the same respect that I treat all of you.

Again, fair enough. You are still skirting hurdles that were created in the beginning when you made your first impression. I've seen you using sarcasm in what I thought was a light way, and it was met with hostility. Some people are slow to forgive. We were at great odds when you were first here, but got past it. I still sling a few arrows at you, but you seem to be more forgiving with me, than with some others. It's all relative. If you keep being respectful, and throw some more humor in; loosen up that stick, you'll get more respect, i'll bet.

Look, you did me a great favor long ago. You hit me hard between the eyes and made me look at the hate I had for christianity and the personal baggage I carried regarding my grandfather's role with it in my life. I have been able to let go of a lot of that anger. You were absolutely right that I had a chip on my shoulder that was clouding my rationality.
So by being here, you helped someone. Maybe not in the way you intended, but you made a difference in my life, and I am grateful that you kept talking to me even after we pissed each other off. Thank you.
You may not win anyone to Jesus, but you may be heard in other ways if you persevere.

karen:

And that would be what exactly?

Well, one of the more relevant and important ones is that no physical aspect of this universe is permanent—including the universe itself. No relative, personal truth can refute that.

You have said many times things to the effect that what you believe is the only right way

I believe I was quite intentional in stating my beliefs as propositional: how often did I start of by saying, “if there is a God, then what I’m asserting has logical merit (i.e. can be true).

Personally, I feel that very few people should call themselves Christians

I wouldn’t go that far, but I will be the first to say that, so far, only one has ever a perfect, “Christian” life.

And there is no agreement on what it takes to BE a Christian. If there is no definition, how can you defend it?

Actually, I believe Paul defined “Christian” quite succinctly, in Romans 10:9 “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Despite all of our denominational and doctrinal differences, at the end of the day, I believe that that one distinction is sufficient for one to bear the name “Christian.”

karen, there have been trying times between us, but I can honestly say that after learning of your past, you have never angered me—you’ve frustrated me to the point I thought only my kids could, but I’ve never felt contempt for you. I’ve only wanted to see you through the eyes of Christ. You are a unique and magnificent creation worthy of His unconditional love. If I made a difference in your life, it’s only because He first made a difference in mine—as you know, being the misanthrope at heart that I am, if left on my own accord, I alone, certainly wouldn’t have made the effort to get to know you. It’s not my job to “convert” you—it’s only to spread the seeds of hope. As much as I’d like to be there to see if they take root, I know that, in the end, I have to be satisfied with knowing that that was all that was required of me. I continue to pray that someday you can know the abundant life now that comes with the promise of the eternal life.

I’ll keep talking with you as long as you keep talking with me.

May I butt in?

jcc said

Well, one of the more relevant and important ones is that no physical aspect of this universe is permanent—including the universe itself. No relative, personal truth can refute that.

I question the applicability of term "permanent" in relation to the existence of the universe. Permanent implies a temporal dimension, and space time defines that temporal dimension. To suggest (as I think you are at least by implication) that it is logically possible (although practically impossible) for a physical aspect of the universe to persist without the universe is to use time as a descriptor in the absence of the concept of time. It is akin to a contradiction in terms.

On the other hand to state that that no physical aspect of this universe is 'permanent' is to miss the obvious. Time itself is a physical aspect of the universe. And being that the concept of 'permanent' can only make sense in relation to time, and that time is fundamentally linked with the universe; time and permanence are to all intents and purposes the same thing.

Therefore in at least a tautological sense time is permanent.

jcc

Well, one of the more relevant and important ones is that no physical aspect of this universe is permanent—including the universe itself. No relative, personal truth can refute that.

No argument there. It's quite a relief; means this cell_ulite isn't permanent. 'Course, it may take death and decay to alter it...

I believe I was quite intentional in stating my beliefs as propositional: how often did I start of by saying, “if there is a God, then what I’m asserting has logical merit (i.e. can be true).

You probably did most of the time. I do recall you using the "if" statements. I was thinking that was something that developed after time. I will rely on your memory, as mine is awful for detail, and I'm too lazy to look it up. No point in doing so anyway.

Actually, I believe Paul defined “Christian” quite succinctly, in Romans 10:9 “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Seems to me Paul is defining what it takes to be saved, not what it takes to be a Christian. If the two are synonymous, can we toss out the rest of the Bible and just keep that verse? No need for helping the poor, turning the other cheek, following any commandments, etc?

Despite all of our denominational and doctrinal differences, at the end of the day, I believe that that one distinction is sufficient for one to bear the name “Christian.”

Then why do you quibble with spanders? He meets those qualifications.

karen, there have been trying times between us, but I can honestly say that after learning of your past, you have never angered me—you’ve frustrated me to the point I thought only my kids could, but I’ve never felt contempt for you.

Hehheh. I DO have that unnerving ability to frustrate people like a child would, don't I? One of the perks (?) of being dissociative? I do try to control it, but you aren't always dealing with me as an adult, you see. That's also why I sometimes can't understand what you (or others here) are talking about on an intellectual level.

If you're cutting me a break because I survived incest as a young child, I appreciate the thought, but don't.
Having been a victim of such doesn't give me the right to treat you any differently than if I had had the perfect childhood. I don't share my story to garner sympathy, but to get it out of the closet and stop hiding what has become such a pervasive occurance of hideous proportions. There are always people in the same boat who are keeping the secret, thinking they are the only ones. If I can reach out to just one of them, then maybe having gone through it myself will have made some bleak sort of sense.

as you know, being the misanthrope at heart that I am, if left on my own accord, I alone, certainly wouldn’t have made the effort to get to know you.

Even misanthropes crave understanding. I think your "heart" is telling you that you don't really want to be misanthropic. That's probably part of why I am drawn to you. Because I see you as reaching for something more than you have, even though you claim to already have it all. Spiritually, that is.

I continue to pray that someday you can know the abundant life now that comes with the promise of the eternal life.

Comparatively speaking, my life is about as good as it gets. When you live through what I did, then relive it, and then become relatively relieved of reliving it, plus have all the wonders of family, friends and the world at large, abundance is here already. Eternity is unnecessary. But I appreciate the earnestness of your thoughts.

I’ll keep talking with you as long as you keep talking with me.

Deal, amigo.

HZ
It didn't even occur to me that time was physical. Having a hard um, time, wrapping my head around that. Not at all disagreeing. Just not up to uh, speed on it, intellectually. It hurts my head.
Death, I guess is permanent also, at least as far as we know. Cycle of life converts death back to life, but in different form, so death is still death.
But I didn't take jcc's permanence statement as deeply as you did at first blush. Obviously.

karen i salute your courage in life.

Rules are necessary and government is the best agency for enforcing them since it can be controlled.

The problem is just what morals are concerned with.

Off topic...

When irrational beliefs are not so benign...

Woman Dies After Snake Bite at Church

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/11/08/ap3153887.html

jcc:

Obviously, a huge aspect of my “persecution complex” involves me calling people names, wishing them harm and constantly referring to their lack of intelligence on a regular basis.

Well, sometimes everyone gets carried away.

I don’t “represent” Christianity—I am a Christian—it’s how I live my life, ergo if you hate Christianity, you hate me.

Then why sate yourself on punishment, if that’s how you view it?
For the record, I don’t hate you. I hate the mindset that’s enslaved you. I passionately hate the way it has seemingly seared the nerve ends of logic & thought in an otherwise brilliant mind.

Refresh my memory as to when I have gone “over the top” with personal insults?

For the record, I can’t recall you ever doing such a thing.
You do, however, endeavor mightily to play hall monitor on this blog.

Remarks wishing I were dead are merely “dissent?” Derogatory remarks referring to my personal lack of mental capabilities are merely points of “argument?”

Please do illustrate these purported injuries upon your person. I don’t recall the aborted remark, the wishing of death (although I do recall a few…less than illustrious jabs at your intelligence).

My intent in coming here is to point out to you (atheists, and spanders) the logical necessity of responsibly acknowledging that an “objective” reality does indeed exist for everyone and that just because you may disagree with how I respond to it, doesn’t in fact, prove that my response is automatically, and always wrong.

Something you have yet to prove, outside of a pretty lame impression of C.S Lewis.

I have, on many occasions, humbly admitted mistakes, and even issued apologies. But, am I afforded the same treatment by you and others? Am I treated as civilly as I treat you?

Oh, hey wait, hold the phone:
Weren’t you the same guy who was forced to apologize (rather lamely, I might add) to r4d, for trying to defend his children from him?
Other than that, you have apologized quite infrequently – mostly about time lapses.
I have yet to see you admit to having made a mistake (the admission is about as rare as a 2-headed calf).
Truthfully, the besieged martyr bit is getting a tad old, so let it go already.
Or, alternatively, you may want to go fishing for souls in friendlier waters.

Juxtaposing this from Krystalline Apostate:

For the record, I don’t hate you. I hate the mindset that’s enslaved you. I passionately hate the way it has seemingly seared the nerve ends of logic & thought in an otherwise brilliant mind.

with his earlier, incontrovertibly personal epithets on 10/28/06 @ 09:31:

I said 'esthetics', not 'ethics', dolt.

and on 10/29/06 @ 01:34:

Dolt.

and on 10/29/06 @ 20:43:

you yutz.

and this disturbing, and yet to be explained, obvious racial slur, on 10/30/06 @ 15:37:

Honky

indicates, what rainbows4dinosaurs is so fond of referring to as, a high degree of “cognitive dissonance” … “I don’t hate you, but I feel no compunction in referring to you as a “dolt,” “yutz,” “honky,” “homophobe,” etc…An, interesting and troubling, intellectual schism from someone on record as saying:

But of course, there's no reasoning with the irrational.

For the record, I don’t now, nor have I ever, hated you Krystalline Apostate. Like karen, I’m called to see you through the eyes of Jesus; and also like her, I pray for you as well. To participate in a discussion in which you refuse to abate your personal contempt for me is an utterly vein pursuit and I will no longer engage you in such. Again, if you want to continue a dialog with me, then drop the personal rancor.

jcc:
Wow, so now you're keeping track of anything I say to you? Not a good sign.
I'm white, you're white (I'm assuming?), so when I say 'Honky please', that's a turn on the rap lingo.
You keep twisting words on me, I'm going to refer to you in a derogatory manner. Turn the other cheek, or get lost.

To participate in a discussion in which you refuse to abate your personal contempt for me is an utterly vein pursuit and I will no longer engage you in such.

First off, it's a 'vain' pursuit, 2nd, as Socrates said to the politician who wore a tattered robe to prove his humility to his constituents, "Your hubris shines thru every hole", and 3rd, that's the 2nd time you've made that promise to me.
Our discussions have soured, mostly because I have found you to be pompous, arrogant, & a number of other 'epithets' that I shall refrain from informing you of, since I may hurt your feelings.

Like karen, I’m called to see you through the eyes of Jesus; and also like her, I pray for you as well.

Then spend more time on your knees, & less w/the obsessive psychoanalysis & assessments of my character, if you please.
'Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher. Of what profit vanity?'
Oh, oops. Had a moment of 'cognitive dissonance' there. Sorry.

Krystalline Apostate:

Wow, so now you're keeping track of anything I say to you? Not a good sign.

Yeah, must be another manifestation of my “persecution complex,” but is it as pathological as, say, altering every past post I’ve ever made on this blog to eradicate my former moniker?—I don’t think so. The fact that it angers you for me to refer to you as that indicates that you’re obviously not without significant problems of your own.

You keep twisting words on me, I'm going to refer to you in a derogatory manner.

Okay, fine. I try to be one to give second chances, but suit yourself. We’re done. Bye.

jcc

but is it as pathological as, say, [KA] altering every past post I’ve ever made on this blog to eradicate my former moniker?—I don’t think so.

I hate to be the bearer of embaressing tidings, but the when one chages their registered nickname, the software automatically changes every post on every thread

I'm surprised you didn't think of that as the most rational explanation.....

jcc

Like karen, I’m called to see you through the eyes of Jesus; and also like her, I pray for you as well.

OK. I hesitate to bring this up, but I admit you hit an ancient nerve again.
As a 4 year old, I explicitly called on Jesus. Can you look through his eyes and tell me what he was thinking while he was watching my rape and torture and doing nothing? Where were his powers I was told about? Why didn't he come for his lost lamb?
Can you explain in terms a four year old would understand why there was no uplifting?
Or can you admit that it's wrong to teach a literally minded child that god watches over her every minute and can perform miracles?

HeatheNZ:

when one chages their registered nickname, the software automatically changes every post on every thread

So it does. You’re right, I should have known that was the most “rational explanation”—in spite of the fact that I’ve never done it myself, or the more obvious lack of indication of that functionality on the user registration page.

And that certainly explains him becoming irate at me for referring to him by his former name…

jcc

And that certainly explains him becoming irate at me for referring to him by his former name…

There was one time when you did that when I got the impression you were doing it to goad him.
Just sayin'...

Karen,

Can you look through his eyes and tell me what he was thinking while he was watching my rape and torture and doing nothing? Where were his powers I was told about? Why didn't he come for his lost lamb?

I doubt that this legitimate question will be answered by the adversary. My guess is that if it were, you know the response: god has a plan for you and this experience has made you who you are today; you needed this lesson; everything happens for a reason; we can't expect our puny mortal brains to understand the workings of the all-mighty; and the catch-all, god works in mysterious ways.

jrc,

Unfortunately I have to disagree with Ka's opinion of you. Yutz, dolt, honky, and dolt again.

These terms are far too mild. I will refrain from showering you with invective and leave it to your powerful imagination to conclude just how I would refer to you if I allowed myself to fall to such a degenerate low.

remy
I have indeed received those responses before.
My guess is that jcc is very frustrated with me right now, but is trying to come up with a good response. I have talked to him about this before, but I don't think I've ever asked him to explain it in terms a 4 year old could understand.

The kicker is, that this had been going on for years and my 4 year old brain had this revelation that I just needed to ASK for Jesus to help me. So it wasn't even just this one time that I needed help; it was just the first time I thought to pray for it. We had just learned the lesson of the lost sheep in Sunday school and I had my glue-and-cotton-ball sheep on my dresser in my room. I didn't make the metaphorical lamb-me leap on my own; my teacher had told us as much, and had reinforced it with the "His eye is own the sparrow" bit.
This was kind of a last-resort effort. I couldn't say anything to anyone else because my whole family was threatened with death if I spoke.
Ironically, things got worse after my prayer, so I thought I was deserving of the treatment.

karen:

Can you look through his eyes and tell me what he was thinking while he was watching my rape and torture and doing nothing?

I hesitate to answer because you’re asking me to second guess His omniscience. If I could answer that, then I’d also want to know why my mother had to suffer from Parkinson’s for 10 years until her death. The Bible makes it clear that God has never promised to deliver us from all harmful situations, but it’s unmistakable in its message of, if we ask, He will deliver us through them. I’m not saying that to try to diminish the effects your experiences had on you. I am saying that, given our considerably less than omniscient understanding of life, the fact that you survived your ordeal and are now asking me questions about God, indicates to me, that you haven’t completely closed the door there.

Can you explain in terms a four year old would understand why there was no uplifting?

I wish I could explain it in terms an adult could understand—that I could fully understand—but I can’t. I don’t have the faculties to see how all the pieces fit together right now—or more importantly, how they will fit together in the future. But I do know this: my experience of God far exceeds my comprehension of Him and my ability to explain that experience of Him; and if I ask to be given the strength to endure a bad situation, I get it. And afterwards, I’m always better-off both spiritually and emotionally than when I try to go it alone.

God does have, not just a plan for you, but a multitude of plans for you. Why would he create us and not? He loves us too much to let us remain the way we are. Why He chose not to physically intervene for you when you were four, only He can answer. I believe that, although you have abandoned Him, He has not abandoned you. He has given us all free will and when we are victims of others who abuse their free will by hurting us, if we remain faithful, He will provide for us a different kind of good in the end. I have so much in my life, that upon retrospection, I can clearly see God’s hand in—my job, my marriage, and so much more I know would not have turned out the way it did had I not sought God’s guidance.

There was one time when you did that when I got the impression you were doing it to goad him.

Goading?—maybe. Trying to keep him honest?—definitely.

Karen,

While an expanded and convoluted version, I have to say, I told you so.

karen:

One more thought. I suffer from what are called “cluster headaches”—arguably the most severe kind of pain (short of limb amputation sans anesthesia) known. They come in “clusters,” each lasting 1-2 hours, 2 or 3 times a day for about a 7 week period every 2 ½ years (they used to come every year). I’ve had them for 30 years now. I used to ask, “why me God?” until I finally accepted the fact that I’m going to have them until the day I die. I now pray, “help me get through this one God” and, invariably, I do—they haven’t killed me yet (other than the excruciating pain, they cause no other kinds of harm)—though I have heard that there have been some who have committed suicide because of them.

I don’t understand why I, or anyone, gets them (medically, that’s still a mystery), but I realized long ago, that if this is the worst thing that befalls me, then relatively speaking, I have it pretty good—I’d much rather have clusters than leukemia. The objective reality for us all is that we all have some kind of “cross to bear” in this life, and I believe that we owe it to ourselves to examine that cross to see how we can use it to make us better in some way; to strengthen our character, to make us more compassionate for others—to appreciate God in ways we never thought of before. Are those crosses God’s “punishment” for us?—no. We are physical, temporal beings in a physical, temporal universe where everything has some kind of vulnerability. Again, I believe whatever situation we have been given to endure also provides us with the opportunity to either turn toward God and ask “how do I make lemonade from these lemons” or turn away and delude ourselves that somehow we alone have the ability to figure it all out and make ourselves better—not physically, but where it really counts—in our character.

The objective reality for us all is that we all have some kind of “cross to bear” in this life, and I believe that we owe it to ourselves to examine that cross to see how we can use it to make us better in some way; to strengthen our character, to make us more compassionate for others

This is an excellent message regarding dealing with adversity and getting through it. The only difference for me is of course I don't relate it too God. I think we can ask ourselves "how do I make lemonade from these lemons" and strive to improve our characters. But to be honest I don't see that as an enormous difference. I like what you have said.

Karen I am sorry to hear these terrible things have happened to you in the past and I am glad you survived it to be the intelligent and eloquent individual I see in your posts.

remy

While an expanded and convoluted version, I have to say, I told you so.

Aye, verily, that you did, Mate!

jcc
Can you see how what you said effectively boils down to remy's earlier summary?

I hesitate to answer because you’re asking me to second guess His omniscience.

Then I would caution you against trying to see people "through Christ's eyes". Obviously that's impossible.

If I could answer that, then I’d also want to know why my mother had to suffer from Parkinson’s for 10 years until her death.

I am truly very sorry that your mother suffered so. Perhaps others won't have to go through what she did if stem cell research could get gov't. approval. God apparently isn't going to do anything about it.

The Bible makes it clear that God has never promised to deliver us from all harmful situations, but it’s unmistakable in its message of, if we ask, He will deliver us through them.

This is not an unmistakable message at all, especially to children. When you teach children about an intervening god, that's what they will expect. If there is no intervention, the child will assume s/he did something wrong.
It is much more helpful and responsible to teach a child to reach out to someone who can be of real comfort and aid to him/her.

I am saying that, given our considerably less than omniscient understanding of life, the fact that you survived your ordeal and are now asking me questions about God, indicates to me, that you haven’t completely closed the door there.

I survived in a fractured state. The 4 year old is still there, wounded and blaming herself, because there is so much everyday reinforcement of the god idea. I asked you because you said you tried to look through Jesus's eyes. But I find you can only look through his mortal eyes, which is nothing special. The child has tough questions, which no Christian has the balls to answer, except circuitously, as you did. As remy predicted you would. The real answer is that god is not real. There is no power. There can be no intervention from something that does not exist.
I asked you because I thought maybe you'd look into your heart and feel the fear your own children might one day feel and have the courage to arm them with the tools they really need to get through life. Don't give them fairy tales. Give them the knowledge that no what anyone ever tells them, they can trust that they can always come to you and Y