Government’s back door censorship
If you are censored and told what you may or may not say, it probably will not be the result of government action. The government still has First Amendment considerations to contend with, making censorship politically difficult.
If the government decides to censor you, it will leave the dirty work of doing so to an NGE.
What is an NGE, you ask?
NGE stands for Non-Governmental Enforcer. NGEs are generally large corporations, which operate in league with corrupt government and receive generous public funding in return, including bailouts when such are needed. I introduced this term recently when my brother in Christ Julio Severo had his PayPal account closed on the grounds that his was a “hate group.” Brother Julio believes that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says as much in several key verses.
Thus, it is the Bible that ultimately is being censored, and no matter how you feel about this issue, the fact is, this nation, founded in large part by people seeking religious freedom, is inexorably accepting the premise that sexual freedom must take precedence over freedom of creed — freedom of religion.
That is not the only issue into which have stepped NGEs to muzzle dissenters.
The BNP (British National Party) has had its bank account closed by Barclays because they supposedly are anti-Muslim and some low-ranking members have allegedly uttered violent words. (Note that when the Left — for example, the Occupy Wall Street movement — utter violent words, they are ignored or encouraged).
Thus far, the West has succeeded in circumventing the quaint notion of free speech in the areas of homosexuality and Islam.
But if you think it will stop there, you are hopelessly naïve.
Christianity is based on bedrock principles enunciated by Jesus Christ, who said, for example: I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but through me.
Clearly the doctrine represented by this verse excludes all other religions and is offensive to some. That is not at odds with the teachings of Christ, who came “to bring a sword” (that is, not to kill but to divide believers from non-believers).
The idea that all speech must be inoffensive will ultimately lead to the banning of this verse and the censoring of those who dare to utter it in public. Parents may also be banned from teaching it to their children.
It matters not that this is perhaps the key to the Christian faith. The elites see Christianity as an obstacle to their plans.
The West has crossed a line as a result of negligence, and now, unless the people who ignored the issue start to wake up to what is happening, we can only await the end of faith — and hence an end to any protest against government abuse and corruption. The government can now starve you with impunity and without resistance.
The line we crossed could be called the Niemöller line of non-protest. People did not protest the outrage that was perpetrated against Julio Severo because they weren’t Christians and they think — erroneously — that he has somehow victimized homosexuals. They did not protest the outrage against the BNP because they were not members of the BNP and they believed the lie that Muslims are inherently victims of Christians.
Westerners are like a herd of wild animals attacked by a lion. A herd of kudo antelopes could hold off a lion attack. But they are content just to escape individually, while their fellows are killed.
Let’s stop being herded by the elites. It’s undignified and potentially deadly to behave this way. We can stop them if we stick together and all say no in unison, before protesting is forever banned.
We can and must say no, insisting on our God-given right to free expression. Our very survival depends not on the flight instinct but on the fight instinct.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1467204/Barclays-to-close-five-BNP-accounts.html
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:55 am
“It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unaware of the tragedy. Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because they have no standard outside of themselves by which to measure their times. If there is no fixed concept of justice, how shall men know it is violated? Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on, because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen.”
Attributed to Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
December 4th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
“this nation, founded in large part by people seeking religious freedom”
Sounds innocent, doesn’t it? Poor persecuted Puritans!
The fact is that the Puritans were kicked out of England for the same reason that Bible-thumpers like YOU have worn out your welcome here.
Superstition makes a weak foundation on which to build.
December 4th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Welcome to our forum, Mr. James Camerota and thank you for your comment.
Sometimes atheists can provide un unintended educational effect on our faith in addition to providing a healthy and necessary challenge, and I prefer to be challenged by an atheist who states what he believes than by a person who pretends to be a Christian. It is refreshing.
In response to your reference to Christianity as “superstition,” I can only say that now that we have intimate knowledge of the inside mechanisms of the cell, showing that the chances of the DNA sequence of a cell coming into existence by accident are about 1 in 41 to the tenth power (and that’s excluding the chances of the organelles being “evolved”), atheism has been reduced essentially to a mere superstition. There is no evidence to support it, just inertia from a bygone era prior to microbiological advances.
As for your comment about Puritans being kicked out of Europe, actually, the people who kicked out the Puritans (and the Quakers and the Mennonites and the Amish and the Brethren), were mostly “Christians” who didn’t like the particular brand of Christianity of these dissenters, so by siding with them you are in fact siding with the more intolerant side of Christianity. Was that your intent?
To fix this tyranny of the few that existed in Europe, America was founded in such as way as to allow all people of all faiths to worship as they pleased–or even not to worship at all. If you check our Constitution you will find that there is no prohibition of your brand of religion either, as anti-freedom as it may be. This is in stark contradistinction to Islamic countries (some of which do not allow Jews to even visit, most of which do not allow non-Muslims to settle, and some order stoning of converts), and to communist countries where even atheists who weren’t in complete agreement with their political views were in danger of physical harm, permanent unemployment, imprisonment, and death. Both Stalin and Mao killed millions of atheists who would have agreed with you on matters of faith.
So do you think we should ban certain beliefs? The floor is yours. Which beliefs are to be banned, by whom and what would you expect the long-term consequences of such banning to be?
BTW, you will note that I have in no way banned your participation in this forum. I found nothing terribly offensive in it (your pejorative “Bible thumper” doesn’t bother me) and I find it challenging. I in fact welcome your criticism because this discussion is healthy, and it can highlight important contrasts between people of different faiths, including the faith of atheism. I hope you will come back often to http://laiglesforum.com and comment as you see fit.
I think you can see that my policy is in stark contrast to the policies of the Non-Governmental Enforcers I describe in my article, and with whom you seem to side.
Perhaps they will learn from this example. And you?
Hopefully it is not too late.
Bless you, Mr. Camerota.
December 4th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
It is always an interesting question to ask an atheist to explain why jurisdictions in this nation did not allow atheists to testify in court.
The reason was simple…those jurisdictions understood that atheists recognized no higher authority than themselves to which they were accountable, and thus, could not be trusted to testify honestly when it was to their benefit not to do so, or was to their detriment.
The simple fact is, the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation on Christian Principles. This is easily demonstrable from the writings of the Founders, a fact oddly omitted by your atheist writer and his ilk. It seems, there was merit to the concern over honesty in testimony requiring “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” when it is not to their benefit to do so.
Let the reader simply judge now, once and for all, from the Founders’ own words:
According to Noah Webster, who defined the meaning of words used in our founding documents:
“Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament.”
“To Christianity we owe our free Constitutions of Government.”
Jedediah Moore:
“To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation … in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom …All efforts to destroy the foundations of our Holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown our present Republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.”
John Adams –
“The glory of the American revolution was this; that it combined in one indissoluble bond, the principles of Civil Liberty, with the principles of Christianity.”
Benjamin Morris, Historian 1818-1867:
“The fundamental objects of the Constitution are in perfect harmony with the revealed objects of the Christian religion. Union, justice, peace, the general welfare, and the blessings of civil and religious liberty, are the objects of Christianity, and always secured under its beneficent reign. The State must rest upon the basis of religion, and it must preserve the basis, or itself must fall … this is a Christian Nation, first in name … The chief security and glory of the United States of America has been, is now, and will be forever, the prevalence and domination of the Christian faith.”
John Jay, First Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court –
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
President George Washington, the Father of our nation”
“It is impossible to rightly govern … without God and the Bible.”
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His
protection and favor…”
“True religion affords government it’s surest support.”
Patrick Henry –
“ It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Chancellor Kent, commentator on American law, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York –
“The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice …
We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters [other religions] … It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law … proven by the volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of utterances that this is a Christian nation. We find everywhere a clear recognition of this same truth.”
William Holmes McGuffey, called the Schoolmaster of the Nation –
“The Christian religion is the religion of our country … on its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus are not only basic but plenary.”
Is there a pattern here? Yes there is and it is undeniable by the honest.
Mind you, there are plenty of such statements. These were chosen for their brevity.
A longer piece, blows this man’s idea out of the water that America was founded on anything else. Take a look at this complete letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813:
“Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from your Ancestors.
“Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtist, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyant rien [Protestants who believe nothing”].” Very few however of several of these Species present.
“Nevertheless, all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
“Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholics? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? Or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? Or those of the Philosophers?
“No.
“The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
“Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Philosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferior Fame.”
I suppose it’s possible to believe that Adams had no idea what he was talking about, even though he was there, and at the same time believe that your atheist commentator has a much greater insight into how nations work.
George Washington said “”True religion affords government it’s surest support,” while your atheist respondent insists religion is the bane of society and government and must be eliminated.
Who are we to believe and trust? The Founder of our nation, or your atheist.
Gouverneur Morris, Penman and signer of the Constitution said “The most important of all lessons [from the Scriptures] is the denunciation of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion,” while your atheist respondent insists that what our Founders held to be “most important of lessons” is so much hogwash.
Again I ask, who, oh who, are we to believe and trust?
Personally, I can’t say what others might do, but I’ll go with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Henry, John Jay, Morris, and a whole host of others.
But, that’s me.
God bless
Sapient
“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.” –John Adams.
December 4th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Hi Don
There is a magnificent foil here: Atheists say there is no such thing as God while conversely, God says there is no such thing as an atheist.
The Bible declares that they are not atheists at all, but rather those who know the truth about God, God Himself making it evident to them, yet they suppress it.
There’s that suppress the truth thing again.
Actually, the word “atheist” is found no where in the Bible yet the sentence “There is no God” is found there. That sentence is attributed to the fool, who says such in his heart.
Proper labeling is important.
God bless
December 4th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
I would just like to say to anyone that does not believe in our Creator. There will come a time that you as well as all of us will stand before Him and then we all will receive our reward. I don’t say this just because of A belief. I know it for a fact. I have been pronounced dead twice in my lifetime. Once when I was a baby and I was told that it made the papers but I came back. I don’t remember what happened that time. The second time was when I had to have a operation.
I was in the operating room and I was out of the body lying on that table with the staff looking down at me saying that they had lost me. I saw them using the paddles on my chest and nothing happening.
I was with my God and I was told I had to go back as there was far more that I had to do than I had ever done before. I didn’t want to go back but the choice was not mine to make.
The next thing that I knew I was back in my body in a hospital room with the doctor standing at the foot of my bed. I told him I had had a funny dream and told him what had happened. He informed me it was no dream. That I had died several times and the words that I told him about and what they were doing really happened.
He said they were really surpised when my heart startd beating once more after they had tried everything they could and were fixing to send me to the morgue. That happened on Oct 31, 1973 when I was in my thirties.
I have had to do far more than I have ever done in my life as I was told and I am still doing.
Now that taught me not to fear death.
But I have known God existed long before then. When I was just eleven years old I saw a messenger of God’s come to my Grandmother one night when all of the family was standing on our front porch. No one else saw it but me and they thought I saw a ‘shadow’ or something and couldn’t understand why I was crying and telling them what was going to happen which did just a little over twenty-one hours later. It was the most beautiful being I have ever laid eyes on. All gold and white where one could not see where one color started and the other color ended. I knew at that moment that within the next twenty-four hours my grandmother was going to go to Heaven with that angel. I knew at that moment that each and everyone has a guardian angel that comes for you at least twenty-four hours before one takes their final breathe
You may mock this and say none of it is true or I was imaging things but I don’t have to convince you or anyone. My Creator knows it to be true and that is all that counts.
Rest assured from one that knows that God does exist and one day you will find out that it is true. I hope for your sake that you find out in this life because there isn’t a second chance after one passes away from this life here.
May God bless you all and those that don’t know God the Creator will come to know Him and soon.
December 5th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
“It is always an interesting question to ask an atheist to explain why jurisdictions in this nation did not allow atheists to testify in court.” -Sapient
This is a thing of the past – as are the obsolete beliefs of the “founders”. Atheists today may affirm the truth of their testimony in court. These people lived in an ignorant time, over 200yrs ago. Move on.
“Actually, the word “atheist” is found no where in the Bible yet the sentence “There is no God” is found there. That sentence is attributed to the fool, who says such in his heart.” -Michael
Actually, the Bible is NOT the definitive authority for anyone but a Christian. In my book, one who accepts someone else’s fish story without evidence is a rube; a mark; a pigeon; a sucker.
I agree – proper labeling IS important.
Doris -
I’ve had six heart attacks. Six emergency surgeries. I never prayed once, but I did interact w/ the EMT’s trying to save my life. I never saw any god, angel, or white light, but I DO remember the music being played in the OR and the banter of the surgical team. I also remember a round of high-fives upon success, but no “Tebowing”. I exclusively credit the skill of my doctor and his team w/ my survival.
You saw the things you saw because you already believed in them.
December 7th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
To your atheist writer
Good morning…and thank you for your response(s)
I do have a couple of questions for you…and I would ask you to step back 200 years into the shoes of our Founders. These men had the responsibility of designing a nation from the ground up…government, economy, civil society, etc.
According to their writings, they examined the course of history, the principles, the conflicts, the issues…and our Constitution is what they found to be the most sound, most stable, most productive, most benign, longest lasting, etc…and it was based on Christian principles.
Now, as you have said, you don’t agree with that choice.
OK…you are up. You are there. On what principles would YOU have founded this nation. What historical examples would you, Mr. Delegate, have placed before that convention to prove your case?
Oh what basis, if not the “laws of nature and Nature’s God,” which assumed mankind being created in the Image of God, and thus of special worth and respect, would YOU have built our nation.
Good luck
December 7th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
re: “Actually, the Bible is NOT the definitive authority for anyone but a Christian. In my book, one who accepts someone else’s fish story without evidence is a rube; a mark; a pigeon; a sucker.”
Question 1: have you read it?
Observation: you assume that Christians have never been where you are today. That would be incorrect. We have seen both sides and chosen, based on evidence, while you have chosen without seeing the evidence of both sides.
BTW: If you cannot see both sides, shouldn’t you make an effort to do that? There is a cure for blindness, and its not insisting there is no such thing as light.
God calls light out of darkness.
Now, I DARE you to ask Him to do that with you right now. If He is not there, what could it hurt? If He is there, hey, there is a whole new world out there you have yet to realize.
Unless maybe, the problem is not Him, but you.
“And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”
December 7th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
The atheist asserts there is no God.
If you don’t mind my asking Sir, how do you claim to definitively know that?
December 7th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
James,
You say I saw the things I saw because I already believed in them. I have had eleven operations in my lifetime. Only one of them was I ever above my body looking down at it lying on the operating table. That was the time I was pronounced dead by the doctor’s and they had given up on me.
Now what I said before is not the only times that I have had things that cannot be explained by any thing other than something beyond our human ability to define it.
But first, How can anyone think a young girl of eleven was going to ‘believe’ that an angel was going to appear and tell her her grandmother was going to die within 24 hours and that child told her family what had happened and she wasn’t believed until it happened the next day within that 24 hour period.
A grandmother that was feeling good until the last thirty min. of her life? My grandmother was the one person at that young age in my life that meant everything to me. She was the kindest, most gentle person that ever walked the face of this earth. She was loved by the whole town. To lose her was devasting to me. I think it was for that reason that I was to see that angel and to be told that my grandmother was going home.
I might write later of another very painful time in my life when once again I was visited and told when our only son was going to die but I doubt if you will believe that to be a true experience either but only something that I believed in already.
Maybe the reason that nothing beyond your understanding has ever happened to you is because you have God so far locked out of your heart He can’t enter? He only comes in if He is invited. He never intrudes on satan’s space. The two cannot dwell in the same temple or ‘body’ as a house divided will not stand.
I pray that one day before your number is called that you meet Him and you ask Him in.
December 7th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Sapient –
Foolish question. Anyone living in that period might have thought like you. Tell me – If Australia was originally settled by convicts, why is it not a criminal nation today?
Answer – progress. 200 years ago, doctors still used leeches.
Michael -
Yes, I’ve read it – not convinced. The Koran is a book, too. have you read it?
Doris –
I think you’re making a lot of this up. Christians lie all the time to achieve their ends or justify their belief.
Doris, I simply don’t believe you and more outlandish stories aren’t going to help.
December 7th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
James
Thanks for the answer…
Drs using leeches is not really the point though is it? Of course technology changes…we are talking about human nature…that is what government is about…has that changed?
Another way to ask that is can we learn from history, or are you saying there was somehow a break with history, that those lessons no longer apply because WE are somehow different?
In either case, my question still stands…what is YOUR alternative to a government based on \the laws of nature and nature’s God?\ What are YOUR first principles, your assumptions?
Lay them out so we can see them and discuss them. Critics are a dime a dozen…
I also want to know what historical examples you have of the government you would design. Why should we believe it would work? Faith?
December 8th, 2011 at 12:53 am
James,
I really feel sorry for you. Believe what you will about me but what I have stated is truth. I am going to be meeting my maker before long but I know where I will be going. I just pray that one day before you do that you will have just one of the experiences that happened to me happen to you so you can see once and for all that the ‘religion’ you have your faith in is a false one.
Not belief in God is a religion no manner if you know it or not. It is the ‘joke’ played on people, by satan that don’t know God. Even satan believes in God and he is doomed.
Why is it so important to people that feel that they need to tell those that believe in God that they are wrong? Only satan loves to do that. Many call them anti-christs.
May God have mercy on you while you are alive so that you will come to know him before it is far too late.
This may make you mad but I will be praying for you.
December 8th, 2011 at 9:51 am
James
I really must apologize to you too…my questions about first principles, natural law, etc re Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu, Burke and others, and asking you to reason from them with Aristotelian logic, etc were not meant to embarrass you.
That is just stuff we rubes, pigeons, marks and suckers get in school.
How about this: how about that game Sunday? What that good or what?
God bless
December 8th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“Of course technology changes…we are talking about human nature…that is what government is about…has that changed?”
I’m glad you asked that question, Sapient. Human nature does NOT change.
There have always been and always will be people who see things that aren’t there; hear voices in their heads; and spout nonsense.
Modern technology tells us that the people who see things and hear things that aren’t there are delusional. Moses and Abraham probably would have earned similar diagnoses, had they lived today.
There will always be con men who pray on the gullibility of others. Modern law requires evidence.
Religion is the product of human nature gone unchecked.
Doris – We’re done.
December 8th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
“Human nature doesn’t change.”
Good for you…we are on the same page. If it is constant we can learn from history…and the Bible IS history if nothing else.
Lets just say for the moment that the Bible was the writings of some histry-philosopher that made no mention of God…would you then agree with its description of human nature?
December 9th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Sapient-
I will agree with you on this:
Every good fiction has a grain of truth. The Bible is no different. I’ve previously mentioned the Koran – what makes THEIR god any less made-up than YOURS?
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.
-Adolf Hitler
December 9th, 2011 at 2:55 am
James
Hmmm…did you just avoid the question?
We agreed that human nature doesn’t evolve and that we can learn from history…so lets have a discussion on common ground.
Re: Lets just say for the moment that the Bible was the writings of some history-philosopher that made no mention of God…would you then agree with its description of human nature?
December 9th, 2011 at 11:14 am
James
Just in case you did not want to do with the “human nature” discussion…we can go with the one you raised.
Just so we are on the same page and can meaningfully reason together…do you agree:
1. Reality is what exists OUTSIDE our own thinking rather than just our perception…ie there is a REAL world out there that I can either think wrongly about or correctly.
2. Logic is the way we align our thinking to correctly reflect that real world?
3. The foundational axioms of logical thought are:
–the law of identity: something is itself.
–the law of non contradiction: something cannot be both what it is and what it is not at the same time in the same way
–the law of the excluded middle: a proposition is either correctly reflects reality, or it does not. There is no middle.
Now, this is basic Aristotelian logic…do you agree with these as a basis for our discussions?
God bless
December 9th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
James
Here is a final realm of discussion…you said:
““Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. -Adolf Hitler
Obviously, you are suggesting there are evil people in this world…ie Adolf (and I appreciate being compared to him. BTW: do you think Adolf was closer to Christian ethics or something else? but lets get to first principles OK)….and that there are lies in this world.
Good v Bad
Truth v lies
So, let me ask you…how do you brand a person as good and another evil, or a statement true as opposed to another that is a lie.
On what basis do you say we can tell the difference?
God bless
December 10th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Sapient-
I didn’t avade your question Every good fiction has a grain of truth. The insidious thing about the Bible is that it is no different.
I needn’t come up with an alternate worldview to know that yours is based on fiction.
Michael, Doris, HRoark – none of you are worth my time.
December 10th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Good morning James
Hope your Christmas Season is going well.
Of course, we are indeed talking about two, mutually exclusive worldviews aren’t we? Theism and declarative atheism.
Please correct me if I am wrong on your position being declarative atheism…ie you declare that there absolutely IS NO GOD, finished, end of discussion, “move on,” “all else is fiction and ignorance,” as opposed agnosticism, which says you just don’t have enough information to know.
Your position is declarative Atheism right?
So, no need to invent worldviews. Theism and Atheism have both been around a long time. We actually know each other quite well you and I.
Let me tell you that I find our situation most delightful. It is ready made for the laws of logic, which are nothing less than our tools for finding errors in our reasoning about objective reality–in this case, the reality of whether God exists or He does not.
Now those laws dictate that both of these worldviews cannot both be true, and that there is no middle. Who could ask for more?
Those laws will expose the error of one of our views of reality, and that is what we are after isn’t it…the truth about reality, God or no God, instead of “fiction”? That’s what you said…me too. (The three basic laws are listed earlier.)
So, my question to you is are you willing to submit your worldview to that examination, based on the same rules for both of us, so all may see for themselves which one REALLY is consistent with reality–ie true, or is that not worth your time either?
BTW: you have asserted on several occasions that Christians are liars. Let me ask you: if you found incontrovertible evidence that God exists, would you report it as such, or find a way to stick to your story, ignoring that evidence? You don’t have to answer that publicly, but you might want to ask yourself.
One last thing. I expect a bit more civility from you than you have been showing. If you believe you have that elite right to be condescending, and represents what you believe, I will take that for what it is, and the discussion is over.
Sir, I don’t ask anyone to bow to me, and I don’t tolerate someone expecting me to bow to them. That includes you. Fair enough?
If you care amenable to adult discussion between equal human beings with two different world views, great. Lets discuss the worldviews.
If you can’t do that, then be on your way.
December 10th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Hello Sapient,
I have tried debating with James off line. He contacted me at my email address, and when he saw my response he decided not to debate with me on line. I don’t really know why.
But be that as it may, I would like to extend an apology to Doris. I DO happen to believe her story. That is a judgment call and I will accept responsibility for it.
I normally would not let a guest abuse my readers the way James has, but I think it is important that people can see the clear differences between those who profess trust in God and at least those who campaign for atheism.
Nasty, aren’t they? And it is obvious some just lack thinking skills.
When they see they can’t win on intellectual grounds, they leave and go somewhere else where they can pick on the weak.
In other words, they are bullies.
Now, having said that, I have known atheists who actually aren’t afraid to debate without name calling or insults.
I am often baffled how Laigle’s Forum partner Anthony Horvath manages to recruit into his readership (at Athanatos Ministries) people who disagree but aren’t disagreeable.
Tony is used to dealing with real ladies and gentlemen, both believers and non. I have met some wonderful people too, but they are part of the \choir.\
I wish we could offer you the same uplifiting experience here, but so far all we could dredge up was James, sorry to say.
I am going to close this debate out soon, but will keep it open a day or so.
December 11th, 2011 at 1:22 am
Thank you Don. God works in ways that most people can never grasp because they just don’t want Him in their lives. Those are the lost souls that we are told to try and reach and most that really love their Creator will try to do that very thing just as Jesus sought to reach us.
When someone says we aren’t worth their time then it isn’t really us that they are speaking to but the very Creator of all of us. When one rejects God then they either have had something very terrible happen to them in some way or by someone.
I hope everyone here prays to our Father to open Jame’s eyes and his heart one day to the love that God would bless him with so that one day he will be able to live in peace with his Creator and inherit all the promisses that was promissed to mankind if they would only call on their Creator to enter their lives and make them whole.
May God in His mercy do that one day for James as well as other’s like him.
James we may not be worth your time but you are worth our time and most of all God’s time.
May God pour out His blessings on you one day while there is time. May He have mercy on your soul and may you one day return to Him from whence you came. Make no mistake about that last you did come from Him long ago when the first Adam was created by God.
May God bless all of us and in the future yet to come.
December 11th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Don, thank you for providing this forum, and continuing this thread, where the self sacrificing heart of one, and the contemptuous heart of another have been thrown into stark contrast.
Doris, HRoark, Michael, simply outstanding!. Bless you.
James made two significant statements that we should take together: “There is no God,” and to Doris, HRoark, and Michael, “none of YOU are worthy [of] my time.” A person’s view of God and their view of others are inexorably linked. A low view of God yields a low view of others. It is no small coincidence that the Ten Commandments are divided in precisely this way—our responsibility to God, and our responsibility to our fellow human beings. Jesus summed it up
“ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. T he second is like it, ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
In his first declaration, that there is no God, James claimed for himself knowledge equal to omniscience—literally making himself out as having the knowledge required of God. He also used that omniscience as a self righteousness that elevated him above others who dared disagree, denigrating others without mercy, ultimately judging them, as persons, not worthy of his time, even evil, and to declare them so in no uncertain terms. Note again: it was not the defense of his absurd claim to omniscience that he deemed not worthy of his time, but the person who dared ask for that defense. That is no small thing.
One can only imagine what kind of master he would be; how such contempt for fellow human beings might manifest when wielding power or having any authority of any kind over anything or person—political, business, family. Historically, it is from this fount of contempt for others that the tyrants, murders, and demagogues of history spew forth. It is for such that when God instituted Government, the inviolable standard was the sanctify of human life as man was created in His image. This principle is enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Which world view do you imagine made the clear statement of that provision necessary?
Now, as for James’ declaration that there is no God…
HRoark, you asked the proverbial $64000 question: “James, you assert there is no God…how do you claim to definitively know that?” One question, piercing to the crux of the matter. Imagine for a moment what it would take to definitively know all that is required to honestly make that claim—near omniscience. Now, imagine what it takes for someone to claim they have it.
It is small wonder HRoark’s question remains unanswered.
A reasonable assertion for a human being would be the agnostic position, that so far they have not seen evidence convincing them that there is a God. Well and good, reasonable, and honest.
James went far beyond that reasonable human position, taking an absurd and indefensible one. He boldly declared that beyond dispute, there is not and cannot be evidence in all the universe, past, present, or future, known or unknown, lost, discovered, or yet to be found, in the experience of any single human being, angel, or other living creature, that has ever lived or will, that might prove to reasonable human beings open to the possibility, that a Creator exists, and that all others should take his declaration, eh, on faith.
It takes a lot to say “There is no God.” Small wonder the Bible calls it foolishness.
Kudos HRoark… “James, on what basis do you claim to personally, definitively know beyond all contest what only omniscience could definitively know, and how do you claim to know with such authority that allows you to condemn others as evil who do not so hold your view, when it is obvious that you are NOT omniscient, possessing only a miniscule amount of amassed human knowledge and experience? Do you claim such omniscience personally, or that you have an omniscient source? If the former, we have questions for you that should be no problem. If the latter, please name it so we can examine it for our selves.”
From Scripture we know that James’ problem is not lack of evidence of God, but rather his conscious suppressing the evidence he does have. This is like the person who claims he has no money, not because he found nothing in his pocket marked legal tender, but because he did not like the government that printed it. It is a simple fact that James is engaged in an unwinnable battle against all of creation, all of science, all of logic, all of what he accepts as true about himself as a reasoning creature, all of history—all of which constantly confronts him with evidence of the reality of God.
Small wonder he is “stressed,” and a bit “twitchy.”
One example of this suppression will suffice.
A few years ago PBS ran a film on the planet Venus. This film included a discussion at various points, with three astrophysicists who specialized in Venus. In the final segment, the discussion turned to the dynamics of the formation of the Venusian landscape. These experts were asked if they could conclude, based on what they could see, whether the landscape was created slowly over time, or cataclysmically.
The first two astrophysicists stated that everything they saw on Venus indicated a sudden and cataclysmic creation of the landscape, perhaps recurring continuously due to its proximity to the Sun.
The third astrophysicist said this:
“I will agree that all the evidence I see on Venus indicates a cataclysmic creation of the landscape—that it is new even continuously renewing. But, I see the same evidence here on earth—that it was created cataclysmically. I am committed to the view that the earth is old, and formed slowly over eons rather than cataclysmically, so I must conclude that there was a slow creation of the landscape of Venus.”
Imagine the internal twists it must take to see one thing, and conclude another.
My friends, there is NEVER a reason not to confidentially defend the Biblical faith against all challengers. The Bible is like an anvil that has worn out many hammers. The evidence that the Biblical faith corresponds to reality—is overwhelming. The entire universe, with all its forces support you, testifying that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and the eye witnesses say this God, stepped out of time, became flesh, and dwelt among us…signs and wonders following.
The greatest of these was His resurrection, though creating something aged, i.e. OLD wine, in an instance, out of something inert, was not a bad trick either.
Imagine the task of trying to explain otherwise, for example, that a chance explosion resulted in incredible order, even life, instead of incredible chaos and death that every other known explosion has produced. At one time we used the analogy of an explosion in a print factory by chance printing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in proper font, 4 copies, in Copper Script, along with the entire Library of Congress, including bindings, shelves, building, and catalog—all with the appearance of age.
Now, we know that analogy is much too simple. A better analogy is that somehow that explosion created not only volumes and arrangement of the type, but also a computer, programmed it with the necessary chemical information to print all that. We now know what Darwin did not…that life is governed by information encoded in DNA. That is a real issue for those who deny the Creator.
God bless you and yours
December 14th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Sapient
What a wonderful way of expressing your words to all of us. You have a wonderful gift to be able to see and speak what you know and feel that I just wish to say God bless you and yours and I strongly feel that one day all of us will meet when God says so.
I pray that those like Jamess come to one day learn the joy and comfort that we all know from knowing our Creator.
Don and others like him have offered a way for others to speak of their love of God or the other way round if one wishes as long as it is done in a manner that is loving.
Thanks Don for allowing us to at least try with James and for him to express what he had to say. I think he just may be ‘searching’ for that ‘something’ that he knows is missing in his life. Let’s all pray that he will find it.
God bless everyone.
January 7th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Just to clarify-
Those of you who are unworthy of my time are so because your decisions are based on emotion and not reason. Therefore, there is no reasoning w/ you.
Abuse? Develop a thicker skin. You’re the ones throwing “fool” around. Cute of you to try to explain me by “what your scripture says”. Your scripture is designed to suppress questions and discredit true wisdom.
Believers aren’t liars, they are marks. Clergy are the liars.
Finally – I don’t recognise “prophets”. Being a prophet in the time of Jesus was a vey lucrative trade. Gullible rubes gave you lodging, food, and undeserved respect.