Clover Has Been Humbled

School=Herd.
http://lps.schoolwires.net/cms/lib6/MT01001024/Centricity/Domain/94/FISH_SCHOOL.jpg

Once a man recognizes that equivalency, he no longer wants any part of it.

No School For My Kids: Radical Unschooling Methods
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz7E78-VQFw

oooorgle, Tor, this just in:

TEACHER ARRESTED at JFK

A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International Airport this morning as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a rule, a protractor, a compass, a slide-rule and a calculator. At a press conference just before noon today, Attorney General Eric Holder said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. Although he did not identify the man, he confirmed the man has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

“Al-Gebra is a problem for us” said the Attorney General. They derive solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values. They use secret code names like “X” and “Y” and refer to themselves as “unknowns”. We have determined that they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philosopher Isosceles used to say, “There are 3 side to every triangle.” The Attorney General went on to say “Teaching our children sentient thought processes and equipping them to solve problems is dangerous and puts our government at risk.”

Maybe I don’t know by your definition. But I can rightfully say ‘I am convinced.’
If God really is God, then human rules of logic do not necessarily apply. If He is not, then it’s my loss and no skin off your nose. So get off your high ‘insulted’ horse, because you don’t ‘know’ any more than I do.
You can say “That makes no sense to me.” OK, but you have no more right to claiming absolute knowledge than anyone else.

Well PTB, maybe you would like to point out where I made any claim to posessing ‘absolute knowledge’. That seems to be David’s m.o. not mine.

Your stawman fails.

As for ‘high horse’, WTF? I simply require proof that God exists that is not circular reasoning. If you can’t provide such, fine. I also am just expressing my thoughts, something you seem to think you have a right to do but apparently if I do it, it is unacceptable to you.

“And when you spend the time to explain the inconsistencies” – but to those who believe, like David and I (we do not believe everything the same, but we have a lot in common) they are not inconsistencies. That’s what I mean when I say ‘absolute knowledge.’

Facepalm.

PTB, at least quote the whole sentence. It is the ‘because god’ bit that I find offensive, seeing as you know damned well that it is meaningless to agnostics until you can actually prove there is a God.

If you are going to use anything ‘God said’ or ‘God did’ as an argument, the onus is on you to first prove there is a God. Otherwise, you would obviously have to accept ‘Ra said’ or ‘Thor said’ as legitimate rebuttals too.

Inconsistencies are just that, inconsistent. Whether you feel comfortable glossing over them is meaningless.

Hi David,

The question is not “is it written,” but – is it right? Is it decent?

Killing people because they “blaspheme” – or are gay?

That’s pretty fucked up.

Because it’s not “god” commanding (sorry). It’s people who claim to be god’s “helpers” (or rather, his enforcers).

Don’t quote scripture or refer me to some book. I could with just as much validity toss that right back in your lap – using the Satantic Bible to justify my bloodlust.

And yes, David – it is exactly the same thing.

That you believe otherwise notwithstanding.

Eric – ‘Don’t quote scripture or refer me to some book.’

LOL.

And here comes ‘because god’, in 3,2,1……..

You say that it is only men, and not God, who wrote down the rules in the Bible.

But that’s really the difference.

Perhaps it would be repulsive for governments to execute homosexuals and blasphemers if such was based on the words of mere men. Indeed, killing people for blaspheming a God that doesn’t exist would be a bit odd to say the least. Even still, you wouldn’t really have an objective reason to say that its repulsive, your opinion is as good as mine at that point.

On the other hand, if these actually are the commands of the God of the Universe, who is the standard for morality, that changes quite a lot.

If they are indeed the commands of “the good of the universe.” But there is no proof of this – just your belief and assertion. The existence of Ra rests on just as sound a foundation.

Eric,

Proof that Ra exists. If on tv then it must be true. 😉

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdV1ak8YN-Y

Called that one correctly I think.

Eric – “The existence of Ra rests on just as sound a foundation.”

Well, since Ra was the Sun God and all life (possible exception for extremophiles) requires the Sun to exist, there is probably a better foundation for Ra.

@Eric- So would you concede that IF God exists and IF God commands that practicing homosexuals should be executed, that that changes things?

I don’t concede anything absent proof I’m wrong, David.

You’re the one asserting this vengeful sky tyrant is real – the burden is on you to prove it.

Clearly I am a blasphemer to David.

God (according to David) demands all blasphemers be put to death.

So, without equivocation, would you kill me David?

All right Eric. Not to defend Jefferson, but prove to me that he did cohabit with Sally Hemmings. I have read that the DNA tests are inconclusive, and it may have been his nephew, or some other family member, that sired her child.
We don’t have to get personal, the Louisiana Purchase is proof enough that he did not live up to even a Federalist standard.

Hi Phillip,

It’s probably impossible to absolutely prove it, but there is strong evidence that Tom was the baby daddy. IIRC, Sally gave birth several times almost exactly nine months after Tom came home to Monticello. Numerous guests at his home wrote of being startled by how much certain slaves looked like Tom. Also, Sally was his dead wife’s half-sister and (reportedly) looked a great deal like his dead wife, which would explain the attraction. He also freed her children (with him, presumably) but not others.

Eric,

My citing of Jefferson wasn’t definitively to prove him right. I was just giving a history lesson to somebody who claimed that the Founders wnated to keep church and state separate.

At the time the constitituon was written, all that meant is that all Christian denominations should be tolerated. It was against the establishment principle which had been used in most of Europe where one particular denomination was the official church, given special status, and the right to persecute the others.

The intent wasn’t to separate God or the BIble from state. Even deists like Jefferson affirmed the morality of the Bible (yes, I realize they were inconsistent and so forth.)

Disagree with the morals if you want to, but at least acknowledge the historical context.

Yeah, I actually think laws against adultery could be justified based on the NAP. But really, that’s a worldview type of thing. In a secular worldview cheating on your spouse might not actually be seen as “harmful” aside from the specific terms of the contract. But from a Christian worldview (even if not an explicitly theonomic one) it is at least a lot more serious than, say, stealing a couple of bucks. I mean seriously, think about it.

One problem is that a lot of people assume that the NAP is not just true, but morally obvious. And quite frankly, it isn’t. When it comes right down to it, almost everyone makes exceptions to it. Ancaps like Walter Block try to wriggle their way out of this but they still ultimately wind up making exceptions. For instance, Walter Block says its not “aggression” to evict your unborn child (and for the record, Block admits that the child has human rights) and let him/her die outside the womb. But I really don’t think Block would similarly say you have a right to kick your five year old out of the home in the middle of a blizzard and watch them die. Block says you don’t have to feed your child, but he says you have to notify the community that you don’t intend to do so and that someone else can take care of the child if they want. Block does this even while saying there are no such thing as community obligations, or even the community itself in a real sense.

To be clear, I believe Walter Block is a smart man. I believe the ancap community is smart. I lay these out like they are obvious mistakes, but they really aren’t. It took me almost two years to figure out the errors in logic. They are much less obvious than the ideological errors in other systems.

And frankly, I think we all know that it should not just be sin, but crime, to kick your five year old child out of your house during a blizzard and watch them die. I don’t think the “law written on our hearts” tells us “wow, what the parent did kinda sucked but it didn’t violate the non-aggression principle. How dare CPS* get involved.” No, we would say “those parents are monsters and they should be punished.” And if we don’t say that, its frankly because we are letting our system override our common sense.

If we allow exceptions like this, than we’re using a different principle. I agree with the basic idea behind the NAP. I don’t think government should, or ought to have any right, to arbitrarily use force. I believe that in most cases, non-aggression should be followed. But there are exceptions. If someone is about to blow his brains out with a pistol in the middle of the street, its not wrong to pull the gun away from him and make him get help. If someone kicks their five year old out of the home during a blizzard because they don’t really want to take care of them, that’s something that the community can and should forcibly prevent. If someone wants to “evict” their fetus and let them die that shouldn’t be allowed. And open flaunting of perversions against nature and aggression against the covenant family (BTW: The FAMILY, not the State, is the foundational institution in society) also shouldn’t be tolerated in a Christian society. Biblically, there’s no such thing as treason to the State. There are no civil sanctions against that. There’s no conceivable way that whistleblowers like Snowden could be punished under a BIblical law-order. But treason against the family, and against God, is a thing. And here’s why. Every society protects the foundations of its law-order. In statist America, the State is the foundation. In a Christian nation, God is the foundation, and the human institution that is foundational is the family. So I can understand why you might think laws against homosexuality are statist, but really, its a law against treason against FAMILY, which is far more sensible than laws banning treason against State.

I see what you are saying w/regard to homosexuality. Adultery is different – there is a victim, the non-consenting spouse.

And also, while I don’t believe decentralization all the way to the individual is possible, I think today’s governments are way too big. I’d be happy to split America with the secularists and let come what may of it. Most seculars would not similarly be willing to tolerate a part of the nation being explicitly Christian.

OK, here you say: “Smoking marijuana in your basement doesn’t cause societal harm. Maybe in extremely miniscule amounts, but nothing that would justify violence.”

So, you think smoking pot might be a miniscule societal harm. Fair enough, even though people smoke and drink for different reasons and smoking pot is known to help many symptoms such as Parkinson’s, MS, Lupus and Chron’s disease among others but since it doesn’t come from the almighty FDA approved DRUG MAKERS, many of which are highly addictive and many of which are highly toxic to the point of death, acute death to chronic symptoms leading to death. I guess you’re ok with those things, no societal damage from those things. After all, the FDA and Big Pharm are part and parcel of “liberty under God” since they carry no blame and have no “law” that stops them.

When you get every edict from the Bible or any other “book”, you can’t help but be a hypocrite. You ultimately pick and choose according to the way you interpret what the book you read says.

I understand why libertarianism doesn’t cut it for you. You thought it could at first but have finally realized your brainwashing is complete and correct. No sense in even speaking of it any longer. Your mind is set. No if’s and’s or but’s.

Under Biblical law the government has no authority to have a Fed or FDA or Big Pharma or anything like that. See 1 Samuel 8. And Deut 4.

Fairy-tales are not facts. You copy/pasted scripture, lol! Are you even able to think for yourself and respond accordingly?

Some people endlessly spew scripture like it was fact, as you are doing. Others will endlessly spew law as if it were fact, as exampled here: http://marcstevens.net/cos/cos20150609.html

Now, do you have a real event to example?

Hi ooorgle,

The theist equates scriptures with facts. “It is written…”

Well, L. Ron Hubbard wrote, too.

For them, absolute belief not just in “god” but a very specific one (described by “It is written…) is the premise of everything. It’s a bubble, a self-contained system of certainty.

Of course, it’s also one with an obvious flaw they seem to be able to dismiss out of hand.

“It is written…” was written by men. They believe it was written by God (about himself, so to speak) but then so do the other religionists about their “holy” books. Ask a Muslim. Or a Mormon. Or a Scientologist. It comes down to – just believe. And once you do, everything falls into place. You have a set-piece worldview. You “know” everything – because you believe!

You also embrace truly awful, inhuman ideas (e.g., murdering people because they “blaspheme” or cut their facial hair or engage in private, consensual things you – well, “god” – says are no-nos).

Eric, can you prove that these things are horrible?

Seriously?

Slaughtering women and children; whole cities?

David – The question you have to ask yourself, if you really are the Christian you claim to be is does this comport with the new commandment Christ gave us which was to love one another as He loved us. Maybe you’d better go back and read John 8:3 – 11 again and reconsider your position, because Christ didn’t tell the throng to stone the adulteress. He wrote in the sand and told them that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Of course they all just mozied on off one by one, now didn’t they? No stones were thrown and he admonished her to quit sinning. By your way of OT thinking they should have stoned her to death. And one more thing, she was caught in the act! Where was her partner? Did he just get a free pass because he had set swinging? Kinda like the muslims punishing a burka clad rape victim, because after all, her eyes were too seductive or it wouldn’t have happened to her. Do you see have far this can go (and has in the past)? The OT has a lot of good informationa and advice in it, but you of all people should know that we don’t live under the old Mosaic law now. If you think you do, then you’d better observe all the feasts, eat no pork or shellfish and send any menstruating women in your household off to live by themselves while they’re on their period or risk being unclean right along with them. And don’t forget to have them carry a couple of turtle doves down to the priest when their period’s over for atonement. C’mon David. You don’t get to pick and choose; it’s all or nothing.

Those aren’t normative commands, Eric. But yes, I’m going to ask you why that was horrible. I say that if God, who is greater than us by a far greater margin than we are to an aunt, decides to kill SINFUL human beings (think of a human being slaughtering flies that irritated him, only worse because we have WILLFULLY transgressed his commandments) and even to use other sinful human beings to do it, who are we to question it? Seriously.

You don’t have any moral basis to say that what the Jews did to the idolaters of those lands was wrong. Without God you have no provable basis to say that they were wrong.

Really…?

“sinful” babies and little kids? Wholesale slaughter everyone – because Sky Stalin so commands (or rather – to be precise – men who claim to hear Sky Stalin’s commands so command)?

And they ask me why I drink.

The god you describe is a narcissistic sociopath, a sadist and an asshole beyond description.

If he’s real, I want nothing to do with him. But I highly doubt such a monstrously cruel, capricious god exists.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that god exists and created us. If so, he created self-aware, feeling, living beings. Not things to be toyed with.

Most people do not believe it’s within their right to just kill a pet dog or cat (let alone cause it to suffer horribly) because it’s “their” pet (that is, because they own the animal).

Yet there are people who believe it’s ok for this vengeful, evil deity they worship to do whatever it likes with “his” creatures. Us. Just because he can. And we are duty bound to love him for it.

Loathsome. Vile.

Boothe’s silly comment has been refuted hundreds of years ago. I’m just going to link the original refutation, because it is much more systematic and scriptural than anything I could write on my own (there is probably an earlier one, but this is the best one I have seen.)

Chapter XIX

Of the Law of God

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.[20]

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.[22]

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Substitute “Gnome” for “god”… see whether it makes sense then.

Oh. I know. Your god is real.

My gnome a conjure of my imagination…

This guy Adam – ostensibly my great grandfather times 20 to the 10th power… “sinned”… and so now I am responsible for his “sins.”

Right?

Ah yes David, silly comment…okay..refuted by men that make a living by interpreting scripture to support their preferred position at the time. To me they are worse than their blind followers who memorize scripture without ever understanding the message contained therein.

Witness the “Fighting Pastor” John M. Chivington and the Sand Creek massacre. He’s your kind of Christian apparently. With respect to the Cheyenne, Pastor John said “Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians”. “Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.” This was a peaceful encampment under Black Kettle and known “peace” chief. Our fine pastor allowed his men to murder, rape, scalp and sexually mutilate over 200 Cheyenne mostly women and children. If you think YHWH approves of that type of behavior you’re in for a rude awakening. That’s not Christianity.

Eric:

Its wrong for you to torture your pet because there is a higher morality (based on God) that would indicate the immorality of you doing that. Plus, you aren’t the ultimate owner of the pet. God is.

I’m not going to bother responding to all of the blasphemy in your post other than to say that you don’t have an objective basis to say that God is wrong. “Its terrible” repeated ad nauseum isn’t really an argument. And really, if your worldview is true, its survival of the fittest anyways. You have no business arguing against it as an evolutionist.

“Blasphemy” – an arbitrary assertion that a statement is offensive to a hypothetical entity whom the outraged person believes has been offended.

Tell me, David, how your assertion is any different than my asserting my gnome has been offended by the “blasphemy” you’ve uttered, contrary to his “law”? Or the rabid Muslim who is apoplectic over cartoons drawn of his “prophet.”

You believe – you feel – that is all.

You can’t prove anything. All you can do is point to scripture, claim it’s “divinely inspired” and that you “know” it to be true.

Fine. You have every right to feel and believe whatever you like. As does the Muslim. The Hindu. The Scientologist. The Mormon.

But until one of you can prove you’re right – and the others are wrong – it’s obnoxious and ridiculous to claim you’re right and the others are wrong.

For 3,000 years the Egyptians worshipped Ra.

Was Ra real because he was believed in by Egyptians for 3,000 years?

Chill out. You do not know – much as you may believe you do. No matter how fervently and passionately you believe.

The position you hold amounts to human beings being the chattel property of this entity called “god” – who is at liberty (by dint of being “god”) to do whatever he wishes with us, as if we were Barbie and Ken dolls. What a loathsome view.

But at core, it is a human-invented view. Nothing more. Some men wrote their gibberish in a book, claimed it came from god or that god told them what to write. Other men wrote different gibberish – and made the same claims!

In any other context, we’d regard the person so asserting as a lunatic. But by dint of the passage of time and habituation, certain assertions of this sort are treated deferentially and even respectfully… it never ceases to amaze me.

I am going to light a bonfire and dance in my goatskin pants around the ancient ruins…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdfPrkw_V3M

What a very pathetic abdication of your personal responsibility. You might as well be a robot.

And the Mormons are just as convinced… as are the Muslims…

How many times was that oral tradition handed down, until it was finally written down? And then translated into how many languages? And translated into Latin? And translated back into the vulgate, based on languages that were long dead THEN, let alone now?

David, God may be real, but YOUR GOD isn’t.
And your command of theology is meaningless unless everyone else plays the same “let’s pretend” game.

Bear in mind, I’m a confirmed catholic who, after learning more, and digging in, said, “This is BULLSHIT.” I’m not some atheist with an axe to grind.
But I really hope you eat a bullet and stop with the “holier than though” claptrap.
You sound like a member of Isis – and have demonstrated you would act the same.

(Sorry to pollute your page, Eric – but I’m tired of mincing words and “playing nice.” All it’s gotten me is 40 years of being shit on.)

I’m a Mormon, Christian, Catholic, etc……..except when I’m not. The ones who “know” are bullshitting. Unless and until I see God face to face and speak with him, how could I “know”? I can have a hunch and feel like a higher power might possibly exist. I know I have seen and felt things that give me the hunch that there is a higher power. “knowing” without a doubt is a different story.

Eric, Romans 9 explains why he isn’t universally known. Because most people were created to show God’s justice, and a minority to show his mercy.

That said, I have hope that eventually the gospel will become more prominently accepted in most areas of the world (Habakkuk 2:14, Psalm 110). I’m not certain, and eschatology is a tough subject, but I am hopeful.

That’s a rationalization – an evasion.

The fact remains that most humans who’ve ever lived never heard the “good news” because the “good news” didn’t exist until relatively recently – and has long been confined to certain geographic areas, ethnic groups and so on. Your religion is not a universal religion. It is a regional, temporal, ethnic and tribal religion.

I marvel at the ease with which you dismiss (among others) the native peoples of North and South America, all of Asia, and so on.

It’s an example of religious solipsism. A defect of thought (and observation) that causes the sufferer to simply “blank out” inconvenient facts.

Another one of which being the obvious problem of a monotheistic religion that has at least two gods.

I give up. Its throwing pearls before swine at this point. I’d advise PtB to do the same thing, though he’s been at this far longer than me so I’ll trust his judgment. But as for me, I am done.

You mean you abdicate. You can’t defend your position with other than appeals to “it is written” and “because god” (presuming he exists as the basis of everything that follows).

Sorry – for you. Because it’s sad to see a bright kid so unable – so unwilling – to confront the straw men/logical fallacies and so on that underpin his faith.

You might want to do some self-examination, too, in re the hate you feel for gays. And yes, that’s exactly the right word. Spare me the “bless his heart” crap about loving the sinner but not the sin. You have defended the torture and murder of people who’ve never done a got-damned thing to you or any other unwilling victim… because you claim their private, personal choices affront “the lord.”

Let me ask you a question – and I hope you will answer honestly:

Have you ever had sex with a woman? Ever thought about it? Desired it?

Another challenge:

Prove to me that Zeus is not god.

After all, “it is written.” And The Romans believed…

Instead of Romans 9, I would point to Romans 1. Everyone has at least some knowledge, but they have chosen to surpress it. That’s it, all I have to say on this subject.

Hi Phillip,

There are things we know but cannot prove objectively. I love my wife, for example. But when we are making assertions to others, it seems to me the obligation is ours to back it up with objective evidence that is not mere “I know so” (or “believe in my heart”).

We see through a glass darkly – all of us – when it comes to existential questions. No one knows why we’re here. What happens when we die.

We perceive the world through human senses that we know are limited (infra-red light is just as real as visible light, but we cannot see in the infra-red spectrum) and understand things imperfectly, if at all.

Speaking for myself, I feel humbled by what I know I do not know.

Eric:

I don’t hate gays.

I don’t support torture for any reason ever.

No, I’ve never had sex, and do not intend to do so until married. I think most of us have desired it.

“I don’t support torture for any reason ever.”

But what if “the lord” commands it?

How would you characterize eternal torment?

I don’t know a single thing about Scott Lively, but a lot of the “kill the gays people” (which is a strawman, but whatever) are theonomists who support very little government. Like Gary North.

Lol! Good point. Good to see you again 🙂

Don’t waste your time on the god-heads.

You can witness the pointlessness here;

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/12/19/good-people-2/

I replied to you, man.

For reference, I’ll quote it again.

23 Then the king sent, and all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem were gathered to him. 2 And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and with him all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the priests and the prophets, all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant that had been found in the house of the Lord. 3 And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people joined in the covenant.

4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the keepers of the threshold to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron and carried their ashes to Bethel. 5 And he deposed the priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the high places at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon and the constellations and all the host of the heavens. 6 And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. 7 And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah. 8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beersheba. And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one’s left at the gate of the city. 9 However, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers. 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.[a] 11 And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts.[b] And he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. 12 And the altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars that Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, he pulled down and broke in pieces[c] and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. 13 And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 14 And he broke in pieces the pillars and cut down the Asherim and filled their places with the bones of men.

15 Moreover, the altar at Bethel, the high place erected by Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, that altar with the high place he pulled down and burned,[d] reducing it to dust. He also burned the Asherah. 16 And as Josiah turned, he saw the tombs there on the mount. And he sent and took the bones out of the tombs and burned them on the altar and defiled it, according to the word of the Lord that the man of God proclaimed, who had predicted these things. 17 Then he said, “What is that monument that I see?” And the men of the city told him, “It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and predicted[e] these things that you have done against the altar at Bethel.” 18 And he said, “Let him be; let no man move his bones.” So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet who came out of Samaria. 19 And Josiah removed all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the Lord to anger. He did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel. 20 And he sacrificed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.

And The Book of Eukanuba says…

Seriously, David. Referencing your holy books is no different than me referencing my holy books (about Elvis) except I don’t assert that because “it is written” Elvis was god and those who don’t reverence his blue suede shoes must be “cast out.”

According to theists – when their “god” (i.e., the priests who parse and interpret his “word”) say it is!

Thus, it is moral – righteous – to put whole cities to the sword… including women and children and old people… if “the lord, your god” (well, er, his human acolytes) so commands.

The “holy books” of Christianity are full of such.

The difference, Eric, is that your holy book of Elvis isn’t true, and the Bible is. And the thing is, you already know this. Its written on your heart. You’re suppressing it.

And the fact that you “could say the same thing” is irrelevant, since it wouldn’t be true. Romans 1.

Really, David?

Because you believe your book to be true?

Can you prove to me that the Bible is anything more than another book – written by men?

Try to think outside the proverbial box. The Mormons also believe absolutely that an angel named Moroni visited Joseph Smith and instructed him to dig up the “golden plates.” Various “witnesses” claim to have seen the plates.

Do you believe the plates (and the angel Moroni) exist? If not, why are the Mormons’ assertions any less valid than the ones made by you about Jesus?

FFS Eric, you are trying to debate logically with a sanctimonious, confirmation biased halfwit.

You can’t convince someone too stupid to comprehend their stupidity that they are stupid. David is hopless. Do you really miss Clover so much that you need to replace him with this idiot?

I know… I know…

Every day I see proof of God’s existance, Eric. I’ve seen a lot of stuff that is impossible to explain by mere chance.

That said, until you get an epistemology that can actually, rationally account for evidence (let alone morality) you won’t understand it. Romans 1 says you already know. But unless God opens your eyes, you will suppress it. There’s nothing I can do about it. We all know in our hearts that there is a God and that we have transgressed his law.

And as for my view being “loathsome” think for a minute and imagine that I am correct. Do you really think you, a mere mortal who has been around what, 45 years or so, would really have a right to question God who has been around literally forever, is all powerful, all loving, perfectly just, etc? Have you ever read Job? Read what God says when Job questions him.

And really, I don’t care if you respect me or not. The Bible tells me I’ll be persecuted. This is an exceptionally minor form, compared to what godly men in China and North Korea are going through right now. Not going to complain about it.

Just know that God remembers everything. If you are one of God’s elect, you are adding to the sins that Christ had to pay for on the cross. Otherwise, you will pay for them yourself in Hell, which you certainly do not want.

David,

If I said: “Every day I see proof of UFOs’ existence,” would you take that as proof of the existence of UFOs?

Everything you’ve written so far assumes the premise: God exists. Not only that, your god exists.

Prove it.

And persecution? That’s the last thing I’d ever do.

I just don’t agree with you – and regard your certainty about something beyond proof (so far) as slightly unsettling, that’s all.

BTW: “humans” are not allowed to order the destruction of entire cities. Only God himself is, and he isn’t doing that anymore.

Just humans who claim to be taking orders from their invisible friend…

Eric, while I don’t rule out the existance of UFOs, it isn’t written on our hearts that they exist.

On the other hand, the very fact that we have a morality written on our hearts (And one that is NOT consistent with the survival of the fittest that is Darwinism), on the other hand, proves a law-giver.

eric, let me get this straight. You’re celebrating being rid of clover. We can get back to some discussion of politics and powered vehicles. But now I feel like I’m back in high school, marching in an endless Texas parade. You try to focus on one thing but are constantly trying not to step in the non-stop horseshit in front of you. Let me know when we get back to politics and cars and bikes. I gotta go clean my boots and change pants at the very least.

No shit 8.

It’s déjà vu all over again.

I am seriously trying to restrain myself from simply cutting and pasting everything from the ‘Good People 2’ thread from December-January.

In fact, I will;

————————-
Me2
December 28, 2014 at 11:02 am

The problem is that the god-heads are fundamentally dishonest.

Self deluded liars.

What is truly fascinating is how compartmentalized this is. You can watch them behave as a ‘normal’ being in every aspect of logic until religion is the topic. Then, CLICK, all logic and reason lose all meaning to these folks.

Rationalization, claims of superior interpretation, appeals to ignorance and blatant lies (to themselves) dominate all cognitive processes.

This, combined with the pre-filter that their brain employs to keep all counter-argument and counter-evidence out is almost like a kind of schizophrenia. You are not talking to the same person when the topic changes from anything else to religion.

Look how many god questions are left unanswered here by the believers. Valid and rational questions that are ignored or answered with ‘because god’. These idiots can’t grasp that ‘because god’ is as meaningless as, ‘because’ full stop.

———————————————–

And a good one from Bevin in response to 8.

——————–
bevin
December 27, 2014 at 11:23 pm

Dear 8sm,

“One exception after the other, one contradiction after the other, on and on to infinity, round and round but not ever really trying to pin something down is the sure sign of brainwashing on that subject. ”

That’s a good way to put it. The evidence of semi-conscious intellectual evasion starts to pile up. Soon it become obvious that the person is not merely ignorant, but willfully so, and is merely defending a position instead of seeking the truth.

He is essentially saying “Stop it. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

David’s “logic” is like that. It is textbook “circular reasoning.”

A common example of circular reasoning.

This one is so mind-blowingly circular that you’d think it was a straw man. However, most Biblical literalists use the Bible as their main proof of God, and using the Bible as any form of evidence for God must assume the following circular argument.

1, The Bible tells us that it is the word of God.
2. The word of God is infallible.
3. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
4. And as such, the Bible must be the word of God.
5. The word of God is infallible.
6. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
7. And…

——————————————————-

Hey, one more just for David;

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/12/19/good-people-2/
—————————–
Me2
January 7, 2015 at 11:37 am

David,

So the excuse thing too?

It is always the same.

Make ridiculous claims.
Argue based on belief not rational logic.
Ignore all inconsistency and contradiction.
Claim superior understanding and interpretation.
Find some excuse to not back up first claims and ignore all previously demolished augments.

You will be doing this all over again soon, here or elsewhere, having learned nothing.

Seen it too many times to count.

Self deluded liars.

—————————

Rinse, repeat.

No worries guys, I don’t really intend on commenting more. I like a lot of what is posted here, but at the end of the day, I’m not really interested in discussing politics disconnected from theology, and that is what this site is.

So, best of luck to everyone, I will go back to lurking 🙂

eric, I hate to interrupt this clusterfuck, but do you happen to have a favorite fuel-borne top end lubricant for an air cooled engine? I have a new lawn mower, well, let’s just say it’s a mower since I have already cut down every kind of weed, tree, stump, trailer blocks, crossties, electric fence posts, old cowpies, treated lumber, scrap metal and various sorts of wire, sheetmetal, various size chunks of limestone, quarried and broken out with a rock hammer, concrete blocks and concrete slab, water hoses, joints of pvc and fittings, old batteries and a couple pieces of plow….. as well as gohper mounds…….so lawnmower is something this poor machine would dearly love to be if it were sentient(and it may well be…..might be God). But I’ll just refer to it as the “mower”.

It has a 20hp Kohler engine I’d like to keep in once piece but not ” as one piece” so I’m looking for that ultimate top end lubricant or perhaps a better thing would be an octane booster but then an octane booster would also need to address the alcohol problem, the mowers, not mine.

When I bought it they said it would only last if I used Stabil so I bought and have used it. Then I get to thinking, Stabil only keeps fuel from going bad and doesn’t necessarily make bad fuel good. In my part of the world, there is no 100% gasoline to be found.

I intend to help it all i can by changing to synthetic Amsoil for air-cooled 4 strokes when the break-in oil is dirtied.

I once used Marvel Mystery oil back when gasoline was real. But I’d like some views from people who really work hell out of an air-cooled engine with this crap we call fuel.

BTW, my last “mower” engine died from what I would guess as sorry fuel that killed the valves on one piston.

Oh, and everyone treats something as God. For you guys it is probably yourselves as individuals, though perhaps its something else. It is definitely something though. Nobody worships nothing.

David,

C’mon.

I do not regard myself or anyone else (or anything else) as an omnipotent deity who created everything.

Also, liking something, admiring something, enjoying something is not the same thing as worshipping something.

I like Elvis. I don’t consider Elvis god, nor do I worship him.

You’re a bright guy. You can do better than this.

“rightly criminalized.”

Appalling.

You would criminalize voluntary, peaceful, consensual actions that cause no harm to others. Because you disapprove of them. Because some men, long dead, claiming to transmute the “word” of god, so “ordained” it.

In which case, you’ve forfeited any basis for objecting to some asshole control freak demanding a law to punish you for some non-crime on the basis of his personal objections, his feelings.

Your form of religion is fundamentally the same as secular authoritarianism. You merely substitute “god’s word” for Stalin’s.

David,

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be suffering lately. I didn’t say that the bible advocates the death penalty for masturbation, I said that some Christians believe that it does.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=61869

Perhaps this woman is a little over the top, even for you. But, you do state that, “The Bible has death penalties for those who engage in homosexual activity if there are two or more witnesses.”

Note that “Mary” makes the point that masturbation is, by definition, a homosexual act. Following the “logic” of your above statement, it seems she has a point. Please explain why her interpretation of biblical law is less valid than yours. After all, she is one of the “truest Christians ever”.

Also, I don’t “worship” anything or anyone, despite your arrogant assumption otherwise. I love, respect and admire many people, but I do not worship anyone (myself included).

BTW, the Sodomy link you posted above is ridiculous. It is just a series of unfounded assertions, devoid of logical argument.

Finally, if you really would participate in the execution of a couple by reporting “a homosexual act in a nation where such was rightly criminalized”, then you have truly lost your moral center. However, despite your entirely unfounded certainty, I suspect that when you eventually discover that one of your friends or family members is gay, and has engaged in a “homosexual act”, you couldn’t bring yourself to advocate for their death, even if you get your dream and wake up in a nation that “rightly criminalizes” such an act. Because, at heart, I suspect your proper sense of morality would preclude it.

Jeremy

I dunno, Eric. To me it seems downright absurd to compare a genuine non-crime like deciding not to “buckle your kids up for safety” with something as monstrously heinous as homosexuality. But then, that’s my faith talking.

Really, the biggest differences between theonomists and most libertarians is not on law, but on epistemology, and on what we want a nation to be. Libertarians primarily want government (generic term, not necessarily the State) to protect individual rights. Theonomists also want government to protect individual rights, but this isn’t the foundation of a theonomic government. Jesus Christ and his Lordship is.

“monstrously heinous”?

To you, perhaps.

Some Christians also regard oral sex (indeed, any sex not specifically procreative) between married partners (male/female) as “monstrously heinous.”

In any event, it’s not a crime by any sane definition. Because there is no coercion, no victim.

@Jeremy- Landover Baptist Church is a parody sight. Nice try though, lol!

Eric- By what standards should only acts which have “victims be crimes?

What if the God who created the universe commands that things like homosexuality should be?

Uh, because there’s a victim? If there’s not – if you can’t demonstrate that someone (a real person) has been tangibly harmed – how can you possibly characterize whatever it is as a “crime”?

And: Check your premises. You assert there’s a “god of the universe” and that this god “commands” that gays be regarded (and treated) as criminals.

But your assertions and beliefs do not make it so.

David, when you get your redwings come tell me how much you’ve changed. There’s an entire world that you haven’t even conceived of. It ain’t black and white for certain.

David,

Oops, I should have done a little more research. It was not immediately obvious to me that it was a parody site. After all, advocating the death penalty for committing a homosexual act is just as crazy as advocating it for masturbation.

Jeremy

Eightsouthman,

I hope you are not going to tell me its 50 shades of grey. 😉

Although this is from a movie, I think it is an appropriate quote:

You’ll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.

Jeremy-

“Crazy” isn’t the issue. We’re both crazy in today’s society. I don’t mind being crazier though.

But, there’s no Biblical argument for a death penalty for masturbation.

Mithrandir, many times in my life I was sure of something……absolutely sure. Of course it was something I had taken someone’s word for. Verifiable truths are just that, verifiable. Then when you find you’ve been completely wrong all along, it’s a bit humbling, enough so that afterward you ruminate quite a bit more before coming to, what will them be, a tentative conclusion.

That’ s the reason I don’t say I’m an atheist because there’s no way I can be certain. It’s the reason also I don’t debate religion. My mind is open though. If anyone can give me logical reasoning, and most likely that will require some form of mathematics, then I will remain skeptical about virtually everything…….everything.

At some point there is the possibility someone or something could convince me of a god(s)…..but it won’t be by quoting verses from a book. I’m FAIRLY sure of that.

Well-said, Eight.

Your position is mine exactly.

No. You are 100% wrong. It is the act of worship that has no place here at all.

It is a barbaric relic that must not be tolerated. Worship has no place in our techno-scientific world.

Believe as you wish. But any attempts to spread your lies and deceptions here will likely be every bit as humbled as Clover already has been.

[worship (noun)

Old English worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (West Saxon) “condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown,” from weorð “worthy” (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship).

Sense of “reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being” is first recorded in 1300.

The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful “honorable” ]

Thomas Jefferson to take one example, must never be worshipped. Strictly speaking, he had no sacred honor to pledge.

He was born into immense wealth. He was nothing special on his own. His father Peter Jefferson left him a vast inheritance including 150 slaves.

Jeffersons were in the American PTB from the beginning.

The whole mythical notion of America is a pathetic kind of state religious folly. Everybit as pathetic and toxic as your swill you keep peddling.

I think many of us clearly recognize your rampant brain damages. What I don’t think they see, is that having any kind of reverence for “founders” is just as damaging as your ideas of killing complete strangers out of misguided love for Baby Jesus.

The Virginia Company took vast tracts of Early American land by force. They created the Virginia House of Burgesses, to create the kind of stable company town Europeans were used to. The Jeffersons were company men from the beginning.

The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is completely plagarized from the English Declaration of Rights of 1689
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689#Provisions_of_the_Act

Virginia declared independence in the legal system 6 months before the official Declaration of Independence.

Religious institution lies. And state institution lies are one and the same.

The “founders” were no more angels than Henry Ford or John Rockfeller. They were every bit as ruthless and brutal as any industrialist.

They were nothing more nor less than tri-cornered hat wearing Corporate Fucking Shills.”

Their words are no better than the Jingles for McDonalds or CocaCola.

God doesn’t exist in the way you assert. He may not exist at all, but whatever the case is, its a private matter for each individual.

America has always been a corporate enterprise, all the later flowery words and claims to exceptionalism are every bit as false as your insane claims that an invisible sky entity is responsible for everything we have in this world.

No, David.

Learn to use words correctly.

To worship something is not the same thing as to respect or admire something.

By the way: You don’t recognize god, either. You can’t recognize something that does not exist. It is like saying I recognize booga booga.

Bee-lieve in the reality of Crom, of Klingons, of your Abrahamic Sky Stalin all you like. I will not challenge your right to believe in whatever you want to believe. But I will challenge you when you insist your belief is the same thing as knowledge.

You’re a 19-year-old kid who has been fed Jesus Juice since you were a baby. Your belief – which I do not doubt is sincere – is no different than the just-as-fervid belief of the 19-year-old ISIS fighter who cuts off someone’s head for being an “infidel,” because Allah so commands.

I hope you recover your senses before it is too late.

You fill the shoes of the poster-child for the next domestic FBI false flag. All you need is one agent pretending to be god to talk you into everyone becoming David’s Goliath.

What you think are your opinions are actually threats when you say you would kill whole cities if god commanded you to. You are a seriously scary and dangerous slave-puppet.

Terms like ‘puppet’ and ‘slave,’ while not exactly complimentary, express specific concepts, rather than just being generic insults. If you imagine an obligation to bow to another person (or group of people), and pay tribute to him (or them), then you have the mindset of a slave. And if your words and thoughts are basically put into you by a controller, you are acting like a puppet.