Archive for category satire

Evolving Beyond False Prophets…

So I haven’t posted in a few days, I know I’m sorry… But I have been busy trying to get things rolling, especially with the podcast.

I would like to let everyone know that I have been checking out other blogs, including that of Gavin and Yvonne Frost, some of the most informative people on Wicca that there ever will be. Their blog is a treasure trove and I hope to be able to quote some of there teachings here to compare with the work of Scott Cunningham. Also I have been back over at Hezekiah Ahaz’s blog, especially over the last few days, and today it seemed he snapped.

He originally stated that he would not remove any comments made by those that debate him, this is no longer the case as you can see here:

“An amendment.”

2 Comments – Hide Original Post

I don’t block, delete, or moderate comments.However, if you come here and behave like a clown that enjoys leaving clown like comments, you will forfeit your right to be dealt with under the normal rules of my blog. For example, you will have to go dig in the garbage can for your comment. Have fun.

As the arbiter of what happens here, I reserve this right.

Love in Christ,
HA

posted by Hezekiah Ahaz at 10:43 PM on Apr 24, 2012

1 – 2 of 2

Blogger imnotandrei said…
Well, having seen what you consider “clownish” comments, I guess this is farewell, HA — because the comments fit the same patterns that you did on other people’s blogs — repeating questions they feel are gotchas and demanding an answer.April 25, 2012 12:22 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
“Winning…” – Charlie SheenApril 25, 2012 12:41 AM

Now I will admit, in the next few examples I go through a bit of angst, but it is in response to voluntary ignorance and a lack of responsiveness from an Apologetic.

The first post is easily one of the most recognizable arguments, you will notice that there is even a link posted right at the beginning that takes us to a post I put up a while ago about Hezekiah and I arguing over whether truth is relative or not, and you will see he launches right into an attack.

“What is truth?”

14 Comments – Hide Original Post

“33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” 37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38 Pilate *said to Him, “What is truth?””- John 18: 33-38 (NASB).

posted by Hezekiah Ahaz at 1:21 AM on Apr 24, 2012

1 – 14 of 14

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Truth is relative.No debate to follow, instead this link here should be sufficient to fulfill my argument.

April 24, 2012 1:37 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
So is your useless statement.April 24, 2012 1:47 AM

Blogger Whateverman said…
So is your useless statement.Is this showing us love and compassion?

April 24, 2012 2:02 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
With a hammer.April 24, 2012 2:14 PM

Blogger Whateverman said…
So, you’re conceding the point?April 24, 2012 2:17 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
noApril 24, 2012 2:24 PM

Blogger Whateverman said…
Yet showing love and compassion “with a hammer” is something only a psychopath would suggest. There’s no doubt my opinion of you is low, but I think you’re probably NOT a psychopath.As such, suggesting that you show love and compassion with a hammer seems like an admission that you’re not showing love and compassion.

If I’m wrong, please explain.

April 24, 2012 4:02 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Wv,Ever hear of tough love?

April 24, 2012 4:21 PM

Blogger Whateverman said…
Ever hear of tough love?Is tough love ever administered with a hammer?

April 24, 2012 4:26 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
nope usually long bladed knives in his book… and often an attempt at removing the head… but that’s only true love like what you would show a family member.Though I guess back in the day they used stones for hammers and they stoned non-believers, so maybe they were truly showing them compassion and love “with a hammer”

April 24, 2012 4:49 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
ever hear of a metaphor?April 24, 2012 4:49 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Define a metaphor HA.April 24, 2012 6:08 PM

Blogger Whateverman said…
ever hear of a metaphor?Is “with a hammer” a metaphor?

Is “tough love” a metaphor?

Is “love and compassion” a metaphor?

Is any claim you make NOT a metaphor?

April 24, 2012 6:25 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
still waiting on that definition of a metaphor… here’s a link for you to make it easy.Dictionary.com

April 24, 2012 11:00 PM

As you can see although he desires to use the term metaphor to get out of the comment string, he refused to answer it as you can see by the time stamps of the post. This is a sad day for me because I was not expecting to come back and comment on this post originally.

The next post, I did not start and I feel although I was the target of the negative response it was probably due to a lack of true target for Hezekiah to vent on, all I wanted to know was whether JC was a regular man prior to accepting God as his father.

“The man from heaven.”

13 Comments – Hide Original Post

“45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.” 1 Corinthians 15: 45-49 (NASB).

posted by Hezekiah Ahaz at 12:50 AM on Apr 24, 2012

1 – 13 of 13

Blogger Alex B said…
So, given that Jesus was supposedly 100% man and 100% god (so much for the law of non-contradiction, eh?) did he ever get an erection?A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.

If you answer ‘yes’ how do you account for that erection?

If no, the same question stands.

Nide, tell us about whether your god ever got an erection.

April 24, 2012 4:41 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Alex,your comments are about to start making good friends with the trash can. Keep it up.

April 24, 2012 4:48 PM

Blogger Alex B said…
Please respond to my perfectly reasonable question.Given that your god incarnated as 100% man, did he ever have an erection? And if not, why?

April 24, 2012 4:54 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
One more Alex and to the trash can you go. I hope you like it there.April 24, 2012 5:03 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Didn’t JC spend the first 30 some odd years living in sin and rejection of his “father”? I bet it all happened during that time… then again, he did have relations with a prostitute, even as far as washing her feet… so sexy… foot fetish FTW JC!!!April 24, 2012 5:22 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,You’re about to join Alex in the garbage can

April 24, 2012 8:29 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
and this from someone that makes blatantly false claims that they don’t delete others comments.so easy to manipulate.

April 24, 2012 9:25 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,I reserve the right to change the rules.

Especially when dealing with clowns.

April 24, 2012 9:53 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Derik,I reserve the right to change the rules.

Especially when dealing with clowns.

among other things… like socially accepted definitions of words, meanings of statements, your name… hmmm… maybe if you reserve the right to change your claim you should go back and delete those posts. Don’t worry I’m sure either Justin or myself have a copy of them, and we will light a candle in memory of the old you, now that you are showing your true colors.

Your the serpent that conned Adam and Eve aren’t you?

If you would have just came out and told us that, we probably would have idolized you. Maybe even poured molten gold over your body to cast a statue… I know it sounds horrible, but that’s the only way to get true realism in statues.

April 24, 2012 10:15 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik aka the garbage can manApril 24, 2012 10:24 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
You call me a clown and I offer to idolize you and even make a likeness in gold, and you still insult me…Give me a second while I run through a quick Christian checklist.

hmm…

humility? no…
kindness? no…
morality? not sure he understands that one….
honor? doesn’t seem like it…
arrogance? check!
blind faith? check!
acceptance of a book that is mass printed and isn’t any holier than a copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone? Check.
Lack of Understanding of his own message? Check and double check!
Lack of Wit? Check.
Lack of Humor? Triple Check.
Inability to properly engage in a debate? Check.
Multiple Personality Disorder? Starting to believe this is in fact present.

So… Hezekiah, Nide, Trinity, Richard, Yahweh, HeSham, what ever the next name you go by (which I am willing to allow you to use Christ Co. for a modest fee), welcome to the game.

So, HA, have you read the Satanic Bible yet? I would like to move on to a more interesting subject now. Maybe the Book of Nod? How about any of the Wiccan books out there? Maybe a book on Norse, Greek or Roman Mythology?

Do you have any understanding of the history of religion or are you going blind into debates with people of different cultures?

April 24, 2012 11:10 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
No but I def know where the garbage goes.Keep it up.

April 24, 2012 11:16 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
If you don’t understand what other religions believe how do you expect to prove to them that their god(s) or goddess(es) are not real but your god is, if you can’t even name their gods?Not knowing the history of religion is a dangerous game, and it makes you look very childish to attempt to be an authority yet only have a small percentage of the story.

April 24, 2012 11:59 PM

As you see, it quickly evolved into the main string for his decision to change. And then he again admits to voluntary ignorance when asked about his knowledge of polytheism. I am unsure how he can justify denouncing and demeaning polytheism when he doesn’t understand it or the history of religion or religious evolution.

The next post deals with a subject of question for me, I have attempted to enter into dialog with Hezekiah about what he means by god “rewards those that diligently seek him.” when he also states “no-one seeks after god.” So I attempted again to understand his purpose behind these two statements, but again he evaded the question continuously.

“Does anybody seek after God?”

24 Comments – Hide Original Post

“9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11     no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13  “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14      “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15  “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16     in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18      “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”- Romans 3: 9-20(ESV)

posted by Hezekiah Ahaz at 6:18 PM on Apr 23, 2012

1 – 24 of 24

Blogger imnotandrei said…
And how do you reconcile this with Lamentations 3:25 or the other texts Reynold cited?After all, if scripture is free from error, there must be an explanation.

April 23, 2012 6:29 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
There is an explanation:No one seeks after God.

April 23, 2012 6:55 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him. Lamentations 3:25And yet this text speaks of those who seek after him.

*That* is what you need to explain. What you did was just restate your point, which is *not* an explanation.

Come on, HA, this is supposed to be your home turf — Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Surely, you can explain why the verse above doesn’t mean what it says, since that’s what you’re claiming.

April 23, 2012 6:58 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
I don’t see where it says people actually followed him.April 23, 2012 7:19 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. So your claim is that all this “He rewards those that seek him” is redundant, because no one seeks him? Then why is this here? To fill up space?

April 23, 2012 7:37 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Like I said you need to get saved first.April 23, 2012 7:41 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
Like I said you need to get saved first.So your book makes no sense unless you already believe in it? That’s a really useful book you’ve got there.

Come on, HA, if you’re going to claim this book as more valid a source than reality, you’ve got to be able to defend and explain it a bit better than that, don’t you think?

April 23, 2012 7:45 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Steve,You mean “reality” right?

April 23, 2012 7:58 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
You mean “reality” right?I meant what I typed. Answer it, or leave it there as a sign of your defeat on the grounds you *should* know better than I do — indeed, that you insist I’m not even eligible to be on.

April 23, 2012 8:12 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
With the sloppy reading you are doing you’ll never get anywhere.April 23, 2012 8:20 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
With the sloppy reading you are doing you’ll never get anywhere.Not an answer to the question. Try again.

April 23, 2012 8:35 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Steve,No answer will be giving.

April 23, 2012 8:41 PM

Blogger Reynold said…
Hezekiah, you’re just ignoring the fact that there are verses in the bible that contradict what the verses that you cite claim.You are the one who is doing sloppy, or at least dishonest reading.

April 23, 2012 9:13 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Reynold,If you were honest, you would deal with the text fairly instead of picking verses that suit your agenda.

April 23, 2012 9:47 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
Steve,No answer will be giving.

1) “will be giving”? Is English your native language? It’s OK if it isn’t, but I do want to know.

2) Why not? Can’t you defend your claims?
Isn’t it embarassing to have someone who doesn’t share your belief pointing out how weak your hermeneutical understanding is?

April 23, 2012 10:12 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Ohhhhhh good eye Steve.No answer will be given.

The thing is there’s no point in discussing scripture with you.

If you were honestly seeking, I would but it seems that’s not the case.

April 23, 2012 10:23 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
The thing is there’s no point in discussing scripture with you.If you were honestly seeking, I would but it seems that’s not the case

So, in other words, you value the word of the Bible over reality.

You won’t discuss scripture with anyone who isn’t seeking to join your faith.

So you won’t discuss the root of your worldview, and yet you claim to be able to prove things with it?

Good luck with that one.

April 23, 2012 11:59 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
You don’t know what reality is.April 24, 2012 12:39 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
HA do you live in a computer game?April 24, 2012 1:35 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
I don’t knowApril 24, 2012 1:49 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
So HA,define the difference between “seeking him” and “seeking after him”

April 24, 2012 6:24 PM

Blogger Reynold said…
Hezekiah Ahaz, showing his hypocrisy
Reynold,If you were honest, you would deal with the text fairly instead of picking verses that suit your agenda.
I can throw that right back at him. He has yet to justify why there are verses that both support his view and verses that shoot his view down.And it looks like evolutionofskeptticism has caught HA out on his contradictory stance here.

April 24, 2012 7:31 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Reynold,I thought we agreed to end it.

April 24, 2012 8:28 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
So I guess HA can’t define the difference between “seeking him” and “seeking after him”.This saddens me.

April 24, 2012 10:19 PM

This never was answered… oh well, I know what I believed him to mean and it would have been an easy answer… sadly in Hezekiah’s world there are no easy answers.

The next series of comments was probably the nail in the coffin so to speak, I figure this is where he truly snapped and lost his sensibility. I was trying to get him to clarify two statements he made, one was that you were to “…not resist evil but instead turn the other cheek.” and then, his next response to me stated that he should “resist the devil” which he classifies as evil. My inquiries fell on deaf ears and received no answers instead only attempts at insult, poor attempts at insult, but still attempts.

“Why did God destroy the Canaanites?”

55 Comments – Hide Original Post

18 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. 3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. 4 You shall follow my rules[a] and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God. 5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. 6 “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, brought up in your father’s family, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s relative. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s relative. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
19 “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. 20 And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. 21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them[b] to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. 24 “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), 28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God” Leviticus 18 (ESV) link“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering,[e] anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, 14 for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this.” Deuteronomy 18 9:14 (ESV)link

posted by Hezekiah Ahaz at 7:09 PM on Apr 23, 2012

1 – 55 of 55

Blogger imnotandrei said…
And what about the Midianites?”The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.” ”

This resulted in everyone but virgin women being killed, according to your book.

And what justified this genocide?

(Not to mention, you do realize the irony of you quoting Tanakh law, since I doubt you follow much of it.)

Oh, and while we’re at it: it’s OK if God tells you to sacrifice your son with a knife, and you’re to do it, but burning is right out?

(Not to mention — using Tarot cards is justification for genocide? Really? Because that what you’re saying here. And you know what? That proves my earlier point, regarding what this language can be used to justify. You’re justifying genocide for fortune-telling, HA. Think about that for a moment.)

April 23, 2012 7:46 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“(Not to mention, you do realize the irony of you quoting Tanakh law, since I doubt you follow much of it.)”Who said I had to follow?

“Oh, and while we’re at it: it’s OK if God tells you to sacrifice your son with a knife, and you’re to do it, but burning is right out?”

What?

“(Not to mention — using Tarot cards is justification for genocide? Really? Because that what you’re saying here. And you know what? That proves my earlier point, regarding what this language can be used to justify. You’re justifying genocide for fortune-telling, HA. Think about that for a moment.)”

Are you really this ignorant and hard headed?

April 23, 2012 7:57 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
Who said I had to follow?Oh, that’s right — I forgot. Your heretic claimed-messiah said you didn’t have to follow that law — but you can still quote it at people to say they’re doing wrong.

What?

Should Abraham have told God to fuck off and not prepared to sacrifice Isaac?

Are you really this ignorant and hard headed?

Do you have a point, or just insults? Answer the question.

April 23, 2012 8:15 PM

Blogger Justin Hall said…
If I had been Abraham I would have told god to go get stuffed:)April 23, 2012 8:33 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Steve,We preach Christ crucified not a useles system of ethics and morals.

When you clean your language up maybe I’ll answer your Abraham question. Grow up.

April 23, 2012 8:44 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…

Steve,
We preach Christ crucified not a useles system of ethics and morals.

You do realize that the system I’m referring to is the laws given to the Jews in the first part of your Bible, yes? Including the Decalogue? That’s what you’re calling “useless” here.

When you clean your language up maybe I’ll answer your Abraham question. Grow up.

If you answer the question, I’ll keep my language clean. If not, then not.

So:
Should Abraham have refused God and not prepared to sacrifice Isaac?

April 23, 2012 10:11 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“You do realize that the system I’m referring to is the laws given to the Jews in the first part of your Bible, yes? Including the Decalogue? That’s what you’re calling “useless” here.”No, the law of God is Good. However, pay attention,
where a law comes that means there is trouble. The law of God came to convict not for people to follow.

Abraham was a God fearing man. Whatever God does is Good.

April 23, 2012 10:41 PM

Blogger Whateverman said…
Who said I had to follow?The Bible:

— Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”

April 23, 2012 11:01 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
If the law makes anybody righteous, Jesus Christ died in vain.April 23, 2012 11:31 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
No, the law of God is Good. However, pay attention,
where a law comes that means there is trouble. The law of God came to convict not for people to follow. 
This makes no sense. You make it sound as if your God established laws in order to be able to punish people.

Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?

Abraham was a God fearing man. Whatever God does is Good.

Including genocide?

Because I know lots of people claim to know the will of God — many of whom would consider you, HA, a blasphemer or a heretic.

And there’s no way for anyone to know the will of God (since, after all, you have to accept some subset of his alleged word on faith before you can understand it) except by “faith” — a.k.a. guessing and hoping.

April 23, 2012 11:53 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
If the law makes anybody righteous, Jesus Christ died in vain.Could be, indeed, that that’s true. Certainly, a whole lot of Jews believe it, with as much faith as you probably have.

April 23, 2012 11:54 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“This makes no sense. You make it sound as if your God established laws in order to be able to punish people.
Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?”Whoever has ears let him hear. The law came to drive people to Christ.

“Including genocide?”

A fallaciously complex question.

“Because I know lots of people claim to know the will of God — many of whom would consider you, HA, a blasphemer or a heretic.”

The wind blows and nobody knows where it comes from or where it goes. Likewise are those that are born of the spirit.

“And there’s no way for anyone to know the will of God (since, after all, you have to accept some subset of his alleged word on faith before you can understand it) except by “faith” — a.k.a. guessing and hoping.”

The will of God is to believe on him who he has sent. Whoever has ears let him hear.

“Could be, indeed, that that’s true. Certainly, a whole lot of Jews believe it, with as much faith as you probably have.”

The light shines in the darkness but the darkness did not comprehend it.

April 24, 2012 12:37 AM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
“This makes no sense. You make it sound as if your God established laws in order to be able to punish people.
Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?”
Whoever has ears let him hear. The law came to drive people to Christ.

Oh, I’d *love* to see the citation for that one.
So, in other words, laws, that people violate, are created to drive people to someone sent to forgive them for their violations.

Wow. Talk about a really screwed-up way of doing things. I’m impressed.

“Including genocide?”

A fallaciously complex question.

Nompe. You said “Anything God does is good.” I gave a specific example of a thing, and asked if that was good. That’s not complex at all.

“Because I know lots of people claim to know the will of God — many of whom would consider you, HA, a blasphemer or a heretic.”

The wind blows and nobody knows where it comes from or where it goes. Likewise are those that are born of the spirit.

As usual, a vague and meaningless answer.

“And there’s no way for anyone to know the will of God (since, after all, you have to accept some subset of his alleged word on faith before you can understand it) except by “faith” — a.k.a. guessing and hoping.”

The will of God is to believe on him who he has sent. Whoever has ears let him hear.

And many people believe they’ve heard something, and the result has often been war, death, ruination, and genocide.

Helpful will your deity has there.

“Could be, indeed, that that’s true. Certainly, a whole lot of Jews believe it, with as much faith as you probably have.”

The light shines in the darkness but the darkness did not comprehend it.

Then the light was doing a pretty poor job of explaining itself. For an allegedly omnipotent deity your god has a lot of communication issues.

April 24, 2012 12:51 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
HA, I have a few questions for you.Do you kill non-believers?

or Homosexuals?

Do you stone Wiccan’s?

Do you advocate killing children due to them believing in the tooth fairy?

Do you advocate the destruction of the country of Sweden or China maybe even Japan?

Would you kill your child if they told you they did not believe in your god?

Would you willingly die if your son/daughter was known to not worship your god?

April 24, 2012 1:03 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“Oh, I’d *love* to see the citation for that one.
So, in other words, laws, that people violate, are created to drive people to someone sent to forgive them for their violations.Wow. Talk about a really screwed-up way of doing things. I’m impressed.”I thought you said you have read the bible
or Is this another display of your ignorance?

“Nompe. You said “Anything God does is good.” I gave a specific example of a thing, and asked if that was good. That’s not complex at all.”

How long must God put up with the wicked?

“And many people believe they’ve heard something, and the result has often been war, death, ruination, and genocide.”

What’s your point?

“Then the light was doing a pretty poor job of explaining itself. For an allegedly omnipotent deity your god has a lot of communication issues.”

They saw the wonders and miracles.

April 24, 2012 1:04 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,No to all.

April 24, 2012 1:06 AM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
“Oh, I’d *love* to see the citation for that one.
So, in other words, laws, that people violate, are created to drive people to someone sent to forgive them for their violations.Wow. Talk about a really screwed-up way of doing things. I’m impressed.”
I thought you said you have read the bible
or Is this another display of your ignorance?

1) “read” and “have memorized” are two different things.
2) In the Jewish tradition, laws are there to be followed — and, of course, it’s worth noting that Gentiles don’t have to follow all of them — not as part of some scheme to drive people to needing forgiveness. There’s an entirely different approach to the expiation of sin.

“Nompe. You said “Anything God does is good.” I gave a specific example of a thing, and asked if that was good. That’s not complex at all.”

How long must God put up with the wicked?

Well, considering your god predestined them to be that way, allegedly, and is infinitely benevolent, forever.

But that’s a sidetrack. I asked for a specific thing.

If God orders a genocide, is it good?

“And many people believe they’ve heard something, and the result has often been war, death, ruination, and genocide.”

What’s your point?

That many people believe they’ve “heard” — and that’s the result. You keep quoting things that can be used (as I said elsewhere) to justify terrible actions — and there’s no way for someone who’s outside the heads of the person claiming it to determine who’s wrong and who’s right. Why should I believe you any more than Rowan Atkinson, Joseph Ratzinger, or Menachem Mendel Schneerson?

“Then the light was doing a pretty poor job of explaining itself. For an allegedly omnipotent deity your god has a lot of communication issues.”

They saw the wonders and miracles.

Like the parting of the Red Sea and the maintaining of the Jews in Sinai? Of course, those were before that heretic came along and started claiming things.

Any time you cite miracles, other people can cite their own, HA.

Why don’t you just accept that you have faith, others don’t, and you can’t force them to accept your word, or accept your alleged “proof”?

That you and they can each go their own way without the need to insult the other?

April 24, 2012 1:15 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
But HA your book advocates all of those actions. Why do you not follow the will of your god?April 24, 2012 1:17 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,Times change.

April 24, 2012 1:26 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
But your book and the will of your god does not, or has someone come forward with the new will of your god?To segregate and separate yourself from others within your society is not to far from the step of killing. Native American reservations, interment camps for the Japanese, Labor camps for the Jews — these are all examples of segregation turning into killing.

Please provide evidence that God said “because times are different in the 21st century you should not follow these orders from your God” or something similar, because I am finding all kinds of passages that say you should be attempting to kill Steve rather than debate with him.

April 24, 2012 1:34 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“1) “read” and “have memorized” are two different things.
2) In the Jewish tradition, laws are there to be followed — and, of course, it’s worth noting that Gentiles don’t have to follow all of them — not as part of some scheme to drive people to needing forgiveness. There’s an entirely different approach to the expiation of sin.”It would behoove you to re-read Leviticus.

“Well, considering your god predestined them to be that way, allegedly, and is infinitely benevolent, forever.
But that’s a sidetrack. I asked for a specific thing.
If God orders a genocide, is it good?”

More ignorant statements. Yes, it’s good that god orders extremely wicked people to be exterminated

Is war just Steve?

“That many people believe they’ve “heard” — and that’s the result. You keep quoting things that can be used (as I said elsewhere) to justify terrible actions — and there’s no way for someone who’s outside the heads of the person claiming it to determine who’s wrong and who’s right. Why should I believe you any more than Rowan Atkinson, Joseph Ratzinger, or Menachem Mendel Schneerson?”

Well, there are 66 books.

“Like the parting of the Red Sea and the maintaining of the Jews in Sinai? Of course, those were before that heretic came along and started claiming things.
Any time you cite miracles, other people can cite their own, HA. Why don’t you just accept that you have faith, others don’t, and you can’t force them to accept your word, or accept your alleged “proof”?
That you and they can each go their own way without the need to insult the other?”

I’m not trying to force anyone to do anything.
But for a person that can’t for what he says, those are some interesting words.

April 24, 2012 1:45 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,Jesus Christ crucified that’s where I start.

April 24, 2012 1:51 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Is war just?Only if it is in direct support of capitalism. per the new teachings of Christ Co.

April 24, 2012 1:54 AM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
“1) “read” and “have memorized” are two different things.
2) In the Jewish tradition, laws are there to be followed — and, of course, it’s worth noting that Gentiles don’t have to follow all of them — not as part of some scheme to drive people to needing forgiveness. There’s an entirely different approach to the expiation of sin.”
It would behoove you to re-read Leviticus.

Citation, please. Because that fits my understanding of the Law, from Leviticus and the Talmud.

But that’s a sidetrack. I asked for a specific thing.
If God orders a genocide, is it good?”

More ignorant statements. Yes, it’s good that god orders extremely wicked people to be exterminated

Like all the infant male children, who deserved extermination why?

Is war just Steve?

It can be. It can be unjust.

” Why should I believe you any more than Rowan Atkinson, Joseph Ratzinger, or Menachem Mendel Schneerson?”

Well, there are 66 books.

Only from some people’s POV. But why should I believe you and not Atkinson, for example?

That you and they can each go their own way without the need to insult the other?”

I’m not trying to force anyone to do anything.

Then why do you claim a “proof” of God’s existence? And why do you pester people with your claims?

But for a person that can’t for what he says, those are some interesting words.

I’m going to presume you left out your favorite word “account” there.

And I can account for what I say — just not in a way *you* find satisfying. Which is not my problem.

I’m not trying to disprove your God. I’ve been here asserting your proof was invalid, that’s all.

April 24, 2012 1:55 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
but HA, you quote passages from prior to his death or even his involvement in the religion. Which is it? before or after?April 24, 2012 1:55 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“Citation, please. Because that fits my understanding of the Law, from Leviticus and the Talmud.”That all pointed to Christ. That’s what you need to be concerned with.

“Like all the infant male children, who deserved extermination why?”

Steve what do you think man’s worth is?

“Only from some people’s POV. But why should I believe you and not Atkinson, for example?”

I don’t even know who the guy is but what did he say ?

“Then why do you claim a “proof” of God’s existence? And why do you pester people with your claims?”

You keep coming back. You must like being pestered.

“I’m not trying to disprove your God. I’ve been here asserting your proof was invalid, that’s all.”

Well, you could be merely imagining that it’s invalid.

Steve you’ve pulled the rug from under your own feet with the admissions you have made here.

Glad those aren’t my problems.

April 24, 2012 2:18 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,I don’t understand your question.

April 24, 2012 2:19 AM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
“Citation, please. Because that fits my understanding of the Law, from Leviticus and the Talmud.”That all pointed to Christ. That’s what you need to be concerned with.

According to you. Who I have no reason to trust. Talmudic scholars dismiss the claims of the Christian messiah. What makes you think you’re right and they’re wrong?

“Like all the infant male children, who deserved extermination why?”

Steve what do you think man’s worth is?

I fail to see what this has to do with the question. Were the infant male children wicked?

“Only from some people’s POV. But why should I believe you and not Atkinson, for example?”

I don’t even know who the guy is but what did he say ?

He’s the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and he has very different notions about the Christian faith than you do.

“Then why do you claim a “proof” of God’s existence? And why do you pester people with your claims?”

You keep coming back. You must like being pestered.

Actually, I came here first because you intervened on a different blog. And kept popping up again on other people’s blogs. So I decided to take the fight to you.

“I’m not trying to disprove your God. I’ve been here asserting your proof was invalid, that’s all.”

Well, you could be merely imagining that it’s invalid.

And you could be imagining it’s valid. We’ve been down this road before.

Steve you’ve pulled the rug from under your own feet with the admissions you have made here. 

What admissions? I’m not the one who’s admitted they don’t know if they’re in a video game, that the Bible is more important to them than reality, and that their holy book is not understandable unless you already believe in it.

Glad those aren’t my problems.

Oh, you’ve got quite enough problems. ;)

April 24, 2012 2:34 AM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
My question is, do you denounce the old testament as a whole because you say you start with the crucifixion of JC?By the way, this seems kind of like an oxymoron to me, because wasn’t JC’s point prior to the crucifixion spent advocating the old testament?

So, here’s the original point. There are passages that provide bible evidence that you should be performing those actions, which means that if you are not, you do not fall within the commandments of your god which you claim cannot perform evil, which means these actions should be considered good to you.

now, if you do follow them, you’re a murderer and a sociopath.

which is it? false advocate of a religion or sociopath?

April 24, 2012 10:21 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,Remember how it was said tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye. Now it’s don’t resist evil but turn the other cheek

April 24, 2012 10:32 AM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“According to you. Who I have no reason to trust. Talmudic scholars dismiss the claims of the Christian messiah. What makes you think you’re right and they’re wrong?”Because Christ Said they were wrong. Why should I believe them over Christ?

“I fail to see what this has to do with the question. Were the infant male children wicked?”

Well, they couldn’t have done anything wicked at least at that stage. However, they would most likely turn out like the rest of the land. The thing that you are failing to get is that God was extremely patient with those people. This didn’t happen over night.

If the town next to you was populated by serial killers, how long do you think the authorities should wait to intervene?

“Actually, I came here first because you intervened on a different blog. And kept popping up again on other people’s blogs. So I decided to take the fight to you.”

This was never a fight. You lost before we even got started.

“What admissions? I’m not the one who’s admitted they don’t know if they’re in a video game, that the Bible is more important to them than reality, and that their holy book is not understandable unless you already believe in it.”

1. funny questions get funny answers.

2. You don’t know what reality is. Quit using the word it’s embarrasing.

3. No, the book is understandable. This is just more manufacturing by you.

Steve you are seriously a foolish individual.

April 24, 2012 12:17 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
“According to you. Who I have no reason to trust. Talmudic scholars dismiss the claims of the Christian messiah. What makes you think you’re right and they’re wrong?”Because Christ Said they were wrong. Why should I believe them over Christ?

Perhaps they’re both wrong. ;)

You’ve made my point for me — there’s no reason to believe either of them over the other, except if you already *do* believe one of them over the other.

Which renders your entire claims of proof, and your apologetic method, worthless.

“I fail to see what this has to do with the question. Were the infant male children wicked?”

Well, they couldn’t have done anything wicked at least at that stage. However, they would most likely turn out like the rest of the land.

Ah. So, say, raising them in the true faith wouldn’t have been enough?

And for that matter, why are infant *boys* deserving of death, while it requires having had sex for a woman to become deserving of death?

The thing that you are failing to get is that God was extremely patient with those people. This didn’t happen over night.

If the town next to you was populated by serial killers, how long do you think the authorities should wait to intervene?

1) Your “town populated by serial killers” is, as usual, a straw-man.
2) Until he figured out a better way to intervene than obliterating all of one gender, and all of the other gender who’d ever had sex.

“Actually, I came here first because you intervened on a different blog. And kept popping up again on other people’s blogs. So I decided to take the fight to you.”

This was never a fight. You lost before we even got started.

You are free to believe that. You are wrong, but you’re free to believe that.

“What admissions? I’m not the one who’s admitted they don’t know if they’re in a video game, that the Bible is more important to them than reality, and that their holy book is not understandable unless you already believe in it.”

1. funny questions get funny answers.

I didn’t ask a question. I made a statement, which you claimed to rebut. This is my response.

2. You don’t know what reality is. Quit using the word it’s embarrasing.

I know what reality is to me.

3. No, the book is understandable. This is just more manufacturing by you.

You’re the one who refuses to explain apparent contradictions in it, saying “you have to be saved” to get it.

You admitted it. Cope.

Steve you are seriously a foolish individual.

Considering what you consider “rational”, this is almost a compliment.

April 24, 2012 1:55 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
So HA,Where does tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye come into play with the question?

also if you don’t resist evil you accept evil into your heart, meaning that you should be willing to perform evil deeds without question.

And I love that you said turn the other cheek, there is a reference to that exact term in the podcast that will be going up on my blog later today.

So, from the description of “turn the other cheek” that was given on the podcast, you accept evil into your heart and want it to slap you like a man or equal… sounds… kinky… or maybe even a little homoerotic.

April 24, 2012 3:49 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“Perhaps they’re both wrong. ;)
You’ve made my point for me — there’s no reason to believe either of them over the other, except if you already *do* believe one of them over the other.”But this is what I have been saying all along. You are happy with everybody being wrong. You destroy the possibilty of knowledge. On your “grounds” we can’t account and hence know anything. Your position is extremely foolish.

“Ah. So, say, raising them in the true faith wouldn’t have been enough?”

That’s if they made it to that stage. Remember they were sacrificing their children.

“And for that matter, why are infant *boys* deserving of death, while it requires having had sex for a woman to become deserving of death?”

Actually, some people think they are. I am assuming you are not one of those people.

“1) Your “town populated by serial killers” is, as usual, a straw-man.”

No, it’s not. It is actually a good question. Why won’t you answer it?

“2) Until he figured out a better way to intervene than obliterating all of one gender, and all of the other gender who’d ever had sex.”

But how do you know that wasn’t the best way?

“You are free to believe that. You are wrong, but you’re free to believe that.”

How am I not imagining this?

“I didn’t ask a question. I made a statement, which you claimed to rebut. This is my response”

I did rebut it. Funny questions get funny answers.

“I know what reality is to me.”

You sure Steve you do believe we all could be wrong?

“know” and “reality” mean zero in your world.

“You’re the one who refuses to explain apparent contradictions in it, saying “you have to be saved” to get it. You admitted it. Cope.”

You’re unwilling to do the work.

“Considering what you consider “rational”, this is almost a compliment.”

Rational? hhahahah

April 24, 2012 4:14 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“Where does tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye come into play with the question?”Because I am under no obligation to go witch hunting.

“also if you don’t resist evil you accept evil into your heart, meaning that you should be willing to perform evil deeds without question.”

Actually, it says to resist the devil and he will flee.

“And I love that you said turn the other cheek, there is a reference to that exact term in the podcast that will be going up on my blog later today. So, from the description of “turn the other cheek” that was given on the podcast, you accept evil into your heart and want it to slap you like a man or equal… sounds… kinky… or maybe even a little homoerotic.”

Derik why should I take you seriously?

April 24, 2012 4:18 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
“Perhaps they’re both wrong. ;)
You’ve made my point for me — there’s no reason to believe either of them over the other, except if you already *do* believe one of them over the other.”
But this is what I have been saying all along. You are happy with everybody being wrong. You destroy the possibilty of knowledge. On your “grounds” we can’t account and hence know anything. Your position is extremely foolish.

I do not accept the possibility of “certainty beyond any possible doubt.” You’re the one who equates that with “knowledge”, HA, and that’s your problem.

I can say “I know the sun will rise in the east tomorrow” without having to attach a huge list of caveats to it, because I am sufficiently certain. You’re the one, as I said at the very beginning, who needs absolute certainty to feel they know anything. You and apparently Van Til, leaving you both ripe for delusion.

“Ah. So, say, raising them in the true faith wouldn’t have been enough?”

That’s if they made it to that stage. Remember they were sacrificing their children.

And you just failed comprehension 101. We’re talking about the infants being slaughtered by God’s command.

I proposed: “Why kill them all? Take the infants and raise them.” And you come back with “Remember, their parents were sacrificing them.”

Their parents are already *dead* in this model, HA, remember? Try to pay attention to a line of reasoning.

“And for that matter, why are infant *boys* deserving of death, while it requires having had sex for a woman to become deserving of death?”

Actually, some people think they are. I am assuming you are not one of those people.

Your God was the one who established that — look again. That’s not my judgment or opinion, that’s what you claim to be your infallibly moral God’s.

“1) Your “town populated by serial killers” is, as usual, a straw-man.”

No, it’s not. It is actually a good question. Why won’t you answer it?

Because I don’t believe in the possibility of infant serial killers?

Because I don’t believe such a town could exist, but would have ripped itself apart?

That’s why I call it a straw man. You mean “A town in which human sacrifice was permitted”, which is not the same thing.

“2) Until he figured out a better way to intervene than obliterating all of one gender, and all of the other gender who’d ever had sex.”

But how do you know that wasn’t the best way?

This is why people object to your so-called god being the source of morality. Because in theory, we can’t know, but we can’t know what your so-called god is telling us except by guesswork and hoping we’re right. That’s not a valid source to base a moral code on.

“I know what reality is to me.”

You sure Steve you do believe we all could be wrong?

“know” and “reality” mean zero in your world.

And here’s your binary thinking striking again. “Not being 100% certain” is the same as “Being 0% certain.”

Perhaps to you, HA, but not to people who try and inhabit the real world.

“You’re the one who refuses to explain apparent contradictions in it, saying “you have to be saved” to get it. You admitted it. Cope.”

You’re unwilling to do the work.

The only “work” you ever offer, when someone asks for explanation, is “get saved”. That’s what I was saying.

“Considering what you consider “rational”, this is almost a compliment.”

Rational? hhahahah

Exactly. If you’re rational, being irrational is a good thing.

April 24, 2012 4:31 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
“Where does tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye come into play with the question?”Because I am under no obligation to go witch hunting.

Unless you know that they are a witch or non-believer. No those passages do not tell you to go out and hunt them down, but it does tell you that you must destroy them and take away their life. Did you believe in the tooth fairy when you were a kid HA? or maybe the Easter bunny?

“also if you don’t resist evil you accept evil into your heart, meaning that you should be willing to perform evil deeds without question.”

Actually, it says to resist the devil and he will flee.

But you said “…Now it’s don’t resist evil but turn the other cheek”

So which is it? don’t resist or resist? you have contradicted yourself. Wait I thought you said contradictions don’t exist. Seems to me you are a walking contradiction.

“And I love that you said turn the other cheek, there is a reference to that exact term in the podcast that will be going up on my blog later today. So, from the description of “turn the other cheek” that was given on the podcast, you accept evil into your heart and want it to slap you like a man or equal… sounds… kinky… or maybe even a little homoerotic.”

Derik why should I take you seriously?

I’m not sure why you should take me seriously… I haven’t taken you seriously since day one. This has all been a psychological experiment on my part… partial results will follow when the podcast goes up on Youtube

April 24, 2012 4:43 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“I do not accept the possibility of “certainty beyond any possible doubt.” You’re the one who equates that with “knowledge”, HA, and that’s your problem.I can say “I know the sun will rise in the east tomorrow” without having to attach a huge list of caveats to it, because I am sufficiently certain. You’re the one, as I said at the very beginning, who needs absolute certainty to feel they know anything. You and apparently Van Til, leaving you both ripe for delusion.”Steve are you certain that we can’t be certain?

“Their parents are already *dead* in this model, HA, remember? Try to pay attention to a line of reasoning.”

Remember not to mix.

“Your God was the one who established that — look again. That’s not my judgment or opinion, that’s what you claim to be your infallibly moral God’s.”

established what?

“Because I don’t believe in the possibility of infant serial killers? Because I don’t believe such a town could exist, but would have ripped itself apart?
That’s why I call it a straw man. You mean “A town in which human sacrifice was permitted”, which is not the same thing.”

But when did I ever say any of this?

“Perhaps to you, HA, but not to people who try and inhabit the real world.”

No comment.

“The only “work” you ever offer, when someone asks for explanation, is “get saved”. That’s what I was saying.”

You do need to get saved. But My point is you are not willing to have an honest discussion about it.

“This is why people object to your so-called god being the source of morality. Because in theory, we can’t know, but we can’t know what your so-called god is telling us except by guesswork and hoping we’re right. That’s not a valid source to base a moral code on.”

Can you be wrong Steve?

“Exactly. If you’re rational, being irrational is a good thing.”

You know this one is going up.

April 24, 2012 5:00 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“I’m not sure why you should take me seriously… I haven’t taken you seriously since day one. This has all been a psychological experiment on my part… partial results will follow when the podcast goes up on Youtube”The problem is not merely psychological.

April 24, 2012 5:01 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Ok, if you’re admitting you have a problem, and it’s more than just psychological, maybe you should let us know what we’re dealing with… don’t want to touch on a sensitive subject… though since you get so bent out of shape when we reference sexuality, maybe you’re hiding something from even your god? honesty is the best policy and from what you tell us he already knows, maybe you should just admit it.So, direct question, probably not a direct answer but I will try.

Are you in the closet?

April 24, 2012 5:13 PM

Blogger imnotandrei said…
Steve are you certain that we can’t be certain?I’m as certain as I need to be. I had this discussion with Sye, a long time ago, and I’m sure with you as well — we’re using two different definitions, more or less, of “certain.”

I mean “Workably certain.” (Call it C1) You mean “Certain beyond any possibility of doubt”. (Call it C2)

I am C1 that C2 is not possible. Asking me “Are you C2 that C2 is not possible?” Will be met with “No, I’m C1.”

“Their parents are already *dead* in this model, HA, remember? Try to pay attention to a line of reasoning.”

Remember not to mix.

I didn’t; your confusion is your problem.

“Your God was the one who established that — look again. That’s not my judgment or opinion, that’s what you claim to be your infallibly moral God’s.”

established what?

And here we go — you can’t scroll back to read it, so unless I copy all of your words, and add mine back in, you play the idiot.

Your god established the “Kill all the males, and all women who have not had sex with men” rule. I don’t need to “justify” or “explain” it — you do.

“Because I don’t believe in the possibility of infant serial killers? Because I don’t believe such a town could exist, but would have ripped itself apart?
That’s why I call it a straw man. You mean “A town in which human sacrifice was permitted”, which is not the same thing.”

But when did I ever say any of this?

You said “A town of serial killers.” I don’t believe such a town could exist, and it’s not relevant to the point of a town of the sort the Israelites were told to destroy.

You don’t get to play “thought experiment” games any more, HA, since you showed long ago you can’t tell the difference between someone else’s thought experiment and their actual thoughts.

“The only “work” you ever offer, when someone asks for explanation, is “get saved”. That’s what I was saying.”

You do need to get saved. But My point is you are not willing to have an honest discussion about it.

I asked a question — what do you need to validate an “honest discussion.” I didn’t say “You can’t do this.” I said “How do you do this?”

“This is why people object to your so-called god being the source of morality. Because in theory, we can’t know, but we can’t know what your so-called god is telling us except by guesswork and hoping we’re right. That’s not a valid source to base a moral code on.”

Can you be wrong Steve?

Yes. And so can you. And so can everyone.

“Exactly. If you’re rational, being irrational is a good thing.”

You know this one is going up.

Well, it fits with your ‘choose what you want to believe, and then cherry-pick your text to match it” approach to life.

April 24, 2012 5:23 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“Are you in the closet?”I don’t go into closets

April 24, 2012 8:21 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“I’m as certain as I need to be. I had this discussion with Sye, a long time ago, and I’m sure with you as well — we’re using two different definitions, more or less, of “certain.”A classic evasion.

“Your god established the “Kill all the males, and all women who have not had sex with men” rule. I don’t need to “justify” or “explain” it — you do”

Wasn’t it the other way around?

You said “A town of serial killers.” I don’t believe such a town could exist, and it’s not relevant to the point of a town of the sort the Israelites were told to destroy.You don’t get to play “thought experiment” games any more, HA, since you showed long ago you can’t tell the difference between someone else’s thought experiment and their actual thoughts.”

remember steve you could be wrong.

“Yes. And so can you. And so can everyone.”

That’s an absurdity.

Consider this one over Steve.

April 24, 2012 8:27 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Repost since you chose to evade these questions in lieu of an attempt at an insult.”Because I am under no obligation to go witch hunting.”

Unless you know that they are a witch or non-believer. No those passages do not tell you to go out and hunt them down, but it does tell you that you must destroy them and take away their life. Did you believe in the tooth fairy when you were a kid HA? or maybe the Easter bunny?

“also if you don’t resist evil you accept evil into your heart, meaning that you should be willing to perform evil deeds without question.”

Actually, it says to resist the devil and he will flee.

But you said “…Now it’s don’t resist evil but turn the other cheek”

So which is it? don’t resist or resist? you have contradicted yourself. Wait I thought you said contradictions don’t exist. Seems to me you are a walking contradiction.

“And I love that you said turn the other cheek, there is a reference to that exact term in the podcast that will be going up on my blog later today. So, from the description of “turn the other cheek” that was given on the podcast, you accept evil into your heart and want it to slap you like a man or equal… sounds… kinky… or maybe even a little homoerotic.”

April 24, 2012 10:11 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,You like garbage cans?

April 24, 2012 10:21 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
answer the questions HA.Unless you know that they are a witch or non-believer. No those passages do not tell you to go out and hunt them down, but it does tell you that you must destroy them and take away their life. Did you believe in the tooth fairy when you were a kid HA? or maybe the Easter bunny?

So which is it? don’t resist or resist? you have contradicted yourself. Wait I thought you said contradictions don’t exist. Seems to me you are a walking contradiction.

You throw insults at anyone who disagrees with you, yet you can’t take criticism in the slightest… maybe this shouldn’t be a blog but instead a diary entitled “How I make myself feel better about my fantasy world. With a Hammer.”

April 24, 2012 10:59 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Do the tooth ferry and Easter bunny exist?Resist what?

April 24, 2012 11:04 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Correction:Does……

April 24, 2012 11:08 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
I love when you play ignorant on your own blog.Let’s see… Does the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy exist? Hmm… now sure how that holds any weight on whether you believed in them as a child or not.

And as far as resist… It’s all over this blog already… you stated:

No, the law of God is Good. However, pay attention,
where a law comes that means there is trouble. The law of God came to convict not for people to follow.

Abraham was a God fearing man. Whatever God does is Good.”

So I asked you:

“Do you kill non-believers?

or Homosexuals?

Do you stone Wiccan’s?

Do you advocate killing children due to them believing in the tooth fairy?

Do you advocate the destruction of the country of Sweden or China maybe even Japan?

Would you kill your child if they told you they did not believe in your god?

Would you willingly die if your son/daughter was known to not worship your god?”

Your response:

“Derik,

No to all.”

So I asked:

“But HA your book advocates all of those actions. Why do you not follow the will of your god?”

Your response:

“Derik,

Times change.”

My response:

“But your book and the will of your god does not, or has someone come forward with the new will of your god?

To segregate and separate yourself from others within your society is not to far from the step of killing. Native American reservations, interment camps for the Japanese, Labor camps for the Jews — these are all examples of segregation turning into killing.

Please provide evidence that God said “because times are different in the 21st century you should not follow these orders from your God” or something similar, because I am finding all kinds of passages that say you should be attempting to kill Steve rather than debate with him.”

Your response:

“Derik,

Jesus Christ crucified that’s where I start.”

Can’t believe I let this one go to be honest, you’re saying JC crucified, not that he was crucified, but it’s to late to really smack you around over your inability to form a complete thought, instead here is my response:

“but HA, you quote passages from prior to his death or even his involvement in the religion. Which is it? before or after?”

Your response:

“Derik,

I don’t understand your question.”

So, I accepted your inability to compile a logical evaluation of a statement and responded thusly:

“My question is, do you denounce the old testament as a whole because you say you start with the crucifixion of JC?

By the way, this seems kind of like an oxymoron to me, because wasn’t JC’s point prior to the crucifixion spent advocating the old testament?

So, here’s the original point. There are passages that provide bible evidence that you should be performing those actions, which means that if you are not, you do not fall within the commandments of your god which you claim cannot perform evil, which means these actions should be considered good to you.

now, if you do follow them, you’re a murderer and a sociopath.

which is it? false advocate of a religion or sociopath?”

April 24, 2012 11:35 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
Now with your next response is when it really started to get good:”Derik,

Remember how it was said tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye. Now it’s don’t resist evil but turn the other cheek”

So, you need to notice that you said “don’t resist evil but turn the other cheek.” so you are admitting to not resisting evil, my response was (and yes I am only copy/pasting the important portion):

“Where does tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye come into play with the question?

also if you don’t resist evil you accept evil into your heart, meaning that you should be willing to perform evil deeds without question.”

And, I really love this response, truly:

“Actually, it says to resist the devil and he will flee.”

So in as many posts, you state that you are told not to resist evil and instead turn the other cheek, which if evil was a force would not be turned away because of your rosy red cheeks, then you say that you are commanded to resist evil so the devil will flee. This is where the current questions stem from, Here’s the question once more:

“But you said “…Now it’s don’t resist evil but turn the other cheek”

So which is it? don’t resist or resist? you have contradicted yourself. Wait I thought you said contradictions don’t exist. Seems to me you are a walking contradiction.”

So, do you resist evil and go against the word of god, or do you not resist evil and go against the word of god is what I am trying to ask you?

This is almost worth posting on my blog, showing a self refuting apologist.

April 24, 2012 11:36 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“So, do you resist evil and go against the word of god, or do you not resist evil and go against the word of god is what I am trying to ask you?”This is the kind of question that would be great to play garbage ball with. How useless.

April 24, 2012 11:47 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
“now, if you do follow them, you’re a murderer and a sociopath.which is it? false advocate of a religion or sociopath?”Derik hold the garbage can!!

April 24, 2012 11:51 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
The fact that you cannot explain the reasoning for your self contradiction is amazing, to say the least.But then from there you have no issue with continuing the libel. How long do you think you can go on like this HA? Eventually you’re going to be pegged as a Heretic by your own peers and then where are you going to be?

By the way, since you won’t answer the question posed previously, let me ask you a different one.

Do you think you get reposted on more Atheist blogs under a Satyr category or Christian Apologist blogs as a resource for people to look into for answers?

April 24, 2012 11:52 PM

Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Derik,if you want to be taken seriously, try not to be so ignorant.

April 24, 2012 11:59 PM

OpenID evolutionofskepticism said…
not sure you understand the word ignorant.not to mention you seem to love throwing insults when you can’t answer a question, this seems like a nervous tick, kinda like tourette syndrome.

So since you’re obviously not understanding the words you are using, here’s the definition of ignorant.

ig·no·rant
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
4.
due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

I chose to give you this definition because, here you show admitted ignorance of other theism.

also in this comment thread you show your own attempt at ignorance by trying to ignore previous statements you’ve made.

April 25, 2012 12:27 AM

As you can see, he tries to dismiss me at the end by claiming that I am ignorant, but still he cannot clarify his statements or even what he advocates. I asked him “Do you think you get reposted on more Atheist blogs under a Satyr category or Christian Apologist blogs as a resource for people to look into for answers?” (ahh you can tell I’ve been writing to much on my other blog, I spelled Satire as Satyr [which is a nymph like being in the world my wife and I are developing]) and his response was less than civil despite it being an honest question, I know today he will go up on my blog, which is not an Atheist blog in the slightest, under Satire. And once I submit this post to publicize, I will hop back over there and make a mockery of Hezekiah until such time as he is capable of real dialog instead of copy/pasted responses and spiteful attacks on others. I hope everyone is looking forward to the point in time I mention in the Evolution of Skepticism Episode 2 podcast. You will have to listen in to find out when that is though.

I hope everyone enjoyed this little trip down Apologist lane, and I hope you take Hezekiah’s mistake as a warning against trying to blindly follow other peoples statements and beliefs without scrutinizing and validating them first. To follow blindly you put yourself at risk of ridicule as well as losing any sense of authority you may have on a subject, it’s similar to someone today trying to convince you that the world is flat and you can sail off the edge, which I should point out Hezekiah is unsure as to whether the globe is a sphere or not, if you’re curious about that one, you can search his blog, I’m not here to persecute him, instead letting anyone who is curious understand why there may end up being gaps in comment strings over on his blog.

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

So I forgot last Sunday was Easter…

So here is a special post-easter video from one of my favorite Youtube personalities.

Honestly this almost confirms everything I need to believe that Jesus was in fact God and that the Bible is real.

 

 

Oh and there’s a little tidbit at the end for those of you that question the validity of this claim. Looking at you Atheists! (Yes you too Justin)

Enjoy.

, ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: