*******************************************************************************************************************
TRUTH:
"Have No Fellowship With the Unfruitful Works of Darkness, But Rather EXPOSE Them!" ~ GOD, Ephesians 5:11

Got PROOF? The police in Colorado know about serial child killers! Go to www.PoliceRecordingsKekoas.com for the TRUTH!

August 03, 2006

If Your Mother is a Homosexual

by Curtis Kekoa III

What if your mother is a homo...or your father, brother, sister, friend, priest, dentist, child - any and all? You need to rebuke them, not for your sake but for theirs. Your neglect to warn them against their opposition to God by being a pervert demonstrates your lack of guts as well as a complete lack of love for the homosexual and ultimately for God.

This radio show, "IF YOUR MOTHER IS A HOMOSEXUAL," originally aired on August 1, 2005 - one year ago - on Bob Enyart Live. In it, guest-host Jo Scott interviewed me about Duh Magazine (we just added pictures from Denver's homo pride-fest) and my mother, a homosexual, a fact of which Jo was unaware until literally seconds before the live broadcast began. After this broadcast, I received e-mails from around the country which were full of encouragement. But the greatest encouragement I received was knowing that my testimony in this radio show encouraged others to rebuke their homosexual family members.

I thought it would be fitting to bring this show to the forefront once again, one year after it first aired, so by it I could measure how far my wife and I have come in this ministry. We have come far. I also hope that this show once more encourages you to rebuke a homosexual, particularly you who have relatives who are homosexuals. Love them more than you love yourself - tell them the truth.

In case you're wondering if my mother has spoken to me since this show aired in 2005: No, she has not, but her silence began earlier that year. Silence, however, is a game she's played with me and others throughout her whole life, albeit poorly, long before she DECIDED to become a homosexual. Silence is my mother's way of not dealing with her emotional issues as is the way for most people in denial. I pray to God, however, that He soften her heart, find hope in Him and help her overcome her sin. I also pray that God use me in that process.

LISTEN ONLINE TO BOB ENYART LIVE:

If Your Mother Is a Homosexual...
Jo Scott interviews Curtis Kekoa III
8-1-05 #151 or better at 56kbps (30min.)

*Also - you can email my husband directly with your questions, comments or criticisms to AREYOUBLIND@COMCAST.NET

55 comments:

  1. "You need to rebuke them, not for your sake but for theirs."

    That's a pretty twisted bit of logic, isn't it?

    Wouldn't that be like bombing civilians because they should have known better?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have but one question:

    Does the Bible forbid lesbianism. I know the passage that forbids male homosexuality (leviticus 20:13). however, the passage does not mention female homosexuality, and I quote:

    "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. "

    Well, first of all it seems like you need to do more than just "rebuke", if you believe the literal word of the bible, but it only mentions man lying with mankind, not woman lying with womankind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hope you also remember to go up and down your town's commercial district, rebuking all those who fail to keep holy the sabbath.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Phronk, the MP3 link works QT, but the Real One stuff is crap (obviously). The show isn't really much to listen to- just a bunch of crazy people with crackpot, unresearched theories. I love all these "experts" who claim they have authority because they've "seen stuff". It's like people who think they're experts on human nature simply by virtue of their genetics (psychologists just loooove those people).

    ReplyDelete
  5. "If you don't like gays blame the straight parents...they're the ones that keep having gay babies."

    ReplyDelete
  6. CJM said...
    I have but one question:

    Does the Bible forbid lesbianism. I know the passage that forbids male homosexuality (leviticus 20:13). however, the passage does not mention female homosexuality…


    You can also read this in Lev. 18:22-23 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.”

    As you read chapters 18 & 20 in Leviticus you will see in these passages it is clear that God is forbidding ALL forms of sexual perversions: incest, adultery, bestiality, sodomy, and homosexuality including lesbianism.

    If you believe the literal word of the bible, but it only mentions man lying with mankind, not woman lying with womankind.

    The passages do not have to specifically mention “female homosexuality” to be understood and to be taken literal.

    Here is a passage from the New Testament that speaks directly about "female" homosexuality.

    “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves…
    For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
    - Romans 1:24-27

    -----------------------

    Limpy - Seriously dude!

    Are those who fail to keep holy the Sabbath as immoral and wicked as someone who murders or commits adultery? Do you think God ever refers to a man who works on a Sunday as evil and abominable?

    Think about it.

    -----------------------

    Phronk said...
    Waaait a minute, I thought homosexuals didn't reproduce.

    Notice how he said “long before she DECIDED to become a homosexual.”

    My mother-in-law is not a lesbian because she was born that way, she is a lesbian because of her hatred for men and ultimately her hatred for God. Heck, considering that she was abused by her father and abandoned at a young age, only to grow up confused and dysfunctional which led her to miserably fail at two marriages (and 2 kids later) – What do you expect?

    Genetics have nothing to do with it. As a result of many failed relationships and a midlife crisis, my mother-in-law became a lesbian.

    -----------------------

    Vile Blasphemer -

    Perhaps you can enlighten us with some of your “expert” advice and researched theories about homosexuality. What kind of authority do you have on the subject of human nature?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dani, I myself can't speak for the psychology of the phenomenon, but know the general consensus of the APA on the matter- I had a former girlfriend who was a member (obviously a PhD), so I'll take her word over yours at any time. She'll be my "human nature" expert.

    Furthermore, I'm no novice concerning the genetic nature of humanity. But I don't really need to defend myself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. OK, I thought about it. I don't think people who work on the Sabbath are as bad as people who murder or commit adultery. And I don't think two consenting adults having a same sex relationship are bad at all. And I know that the Bible says people who fail to keep holy the Sabbath should be killed, and I know that you've said that the Bible is the Word of God and the literal truth, so again, my question is: when are you and your husband going to start enforcing the Sabbath as enthusiastically as you rebuke homosexuals?

    By the way, I'm a hetrosexual male and very comfortable in my sexuality, and I have to say, I'm a hell of a lot less concerned about what homosexuals do than you are. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. All I could think after reading this was:

    This isn't anything to do with homosexuality or God. This is about a child still wishing for the mother he never had.

    There is so much pain in the words. It speaks of games, dissapointments and emotions between a mother and a child. Hurt that has obviously never healed.

    I am sorry for your pain.
    I wish you peace.
    Sincerely.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know what to think about the "deciding" to be gay stuff. I mean the genetic arguments versus the deciding. I don't think it really matters because what matters is whether or not an act is moral in the sight of God not what chemical imbalences underly the choices. If we say that homosexuality is an a-moral practice on the basis that homosexuals have distinct chemical balances predisposing them to homosexuality, the same can be said of serial killers. Serial killers also have a distinct chemical imbalance, as do pedophiles. This shouldn't be too surprising we are in a fallen world, sin is still sin. Based upon peoples make up some are more disposed to specific sin than others, the fact remains that sin is sin. Sin is defined by God not arbitrary rulings of fallen men.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Serial killers are a cause of harm to others, which is generally why everyone non-arbitrarily agrees it is immoral (not in "the sight of God"). Likewise, whether homosexuality causes harm directly or indirectly is the general reason for consider whether it is moral.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Your neglect to warn them against their opposition to God by being a pervert demonstrates your lack of guts as well as a complete lack of love for the homosexual and ultimately for God."

    This appears to be unsupported rhetoric. How does one obtain knowledge on what God's wishes are? Let alone, what he opposes. Your "proofs" for Gods, by the way, provided nothing but a deistic God in the process.

    "But the greatest encouragement I received was knowing that my testimony in this radio show encouraged others to rebuke their homosexual family members."

    This statement appears, to me, to be twisted and harmful. The virtue that we should rebuke family members for harmless attractions is audacious.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bob, larger society determines what is right and wrong. That's all there is to say. As far as your "chemical balance" ideas go, you should also know that psychopaths are most similar to a single group of people- the religiously fervent... like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "larger society determines what is right and wrong.

    This is the problem here!

    What's right for me may not be right for you - so just let society decide? Sheesh!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I never noted it to be a good thing. I was merely pointing out that, socially, "sin" is not determined by God. If it were, we'd be quite a bit less free.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If there existed a god, I'm sure in its all-knowing form, it would be thoroughly repulsed by the proselytising of its acolytes, and their attempts to characterise as diabolic up to 5% of it's "creation" by default.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I thought God said to honor your mother and father. How can you honor her by not speaking to her?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Richard Dawkins,
    That was utter nonesense. You forget a pre-school Christian doctrine called revelation...God has revealed Himself in His word the bible, so there isn't any confusion as to what God dislikes. Your idea of the "if there is god then..." is based upon a straw man of a "god" you made up.


    Moving onto kindergarden level philosophic problems...Blasphemer (hey at least he's honest) said:

    "Bob, larger society determines what is right and wrong. That's all there is to say.

    Really? So if in one culture larger society had determined that torchering babies for fun is morally upright there should be no complaints from you if you come into contact with them right? This is a reduction of morality to sheer relativism, morality based upon consensus. Which really is to say there is no such thing as moral absolutes just guidelines autonomous man decides to live by, might be different in different cultures but whatever the culture decides is "right" (Why should I accept this system of morality because you says so? seems pretty arbitrary.). If your going to be antheist materialist in my opinion just be like Neitzche and say there really is no such thing as right and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not saying there's no such thing as right and wrong, just that humanity determines what it is. Of course, we can judge a society that tortures babies by measuring the amount of "suffering" that is created by that philosophy, but that measurement requires neither God nor Jesus, sorry to say.

    There is a great deal of experimentation behind human empathy that successfully parries notions of religious exclusivity. I'm sorry you're not interested in learning.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ok lets go through these statements one by on to show how completely arbitrary they are:

    Blasphemer said:
    "I'm not saying there's no such thing as right and wrong, just that humanity determines what it is. Of course, we can judge a society that tortures babies by measuring the amount of "suffering" that is created by that philosophy, but that measurement requires neither God nor Jesus, sorry to say."

    This really is the best atheists can do to define right and wrong because they begin with man as the starting point for their philosophy, so it really is impossible to get objective, universals and absolutes when you begin with a particular finite being. Ok point by point:

    1) "I'm not saying there's no such thing as right and wrong, just that humanity determines what it is." Um ok, I never said you don't believe in right and wrong just that you really have no warrant to do so. Rather, I suggested that atheists just be more consistant like Neitzche and abandon morality altogether. Lets think this through so if right and wrong are just catagories that men make up (to help society function) so lets say in the year 1900 people in "larger society" thought that having sex with animals was wrong. Yet lets say in the year 2012 society says no having sex with animals is just fine and dandy, who was right? In your worldview you can't determine who was right because right is defined by larger society thus "right" is a completely meaningless word not absolut not unchanging but relative and finite. In short ritght doesn't really exist rather you atheists should as Neitzche more consitantly would say that whis is, is right.

    This also raises a problem in my mind and I ask you: Why should I care what society determines to be right and wrong? Why should I adopt that as my standard of morality? Why is society the measure of how I should moraly live? Why should I accept this standard of morality...because you say so?

    Another pitfall is your inconsitancy in your view. The majority of people here in the US when it has been put to a vote have voted to ban same sex marriage, so under your notion that society determines right and wrong you really should be against same sex marriage because that's where society is right now. So it is inconsistant I think to go against the norms to do so would be to fall into the catagory of "wrong" as you are defining it, after all as you have stated social norms is what defines right and wrong. So I think you are inconsistant.

    2) Next you say: "Of course, we can judge a society that tortures babies by measuring the amount of "suffering" that is created by that philosophy"

    Um, well in my example this society obviously does not give a rip about "suffering" and that is what they determined (to use your theory) and why should they? Why should I care if a philosophy causes suffering? Why really, why? I mean were just monkeys that came from a pile of schist that popped into existance billions of years ago (your worldview not mine). So why should I care if other people suffer? Because "Blasphemer" says I need to adopt a morality that cares about suffering people...well no thank you that isn't enough reason for me I think I'll stick with writing my own morality which doesn't care about my neighbor's pain at all.

    3) "but that measurement requires neither God nor Jesus, sorry to say."

    Well you havent shown in my estimation that you have any genuine "measurement" at all...just arbitrary definitions of right and wrong that I can dismiss because they are just your ideas I'll make up my own system of morals.

    This is all in contrast to a moral system which is defined by God, God who created man and man has to answer to Him. God defines right and wrong not man, thus right and wrong is universal, objective and absolute. Right and wrong will not change because it is not based upon popular opinion but God, and God does not change. All men will give an account to God not society for their wrong doings irregardless of time culture and ethnic settings. We can know God's stance on morality because He has revealed Himself to man through the bible. So God is not just some out there standard which is unknown but He has made Himself known. The commandments are pretty clear most three year olds can understand things like: "Don't steal, don't lie" and in the NT "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." These are commands. They are not arbitrary because they come from an objective standard outside of man God Himself.

    You can reject it and continue to rebel against God as you have been, however this really is the only way morality in a universal, objective and absolute sense can really exist. All other attempts are mere arbitrary ideas and as such can be tossed aside.

    ReplyDelete
  21. MQM,
    I agree I don't care what John Calvin though either my stance is also founded on the bible "calvinism" is the nick name for what the bible says about election.

    The issu as I said before is not that we "can't" do anything about our not being elect the issue is that people don't even care if they are not saved. People don't like it because we naturally think that we save ourselves. No one will come right out and say it but in really underscores all the beef people have with calvinism. And to dismiss it as unbiblical I think is irresponsible.

    "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
    he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"
    (Eph1:3-5)

    " All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (John 6:37)

    Passages like these I just can't read in any other way except that God has lovingly chosen to save a particular people through Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Vile Blasphemer -

    I wonder if a society that determines what is right by legalizing murder and wipping out over 50 MILLION unborn children in the past 30 years is still considered good in your eyes since humanity determines abortion to be praise worthy?

    Can we judge a society that murders nearly 4,000 babies daily by measuring the amount of "suffering" that is created by that philosophy - or is it all dependent on a woman's right to choose? How do you measure that?

    Bob made some excellent points (as usual)- perhaps you should try to learn something here and start to thinking outside the box?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "But the greatest encouragement I received was knowing that my testimony in this radio show encouraged others to rebuke their homosexual family members."

    This is the saddest commentary I have ever read and the reason why information technology is undoubtably going to lead to the downfall of society.

    People like you, Curtis, can reach the masses way too readily now and fill their heads with garbage like this.

    CP


    word ver: vFAGkrvc Heh.

    Justice is done.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Why should I care what society determines to be right and wrong? Why should I adopt that as my standard of morality? Why is society the measure of how I should moraly live? Why should I accept this standard of morality...because you say so?"

    So you'll ignore what I said about human empathy research, eh?

    "Another pitfall is your inconsitancy in your view. The majority of people here in the US when it has been put to a vote have voted to ban same sex marriage, so under your notion that society determines right and wrong you really should be against same sex marriage because that's where society is right now. So it is inconsistant I think to go against the norms to do so would be to fall into the catagory of "wrong" as you are defining it, after all as you have stated social norms is what defines right and wrong. So I think you are inconsistant."

    My view isn't inconsistent- if anything this confirms it. I never gave you my stance on gay marriage so you really are just grasping at straws with my political ideology.

    "So why should I care if other people suffer? Because "Blasphemer" says I need to adopt a morality that cares about suffering people...well no thank you that isn't enough reason for me I think I'll stick with writing my own morality which doesn't care about my neighbor's pain at all."

    So you'll ignore what I said about human empathy research, eh?

    "...I'll make up my own system of morals."

    Go for it; however, if society deems them harmful, you'll be incarcerated.

    "Right and wrong will not change because it is not based upon popular opinion but God, and God does not change."

    That's unfortunate for him. Let's say we're both smokers (I've never, but still). I like Marlboro and you like Camel and we have enough money to buy only one pack- how are you and I to compromise so that we can both smoke in agreement? Society is not based on God because his followers' belief in infalibility removes democratic compromise. What are you going to do with the rest of the citizens who don't agree with you?

    This is not a philosophy problem and you seem to be a student of the same. Philosophy might be an entertaining major and has done some nice speculative work about "truth" but it is extremely poor science. You need to do better than that to argue against the overwhelming data in sociology, psychology, etc that stands against you.

    "All other attempts are mere arbitrary ideas and as such can be tossed aside."

    Say that in another ten years when you've been even further marginalized. You should have stayed in the bologna factory.

    And one more thing:

    So you'll ignore what I said about human empathy research, eh?


    Dani,

    "Can we judge a society that murders nearly 4,000 babies daily by measuring the amount of "suffering" that is created by that philosophy - or is it all dependent on a woman's right to choose? How do you measure that?"

    And? Zygotes don't suffer. How many of those 4,000 are third trimester? How many are aborted because of gross defect? How many of those are aborted because of rape and incest? How many of those are aborted to save the mother's life? You have an inflated figure there. Furthermore, research is pretty conclusive where unwanted children are concerned. How many crack babies have you adopted this week?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mr. Vile said:
    "So you'll ignore what I said about human empathy research, eh?"

    Yep, don't see any reason to accept that as my standard of right and wrong...I think I'll stipulate my own arbitrary version of morality thank you very much.

    "My view isn't inconsistent- if anything this confirms it. I never gave you my stance on gay marriage so you really are just grasping at straws with my political ideology.

    Sure (might be a straw man, I'll concede that) however my point remains that wherever you disagree with "larger societies" moral views you are being inconsistent. To make it clear so this is no longer a straw man: do you think gay marriage is wrong? If you don't I think you are being inconsistent because "larger society views it as such (at least when the people vote on whether activist judges).

    As for making my own arbitrary system of morals as opposed to accepting your arbitrary system based on "human empathy crapolla" you said:

    "Go for it; however, if society deems them harmful, you'll be incarcerated."

    Well just because I go to jail doesn't mean my actions are wrong. Maybe you should do some philosophical research. Guys like Rousseau (humanist philosopher), argued that it is basically your view of morality that stifles true freedom. Each person should be able to do whatever they want without any respect for their neighbor...maximize my own happiness who cares about anybody else...you really haven't provided me with any reason why I should care about anybody else, you atheists just say we should...why?

    Along these lines further you say:
    That's unfortunate for him. Let's say we're both smokers (I've never, but still). I like Marlboro and you like Camel and we have enough money to buy only one pack- how are you and I to compromise so that we can both smoke in agreement? Society is not based on God because his followers' belief in infalibility removes democratic compromise. What are you going to do with the rest of the citizens who don't agree with you?

    Well I am just wondering why I should share the pack with you at all! We buy the cigarettes and after getting them, I think stabbing you in the chest and smoking the whole pack myself seems like a better route to go...double my pleasure! Why should I compromise? Why should I care about you at all? You still need to give a reason for the presuppositions behind your moral system. You take it for granted that I should care about others (this really is borrowing from my Judeao-Christian worldview "Love your neighbor") You need to give me a reason why I should care for my neighbor that is consistent with your worldview, so far all you have done is say: you should do x...(care about others)I ask why?

    Again, this is not a problem in Christian morality, God has set moral guidelines and expectations on His creatures. He is the final objective arbiter of morality, not man. Oh and it is not "unfortunate" that God does not change, for Him to change would indicate an imperfection in Himself, a needing to improve.

    However, you do raise a decent question in asking how I as a Christian should relate to other citizens who do not agree with my moral system. This would take our discussion in a different direction so I will just acknowledge that it is a good question but I do have an answer. I want to keep our focus on the irrationality of the presuppositions of atheistic morality.

    "This is not a philosophy problem and you seem to be a student of the same. Philosophy might be an entertaining major and has done some nice speculative work about "truth" but it is extremely poor science. You need to do better than that to argue against the overwhelming data in sociology, psychology, etc that stands against you.

    Well if you studied the philosophy of science (what is the demarcation line b/w science and non-science) I wonder if you would rely so heavily on psychology based arguments. Frankly, I do not think psychology is science, it has no laws governing its methodology whereas philosophy has the laws of logic. Rather I think psychology is a nice language game.

    Lastly:
    "So you'll ignore what I said about human empathy research, eh?"

    Yep, don't see any reason to accept it as an objective standard of morality...I'll make up my own thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Phronk-
    Those are actually decent questions. As for sabbath keeping you need to read the NT where Christ declares Himself to be "Lord of the Sabbath". We also need to ask what is the sabbath? Is it a day where we just sit around and do nothing? No, it is a day set aside to worship God. Christ Himself said of the sabbath if your lamb falls into a pit on the sabbath will you not get it out? Of course you would. Likewise if someone's car is broken down and you are a mechanic will you not help because it is the sabbath? The point of the Sabbath is not so much not doing anything (negative) but in right doing (positive). It is a day set aside for God and His worship. This takes the form of not doing your daily routine of work, and spending the day consciously seeking the Lord. No arbitrary getting around it, thi is how Christ explains the sabbath in the NT.

    As for this statement:
    "I've been following along here, and the major problem I see with your position here is that your system of morality is equally arbitrary unless your specific God exists. So again, I believe we should be determining whether God exists before we get to consequences of his existence. Surely you must at least understand that saying your morals are not arbitrary because they are laid out by God is unconvincing to atheists. In order to accept that, one must first believe God exists.

    Well you might not begin your philosophical enterprise with God, but I do. I can say the same thing to you, you need to explain that God does not exist before you can start forming your worldview apart from Him. But because God does exist this is where I start presupositionally. I can lay out the existance of God in an argument if you really want, but I just wanted to say that I don't accept that standard that I need to begin my enterprise philosophically as an agnostic, to do so would be to deny the existance of God epistemologically when God is really the foundation for my ability to proceed epistemologically so to do so would be backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Frankly, I do not think psychology is science, it has no laws governing its methodology..."

    What halfwit religious seminar gave you this idea? You are lost, aren't you? I looked up a little more about you- I'm not surprised that you're a theology student and a factory worker. No wonder you don't know squat about science.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Vile-
    Nice ad hominem attack, just call the other guy stupid and write off the debate. Unfortunatly for you philosophy unlike psychology has laws that govern its enterprise thus your lame insults do not validate your position. I don't want to get sidetracked from the complete inability of you to give a rational reason for why I should live a moral life, but do tell what laws governed the endeavors of the pioneers of psychology?

    I mean good night even my atheist proffesors write psychology off as a pseudo-science! (this is because it is so grossly subjective in its assesments).

    ReplyDelete
  29. MQM-
    Good questions, and I too was an Arminian by default early in my walk. It's cool we both love the same Christ, and hope in His cross to save. Reformed theology makes salvation all of grace while Arminianism makes it dependant on man.

    The passages "He wills none should perish" need to also be seen in light of reprobating passages like:

    "O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we fear you not? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage." (Isa 63:17)

    "If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?" But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death." (1 Sam 2:25)

    In the Samuel passage, the logic follows that the sons of Eli would not listen because God wanted to put them to death. In an Arminian system it is the other way around.

    There are many other passages like this but my point is that there is a tension over this issue in the bible. On the one hand it seems clear that God doesn't want the wicked to perish, on the other He seems to be hardening hearts so that they will perish (by the way I think the hardening God does is passive, He just turns people over to their fallen desires). So how are these reconciled?

    To be short Arminians don't know what to do with passages like the ones above other than explain them away through repetitious quotation of "He wills none should perish...He wills none..." (j/k kinda) However, from the Reformed camp this tension is reconciled through acknowledging both. There seems to be two wills in God on this matter, so that's what Reformed theologians say. God in a moral sense (because man is made in His image) does not will that He should perish. Yet in a sovereign sense God has chosen to pass over men in election (this is called reprobation). That's the best I have heard to reconcile these two types of passages into a cohesive theology and I think it makes sense. Hope that makes sense, sorry if it was confusing after all I did work in a factory that means I am stupid...

    But hey, Calvinism isn't for everyone but it is the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I don't want to get sidetracked from the complete inability of you to give a rational reason for why I should live a moral life..."

    I've answered you a million times. Live life how you determine it to be moral; society will decide to approve or dissaprove of it. Kill all the babies you want if you think it's moral- but don't expect to be free for long.

    "Unfortunatly for you philosophy unlike psychology has laws that govern its enterprise..."

    Really. Psychology has the APA and its researchers use the approved scientific method. What does philosophy have?

    "I mean good night even my atheist proffesors write psychology off as a pseudo-science!"

    Heh... philosophy professors... heh... ever notice you only find philosophers on campuses? Did they teach you how to spell professors?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I worked in a DOG FOOD FACTORY for 3 weeks so I guess we're both stupid."

    MQM, do you tell professionals and doctors that you know more than them in their own respective fields while you are yet a mere novice? No? Then there is a fundamental difference between you and Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This really is the best you can do to define morality?:

    "I've answered you a million times. Live life how you determine it to be moral; society will decide to approve or dissaprove of it. Kill all the babies you want if you think it's moral- but don't expect to be free for long."

    The only raises the fundamental question: "Is it really wrong to kill babies for fun?" I mean who cares whether society agrees with my behavior (you are committing an ad populum logical fallacy applied to morality) because the majority can be wrong. So the only reason you are really giving me to live moral is so I do not go to jail, that does not answer the basic questions as to whether or not specific behaviors are really immoral nor can it. Again, the example of the change in consensus to beastiality in 1900 people think beastiality is an immoral practice, well in 2012 the consensus says beastiality is really just fine. Is one right and the other wrong? Based on your worldview you really can't answer these basic questions.

    Is torturing babies for fun wrong? Well in your worldview it is because you might go to jail for it, this is only to beg the question. Is torturing babies for fun wrong when the threat of jail does not exist? This is a wholly arbitrary system you are setting forward. We really cant tell if actions are really ethically upright or not, all we can tell is what the consensus thinks about them.

    and on psychology-
    Um, how on earth does the scientific method apply to the work of psychology? You should read Karl Popper (atheist) on the demarcation b/w science and non-science. Basically Popper (and many other philosophers of science) have argued that Psychology theories are irrefutable and thus not science. How can Freudian egoism be falsified scientifically? It can't, thus if falsifiability is a trait of true science it would seem psychology is something other that science. Not that psychology is useless; it very well may make practically beneficial statements.

    Also:
    "Did they teach you how to spell professors?"

    Well this is generally what happens when the debate is over, the atheist just starts calling the theist dumb (ad hom). You really can't seriously address my objections to the bereft view of ethics atheism leads to so you are as is typical among atheists turning to silly ad hom attacks:"Oh my gosh he misspelled a word!" Sorry if your worldview renders simple "yes" and "no" judgments regarding ethical behaviors impossible, don't take it out on me.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well I am suprised,
    Vile Blasphemer has really knocked one out of the park this time! The depth of prose and the sharp logical arguments are almost unmathced as he states:

    "MQM, do you tell professionals and doctors that you know more than them in their own respective fields while you are yet a mere novice? No? Then there is a fundamental difference between you and Bob."

    Well with such sharp arguments it is difficult to defend a theistic view of ethics nevertheless I will try. I will try to lay out an argument that few philosophers have implimented to deal with these weighty points Blasphemer has brought up.

    Keep in mind this is the only way I can even attempt to stay on the same plain as such a clearly deep atheist intellect (after all atheists are always really intellectual). I learned this technique from the philosopher Herman.

    1) I am rubber
    2) You are glue
    3) Everything you say bounces off of me
    :.4) And therefore sticks to you

    Whew! good grief this is quite a battle of wits going on here, I might eventually need to resort to the Na NA NA NA BOO BOO defense!

    Clearly Blasphemer is upset, I guess you never realized that based upon your worldview presupositions that you really have no basis for ethics...bummer for you. Now all you can do is call me stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bob, does this mean you really are telling me that you know better than I in my own field? Is that so? If that's true, then email me and we can compare publications. Furthermore, I find it comic that you assume that I'm an atheist when you have no proof whatsoever other than what you imagine an atheist's position is in an argument. Given my field, I retain the right to insult and lampoon those who vomit pseudoscience, but I applaud you your pedantry.

    Re: Psychology

    "...irrefutable and thus not science."

    I find this odd because this is one reason why creationist researches are not considered science. Or course, you'll make an exception for it.

    Psychology is a developing scientific field that has, in the short period that it has existed, made massive progress. The DSM is an accepted tool, but many past psychological studies have been refuted, thus falsifiable. Freud's theories are not practiced today as he wrote them and psychotherapy is radically different from what it was. Remember, chemistry used to be alchemy.

    Your friend Popper was writing about this nearly four decades ago- hardly representative of current study and psychology has taken huge steps since then. You should avoid getting your ideas about the science from Ken Kesey. Furthermore, if we were to reject psychology and reinstate the religion led asylums, you'd see plenty of folks who can function plenty well with medication or therapy back in ECT. You have a very dated notion of psychology.

    ReplyDelete
  35. MQM, I won't say too much more about myself- politically sensitive matters and all additional rot.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "...some medical or psych professional..."

    Yes, something of that nature...

    "...that could be breeding mutant creatures in test tubes as well..."

    LoL- I've done similar things.

    PS, Bob, I still haven't gotten that email detailing your research publications.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Vile Blasphemer – Back in Nazi Germany, not only was it “socially acceptable” for Hitler to murder millions of Jews – it was also legal.

    So Now - Does that make it okay to murder Jews in your eyes Mr. Blasphemer?

    ----------------------

    Phronk – After observing your weak repetitive arguments, I have to wonder - Why are you still here? If you were so convinced in your own mind that God does not exist, you wouldn’t still be here after 6 months fiercely continuing to object to Him. The fact that you are still doubting is a strong indicator that you could be wrong about your beliefs. Why do you continue to fight for something you don’t even believe in? The only people here who are 100% confident in their beliefs and are fighting for something worthwhile are the ones who believe in God.

    --------------------

    Nice job Bob & MQM – I’ll let you two deal with these guys.

    What more can we expect from two accomplished college graduates like Phronk & Vile B? In their shallow world-view, their minds are so numb that they value psycho-babble over Scripture and elevate Freud above God Almighty.

    Phew ~ After all this education, these guys still don’t even know what the Truth is – What a major waste of time and money!

    Of course I’m just a measly college drop-out, child-care provider, homeschooling mom and devoted housewife along with being a follower of Christ – so what do I know?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Does that make it okay to murder Jews in your eyes Mr. Blasphemer?"

    Obviously you didn't understand what I wrote. Can you imagine morality without Christianity? No? Then you can't ever consider all sides of an argument. You also Goodwined yourself; way to be.

    And again, by saying we "elevate Freud" you illuminate even more vividly how dated and backward your knowledge of science is.

    "Of course I’m just a measly college drop-out, child-care provider, homeschooling mom and devoted housewife along with being a follower of Christ – so what do I know?"

    Not much if this is the extent of your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "PS, Bob, I still haven't gotten that email detailing your research publications."

    Um, yeah. Sorry if I havent written any research papers published in peer reviewed periodicals (If you have by all means show me) I didn't think you needed to do that to challange crappy arguments for moralily by atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anyway, I look forward to seeing Bob and MQM's comments. They (at least occasionally) are capable of understanding arguments even if they disagree with the conclusions

    Uhh..thanks for the compliment. Actually I don't read the arguments between you guys cause they give me a headache.

    I was just thinking of the limitations of science. Science is a great tool but I still have no idea what dietary choices cause cancer nor not cause contradicting studies come out almost weekly.

    Psychology is a great tool but how many shrinks just monkey around with meds in hopes that the patient will get better?

    I am not against either science or psychology but sometimes doctors or scientists or therapists throw up their hands cause they just don't have the answers. But that's OK because I have a God I can rely on no matter what. Even if others find my faith nonsensical or foolish, I know from personal experience that he's there. And that's a wonderful thing for me.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The psychology (is it science) issue is a mere side note. And frankly prett much irrelevant although it would be interesting to explore more. To do so we need to know what is "science" what really are the laws that govern psychology and its methodologies, and what is the line of demarcation b/w science and non-science. I haven't heard any of this yet, just dogmatic statements that psychology IS science and I am in left field for even raising such a question.

    Anyway, the real issue is where we left of about 10 comments ago where I said to VB:

    "The only raises the fundamental question: "Is it really wrong to kill babies for fun?" I mean who cares whether society agrees with my behavior (you are committing an ad populum logical fallacy applied to morality) because the majority can be wrong. So the only reason you are really giving me to live moral is so I do not go to jail, that does not answer the basic questions as to whether or not specific behaviors are really immoral nor can it. Again, the example of the change in consensus to beastiality in 1900 people think beastiality is an immoral practice, well in 2012 the consensus says beastiality is really just fine. Is one right and the other wrong? Based on your worldview you really can't answer these basic questions.

    Is torturing babies for fun wrong? Well in your worldview it is because you might go to jail for it, this is only to beg the question. Is torturing babies for fun wrong when the threat of jail does not exist? This is a wholly arbitrary system you are setting forward. We really cant tell if actions are really ethically upright or not, all we can tell is what the consensus thinks about them.


    This is really where we left off the psychology issue was a rabbit trail, and VB seems to have snuck off from our debate. Frankly, he really is at a loss when we get to the roots of his moral system. If it is based upon consensus as he is aledging then is there really such thing as right and wrong or just consensus opinion. Again, consensus opinion often fluctuates, one generation may think X is wrong, the next says X is right. This is a reduction to moral relativism, so what do we have left?

    Power. Whoever is throwing people in jail is who determines morality, that really is all we have left is the threat of punishment and herin lies our morality. Not so much an issue that murder is wrong, or rape, but they are "wrong" because after all you don't want to go to jail do you?

    Phronk- maybe you could help VB out. I know we had a similar discussion before and frankly you did a better job trying to give an account of morality from an atheist view. (although I think you both end up with the same conclusions)

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Psychology is a great tool but how many shrinks just monkey around with meds in hopes that the patient will get better?"

    MQM, not all psychology is about drugs- there are two distinct fields. Despite that, most drugs are researched and tend to be proven effective. Furthermore, you may believe in a personal God to help you with your problems, but some problems just can't be helped with a belief in God.

    "...VB seems to have snuck off from our debate."

    Bob, I answered you already. I'm sorry you failed reading comprehension or that I expect you to have read enough to have an adequate knowledge base to understand all of my allusions.

    Furthermore, you again fail to answer my question "what makes you think I'm an atheist?" so I think I can conclude that you use that term as a loose insult; after all, insults are culturally influenced and in your Christian worldview that's about as loaded as it can get.

    I know you have all the time in the world to answer this since you are unemployed. However, since all you do is flail like a buffoon, I think I can just ignore you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. VB:
    "Bob, I answered you already. I'm sorry you failed reading comprehension or that I expect you to have read enough to have an adequate knowledge base to understand all of my allusions."

    No you really didn't, I have pointed out problems with your "answer" and now you are relying on the "I Told you already!" line because you don't have an answer to what I brought up and quoted again in the post above. Oh, and keep the ad hom attacks coming they really validate your position.

    next you said:
    "Furthermore, you again fail to answer my question "what makes you think I'm an atheist?" so I think I can conclude that you use that term as a loose insult; after all, insults are culturally influenced and in your Christian worldview that's about as loaded as it can get."

    Fine I guess you haven't come out and said you are an atheist. However presupositionally so far this is where you start. Your moral system you laid out has nothing to do with God and therefore is an atheistic moral system although you might hold a deistic sort of view of God on the side. So sorry if you feel as though the label "atheist" is wrong, however in your defense of your moral system God is nowhere to be found in it. So are you an atheist?

    "I know you have all the time in the world to answer this since you are unemployed. However, since all you do is flail like a buffoon, I think I can just ignore you."

    Sure, if that's what you want to do to avoid answering my basic questions to justify your moral system fine. I mean after all I worked in a factory and I'm a theist (That's 2 automatic a-priori intellectual strikes against me according to you.) I wish I was a top secret bio-tech researcher (with peer reviewed papers) who is an "expert" in everything I wrote about too.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I can't resist-

    I never said I was "top secret" (*pfft*), just unwilling to endanger my projects with other people's politics.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I say Vile is into stem cell research. Or maybe he just works in a test tube factory.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Phronk said:
    "True, but I think you were the one who brought it up, and the fact that it is a side note doesn't change the fact that you're totally wrong on this.

    Maybe, and I am willing to be wrong. Actually what you said above Phronk might be a good point. However, I still think if we are going to define things as science and non-science we need a good demarcation line. I haven't seen one presented yet.

    The "APA" example, so what? Every research field has a board of colleagues, reviewing eachother, that doesn't in itself make something science.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I say Vile is into stem cell research. Or maybe he just works in a test tube factory."

    MQM, at least you're closer to the mark than Bob- all he's accomplished is claiming a value set for me for which he has no proof. I see he goes to school in Wisconsin... I wouldn't be surprised if his university does business with me. Maybe I can set him up with an internship so he can finally learn what science is.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "MQM, at least you're closer to the mark than Bob- all he's accomplished is claiming a value set for me for which he has no proof. I see he goes to school in Wisconsin... I wouldn't be surprised if his university does business with me. Maybe I can set him up with an internship so he can finally learn what science is."

    Lol. Man, you really can't lay of the ad-hom attacks can you! I can give you a line a demarcation between science and non-science I am asking you guys to do so, what's the big deal?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Why anything but ad hom against a pedant without established ethos?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Vile Blasphemer - Would you ever be interested in coming on my husband's radio show to debate any of this with him? Or are you too top secret for everyone?

    If so email: blunttruth@duhmag.com

    ReplyDelete
  51. MQM and Dani, I never said that I was "top secret"; however, being found out would probably be off putting to many clients, so the less that is known about me, the better. And my humor may be juvenile, but, hey, there is no accounting for taste. How many menopausal women do you know that like teen romance flicks? I know at least five without thinking.

    Dani, Re: the radio program... ergh... well, if I wasn't known to you in the capacity that I am I may have. Maybe someone in the future who sounds suspiciously like me will offer a debate... lol.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I still think if we are going to define things as science and non-science we need a good demarcation line. I haven't seen one presented yet.

    Who have you asked? If anyone, what answers did they give you?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Well hey Johnny come lately, I asked the two guys (Phronk and VB) above who are truing to say psychology IS a science I think not, I asked them what is the difference b/w science and non-science (line of demarcation. They never gave me one no one has yet when asked...but I am sure at some point some one will cut and paste a wikpedia article and say "There!".

    ReplyDelete
  54. Perhaps, then, you should comment on the content of the Wikipedia article in anticipation of such an argument?

    ReplyDelete

NO TROLLS ALLOWED - Comments will be moderated - Remember, it's always a good idea to tell the TRUTH....