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.
*Also - you can email my husband directly with your questions, comments or criticisms to AREYOUBLIND@COMCAST.NET
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.
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
"You need to rebuke them, not for your sake but for theirs."
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty twisted bit of logic, isn't it?
Wouldn't that be like bombing civilians because they should have known better?
I have but one question:
ReplyDeleteDoes 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteWaaait a minute, I thought homosexuals didn't reproduce. Which is why if you put them on an island, they'd all die. Which is why homosexuality is wrong in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes not even a little bit of sense.
I'd listen to the show, but Curtis there isn't so good with the tech support.
Satan bless.
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"If you don't like gays blame the straight parents...they're the ones that keep having gay babies."
ReplyDeleteCJM said...
ReplyDeleteI 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I'm no novice concerning the genetic nature of humanity. But I don't really need to defend myself.
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?
ReplyDeleteBy 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?
All I could think after reading this was:
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteSerial 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"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."
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
everyone?
ReplyDeleteBob, 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"larger society determines what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is the problem here!
What's right for me may not be right for you - so just let society decide? Sheesh!
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.
ReplyDeleteIf 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.
ReplyDeleteI was going to rebuke you for being hateful to your mother. For shame, for shame.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many issues here I am not sure where to start.
Maybe I missed a bible class somewhere that said you were the ones to determine who gets into heaven.
Do you REALLY believe that God approves of your behavior?
Please. We all sin. Ok, your mom is a lesbian. get over it.
You may not feel your mothers path in life is the correct one. Move on. It is her life and she will deal with whatever consequences arise. You have planted the seed. That is all you can do.
Was your mother abusive? Hurtful? Mean to you as a child? Was she never there for you when you needed her most?
I am a mother and I would do anything for my child. Just becuase I am divorced, does that make me a bad person? And I am still young. If I wanted to marry again and have another child, and that marriage unfortunately ends. Does it make me a bad person to have been married twice and have two children by different fathers? You guys are really a piece of work. GROW UP! Its a good thing that not all people think the way you do.
And you say that you want to help your mother? You say she hasnt talked to you since you did the show? And her "silence" is something that you and others have dealt with all your lives? Let me guess and say that the "others" is your father (who she divorced).
I would be heart broken if my child talked to me the way you phrase things in your posting. Amazingly, you wonder why she doesnt talk to you? You condemn her and have a blog specifically for this purpose. HELLO?
It must be really hard to be so damn perfect and acceptable to God.
I thought God said to honor your mother and father. How can you honor her by not speaking to her?
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins,
ReplyDeleteThat 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteThere 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.
I think most gays have heard all the Bible verses so 'rebuking' them doesn't do much good. They just think Christians hate them.
ReplyDeleteIf someone you respect tells you they're really concerned about your behavior and you know from your past relationship that they have a sincere interest in your well-being then even if their 'rebuke' stings, you will ultimately appreciate them for being honest. Especially if this person is a mentor who is trying to help you grow.
But if you don't respect the person to begin with they will just seem like a mean busybody you will just insult them or tune them out.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI tried to read your response to the Calvinism question but it was really confusing.
So, if Limpy, Phronk and myself are not included in 'the elect' then does that mean we're hellbound no matter what (according to Calvinism)?
I don't care what John Calvin or all those theologians thought. What matters is what the Bible says. And my bible says Jesus died for ALL sinners, not just a special group. But I do think he calls people to him. Like I didn't care about Christianity and then I was called back to it. The Apostle Paul was killing Christians and then Jesus confronted him and he was called to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.
No one is without hope. That's Bible.
Ok lets go through these statements one by on to show how completely arbitrary they are:
ReplyDeleteBlasphemer 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.
MQM,
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Vile Blasphemer -
ReplyDeleteI 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?
All other attempts are mere arbitrary ideas and as such can be tossed aside.
ReplyDeleteBob - 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.
Furthermore, we are seeing here that the Bible which "can be understood by a 3 year old" is highly open to interpretation, and thus there is some amount of arbitrariness even if one accepts the Bible.
Oh, and I thought that one of those simple commandments was to rest on Sundays. I hope you're planning on staying home tomorrow. You certainly wouldn't use your own reasoning to "arbitrarily" choose which ones to follow and which to ignore?
"But the greatest encouragement I received was knowing that my testimony in this radio show encouraged others to rebuke their homosexual family members."
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
"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?"
ReplyDeleteSo 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?
Mr. Vile said:
ReplyDelete"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.
Phronk-
ReplyDeleteThose 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.
"Frankly, I do not think psychology is science, it has no laws governing its methodology..."
ReplyDeleteWhat 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.
Bob says
ReplyDelete"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.
But you have to also consider passages like this:
"The Lord... is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repetance" (II Peter 3:9)
I read in my religious history book about the synod of Dort and the 5 points but I agree more w/the Arminianists. I think predestination applies to Jesus Christ and the church as an entity but does not mean there is a handpicked group of people destined for salvation and everyone else goes to hell. But I hate debating cause it's pretty pointless.
Vile-
ReplyDeleteNice 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).
MQM-
ReplyDeleteGood 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.
Bob
ReplyDeleteRegarding 1 Samuel 2:25 - I do believe that God can 'harden hearts' at will so they won't hear him. Many instance of this are found in the Bible - the Pharoah is a good example.
However, this seems to be a judgement on God's part in response to their exhibiting a stubborn attitude or a temporary thing God does to accomplish his will (like that Babylonian king who acted like an animal for 7 years)-- not preordained damnation.
For example, if God had 'predestined' Eli's sons to death, why would he have had little Samuel deliver Eli a message of warning for Eli to discipline his sons?
God did what he could to warn Eli, but he perceived Eli didn't have the conviction to really stop his sons from their wrongdoing. He also perceived that Eli's sons had reached the point where they wouldn't have listened anyway (reprobate mind due to sin), so he transferred priesthood to Samuel and punished Eli's family for their abuse of priestly power.
Note, also that God spoke of this decision as a change to his original plan:
30 "Therefore, the Lord, the God of Israel, says: The terrible things you are doing cannot continue! I had promised that your branch of the tribe of Levi* would always be my priests. But I will honor only those who honor me, and I will despise those who despise me. 31 I will put an end to your family, so it will no longer serve as my priests. All the members of your family will die before their time. None will live to a ripe old age.
-----------
As for the other scripture, God did harden the hearts of the Israelites when they were being stubborn. In fact there are scriptures in the NT about this happening in regard to them accepting Jesus. But Paul explicitly states that the Jewish people are not predestined for eternal damnation:
Romans 11:
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27And this is[f] my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
--------------------
In short, the scriptures you cited don't prove predestination to me in the '5 Point Calvinist' sense but I do agree God can harden people's hearts when they are being stubborn and also that if a person sins a lot they can develop a reprobate mind and not even be able to hear God any more. But this is based on their actions, not some pre-ordained thing.
Maybe you have more scriptures to cite.
Phronk
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on finishing your thesis. But if highly intuitive people are more intelligent and intuition is how people like me communicate w/God then doesn't that mean some of us crazy Christians are actually purty smart?
For example, you could say someone is less intelligent because they believe in moral absolutes but a lawyer can be brilliant in how he deals with legal matters (which essentially serve absolutes while the lawyer is dealing with a court case).
Just thinking out loud.
Bob
ReplyDeleteI worked in a DOG FOOD FACTORY for 3 weeks so I guess we're both stupid.
"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..."
ReplyDeleteI'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?
"I worked in a DOG FOOD FACTORY for 3 weeks so I guess we're both stupid."
ReplyDeleteMQM, 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.
This really is the best you can do to define morality?:
ReplyDelete"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.
Well I am suprised,
ReplyDeleteVile 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteRe: 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.
Vile,
ReplyDeleteYour blogger profile says 'biotech' is your field. What exactly do you do for a living? Maybe that would explain why you are offended by Bob's comments.
Bob: 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.
ReplyDeleteBuahahahahaha! This is the most ignorant thing I've seen here. It even beats "if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys in zoos?"
Do you know what the defintion of psychology is? Do you know what science is? Are you at all familiar with any work done in psychology and/or the methods used in it?
"I don't think psychology is a science" is about equivalent to "I don't think squares have four sides"
I certainly won't bash philosophy; both personally and rationally, I believe it has its place. I also believe it must be fueled by data which is gathered scientifically. When such data concerns human behaviour, it is gathered by psychologists.
Basically Popper (and many other philosophers of science) have argued that Psychology theories are irrefutable and thus not science.
Good thing psychology has advanced in the few years it's been around (and grew out of philosophy..which you knew, right?). Any unfalsifiable theory raised today would fail to find publication, and thus fail to be accepted. Bringing up Freud just shows how outdated your view of psychology is.
even my atheist proffesors write psychology off as a pseudo-science!
If you study mutliple disciplines (which I think is crucial to fully understanding the world), I think you'll find that specialists in any one field will tend to bash all other fields, and especially those that are closely related. My opinion is that, in reality, each field has strengths and weaknesses, such that a specialist will overvalue their own field's strengths and other fields' weaknesses.
This takes the form of not doing your daily routine of work, and spending the day consciously seeking the Lord.
OK, fair enough. So all the people who do their daily work routine, such as working at the local convenience store, on a Sunday, are sinners, equally as bad as murderers and thieves? Because it would be arbitrary to choose among sins, right? And if you've ever worked yourself on a Sunday, well, you deserved to die, right? Until you asked for forgiveness, or whatever ritual you have to wipe away any wrongdoing?
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.
No - it is up to you to prove something's existence, not to me to disprove it. Otherwise anything goes. I can posit that there is an invisible goblin living in your brain, and he is evil and telling you to do evil things like preach immorality on internet message boards. If you deny it, the onus is clearly on me to prove that the goblin exists; not on you to prove that he doesn't (for example, by cutting open your head, which based on the psychology comment above, I think might actually lead to an improvement ;)
So in order for your system of morality to be convincing to anybody who doesn't already believe it, you must first lay the foundation by showing that God exists (since your system depends on this one questionable fact).
MQM: But if highly intuitive people are more intelligent and intuition is how people like me communicate w/God then doesn't that mean some of us crazy Christians are actually purty smart?
The problem there is that the "if" in your sentence is a big one. I (and most people) don't define intuition as a method of communication, let alone with God. Intuition is more an ability, a cognitive style, or a method of thinking (or non-thinking) than a way of communicating. I don't think we're talking about the same thing. But incidently, sure, lots of smart people are Christian. Lots of smart people are also terrorist masterminds. Brains aren't everything.
you could say someone is less intelligent because they believe in moral absolutes but a lawyer can be brilliant in how he deals with legal matters
A good point! Someone can be brilliant, in that they can quickly and efficiently process information, but that doesn't mean they'll come to correct conclusions all the time. A computer can be "smart" in that it does many calculations per second, but if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. If a very smart person is led to hold false beliefs, they may be able to quickly calculate all the consequences of the beliefs, but they will be false ones.
MQM, I won't say too much more about myself- politically sensitive matters and all additional rot.
ReplyDeleteVile, you just don't like answering questions and MQM is extremely nosey. But you kind of acted like you were some medical or psych professional who was insulted by Bob imposing on your turf...
ReplyDeleteNow you have me curious. Like maybe you work for some top secret government project or you perform abortions or something like that...biotech...hmmm..that could be breeding mutant creatures in test tubes as well.....that would make a good video..
"...some medical or psych professional..."
ReplyDeleteYes, 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.
So maybe you breed vile blasphemous creatures in test tubes hehehe.
ReplyDeleteVile Blasphemer – Back in Nazi Germany, not only was it “socially acceptable” for Hitler to murder millions of Jews – it was also legal.
ReplyDeleteSo 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?
"Does that make it okay to murder Jews in your eyes Mr. Blasphemer?"
ReplyDeleteObviously 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.
"PS, Bob, I still haven't gotten that email detailing your research publications."
ReplyDeleteUm, 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.
Dani:
ReplyDeleteI've pointed out the deep, deep flaw in that logic many times. Perhaps you've forgotten? Or are too dimwitted to understand it? Here, let me try again. I'll pretend I'm like you, and you can see how idiotic it is:
Dani, if you were so convinced in your own mind that God exists, you wouldn’t still be here after several months, fiercely continuing to object to science in your blog. The fact that you are still debating your faith 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 confident in their beliefs and are fighting for something worthwhile are the ones who believe in science.
Get it now? Or are you just comfortable with being blatantly hypocritical?
It's clear that you have no rational arguments, and when confronted with them, you disappear for a few days. For example, I'm still waiting for a response here.
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, and thus worth debating with and learning from.
Have fun murdering your kids when they break your insane laws.
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
ReplyDeleteUhh..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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, 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)
"Psychology is a great tool but how many shrinks just monkey around with meds in hopes that the patient will get better?"
ReplyDeleteMQM, 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI am aware of the difference between psychology and psychiatry. I take anti-depressants so I certainly don't knock the value of meds.
My point was that psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors do not have 'all the answers'. They are not all-knowing or all-powerful. However some seem to regard the sciences with quasi religious veneration.
VB:
ReplyDelete"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.
Bob: The psychology (is it science) issue is a mere side note.
ReplyDeleteTrue, 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.
...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.
Well, anyone involved in science already has a pretty clear definition of what it is. Your own ignorance of the definition does not invalidate it. And psychology is, by definition, the scientific study of human behaviour. You can argue about whether psychology does, in practice, live up to the ideals of the scientific method, but to say that psychology itself is not a science is simply false. There is no question: Psychology is a science.
I am in left field for even raising such a question.
Well, because to anyone who knows anything about science and psychology, you are. It would be like me saying "Bob is not a word containing the letters B, O, and B, in that order".
Phronk- maybe you could help VB out.
Nah. I think VB and I have different views on morality (though we'd agree on many aspects of it). And he can defend his view just fine himself (though he'd do even better if he dropped the ad hominem attacks :)
(I like brackets today)
I can't resist-
ReplyDeleteI never said I was "top secret" (*pfft*), just unwilling to endanger my projects with other people's politics.
I say Vile is into stem cell research. Or maybe he just works in a test tube factory.
ReplyDeletePhronk said:
ReplyDelete"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.
"I say Vile is into stem cell research. Or maybe he just works in a test tube factory."
ReplyDeleteMQM, 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.
"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."
ReplyDeleteLol. 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?
Why anything but ad hom against a pedant without established ethos?
ReplyDeleteYeah but Vile, since you won't tell us what you do and you run that kinda juvenile humor website, it doesn't do much to establish your credibility as an expert. If you have to remain top secret that's cool but I hope you don't list your blog on your 'CV'.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'
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?
ReplyDeleteIf so email: blunttruth@duhmag.com
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.
ReplyDeleteDani, 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.
Well those are the best points you've made Vile.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteWho have you asked? If anyone, what answers did they give you?
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!".
ReplyDeletePerhaps, then, you should comment on the content of the Wikipedia article in anticipation of such an argument?
ReplyDelete