Raving Conservative

Google

Friday, May 26, 2006

The Truth Giver

An interesting phenomenon has been occurring steadily that I have observed throughout my life. There are certain things, certain truths that even all but the purest of relativists call true without a second thought. Some of the truths are that rape is wrong, murder is wrong, pedophilia is wrong, and that anything that causes undue or unjust harm to another person is wrong. People that engage in activities along these lines are dismissed as evil and sick.

An interesting thing about truth, in order for it to be true it must be universally true. Otherwise it is not truth, but merely relative to circumstances. Anything that is relative is subject to change, and is therefore not truth because it is not constant.

So where does this truth come from? One look at man says that it cannot possibly come from us. Man is inconstant, and the mind and morals of man are subject to constant change and even corruption, such when illness sets in. Societal morals change dramatically over the course of time. For example, if a US soldier were to rape an enemy civilian today he would be court marshaled with a maximum penalty of death. However, during the US Civil War the Union code of conduct actually permitted the rape of enemy civilians, as long as a woman was not raped in front of her children. On a similar note, during this same period horse thieves were typically hanged, today such a thief would serve only a short jail term is he went to jail at all. In various societies around the world homosexuality has gone from wrong, to acceptable, to wrong, to widespread, to acceptable, to wrong, and so-on for thousands of years. Men can’t seem to make up their minds about whether it is right or wrong.

This said, humanity is not a trustworthy source of truth, and cannot be the truth giver. Mankind is simply too inconstant.

And what if there were no universal truths? What if there really were no such thing as truth and all is simply relative? Then all would be a lie, and not one thing humanity engaged in would be trustworthy, and there would be no sufficient moral compass to base laws upon. Prime examples of what happens when universal truth is removed from the equation can be found in the crimes of any despot who claims to be highest authority and answers to no one, not even God. The actions of these despots are appalling.

So if there must be truth, then there must be a truth giver. Since man is too inconsistent to be the source of truth, and nature is not a being in and of itself that is capable of giving moral truths, we are left with only remaining possible source of truth. That source is God.

God is the only eternal, unchangeable, incorruptible being in existence, which is what gives Him the unique qualification to be a giver of universal truth. These truths are self evident in the hearts, words, and actions of sane men. Even among men (and women) who ignore parts of the truth, other parts are so ingrained they cannot possibly ignore them, such as the examples I first gave in this article.

The existence of truth is, to my way of thinking, the first proof of God Himself.

26 Comments:

  • Your knowledge of history, mores and culture is extremely naive.

    "An interesting phenomenon has been occurring steadily that I have observed throughout my life. There are certain things, certain truths that even all but the purest of relativists call true without a second thought. Some of the truths are that rape is wrong, murder is wrong, pedophilia is wrong, and that anything that causes undue or unjust harm to another person is wrong. People that engage in activities along these lines are dismissed as evil and sick."

    You are speaking from your experience. Yet your Bible provides examples of where rape is condoned, pedophilia (depending upon what age you assume majority to be) is condoned, murder is condoned. Since your religion is based upon the Bible, that would necessitate the qualification of your religion as evil and sick.

    "An interesting thing about truth, in order for it to be true it must be universally true. Otherwise it is not truth, but merely relative to circumstances. Anything that is relative is subject to change, and is therefore not truth because it is not constant."

    So, then, it would best be said at this point that Christianity -- since it is relative and inconsistant -- is not a truth and therefore its mores and ethics are not a truth and should not be followed.

    "In various societies around the world homosexuality has gone from wrong, to acceptable, to wrong, to widespread, to acceptable, to wrong, and so-on for thousands of years. Men can’t seem to make up their minds about whether it is right or wrong."

    And before homosexuality was wrong it was permitted under circumstance. Of course you would know that if you actually knew anything about those societies you are generalizing.

    "And what if there were no universal truths? What if there really were no such thing as truth and all is simply relative? Then all would be a lie, and not one thing humanity engaged in would be trustworthy, and there would be no sufficient moral compass to base laws upon."

    Lack of truth does not equate to a lie. There are sufficient moral compasses on which to base laws without the need for universal religion. Feel free to study anthropology, you'll learn a good deal about mores and laws. Pick up any decent work on IE culture and religiosity. Pick up any decent work on Finno-Ugric culture and religiosity. Follow that up with a decent work on Northern NA culture and religiosity.

    "Prime examples of what happens when universal truth is removed from the equation can be found in the crimes of any despot who claims to be highest authority and answers to no one, not even God. The actions of these despots are appalling."

    And what is more appalling are those who commit their heinous crimes in the name of God. Mothers murdering children. Priests raping innocents. Hmm... but you forgot to mention that didn't you? Both of those things are condoned in the Bible, so you cannot claim they are not real christians or really following your god.

    "So if there must be truth, then there must be a truth giver. Since man is too inconsistent to be the source of truth, and nature is not a being in and of itself that is capable of giving moral truths, we are left with only remaining possible source of truth. That source is God."

    That is illogical and unsupported by your examples.

    "God is the only eternal, unchangeable, incorruptible being in existence, which is what gives Him the unique qualification to be a giver of universal truth. These truths are self evident in the hearts, words, and actions of sane men. Even among men (and women) who ignore parts of the truth, other parts are so ingrained they cannot possibly ignore them, such as the examples I first gave in this article."

    God changes, well, at least the christians need him to change. He is also corruptible, because as Jesus he was tempted. Temptation is corruption from the sinless state. There must be something within the being that permits temptation.

    His laws are no longer followed without question because they are immoral as you have stated above. If you feel that your above statements are based on truth, as you believe them to be, then either your god has changed or you have forfeited your right to determine what is truth and what isn't because you do not follow god's laws and deem them immoral, evil and sick.

    My suggestion to you:

    Think real hard before you post your entries. Do some serious research, don't just make claims without being capable of backing them up. Use logic, study logic, learn logic. BE LOGICAL. And seriously, get your head out of that cloud because it is really interfering with your ability to think critically.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:29 PM  

  • Daniel L -
    An interesting thing about truth, in order for it to be true it must be universally true. Otherwise it is not truth, but merely relative to circumstances. Anything that is relative is subject to change, and is therefore not truth because it is not constant.

    There are actually, philosophically speaking, two different types of 'truth'. Truth with a big T, and truth with a small t. Big 'T' truth is usually a mathematical truth, something even an animal recognizes when it counts its young and finds one missing and then cries all night for it because you gave it away to your cousin and her kids. Small 't' truth is just about everything else in this world, including the clock on the wall, the laws we make, and the words we speak.
    Using our language as an example of small 't' truth:
    English has undergone radical changes since its slow inception. We can barely, and usually not at all, understand Old English, have our fair share of trouble with Middle English, and a few hundred years from now I would imagine we would see significant changes as other languages continue to affect our own and such. It has been English for hundreds of years, but just not the same English that we all would readily agree upon. A truth that is flexible and ever changing.

    I'm not sure that I follow your argument in this post, but it seems that you make a pretty good argument for there not being universal truth, but then make an appeal that God should be placed as that universal truth. For every truth we find in our society, we can easily find an opposite, acceptable, truth in some other society. It seems hard to justify that any of our social truths are universal when the evidence shows otherwise.

    I would say that different parts of the world have arrived at different truths, and now as we become a single world entity we are attempting to find a balance between those differing truths.
    For example, Japanese culture has been greatly affected by our cultures truths, and in some ways they now resemble us, but not in all ways.
    As it stands now we have several versions of truth within the United States alone, with several versions of truth inside Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. As we blend and mix cultures we will end up with even more variations on our truths.
    I agree that mankind is not a trustworthy source of consistant truth, but I think the only way this could change would be through dominating other nations and forcing them to take up our ways and truths. Which will probably lead to a whole new series of truths within that new culture. People will always disagree on social issues, no matter what laws or books have been written to attempt to pin them down as truths.
    To use religion as an example, why have so many denominations developed if there is a single truth under God? We're just too wishy-washy and subject to too many outside influences to agree on everything 100% of the time. It would take a hive-mind of some sort to accomplish such a task.
    Judaism specifically underwent a major change in truth when it was enveloped and changed by Christianity. There were laws that were cast aside, with new laws created, by Paul and Jesus, and it became something different. The truth of Judaism changed to a new truth of Christianity, unless of course you are a Jew, and then you might say that nothing changed.
    This should be an interesting discussion,
    Thanks,
    Matt
    p.s. It has also occurred to me that we might have a different definition for the word 'truth'.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:14 PM  

  • Anonomys,

    "Yet your Bible provides examples of where rape is condoned, pedophilia (depending upon what age you assume majority to be) is condoned, murder is condoned."

    Wrong on all counts, and only posible if you engage in an active perversion of the Bible.

    I would ask you about how you are deefining pedophilia since, in almost every nation of the world the practice of a girl being eligible for menarche is the original practice, and girls as young as young 12 were geting married in the US within the last 100 years. When this is compared to the Jewish Tradition of young women getting married at the age of 16, and the range of the "age of consent" in the US ranging from 14-18 depending on which state you live in I am having a very hard time finding any portion of the Bible that condones Pedophilia. I also have never found a single instance of rape being condoned by lack of punishment in the Bible, unless you think being put to death, or being forced to pay a huge randsom and then to marry a woman who will never open herself up to you, and may hate you for your entire life with no way for you to escape is not a lifetime of punishment in your opinion.

    "So, then, it would best be said at this point that Christianity -- since it is relative and inconsistant -- is not a truth and therefore its mores and ethics are not a truth and should not be followed."

    Again, simply false. There are no inconsitencies in Christianity, only inconsistencies in the way the unwise interperet the Bible. To be fair, I consider all of humanity to be unwise because none of us has God's wisdom.

    "And before homosexuality was wrong it was permitted under circumstance. Of course you would know that if you actually knew anything about those societies you are generalizing."

    Are seriously trying to say that there is such a thing as a society that was built upon homosexuality? Learn you world and your cultural history. Every successful society was originally built on the traditional family, all changes came later.

    "Lack of truth does not equate to a lie."

    Simply one of the most ridiculous and uneducated statemants a person can make. Lack of truth leaves only untruth, and untruth is a lie.

    " Mothers murdering children. Priests raping innocents. Hmm... but you forgot to mention that didn't you? Both of those things are condoned in the Bible,"

    Again, you present a ridiculous lie and expect people to believe you. The crimes of false priests that you are using as an example have no Biblicasis, they are crimes according to the Bible.

    "That is illogical and unsupported by your examples."

    You have an alternative explanation? Or are you simply going to make a weak statement and expect peope to believe you?

    "God changes, well, at least the christians need him to change. He is also corruptible, because as Jesus he was tempted"

    As a Christian I am here to state clearly that God does not change no mater how much any person may wish Him to. I will acknowledge that mankind has frequently sought to redifine God to suit his own needs, but it does not change God. Also, your assertion that temptaation is itself sin a fallacy in logic. Sin is defined by action, not by the the devil attempting to decieve us into sin. You are using a bad definition of temptation, and it is nowhere close to the meaning of the Greek word. (The oldest books of the New Testament that have been found are all written in Greek and Latin) The temptation of Jesus was simply an offer of good things, food, power, and wealth, but in exchange for sinful actions. Seriously man, a little education woud do you a world of good.

    "Use logic, study logic, learn logic. BE LOGICAL."

    How ironic that would say such a thing after you have demonstrated such a thorough inability to do what you have suggested. My logic is sound, and nothing you have said here comes close to even scratching it.

    Matt,

    What a refreshing comment! What you have lain out here is exactly why I say that if there is real moral truth, truth that is not subjective to any whim or change of any kind that ther MUST be a truth giver. Philosophically speaking I was not speaking in regard to math, but morals. Either there is a truth that we all acknowledge in some way, or all is relative and there can be no truth and all is simply illusion and deception. Some people may be comfortable calling everything relative regardless of any evidence to the contrary, but I submit that the there IS a universal moral truth. Such a truth can only exist of there is an unchanging truth giver who is himself both eternal and unchanging.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:12 PM  

  • This is just a rehash of the previous posts and another way to put the boot in to the gays.

    The really bad things you list at the beginning of your post are really bad because they do harm to others, not because God, Vishnu, Buddha or Allah decided this was the case. Human beings are capable of a lot more than you give them credit for. I mean, they wrote all the holy books, didn't they?

    This post is now going to consist of someone commenting and then Daniel breaking down their points and telling them that they are wrong. Again. Daniel, It must be hard to live a life obsessed with all the bad in the world, the bad that does not affect your daily existence. Be happy, live a little and don't be the self-appointed Sin Monitor. Take your wife out for dinner, laugh, eat, drink, be merry. Then write a nice post about what a good time you had. I want happy days!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 3:34 AM  

  • "Wrong on all counts, and only posible if you engage in an active perversion of the Bible."

    Quotes have already been provided in a previous entry on how those "evil and sick" activities were condoned in the Bible, at times even commanded by your god. There is no active perversion. It is written in the bible and can be referenced at any point in time.

    "I would ask you about how you are deefining pedophilia since, in almost every nation of the world the practice of a girl being eligible for menarche is the original practice, and girls as young as young 12 were geting married in the US within the last 100 years. When this is compared to the Jewish Tradition of young women getting married at the age of 16, and the range of the "age of consent" in the US ranging from 14-18 depending on which state you live in I am having a very hard time finding any portion of the Bible that condones Pedophilia."

    Because of the very fact that there is no age given for the "virgins" who must be taken against their will. Likewise there is no reference specifically stating that the "virgins" are at or beyond the age of consent. In fact there is no differentiation between the ages of the "virgins" as opposed to the the differentiation between the mothers/ sons/fathers that are all murdered under the command of your god. If we take "virgin" to mean "unwed" in the original sense then there is absolutely no basis for assumption that it refers only to adolescent or majority.

    "Again, simply false. There are no inconsitencies in Christianity, only inconsistencies in the way the unwise interperet the Bible. To be fair, I consider all of humanity to be unwise because none of us has God's wisdom."

    There are inconsistencies in Christianity. You have given them in your posts. If murder is wrong, evil and sick (according to your response) then the bible and christianity are wrong, evil and sick. If the bible is the wisdom of God as handed down by him, then he is wrong, evil and sick. That of course is contrary to your claim. Therefore, either you are inconsistent or christianity is and since you are arguing from the correctness of your beliefs that must mean logically (as the only other source for your statements) that christianity is inconsistent.

    "Are seriously trying to say that there is such a thing as a society that was built upon homosexuality? Learn you world and your cultural history. Every successful society was originally built on the traditional family, all changes came later."

    Nope did not say any such thing. Of course, as par for the course, you would jump to such an extreme conclusion based upon my statements. I have learned a bit of world and cultural history, apparently more than you have so far. Homosexuality, particularly among war bands, was a common thing cross-culturally. Cross-dressing, trsnvestism in the original sense, was also common cross-culturally.

    Not every successful society was built upon Judeo-christian mores. Yes the family and solidarity were the foundation and smallest group dynamic for many traditional cultures, but that is not the case with christianity which is quite obviously not based upon the same concepts. That is part of the difference between folk religiosities and universalist religions. For further reference feel free to pick up Russell's The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity.

    "Simply one of the most ridiculous and uneducated statemants a person can make. Lack of truth leaves only untruth, and untruth is a lie."

    No, actually not. There is also the inconclusive. There is the fact that anything that cannot be demonstrated consistently is just speculation and not considered true. Statements such as "the sky is blue" are innaccurate, but not a lie. Lies are dependant upon the will to decieve, not upon innaccuracy or lack of supporting evidence.

    "Again, you present a ridiculous lie and expect people to believe you. The crimes of false priests that you are using as an example have no Biblicasis, they are crimes according to the Bible."

    These are not crimes of false priests. These are actions of people based upon their perceived understanding of biblical scripture. Deuteronomy 21:18-21, its in the bible look it up. Modern christianity has taken the power out of its people and placed it in the hands of the minority (priesthood), thereby creating the situation that leads to sexual assault. The basis for these actions (those of the church) is the biblical scripture. The priests take it to the extreme, but they were given the power to do so by scripture, church and congregation.

    "You have an alternative explanation? Or are you simply going to make a weak statement and expect peope to believe you?"

    I have made no weak statements. I provide the sources for my conclusions, and actually provide them. You have still failed to provide all of the sources asked of you.

    Just because humans have created concepts such as "moral truths" and "universal truths" to define or describe their personal preference towards or for the study of social behavior does not mean that it is necessary for such truths to have ever existed. Likewise, simply because a religion takes an universalist approach does not mean that it is universally appropriate.

    "As a Christian I am here to state clearly that God does not change no mater how much any person may wish Him to."

    Then why aren't you killing your neighboring tribes of non-believers and taking and forcing their virgin daughters to provide you with offspring? Then why when good christian family's have bad heathen children are they not taken out in public and stoned to death?

    "I will acknowledge that mankind has frequently sought to redifine God to suit his own needs, but it does not change God. "

    Which is exactly what you are doing.

    "Also, your assertion that temptaation is itself sin a fallacy in logic. Sin is defined by action, not by the the devil attempting to decieve us into sin. You are using a bad definition of temptation, and it is nowhere close to the meaning of the Greek word."

    No, not really. The original Greek? What was the original Greek word? If it does not mean temptation as it is translated, then how do we know anything in the bible has been translated into English correctly?

    "How ironic that would say such a thing after you have demonstrated such a thorough inability to do what you have suggested. My logic is sound, and nothing you have said here comes close to even scratching it."

    No, not really. Wild leaps, based upon insufficient understanding of the examples does not equate to sound logic. I haven't provided you with any conclusions therefore my examples are logical responses to your vague and generalized statements and frequent contradictions.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:42 AM  

  • Reference to the first Anonymous post: This is an example of someone who deliberately twists and mangles Biblical passages in order to misrepresent God and Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible does God condone the rape of kids. And the practice of homosexuality is equally condemned in both the Old and the New Testament, being downgraded from an abomination in the Old Testament to being merely "unseemly" in the New Testament. In either case, equally "unacceptable" in the eyes of God.

    Anonymous #1 also pontificates about "all the crimes" committed in the name of Christianity. This person conveniently ignores all the good that has been done in the name of Christianity because of apparent knee-jerk anti-Christian bigotry. Anonymous also ignores the fact that of the top 25 nations in the world in per-capita income, most of them are Christian in origin, except for a couple of oil-rich Arab states, Japan, and Israel, which is disproportionately propped up with American aid. The reason crimes are committed in the name of religion is because God permits us free agency - up to a point. However, He does not allow wickedness to completely overthrow the earth. That's why the Allies were permitted to defeat the Axis in WWII. That's why we prevailed over the Soviets in the Cold War. In each case, the victors were less wicked than the vanquished.

    Also note, Daniel, how Anonymous #1 attempts to demonize you because you don't subscribe to he/she/its viewpoint. Classic intellectual arrogance - disagreement obviously indicates inferior education. Strange how God chose an illiterate 14-year old boy named Joseph Smith to restore the fullness of the Gospel back in 1830. I guess God isn't as impressed with sheepskins as Anonymous is.

    Finally, Anonymous, you know as much about Christianity as a 5-year old knows about flying an F-15. Much of Christianity looks upon God and Jesus as separate entities - two separate beings but one in purpose. Check Matthew 6:9, where Jesus says "When ye pray, pray after this manner, Our FATHER in heaven". NOT our son in heaven. Try educating yourself a bit more in Christianity before you start bashing it, Anonymous.

    Rarely have I ever seen as much moral relativism shoehorned into one post as you crammed into your screed, Anonymous.

    By Blogger Anchorage Activist, at 12:40 AM  

  • What worries do you have with morality, and what are your concerns with it in Christianity Daniel? Paul taught you that upholding the law is not important. He taught you that what is more important is your faith. Thats why Christians lack discipline. Do whatever you like, Jesus will save you...at least thats what Paul taught. Jesus on the other hand said that whoever changes a dot of the law will be in lowest depths of hell. So much for Paul being a saint huh!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:38 PM  

  • I wasn't aware this blog was now just religion and anti-darwinism. It seems like the once good Conservative blog you had has just started to become less and less appealing to me. I don't like all of these ridiculous attacks on evolution, yet no proof to your creationism but the bible. And now it's this nonstop God talk. Which is fine, but I can't say I like it. Become a preist and talk religion, or make a religion blog for all I care, but I just want you to know that I was a big fan of your blog with your Conservative points of view and a plan to run for a government job. Then it went to 8 posts about how evolution is fake and yada yada. Now, I'm not so excited about you running. Sorry if I sound mean, but if you want to keep this reader you'll want to listen to him.

    By Blogger Cody O'Connor, at 4:31 AM  

  • Oh, and I also agree with most of what dan project wrote too.

    By Blogger Cody O'Connor, at 4:35 AM  

  • Cody, its funny how many people follow by evolutionism, yet the very man who proposed the THEORY said it is flawed and illogical and has missing links. People who came after him tried to solve these flaws and still could not.

    By Blogger Shereeza, at 9:47 AM  

  • Levesque, your argumets are pompously transparent rhetorical hogwash. Good luck getting into office.

    By Blogger Vile Blasphemer, at 11:43 AM  

  • "Cody, its funny how many people follow by evolutionism, yet the very man who proposed the THEORY said it is flawed and illogical and has missing links. People who came after him tried to solve these flaws and still could not."

    I never said Darwins theory was perfect, but I do think he was on the right track most definetly. Yes, it is a theory to explain the fact that we are here, and this theory despite the "flaws" has a lot more going for it than pure theology.

    By Blogger Cody O'Connor, at 3:07 PM  

  • For myself, I believe this is an excellent post. I don't understand all the anger it has brought forth, but that's probably because I agree with Daniel.

    Evolution however possible, does not take away from God, not in my mind. If evolution is ever proven to be a fact, which it has not been, that still doesn't prove God didn't create it. God's time is not our time. The six days the bible says it took God to create everything does not have to literally mean 6 "mankind" days. One day could equal a billion years for all we know.

    Just a thought. I'm just as much entitled to my opinion here as anonymous is, and anonymous sure is full of opinions!

    It's a good post, Daniel. Don't let anyone drag you down.

    I can't for the life of me figure out why people are telling you what to write about on "your" blog. Write whatever you please. It is, after all, your space.

    And of course I do believe God to be the final authority. Blessings.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 5:14 PM  

  • Just curious, since this post deals with Universal Truth.
    Daniel wrote,
    Some of the truths are that rape is wrong, murder is wrong, pedophilia is wrong, and that anything that causes undue or unjust harm to another person is wrong.
    The only problem with these assumptions is that not all cultures throughout all of time have found these items to be wrong. Somewhere, at some time, everything has been accepted, whether we accept them in our time and place or not.
    Can anyone name a 'moral' Universal Truth that has, as implied by the word Universal, always been true for all cultures and periods of time?

    Murder, Rape, Suicide, Genocide, etc.. have at one point or another been fully acceptable by some culture or a vast number of the population of that culture.

    Gayle -
    Just a thought. I'm just as much entitled to my opinion here as anonymous is, and anonymous sure is full of opinions!

    There are multiple Anonymous's, therefore covering numerous opinions.


    - Matt

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:20 PM  

  • "I'm just as much entitled to my opinion..."

    An odd statement from someone who polices and bans commentors on her own blog.

    By Blogger Vile Blasphemer, at 7:30 AM  

  • Vile Blasphemer, I think Gayle's Blog is policed by that God fellow himself, via Gayle's mouse and keyboard.

    I hate censorship. If you have a blog you should expect discussion and debate.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 12:19 PM  

  • Dan, I was a perfectly genteel guest on her blog and she took personal affront to a comment I made about the frightening theocratic movement amongst some Christians. I'm guessing she wasn't as moderate as she claimed.

    By Blogger Vile Blasphemer, at 4:18 PM  

  • I will write one comment in my defense here, and one comment only:

    My blog is to put forth my views, not yours. You have every right to use your blogs for whatever you choose on your own space, as do I. If you enjoy arguing your points, then that's fine and you also have every right to do that. I don't enjoy arguing or debating. I'm not blogging to debate with others and there is no "blogging" law that says I must tolerate liberals and trolls taking over my blogs, and I don't. It's as simple as that.

    I am a Christian Republican conservative putting forth my Christian, Republican and conservative beliefs and agenda. No one asks people who disagree with me to read my blog or to comment. I don't even want their comments, and that is my right! I don't expect or even want you, Dan, or anonymous here, reading my blogs. I know who you are and how you think. We may as well be from two different planets. There is no middle ground because I will not change my views nor will you change yours. You are able to debate with people who enjoy debate, like Daniel here, and you should be grateful for the opportunity of doing so, because Daniel puts up with you. Most of my commentors feel the same way I do.

    Vile Blasphemer said: ""I'm just as much entitled to my opinion..."
    "An odd statement from someone who polices and bans commentors on her own blog."

    No, it is not an odd statement at all. I know my opinions are welcome on Daniel's blog, as his are on mine. And just so you know, I would never allow anyone who calls himself "Vile Blasphemer" to comment on my posts. Even what you call yourself is vile and offensive to me. Daniel is able to overlook it, which is his right. I choose not to, and that is mine.

    Now, you may say anything you want. I will not come back in here to defend myself, so have at it. :)

    By Blogger Gayle, at 6:14 PM  

  • "You are able to debate with people who enjoy debate, like Daniel here, and you should be grateful for the opportunity of doing so, because Daniel puts up with you."

    Gee, thanks Mom! :-)

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 3:05 AM  

  • Gayle: I am a Christian Republican conservative putting forth my Christian, Republican and conservative beliefs and agenda. No one asks people who disagree with me to read my blog or to comment. I don't even want their comments

    There is no middle ground because I will not change my views…


    Are all Christian Republican conservatives as inquisitive, open minded and tolerant as you, Gayle?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:36 AM  

  • Is that a rhetorical question?

    And yes, I am maybe being a little bit mean... but narrow minded ignorant people who use their so called faith to put anyone who doesn't subsribe to their specific worldview down have given me nothing but trouble in the past and they are unfortunately running the most powerful nation on this planet. That frightens me!

    When I read certain things on the internet I am so thankful that I live in a country where independent thought is encoursged, where common sense and being nice to people is more important than bigotry and where criticising the government is almost a national pastime rather than an almost traitorous action!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 6:43 AM  

  • "I know who you are and how you think."

    How dare you! God abhors astrologers and psychics! Burn her!

    "And just so you know, I would never allow anyone who calls himself "Vile Blasphemer" to comment on my posts."

    Wanna bet? In fact, you allowed three of my comments on your Friday Post blog in the past. I was simply answering a question for someone at your blog when you exploded for some unknown reason (probably frightened when the looking glass looked into you).

    Of course, I can't link to those specific comments since you apparently don't allow archive access, but don't worry, I'm sure they are there if you haven't HaloScanned me away (you wimp).

    "Now, you may say anything you want. I will not come back in here to defend myself, so have at it."

    Yes you will... if you really are a Texan, then you're full of big, empty talk and can't back down from a fight. I'm going to link your blogs, so more people can enjoy your gutless bluster.

    PS: A theocrat is not a Republican- it's a fascist; thus, you are not a Republican.

    By Blogger Vile Blasphemer, at 7:16 AM  

  • Anonomys,

    "Quotes have already been provided in a previous entry on how those "evil and sick" activities were condoned in the Bible, at times even commanded by your god. There is no active perversion."

    And I already destroyed your so called quotes based on your own editing, incorrect passages, and verifiable misquotes. Put simply, what you put fort was either not in the Bible at all, or you took a sentence, removed the rest of the paragraph that gives the sentence it's true life, and then you presented a lie of omission in order to try to make your own desired point of view appear true. Try to do better than rehash your own lkamely presented, proven lies of the past.

    "Because of the very fact that there is no age given for the "virgins" who must be taken against their will."

    You are entirely too ridicuously funny sometimes. You are saying that the Bible condones pedophilia because it does not specify an age of consent. This has got to be one of your more ridiculous assertions you have ever made. Jewish tradition, goin as far back as we can verify, has young women being marriable at the age of 16.

    Furthermore, by your own logic the US Constitution condones pedophila, murder, and every crime in existence withthe singular exception of treason since it is the only crime the US Costitution spefically mentions. Following this same logic we are forced to declare every law but laws against treason to be unconstitutional. Like I said, you are making the most ridiculous, illogical argument a person can make.

    "There are inconsistencies in Christianity. You have given them in your posts. If murder is wrong, evil and sick (according to your response) then the bible and christianity are wrong, evil and sick."

    Again, you are simply wrong. Executing criminals and death in warfare are not murder. I realize there are some people who lack the intelectual ability to grasp this simple concept, and it is sadening to see thatyou are one of them. Perhaps with age your ability to reason will advance enough to be able to grasp such simple concepts.

    "Not every successful society was built upon Judeo-christian mores."

    Right, only the most succesful ones, Europe and America. However, I was stating that every successful society was originally built on the traditional family, a concept that trancends every culture and religion in the world. Homosexual marriage has never been permitted in all of human history until just the last few years in a few places.

    "Then why aren't you killing your neighboring tribes of non-believers and taking and forcing their virgin daughters to provide you with offspring? Then why when good christian family's have bad heathen children are they not taken out in public and stoned to death?"

    1- your first assertion was not a standing universal commandment, and it never involved taking the women of the enemy, in fact, if you actually read the Bible you would see that the Jews were forbidden from interbreeding with the gentiles, and in the case of the taking of the land of Israel, specifically forbidden from having relations with any of the inhabitants of that land at the time. Which brings the second point, The Jews were never commanded to make continual war against their neighbors. It was only the taking Israel where an aggressive, rather defansive war was ever commanded by God.
    Second, Jesus provided the picture of how the law of God is to be applied, and it is to be applied with great mercy, forgiveness, and instruction, even so far as he did not condemn an adulterous, one of the worst kinds of criminals to the jewish mind back then, but rather uused her to point out the hyppocrisy of man's judgement de to the fact that we are all burdened by sin. However, he also expanded the definiton of various sins, showing how we are guilty even of the sins we merely engaged in within our own minds. Again, without a serious study of the complete Bible you have no understanding of God, or Christianity. There are no conflicts, no contradictions.

    "These are actions of people based upon their perceived understanding of biblical scripture. Deuteronomy 21:18-21, its in the bible look it up"

    You present an argument saying that pedophile priests are foloowing the Bible, then when I point out the fallacy of your argument you turn around and try to say that the pasage of Old Testament law stating that a child who will not turn from gross rebellion is to be executed is somehow the Bible condoning the acts of pedophiles molestng and raping children. You're just sick.

    "No, actually not. There is also the inconclusive."

    Inconclusive only means that we do not percieve the truth or fallacy contained withiin the situation, it does not eliminate the existnce of truth or lies. Again, you lack very basic reason in your arguments.

    "I have made no weak statements. I provide the sources for my conclusions"

    yes you have actualy. You make a myriad of weak statements, and so far every source you cite has been verified as you changing the source to suit your neeeds, and is therefore not in support of your assertions. The only way to draw most of the conclusions that you have drawn is to take what you want to be true and superimpose it on the facts, and if the facts don't fit, edit them, and this is exactly what I have proven that you are doing.

    "No, not really. The original Greek? What was the original Greek word? If it does not mean temptation as it is translated, then how do we know anything in the bible has been translated into English correctly?"

    Everything in the Bible has been translated as precicely as possible given the linguistic differences between the original texts and modern translations. not every word translates with 100% precision though. Take love for example, there are numerous words depicting different kinds of love in the original texts, but in English we only have the one word, love. Regarding your concern about the accuracy of the variou stranslaions of the Bible, it is a very valid one, and one that Christians have been dedicating countless effort to for centuries now. I is why the Roman Catholic Church did not want teh Bible translated out of Latin, to avoid mistranslations of God's word. It is why the greatest Biblical Scholars agree that the best, most reliable Engish translation of the Bible is the Old King James Version, followed very closely by the New King James Version, then the The New International Version. There are many translations of the Bible that are actually condemed as being simply innaccurate, and sloppy works of scolarship and translation. Both King James Versions are so concerned with accuracy that every single word that does not translate with 100% precision, meaning it converys all of the exact same meaning as the original text is written in italics. You will not that a great many words are presented in Italics. However, I should have been more clear, the definition of temptation that YOU Provided does not coincide with the original, but the word itself, according to the dictionary does. The word tempt simply means to entice, which means to lure or attract. So for forty days Jesus was being enticed to sin, but did not sin. He even had angels ministering to Him during this time, He did not engage in any sin, and your entire argument is false, as every one of your arguments aaginst the Bible has been proven to be so far. Seriously, you need some education.

    "No, not really. Wild leaps, based upon insufficient understanding of the examples does not equate to sound logic. I haven't provided you with any conclusions therefore my examples are logical responses to your vague and generalized statements and frequent contradictions."

    No, really. Your wild leaps based upon insufficent understanding of the examples is very unsound logic. Your conclusions are only logical if you have no understandign of what you are looking at. And it proves something Jesus said, and I paraphrase: "They shall be blinded so that in seeing and hearing they will not understand." Everything you are presenting about your own understanding, your twisted logic, and your inability to understand the simplest of statements made in the Bible, right up to your own insertions of what you wish were there proves that without the Sprirt of the Lord to guide one through the Bible there is no understanding, no logic, no anything but confusion like the kind you are demonstrating. It is interesting that even your own attempots to destroy the Bible are proof of what the Bible declares, in places you have not gone, regarding how men will react to Christianity.

    lAter on . . .
    "Do whatever you like, Jesus will save you...at least thats what Paul taught."

    Again, uterly incorrect based on incomplete knowledge and understanding. Readthe entire book that contains the passage you are twisting, maybe then you will understand why I am saying your are wrong again.

    Anchorage Activist,

    Excellent response, Although I am an Evangelical, not a Mormon.

    Cody,

    "I wasn't aware this blog was now just religion and anti-darwinism. It seems like the once good Conservative blog you had has just started to become less and less appealing to me."

    The evolution debate has taken up most of my efforts, hence the lack of politics for the time being. Also, Got temporarily burned out on politics when I worked so hard to get a ggood man elected Mayor f Anchorage only to have it fail, and then all the work setting up and then dismantling my own Gubernatorial campaign. You may want to come back in about 2 weeks when I get back to an emphasis on politics, but there will always be religious stuff mixed in with the politics, as well as interesting points of science. WHen the evolution is over, and it very nearly is, I intend to leave that debate behind because I will have said all that I have to say about it.

    Matt:

    "The only problem with these assumptions is that not all cultures throughout all of time have found these items to be wrong"

    Which is exactly my point regarding the inability of man to be a giver of universal truth. Man changes too much. Manis inconsistent, and if man is the ulimate authority then there is no truth at all.

    CJB,

    "Are all Christian Republican conservatives as inquisitive, open minded and tolerant as you, Gayle?"

    Not at all. Some are like me :)

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:09 AM  

  • "Everything in the Bible has been translated as precicely as possible given the linguistic differences between the original texts and modern translations. not every word translates with 100% precision though."

    Good job, you just invalidated your own religious text. Connotative differences are always important.

    By Blogger Vile Blasphemer, at 1:11 PM  

  • Daniel L said,
    Man is inconsistent, and if man is the ulimate authority then there is no truth at all.

    I believe the lack of consistent moral truths throughout our world's history leads to that conclusion. It is a dreary one, to be sure, but I think we make our own truth.
    This probably goes back to hunter-gatherers attempting to survive, keeping their numbers as large as they can sustain and feel safe within. It then moves out from there, protect my stuff, protect those I have an emotional bond with, protect the land that I need to survive, etc.
    Personally, I think this is where our truths originate from, with some cultures diverging from this pattern or translating them in different ways than our own.
    - Matt

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:15 PM  

  • By the way, Gayle, I left you a message over on your blog despite your silly ban.

    By Blogger Vile Blasphemer, at 1:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares