Praying to a Milk Jug?

One could probably write a tome about how bad this analogy is, but I'll just go with this: unlike the immutable word of God, milk will go bad in a few days, and you'll have to throw it out.

As the risk of a very bad pun on a very good hymn, "Great Is Thy Faithfulness", the second line says, "there is no shadow of turning with Thee"

A Glutton For Punishment: Part III

Still at it. I have to admit, I've had to do a little homework relative to the claims atheists often make to at least better understand their arguments.

So what else have I learned from atheists?

We're all innately good. We're born that way.

When it comes to morality, black can in fact be white

Its pointless to study the Bible. Its obviously full of bad stuff.

I got into an extended discussion with an atheist over morality. The argument was that God, or more to their point, religion (not mutually inclusive, btw) is not required in order to be moral. Moreover, to follow the Hitchens line of reasoning, we're born with innate goodness. Hey, if you're innately good, then it stands to reason you will be moral, irrespective of what you believe or not believe. Children only require friendly reminders from time to time to stay on the moral track and follow the 'golden rule'. How many of you with actual (not virtual) children have had this kind of interchange:

"Now Johnny, you haven't forgotten about the golden rule when it comes to sharing toys with your little brother have you?"

"Ooops, I'm sorry, dad. Just slipped my mind for a second. Here unnamed little brother, you can have my toy. I sure as heck want to treat you as well as I'd like to be treated. Wow, dad! It feels so much better now that I'm totally back in line with my innate goodness... thanks!

"Anytime son. Better get cleaned up for dinner. Mom's making pot-roast!"

Now most likely, my atheist or anti-theist friends won't find a whole lot of humor in that. Please refer to Part II as to why.

What I found particularly interesting in a couple of exchanges were these statements about adultery and morality. For the sake of clarity (heh), I'm 'me' and my atheist counterpart is 'him"

him: "There are really only three possible crimes... Theft (fraud, which is indirect theft), force and the threat of force and that's it."

me: So only those things that are criminal offenses are immoral? Here, at least, adultery is not a crime, but would that be considered immoral, or does that not count? Maybe you could clarify.

him: "Now, is adultery immoral in general. That is a difficult question to answer... "

Now that wasn't all of the answer, obviously. There was a lot of science related our propensity to spread our 'seed' and how that competes with marital fidelity from a philosophical standpoint. In other words, it was a non-answer.

Wait! It gets better...

me: Let me make sure I've got this right. You're telling me that when it comes to morality, cheating on a spouse "...is a difficult question to answer..."?

him: "No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat. "

I'm guessing 'OK' is equivalent to 'moral' at this point. Further down in the SAME post:

him: "Now I certainly was not condoning adultery..."

Further down in the SAME post:

him: "Now in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act."

At this point, my atheist counterpart was trying to explain that certain circumstances would allow adultery without it being considered an immoral act. I think guys have pretty well been trying to explain that very same thing to their wives for centuries:

" Hey honey...I know you've been SO tired lately, it would have been immoral for me to expect you to satisfy my sexual urges, so I visited a prostitute instead. It was the only right thing to do!"

When I called him on that obvious contradiction, he responds:

him: "Now there is no contradiction in me saying I do not condone adultery but then adding a caveat...Again you are totally misunderstanding me... By me describing why people behave in a certain way, is not the same as condoning it."

I pointed out again that he in fact said that, "... in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act." Seems to me that calling something moral, under whatever circumstances IS the same as condoning it.


Well, that never really got resolved. I did suggest that he hadn't made a serious study of the Bible. I did get the 'standard list of Bible quotations related to stoning people' he pulled off the internet, sans context. I suppose it would have been more civilized if they'd gotten lethal injections instead?

And this:

him: I have read it, but no I'm not an expert on the Bible... Does one have to be an expert to know that there is some pretty horrible stuff in it, rather a lot actually, of course not... No more than one has to be an expert to know that Mien Kampf is full of horrible stuff too...

Well, I never said the guy HAD to be an expert, just study it. I don't think I'd want to stick my intellectual neck out on the content of "Mein Kampf" unless I'd had an opportunity to read and understand said content, but that's just my opinion, and I might be wrong.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part II

Well, it sure has been a busy time for me lately. Some of these atheists are pretty prolific writers. Its hard to keep up. With all that, here's some other things I've picked up on...

• They use flying pigs, the Tooth Fairy, milk jugs, and pretty much anything else as the functional equivalent of God. That is to say, that believing in God makes no more sense than said flying pigs, or fairies. Literally, there is no difference for them.

• Humor: There just doesn't seem to be a lot of joking around allowed with these guys. Its like, "If I laugh at this Christianist's jokes, it'll be tacit approval of his beliefs!".

One method of discrediting an opposing position is to equating it with something unrelated that doesn't deserve serious discussion. Hence, the "God is no more real than flying pigs" argument. In this wide, wonderful world of ours, there may be some group out there that believe in and worship flying pigs, but they ain't in Google anywhere. No flying pig Bible, either. No claim by a flying pig that he created the universe. No flying pig commandments. No flying pig cable programming. Where's the equivalency?

One area of many where there is no equivalency are the twelve disciples. You'd think after a couple of years on the road with Jesus, day in and day out, they would know Him better than anyone, right? Out of those 12, ten were martyred, and one exiled for life, because they wouldn't renounce their beliefs. Now you'd think that if your life was on the line, and you KNEW that this whole Jesus thing was actually a sham, you'd give it up and say, "OK, ya' got me. The water into wine, loaves and fishes, raising from the dead, healing the sick, controlling the elements, Son of God, and especially the Resurrection...all smoke and mirrors, just don't kill me". You'd think that after Jesus was crucified, that would've been the end of the road trip. Peter would have been on the Roman equivalent of 60 Minutes saying, "Jesus? Oh, that was a long time ago. I'd rather not talk about it. I've been able to put that aaalll behind me, and move on with my life. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got fish to catch." Point is, they didn't. People will die for what they believe. Got enough Jihadists out there to prove that. What they won't do, is suffer and die for something they KNOW is not true.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part I

Somehow or another, I've taken to surfing atheist websites. I guess its like driving by a car wreck or a burning building, I just can't help but look. Now, I've been able to understand someone believing something different than I do, especially if 'they wuz raised that way', but I for the life of me couldn't understand how a person can believe in...well, nothing, in terms of how we got here, why we're here, all that stuff. I was thinking I could understand the whole 'god is bunk' thing by cruising the seemingly endless number of atheist blogs out there. Here's the first thing I've found in the short time I've been surfing:

• Atheists are generally mad about stuff.

It seems that atheists are generally pretty mad, mostly at theists. They're especially mad at the Christian variety. If we narrow it down to fundamentalist Christians, well...the reaction borders on apoplexy. Let me say that it doesn't seem to take much to get them riled up. Christopher Hitchens seems nice enough until he starts talking about religion, then the gloves come off. I guess if I was told I was wrong all the time and that I was going to Hell, I'd probably be a little miffed at theistic folks too. Evidently some atheists are aware of the perception that they're mad all the time. One atheist blogger in particular exhorted his fellow atheists to be more calm and rational as a way to prove they could be nice, without God. Peculiar too is alot of these atheists were evidently involved in churches to varying degress and somehow the wheels came off on the Faith Wagon. It stands to reason that when a relationship breaks up, especially one with God, there's gonna be hard feelings for a while. It shows...

Party of Choice for Terrorists

Well, they're Islamic Fascists after all, but terrorism is their political tactic of choice. Anyway, in analyzing the huge increase in violence and the casualty count for our troops in Iraq, the message is clear. The enemy understands enough about our political situation in America, and our history ( can you say Tet Offensive?) to pull out all the stops in October. Using carnage and flag-draped coffins to push the electorate to a Democrat controlled House and Senate will effectively shackle Bush's policy as it pertains to Iraq, even to the point of setting up timetables for withdrawal. They're telling you and me who they want in control. So, who you votin' for?

Here's the whole Reuters scandal in living color!

Hat tip to Brother Ed:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Exactly...any questions?

I think Lamont is getting the hang of it... Brilliant!

Looking at the transcript from Foxnews Sunday, here's (part of) what I got:

WALLACE: You say that the NSA warrantless wiretaps are illegal. You've called for President Bush to be censured because he allegedly broke the law. You also have been very critical of the Patriot Act. Now that we've had word of the terror plots — and we know as we've been discussing today that Britain already has a lot of laws, legal tools that we don't — would you really take away some of the weapons we have now to fight terror?

LAMONT: No, it's not a question of taking away any laws. It's a question of having a president of the United States who follows the law.

Typical flak, but lets continue:

WALLACE: You've also been critical of the Patriot Act. Are there some elements of that that you wish had not been passed?

LAMONT: Look, when it comes to the Patriot Act, again, I think it ought to be tightly drawn to respect our civil liberties but also give the American intelligence community all the tools they need to fight the War on Terror. And I think it's a careful balance we have to have there.

Didn't address any of the elements Wallace asked about, but invokes giving our intel guys all the tools they need. As long as its Libs doing the giving.

Brilliant!

Add in some Mom and Apple Pie. But lets continue...

WALLACE: Is there any specific measure in the Patriot Act that's in there now that you would like to see taken out?

LAMONT: Well, certainly, there's been an awful lot of talk about going after librarians...

That's it? BTW, all you terrorist guys, take the 1000's of tracphones you got and go to the libraries...they won't follow you there.

Brilliant!

WALLACE: Last week you were asked the following, and let's put it up on the screen, what would you do right now if you were in the Senate about Iraq? Your answer, "I would have supported, you know, the Kerry-Feingold amendment which calls for pulling out all U.S. troops out of Iraq by next July."

Lamont goes on for some time describing how bad things are there as the impetus for getting out and ends with this:

LAMONT: So let's negotiate a phased withdrawal. Chris, we'll be there. We'll be there for humanitarian support. We'll be there for reconstruction. But now's the time to get the very American face off of this perceived occupation.

WALLACE: But the prime minister, al-Maliki, was here just recently and said we need U.S. troops to continue to be there. What if you're wrong, Mr. Lamont, Senator Lamont? What if you're wrong? You vote for this, to get them out, and there's a blood bath?

Oh yeah...Chris Wallace is dealing with the 'pretend' Senator Lamont in this instance.

LAMONT: We'll be there for support. We've got our troops in Kuwait. We have our maritime presence. We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief.

"We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief." Now this is the most telling of all. Somehow, Mr. Lamont in his role as U.S. Senator will keep Iran and Syria out of Iraq by well, dropping back.

Brilliant!

Besides that, I thought he wanted Iraq to stand up on its own. Why be there at all if our presence actually messing things up? Can't have it three or four ways, can you?

WALLACE: So under all circumstances, all troops out by next July.

LAMONT: I don't know about all circumstances whatever.

Well Mr. Lamont, I think I'd make up my mind about when, so the Islamic Fascists (who use terror as a tactic) can mark their calendars.

The interview goes on to the idea that the war in Iraq caused the most recent situation with Hezbollah. I would agree with Mr. Lamont, but not as to cause and effect. Iran is getting closed in on by world opinion and diplomacy, and client organizations like Hezbollah prove well suited to keep the rest of the world focused away from them and their nuke program.

I love it when I engage the Left ( bad language alert)

This little exchange over at a liberal blog I hang around. It related to the prosecution of policy in Iraq, and the exchange between Hillary and Rummy during hearings yesterday.

I said:

It does beg the question: "Well Ms. Clinton, given the 20/20 hindsight you enjoy, why should I believe that you could have done better with the same info the current administration had to work with?"

The response I got back:

'Ran, the answer to your question is simple: A fucking lemur could have done a better job blindfolded than Bush. So shut the fuck up already, MmmmmmmmmmmmmmK?

Lovely

I can't be making this up, can I???

This article, from Fox News talks about a nine year-old girl being abused horribly by the egg donor and her 'roommate'. If there was any argument against the post-modernist, situationally ethical, moral relativist junk being touted as mainstream culture and society ( and by definition, acceptable), this would go near the top of the list. Pay close attention to the end of the article related to the boyfriend involved. You'll get the gist...