Nein gerfingerpoken das machinenwerken!

Y'know Hoss you really ought make a FAQ for Atheists that only know Christianity from Atheists. It would save time.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 2:54 pm | #

You still have to explain to me how you don't use natural law in your belief system? Again I am really curious.

Thanks.
Another_Bill | 01.24.08 - 2:55 pm | #

But VOX! God's mean and if you don't do what you say he'll send you to Hell and so he's bad and you can't possibly think that's libertarian!

DUH!
Michael Maier | 01.24.08 - 2:59 pm | #

libertarian? Non-aggression? Hell, a libertarian would just as soon kick some ass as to discuss why someone messed with him or his without his permission!
Salt | 01.24.08 - 3:02 pm | #

Har, har. You make funnee, Vox.
BAJ | 01.24.08 - 3:03 pm | #

Seems like he's in for BIG surprise when he reads the book, eh?
The CronoLink | 01.24.08 - 3:04 pm | #

Isn't Germany one of the countries which still has a state supported church?

In other words, taxes find their way into the Lutheran churches in one way or another....

So if one equate State sponsored religion with christians telling others what to do, I have NO problem with someone seeing it that way.

After all, that is all the so-called christians that he has been exposed have ever shown him.
JCclimber | 01.24.08 - 3:04 pm | #

Now I can't see any comments. #%$^%$
Another_Bill | 01.24.08 - 3:04 pm | #

Damn haloscan!!!
The CronoLink | 01.24.08 - 3:06 pm | #

firtz
zanzibar | 01.24.08 - 3:06 pm | #

Any time "christianity" deliberately manuevers itself into the driver's seat of the coach of state, you better watch out.

State government united with christianity will corrupt the christianity. We are not to seek power in this world over the consciences of our fellow man.

Those who do so, follow the example of their true father, the Adversary.

The same is true for all pastors who claim the right to tell people how to vote, live, etc...(and priests).

Instead they should be pointing them to study the word of God, and live their lives accordingly.
JCclimber | 01.24.08 - 3:09 pm | #

Well, we are supposed to share the Gospel with others and call them to believe in it. If they choose not to, then so be it. There's no "or else" with evangelism.
CJ | 01.24.08 - 3:10 pm | #

At least maybe all the "issues" that Haloscan has will stop all the "firsters". But then if posting "first" isn't embarrassing enough, posting "first" erroneously probably won't stop them, either.
Larry | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 3:10 pm | #

JCclimber: Very valid points and a decent argument for this particular individuals Weltanschauung. I'll stick to my guns on, for example, American atheists.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 3:11 pm | #

"...Destroyer of disbelief."

Another gem.
move zig | 01.24.08 - 3:12 pm | #

Aren't we Christians supposed to be the light of the world? Does that mean we should be going around telling others what to do, and what not to do?

Or instead, leading them as Andrew did to Peter, to the foot of Jesus? And letting Jesus reveal to them what they need to learn?

So, Christianity and libertarianism are a natural match, in my opinion.
JCclimber | 01.24.08 - 3:13 pm | #

You beat me to it, move zig.
Chris Black | 01.24.08 - 3:13 pm | #

Germans are without question the most clueless folks in all the world when it comes to freedom.

A german girl once told me that anyone who flew a battle flag should be thrown in jail.

She was Christian.. so I asked her if she understood that if the government could throw me in jail for my battle flag then it could throw her in jail for her cross.

This resulted in a blank uncomprehending stare.

I've since given up on them.
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 3:21 pm | #

After reading the comments on his blog I can see why he is impressed you yours.
Gresham | 01.24.08 - 3:23 pm | #

Christianity, on the other hand, is all about telling people what to do and what not to do

Telling people what you think is the truth and what you perceive God requires is not the same and forcing men to act down the barrel of a gun.

While there are occasions where men wearing the label Christian have been holding the gun (figuratively or otherwise), it is perfectly libertarian to warn someone of the consequences of not following God but letting them make the choice whether to do so or not.

Freedom of speech and thought is not the same as freedom to enslave others. I can say what I wish. You can choose to listen to me or to ignore me.
bethyada | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 3:29 pm | #

You nailed the idiot in the first three words, VD --

"You wouldn't understand..."

The Bible also uses the metaphor of "pearls before swine", and dozens of references to blindness, including "eyes...but do not see". All apply here as well.

This bald-faced lie may be one of the most inane sentences in all of blogdom, since it demonstrates such profound ignorance not only of Christ, and those whom He "made free", but all of the Torah which precedes Him:

Christianity and libertarianism are diametrically opposed concepts.

He doubtless would have no clue about what "Choose Life!" (Deut. 30) means, either...
Mark Call | 01.24.08 - 3:31 pm | #

The way this guy condescendingly regarded your efforts reminded me of a radio talk show I was listening to this morning.
The host was railing on about how the playing field had to be leveled for EVERYBODY and that blacks and Woman have soooo much further to go. A caller tells host that as long as one group can't say things while others can, it will never be level.
The host stammered and finally came out with ..well what alternate universe did he come from.
I wanted to call to say that previous caller was from a universe of linear thought.
move zig | 01.24.08 - 3:32 pm | #

Heil be zeeing you soon...
Satan | 01.24.08 - 3:44 pm | #

I get the same blank uncomprehending scare when I tell my German acquaintances that the populace needs to be armed so that it can overthrow the government, should it overstep its bounds. It's totally a "Norman, elucidate" moment.
N5 | 01.24.08 - 3:55 pm | #

Why you take time to respond to just about any moron you come across is...well so many adjectives come to mind.
Onefiver (formerly an Anonymou | 01.24.08 - 3:58 pm | #

One common problem shared by Germany and the U.S. is "statism". It seems to be a problem that is embraced by Atheist and now has Christians intoxicated as well. It seems we here in the U.S. are running toward the "servant state" headlong while the Germans have beaten us (pun intended) to the precipice for their second dive in recent history. There is a very timely article posted at Mises.org titled "The March". This compilation of material now seems to be a prophesy in fulfillment. http://www.mises.org/story/2829
BrianTheGreat | 01.24.08 - 4:09 pm | #

To be fair, he may just be ignorant as to Christianity (and let's face it, there are enough big-brother friendly Christians around that may reasonably give him the impression that Christianity and libertarianism ARE opposed).

Anyway, his blog does have some interesting stuff. For example:

I talked to my pregnant acquaintance again; she’s always a source of amusement.

Can’t remember how we got to that topic, but although she is an atheist, she believes in Feng Shui and “water lines”. I believe in water lines, too: They're called indoor plumbing.

I lol'd.
Onefiver (formerly an Anonymou | 01.24.08 - 4:10 pm | #

Telling people what you think is the truth and what you perceive God requires is not the same and forcing men to act down the barrel of a gun.

While there are occasions where men wearing the label Christian have been holding the gun (figuratively or otherwise), it is perfectly libertarian to warn someone of the consequences of not following God but letting them make the choice whether to do so or not.

Freedom of speech and thought is not the same as freedom to enslave others. I can say what I wish. You can choose to listen to me or to ignore me.
bethyada | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 3:29 pm | #

I'm with you on that. Correction is Biblical--as long as you follow Biblical principles.

...And as long as you don't confuse the church with Caesar.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 4:10 pm | #

Can’t remember how we got to that topic, but although she is an atheist, she believes in Feng Shui and “water lines”. I believe in water lines, too: They're called indoor plumbing. Quoted by Onefiver

I suspect she was thinking of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_lines
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 4:12 pm | #

"water lines"

The [vulgarity deleted]? Don't mean to give the wymmyn vapours but... The [vulgarity deleted]? The Dowsing Daoist Dowager of Atheism?

I give up.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 4:26 pm | #

Why you take time to respond to just about any moron you come across is...

It takes about .0001 percent of my processing cycles to deal with them. Plus you'd be surprised at how many people find this sort of thing to be eye-opening... from either side of the logical divide.
VD | 01.24.08 - 4:32 pm | #

Eye-opening sometimes, but always humorous in one way or another. In case you care, I like the Dilbert link or plug-in or whatever you call the thingymajig in the left column.
BrianTheGreat | 01.24.08 - 4:38 pm | #

Christianity, on the other hand, is all about telling people what to do and what not to do.

Actually, that should be more reserved for what we call Judaism. To some, which can actually be confused with (S.J. inspired) Calvinism. This "so-called" self professed libertarian does not know the first thing about "liberty."
Dread | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 4:41 pm | #

Why you take time to respond to just about any moron you come across is...

It takes about .0001 percent of my processing cycles to deal with them. Plus you'd be surprised at how many people find this sort of thing to be eye-opening... from either side of the logical divide.
VD | 01.24.08 - 4:32 pm | #

I see it as the irrational use of bandwidth.
Salt | 01.24.08 - 4:47 pm | #

Einstein was a scientist.

All scientists know what they are talking about.

Therefore Einstein knew what he was talking about when he said "I pity the man who doesn't believe in God".

Therefore atheists must be pitiful creatures.
malloc | 01.24.08 - 4:49 pm | #

Screw it. This nonsense pisses me off to know end. It just isn't enough that everyone has to deal with the arrogant self-smug pablum that constantly drips off their chin like a bad case of the clap; it's theat they pull this moronic mystic [vulgarity deleted] on top that really makes you want to put on some brass knuckles and [sexual practice deleted] them.

"I'm not stupid enough to worship a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Oh! Look at my crystal! It aligns my chakra!"

Yep, that's 8 oz of brass right up your poop shoot you ignorant twat.

And these enlightened chimps can't take the cock out of their mouth long enough to mumble some coherency into their ideology. Yeh, so we're all evolved from orangutans. Every cell, every fiber, every disease and each species and subspecies has different characteristics due to natural selection.

Then they anthropomorphize and worship dolphins whilst also slaughtering "that dog" because they were bred to be mean. Then they turn around and say that there's no such thing as race well it's not really important it's only skin deep except for all those genetic diseases but it doen't matter in any real sense did I tell you women are better then men because we're genetically built for multitasking but chinese aren't smarter than blacks because evolution doesn't actually effect the human brain. Way to face [sexual act deleted] Darwin jagoff!

You Christians wanted proof of evolution? Right there. Right [sexual gerund deleted] there. That's Darwin's missing link standing there with their brain around their ankles [sexual act deleted] his corpse.

If the worst thing that can be said about you people here is that follow the moral code of some unprovable man whose most notable accomplishment was to get his corpse stolen then so be it. At least y'all understand science.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 4:50 pm | #

That is one helluva rant! lol I think I would need a smoke after a rant like that. And I don't smoke!
Onefiver (formerly an Anonymou | 01.24.08 - 4:57 pm | #

That was... an impressive rant, JQP. You may end up becoming the first agnostic to convert to Christianity out of sheer embarrassment.
VD | 01.24.08 - 4:58 pm | #

I think I would need a smoke after a rant like that. And I don't smoke!

Do you still wonder why I link to the morons, Onefiver? I laughed so hard I thought I'd break something inside.
VD | 01.24.08 - 5:02 pm | #

JQP - it can't be good for you to hold it all in, tell us how you really feel.
Spacebunny | 01.24.08 - 5:04 pm | #

The World System is about telling people what to do, and then applying force when they don't obey.

Christianity is just the opposite - freedom from this.

He has been trained well.
superninja | 01.24.08 - 5:06 pm | #

John Q, do ya feel better? I am trying really hard not to laugh out loud here at work.

Colorful, but right on point. Thanks for the laugh. }:-D
CunningDove | 01.24.08 - 5:11 pm | #

Whose authority is the libertarian without Christ under? The same as those with morality built on the shifting sands of bad theories such as evolution: other men. Good luck with that.
superninja | 01.24.08 - 5:12 pm | #

Very true superninja. But it is so strange to talk to Christians about how libertarian ideas match up better with the teachings of the bible than democracy. Even Constitutional Republics fall short, at least in practice as we have seen.

Hey Nate! Can't we just go back to the Articles of Confederation?
CunningDove | 01.24.08 - 5:15 pm | #

I got to read the unedited version! Splendid piece of ranting, JQP.
Taylor | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 5:15 pm | #

ninja,
that would be real, humble Christianity you're talking about. Probably hard to find in his corner of the world, where Christianity for over 1,000 years has been in the habit of working hand in hand with the state.

Once again, I feel sorry for this dude, he has never had a chance to be friends with a serious Christian who has brains and a humble spirit.

Doesn't stop his post from being hilarious, though. Thanks for sharing it with us, Vox.
JCclimber | 01.24.08 - 5:15 pm | #

Do you still wonder why I link to the morons, Onefiver? I laughed so hard I thought I'd break something inside.

Point taken.
Onefiver (formerly an Anonymou | 01.24.08 - 5:28 pm | #

"Hey Nate! Can't we just go back to the Articles of Confederation?"

We can dream little sister.
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 5:32 pm | #

Re: JQP's Rant

Dude... if Bane reads that... he's gonna cry. Seriously... no one appeciates that sort of thing like him. I have no idea how esteemed you were in his eyes... but no doubt you're extremely well respected now.
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 5:33 pm | #

Come on JQP.... come on over to our side. I would suggest you judge a religion by its fruits...

Bourbon was created by a Baptist minister.

Jesus turned water to wine.

Solomon coined the phrase, "eat, drink, and be merry."

Jump right in hoss... the water's fine.
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 5:37 pm | #

JQP- At least Christians know science

1) only Negros came from Monkeys
2) White people came from a superior visiting race
3) Asians ar smarter than blacks, we still don't know where they came from.
4) Blacks are better at basket ball through ,atriarchal breeding sceems
equus pallidus | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 5:40 pm | #

ook. I've been manually redacted. If that's you Vox then my apologies. If that's haloscan then they really need to get over a fear of words with a saxon root.

And yeh, Nate, I've got blended 80 proof in the IV. Life is much better now.

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Ben Franklin
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 5:42 pm | #

To quote Nikki Six: "What the **** are we doing? This is whiskey... we can just drink it."

Yes... the Crue really did IV Jack daniels.
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 5:47 pm | #

VD: "by "disbelief" I mean the assertion of active belief in a negative inherent in atheism as opposed to the "how the Hell should I know" lack of belief better described as agnosticism"

Vox, how is it that you favor the linear model of atheism-agnosticism-theism over the matrixed model of atheism:theism/agnosticsm:gnosticism, as represented on the site of your future debate opponent?¹

(Forgive me if you have already covered this in TIA, but I have yet to receive it from Amazon.)

¹ Lest anyone think this is merely a semantical ploy used by the RRS to categorize agnostics as belonging to "their side" -- which it very well could be -- I also note the same nomenclature is used by this self-described former agnostic atheist cum Christian.
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 5:48 pm | #

"Vox, how is it that you favor the linear model of atheism-agnosticism-theism over the matrixed model of atheism:theism/agnosticsm:gnosticism"

Perhaps its because the latter is so bloody daft it could well come from a Python skit?

Barrel... fish...
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 5:50 pm | #

WaterBoy: Yeh, that's junk. I'm sure you noticed that the poster was trying to sell a used car, not trying to make an argument.

For starters doubt doesn't equal an active disbelief. Secondarily the poster completely ignored the other side of their binary equation -- doubt in the truth of Atheism.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 5:54 pm | #

Nate: "I have no idea how esteemed you were in his eyes..."

Is this the same JQP that authored Rat Spleen?
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 5:55 pm | #

WB: Yerp. Though I only admit it on occasion.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 5:56 pm | #

Of course... could it be any other? look at the rant!
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 5:56 pm | #

Gentlemen, please read my footnote. It isn't simply some BS dreamed up by RRS if others are using the same nomenclature.
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 5:58 pm | #

"[Fill in the blank], on the other hand, is all about telling people what to do and what not to do."
Godfrey | 01.24.08 - 5:58 pm | #

Democrats are split in their support for Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Democrats hate the word “liberal,” preferring “Progressive.” Okay, if you’re a good Progressive, shouldn't your decision be based on the bedrock principle of the Progressive movement, Affirmative Action?

Surely a Good Progressive can't be considering voting for a White Male in preference over minority and female candidates who are at least minimally qualified.

Now hold on, the phrase “minimally qualified” is not an insult to Obama or Clinton; it’s affirmative action language. Affirmative action says you’re not required to consider minority or female candidates who fail to meet minimum qualifications for the job, but you are required to give preference over white males to minority or female candidates who at least meet the minimum qualifications, males, no matter how much better qualified the white male might be.

Since both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are American born and over 35 years of age, they meet the minimum qualifications. They must be given preference over John Edwards.

Under racial discrimination law, if you failed to vote for a Black man, your motives would be subject to Strict Scrutiny, meaning you would need a Compelling reason to not vote for him.

Under sex discrimination law, if you failed to vote for a woman, your motives would be subject to Heightened Scrutiny, meaning you'd only need a Substantial reason not to vote for her.

If you’re a good Progressive and you stay true to the core value of your political movement, I can't see any way for you to avoid voting for Barak Obama.

So where are the Clinton and Edwards supporters coming from?

.
joe doakes | 01.24.08 - 6:01 pm | #

JQP: "Yerp."

Thought so. And that answers Nate's question:

I have no idea how esteemed you were in his eyes...

IIRC, he admired your writing.
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 6:02 pm | #

WB: You're footnote is authored by a former agnostic. I am an agnostic.

The basic issue is that the terminology -- linear or matrix -- only works within the duality of Christian God vs. No Christian God. We have expanded the definition quite a bit further than that since then.

Yes, it's a bit of word-snitchery to be sure. But each religion has its own terminology and each religion is based on belief -- Faith. Even Atheism. And Atheism has been word-snitched by them to mean Nothing outside Science, nothing not logical, rational, descriable, and within this universe (See Einstein's objection of the Big Bang); they have Faith you see.

That leaves agnostic as the grand catch-all for those that don't have Faith. Not that you would pounce, but spare me Pascal's wager.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 6:04 pm | #

"So where are the Clinton and Edwards supporters coming from?"

Women and women with better fashion sense.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 6:06 pm | #

"[Germans], on the other hand, [are] all about telling people what to do and what not to do."
Godfrey | 01.24.08 - 6:16 pm | #

Wow, JQP. I take off my--okay, I'm not wearing a hat. I would offer to take off my socks to you, but that might not have the same effect.

(Those who would make other suggestions need to remember that Mr. P. is probably bigger than they are.)

Really, I thought the redactions were hilarious. You didn't do those?

For some obscure reason, it seems a lot funnier to me with the verbiage deleted. Not quite sure why, as the words are completely obvious.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 6:20 pm | #

JQP, I am also agnostic. That is what raised the flag.

"The basic issue is that the terminology -- linear or matrix -- only works within the duality of Christian God vs. No Christian God."

While I agree that is what it has come to mean in a general sense, I do think the overall terminology has greater meaning when considering other theistic worldviews.

Example: While it may not be possible to be an agnostic Christian, I can easily envision an agnostic New-Ager: I don't know what Power makes my crystal pyramid work -- it just does.
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 6:24 pm | #

"[Everyone], on the other hand, [who looks into their neighbor's window with a cheap set of Nikon binoculars are] all about telling people what to do and what not to do."

Thus tax evasion as a political philosophy.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 6:24 pm | #

I think "Christian Libertarian" fits together better than let's say "German Christian" or "German Libertarian", however maybe not as good as "German Pervert" or "German Oppressor".
Godfrey | 01.24.08 - 6:27 pm | #

WB: Brilliant! We have 3 hens teeth here then what with us and Huckleberry. A veritable trifecta of doubt.

"New-Ager: I don't know what Power makes my crystal pyramid work -- it just does."

But does it work and can they empiricly prove it works? If it satisfies on-demand tests then it doesn't require Faith; and even if the underlying mechanism is not understood in its entirety we can still rely on it's result for technological advantage. Tell me, do you seek quartzotherapy for leukemia? Or do you fill your gas tank with 92-octane Jesus?

That's the distinguishing line to me. What say you, dubious knight?

(I left out the whole gnostic issue entirely of course.)
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 6:31 pm | #

While it may not be possible to be an agnostic Christian... - WaterBoy

Au Contraire, WB!

Just go to any State-Approved Faith Based Organization with the word "United... in front of some denomination-name*.



------------------
* Case in point:

I recall my "minister" at a United Presbyterian "Church" several decades ago who told us teenagers at a confirmation class that he didn't believe in a virgin birth, miracles, or much of anything associated with the guy he occasionally preached about. I don't recall if he even believed in the Resurrection. Come to think of it, I can't recall much of anything from the Bible that he claimed to believe at all. But he liked preaching better than selling insurance (no kidding).
Mark Call | 01.24.08 - 6:37 pm | #

PS> I was agnostic myself for years after that - until I figured out the the Bible was right, and both that minister and I had been full of [brown expletive deleted].
Mark Call | 01.24.08 - 6:40 pm | #

MC
You do know that all "united" organizations are not like that?
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 6:46 pm | #

MC: Here ya there. Raised United Methodist. Process theology isn't that far from agnosticism at all.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 6:46 pm | #

Perhaps not, Nate. But I kinda think it's a lot like with lawyers...

it's a dirty rotten shame that the 97% of 'em give the good ones such a bad name.
Mark Call | 01.24.08 - 6:48 pm | #

Perhaps not, Nate. But I kinda think it's a lot like with lawyers...

it's a dirty rotten shame that the 97% of 'em give the good ones such a bad name.
Mark Call | 01.24.08 - 6:48 pm | #

Bless you, brother.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 6:54 pm | #

MC
You do know that all "united" organizations are not like that?

Oh, and another PS, Nate. You do know, as well, that the United Methodists are some of the biggest GunControl Worshippers in Amerika, no? And the United Presbyterians are close behind, and support almost every abomination I can think of offhand...

I concluded long ago that the key to "uniting" these Faith-Based Whores was getting rid of the divisive stuff. Primarily, God, His Word, and His Son...
Mark Call | 01.24.08 - 6:55 pm | #

I thought of you on that, Mrs. P!

(You gotta be one of the 1/10th of that 3%!)

Blessings,
Mark Call | 01.24.08 - 6:56 pm | #

Addendum: the idea did not originate with the RRS, as noted here:

"The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic...while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other" -- Robert Flint (Professor of Divinity, University of Edinburgh); 1887-1888
_
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 7:05 pm | #

Mark
The UMC has various groups... self proclaimed "committees" with no power what-so-ever in the church itself. These committees are invariably made up of activist women who need nothing so much as a sound thrashing.

Everything you hear about UMC and gun control comes from these.

I go to a UMC. Many in the congression go armed. It would be a poor target for some nutcase atheist.
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 7:08 pm | #

JQP: "But does it work and can they empiricly prove it works?"

I don't think the fact or non-fact of its viability is the issue; rather, that they believe in it. Does astrology work? I've known people who would pore over their star charts...erm...religiously. They'd tell you all about this planet and that conjunction, with absolutely no clue about which Power was behind it all yet certain there was one. Is that not also Theism?
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 7:13 pm | #

JQP, that was smooth and right to the heart, thing of beauty not to be missed.

I'm a Christian agnostic which is one reason I'm pretty scarce on some subjects. Nice to know there's a couple of others hangin' around here.
EN | 01.24.08 - 7:13 pm | #

MC: "Au Contraire, WB! Just go to any State-Approved Faith Based Organization with the word "United... in front of some denomination-name."

I follow you, Mark. I was thinking in terms of TrueChristian™; that one who honestly believes in God, "knows" Him.
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 7:18 pm | #

Brilliant! We have 3 hens teeth here then what with us and Huckleberry. A veritable trifecta of doubt.

The Uncertain Trinity... maybe. They really don't know what to call themselves.

As JQP and others know, I'm quite partial to agnostics, having spent the majority of my years as one. I may have concluded it to be an incorrect position based on the data made personally available to me, but I find it a perfectly reasonable one in general.
VD | 01.24.08 - 7:23 pm | #

Nate: The UMC is into gun control? Sad. And you attend a UMC? Sad. Git yer harem in order, mate.

WB: That's still presupposing the duality of choices when Christianity is the only option. This is a grave and ignorant error to make. I don't claim this of you; don't mistake that. But the discussion, in the West anyways, revolves around that Faith out of all.

I despise word-snitchery, and if you've read my old bits I'm sure you remember, but it doesn't change that those are the definitional bits we're stuck with. eg. In 1887 I'd be a Liberal -- today I'd be a Libertarian instead of a Democrat.

Expand both the linear and matrix view out to their proper full scale and tell me how that squares today. In that you have to add "heathen" or "pagan" to the discussion.

So if we're to be completely accurate to archaic terms we would have to define the modern Atheists as archaic Pagans. They worship at an alter (Faith) but not the alter of the biblical God.

So I'll conceed the point to you only insofar as Atheists aren't, when one isn't so ethnocentric as to mistake Christianity as the only possible religion. But you'll have to grant me a term that you and I can use to describe a lack of Faith.

Or -- just to be a burning peehole (No saxon words here) -- are you claiming the title of agnosticism to simply avert derision of the Faith you hold?
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 7:24 pm | #

EN: "I'm a Christian agnostic..."

May I ask you to explain, please?
WaterBoy | 01.24.08 - 7:26 pm | #

WB -- "they believe in it."

Ah yes, Faith. As I said.

VD -- "The Uncertain Trinity... maybe."

Larry, Curly, and Moe maybe? Which makes MC Shemp, I think.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 7:27 pm | #

ninja,
that would be real, humble Christianity you're talking about. Probably hard to find in his corner of the world, where Christianity for over 1,000 years has been in the habit of working hand in hand with the state.

For sure, man. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
superninja | 01.24.08 - 7:27 pm | #

"Nate: The UMC is into gun control? Sad. And you attend a UMC? Sad. Git yer harem in order, mate."

I'm doing what I can. Like I said... gun grabbers keep their mouths tightly shut at the church I attend.... which can best be described as a baptist church with a UMC sign out front.
Nate | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 7:30 pm | #

CD, that is because these people confuse Libertarian ideas with license. Which, for some Libertarians this is certainly the case.
superninja | 01.24.08 - 7:30 pm | #

I'm not sure of the existence of God, but I have no trouble with a Christian belief system. It's undeniable, at least to me, that Christianity led the west into a heaven on earth in comparison to other religions. It has a pro man bent that no other religions, to include marxist/socialist idiots, can match.
EN | 01.24.08 - 7:32 pm | #

Liberty & Jägerschnitzel

Ahh, that takes me back. My first Saturday in the BDR in March 1986. I went to a Gasthaus with some of my co-workers from the comm group and ordered from the menu (I wonder what this is): Jägerschnitzel.

Later I learned that "Jäger" is German for "hunter", but basically what they brought me was a piece of veal with some gravy on it. Not bad.
duckman1957 | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 7:34 pm | #

Lesser Cuckoo

There's a Greater Cuckoo? I know one can be more or less cuckoo, but a Greater Cuckoo? That somehow seems to be painting the lily or some such metaphor.

http://montereybay.com/creagrus/...us/ cuckoos.html
duckman1957 | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 7:40 pm | #

JQP

I just figured out why John McCain has so much support.
equus pallidus | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 7:58 pm | #

Nate: Bravo

EN: You doubt the existence of dinvity. Morals aside, do you doubt a lack of divinity/supernatural.

ep: Well made ladies undergarments? Wrong, right?
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 8:06 pm | #

I'm not sure of the existence of God, but I have no trouble with a Christian belief system. It's undeniable, at least to me, that Christianity led the west into a heaven on earth in comparison to other religions. It has a pro man bent that no other religions, to include marxist/socialist idiots, can match.
EN | 01.24.08 - 7:32 pm | #

I've always thought that if Christianity was merely a philosophy, with nothing more to it, that it should have universal appeal based on the fruits it yields in the lives of it's followers.
AJW308 | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 8:26 pm | #

"do you doubt a lack of divinity/supernatural."

No, in a word... however, being agnostic means you have a certain amount of doubt, skepticism even, about the doubt. It's not an easy subject for me, which means I'm well within the definition. I know that I will never send a chain email to anyone and never have any fear of repercussions, astrology is for women with to much time on there hands, and so on.
EN | 01.24.08 - 8:49 pm | #

"I've always thought that if Christianity was merely a philosophy, with nothing more to it, that it should have universal"

Exactly.
EN | 01.24.08 - 8:52 pm | #

EN: I'm right with you on the last two posts. I'd say though, for respect for believers and clarity, that you ought drop the "Christian" part. Nothing wrong with the wellspring for your moral foundation or admiration; just courtesy.

By gum Vox, you're pulling all the margin calls.
John Quincy Public | 01.24.08 - 8:57 pm | #

"Nothing wrong with the wellspring for your moral foundation or admiration; just courtesy."

Understood and one reason I rarely mention it. As soon as it was posted doubts arose to the wisdom of it. It's not my intention to fill fainting couches all over this blog, I certainly respect the believers.
EN | 01.24.08 - 9:08 pm | #

Vox, how is it that you favor the linear model of atheism-agnosticism-theism over the matrixed model of atheism:theism/agnosticsm:gnosticism, as represented on the site of your future debate opponent

True, agnosticism as a philosophy denies that knowledge of God is possible (which is silly as it discounts the ability for God to reveal himself, a claim about what God can do while denying the possibility of knowing what God can do).

While that is true, it is commonly used by those who do not wish to be committal. So that is generally how the word is used now whether or not we see that as a good thing. Languages change, Christian's used to be called atheists because they did not believe in all the gods (just the main one).

My concern with the article is that it states one must make a choice. Is it not possible for someone not to have a strong opinion either way. Or someone may see evidence for both theism and non-theism.

There are many examples of things where a person is neither pro nor con.
bethyada | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 9:26 pm | #

Larry, Curly, and Moe maybe? Which makes MC Shemp, I think.
John Quincy Public

How do the Stooges (Peace BE Unto Them) compare to the Trinity of the Niceans?

Pray tell...
zeno | 01.24.08 - 9:49 pm | #

bethyada,

Even with Christianity there can be a great deal of agnosticism. As a Lutheran, we commonly use the word to describe our position on things like Divine Election, salvation of infants, and the workings of the Trinity. What isn't clear in scripture in divine matters, we try not to rationalize or presume.

Catholics have more philosophy than Lutherans, but they have agnosticism in their theology as well. Typically they are called "Mysteries".
Earth and All Stars | 01.24.08 - 10:04 pm | #

There are only 2 "Mysteries", the Mystery of God and the Mysteries of Iniquity.

Two.
zeno | 01.24.08 - 10:09 pm | #

Even with Christianity there can be a great deal of agnosticism.

Absolutely, every Christian has to be part agnostic, none of us has God completely figured out (Except maybe the Reformed), there things about God we do not know, either as individuals or as the church.
Larry | Homepage | 01.24.08 - 11:41 pm | #

The irony is not that Vox is both a Christian and a libertarian, but that he doesn't acknowledge that libertarianism and socialism (you know, that political philosophy that only atheists would be dumb enough to believe) have a common origin. The official goal of Marxism, like libertarianism, is the "withering away" of the state....
Joseph | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 2:35 am | #

Joseph, curing cancer is a worthy goal, but there's always more then one way to get there. For instance, you can use modern medical science, or you can go to a witch doctor. They both have the same goal, so what's your point?
EN | 01.25.08 - 3:20 am | #

In your analogy, is libertarianism supposed to be the "modern medical science" or the "witch doctor"?

The point is that libertarianism is just a somewhat more bourgeois form of socialism.
Joseph | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 3:32 am | #

This is absolutely hilarious

German 1: "What does he mean by hilarious?"

German 2: "They call it laughing, they laugh."

German 1: "Laughing?"

German 2: "They use it to mock us."

German 1: "They must die."

German 2: "We must wait. Let them laugh. They can laugh. They will not laugh when we finish with our grand plan."

German 1: "I do not like the laughing."
Jamie R | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 3:36 am | #

EN said:
I'm not sure of the existence of God, but I have no trouble with a Christian belief system. It's undeniable, at least to me, that Christianity led the west into a heaven on earth in comparison to other religions. It has a pro man bent that no other religions, to include marxist/socialist idiots, can match.

EN, you have understanding beyond your knowledge. It's refreshing to see both that level of intellectual honesty and insight.

The brief history of this particular Creation, according to the Bible:

God made the earth and everything in it. Then He created Man. His very next act, according to Genesis was to Bless Man and the first Words Man heard were "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth." He then gave specific instructions about how to do it.

The first Man messed it up and inadvertently ceded his position of authority to Satan. God's intent was for Man to gradually extend the garden of Eden to cover the earth. (An aside for you young earth creationists: Why did He say replenish in His very first statement to Man?)

After roughly 4000 years of Satan ruling the earth, Jesus came and redeemed both God's Man and by extension God's creation, restoring Man's authority in the earth.

The first instructions we find recorded that Jesus gave to his followers after his resurrection (slightly paraphrased for flow) were, "All power in heaven and earth have been given unto me... Therefore you go into all the world preaching the Gospel and baptizing them...."

Jesus put it back the way God started it and then sent his followers to pick up the task right where Adam dropped the ball. Everywhere the Gospel goes, peace and prosperity fallow in whatever proportion the people embrace it.

Religion is not of God and its role is to hinder the spread of The Blessing into all the earth by sowing confusion and discord. Heaven on earth is God's plan and it's available to us individually and collectively to whatever extent we embrace His plan for us.

Back on topic, He never, ever forces anyone to do anything. He offers us choice and with unclouded vision, His way is so far superior that there is no rational choice otherwise. It's that clouded vision - and an enemy intent on clouding it - with which we contend.
digitalcowboy | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 3:51 am | #

OK Joseph, your solid intellectual arguments are too much for me.
EN | 01.25.08 - 3:52 am | #

Everywhere the Gospel goes, peace and prosperity fallow* in whatever proportion the people embrace it.

Of course I meant follow there and not fallow.

That was an unfortunate typo.
digitalcowboy | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 3:56 am | #

The point is that libertarianism is just a somewhat more bourgeois form of socialism.

Do demonstrate this, Joseph. It's a fascinating argument. You said libertarianism and socialism share an origin... but I have seen no sign that libertarianism derives from the Labor Theory of Value. Nor does it argue that the State will wither away naturally, quite the opposite, in fact.
VD | 01.25.08 - 4:08 am | #

VD, I remember Murray Rothbard arguing for a "withering away" of the government when the party was first formed. However, it was meant to use the language of Socialism in jest.
EN | 01.25.08 - 4:14 am | #

On second thought that might well have been Nathanial Branden. He loved to twist the language of the left in what he called "bromide busters". We're talking the mid 70s here, so it's not exactly fresh in my mind. If someone wanted to take the trouble of googleing the origins of the LP I'm sure you could find it. Perhaps I'll undertake it tomorrow.
EN | 01.25.08 - 4:23 am | #

(An aside for you young earth creationists: Why did He say replenish in His very first statement to Man?)

At the time KJV was written, "replenish" meant "completely fill", not "fill again". Look at any of the modern updates to the KJV (New King James, English Standard, etc.), and they now use "fill", since that's what the Hebrew means in 20th/21st Century English.

A very minor flaw to a good summary.
Kentucky Packrat | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 7:31 am | #

i believe that government is nessasary and i believe that god has requirements for governing and that establishing and maintaining moral order is mandatory.this provides the context for liberty to be established.thus we have an overview that is being destroyed in the present culture war.how does this fit with libertarian philosophy
bob jacobson | 01.25.08 - 9:03 am | #

Government is necessary, but not a lot of government. As for "maintaining moral order" I don't know what that means, but under Libertarian rule there wouldn't be a lot of "leadership" in telling people how to live. That's the slippery slope that leads to Iraq and such.
EN | 01.25.08 - 10:42 am | #

Government may very well be "necessary" in the same sense that Satan is.
Mark Call | 01.25.08 - 11:15 am | #

The point is that libertarianism is just a somewhat more bourgeois form of socialism.
Joseph | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 3:32 am | #

I agree, but that the intent of the people getting there is different makes a key distinction. For Marxism it is less a goal I think than an acknowledged ending state. Socialism may be a neater or messier way of getting there depending on view and values.
9katvindaloo | 01.25.08 - 11:22 am | #

'Socialism may be a neater or messier way of getting there depending on view and values.'

How did the great leap in China turn out...oh that right, millions upon millions dead. Good Times Good Times that socialism.
Conan the Cimmerian | 01.25.08 - 11:30 am | #

At first the bodies were messy, but then after the burial of all of the bodies, well there was more elbow room and that was neater.
Conan the Cimmerian | 01.25.08 - 11:31 am | #

I think if an ideal libertarianism were implemented it would show itself in time to be equally susceptible to exploitation by wicked opportunists and seekers of power. I don't think there IS a system of human government which will show stable, lasting success and justice and peace in this world. For that we await a better time. For here and now there is only bad and less bad.

I would hope Joseph to return and explain further his view, which he certainly could do better than I. It is a very basic point which should be clear.
9katvindaloo | 01.25.08 - 12:18 pm | #

Mark
The UMC has various groups... self proclaimed "committees" with no power what-so-ever in the church itself. -- Nate

Nate - did you see Farah's column today? More on the UMC...

http://www.wnd.com/news/ article....RTICLE_ID=59861


(As you know, I don't necessarily agree with Joe on any number of Biblical issues, however. I tend to distinguish between God's land, and Israel, and the secular state that governs there just as I do between the Rebellion that now rules Amerika and the former Constitutional Republic. When it comes to the Whore Church, he probably doesn't go nearly far enough for me. ;)
Mark Call | 01.25.08 - 12:47 pm | #

My apologies for having to break off the discussion last night, JQP. Picking up where we left off...

JQP: "That's still presupposing the duality of choices when Christianity is the only option...Expand both the linear and matrix view out to their proper full scale and tell me how that squares today. In that you have to add "heathen" or "pagan" to the discussion."

It seems that we differ over the definition of "theism". I am using the term to mean "belief in a god or gods", as found in current dictionaries. By this definition, the theism/atheism duality would apply to all belief systems that incorporate one or more gods, not just Christianity. And in this regard, both "heathen" and "pagan" fit into the 2x2 matrix depending on whether the particular person believes in a god or not.

I did make a mistake in my New-Ager example, though, as I was equating "Power" with "god"; this isn't always the case, but was what I had in mind in my example.

And I concede that "theism" may have strictly related to Christianity in the past; but as you noted, "those are the definitional bits we're stuck with". But it wasn't "snitched" by those opposed to Christianity, as I noted in my addendum.

JQP: "But you'll have to grant me a term that you and I can use to describe a lack of Faith....[re: New Age belief]Ah yes, Faith. As I said."

Another instance where we need to define the word. "Faith" (capitalized like you have been using it) generally refers to the Christian meaning of "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", irrespective of knowledge. But faith in a general sense means "belief that is not based on proof", i.e., belief without knowledge.

So while a lack of Faith (capital F) could only refer to an atheist, a lack of faith (small f) could technically mean belief with knowledge. But I think this is splitting hairs, and the term "atheism" can be used to describe "lack of faith" in either context.
WaterBoy | 01.25.08 - 2:12 pm | #

EaAS: "Even with Christianity there can be a great deal of agnosticism."

Larry: "Absolutely, every Christian has to be part agnostic, none of us has God completely figured out "

In regards to the existence of God, though, is it possible to be uncertain of His reality while professing belief in Him?

One major theme that keeps repeating in all Christian doctrine I have seen is that God wants us to know Him; to have a relationship with Him through His Son, Jesus Christ. While it is impossible to know everything about Him (thus agnostic on those relevant points), at least the fact of His existence would seem to be known to those who believe in Him.

This is why I questioned whether or not there could be an agnostic Christian, on the level of belief.
WaterBoy | 01.25.08 - 2:31 pm | #

In regards to the existence of God, though, is it possible to be uncertain of His reality while professing belief in Him?

I don't see why not. God doesn't demand the impossible from us and metaphysical, 100% certainty is not something that humans are capable of, except maybe for a few trivial cases like the Cogito. But God is not trivial.
Larry | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 2:37 pm | #

But faith in a general sense means "belief that is not based on proof", i.e., belief without knowledge.

...

In regards to the existence of God, though, is it possible to be uncertain of His reality while professing belief in Him? -- WaterBoy

Both of these things hinge on the same, I would contend, flawed use of the term "Faith", at least in the sense as I would apply it to God, WB.

I'll try it this way.

I have "knowledge" -- based on everything that constitutes proof to me personally -- that God exists. I have no doubt about that fact.

I also have "knowledge" that the same Author, Who goes by multiple Names, wrote the Bible, and that His Word is True.

Will I do as He says, and follow Him, based on that knowledge? Do I TRUST that, not only does He exist, and has made Covenants, but that He will keep His Word?

THAT is the only thing that requires Faith on my part.
Mark Call | 01.25.08 - 4:15 pm | #

MC: "Both of these things hinge on the same, I would contend, flawed use of the term "Faith", at least in the sense as I would apply it to God...Will I do as He says, and follow Him, based on that knowledge? Do I TRUST that, not only does He exist, and has made Covenants, but that He will keep His Word? THAT is the only thing that requires Faith on my part."

Agreed, the general definition is insufficient in describing the Christian concept of "faith"; hence, the reason I included the two separate definitions. Your quoting of the general term makes me think you may not have noticed the specific one, though what you are saying is in accordance with it.

MC: "I have "knowledge" -- based on everything that constitutes proof to me personally -- that God exists. I have no doubt about that fact."

That is also in accordance with my own thoughts. In terms of the previous discussion, I would call that "gnostic theism".

In light of what both you and Larry have stated, then, it would seem that the matrix model is more accurate in qualifying the terms than the linear one.
WaterBoy | 01.25.08 - 4:55 pm | #

But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us." And Jesus said to him, "'If you can'! All things are possible for one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9)
bethyada | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 5:25 pm | #

Well, personally, WB -- and given the baggage -- I don't like the term "gnostic" associated with ANYTHING that describes my knowledge or understanding of the Creator. ;)

[And, truth be told, I don't find much value in the 'matrix' v 'linear' formulation. Either God exists, or He does not. One statement is True, the other False. I was once, sadly, wrong on that score, but have simply been more than convinced "beyond any doubt".]

I tend to separate the term "faith" (Capitalized or Not) from such proof, given my own experience, and based on many such arguments here and elsewhere in the past:

"It takes FAITH to believe in God" or
"It takes FAITH to believe the Bible".

Actually, it does NOT. This former skeptic was convinced with NO recourse to supernatural experience, or touch-feely revelation, or any need to suspend any of my knowledge or standards of evidence. That is the thing I try to make clear concerning the question, since so many self-described 'atheists' want to conclude that a realization that "God IS" must require some kind of denial of reality.

The converse is true; but it does involve a destruction of their own Faith.
Mark Call | 01.25.08 - 5:40 pm | #

I have always respected JQuip. He is just a Christian looking for a place to happen. I write nearly every post of mine imagining that he is reading it.

Now, I don't write as pretty (prissy?) as he does...I'm a stock car to his Formula 1 racer, but the man sure can damn write.
Bane | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 6:18 pm | #

I would hope Joseph to return and explain further his view, which he certainly could do better than I. It is a very basic point which should be clear.
9katvindaloo | 01.25.08 - 12:18 pm | #

"Clear" should have been "clarified". Since I spent the day stomping around the interweb offending wherever I happened to pause.
My finale was on a blog where a lady recently posted her own photo, with a few self conscious comments.
In attempted reassurance I commented, something like, that she is fatter than she is ugly. It was not received as the compliment I intended. I retire now.
9katvindaloo | 01.25.08 - 6:59 pm | #

As Mark Call explains in Mark's 4:15, one has faith in a Person.

One trusts a Person. Not an ideology, or a Party, or an Organization.

This is part of the definition of faith. Especially in Jewish terminology, if I am not mistaken.

I'd like to supply a source, but I can't. A bald assertion on my part, but I leave it to others to investigate for now.
zeno | 01.25.08 - 8:23 pm | #

It's very simple. Both libertarianism and socialism are derived from the pro-slavery ideology of the American slaveholding South. A Southern slaveholder around the time of Jefferson generally had two main fears: that "Big Government" would take his slaves away, or that his slaves would revolt and produce a massacre of the slaveholding class.

To protect slaves as property from being freed by the government, the South wanted as little government as possible, and such government as they would tolerate had to be strictly confined in its powers. In other words, it wanted libertarianism. Libertarianism today differs somewhat from its antecedents because a series of crushing political defeats -- the coup d'etat of 1787, the emergence of National Republicanism after the War of 1812, the Southern defeat in the Nullification crisis, and the Civil War -- forced it to make an accomodation with liberal orthodoxy.

The Southern planters also needed to prevent slave revolts without using government if possible. To do this, they simply legitimized communal violence against rebelious slaves. Amoral communal solidarity -- the hallmark of socialist and communist regimes around the world -- was thus a key political principle of the Antebellum South. Later Southern partisans would even argue that egalitarian democracy was impossible without an institution of human slavery.
Joseph | Homepage | 01.25.08 - 8:26 pm | #

I will plan to email to Vox Day (fwiw) next week a more USSR centered comparison and relation to historic United States liberty and modern libertarian ideals. The roots I see are different but connections are thoughtful. If one gets too slavishly bookish on it, it can be missed. One has to recognize the patterns and desired outcomes of both socialism and libertarianism to trace this down to an origin, which is very simple but not the way it is generally learnt.
9katvindaloo | 01.25.08 - 10:35 pm | #

Joseph and 9katvindaloo,

Vox usually starts cranking it up about 6.a.m. eastern standard time.
zeno | 01.25.08 - 11:38 pm | #

Joseph - (re: 8:16 PM)

That was quite an unmitigated steaming crock of [excrement reference deleted].

No /s necessary...
Mark Call | 01.26.08 - 12:47 am | #

Libertariansim and Socialism are opposites. One wants people to be free to look after themselves and their families, the other wants everything controlled by the government.

Slaveholders are more akin to the Left, with its obessive "identity politics" and group-based political inequality.
FrankNorman | 01.27.08 - 12:05 pm | #