I am a real live sinful person who clings to the radical idea that God has been infinitely good to me through the bloody sacrifice of Jesus….
I thoroughly enjoy shooting firearms, watching Husker or Sox ball, and engaging in or observing any other form of sporting violence or conflict that reminds me that God is going to pick a fight someday soon and he will tromp the unrepentant bad guys into oblivion forever. I am also constantly reminded that I was one of the bad guys, and am one of the bad guys, apart from the grace and mercy God has shown to me through his son Jesus.
Weird. But at least he is honest.
“someday soon…”
Hmmm…
Nice to know that that is what some Christians are thinking when they look at me. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Take comfort in his admission of being one of the “bad guys” who by his own statement is going to be tromped into oblivion. I don’t see any sign of repentence there.
Dude’s got a lot of anger.
@Digital Dame: Nah, he has a bloody sacrifice of Jesus to appease his very angry god, that way he avoids the oblivion part. We’re stuck with doubt and reason, which I’ve heard God doesn’t have high regard for.
This is an interesting example of the self hatred many people hold inside themselves… Surely it isn’t restricted to Christian circles, but it is interesting to note how easily Christian mythology can be construed to support such a negative perception of self.
Doublethink: hate is love, love is hate
Is it really self-hatred? To me, it is more the psychology of othering, the classic case of us versus them. The whole but I’m a sinner too (but one who is going to heaven while you others rot in hell) is IMO a cover for that so it seems more palatable. Like when racist people say, I have friends who are black.
That boy sounds like ten pounds of crazy in a five pound sack.
Well may I say it’s about £µ©λing time?!
That’s the god deserving of my worship and adoration: The fight-picking, people-tromping one. Because picking fights and tromping people when you’re the most powerful being in the universe demonstrates those godly qualities of mercy and justice so very, very, well.
But will God bite off our ears if we start winning? You know, like Tyson? I totally bet he would.
I wonder if in 4,000 CE Christians will still be saying Jesus is going to come back soon. I bet they will — quoting the verse about a thousands years being only a day to God. “But it’s REALLY only been four days, guys! He’ll be back soon! Promise!”
Most of the comments left here assume that beliefs are driven by emotions. I’m assuming most of you are aware of historic Christian beliefs, it’s not like anything in my “bio” is a brand-new idea or foreign to orthodox Christianity. Obviously Christians are all just nuts, and it will make us all feel better to leave comments for a bunch of other people just like us to read.
If any of you are in the Omaha area and want to sit down for coffee for a real conversation, I’m game. I like talking with people who have different views than mine.
@Jon: I always pick on beliefs, but I thought the way you worded your bio gave some “life” to the beliefs. I mean, it’s not everyday I read that God will “tromp the unrepentant bad guys into oblivion forever.” :)
@Metro:
At least the tromping and smiting and so on would be evidence for God’s existence ;) Kind of like signing on with with Mafia rather than go up against the Godfather.
Heh. The Bible God as the Godfather. The analogy works so well.
I like that Yahweh creates people “bad” and then feels the need to destroy them. How merciful a god he is, forgiving us for being the way He created us! For being the only possible way we could be. Complaining when something meets specifications is mentally unstable behavior.
“But it’s REALLY only been four days, guys! He’ll be back soon! Promise!”
Hehe. That put a picture in my head of Jesus wandering into a the street in Palestine, looking around and thinking “wow I’ve only been gone for like, four days, what’s going on?” LOL Like he’d been in a massive time warp or something. :-p
Ok, goofy idea…
@Jon
It took me a minute to realize you are the one quoted in the post! (duh)
While it’s true some of us have no lives (—>me<—) and hang around here high fiving each other, this blog wouldn’t be much if not for the faithful that come around and lite the fires.
Why not give it a try and participate here? Since it’s unlikely anyone lives near Omaha, a forum like this is the best we have.
Hmmm- apparently the world is filled with “bad guys and good guys.”
I hope Jon sticks around to talk, but in my experience the invitation to discuss these things directly is most often an attempt to get out of justifying their beliefs publicly. People who are truly interested in public discussion do not ask that it be private and in my opinion those who avoid discussing these things publicly feel some sort of shame for their beliefs. What other reason to avoid the public discussion?
The offer for coffee in person was not an attempt to avoid anything here. Notice I did not come blasting into this forum. I actually wrote the author of the website asking which fundamentalist institution he was formerly associated with. I think it’s interesting he does not state that, for “privacy reasons.”
This idea of “good guys” and “bad guys” is not something I personally invented. Perhaps atheists don’t believe in justice? My beliefs may seem arrogant to some, but my attitude is not and my view toward the world is not. Is it so terrible if I see sports as an analogy to my belief structure?
If you see violence as an analogy of your belief structure, then perhaps you should admit that your beliefs are inherently violent. If violence has no place in your beliefs, then surely you can find a way to express that.
I see a dilemma here. Christianity wishes to present itself as inherently peaceful, yet also wishes to use the terminology of violence and hate where needed. Can you see the problem there?
In addition to the violence, the good guys and bad guys are not defined by behavior, but belief. Believe like us and you are the good guys – do not believe like us and you are the bad guys (and be eternally punished for wrong belief). So no, this idea is not my idea of ideal justice. It is, as kinda noted above, a mafia sort of justice. Gangsters have an honor code too. Just not one I would want to live by.
Aor,
I have a sneaking suspicion that you would find a reason to disagree with my beliefs no matter what they were. Some would call it violence and hate, some would call it justice. I believe in justice. When did that become bad?
cello
I do not believe that people are condemned for wrong beliefs, but for wrong behavior. But judging by the comments here there is no such thing as wrong behavior.
@Jon:
You didn’t answer Aor’s question.
Justice as defined by whom, exactly? The Bible definitions of justice are pretty screwy. Kill your kid for cheeking you? Kill adulterers? Or is your justice a more forgiving sort than God’s?
“Wrong behaviour.” You offer us strawmen? I’m reasonably sure you don’t really think that atheism means that no behaviour can be wrong.
I’ll ask again: As defined by whom? We can probably agree that killing another human being is wrong. How do you feel about homosexuality, to grab a cheap and easy-to-locate issue? What about sex between two loving, unmarried people?
How about shrimp cocktail? The Bible says it’s an abomination.
The Devil, some might say, is in the details.
If you believe in forcing your religious rules on others by violence, why be ashamed to admit it? If you want to claim that your god is going to destroy anyone who disagrees with him, why would you ever feel shame to admit that? If it is truly your belief then shame would imply that you felt your god was wrong in some way. If you no longer support the use of violence in order to enforce the rules of your particular religion on all non-believers, then you should simply say so.
It is simple. Your words make you sound like you wish your god would violently force his way on all unbelievers. If you cannot see why that is disgusting, then simply replace your god with someone else’s.
Well, seeing how I’m living in the same city as this guy, I feel a little bit embarrassed.
Metro,
I wasn’t avoiding Aor’s question intentionally. That is the question, isn’t it? What is the standard of justice? Why do I have to answer the question when no one else has? Do atheists believe in justice? It’s easy to poke at me, but I’m curious what you believe. You are making fun of me for believing in a standard of justice. Is justice possible? Is there such a thing? Is there a standard?
Aor,
I don’t believe in forcing my beliefs on anyone through violence or any other means. Not sure where that came from.
Daniel,
You say, “We’re stuck with doubt and reason, which I’ve heard he doesn’t have high regard for.” Where did you hear I don’t have high regard for doubt and reason? What are you talking about? I thought I might get some reason here, but I have seen more emotion than anything else. When I first read this site I was actually interested. That is why I emailed you to ask about your background; genuine curiousity, doubt, reason, that you obviously can’t respect. My experience here has made clear this site isn’t about reason or doubt, it’s about emotion. You guys can have your angst. I edited the page so your blood pressure can go down. Meanwhile the world keeps turning.
You think that your particular version of a bronze age cultic figure is going to pick a fight soon and tromp the unrepentant. What does that have to do with justice? In your words you associate the use of violence with the intent to force others to follow the rules of your religion.
“I thoroughly enjoy shooting firearms, watching Husker or Sox ball, and engaging in or observing any other form of sporting violence or conflict that reminds me that God is going to pick a fight someday soon and he will tromp the unrepentant bad guys into oblivion forever.”
Violence reminds you that your particular supernatural father figure is going to kill us and torture us for eternity for not believing in him, and you call that justice. In your belief system, we are the bad guys for being unbelievers. You imply that violence is a suitable method to use in those situations. You may not read your words to mean those things, but they are valid interpretations.
You see, when believers get together to talk they often say things that they wind up being ashamed of when they become public. The fire and brimstone chatter may go over well in some situations but when you find yourself having to defend those words in an open forum they start to sound wicked and nasty and unworthy of civilized people.
I’m inclined to point out that hate and violence have nothing to do with justice, unless we’re talking mob or vigilante ‘justice’. Justice is supposed to be impartial (no hate) and most civilised countries no longer do torture (no violence, even executions are now non-violent).
Wow. How we got from A to B I’m not sure. I will leave you guys to your ramblings; hope it turns out well for you, but I’m done with this thread. It’s hard for me to respect a “doubting” and “reasoned” forum that works so hard first to single out my website and second to impose what it thinks I believe onto me. The atheists I know outside this forum are driven more by reason and less by angst than this crowd. Happy trails!
So the fact that the link to your article is dead does not imply that you are ashamed of your words in any way, shape, or form. Gotcha.
@Jon:
I’m sorry, I think there’s been a misunderstanding here.
I admit I was shocked at my own quote — I couldn’t believe I wrote that. After reading it again in context I realized I miscommunicated. You thought I meant “he” to mean you, but actually I meant God — I can see why you would be offended. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer and I’ve edited my comment to make my original meaning clearer.
If it comes off that way, again, I’m sorry. Though many are passionate here, it is my aim to be primarily driven by reason and doubt, not emotion. When that is not the case, I hope you’ll point it out. Many of us are quite open to correction. At least I try to be.
I hope what I said cleared this up so you don’t think I’m imposing what I think you believe. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I simply thought your way of wording your beliefs would be interesting to those who read this blog. I did not mean this post in a malicious way.
It seems bringing points of contention from what Jon said into a public discussion = “ramblings”
“The atheists I know outside this forum are driven more by reason and less by angst than this crowd.”
We do tend to play a bit roughly, don’t we? It seems to be a constant problem on most atheist boards. Even the folks at the “Friendly Atheist” can get pretty snippy.
I think it’s a problem with the medium. We get SO MANY drive-bys. People drop off a single comment saying, “Jesus loves you and you’re going to hell,” then never show up again. Then someone finally tries to stick around for a conversation, and we all pounce.
Course, we’re still more polite than the some of the folks at Pharyngula. But that’s setting the bar pretty low.
At the very least we don’t call our opponents heretics, blasphemers or witches, then torture / burn them to death. Historically speaking, atheists are pretty laid back (in comparison at least).
I hope Jon checks back. It seems like at the very least he’s asking questions in good faith, and fairly good questions at that:
First of all, I certainly understand where Jon is coming from. There are a lot of news stories that I pointedly don’t read because they report actions more terrible than I want to read about. There is a visceral impression that there are people out there who are essentially evil. It just seems obvious that there are bad guys.
On the other hand, almost everyone I meet is at least bearable. Most people are nice, many are helpful. Some are downright noble. Certainly it seems obvious that there are good guys.
Jon is just asking how atheists go about telling them apart. As I said, a fair question.
I imagine that we actually have similar means of deciding who is good and who is bad and what constitutes justice when it comes to making judgements day to day. If I see a man kick a dog, I don’t philosophize about whether the dog feels pain just as I’m sure Jon doesn’t check the Bible to see whether kicking the dog is moral according to the gospels. It feels wrong. If the dog bites the man, I’m sure Jon and I would both feel somewhat satisfied that justice had been done.
But I think most atheists would agree that good and evil are to some extent a false dichotomy, and that the quality of human character ranges across a spectrum with no clear line dividing good and evil, except where one draws his own. It is intuitive that murder is more morally reprehensible than petty theft. It is trickier to say whether a thief who steals to feed his children is morally reprehensible at all. And I think most atheists would also agree that what constitutes justice depends on the severity of the crime.
Of course, we see this at work in our judicial system. A murderer is likely to get a much harsher sentence than a shoplifter; a shoplifter who stole to feed his family might receive an even milder sentence (often at the discretion of a judge or jury).
Morality comes from society as a whole and not just religion. Justice lives and breathes; it is not pressed flat between the pages of a holy book.
I’m not sure Jon needed to be asked what justice was. He encourages his god to start a fight soon and punish the unbelievers. Justice seems unrelated to that.
This speaks more to the dichotomy between public speach and religious speach. What is said during religious speach to a congregation of believers can seem downright disgusting to the ear of an outsider. Jon doesn’t truly want all of us to burn in hell. Few theists truly want that. But when nobody confronts them about speaking that way privately they eventually begin to speak that way publicly. It should be pointed out and laughed at immediately, the same way outright racism and bigotry deserves to be laughed at and despised. Ridicule and shame can often teach those who are unable or unwilling to learn by more grown-up ways.
@Dan L.
Jon may think he’s asking a valid question in “Do atheists believe in justice?” but in reality it’s a non-question as atheism is not a belief system so why should there be any uniform consensus in what they believe?
@Jon
Well I’d say it’s because you wrote this:
And that was after you wrote this:
If you’re going to come at me with those statements, I’m interested in what you consider a) “bad guys” and b) “justice.
Because most of the “justice” in the Bible is either vengeful or petty. The quality of mercy seems to have been found only in Jesus himself, and that right rarely.
What I don’t understand is someone coming to this site, knowing full well this is a blog by an atheist, for predominantly atheists and is somehow surprised that people might get a bit snarky about words like “picking fights” and “tromping bad guys” along with “shooting guns and judgement”.
There is no justice in victimizing people.
As far as I’m aware Christianity was not supposed to be analog to watching Hockey. I’ve done a lot of reading about the belief structure and as best I see it, the belief of christianity SHOULD follow:
“love god with everything you are, and love your neighbor like you love yourself. on these two commandments hang all of the law and prophets.”
How this directly translates to “my team is totally gonna kick your teams butt” I’m not sure, but it strikes me as completely off base from the Jesus I read about in the bible that hung out with whores and tax collectors.
cryogen second,
You make a good point, but Jesus also said that he would come back “with a sword” to “set brother against brother” if I recall correctly (I have no doubt someone can correct me on this if not). So while it’s true that there are some warm and saccharine bits of the New Testament there’s certainly not an absence of pointlessly divisive garbage.
Like Christopher Hitchens says a lot in his debates, it wasn’t until “gentle Jesus, meek and mild” that there was talk of torturing the dead forever.
And as for the “Us vs. Them” mentality that seems to be under discussion, is it really that surprising that Christianity – or any other religion – would display this? It’s a textbook propaganda tactic to get allegiance from people: manufacture a fictitious problem (like christianity does with sin and the threat of hell), then say that you can solve it. The simple biological desire to feel part of group does the rest.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that a person who bases his life on “faith” would be irritated/annoyed that non-believers might get emotional?
What? As an atheist I’m not allow to “feel” strongly about my position on religion, faith, G(g)od, etc.?
Reason and logic are a means to an end, but do not reflect human personality. To assume that atheists are non-feeling is absurd.
Yeah, but Luke 14:26 says “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
John wants to know if I believe in justice.
Well, here’s what I believe isn’t justice:
Eternal punishment for individuals who have committed finite crimes.
That is definitely not justice.
McBloggenstein,
I don’t have a problem with contentions. It is no novelty to oppose historic Christianity. Read the comments on this post and tell me they do not ramble.
VorJack,
To me that is what I have learned from this. The venue is limited, and the percentage of readers who actually chime in tend to be the more passionate ones.
Proto,
I acknowledge your allusions to professing Christians of the past, but also to avoid caricature must say I would not do that.
Aor,
Should I really dignify you by a response? I am not convinced you want to have a conversation.
Jabster,
I am not assuming atheists believe uniformly, or that it is a belief system. If you read what I wrote, I asked what you atheists here believe who are attacking my belief. I want to know your take, since obviously my belief falls into the realm of caricature and derision rather than any sort of legitimacy.
Metro and Teleprompter,
In Christian belief and in Scripture, the basis for justice is the supposed nature of God. In the Christian system it is not infinite punishment for finite crime, because any blot against an infinitely holy God is an infinite sin. You can still say that is not justice, but at least now you know which doctrine to make fun of.
Forkboy,
I am not irritated or annoyed that you guys care about what you believe in. I care about what I believe in. I just personally prefer disagreements about belief that are primarily substantial rather than emotional. I think the whole”emotion” track works a lot better if you are dealing with a fellowship of those who are like-minded. Just my take.
I think the challenge we all face is to interact with other belief systems without reducing those who disagree with us to a caricature. I believe what many of you obviously see as contradictory, nonsensical, foolish, angry, etc. I am still a person with passions, thoughts, and a view of the world. I will assume that if you truly want a conversation with real person Jon you will interact with me via email or my blog at baptyterian.com.
Jon
Pingback: baptyterian.com » Blog Archive » Becoming A Target
Jon,
In your reply to my post, you stated that “any blot against an infinitely holy God is an infinite sin”.
I don’t want to disparage you personally: I just want to discuss things with you in a forward, nonthreatening manner. Please don’t take offense at those who question or criticize some beliefs which you may happen to share: as you said in your own response, it is important that we all find a way to deal with people who possess differing beliefs.
So with that being said, here’s my take on your reply (so far):
You say that you worship an “infinitely holy God”. Your god created us in his image, according to your religion. So then if the Biblical account is accurate, we must have been created as “infinitely holy” beings, correct?
Do you believe that your God has free will? I want to know your position on this before I continue this discussion, because that will influence a lot of my forthcoming questions. Thanks.
Jon,
Also, I never made fun of your “doctrine”. I just asked you about your opinion of it. I sympathize with someone who’s words may have been distorted, and I would hope that a person in that circumstance would not distort my words in return.
Tele,
I wasn’t saying you made fun, it was meant as a sarcastic response to the comments in general. It was in good humor, not something specific to you.
“Infinitely holy god …”
What would you say are the attributes of holiness?
Is jealousy? How about wrath?
Pingback: baptyterian.com » Blog Archive » In God’s Image
http://www.baptyterian.com/2009/01/imagodei/
Visit this link if you want to continue the conversation between me and Teleprompter. Your comments will be approved as long as they are not vulgar.
I can understand how you would be angry with me Jon, but I raised points that an honest person should respond to.
Your quote, the one that began all this, made it clear that you saw violence as an analogy to your belief system.
When you asked Daniel to tell you what his religion had been, your words.. they seem odd. They sound like you are attempting to imply there is something wrong with his wish for privacy. The quote : “I think it’s interesting he does not state that, for ‘privacy reasons’.” Why is that interesting to you, and don’t you think that sounds like you are attempting to imply he is at fault for not revealing private information?
I made simple and clear points, Jon. Your words, which I quoted above in an earlier comment, clearly link violence and your god forcing his will on unbelievers. That is not justice. You have avoided responding to that, and I understand why: you would be unable to justify your opinions. At no point have you defended your own words.
What makes you think I do not want to have a conversation? I have asked questions based on your previous comments, and you have declined to respond to those points. A neutral observer, when asked who is trying to not have a conversation, would point at you and not me.
Your words, Jon. You said quite clearly that sporting violence reminds you that god is going to pick a fight with those who do not believe. You associate violence with your god. I did not put those words in your mouth.
You are ashamed of your own words. Do you want to know how I know that? Because you removed the link. A person who was proud of his words wouldn’t act in that way.
In case that isn’t enough, try this:
I said that if you see violence as an analogy to your belief structure, then your beliefs are inherently violent. Justice was not mentioned in your quote. Violence was. You chose the words, and if they do not reflect your true beliefs then stand up proudly and say so! Avoiding discussion makes it appear as if you have something to hide.
Furthermore, Jon… I posted on your website. No vulgarity, nothing that would give you cause to not post my comment. Yet you did not post it. Why is that? What is your justification?
In case you still read this, I’ll restate it here.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where a person is curious about Voodoo. Should this person read only Voodoo literature, get their information only from Voodoo priests, submerge themselves in Voodoo thinking and then decide if Voodoo is real? Or should they be skeptical, hold back and ask for evidence or logical consistency? Shouldn’t they take in all the information on Voodoo and make an effort to determine what is valid and what is not?
Now you tell me, Jon. Tell my what is so scary about a comment like that, why are you reluctant to let the people who read your blog see it? What are you afraid of?
Really?
Well, Jon.. I’ve tried several times to take part in the conversation on your blog. Each time you have blocked my comments. This presents a contradiction. Either you did not moderate my comments and they are up on your website in invisible ink, or your words here about non vulgar comments being approved is false. Which is it? Why do your words not match your actions?
I am rarely surprised by lies from believers. It seems to be the common thread among the many discussions I have had with theists. When confronted, they evade. When shown to be wrong, they evade or lie. The rare ones are those who discuss things rationally, at least as well as they are capable of.
Jon? Are you there?
Justify your actions. This post is linked to your blog. I’m sure that preventing me from commenting rationally on your blog serves some purpose for you, but since people can just come here for the conversation you prevent on your own site I think you will find yourself looking more and more foolish and deceptive.
You should make your words and your actions match up. Right now, I must judge you by your actions and that means that you, like so many other theists before you, are a liar.
You have been caught in a lie. Apologize, change your ways, attempt to improve. Just don’t bother denying it, its much too late for that.
I retract some of what I just said. I tried to comment on Jon’s site but the captcha must have failed over and over. My latest comment has gotten through, so far.
So, to clarify: When I am wrong, I apologize and correct myself. I was wrong about this. Jon has not, as far as I know, prevented me from posting on his website. I’m sorry for calling you a liar on this issue, Jon.
I hereby retract my retraction. I made absolutely certain that my comment got past the captcha and still our friend Jon did not allow it to be posted.
I retract my apology to the liar and deceiver, Jon Wymer. He has his master of divinity, and is a liar. He has his BA in history, and is a liar. He is a teacher at Gretna commnity church, and is a liar.
I’m done with this one.
This sequence somehow reminds me of the sentence,
“Things explanatory for things explained”.
I haven’t had any problems with my comments on Jon’s blog. I’m not sure why you can’t post – you got past the capthca, and you didn’t post anything vulgar (in my opinion), so I’m not sure what the problem is?
I had multiple tabs open on the same site, and I’ve had trouble with captchas before in that way. I may have hurried my way through it and not checked if it actually got posted.
The conversation isn’t going anywhere anyway. I’m surprised that Jon, who claims to have a master of divinity, would knowingly use the appeal to authority to defend his position and refer to it by name. It is odd to see someone state right out front that they defend themselves with a fallacy.
Aor,
Clearly no matter what I do will not be good enough for you, so I am going to “hide” and “run in shame” and whatever other label you care to put on me by blocking you from my blog. No doubt you are welcome to keep posting here and anywhere else you see fit.
I was not attacking Daniel’s choice. I just thought it was odd he kept it private. Most others with bad experiences at fundamentalist institutions trumpet the name of those institutions loud and clear because their experience is so ridiculous and harmful.
Jon
I think Jon’s blog has a problem. I submitted a comment a couple days ago, and Jon said he never received it. My guess it’s a problem with the verification.
This blog gets dozens of comments a day (sometimes hundreds) and I have never needed to turn on moderation. Don’t see the advantage in that — it just makes readers frustrated, and is more work for the blog owner. If something is inappropriate, I delete it when I can, which is rare but usually quick. Moderation does not facilitate conversation.
Jon, why not just turn on askimet and get rid of the verification and moderation?
As for keeping my college name private, it’s not so odd. I desire to keep my identity private for now, and naming the place I went to school would not further than desire. Simple as that. Also I had a nice experience there, it wasn’t horrible. Some of the best years of my life, even if I was delusional.
@Aor: I really appreciate your comments and questions, but I think it’s best if you attack the views of a person and not the person himself. It does not help these types of situations to attack the person repeatedly. I do not think Jon is a liar (at least any more than the rest of us) — just inexperienced as a blog owner. Give the guy a break. :)
The alternative to not criticizing people for lies, particularly deliberate ones, is to allow all lies from all people at all times. Its simply unworkable.
I know it would be a happier world if nobody ever got called to the floor to defend their opinions, but thats just not realistic.
He may be an inexperienced blog owner, but he has his masters of divinity and is discussing his beliefs on that basis, and he knowingly uses fallacies to defend his beliefs. I showed it quickly and he just as quickly blocked me from responding any more. His deceptiveness is clear.
This is the real world. Liars get called liars, because the only alternative is to tolerate lies. Is it truly possible to effectively criticise a person’s views when they have shown that they have no intention of truthfully responding to those criticisms?
“God is going to pick a fight someday soon and he will tromp the unrepentant bad guys into oblivion forever”
The god this guy believes in is certainly violent, but is not as vindictive as the usual Christian god — the punishment for not kissing ass is merely a finite tromping, not an infinite burning.
Jon
You may consider it ramblings, but to those that are not fully familiar with the history of Christianity, or are new to discussing it, they might find it interesting to discuss certain points. For you to dismiss a contention toward a part of a quote of yours because you think the point is not worth discussing is one thing (although slightly rude), but to call it “ramblings” is most certainly rude.
Aor
I don’t think that is the only alternative. What about giving someone the benefit of the doubt? Of course that benefit should only be allowed for so long, but you only gave him a matter of a few hours before you started namecalling. What happened to sleeping on it? I totally agree that progress cannot happen in this world if we are too scared to call a spade a spade, but there are many ways to go about it.
Why would anyone need to sleep on the decision to tell the truth?
Because misunderstandings are often more likely than understandings in many situations.
Because you can never be 100% sure about the truth sometimes, which certainly mangles things when you’re trying to tell it reliably.
Because accusing someone of being a liar is generally not the best idea unless you have a very, very high threshhold of evidence because most people hate being called liars; it is one of the most dreaded charges in humanity. Some people will never forgive you for calling them a liar if they really weren’t lying intentionally.
(One of my teachers told me never to start a sentence with because — then I promised to be unconventional, hehe — at least not in respect to the conventions of language.)
I have 100% absolute proof of his lies.
Here it is.
He claims that non vulgar comments would be allowed. He has prevented me from commenting despite his promise. At the time I made that statement, the comments I was referring to were actually being eaten by a problem with captchas (I assume). When I later was able to post on his site he quickly blocked me from further conversation, and I used no vulgarity of any kind. This makes him a liar. He could retract his words, but has not. To do so would be to admit guilt, and as we have seen he is completely unwilling to accept that he has made any mistakes at all in this, despite deleting the bio that is posted here.
I don’t see anything about that which would be alleviated by a nights rest. I don’t see anything that I have misunderstood. If you do, I’ll listen.
I realize that calling someone a liar is not best approach in general, but there are situations where it works better than the alternatives. Considering that he knowingly uses a fallacy (in the post he linked here) and then declares that fallacy not to be a fallacy (on his post) his intent to deceive is clear.
From his article:
Perhaps he has no idea what a fallacy is, or what the appeal to authority is, but then why would he know its name? He is a liar. Ignoring it will accomplish nothing. Attracting attention to it may cause him to feel shame for his actions, and shame is a fabulous teacher. So calling someone a liar when they are can actually be quite useful. .
Aor,
I did not intentionally block any of your comments until I pulled the plug and publicly posted on my site and here that I was blocking you. I can’t speak to your efforts to post, I am assuming you did and that somehow they just never made it through. I can tell you I did not intentionally do anything to keep you from posting.
We have been having a great conversation over at my site on a number of topics, and the occurence of ad hominem has dropped below the radar.
I am going to demonstrate the ability to change, oh my gosh. I appreciated Daniel’s comments above about comments. Switched to Akismet so that should make the commenting problems disappear, I hope.
Dan-
I respect your decision about keeping the name of your school private, and understand that you had a good experience. That is great! I have met a fair number of disillusioned fundamentalists who shout the names of institutions from the rooftops as it were.
I installed akismet, removed verification and moderation, as well as posted a comment disclaimer on my website, and actually have a comment now from Aor. Imagine that! Yes, I am inexperienced, and have not seen this amount of attention on my blog before. My typical reader does not even bother to leave a comment, so I actually appreciate the interaction as long as it isn’t too abusive.
Pingback: Crystal’s World » Shared Items - January 13, 2009
Pingback: Crystal’s World » Shared Items - January 14, 2009
Well, I tried to get this Jon Wymer fellow to respond to his use of blatant fallacies, but he won’t. Typical, not unexpected at all. He had opportunities to be truthful and open, to admit his errors and correct them, but all he does is pretend they don’t exist. Deleted his bio, won’t even admit there was a problem with it.
So much for having his masters of divinity.
Now his blog site is dead. Problem solved.