Though the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (II Cor. 10:4-5), we should also note that "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). We must remember that "No man can come to [Jesus], except the Father that sent me draw him" (John 6:44). Therefore apologetic arguments can never, by themselves, convert anyone. God may use them as a means to bring someone to repentance, but to convert a sinner needs a new heart, not more arguments. Unbelief is not intellectual, it is moral. Unregenerate man does not believe not because of a lack of "evidence" or "arguments" but because he hates God, because he is God's enemy (Rom. 8:7). So, it's personal. Unless the Holy Spirit changes a man's heart, he'll always cut off his nose to spite his face. Greg Bahnsen expresses the above nicely when he writes,
"To make God's word your presupposition, your standard, your instructor and guide, however, calls for renouncing intellectual self-sufficiency - the attitude that you are autonomous, able to attain unto genuine knowledge independent of God's direction and standards. The man who claims (or pursues) neutrality in his thought does not recognize his complete dependence upon the God of all knowledge for whatever he has come to understand about the world. Such men give the impression (often) that they are Christians only because they, as superior intellects, have figured out ore verified (to a large or significant degree) the teachings of Scripture. Instead of beginning with God's sure word as foundational to their studies, they would have us to think that they begin with intellectual self-sufficiency and (using this as their starting-point) work up to a "rational" acceptance of Scripture. While Christians may fall into an autonomous spirit while following their scholarly endeavors, still this attitude is not consistent with Christian profession and character. "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of Jehovah" (Prov. 1:7). All knowledge begins with God, and thus we who wish to have knowledge must presuppose God's word and renounce intellectual autonomy. "Talk no more proudly: let not arrogance come from your mouth, for Jehovah is a God of knowledge" (1 Sam. 2:3).
Jehovah is the one who teaches man knowledge (Ps. 94:10). So whatever we have, even the knowledge which we have about the world, has been given to us from God. "What do you have that you have not received?" (1 Cor. 4:7). Why then would men pride themselves in intellectual self-sufficiency? "According as it stands written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:31). Humble submission to God's word must precede man's every intellectual pursuit" (Bahnsen, Evangelism and Apologetics, Synapse III (Fall, 1974).
And so we note that we can present arguments and evidence, but we should also note that there is a standard of argument and evidence. Thus Greg Bahnsen notes,
"The Christian's final standard, the inspired word of God, teaches us that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7). If the apologist treats the starting point of knowledge as something other than reverence for God, then unconditional submission to the unsurpassed greatness of God's wisdom at the end of his argumentation does not really make sense. There would always be something greater than God's wisdom - namely, the supposed wisdom of one's own chosen, intellectual starting point. The word of God would necessarily (logically, if not personally) remain subordinate to that autonomous, final standard.
Ludwig Wittgenstein confessed that a devastating incongruity lay at the heart of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. If he was correct in his eventual conclusion, then the premises used to reach that conclusion were actually meaningless: "anyone who understands me eventually recognizes [my propositions] as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up by it)" (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961 [1921], section 6.54, p. 151)" (Greg Bahnsen, Autonomy Is No Ladder To Christ's Supreme Authority, Penpoint I:1 (October, 1990)).
This "book" will present many arguments for the Christian faith. The "book" will run the gambit, apologetically. I do not agree with everything contained in the articles below, but overall I think they each have very useful and helpful material. May God bless your studies.
Chapter 1: Metaphysical Arguments
A. Theism And Mathematical Realism. -Dr. John Byl
B. The Teleological Argument And The Anthropic Principal. -Dr. William Lane Craig
C. The Ontological Argument -Dr. Alvin Plantinga
i. The Ontological Argument Redux. -Steve Hays, Auquscum et alia
Chapter 2: Epistemological Arguments
A. If Knowledge Then God: The Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Plantinga And Van Til. -Dr. James Anderson
B. Naturalism Defeated. -Dr. Alvin Plantinga
C. Secular Responses to The Problem of Induction. -Dr. James Anderson
D. Knowledge And Naturalism. -Dr. Dallas Willard
Chapter 3: Arguments From Mind or Reason
A. Argument From Reason. -Dr. Victor Reppert
i. The Argument From Reason: Reppert Replies To Carrier. -Dr. Victor Reppert and Dr. William Vallicella
B. Converting Matter Into Mind: Alchemy and the Philosopher's Stone in Cognitive Science. -Dr. William Dembski
C. Does the Argument From Mind Provide Evidence for God? -Dr. J.P. Moreland
D. The Origin of the Brain and Mind [Part I]. -Drs. Brady Harrub and Bert Thompson
i. The Origin of the Brain and Mind [Part II]. -Drs. Brady Harrub and Bert Thompson
Chapter 4: Moral Arguments
A. The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality. -Dr. William Lane Craig
B. How Reason Can Survive The Modern University: The Moral Foundations Of Rationality. -Dr. Dallas Willard
C. Evil As Evidence For God. -Grek Koukl
D. Do We Need God To Be Moral. -John Frame vs. Paul Kurtz
E. The Problem of Evil. -Greg Welty
F. The Problem of Evil. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Chapter 5: Modal/Transcendental Arguments
A. The Actual and the Possible. -Dr. Alexander Pruss
B. Possible Worlds: What They Are Good For and What They Are. -Dr. Alexander Pruss
C. An Examination of Theistic Conceptual Realism as an Alternative to Theistic Activism -Greg Welty
Chapter 6: Cumulative Arguments
A. Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments. -Dr. Alvin Plantinga
B. Theism vs. Atheism Phil Fernandes/Michael Martin Debate Opening Statement: Phil Fernandes The Cumulative Case for God. -Dr. Phil Fernandes
Chapter 7: The Inerrancy, Authority, and Reliability of The Bible
A. Is The Bible Inerrant? -John Frame
B. The Inerrancy of The Autographa. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen
C. Scripture Speaks For Itself. -John Frame
D. Why I Believe The New testament Is Historically Reliable. -Dr. Gary Habermas
E. Is The Bible Reliable. -Bob and Gretchen Passantino
F. The Textual Reliability of the New Testament. -JP Holding
Chapter 8: The Resurrection of The Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ
A. This Joyful Eastertide: A Critical Review of 'The Empty Tomb'. -Steve Hays et alia
B. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. -Dr. William Lane Craig
C. Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories. -Dr. Gary Habermas
i. A Summary Critique: Questioning the Existence of Jesus. -Dr. Gary Habermas
Chapter 9: Theism -vs- Atheism
A. The Great Debate: Bahnsen vs. Stein.
B. Tag vs. Tang: Frame vs. Martin.
C. William Lane Craig vs. Douglas Jesseph.
Thanks Travis,
ReplyDeleteI don't have a link to my debate with barker.
the podcast one will dissapear soon.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteNice to know that you were the Discomfiter, even though you claimed not to be on the 'Discomfiter' blog.
Another Lie from Paul.
Typical.
Add "lying" to the 'weapons of our warfare' links, as it seems to be your best move.
Yeah, I also lied to my son when I told him I wasn't taking himn to Disneyland for his birthday.
ReplyDeleteI'm a big fat liar. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
And why should it bother you, we're founded on lies. In the revolutionary war America often misled the enemy. George Washington was a liar. America is founded on lies.
And if you lie to your neighbor and try to hide his wife whom he's trying to kill, you're a liar. Liar atheist for Mother Nature.
Go figure.
Go figure that the Bible doesn't say that *all* lies are wrong.
Go figure that an atheist would use a guy who had a parody blog, and needed to "lie" in order for the thing to even be half way funny, to "disprove" Christianity.
The sad part is that's all you got, isn't it?
see chapter 43 of the book below:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/ethics.html
Way to lie by posting anonymously. I mean, you have a name and to portrary yourself as something you're not, is a lie. Liar for mother nature.
Your "warfare" is firing duds.
ReplyDeleteWay to spend thousands of words defending 'the discomfiter' in third person.
Your a hoot. Isn't your "objective morality" 10 commandment based? Care to explain your "get out of the 10 commandments" free pass? Before you go all TAG on me, this is an internal critique question....mkay?
While your at it why don't you support the premises of your transcendental argument without ducking into the "impossibility of the contrary" or just concede it is 1) faith based and 2) the answer proves nothing and is diversionary.
Better yet, just leave it at that and go home to your family. Maybe you can accomplish some *good* in the world that way. Your online "war" has been lost.
Yeah, Fred, I posted something on the 9th commandment above.
ReplyDeleteAnd, it's not an internal critique when you don't critique intenrally.
How did the Discomfiter "bear false witness against his *neighbor?* You're not my neighbor. So, you can't do an internal critique by assuming a false interpretation, mkay?
This is intellectual warfare, and I can deceive the enemy.
And, the premise is supported in the papers and debates above. Also see my debate w/ Barker.
Why should i do your homework for you? Show you're conversent with the material and arguments before you ask someone to waste their time on the atheist hoi polloi, mkay?
how 'bout we just release exbeliever's identity?
ReplyDeletewouldn't want liars on either side.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI knew it was you. I wish the site hadn't closed down, as I found it quite humorous from the start. When a person can't laugh at themselves, or see their flaws, said person is in sad shape.
You should've just turned off anonymous comments after the line got crossed, and deleted the "over the line" stuff, and we could still all be enjoying your talent at satire.
Anon,
What did exbeliever lie about, and how would it alter his identity? I happen to know it, and I strongly doubt you all do, but even if you do, why does it matter? Did he claim to be someone that he is not? If he denied being someone, please point me to it.
Paul, bring the Discomfiter back! I'm with Daniel Morgan on this one (gulp!).
ReplyDeleteDaniel, shall we start a petition?
The Green Man agrees with you. The Discomfiter will die in a few days if he does not begin blogging again soon.
ReplyDeleteBut the Discomfiter is not Paul Mantana, but rather the most monstrous and cunning villain.
Doom of a Discomfiter
He's just kidnapped my indefatigable secretary, Ms. L. Madison.
Paul Manata said:
ReplyDeleteYeah, Fred, I posted something on the 9th commandment above.
How did the Discomfiter "bear false witness against his *neighbor?* You're not my neighbor. So, you can't do an internal critique by assuming a false interpretation, mkay?
Way to subjectively interpret your Objective basis for morality.
My, what fun you are!
I guess your physical neighbors all don't have computers and therefore weren't part of the deception, eh? Or maybe 'neighbors' is a euphemism for 'christians' in your subjective interpretation? I guess they all your 'neighbors' however you have decided to comport that word with your subjective morality you stole from my worldview, were informed beforehand of your deception?
BTW, do you use exodus or Deuterotomy when you are subjectively interpreting your "objective basis for morality"?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"how 'bout we just release exbeliever's identity?
wouldn't want liars on either side."
How is saying "I don't want to release my identity to protect people's feelings" a lie?
Or are you also subjectively interpreting what a lie is in order to dovetail it with your subjective morality?
Don't bother responding. The answer is obvious.
Not reformed,
ReplyDeleteI already talked about lying.
above and gave a link to an article on the 9th commandment.
Anyway, I was acting and the discomfiter was an atheist.
It had to be somewhat funny for it to work.
If I had not said anything when asked point blank it would have been obvious, the site would not have been nearly as funny.
Anyway, you must think that a Christian is a "base" character if he lies to a man about where his wife is hiding because the man is trying to murder his wife. If not, then you can't think that *all* lies are wrong. If you think that, then you're base, no? I mean, why not say anything to the murderer? Because it wouldn't work, that's why.
The discomfiter was an actor, he wasn't me in the sense that Forrest Gump wasn't Tom Hanks. What if Tom was in Gump character and someone on the set, while shooting, call Forrest Tom? Tom would probably had said, though it would have been cut, my names Forrest Gump, or something.
Anyway, sorry you feel that way, ciao.
Paul Manata said:
ReplyDelete"Anyway, you must think that a Christian is a "base" character if he lies to a man about where his wife is hiding because the man is trying to murder his wife. If not, then you can't think that *all* lies are wrong. If you think that, then you're base, no? I mean, why not say anything to the murderer? Because it wouldn't work, that's why."
there you go again Stealing from Subjective morality in order to prop up your ill-of-health objective morality.
I provided the exegesis.
ReplyDeleteI provided back-up argumentation.
I've attempted to prove my take on it, and showed how it was not subjective.
Anyway, if you got nothing better than assertions quit commenting
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteyou've provided no exegesis only bold self-serving subjective assertions about the term 'neighbor'.
ReplyDeleteYou have backed it up with more assertions and stealing from subjective morality.
You've attempted to prove it wasn't subjective, by asserting it wasn't subjective.
Anyway, if you have nothing better than assertions, why don't you stop posting?
The Ninth Commandment is:
ReplyDelete'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.'
By declaring he was not the Discomfiter, Paul in no way bore false witness against his neighbour. He lied about himself, not another. Had Paul called himself John Loftus and done the site, that would have been a violation of the ninth commandment. In what way was Paul bearing false witness against his neighbour? False witness TO his neighbour, false witness AGAINST himself, yes. False witness against his neighbour, no.
My dear Frederick,
ReplyDeleteYour allegation that Paul is guilty of 'borrowing from subjective morality' is odd. With regard to Paul's hypothetical, it is a standard of situation ethics. More, we find in the Scriptures the telling of deliberate lies to protect the people of God. See the account of the Midwives in Exodus.
But I do think here that Paul is guilty of disingenuousness. The question is not serious, as the hypothetical indicated, but frivolous, namely running a parody while denying being the writer. In other words, an adult game of 'make-believe.'
Now, when playing "Make-Believe", it is necessary to mislead. However, as this causes no hurt, this may be excused as 'meant in fun', otherwise all actors would be liars.
Now, while some early Christians held this, most modern evangelicals do not, the position being a little extreme in my eyes.
Paul never gave a direct answer, although he gave an answer that appeared to be direct, namely:
'If you're talking about the Discomfiter, he ain't me.'
Which Paul, in a despicable piece of Jesuitry, meant to mean, 'the Discomfiter isn't Paul Mantana, but someone Paul Mantana is pretending to be.'
Paul gave a false indication. However, I do recommend that persons such as thyself should lose the tone of moral outrage. Paul pretended to be someone, then misled people in a parody. He did NOT intentionally lie about a fact of science, philosophy or religion. Again, let's keep this in proportion shall we?
Hiraeth said:
ReplyDeleteThe Ninth Commandment is:
By declaring he was not the Discomfiter, Paul in no way bore false witness against his neighbour. He lied about himself, not another. Had Paul called himself John Loftus and done the site, that would have been a violation of the ninth commandment.
---------------
Hey, thanks! Another subjective interpretation of the EIGHT/NINTH commandment. ( Christians are even at odds, apparantly, over what number this commandment is). You guys all line up at the teet of subjective morality so you can make sense out of your 'objective moral standard'.
here are more subjective interpretations of your "absolute morality".
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/eightnin.html
http://cowdery.home.netcom.com/command.htm
http://www.ondoctrine.com/2lut0913.htm
http://godstenlaws.com/ten-commandments/insight9.html
What a hoot!
BTW, who cares whether Paul is an admitted liar or not? He has already copped to Racial hate, injecting drugs, Roid rage and random violence. What is a little lie on top of that?
In addition, I wasn't offended (nor entertained) by his awful acting job as the discomfiter. It was just fun watching him rail against Loftus like and not not only made himself look stupid, but also made his buddy Gene look like an like a clown.
In addition, It is always fun to watch him squirm and try to weasel his way out of his own irrationality.
Keep posting Paul. You are helping move people towards atheism with each post!
Fred, you declare:
ReplyDelete'Hey, thanks! Another subjective interpretation of the EIGHT/NINTH commandment. ( Christians are even at odds, apparantly, over what number this commandment is).'
The reason for the disagreement is this. The Bible in the original did not have chapter and verse divisions, that's a later addition for easy reference. Thus some people (mostly Roman Catholics) run the first and the second commandments into one, and divide the tenth into two. The content is the same.
On 'subjective morality'. I clearly stated that I thought Paul had crossed the line and was guilty of being disingenuous. Apparently you are too interested in quote-mining to notice this.
However, since the ninth commandment refers to bearing false witness against your neighbour (slander or libel), Paul's denial that he was the Discomfiter did not break it. Was it off? Certainly, Jesus said that our yes should be yes, and our no should be no.
On the matter of the Discomfiter blog, I'd note that Daniel Morgan and other atheists found it funny. However, you do rather seem to be one of those atheists who had a sense of humour by-pass when you came across it.
Returning to the substantive point. I do not believe that Paul broke the injunction not to bear false witness against one's neighbour by denying he was the Discomfiter. I do, however, believe that he lied, or at least gave a deliberately false indication. If you believe that Paul did bear false witness against his neighbour, tell me how and why, do not go off on a rhetorical bender.
Further, Fred old boy, I've just finished reading your 'subjective interpretations.' Here's a wee commentary. We've noted why some adopt different numbering schemes. Your second link was particularly useful on that (and realise that the summaries given in any version of the Ten Commandments are just that). We note in it also that Christ boiled down the commandments relating to neighbours as 'you shall love your neighbour as yourself.'
ReplyDeleteOn being subjective, if by that you mean simply that one has to take each case and examine it, of course one does. However, I'd agree with Luther and your last link on the specific application of the ninth commandment.
That is, the ninth commandment, like that (or those, if you're a Roman Catholic), refers to good conduct towards our neighbour. We are not to injure him, whether by taking (or wrongly desiring) what is his (a right desire may be entertained for his house or his possessions, that is, one may offer to buy these), nor by taking from him his good name through slander or gossip.
Chrsitians should not lie, as Christ has commanded us to be truthful, but the ninth commandment refers to malicious lying, not silly lies designed to perpetrate a game of make-believe.
If you believe that Paul lied maliciously, say so, and provide evidence.
And, Freddie, if Paul is helping to move people towards atheism, you, with your infantile manner, are doing more than counteracting it. Atheism hardly came out of the saga of the Discomfiter with its head held high.
Had all atheists been as Daniel Morgan, that might have been differnt. Whatever his faults, Daniel seems to be an intelligent and mature adult.
Now that is really rich. You got one of your Tribalblogger here saying things like
ReplyDelete"I'm a big fat liar. Liar, liar, pants on fire."
and any range of sophmoric nonsense. In addition, he has the gall to compare himself to Tom Hanks. This guy is just so over the top you couldn't make a fictional character more harmfull to your 'cause'.
Yet you want to try to project Paul's immaturity on those that question his tactics. Again, no one is bothered that I know of by his childish and amaturish rendention of "the discomfiter". Quite the contrary I rather enjoy when Paul digs himself into situations that make him look foolish. Further, pointing out his subjectiveness while he rails against other people's subjective "worldview" is just funny.
Paul cannot bully everybody because he isn't as smart as he has told himself he is.
That is my point. As long as he keeps coming back, when I hit this website I will give it right back to him until the door slaps him where you guys kiss him.
Along the lines of projecting the immaturity displayed on this blog on others, Hireath, My name is not "Freddie". that is an apparant attempt to take liberties with my name I have not given you, nor have I done the same to you.
ReplyDeleteRemember, projection is not becoming of men of action.
Now that Paul is apprently gone, perhaps the thuggish behavior exhibited around here will dissapear, and people may just actually discuss ideas in a manner that is conducive to the friendly change of ideas.
Maybe.
"Now that Paul is apprently gone, perhaps the thuggish behavior exhibited around here will dissapear, and people may just actually discuss ideas in a manner that is conducive to the friendly change of ideas.
ReplyDeleteMaybe."
Well then that would mean that you would have to leave, now wouldn't it?
Frankly, I think you're glad that Paul's gone since you'll be able to get away with bad reasoning now. Well, good thing Steve 'c crew.
Fred, I meant no disrespect by using the term, 'Freddie,' rather, as with Frederick (which you did not pick up on), I like to attempt to be conversational. As far as I'm aware, Fred is a diminutive anyway. Believe me, laddie, I really don't mind liberties being taken with my name. My actual name in the real world as been mis-spelled, pronouced or even taken for an entirely different one, but that's fine by me, and in the real world too. I don't stand on my rights, Frederick.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if this caused offence, please accept my apologies and rest assured that no disrespect was intended. But I would suggest that preciousness also does not befit men of action, much less men of argumentation.
Now, perhaps you'd like to engage with the substance of what I said?
Interesting how this thread grew, meandered, and has pretty much stalled out in the last few days.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a poor strategy to try to undermine the believer's case for christianity by pointing to their consistency in applying Jesus' own behavior to themselves. And here and here and here
Ends and means, friends, ends and means.
However, since the ninth commandment refers to bearing false witness against your neighbour (slander or libel)
Slander is spoken, libel is written.
Absolutely, old chap, well aware of the difference, well aware. My mother taught me it from an early age. So, if I write a false statement against my neighbour or just say it, it's wrong as it's unloving.
ReplyDeleteOn your examples, might I be so bold as to note the following:
1. Samuel did sacrifice to the Lord. However, that was not the only reason for his visit to Jesse. He told the truth, just not the whole truth.
2. In 1 Kings, again, the giving over to believe a lie was in judgement to the rather nasty King Ahab.
3. Jesus misled the people to protect his life.
4. On the passage from 2 Thessalonians, it is clear from the context that the final giving over to believe a lie is punishment for disobedience.
Now, while Paul may view himself as the agent of judgement, his life would not have been in danger if he had not denied being the Discomfiter.
So that does not apply. On reflection, I feel that Paul did wrong in denying that he was the Discomfiter.
The Green Man is the agent of Vengeance.
ReplyDeleteBrother Blark said;
ReplyDeletePaul was dishonest, plain and simple. Going to hell over it? I don't know. It just appears that its OK for Paul to lie when he wants to, and then mock unbelievers for not having objective morality like he does."
----------------------------
Pretty much the point I made earlier in the thread, BB, all except the 'hell' part. I obviously belive he is not going to hell.
Also, notice the tone of confrontation has dissapeared, and people on both sides consent to agree on certain points.
What has sparked this sudden flavor of agreement and reasoned talk? I submit that it is so obvious that there is no need to further point it out.
I think that this whole thread is very sad to tell you the truth. Take it somewhere else boys! Have you even read the post at hand? C'mon, let's stay on topic here. Thank's Paul, for your hard work. Your brother's and sister's appreciate it, and whether we see you in the arena of blogger's again, or not, you will remain in our prayers.
ReplyDelete"Hiraeth,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement:
"On reflection, I feel that Paul did wrong in denying that he was the Discomfiter."
However, multiple times on various blogs, Paul ALSO claimed to be me (brother blark) which was another lie. This was outside of his parody site, on various other blogs.
Paul was dishonest, plain and simple"
That's a hoot! Brother Blark was "lying" about being a Christian.
Brother Blark attempted to undermine the discomfiter by a parody of his own.
Paul, like a wise serpent, told people, in guise of the discomfiter, that he was brother blark. This caused people to not pay atention to brother blark. it totally undermined brother blark's attempt at undermining the Christian faith through parody.
Paul is my friend, and he's sharp. He's not politically correct, but he's quick and funny.
All this countered brother blark's attempt at an offensive maneuver, and countered it nicely I might add.
So, please, it's sad that a guy who "lies" about being a Christian, and then get's countered by another parody guy who claims to be the one who was lying about being a Christian, can accuse someone of "lying."
Luther Limp,
ReplyDeletePay attention to the thread.
You see, dear man, I, nor my Christian brothers and sisters, will ever condemn you for telling your friend that you're not doing anything special for her birthday when, in fact, you're planning a surprise for her.
Likewise, dear fellow, we'll never condemn you for writing a parody where you pretend to be a Christian.
Garsh, given the wimpy perspectyive of unbelievers in this thread they'd have us burn all the books about Rudolph and Santa. And, though I don't do this, they'd have us burn parents who give their 4 yr. old children one present from "Santa." They're liars!
Indeed, anytime you tell your kids fabels and they believe them, because that's part of the fun with kids -playing make believe, and you let them belive that, say, the monster on the Matterhorn ride is real, you're a liar! An immoral liar!
Give me a freakin' break. What a bunch of pansies these unbelievers are. They're the one's who tell us that morality is subjective. They're the one's who tell us we're just complicated bags of matter. They're the one's who tell us we've evolved. I mean, deception is very prevelant in nature! But then they nexpect us to trascend nature.
What a bunch of hooey!
Luther, et. al. just some final principles:
ReplyDeleteTo run a parody is not lying, as the identity is part of the game. It's make-believe, let's treat it as such and not be po-faced about it.
However, to deny something which is true is lying. That is wrong. However, no Christian is going to hell because they told a silly lie any more than because they lost their tempers or allowed a swear-word to escape their lips in an unguarded moment. But it is still wrong.
Christians and Atheists can parody each other. No problem so long as the party stays polite.
Anon, claiming to be Brother Blark was as wrong as claiming not to be the Discomfiter. In undermining Bro. Blark, I feel that the Green Man and Sir Richard Arcos, both clearly joke characters (see the Green Man's site) did the right thing in crossing over to make it plain that the site was the same as the Discomfiter.
The Green Man is no joke. Nor is the evil of the Disturber, aka Monty Bristow.
ReplyDeleteTelling your children that Santa is real is lying to them. The "make believe" part is just an excuse. I suppose that when they cry because they find out he's not real, you can just say, "hey, c'mon kids, it was make believe!".
ReplyDelete"However, to deny something which is true is lying."
ReplyDeleteOf course, and the discomfiter never said he didn't lie. And, Paul said he did lie. The point was whether this was wrong.
Rahab told a lie. Was she wrong for doing so?
If you hide a woman in your home and the husband who is seeking to kill her asks you if she's there, and you say, "no" then you've "denied something which is true." That,therefore, according to you, me, and anyone elese I would think, is a lie. Were you "immoral" for doing that? No.
Look, no one is denying that a "lie" took place (as has been proadly defined). We're denying that what took polace was "immoral." If it is, then have the courage of your convictions and say that a man who tells his wife that they're not doing anything special for their anniversary, is immoral.
Bottom line, from my perspective, for the atheists to pick on this shows how desparate they are. I hardly ever saw people interact with the substance of Paul's posts, but they picked on his spelling and "lying." Give me a break.
OK Paul, we'll give you a break...
ReplyDeleteThis is a fascinating concept, with great content. I especially liked Dr. Welty's entries.
ReplyDeleteI was under the assumtpion that Welty had not obtained his doctorate as of yet.
ReplyDelete