tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2654982935721096682..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Is Theism Irrational? Responding to the 'Lil Responder KrewRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56748501489834665692008-02-18T22:53:00.000-05:002008-02-18T22:53:00.000-05:00JEA,Where's your sense of timing, of rhetoric, and...JEA,<BR/>Where's your sense of timing, of rhetoric, and its occasions?<BR/><BR/>Try the Anglican on for size:<BR/><BR/>HOLY SONNET XIV by John Donne<BR/><BR/>: Batter my heart, three-personed God, for you<BR/>: As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;<BR/>: That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend<BR/>: Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.<BR/>: I, like an usurped town, to another due,<BR/>: Labour to admit you, but Oh, to no end.<BR/>: Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,<BR/>: But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.<BR/>: Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,<BR/>: But am betrothed unto your enemy:<BR/>: Divorce me, untie or break that knot again,<BR/>: Take me to you, imprison me, for I,<BR/>: Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,<BR/>: Nor ever chaste, except you <B>ravish</B> me.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05750404686325950389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88880803246183094892008-02-18T21:17:00.000-05:002008-02-18T21:17:00.000-05:00Western Civilization is preponderantly theist. Wes...Western Civilization is preponderantly theist. Western C ivilization, relativistically as to government,economics,science, law, humanitarianism,charity, etc has been most successful. The burden of proof is on the atheist to prove that western civilization has not benefited from theism, as its primary aspirational philosphichal and ideological guide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43584277030445031072008-02-18T16:57:00.000-05:002008-02-18T16:57:00.000-05:00"I would like to see an exact citation and exactly..."I would like to see an exact citation and exactly what he said. Thanks."<BR/><BR/>Paul, I think you're right. I smell a rat. Dude seems a bit too hyper about all this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31253905960121211262008-02-18T16:45:00.000-05:002008-02-18T16:45:00.000-05:00Edwards,At this point you're doing nothing but bei...Edwards,<BR/><BR/>At this point you're doing nothing but being a pill. Further commets will be deletaed. I explained the conception behind the comment, and it's not too far from the truth. I think it is inflamitory when used by the opposition. Your comment about why I mentioned open theists is false and inflamitory in its own right. Can you doccument your rationality behind this psychological profiling?<BR/><BR/>Your questions have been answered, the post has been changed. I thinm you're pressing this because, actually, I don't believe you're an Edwards admirer but rather an Arminian who wants a direct quote so that he can use it against Calvinists. Why else are you pushing it? Your inital comment seems to have been met and the appropriate action taken.<BR/><BR/>Your rabid continued interaction on this topic has given you away.<BR/><BR/><I>"First the person is against having intimacy with God, then God changes their will and they desire to have the very intimacy they had rejected previously (so that would be a person first not wanting to do so and then giving complete and positive consent to the act so it would not be a “divine rape”)."</I><BR/><BR/>You didn't give consent to the CHANGING.<BR/><BR/>*That* was against your will.<BR/><BR/>Hipefully you now "get" it.<BR/><BR/>I understand the problem in that many Calvinists (assuming you're not an undercover Arminian) want to cater to man's "free will" too much.<BR/><BR/>Fact is, a raped woman who obtained a child that she utterly loves with all her heart might be glad someone did something against her will. I wouldn't have volunteered for God to change my nature. My will was set against it. I'm glad he did something against my will.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87477432490282047222008-02-18T11:06:00.000-05:002008-02-18T11:06:00.000-05:00Paul said: Also, the *thought* contained therein d...Paul said: Also, the *thought* contained therein does have a reformed pedigree. Despite "your understanding." Yes, God *changes* their will. Before he does, though, your will is set *against* that change. If asked, an unregenerate sinner would say "No!" to God, or to God changing his will to be in line with his will. So, God's changing our will is against our will, before he changes it.<BR/><BR/>I think the “divine rape” analogy is unnecessarily inflammatory, inappropriate and misguided. Inflammatory and Inappropriate for obvious reasons, misguided because staying with the analogy and your words here. First the person is against having intimacy with God, then God changes their will and they desire to have the very intimacy they had rejected previously (so that would be a person first not wanting to do so and then giving complete and positive consent to the act so it would not be a “divine rape”).<BR/><BR/>Paul also said: Anyway, I don't think you need to make a big deal about ti all. I'll hunt down the sources, whether it was Edwards or someone else, and then I'll post them. But I don't think harping on someone misremembering something is that productive.<BR/><BR/>My concern was to attribute to Edwards something highly inflammatory and something I seriously doubted he ever said or would ever have said. First you didn’t know where it was but attributed to Edwards, then you tried to put it off on open theists (probably because you don’t like them and wanted to suggest that they are going around misquoting Edwards, when in fact it was a reformed person Sproul who is doing so).<BR/><BR/>Paul said: One source here attributes the Edwards quote to R.C. Sproul. Perhaps that's where I read it.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace<BR/><BR/>I checked out the wikipedia citation and the key words are these: (Jonathan Edwards has sometimes been quoted—notably by R. C. Sproul—as referring to the irresistible call of God as the "holy rape of the soul," but the phrase does not appear in Edwards' Works. Instead, the phrase seems to have been coined by Puritan scholar Perry Miller, and many Calvinists distance themselves from it.)<BR/><BR/>So there it is, Edwards never said or wrote it, Sproul mistakenly attributed it to Edwards when in fact it was the Edwards commentator Miller who actually coined it. Note even this article notes that many Calvinists distance themselves from it. And there are very good reasons for distancing themselves from such an inflammatory and misguided statement.<BR/><BR/>Paul said of his access to Sproul’s statement: So, most of my books are packed and so I can't look in my Sproul books, but perhaps it was on his radio program renewing your mind.<BR/><BR/>Does anyone else have access to, or know where Sproul made this divine rape statement? I would like to see an exact citation and exactly what he said. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan Edwards admirerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37679889939290827662008-02-17T14:50:00.000-05:002008-02-17T14:50:00.000-05:00John W. Loftus said: Manata said...I remember one ...John W. Loftus said: <BR/><BR/>Manata said...I remember one time I was on Richard’s internet radio show. I was invited to come on as The Discomfiter. We did a little parody on John Loftus.<BR/><BR/>"This has not been forgotten. Both he and Jim Lazarus will have egg on their faces, and I'll eagerly throw the eggs. Tell your jealous wannabe buddies for me will ya."<BR/><BR/>Hey John, why did you link to Richard Spencer's 12 arguments for atheism on your weblog? Why link to a "wsannabe's" arguments? Lauding Spencer doesn't seem like "throwing eggs at him." John why are you so ridiculous? So emotional? Do you even realize how downright silly you make yourself look on a regular and repeated basis?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70130358180490386242008-02-17T12:15:00.000-05:002008-02-17T12:15:00.000-05:00Yeah, just as I said: "My book is set to become th...Yeah, just as I said: "My book is set to become the next atheist bestseller, judging the present rankings on Amazon.com right now, with it being in 961st place for over-all books."<BR/><BR/>The more widespread attention my book receives the more you and your brainwashed cronies will come begging for mercy at the sight of your crumbling faith. If you go onto Amazon.com and check it out for yourself, you'll see that I'm not the only one who is convinced in the potency and influence of my own arguments.<BR/><BR/>Go ahead, don't buy it. It will be you're own funeral.<BR/><BR/>But if you don't buy it, just remember one thing: Don't say I didn't warn you.<BR/><BR/>You've got no other choice but to order a copy of my book, and if you don't, you're a coward for not wanting to venture into my scope of thinking which challenges the delusion of Christianity. Act quickly, for hesitatance will be your downfall!John W. Locusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11905155633114310059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87109363926490371242008-02-17T07:55:00.000-05:002008-02-17T07:55:00.000-05:00Its been a long time since I was able to enjoy the...Its been a long time since I was able to enjoy the fun interaction between the mighty Manata and the evil atheist horde.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for taking the time, Paul! You've done a great job, I enjoyed every last word!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43375162713891804342008-02-16T13:56:00.000-05:002008-02-16T13:56:00.000-05:00Edwards,One source here attributes the Edwards quo...Edwards,<BR/><BR/>One source here attributes the Edwards quote to R.C. Sproul. Perhaps that's where I read it.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace<BR/><BR/>And certainly I wouldn't be held blameworthy for going off of a Sproul quote about something Edwards said; what, given his connection with Edwardsian scholar John Gerstner.<BR/><BR/>So, most of my books are packed and so I can't look in my Sproul books, but perhaps it was on his radio program renewing your mind. <BR/><BR/>I think I have shown that the phrase as a history in reformed thought (and going off Sproul on Edwards is usually a good source). Indeed, the saying was attributed to a Puritan, if the Edwards citation is indeed wrong.<BR/><BR/>Now, I usually don't use that phrase. I don't think it's helpful...most of the time. But, in the specific context I used it in, I thought it made my point. However you want to put it, we do not, prior to the work of the Holy Spirit, desire God. At the moment God chooses to regenerate us, he is doing something that 1 second before was against our will. If he asked us if we would like to become regenerated, no one would. Regeneration is radical. It's a heart transplant for a patient with a heart condition that said he doesn't want the new heart.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53187815106339785522008-02-16T13:30:00.000-05:002008-02-16T13:30:00.000-05:00Edwards,I simply told you where I recalled my info...Edwards,<BR/><BR/>I simply told you where I recalled my information was from. I don't have a problem admitting I was wrong if I was. But I'm not "blame shifting." I don't think I shoulder any "blame." I was going off what I took to be a clear memory I have held for quite some time. Absent defeaters, it is fully rational and unworthy of blame to go off what you distinctly recall.<BR/><BR/>Also, the *thought* contained therein does have a reformed pedigree. Despite "your understanding." Yes, God *changes* their will. Before he does, though, your will is set *against* that change. If asked, an unregenerate sinner would say "No!" to God, or to God changing his will to be in line with his will. So, God's changing our will is against our will, before he changes it.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I don't think you need to make a big deal about ti all. I'll hunt down the sources, whether it was Edwards or someone else, and then I'll post them. But I don't think harping on someone misremembering something is that productive.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79185328482976007152008-02-16T11:35:00.000-05:002008-02-16T11:35:00.000-05:00Thanks for your response Paul.You said: “I'm not s...Thanks for your response Paul.<BR/><BR/>You said: “I'm not sure, it was something I recalled from memory. I may be off, even though the sentiment I express is close enough. I'll fix that section until I get further info. Sorry.”<BR/><BR/>Paul apparently does not know where Edwards made this comment or even whether he did in fact make this comment (using the analogy of rape for God's activity). I have read Edwards extensively and have never seen it. Is anyone else aware of where Edwards says this or something similar?<BR/><BR/>Paul also said: I think it was from an open theist I read who attributed the saying to Edwards. Assumed he was being honest with the facts. And, in once sense, salvation is against our will. We don't want to be saved at the point God changes our desires. We don't change our desire, he does.<BR/><BR/>My understanding of reformed theology is that salvation is not against our will because if God has selected someone to be elect He will so change their will so that they freely and willingly trust Christ for salvation. So they are never coerced into believing, this is in fact a caricature of reformed thinking by others.<BR/><BR/>I also would not attribute an error in citation to an open theist, that just shifts the blame. First you appear to be making an error in citation, then you try to blame an unspecified open theist for your mistake. <BR/><BR/>Again, if anyone does in fact know where Edwards says what Paul attributes to him, please provide the proper citation so that I can look it up myself. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan Edwards admirerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55153695862545516992008-02-16T05:34:00.000-05:002008-02-16T05:34:00.000-05:00Paul M. said: "Seems self-defeating. Since you int...Paul M. said: "Seems self-defeating. Since you intended me to read your post (by addressing it to me for one), and since your post "deals with my cult's beliefs," then it appears that you don't want me to read your post. Thus you do and do not want me to read your post.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to come back after the doctor dislodges that foot from your mouth.<BR/><BR/>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR/>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<BR/><BR/>I say: Oh Snap!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74288484955776518972008-02-16T05:32:00.000-05:002008-02-16T05:32:00.000-05:00The RRS crew have been whipped once again. Thanks ...The RRS crew have been whipped once again. Thanks for these rebuttals.Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60202601994045441592008-02-16T04:58:00.000-05:002008-02-16T04:58:00.000-05:00George said... Paul,It's very rational to avoid a ...<I>George said... <BR/>Paul,<BR/><BR/>It's very rational to avoid a steaming pile of crap whether it’s laying on the sidewalk, or on some sad little blog like this one. I’m just stopping by here for amusement. Keeping an eye on this little cult of pretentious, angry, white, male Calvinistas. [sic]</I><BR/><BR/>a) I don't buy it since you don't avoid yourself.<BR/><BR/>b) Sticking with your analogy, are you saying it is rational to "keep your eye" on crap? To get amused by crap? That's a sad life, George.<BR/><BR/>c) On the one hand, you say it is rational to avoid crap, one the other hand your actions intimate that you like to play with it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"If you think there’s something insightful to be gained by reading countless pages of some Christian wannabe apologist like you, teaching a bunch of drunken fundy atheists the error of their ways, with your brilliant ‘theology’, ‘philosophy’ and command of big multi-syllable words like ‘epistemology’…that’s REALLY funny."</I><BR/><BR/>Follow the bouncing ball: I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that your critiques were already answered. That it wasn't rational to offer arguments against a piece that already addressed those arguments. Makes you look lazy. So, I don't care if you read my post. I simply think that if you're going to "critique" something you should familiarize yourself with the situation before running in guns-a-blazing. A stupid man would run into a room of Navy SEALS with a pea shooter. I'm trying to help you avoid stupidity.<BR/><BR/><I>"The only emotion I have for you is pity. You can’t even come up with some original insults and need to paraphrase mine of you…how sad."</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, sorry, did you not catch that I was reversing your ad hominem psychological evaluations? If you want to pull out the play ground tactics I'm going to hit back with the nee ner nee ners. If you don't like the level of my responses, change your tactics. You only have yourself to blame. That you couldn't "get" this simply tactic of mine moves me to pity you.<BR/><BR/><I>"Again, what could be more ‘rational’ than for an egotistical blowhard like yourself BELIEVING he’s been chosen by the one true omniscient creator of the universe to be his chosen and ‘elected’ earthly spokesmodel?"</I><BR/><BR/>Right, The old argumentum ad hit 'em with mischaracterizations and pejoratives. What could be more 'rational' than a blowhard stooping to caricatures of his opponent rather than dealing with their actual position. Are you Mammaw Nature's "tool?"<BR/><BR/><I>"Anyway…instead of wasting your time with these fornicating atheists who will soon be burning in a lake of fire, shouldn’t you be out searching for the Ark? Or maybe planning a little trip to the Creation Museum where you can see those 5000 year old dinosaur bones?"</I><BR/><BR/>Anyway...instead of wasting your time with these angry white Calvinists, shouldn’t you be out searching for the missing link? Or maybe planning a trip to the natural history museum where you can see those artistic renditions of "how things reeeeaaaally were." ("I haven't verified all this myself, mind you, but dem smart scientists brought it all to life for me and my fam by bringing in a sculptor and adding all this non-scientific specualtion to the 'bones.' See kiddies, aint postmodernism grand? We can use *models* to *describe.*)<BR/><BR/><I>"Perhaps you should be standing outside scanning the sky for a chariot with Jesus coming out of the clouds? I here he’s due back ANY DAY NOW…SMIRK!"</I><BR/><BR/>More mischaracterizations. Perhaps you should be mapping the brain for evidence of first-person subjective experience. I hear science will find it ANY DAY NOW...SMIRK!<BR/><BR/><I>"Paul, take my advice, go play a game with your kid, or make love to your wife, or read something…anything…not dealing with your cult’s beliefs."</I><BR/><BR/>Seems self-defeating. Since you intended me to read your post (by addressing it to me for one), and since your post "deals with my cult's beliefs," then it appears that you don't want me to read your post. Thus you do and do not want me to read your post.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to come back after the doctor dislodges that foot from your mouth.<BR/><BR/>Peace!Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22025936860211759632008-02-16T04:36:00.000-05:002008-02-16T04:36:00.000-05:00I was going to go to bed an hour and a half ago, b...I was going to go to bed an hour and a half ago, but then I found this. I would have stopped a while ago, but this was so hilarious, it's funny seeing what atheists say. That's why when I'm done with my current books, I'm gonna start reading Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Dennet--they're so funny! And it's not as if what they say rises above the level of the stuff that just got mowed down by Paul's Lawnmower.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08697051930790491821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74175849836083582062008-02-16T04:29:00.000-05:002008-02-16T04:29:00.000-05:00John W. Loftus said: Manata said...I remember one ...John W. Loftus said: <BR/>Manata said...I remember one time I was on Richard’s internet radio show. I was invited to come on as The Discomfiter. We did a little parody on John Loftus.<BR/><BR/>This has not been forgotten. Both he and Jim Lazarus will have egg on their faces, and I'll eagerly throw the eggs. Tell your jealous wannabe buddies for me will ya.<BR/><BR/>My book is set to become the next atheist bestseller, judging the present rankings on Amazon.com right now, with it being in 961st place for over-all books.<BR/><BR/><BR/>**********<BR/><BR/>Yeah, John, I'm sure they're "jealous" of you and your "works."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11534879234402552462008-02-16T03:48:00.000-05:002008-02-16T03:48:00.000-05:00Manata said...I remember one time I was on Richard...Manata said...<I>I remember one time I was on Richard’s internet radio show. I was invited to come on as The Discomfiter. We did a little parody on John Loftus.</I><BR/><BR/>This has not been forgotten. Both he and Jim Lazarus will have egg on their faces, and I'll eagerly throw the eggs. Tell your jealous wannabe buddies for me will ya.<BR/><BR/>My book is set to become the next atheist bestseller, judging the present rankings on Amazon.com right now, with it being in 961st place for over-all books.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78374908723319203642008-02-15T23:11:00.000-05:002008-02-15T23:11:00.000-05:00The sum and substance of George's last post:Nothin...The sum and substance of George's last post:<BR/><BR/>Nothing.<BR/><BR/>Talk about a blowhard...sheesh!Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15136684243048761772008-02-15T21:13:00.000-05:002008-02-15T21:13:00.000-05:00Paul,It's very rational to avoid a steaming pile o...Paul,<BR/><BR/>It's very rational to avoid a steaming pile of crap whether it’s laying on the sidewalk, or on some sad little blog like this one. I’m just stopping by here for amusement. Keeping an eye on this little cult of pretentious, angry, white, male Calvinistas. <BR/><BR/>If you think there’s something insightful to be gained by reading countless pages of some Christian wannabe apologist like you, teaching a bunch of drunken fundy atheists the error of their ways, with your brilliant ‘theology’, ‘philosophy’ and command of big multi-syllable words like ‘epistemology’…that’s REALLY funny.<BR/><BR/>The only emotion I have for you is pity. You can’t even come up with some original insults and need to paraphrase mine of you…how sad.<BR/><BR/>Again, what could be more ‘rational’ than for an egotistical blowhard like yourself BELIEVING he’s been chosen by the one true omniscient creator of the universe to be his chosen and ‘elected’ earthly spokesmodel?<BR/><BR/>You should run to the mirror right now and flex!<BR/><BR/>LOL.<BR/><BR/>Anyway…instead of wasting your time with these fornicating atheists who will soon be burning in a lake of fire, shouldn’t you be out searching for the Ark? Or maybe planning a little trip to the Creation Museum where you can see those 5000 year old dinosaur bones?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you should be standing outside scanning the sky for a chariot with Jesus coming out of the clouds? I here he’s due back ANY DAY NOW…SMIRK!<BR/><BR/>Paul, take my advice, go play a game with your kid, or make love to your wife, or read something…anything…not dealing with your cult’s beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8018781970573185472008-02-15T20:19:00.000-05:002008-02-15T20:19:00.000-05:00"iv) What’s the difference between a theist who be..."iv) What’s the difference between a theist who believed in a “sky god” and an atheist who believes in “mammy nature?” To the extent that he gets to get away with this kind of nonsense, so do I."<BR/><BR/>This is so funny and true. :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39832139484687733932008-02-15T19:44:00.000-05:002008-02-15T19:44:00.000-05:00George, your rant was addressed above. It's not v...George, your rant was addressed above. It's not very rational to comment on things you haven't read, or to offer irrational complaints, or to offer known falsehoods. You're simply referring to prudential rationality, when epistemic rationalist is in view here. Also, your Freud-Marx complaint has been dealt with in the literature. See Plantinga's WCB, for starters.<BR/><BR/>Does misrepresenting the facts and going after weak characterizations of a position serve to offer you solice and comfort for rejecting what you know to be true? Was your comment mere damage control? Something to help you, and other atheists, cope better? Two can play the psychological evaluation card.<BR/><BR/>That you had to come here and say *something,* without even reading the post, for purposes of damage control, strikes me as a sad commentary on your life. Commenting for the sake of commenting. Anti-intellectualism run wild. Don't read the material, just "react." All "gut." Propelled by emotion. A qick draw McGraw. You take your comment policy from Bruce Lee movies. Says Lee in Enter The Dragon: "Don't think. FEEL. It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." <BR/><BR/><BR/>It strikes me as a rather sad commentary on how sad George's life will be.<BR/><BR/>I know who he'll be ranting against for all eternity?Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22042468006868475952008-02-15T19:29:00.000-05:002008-02-15T19:29:00.000-05:00Joining a social religious cult, like the various ...Joining a social religious cult, like the various forms of Christianity, is a very rational thing for humans to do. The reason for doing so is usually simply because your parents or guardians or peers are members.<BR/><BR/>Once you become a member of a religious cult like Christianity, the benefits will typically out weigh the costs of having to swear allegiance to the ignorant superstitious musings of some first century dolts like 'Paul' or 'John'.<BR/><BR/>Belonging to a cult like Christianity placates the weak minded and relieves their desperate fears of their own insignificance and mortality. It's the perfect opium for the masses who can't handle the simple truth that life isn't fair, you're not the special, and you're going to die, and not too many people are going to care.<BR/><BR/>I can't claim to have read this whole Paul Manata rant against the fundy atheists at RRS, because quite frankly, who gives a crap?<BR/><BR/>It strikes me as a rather sad commentary on how sad Paul Manata's life will be.<BR/><BR/>I wonder who he'll be ranting against for all eternity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45044620115168712332008-02-15T19:23:00.000-05:002008-02-15T19:23:00.000-05:00I think it was from an open theist I read who attr...I think it was from an open theist I read who attributed the saying to Edwards. Assumed he was being honest with the facts. And, in once sense, salvation is against our will. We don't want to be saved at the point God changes our desires. We don't change our desire, he does.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6590346024856616822008-02-15T19:19:00.000-05:002008-02-15T19:19:00.000-05:00I'm not sure, it was something I recalled from mem...I'm not sure, it was something I recalled from memory. I may be off, even though the sentiment I express is close enough. I'll fix that section until I get further info. Sorry.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49124569039321556232008-02-15T19:06:00.000-05:002008-02-15T19:06:00.000-05:00Paul wrote: According to the reformed tradition, m...Paul wrote: According to the reformed tradition, man is on a path far away from God, he must change their hearts and cause them to put their faith in him. Jonathon Edwards described this as “divine rape of the will.” Do people “desire” to be raped?<BR/><BR/>I do not want to debate this point, I am just wondering where did Edwards say that, I would like to see that reference for myself, could you be so kind as to provide that citation from Edwards. thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com