Saturday, February 18, 2006

God can damn well damn anyone he damn well pleases

“Steve,” said exbeliever, “You seem to think that I am making some kind of argument here.”

No, I think you’re trying to achieve by backhanded innuendo what you cannot accomplish by honest argument.

“From the beginning, I said that I was "just pointing out a pretty scary 'slippery slope.'" I said that I was worried about the implication that OTHERS could draw from one of your statements.”

I appreciate your anxiety. My influence over world affairs is vast, you know.

“If your god exists, he can elect anyone he damn well pleases. I really don't care and have nothing to say about it.”

Be careful what you ask for!

“Judging by statistics and demographics, it seems that he prefers to elect primarily white Europeans and Americans.”

Judging by the fact that you disregard evidence to the contrary, such as I already presented in my former reply.

“Now, that statement is either true or false. You can prove that statement one way or another.”

I’ll settle for false.

You are tacitly equating the elect with Western church history, which conveniently leaves out of account ANE history, Eastern church history, and future demographic trends.

“You seem to think that I am adding some kind of "identity politics" to my statement and implying, "if the statement is true, then your god is a racist and therefore must not exist." That's never been my point.”

Be sure to tell that to Mary Poppins the next time you see her.

But when you say you “could see how this could easily justify imperialism, colonization, and even racism,” the insinuation of racism is all-too obvious.

“Can you quote examples of my "tacit assumption" of your race?”

Quoting you assumes a measure of candor which is absent from your sophistry. You prefer to trade in innuendo.

No one is taken in by this. You are assuming that I’m white, and trying to put me on the defensive by imputing to me a racist theology. The strategy is less than subtle.

“Tell me, how do you know that your god is going to start electing more non-Caucasians? MUST your god now start electing more non-Caucasians because recent trends show that "the Christian center of gravity is shifting from away from the dwindling population centers of the N. Hemisphere"? Could your god NOT decide to re-center everything again in a "whiter" region of the world tomorrow, or MUST he follow the trend you cite?”

i) To begin with, I don’t have to know. I’m answering you on your own terms. You’re the one who equates election with geography.

If you’re now going to retract your operating assumption, then there’s nothing left for me to respond to.

ii) But beyond demographic projections we also have Biblical promises and prophecies which predict the global reach of the gospel (e.g. Gen 12:2-3; 13:14-16; 15:5; 16:10; 22:17-18; Ps 2; 22; 72; 110; Isa 2; 9; 19; Dan 7; Mt 28:19; Rev 5:9).

“And just so you know, Steve. I blog because I enjoy dialogue.”

And just so you know, exbeliever, I blog because truth has consequences.

I'm not just killing time until time kills me.

“In my worldview, there is nothing "at stake" in these conversations. I'm a collection of atoms that stick together for a short span of time and then disperse.”

“What I am saying is that I just don't care enough to get passionate about any of this stuff.”

What you’re saying is that when you have a worthless creed, nothing is worth getting passionate about.

At Triablogue, we play for keeps. Between your worldview and ours, everything is at stake.

“I don't have an "agenda;"

How could I have soooo misunderstood you? Maybe because you’re a team member of a blog that goes by the name of “Debunking Christianity”? Sounds like a wee bit of an agenda to me.

If you have no agenda, then why not debate both sides of the issue?

“When I feel that someone is trying to "go to war" with me in a debate, I simply lose interest because it is just not worth it to me to get someone all riled up or to get riled up myself. If you also enjoy the process of dialoguing with me, please tone it down a little.”

You either need to get a girlfriend or a pet dog. Better yet a potted plant. Orchids perhaps. Maybe a geranium or two.

Orchids make such great listeners. They have no agenda, never get passionate, never talk back—not to mention the low up-keep.


  1. Steve,

    You wrote: "Quoting you assumes a measure of candor which is absent from your sophistry. You prefer to trade in innuendo."

    And thus we have reached the end of any rational conversation.

    If you believe me to be a liar and deceiver, then there is no point to continue.

  2. Well, with due respect, exbeliever, and I do say this humbly in case it does not come across that way here, why not try to defend the fact that you are neither, turn from pretenses of dispassionate neutrality or indifference, and instead spell out your arguments plainly and forthrightly?

  3. Isn't there something to be said for the fact that God works through a distinct people and then outward? I mean, a distinct line of Adam to the Israelites (white, like it or not), which were connected culturally to Greek and Roman civilization which brought the message to European tribes, which take the message around the world?

    Whether Adam was 'ruddy complected' or not we know David was.

  4. Exbeliever,

    You’re the one who used the word “racist.” And even if you hadn’t used the word, that was the implication all along. A wink and a nod.

    Oh, yes, you also tried to cover your tracks with transparent disclaimers. You really think you can play us for chumps with your rhetorical gimmicks?

    It’s like a shady lawyer who poses a question he knows will be overruled by the judge, just to plant the question in the minds of the jurors.

    Sorry to disappoint you, exbeliever, but no one at Triablogue is going to roll over and play dead for you.

    And I notice that the wiser heads at the Secular Outpost (e.g. Lowder, Edis) have chosen to sit out the debates with you and Loftus. They know better than to pick a losing cause.

  5. K7,

    Good point. Yes, redemption is concentric. Like a family tree, it branches out over time--from acorn to stately oak.

  6. The title of this post is priceless.

    It's reminiscent of a pithy quote by Virginia Stem Owens from the Reformed Journal (circa ~1983-84):

    "Let us get this one thing straight. God can do anything he damn well pleases, including damn well. And if it pleases him to damn, then it is done, ipso facto, well. God's activity is what it is. There isn't anything else. Without it there would be no being, including human beings presuming to judge the Creator of everything that is."

  7. Steve,
    Do you think your post are intellectual? What kind of background in theology do you have?
    You also sound like you are really proud of yourself and the way you handle atheist.
    Does it hurt your back when you kiss your own ass?