Sunday, July 02, 2006

Pardon Me, Might You Have Any Grey Poupon?

The esteemed Daniel Morgan the III graced us with his presence in the combox of this post.

For starters, the honorable Daniel Morgan made this claim:

"So, would you prefer I call you "Paulie"? I prefer Daniel, and if I can be called Daniel, rather than "Polly the parakeet" or some permutation of Snoop Dogg's ebonics-talk, I would appreciate it, and reciprocate with "Paul". I subscribe to "tit for tat", you see."

1. Well, I don't care what you call me, frankly. But of course I apparently have thicker skin than you. Non-Christians have been mocking God and Christians in the intellectual arena for many many years, when they meet up with some Christians that can sling the rhetoric just as good, no, better, we see what kind of metal they're made of. Aluminum.

2. Daniel Morgan, that fine young chap, is the one who threatened to sue Frank Walton and so I'll pipe down and succumb to his wishes lest he threaten me with a law suit as well. He's mentioned that the funky-debunkies have a "lawyer on staff." I was wondering if they could ask him to write a post on what sort of pain and suffering payment the esteemed Daniel Morgan could receive for being called D-dizzle Morgizzle? If it's a lot, maybe he could get that platinum grill up in his mouth that he's always wanted, or, the top row diamond and the bottom row gold.

3. For shizzle is not Ebonics, or a variation of ebonics. Ebonics is a dialect or ethnolect of the English American language. There are many rules and grammatical characteristics that Ebonics has, such as the use of forms of be to mark aspect in verb phrases, e.g., "he be workin." Ebonics is actually very close to informal Southern Dialect and uses many of its characteristics.

For shizzle is a language game (or, ludling). Said game manipulates spoken words of a particular language for the main purpose of rendering them incomprehensible to the untrained or "un-hip" ear. For shizzle is short for "fo shizzle mah nizzle." Which is a take on "fo sheezy mah neezy" which decodes to "I concur with you whole heartedly my brother." Now, if you had ever watched the Snoop D O double gizzle on the televizzle you might have known these things, but it appears you're ignizzle of what's happening outside of, say, the latest from Jeffery Jay Lowder and Richard Carrier. There's a world outside of athizzle, my infidizzle homizzle.


"First, a clarification is in order: this topic came up, and I quoted Paul, in reference to abortion, not infanticide, but, you guys have a bit of a moral issue in declaring that infanticide is always sin, don't you? (eg 1 Sam 15:3, Num 31:17-8)

1. Why is this "sick?" In fact, D-dizzle has argued that it's okay for mothers to murder their unborn children, as long as it's early enough in the pregnancy. Is he arbitrary? For shizzle.

Hmmm, well, Paul, perhaps my "arbitriness" [sic] stems from a couple of things which you appear blissfully unaware of:
a) God is supposed to be perfectly merciful and gracious, no one claims humans are perfectly anything [and no one claims they need to be except Christians]
b) Using the term "murder" as you have here is rhetoric. I can just as easily declaim that God "murders" over 40% of all fetuses via natural abortion, since in your worldview, your sovereign God chooses for it to happen that they die. Thus your God "murders" far more fetuses than mothers do. Let's not descend into such rhetorical platitudes.
c) There is just a *bit* of a difference between ending something's life and sending it into an eternal hell, consider:
i) A fetus is not self-aware, so that when they die, whether by natural [God-ordained] or terminative abortion, there is no awareness of this the same true with hell?
ii) The process of death itself is temporal, and almost always brief. Your God sends infants to an infinite/eternal hell
iii) The process of death may or may not be painful, but let's rank the pain of physical death as a 1 on a scale of 10^1000, where hell = 10^1000"


There are many errors here, let's help our benighted, oops, I meant knighted, friend out. Regarding his "clarification." First off, there's no such thing as Numbers 31: 17 - 8. Secondly, I am against the murder of infants (indeed, anyone). I fail to see how God executing criminals worthy of the death penalty is murder? I mean, you're the one who said he had a lawyer on staff, why don't you ask him. Oh, you must be assuming that this is a case where God unjustly takes the life of those infants. Well, the burden is on you to prove this. If we take the entire Bible together, and not leave out the parts which make the theory consistent, then we have no problem. Only if you [a] assume a humanistic theory of ethics and [b] leave out the relevant information the Bible provides do we have an inconsistency. In other words, only if you assume the Bible is false do we have a problem. Hence, when analyzed, we see your counter defeater is terribly uninteresting. Anyone can assume the falsity of a system and then, on that assumption, coupled with leaving important details of the system out, show how the system has faults. Now, the intellectually touch job is to actually present our position correctly and then proceed to knock it down. (Furthermore, this response applies a tu quoque fallacy to our discussion.)

Now, let's look at how our good sir's arbitrariness stems from a couple of things I'm blissfully unaware of:

1. He says I'm unaware of a "couple" things yet cites 3 points and 3 sub points that I'm unaware of. Since when is being unaware of 6 points count as being unaware of a "couple" points?

2. Apropos (a). Sorry I was unaware of a couple points. I'm not perfect, ya know. But, God is merciful yes, He's also just. The problem here is that you've nowhere indicated what I was supposed to be unaware of, or how this point bares on the discussion. What does this have to do with your arbitrariness? You don't need to be perfect to not be arbitrary. Bottom line, you think it's mean that God would send fetus' to hell but not mean for their mothers to chop them up. That's a result of your sin-laden mind, my friend.

3. Apropos (b). Well, of course we've been there done that and you have no arguments for your pro-choice position, but assume the opposite. I'll take murder out. You don't have a problem with Mom's killing their babies but you have a problem with God killing babies. But, taking your "reversal" you could not claim that since God is not unjustly taking their life, the mother (or doctor) is. So, it wasn't even a proper counter.

4. Apropos (c). We were talking about the act of killing the child. On this score you're inconsistent. You're assuming, without benefit of argument, that annihilation is somehow "better" than living forever in hell. Furthermore, no one, except the agent who ends up in hell, "sends" that agent to hell.

Apropos your sub-points: I never said that hell wasn't the worse punishment imaginable. But, this is where criminals spend eternity. How is a criminal justly being punished somehow more morally evil than murdering someone?


"2. And, yes, the claim is that "all elect infants dying in infancy" will go to heaven. Indeed, there is not one verse in the Bible that tells us that all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven.

The claim was actually regarding, "won't aborting fetuses ensure their place in heaven?" To which you answer "no, not necessarily, some fetuses are not elect, and so go to hell" If there is a verse you can point to which clarifies this point, I would love to read it. I am not claiming there isn't one, but I certainly am not aware of any verse in the Bible which deals with unborn children with respect to their fate in the afterlife."


No, *my* claim is that elect infants dying in infancy go to heaven. This is my claim, and it rebuts the claim that we can save souls by murdering them before they reach the age of accountability. Is there a claim regarding unborn infants and where they spend their "afterlife." Well, not just infants (and, the original question was dealing with post-natal children, not unborn infants, anyway) but everyone. The Bible teaches that some have been elected unto everlasting life and some have been elected to everlasting damnation. Thus a logical inference of the claim: All elect go to heaven, is "If an infant is elect and dies in infancy that infant will go to heaven." If all infants who die in infancy are elect then all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven. But this also avoids the argument because, counterfactually, if they did not die in infancy, but where still elect, they'd go to heaven anyway. Likewise, if an infant is not elect then it will not go to heaven. Shooting it in the head will not change this. Now, I don't know who is and who isn't elect since they don't have big red "Es" on their forehead. But this doesn't change the logic of the Bible's claims about election. Now if you're asking for verses which prove election I'd just refer you to THIS PAGE where you'll see verses like this:

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will--to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." (Eph 1:4-6).

"And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." (Rom 8:30).

Fully exegeted and explained.


"3. The unstated premise is that "God is wrong for sending infants to hell because their innocent." Once we see the unstated premise we can see that this position simply begs the question against the Christian worldview. If we restate this argument, then, it looks like this: "If we assume that portions of Christianity are wrong then we can show how God is a big meany."

Um, no. The premises of Xianity are:
1) Humans sin against [sic] God
2) God is just in sending sinful humans to hell
3) Therefore some humans go to hell [not dealing with the "elect" here for simplification]

The argument that was made:
1) Fetuses do not sin against God
2) God is not just in sending sinless fetuses to hell
3) Therefore no fetuses go to hell

The refutation you offered is:
1) Only the elect avoid hell
2) Not all fetuses are elect
3) Some fetuses go to hell

Of course, the way to resolve this is to explain how "original sin" is attached to election of a fetus, how it has some kind of intrinsic sin value which is justly met with the wrath of God. Personally, I see you descending into some pretty obscure interpretations to support your contention. The idea that fetuses and infants have some sort of willful sin is obvious nonsense. So, original sin is then all you have to go on, and aside from poetic references to David's "i was conceived in sin" I challenge you to substantiate your P2."


1. I did not see "the argument made" that "Fetuses do not sine against God." Can you point out where you actually argued for that?

2. I never said that "not all fetuses are elect." I said, "Elect infants dying in infancy" go to heaven. This is a logically different claim than what you claim I said. Now, it *could* be the case that some are not-elect and in that case shooting them does not save them from heaven. Conversely, it *could* be the case that all infants who die in infancy are elect and, therefore, counter to fact, if they had not been killed in infancy they would still have been in heaven since infancy is not a condition of election but, rather, the sovereign pleasure of God.

3. Yes, all infants are sinful before God. They all have sinned because of their federal head, Adam, who was God's perfect choice to represent mankind, sinned. This is shown by many passages. For example, Romans 5 teaches us

12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--

13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.

16 And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.

17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life.

19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous.

20 And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly:

21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

For more explanation of this doctrine you can consult THIS PAGE as well as read my confession of faith:

Chapter VI

Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]

III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

[1] GEN 3:13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 2CO 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[2] ROM 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

[3] GEN 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. ECC 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

[4] GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. EPH 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

[5] TIT 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. GEN 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. JER 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

[6] GEN 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. ACT 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. ROM 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 1CO 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

[7] PSA 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. GEN 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. JOB 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

[8] ROM 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. ROM 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. ROM 7:18 For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. COL 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

[9] GEN 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. ROM 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

[10] JAM 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. EPH 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. MAT 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.

[11] 1JO 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. ROM 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. JAM 3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

[12]ROM 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. GAL 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

[13] 1JO 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

[14] ROM 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. ROM 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

[15] EPH 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

[16] GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

[17] ROM 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[18] EPH 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.

[19] ROM 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. LAM 3:39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?

[20] MAT 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 2TH 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.


4. Lastly, he points out what us Christians have always wanted people to agree with. We don't worship God, or believe in Christianity, because it fits some soft, humanistic, can't we all just get along, pie in the sky bye and bye, mentality.

I point out what Christians have always wanted to avoid facing -- that this interpretation of their God is one of an immoral monster, in that it sends some fetuses/infants to an eternal darkness, to which Paul replies in Romans 9 only "who are you?" Without examining the truth value of your premises, it is quite clear that most people have enough moral fiber to reject your interpretation, and you know it, and that is why only 1% of 1% of Christians would ever make such a claim. That you would worship such a being belies your own moral vacuity.


1. Remember the belted earl mentioning staying away from rhetoric?

2. Again, note the failure to represent the Christian position correctly. How is sending someone to his just reward being an immoral monster? I guess the esteemed Mr. Morgan the III is against punishing criminals. If not, then he's only begging the question.

3. The truth value of the premise is that whatever God does is just and right. He makes the laws, not man. Who are we to talk back to God? Indeed, as Daniel pointed out above, "we're not perfect." So, even on his own assumption, who is the imperfect to talk back to the perfect, as if he actually knew more about justice and morality that God.

4. I'm sure that "most" people do reject my "interpretation." But since when was "most people" an indicator of a good argument? Weren’t you just chiding Paul for not arguing for his premise? Arbitrary indeed! That you would resort to such elementary logical blunders belies your own ability to engage in a cogent discussion with a Christian who is not afraid of [a] being called Pauly or [b] what "most people" think and [c] being tough-minded and eschewing such poor reasoning tactics.

This is also an ad-hominem against Jehovah.

Actually it's a critique of your worldview. Equivocating your interpretation as "God" is telling.


Actually it leaves out the premises that man is a guilty criminal in God's universe and therefore you had to disregard my worldview in order to critique my worldview. Hey, you know what we said in Navy SEAL training? "If you're not cheating you're not trying." At least the honorable Daniel Morgan the III is trying, how cute, I could just squeeze his cheeks.

And, as Dan Barker, an ex-debunker

?? ex?? Is he still not an atheist?


Pay attention now. Dan Barker used to be on your team, hence he was a fellow debunker. Now that he's not a debunker does not mean he's not an atheist, unless you assume that their are only 11 atheists in the world (the number of team members on your blog). Furthermore, someone could be a Buddhist and try to debunk Christianity. So, "debunker" is not synonymous for "atheist."

Well, ta ta for now my good man. Might you join me for tea and crumpets sometime? I'd love to have a spot of tea and see you in your fine knickers while we play cricket.


  1. This whole matter boils down to two important concepts, original sin and "election". Original sin has been argued against by fellow Christians and by heretics for years. It is a foundational doctrine, against which I will not argue that it can be supported from the present Christian Bible (just as slavery can be). That said, I strongly disagree with the logical basis of such a doctrine.

    Because you presuppose the Bible as true, and I do not, as has often been pointed out, this comes down to a matter of premises.

    I will argue original sin is false on the basis of the following premises, while you presuppose the Bible is true [which entails a million necessary other premises and explanations and interpretations] and argue it is true:
    1. Morality is based upon the thoughts, choices and actions belonging to a conscious agent
    2. If agents are not conscious, they cannot be moral [at any particular moment in question - don't be silly and say that sleep negates this premise]
    3. Fetuses are not conscious moral agents
    C2. Therefore, fetuses cannot be held to any standard of morality

    1. Individual morality is based upon personal responsibility
    2. For justice to occur, moral agents are held responsible for their own choices and not for the choices of others, nor actions over which they have no control
    3. "Original sin" implies that individuals are responsible for the choices of other conscious agents
    4. Therefore, "original sin" cannot be the basis of a just and logical moral philosophy

    We can go on all day, and I am far from a philosopher, but I can dredge up far better arguments than mine from a text on ethics, I am sure. The point remains crystal clear -- to hold a fetus morally accountable for something its great-great-great grandfather chose is as logical as a purple elephant circling the earth as a satellite. Your doctrine is intrinsically flawed.

    You only hold to it out of fealty to your book, not because it is logical.

  2. As far as the original picture we were discussing here:

    On page 78 of his book The End of Faith, Sam Harris quotes Bertrand Russell:

    “The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out; by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven.”

  3. Loftus, old boy,
    I'd be very careful about old claims like that one about the Spaniards, if I were you, especially when they appear in a book by one atheist quoting another. Check for a scholarly reference or don't use.

    And, dear one, perhaps you'd like to engage with today? Even if true, this claim related to Roman Catholics, the faith who persecuted my forefathers as well. Yes, I can agree that RCs have done horrid things in the past. They also hold to the error of baptismal regeneration, as you know. You also know Protestants don't. Your point is, therefore?

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. Paul: I don't understand the need to be such a dick when discussing these matters. I've heard your point before about how Jesus was something of a dick when dealing with the Gospel's Pharisees ("whitewashed tombs", etc), but I don't remember Jesus being undeservedly condescending toward his opponents, or criticising their grammar or typographical errors.

    With regard to the latter, when you add "[sic]" to Daniel's posts, are you not aware of the immense number of errors in your own posts? Here are some samples of your hideous mistakes:

    "...why don't you ask him." (Questions should end with question marks)

    "But, God is merciful yes, He's also just." (What the hell is this? It appears to be two sentences, with a missing period between "merciful" and "yes." Or perhaps that should have been "yet," and there's a misplaced comma. Could be either.)

    "You don't have a problem with Mom's killing their babies but you have a problem with God killing babies." (Why is "Mom's" capitalised, and why do you have a possessive form here?)

    "I never said that hell wasn't the worse punishment imaginable." (Surely you mean "worst," and not "worse.")

    I could offer more, but you get the general idea. (You even quoted Daniel quoting--but politely ignoring--another of your errors. He's quite a nice guy.)

    Also, correct me if I'm wrong (Actually, I suspect you'll "correct" me if I'm right), but the phrase "a couple" is frequently used to refer to more than two things, especially if there's an element of understatement in what's being said.

    I've no reason to get into your vile beliefs, because, as pointed out by others, they are rejected by huge numbers of self-proclaimed Christians, and there is no good reason to believe they reflect reality.

    Further, upon seeing the post that began this whole debate, I was under the impression that it was directed at that vast majority of believers who reject your Jesus Matrix, with its lack of free will and its God that creates infants so that He can torture them.

    I've seen this asked on your blog before, but has your writing had a positive effect on anyone? I mean, do people read what you write and aspire to be more like Christ? You say that you write like an asshole because "non-Christians have been mocking God and Christians in the intellectual arena for many many years," but I've never seen such childish pettiness from the other side. There's obnoxiousness on both sides, but in terms of what are supposed to be serious debates, I just don't see the secular side "poisoning the well" to the same degree as the Evangelical. Wasting time explaining hip hop language, disputing the use of "a couple," and pointing out typographical errors only distracts from the issue at hand: the deserved torture of infants.

    But if you insist on being an asshole, why don't you proofread your damn posts?

    PS When you DO add the "[sic]," you're not supposed to correct the mistake.

    Daniel: Why do this?

  7. Professor Doktor Matthias Flay,

    Why do this?

    I learn from it. That's pretty much the whole reason.

    Email me for a more detailed description.