Violence is Inherent in Atheist Politics

_{Barry Arrington

October 10, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Progressive hero Ta-Nehisi Coates (an atheist) is conflicted about whether to bring on the guillotines. From a recent interview with Vox:

When he tries to describe the events that would erase America’s wealth gap, that would see the end of white supremacy, his thoughts flicker to the French Revolution, to the executions and the terror. ‘It’s very easy for me to see myself being contemporary with processes that might make for an equal world, more equality, and maybe the complete abolition of race as a construct, and being horrified by the process, maybe even attacking the process. I think these things don’t tend to happen peacefully.’

Materialist ideas have entailments, including (1) God does not exist; (2) good and evil do not exist as objective transcendent ontological categories; (3) God, who does not exist, cannot endow men with inalienable rights; and (4) men are not image bearers of a non-existent God; they are jumped up hairless apes.

If there is no good and evil and no God-endowed rights, by what standard does the progressive define the eponymous “progress” they claim to want to achieve? Certainly, there is no transcendent standard. The answer is that progressives want what that want. Theirs is a political philosophy bound by nothing and defined by their unbounded will to power.

Coates rejects the ideas of the Declaration of Independence. A non-existent God does not endow men with the right to life and liberty. Jumped up hairless apes have no inherent rights. So why not lop their heads off if they get in the way of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ pursuit of the greater good – i.e., Ta-Nehisi Coates’ idiosyncratic take on economic and racial justice. After all, as every tyrant from Robespierre to Pol Pot knew, you’ve got to crack a few eggs if you’re going to make an omelet.

Comments

daves@ 136 "I think that’s hard for many orthodox Christians to understand as well. What else could a Christian say other than “causing the flood was a moral act, but that is beyond human understanding”? It's not hard at all to understand or justify the flood as an act of justice if one takes into consideration at least 2 facts: 1. God, as the creator of the universe and the laws governing it, is not restricted by "time"; i.e. past, present and future "times" exist to him "at the same time" and are accessible to Him, if he chooses to (this is what Einstein claimed based on his theory of general relativity). 2. Flood was an act of justice; i.e. similar to the act of justice when unrepentant criminals are executed.J-Mac_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

KF@ 83 "J-Mac, again, you have slipped away from the framework and pushed in another context. We can infer from such a country that its value of life has been corrupted, which will have implications all across public policy and more; matters not if it has had Christian roots. I'd like to remind you that the framework regarding 800+ million of abortions per year is your initiative. I have simply questioned whether you had implied that atheists were responsible for most or all of the abortions. You refused to answer directly this question and now you've unloaded the burden of proof on me... with your unfounded insinuations that one religious county of almost 100% affiliation and 800.000 abortions per year proves nothing and so on... Christianity claims 2.5 billion worldwide Why don't you look up the counties with 90-100% Christian membership, and the number of abortions in each of the country? Maybe your ignorance the the facts you have been refusing to accept will change...though I doubt that very much... BTW: If you blame corruption within the church or religion, who is to blame? Also, that is not the true reason to blame atheists for the skyrocketing number of abortions performed mainly by Christians, is it?J-Mac_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Mung,
Seriously? The author of the passage in Genesis gave a reason for the flood. There’s no indication that the author thought it was beyond human understanding. Nowhere in the bible is the flood presented as beyond human understanding. Not only that, but you utterly ignore the Jewish component, as if Jews had nothing whatsoever to say about the flood. Please try to do better.
To clarify, I'm speaking of modern-day Christians struggling to understand the flood here. And I'm aware that there is a stated reason for God causing it. However, I know that at least some Christians have a difficult time with God bringing about a disaster which caused the death of all but 8 people on the planet. Presumably infants, unborn children, and the mentally disabled were included in those deaths. Do you find any of this troubling? You are right that I didn't say anything about the "Jewish component". Could you elaborate? Virtually everyone on the planet died, Jewish or not.daveS_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

From Wikipedia:
Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "(the) Great Charter") is a charter agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War.
I guess the Catholic Church wasn't a big fan of the Barons getting too uppity.JVL_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

F/N2: Let me cite from Archbishop Samuel Langton on the lawful state and lawful magistrate, in Magna Carta, June 15, 2015 as enumerated by Blackstone:
+ (39) No free man [–> recognition of freedom, the further question is, who shall be free] shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions [–> recognition of rights including property], or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him [–> policing power & the sword of state subordinated to justice], or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals [ –> peers, i.e. trial by jury of peers] or by the law of the land [–> rule of law, not decree of tyrant or oligarch]. + (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. [–> integrity, lawfulness and legitimacy of government rooted in the priority of right and justice]
This should be a clue. KFkairosfocus_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

F/N: here is my discussion here at UD on the roots of democracy as informed by King Alfred's Book of Dooms: https://uncommondescent.com/courts/going-to-the-roots-of-lawfulness-and-justice-by-way-of-king-alfreds-book-of-dooms/ . KFkairosfocus_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

PPS: Let me bring forward 66 as it has been buried under a pile-on of attack posts thereafter:
EMH, in this contest, “Religions” is far too broad a term, leading to promotion of what boils down to little more than prejudice and an easy excuse for broad-brush anti-Christian bigotry that is further fed by a one-sided litany against the foundations of our civilisation. I think a safer focus would be that power is addictive, attracts those whose moral compass is deficient, and that power elites can often hire ruthless violent or manipulative henchmen. Multiply by the notorious madness of the mob, and we have a much better warranted and actionable explanation of much that has gone wrong. Bring to bear the spiral of silencing when evil dominates in a society and you can see how marches of ruinous folly and especially murderous folly come about. That holds whether a society is “religious” or “secular humanist,” or even “post modern,” so evils and follies need little explanation in history, it is reformation and the softening of hearts that opens a critical mass to move towards the right, good, protective etc that need explanation . . . and the role of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in that is well documented though too often suppressed and denied in our day. Then, to address reform, bring to bear the question of what grounds duty, OUGHT. Post Hume’s guillotine, this can only be found at world-root level; we need an IS that inherently and inextricably bridges to and grounds OUGHT. The only serious candidate — yes, I point to comparative difficulties analysis at world roots level — is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. That’s a start-point: rights thus duties inhere in our nature as responsible, rational, morally governed creatures. Where your right to life entails our duty of care to respect and protect that life. Also, even our reasoning is guided by a felt sense of duty to the right, true, just, fair, warrant etc, or else it becomes the servant of deceit and en-darkenment under false colours of enlightenment. And, much more.
--> Here is a test, what is the significance of King Alfred's Book of Dooms, and how does it begin, explicitly laying down as the foundation of English law? (Hint, what does this then do to your view of Judge Roy Moore's monument to the decalogue? Would it have made a dime's difference to the skeptics and deriders if he had cited it from Alfred? What are the implications of refusing to respect and learn from history, twisting key historically rooted symbols into scapegoats? Why do you think that the cultural marxists and their agit prop operators and foot soldiers are so busily attacking key symbols rooted in the history of our civilisation, creating a polarised mob mentality? From Plato's parable of the ship of state, where is such likely to end? Do we really want to go there?)kairosfocus_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

Mung, it seems that there is a refusal to acknowledge the principle that the God of the Bible is ultimately, judge of all flesh. Wherein, we face the issue of moral accountability, individually and collectively, through the judgement of consequences, that of warning (starting with conscience), and active direct intervention. Where, reprobation of willfully rebellious individuals and communities is a judgement of leaving one to the consequences of a march of insistently ruinous folly. Also, I find that there is typically a refusal to take a balanced view, e.g. that when the Egyptians faced 10 plagues, the Israelites faced 10 tests, or that Israel itself was judged for its sins as a nation. Of course, we can also readily see that the OT is the hebraic scriptures (though differently organised than the Tanakh) and if what is routinely said about Christians today by skeptics were to be extended to the Jews, we would at once see just how much bigotry is involved. Yes, there are difficulties and challenges with the OT and the NT, which we must conclude are there precisely as it was deemed necessary to confront us with God as judge of the nations, ante- and post- diluvian. Yes, there are major difficulties and ugly scenes, there is slaughter, there are things that may and do shock and pain us to the point of doubt or deep concern, but if we look within, we can see implications of the stubbornness of our own hearts too, e.g. the problem of ruthless hereditary clan warfare that can literally lead to genocidal attempts 1,000 years on -- which, we again confront with the radical Islamists, and which the Romans faced with Carthage to the point of having to hunt down Hannibal in exile. It seems that with complicity of our media and elites, thee is a refusal to recognise that the most persecuted, most oppressed group of people in the world today is Christians. Indeed the martyrdom total for the 100 years just past easily exceeds that for the previous 19 together. But of course, much of that is so easily hidden by wrenching the term "fundamentalist" out of its rightful context of Christians of 100 years ago trying to preserve essentials of the historic Christian faith in the face of apostasy and converting it into a term of contempt and scapegoating. All of this, helps us to see the degree of hostility or outright hate that underlies ever so much rhetoric and media coverage or even academic presentations today. KF PS: many seem hell-bent on casting the Judaeo-Christian tradition in the role of the source of tyranny. This reflects a failure to take a balanced view of scripture, theology and history, including that of the rise of modern liberty and constitutional, lawful democracy, and also the even more basic point that the overwhelming testimony of the scripture is that the task of government is to guard and nurture the civil peace of justice. Where, we so easily forget that modern representational democracy was not possible until we had a literacy revolution driven by print and an era of deep reflection that led to a framing for such an experiment, joined to the rise of wisespread newspapers etc that allowed the formation of a public with a public opinion that could be informed, i.e. late C17 as noted briefly above. And, in precisely the states of Christendom we saw the emergence of modern liberty over the next 150 years, specifically nurtured in scriptural soil through the concept of interposition of lower magistrates also viewed as called by God to govern; hence the line from Vindicae to the Dutch DoI of 1581 and onward to the US founding which for cause strongly echoes these works and the chain that follows through Rutherford and Locke etc. All of which is distorted, twisted, dismissed and suppressed in our media and education systems today. No wonder we so lightly play with the fire of undermining the foundations of liberty today. Such does not bode well for our future.kairosfocus_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

KF - I pause to highlight just one point that surfaces how little you have actually pondered the issues in hand. The notion that you can dismiss the challenge to get to a first living cell by calling forth un-named, unobserved “precursors” when the thorniness and centrality of the challenge is notorious, itself speaks volumes. No one says it happened overnight! Sure the process ended up with the complexities of a cell but it would have started with simple molecules. Besides, what's the alternative? Some uber-biologist (or more likely a whole research facility) for which we have no evidence whatsoever? Where were the laboratories? The power generators? The living quarters? There would have to be a personnel department of course, :-). Okay, maybe this band of scientists were operating out of a space ship well . . . where are they now? Do you really think that some alien race decided to seed life on Earth and then just disappeared? What would the point of that be? I'm sorry but what I perceive your position to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is to fantastical and lacks any kind of empirical evidence. Recall, the challenge includes invention of alphanumerical code, plus execution machinery joined to a metabolic reaction network of ferocious complexity joined to a kinematic von Neumann self replication facility. There is a reason that the Nobel prize for this stands un-claimed. This is not a domain where glib quips are good enough. So where are the beings you seem to claim did all this work? And BTW, you have utterly failed to consider the issue I highlighted at 66 above this morning, and have utterly failed to come to grips with the linked course materials I raised long since, so all your accusations of side stepping historical issues achieves is to expose you as willing to attack the man with manifest falsehoods rather than address the merits. But they are not falsehoods. And, as I already pointed out, they don't contradict what you are wanting to discuss. But they are real events. I don't understand how you can just ignore them. What on earth do you think the points raised by Bernard Lewis, just for one, are about? Also, what part of predictive failure of models is hard to understand? A pattern emerges and not to your advantage. I don't see any models failing to be honest. Nor do I see any credible predictions that they will fail; assuming you're talking about climate change. Sometimes I have a hard time following you. Anyway, I won't respond to your diatribe against 'materialism' or your conviction that God (whoever that is) is the answer to all the world's woes. As I've said, I have some very good Christian friends who agree with me that we should work within the system of laws that we have, that science and history should not be denied and that we should treat each other with kindness and understanding.JVL_{October 14, 2017
October
10
Oct
14
14
2017
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

daves:
I think that’s hard for many orthodox Christians to understand as well. What else could a Christian say other than “causing the flood was a moral act, but that is beyond human understanding”?
Seriously? The author of the passage in Genesis gave a reason for the flood. There's no indication that the author thought it was beyond human understanding. Nowhere in the bible is the flood presented as beyond human understanding. Not only that, but you utterly ignore the Jewish component, as if Jews had nothing whatsoever to say about the flood. Please try to do better.Mung_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

Dean_from_Ohio @ 59
So Seversky assures us that atheist kindness, selflessness and self-sacrifice is just as common as Christian kindness, selflessness and self-sacrifice. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (wipes tears) HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (wipes tears and shakes head) No, here’s what the typical atheist response is to kindness, selflessness and self-sacrifice: http://archbishopcranmer.com/r.....ory-nasty/
It seems that atheists are suffering rather more of that kind of discrimination than religious groups. Fine examples of "kindness, selflessness and self-sacrifice".Seversky_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

ellijacket @ 29
You say, “As for morality, of course it’s subjective. How could it be anything else?” Is that a subjective statement or is it an absolute statement? Isn’t that very statement an absolute moral statement since you are defining what morality we should follow? If you are correct about morality then there is no real morality. Only your opinion. Just own it if that’s what you believe.
I am asserting that all moral claims are subjective, that there is no objective, standard morality against which all such claims can be measured. All we can do is to try and agree amongst ourselves which moral guidelines are beneficial and which we can accept as binding on ourselves for the good of all. I know that's unacceptable to many who would prefer the simplicity of divine command morality. It's a lot easier to be just told what is right and wrong rather than to have to try and work it out for yourselves. From my perspective, however, even if there is a God, his morality is just another individual's opinion although He is presumed to have rather more power to enforce His views than I have. I should also say that I'm extremely wary of absolutism, of any claim to be in possession of some absolute truth whether religious belief or political ideology. It seems to me that, in the hands of many, they become a license to whatever is felt to be necessary to further them. That way lies terrorist attacks like 9/11, ethnic cleansings, genocides and Holocausts.Seversky_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer @ 26
As for morality, of course it’s subjective. How could it be anything else?
Based on what? Your subjective opinion about morality? Notice, you are making a universal claim about moral truth. You are positing the premise that there is no moral truth for you or anyone else. But that’s a self-refuting claim. Your claiming it is true there is no truth. (Please think that through.) How can you even make such an argument? How can your subjective opinion be the basis of truth that has any bearing on anyone else if there is no moral truth? What’s subjectively true for you is not true for me. Wittgenstein was right (from an atheistic perspective) when he said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Once again, from my perspective, the truth of a descriptive claim about the world lies in the extent to which it can be observed to correspond to the facet of the observable world it purports to describe. For example, if I say "that car is red" you can check the car to see if it is red and thereby determine whether my claim is true or false. Only claims about what 'is' can be true or false according to this concept of truth. If you say to me "it's wrong to take something that does not belong to you" that is not making a claim about the way the world is, it is telling me how I ought to behave, according to you. Because they're not claims about how the world is, moral claims are neither true nor false. They're a different category of claim. As for Ted Bundy, he was a narcissistic, psychopathic serial killer and it was a shame he didn't get what was coming to him sooner than it did. That said, his argument is the same one that has been peddled here many times before, to whit, in the absence of some authoritative prohibition, why shouldn't a psychopath rape and murder if it gives him pleasure? The proper response is that potential victims and their family and friends would take no pleasure at all from that prospect and, since their purpose is to prevent harm and not cause it and they vastly outnumber the psychopaths, their preferences should prevail. On that basis alone, they are fully entitled to do whatever is necessary to prevent the Bundys of this world from ever committing another offense - up to and including the death penalty.Seversky_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Seversky,
According the the OT, God wiped out almost all life, human and otherwise, on the surface of the earth in the Great Flood.
I think that's hard for many orthodox Christians to understand as well. What else could a Christian say other than "causing the flood was a moral act, but that is beyond human understanding"?daveS_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

KF @ 126: "...there is a secularist myth that feeds into and off antichristian bigotry..." Sad but true.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 13
I was waiting for this. You didn’t disappoint. You are nothing if not predictable. Ta-Nehisi Coates all but calls for heads to roll 10 minutes ago. And your response: “well some theists killed some people 3,000 years ago.” You are pathetic.
According the the OT, God wiped out almost all life, human and otherwise, on the surface of the earth in the Great Flood. That's rather more than just some theists killing some people. The atheist dictators of the twentieth century could only have dreamed of such a body count. I'm assuming that, as a Christian, you believe the Great Flood actually occurred, of course.
Really? That’s all there is to it? Live and let live. Sing kumbaya. 100 million dead in the 20th century scream from their graves, “Seversky is an idiot.”
Empathy and The Golden Rule come into it as well but, yes, more mutual consideration and respect for interests could lead to fewer premature deaths.Seversky_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

PPPS: WUWT here is a start https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/why-climate-models-run-hot/ also here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/11/quote-of-the-week-nature-on-the-failure-of-climate-models/ try here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/26/more-on-currys-climate-model-study-saying-they-are-not-useful-as-projections-for-how-the-21st-century-will-actually-evolve/ cf also Roy Spencer here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/ . . . just for a point of reference.kairosfocus_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

PPS: Notice how the roots of morality thus of rights and duties, justice and much more are pivotal. This to is a subject that evolutionary materialistic scientism simply cannot address as it has no IS capable of grounding OUGHT at world-root level. Which is the level where the two must be inextricably fused, once we have ourselves as morally governed creatures, indeed even our reasoning is governed by duties to truth, logic, warrant and so much more, communicated by that inner voice we call conscience. Evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers are forced to hold that that voice is a delusion, and that our sense of being responsibly, rationally free is also delusional. This immediately collapses in self-referential absurdity, as it undermines all knowing, reasoning and responsibility. Of course, this is not going to be acknowledged, and we have seen cases where when significant evolutionists themselves point it out, this is consistently dodged. But it really is critical. And, it stands so that the only serious candidate is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Consistently, attempts to go elsewhere to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap fail (e.g. as above by undermining the whole life of the mind ending in self referential incoherence), leading to sobering challenges.kairosfocus_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

PS: JVL, I pause to highlight just one point that surfaces how little you have actually pondered the issues in hand. The notion that you can dismiss the challenge to get to a first living cell by calling forth un-named, unobserved "precursors" when the thorniness and centrality of the challenge is notorious, itself speaks volumes. Recall, the challenge includes invention of alphanumerical code, plus execution machinery joined to a metabolic reaction network of ferocious complexity joined to a kinematic von Neumann self replication facility. There is a reason that the Nobel prize for this stands un-claimed. This is not a domain where glib quips are good enough. And BTW, you have utterly failed to consider the issue I highlighted at 66 above this morning, and have utterly failed to come to grips with the linked course materials I raised long since, so all your accusations of side stepping historical issues achieves is to expose you as willing to attack the man with manifest falsehoods rather than address the merits. What on earth do you think the points raised by Bernard Lewis, just for one, are about? Also, what part of predictive failure of models is hard to understand? A pattern emerges and not to your advantage.kairosfocus_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

ET- Try google- Even National Geographic agrees Well this article makes it sound that man-made affects are even more affecting global warming. Because of air pollution. I don’t have to prove a negative. It’s dumb to even ask. Not only that it doesn’t matter anyway- Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions Aside from the fact that the article you link to is over a decade old it states? In fact, the function of a pump has essentially nothing to do with the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion device, anymore than the ability of parts of a mousetrap to act as paperweights has to do with the trap function. And the existence of the ability to pump proteins tells us nil about how the rotary propulsion function might come to be in a Darwinian fashion. For example, suppose that the same parts of the flagellum that were unexpectedly discovered to act as a protein pump were instead unexpectedly discovered to be, say, a chemical factory for synthesizing membrane lipids. Would that alternative discovery affect Kenneth Miller's reasoning at all? Not in the least. His reasoning would still be simply that a part of the flagellum had a separate function. But how would a lipid-making factory explain rotary propulsion? In the same way that protein pumping explains it—it doesn't explain it at all. Which is, after all, just an assertion. A variation of: I don't understand it so I don't believe it. Their math is off as evidenced at the links I provided. Well, maybe. Perhaps you'd be interested in this: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/08/is-it-parody-or-dunning-kruger-by-mike.htmlJVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Can you specify a particular error in the reports?
Their math is off as evidenced at the links I provided.ET_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Melting goes on in specific locations when the temperatures at those specific locations are below freezing? That should be easy to back up if you’re right.
Try google- Even National Geographic agrees
Yes but the point is you haven’t proven that the subunits don’t have some function.
I don't have to prove a negative. It's dumb to even ask. Not only that it doesn't matter anyway- Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other FunctionsET_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Kf - you have to take some responsibility, I have given you more than enough for you to follow up. And, again, there is a secularist myth that feeds into and off antichristian bigotry that needs to be adjusted in light of a more reasonable look at history and key documents — which, when presented with as a beginning, you have refused to do. I have presented indisputable historical events. Events which you have chosen to sidestep. I have a lot of very good and dear Christian friends. But they don't just ignore the historical record. Why do you do that? What will you say to your ancestors when you meet them in the afterlife and they tell you about how badly they were abused and used by Christians? What will you say then? Will you look them in the eye and tell them that they didn't understand the real story?JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

JVL, you have to take some responsibility, I have given you more than enough for you to follow up. And, again, there is a secularist myth that feeds into and off antichristian bigotry that needs to be adjusted in light of a more reasonable look at history and key documents -- which, when presented with as a beginning, you have refused to do. On the tangential matter of climate debates, I have pointed you to a very specific source. To deal with crooked yardstick problems, a very specific -- and ongoing -- holocaust is on the table. KFkairosfocus_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Kf - BTW, the basic error is in the modelling, and in its projections. Has always been. The trend lines of the projections run well above the actual record, and the notorious hockey stick that tried to get rid of the Medieval climate optimum is well known. There is more, you need to see the leaked information — no it was not hacked — that reveals what was going on. And what was that exactly? Let's see the data that wasn't accounted for. But most of all, as I have noted the structure of such warming as happened is not in agreement with the projections. FYI, computer models are not experiments and we simply do not know enough of the dynamics of climate to do good predictions in the long term. So, the basing of policy on projections with all sorts of issues is itself a major error. Okay, so give me a basis upon which you choose not to accept the general climate projections. Is it because 'we simply do not know enough'? Does that mean you are going to do nothing because, in our view, some of the science is speculative?JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

KF - VL, you know quite well that a one sided litany leading to scapegoating and to improper assignment of credit is not well warranted history; it may be straight from Alinsky’s rules for radicals, but that is hardly a commendation. I don't think that anything I cited was unwarranted history. The events I mentioned are well documented and accepted as fact. Tell us what Locke was doing in the intro to essay on human understanding sect 5 and by citing Hooker from ecclesiastical polity in Ch 2 Sec 5 of his 2nd treatise on civil govt, knowing the direct line to the US DoI, 1776. Then also tell us what Plato’s warnings in The Laws Bk X and in the Republic indicate about the real problems of both evolutionary materialism and power politics. What does any of that have to do with the hideous persecutions supported and encouraged by the Catholic church during the middle ages against Muslims, Jews and Christians? Not to mention the atrocities perpetrated against the native south Americans?JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

The worst crime ever recorded in history was committed by very religious people who did not know or love God:
John 18 Jesus Faces Annas and Caiaphas 12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews[d] arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people. The High Priest Questions Jesus 19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. 20 Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me what I said to them; they know what I said.” 22 When he had said these things, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus answered him, “If what I said is wrong, bear witness about the wrong; but if what I said is right, why do you strike me?” 24 Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. Jesus Before Pilate 28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters.[f] It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate went outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They answered him, “If this man were not doing evil, we would not have delivered him over to you.” 31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 32 This was to fulfill the word that Jesus had spoken to show by what kind of death he was going to die. My Kingdom Is Not of This World 33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. 39 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” 40 They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.[g] John 19 Jesus Delivered to Be Crucified 19 Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him. 2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe. 3 They came up to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands. 4 Pilate went out again and said to them, “See, I am bringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” 5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!” 6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.” 7 The Jews[a] answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” 8 When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. 9 He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” 12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.” 13 So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic[b] Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.[c] He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” 15 They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified. The Crucifixion So they took Jesus, 17 and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. 19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.” 23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic.[d] But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, 24 so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things, 25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. The Death of Jesus 28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. Jesus' Side Is Pierced 31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.” Jesus Is Buried 38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. 39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus[e] by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds[f] in weight. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. John 1 The Word Became Flesh 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son[d] from the Father, full of grace and truth
Dionisio_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

JVL, BTW, the basic error is in the modelling, and in its projections. Has always been. The trend lines of the projections run well above the actual record, and the notorious hockey stick that tried to get rid of the Medieval climate optimum is well known. There is more, you need to see the leaked information -- no it was not hacked -- that reveals what was going on. But most of all, as I have noted the structure of such warming as happened is not in agreement with the projections. FYI, computer models are not experiments and we simply do not know enough of the dynamics of climate to do good predictions in the long term. So, the basing of policy on projections with all sorts of issues is itself a major error. KFkairosfocus_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

asauber -Yeah, too bad. It would have made for a vigorously meaningless discussion. We'll never know since you chose not to show us what you were talking about.JVL_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

JVL, you know quite well that a one sided litany leading to scapegoating and to improper assignment of credit is not well warranted history; it may be straight from Alinsky's rules for radicals, but that is hardly a commendation. Tell us what Locke was doing in the intro to essay on human understanding sect 5 and by citing Hooker from ecclesiastical polity in Ch 2 Sec 5 of his 2nd treatise on civil govt, knowing the direct line to the US DoI, 1776. Then also tell us what Plato's warnings in The Laws Bk X and in the Republic indicate about the real problems of both evolutionary materialism and power politics. KFkairosfocus_{October 13, 2017
October
10
Oct
13
13
2017
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply