July 1, 2008

In The Evil Home Of The Most Hated Woman In America

Madalyn Murray O'Hair proudly coined herself as the the most hated woman in America in a magazine interview, was best known for suing in 1963 to have prayer removed in the public school system in Murray v. Curlett, ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in her favor on June 17, 1963 and the start, of the religion secular humanism, began their target of the Public School system.

You really believe the School system is better off taking God out of it, huh? It all stems from Murray v. Curlett in 1963, How can you ignore the mathematical statistics of how today's school systems are failing since the removal of prayer, the Bible and God. In the early 60's 1 and 40 had an STD, today that number is 1 and 3. Abortions, drugs, teen pregnancy, subsides, murders, even education, just pick a subject and it can be linked that that faithless day in 1963.

Blindness is not supposed to be a scientist strong point. Look at the evidence and THEN make a conclusion. So how did atheistic globalists movement help the Soviet Union? Blind science has no use at all in this world. The universe points to a Creator, entire populous and even scientist believe this to be true, but the fringe globalist deniers that believe more in their god Richard Dawkins, is delusional.

Madalyn O'Hair founded American Atheists

"There is no God. There's no heaven. There's no hell. There are no angels. When you die, you go in the ground, the worms eat you." ~Madalyn Murray O’Hair

On a side note: “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” ~ Adolf Hitler

An American Humanist named John Dunphy, echoed Madalyn Murray O'Hair's tactics, and said in 1983:

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

In 1995 Madalyn Murray O'Hair disappeared suddenly along with her son Jon and granddaughter Robin (daughter of her other son, William J. Murray) Speculation abounded, some atheists wrongly accused Christians of doing such a thing, but it turned out one of her own atheist cronies did it named David Roland Waters.

Waters, who felt he had no moral authority to be held accountable, had previous convictions for violent crimes, there also were several suspicious burglaries during his time working at American Atheists with O'Hair, and he pleaded guilty earlier in 1995 to stealing $54,000 from American Atheists.

Shortly after pleading guilty in a 'Members Only' article, in the American Atheists newsletter, O'Hair detailed every one of Waters' prior crimes, including a 1977 battery charge in which Waters beat his own mother. O'Hair called the incident "especially chilling" and said it "included his beating her with a broom handle, breaking wall plaques over her head, cursing, urinating in her face and demolishing her apartment."

The murder investigation narrowed to David Waters and in January 2001, Waters informed the police that the O'Hairs were buried on a Texas ranch. Waters, serving 60 years, agreed to lead investigators to the grave as part of a federal plea agreement guaranteeing that he won't be charged in the killings. He died of prison of liver decease in 2003.

What was it like to grow up with this woman?

Personally I was raised an atheist and my dad tried to convince me that 'lying for gain' is perfectly alright to do. I never connected with my dad like my other siblings did. I thought he was wrong my whole life. I remember, at age 7, when my mom was going to leave dad if he didn't get rid of the vast playboy collection that he had. He supplied the neighborhood with a plethora of viewing material, one trash night. Needless to say they never made it to the landfill.

O'hair's other son, William J. Murray said: When I was a young boy of ten or eleven years old she would come home and brag about spending the day in X-rated movie theaters in downtown Baltimore. She was proud of the fact she was the only woman in the movie house watching this filth. My mother’s whole life circulated around such things. She even wrote articles for Larry Flynt’s pornographic magazine, Hustler. My mother lived in spiritual death as Paul writes: "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." I Timothy 5:6

The O'Hair's had statuettes of mating animals on virtually every piece of furniture. There was a full cabinet of booze and a refrigerator full of foods high in fat and sugar. They liked to live a life which my mother called "high off the hog".

William J. Murray admitted that toward the end he had lost hope for his mother’s conversion. The last ten years of her life she became even more profane and vulgar as the demons she courted got their final hold on her. The media stopped courting her because of the number of profane words she would use which they had to edit out.

William J. Murray said "My mother was an evil person ... Not for removing prayer from America’s schools ... No ... She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company. I could go on but I won’t. All the money my mother made in this manner stayed behind. It did not go with her. "For we brought nothing into this world and it is certain we can carry nothing out." I Timothy 6:7

William J. Murray is a self-professed born again Christian who wrote 'My Life Without God' and is heading the William J. Murray Evangelistic Association. He is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, a socially conservative organization in Washington, D.C. He has been active on issues related to aiding Christians in Islamic and Communist nations.

These days he would greatly like to see creation science taught alongside evolution in public schools. "I think it’s imperative that it is, because the kids are being taught some kind of theory that changes every 10 years. I was taught in school one type of evolution, now the children are being taught another type. Creation science has much more credibility." (Creation 15(2):36–37 March 1993)

He regards as ‘ridiculous’ the idea that an ape-like creature could give birth to a human.

Although his upbringing was negative and tragic, I am pleased that this one apple, like me, fell far from the tree. Thank the Lord! Bless you William J. Murray!

bit.ly/hatedwoman

12 comments:

  1. All atheists lead hedonistic lifestyles and have no morals. We eat our babies while they are still attached to the umbilical cord and should one survive we quickly send them to school to learn to be henchmen in our vast mob of heathens trying to take over the world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are hear to talk someone down from the pain as you shove them into a burning building, how ethical or moral is that? In the past I said atheists are capable of being moral but now that I think about this more, is that really moral? If an atheist is so moral why wouldn't you talk someone out of your predicament (a belief of no God) to help save them the pain instead of just adding another buddy to your list of unsaved people. It's moral to take a bullet for a child, not take a young kid questioning his salvation and throw him in front of the bus.

    It's like you are a drug addict that just wants a friend to get high with or take money from. Instead of trying to save that person you guide him how to shoot up and to become an addict just like you. Great! how moral and just you must feel with your pride. Be very proud of your endeavors, sigh... You with your illogical thinking. But the real tragedy is that you think you are helping people. pitiful. You have no clue what charity or sacrifice or love is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You see, Dan, this is what I meant. This whole topic is just weird, and your little free-write response to Doubtingfoo's obvious sarcasm was actually a bit disturbing. No, not disturbing like you would prefer -- I am not disturbed by your 'profundity' -- but disturbing in that your recent blog behavior has been erratic and a little psychotic.

    Is your argument now that atheists are like evil firefighters from some dumb horror flick? Did you really just directly compare us to junkies? Did you really have the audacity to follow all of this with "You [atheists] with your illogical thinking"?

    This is what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should refrain from posting until you can get a solid 8- to 9-hours of sleep. You're batty.

    Now then, if I assume that you actually meant everything in that stream of consciousness, I suppose I could argue against it...

    It's moral to take a bullet for a child, not take a young kid questioning his salvation and throw him in front of the bus.

    False, in the first case, and incoherent, in the second. Taking a bullet for a child has nothing to do with morality per se, but it is instead a question of self-sacrifice. Being an atheist has no bearing on one's ability to practice self-sacrifice. Of course, the second part is a non sequitur, but even so, this is not our perception of the situation; atheists try to help those who question their faith cope with the perceived emptiness that typically accompanies such a questioning. As you have argued in the past, we can only be successful with "false converts" anyway, so what is the problem?

    It's like you are a drug addict that just wants a friend to get high with or take money from. Instead of trying to save that person you guide him how to shoot up and to become an addict just like you.

    [insert Doubtingfoo's sarcasm here]

    Au contraire! You, my friend, are the drug addict. You are the one who cannot go any length of time without trying to placate your god. You are the one trying to "guide [a potential convert] how (sic) to shoot up and become an addict just like you".

    We guide no one. He who has questions, let him ask, and we shall answer. Those who claim to have answers, we shall question. Our treatment of ex-Christians is exactly analogous to your perception of your own treatment of ex-Hindu-new-Christians -- the difference being, of course, that we don't replace bad ideology with equally bad ideology.

    Great! how moral and just you must feel with your pride. Be very proud of your endeavors, sigh... You with your illogical thinking. But the real tragedy is that you think you are helping people. pitiful. You have no clue what charity or sacrifice or love is.

    Now you know how we feel...

    Do you think it is charity, or sacrifice, or love, that you practice when you inform us that we are destined to burn in hell for disagreeing on minutiae? How about when we deny completely your disonant, ambiguous, outmoded, and generally invalid text?

    Is it humility, or is it pride?

    Don't cry into your keyboard, whining about how immoral and unethical atheists are because they deny your presuppositions. Use a tissue before you think to reply, and recognize your own obvious pride when you tell us that your interpretation of the bible is the only correct one, and that anyone else, despite their own conviction, is deluded.

    Atheists recognize that either everyone is deluded, or exactly one interpretation is correct (at least with regard to the mutually exclusive interpretations), and we would rather deny all than to choose the wrong one. If there is a god, and if he's at all just, he'll appreciate our respect for truth, and he'll likewise denounce your boastful and arbitrary piety.

    You are as the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin -- too proud to admit your ignorance, and so envious that you claim divine knowledge. Which of us more resembles Lucifer?

    Accepting for a moment your version of creation, we must come to the immediate realization that your god did not want sheep as his companion, or he would have stopped creating when he had made them. He did not want dumb automatons either, or he would not have given humans "free will". He wanted, clearly, for humans to think and act on their own. He wanted us to challenge his authority and his existence, given no innate knowledge of his existence and authority whatsoever. He was curious what kind of nonsense we'd come up with, and how absurdly we'd argue its truth.

    In your version of things, he was mightily successful -- we are not sheep, at least not all of us, and we do indeed question both his existence and his authority. Many have even offered amusing and wholly inaccurate theologies, and gone to such lengths as to kill or injure those who would be so bold as to disagree.

    I'm sure your god is amused and pleased, and if we're both very lucky, he'll let us in on the joke when we die. Only one of us, though, is counting on such an ending.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stan,

    I fully understand that Doubtingfoo was being sarcastic. If you all truly cared about someone then you wouldn't help them to join you in the lake of fire. Correct?

    If hell is real, and it is, then you are hurting a whole lot of people. For you to believe that evil isn't real and it doesn't exist then you are naive or in denial. Evil is for real.

    "Did you really just directly compare us to junkies?"

    Yes. Most of you are seeking validation, not truth.

    "Do you think it is charity, or sacrifice, or love, that you practice when you inform us that we are destined to burn in hell for disagreeing on minutiae?"

    If you call minutiae Jesus Christ then absolutely yes. You will burn in hell forever because you did not obey God's Law and then denied that He came to save you from your deserved fate for breaking said Law. You will see that fate because you will not bow to the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ. If the eternal lake of fire does exist then you must agree with perfect logic that doing what you are doing, talking people out of God, is immoral. Even a guy with your intellect can understand this concept.

    It's moral to take a bullet for a child False in your world it's immoral?

    "too proud to admit your ignorance, and so envious that you claim divine knowledge."

    Envious? I feel you are injecting false claims here. This is simple but I will explain it for your gain. The Bible claims Divine Knowledge, not I. The Bible is God's Word, not I. Your allegations erode into dust rather quickly once you realize you aren't injecting anger, animosity and ridicule towards me, but to God Himself. You see you are angry at Jesus Christ Himself for ever coming here to save you from the fate that you will endure unless you bow to His authority. He gave you a chance to be saved and you spit in His face, like a crack whore does to a cop that arrests her. (Oh, no u di'int!) yes I did.

    "Is it humility, or is it pride?" exactly!

    "He did not want dumb automatons either, or he would not have given humans "free will"." You are purely illogical. You are really cracking me up, dude. He gave us free will to choose Him because forced love isn't love, dude. He gave you Laws to obey but you don't have to obey them. Our civil laws, for example, exist for a reason. If you break the law and go out drinking and driving, get into an accident and kill someone, then you will surely go to jail. You are throwing that 'gift' of His in His face and He will deal with you accordingly and take that 'free will' away from you and keep you in that lake of fire.

    Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."

    Hebrews 10:31 "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

    "and gone to such lengths as to kill or injure those who would be so bold as to disagree." Are you talking about the atheistic Soviet Union or the anti-Christian cult of the Roman Catholics (RCC), during the crusades? That sure describes the exact opposite of Christianity. Or are you just injecting another fallacy?

    "I'm sure your god is amused and pleased," No, I am sure God is very angry and disappointed in us that we took free will and shoved it right in His face with disobedience and contempt of His Laws. More then likely He is sad that he has to throw Stan, his own child, into jail (hell) forever for all of his disobedience.

    That realization makes me sad also,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am now fairly convinced that "Dan" has gone, and that the person with whom I am now conversing is actually a relative or some other impostor with access to his blogspot credentials.

    If you all truly cared about someone then you wouldn't help them to join you in the lake of fire. Correct?

    Yes, this statement is correct, but it is also incomplete. The completely true statement would be that I wouldn't help anyone burn in a lake of fire, even if they were otherwise my enemy.

    If hell is real, and it is...

    I was unaware that hell's existence was a matter of fact. I'm glad you're here to clear things like that up. Of course, you'll also have to inform the multitude of Christian denominations who don't take the 'lake of fire' to be literally true...

    ...then you are hurting a whole lot of people.

    Again, according to Dan, any ex-Christian was in fact never a True Christian™, so even if we assume all of your fantasies to be true, no additional harm is being done. Indeed, if it is so easy for you to argue your case, then it should be a trivial exercise to re-convert these ex-Christians who were never True Christians™, so that they can finally become True Christians™. Yes, I know you deny the "One True Scotsman" fallacy.

    For you to believe that evil isn't real and it doesn't exist then you are naive or in denial.

    And here I thought the Problem of Evil applied to theists... Strange, though, I don't remember ever thinking that evil wasn't real or didn't exist (what's the difference, anyway?)...

    Evil is for real.

    Yes, I think we can agree with that.

    in your world it's immoral [to take a bullet for a child]?

    When did you stop reading my statements? I said:

    Taking a bullet for a child has nothing to do with morality per se, but it is instead a question of self-sacrifice. Being an atheist has no bearing on one's ability to practice self-sacrifice.

    Nevermind the debate about atheists and morality -- your statement was incorrect. Self-sacrifice is not necessarily an issue of morality or ethics. Read my statements before you post, so you don't look so foolish.

    The Bible claims Divine Knowledge, not I.

    Yes, but you maintain that this claim is true, so you are indeed claiming divine knowledge, especially since so many others read the same book and come to mutually exclusive conclusions. If it is true, then it is incredibly ambiguous, and therefore ineffective. If it is false, then its ambiguity is irrelevant, as it is necessarily ineffective.

    Surprise! The bible is worthless either way, unless you accept exclusive personal revelations. Oops! Even those must be judged on some basis, since so many of them are also mutually exclusive, so those, too, are ineffective.

    So yes, you exhibit pride by denying your ignorance, and you exhibit envy by willfully claiming knowledge that you do not have. You are indeed as Lucifer.

    He gave us free will to choose Him because forced love isn't love, dude.

    Ignoring the entirety of my statements again?

    I said:

    He did NOT want dumb automatons (emphasis added)

    Oh -- sorry. You couldn't have missed it because you quoted it. Whether he wanted them or not, I'd say he got dumb automatons...

    He gave you Laws to obey but you don't have to obey them.

    Noted.

    Our civil laws, for example, exist for a reason.

    And can you and I agree on exactly what those laws are, in a given area? Can we find a definitive list of those laws anywhere? Is that list ambiguous in any way? Are the penalties explicitly stated?

    If you break the law and go out drinking and driving, get into an accident and kill someone, then you will surely go to jail.

    Well, yes and no. If you get caught, then all of this is true, but then, much of your scenario is unnecessary even then. If you are merely caught driving under the influence, you will surely go to jail. The rest is superfluous, and at any rate, your point has been rendered moot by the ambiguity of the bible and by the multitude of competing religions. It is hardly clear which set of laws we must keep to curry god's favor (or avoid his wrath).

    You are throwing that 'gift' of His in His face

    Actually, I'm throwing it into your face, since his face is so difficult to locate. If it were possible to locate his face, I'd instead politely ask a few questions, but no, I wouldn't kneel and beg forgiveness unless compelled to do so...

    and He will deal with you accordingly and take that 'free will' away from you and keep you in that lake of fire.

    My, how merciful. Of course, for a god who needs to be freely loved, it's strange that he'll also take that free will away from you and keep you in heaven. Remember Lucifer? He was in heaven, and he had free will, and he was there to watch creation unfold. If he could turn away from god while directly in his presence, then it follows that some number of human souls in heaven will choose to leave god's presence as well.

    You realize, of course, that if there is free will in heaven, then free will in hell is pretty undeniable as well. I suppose that in any event, you'll have a pretty tough time making your case by using the bible...

    Are you talking about the atheistic Soviet Union or the anti-Christian cult of the Roman Catholics (RCC), during the crusades?

    Yes. I'm describing human behavior, which is detailed on virtually every page of your bible. Whether you would divorce your current biblical interpretation from the RCC is immaterial -- you cannot deny that a great deal of killing, injuring, maiming, and raping of competing cultures was both documented and explicitly condoned in the bible. It clearly follows that any group holding to the same basic beliefs would be likely to act in the same manner.

    Sorry, though, you cannot so distance yourself from the RCC. Without them, your interpretation of the bible would be impossible.

    Or are you just injecting another fallacy?

    Right. I again request the return of the original Dan. If these clearly ghost-written posts continue, I'll have to leave entirely. This is getting ridiculous. I enjoyed thoroughly the friendly (even if barbed) dialogue we were having initially, but this 'ranty' stream-of-consciousness drivel is frustratingly loony. Take your medications, get some rest, and get the old Dan back on the keyboard.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It clearly follows that any group holding to the same basic beliefs would be likely to act in the same manner."

    Where the RCC, and apparently you also, went wrong is still following an old covenant that wasn't meant for them. They picked and chose what they wanted to follow and ignored the rest. The RCC has been a false religion made up by man from the beginning and the fruit of that religion is showing itself by the crusades and the mass pedophilia community, also called priests. They, as well as you, so grossly misunderstood the Bible to the point of criminal. I forgive you for linking Christianity to RCC but please don't make that mistake again.

    "I wouldn't help anyone burn in a lake of fire," That is comforting to hear that you are following Jesus' commands but that isn't the truth is it? Why are you so adamant to speaking against Christianity? If that lake of fire exists, you should speak to everyone to follow Jesus and obey His Commandments. Instead you are recklessly plowing through life trying to find like minded individuals that agree with you that there is no such thing as hell, damnation, and Jesus Christ. Validation with comfort in numbers I suppose.

    As someone that truly loves and cares about you Stan, I want to warn you of your fate if you continue on this path. I don't want anyone,especially you, to spend eternity in that lake of fire. I wasn't able to help my mother because I was too young and didn't know Jesus. If the bible is correct then she is in hell. I cannot say anything to help her, but I can sure say something to help you. I refuse to stop fighting for your heart, dude. You call it 'ranty' stream-of-consciousness drivel, I call it caring. I won't stop ever, dude. I fully understand if you get frustrated with what I say but I will fight for your soul as a soldier of Jesus Christ. Look into your won conscience and you know right from wrong and you will find God in love. Love thy neighbor as I love you and you will understand God's righteousness and love that He cannot just let criminals go free. He would be and unjust God then, correct? You are going to jail with a bunch of child molesters, murderers, rapist, thieves and even liars. You will spend eternity in hell so I want you to remember our conversations that we have had. Just do me a favor and think about our conversations before you die. Hopefully you will find conviction in your heart and come to the realization that God does exist and loves you so very much that he gave you a gift of salvation for your taking. Accept His love and follow and obey Him. Humble yourself before the living God so you and I can have great laughs together, someday in heaven, about all these times together.

    "You realize, of course, that if there is free will in heaven, then free will in hell is pretty undeniable as well."

    I just don't know if there even will be free will in heaven. I know we won't want to leave and be tempted to leave. We can appreciate Gods goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn't know evil, Satan who didn't know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate His goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate His goodness.

    The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his love, and how else could he show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none? God endures this horrible assault on his everlasting holiness; he endures the horrifying blaspheming, history of fallen beings, he suffers it, the imposition it is on his purity to display his wrath to the fullest extent, to put himself on everlasting display.

    Why are we here? What is the theological answer? To give the text book answer, to glorify God and enjoy him ever more. How do you glorify God? Here is how, you sinner, go get saved. Get saved so God can be glorified, that's it; this is the purpose of this entire universe.

    God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it. So that he can send forth a savior born of a virgin, to live under the law to save us under the curse of the law so that, we can be a little trophy of his grace, he can always point to us as a testimony to his goodness. Ephesians 2:7

    We wouldn't know how God is righteous as he is, everlastingly, and give Him glory, for it if it hadn't had of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn't know He's loving as He is if it hadn't been for sin, we wouldn't know He's holy if it weren't for judgment.

    How holy is God? So holy that he must send out of his presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That He might make known the riches of His glory, that is, He did all of this in order that He might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify Him for all that he is. *paraphrased from Todd Friel and Dr. John Macarthur

    "I again request the return of the original Dan."

    Stan, I have never left and I will always be here for you. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The RCC has been a false religion made up by man from the beginning

    Ahh... We agree! Funny how True Christianity™ sprung forth from a man-made religion... Like begets like, right?

    I forgive you for linking Christianity to RCC but please don't make that mistake again.

    Sorry, Dan, but Christianity is forever linked with the Roman Catholic Church. Even if you deny the RCC as a Christian authority, you cannot deny that Protestantism came as a direct result of Catholicism. Your True Christianity™ has surfaced only recently in the scheme of things -- you may claim otherwise, but the record shows quite clearly that early Christians, and Christian dogma for virtually all of the past two thousand years, was not your True Christianity™, so these Christians were necessarily not True Christians™, and evidently that means that they are currently roasting in hell.

    The point to all of this nonsense is that without Catholicism, your version of Christianity would never have surfaced, and since your version is so exclusive, heaven will be a very lonely place. Insofar as the link between the RCC and your True Christianity™ is fixed, so, too, is the link between Abrahamic religion and violence (intolerance, genocide, rape, torture, slavery, etc.). Such is the lineage of True Christianity™.

    If that lake of fire exists, you should speak to everyone to follow Jesus and obey His Commandments.

    Well, then it's a good thing the lake of fire doesn't exist. I suppose, however, that if I assume that it does exist, I should immediately begin attempting to convert you to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Did you know that after his resurrection, Jesus Christ visited the Native Americans, to spread the Word to them as well? Did you know that the angel Moroni dictated the story of this visit to the Prophet Joseph Smith?

    What? You don't believe any of that? You believe a different Christian dogma? Well, "[t]hat is comforting to hear that you are following Jesus' commands but that isn't the truth is it?"

    It's good for the goose...

    You have yet to have addressed this point:

    What makes your version of Christianity the definitive version? Which of the veritable plethora of competing theologies -- specifically, those which use the bible as their chief (or only) text -- is the one which describes True Christianity™, and how was this determination made? If the bible is so unambiguous, why are their so many mutually exclusive theologies based on its contents?

    I don't think for a moment that you can answer that question with anything other than special pleading. Prove me wrong.

    I just don't know if there even will be free will in heaven.

    Well, if there isn't, then what's the point? Dumb automatons blithely worshipping god in his presence for eternity? Without choice, as you have aptly noted, it is meaningless.

    Unlike Adam who didn't know evil, [and] Satan who didn't know evil, until they fell.

    Satan didn't know evil? That's a pretty bold assertion. I'm guessing you have some scripture to back it up? Last I checked, Satan didn't eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (henceforth referred to as "The Tree"), and he fell before Adam and Eve did. Unless you have access to some new manuscripts or other scriptural evidence, I'd say you have overstepped your bounds with this one.

    Anyway, it isn't especially important in any case -- Satan certainly knows evil now, but he evidently has free will no longer, right?

    Answer this one:

    What would happen if Satan repented?

    This is an interesting question, which I have posed in the past in various forums, but not in a serious discussion regarding theism (specifically Christianity). Its answer requires choosing one of three options:

    1) Satan can repent, but has not chosen to do so.

    2) Satan cannot repent.

    3) Satan can repent, and has already done so.

    If we select (1), then we must also consider that Satan is an utter moron. Since he is regarded as the highest amongst the heavenly host, and admired in many scriptural passages for his many talents, we can safely assume that he is not a moron, so this option is unacceptable.

    If we select (2), then we must accept the fact that free will has been removed from Satan, and that therefore the works of Satan are the de facto works of god. Everything we would call 'Satan's doing' is instead god's doing -- under the guise of Satan. If Satan has no free will, then god is behind his evil deeds and tendencies. Since god cannot be so directly responsible for evil, this option, too, is unacceptable.

    Since only (3) remains, it seems that we have no choice but to accept it, but let us examine it nonetheless. In this case, we would have to accept that Satan has already repented, and that the hell god created for him is no longer necessary, and that heaven is available for everyone. Certainly, this outcome appeals to our emotions, but it quite obviously contradicts everything we find in scripture, so it cannot be accepted, unless we accept some extra-biblical account (which may or may not even exist) of Satan's repentance.

    Is there another option which has been overlooked? I think not. Either Satan can or he cannot repent. If he cannot, then he has no free will. If he can, then he either has or he has not repented. If he has not, then he is an imbecile. If he has, then Christianity (in practice) is a farce, as all are forgiven, regardless of their earthly actions, deeds, or thoughts.

    What say you to this?

    I think I can guess already...

    God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it.

    Then he is an [expletive deleted out of undeserved consideration -- you're welcome, but you owe an apology for this statement]. If he knew all of this, and created us anyway, and sends (conservatively) 90% of humanity to hell, then he is undeserving of any worship or praise whatsoever. This picture of god is pure evil. I would happily stand with Satan in opposition to such a vile character, no matter his available power.

    Disgusting.



    So I look forward to your answers to my posed questions, most especially the one concerning Satan's ability or disposition toward repentance -- although you've been avoiding answering the one regarding separating the wheat from the chaff for quite some time.

    Also, for what it's worth, this most recent post of yours is much more characteristically "Dan", at least so far as I have seen. A quick re-read of your recent posts (since I've been complaining, anyway) should prove a valuable insight into why I wondered where you'd gone. The tone and content were out of place.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Funny how True Christianity™ sprung forth from a man-made religion" Nice try buddy. Christianity 'sprung' from Christ and the teachings of the earthen vessels ( Jar of Clay in NIV) called Paul. The Gospel is the Mysterious Treasure that is dispensed NOT by Angels, NOT by the Spirit, and NOT even by God Himself, but ONLY by ordinary Christians who choose to share it. The NEW Covenant is shared by 'Earthen Vessels' or 'Jars of Clay'. Just like Paul tells Timothy, 2Timothy 1:14 "Through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, guard the Treasure which has been entrusted to you."

    The RCC started in the 9th century and was vastly different then what was preached by the apostles.

    "you cannot deny that Protestantism came as a direct result of Catholicism. " So you feel that because people got fed up with a false church and did something about it, that RCC has to be Christianity?

    Martin Luther is rolling in his grave to know that people call themselves Lutherans instead of Christians. Martin Luther was a Christian and wanted to restore Christianity to what it was supposed to be. He was so bravely resolute at the Diet of Worms, "If I erred, let it be proven by scripture"

    "Your True Christianity™ has surfaced only recently in the scheme of things "

    Christianity recently has been "restored" from the obviously false doctrines of the RCC. If that is what you meant by the word "surfaced" then we agree.

    without Catholicism, your version of Christianity would never have surfaced, This statement is preposterous, since you made this claim the burden of proof is on you. It started with Paul and so far to date, is still consistent with Biblical teachings. The RCC's 'fruit' of crusades and mass pedophilia is obviously a bad tree. The Bible says to test everything by it fruit to see if it is of God. Have you forgotten to do this?

    "Well, then it's a good thing the lake of fire doesn't exist." Again, burden of proof is on you. Prove this claim, please.

    "I suppose, however, that if I assume that it does exist, I should immediately begin attempting to convert you to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Why would you do this? I have explained this to you before but to help you remember.

    'Mormons teach that God used to be a man on another planet, that he has a goddess wife, that they both have bodies of flesh and bones, and that forgiveness of sins is not by grace through faith alone, but by grace plus obedience to the laws of God. Mormons are also polytheist, where the Bible teaches monotheist. This violates basic Christian teaching.'

    "What makes your version of Christianity the definitive version?"

    If I erred, let it be proven by scripture

    "Which of the veritable plethora of competing theologies -- specifically, those which use the bible as their chief (or only) text -- is the one which describes True Christianity™, and how was this determination made?"

    By scripture and the fruit.

    "If the bible is so unambiguous, why are their so many mutually exclusive theologies based on its contents?" Great point, We agree. The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40.. It's plain and simple to me that denominations are man made.

    "I don't think for a moment that you can answer that question with anything other than special pleading. Prove me wrong." Just did.

    "Satan didn't know evil? That's a pretty bold assertion. I'm guessing you have some scripture to back it up?" Good question.

    Morals aren't relative. You do understand moral relativism denies the absolute authority of God, and puts the authority on mankind. I suppose I could argue that Satan was prideful first Proverbs 11:2. God does not create anything or anyone for the purpose of being evil. Satan, in his pride, rebelled against God. Satan wasn't created to be evil. Psalm 10:4 "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." All of Psalm 10 is a great resource to understand pride.

    "What would happen if Satan repented?" Interesting question indeed. I choose option 1. Satan can repent, but has not chosen to do so.

    "then we must also consider that Satan is an utter moron."

    Moron or a fool as the Bible says. Can we assume this to be true for all unrepentant sinners... such as yourself? Don't be so fast to discount this option. We can also conclude "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

    Proverbs 12:15 "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."

    Proverbs 14:16 "A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident."

    Proverbs 17:24 "Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth."

    Proverbs 23:9 "Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words."

    Proverbs 24:7 "Wisdom is too high for a fool: he openeth not his mouth in the gate."

    I believe scripturally I have proven that satan was foolish or as you said, a moron.


    "If he knew all of this, and created us anyway, and sends (conservatively) 90% of humanity to hell, then he is undeserving of any worship or praise whatsoever.This picture of god is pure evil. I would happily stand with Satan in opposition to such a vile character, no matter his available power."

    Satan was a necessary evil (no pun) for mankind to understand how wrong evil is. We need to go through these things to understand God. But to think God created us so we could sin is absurd. Why can't people take responsibility for their own sinful actions? We gasp at some things that evil people do to children or woman, for example. Why can't you understand they deserve punishment for their wickedness? Paul wrestled with his own sinful humanity and explained it best in Romans 7:18-19

    Mankind has a choice, to either follow God and His righteous decrees, or deny God and condemn themselves to an eternity of suffering. (Joshua 24:15) and (John 3:36) So I guess you have made your choice?

    Don't be foolish, give into His authority and we can have great laughs about these times later on.

    Join me the water is fine,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  9. [The claim that Dan's version of Christianity would never have surfaced without Catholicism] is preposterous, since you made this claim the burden of proof is on you.

    I'll concede a couple things here.

    First, I concede that I misspoke. Rather than using the verb "surfaced", I should have used "risen to any semblance of dominance". "Surfaced" gets the meaning across, but I fear it may have been unnecessarily ambiguous.

    Second, I'll concede that by making such a claim, the burden of proof is indeed upon my shoulders. Rather than attempt to back that claim up, I'll retract it. I could just as easily claim (with ample support, in this case) that without Constantine, Christianity would have been an underground cult at best.

    At any rate, you are wrong that the statement is preposterous, but right on the burden of proof. I fear, however, that this appropriate recognition may be short lived...

    Again, burden of proof is on you. Prove [the claim that the lake of fire does not exist], please.

    Sorry, Danny-boy, but that pig doesn't fly. I may have the burden of proof for the earlier claim, but not for this one. You are the one who claims the lake of fire exists, despite its absence from the face of the earth. Put up, or shut up.

    (Oh, and if you merely point to scripture as "proof", then you will likewise have to concede that other claims made by other books are valid as "proof". Of course, this leads to chaos, but you go right ahead.)

    It's plain and simple to me that denominations are man made.

    Yet you hold to a denomination. You have not once explained how you can be sure that your brand of Christianity is correct, and why Mormonism, as an example, is not. Your diatribe denouncing Mormonism as non-Christian is unacceptable -- they use the same text you do. For the same reason, Jehovah's Witnesses have a legitimate claim to being Christians, and an equally legitimate claim to being the correct interpretation -- they, too, use the same text you do.

    The point is simple, but you seem oblivious. I'll try an analogy:

    If I take a college course which uses a specific textbook, and you take a college course at a different college, using the same textbook, would you say we had taken the same course?

    If we both took the same course at the same college, but our grades differed, would you say we had a different level of understanding of the text?

    If we both took the same course at the same college, with the same text but from different instructors, and we both got the same grade (a 4.0, let's say), would you say we had roughly identical understandings of the text?

    Let me answer these for you: not necessarily, but probably; yes; not necessarily, but probably not.

    You see, even with intentionally unambiguous college textbooks, the material can be approached in a number of different manners, producing a number of different results. Likewise, the student can approach the class in a number of different manners, producing a number of different results. Still yet, the instructors can approach the class differently. Finally, despite using the same text, the two classes could be quite different (as a personally relevant example, two different Astronomy courses -- "Stars and Galaxies", and "The Solar System" -- may be taught from the same text).

    Obviously, there are many versions of Christianity, and obviously, some of them are mutually exclusive. The Anglican Church, as a recent example, is one such body, but there is a rift from within regarding the ordination of gay clergy, despite the obvious fact that they all use the same text. Although the OT makes it somewhat clear that homosexuality is an abomination, the NT seems to leave a bit more room for negotiation. The OT also says to stone adulterers, but Jesus himself made it clear that this was no longer necessary.

    So yes, absolutely, denominations are man-made, including yours. Perhaps it'll become clearer to you after I dissect a few more of your statements...

    The Bible says to test everything by it (sic) fruit to see if it is of God. Have you forgotten to do this?

    ...

    The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way...

    ...

    If I erred, let it be proven by scripture

    ...

    By scripture and the fruit.


    All of these statements are meant to somehow convince me that your version of Christianity is correct, because you would claim that its fruit is good, and that it is based upon scripture. Your crass re-quoting of Luther is humorous, but pointless.

    Consider Jehovah's Witnesses. They use the KJV bible as their definitive text. The fruits of their church are plentiful and good; they help in their communities, they exhibit the fruits of the spirit, and they are generally friendly and peaceful people. By your standard, they are True Christians™ -- "by scripture and the fruit".

    Likewise, many other Christian denominations -- yours included -- use the bible, and bear good fruit, but many of these maintain mutually exclusive doctrines. Your standard is either worthless, or there are many more paths to True Christianity™ than you would accept.

    Now, before you start pointing to various verses and crying foul, that these other denominations are not actually scripturally sound, you need to remind yourself that yes, they really are. Like you, they interpret the scripture in a way that makes sense to them, and like your interpretation, theirs is not necessarily definitive.

    There is no way to determine which interpretation of scripture is definitive.

    Indeed, you have put your faith in men, and not in god, as you have accepted the ruling of the Council of Nicaea, and although you may well have diligently read whatever extra-canonical texts have survived, you cannot deny that countless others were destroyed.

    I appreciate your conviction, but I loathe your ignorance. You cannot possibly have any better reason to believe your interpretation beyond a personal revelation, and as I have said many times over, a personal revelation is only useful to one person, and it is dubious as evidence due to the number of inconsistent and competing revelations humans have claimed.

    I'll post another reply soon enough regarding Satan's idiocy (and yours), and no, I haven't forgotten about the "Great Debate" -- it's just a five-hour debate, and it's tedious tying my notes together into a coherent essay.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Prove [the claim that the lake of fire does not exist], please.

    Oops, I guess I even get overzealous. I concede, the burden of proof is on me. But the Bible is proof indeed. If all these discussions are about the religion of Christianity then the Bible alone, as a historically accurate document of said religion, does count as proof. It sure would count as evidence in a court of law. Even circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I wouldn't call the Bible circumstantial though for the simple fact that it was a written eye witness account of events. A calendar and journal/diary has much more weight in court of law. I would compare the Bible to these such things.

    "if you merely point to scripture as "proof", then you will likewise have to concede that other claims made by other books are valid as "proof"."

    You are not inferring there is an equally sound document of antiquity as the Bible are you? The historicity of the Bible stands alone as the single greatest thing that mankind has in possession. You cannot even claim recent books, such as "the God delusion" for example, is of the same caliber as the Bible.

    "Yet you hold to a denomination." I do not! If you call Christianity a denomination then I might concede, but I hold no denomination to Biblical Christianity.

    You see, even with intentionally unambiguous college textbooks, the material can be approached in a number of different manners, producing a number of different results.

    OK now try that same analogy with something simpler lets say 2nd grade math books/classes. Would you agree that if one book says that 2+2=4 and the other book concluded the same result that the fact that 2+2=4 is in fact what is being taught. If one million people came to the same conclusion then it would be fair to say that 2+2=4 was the lesson of said book/class. Please understand that I am trying to be as difficult as possible.

    "Finally, despite using the same text, the two classes could be quite different (as a personally relevant example, two different Astronomy courses -- "Stars and Galaxies", and "The Solar System" -- may be taught from the same text)."

    When you said this I got a flashback to a point when we first started to discuss things. I was explaining the differences in the Gospels and that variations like Mark and Matthew, for example, is a testament to the validity of a true event?

    I said "Like if we were to both watch fireworks and some reporter asked us to describe what we saw. You described all the colors and I described all the shapes."

    I remember what you said and I quote "As to the fireworks display analogy -- that was your choice. I just took what you chose, and showed how the argument that different incomplete perspectives of the same event do not necessarily make either remotely accurate. I didn't really like it either, and I had to amuse myself by making the observers take on humorous traits. Obviously, those traits are unnecessary -- all that is required is that for whatever reason one observer omits details that the other observer includes, and vice versa. The fact is that the bible is inconsistent with itself in its opening passages -- at least some of the competing religious accounts can avoid that inconsistency.

    Whatever."


    Our very first discussion started when I said there is a huge difference between a belief in Jesus and trusting in and carrying the cross for Jesus, essentially dying for Jesus. If you died for Jesus then there is no going back and you would never think ever to go back. Do you want to go backwards to a place before your birth? Hence the statement I mad there is no such thing as ex-Christians. That heated you up quite a bit because you pejoratively responded:

    "Kiss our ass. Just because we are not now perpetrators of the Christian faith does not mean that we could never have been, nor does it mean that our sincerity or conviction were diminished in any way. You are out of line for suggesting such a thing."

    We have been discussing things for a while now and you are a formidable opponent. What a waste of a good brain it will be if you should die tomorrow not understanding God's love. OK back to the discussion.

    "Obviously, there are many versions of Christianity, and obviously, some of them are mutually exclusive." Obviously, this claim is false. There are plenty of Cultural Christians if that is what you mean but there is only one acceptable Christianity. Jesus leads His chosen saints to that gate.

    Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    "I haven't forgotten about the "Great Debate" -- it's just a five-hour debate, and it's tedious tying my notes together into a coherent essay." I applaud your dedication, but I am suspect of your motives. If you enjoy the conversations of a Christian then join us we can have loads. If your attempt is validation of your own thoughts then ask yourself why are you fighting your own conscience in seeking justification. Why not just walk away saying to yourself Dan is a bucket head? Why fight? Are you fighting for my soul? Do you enjoy this subject so much that you will discuss this subject all the time. It appears to consume your, as well as my, life doesn't it?

    For the record I am fighting for your soul. I want you saved! I will take all the time, God allows me, to preach the Gospel to you. I live for the day to call you Stan the truth teller. It may appear to be a lofty goal but it will take God to soften that hard heart of yours to cause that miricle. I will continue, with patience, until that wonderful day.

    In anticipation for that day, take care.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I may have overstepped again when I said "I will continue, with patience, until that wonderful day."

    It appears that God doesn't want me to continue to converse and to let the will of God work in you.

    1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (emphasis added)

    And let's not forget 1 Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

    Listen to what Calvin said about 1 Timothy 6:20 "But, for my part, I think that he describes the high-sounding and verbose and bombastic style of those who, not content with the simplicity of the gospel, turn it into profane philosophy."

    In hopes of your salvation Stan I am to bow out and rebuke you for your own good. So farewell and comeback when you are saved. Then we can fellowship indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nice try, Dan, but how are you supposed to convert we sinners without answering our questions, and satisfying our doubts?

    Why is it that no Christian has ever backed down to me as such, and that Christians worldwide evidently eschew the "wisdom" Paul gave to Timothy?

    If you are not to engage with persons such as myself, then why, prideful one, did you create a blog titled "Debunking Atheists"? I suppose you only mean to provide anti-atheist propaganda to fellow Christians, then?

    I have enjoyed some of our conversations very much, and I have seen some necessary recognition on your part that certain of your beliefs are based on revelation rather than being rationally based. I feel that there is yet hope that you may discover the fact that your version of Christianity is as untenable as the plethora of Christianities (so they title themselves -- I am quite aware that you would not title them as such, since Christianity is as the Highlander: There can be only one).

    At the least, your version is no more special than any other version, despite your repeated insistence on using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

    Anyway, I understand that you choose to withdraw from the discussion, but so long as you post new topics, and so long as my own replies are not banned, I will show up occasionally to put in my two cents. Do what you must.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>