April 30, 2009

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

I was curious if Atheists are concerned about the possible dire situations that may be upon us very soon? Will Atheists be prepared as much as Christians?

In preparation, I came across an interesting stage layout from a heirloom seed provider.

STAGE 1. As long as the economy is thriving and you have freedom and are not over taxed, life can be good.

Here are your most important assets today:

    1. Savings
    2. Career
    3. Health Insurance
    4. Home Value
    5. Automobile Image
    6. Credit Rating for Debt Accumulation

STAGE 2. The economy goes into a prolonged decline, which we have been experiencing for the past 7 years.

Here will be your most important assets:

    1. Cash
    2. Precious Metals, which you might want to sell now
    3. Elimination of debt
    4. Job Stability
    5. Health Insurance
    6. Home Equity
    7. Automobile with good MPG

STAGE 3. The economy begins to collapse after a significant prolonged decline, which we are experiencing right now.

Here will be your most important assets:

    1. Cash
    2. Automobile
    3. Job
    4. Home
    5. Short term food supplies
    6. Survival know-how
    7. Rural property
    8. Small livestock- chicken, rabbit, fish...
    9. and a bulk supply of long-term heirloom vegetable seeds.

STAGE 4. The economy collapses and the shelves go empty in one week, the government suspends the Constitution and we become a police state. This can come at any time after Stage 3. Society falls into chaos.

Here will be your most important assets:

    1. Guns and ammo
    2. Survival knowledge
    3. Short term food supplies (1 year)
    4. Rural hideaway or rural property
    5. Trained survival dog
    6. ***Homemade water filter system
    7. ***Survival gardening method know-how
    8. ***Heirloom garden seeds for long-term food
You no longer can sell gold, you can no longer buy gasoline for your vehicle, you will be forced from your home and health care is no longer available, and of course your job is a memory. You will experience what it's like to live in a third world country at war.

STAGE 5. War between freedom fighters and government forces break out nationwide, and starvation becomes common. Government offers food and water and shelter in exchange for chip implantation and enslavement.

Here will be your most important assets:

    1. Survival skills
    2. patriot gardening method so your food will never be stolen
    3. homemade water filter system so you will never be thirsty
    4. heirloom seeds for long term food and barter
    5. Guns and the ability to use them
    6. Survival dog
    7. Willpower


Will it or could it ever get to these latter stages? Are Atheists concerned/prepared; concerned/unprepared; confident/prepared; confident/unprepared? I guess that question is more of a poll but that last poll was misleading since I called this event the tribulation. I guess another question would be if you even care, think, and prepare for such things.

Update: If you think this is all just hype, look at what this congress is currently doing to regulate our food supply.

tinyurl.com/dldd38

67 comments:

  1. PersonalFailure said:

    Are you concerned/prepared; concerned/unprepared; confident/prepared; confident/unprepared for Ragnorak? The Zombie Apocalypse? The Great Return of our Alien Overlords of 2012?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ok, I am not even kidding here, my wife loves zombie movies and I got her this book along with the cards, yes there are a survival deck of cards from this book.

    Always go for the head with zombies, they say that works pretty good with Jehovas Witnesses too!

    Peace all!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Man I need to be less impulsive and slow down before I get all excited and post some thing. But to address the question in this post am I prepared for the apocolypse, yes, but then again I was a evangelical for 20 years and a paid minister for 3, what does that mean or lend to my credibility? nothing really, but to let you know I'm no flower child. I'm a freaking lunatic, don't mind me.

    I really wish that the religion issue was removed from the Republican party. I know many conservative, cultural Christians and cultural Jews who share the same core values with their literal conterparts, but just don't believe that God is real.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Andrew,

    I was a evangelical for 20 years and a paid minister for 3, 

    With all due respect, that explains a great deal of the lashing out that you displayed before. Keep in mind, there is no such thing as an ex-Christian and Christians don't fall away.

    I myself was raised in an Atheist's home with a flower child Mom. My entire family are Atheists, I am the exception. I do appreciate you sharing. You are not alone many here claim a similar story as yours.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In preparation I came across an interesting stage layout from a heirloom seed provider.I trust an heirloom seed company to give me good advice about heirloom seeds, but quite frankly, I'm not looking to them for advice about Ragnorak.

    That certainly does explain why the "surviving the apocalypse" advice includes so much emphasis on heirloom seeds rather than just seeds, or guns, or underground vaults.

    In answer to your question, I don't think any sort of apocalypse is coming, but if it did arrive, I'd be dead within a week, because I need lots of medications to stay alive, so no, I don't see any point in preparing for a potential apocalypse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah I know your stance on ex Christians, it's right there on the right hand side of the blog. Lets just agree to be fun loving rivals with big hearts.

    It's going to be a conundrum for you when you fall away, which could very well happen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To be honest with you personal failure, I'm not one bit afraid of death. I'm only nervous of the what I have to go through to get there. I hope it's quick and painless, yeah I know, I'm selfish.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan:

         "Keep in mind, there is no such thing as an ex-Christian and Christians don't fall away."
         Whom are you trying to deceive? The direct evidence shows that there are ex-christians and that some christians do fall away. The claim of "false convert" is used by wicked religions (cults) to keep members in line. Is that what christianity is all about? Seriously, only a small, petty being would claim that anyone who stopped following him never was.

    ReplyDelete
  9. PersonalFailure,

    I trust an heirloom seed company to give me good advice about heirloom seeds, but quite frankly, I'm not looking to them for advice about Ragnorak. 

    Touché, Touché Lets just say I thought it was...interesting and organized well.

    I need lots of medications to stay alive, so no 

    Hm, I didn't consider people in that condition. Thank you. I would think that would just require a few more resources and preparation. Hope is still alive.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pvb,

    The direct evidence shows that there are ex-christians and that some christians do fall away. 

    The "direct evidence" from where? For people to call themselves Christians they must meet the criteria set forth by the authority of that Religion. You could not be a Muslim without the Qur'an right?

    God's Word determines what is and what is not Christian. So the authority of the Bible says that they are false converts or Stony ground hearers from the Parable of the Sower. You have no choice but to presuppose the authority of the Bible in order to determine who is or is not a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nothing fills my heart with joy more than someone admitting they need to reasses themsleves. Bravo Dan.

    Dan I have a spooky suspicion that you will eventually become a "fallaway". You just seem to spend a lot of energy shoring up a belief system that you know is flawed. And I say that with honest love, devoid of any God or deity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Andrew,

    Real Christians seek truth. Insistently, if I eventually do become a "fallaway" it will be because of my lack of faith in Christ.

    Without presupposing God and His Word it would be very hard to explain Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan, you're a good guy in my opinion, and I've become pretty good over my lifetime of weeding good guys out of the pack of wolves. I wish you nothing but the best.

    But it'll be a rocking of worlds when you come to the conclusion that God is not real. You may never get to that point, but it won't really matter.

    Peace to all and all you guys love.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dani'EL, I love him very much and I hope he took my impersination in jest.

    But he is a freakin lunatic, have you guys been to his site? I love it, it's awesome!

    Dani'EL is one of those guys would go out of his way to lend a hand, Help move a freezer, help with the roof, heck yeah, I have no doubt about that, but, he's nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andrew,

    Thanks for those kind words

    Dani'EL is one of those guys would go out of his way to lend a hand, Help move a freezer, help with the roof, heck yeah, I have no doubt about that, but, he's nuts. 

    So then you are in good company then. :7p

    That reminded me of what Ray once said: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."

    ReplyDelete
  16. That reminded me of what Ray once said: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."&nbsp
    ======


    Yeah, that old "be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect".

    That means that "god" holds the same standards for both us and himself. Problem: God kills babies, pregnant women, christ while on earth had his disciples take somebody's donkey or mule? without asking for permission first, etc.

    Yep. Tough standards to live up to.


    Then there is this: Without presupposing God and His Word it would be very hard to explain Christianity.&nbsp

    ====
    Nope. All one needs to "explain christianity" is to know what the bible defines them as; we don't have to assume that the bible is "true", just as we don't have to assume that the Koran is true when we define what a musim is, according to the rules the koran sets out.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Reynold: spot on.

    When you include the   after HTML tags, though, you're forgetting the semicolon.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan:

         "God's Word determines what is and what is not Christian. So the authority of the Bible says that they are false converts or Stony ground hearers from the Parable of the Sower."
         No good. They cannot be identified as "false converts" until after they have left the fold. Any cult will say that the people that eventually leave were never truly faithful. It's simply not true. Since your so-called "word of god" only identifies their conversion as false after a deconversion, the standard is a phony.
         Simply put, you may reasonably reject a convert as false only if you do so while he continues to say he is a convert. If you can only make the determination after he says he is a former convert, you are doing a "no true Scotsman."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pvb,

    No good. They cannot be identified as "false converts" until after they have left the fold. 

    You are half right. As Matthew 13:24-30 says, they evil and saved will grow together but the Bible does give us the tools to judge between these two, even looking at and judging our own selves to make sure we are all on the right path. If you fall off the path the Bible says it will be apparent to us by the fruit of that tree. Simple tests will give the evidence of a saved person or not.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Simple tests will give the evidence of a saved person or not. 

    Actually, the test itself is a failure. Jesus said, in Dan's favorite support piece for the True Christian™ schtick, that "every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17). While this may be true, what he next says is quite preposterous:

    A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 

    "Cannot bear bad fruit"? Ever? If this is true, then by Dan's own admission, as a former atheist (hedonist, really), he bore bad fruit. Thus, he cannot be a good tree.

    Likewise, if "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit," then if Dan is a good fruit, his atheistic father must therefore be a good tree.

    In either example, the notion of permanence regarding the type of tree is nicely exposed as fraudulent -- a tree which is today "good" may tomorrow be "bad" -- the good fruit it has produced to this point will not magically become tarnished, and if I've eaten this fruit in the past, I won't suddenly develop dysentery.

    Bookending the issue regarding "good" trees v. "bad" trees, and the fruit produced by either, is the reiterated statement that deeds -- fruits -- are the benchmark against which we measure -- know -- those in our midst. Pvblivs' claim, as well as my own, and countless other detractors, is that you don't know them by their fruits, until a bad fruit surfaces. When that happens, you claim they were always "bad trees," but your whole stupid religion is based on taking "bad trees" and turning them into "good trees" -- so what gives?

    "By their fruit you will recognize them," then, is false. You -- you -- don't recognize them (the "bad trees"), and in most cases, you will never recognize them -- ask El Dani about the "great apostasy," and you'll hear that many claim to be Christians, and many even manage good deeds, but your paranoia, through the uncritical acceptance of scripture, requires that you suspect even the most apparently devout amongst you!

    The infamous witch trials of the 17th century are a perfect example: in these, the more innocent the girl, the more likely she was a witch -- or so the "rationale" at the time suggested. "By their fruits," maybe, but don't forget that the devil is extremely crafty, and some fruits are really waxen. Your abilities to discern between "good fruit" and "bad fruit" is hardly reliable, so either Jesus was wrong, or you are, and if you are, then you're not a True Christian™, or Jesus was, again, wrong.

    I wonder what it could be...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  21. What happened to trusting God entirely, Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rufus,

    What happened to trusting God entirely, Dan? 

    Great question and if this was a different blog I would ask how many Christians prepare vs not. My short answer to the question is that I am trusting God. If we followed the Bible more there would less evil around because of the, Bible recommended, capitol punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stan,

    "Cannot bear bad fruit"? Ever? If this is true, then by Dan's own admission, as a former atheist (hedonist, really), he bore bad fruit. Thus, he cannot be a good tree. 

    That is very right

    Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

    I had to die and be "born again" anew. Without it we cannot ever hope to have good fruit. My tree was very wicked so that tree had to die. Get it?

    is the reiterated statement that deeds -- fruits -- are the benchmark against which we measure -- know -- those in our midst.  

    I don't believe the deeds themselves are the fruit, but the results that follows the deeds is the fruit.

    The infamous witch trials of the 17th century are a perfect example: in these, the more innocent the girl, the more likely she was a witch 

    We must agree to the flaw in the logic from the which trials. Taking a blow torch to someone to see if they're "fruits" are waxen is a very stupid way to test the fruit. Like our friend Quasar said That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan:

         Ah, but you didn't die. That's just a game of words that some christians play.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan, how did you get on capital punishment? I've always been for it in certain cases, but with the numbers of people on death row who have been exonerated since DNA testing, now I'm only for it in certain cases in theory. I wouldn't want to execute an innocent person. Have you ever wondered how many innocent people have been executed? And please, no word games about how none of us are innocent. I can't claim to know exactly what was in the head and heart of someone who lived and died centuries ago, but do you think Jesus would want an innocent person executed?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Same old BS.
    Scare the crap out of the people and they will flocking come.
    I don't think you would know an atheist if one kicked you in the anterior nether regions

    ReplyDelete
  27. Real Christians seek truth.
    Interesting. I was of the opinion listening to you that REAL Christians had the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 

    So... you only produce good fruit nowadays?

    I had to die and be "born again" anew. Without it we cannot ever hope to have good fruit. My tree was very wicked so that tree had to die. Get it? 

    So... you have to die and be "born again" daily, even multiple times daily, to adjust for the "bad fruit" you inevitably produce -- essentially constantly -- due to the fact that you continue to sin?

    Sorry, buddy, but your "explanation" is doing little more than reinforce the point: that there are ex-Christians, and that there are otherwise good trees which occasionally produce bad fruit, just as there are otherwise bad trees which occasionally produce good fruit.

    The really funny thing is that Jesus' little story notes that one doesn't glean figs from a thistle -- but that's not in dispute, and it's no secret. The problem is that those who you would describe as "bad trees" -- as non-fruit-bearing trees -- sometimes produce fruit, even good fruit. Thus, your identification of these trees is in error, and they are fruit-bearing trees, and Jesus' little ditty is quite incorrect.

    So, again, your claims regarding ex-Christians have been shown as false.

    Of course, the only thing you addressed was the notion that you were a bad tree, but you said nothing of the fact that, if you are good "fruit," then your non-Christian father has inexplicably produced "good fruit" -- something which Jesus has said is impossible. Likewise, if you, or any other True Christian™, ever produces "bad fruit," then you, or whomever, is not a True Christian™, and not a "good tree."

    It's funny, really, that you so constantly seek to both have your cake, and to eat your cake, yet you have time and again been shown why you cannot succeed at both from within your current paradigm.

    You may not believe it, and you may even deny it, but I have produced what you would describe as "good fruit" -- yet this I cannot do, according to Jesus, if I am anything other than a "good tree." Since you will most likely deny my own claims regarding "good fruit," I must leave it to your past experience, and solicit an honest response from you with respect to the "good fruit" you have undoubtedly experienced from the branches of "bad trees." Somehow, I doubt you'll answer this honestly -- to do so, you'd have to admit "good fruit" does indeed come from non-Christian -- "bad" -- "trees." This, though, exposes your system as flawed, and your cognitive dissonance will kick in, and cause you to deny the truth you claim to seek, in order to perpetuate the lie to which you pathetically cling.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rufus,

    Have you ever wondered how many innocent people have been executed?  

    I am a firm believer that 1000 guilty people should be set free instead of one innocent man to spend time in jail, or worse, capitol punishment. So you do have a point. Our system must meet the 100% certainty for capitol punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Stan,

    You surprise me sometimes as to how little you know about Christianity.

    So... you have to die and be "born again" daily, even multiple times daily, to adjust for the "bad fruit" you inevitably produce -- essentially constantly -- due to the fact that you continue to sin? 

    There is a huge difference between unrepentant sinning, which would indeed produce bad fruit, and an occasional sin that Christians go through while still being human. God may correct you for such a sin but it would not knock the Christian of the path.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Stan,

    Somehow, I doubt you'll answer this honestly -- to do so, you'd have to admit "good fruit" does indeed come from non-Christian -- "bad" -- "trees." 

    Some things are a mystery. I am a product of a fruit from my atheistic Dad that became a Christian. That was not my doing and I would have died an atheist if it were not for God's intervention. He saved me in spite of my nature and path. That to me will be one of the first questions when I see Him...Why did I get saved?

    I was the worst fruit from my fathers tree. I had to die and be resurrected anew in order to experience the fruit I have today. Some things I cannot explain since they stand outside of God's Word and will remain a mystery until I get to ask Him.

    ReplyDelete
  32.      So, can you produce a death certificate? I highly doubt it. You see, if you had died, you would not be here to have this discussion. If there had been an actual resurrection, it would have made headlines. That is why I say with confidence that you are only playing games with words.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Keep in mind, there is no such thing as an ex-Christian and Christians don't fall away."

    This is why I don't like Christianity, does anybody else see the shell game here? It's all semantics. You can never bring up your experiences in a church because "you were never a real christian, if you knew God like I do you would have never left the church." There is no way to argue against such statements, it's a pointless endeavor.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There is a huge difference between unrepentant sinning, which would indeed produce bad fruit, and an occasional sin that Christians go through while still being human. God may correct you for such a sin but it would not knock the Christian of the path. 

    Holy crap. You just don't get it, do you?

    I know full well that Christians don't have to be "born again" following every sin, but what you don't seem to get, despite your hero Ray Comfort spewing it all over the boardwalks of Southern California every chance he gets, is that all sins are equal in the eyes of god. Thus, an "occasional sin" of lying is identical to the "occasional sin" of murder -- in the eyes of your weirdly blind god.

    You arrogantly prattle on about "good fruit" and "good trees," and talk about "unrepentant sin," but in the eyes of your god, any sin is the same as any other sin. Andrea Yates' murder of her children may well have been just an "occasional sin," just like your inadvertent lust after Hannah Montana. Are you pretending to know whether or not she has repented of her sin? Are you claiming access to her inner thoughts, such that you know where her heart lies?

    Get real. You immediately  and unequivocally denounced her, and thousands of cases like hers, as actions of a non-Christian -- as "bad fruit" from a "bad tree." You don't seem even to hesitate to do this with anyone professing to be a Christian -- you judge them based on the outward appearances with special attention to their actions. You cannot know the status of their hearts, and you cannot know whether or not they've sought (and received) forgiveness.

    Thus, and again, your nonsensical claim that there are no ex-Christians is exposed as fraudulent. Even if it were true, you couldn't possibly know when it was, or when it wasn't, applicable. Jesus' statement concerning trees and fruit is again shown to be asinine -- at the least, it is useless information.

    Some things are a mystery. 

    Yeah, like your ability to sleep despite peddling such blatant lies. Whenever you encounter an obvious contradiction, or something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, you just throw up your hands and claim "mystery." Considering the fact that you claim to know so much about your magical-yet-conveniently-invisible god, one would think these little ambiguities and apparent inconsistencies might be among the list of things you do know.

    I'm guessing the litmus test for what you claim to know, and what you claim is "mysterious," is based solely on the likelihood that the claim may ever be proven false. If it might be so proven, you decline comment, claiming "mystery." If not, you freely shit out a new explanation and claim that the turd so generated is gold, and not feces.

    Unbelievable.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  35. Stan makes a good point. But let's get back to some fun.

    I took my wife to the range yesterday morning so she could get used to the shotgun, it turned out she was shooting at another guys target, and he said,"hey are you shooting at my target, that's not good etiquette", and the range guys were particularly grouchy that day. And in reality I was the one shooting at the guys target, cause it was WAAY out there by the burm. I fessed up.

    She loves my 357, but she's not a big fan of the shotgun. I think it's related to her first experience shooting it, you know, that everyone isn't "nice" all the time.

    I think I'm going to get her a hammerless SP101, she has a great instinct with a revolver, she instanly realized that you can pull the trigger to a certain point where you are almost at single action then pull that last bit. That took me some time to figure out years ago.

    And one more thing, in real life, no one is more concerned about people, their safety, the sanctity of life, human decency, love respect, humility, and preparation for the future than this atheist, and his atheist wife.

    Ok, I'm blatently appealing to you to allow us into your compound when the shit hits the fan. You are also welcome into mine. Just depends who has the best one.

    So to answer your question, yes there are atheists who share the same concerns about the political road this country is going down. And to be honest, quibbling about theological trivialities, such as does God exist, is a waste of time and it's divisive when in this climate the populus desperatly needs solidarity against our common enemy, big government.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Stan,

    Thus, an "occasional sin" of lying is identical to the "occasional sin" of murder -- in the eyes of your weirdly blind (G)od. 

    That is true I agree. Just because Christians sin doesn't make any less. It is exceedingly wicked. Continuing to do so unrepentantly will push you far away from God. God cannot be in the presence of sin. Period. By sinning you are pushing God away.

    Like our fried Sye said, "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven." We have an avenue to right the wrong (sin) in our life. A life without Christ does not allow for that forgiveness and your spirit dies in those sins.

    Andrea Yates' murder of her children may well have been just an "occasional sin,"  

    That may be true, I can't deny that.

    just like your inadvertent lust after Hannah Montana. 

    Incidentally I view her as a false convert for the moment. I would need to see the fruit more, but I do not see good things from her.

    You cannot know the status of their hearts, and you cannot know whether or not they've sought (and received) forgiveness.  

    You are right to a degree. I can only see by the fruit in their lives. Fruit of the spirit and fruit of righteousness will be apparent for all to see (Ephesians 5:9, Philippians 1:11, James 3:17)

    Thus, and again, your nonsensical claim that there are no ex-Christians is exposed as fraudulent. Even if it were true, you couldn't possibly know when it was, or when it wasn't, applicable. 

    Not true. It is very easy to see in Atheists. One because they call themselves Atheists. What about the promises you made to God? Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God? Do you still trust in Christ for all things? By not doing so shows your fruit. Obvious.

    These brilliant words are from Dr. Bahnsen:

    Until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner and brings him to repentance, his presuppositions will remain unaltered. And as long as the unbeliever's presuppositions are unchanged a proper acceptance and understanding of the good news of Christ's historical resurrection will be impossible.

    I'm guessing the litmus test for what you claim to know, and what you claim is "mysterious," is based solely on the likelihood that the claim may ever be proven false. 

    You left out the most important part of that statement to make it true: the claim may ever be proven false by the word of God.Believable,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan you're dying on this one. You should let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Whatever Andrew

    Truth is truth I cannot articulate or even understand it completely but God is truth.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm just chiming in and doing it in a nice polite way.

    I think Stan has you caught in an logical contridiction that is going to bury you.

    No meanness intended, if fact I like you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Like our fried Sye said (Freudian slip in original)

    I agree. Sye was cooked in his pathetic performance versus Darrin.

    That may be true, I can't deny [that Andrea Yates' murders may have been occasional, yet now repentant, sin]. 

    Then you also cannot deny that you cannot identify "good trees" from "bad trees." If a tree has "Christian" written on it, you have no reliable means of identifying it as True Christian™ or as False Convert™. Any visible sin could be "occasional sin that Christians go through while still being human."

    I would need to see the fruit more, but I do not see good things from [Hanna Montana]. 

    Easy there, denialist. I was just insinuating that you wanted her hot, nubile body. I didn't expect you to know much, or care much, about her -- I don't even let my kids watch her or listen to her. It was just a joke.

    Fruit of the spirit and fruit of righteousness will be apparent for all to see. 

    So... if any "good fruit" is visible, your only available conclusion -- the only one which doesn't presume omniscience -- is that the "tree" is also "good."

    [It is] Not true [that the claim regarding ex-Christians is exposed as false, or that applying a test to determine True Christians™ is unreliable]. It is very easy to see in Atheists. One because they call themselves Atheists. [sic]

    Bzzt. Change "Atheists" in the above to "Roman Catholics," and apply the "reasoning" you used to delicately include Catholics as Possible Christians™ in a recent thread. You assume, for reasons only known to you, that the mysterious ways in which god works (or so you seem to insist) do not include the explicit denial of his existence. Was Peter an atheist when he denied Christ before the cock crowed?

    Maybe explicit statements of Atheism are merely "occasional sins," and maybe they won't put the True Christian™ off the True Path™...?

    You cannot tell if an individual is internally a True Christian™, whatever his external status, or not, so long as a single "good fruit" is occasionally visible, and really, even that standard is arbitrary. Truth be told, you cannot reliable determine whether anyone, including yourself, is a True Christian™ or not.

    To wit, every ex-Christian I know of thought of himself, at one time or another, as a True Christian™. That you could be a False Convert™ is every bit as possible, and since you currently consider yourself a True Christian™ only serves to illustrate the ambiguity.

    You lose, and I have witnesses.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan better to feign distraction because of my goofy posts than to dig your self deeper with Stan, he's grinding you, and I fear if this goes on too much longer he may eat your soul.

    I'm an ass, granted, but if you cannot see the woodchipping he's administering on your -oh so naive reasoning, I'd have a hard time trusting you to mow my lawn without taking a foot off, and ruining my tulips.

    Move on bro, move on. Maybe you could post some William Lane Craig statement, much like a ninja throws a smoke bomb, and then dissapear.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Stan,

    Bzzt. Change "Atheists" in the above to "Roman Catholics," and apply the "reasoning" you used to delicately include Catholics as Possible Christians™ in a recent thread. 

    Bzzt yourself. The criteria that you speak of is described in the Bible to be a Christian. I cannot say that all RCC are Christians but some certainly are in spite of there church doctrine. Some may well have repented and trusted in Jesus with there heart mind and soul and thus have been saved by God's grace.

    Now how many Atheists have repented and trust in Jesus with there heart mind and soul? Plus there mere title of Atheism denies Jesus so then you are then denied to the Father. (Matthew 10:33)

    You lose, with witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Move on bro, move on. Maybe you could post some William Lane Craig statement, much like a ninja throws a smoke bomb, and then dissapear. 

    Andrew that statement made the list...hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
  44. I cannot say that all RCC are Christians but some certainly are in spite of there church doctrine.  
    If Catholics aren't xians, what are they?

    They certainly think that they are xians, and think that they have a relationship with your "god", just as the other sects of your religion do. At least it isn't just former xians you people go after...in some cases it's xians of the wrong sect who only "think" that they're xian.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The criteria that you speak of is described in the Bible to be a Christian. I cannot say that all RCC are Christians but some certainly are in spite of there [sic] church doctrine. Some may well have repented and trusted in Jesus with there [sic] heart mind and soul and thus have been saved by God's grace. 

    What? Once? Like most professing atheists have done? You were saying?

    Now how many Atheists have repented and trust in Jesus with there [sic] heart mind and soul? Plus there [sic] mere title of Atheism denies Jesus so then you are then [sic] denied to the Father. 

    First thing:

    There: A pronoun generally used to denote location.

    They're: A contraction for "they are."

    Their: A third-person plural possessive pronoun.

    Memorize this list, and use it as needed.

    Now then...

    Virtually every atheist I know has at one point or another -- multiple times, in some cases -- repented, and trusted in Jesus with heart/soul/mind. Thus, as we agreed before, it is entirely possible that their sin is "occasional sin that Christians go through while still being human."

    Likewise, the title of atheist does not explicitly deny Christ, or god, or anybody else -- only "strong Atheism" does that. Rather, it merely identifies a person as not believing any particular god exists. The difference may be lost on you, but it is nonetheless there. Of course, this distinction is unnecessary for "strong atheists," who do indeed deny your god, and all others, explicitly -- you know, just like Peter did, thrice, before sunup. I guess they're destined for the same fate as his, yes?

    Give up.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  46. Stan,

    Thanks for the English lesson. Correction: Trust in Jesus with their heart mind and soul.

    Give up, on you? Never.

    Virtually every atheist I know has at one point or another -- multiple times, in some cases -- repented, and trusted in Jesus with heart/soul/mind. 

    But if I continue to do bad things unrepentantly does that mean my heart is still in the right place as a Christian? So maybe we can agree that Christianity is a lifestyle of repentance, and like an airplane, once the repentance stops then you drop.

    Just like Peter did, thrice, before sunup 

    The difference is the repentance.

    Luke 22:61-62

    Notice that Peter wept bitterly? That is called repentance. If you indeed get on your knees right now weeping and pleading for God's forgiveness I would be proud to call you a brother in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Stan:

         While I agree with much of your post, I must point out that an atheist (by normal definitions) is someone who believes that there are no gods. Don't be like Ray Comfort. You know full well that the "simply lacking belief" definition was concocted by people trying to make it difficult to talk about atheists as a group. It's dishonest. Now, I know that there is a lot of dishonesty coming from christianity. But don't match that.

    (From www.dictionary.com)
    a⋅the⋅ist   /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
    –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Origin:
    1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist


    Synonyms:
    Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

    Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
    Cite This Source |Link To atheist

    Explore the Visual Thesaurus »Related Words
    atheistic, atheistical
    More related words »
    a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
    n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan you're alright, you really are.
    You're one of the good guys. Ok I'll get out of your hair, you were a sport and handled my garbage like a champ. Carry on my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Good or bad, Dan certainly is a fruit...! :D

    ReplyDelete
  50. Update: If you think this is all just hype, look at what the FDA is currently doing to regulate our food supply.

    ReplyDelete
  51.      Don't you mean what Congress is currently doing? Unless, of course, you have evidence that evidence that officials from the FDA petitioned for such legislation. (Personally, I think they are quite content to sit on their great behinds and would rather that Congress not make more work for them.)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Pvb,

    I stand corrected, you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dan one more thing, have you ever heard of Alex Jones?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Andrew,

    Yea, I have heard of Alex Jones. His channel on youtube, TheAlexJonesChannel, is gone!? I like the fact that he has a big mouth and is not afraid to discuss things. I can relate. Plus he did predict 911 right? So he does have my ear at times. I think it was through his show I found the Heirloom Seeds guy. Insistently, he is a Zeitgeist movie fan so he lost some creditability points. I am more of a America: Freedom to Fascism fan myself. Alex's movie EndGame is very consistent with the Bible, so I am listening.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I just saw something I didn't see before. He is absolutely right, I like him more daily. I will listen to people speaking truth as Jones does.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Judge Napolitano had him on his show (I'm a Fox News addict), and that added a bit of credibilty, I agree, he's hard to pin down, I don't agree with his take on 911, so I'm always wary. But He's got good food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dan you've just got to accept the fact you've got intelligent, if otherwise idiots at times, allies in this fight that aren't Christians. We're not all long haired hippies. Hippies, did I use that reference? I meant um... I don't know, what the new hippie is, goths? emo's? I don't know. Hey just don't count out athiests, a lot of us will have your back bro. No kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Andrew,

    Same here. Just because you are wrong about God doesn't mean we don't care about your well being. When it all hits the fan I will be right there in the fight. I am, after all, a soldier of Christ's Army. You don't think we are going to lay down and let evil win do you?

    Its our government and I cannot believe we are letting these jokers use the constitution like toilet paper. Frustrating that people keep voting for these jokers. Hopefully people will realize that this congress is the most evil we have ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Our government is poisoning the water supply with mind-altering chemicals to make us all complacent for when they declare martial law.

    Drink Coca Cola from Mexico instead of tap water.

    Thanks Dan, I appreciated this post.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Kaitlyn, I missed you and your wit.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I hope I won't be homeless much longer, but you know, it's hard to get housing when you don't have any income. *shrug*

    Once I'm situated, have a desk, and a desktop computer, I'll visit a lot more often.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Quick, simple question for you, Dan:

    Is El Dani a True Christian™, or is he a False Convert™?

    I want you say, definitively, and before his "prophecy" has been fulfilled or been shown as false. Obviously, if you say he is a True Christian™, and his prophecy does not obtain, you will have to admit that you cannot actually tell who is, and who is not, a True Christian™, except based on outdated, past information.

    Will you accept this challenge, and get off the fence, or will you remain transfixed, as a tenuous observer, unwilling to choose a side?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  63. Stan,

    Is it easy to tell what fruit will a young tree bear?

    I would say at the moment I believe he is a Christian. If the prophecies do not come true and he realized that the devil was misleading him and then repents and trusts in Jesus he is a Christian. If he sits in denial and fades away from Christianity, like yourself, then he was never a Christian according to God's Word.

    Now back to you. If the prophecy he indeed is claiming comes true and the city is engulfed by flames in a few months, would you believe in Christ and repent?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Is it easy to tell what fruit will a young tree bear? 

    Remarkably so. If information regarding the seed is available, that's a dead giveaway.

    If not, various cues from the size, shape, color, etc., of the trunk, leaves, bark, etc., are also dead giveaways, though they require a little more in the way of arboreal knowledge -- but not too much.

    If one is somehow unable to gather clues from the visual, then the climate in which the tree is growing, coupled with the sorts of insects, birds, and animals which are found in its vicinity (if not actually in or on the tree) can help provide its identity, though, again, we are getting more complicated.

    Of course, if a single fruit is visible, regardless of its stage of development, the tree can be readily identified, but I suppose I'll assume that option is unavailable.

    What else? A simple shaving, a dropped leaf, a piece of bark -- any macroscopic sample of the tree is more than enough to provide positive identification...

    Why? Is there a tree in particular that you'd like identified? I'm no dendrologist, but I'd bet that a simple picture of a tree, given sufficient resolution, would be enough for even a non-gardener like myself to identify it. I'd even bet there's an iPhone app for it.

    Surely, though, a veritable forester such as yourself can identify a sapling, yes?

    I would say at the moment I believe he is a Christian. 

    Nice qualifiers. I'll take that as explicit, tacit admission that you cannot reliably identify True Christians™. Before I rest my case, though, I'll allow you to conclude your own.

    If ... then ... he is a Christian. If ... then he was never a Christian... 

    Wonderfully done, my good man. You have indeed explicitly admitted that you cannot reliably tell who is, and who is not, a True Christian™, since, even if the first scenario plays out, he may yet down the road fall away. Not only that, but considering that right now you admit that you do not know with certainty whether he is or is not a True Christian™, and that you must resort to a series of if-then statements to ex post facto tentatively identify him, you have necessarily illustrated precisely my point: you cannot reliably identify True Christians™, even amongst current confessing Christians who seem otherwise to display "good fruit." 

    Even your wife could be a False Convert™, and you could never know -- at the very least, not until it's too late to matter to one or both of you.

    It makes you wonder, doesn't it, just how much of the teaching you've absorbed has come from False Converts™... Especially, I should think, the stuff you pull off teh Intarwebz. Unless you re-check each and every source on a regular basis, to verify that the authors haven't renounced their faith, you have to admit that you may have fallen for False Teaching™, or Teaching from a False Convert™.

    At any rate, thank you for your admission. I expect that was difficult for you, and I shall not forget it. I hope, now that this matter is settled, that we can move beyond the notion of True Christian™ vs. False Convert™ -- since, even if there is such a dichotomy, one cannot be reliably distinguished from the other.

    You have lost.

    The absolute best you can do is identify past points at which a given person was a False Convert™ -- you can say nothing to a person's current status, and you can certainly say nothing to their future status.

    I rest my case.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  65. Before I go on reading in my haste, I omitted a word that should have been there.

    Is it easy to tell what condition (good or bad)  fruit will a young tree bear?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Son of a BITCH!

    I had typed up a [typically] long answer to your question, but as I adjusted my laptop "table," the mouse rolled off-screen, and its scroll wheel (which is virtually frictionless) was in motion, and it was clicked... I don't know what it was doing exactly, but a ton of "are you sure" dialog boxes opened, and Firefox crapped out...

    Ah well...

    I was answering the following:

    If the prophecy he indeed is claiming comes true and the city is engulfed by flames in a few months, would you believe in Christ and repent? 

    The short answer is no, I won't. I would necessarily admit that the likelihood that El Dani is not delusional, but is instead on to something, will have increased magnificently, but I would under no circumstances bow down and worship. That's just preposterous.

    I would, however, admit that some amount of my underlying hypotheses were incorrect, and seek to identify which, and how, before choosing a course of action. Rest assured, however, that I wouldn't exactly repent or change my lifestyle.

    It's easy for you, though, isn't it? If he fails, you say he wasn't a Christian, or that the prophecy wasn't of god. If he succeeds, you say he might be a Christian, and more publicly embrace him as a brother (as opposed to the stand-offish acceptance you currently offer to him).

    Don't get me wrong, even your bible tells you to skeptically accept prophets, so it's not like you're a jerk for not naïvely accepting him unquestioningly -- you're playing it right.

    This is why, though, I've pressed you on the True Christian™ vs. False Convert™ crap -- I don't want to be the only one with something at stake. Unfortunately, I don't think the wager is entirely fair. I have a lot to lose, and nothing to gain, but my odds of losing are extremely low. You have already lost, but the loss is meager, and regardless of the outcome you will have lost nothing further, nor really gained anything further.

    It's a fool's wager, it seems -- nobody wins, you definitely lose, and I possibly lose.

    It's also no different than contemplating our reaction to a crazed New York "prophet of doom" whose prediction unbelievably comes true. Would either of us view him any differently, really?

    For me, I'd behave precisely as I've described with respect to El Dani. As with El Dani, I'd admit the likelihood of this loon's being correct to have increased dramatically, but it would still be far closer to zero than to 0.1. As with El Dani, I'd probably view it more likely that the fool had unwittingly been in contact with some eccentric alien species than with god, but obviously the thing should be closely scrutinized.

    Even you should be skeptical if El Dani does turn out to be right -- aren't false prophets, and false signs, supposed to be commonplace in the end? Sure, a house divided cannot stand, but a) the house is supposed to fall anyway, and b) destroying sinners is the goal in the first place, right? It's all about to whom the glory goes, right? If El Dani's disaster takes place, the only way it achieves any value for your religion is if it somehow brings glory to god, right?

    Somehow, I don't see that as being the case, even if fire rains down from the sky to destroy the Bay Area. Instead, I suspect it far more likely that a natural explanation is found, that the most "credit" god would get is of being a bigoted prick and murdering a bunch of otherwise innocent bystanders, even if the queers deserved it. Do you really think that El Dani is the only righteous soul in that entire area? Do you expect every righteous soul to be spirited away to Israel, or some other safe place, when the catastrophe strikes?

    Again, somehow I doubt it.

    Your hesitance is noted, and understood, but it is also unfortunate. You must expect El Dani to be an unwitting fraud, and I can only imagine how hard you've prayed to have the truth or falsity of his prediction made known to you. It is telling that, whether you've received an answer or not, you're keeping it to yourself. Hedging your bets much?

    Whatever.

    You lost the True Christian™ relevancy, and El Dani may have predicted a catastrophe. We'll see what happens, eh?

    --
    Stan


    P.S. - Your adjustment to the condition of the fruit helps you none; if by "good," you mean "edible," or "tasty," then again, this identification is easily done. If you mean to ask whether, say, a particular bud on an apple tree will produce a cider-worthy apple, or a worm-filled loser, that depends on the presence of worms, pesticide, and care. This is irrelevant, though, remember, because a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Thus, all we need do is identify the type of tree, which is, as I showed, trivial.

    If you are prepared to say that El Dani has, to date, produced good fruit, then you must say he is a good tree. If you would deny him this, then you can either explicitly rebuke him as a bad tree, or you can refrain from identifying him as good or bad, pending the prediction's outcome. If it fails, you will be forced to say either that all of his fruits were bad, as he is a bad tree, or that Jesus was wrong.

    Have fun with that.

    You still lose that argument. Even if True Christians™ and False Converts™ exist as polar opposites, you cannot reliably identify one versus the other, and thus the notion is without value.

    ReplyDelete

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