About Me

Name: Dave Perkins
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Bob writes back, re: religious stuff

 RELIGIOUS POST WARNING--

Dear reader, if religious stuff bores you, move on.  If not, dig in, and maybe scroll down to some of the stuff that brought Bob and me to this apparent impasse.

Bob writes--

It looks as if you have restated your original and consistent argument, which is: we have free will, and we must make the right choice, or thereby face hell. In the timeline from birth to death, all who are born and who hear of the word of God must indeed follow His path or be damned.
I'll leave aside arguments from humanists who say that this is, ultimately, extortion (we're not going down that road after all) and focus on the -to me - unsolvable notion of the timeline.

Extortion?  The entire business of free choice is argued in God's own word on the basis that He does NOT want to "compel" our submission, rather to receive our love freely given, as His is given to us.  The aspect of compulsion ruins the whole thing for Him, and He says He won't do it.  If you call this extortion, you put God in the position of compelling us to submit, which clearly is not the Biblical position.  That means you are making it up.  I'd rather start with the words in that book and then just try to see if they're right or wrong, rather than inventing a new position, out of thin air, for God to take.


This timeline, whether you percieve it linearly (Newton) or Relativistically (Kant), along with all of the actions and inactions you will make in your finite life, are still known by God before you ever exist.

As briefly as I can restate my position, God is NOT BOUND by time.   He is not a Kantian or Newtonian.  He is in relationship to time as inventor to invention. 

If you are in His position, you will see that knowing the future does not mean the future cannot change... He simply sees the future AS IF IT WAS THE PRESENT.  The great inventor stands proudly next to His invention, tweaking it, watching it work, aware of all parts of it 'at the same moment'.  The future flickers like sunlight through a windy grove as the choices people make at other times of their lives alter it. 

If I choose to go and shoot heroin today, He might see "simultaneously" a future where I am broke, starving, alone and sick, and then dead.  If tomorrow I choose to stop shooting heroin, He could be seeing a future where I am recovered, loved, helped and restored.   He has now seen two different futures, each brought about by choices I made, neither of which were immutable simply because they were seen by Him. 

You have not yet let go of your notion that God is strapped down by time, as we are.  You still presume that knowing the future means the future cannot be altered.  But if God sees the future as PRESENT, because all things are present to Him, then He can simply see the future being altered by decisions we make.  If I stand at the curb trying to decide whether to cross the street, He sees the future in which I did not cross, UNTIL I choose to do it, at which point He sees a future influenced by that choice.

Think of those experimental movies with alternate endings.  God's the producer, and He knows how all the endings come out.  But He doesn't decide which ending is THE ending; the test audiences do that.  He knows how all the endings come out, but only one ending becomes "history". 

This is far too simplified, as I still refer to "time words" like present and simultaneously and until.  In His view those words have little meaning.  It is not possible for me to actually understand this scenario, but it is plausible to me and it is not contrary to Biblical assertions about God.  In fact God is referred to as "the great I AM", "who was and is and shall be".  These are, in my view, attempts to explain the unexplainable, the fact of God's perpetual "present" relationship to all of history.
       

I also thought you were going to go more into the quantum physics end of this, i.e. there is no "before" per se but merely our inability to perceive everything at once. But that to me doesn't help matters, as it still does not address the conundrum. In fact, it may make it worse. If there is no "before" as we understand it, then the soul was created damned.

Again: why create something you know is damned?

Quantum physics is science.  Science is about observing nature.  God is outside nature, outside time, relating to them as inventor to invention.  He is not observable by science.

(the following expands and continues along the Christian line, and may not be entirely relevant to the discussion of God's view of time.  However, I feel like going on with it, so I will.  You are warned.) 

You have consistently expressed what amounts to outrage at the idea that a soul could be sent to hell by God "unfairly".  But I'm here to tell you, there is NOBODY in hell who didn't prefer to be there.  The bottom line of the heaven/hell thing isn't so much that God arbitrarily judges where you go, but that you CHOOSE.

The great choice in life, the ONLY real choice for all eternity, is between accepting God on His terms (as if we were somehow in a position to dictate any terms of our own!) and rejecting Him.  The Bible tells us that lots and lots of people will not accept Him, not now, not ever, no way.  My mental picture of the hellbound person is a man standing on a hilltop, staring angrily into the very face of the Almighty, shaking his little fist and shouting "I don't need you!  I'm fine on my own!  Leave me alone!"  And God Almighty, having come to that hilltop to lovingly offer the man one last chance to throw away his foolish pride and come to where the eternal love is,  shakes His great head sadly and moves away, saying "thy will be done" to the person who has refused to say it to Him.

Bob, you agonize over people being sent to Hell who don't want to go. 

In my view of these things, that just doesn't happen.  God is not "unfair".  He is the author of all of our own instincts toward and understandings of justice.  Justice is His nature.  He cannot be unfair, as that is "sinful" and He doesn't do that.

The only other conclusion?  People go to hell because they'd rather do that than submit.

If you are harboring secret hopes of being able to bargain with God, to "semi-submit", to somehow maintain some level of pride in yourself while still keeping out of eternal suffering, I suggest this is a false choice.  God is what He is.  You can accept it or not.  But what God is demands submission, on His terms, with no part of you held back.  He is holy, pure, perfect, always right, always good, etc etc.  He created you so that you could have a loving relationship with Him, but not a bargain.  Not a deal.  Not a negotiation.  

God will not say to you, "I find these three parts of your character good, not in need of change.  Congratulations.  Submit the other stuff to Me, but keep these.  I can't improve them.  You're a good guy."

Harboring a desire to continue on with some aspect of yourself without submitting it to Him leads one way only, to the top of that hill where you scream "I don't need you, leave me alone!" 

And He will, if that's what you want.

/end religious rant
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm shocked, shocked...

... that Bill Frist has decided not to run for president.

After all, to be in a position of leadership, presiding over the Senate Republicans during the last few years, why I'd have thought that such honors would accrue, such glory would drape this man, by now he'd be ten feet tall and bulletproof.

No.  He led nowhere, accomplished little.  He showed a complete lack of stones during the confirmation hearings of judicial nominees, almost reflexively twitching toward backroom negotiation sessions with the Dems rather than sticking to principle and forcing a change of Senate rules to prohibit filibusters of such nominees.  After all, until Bush became president, no Senate confirmation process has ever included filibusters done by the minority solely for the purpose of preventing an up or down vote on the candidate.  One would think THAT was a de facto change of Senate rules, a change that demanded to be addressed by the majority party.

No.  Frist never gave me the idea that he was a leader with principle....  with words, perhaps, yes, but never with actions.  And it's easy to talk a good game.  Frist never played one.  He never got tough, never insisted on anything that made me feel good about him.  He seemed obsessed with demonstrating that he was a man of compassion, of understanding, a "can't we all just get along" guy who wanted everyone to be happy. 

Well I don't want everyone to be happyI want a government that tries to do right and tries hard not to do wrong

That always makes some people unhappy. 

Too bad for them. 

Frist is visibly a good man in his personal life, but as a leader he is just soft. 

In that, he shows himself to be one of the Republicans we need to ditch so that we can approach our next chance with more energy, more devotion to principle, less concern for what the papers write about us or the pundits say.  Liberals will never like us, and they will never treat us with kindness.  We shouldn't bother to try to win them over.  Bush found that out early in his first term, trying the "new tone" thing, inviting Teddy Kennedy over to the White House for movies and popcorn, letting him write the education bill.  Ask yourself if Kennedy has ever belched or hicccuped a compliment for Bush.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The way it is....

Democrats like to make noise about how terrible Bush is, how Iraq is all his fault, and how we just have to extricate ourselves for everything to be better over there.

Read the latest post, entitled "Rough Days" on the blog called Iraq the Model, and try to imagine what it's really like there for civilians and who's to blame for the situation.

If, like me, you find it entirely appropriate to blame Islamofascist thugs and murderers and gangsters, well and good. 

If you don't, I'm not sure that you and I can even have a real conversation about it.

What these men choose to do in this life has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Bush, or with America.  They are simply evil men pursuing evil plans of power and dominance, and history is full to the brim with stories of men like this.  Kill them, or live with what they do.  Those are our only choices.

And with Dems taking power, the first choice is looking less and less likely.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

darned global warming

Long ago (so long I've lost the link and can't remember my source) I read that some underemployed former Soviet meteorologists were amused at all the talk about global warming.  They believed that whatever warming had been occurring, it was mostly because of a cycle of increased solar flare activity over the past several years, and that because this cycle is now on the wane we may now expect things to begin COOLING.

These scientists lamented their lack of funds, saying that they'd bet a million bucks (if only they had it) that in ten years the world would be significantly cooler than it is now (2004).

Then 2005 came, and with it an active hurricane season and some large scale damage to New Orleans.  That was obviously due to Democrat mismanagement of budgets and poor maintenance of flood control systems, as well as the worst "disaster plan" any American city has ever failed to execute.  Remember the thousands of school buses, sitting in their yards under three feet of water?  The mandatory evacuation order given too late to do anyone any good?  The thousands who refused to plan for their own well-being and then when government rescuers arrived they cursed the men for taking so long?

Truly a botch of titanic proportions, with George W. Bush unfairly getting blamed for what Lousiana Democrats should have been on top of after more than fifty years in total control of that state.  

But after all the phony manufactured horror in the media (dozens dead in the Superdome, bodies stacked like cordwood, rapes, assaults, chaos, pandemonium in the forum!), it was a solid platform for enviro-weenies to bleat about global warming, to claim that Bush CAUSED the hurricane on purpose to kill black people, yada yada.

The punctuation for last year's storm season was, of course, "wait 'til NEXT year!  It's going to be even worse!  Aaaugh!"

Well, the results are in, and the enviro-weenies have stubbed their hairy green toes on this one.  Big time. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Happy Thanksgiving!

And never never NEVER forget what Rush Limbaugh repeats every year, the TRUE story of Thanksgiving-- read carefully Rush's transcribed words below, then ask yourself if you've EVER heard about this, in school or anywhere else.  I wish every single person in America was completely familiar with this:

The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.

"All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.

"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.
"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?
 HT Rush Limbaugh (where I am a premium member)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rangel wrangles draft-- again

Charlie Rangel, (d) NY, is again talking of submitting a bill resurrecting the draft.

He tried this during the '04 presidential campaign, and everyone figured he was just floating a balloon that would eventually be used against Bush (and with help from MTV and the MSM newsguys, it worked-- over half the young people in America were convinced that BUSH would resurrect the draft).

But clearly he's onto something, and he won't let it go.

Rangel believes, and has said, that if our military were composed of a randomly selected group of kids, rich or poor, black or white, etc., then the government would be much less likely to send them into battle than with a cadre of dedicated volunteers such as we now have.

In other words, he's trying to "war-proof" this nation by making it so reluctant to send troops into battle, we simply never will do so again.

He's also talking about "national service" including alternatives to war, like hospitals or border patrol or serving the poor, that sort of thing. 

But we already have organizations for young people that do those things.  And those things are NOT the job of the military.

If the Dems successfully "castrate" our armed forces, they'll be playing into the hands of whoever hopes to defeat us in the future.  And with Iran nuking up, North Korea already having done so, it is far from a given that we won't be needing to deploy the military in the future. 

THIS is what you get with Democrats in charge, folks.  They assume that war itself is the evil that must be avoided, and can't imagine anything worse than that. 

Unfortunately, I can.

UPDATE:  I'm reminded of just how much of a hypocrite Rangel is.  His bill to reinstate the draft two years ago was brought to the floor-- and Rangel himself voted against it.

Oh well..   at least he didn't vote FOR it before he voted against it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

in a nutshell...

Here is a succinct and compelling take on why Bush is so hated by the secular left and by Europe in particular.

It comes from David's Medienkritik, (my laptop is feeling a bit unstable right now, so I won't try to load another link on this post, but you can google it and find David), a blog written by a German who monitors and fisks German media and public opinion for mindless anti-Israel and anti-bias.

Needless to say, David is a very busy fellow.

This take on Euro disdain for Bush is very helpful and rings true for anyone who has spent time around Europeans.  Having lived for several years in Brussels myself, I know exactly what David is talking about. 

Just ask yourself whether love of God, country and family are better or worse than love of consensus. 

How you answer that question tells the observer everything he needs to know about you.  And it's hard to find anyone in Europe who answers it the way Bush obviously does.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let the record show...

Let the record show that conservatives are more generous than liberals, every day in every way.

We've always known this.  There's never been any doubt.  But personal charitable giving is one of the things liberals never talk about, partly because they're so bound up in GOVERNMENT giving (wealth redistribution) and perhaps partly because they're so arrogant and superior, they just have no interest in what happens to needy people. 

Unless, of course, it might mean the needy people would vote Democratic as a block.

But now a professor at Syracuse has documented it in a book.  He says he would never have believed the results of his research if he had known what it would say when he started.   But his book holds up to academic scrutiny, he says, and so the cards are on the table, come what may. 

My favorite part of the article linked above? 

. the professor "says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood. ..."

'Compassionate conservatism' is, as we all knew, a redundancy.

Now we can put in perspective the recent fingerwagging morally superior speechifying by Dems on the subject of the evil WalMart and the minimum wage and so forth.  Because now it's documented who actually cares about the little people-- and who just blows hot air about it.

HT Matt D at

http://www.drudgereport.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Minimum wage = maximum pain

During the next few years there will be lots of public conversations about the minimum wage, and I think two points need to be kept at high public awareness:

1)  the lowest paying jobs are by definition the least productive.  That is to say, the people doing them are doing, technically, very little in economic terms.  That's why the jobs pay so little.  They need to be done but they are not positions of productivity, not the kind of jobs which pay for themselves on a grand scale with much higher revenues for the company. 

That said, management will always put pressure on this line item to keep it as low as possible, because it's good business. 

So when government forces the cost per employee to go UP, the management counter-move will be to lower the NUMBER of employees to control that cost.

Ergo, an increase in the minimum wage will always cause a decrease in the number of jobs available at that wage. 

The other side, when management absorbs that increased cost on the grounds that it needs a certain number of employees to stay in business, will be an increase in the price of goods and services to cover the cost.   

So minimum wage costs jobs, and it also costs the consumer.  And since higher prices and fewer jobs are indicators of degrading economic conditions, a higher minimum wage is unambiguously bad for the economy.

2)  THIS IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT:  union scale wages for blue collar work are linked to minimum wage.

This means an increase in minimum wage has the effect of increasing wages for workers across the board in those unions, and that effect magnifies enormously the effect that I mentioned in part one; especially since unions also work hard to make sure people don't lose jobs. 

An increase in wages in blue collar unions, coupled with the increased difficulty of firing those workers due to union negotiations, causes price increases across a wide span of sectors in this economy.

And price increases, for example on American made cars from Detroit, cause American industry to become noncompetitive against foreign industry. 

So the next time you hear a Democrat on a morally superior rant about how we must take care of the least among us, give them dignity, make sure they are taking home "a living wage", don't forget that their REAL GOAL is to increase the pay of  tens of thousands of UNION MEMBERS who make $25 an hour to pull a lever on an assembly line, so that they will also pull the Democrat lever in the next election.  It's about voter motivation.

The Democrats couldn't care LESS about the burgerflipper making $6.75.  They're trying to get union votes, or to put it another way, they're trying to pay back union bosses for the favor of having already committed the block of votes they got in the last election.  And for the political contributions, from workers' union dues.

Which dues, by the way, are a percentage of the employee's pay, so an increase in the one begets an increase in the other.  This makes union bosses richer and more influential.

Aren't you really proud of our country and hopeful for it's future?

Me neither.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Associated Repress strikes again

Here's an interesting story in the Detroit Free Press, about an Ethiopian man with US citizenship, caught at an airport with tens of thousands in cash and a laptop full of info about cyanide and radioactive gunk.

The man has recently spent "months in Nigeria", and mysteriously so, as I read the DFP.

But when I read the same story as written a couple of hours later by the Associated Repress, two bits of info are missing.

The first, that this man was born in Ethiopia.  The second, that he spent months in Nigeria recently.

Both of which are of great use in helping me, the reader, infer that he is a terrorist, up to no good.  And neither of which, in the eyes of the AP, I should know.

Don't get me wrong, the laptop full of files about dangerous stuff was a good clue.  The AP did include that.  But the other two items pretty much seal the deal.  That's why, apparently, we weren't supposed to see them.

I expect the Associated Repress to conceal the word "muslim" or "middle eastern". 

But now they're concealing things that could even make us THINK about those things.

Associated Repress is getting perilously close to releasing news stories like this:

"A man was arrested yesterday".


HT LGF.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

where's the outrage, part 12,374

 Have you seen this blog/news site?

It's about a teenage Iranian girl who was on a picnic in a park with some other girls and their boyfriends.  Three men came around, and the boys ran for their cowardly lives.  The girls were then subjected to a rape attempt (always with the rape, these people!  Oy!), foiled when this brave teenager took out a knife and started stabbing.  She actually inflicted a mortal wound on one of the men.

And when he died, this girl was put on trial for murder.

As opposed to the trial for "adultery" she would have suffered if she had just let the rapes happen.

Read the website, learn about Iran and how it uses the death penalty, particularly how they do hanging.

Then ask yourselves why the Euros, who harrumphed indignantly when Dubya was elected ("why, he's pro death penalty, he himself signed execution warrants, he's got blood on his hands, we're morally superior and are always opposed to the death penalty", yada yada) have said nothing at all, NOTHING, about Iran or about Muslim countries in general.

In Islamic countries you can be executed for being gay.  Rosie, where art thou?  Elton John?  Anybody?

Wait.. Elton DID say he'd ban all religion... 

although I submit it would take a helluva lot of force to ban Islam--  and people like Elton John are the last people on earth who would endorse or muster that level of force, for any reason.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Call Al Sharpton with the good news....

... Trent Lott has re-ascended leadership, and is now the number two guy in the Republican side of the Senate.  Great.  Huzzah.

This is not a comment on the fairness of the Dems' demonization of Lott (who tried to give a compliment to an old man on his birthday).  I don't believe it was fair at all.  Lott was NOT speaking for public consumption and therefore did not believe he needed to think through what he said.  He was just trying to be kind to Strom Thurmond and to compliment his service to our country.  Just what you do for a 100 year old man, a man who can only look back....   and I credit Lott for his kindness.


That said, putting Lott back in leadership is not completely dissimilar to putting Mark Foley back in congress.  It's a known problem, one which was never satisfactorily dealt with by Lott or by Republicans, and will most CERTAINLY be used against him again.  Democrats don't hesitate to recycle material if it suits their needs. 

Good job, boys.  Nothing like new faces in leadership.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'll buy that magazine....

Laura Ingraham wrote a well received book a few years back called "Shut Up and Sing".  It manifested a strong feeling amongst Red State Americans that entertainers are obnoxious and boring, mediocre intellects who have nothing to offer a reasonably well-educated working person, and who ought to stop talking about politics before they permanently lose fifty percent of their record-buying or movie-going base.  Some, of course, have not shut up, and did lose half their base.  Ditsy Chicks come to mind.  And how many blockbuster movies these days are starring Alec Baldwin?

Now my favorite Aussie blogger Tim Blair has found the next step.  Now it's time for politicians to start writing reviews and making comments about the work of these entertainers.

Let's face it, politicoes are very good at the written riposte and the press conference slam-dunk.  It's how they win office and make a living. 

How it would please me to find something like this in my Houston Comical, say, written by Dick Cheney:

"Barbra Streisand is inexplicably back on tour, and visited Houston last night, singing to a less than sellout Compaq Center crowd.  And that doesn't count the seats that emptied DURING the performance.  Streisand's trademark voice should have been shelved about eight years ago, but like Sinatra she sallies forth on reputation these days.  The audience applauded when she talked politics, but only because she stopped singing. "
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anecdotal proof of the reverse morality of fundamentalist Islam

In the Houston Comical this morning (11/16/06) is an AP story from Pakistan-- 

"Pakistan's lower house of Parliament passed amendments to the country's rape laws Wednesday, ditching the death penalty for extramarital sex and revising a clause on making victims produce four witnesses to prove rape cases."

That's right, in Pakistani Sharia courts it was necessary for a woman, a rape victim, to produce four MALE witnesses, four men who actually SAW the rape occur, AND were willing to testify against a fellow man.

Let's be real here, people--  Of the very few rapes which are actually performed in the presence of four male witnesses, aren't pretty much all of them the kind that include the participation of those men?

And so, in reality, the number of Pakistan rape cases which successfully prosecute the rapist is, and has been, zero.   

So Pakistan's (and other Muslim nations') "rape laws" amount to no laws at all, except to guarantee the freedom of the rapists to continue raping.  Women are, as we've seen, livestock, to be treated however the men feel like treating them.  Such is fundamentalist Islam.

So now the misogynist Pakistan tries to haul itself, struggling and kicking, into modernity, facing the issue of women's rights.  Musharraf supports this. 

And accompanying the printed text of this Houston Chronicle story is a color photograph of an old man with a long gray beard and turban, captioned "Opposition leader Fazlur Rahman... says approval for rape law reforms will push the country to moral decay."

This is the heart of the matter.  

In fundamentalist Islam is a cultural and legal pit of despair for women, in which they are raped and raped again and then themselves stoned to death or sent to prison for "sex outside marriage" while the rapists walk away laughing.   But when this dreadful situation is ameliorated out of compassion for women and recognition of them as fully human beings, the men of Islam see this as a step TOWARD moral decay....?

There are plenty of examples of this "photo-negative" sort of view of morality by the Islamic fundies, where right is wrong and wrong is right and everyone can see it plainly. 

And yet the enlightened western secular leftist still shouts that Bush is Hitler, Bush is the greatest terrorist, Abu Ghraib is the most horrible torture chamber in the history of the world, Guantanamo Bay is EVEN WORSE than Abu Ghraib, Saddam was a beneficent ruler whose people loved him, blah blah yada yada.

A cabin in the remote backwoods isn't good enough.  I need a small island, like Raymond Burr had.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

another quick note

Below, Bob wrote concerning his dilemma of free will vs an all-knowing God who sees the future (how can we choose if He already knows what we've chosen?):

Bear in mind that this (dilemma) all goes away if we, for example, say that God is not all knowing or omniscient, or if we say that our perception of hell and the trip wires thereof are off somehow.

I have not mentioned this yet, as I was attempting to show Bob how God's relationship to time ALSO makes this apparently irresolvable problem go away, but--

Bob, your perception of Hell and the tripwires thereof is, in fact, off somehow.  Just not the way you think.  You seem to see it as a place where God discards us, slams the door on us, shoves us out of the picture and into the pain while we cry and scream and shout "I don't wanna go!"  It just isn't like that. 

Given that I believe the "unforgivable sin", as they say, is simply the choice to reject God on His terms (as all sin is in one way or another the rejection of God's will for us), one can see how a final rejection of God can be said to be 'unforgivable'.  God has made us with free will, and He will not force us to change our minds (that's why we don't see big fancy miracles these days).  And if our minds are set against Him, if we persist in clinging to self as the final decision-maker and arbiter of how we shall be, then God by his own pre-existing rules must shrug His shoulders and say goodbye to us.  He cannot reel us in if we actively refuse the bait.  The sin is unforgivable not because He will not do it, but because we will not accept His forgiveness.  The transaction of forgiveness and acceptance is left incomplete, by our own self-will.  His hand is out, and we won't take it.

Given this, and given my previous statement that a just God will not condemn anyone unaware of the nature of the choice, which is to say unaware of what will happen to them if they choose wrongly, then it can be logically and sensibly said that anyone who rejects God is CHOOSING TO GO TO HELL.  Sounds terrible...  unimaginable...  but it is indeed what happens.

And the Bible says the road there is wide, soft underfoot, gradually sloping down... not to say that it fakes people out and lures them there unjustly, only that it's usually the easy way, and that most people will take the easy way. 

Bottom line, we have free will.  We choose how our lives end up.  We choose how we spend eternity.  Most of us are, at present, putting off that choice.  I remember that I put it off for years after I became aware of it, offering much the same sort of reasoning you've offered here.  And how often do we read about, or even know of in our own families or in our circle, the classic "deathbed conversion", sometimes mocked because it is assumed to be insincere...  "Oh sure, NOW you believe in God, now that you're about to go and you don't know where you're going"...  but this is often the most sincere kind of conversion, exactly because of that pressure of time.  After putting off the choice for decades in favor of other choices (money, success, fun, sex, what have you), time's up now and the real choice MUST be made.  Mortality is God's way of getting you to concentrate.  :-)  

It was in part these arguments I've offered to you, along with some I haven't, that brought me around, intellectually speaking.  I haven't offered cut and dried scientific results or demonstrable and provable "facts", only the sort of possibilities of how things COULD be, possibilities that make sense and which solve dilemmas and which are contextual with Scripture...  I never expected to know the details that God knows....  but I also wasn't satisfied to know little or nothing and just shrug it off as a matter of faith...  God didn't make me that simple... :-)

I'm glad you're not annoyed with me.  I've found that this sort of discussion annoys almost everyone who asks me to do it.  I like to try, because it sharpens me up and makes me put things in perspective...  but it's socially risky to say the least.  I never did like that scripture about setting brother against brother and father against son...  but it sure happens a lot.

See you this afternoon Bob...  let the glorious process of recruiting another convert begin! 

NOTE to other readers-- I'm talking about giving Bob's better half her first golf lesson.. don't get all spiritual on me.  :-)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »