Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Monday, 19 November 2007

Neil at 4 Simpsons has an entry that is a little out of the ordinary for him.  I thought it was interesting.  He recounts a statement by a fellow Christian that he could not be a police officer because he was a Christian.

Neil seems to be perplexed by this idea.  I find that remarkable, since Neil himself has expressed the idea that the intention of the founders was for America to be a "Christian" nation, and that secularists have usurped the rightful position of Christianity in our society.

Is it any wonder that a "Christian" would then decide that serving as a peace officer to bring stability and functionality on behalf of this secular government is a bad, anti-Christian action?  How does this perplex Neil when the argument is all over the place to be seen and read and understood?

As his fellow "Christians" work daily to destroy secular civil government, Neil has an interesting perspective; supporting the rhetoric and parroting it, while claiming to oppose the actions, and also insisting he doesn't understand the conclusions of people who want to destroy public education, public health, and public order.

Of course a certain type of Christian would conclude that maintaing order and viability in a secular state is anti-Christian.  Only the death of the secular state will result in the kind of world they want, where the church is the ultimate authority in civil life.

I'm constantly amazed as he quotes stories and espouses viewpoints from One News Now, a project headed and funded by supporters and disciples of R.J. Rushdoony.  Yet, he claims to not even know who these people are, and at the same time, claimes to oppose their goals, while he promotes their arguments and rhetoric.

I really really think he has to be smarter than that.

Monday, 19 November 2007 14:16:11 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [14] | #
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 09:20:46 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I've read the entire thread that follows the post. I am surprised, too, that Neil and his normal following doesn't follow the pacifist's logic. He, Aric the pacifist, is completely blowing them away in the debate and they refuse to see it.
Mark
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 11:21:52 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Mark,

I was also surprised by that, because I recall a post by Neil asserting that being "meek" does not mean being "weak"...that pretty much ran the same argument.

But Neil doesn't have martial arts experience, where you learn that you don't have to resort to violence to defend yourself (or others), and that, in fact, rleying on violence is a FAULIRE of self-defense.

There is more discipline and thoughtfulness required in the pacifist route...one I'm not quite up to yet, but see as a worthy ideal to reach for.

Then again, there IS the whole road block for many Christians...the idea of rightous wrath as the only solution to such things.

I like that Aric brings up calling attention to a crime as being a way to stop it. Witnesses invoke shame, and fear of punishment. You would think "Christians" would understand such tactics.

Of course, what can you expect from a group that constantly mocks Gandhi?

Teresa
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 11:47:02 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I'm also interested in the fact that Neil insists on Aric quoting chapter and verse from the Bible, despite many of his citiations from early leaders of the church.

Very interesting. Since Neil has frequently cited Luther and Calvin's decaying anti-semitic selves in support of his own views.

I really don't want to read a lot more, though, as the thirst for violence, both describing violence against innocent victims, and the relish with wich the violence of the necessary defense is advocated is a bit disturbing.

These people spend way too much time imagining the circumstances under which it would be permissable to unleash their rightous wrath upon another human.
Teresa
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 13:11:38 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
"If thou shalt not live by the law, thou shalt die by the law." Is my favorite line from the movie "The Ten Commandments." It makes me shake my head is disbelief. Wait, you - oh Lord - just told me that "thou shall not kill" and now you command me to watch as you kill all those idol worshipers in the valley? Huh? Wha...

Amazing. I swear (on the bible of course) that religion will bring the end of the world before nature or natural disasters can do it. The Texas sized meteor comes to mind. Oh - wait - that would be caused by God, right? God - that SOB won't be satisfied until there's no one left to pray to him.
Mark
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 13:48:55 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I see that his latest post is intoning about how secular philosophy can't provide a foundation for morality.

As someone who recieved an extensive Christian education...I have to say that their basis for morality is that Jesus was sacrificed to save us from our sins.

Call me crazy, but somehow, I don't think that a deal where you have to accept the benefits of a human sacrifice, or burn for eternity is a very good foundation for morality.

Givenr a choice, I'm going with enlightened self-interest as the more reliable of the two.
Teresa
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:16:35 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Yeah, I had to put my .02 in on that topic. Morality evolved into what it is out of a necessity for survival. The bible has nothing to do with it.
Mark
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:39:15 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
hee hee hee...

What do Neil Simpson and Hillary Clinton have in common? They tend to be the subjects that caqn bring us together. LOL!
Teresa
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:52:16 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
ROFL - love ya, too.

BTW - You should see what Bubba had to say... Oh brother. The comments being made by this crowd are barely understandable.
Mark
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 15:17:48 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I actually thought it was kind of brave of Neil to make the deliniation between "proof" that "a God" exsists, and "proof" that that God is the God of the Bible. I don't think he's really exploredc that dichotomy in his own faith walk.

Because many of the agruments used by the modern day creationist crowd are actually stolen directly from Deism; the belief that there IS a God, and that God's will is manafest in it's creation...not in any human religion.

Dangerous stuff. When they resort to "Christian" scientists like Francis Collins, for instance, they are encountering something that is more closely related to Deist Philosophy than actual Christianity.

They like to make a muddle of it to give Christianity some trappings of rationality and to put forward the soft, buttery edge of Christianity that they think will draw people in...but then turn around and insits on "Sound Doctrine" when the more socially acceptable Deisim leads to "liberal theology".

They don't know they can't have it both ways...or they do, and are being dishonest.

I think Neil knows this somewhere deep down, which is why he got so prickly and started deleting my posts on a thread on that subject.
Teresa
Wednesday, 21 November 2007 09:55:03 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Teresa, I thought you were fairly harsh with your original post. Your claim about destroying civil government, public education, public health, and public order seemed far-fetched.

OMG!!!

I've been have a "conversation" with Bubba and others on Neil's site (see the thread on "Poor arguments to make with atheists"). AHHHH! Alarm bells are going off in my head! I cannot believe some of the complete, total BS comming out of their heads.

I bow to your supreme knowledge on the subject. (heh - some of us have to figure it out for ourselves).
Mark
Wednesday, 21 November 2007 17:40:39 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Mark,

Thanks. I bought said knowledge with much physical and emotional suffering while trying to function within the confines of that religion.

Ultimatly, where they go when they start down that road is that any secular force is an imperfect facimile of Godly power. In the end, many simply decide that adding to the earthly power and influence of any secular force is participating in usurping God's power.

I was actually quite surprised to find out that Neil was thinking that his fellow "Christian" was a pacifist.

Neil hasn't really awakened to the full manifestation of his world-view yet. It will be interesting to see what he does when/if he realizes where it leads.

I just recently had a conversation with a friend who had been a born-again home-schooler-starve-the-secular-beast sort.

One day he began to really look at what it's been doing to the country. He recently told me he's an atheist now. We'll see where that goes.

You could have knocked me over with a feather.

It seems sort of sudden to me, as I hadn't had a chance to really talk to him in almost a year. He may change his mind again.

Just goes to show, anything can happen.
Teresa
Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:59:30 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Mark,

Wanna have a little fun with Neil? Assert that his statement that atheists are obviously capable of moral behavior is UNBIBLICAL. LOL!

And I quote:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - Psalms 14:1"

His position that atheists are capable of doing good is in direct contradiction to the scripture.

He should certainly reflect on this with humility and reform his view of this to make it correct with Sound Doctrine.

snicker.

Teresa
Wednesday, 21 November 2007 20:06:40 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
[clears throat]

Is this my cue to make a comment about logical thinkers?

;-)
Wednesday, 21 November 2007 20:47:45 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
NOOOOOOO!!!!!

:-)

Besides, Neil's position is perfectly logical and reasonable and Biblical if you just take into account that ______ verse from the New Testament invalidates the above verse...or that if you just use the *best* translation of that particular verse in another version of the Bible, it says something more convenient, or if you just read the convoluted scholorly work of some dark-ages scribe, you understand that the point of this verse was meant to be specifically aimed at a particular group of people who say "there is no God".

Or whatever. The loopholes go on and on.
Teresa
Comments are closed.
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: