Blasphemy, I'm Committing It

Rule 34

Since it's the Easter today, I have been seeing for weeks posts about the great sacrifice of Jesus. He died for our sins, you see. He suffered for all mankind. We fucking owe him! (I'm condensing a bit.)

So I'm going to commit the same blasphemy I did at the age of 6 and ask, "What sacrifice? He was god. That can hardly be considered sacrifice from god."*

To condense the entire Jesus story into a single paragraph:

God makes man. God makes a tree that contains all truth and puts it, unwatched, right out in the open, five feet away from man. Unsurprisingly to everyone but God, man eats the fruit of the tree. Man is now sinful, and now all his descendants are sinful. Yes, the descendants didn't do a thing, but Hell for them, too. God lets this go for a few thousand years and then decides to go to Earth as a human to fix this by being tortured and killed. How this fixes anything or why this was the best method of fixing things or why God waited a few thousand years to fix things is never explained.

Now get on your knees and pray!

None of that makes sense. But what really doesn't make sense is how God as a man briefly suffering and then dying- how surprised was Satan to see God in Hell for a few days?- is a sacrifice at all. Jesus suffered for what, a few days? God is eternal, mind you. God's been around, unchanged since ever. What's three days in comparison to ever? Nothing, nothing at all.

I've been sick for about a decade now. That's 3,650 days. I've been suffering for 3,647 days more than Jesus suffered, ignoring leap years. So why isn't everyone worshipping me? I mean, 3 days? Fuck off! Don't you dare fucking whinge to me about 3 days of suffering. Seriously, fuck you.

If someone told me that I could, today, be whipped, have a crown of thorns shoved into my skull and then be nailed to a cross to hang there for 12 hours or so and then I would never be in pain again, my body would be healthy and without any disease of any kind, I would kiss their feet for offering me such an opportunity. I would buy the cat o' nine tails myself, build my own cross and nail my own feet to it. (I can't believe denelian wouldn't do so as well.) Don't act like that's a sacrifice, people.

And, I'm human. I'm not God. God is omnipresent, which means, practically speaking, that only a tiny portion of God was being human, since not all of God could fit in a human body. So only the tiniest portion of God suffered anything at all. That makes anyone going on about Jesus' suffering like someone with a hangnail telling me their agony is so much worse than what I've been enduring for ten fucking years.

Yeah, you know what? You come back and tell me about the Jesus story when he's suffering a tenth as much as me. Then we'll talk.

Feel free to hand me a bag of Cadbury MiniEggs in the meantime, though.

*I probably did not use those exact words.

Burn my Bra?! Do Have Any Idea What They Cost?

First of all, bra burning never happened***. Yes, feminists did protest the Miss America pageant in Atlantic City. Yes, some of the women did remove their bras as part of the protest. However, no bras were harmed in the process.

Now that we have that out of the way, someone claims to have set back feminism 100 years. (h/t to [redacted]). No, it is not Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman.

No doubt the title is somewhat grandiose, but if you are one of those people prone to burning bras on your lunch hour, this post might cinch your girdle (sorry, had to).

Do you have any idea what my bras cost? I'm a 32C. That is a size that is impossible to find outside of Victoria's Secret. Even during the Semi Annual Sale, I'm dropping between $20 and $30 per bra. (A good portion of my tax return goes to this every year.) I would set my pants on fire, while I was wearing them, before I did anything to my bras. I'm also not entirely certain what a girdle is, I'm guessing I don't own one, and puns are the last refuge of the boring mind.

In an effort to educate myself about poetry, I have been going through Francis Mayes’ book The Discovery of Poetry. Fear not, this post will not discuss anapestic tetrameter, iambs, or dactylic pentameter. No indeed. My aim is to call attention to something Ms. Mayes says in her chapter on rhyme. As she discusses different types of rhyme, Mayes defines rising and falling rhymes, pointing out that,

“Formerly, these were dubbed ‘masculine’ (strong, stressed ending) and ‘feminine’ (soft, unstressed ending) but I simply forbid that terminology.” (Harcourt paperback, pg 165)

I am going to venture a guess that Ms. Mayes feels labeling something strong as masculine, and something soft as feminine is sexist. Now, the question is, do I, as a twenty-first century woman feel threatened by rhymes given masculine/feminine terminology?

I don't think anyone felt "threatened" by rhyming terminology, sweetheart*. However, every little bit of a culture sinks into your psyche before you're even aware of it. Every time somebody says, "You throw/scream/whatever like a girl!" every girl in hearing distance absorbs the intended message: it's bad to be like a girl. It's especially unforgiveable in supposed learned texts wherein we ought to be a little beyond "like a girl!"

Why? Because I am a girl. I want to be soft. And I do not feel that being soft in any way degrades me. Being feminine is only degrading if you are not female.

Being feminine is only degrading if you are not female? I'd parse that, but I'm afraid to. Let's try a little substitution, shall we, darling? Perhaps that will make things clearer. Being black is only degrading if you are not black. Um, no, that didn't help. Being Jewish is only degrading if you are not . . . that definitely did not help. At all.

Do you want to know what is degrading?

Do tell.

Being told I have to act and feel the same as a man.

Nobody ever said that. What we said is that women and men are equal and the thoughts of women and men are equally important and should be equally valued.

Being told I have to be promiscuous to be independent.

Who said that?

Being told I have to be independent.

You don't have to be independent. Depend all you want. However, women, being inherently equal to men, should have all the same opportunities for independence that men do.

Being told I have to dress like a discount harlot to be attractive to men.

Sweetheart, that's the fashion industry, which is not the same thing as feminism. At all.

Being told giving birth to a child I conceived is a choice if it gets in the way of the above statements.

It's a choice in any case, not that anyone makes it in order to "dress like a harlot". (And if anyone does choose to abort in order to keep wearing miniskirts, do you really think that person should be anywhere near a child?)

Being told that serving is belittling.

What she means is that she wants to be (or is) a stay at home mom, and that all women everywhere should be stay at home moms. Men can be husbands, fathers and doctors, lawyers, professors, astronauts and presidents, but women have only one career- staying at home. If that's what you want to do, and can afford to do, good for you. It's not for everyone, nor should it be required for everyone. Nor is it even possible for everyone.

Being told that being a wife, or a wife and mother is not adequate employment for one lifetime.

See above.

Being told that being under a man’s authority is slavery.

By definition.

Being told all men are degenerate idiots.

Being told marriage and Alcatraz are the same thing, only spelled differently.

You know, if you're going to try to "set feminism back", you might try finding out what feminists actually believe. The vast majority of feminists in the US are married- to men. If we really thought men were degenerate idiots and that marriage is like a tourist spot off the coast of California**, why would we marry men, or marry at all? In fact, feminists are fighting for the right of gays to marry each other, so we're fighting for more marriage. If we really thought that marriage was so bad, why would we want more of it?

For you next book, I'm going to suggest something on the topic of logic and reasoned thinking.

*I've gone jäger, and I'm never coming back!

**It's worth the trip, if you get the chance.

***I am told there was one symbolic bra burning, but it only happened once, and that was that. Probably because having your breasts jouncing around while you walk is not a comfortable experience, not even when they're small like mine.

Atheist Battle Strategies Against Christians

Made ya look!

(if you haven't read this post at Pharyngula, it might make more sense that way.)

It appears that the Christians have found us out, fellow atheists. They have discovered the Atheist Battle Strategies Against Christians. First they found The Atheist Agenda and now the Atheist Battle Strategies Against Christians. I don't know who keeps carelessly leaving SuperSekret Atheist Materials(tm) out where Christians can find them, but when I find that person, you will be forced to listen to Christian Rock until you beg for mercy. And then we'll make you watch Fireproof.

Anyway, since the mailing list is a little out of date, and the Christians have the Strategies anyway, I thought I'd go ahead and share them with you.

1. Boobies. We all know the merest glimpse of the female form is sinful, so full on cleavage is our best weapon. (Does not cause earthquakes.)

2. Logic. It's truly unfair how we insist upon logical responses to questions. No True Scotsman? A stroke of genius! Circular Reasoning is the atheist's cruise missile.

3. Science. This one took some doing, but setting up a system that requires reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable results is a winning strategy if I ever saw one.

4. The Internet. All that information, just a click away. Genius, guys, genius.

5. Liberal Christians. We really can't take credit for these. Contrary to rumor, the Slacktivist is not an atheist operative. He's just a really nice guy on a mission to make the world a better place.

So, feel free to guerrilla up that bitch with some logic and science on the internet, comrades.

Femisogiwhat?

As I've mentioned before, my brain has an interesting self defense mechanism: it simply refuses to process anything too stupid. My brain reads "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship" as "I blahblahblahblahblah Jesus!"

This can make interacting in real life a little dicey, since I am frequently called upon to react to something I didn't really perceive at all. Usually, I just nod and say something noncommittal. Sure, I totally agree with you that we can achieve the goal of freeing Middle Eastern women by ripping their burqas off them one by one. That makes total sense. Whatever you say.

So you'll have to forgive me for being completely unable to finish Fuzzy Logic's* made up word femisogisomething, because I just can't. I think it means that feminists hate women. Or something. I . . . yeah, sure, whatever you say.

As the right strives to reclaim feminism from the faux feminists on the left, we would do well to learn from their manifold mistakes. As Lori Ziganto reminds us, women "already are equal to men." Feminists on the right understand that our rights, and our equality, do not come from man or from the government. Leftist feminists or, to use Lori's apt term, femisogynists have long held and hard hammered the belief that women are somehow less than men, that we need to stress our similarities while hiding our differences, preferably under shapeless tops, baggy trousers, butch haircuts, and strident rhetoric. They've formulated their concept of "equality" and subsequently tried to force it on society, most significantly on women, cramming all women, especially those who do not fit their idea of what makes a powerful woman, into a one-size-fits-all pigeonhole.

Yes, women have always been inherently equal to men in exactly the same way blacks are inherently equal to whites, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not women are treated the same, are given the same opportunities, receive the same protections. If you think that women and men are treated the same and given the same opportunities in this country, in this day and age, I would like to introduce you to my friend, Reality.

So, where do rights come from? God? Have you read the Bible? No, that's right, only atheists read the Bible. Silly me.

Also, um, "shapeless tops, baggy trousers, butch haircuts, and strident rhetoric". I wish I could show you what I am wearing right now. No portion of my outfit is shapeless, baggy or trousers, nor is my haircut . . . butch? Oh, lezbos. They all have buzzcuts. Or something. My pushup bra would just like to say that you're a moran. As would my winged-out eyeliner, my shaved legs and my delightfully purple toenails**.

See, even if your logic is fuzzy, you should know what a Strawman is. You just set one on fire, now come on down and join the actual argument.

The leftist tendency to infringe on the rights and freedoms of American women in favor of embracing and adopting the restrictive practices of other cultures is an ominous one (as in the case of female genital mutilation being permissible in "revised" form as "nicking"). We have won the right to our own bodies and to reject these barbaric, misogynist practices, and that is not a right that I intend to cede. When you see everything through the prism of gender and multiculturalism, you will naturally get a skewed picture, even an incorrect one (we see this also in the leftist insistence on seeing everything through the prism of race).

I saw a lot written about "nicking". It was all written by feminists who were quite opposed to it. We aren't ceding anything. As for seeing everything through the prism of gender and multiculturalism, um, fail. Scroll up a little in your own post and you'll see yourself decrying baggy and trousers and butch, but you don't see gender? Really? As for Teh Evil Multiculturalism: newsflash- other cultures aren't just like ours! I know, it's totally amazing. And it really pisses off women from other cultures when you barge in and say, "Take off the burqa and then it will be cocoa and schnapps for everyone! Yay!"

Just as we in the Western world defend our right as women to be stay-at-home moms (embracing that bane of faux feminists: the image of a woman in the home) or to embrace our beauty and sexuality by not "masculinizing" our appearance (as is all but demanded by femisogynists), shouldn't we also defend Muslim women's right to be who they are . . . even if that includes wearing garb that we deem insulting to women, misogynistic, and oppressive? Shouldn't we avoid dictating women's choices, avoid cramming women into a pigeonhole, albeit a different one than the faux feminists favor? Encouragement to assimilate will do what no law or court order can: enable women to see and embrace the fact that they already are equal to men.

Women choosing to stay at home are not the bane of feminists. Women "in the home" are only the bane of feminists if they have no choice whether or not to stay in the home. Does the fire marshall know about all the strawmen you're setting ablaze? Again, my pencil skirt would like to have a word with your about masculanizing my appearance, feminsowhatever that I am.

Encouragement to assimilate will do what no law or court order can: enable women to see and embrace the fact that they already are equal to men. This follows a screed about a Muslim victim of sexual assault being required to remove her niqab while in court. How this relates to femisostfu, I have no idea. I guess "fuzzy logic" means "whatever I write will eventually descend into a brown people bashing session". Also, how will assimilating into a patriarchal society that still can't quite decide whether women can be trusted with their own bodies or not teach anyone that women are equal to men?

Logic: Ur doin it rong.

*My brain is also reading "Fuzzy Logic" as "Get Fuzzy", which I really enjoy. So I'm actually feeling pretty positive about the whole thing.

**The exact color of grape Nerds!

pic link

Not the Most Thoughtful of Gifts

I have a friend who received a spider monkey as a wedding present. (This was the 70s, if that explains anything for you.) The monkey liked to hang from the chandelier and drop down onto unsuspecting passersby in order to bite their ears. Not the most thoughtful of gifts.

Neither is the gift of life, if you follow evangelical thought. Ray Comfort is trying to sell people on the idea that life itself is a gift from god, but if you believe in hell, and just how easy and commonplace it is to end up spending eternity there, how can you regard life as a gift? Life is just a way to end up in hell. Don't read the bible the right way? Go directly to hell. Don't pray the right prayers? Go directly to hell. Were you raised in a culture that worships the wrong god? Go directly to hell. Just can't get over the contradictions and illogic of the bible? Too bad for you- go directly to hell.

Life is just a million ways to end up in hell. If god really loved us, he wouldn't let us live at all.

Proofs of God's Existence

god, logic, proof, atheism, atheist,
Some of you have probably seen this before, but Hundreds of Proofs of God's Existence is hilariously illogical, and they should all sound familiar if you've been at this for a while. A few selected proofs:

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM (the Ray Comfort argument)
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
(1) Fuck you.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE
(1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently?
(2) That's how God's infinite wisdom reveals itself.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

CALVIN'S ARGUMENT, a.k.a. TERTULLIAN'S ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

and Ray Comfort's personal favorite:

ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang.
(2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this.
(3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions.
(4) You win!
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Appeal to Authority and Affirming the Consequent

logic, fallacies, fallacies, logical, religion, jesus, christian, bible, resurrection, evangelism,

gotquestions?org's (the bible has answers!) Why should I believe in Christ's resurrection? contains a number of logical fallacies of the type commonly seen in apologetics, but not often discussed. We often see discussions of the Ad Hominem (attacking the speaker, not the idea) and the Appeal to Consequences (if you don't believe, you'll burn forever in hell!) and the Appeal to Popularity (most people believe, so should you!), but I thought I'd highlight a couple of underdiscussed fallacies.

Appeal to Authority:

As for His resurrection, there are several lines of evidence which make for a compelling case. The late jurisprudential prodigy and international statesman Sir Lionel Luckhoo (of The Guinness Book of World Records fame for his unprecedented 245 consecutive defense murder trial acquittals) epitomized Christian enthusiasm and confidence in the strength of the case for the resurrection when he wrote, “I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”

Neat, Sir Luckhoo is in the Guiness Book of World Records as the winningest defense attorney in history. Wtf does that have to do with proof of Jesus' supposed resurrection?



Nothing. Nothing at all.

Affirming the Consequent

To begin with, we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Many of these eyewitnesses willfully and resolutely endured prolonged torture and death rather than repudiate their testimony. This fact attests to their sincerity, ruling out deception on their part.

It doesn't really matter how sincere a believer is. Members of the Heaven's Gate Cult (hat tip to BeamStalk) were extremely sincere in their belief, so sincere they removed their testicles and eventually killed themselves. Can't really get more sincere than that, now can you?

My advice to atheists, and everyone else, is to study logic. These arguments can seem convincing if you don't have any kind of background in logic, and then you're left with no way to describe why an appeal to authority or affirming the consequent is wrong.

Efficacy and Reason

prop 8, heterosexual, homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, tradition, traditional, adoption, children, logic, reason
I can't say as I've ever heard "efficacy" used in quite this context before:

The whole argument about “fairness” misses the point on marriage. Marriage isn’t about fairness…it’s about efficacy. It’s not a gay/straight equation, it’s a marriage vs. everything else equation.

No other living arrangement works as well for the stability of children and families as a loving lifelong marriage between a man and a woman.

That is the true case, and that’s why gay “marriage” will never be equal.

Um . . . efficacy? And who will be deciding the efficacy of marriages? Clearly, simply being straight isn't all there could be to efficacy. I mean, the whole basis of her argument is marriage and children. What about my marriage? There's no children involved. There never will be. There can't be.

So, as efficacy is being determined by children, and I can't have children (and don't want to), my marriage will automatically be . . . what? Denied? Just like she's denying marriage to same sex couples?

I rather think so.

Methinks someone might enjoy wearing a brown shirt a little too much.

For the reason portion of this post, we revisit our old friend emissary, who seems to think he can reason his way out of a wet paper bag. (Hint: that part you see light coming through- it's the opening.)

The Best Place for Raising Children

Traditional marriage is being attacked from all angles. you're a bunch of bigoted morons is not "all angles". But one of the most damaging cause it's true! is the idea that "there is no best place to raise a child." i'm voting for sweden, but i'm a big fan of their tiny deer. Studies have supposedly been done showing that children raised by same-sex couples are not harmed in any way because of it. yes, they have been done. it's science! But if we try to counter with other studies debunked flawed studies comparing two parent households to one parent households. (as if two gay guys is only equal to one woman or something). or stories of the opposite stories are not science, it's claimed that statistics are misleading or studies can be biased. yeah. that's not a claim, that's fact. stop using debunked studies.

If we can't use statistics, studies, or personal stories, you can use statistics, just not debunked ones. what does that leave us with? bigotry. We can reason through it. who is this "we" you refer to? To do so, I used a tool called a "best-best comparison". wait, you're tool-using now? who knew? It basically acknowledges that any individual may be an incredible parent. maybe, ya know, unless their gay. So we compare the BEST married father and mother to the BEST same-sex couple to the BEST single parent. how do we do that? do we hold tryouts? what exact criteria are we using for "BEST"? did you interview everyone on the damn planet to determine this? probably not. This removes the "it depends on who the parents are" argument. why keep the good arguments when you can use bad ones instead? And what does it leave us with? a lot of bunk? Is there anything that makes the best married parents superior to any other form of parenting? did he just ask if best is better than better?

The answer is a resounding YES. Yes-es-es-es-es

While I encourage everyone to do this experiment, other than yourself? i see no evidence of an experiment here. this word, i do not think it means what you think it means. here are three main advantages that my "best-best comparison" shows. I have mentioned some of these in other contexts, but want to include them here.

First, it provides a parent to emulate. Girls learn how to be women from their mothers. Boys learn how to be men from their fathers. nothing like turning conformity to gender stereotypes into the highest form of parenting. asshat. This is especially important in the context of big changes, like puberty. One of the most valid comments I read was, "When a girl is starting her menstrual cycle, which of her dads will really understand?"

no, that's not a valid question, it's a stupid question. clearly, emissary has never menstruated. i'm menstruating right now, and i can tell you, there's not a lot to understand.

Second, it provides a parent to represent the other sex. In the vast majority of society, girls grow up to marry men, and men grow up to marry women. They see from their parents how to find someone they want to be with, and how to make the marriage work well. Many girls know how to find a marriage partner by looking for someone like their fathers. Boys look for someone like their mothers. There are so many problems caused in today's society by girls who never had fathers. They don't know how to find a good man, so many of them try to find just any man.

by this logic, hetero couples should not be allowed to raise gay children, because their gay children will have no representation of a loving gay marriage. i don't think he means that.

Third, it provides security and belonging. which a same sex couple couldn't provide . . . why? There is nothing quite like security to a child. To know that your parents are the same people who wanted you, conceived you, bore you, legally own you legally OWN you?, and will raise you to the best of their abilities . . . . It is almost impossible to describe the belonging that gives to a child. Adopted children have similar feelings because they have a father and mother who stand in the stead of their biological parents. so children adopted by hetero couples have this security, but children adopted by same sex couples do not? why? in fact, according to asshat here, the biological child of one half of a same sex couple should feel more security than the unrelated adopted child of a hetero couple. it's your logic, asshat, own it. But any other arrangement eventually produces a loss of that security. When children realize that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, children in same-sex homes or with single parents realize that something is missing. lulz! They are missing their other half -- the other parent they should have. you mean like the adopted child of a hetero couple who is missing BOTH halves? be very careful with the logic that is pointy on both ends, my dear.

So what does this mean? not what he thinks it does.

Does this mean that other kinds of parents cannot raise healthy, successful children? No; but it requires concerted effort to give them good role models they can interact with on a consistent basis. not their parents, because we can't trust gays to parent properly. The intact, married family, on the other hand, is self-sufficient (so to speak). that's why hetero couples never need daycare or baby sitters. As such, I believe it's important that society and government support the married family to give children the best chance. I do not believe that the government should support, promote, or pay for any procedure that will purposefully not give a child a mother and a father. is this a screed against IVF or something? i can't even follow the illogic at this point. hell, he proved half my points for me, which is no fun at all.

Why I Really Don't Believe

bible, sin, atheism, atheist, religion, jesus, god, freedom, christian, christianity, logic
First of all, Christian Anti-Defamation Council is the funniest concept evah! Hey, jackasses, you are more than 75% of the population of the US. That's called a majority. You're not being persecuted, get over it.



Second of all, if you want to know why people don't believe what you do, ask people that don't believe, not other people who believe. Articles like Defending Your Faith: Why Your Friend Really Doesn't Believe make me wonder if they are aimed more at shoring up the believer's faith than converting nonbelievers. After all, you don't really need to "defend your faith" just because you know someone who doesn't believe as you do. (Even if they do offer you delicious cookies!) The basic premise seems to be that belief is like smoking: even if you don't smoke, there's still that second-hand smoke problem. I can only describe that sort of reasoning as . . . odd.



Often we assume that the reason the people we love do not believe the gospel is that they simply need more proof for the veracity of its claims. Yes, proof would be nice. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. We often are prone to think that if the unbeliever could just hear the facts we've heard your "facts" or witness a miracle stop that. if i saw a bona fide miracle, like a guy that had been verifiably dead for days suddenly get up and walk away, I would totally believe. then certainly they would be willing to repent and believe on Christ.



Jesus knew that is not the case.

In fact, Jesus turns it completely around. He taught “If anyone wills to do His [God’s] will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. (John 7:17)

According to Christ, your friend’s willingness to obey God precedes their ability to know the truth about Christ and what he came to reveal. So the problem with unbelief is not the intellect, rather it is a matter of the will. I can't see the truth in the bible unless I believe. Do you suppose the author of this article is completely unaware of how asinine that statement is?



"Hey, I found the secret lair of tiny pink unicorns!"

"Really, where is it?"

"I can't show you unless you already believe the unicorns exist."

[*]

Unbelievers do not believe simply because they are not willing to humble themselves and submit to God’s will. That's it. I'm just not quite humble enough. Not nearly as humble as this asshat. I think we need to revisit the definition of "humble":

adjective, -bler, -blest, verb, -bled, -bling.
–adjective
1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.

2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home.

4. courteously respectful: In my humble opinion you are wrong.

5. low in height (I'm quite humble, apparently!), level, etc.; small in size: a humble member of the galaxy.

I may or may not be humble, but the writer of this article is not.

Clever and subtle arguments may be employed by your friends, but their intellect is not the real problem. when you're describing "intellect" as a "problem", you're the problem They are smoke screens which they hide behind. no, i'm just freakin' smart. that's it. sorry, can't help it.

That does not mean that we are not to offer reasonable answers for our Christian hope. please define "reasonable" in that context. We are explicitly commanded to do so in the Bible. (2 Peter 3:16&17)

really? here's that passage:

16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position

that is not an explicit command to offer reasonable explanations for Christian hope. do these people think i won't look up any referenced bible verses?

But conversion is not simply agreeing with good arguments and sound reasoning, it consists of a supernatural inward change evidenced by repentance and faith in Christ. I will agree with everything before the comma. Belief cannot be turned off and on, there's no switch to flip, no magic button to press. I bet that won't stop people from acting as if it were that simple. (Ray, are you paying attention?)

Why are unbelievers unwilling? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? It's that sort of question. It assumes something unproven- that unbelievers are unwilling- and goes from there.

There are a few factors mentioned in the Bible as to why unbelievers are unwilling to believe the gospel. perhaps the bible, the holy book of christians, isn't the best authority on unbelievers and their motivations. after all, nothing in there was written by an unbeliever. This is actually an appeal to authority, if you're collecting logical fallacies.

Most people are familiar with the verse that says, “The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." yeah, trust me, all atheists are familiar with that one. it gives christians full reign to call atheists anything they want. This famous verse comes from Psalm 14:1. But the verse does not stop there. The rest of it goes on to describe these fools who deny God. “They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is no one who does good.” That's right, Ghandi did nothing but "abominable works". Didn't do one good thing, ever.

Note the real problem. He is not a fool because he lacks information. The point is that even though he should know better, he is behaving like a fool. so he's not a fool, he is behaving like a fool? hey, guys, we got upgraded! The unbeliever is condemned as a fool because he is immoral. I.AM.NOT.IMMORAL.

Now your unbelieving friends are most likely not ax murderers or bank robbers, child molesters and rapists, maybe. shoplifters for sure. arsonists? possibly. but they are still guilty and condemned. I love how fair yhwh is. child molesters go to heaven, ghandi goes to hell. it's so very fair. i'm starting to think of religion as a really long experiment in Stockholm Syndrome. No man except Jesus Christ has ever perfectly fulfilled the law of God. So what is the standard that God’s law requires? stuff i can't do, apparently.

All of the commandments of God are summarized by Christ. He told us that we must love God and neighbor with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. We do that by perfectly obeying the Ten Commandments. funny, i'm pretty sure that's not what he said.

Matthew 22:34-40

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

nothing at all about the ten commandments. how odd.

But, all have broken God’s law, therefore we all are under its penalty of death.

By virtue of our fallen nature, all people want to be “free” to do their own thing as if God does not exist and did not create them. not my motivation, and no, i don't believe god created me. Man wants to be “as gods” (Gen 3:4), pretending to know good and evil apart from what God has revealed. i do not want to be a god. it sounds obnoxiously time consuming, for one thing. The fool wants to set his own rules and act as if there will be no judgment of his life by a Holy God when he dies. there won't be. relax.

Miracles?

Sometimes we believe that if God would just dramatically intervene or answer some unbeliever’s prayer that the person will then throw up their hands in surrender to God. This too is simply not the case. yeah, actually it is. if i prayed for a ham sandwich, and a ham sandwich suddenly appeared before me, you'd better believe I'd believe.

Jesus had to rebuke the Jews of his day because they should have believed on him, but did not. that says something a little different to me than it does to the writer of the article. you'll see why in a minute. Imagine the incredible things they saw happening in Christ’s ministry. The sick were healed, demons were cast out and the dead were raised. A few of the Jews did believe, but most did not. Even though they ought to have believed, no amount of miracles could overcome their willful, unbelieving hearts. this says to me that there were no miracles, or simply the rumors of miracles was not enough to sway everyone. think about it. someone comes up to you and says, "This Jesus guy totally healed a leper. No more leprosy, just like that!" (snaps finger). I bet you'd want some proof, wouldn't you? I would.

In fact, Jesus taught, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." (Luke 16:31) People do not need a miracle to convince them, even one as dramatic as Christ’s resurrection. If they are hard hearted and unwilling to submit to God they will just ignore or rationalize a miracle. Did I see the resurrection? Is there historical proof, other than the bible, of the resurrection? no.

So we can see one major reason why people are unwilling to believe is because they love their sin and “freedom” more than they love God. no, i don't believe in god. therefore, my love of god doesn't freakin' exist. and i don't love sin. jesus does not make you better than me. This is precisely what Jesus was getting at when he explained why the world rejected him. uh huh. so if i say that rejecting me as god makes you sinful and evil, does it? what if i get other people to write a really long book about it?

“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” John 3:19 blahblahblah bible quote.