Clover Has Been Humbled

222
5340
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Thanks to ooorgle – EPautos’ new WP Jedi Master – the ur troll Clover has been humbled like that jabroni Hulk Hogan. He – or rather, his government paymasters – have been unable to infiltrate the new spam filters. Huzzah!

But, I’d like to know whether any useful people (that’s the rest of you) have been experiencing any difficulties? If you have – and if you can’t get on/post about them here – please send me an e-mail (Epeters952@yahoo.com) and I will entreat ooorgle to correct whatever the issue is.

What else?

I have a couple of radio dates lined up. Details to come. How are you all liking these – or not? Should I do more – or less? Any suggestions? Requests?

Along the same lines: I am going to get with ooorgle about that “Live With EP” feature I posted about months ago. What I have in mind is some kind of real-time Skype-type thing. I’d be “on” and “live” – ideally, video and audio – at a specific date/time (e.g., 4-5 p.m. Fridays) and would take phone calls, answer questions, rant, etc. How do you guys feel about such a thing?

Shifting gears a little: Any Harley guys out there? I am working on a neighbor’s circa ’78 which has an AMF-stamped carburetor and (I think) way too big main (and probably, pilot) jets. It has a 175 on the main and I can’t read the stamping on the pilot. Any of you have any experience – and suggestions about tuning this carb? I speak Japanese, mainly…

Lastly: Thanks to all of you (especially the mail-ins) who’ve supported the site recently. However, we’re still lagging some. I know it’s summer and there are probably better things to do than sit here grumbling about how they are mucking up the fun (and freedom) of cars and bikes and what we’re allowed to do with them… but someone’s got to do it, if there’s to be any chance of beating them back.  No one else seems interested in doing it – so that leaves me.

If you believe in it – if you dig it – please consider helping me to be able to keep on doing it.   

If you value independent media, please support independent media. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! And the Clovers carpet-chewing!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 or more monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)EPautoslogo

   

 

 

Share Button

222 COMMENTS

  1. There is no God. There is no America. There is just some land that has a lot of tall tales made up about it. There were no founders. Just some long dead guys who over the years had bigger and bigger fish stories told about them, until they became men of myth.

    They were given credit for things they had nothing to do with. Their achievements are a false testament. Not even the names of founders were real things. The names of the founders like all names are just a sequence of sounds one learns to systematically mimic and then excitedly repeat this sound patter around to everyone we meet.

    Look at me. I’m a Pakled. I know things. Things that make me proud. I have a sacred name and honor among my people. I live in a nation I am proud of. It is the nation of Mondor, and it is the greatest nation ever to have existed.

    Unfortunately, my nation is broken. Will you help me fix my nation, you are smart. You can help me. I will force you to help me and to give me the things I need. That is the way of the Pakled.

    My Pakled nation was founded by my Pakled God. He was Omnipotent. He made my nation and the whole world go. He was very smart and all-knowing.

    The Pakled ethics dictate that I kill whole cities if my Pakled God commands my Pakled leaders to tell me to do so. I am a seriously scary and dangerous slave-puppet.

    Pakleds have an obligation to bow to their nation’s altars and monuments. And to salute the flags and holy banners of the Pakled State which was founded by Nature’s Pakled God.

    I am free to be a slave puppet for my God and for the state he has ordained for my safekeeping and homesteading.

    Pastor-President-Chief H W Bush Sends American Slave Puppets to kill whole cities and a whole nation.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFrnQHaQWoA

    Pastor-President-Chief W Bush Sends More American Slave Puppets to kill the same whole cities and same whole nation again.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BwxI_l84dc

    • Hi Tor,

      While I readily concede that men like Jefferson, Washington, Adams and co. were just men – and flawed men, like all men – I nonetheless do admire and respect many of them. Jefferson, for example, was a brilliant polymath, a wonderful essayist. And while his humanism was flawed in a very serious way (slavery) he was nonetheless a humanist – a man of reason – and I admire that.

      There is good in almost everyone. Even the worst of us.

      It is a tough thing to accept, since many of us prefer simpler Manichean “good” or “evil” categories. But that’s not reality.

      For me, the question – when evaluating a man – is: On the whole, is he a good man? Does he try to do the right thing, correcting his actions when made aware he erred? Does he “set reason firmly in her seat”? Has he empathy, compassion?

      If so, he is ok.

      If not, he isn’t.

      • What you’ve just said seems reasonable. I’m not trying to question any of that necessarily. Surely your delusions are of a lesser caliber than David’s. But might they still be irrational over-exuberances about make-believe in much the same vein as are David’s?

        I think both of us, not that long ago were more than a bit like David.

        We deferred too readily to the religion and beliefs of our Fathers and Forefathers.

        I think we can each maintain our distinct subjective beliefs and traditions with ourselves. And only consider the social aspects of the matter.

        Is there any difference at all between David’s willingness to die for his God.

        And for our friends and family’s willingness to die for our country and way of life. A willingness both you and I ourselves once had in our younger days as well.

        Being well read and philosophical is all well and good. But what really makes the difference in our lives is innovation and mastering nature and harnessing the universe.

        The 200,000 year history of man has been mostly one of starvation and stunted growth and early death. Scrounging and scraping and just barely surviving.

        It is a small minority of men who have lifted us out of that. It has to do with who are our providers. Not who are the men of character or moral authority. That is all of secondary importance at most.

        What’s needed is not your judgement or estimation of who is what. But rather what can you do to rescue these few men of mind and genius who are just now emerging and now more than ever need someone to keep the grabbing idiotic grabbing savage hands off of them.

        This is just meant as the start of a conversation. I’m not one to lecture. Or to claim I offer any kind of finished thoughts and ideas. I’m just a beginner and an initiator.

        I think the question isn’t how do we correct David’s mistakes. But how do we see a reflection of our own similar mistakes in him, and therefore avoid a whole field of folly entirely.

        Let’s say David is 97% wrong and only 3% right.

        I would estimate I am 94% wrong and 6% right.

        And you are 89% wrong and 11% right.

        What does it matter how each of us stacks up compared to the other. We are all three grossly in error. As is everyone here in similar, yet unique ways.

        What I propose is each of is self-taught. And we each share the ways we’ve become self taught. And then find ways to integrate these incremental improvements on a broad basis, and each of us undergo a transformative process where we start a new school of philosophy, episteme, techne, and morality entirely.

        Maybe I’m crazy. But that’s what I’ve been thinking lately might be possible.

  2. Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.

    Why should I not hate mine enemies―if I “love” them does that not place me at their mercy?

    Blessed are the destroyers of false hope, for they are the true Messiahs – Cursed are the god-adorers, for they shall be shorn sheep!

    Do unto others as they do unto you; because if you “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and they, in turn, treat you badly, it goes against human nature to continue to treat them with consideration. You should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but if your courtesy is not returned, they should be treated with the wrath they deserve.

    I break away from all conventions that do not lead to my earthly success and happiness.

    There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy!

    Some religions actually go so far as to label anyone who belongs to a religious sect other than their own a heretic, even though the overall doctrines and impressions of godliness are nearly the same. For example: The Catholics believe the Protestants are doomed to Hell simply because they do not belong to the Catholic Church. In the same way, many splinter groups of the Christian faith, such as the evangelical or revivalist churches, believe the Catholics worship graven images.

    ― Anton LaVey

    • Many people think have is the opposite of love. Actually the opposite of love is indifference. Hate can often be transformed into love, because there is intense feeling. If you couldn’t (not, as Clover was wont to say, “Could”) care less, then you couldn’t care less. Period.

    • I should have elaborated.

      I try to treat every new person I meet as a potential friend – or at least, not as a potential enemy. I do my best to be civil and decent (until I lose patience, as with Clover).

      I do none harm; mean ill will toward none who have not personally earned it.

  3. So which is it going to be?

    A stadium filled with homosexuals and adulterers being set on fire for their sins?

    Or a stadium filled with joyful hymns professing love for your fellow man, despite all his flaws and foibles?

    You can’t have it both ways, even the sycophantic statists can grok that.

    • Tor,

      Is that the origin of the expression “flaming homosexual”? (Apologies for the poor pun) 😉

      Although questions regarding God and God’ existence is interesting, I do not think this is the best place to have a debate about it. It appears that many people have their thoughts on this topic and appear very steadfast in their beliefs.

      (Based on past experience, I do not think this site as the best place for deep discussions on the topic. — Perhaps a separate topic might be a better for this type of discussion)

      • Mithrandir on
        May 29, 2011 at 12:34 am said:

        “You sound well spoken. I wish I could remember all of the details about Christianity. I would need to read more on the writings of the church fathers and other church documents, including the Bible.”

        You gave this response to:

        StanTheMan on
        May 28, 2011 at 6:54 pm

        …”There are extremely well thought out and argued reasons for the existence of God and his Church. These men and many others were towering intellects who in no way could be accused of “wishful thinking”, “sloppy thinking”, “ignorance”, having “succumbed to social pressure” (to what pressure? To die in the colosseum?), or “early pressure”.

        You are, of course, free to reject what these men (as just a small sample) say but please don’t reject what they have to say until you have correctly understood what it is they’re actually saying. Don’t set up a straw man or a caricature of religious thought to knock down.

        I stand on my original post. I think you[Eric] are an excellent automotive journalist, but I don’t think you are a very good theologian.”

        StanTheMan

        The Jesus Hoover…
        by eric • May 23, 2011 • 58 Comments
        https://ericpetersautos.com/2011/05/23/the-jesus-hoover/

        – I’m not seeking a debate with religionists. I’ve already made the point I wanted to make:

        The “comply or die” mentality of coercive religionists has no more place on this blog, than any other diseased notions of altruism or statism.

        You religionists can try to deflect the conversation towards topic compliance issues, or let Eric treat your debilitating mental illnesses. It’s your choice.

        • Tor,

          Those appear to be my words. 😉 I forgot all about that thread. I have done more reading since then, but there is still more to read. (I’ll probably never read enough so I’ll just have to do the best I can)

          Sometimes one’s actions can speak more eloquently than one’s words.

          In the parable of the good Samaritan, the person most considered a neighbor was the one who showed compassion (or mercy) to his fellow man.

          Some people may speak well, but when it counts their actions fail to live up to their good words.

          Politicians (or other people) may speak of doing good works, but their actions often prove otherwise.

          Another parable from Mark 21:28-32. One son did his father’s will, though he said (at first) he would not. The other said he would do his father’s will yet did not.

          Actions often speak more than words alone.

      • Belief is irrelevant in a logical argument. Observable, verifiable facts are relevant.

        Problem seems to be that certain people seem to think their beliefs are facts simply ‘because god’. It’s insulting, ignorant and condescendingly self-righteous.

        As Eric has pointed out, how many believers would accept an argument based on ‘because Ra’ or ‘because Flying Spaghetti Monster’ or ‘ because Zeus’?

          • Not observable?

            Like theft? Assault?

            You feel the need of a Sky Daddy (a Sky Stalin) to issue injunctions and equate obedience with this purported being’s injunctions (which are in fact other mens’ injunctions) no matter how absurd or mean-spirited.

            I, on the other hand, base moral injunctions on the standard of harm caused. No Sky Daddy (much less Sky Stalin) needed and always subject to the Occam’s Razor of…. why?

            • And their you have the basis of human society. Fear and obedience with violence being behind both.

              It seems human society is about emotional manipulation and conditioning the young so they can be manipulated.

              As the greater topic of the thread branch, consider that we are living in a simulation, a game of sorts. The players are left to their own devices to be good to each other or bad to each to other. To be trolls, griefers, or what have you. Every player has their own idea of what winning is and how they will go about achieving it.

                  • We prefer Unschooling! Where the student decides the curriculum, when to study and how to study. My job is to hook that shit up! and persuade..

                    If you doubt this can be, it tells much about the confidence in yourself. Can any of us teach someone how to read, voluntarily, without a degree? Yes, all of us can if we want to.

                    http://youtu.be/BlzDTcPoAqE

                    • oooorgle, Tor, this just in:

                      TEACHER ARRESTED at JFK

                      A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International Airport this morning as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a rule, a protractor, a compass, a slide-rule and a calculator. At a press conference just before noon today, Attorney General Eric Holder said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement. Although he did not identify the man, he confirmed the man has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

                      “Al-Gebra is a problem for us” said the Attorney General. They derive solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values. They use secret code names like “X” and “Y” and refer to themselves as “unknowns”. We have determined that they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philosopher Isosceles used to say, “There are 3 side to every triangle.” The Attorney General went on to say “Teaching our children sentient thought processes and equipping them to solve problems is dangerous and puts our government at risk.”

            • No, “natural law” in the way unbelievers define it cannot tell us theft is wrong. Animals steal from each other all the time. I realize that most people think theft is wrong, but there is no objective basis for this at all unless there is a God. Otherwise, if you can and it will benefit you, what real reason do you have not to?

              • David,

                I’ve explained this before; you’re being disingenuous.

                Theft is wrong in the practical/everyday sense that it is what you would object to if done to you and thus is wrong for you to do to others.

                Appeals to a Sky Daddy are not necessary. Just as it is not necessary to believe in god to find “meaning” in this life.

                • There’s no reason to follow the golden rule if you are powerful enough to exploit others though. Not in a godless world, that is.

                  Eric, you’ve “explained this before” but you don’t want to deal with the epistemological elephant in the room. You want to presuppose the NAP and start ethical discourse from there. But you don’t wnat to admit that this is a fundamentally religious belief. You cannot even prove it by observation, let alone prove the validity of the senses used to come to the conclusion.

                  The reason you think theft is wrong is because the Law of God is written on your heart. The reason you don’t agree with God on other moral issues is because you are suppressing the truth.

                  • “There’s no reason to follow the golden rule if you are powerful enough to exploit others though.”

                    Nonsense. I, for example, could easily exploit most women, kids (and all my animals) as I am “powerful enough to do so.”

                    And yet, I (like most men) do not.

                    I don’t refrain because I “fear the lord,” either.

                    I don’t “presuppose” the NAP. I merely put it forward as the best basis for human interaction. Example: If I keep my word and other people know I can be trusted, then they trust me – and life is easier. More pleasant.

                    You, on the other hand, presuppose an entity outside nature who issues arbitrary commands transmitted (somehow) through human agency that other humans are bound to obey without question. Even when these commands seem bizarre, pointless or vicious. All that matters is that the “lord” said so.

                    But of course, the “lord” doesn’t say so.

                    Men do.

                    You believe these men are merely human conduits for the “word” of the “lord.”

                    But there is no proof of this, just your belief.

                    And it is a belief no more valid than the similar beliefs of other religious believers, present and past.

                    You are no different than the Roman who believed in his pantheon, the Egyptian who worshipped Ra – or the Muslim who prostrates himself before the Koran and the imams.

          • Actually, you have proven you can’t argue anything. You merely ostentatiously proclaim. Argumentation is beyond your abilities.

            • You know the one thing that makes me fairly certain that God does not exisist? That a supreme omnipresent, omnipotent being would allow someone so poorly equipped as David (and other cognitively challenged) to speak on his behalf. I mean, being all powerful, you think he could come up with some better spokesman.

              • Well Me2, you seem to be reduced to ad hominem attacks, so what makes you any better a spokesman for your worldview?
                I am done with this discussion.
                I know I can’t prove anything to you. And can’t imagine that you will change my mind. I just try to present my point of view in case someone willing to consider it happens to see it. But as my father often said, “When someone’s mind is made up, it’s hard to confuse them with facts.” And that cuts both ways.

                • Sure PTB, it is an insult to those who identify themselves as being the target of the comment. I assume you are doing so?

                  Exactly what ‘facts’ have you presented? Not your beliefs or scripture, but actually facts that can be proven to be true?

                • BTW PTB, my mind is NOT made up. I simply have not seen anything presented that makes a reasonable, logical, convincing argument for the existence of god.

                  Believe as you will, claim as you will, but if you assert based on nothing more than an unproved initial assumption, expect to be challenged and mocked.

                • Hi Phillip,

                  I’d really like this conversation to remain friendly and civil. Speaking just for me, I have no issue with religious belief per se (and am myself open to any discussion, including purely speculative). What I think gets some people’s backs up is when a religious person insists they know – when they can’t provide facts to support such claims – and (typically) seems to ooze either condescension or contempt for those who disagree, question or ask for proof before they’ll agree.

                  That’s all.

                  I am not an atheist – because I freely admit that I do not know. I refuse to exclude the possibility of anything until there is proof that it is not possible. Maybe there is a god – a creative, life-authoring intelligence of some kind. It is possible, certainly.

                  Also, I marvel at creation. Whether it is the result of random natural processes or otherwise.

                  But I am also a humanist. I am very leery of religious doctrines that condemn what seem to me to be vices at most (and we all have vices) and which use the window dressing of not just “god” but a very specific god (differing from religion to religion) to justify cruelty and oppression that I simply can’t abide.

                  Do I wonder WTF? when I see Caitlin Jenner? Of course. Do I want a dick up my ass? No. But neither harms me when others so do – so why would I wish harm on those who do wish it?

                  And so on.

                  Jesus said (IIRC) love one another. If that were the sum of the doctrine, I’d be down. I am down. No bribery about rewards in the hereafter needed. Nor belief in the divinity of Jesus, either.

                  Bill & Ted were not god. But they said basically the same thing: Be excellent to each other.

                  Who needs more?

                  • Eric – ‘What I think gets some people’s backs up is when a religious person insists they know – when they can’t provide facts to support such claims – and (typically) seems to ooze either condescension or contempt for those who disagree, question or ask for proof before they’ll agree.’

                    Exactly.

                    And when you spend the time to explain the inconsistencies only to be dismissed with a ‘because god’, I find that to be exceedingly insulting.

                    • Maybe I don’t know by your definition. But I can rightfully say ‘I am convinced.’
                      If God really is God, then human rules of logic do not necessarily apply. If He is not, then it’s my loss and no skin off your nose. So get off your high ‘insulted’ horse, because you don’t ‘know’ any more than I do.
                      You can say “That makes no sense to me.” OK, but you have no more right to claiming absolute knowledge than anyone else.

                    • Well PTB, maybe you would like to point out where I made any claim to posessing ‘absolute knowledge’. That seems to be David’s m.o. not mine.

                      Your stawman fails.

                      As for ‘high horse’, WTF? I simply require proof that God exists that is not circular reasoning. If you can’t provide such, fine. I also am just expressing my thoughts, something you seem to think you have a right to do but apparently if I do it, it is unacceptable to you.

                    • “And when you spend the time to explain the inconsistencies” – but to those who believe, like David and I (we do not believe everything the same, but we have a lot in common) they are not inconsistencies. That’s what I mean when I say ‘absolute knowledge.’

                    • Facepalm.

                      PTB, at least quote the whole sentence. It is the ‘because god’ bit that I find offensive, seeing as you know damned well that it is meaningless to agnostics until you can actually prove there is a God.

                      If you are going to use anything ‘God said’ or ‘God did’ as an argument, the onus is on you to first prove there is a God. Otherwise, you would obviously have to accept ‘Ra said’ or ‘Thor said’ as legitimate rebuttals too.

                      Inconsistencies are just that, inconsistent. Whether you feel comfortable glossing over them is meaningless.

                  • Something that a lot of people forget is that “love your neighbor as yourself” is in the book of Leviticus as well. Right next to the laws advocating death for homosexuality and blasphemy. These things are not mutually exclusive in a Biblical worldview.

                    • Hi David,

                      The question is not “is it written,” but – is it right? Is it decent?

                      Killing people because they “blaspheme” – or are gay?

                      That’s pretty fucked up.

                      Because it’s not “god” commanding (sorry). It’s people who claim to be god’s “helpers” (or rather, his enforcers).

                      Don’t quote scripture or refer me to some book. I could with just as much validity toss that right back in your lap – using the Satantic Bible to justify my bloodlust.

                      And yes, David – it is exactly the same thing.

                      That you believe otherwise notwithstanding.

                    • Eric – ‘Don’t quote scripture or refer me to some book.’

                      LOL.

                      And here comes ‘because god’, in 3,2,1……..

                    • You say that it is only men, and not God, who wrote down the rules in the Bible.

                      But that’s really the difference.

                      Perhaps it would be repulsive for governments to execute homosexuals and blasphemers if such was based on the words of mere men. Indeed, killing people for blaspheming a God that doesn’t exist would be a bit odd to say the least. Even still, you wouldn’t really have an objective reason to say that its repulsive, your opinion is as good as mine at that point.

                      On the other hand, if these actually are the commands of the God of the Universe, who is the standard for morality, that changes quite a lot.

                    • If they are indeed the commands of “the good of the universe.” But there is no proof of this – just your belief and assertion. The existence of Ra rests on just as sound a foundation.

                    • Called that one correctly I think.

                      Eric – “The existence of Ra rests on just as sound a foundation.”

                      Well, since Ra was the Sun God and all life (possible exception for extremophiles) requires the Sun to exist, there is probably a better foundation for Ra.

                    • @Eric- So would you concede that IF God exists and IF God commands that practicing homosexuals should be executed, that that changes things?

                    • I don’t concede anything absent proof I’m wrong, David.

                      You’re the one asserting this vengeful sky tyrant is real – the burden is on you to prove it.

                    • Clearly I am a blasphemer to David.

                      God (according to David) demands all blasphemers be put to death.

                      So, without equivocation, would you kill me David?

      • Hi Mith,

        I actually enjoy discussing various theories. We all have opinions – and it’s interesting to compare notes, so to speak.

        What annoys me is when someone like David (a 19-year-old kid) unctuously insists he knows (and of course, we don’t) and then proceeds to lecture and make obnoxious and silly claims he can’t back up with facts (just references to “scripture” and “belief”) asserting them with insolent/condemnatory/judgmental certainty.

        It’s clear evidence of a diseased mind.

        Because it’s a mind no longer capable of understanding it has become diseased. Like a rabid coon spitting and drooling as it waddles across the lawn.

        It feels and knows, too.

        The natural world – existence itself- is cause for amazement and I am often awestruck. I marvel and I wonder. I am also acutely aware of my own perceptual and intellectual limitations; that at best I see through a glass, darkly.

        We all do.

        None of us (who are sane) “knows” anything when it comes to these questions. We may intuit and feel and have hunches. But it’s a species of madness – arrogance made invincible by refusal to entertain anything less than absolute certainty based on belief – to claim “personal knowledge” of god, let alone what this entity expects us to do (and not do).

        How can any person still in possession of his senses accept without question the assertion that a book written by men contains the absolute “word” of god? When every religion also has a similar book – and makes the same claims about their book? When the book is subject to endless parsing… open to “interpretation” by… yup… men. Who demand they must be obeyed.

        “God” isn’t doing a got-damned thing that I can see. But men sure are. In “his” name.

        How is Beowulf or The Canterbury Tales any more (or less) “holy” than the Bible or the Koran? Because the latter are claimed to be by some people? Because they believe them to be? What if one holds a different belief? Whose belief is right?

        No one’s is. Or rather, can be proved such. Which is exactly the got-damned point that David and his fellow fanatics seem unable to grok much less accept. Belief as such is beyond rational discussion. The sane person concedes this – and views with forbearance the differing beliefs held by others, acknowledging that they are no more or less valid than his own beliefs. A person like David, on the other hand… cue the bonfires, the book burnings, the stonings, beheadings (and gunning down in the streets) of “blasphemers” and “heretics.” David does not see it, but he is the American cousin of the nutjobs in the Middle East. He does not uulate, but the mentality, the outlook, is the same. He has already admitted (in principle) that he would murder someone if his “lord” told him to do it… and would feel righteous, having done so.

        An interesting point made by Sam Harris is that even the most dedicated theist is already an atheist. Well, a partial atheist. David, for example, does not believe in Allah, or Vishnu, or Ra, or Zeus, or Zoroaster… these gods are not real, silly, based on lunatic assertions and flights of fancy.

        Yet, he still believes in his god.

        On what standard?

        His belief!

    • I think you give sycophantic statists too much credit.

      Plenty would sing joyful hymns professing love for their fellow man while lighting the pyre under him.

      Remember, burning a witch was considered an act of kindness and mercy back in the day as it was releasing the person from demonic possession.

      • The ruthless decision of Stannis Baratheon to burn his daughter Shireen to death, as a sacrifice to the Lord of Light. Shireen is marched through the snow toward the stake, where Melisandre waits. Shireen demands to see her father, but Melisandre just says it will all be over soon. Shireen screams for Stannis to stop them as they tie her to the stake. Stannis stares silently as Selyse whispers in his ear, and Melisandre begins her chant. Selyse, at the last moment, tries to get Stannis to stop them, but Stannis says there’s no other way. Selyse rushes in herself, but is subdued by guards. Shireen burns screaming as Melisandre watches with a smile.

        Game of Thrones Season 5 Episode 9 (S05E09) “The Dance of Dragons”
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rEWHmK2X0A

        The Ramban’s Letter. Written to his elder son, Nachman, with the instruction to read it weekly.

        Hear, my son, the instruction of your father and don’t forsake the teaching of your mother. Get into the habit of always speaking calmly to everyone…
        http://www.pirchei.com/specials/ramban/ramban.htm

  4. If this were a fourm, this ridiculousness would have to move to its own thread… but, back to the original topic.

    I just had a comment redirect me to the homepage instead of posting the comment. It didn’t seem to actually fetch the homepage but just bLaM! homepage! when hitting reply. Second time I have experienced this. The fist time I was thinking perhaps I’d hit cancel and not noticed… anyone else.

    • Well Borat speaks Hebrew also. Audiences in Israel seem to find it hilarious.
      According to the rabbis, Judaism is determined by matrilineal descent, but in the Bible it is patrilineal. Perhaps because patrilineal descent must be taken on faith.

      • Who is a Jew?
        Although the Hebrew Bible defines Jewish identity in patrilineal terms, the Mishnah states that the offspring of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is recognized as a Jew, while the offspring of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father is considered a non-Jew. This Talmudic position became normative in Jewish law.

        In March 1983, the Reform movement broke with the Orthodox and Conservative Jewish sects – and with Jewish law – and declared that a child born of one Jewish parent, whether it is the mother or the father, is under the presumption of being Jewish.

        This patrilineal descent resolution went on to state that a person’s Jewishness is not, however, automatic, but must be activated by “appropriate and timely” Jewish acts. It is not enough to simply be born to a Jewish parent. The Reform movement also notes that in the Bible the line always followed the father, including the cases of Joseph and Moses, who married into non-Israelite priestly families.

        The 1983 resolution was not the first attempt to reconsider patrilineality. Already in the 19th century, many Reform rabbis quietly integrated the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers into their religious schools and confirmed them into the Jewish faith along with their peer group in lieu of conversion.

        In 1947, the CCAR adopted a resolution that stated that if a Jewish father and a gentile mother wanted to raise their children as Jewish, “the declaration of the parents to raise them as Jews shall be deemed sufficient for conversion.

        Patrilineal Descent
        https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/patrilineal.html

        Borat speaking Hebrew with israeli journalist
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z-uETCczE

  5. Gozer the Traveller will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii the Traveller came as a very large and moving Torb. Then of course in the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a Slor. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day I can tell you.
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe24ri_ghostbusters-gozer-slor-speach_fun

  6. An early Zionist violation of the NAP…

    Re: The Jews failed attempt to murder the occupants of the “promised land” that God had “given” to them.

    When the Hebrews arrive at Canaan, the land promised to them millenia earlier when God told Abraham at Shechem that the land would belong to his descendants. They begin the long, painful, and disappointing process of setting the land.

    There were, after all, people already living there. These people, the Canaanites, were a Semitic people speaking a language remarkably close to Hebrew. They were farmers, some were nomads, but they were also civilized. They used the great Mesopotamian cities as their model and had built modest imitations of them. They had also learned military technology and tactics from the Mesopotamians, as well as law.

    In contrast the Hebrews, uncivilized, tribal, and nomadic, found themselves facing a formidable enemy. All accounts of this period, even in the books of Joshua and Judges in the Hebrew bible, paint a dreary picture of the occupation.

    After a few spectacular victories and some impressive territorial gains along the coastal plains, the Hebrews are eventually driven out of these areas and settle in the central hill country and a few places in the Jordan River valley.

    While they held their own against the Canaanites, a new player had arrived on the scene. These people, the Philistines, had rushed down from the north and overwhelmed everyone in their path. They had chariots and iron weapons and few could stand against these new technologies.

    So the Hebrews found themselves living in the worst areas of Canaan, spread thinly across the entire region. The balance of power constantly shifted as local kingdoms would grab and then lose territory, and the Hebrews would find themselves first under one and then another master.
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebcanaan.html

    – In other words, the Jews violated the NAP, and they paid a high price for it. They’re still paying the price really, because they have so many enemies due to their continued aggressive violations.

  7. This Bulgarian Bojidar Marinov seems more in the wheelhouse of the New Right, than Libertarianism:

    New Right= Traditionalist, Alternative Right, Paleoconservative, Deep Ecology, Identitarian, Dark Enlightenment, Neoreactionary and Integralist.

    The New Right revitalizes conservatism through cultural renewal. It is related to paleoconservative and deep ecology movements.

    Julius Evola. Pentti Linkola. Rene Guenon. Alain de Benoist. Friedrich Nietzsche.
    Tomislav Sunic.

    The New Right represents the conservative tradition in its uncorrupted form.

    “Happiness is a byproduct of function, purpose, and conflict; those who seek happiness for itself seek victory without war.” – William S. Burroughs

    Refuting Bojidar Marinov’s Dishonesty on National Identity and the U.S.S.R.
    http://faithandheritage.com/2014/02/refuting-bojidar-marinovs-dishonesty-on-national-identity-and-the-u-s-s-r/

    Reformed Libertarian on Theonomy & Bojidar Marinov
    http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/thoughts-on-a-recent-pro-theonomy-piece/

    The Thuggee
    http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/The-Thuggee.html

  8. When you think about it. There’s been a great freeing of members of religions in America. It’s actually one of the few bright spots, the amount of religious authority that’s been lost by those who claim to speak for God and tell others how to live. Those who deing to rule over others in the name of the Omnipotent Creator as they understand him.

    What I hear from most religious people is the exact opposite of what I hear from libertarians. Religious people yearn for the days of yore, they pine for the time when there was more religious authority. They seek the return of Christian Tyranny. They are no kind of anarchists or libertarians at all.

    The state isn’t preventing you from exercising your own individual Christian endeavors. It only makes sure you don’t infringe on their absolute public hegemony. You are already free. What are you doing here, with us slaves of the state? We seek only to be left alone, but we are denied that.

    Your preferences for religions are already established and protected by the state. If you belong to any major religion of any size, you yourselves are protected tax exempt cronies, you’re still oligarchs, only on a tighter leash, as of late.

    Go replace the centralized religious authority that has been demolished, with your own private religious authorities. You may do as you wish in this regard. You are granted an authoritarian exception. You need only keep your actions targeted and precise, and not usurp any monopolies the state reserves for itself.

    If that is your highest value. To hold a holy cudgel over your fellow kin. Then have at it. You are already free to do whatever you want in private. The state has actually so far done us a small favor, removing the ability of religious tyrants to rule directly over us.

    You’re not really on our side at all. You want to bring back the chains of blind obedience to brute superstitions. You seek to weaken the state in one way, all the while strengthening a religious regime in its place.

    You who talk of the loss of public morals and dream of the day when your specific brand of religiosity be put on a throne, are an abomination differing only in form of the throne of the state. In substance you are the same.

    • Tor,
      I understand the “anti-religious authority” (In quotes so everyone understands it’s a single phrase) aspect, but I have to align with those who want a return to that “more religious” version of life.
      Two reasons:
      1. the tenets were unenforceable by law, so it wasn’t up to the state to enforce religious law – but most law was in fact built upon basic religious tenets, so the 10 commandments were encoded into law. E.G., thou shalt not kill was codified into law; unfortunately, so was, “keep holy the lord’s sabbath,” so nothing was open on Sundays. 😛 Overall, a worthwhile trade off, however.
      2. People ignored a fair number of the tenets anyway, and though there were busybodies, you could pretty much presume it’d be between YOU and GOD, and the neighbor could go F himself (herself.)

      Put those two together, you have a decent basis for the moral anarchism you seem to embrace.
      Remove those moral values, it’s very easy to make a society where ends justify means, and you might very well end up with the Mad Max anarchy…

      I don’t mean to indicate a theocracy, mind, but there needs to be a common accepted morality. Thuggee, for example, is OK by me, despite practicing human sacrifice – the sacrifice must be willing.
      Bloods and crips, since they fight for “turf” – not so much. They are just working on being the local police gang… And innocents will be caught in the crossfire.

      One is in fact living to tenet of “thou shalt not murder,” the other is the Anarchist Clover fears (and most of us might be worried, too, as it necessitates being armed and ready).

      Your thoughts?

        • Hi David,

          First, good to see you’re still around!

          I disagree about theonomy and Libertarianism being compatible. The Abrahamic religions are quite clear that those who do not “believe” are not to be tolerated, considered second-class, outside the protection of the law (and so on).

          What do you suppose would happen if evangelicals in this country acquired political power and were under no restraint (beyond their own willingness to restrain themselves) as regards how they’d treat those who declined to adhere to “biblical” standards and rules?

          We have the historical example of what Abrahamic religions do when they obtain political power not held in check by a secular counterweight. It is not pretty.

          Libertarianism is appealing (to me) because it does not insist on belief in anything. Just agreement that it’s not acceptable to use violence to get what you want or make others do what you want. It’s an easy to understand – and defend – basis for a rational political/social system. It does not require appeals to a higher authority – who of course is purely speculative, both in terms of who (what?) it is, and what it (he? she?) expects of us.

          Maybe I believe there’s an invisible gnome sitting on my shoulder, whispering “good news” in my ear. And he may even be real. But since I can’t show him to you – and the gnome prefers to keep quiet when other people are around – I do the polite thing and don’t insist that others believe he’s real.

          • I left for awhile mostly because I became a theonomist recently, and theonomy is sorta outside the pale of what this site is for. I still read periodically, but I haven’t been posting much.

            Theonomy isn’t compatible with strict libertarianism. But it is a small government ideology.

            Most evangelicals in the US aren’t theonomists. I’m really, really not inclined to think they’d ever take away the rights of seculars. Most evangelicals are deistic when it comes to civil government policy, not explictly Christian.

            My differences with you would be less on policy (though there are some differences there, for instance, I no longer believe in a civil “right” to engage in adultery or homosexuality) and more on epistemology, ie. how do we justifiy the idea of liberty.

            And, the main reason I haven’t bothered to post much is because my system is explicitly religious, and religious discussion isn’t really encouraged around here. And I have little interest in discussing politics disconnected from theology. To me that destroys the entire point.

            • Hi David,

              You wrote:

              “I no longer believe in a civil ‘right’ to engage in adultery or homosexuality.”

              Do you mean that you believe consenting adults do not have a right to freely engage in private conduct that causes no harm to other (non-consenting) parties?

              If I read you correctly, you are taking the position that (as an example) homosexual relations are outside the boundaries of what people have a right to freely partake of – and (by implication) such relations are subject to punishment.

              I cannot think of a position more directly aimed at the beating heart of Libertarian morality than this. And it’s not homosexuality that’s at issue. It’s individual liberty; the ownership of one’s self. The right to do with one’s self as one wishes, including with others, provided it’s peaceful and no others who do not consent aren’t coerced into being involved or harmed in some tangible way.

              The entire edifice of the Control Freak Cult that now runs the country – runs us – is based on this business of “people ought to” (and “ought not to”) … of controlling (and punishing) people not because they’ve harmed some innocent victim but because they’ve done something some other person does not like or approve of.

              My standard is crime (defined by harm caused to another person).

              Yours appears to be “sin” – a religious conception of things at odds with what “god” wants.

              Of course, “god” isn’t telling us squat. Men, however, love to do that.

              At the point of a sword!

              • eric, they certainly crave evidently the need and the “right” to point a sword at anyone other than themselves. Trouble with this though is they hypocrisy involved.

                Right now in the US senate there are several criminal investigations going on in relation to those who wrap the flag and the Bible around themselves all the while molesting children, and frequently homosexual pedophiles.

                Those are our “betters” and David must surely support them. Hey, they’re “christians” and they only want to protect us from ourselves via the laws they pass for their own sugar-daddies.

                And to think that the founding fathers almost down to the last guy thought the mixing of religion and govt. was the road to tyranny. Damn, they got it so right too. I suspect they didn’t pass judgement on those who were attracted to the same sex. It’s just not something moral, thinking people do. Hypocrites, yep…..they be replete with it.

                • Lol! @ you thinking I support the people who want to wrap the flag in a Bible. I’d much more enjoy lighting a flag on fire to be honest.

                  I rant against the religious right probably more than you do. Because to you guys, they’re just tyrants, like any other. To me, they are tyrants yes, but also idolaters, claiming to love God but really idolizing America.

                  Ours is a pagan and statist nation. I don’t support it. I don’t support its troops. I don’t support its cops. I don’t support its tax collectors (taxes are theft). I don’t support its stupid piece of cloth it calls a “flag.” I wish we didn’t have one in our church’s sanctuary at all. I could go on and on.

                  BTW: Thomas Jefferson, among the most deistic of founders, wanting to castrate homosexuals.

                  See here:

                  http://americanvision.org/11454/jeffersons-law-of-castration-and-maiming-the-tyranny-of-humanistic-law/

                  • Hi David,

                    I admire Jefferson, but am well aware of his numerous character flaws (we all have them) and the errors he made (as we all do).

                    The fact that he did make many grievous errors – and far worse, including holding other human beings in bondage – only proves that Jefferson was not infallible, far from it.

                    According to Christian dogma, Jefferson “sinned” by “laying with” a woman not his wife (Sally Hemmings) and was an asshole (by any standard of common human decency) by holding his own children with her in bondage.

                    • All right Eric. Not to defend Jefferson, but prove to me that he did cohabit with Sally Hemmings. I have read that the DNA tests are inconclusive, and it may have been his nephew, or some other family member, that sired her child.
                      We don’t have to get personal, the Louisiana Purchase is proof enough that he did not live up to even a Federalist standard.

                    • Hi Phillip,

                      It’s probably impossible to absolutely prove it, but there is strong evidence that Tom was the baby daddy. IIRC, Sally gave birth several times almost exactly nine months after Tom came home to Monticello. Numerous guests at his home wrote of being startled by how much certain slaves looked like Tom. Also, Sally was his dead wife’s half-sister and (reportedly) looked a great deal like his dead wife, which would explain the attraction. He also freed her children (with him, presumably) but not others.

                    • Eric,

                      My citing of Jefferson wasn’t definitively to prove him right. I was just giving a history lesson to somebody who claimed that the Founders wnated to keep church and state separate.

                      At the time the constitituon was written, all that meant is that all Christian denominations should be tolerated. It was against the establishment principle which had been used in most of Europe where one particular denomination was the official church, given special status, and the right to persecute the others.

                      The intent wasn’t to separate God or the BIble from state. Even deists like Jefferson affirmed the morality of the Bible (yes, I realize they were inconsistent and so forth.)

                      Disagree with the morals if you want to, but at least acknowledge the historical context.

              • I no longer call myself a libertarian for the reasons you describe, unless I’m in company that insist on calling me such. I no longer subscribe to the NAP, which has logical problems with it. I provide this article as something to look at:

                http://bojidarmarinov.com/blog/its-time-for-secular-libertarians-to-see-the-truth-about-sodomy/

                Yes, I mean that adulterous and homosexual sex should be punishable if there are actual witnesses that can testify to such.

                My standard isn’t “sin” per say. Not all sins should be crimes. Though I will say that only sins should be crimes.

                I don’t think that tyranny came to this country because the non-aggression principle was rejected. For a hundred and fifty years after the Revolution (give or take) we (more or less) had lack of tyranny without the non-aggression principle. And I’m not aware of any time in US History where the non-aggression principle as such was really respected without exception. Jefferson, a hero to many libertarians, wanted to castrate homosexuals. A lot of classical liberals thought that homosexual behavior was so heinous that it should be criminalized, even while GENERALLY subscribing to the NAP.

                That said, I don’t say this to focus exclusively on homosexuality, because that’s not really the point. The intent here isn’t to “gay bash” or so forth. I don’t hate gay people. I want them to come to repentance. I feel obligated to accept what the Bible says on this topic, because I am convinced that its true.

                This is one of those things that you can’t really have both ways. You can say you don’t believe the Bible, but you can’t say that you believe it and then purposely ignore things that you are convinced it says because “you don’t want to enforce your values on others.”

                And, regarding the issue of unbelievers not being citizens, I just want to say two things. #1: In a Biblical theonomy government is far more limited than it is today. “Citizenship” means a lot less, and it has as much to do with responsibility (which includes being bound to the covenant and thus being able to be punished for idolatry) as it does with rights (which really only includes voting or holding office.)

                Will clarify more later. Gotta go.

                • Hi David,

                  I’m curious: Why would you want to punish a gay dude? Has he harmed you somehow?

                  One reason why I have developed such an aversion to organized religions is this infernal busybody-ism. If it’s ok to harass gays for “sin” then it’s just as ok (using the same standard) to harass and punish people who drink, who work on the “sabbath,” do not wear “appropriate” clothes… and (yes) who hold “incorrect” opinions about the deity und so weiter.

                  This is 190 proof tyranny. If you think you can confine it to the gays, I submit you are grossly mistaken. Let that principle’s nose under the tent and before you know it, the whole camel will be in there with you. Why not? On what basis would you stop him?

                  I do applaud you for being open about your endorsement of the tyranny advocated in the Bible. Just remember that when you sow the wind, you often reap the whirlwind.

                  • I can’t make a full comment now as I am at work and do not have the time it would take.
                    I do want to say this in refutation of something you said earlier, Eric.
                    “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you” (Exodus 12:49).
                    Israel was the only place in the world at that time where this was true. Elsewhere, if you were not a citizen, you had no rights. And to be a citizen, you were required to worship the local god or gods.

                    • Yeah, I actually think laws against adultery could be justified based on the NAP. But really, that’s a worldview type of thing. In a secular worldview cheating on your spouse might not actually be seen as “harmful” aside from the specific terms of the contract. But from a Christian worldview (even if not an explicitly theonomic one) it is at least a lot more serious than, say, stealing a couple of bucks. I mean seriously, think about it.

                      One problem is that a lot of people assume that the NAP is not just true, but morally obvious. And quite frankly, it isn’t. When it comes right down to it, almost everyone makes exceptions to it. Ancaps like Walter Block try to wriggle their way out of this but they still ultimately wind up making exceptions. For instance, Walter Block says its not “aggression” to evict your unborn child (and for the record, Block admits that the child has human rights) and let him/her die outside the womb. But I really don’t think Block would similarly say you have a right to kick your five year old out of the home in the middle of a blizzard and watch them die. Block says you don’t have to feed your child, but he says you have to notify the community that you don’t intend to do so and that someone else can take care of the child if they want. Block does this even while saying there are no such thing as community obligations, or even the community itself in a real sense.

                      To be clear, I believe Walter Block is a smart man. I believe the ancap community is smart. I lay these out like they are obvious mistakes, but they really aren’t. It took me almost two years to figure out the errors in logic. They are much less obvious than the ideological errors in other systems.

                      And frankly, I think we all know that it should not just be sin, but crime, to kick your five year old child out of your house during a blizzard and watch them die. I don’t think the “law written on our hearts” tells us “wow, what the parent did kinda sucked but it didn’t violate the non-aggression principle. How dare CPS* get involved.” No, we would say “those parents are monsters and they should be punished.” And if we don’t say that, its frankly because we are letting our system override our common sense.

                      If we allow exceptions like this, than we’re using a different principle. I agree with the basic idea behind the NAP. I don’t think government should, or ought to have any right, to arbitrarily use force. I believe that in most cases, non-aggression should be followed. But there are exceptions. If someone is about to blow his brains out with a pistol in the middle of the street, its not wrong to pull the gun away from him and make him get help. If someone kicks their five year old out of the home during a blizzard because they don’t really want to take care of them, that’s something that the community can and should forcibly prevent. If someone wants to “evict” their fetus and let them die that shouldn’t be allowed. And open flaunting of perversions against nature and aggression against the covenant family (BTW: The FAMILY, not the State, is the foundational institution in society) also shouldn’t be tolerated in a Christian society. Biblically, there’s no such thing as treason to the State. There are no civil sanctions against that. There’s no conceivable way that whistleblowers like Snowden could be punished under a BIblical law-order. But treason against the family, and against God, is a thing. And here’s why. Every society protects the foundations of its law-order. In statist America, the State is the foundation. In a Christian nation, God is the foundation, and the human institution that is foundational is the family. So I can understand why you might think laws against homosexuality are statist, but really, its a law against treason against FAMILY, which is far more sensible than laws banning treason against State.

                  • Eric – I think David is missing the point on a lot of this; non-violent, non-agressive behavior we don’t approve of as a community or society should be handled by contract and our unlimited right to freedom of association (and by extension our right not to associate). The best way to curtail “bad behavior” in a community is by shunning; do something that we don’t like and we won’t speak to you, sell to you, buy from you or interact with you in any manner. The person is then free to either modify their behavior or move to a more favorable locale. The flip side to that nowadays is if you refuse to do business with someone who openly identifies as LBGTQ based on moral principle, they will sue you and most likely win. They may even put you out of business, which is violent aggression (depriving one of one’s livelihood). These very people who decry limits being placed on their beliefs and behavior are ready and willing to use the force of government to coerce others into accepting their behavior. If someone finds anothers behavior morally reprehensible and disgusting they should not be forced to see it, much less support it. Furthermore, the LGBTQs are also using the force of government (ie.e publik skool) to inculcate their values into the minds of our children. Bringing up a child in the family’s belief system is the family’s right; it is not the business of the local chapter of gays-r-us or evangelicals-r-us. It’s time for this county to return to the simple principle of mind your own business.

                    • I see what you are saying w/regard to homosexuality. Adultery is different – there is a victim, the non-consenting spouse.

                  • Some clarifications (and this post may also be cut short as I have other stuff to do, but I will finish later.)

                    First of all, while I admit to supporting what YOU would consider the tyranny in the Bible, I do not share your view of the laws in the Bible. Indeed I believe the Mosaic Code is the best legal code ever written, because I believe God himself wrote it. And while the Mosaic Code is not strictly libertarian in the Rothbardian sense, I do believe it to be libertarian in that individual liberty is important.

                    The second bit is that its not about what I personally want. To be honest, there are laws in the BIble that make me uncomfortable, such as the death penalty for homosexual contact. However, at the end of the day, I’m not an authority on morality nor should I be. Its not about what I personally want or desire, but about what I believe the Bible teaches.

                    While I understand that today’s liberals are blowing it way out of proportion, I do believe that the community really exists and can be harmed as a whole. Driving over the speed limit does not cause societal harm, especially if your driving is fundamentally safe. Not wearing a seat belt doesn’t cause societal harm. Smoking marijuana in your basement doesn’t cause societal harm. Maybe in extremely miniscule amounts, but nothing that would justify violence.

                    But when people engage in heinous wickedness, yes, that harms society as a whole. Both because of moral degeneration (which leads people to be OK with things like tyranny) and because of God’s Wrath.

                    I’m willing and able to suffer persecution for my beliefs. And while I may not personally, God promises Christians that they will.

                    But ultimately, where I disagree with you is on the foundational problem. Its not so much “you support a little more liberty” than I do, as its that we disagree on what the foundation for liberty is in the first place. Little issues like homosexuality don’t really sum it up. You believe in self-ownership. I believe in liberty under God. While both ideologies have a lot of individual liberty, the reasons why are different.

                    I hope that helps.

                    • And also, while I don’t believe decentralization all the way to the individual is possible, I think today’s governments are way too big. I’d be happy to split America with the secularists and let come what may of it. Most seculars would not similarly be willing to tolerate a part of the nation being explicitly Christian.

                    • OK, here you say: “Smoking marijuana in your basement doesn’t cause societal harm. Maybe in extremely miniscule amounts, but nothing that would justify violence.”

                      So, you think smoking pot might be a miniscule societal harm. Fair enough, even though people smoke and drink for different reasons and smoking pot is known to help many symptoms such as Parkinson’s, MS, Lupus and Chron’s disease among others but since it doesn’t come from the almighty FDA approved DRUG MAKERS, many of which are highly addictive and many of which are highly toxic to the point of death, acute death to chronic symptoms leading to death. I guess you’re ok with those things, no societal damage from those things. After all, the FDA and Big Pharm are part and parcel of “liberty under God” since they carry no blame and have no “law” that stops them.

                      When you get every edict from the Bible or any other “book”, you can’t help but be a hypocrite. You ultimately pick and choose according to the way you interpret what the book you read says.

                      I understand why libertarianism doesn’t cut it for you. You thought it could at first but have finally realized your brainwashing is complete and correct. No sense in even speaking of it any longer. Your mind is set. No if’s and’s or but’s.

                    • Under Biblical law the government has no authority to have a Fed or FDA or Big Pharma or anything like that. See 1 Samuel 8. And Deut 4.

                • Ive been looking for you for some time now as you seem to be the one that may answer this question I have.

                  When in the entire history of humanity has the initiation of force been the morally correct course of action?

                  • From 2 Kings 23:

                    4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the keepers of the threshold to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron and carried their ashes to Bethel. 5 And he deposed the priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the high places at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon and the constellations and all the host of the heavens. 6 And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. 7 And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah. 8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beersheba. And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one’s left at the gate of the city. 9 However, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers. 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.[a] 11 And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts.[b] And he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. 12 And the altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars that Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, he pulled down and broke in pieces[c] and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. 13 And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 14 And he broke in pieces the pillars and cut down the Asherim and filled their places with the bones of men.

                    This is one instance,

                    • Hi ooorgle,

                      The theist equates scriptures with facts. “It is written…”

                      Well, L. Ron Hubbard wrote, too.

                      For them, absolute belief not just in “god” but a very specific one (described by “It is written…) is the premise of everything. It’s a bubble, a self-contained system of certainty.

                      Of course, it’s also one with an obvious flaw they seem to be able to dismiss out of hand.

                      “It is written…” was written by men. They believe it was written by God (about himself, so to speak) but then so do the other religionists about their “holy” books. Ask a Muslim. Or a Mormon. Or a Scientologist. It comes down to – just believe. And once you do, everything falls into place. You have a set-piece worldview. You “know” everything – because you believe!

                      You also embrace truly awful, inhuman ideas (e.g., murdering people because they “blaspheme” or cut their facial hair or engage in private, consensual things you – well, “god” – says are no-nos).

                    • David – The question you have to ask yourself, if you really are the Christian you claim to be is does this comport with the new commandment Christ gave us which was to love one another as He loved us. Maybe you’d better go back and read John 8:3 – 11 again and reconsider your position, because Christ didn’t tell the throng to stone the adulteress. He wrote in the sand and told them that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Of course they all just mozied on off one by one, now didn’t they? No stones were thrown and he admonished her to quit sinning. By your way of OT thinking they should have stoned her to death. And one more thing, she was caught in the act! Where was her partner? Did he just get a free pass because he had set swinging? Kinda like the muslims punishing a burka clad rape victim, because after all, her eyes were too seductive or it wouldn’t have happened to her. Do you see have far this can go (and has in the past)? The OT has a lot of good informationa and advice in it, but you of all people should know that we don’t live under the old Mosaic law now. If you think you do, then you’d better observe all the feasts, eat no pork or shellfish and send any menstruating women in your household off to live by themselves while they’re on their period or risk being unclean right along with them. And don’t forget to have them carry a couple of turtle doves down to the priest when their period’s over for atonement. C’mon David. You don’t get to pick and choose; it’s all or nothing.

                    • Those aren’t normative commands, Eric. But yes, I’m going to ask you why that was horrible. I say that if God, who is greater than us by a far greater margin than we are to an aunt, decides to kill SINFUL human beings (think of a human being slaughtering flies that irritated him, only worse because we have WILLFULLY transgressed his commandments) and even to use other sinful human beings to do it, who are we to question it? Seriously.

                      You don’t have any moral basis to say that what the Jews did to the idolaters of those lands was wrong. Without God you have no provable basis to say that they were wrong.

                    • Really…?

                      “sinful” babies and little kids? Wholesale slaughter everyone – because Sky Stalin so commands (or rather – to be precise – men who claim to hear Sky Stalin’s commands so command)?

                      And they ask me why I drink.

                      The god you describe is a narcissistic sociopath, a sadist and an asshole beyond description.

                      If he’s real, I want nothing to do with him. But I highly doubt such a monstrously cruel, capricious god exists.

                      Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that god exists and created us. If so, he created self-aware, feeling, living beings. Not things to be toyed with.

                      Most people do not believe it’s within their right to just kill a pet dog or cat (let alone cause it to suffer horribly) because it’s “their” pet (that is, because they own the animal).

                      Yet there are people who believe it’s ok for this vengeful, evil deity they worship to do whatever it likes with “his” creatures. Us. Just because he can. And we are duty bound to love him for it.

                      Loathsome. Vile.

                    • Boothe’s silly comment has been refuted hundreds of years ago. I’m just going to link the original refutation, because it is much more systematic and scriptural than anything I could write on my own (there is probably an earlier one, but this is the best one I have seen.)

                      Chapter XIX

                      Of the Law of God

                      I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

                      II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

                      III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

                      IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]

                      V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]

                      VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.[20]

                      VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.[22]

                      http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

                    • Substitute “Gnome” for “god”… see whether it makes sense then.

                      Oh. I know. Your god is real.

                      My gnome a conjure of my imagination…

                      This guy Adam – ostensibly my great grandfather times 20 to the 10th power… “sinned”… and so now I am responsible for his “sins.”

                      Right?

                    • Ah yes David, silly comment…okay..refuted by men that make a living by interpreting scripture to support their preferred position at the time. To me they are worse than their blind followers who memorize scripture without ever understanding the message contained therein.

                      Witness the “Fighting Pastor” John M. Chivington and the Sand Creek massacre. He’s your kind of Christian apparently. With respect to the Cheyenne, Pastor John said “Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians”. “Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.” This was a peaceful encampment under Black Kettle and known “peace” chief. Our fine pastor allowed his men to murder, rape, scalp and sexually mutilate over 200 Cheyenne mostly women and children. If you think YHWH approves of that type of behavior you’re in for a rude awakening. That’s not Christianity.

                    • Eric:

                      Its wrong for you to torture your pet because there is a higher morality (based on God) that would indicate the immorality of you doing that. Plus, you aren’t the ultimate owner of the pet. God is.

                      I’m not going to bother responding to all of the blasphemy in your post other than to say that you don’t have an objective basis to say that God is wrong. “Its terrible” repeated ad nauseum isn’t really an argument. And really, if your worldview is true, its survival of the fittest anyways. You have no business arguing against it as an evolutionist.

                    • “Blasphemy” – an arbitrary assertion that a statement is offensive to a hypothetical entity whom the outraged person believes has been offended.

                      Tell me, David, how your assertion is any different than my asserting my gnome has been offended by the “blasphemy” you’ve uttered, contrary to his “law”? Or the rabid Muslim who is apoplectic over cartoons drawn of his “prophet.”

                      You believe – you feel – that is all.

                      You can’t prove anything. All you can do is point to scripture, claim it’s “divinely inspired” and that you “know” it to be true.

                      Fine. You have every right to feel and believe whatever you like. As does the Muslim. The Hindu. The Scientologist. The Mormon.

                      But until one of you can prove you’re right – and the others are wrong – it’s obnoxious and ridiculous to claim you’re right and the others are wrong.

                      For 3,000 years the Egyptians worshipped Ra.

                      Was Ra real because he was believed in by Egyptians for 3,000 years?

                      Chill out. You do not know – much as you may believe you do. No matter how fervently and passionately you believe.

                    • The position you hold amounts to human beings being the chattel property of this entity called “god” – who is at liberty (by dint of being “god”) to do whatever he wishes with us, as if we were Barbie and Ken dolls. What a loathsome view.

                      But at core, it is a human-invented view. Nothing more. Some men wrote their gibberish in a book, claimed it came from god or that god told them what to write. Other men wrote different gibberish – and made the same claims!

                      In any other context, we’d regard the person so asserting as a lunatic. But by dint of the passage of time and habituation, certain assertions of this sort are treated deferentially and even respectfully… it never ceases to amaze me.

                      I am going to light a bonfire and dance in my goatskin pants around the ancient ruins…

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdfPrkw_V3M

                • David (the ex libertarian);
                  I hope I can explain this in a manner that everyone can understand as I don’t have the literary skills (and proper diction, etc.) that I would like (I’m just a mechanic). So here it goes.
                  Throughout the world and history there are cultures in the world that have never heard of the Bible. You have Native North Americans and tribes in the South American rain forrest’s that practice their own religions. Yes, they practiced aggression towards other tribes, but I don’t think they had some book to tell them that it’s ok to do what they did (I don’t think they even had a written language).
                  The problem I have with all the mainstream religions is that with the Bible, Koran etc. is that they say it’s God’s word and since God said this or that then it’s ok to treat people the way they do. The people that wrote these books are “Human Beings!” (unless someone can prove to me that the text just floated down from Heaven and they just copied it, word for word, I highly doubt it)). These religions hide behind these texts and say “Hey, it’s what God said” and that’s how they justify what they do. At least the native tribes just did what they wanted, for whatever reason (land, food, resources etc.), whatever, they didn’t do it because of some text. (I think, correct me if I’m wrong)
                  David, I have no problem with your beliefs, to each his own. I was raised Catholic and hated it. At about 8 years old I told my parents that I don’t want to go anymore, (and didn’t have to!) it was all about fire and brimstone and I thought it was all bullshit. There is only one thing that stuck with me , and that’s “Do onto others as you would want other’s to do onto you”! Isn’t that what the whole NAP thing is all about?

                  • Perhaps not if you are interacting with Jeffery Dhalmer, or better yet Issei Sagawa. However if you are ok with voluntarily interacting with them under this rule, I have no problem with it. But you will be eaten, literally.

                  • I can see why as an unbeliever you would come to that interpretation (Do unto others = NAP), but if you were a Christian that believes 2 Timothy 3:16, you could not come to that conclusion. Let me explain.

                    Leviticus 19:18 says to love your neighbor as yourself. A lot of people think of this as a distinctively NT idea, but the Old Testament supports it. It also says not to take vengeance.

                    This SAME BOOK advocates execution for open homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13) and blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16)

                    Clearly, from a Christian POV, these things are not contradictory. Indeed, God’s perfect law and its advocacy in the civil sphere is one of the ways we love our neighbors, since these are the best laws that have ever been written and are by God himself.

                    @ooorgle- I do think for myself. I copy-pasted a historical account from 2 Kings 23. If you reject it because its a Biblical example, too bad. Josiah smashed idols and executed the priests who were spreading false religion in the land. What he did wasn’t consistent with the NAP, but it was righteous and godly.

                  • I am convinced that the 66 books of scripture had verbal plenary inspiration (which means that while God used human writers, he made absolutely certain that every word was what he wanted) and are not merely the work of men.

                    No problem on the explanation. I don’t agree with you but I know what you were getting at 🙂

                    • How many times was that oral tradition handed down, until it was finally written down? And then translated into how many languages? And translated into Latin? And translated back into the vulgate, based on languages that were long dead THEN, let alone now?

                      David, God may be real, but YOUR GOD isn’t.
                      And your command of theology is meaningless unless everyone else plays the same “let’s pretend” game.

                      Bear in mind, I’m a confirmed catholic who, after learning more, and digging in, said, “This is BULLSHIT.” I’m not some atheist with an axe to grind.
                      But I really hope you eat a bullet and stop with the “holier than though” claptrap.
                      You sound like a member of Isis – and have demonstrated you would act the same.

                      (Sorry to pollute your page, Eric – but I’m tired of mincing words and “playing nice.” All it’s gotten me is 40 years of being shit on.)

                  • Hi Adam,

                    Yup – exactly.

                    One of the many “bullshit” moments I had with regard to losing my religion (apologies to REM) was the obvious logical problem of a universal god (as both Christianity and Islam claim) that is not universal. Hundreds of millions of people never hear “the word” – they grow up in countries and among people that are not Christian (and the same is true of the millions who never hear “the word” of Allah and his prophet). Both in the present as well as in the past.

                    Wouldn’t the “one true god” share – make known – his “word” to all people? Is it not a little suspect that all of these gods – as much as they pretend to universality – are in fact tribal, regional – and to a very great extent racial-ethnic gods?

                    Just one of of many problems.

                    Mind, I am not necessarily an atheist. I just don’t pretend to know – and call bullshit when I smell it!

                    • I’m a Mormon, Christian, Catholic, etc……..except when I’m not. The ones who “know” are bullshitting. Unless and until I see God face to face and speak with him, how could I “know”? I can have a hunch and feel like a higher power might possibly exist. I know I have seen and felt things that give me the hunch that there is a higher power. “knowing” without a doubt is a different story.

                    • Eric, Romans 9 explains why he isn’t universally known. Because most people were created to show God’s justice, and a minority to show his mercy.

                      That said, I have hope that eventually the gospel will become more prominently accepted in most areas of the world (Habakkuk 2:14, Psalm 110). I’m not certain, and eschatology is a tough subject, but I am hopeful.

                    • That’s a rationalization – an evasion.

                      The fact remains that most humans who’ve ever lived never heard the “good news” because the “good news” didn’t exist until relatively recently – and has long been confined to certain geographic areas, ethnic groups and so on. Your religion is not a universal religion. It is a regional, temporal, ethnic and tribal religion.

                      I marvel at the ease with which you dismiss (among others) the native peoples of North and South America, all of Asia, and so on.

                      It’s an example of religious solipsism. A defect of thought (and observation) that causes the sufferer to simply “blank out” inconvenient facts.

                      Another one of which being the obvious problem of a monotheistic religion that has at least two gods.

                    • I give up. Its throwing pearls before swine at this point. I’d advise PtB to do the same thing, though he’s been at this far longer than me so I’ll trust his judgment. But as for me, I am done.

                    • You mean you abdicate. You can’t defend your position with other than appeals to “it is written” and “because god” (presuming he exists as the basis of everything that follows).

                      Sorry – for you. Because it’s sad to see a bright kid so unable – so unwilling – to confront the straw men/logical fallacies and so on that underpin his faith.

                      You might want to do some self-examination, too, in re the hate you feel for gays. And yes, that’s exactly the right word. Spare me the “bless his heart” crap about loving the sinner but not the sin. You have defended the torture and murder of people who’ve never done a got-damned thing to you or any other unwilling victim… because you claim their private, personal choices affront “the lord.”

                      Let me ask you a question – and I hope you will answer honestly:

                      Have you ever had sex with a woman? Ever thought about it? Desired it?

                    • Another challenge:

                      Prove to me that Zeus is not god.

                      After all, “it is written.” And The Romans believed

                    • Instead of Romans 9, I would point to Romans 1. Everyone has at least some knowledge, but they have chosen to surpress it. That’s it, all I have to say on this subject.

                    • Hi Phillip,

                      There are things we know but cannot prove objectively. I love my wife, for example. But when we are making assertions to others, it seems to me the obligation is ours to back it up with objective evidence that is not mere “I know so” (or “believe in my heart”).

                      We see through a glass darkly – all of us – when it comes to existential questions. No one knows why we’re here. What happens when we die.

                      We perceive the world through human senses that we know are limited (infra-red light is just as real as visible light, but we cannot see in the infra-red spectrum) and understand things imperfectly, if at all.

                      Speaking for myself, I feel humbled by what I know I do not know.

                    • Eric:

                      I don’t hate gays.

                      I don’t support torture for any reason ever.

                      No, I’ve never had sex, and do not intend to do so until married. I think most of us have desired it.

                    • “I don’t support torture for any reason ever.”

                      But what if “the lord” commands it?

                      How would you characterize eternal torment?

              • eric, George Bush has been addressing the Southern Baptist Congregation at it’s yearly convention. He’s not a Baptist but he has an audience with them because they have their own jihad against those not of the Christian faith. They were producing Christian soldiers, often as fast as they can.

                One example is of a huge church in San Antonio with 25,000 members(boggles the mind….don’t it?) who are all committed(there are other Baptists who aren’t of this sect)to purging the world of Muslims esp. and others they hold as sinners.

                This Baptist bunch gets a lot of political support in DC. And they give a lot to the bunch in DC including their own grown children. Just that one church has nearly as many members as the entire Thuggee clam PtB posted about.

                I suspect more than a few are members of the Aryan nation.

                • And the crazy thing is, George Bush isn’t even a Christian. Leaving aside his murderous adventure in Iraq, he doesn’t even believe the basics of the gospel. Things like “Jesus is the only way to heaven.”

                  The “religious right” people that let him speak there are either ignorant of his heresy or they are selling out on doctrine for political reasons, which is disgusting. I don’t approve of these people at all.

                • Don’t be taking my name in vain, 8. I have no idea what this ‘thugee’ is you are talking about. I think maybe that was Jean that posted that.

                  • PtB, I thought I was replying to eric. At least that’s where it looks like the line is going but Thuggee refers to a link Tor posted. It has nothing to do with you I can tell. Sorry for the mix up.

              • I don’t see anything in the Bible that calls for hunting out homosexuals (or anyone else) for things done in private. It is the open flaunting of behavior that God has labelled wrong that is condemned.
                I am not a ‘Constitutionalist’ because of what I perceive as it’s anti-Christian (not neutral ) stance. That does not mean I cannot find some common ground with Constitutionalists to improve the current situation, much like Murray Rothbard sought common ground with the ‘liberals’ against the Viet Nam war.
                Neither am I a libertarian because, as I understand it, libertarian principles are grounded in self ownership. I do not own myself, I am owned by my creator and redeemer. But again, I find much common ground with those who proclaim the non-agression principle.
                I am a theocrat, but the theocracy I hope for will only be populated voluntarily.
                Now I don’t know of anyone (here at least) who claims that those not believing in God cannot have moral principles. Certainly I do not. But ask yourself, from where do these moral principles come? If you are the product of evolution, not creation, does not the non-agression principle contradict ‘survival of the fittest’? Doesn’t the law of the jungle, or ‘might makes right’ come closer to doing that?
                Most libertarians, and many ‘Christians’ also, believe in “Natural Law.” But I don’t find anything natural about it.
                End of today’s sermon.

                • I didn’t say anything about “hunting down” anyone. I don’t even want government to have enough infrastructure to do that :p But if there are two witnesses to homosexual activity, both participants ought to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13)

                  • David, my comment was not directed at you, but rather in partial explanation of your position. It’s good to see you back. We don’t have to agree 100% to work together. If we thought exactly the same, one of us would be redundant.

                • I’d say that lack of belief in God prevents one from having moral principles. The reason some atheists have imperfect moral principles anyway is because they really believe in God even if they lie and say they don’t. Romans 1.

                    • I replied to you, man.

                      For reference, I’ll quote it again.

                      23 Then the king sent, and all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem were gathered to him. 2 And the king went up to the house of the Lord, and with him all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the priests and the prophets, all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant that had been found in the house of the Lord. 3 And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people joined in the covenant.

                      4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the keepers of the threshold to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron and carried their ashes to Bethel. 5 And he deposed the priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the high places at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon and the constellations and all the host of the heavens. 6 And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. 7 And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah. 8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beersheba. And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one’s left at the gate of the city. 9 However, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers. 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.[a] 11 And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts.[b] And he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. 12 And the altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars that Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, he pulled down and broke in pieces[c] and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. 13 And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 14 And he broke in pieces the pillars and cut down the Asherim and filled their places with the bones of men.

                      15 Moreover, the altar at Bethel, the high place erected by Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, that altar with the high place he pulled down and burned,[d] reducing it to dust. He also burned the Asherah. 16 And as Josiah turned, he saw the tombs there on the mount. And he sent and took the bones out of the tombs and burned them on the altar and defiled it, according to the word of the Lord that the man of God proclaimed, who had predicted these things. 17 Then he said, “What is that monument that I see?” And the men of the city told him, “It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and predicted[e] these things that you have done against the altar at Bethel.” 18 And he said, “Let him be; let no man move his bones.” So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet who came out of Samaria. 19 And Josiah removed all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the Lord to anger. He did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel. 20 And he sacrificed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.

                    • And The Book of Eukanuba says…

                      Seriously, David. Referencing your holy books is no different than me referencing my holy books (about Elvis) except I don’t assert that because “it is written” Elvis was god and those who don’t reverence his blue suede shoes must be “cast out.”

                    • According to theists – when their “god” (i.e., the priests who parse and interpret his “word”) say it is!

                      Thus, it is moral – righteous – to put whole cities to the sword… including women and children and old people… if “the lord, your god” (well, er, his human acolytes) so commands.

                      The “holy books” of Christianity are full of such.

                    • The difference, Eric, is that your holy book of Elvis isn’t true, and the Bible is. And the thing is, you already know this. Its written on your heart. You’re suppressing it.

                      And the fact that you “could say the same thing” is irrelevant, since it wouldn’t be true. Romans 1.

                    • Really, David?

                      Because you believe your book to be true?

                      Can you prove to me that the Bible is anything more than another book – written by men?

                      Try to think outside the proverbial box. The Mormons also believe absolutely that an angel named Moroni visited Joseph Smith and instructed him to dig up the “golden plates.” Various “witnesses” claim to have seen the plates.

                      Do you believe the plates (and the angel Moroni) exist? If not, why are the Mormons’ assertions any less valid than the ones made by you about Jesus?

                    • FFS Eric, you are trying to debate logically with a sanctimonious, confirmation biased halfwit.

                      You can’t convince someone too stupid to comprehend their stupidity that they are stupid. David is hopless. Do you really miss Clover so much that you need to replace him with this idiot?

                    • Every day I see proof of God’s existance, Eric. I’ve seen a lot of stuff that is impossible to explain by mere chance.

                      That said, until you get an epistemology that can actually, rationally account for evidence (let alone morality) you won’t understand it. Romans 1 says you already know. But unless God opens your eyes, you will suppress it. There’s nothing I can do about it. We all know in our hearts that there is a God and that we have transgressed his law.

                      And as for my view being “loathsome” think for a minute and imagine that I am correct. Do you really think you, a mere mortal who has been around what, 45 years or so, would really have a right to question God who has been around literally forever, is all powerful, all loving, perfectly just, etc? Have you ever read Job? Read what God says when Job questions him.

                      And really, I don’t care if you respect me or not. The Bible tells me I’ll be persecuted. This is an exceptionally minor form, compared to what godly men in China and North Korea are going through right now. Not going to complain about it.

                      Just know that God remembers everything. If you are one of God’s elect, you are adding to the sins that Christ had to pay for on the cross. Otherwise, you will pay for them yourself in Hell, which you certainly do not want.

                    • David,

                      If I said: “Every day I see proof of UFOs’ existence,” would you take that as proof of the existence of UFOs?

                      Everything you’ve written so far assumes the premise: God exists. Not only that, your god exists.

                      Prove it.

                      And persecution? That’s the last thing I’d ever do.

                      I just don’t agree with you – and regard your certainty about something beyond proof (so far) as slightly unsettling, that’s all.

                    • BTW: “humans” are not allowed to order the destruction of entire cities. Only God himself is, and he isn’t doing that anymore.

                    • Eric, while I don’t rule out the existance of UFOs, it isn’t written on our hearts that they exist.

                      On the other hand, the very fact that we have a morality written on our hearts (And one that is NOT consistent with the survival of the fittest that is Darwinism), on the other hand, proves a law-giver.

                    • eric, let me get this straight. You’re celebrating being rid of clover. We can get back to some discussion of politics and powered vehicles. But now I feel like I’m back in high school, marching in an endless Texas parade. You try to focus on one thing but are constantly trying not to step in the non-stop horseshit in front of you. Let me know when we get back to politics and cars and bikes. I gotta go clean my boots and change pants at the very least.

                    • No shit 8.

                      It’s déjà vu all over again.

                      I am seriously trying to restrain myself from simply cutting and pasting everything from the ‘Good People 2’ thread from December-January.

                      In fact, I will;

                      ————————-
                      Me2
                      December 28, 2014 at 11:02 am

                      The problem is that the god-heads are fundamentally dishonest.

                      Self deluded liars.

                      What is truly fascinating is how compartmentalized this is. You can watch them behave as a ‘normal’ being in every aspect of logic until religion is the topic. Then, CLICK, all logic and reason lose all meaning to these folks.

                      Rationalization, claims of superior interpretation, appeals to ignorance and blatant lies (to themselves) dominate all cognitive processes.

                      This, combined with the pre-filter that their brain employs to keep all counter-argument and counter-evidence out is almost like a kind of schizophrenia. You are not talking to the same person when the topic changes from anything else to religion.

                      Look how many god questions are left unanswered here by the believers. Valid and rational questions that are ignored or answered with ‘because god’. These idiots can’t grasp that ‘because god’ is as meaningless as, ‘because’ full stop.

                      ———————————————–

                    • And a good one from Bevin in response to 8.

                      ——————–
                      bevin
                      December 27, 2014 at 11:23 pm

                      Dear 8sm,

                      “One exception after the other, one contradiction after the other, on and on to infinity, round and round but not ever really trying to pin something down is the sure sign of brainwashing on that subject. ”

                      That’s a good way to put it. The evidence of semi-conscious intellectual evasion starts to pile up. Soon it become obvious that the person is not merely ignorant, but willfully so, and is merely defending a position instead of seeking the truth.

                      He is essentially saying “Stop it. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

                      David’s “logic” is like that. It is textbook “circular reasoning.”

                      A common example of circular reasoning.

                      This one is so mind-blowingly circular that you’d think it was a straw man. However, most Biblical literalists use the Bible as their main proof of God, and using the Bible as any form of evidence for God must assume the following circular argument.

                      1, The Bible tells us that it is the word of God.
                      2. The word of God is infallible.
                      3. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
                      4. And as such, the Bible must be the word of God.
                      5. The word of God is infallible.
                      6. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
                      7. And…

                      ——————————————————-

                    • Hey, one more just for David;

                      https://ericpetersautos.com/2014/12/19/good-people-2/
                      —————————–
                      Me2
                      January 7, 2015 at 11:37 am

                      David,

                      So the excuse thing too?

                      It is always the same.

                      Make ridiculous claims.
                      Argue based on belief not rational logic.
                      Ignore all inconsistency and contradiction.
                      Claim superior understanding and interpretation.
                      Find some excuse to not back up first claims and ignore all previously demolished augments.

                      You will be doing this all over again soon, here or elsewhere, having learned nothing.

                      Seen it too many times to count.

                      Self deluded liars.

                      —————————

                      Rinse, repeat.

                    • No worries guys, I don’t really intend on commenting more. I like a lot of what is posted here, but at the end of the day, I’m not really interested in discussing politics disconnected from theology, and that is what this site is.

                      So, best of luck to everyone, I will go back to lurking 🙂

                • PTB and David,

                  Both of you seem to misunderstand the concept of “survival” of the fittest”. Implicit in your assertion that “survival of the fittest” contradicts the NAP and morality is the false assumption that “fittest” refers exclusively to strongest and most ruthless. However, in evolutionary terms, “fittest” merely means possessing characteristics most likely to foster adaptation and survival in a given environment. In the case of man, it is likely that a propensity toward cooperation is a more valuable characteristic than aggression. Which perhaps explains the relatively small number of true sociopaths that exist in human society.

                  The early anarchist theorist, Peter Kropotkin, specifically invoked evolutionary theory as an explanation for the adoption of ethical standards.

                  “In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support not mutual struggle – has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.”

                  Now, it is possible the Kropotkin is wrong, but I still conclude that your and David’s belief that there can be no genuine morality without God, is wrong. And I’m sorry, simply invoking God as the answer is no more valid than invoking natural rights, evolutionary ethics, or any other theory of the “moral sense”.

                  David claims that all of us (professed atheists/agnostics) secretly believe in God but deny it. He thinks that this belief is written in our hearts. I’m sorry, but this is foolish and wrong. However, it does seem to me that most people are “hard wired” for faith, even people like Sam Harris who can’t seem to shake his belief in the “last God, namely the State. Some of us, however, are not wired for faith. I suspect that David, had he been born a Muslim and raised in a devout community, would be equally sure of that faith.

                  Finally, if either of you associate with more than twenty people, it is very likely that at least one of them is gay. Would you really countenance death upon one of your friends? If so, that is deranged. David laments that Christians “pick and choose” from the bible. However, everyone does this because it is, quite literally, impossible not to. Would you countenance the execution of your son for masturbation? Some Christians claim this is demanded by the bible. Maybe the hypothetical family that put their 5 year old out in the snow to die caught the little tyke masturbating.

                  The word of God, if it exists, was written down by men, and must be interpreted and implemented by men (all of whom, according the bible are fallible).

                  Jeremy

                    • eric, I hate to interrupt this clusterfuck, but do you happen to have a favorite fuel-borne top end lubricant for an air cooled engine? I have a new lawn mower, well, let’s just say it’s a mower since I have already cut down every kind of weed, tree, stump, trailer blocks, crossties, electric fence posts, old cowpies, treated lumber, scrap metal and various sorts of wire, sheetmetal, various size chunks of limestone, quarried and broken out with a rock hammer, concrete blocks and concrete slab, water hoses, joints of pvc and fittings, old batteries and a couple pieces of plow….. as well as gohper mounds…….so lawnmower is something this poor machine would dearly love to be if it were sentient(and it may well be…..might be God). But I’ll just refer to it as the “mower”.

                      It has a 20hp Kohler engine I’d like to keep in once piece but not ” as one piece” so I’m looking for that ultimate top end lubricant or perhaps a better thing would be an octane booster but then an octane booster would also need to address the alcohol problem, the mowers, not mine.

                      When I bought it they said it would only last if I used Stabil so I bought and have used it. Then I get to thinking, Stabil only keeps fuel from going bad and doesn’t necessarily make bad fuel good. In my part of the world, there is no 100% gasoline to be found.

                      I intend to help it all i can by changing to synthetic Amsoil for air-cooled 4 strokes when the break-in oil is dirtied.

                      I once used Marvel Mystery oil back when gasoline was real. But I’d like some views from people who really work hell out of an air-cooled engine with this crap we call fuel.

                      BTW, my last “mower” engine died from what I would guess as sorry fuel that killed the valves on one piston.

                    • Oh, and everyone treats something as God. For you guys it is probably yourselves as individuals, though perhaps its something else. It is definitely something though. Nobody worships nothing.

                    • David,

                      C’mon.

                      I do not regard myself or anyone else (or anything else) as an omnipotent deity who created everything.

                      Also, liking something, admiring something, enjoying something is not the same thing as worshipping something.

                      I like Elvis. I don’t consider Elvis god, nor do I worship him.

                      You’re a bright guy. You can do better than this.

                  • Wait, where does the Bible advocate a death penalty for masturbating? lol.

                    The Bible doesn’t advocate killing “gay people.” That category isn’t even in scripture. The Bible has death penalties for those who engage in homosexual activity if there are two or more witnesses. In order for that to even be enforced we would need to have a government that actually believed in God’s law (Biblical government is small but it does exist, it isn’t quite anarcho-capitalism), which we currently don’t since our nation and its leaders are apostates.

                    If I met a gay person I’d preach the gospel to him. If I saw a homosexual act in a nation where such was rightly criminalized I would report it.

                    Not getting into the religion debate, since I said I was done. But just for clarification.

                    • “rightly criminalized.”

                      Appalling.

                      You would criminalize voluntary, peaceful, consensual actions that cause no harm to others. Because you disapprove of them. Because some men, long dead, claiming to transmute the “word” of god, so “ordained” it.

                      In which case, you’ve forfeited any basis for objecting to some asshole control freak demanding a law to punish you for some non-crime on the basis of his personal objections, his feelings.

                      Your form of religion is fundamentally the same as secular authoritarianism. You merely substitute “god’s word” for Stalin’s.

                    • David,

                      Your reading comprehension skills seem to be suffering lately. I didn’t say that the bible advocates the death penalty for masturbation, I said that some Christians believe that it does.

                      http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=61869

                      Perhaps this woman is a little over the top, even for you. But, you do state that, “The Bible has death penalties for those who engage in homosexual activity if there are two or more witnesses.”

                      Note that “Mary” makes the point that masturbation is, by definition, a homosexual act. Following the “logic” of your above statement, it seems she has a point. Please explain why her interpretation of biblical law is less valid than yours. After all, she is one of the “truest Christians ever”.

                      Also, I don’t “worship” anything or anyone, despite your arrogant assumption otherwise. I love, respect and admire many people, but I do not worship anyone (myself included).

                      BTW, the Sodomy link you posted above is ridiculous. It is just a series of unfounded assertions, devoid of logical argument.

                      Finally, if you really would participate in the execution of a couple by reporting “a homosexual act in a nation where such was rightly criminalized”, then you have truly lost your moral center. However, despite your entirely unfounded certainty, I suspect that when you eventually discover that one of your friends or family members is gay, and has engaged in a “homosexual act”, you couldn’t bring yourself to advocate for their death, even if you get your dream and wake up in a nation that “rightly criminalizes” such an act. Because, at heart, I suspect your proper sense of morality would preclude it.

                      Jeremy

                    • I dunno, Eric. To me it seems downright absurd to compare a genuine non-crime like deciding not to “buckle your kids up for safety” with something as monstrously heinous as homosexuality. But then, that’s my faith talking.

                      Really, the biggest differences between theonomists and most libertarians is not on law, but on epistemology, and on what we want a nation to be. Libertarians primarily want government (generic term, not necessarily the State) to protect individual rights. Theonomists also want government to protect individual rights, but this isn’t the foundation of a theonomic government. Jesus Christ and his Lordship is.

                    • “monstrously heinous”?

                      To you, perhaps.

                      Some Christians also regard oral sex (indeed, any sex not specifically procreative) between married partners (male/female) as “monstrously heinous.”

                      In any event, it’s not a crime by any sane definition. Because there is no coercion, no victim.

                    • Eric- By what standards should only acts which have “victims be crimes?

                      What if the God who created the universe commands that things like homosexuality should be?

                    • Uh, because there’s a victim? If there’s not – if you can’t demonstrate that someone (a real person) has been tangibly harmed – how can you possibly characterize whatever it is as a “crime”?

                      And: Check your premises. You assert there’s a “god of the universe” and that this god “commands” that gays be regarded (and treated) as criminals.

                      But your assertions and beliefs do not make it so.

                    • David, when you get your redwings come tell me how much you’ve changed. There’s an entire world that you haven’t even conceived of. It ain’t black and white for certain.

                    • David,

                      Oops, I should have done a little more research. It was not immediately obvious to me that it was a parody site. After all, advocating the death penalty for committing a homosexual act is just as crazy as advocating it for masturbation.

                      Jeremy

                    • Jeremy-

                      “Crazy” isn’t the issue. We’re both crazy in today’s society. I don’t mind being crazier though.

                      But, there’s no Biblical argument for a death penalty for masturbation.

                    • Mithrandir, many times in my life I was sure of something……absolutely sure. Of course it was something I had taken someone’s word for. Verifiable truths are just that, verifiable. Then when you find you’ve been completely wrong all along, it’s a bit humbling, enough so that afterward you ruminate quite a bit more before coming to, what will them be, a tentative conclusion.

                      That’ s the reason I don’t say I’m an atheist because there’s no way I can be certain. It’s the reason also I don’t debate religion. My mind is open though. If anyone can give me logical reasoning, and most likely that will require some form of mathematics, then I will remain skeptical about virtually everything…….everything.

                      At some point there is the possibility someone or something could convince me of a god(s)…..but it won’t be by quoting verses from a book. I’m FAIRLY sure of that.

      • If I may throw down my two-cents… The problem is authority. I couldn’t agree more that “there needs to be a common accepted morality” . However, any so-called moral system based on punishments (hell, prison) and rewards (heaven, power) instead of logic and reason fails to address the problem of authority that exists in every religion and government ever to be dreamed of. There will, like there always has been evil people who gain that position of authority and the followers of the religion who carry out said orders. Government is no different. In the end, an individuals only option is to refer to that authority be it their god or law.

        My morals derive from two simple principles; Non-aggression, meaning a consistent refrain from the initiation of force, fraud, theft or violence and voluntary interactions with my fellow man.

        I believe love is the natural response to virtue and virtue to be the passion for truth. I believe principles to be ideas that derive from my virtue, and ethics to be the example of those principles when I interact with others. I need no god or law to help me decide the difference between right and wrong. I will never again abdicate to somebody else my right and my ability to decide who the enemy is like when I was a religious Statist. Raised Mormon, everyone came to our house to vote, etc.

        We are seeing both of these simple principles being comprehended by thousands of people and growing everyday. We need neither religion nor government as both are like vanilla and chocolate. One of them will likely grasp appeal to those who have never known anything else; they are the same thing just different flavors.

        But then, if we are afraid of death and not knowing what comes after (like religion actually answers that lol!)… well, I can understand why people become religious. Government however makes no fucking sense at all.

        • I’d ask for a slight acknowledgement of a difference here, ooorgle.
          You said, “However, any so-called moral system based on punishments (hell, prison) and rewards (heaven, power) instead of logic and reason fails to address the problem of authority that exists in every religion and government ever to be dreamed of. “

          The requested differentiation is the Secular vs. the Religious, and it’s truly terrifying when the two are enmeshed….
          Secular punishments like prison, however, are not the same as the predicated (meaning, unproven) assertions of Hell fire and brimstone.

          I am not particularly perturbed by the Holy Rollers, the Mormons, even the Westboro loonies.
          I DO take offense to the Westboro loonies spewing their shite at a funeral, for example. ANYONE’S funeral. And see no issue with going medieval on their @$$es purely to disrupt them – AT the funeral.
          I take that offense even if they are CORRECT in their assertions. The funeral isn’t for or about them; let the living relatives mourn in peace.

          Being from Irish descent, I think I can state pretty safely that if God doesn’t have a sense of humor, we’re all pretty much damned anyway: “I tell you this, if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed adultery with her…” (Not a direct quote, I probably mangled it; but adequate to the example.) Acting human, experiencing human emotions, is EVIL. We should all be fleshling robots, no emotion, no feelings, no sin….
          But since we ARE NOT robots, we are to be punished for all the things that occur to us because of biology? I see a woman rocking (and, these days, revealing) her 36DD-20-36 figure in skintight jeans and a low-cut top…. And things respond, and I’m thinking, “what I’d like to do with her…” And now I’ve committed adultery with her, in my mind, and I’m going to hell….

          I’ve mentioned this before, though I can’t link it…. But: Is this not the action of a two-year-old throwing a temper tantrum when the weather isn’t right?
          Worse, even, because the two-year-old cannot control the weather and doesn’t make the weather – but God made US, in His image… So we are punished for what would legally be termed “defect in materials or workmanship.”

          Ridiculous.

          Of note – Government merely follows that same example, creating the problems and then punishing people for doing what they need to to survive. [Obviously excludes rape, but would not include rape-for-hire, nor murder, nor murder for hire. Not sure how long that list is, either, but rape does stick out, since you wouldn’t NEED to rape, but might need to do heinous things to get money for food. It differs only in magnitude and/or direction. Selling your body, selling drugs, selling a hit on someone….]

          Thoughts?

      • I greatly admire the Jews. They have excelled and set themselves a part. I wish them continued success.

        1 The commandments and cosmology in the bible is plagarized from the Babylonians who mostly inherited it from earlier Mesopotamians.

        2 How can the Jews say with a straight face “thou shalt not kill.” Yet not acknowledge how they tried to murder the Canaanites who were peacefully minding their own business.

        The deranged Hebrew nomads have a long history of creating impressive sounding commandments, and then break them non-stop.

        The gall of Jews, Christians, and Muslims is impossible to stomach. How dare they speak of the heinous Crimes of Babylonians, Philistines, Canaanites, and Samaritans.

        They stole their cultural identity and tried to pass it off as a part of their own. They attempted mass murder of them with no other justification than “Their Omnipotent God” told them to.

        The success of the Jews has to do with their ruthless pursuit of their self-interest. I have no problem with this. What I object to, is continuation of the ridiculous lie that the Jews have succeeded because of their superior morality. What a crock of shit!

        If there is any higher being involved in the Judeo-Christian aggressions, he has shown himself to be quite clearly a complete asshole with no regard for humanity and the concerns of individual human beings.

        • lol! Of course the whole “sacrificing their children on altars” thing is going to get entirely ignored. You pagans don’t even know how to read the Bible… Unbelievable…

          • David, you are incapable of reading the bible. You know only the dumbed-down Reader’s Digest translations of it into modern languages, which is a far easier and less meaningful feat I’m afraid.

            It’s probably hopeless for you really.

            I suppose in some ways you’re a colleague of Mozart, because you have a 2 octave Casio keyboard and the Easy Adult version of Concerto #21? But in other ways, not so much.

            I truly hope you meet a nice little hen and she feathers her nest from the pages of your good book and produces an egg or two for you. You seem like a sincere and genuine young fellow.

            I don’t see how us having this one freestyle thread is going to hurt this barnyard full of old roosters. For better results though, why not consider how Ron Paul does it.

            Maybe you’re here looking for some new tricks or ideas, I’m sure being the alpha cockerel isn’t easy these days.

            Anyway. I look at all ancient texts as a whole. And I consider the entire internet the good book of our modern age.

            The origin of human beings according to ancient Sumerian texts
            http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/origins-human-beings-according-ancient-sumerian-texts-0065

            Panbabylonism
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism

          • David – As I recall from a previous post you identify as a Calvinist. The “reformed church” claimed there are only 66 “inspired” books in the Bible, while we find that the Catholics retain 73 books as canonical. With the scriptual significance of numbers in mind the number 66 would be six, the number of man (a fallen creature) multiplied by eleven which denotes disorder and disorganization. Do you see a glaring problem there? Seventy three on the other hand is comprised of seven which denotes spiritual perfection and three which denotes completeness. Martin Luther, allegedly based on his personal bias decided to pitch seven books into the fire. But St. Athanasius claimed these books were canonical way back in 367AD and the Council of Carthage reaffirmed that in 419AD. So we have the Reformation come along about a thousand years down the road (mid 1540s) and decide to do a little willy-nilly editing in clear violation of Revelation 22:19. I suggest that if you are serious about your faith as you claim to be that you read some of Dr. Ethelbert W. Bullinger’s work and expand your scriptural horizons a bit. Think, young man, think! You are an individual, not a member of some group. Don’t blindly follow others merely because it’s easy, convenient and sounds good; seek out wisdom and truth on your own. If you follow “the church” of today and their teachings you are following the traditions of man and you are on the wide path.

            • Just BTW:

              I actually have a lot of issues with the modern church. I think there’s a ton of good in modern Presbyterianism though (which is what I’d identify as.)

              Also, in response to another post, I don’t think its OK for MEN to decide to slaughter whole cities, tribes, whatever. I think its OK for GOD to command men to do that. Big difference

              • David,

                You keep trotting out the sam straw man, expecting us to salute him! (More accurately, to prostrate ourselves before him.)

                But “he” is just a projection of your belief.

                His “existence” rests on the same sturdy foundation as the existence of the Easter Bunny (about whom it is also “written” and “believed”).

                The fact is that it’s men who decide to slaughter whole cities. They may claim (and you may fulsomely bee-lieve) they are merely obeying the commands of “the lord.”

                But where’s the proof that “god commands”?

                There is none.

                Just your apparently unshakeable belief in the absolute truth of edicts written by men and parsed by men which you believe got perfectly pipelined, without error or nuance, through those men by “divine” agency.

                It’s madness.

                You sound exactly like the ululating fanatics of ISIS, who also believe with absolute certainty that they are merely following the commands of their god when they cut the throats of “unbelievers” and fly airplanes into buildings.

                Explain the difference.

                Can you? Without non sequiturs such as “because god” or “I believe” or “it is written”?

                You can’t. And the fact that you can’t see that is deeply troubling.

                It’s a sickness. And it affects more than just you. Because when people like you embrace mass murder (slaughtering whole cities) mass murder tends to occur.

                Because god.

                • The religionist says:

                  I don’t think its OK for MEN to decide to slaughter whole cities, tribes, whatever. I think its OK for GOD to command men to do that.

                  The statist says:

                  I don’t think its OK for MEN to decide to slaughter whole cities, tribes, whatever. I think its OK for Government to command men to do that.

                  • I recongize God is God. The statist sees government as God. Whatever you look to as your standard for morality, that’s your god. Most libertarians worship themselves, and most statists worship the State.

                    But I worship God.

                    • No. You are 100% wrong. It is the act of worship that has no place here at all.

                      It is a barbaric relic that must not be tolerated. Worship has no place in our techno-scientific world.

                      Believe as you wish. But any attempts to spread your lies and deceptions here will likely be every bit as humbled as Clover already has been.

                      [worship (noun)

                      Old English worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (West Saxon) “condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown,” from weorð “worthy” (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship).

                      Sense of “reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being” is first recorded in 1300.

                      The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful “honorable” ]

                      Thomas Jefferson to take one example, must never be worshipped. Strictly speaking, he had no sacred honor to pledge.

                      He was born into immense wealth. He was nothing special on his own. His father Peter Jefferson left him a vast inheritance including 150 slaves.

                      Jeffersons were in the American PTB from the beginning.

                      The whole mythical notion of America is a pathetic kind of state religious folly. Everybit as pathetic and toxic as your swill you keep peddling.

                      I think many of us clearly recognize your rampant brain damages. What I don’t think they see, is that having any kind of reverence for “founders” is just as damaging as your ideas of killing complete strangers out of misguided love for Baby Jesus.

                      The Virginia Company took vast tracts of Early American land by force. They created the Virginia House of Burgesses, to create the kind of stable company town Europeans were used to. The Jeffersons were company men from the beginning.

                      The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is completely plagarized from the English Declaration of Rights of 1689
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689#Provisions_of_the_Act

                      Virginia declared independence in the legal system 6 months before the official Declaration of Independence.

                      Religious institution lies. And state institution lies are one and the same.

                      The “founders” were no more angels than Henry Ford or John Rockfeller. They were every bit as ruthless and brutal as any industrialist.

                      They were nothing more nor less than tri-cornered hat wearing Corporate Fucking Shills.”

                      Their words are no better than the Jingles for McDonalds or CocaCola.

                      God doesn’t exist in the way you assert. He may not exist at all, but whatever the case is, its a private matter for each individual.

                      America has always been a corporate enterprise, all the later flowery words and claims to exceptionalism are every bit as false as your insane claims that an invisible sky entity is responsible for everything we have in this world.

                    • No, David.

                      Learn to use words correctly.

                      To worship something is not the same thing as to respect or admire something.

                      By the way: You don’t recognize god, either. You can’t recognize something that does not exist. It is like saying I recognize booga booga.

                      Bee-lieve in the reality of Crom, of Klingons, of your Abrahamic Sky Stalin all you like. I will not challenge your right to believe in whatever you want to believe. But I will challenge you when you insist your belief is the same thing as knowledge.

                      You’re a 19-year-old kid who has been fed Jesus Juice since you were a baby. Your belief – which I do not doubt is sincere – is no different than the just-as-fervid belief of the 19-year-old ISIS fighter who cuts off someone’s head for being an “infidel,” because Allah so commands.

                      I hope you recover your senses before it is too late.

                    • You fill the shoes of the poster-child for the next domestic FBI false flag. All you need is one agent pretending to be god to talk you into everyone becoming David’s Goliath.

                      What you think are your opinions are actually threats when you say you would kill whole cities if god commanded you to. You are a seriously scary and dangerous slave-puppet.

                      Terms like ‘puppet’ and ‘slave,’ while not exactly complimentary, express specific concepts, rather than just being generic insults. If you imagine an obligation to bow to another person (or group of people), and pay tribute to him (or them), then you have the mindset of a slave. And if your words and thoughts are basically put into you by a controller, you are acting like a puppet.

              • The “Big difference” being that in degree of sociopathy. You have a severe mental problem and by your own admission are waiting for that word from god to justify your murderous intent.

              • Hi David,

                I agree with Jefferson when he wrote:

                “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

                To which I would add:

                Blindfolded belief.

                Does it not bother you even a little that your god endorses (demands, according to his human agents) genocide? The murder of helpless women, little kids? That does not give you any pause? That your “lord” is characterized by capricious cruelty of such magnitude (eternal torment for temporal “sins”) that it makes a Stalin seem like a Mother Theresa?

                Consult your humanity, young man. Use your reason – and if it causes you to question your beliefs, then perhaps your beliefs deserve closer examination.

                • None at all, Eric. Because you can’t even provide an OBJECTIVE reason why such things are wrong. Your morality isn’t better than mine. We need a real arbitrator. Namely God, who again, both of us know exists. Stop lying to yourself.

                  • Let’s say we are in a simulation. A giant role playing game with no admin or a very hands off one and really no rules but what is coded into the structure of the game. There is no sole creator. It’s player created content. There is no arbiter to set things right. You are how you play the game. That’s it. The way you play defines you. You are the arbiter.

                  • David – “Namely God, who again, both of us know exists. Stop lying to yourself.”

                    Sanctimonious and ironic. Well done.

                    So David, I’ll ask you again as you seem to have ignored it before;

                    Since I am a blasphemer by any measure, would you kill me?

                  • A real arbitrator… that you assert exists!

                    You may believe god exists; you do not know it.

                    I do not know whether he exists – and therefore do not believe he does.

                    PS: Your statements – presumptive as hell – would be a lot more serious/adult if you at least took the generic position that perhaps a god/first cause exists. But you always insist your tribal Sky Stalin exists – and expect that package deal (a first cause exists and it is my Christian god as defined by my holy books and holy men, absolutely and infallibly) which is risible and tiring.

                  • David,

                    Your mind is closed to reason, oblivious to facts that contradict or call into question your beliefs. If you are unable to understand that your asserting “because god” (that the reality of his existence is “written on my heart”) is no different than my asserting “because Batman” (or Crom or Ra or Hxtliopochtli) and that the reality their existence “is written on your heart” then we cannot have a rational discussion.

                    You believe.

                    I do not.

                    And here we must part ways.

                    Because mere belief absent supporting evidence (which means facts that are independent of the asserting person’s belief) has no substance except in the mind (the feelings) of the believer. Who may be frustrated, as you appear to be, that others do not share his belief.

                    But that is ultimately neither here nor there. People believe in all kinds of nonsense (literally, non sense) and that is their right. I would no more restrict or punish or interfere with those who wish to attend a Star Trek convention and speak Klingonese than I would someone such as yourself, who speaks in tongues.

                    But spare me your turgid insistence that what you believe is true. That is indicative of madness and at the very least in exceptionally poor taste.

                    Imagine if I kept on lecturing you about the godhead of Elvis. That you must bee-lieve in the “one true King.”

                    Yes, I know. You think it’s a silly comparison. But that is exactly my point because it reveals your madness. That you cannot see the equivalence. That it is just as nutty to insist in the divinity of The King as it is to insist in the divinity of your “King.”

                    We’re just men, David. Mortal, fallible.

                    And none of us know a got-damned thing about the hereafter, whether there is a god, what (if such a being exists) this entity wants from us.

                    Not a got-damned thing.

                    What is “written” and told you was written by other men – told you by other men.

                    Those are the facts and the troof.

      • Instead of conceding strangers a single scintilla of authority over me.

        I alternatively embrace my obligation to any and all whom I allow to provide for me.

        If I lived on a kibbutz, then I would recognize a religious entity as having some say in my life, because they have been a provider to me.
        http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/first-person/reunion-kibbutz-lavi

        Turning the Provider Switch means using the abilities of the male brain towards bettering yourself, fulfilling your life’s potential, and leading those you’re responsible for.

        The 5 Switches of Manliness: Provide
        http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/06/20/the-5-switches-of-manliness-provide/

    • Kman, I don’t know much about a Harley but I do remember some(lots)had Bendix carbs and even Bendix starters and some had Bendix ignition….and magnetos.

      All sorts of small engines had Bendix everything just like my Lincoln 200 Redface Welder. That Bendix mag never failed to fire it right off.

      If you ever build a ignition engine for a bugout vehicle a magneto is just what the doctor ordered. Battery? What battery? We don’t need no stinkin battery….hence the handcrank on the front of that welder if the battery or starter wasn’t working.

  9. I haven’t been able to add any links to a comment and sometimes my comment disappears altogether. I have no web links in my profile.

  10. I had trouble making comments. I solved the problem by removing some web links from my profile.

    If ooorgle’s actions mean less spam and other junk, then that (having no web links in my profile) is a small price to pay.

    • Interesting, I would expect those profile links to not interfere. I only have ‘website’ populated in my profile and I personally do not use AIM, Yahoo IM, Jabber or Google Talk, Google+ or Twitter so those fields have always been empty for me. I will research and see what I can find out. Please continue to let us know, especially if it is a consistent and reproducible problem.

      Testing: link while logged in: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFG4leWDqdjeofqtUk4wVgA

      • Interesting that on this link my Thumbnail Zoom + doesn’t work. It’s the first YT I’ve found that placing the cursor on the link doesn’t open a pic for that YT. Same for the other YT link.

        • A statist would say: “we need to pass a law to regulate blog commenting.” There needs to be an authority who makes sure all bloggers enjoy an egalitarian internet experience. There must be no preference based on wealth, gender, race, creed, age, or other criteria.

          1=2. 3=4. 5=6. 7=8. 9=0. With government, all things are possible. And every number is as good as the next. No one is limited. There is no discrimination, everyone is the solution. Every answer is the right answer.

          The religionist says the internet is a gift from God. WordPress is just one cog in a grand providential design. The web unites all men in brotherhood and so helps them to cooperate with his plan for their salvation.

          You need only pray for your internet postings to appear. All things are possible with faith. Every action is equal to every other action when you invoke God. Even taking no action will work, if only you believe strongly enough.

          Your love of your omnipotent being is the most powerful programming language ever conceived. It is mere vanity that any man believes he has built the infrastructure and coding of the internet.

          For we are all mere dust. And the half of humanity who is using the internet is all but a brief candle in the dark. It is only the true light of creation that is permanent.

          If you internet device offends ye, cast it out. Better you should live without a device, than you should lose your eternal soul. To everything there is a season. A time for posting on the internet. And a time for not being able to access the internet.

          All internet users are equal in Gods eyes. The world itself is a kind of living internet. Your body and soul are but a browser in the internet of creation.

          Just believe in magic. Just be as superstitious as you wish. Just curse the demons who are preventing you from posting links on this website. It is original sin which is blocking your access to the internet of salvation and eternal holy browsing of the universe.

          • oooorgle, Thumbnail Zoom + only works on images. A link to a website means nothing to it if it doesn’t contain an image. That’s about all I can tell you.

            Should you need help with your Eaton Fuller RT 910 transmission, I might can help. I don’t know crap about this….except how it has always worked.

            If anyone wants to know something technical about this add-on, Firefox has a great technical sharing feature where you can communicate with those who speak the language I don’t.

      • Ok. Thanks for the feedback.

        I’ll try later to night or tomorrow by adding a single link at a time. Perhaps I could narrow the problem area.

        Anthony

    • Test (adding a link in my biographical info — I got flagged for possible spam)

      (I removed link in biographical info and changed link in website)
      It would appear that the spam software coniders my link to my dailymotion account a possible spam.

        • You know, you can be all the things
          you’ve always wanted to be.
          Beautiful, sexy…
          One, two, three…

          Just let your soooouuuuul glow baby
          Feeling oh so silky smooth
          Just let it shine through yeah
          Just let your soooouuuul glow ooooh

          (Soul glow)

          Eddie Murphy. Soul Glow. Coming to America (1988)

          – God that was good stuff. Hallelujah. Now that I think about it, I do find a good movie to be a religious experience. I thank Crom for them.

          Coming to America – Soul Glo Commercial
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGrasobHcKA

          Heir to the Soul Glo Dynasty. The Prince of Soul Glo.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=961x0NmyHKE

          I want you to put your hands together
          and welcome him to the stage.
          A big round of applause
          for Jackson Height’s own
          Mr Randy Watson! Randy Watson.
          And Reverend Brown.

          It feels so lovely to be here tonight.
          Give yourselves a round of applause.
          Give a big round of applause
          to my band, Sexual Chocolate.
          Sexual Chocolate.
          They play so fine, don’t you agree?
          – Some of the good stuff? Coming up.

          I Believe the Children Are Our Future. Sexual Chocolate.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otEm_aI2Vac

          I believe the children are our future.
          Teach them well and let them lead the way.
          Show them all the beauty they possess inside.
          Give them… a sense of pride… to make it easier.
          Let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be.

          I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone’s shadows,
          If I fail, if I succeed you can’t take away my dignity.
          Because the greatest… love of all… is happening inside of me.
          Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sexual chocolate! Sexual chocolate!

LEAVE A REPLY