Hello Whalertly!

This post has 58 comments

• malone.236
  June 4th, 2009

  If any of you see this and want to know more about my philosophy, besides the postings I make on this site, I also maintain my own blog. You can visit me at lightwingpolitics.blogspot.com . Please, come, read, vote on my poll, make your opinion heard.

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• Robert M. Barga
  June 5th, 2009

  one day you will see the logic that i espouse to you

  mainly that you need to leave God out of politics

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 6th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

  One day my friend, you will see my God can never be left out of politics. Doing so would be, by my definition, evil. You have to understand that the only way in which I use the word evil is to describe those things which are seperated from or without God.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 11:27 pm

  Then you are not a good Christian, never forget what Jesus said about Caesar

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am

  Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. But what is Caesar’s? Caesar does not own you or me, and has no legitimate right to force people to obey him. The only legitimate law is God’s law. If we have to live in secular societies, we shall, but Jesus wouldn’t have been okay with having to worship the Emperor as a God, which became the norm during the Empire period.

  So tell me Barga, what is Caesar’s? Does he own you? Who is the legitimate Caesar? Barack Obama owns you? The Constitution owns you? The Congress owns you? Well, sure as heck they don’t own me. God owns me, and I own myself. Noone else has the right to tell me what to do, and I only listen out of convenience and because there is currently no country on earth with more freedom than the USA.

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am

  Caeser is any government. Jesus said that governments and faith should not interact if they can help it, which they can. The Jehova’s Witness’ explain it better than I

  that said, i own myself, but i agree to function within certain standards for privilages of living a good life. Therefore, i agree to work within our nation and said guidelines

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

  You should know that that is what i meant. Caesar never will own me, and as I said, I cooperate out of convenience and practicality. I really dislike governments, they have a way of making people less free.

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 11:18 pm

  My whole point is that Jesus was clear about the government and politics not mixing

  Reply to this comment
• Emily
  June 6th, 2009

  Seperated from or without god makes things evil?
  So because I’m an atheist, I’m evil?

  It’s amazing what a superiority complex people get when they feel all righteous from god.

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 6th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

  Haha, no, that’s not what I meant. I’m still just as evil as you are, the only difference is that when I die, I will be judged by the standard of my Lord who died for us. I think you misunderstand what I mean. Your definition of evil most likely has to do with harm, or malice, or hate, or something.

  Quite literally, because (and only if) you reject God, you are evil. I’m not sugarcoating the language because I am going to assume you don’t want to play games. Someone who has never heard the Word isn’t evil for not knowing how Jesus died for their sins. Children aren’t responsible for understanding it.

  When I feel righteous, I try and rebuke myself, because I am just as imperfect, perhaps more so, than every other person in this world. Don’t take my confidence as implying that I think I am good. I know my God is good. I too am sinful, I have to rely on my Lord to be gracious and forgive me.

  As to superiority, please read the following post from my own personal blog if you would be so kind…
  http://lightwingpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/was-blind-but-now-i-see.html

  Literally, to a Christian, sin means action which seperates one from God. Evil means sinful. A Christian would recognize a life of charity as being sinful if the person continued to resist the Word of God. All the work in the world for good and peace is worth nothing without God. I ask you to understand that I do not condemn others, that is not for me to judge. What I know, for sure, is that God is the judge, and he will judge me also as I have judged others. If I look on people with love, so too will God look on me.

  Please, if you have any more questions about evil, aqbout how Christians feel about it, come and ask me, I would love to talk to you about it! Or you can find a clergyperson, or a passionate layperson such as me.

  [Reply]

  Emily Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 12:16 am

  Well, under your definitions I am still evil.
  I have read the Bible (Old and New Testament)
  but I do reject god (although I’m not sure how
  I can reject something that doesn’t exist) and every aspect of religion
  because I see what an utter farce it is.
  This concept of evil that you espouse simply
  demonstrates, for lack of a better word, how
  elistist the majority of religious people are.
  To decide that people who don’t recognize your
  figments of imagination are some how evil is totally absurd.

  Oh well, I think I can live with being “evil.”

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 2:12 am

  Emily,

  I am sorry that even as I have explained it you believe me to be elitist. I say to you, with love for all people in my heart, I have no contempt for you. You spit at my God, who died for us on a cross. I know that you have not heard His message, in the same way as I could read “On the origin of species” and not believe most of the content of the book. I love you, and I really do hope that someday you will see God as I have, through the love of others, through the daily miracles that I can’t walk down the street without seeing.

  My concept of evil is from God, whom you deny. It would logically follow that as such, you should perceive it as elitism, as does a child percieve injustice from the discipline of their parents, who are immune to the child’s fits and anger. The child does not know the reason for this discipline, because they do not understand that it is meant to set them on a course for goodness and uprightness.

  That being said, let me further explain that a Christian recognizes evil as their target for destruction and condemnation, not the person. Forgive my words, I am sorry. I spoke wrongly, because you are not evil, but evil is a part of your life. Having read the New Testament, you are of course aware that the teachings of Jesus were completely and wholly to love others, not to condemn them, or judge them, or harm them. He said to love them, and help them. He taught, nay, he commanded us to love all of His children. Our goal is to find those who don’t know Him and help them find him.

  I do not understand, or, to put it better, I protest that your understanding of evil is something far more sinister and harmful than mine. It is surely also more complicated than my own.

  As surely as you denounce my God, I sing his praises and submit my life to Him wholeheartedly. Surely enough, you reject the front of religion which you have seen anywhere you look, the organised church. This is what you undoubtedly reject. I hope your reasoning behind losing God has nothing to do with his servants, perhaps? Your perception of elitism in popular religion is not without base, surely there are those who believe themselves better than those who do not believe. My answer to you is that God does not make it so easy on His followers that we should be immune to temptation. We all still fail, and He always takes us back when realize our faults.

  Finally, once again, I love you, as God loves you. It saddens me greatly, and troubles me deeply that you have walked away from God… As stupid as it will sound from your perspective, I know, I will be praying for you. I don’t want to intrude in your life, so I’ll just ask that if you could shoot me an email, tell me how to reach you, again, I’d love to talk with you. It’s hard to understand a person’s background from a few sentences commenting on a blog post. I understand if that’s not something you’d like to talk about. That in mind, all I want to do is understand what would make you turn away from God, and help you if I can.

  malone.236@buckeyemail.osu.edu

  May God bless you, and may you be able to open your eyes and see the beauty which is hidden from you.

  Reply to this comment
• Peter O
  June 6th, 2009

  I have no problem with a person involving God with their politics, so long as they respect leaving me and my politics separate from their God.

  I think that especially on domestic politics, we would vote/advocate similarly but for probably distinctly different (at least superficially) reasons.

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

  I am glad to hear we would vote similarly. I believe that the conclusions I come to would be very amenable to everyone, because I don’t want to force people to do things unless they hurt others. I like domestic policy far more than foreign, I’m fairly flexible on international politics.

  I thank you for understanding my position. Too many see that God comes into my politics and assume I want to force it on others. I don’t believe that’s what God would even want. I believe as I do because I think that if people are presented with all options and see what I have seen, they will choose to be loving, peaceful, and accept God. If not, I do not want to force them anyway. If anything, I would simply like to protect those, both of faith and of none, who wish to live in peace and harmony. The few amongst that number who are okay with protecting by force their neighbors could be expected to keep them safe. That is my ideal, which is strangely like communism, in that they would help each other and benevolently hold property in common. This is strange because I am so right-wing, but that’s how I’d like it.

  I’m sorry, that was a really long response to a short comment, I felt the need to explain that. By the way, I am very happy to respect your faith or lack thereof with regards to politics and in general, although it is my mission in life to spread the Word and hopefully be a signpost on the Way.

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• Alex
  June 7th, 2009

  I always find the tautological nature of religious reasoning amusing. The proposition to be defended is that god exists and that your conception of god represents an actual state of affairs in the world. However, instead of offering a rational defense of this proposition, the religiously minded merely declares by fiat the correctness of their position, resting on what is, by definition, irrational — “faith.”

  Within this circularity Malone, you then go on to make claims about how the atheist “rejects god” and that this god “died for our sins.” However, the simple fact remains: you have not proven your proposition valid. In this irrational framework of belief-without-evidence, the religious sense of superiority truly takes on a rather childish sense; much like saying Santa Clause likes me more because he gave me better toys.

  Therefore, I may turn this around on you a bit and ask:

  Why have you rejected Zeus as the one true god?

  Why do you spit on Muhammad, gods prophet on Earth?

  Why, like the Jews, do you not still await His coming?

  Why do you mock, with your non-belief, the gods of Egypt:

  Denwen – The Fiery Serpent
  The Ennead The Nine Great Osirian Gods
  Fetket – The Sun God’s Butler
  Geb God of the Earth
  Gengen Wer – The Great Honker
  Hapi God of the Nile River
  Hathor Goddess of Music and Dance
  Hatmehyt – The Fish Goddess
  Haurun, The Victorious Herdsman
  Heh and Hauhet Deities of Infinity and Eternity
  Heqet Frog Goddess
  Heret-Kau – She who is Above the Spirits
  Heryshef, Ruler of the Riverbanks
  Heset Goddess of Plenty
  Hetepes-Sekhus – An Eye of Re

  You are truly evil Malone.

  Notice that the aforementioned claims are as “rationally true,” from with the irrational framework of these kinds of historical and metaphysical propositions, as yours. This cannot be disputed without proving absurd your own premises Malone.

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• Emily H.
  June 7th, 2009

  See, this is what’s so irritating about religious people. That you assume something horrible and tragic has happened in my life to make me reject god. This false act of love and caring is so utterly facetious and fake, but carefully disguises your contempt and pity for my so-called heathen ways.

  My rejection of god comes from the very concept of religion, yes, his “servants”, and the total ridiculousness of the concept of miracles in general. Perhaps yes, the man known as Jesus intended for religion to be a loving and generous organization, but he was the only one in the history of the world who saw it that way. Religion, and organized religion has only ever been a source of hatred, seperation, inequality, war, genocide, and death. In actuality, religion is and always has been the single greatest killer of people in this world. You never hear about atheists killing people for believing in god, yet the arrogance of religion causes thousands of deaths of those who don’t believe or believe differently. For you to assume that your religion does not take part in this or for you to dismiss the history or your religion is absurd. The Bible itself is full of hate and judgment.

  You say it saddens you that I have walked away from god. How can I have walked away from something I never believed in in the first place? I read the Old and New Testaments not out of devotion to god, but out of a curiousity and astonishment of how so many people could believe in such, for lack of a better word, bullshit.

  Alex makes some excellent points. You yourself must be evil in the rejection of so many other gods and religions, and it is this arrogance that I despise in religion. The assumption that your god is the one and only god, your way the best.

  Bill Maher, in his documentary Religulous, asks people if when they were young children they were told fairytales as religious stories (such as the “Miracle of Jack and the Beanstalk”) and religious stories as fairytales, would they have been able to tell the difference? It is only because of religious indoctrination and parental insistence that you are not worshipping Hansel and Gretel today.

  There is no beauty hidden from me in this world because of my rejection of what does not exist. I am not so insecure in my life to have the need to create a fantasy world to feel better about myself. You cannot help me become closer to god simply because I do not need any help. My life is fuller and richer without religion, this I can assure you.

  You can email me if you wish, so then perhaps I can help you see the error of your ways (see how pretentious that sounds??)

  equinelover16@gmail.com

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

  I’m going to go in chronological order of comments this time to keep myself on task. I get lost in such a list of accusations.

  First of all, my love is neither fake nor facetious. If it was I would keep God all to myself and never share the Word with anyone. It would be hard to go around talking to people about God all the time, if he didn’t give me strength and passion to do so. I do not assume something horrible and tragic must happen to make someone walk away from faith, and quite often, horrible and tragic things either bring people to faith, or make their faith stronger.

  Religion is what has inspired missionaries of the 20th and 21st centuries to go and help in Africa, South America, and wherever else people are starving and in need of help. I myself like to evangelize by explicitly spreading the Word of God and reasoning with people. Others focus on service to those in need of help, in hopes that their actions will bring glory to God and that those around them who are suffering will see the love through these people and find true love in the source.
  Also, it may help you to know that I categorically denounce offensive violence. Do not make the mistake of lumping me in with so many other organisations which somehow read hate and violence out of the Bible. You are correct, God, in the form of Jesus, intended His followers to be peaceful. Some have chosen to disobey. As for me, I would stand and fight against them. However, no Christian church (in the United States) has openly condoned or promoted violence that I am aware of or affiliated with since I have been alive.
  The French Revolution and La Terreur actually involved a lot of atheists killing believers, specifically Catholics and some Jews. Do me a favor and don’t try and defend the killing of aristocrats based on oppression, and then come back at me and accuse me of supporting genocide.
  My religion, Christianity, has never been involved in this, because anyone who goes around slaughtering people is not welcome in God’s house unless they repent.
  Actually, I would have to say that war is the biggest killer of people throughout history. All the world’s religions take a sideline when the rulers of contries and of large “churches” decide to go raping and pillaging for wealth and power.
  The Old Testament of the bible contains much in the way of rules and punishments, and God’s anger at those who work against Him and His people. However, read the New Testament again. You tell me where it says anything about violence, except “I come by the sword.” Read Romans again if that is your verse you base this on. “Sword of the Spirit…”

  I said I am sad because you always have been, and always will be, a beautiful creation by God. I did not assume that you had been a believer. On that note, I find it strange you assume me to have believed from birth. My mother does believe in God, yes, but her conclusions about the Bible are not mine, and my own faith has as much influence on hers as on mine. I know you will say she taught me everything I knew for a long while, but I was never forced to attend church, believe in God, and I have not regularly attended church until recently. I am not attached to any denomination or standing church, save my choice of where I go to worship on Sundays. It is not always in a “Church” building.

  My percieved arrogance comes from the fact that I follow the one, true God. If I didn’t believe that my God was the one and only, you know all too well, that I would be damning myself by believing in the Bible. Do not play games with me, because you know that the worldview of a Christian leaves no room for other gods, and that by declaring myself a Christian, I disavow anything else that would call itself a God. You know this, and yet you still make claims that we are arrogant. You now make the assertion that Jesus is arrogant, and it has fallen out of my hands to defend, because Jesus does not need my defense in any trial, I am not worthy to even be in the courtroom, save His initation. Jesus quite clearly knew he was God. If you have picked your battle to be against the Lord Himself, you will lose.

  Bill Maher has already made his conclusion. I have not seen the movie. You might ask why. I know his reasoning for attacking religion, he did not invent it and he will not be the last to use it. I will not pay money that I could use to feed myself or help others to watch a stupid old comedian blaspheme my God and the faith of others for two hours, when I could be doing something productive with my life.
  I have exposed myself to other religions, including Islam, Buddhism to a very tiny extent, Judaism, Baha’i (might have spelled that wrong…), Atheism, Agnosticism, and Mormonism. They are wrong. I am sorry for my bluntness, but you will understand when I say they are as fairytales to me, and yet were spoken of religiously, although without the parental authority in your assertion having been behind them.

  There is beauty hidden from you in that you may be forever trapped in this world. The beauty lies with God himself, and his love.
  I lead what I like to think of as a full life. God has provided me with so much. I have never gone hungry, never been left in the cold, never been without my mother, although my father is absent, I am in a university which I love, being assisted by public dollars, and I have friends, family, and a dog that loves me. I have had all the oppurtunity in the world, and yet I still need God in my life, even without suffering. The worst thing happening in my life is studying for finals and worrying about finances. I find it hard to believe that your life is fuller and richer, when my God, who does not restrict me, but tells me how I can be a part of his plan, makes me a part of history in the truest sense. My religion doesn’t stop me from doing things, unless you mean like killing people or spreading hate. Yeah, I guess with all this “love” I can’t really go around hurting people… bummer, my life is unfulfilled.

  By the way, the way you took my invitation is entirely not how i meant it or worded it, and that is not my goal, only what you expected to hear from your average Christian. I find this hilarious, I must say. It was quite funny to hear that I want to “help you see the error of your ways…” It only sounds pretentious when you put words in my mouth. I actually care about YOU, the person, the child of God, and by extension, my sister, my equal, my beloved sibling. See how pretentious that sounds? Not very…

  [Reply]

  Alex Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

  Quote:

  “My percieved arrogance comes from the fact that I follow the one, true God. If I didn’t believe that my God was the one and only, you know all too well, that I would be damning myself by believing in the Bible. Do not play games with me, because you know that the worldview of a Christian leaves no room for other gods, and that by declaring myself a Christian, I disavow anything else that would call itself a God. You know this, and yet you still make claims that we are arrogant. You now make the assertion that Jesus is arrogant, and it has fallen out of my hands to defend, because Jesus does not need my defense in any trial, I am not worthy to even be in the courtroom, save His initation. Jesus quite clearly knew he was God. If you have picked your battle to be against the Lord Himself, you will lose.”

  This is the most amusing paragraph I’ve read in quite some time Malone.

  Emily wasn’t “playing games with you.” She was, as I was doing, pointing out the obvious error in your logic. As a display of your irrationality, you cannot escape the circularity of your own reasoning. This is manifestly question begging: Defend to me the reality of your conception of god and “its” presence in this world. Until you defend that proposition, your reasoning is tautological and cannot be rationally defended against my counter-claims asking why you have done evil by rejecting the gods of Egypt, or Islam, ad infinium.

  In the afore-cited paragraph you claim that you aren’t arrogant and then follow this claim with a statement about how you worship the “one true god.” That is an inherent contradiction Malone.

  Malone, you are embarrassingly juvenile in your reasoning, but I must ask: Name a single act of “goodness” that could be performed by the faithful that could not be, or has not been, performed by the rational.

  Goodness does not depend on belief absent of evidence; suicide-bombing,however….

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

  Goodness, being defined as being close to God. I can play word games with you all day, and will be happy to do so. My goodness cannot be accomplished by those who have no faith. My act and that of the faithful is to love others and spread the Word to them, helping them in everything that they do. That does not, I suppose, require faith. But faith, however, requires that you love.

  By the way, was I at all unclear about my denunciation of offensive violence, or are you illiterate? You are both playing word games, semantics, things which we disagree on the definition of. Suicide bombers have extremely warped faith. Theirs is wrong, mine is right. That is juvenile I suppose. I suppose if I asked you why you condemn an Intelligent Design scientist, you would say because he is wrong and you are right (or, more likely, that he has no evidence and also holds the burden of proof for going outside hard evidencial claims).

  Embarassingly juvenile. Wow. I too, find it much easier to dismiss an entire philosophy by calling someone juvenile, rather than respect the viewpoints of others, and logically debate the merits of each philosophy. My philosophy calls for me to worry about the soul, and not the body, but no, you cannot respect this. You believe I must either worry more about my worldly desires than about my closeness to God, or I am irrational and juvenile.

  No.

  I am more than willing to meet you on the ground of scientific evidence, and to say that if I were in your shoes, without faith, my God would seem irrational. You, however, charge that I am “elitist” for believing that God wants us to know and love him, and will turn away those who turn him away. No. God welcomes you, and you scorn him. I have no power to control your destiny and relationship with God. You do, do not blame me for the words of God and his wisdom in giving man free choice. Do not blame me because you will only accept evidence from secular sources. Don’t blame me for all the injustices of this world, in which I have no part and work against.

  About my “arrogance,” once again, you play games with me, because you know my God is metaphysical, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Of course he can and did make the truth known to his people. The choice is whether or not to believe in it and follow it. Call it arrogance. I don’t rightly care. Nothing and noone in this world is worth to me anything on the same scale as my love for God. I know what I know, which was testified to through generations of Jews before and after Jesus. You say bring me evidence. There is my weakness. Ah, the universe looks like an evolutionist universe. you’ve got me there. Okay, but will you do what so many of your fellow atheists will not? Will you disprove for me, the notion of Christianity? Tell me where the Bible fails, with my omnipresent, omnipotent God. Prove me wrong, I challenge you. You have the scientific high ground, now strike, sever the throat of creationism!

  Oh dear, your knife is dull when it comes to philosophy. Why can’t there be a God? Why not? And if not, tell me why not. Define goodness without God.

  By the way, in response to your egyptian deities, if they did create the world, they would have destroyed it or cursed it when they ceased to be worshipped.

  I do not spit on Mohammed, but he was not god’s spirit on earth. The King of the Jews already came. Zeus was but one of many in a framework of so called “gods” which were not omnipresent or omnipotent or omniscient, or invulnerable to harm. they were glorified people. And their worshippers are dead and gone. Their gods surely would have intervened, because they routinely assumed human form in mythology and made their presence known.

  I would be evil if the definition of evil you go by is controlled by a false deity. Once again, word games. How many more rounds shall we play?

  Emily H. Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

  Quote from you:
  “My religion, Christianity, has never been involved in this, because anyone who goes around slaughtering people is not welcome in God’s house unless they repent.”

  You seem to have forgotten the Crusades.

  Another quote from you: “Actually, I would have to say that war is the biggest killer of people throughout history. All the world’s religions take a sideline when the rulers of contries and of large “churches” decide to go raping and pillaging for wealth and power.”

  It was not until the American Revolution that was was fought with any religious influence or fought without any religious purpose. Infinitely more people have died in the hundreds of religious wars before this.

  As Alex already pointed out that paragraph, I think you need to read and re-read what you wrote, maybe then you’ll see how hilarious it is. What you said there is the very definition of and the very manifestation of arrogance.

  On to Bill Maher: Watch it online; pay no money; it’s less then an hour and a half long. Far less time then I spent slogging through the Bible. It seems to me that someone so secure in their faith as you say you are, would not be threatened by this. And he doesn’t blashpeme your god because simply put, it’s not libel if it’s true.

  [Reply]

  Emily H. Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

  *war was fought

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 10:39 pm

  I think the Crusaders are probably not with God. The act of slaughter pretty much requires seperation from God. Actually, it does. Their actions were EVIL. God told us to put aside things of this world, and yet they still dwelt on a piece of land in the middle east, to their deaths and the deaths of those living there.

  My religion doesn’t condone any offensive war. Anyone who does so acts in atheism. Jesus never promoted or condoned violence. By the way, there was certainly religious influence in our war of indepedence. We cannot pretend that any war has ever been fought without riligious influence, because the leaders and officers of war will always carry their own personal biases.

  On a side note, thank you for toning down the antagonism. I guess the paragraphs would be funny to you. I had a great laugh at yours. This comes from the fact that we have a wall keeping us from seeing eye to eye. I have read and reread. What I write is what I believe. You can mock me and my God if you like, that’s your right. but have no doubt in this: what is laughable to you is a matter of life and death for me.

  Hahaha, funny on the “it’s not blaspheme” part. Perhaps I shall watch it if I can find it on Hulu or somewhere. I’m going to hopefully renew my netflix soon. I will happily watch it if that will help. I have seen many a stab at God before, and even more at my politics, it does not threaten me. It actually amuses me. You should probably not expect my heart to change, because I already rail against hypocrites. Find me an inconsistency in what I have said I believe and do. There actually are a few on the political side, such as hating government intervention but taking government money to go to school. But you will find nowhere that I am ashamed of my faith.

  I would like to clear up, when I say Christianity, I mean those who follow Christ, which would produce an interesting venn diagram when compared with those who call themselves Christians.

  Reply to this comment
• Emily H.
  June 7th, 2009

  Your modern day interpretation of the crusaders is irrelevant because the Crusades were fought for god, in order for the Christians to take back the Holy Land. Simply because you think their actions were violent doesn’t mean the crusaders didn’t fight for their Christian god, the god you yourself believe in. In short, the Crusades and the majority of wars throughout history were fought and are being fought in the name of god.

  You ask for us to define goodness with god. By this I assume you mean goodness without your version or manifestation of god. So first I cite for you Gandhi. Perhaps one of the greatest men to live but a Hindu, so you would dispute his goodness and charity? What about Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) a completely secular human rights organization that has had the most prominent role in helping victims of humanitarian crises in Africa in the past 30+ years. They are the most prestigious aid organization and yet they are totally without god. Surely you would not dispute their goodness even sans god? Or take for example Jane Addams, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for her work as a women’s rights advocate and president of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. She also worked as an advocate for immigrant rights and black civil rights in America, all while being an avowed atheist.
  I could go on forever. It is entirely possible to achieve and promote goodness without god. But I suspect you’ll reply to this and say that’s not what you meant.

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 12:09 am

  I have many issues with any incarnation of the Catholic Church and most organised churches for this reason.

  When I say secular wars, many catholic countries fought against each other, having no divine purpose in fighting, other than to say “God is on our side!”

  In consideration of Gandhi. I would perhaps say that when he showed love towards others, and tried to help them, that was good. This is a behavior taught to us by God, by my own contention. I would still say that if he explicitly rejected God’s message, by my definition, he was evil. I do not know whether anyone ever tried to tell Gandhi the truth about God. By the way, you will I hope excuse my usage of these terms from my own perspective, and not from a widely accepted one, if you would please.

  As for les Medecins Sans Frontieres, their work is good, it helps without need of reward, and is not explicitly atheist. It cannot be denied that people on both sides of the thelogical aisle work with that organisation.
  I would say contrary to your statement, that such work is not without God, or at least not necessarily.

  As for Jane addams, and the same for Susan B. Anthony, their actions may have been good, in that they liberated millions or billions, but did so for the glory of earthly things, such as politics. Belief in God would not have hampered their efforts, but made them stronger, Jesus had a lot to say about racial and gender equality, all of which I firmly believe.

  God is love, so those who act in love, act with God. I suppose it is possible to say that if judged based on merits of their souls, they would do better than many Christians. They DID much good, but God cannot tolerate any speck of evil, which they had. Which we all have, by my contention. What I say is, I too am evil, but I will be judged by a different standard, by a gift of grace, not because I am better than anyone. This good we speak of is still a good thing, but from my perspective, without doing it for God’s glory, it is in vain. However, Jesus told his people to go and love others unconditionally, which I at least try to do. It is my goal.

  What would you say of the numerous Catholic orders whose goal it is to help others throughout the world, without even asking for a commitment of faith, or anything from those they help? Are they doing good, or acting in what I think you might call the deception of the church through their actions?

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment
• Emily H.
  June 7th, 2009

  Totally off topic here sorry, but I noticed in your initial post you said you are pro-life but anti-regulation of any kind. Is this not a tad contradictory? You are all for regulating and controlling a woman’s right to choose, but against any regulation of any kind? I could totally be missing something here and please explain and correct me if I am.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 11:35 pm

  his contention is that it is a life

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 11:50 pm

  I am anti-regulation, but I am pro-police, in that harming others should be stopped. Like Barga says, I consider a fetus a life.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

  supers science steps in to point out that it is not life, regardless of what John claims

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 12:13 am

  When you say John, you mean the Book of John?

  My contention is that once fertilized, the embryo will become a person, and therefore is a person, so long as it is nourished. Even a 3 year old relies on parents for nourishment and protection, it is not self sufficient, and yet we are not okay with killing 3 year olds, excepting those among us who have 3 year old children, who may briefly consider it during a temper tantrum. (Joking!)

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 8:22 am

  I was talking about the book of John, yes

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

  In that, thank you for asking. I am not so radical as to say save the baby irregardless of the circumstances however, and am somewhat flexible with enforcement. I still believe that the life of the baby should be taken into consideration when thinking about abortion.

  [Reply]

  Alex Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

  This doesn’t make sense. Embryology tells us that fetuses in the early stages of development, when over 90% of all abortions occur, are not sentient. If a being is not sentient, then that being, by definition, does not have interests.

  Accordingly, from what premise are you arguing that it makes sense to say that the mother, who is sentient and has interests that ought to be considered in our moral deliberations, should be trumped, in any circumstances as a matter of justice, by a non-sentient being? It’s analogous, logically and morally, to saying that a tomatoe should win out over you Malone in a deliberation about justice.

  “Potential” isn’t a valid premise. You have the potential to be dead Malone. Therefore, can I morally treat you as such and harvest your organs today? The same logic holds Malone. A “potential” rights-holder can never win out in an ethical deliberation over an actual rights-holder.

  This get’s back to what I was referring to when I said that your entire foundation is irrational. Our justice traditions consider, fundamentally, “interests” – in not being harmed primarily – to be of primary concern in our moral deliberations. We don’t have direct duties to rocks because they don’t have interests because they aren’t sentient. Unless we assume something that cannot be proven rationally – ensoulment, for example – fetuses must necessarily fall into this category Malone.

  Accordingly, we should stop arguing given that you are reasoning from premises that can’t be proven valid or invalid; they are declarations by fiat, which can be countered, just as “rationally,” with, “No, souls are make believe, neaner, neaner, neaner, I win!”

  About other gods Malone, you have no argument to say that they are mere “word games.” You just want this to be the case. Prove to me Malone, besides your pseudo-argument that they don’t have followers, which isn’t true, that Zeus doesn’t exist, or that Muhammad isn’t the true prophet, or that the shouldn’t be worshiping the Golden Calf, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t the one true god.

  Explain to me, like an adult Malone, why you are right about your concept of god, and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong.

  The answer: You cannot, it’s faith. That is definitionally belief without evidence, which is irrational. Therefore, on your same line of reasoning, your separation from all these gods makes you evil Malone. I will pray that you return to them one day.

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  just to play with you alex, i might point out that fetuses react to what their mothers feel, so they clearly are sentient by your own definitions

  Alex Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

  No, that doesn’t mean that they are sentient. Plant’s react to outside stimuli, but the physiological evidence is absent that would support the contention that they are consciously experiencing or sentient. Likewise with fetuses.

  Furthermore, these aren’t “my definitions,” they are well-established scientific precepts. Outside response isn’t enough to support a conclusion. Like the case with human animals, the physiology must suggest it.

  If you want to play Barga, you might want to follow along.

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  RTeally, well that was the quote that emily provided

  if you are saying that outside responces coutn for animals then they do for fetuses

  Alex Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

  Outside signs are but one signal of sentience; not evidence to prove a conclusion. Emily’s contention appeals to common sense reasoning: if we see a pig react to what we would perceive as painful stimuli in a way that mirrors our reaction to that same stimuli, then common sense would suggest that the pig had a similar experience.

  The underlying physiology of the pig, similar in every relevant way to that of human animals, provides the additional evidence to make a valid, scientific, assumption that he does indeed suffer.

  The case of the fetus fails this second step entirely throughout the first trimester and therefore your argument is invalid on its face Barga.

  This leads to my question for Malone on the moral and logical grounds for his claims.

  barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

  alex, answer me this:

  when you get pulled in a direction you don’t want to go in, what do you do?

  Alex Reply:
  June 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  I don’t follow Barga. I can answer tentatively that I go with it given that it was proven that my my assumptions about Ethics were baseless and therefore I followed my own beliefs to their logical conclusions and went vegan. I didn’t want to go there but I had to reason like an adult you know.

  Alex Reply:
  June 9th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  If you mean to suggest that this is the case with abortion, well you need to rationally defend that. Fetuses aren’t sentient and therefore they have no interests and therefore it’s like arguing that a rock wants to be born. That’s absurd.

  I can say, however, that aborting fetuses in the later trimesters demand moral reasoning and that I’ve become far less “pro choice” on that issue.

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 9th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

  please stop attempting to insult me, it doesn’t work and only makes me think you have no good argument. That said, please answer regarding the pulled thing.

  Alex Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  I did answer, clearly so.

  “I can answer tentatively that I go with it given that it was proven that my my assumptions about Ethics were baseless and therefore I followed my own beliefs to their logical conclusions and went vegan. I didn’t want to go there but I had to reason like an adult you know.”

  “If you mean to suggest that this is the case with abortion, well you need to rationally defend that. Fetuses aren’t sentient and therefore they have no interests and therefore it’s like arguing that a rock wants to be born. That’s absurd.

  I can say, however, that aborting fetuses in the later trimesters demand moral reasoning and that I’ve become far less “pro choice” on that issue.”

  I don’t have to “attempt to insult you” Barga. Your “arguments” on their own work just fine for that purpose.

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  Alex, yes again
  if you are pulled, how do you react

  Alex Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 6:50 pm

  As I wrote above, if it’s logical, I accept the conclusion.

  Again, I don’t have to “attempt to insult you” Barga. Your “arguments” on their own work just fine for that purpose.

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 10:10 pm

  Okay, sorry for the long time in responding… Finals week… Not good times…

  I guess I would really need to know more of what you want from me, most of which I don’t have. An answer on why I am pro-life without involving the soul is bluntly stupid and pointless. I don’t draw a line between my physical observations and my religion, so I don’t separate the two, unless I’m running a thought experiment. The best answer I can give you is, you’re right!

  If there is no soul, what is there to stop you from killing all forms of life, sentient or completely unconscious? A mother of a small infant should certainly be able to kill it if she discovers some mental deficiency, or simply doesn’t want it anymore, perhaps because of her financial situation. Maybe she can just abandon it, and not feed it, so it simply ceases to live?

  Why stop at sentiency? Where is your logic, seeing as how sentience is simply another instinct created to further the survival and dominance of those species which possess it? Sentiency has no importance, and although I cannot be sure, I would suspect that you would, or if not you, another would be more than happy to make the argument that humankind has done more harm than good to the planet, and although I still have no idea why the planet is so important, except as a pet project to humans, I would say that if one assumes current scientific ideas on how the Earth was formed, humans have had a negative effect on the all important concept of biodiversity.

  Dispute my scientific claims, please, don’t let my misunderstandings about science stand without correction. I don’t care, it won’t offend me, I would hope that you would.

  That being said, I could give heed to embryology, or neuronatology, but that’s not my basis here. I do, however, say that the best definition based on the science I know that life begins at conception. I know that the baby is not “sentient,” but the law never had a requirement for nonsentience in fetuses to perform an abortion. I base my logic on the law, or legal thinking. In jurisprudence, the best arguments have set rules and tests which can always be followed. I submit that conception is the easiest and, by my own impartial judgement, best test to use when deciding the beginning of life. I wouldn’t say the fetus has potential rights, I would say it already has rights. It is not a potential anything by my assertion, it is a person already. If it were a potential something, I would feel differently.

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

  alex, i am asking you if i grabbed your arm and pulled you against you will what the hell would you do… does that work now?

  Alex Reply:
  June 11th, 2009 at 11:40 am

  Malone,

  So you’re arguing that the only reason you don’t murder people is because you fear what will occur in the afterlife if you do?

  If A is an atheist and B is a Christian, and they both choose not to murder, but A does so because he believes it is wrong to cause harm – absent the fear of a judgmental god — isn’t A necessarily more “moral” than B? In other words, because I believe it’s not ethical, in the vast majority of cases, to harm or kill any sentient being – human and nonhuman – and I also believe that belief in god is a delusion and therefore the concept of an “afterlife” is obviously a fiction – and yet I am still a non-human murdering vegan – am I more “moral” than you Malone?

  I draw the line at sentience because until that point a being necessarily cannot care about what happens to it — there is no “I” being harmed. The comment about biodiversity is interesting; however, this form of deep ecology is flawed because it assumes that something, a system, should trump every individual within that system, which is fascistic.

  However, as a matter of indirect harm, we should be concerned with the environment given that we are absolutely connected; our welfare is tied to the health of the bio-system.

  Barga,

  It depends on the context but I’m assuming that I would defend myself. In such a context, my bodily autonomy would be violated and I could ethically act out of self-defense.

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

  would you jerk around a bit, try to fight me off/

  Alex Reply:
  June 12th, 2009 at 11:11 am

  Well, I said I would defend myself Barga.

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  okay, would you react in a manner that is similar to that when you are in pain?

  Alex Reply:
  June 13th, 2009 at 10:43 am

  Well physiologically, I wouldn’t produce endorphins, which is the bodies “natural pain response.” My nociorecepters wouldn’t be affected either. I’m also assuming that my vocalizations would be different. However, some of my physical and emotional reactions would be similar, of course.

  If I were conscious to the extent that I didn’t ‘want’ to be pulled in some direction, pain, fear, frustration, nervousness, excitability, stress — I would probably experience all of these Barga.

  Interestingly enough, it is these conscious experience that those who, today, design slaughterhouses are cognizant of in the case of nonhuman animals. Temple Grandin, for example, makes a very good living designing slaughterhouses to temper all these negative emotional experiences so as to make the experience less harmful and more productive.

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 15th, 2009 at 12:07 am

  did you just say that sex and chocolate are pains?

  Reply to this comment
• Robert M. Barga
  June 7th, 2009

  Emily, just because people are fighting in one name does not mean that they are truly fighting in that name

  [Reply]

  Alex Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 11:57 am

  Well that’s a self-serving interpretation Barga. It stands to reason then that any further conversation is a waste of time because we can simply define the concepts however they best suit us – reasoning absolutely essential to the continuation of modern-day religion – and continuously do so, so to always win the argument.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 8th, 2009 at 12:36 pm

  Alex, that was more or less my point.

  I can say i acted in Jesus name because that is what i thought Jesus wanted. That does not mean it really was

  we agree here

  [Reply]

  malone.236 Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

  So if the concept has already been defined (AKA Protestant Christianity) does your argument still apply? Do you consider people who allow dogma into their scientific conclusions true scientists? Why then should I be forced to call these heretics (AKA the Medieval, and current as well, Catholic Church) Christians? I did not ask to be associated with them, and their beliefs are CLEARLY DIFFERENT than my own, in every way. I have clearly defined my beliefs, which these Crusaders clearly do not share.

  [Reply]

  Robert M. Barga Reply:
  June 10th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

  Come on, we all know you want to take the holy land back

  Reply to this comment
• Alex
  June 8th, 2009

  No, that doesn’t mean that they are sentient. Plant’s react to outside stimuli, but the physiological evidence is absent that would support the contention that they are consciously experiencing or sentient. Likewise with fetuses.

  Furthermore, these aren’t “my definitions,” they are well-established scientific precepts. Outside response isn’t enough to support a conclusion. Like the case with human animals, the physiology must suggest it.

  If you want to play Barga, you might want to follow along.

  [Reply]

  whalertly Reply:
  June 17th, 2009 at 8:59 am

  They are not well known scientific precepts, they are merely the bullshit that your shitty authors want us to believe is real

  [Reply]

  Reply to this comment

Add a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Click here to cancel reply.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Click to cancel reply