Saturday, November 30, 2013

Vox Sums Up His Own Delusions

"There is a considerable quantity of rational evidence for the day-to-day involvement of a deity in regular Earthly affairs. Indeed, this is the core basis for my own Christian faith. The Bible posits that the world is ruled by an arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious deity and we have no shortage of documentary, testimonial, and experiential evidence of his existence."

I'm not sure if I can add anything to this. This passage clearly spells out what an awful human being and how totally delusional Vox is.

Also, Vox might consider looking up the words rational and evidence or maybe its the word considerable he has trouble with.

Oh, and if that's the God Vox believes in then he's not worshiping the same deity as most Christians.

And here's some scripture to back up BOTH of these points. The bible doesn't say God is "arrogant, evil, or malicious" nor does it describe a "quantity of rational evidence for the day to day involvement of a deity."

1 John Chapter 4


"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

66 comments:

  1. IMHO, as I've mentioned before, Vox is correct in his beliefs in regards to two things:

    1. There are gods that exist with the sort of qualities that Vox attributes to them.

    2. Vox will probably end up in the hands of the sort of 'God' he belives in.

    Where he is mistaken is:

    1, Thinking that the malevolent gods are the only ones there are. Or the most powerful ones there are.
    2. Thinking that the malevolent Gods that he believes in will suddenly do a 180 degree about face upon his death, and suddenly pour out love and enlightment on him for all eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quite honestly, unless you are a completely conscienceless psychopath who could torture 2 year olds without feeling a twinge of guilt, if you believed that Vox's 'God' was the only game in town, what you should probably be praying for is that the athiests turn out to be right after all, because unless you completely lack a conscience, whatever 'heaven' Vox's 'God' might allow you into is going to be permanently poisoned for you by the knowledge that you had to be willing to kill and torture 2 year olds to get in. CS Lewis wrote about this very thing in the book 'The Great Divorce'

    "Hell is a state of mind - ye never said a truer word."

    "If it would help you and if it were possible I would go down with you into Hell: but you cannot bring Hell into me."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many people have you seen that was clearly SANE and "commanded by God" to kill and or torture 2 year old children?

      If you are going to refer me to the Bible, remember you have to understand things in full context...

      Delete
    2. Apollo: I suspect that the 'context' of the bible is going to have to be handwaved in some extremely complex way, to simultaneously justify both killing 2 year olds, and keeping virgin teenage girls alive to use as sex toys. A few points here:

      1. If there wasn't sufficient food for the Israelites to take care of 2 year olds, then there couldn't have been sufficient food to feed teenage girls.

      2. If the horrible religious practices of the parents justified killing 2 year olds, then you are going to have to explain why a 2 year old would have had sufficient time to adopt that horrible religion, but a 15 year old girl would not have had time to adopt it.

      3. If the 2 year olds had to be killed because they were 'genetically contaminated' you are going to have to explain why the teenage girls were not 'genetically contaminated'. You're also going to have to explain why a supposedly omnipotent God either couldn't prevent or remove said 'genetic contamination', or COULD prevent or remove it, but preferred to allow it, and rather than remove it, have the people who were born (through no fault of their own) with such genetic contamination, slaughtered post facto.

      A far more likely explanation: evil, sociopathic men wanted sex toys, but didn't want to spend the time or effort to take care of 2 year olds, so they convinced themselves that God wanted them to kill the 2 year olds, but keep the teenage girls as sex toys.

      As for being 'sane', I would remind you that Vox said he would, in fact, be willing to kill 2 year olds if God commanded it, and that this would have as little significance as deciding to erase a file on his computer.

      The thing is this, Apollo. It really gets to be QUITE a stretch to read about repeated evil deeds attributed to 'God' in the bible, and have to listen to handwaving about how there was some 'greater good' which there is never any actual proof of, justifying the evil deeds. At some point, the continual handwaving to justify evil for the sake of some 'higher good' starts to wear a little thin, and becomes very hard to swallow. It really becomes far simpler to believe that the evil deeds, are, in fact, evil deeds, there was no actual 'higher good', that evil was the point, and that either God is evil, or that the evil deeds were inspired by some evil spirits claiming to be God, or that human beings decided to do the evil on their own, and convincend themselves that 'God' wanted it, so they could feel holy about it, rather than ashamed.

      Delete
  3. BTW, Vox has also made himself my bitch again, by contradicting himself. When he writes in the quote:

    **arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious deity**

    He is contradicting his numerous previous statements that anything done by 'God' is, by definition, automatically good, since God's will is the only definition (of good) according to Vox.

    If he is now claiming that God is 'evil' he is contradicting his previous statement, and also acknowledging that either:
    1. Human beings have the right to judge God (not to mention, superior moral standards to God) or,
    2, That good and evil are concepts that exist outside God, or
    3. That there is some other superior, benevolent deity that has created standards of Good and Evil, and that he is deliberately and knowingly worshipping a lesser, evil deity, which would make him a satanist.

    All three of these are things he has previously denied.

    Not to mention that he either apparently forgot that he previously denied them. So now he is my bitch. Again. Surprised?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again - "arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious deity" is being referred to Satan.

      Vox Day doesn't insist God (The Most High) is evil.

      Or did I miss something...?

      Delete
    2. Ann, Vox is a Gnostic - he is under the delusion that Satan exists and rules the world.

      He passes himself off as Christian because, as with most of his beliefs, he knows that stating what he thinks too bluntly would leave even his coterie of mouthbreathers appalled.

      Delete
    3. That's a good question Apollo. He may be referring to Satan. But, his first line is "the world is ruled by". So maybe he believes the world is ruled by Satan. He might be the type to say that the world is ruled by Satan and the only way to combat that is to become Christian.

      But, most Christians also believe that Satan is used as a tool by God and is ultimately under God's thumb. If that's so, isn't God just as "arrogant, evil, and malicious" for letting Satan do these things?

      Of course, Vox's idea of God and/or Satan is ridiculous. I'm all for agreeing to disagree, but I won't back down against a Christian-based occultist like Vox.

      Delete
  4. I get bored super fast with his religion posts. Vox's theology sermons are strictly amateur hour, as Pox correctly notes in thr write up above. And the discussions on religion bring out the worst kind of trolls (not you, Ann. You comment on everything, not just clown college theology by Professor Vox). Vox can be interesting in his insanity. On this subject, he's a colossal bore.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Bible posits that the world is ruled by an arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious deity and we have no shortage of documentary, testimonial, and experiential evidence of his existence."-Vox Day

    I'm not sure if I can add anything to this. This passage clearly spells out what an awful human being and how totally delusional Vox is.

    Also, Vox might consider looking up the words rational and evidence or maybe its the word considerable he has trouble with.

    Oh, and if that's the God Vox believes in then he's not worshiping the same deity as most Christians. Pox Vay


    You do realize the "diety" Vox Day was writing about is Satan... Did you not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See above response. I'm not sure it matters who Vox was referring to. One you get to that "world is ruled by" line he's essentially placed those traits on God's shoulders.

      The Bible says "God is love", that doesn't resolve with a God that lets an evil deity rule the world.

      Delete
    2. Ok, I will bring it down here..

      That's a good question Apollo. He may be referring to Satan. But, his first line is "the world is ruled by". So maybe he believes the world is ruled by Satan. He might be the type to say that the world is ruled by Satan and the only way to combat that is to become Christian.

      A Christians job is not to "fight" Satan. We are however commanded to resist him. If we take Satan up on a fight, we would be slaughtered. Satan is smart and strong, much smarter then we are and much stronger then we are. To resist Satan we need the power of the Holy Spirit. Not to defeat him, That's Gods job to defeat him. Actually Satan is defeated already. He lost possession of this planet when Jesus died on the cross and rose again. He just has to be routed out.

      But, most Christians also believe that Satan is used as a tool by God and is ultimately under God's thumb. If that's so, isn't God just as "arrogant, evil, and malicious" for letting Satan do these things?
      My answer is no. However I can't tell you why with any intelligent response as to why.
      Call it blind faith on my part.


      Of course, Vox's idea of God and/or Satan is ridiculous. I'm all for agreeing to disagree, but I won't back down against a Christian-based occultist like Vox.

      I don't truly know what VD believes. I do know I don't agree with him on a lot of his theology of "Game Theory".

      The Bible says "God is love", that doesn't resolve with a God that lets an evil deity rule the world.

      God is love... and God is a lot of other things.ne thing comes to mind is Just.

      You will have to ask him as to why Satan is still ruling this world. You could try talking to him yourself...

      Delete
    3. Apollo, your beliefs sound a lot more like the Christianity I was brought up with. I don't share your beliefs, but I respect them.

      But claiming the world is ruled by an evil deity seems to be an affront to God's benevolence and/or his omnipotence regardless of who Vox was referencing.

      Delete
    4. You grew up in a Christian Church? You don't share my beliefs. But you respect mine..?
      Ok, Well that was nice of you not to bash my head in - in a verbal sense :)

      So now that begs the question, what do you believe? Atheist? Catholic? (catholics don't like me too much on a theological sense), Islam? Humanist? Liberal Christian? Conservative Christian? Satanist? Giah Worship?

      Just curious...

      Delete
  6. The Bible posits that the world is ruled by an arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious deity and we have no shortage of documentary, testimonial, and experiential evidence of his existence."

    This is, as you'd expect from Dipshit, bullshit.

    There's plenty of evidence that the universe is uncaring, unjust, not interested in sin, retribution, just desserts, or the wishes of people at all. Good and bad happen for no reason at all, save for the intervention of human agency.

    This is not a sign of rule by an evil deity. This is a sign of no deity.

    However, given that the religious tend to read their own ideals into their pictures of God, it says a lot about his psyche. He thinks maybe there's a distant God, but the actual one who rules the world reflects his own inner opinion of himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yawwwwwn...

      That is an old arguement that atheists pull out rather often... It is also dripping with sarcasm. What does that say about your psyche?

      Delete
  7. Phoenician wrote:**Ann, Vox is a Gnostic - he is under the delusion that Satan exists and rules the world.**

    Phoenician, I have some Gnostic beliefs as well. I believe that various dieties (both good and evil) exist, as well as a single Most High God. However, I have a number of disagreements with what Vox said. First of all, the lesser dieties do not 'rule' the world. To claim that a lesser deity rules the world rather than the Most High God is like claiming that the mayor of Nowhere, Nevada has greater authority than the president of the US.

    Vox's claim is basically either that the Most High God is evil, or else that some evil deity (such as the devil) is more powerful than the Most High God. Which is pretty much the same thing. This first of all contradicts what Vox has said before, in which whatever the most powerful God says is automatically 'Good', and secondly, makes Vox a self proclaimed devil worshipper (or worshipper of SOME sort of evil God).

    The thing about God being love is this. If you are going to allow free will, you CANNOT love everything. You cannot love your child, and love the man who murders your child. Trying to do so basically devalues love to an absolute zero. Love without standards or justice is meaningless. Possibly the best God can do is to allow evil deities such as Satan, so that if people choose to love evil, they will end up in an afterlife with a deity that loves evil.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have noticed something interesting about the attitudes of the posters in the Vox forum. And that is, if there is a particular activity that does not (necessarily) hurt anyone, but that they find to be highly distasteful, such as gay sex, for instance, they find biblical reasons as to why their distaste is divinely sanctioned and the practitioners of said activity are to be persecuted.

    On the other hand, if there are things that actually do violate people's rights (such as killing children or wanting to oppress women) that they want to do anyways, then they find biblical reasons as to why their desire to oppress and kill people is divinely sanctioned, and any objection by conscience to this is dismissed as being merely unimportant distaste at doing God's will.

    And in this, they are much like a three year old, who regards his own distaste at eating brocolli as somehow being more important than not hurting a kitten. It's egomania. And I'm sure the 3 year old would love to believe in a parent who told him it was alright to spit his brocolli out all over the floor and pull the kittens tail because he thought it was funny to hear the kitten screech.

    The thing is, someone who wants to behave immorally NEEDS a religion that is somehow arbitrary. IMHO, going to hell (or other bad afterlife) is not a 'punishment', it's simply a natural consequence to certain actions, in much the same way as smashing at the bottom of a cliff is a natural consequence to jumping off said cliff. An immoral person desperately needs to believe in an arbitrary afterlife, so that they can believe that God has made arbitrary rules saying it is just fine to hurt the sorts of people they hate, or that they can sneak into heaven covered with the blood of 2 year old children, so long as they obey the technicalities of God's arbitrary rules. They also like to create fear in other people, and demand obedience from them, by creating a threat of an arbitrary God that will inflict punishment on them for arbitrary reasons, which in reality is about as nonsensical as thinking that your bones will suddenly break while in the middle of a feild, nowhere near a cliff. As for their other belief, that they can sneak into heaven when covered with blood, on some technicality, that's about as likely as getting a lead coin past a competent jeweler by covering it with gold spray paint.

    ReplyDelete
  9. More promises from Vox:
    So here's the latest from Vox's blog:
    ** I'll stick to those areas where my predictions have been reliable. Now, if you think you know what's going on, by all means, share your opinion here. But if you're so convinced you are correct that you're sneeringly denigrating the opinions of others, well, then you'd better actually be correct.**

    Well, here's the deal. According to Vox, he has more 'wherewithal' than almost everyone else, because he is white, male, and conservative. However, he made some statements regarding dairy farming a while back, which my father said were wrong. I'm pretty sure that even by Vox's peculiar standards, my father has more 'wherewithal' than him on that particular subject, since my father happens to be white, male, conservative, and oh yeah, used to be a dairy farmer.

    Can I assume that this means Vox will keep his own word and no longer discuss dairy farming or other agricultural production in his blog? Or will he find a way he somehow trumps a former dairy farmer in regards to this subject?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Further stupidity from Dipshit for today:

    ----
    It is now December. And how is the glorious Christmas gift to humanity doing? According to CNN, not so well.

    GEORGE HOWELL, HOST: We know the first thing you have to do when you go to this website you have to select your state. Is that working?

    ALISON KOSIK, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: And what's funny is I was talking with Matt, and, yeah, that seemed to work, right, when you logged on. But then came the road blocks. So tell me about what happened, because we're getting another error message here, and it's supposed to be running smoothly. We’re just not seeing that.

    MATT SLOANE, CNN MEDICAL PRODUCER: Yeah, so, you know, we've been trying to get into the site since October 1 on and off again. I have to say it did work a lot more smoothly this morning. I got through. I picked my state. I put in all of my information and I got through the whole process in eight minutes. And then it said my status was in progress. So I went to refresh it and I got the error message.

    Ah, but it is entirely obvious that the progressives at CNN must be in on the great critic-trap! The fact that it is December and the website still isn't working is only further proof of the superlative strategic brilliance of the progressive masterminds whose fearsome capabilities it is futile to resist, doubt, or even question.
    ------

    Uh-huh

    http://americablog.com/2013/12/video-shows-cnns-mistake-crashed-obamacare-web-page.html

    "In a rather embarrassing revelation for CNN, their own “expert” crashed the Obamacare Web site yesterday by doing something that every child in America knows you simply do not do on the Internet: Refreshing the Web page while your transaction is processing."

    So, in summary, a CNN expert does something stupid (and shows it on video), and Dipshit says it proves the ACA website isn't working.

    So much for "Mensa"...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Apollo wrote: **. I do know I don't agree with him on a lot of his theology of "Game Theory".**

    I'm not sure what Vox's theology of Game Theory is. The morality of a lot of religions tends to adhere to it. There are probably a lot of reasons this could be, including that since it's an evolutionary successful strategy, successful religions go along with it; it could be dictated both in a biological and religious sense by God, there is really no way to say what the ultimate correct explanation is. I do get the idea that you might not be quite clear on what 'Game Theory' is, I'd suggest you read the following article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

    I would say you are correct about God being justice. Which is part of the reason Vox and company are dumbasses, justice is not arbitrary and doesn't simply change 180 degrees because 'God' says so, and God makes the rules. Claiming that is like claiming that if I invent a new standard of length, say the 'AnnInch' I can then therefore decide that an 'AnnInch' is equivalent to a centimeter one day, and 10 miles the next day, or that it is different lengths depending on who is doing the measuring.

    I have my own ideas about Christ, I think when he died what he gave people was not a 'freebie' where all they have to do is believe in him, and they are forgiven for their sins, with no further effort on their part needed, and too bad for the people hurt, they can just go suck eggs.

    I think what he gave people was actually an opportunity to repent, and then be forgiven. However, in order to repent, you have to both be sorry, and make amends for what you did. Which Christ allows us to do, and not have to pay extra 'interest' on the sin.

    As for Satan ruling the world... evil spirits exist like cliffs and gravity exist. The fact that gravity exists, and controls some things doesn't really mean that gravity 'rules' the world. If you behave in an evil fashion, you'll likely attract their (evil spirits) attention and give them some amount of power over you. However, things are not 'evil' simply because people enjoy them, that's nonsensical and contradictory and made up by the legalistic people you mentioned before who want power over others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have my own ideas about Christ, I think when he died what he gave people was not a 'freebie' where all they have to do is believe in him, and they are forgiven for their sins, with no further effort on their part needed, and too bad for the people hurt, they can just go suck eggs.

      I think what he gave people was actually an opportunity to repent, and then be forgiven. However, in order to repent, you have to both be sorry, and make amends for what you did. Which Christ allows us to do, and not have to pay extra 'interest' on the sin. - Ann


      Why Ann, seems to me that you are a follower of Christ? (Christian)

      Yes, there is that "repent" part. This is required. Someone saying the words doesn't quite cut it. Repenting is more like proof of Gods purchase.
      Salvation isn't free. It was purchased at a very high price. The Son Of God laid down his life as a sacrifice to pay for ALL of the sins of mankind. It is far from free. If you choose to become a follower of Christ you become His property. i.e. He owns you. If you aren't changed (over time) into what he wants you to be, well then you might not be his.
      He has changed me in ways that I kind of expected... you hear this from preachers. He also changed me in ways I didn't expect. He also did not change me in ways I didn't expect. i.e. I smoke. I assumed he would want me to give up this terrible sin. I asked about and all i got was "it didn't matter". What?

      He also changes you in ways that wasn't sinful. Like my diet. I ate pretty much what everyone else ate. Now I eat more vegtables and more fruit and a little less meat. Also, I eat organic now. I used to make fun of people who ate organic. I must say I feel much better though. I didn't even know I didn't feel good. Just thought I was getting old.

      While Salvation is a gift from God, it isn't free. But we could never earn it.

      Delete
    2. Apollo: Repenting is a big problem for some people, as it involves making amends to the people you have hurt. Sometimes that isn't possible (if you have hurt someone sufficiently that the damage can't be fixed), in which case it would then involve doing the same damage to yourself, as sort of an accounting placeholder. This is not very attractive to most people, except those who are actually genuinely sorry for their crimes, rather than those who want a 'get out of hell free card' with little effort on their own part.

      I disagree with the idea of salvation being a gift from God, letting, say, a rapist go scott-free without making amends on his part, because Christ paid for his sins. If you were attacked, would you want someone innocent to go to jail, to 'pay' for the crimes of the rapist? I'd prefer nobody go to jail, rather than someone innocent go to pay for the rapist's crimes.

      Regarding my own beliefs, I'm not spiritually advanced enough to serve Christ or God directly. I've met exactly 2 people who might possibly be spiritually advanced enough to do so. Neither of them is on the Vox forum.

      As for the Vox crowd, I don't believe for a moment that their reasons for wanting to persecute various people (such as gays) are simply out of obedience to God. Their attitude does not strike me as :"Oh, we actually like gays, and we really want to be nice to them, but God commands us to persecute them and treat them horribly" so much as it does that they dislike gays, enjoy persecuting them, and are cherry-picking through the bible for verses to justify their persecution so they can feel holy about it. I happen to find gays somewhat uncomfortable myself, but I don't regard either my personal discomfort, or cruel things falsely attributed to God 3000 years ago as being great, holy, moral revelations.

      Delete
    3. Apollo: The problem with a lot of people is that they either aren't educated enough to know why they dislike certain things. Or they do know, and deny it, because they would rather feel holy about giving in to some of their worse impulses, than go to the mental effort of fighting them.

      The thing with a lot of prejudice is this: The human brain is hardwired to give error messages (interpreted emotionally as something negative such as fear, disgust, or hate) when encountering something that the brain registers as 'human' but which looks, acts, or expresses an opinion different from yourself and the people nearest to you.

      This is why a lot of white people dislike blacks (though they will not admit it) and a lot of blacks dislike whites. Yet very few people of either race are bothered by a black or white cat. It's because the brain doesn't register the cat as 'human'.

      Consider which would bother you more, a baby with 2 heads, a cat with 2 heads, or a flower with twice as many petals as normal. Probably the baby would bother you the most, the cat somewhat less, and the flower not at all. It's because your brain regards cats as being more 'human' than flowers, that the deformed cat bothers you more than deformed flowers.

      Nature is full of bizaare sexuality. There are creatures that are hermaphrodites, creatures that can change their sex, creatures that actually have physical accomodations to homosexuality, and creatures such as spiders in which sex pretty much equates to murder and cannibalism. Don't even get me started on the reproductive cycle of mushrooms, which involves alternate generations with completely different physical forms and one generation having half the number of chromosomes as the other.

      Yet most people do not spend great amounts of their time fretting about this, because they don't regard these other species as 'human'. If God had a problem with bizaare sex, none of these species would be behaving the way they do.

      This probably also explains the problem that Vox and his friends have with Aspergers and autistic spectrum individuals. They mind their own business, and don't spend large amounts of time fretting over the personal eccentricities of other people. And if the only thing Vox's religion has to offer is a way to feel holy about persecuting other people for looking and acting different, then it has nothing to offer Asperger's individuals, because they aren't interested in doing that.

      Delete
  12. Phoenician: I've actually read a few books about Gnosticism, and I would not characterize Vox as a typical Gnostic. The Gnostics believe that the world (or universe of matter) was made by a lesser, evil deity, and therefore is flawed in nature. However, they also believe in a Most High God who first of all actually rules all of existence (including our world), and secondly, does not behave in an evil fashion, like the lesser, evil deity. I'm not clear what Vox believes in, except that it's clear that whatever he worships does behave in a hateful, evil fashion, which Vox claims is 'good' simply because it is God doing it.

    Sigh. This is basically another word game, or the old ad-hominem logical fallacy. The technical meaning of words has an effect on their emotional and moral meaning. When people say that something is 'good', such as not killing children, or giving money to charity, the word 'good' in that case, has a particular emotional meaning, conveying feelings of kindness and such. If you redefine 'good' to mean 'doing whatever God says, regardless of WHAT it is, whether it is giving to charity, or bashing open the heads of 2 year olds', you have altered the technical meaning of the word, and you don't get to keep the emotional and moral meaning of the previous definition.

    And, btw, redefining 'good' as doing whatever God says, regardless of what it is, and 'sin' as simply 'disobeying God' also reduces the value of Christ to an absolute zero. The reason why, is by that definition, it would be impossible for Christ to sin. If Christ is God, and whatever God does is good, no matter what it is, then by definition, whatever Christ does is good, and he CAN'T sin, never mind if he slaughtered 2 year olds, that would still not be a sin by Vox's standard. So Christ would not have 'sinned, he would not have been capable of sinning. Which pretty much reduces the meaning of his life to zero. Success and perfection have meaning only if failure is possible.

    And I fail to understand the point, if the only definition of my not being 'good' is that I am not good at acting exactly like God (no matter if God is a moral monster), I might point out that God does not act exactly like me, either. Nor does he act like Hugh Jackman or Captain Kangaroo. Nobody acts exactly like anyone else, and simply defining 'good' as 'whatever God does' is an arbitrary, circular definition.

    But I digress. The point is, I don't think Vox is a Gnostic, his beliefs are far more consistent with being a devil worshipper who simply makes sure to obey the will of whichever devil is the most powerful, rather than one that is less powerful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Jesus was capable of sinning. otherwise why did Satan tempt him. This was God The Father Testing God the Son. Imagine the temptation. Lots of people brush it off like, I could resist satan offering me the world. Really? After fasting for 40 days? REALLY? I don't think I could. This was much harder then Adam and Eve not being able to the from the Tree of Good and Evil. Imagine if he had sinned. Then there would have been a horrible delimma. Jesus would be ruling this world as evil and Satan would have become a God. Because Jesus would have relinquished his power to Satan.
      Then the war between God and Satan would now be at a stalemate.

      However, this is just my opinion and in no way is this talked about in the Bible. Just my overactive imagination. Would make an epic movie though.

      Delete

  13. But I digress. The point is, I don't think Vox is a Gnostic, his beliefs are far more consistent with being a devil worshipper who simply makes sure to obey the will of whichever devil is the most powerful, rather than one that is less powerful.


    In that Dipshit states his "God" is less than omnipotent, but still we should obey it no matter what our moral judgement of Its edicts because it is so much more powerful than us, I think the answer is clear.

    Dipshit is a Cthulhu-worshipper.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Apollo wrote: **I agree. Jesus was capable of sinning. otherwise why did Satan tempt him.**

    Apollo, I would tend to agree with you, which is why I disagree with Vox. According to Vox, it wouldn't matter what Jesus did, since he was God, if he had accepted the rule of the world from Satan, THAT would by definition, have been 'good', and not a sin. If you accept that, it reduces the concepts of 'good', 'evil', and 'sin' to an absolute zero.

    Now, it MAY have been possible that if God made the universe, then at the beginning of the universe, he decided what was 'good' and what was 'evil'. And those concepts could be very complex. But God can't go around arbitrarily changing those rules, even for himself, or they lose their meaning. Then again, perhaps even God can't even really arbitrarily decide what is 'good' or 'evil', since I think that although God is very powerful, he is not necessarily ALL powerful. And even God can't violate logic, if the technical meaning of 'good' is determined by it's emotional meaning, of kindness and helping others, even God can't proclaim actions opposite that to be the same as that, any more than he can proclaim black to be white.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Phoenician wrote:

    **In that Dipshit states his "God" is less than omnipotent, but still we should obey it no matter what our moral judgement of Its edicts because it is so much more powerful than us, I think the answer is clear.**

    Phoenician, in order for me to worship something, it has to have particular qualities, including being more powerful, more intelligent, and more moral than myself. If Vox is simply going to worship whatever is the most powerful thing around, regardless of what other qualities it has or doesn't have, he might just as well bow down to a homicidal ape, a nuclear bomb, or even the electrical outlets in his own house.

    What is especially unclear is as to why Vox appears to consider worshipping something that he himself defines as having so many evil qualities to be desirable, or why it would be desirable to end up in a 'heaven' run by such a deity, which by the qualities he has given it would be filled with a combination of murderous psychopaths, and frightened people who had reluctantly obeyed the murderous will of this 'God' out of sheer terror, and were now spending all eternity with a 'God' they hated and feared. Which for everyone except the psychopaths, would be a good definition of Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Annnnnnd Teddy defends his Dunning-Kruger championship status yet again...

    "[John Scalzi is] a gamma, so of course he's not going to put his self-illusions on the line through direct conflict capable of definitively settling the matter.
    [...]
    For example, precisely what ground level assumption of mine is complete shit? "

    Goddamned, the Dipshit is hilarious in his self-blindness at times...

    ReplyDelete
  17. For a "Mensa-level IQ" he sure has trouble keeping his facts straight.

    "Indeed, this is the core basis for my own Christian faith. The Bible posits that the world is ruled by an arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious deity."

    Christianity pre101 (which STI should know) teaches that Christ is God. I know of no faith that believes that Christ was evil and malicious.

    I could play Devil's advocate and suggest poor VD is communicating poorly that the second deity of the paragraph is Satan who currently rules the Earth. But STD is a writer of some repute, so clear, coherent communication is his forte.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what you are saying is that even though you know what he is talking about you refuse to accept he wrote it as such?

      Yes he was referring to the god of this world as being Satan. Yet you refuse to read it as such even though Christians around the world accept this as long known fact.

      God does not rule this world, yet. God will assume his rule over this world when it is time. He purchased this world through his crucifixion. You do understand the basic tenets of Christianity do you not?

      If you do, then you are spoiling for a fight by insisting Vox Day worships Satan. Is that what you fellows are up to?

      Delete
  18. Also.. what is the big deal about mensa iq levels? Intelligence in people can and should be measured in many different ways. Some people are good with their hands, some with their mouths(speech), some with computers, some with farming, some with mechanical, etc..

    I find this iq measurement to be bogus. it seems to be based up book learning only.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apollo: a couple of things. It can be safely assumed that Vox's God is, in fact, the "arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious deity" he refers to, partly because he, himself, behaves in an "arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious" fashion, and partly because he has repeatedly advocated doing any and all "arrogant, evil, intelligent, and malicious" acts which are commanded by this 'deity' on the sole grounds of it being more powerful than we are.

      As for IQ, it does measure certain aspects of intelligence. Vox frequently refers to his "149" IQ, when he is not referring to the fact that he is white, male, and conservative, as being proof that he has more 'wherewithal' than anyone else.

      Which is much why he hates me, I have his IQ trumped (166) and my father has his white, male, conservative thing trumped, since Vox made some statements a while ago regarding dairy farming which my father says are nonsense, and my father is not only white, male, and conservative, but used to be a dairy farmer.

      The thing is this: if you are going to do as Vox does, and claim to know the will of God, and to use that claim to justify hating and persecuting certain people, then you had BETTER be right, 100% of the time, about everything you talk about.

      The first time you are wrong, then either your God is wrong, or you have failed to correctly understand God's will. Either way, if you or God are wrong about one thing (such as dairy farming) then there is no reason other than handwaving, why you cannot be wrong about another thing, such as homosexuality.

      Anyway, I find Vox disturbing for several reasons. He does have high intelligence to the degree that he is able to write fairly well, and make an argument that looks fairly good (until you start getting into details that take very high intelligence to see, such as Avagadro's number). It's unclear to me whether he actually believes in this evil deity that he writes about, and is attempting to trick other people into giving their souls to what is basically the devil, or if he is a sociopath (but athiest) who gets some sort of thrill on getting Christians to basically advocate devil worship, or if he is planning on doing something like the teacher in the movie 'The Wave', and pulling the rug out from under all the people on his blog at some point.

      Delete
    2. Like I said, I personally believe the IQ measurement is bogus. I have known lots of people who were considered average iq (low to most people on the internet) and they good at something. Even if it was hard labor. (sigh)
      I never went to college, I never went to tech school of any kind. I couldn't afford it, neither could my parents. So since I was 14 years of age, I have worked. I have been a groundskeeper, construction lackey, janitor, grocery bagger, pizza delivery, line order packager, electronics tech, computer repair, software programmer, engineer - electrical/mechanical/software, prime mover controls test technician. Most of these within one company. I have been labeled an ignoramus on VD's blog. So? When I was in high school, my sister and myself were measured at ~200 iq. Teachers believed my sister was that high. They could not believe I was as well. I was always in trouble at school... so they considered me a dumbass.
      VD does seem pretty smart. It's hard to argue with his posts. Perhaps it is because he researches only stuff that interests him so he gets all the data and makes it look like he is right, or perhaps he is right. I don't argue with him. I just like reading his posts, he does have a very good command of the english language. Also, he really does seem to be pretty damn good with economics.

      As for God... Do I know the mind of God? No. Do I know the will of a God? From studying the Bible, I know just an inkling of His will. I keep getting surprised at the depth of it all. What is in the Bible is just scratching the surface. Yet it is everything we need to know.

      I believe the Bible is the Word of God. Written by God - penned by men. It isn't that God sends people to hell, they send themselves, i.e. a criminal causes himself to recieve justice in the form of prision time. He can't claim the judge did it to him. The criminal does it to himself.

      God wants everyone to come to him, repent and recieve mercy. Because we are judged already, we are just waiting to be sentenced. Jesus's death and ressurection was the sacrifice in our place to achieve justice for our sins. Now we only have to make a decision. That's all. But some people just plain can't stand God and refuse to come to God. Rather simple, no? No need to complicate everything. But we do. VD included.

      Delete
    3. What were these comments on "dairy farming"??

      Delete
    4. Vox claimed that the presence of women in the workplace was causing wages to go down. His so-called 'proof' was that an engineer had to work more hours now, than back in the 1960's in order to buy a gallon of milk. However, his proof is garbage for a number of reasons, including the fact that the engineer is competing not merely with women (according to Vox, the sole source of this problem), but with overseas engineers who work for about 1/3 the wages. He also ignores the fact that there is MASSIVE government interference in dairy farming, causing the price of milk to be far higher than it otherwise would be.

      Now, it MAY be, as Vox says, that women in the workplace are causing wages to go down. But his so-called 'proof' does not prove that, and it DOES show that he either knows nothing about dairy farming, in which case he's an idiot, or is pretending to be unaware of massive government interference in dairy farming in order to 'prove' his point, in which case he's a liar. And I think it can be safely assumed that Vox HAS no good proof, other than his wanting to blame things on women, that women are the cause of falling wages, otherwise he would have offered a good proof, rather than statements that do little but show that he knows nothing about dairy farming.

      **VD does seem pretty smart. It's hard to argue with his posts. Perhaps it is because he researches only stuff that interests him so he gets all the data and makes it look like he is right, or perhaps he is right.**

      VD is very good at handwaving and double standards. When you invent 'facts' such as the supposedly 'high' odds of the first life appearing by abiogenesis, without expaining how you came up with those odds, disregard other actually proven facts (such as Avagadro's number, or that the first life forms were far simpler than a single cell), demand that science provide concrete proof while accepting religion without such proof, then you can, by that nonsense, appear to be 'right' all the time.

      ** He can't claim the judge did it to him. The criminal does it to himself.**

      I actually think it's far more a matter of a criminal doing it to himself, than you think. Going to 'hell' (or a bad afterlife) is pretty much a natural consequence for certain actions and beliefs. It's much more like jumping off a cliff, than going to trial. If you jump off a cliff, you'll go smash at the bottom, if you align yourself with the north pole of a magnet, you'll be attracted to the north pole of a magnet, and if you live a life filled with hate and violence, you'll end up after death with various evil deities (such as the devil) that also advocate those principles. Bitching about it is rather like going west from Chicago and bitching that you end up in LA rather than NY.

      Delete
    5. I think Vox is probably right about individual wages going down due to women in the workforce. But in actuality it's not just because of women in the workforce, but because both spouses are working. The problem would have been avoided if all men stopped working and women took over their positions. But he can't frame it like that. He can't wrap his head around the fact that men are an equal part of the equation because, well he's a misogynist and that's how they are.

      Delete
    6. Pox, in a free market, real wages would not go down because of more people working, since if wages fell, you would also expect prices to fall. And the presence of women working is an extremely miniscule factor in a whole ocean of market interference, including more and more government taxation and regulation.

      I might also mention that Vox gives no reason why some people should stop working so that other people can earn higher wages, or why the two groups of people should be divided in the way he wants them divided, other than his wanting it that way.

      As for Vox, I've noticed he's very good at gradually 'moving the goalposts' when it comes to women or other races. First he claims that white males should have all the power, due to particular mental qualities that they (supposedly) have. When pointed out that there are at least some women and people of other races who have these same mental qualities, he claims that they first of all should not be allowed to exercise them personally, and secondly, that it is actually BAD for them to have these mental qualities, because they are 'masculine' in nature. The latter in particular there is no proof of, other than Vox wanting it so. The mere fact that more men than women may have a particular mental quality can't be construed to mean that the particular mental quality is therefore 'masculine' in nature.

      Delete
    7. Apollo wrote: ** I have been labeled an ignoramus on VD's blog.**

      Apollo, an 'ignoramus' on Vox's blog is someone who doesn't agree with him. A 'troll' on Vox's blog is someone who is too good at disproving his nonsense.

      Delete
    8. Some interesting things about the Vox site:
      1. Claiming how superior Christianity is, on the grounds that it encourages thinking in the longest possible time frame, specifically, that of 'eternity'. Yet it mysteriously has various loopholes that allow the majority to get at least SOME tangible rewards (money, power, sex) in the here and now on Earth, while those who are in the minority are expected to do without it entirely until the 'hereafter', and the very moment in which they will supposedly be rewarded for doing without what the majority gets in the here and now, is conveniently just exactly one moment too late to do anything about it if there is no actual payoff. While the majority, having the convenient loopholes in their religion, gets their payoff both now and later. Then get self righteous if the minority questions this as possibly being a trick of some kind, to gyp them out of any payoff at all, for the benefit of the majority.

      2. Handwaving away biological and genetic reality. Specifically, they claim that 'intelligent' women should have more children, in order to pass on their genes for intelligence. This, despite the fact that NONE of them would ever actually have sex with an intelligent woman (as they find them 'obnoxious), and in fact, justify the intelligent women being treated in such a fashion (being repeatedly sexually molested as a child) that make it very unlikely that she will want to have sex with anyone as an adult, on the grounds of intelligent young girls being 'obnoxious'. Yet despite all this, if she gives up a career, she will have lots of children. Even though she is too traumatized to have sex, and VD's Christian friends wouldn't touch her with a ten foot turkey baster anyways. Her genes will still magically be passed on if she doesn't have a career. Because bible.
      3. Repeatedly insisting that breeding as much as possible is the best strategy. Despite evidence that it will lead to mass starvation, and a far lower population in the long run. Because bible.

      Delete
    9. 1.tangible rewards of money, sex, power etc.

      I see your point is about the majority and minority getting an equal footing and VD/crew don't view it that way.

      But I need to point out - Since when is Christianity/Follower of Christ in any way about money power sex? Those are rewards of this world. Christianity is about salvation of men and women.

      2. My wife is intelligent. At least I think so. She is a great cook and has taught me how to cook. She claims she likes my cooking, but once in a while she decides she just isn't hungry when she sees what I cooked for her. But claims it does smell and taste good (she samples it). I think she doesn't want to hurt my feelings :). However, she used to work and never made a lot of money. But she learned anything that was put in front of her. She stays home now. I do work, and I said I have worn many hats. I don't despise "dumb" women. I have liked many of them. Although I don't think they are as dumb as they act. Intelligent women aren't obnoxious. Obnoxious women are obnoxious.
      I do prefer intelligent women though.
      I am not really sure where they get this stuff of women must stay home. There are certain economic realities families must deal with.

      3. I don't remember God saying a woman must have as many children as her body will allow. I don't remember God commanding a woman MUST have children. he knows they will. Some want more children, some want none.

      it's kind of like how people seem to want to control the kinds of sex married couples have. God is strangely quiet about what kind of sex married couples are allowed to perform with one another. Which would suggest that within a marriage anything is allowed, as long as they both want it.
      Many Christians will demand that married couples only have missionary sex in the dark and under the covers because how shameful it is. They will absolutely shriek if they found out a husband and wife has had oral sex, sex with lights on, sex outside, anal sex, sex with each others hands, different positions other then missionary. They will judge them and condemn them to hell for committing horrendous sexual sins. When God said no such thing in the Bible.

      I guess my point here is that many people will read what they want to hear from the Bible. And then project that upon people. So much of the Church does that and not just on issues of sex. I think it is a human flaw.
      "I do this, so you must do that too.", "I won't do that because it is wrong in my eyes, so you can't do it either... I demand.. ahem.. God demands this and he says it right here in the Bible," watch them twist the words of the Bible.

      The Bible is rather easy, it is men twisting it around that complicates things.

      Delete
    10. I think Vox is probably right about individual wages going down due to women in the workforce.

      Apollo, take it to the extreme to see the problem with Dipshit's "logic". If his thesis is correct, then wages will be at an all time high if only one person in the entire economy is working.

      The obvious problem here is that one person cannot produce enough to keep everyone satisfied. They might be the only one getting wages, but their "real" wage is limited by what they have available to spend that money on, i.e. their own production. And, of course, everyone else starves - unless they tax him to buy some of the stuff he alone produces.

      Consider the far more important aspect of wealth - the actual goods and services produced in an economy - rather than wages - the money paid to the factor of labour. For a given number of people (and remember, women are still in the country whether working or not), the more stuff produced, the better.

      What Dipshit is actually saying is that women are more productive as unpaid servants providing household services to men than as actual formal workers. Given the vast number of women who are more productive and useful to society than him, he's just too much of a coward to make that argument out loud.

      Delete
    11. (Not to mention the feminist critique that points out that a woman who has no role other than 'housewife' has to take whatever her lord and master dishes out, whether that be love, abuse, or marital rape.

      Dipshit's already expressed his opinion on the right of husbands to rape their wives, so it's no surprise he objects to an economy that allows them to escape)

      Delete
    12. Apollo wrote:
      **But I need to point out - Since when is Christianity/Follower of Christ in any way about money power sex? Those are rewards of this world. Christianity is about salvation of men and women**

      Christianity SHOULD be about the salvation of your soul. In theory. But, as practiced, it has various 'loopholes' in it that allow those in the majority to enjoy, money, power, and sex (among other things) while denying these things to various people not in the majority. Case in point, the position on gay sex. It's partly because Christians are completely determined to believe that people make a deliberate CHOICE to be gay, that they are so opposed to evolution. If evolution is real, homosexuality becomes just one more thing that can go wrong either genetically, or in uteri. So Christianity allows those lucky enough to be in the heterosexual majority to have sex (provided they get permission from self-appointed third parties), while those who are gay, according to Christianity, must either remain celibate, or have a form of sex which is un-natural to them. Which to my mind is as ridiculous as demanding that people who are left handed be required either to use their right hand, or no hand at all.

      A few other things about evolution. First of all, if humans are 'engineered' as the VD crowd claims, then God is a crap lousy engineer. The human eyeball is designed very poorly, the blood supply to the retina is in front of the retina rather than behind it (as it is in various other species such as the squid), and despite the claims that humans are not descended from apes, we strangely enough still have the set of genes for a thick coat of fur like apes have. The reason we are 'naked' is that we have another gene that 'switches' the genes for a coat of fur off. Sometimes this second gene is defective, and our gene for having fur can then express itself, thus leading to unfortunate 'wolf-boy' like circus freaks. We also have a defective gene for synthesizing vitamin C, which is why we need to eat it or get scurvy. Most other animals can make vitamin C in their body. Oddly enough, the same apes evolutionists claim we are descended from, which the Vox crowd denies, have precisely the same defect in their gene to make vitamin C.

      A few other things - Good and evil cannot be altered by the permission of a self-annointed human agency. If sex with someone is bad, the 'permission' of the local minister cannot make it good. Nor can his lack of permission make it 'evil', if it is actually good. Claiming that is like claiming that it would be 'evil' for me to steal Pox's car, but that if the local minister said it was OK, then it would become 'good'. Or that it would be 'evil' for me to drive my own car around unless the minister said I could first. The minister has nothing to do with any of that, to drive Pox's car or have sex with him I need his consent, not the minister's.

      I notice Vox lacks some key ingredients of certain types of moral integrity. He handwaves away any and all harm done by Christians, or in the name of Christianity, or claims there is a valid excuse for it, while trumpeting out any harm done by non-Christians.

      Delete
    13. He also has what I consider to be a very nasty argument, namely that people should not argue against Christianity, because it might upset certain cute type people, such as a hypothetical elderly black woman who derives a lot of comfort from her 'Baptist Church'.

      Now, it has been pointed out by people wiser than myself that whenever someone wants to attack a right, they will start by attacking that right's least attractive practioners. For instance, if they want to attack freedom of the press, they will start by attacking pornographers.

      Well, the opposite is true, if someone wants to promote an injustice (and demanding that your particular religion be immune to questioning or criticism is an injustice), they will start by pointing out that particular injustice's MOST attractive beneficiaries. While simultaneously (as Vox does) demanding that victims of the injustice either be ignored or somehow blamed.

      And there are victims of Christianity. Leaving aside the countless people killed in the name of Christianity, It's absolute demand for 'faith' is extremely cruel to certain types of people. Imagine the effect on a highly intelligent and logical 6 year old who simply has too much integrity to be able to believe in something without proof. Given the Christian demand for 'faith' said 6 year old is now doomed to spend their life believing that EITHER (if atheism is correct) they will simply rot in their graves after they die, OR (if Christianity is correct) they will go to hell, regardless of how good they are, while everyone else around them, despite possibly behaving in a far worse fashion, will go to heaven, simply because they are less logical and able to make themselves actually believe things without proof. Can you imagine the effect on the self esteem of that child? Judaism is far less cruel, in Judaism if you make an honest attempt to try to be good, even if you aren't a Jew, you will go to heaven.

      Another thing I have noticed about Vox is that he continually makes the assumption that the economy (in the present) and the future of the human race should be the way he happens to want them to be, and that other people should sacrifice what they might want to do, in order to provide Vox with the present and future he happens to want, and they should do this even if Vox himself is actively working against them doing such a thing. For instance, he thinks women should stop working so that he can have a higher wage, he thinks white people should have more children so that there will be a greater number of white people in the future, and that intelligent women should have a lot of children, in spite of Vox justifying their being sexually molested as children and certainly not wanting to fuck them as adults, both of which are actively working against the goal of their ever reproducing.

      Vox is not the arbiter of the economy, or the future of the human race, or who should have children. His continual assumptions that he is, are arrogant in the extreme.

      Delete
    14. Apollo: Another thing, other than Vox not being the arbiter of the economy (thus rendering his complaint about women working being invalid other than simply a personal bitch) he proves his point very poorly. His argument is far too simplistic and ignores far too many other factors. You cannot prove that women working has caused wages to go down, simply by pointing out that people in one profession (engineering) now need to work more hours in order to purchase one particular commodity (milk) while ignoring all sorts of other things, such as:

      competition from overseas engineers,

      government interference in dairy farming,

      whether engineers in countries where women DON'T work need to work more hours to purchase milk,

      whether or not other professions in this country need to work more hours to purchase milk,

      whether or not engineers and other professions in this country need to work more hours to purchase things other than milk,

      whether or not engineers and other professions in countries where women DON'T work need to work more hours to purchase goods other than milk,

      whether or not increased government taxation and regulation has caused the price of goods to go up.

      Delete
    15. Apollo wrote: **The Bible is rather easy, it is men twisting it around that complicates things.**

      Apollo, destroying arguments based on such 'twisting' is fairly easy. If someone wants to use the bible and the supposed (according to them) 'Will of God' as a basis for either persecuting other people or telling them how to live, then that person had BETTER be right, 100% of the time, in everything they say and do. The very moment they are wrong about ANYTHING, regardless of how small, their entire basis for demanding the persecution and control of other people collapses like a house of card, because if they can be wrong about one thing, then there is no reason (other than handwaving and bible twisting) why they cannot be wrong in something else. Such as their claims about the 'Will of God'.

      Delete
    16. Apollo wrote: **Many Christians will demand that married couples only have missionary sex in the dark and under the covers because how shameful it is.**

      Well, that's another point, and another reasons Christians are so absolutely against believing in evolution. In order for sex to be either 'evil' or 'for reproduction only', it's absolutely necessary for human beings to have been designed down to the very last detail by 'God'. Otherwise, facts simply contradict this. If evolution is true, then sex is simply a means of improved evolution (there's important reasons why creatures that have sex are much more advanced than those that reproduce asexually). As for sex being for 'reproduction only', simply because most animals have sex only for reproduction, does not mean this is the case with human beings. Body parts can and do get repurposed or multipurposed via evolution. Animals, for instance, use their tongues only for eating. Human beings use their tongues for eating, pronouncing certain phonemes, and playing various musical instruments. Are the latter two 'invalid' or 'evil' simply because most animals don't do that? Human physiology flat out contradicts the notion that sex should be for 'reproduction only'. Human females don't go into heat. They can and do become sexually aroused at any time, not just when they are fertile. I don't know the reason why, but this is also the case in dolphins, who have sex for pleasure. Were dolphins in the Garden of Eden? Are they 'fallen'? Go ask Vox. Expect either to be sworn at or to hear crickets as an answer.

      Delete
    17. If evolution is real, homosexuality becomes just one more thing that can go wrong either genetically, or in uteri.

      Not quite.

      Since evolution is real, homosexuality is neither right or wrong, per se. Evolution is an amoral process - living, dying and reproduction are part of the process, but there is no morality within that process regarding these events.

      Gravity may make falling off a 100 foot cliff a fatal experience, but it is not rendering a moral judgement in doing so. Homosexuals may or may not reproduce as easily as heterosexuals, but there is no moral judgement in that.

      Morality is imposed by human narratives. A narrative that says the homophobic rantings of a bunch of Bronze Age sheepherders should dictate morality to 21st century information age societies is just plain stupid.

      Delete
    18. Phoenician wrote: **Since evolution is real, homosexuality is neither right or wrong**

      There is no way to tell whether non-deity guided evolution is real. However, if God did not specifically create and/or completely control the evolution of humanity, then homosexuality is just one more thing that sometimes goes wrong, like having an extra finger. Which is why those who are obsessed with a religious condemnation of homosexuality are so violently opposed to the thought of evolution.

      Mind you, the opposite is NOT true. Merely because God may have specifically created and/or guided the evolution of human beings does not automatically prove homosexuality to be morally wrong. But it is a prerequisite to any possibility of it being morally wrong.

      **Morality is imposed by human narratives.**

      There is evidence that animals have a sense of morality and fairness.

      ** A narrative that says the homophobic rantings of a bunch of Bronze Age sheepherders should dictate morality to 21st century information age societies is just plain stupid.**

      When your religion has nothing to offer in terms of elevating you, or anything else of value, other than the easy road of making you feel superior by condemning certain people who happen to be in a minority, and you don't want to take the harder road of actually improving yourself, then you are probably going to insist on the absolute correctness of a Bronze age religion that justifies your particular hatreds. And btw, there is actually evidence that the supposed 'rantings' of the Bronze age sheperds about 'homosexuality' may not even have been about 'homosexuality' at we know it at all, as apparently the term that is translated as 'homosexuality' would be better translated as 'male temple prostitution'. But since temple prostitution is pretty much obsolete, correctly translating the term would deprive people of their convenient hate objects.

      I will stand by my opinion that SOME homosexuals engage in certain activities which are pretty much a disaster, healthwise, including promiscuity and anal sex. But the same behaviors in a straight man would be just as much of a disaster, healthwise. People of whatever sexual inclination really should not have too many partners, too frequently, and find other things to do with eachother besides anal sex.

      Delete
    19. There is no way to tell whether non-deity guided evolution is real.

      Apart from the evidence, of course.

      However, if God did not specifically create and/or completely control the evolution of humanity, then homosexuality is just one more thing that sometimes goes wrong, like having an extra finger.

      I'm sorry, but on what basis did you determine homosexuality was "wrong"? It seems to appear in many mammal species - including our near cousins - and I can give two theories why it is an evolutionary advantage for the species - one directly, and the other as an epiphenomenon of another adaption.

      Delete
    20. Phoenician wrote:
      **I'm sorry, but on what basis did you determine homosexuality was "wrong"?**

      I'm not quite sure what you mean, Phoenician, so I'll try to address a couple different points of what I think you *might* mean.

      In order for homosexuality to be 'wrong' in a moral sense, it would be a necessary prerequisite for God to have either created or completely controlled the evolution of the human race to such a degree that there are, in fact (as religious people assert) no people who are actually born homosexual, and that everyone who claims to have been born homosexual in fact, actually deliberately chose to be so, in order to be perverse and disobedient. I disagree with that particular theory, but it's the one promoted by a lot of religious people. And requires that evolution be false, for the reason I described.

      The sense in which I was using the word 'wrong', as homosexuality being one more thing that goes wrong, is that it's an abnormality, like having an extra finger. Which morally speaking is neither good nor bad. It's not particularly desirable, from what I can see, but also not worth getting morally upset about. I'm not sure what evolutionary advantage there would be to it, it's possible that there could be, just as there is an evolutionary advantage to a tendency to obesity and diabetes, or sickle cell anemia. I tend to find it more odd than anything else, from an electricians point of view, you generally don't try to plug the male end of one plug into the male end of another plug. But I spend way too much time in the hardware store, so that is just me. For the most part, I have more important things to worry about than what other people do in bed, and those who don't have more important things to worry about are probably spoilt brats who don't have a job and work that needs to be done.

      As for their complaints of homosexuals spreading disease, my response to that would be identical to THEIR response to not wanting to get their children vaccinated. If vaccinations actually work, then those parents who do get their children vaccinated don't really have anything to worry about, if other parents choose not to do so. Likewise, if their Christian monogamy actually works to prevent venereal diseases, then they themselves don't have anything to worry about if some other people choose not to follow that.

      Delete
    21. The sense in which I was using the word 'wrong', as homosexuality being one more thing that goes wrong, is that it's an abnormality, like having an extra finger.

      Or like having green eyes, or blonde hair...

      Those are also abnormalities, are they not? Would you describe them as "wrong"?

      Delete
    22. Phoenician wrote: **Or like having green eyes, or blonde hair...

      Those are also abnormalities, are they not? Would you describe them as "wrong"?**

      It depends. If they reduced chances for survival or reproduction, or didn't occur in the parents, or didn't occur in very many people, I'd describe them as being 'wrong' in a functional sense.

      By that standard, green eyes and blonde hair are not 'wrong'. Such things as having an extra finger (especially if it interfered with hand function), albinism, down's syndrome, or someone being born with orange eyes with purple polkadots would be. In regards to the latter, if in thousands of years it was fairly common for people to have orange and purple polka-dotted eyes, I would no longer describe it as 'wrong'. But this was likely true of blonde hair and green eyes at one time, as well. Homosexuality is a bit different, it does drastically reduce someone's chances of reproducing.

      Delete
    23. It depends. If they reduced chances for survival or reproduction, or didn't occur in the parents, or didn't occur in very many people, I'd describe them as being 'wrong' in a functional sense.

      *grin* Well, there's your problem. Homosexuality need not reduce the chances of genetic reproduction.

      Consider the two following theories

      i, Kin selection - within a group of related individuals, having some adults who do not have children of their own significantly increases the chances of survival of the children of their siblings and cousins - who also share their genes.

      Crudely, your lesbian aunt does a lot of babysitting and doesn't favor her own kids over yours.

      ii, Polymorphous sexuality as a form of bonding - within a group of killer apes who are forced to work together, sexuality has been adapted from strict reproduction to communication and bonding (which is, of course, seen in our near cousins the bonobos). A wide spectrum of sexuality is more useful than strict heterosexuality for this adaptive purpose, and the existence of homosexuals is an epiphenomena of this spectrum.

      Crudely, being able to get it on with everyone in the tribe helps keep the tribe together, and as a result, a small number will naturally prefer their own sex more than the other.

      Delete
  19. do you guys have, like, ANYTHING better to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know. Have you?

      Delete
  20. Apollo: If you read the bible, Jesus said a lot of things such as "He who is without sin may throw the first stone", "Remove the log from your own eye, then you may see clearly to remove the speck of dust from your brother's eye" and telling his disciples that what was going to happen to John was none of their business. Basically, people should be concerned with themselves and their own business, and their own relationship with God, not trying to control others. Which is basic physics, every action has an equal, and opposite re-action. If a cannon shoots a cannon ball with a certain amount of force in a forward direction, the cannon itself will be pushed with the same amount of force, in the opposite direction. And if you are forcibly pushing other people in front of God, by the same token, you are pushing YOURSELF away from God.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anyway, here's the thought for the day about a lot of so-called 'religions' whose main practice seems to be hating and persecuting various people, rather than trying to improve yourself. They have a lot in common with a 'diet' whose main focus is spending large amounts of time eating icecream and corn chips while condemning the 'half ton killer'. It has the attraction of not requiring the effort of diet and exercise on your part. It will also cause obesity, diabetes, and heart attack, but you'll feel better about it until you get to that point. And I imagine a religion that teaches hatred will cause you to go to hell, but you'll feel good about it, until that point.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ann: **There is no way to tell whether non-deity guided evolution is real.**

    **Apart from the evidence, of course.**

    We can tell from the evidence that evolution happened, and that it wasn't really engineered all that well. But there's no way to tell whether God was behind it or not. God may very well have caused evolution to happen, and may have chosen or been unable to engineer it perfectly. By way of analogy, I can cause a scoopful of popcorn to pop (by putting it into my popper), but may not be able to control the exact shape each kernel pops into, or if I can control it, might choose not to for some reason. And if there's other explanations for the popcorn popping (say a nearby natural source of heat like a forest fire), then it's could potentially be very hard to tell from a pile of popcorn whether I popped it or the forest fire made it pop. I do know that I get annoyed at those who claim they know for certain what made evolution happen (or not happen), or popcorn happen, and then try to use that claim to condemn or control other people.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is a remarkable whiff on your part. Of course Vox is referring to Satan. And as you guys are apparently only superficially familiar with the Bible, you completely fail to understand what is being said. Here's the basic, basic, teachings of christianity on satan's roll in the world: http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html.

    But feel free to go on with your "It doesn't matter that I made obvious mistakes, I'm still right" narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Booch wrote: **And as you guys are apparently only superficially familiar with the Bible, you completely fail to understand what is being said.**

    I'd say that you are either only superficially familiar with Vox's writings and behavior, or else are handwaving away much of what he says, since it's fairly obvious that the 'God' he worships, is, in fact, the evil, arrogant 'God' he talks about. In short, Vox is worshipping Satan.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Phoenician wrote: **sexuality has been adapted from strict reproduction to communication and bonding**

    I definitely agree with that one, although denying that single fact (along with handwaving away the fact that the planet Earth can produce only a finite amount of food) is pretty much the basis for a lot of religions.

    I have been considering your question regarding blond hair and green eyes as I went about my routine today, and I would have to say that strictly speaking, I would consider blue or green eyes to be 'wrong' in a very broad sense. The reason why is that they don't see quite as well and are more subject to diseases than brown eyes. Apparently they function well enough most of the time to allow the individual to survive, though, and may confer an advantage if they are regarded as more attractive, thus increasing the chances of a blue or green eyed person being able to reproduce.

    But at any rate, neither blue eyes nor homosexuality are worth spending large amounts of time worrying about, or basing the majority of one's religion on.

    I have blue eyes, btw...

    ReplyDelete
  26. That's right ann, double down. Vox never said God was evil. You're confusing yourself with Vox. Vox has always maintained that God gets to define evil, and therefore could not be evil Himself. You on the other hand have often said that the god of the Bible is evil in excessively long comments that no one but Pox and Phoenician ever agreed with. But as you seem unable to not project your own feelings and beliefs on to others, here's a post where Vox explicitly states that Satan is the god of this world: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2004/02/problem-of-evil.html.

    ReplyDelete