I am in every sense of the word a theist, but just because someone else chooses to disagree with me on the existence of God really makes no difference to me on a personal level. Just be a good person, it doesn’t matter what they believe, right? Well, that’s the way it should be. The level of intolerance on both sides pretty much thwarts this mission.
Now the Christians will talk about the Great Commission and say that we should always be sharing the word. I agree that opportunities must be taken when they are there, but there are times to just lay off. Also, making disciples of the nations is not a one time deal. As LeCrae said, “it’s not a stage and a mic, it’s life on life”. But furthermore Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourself. That means atheists too.
I find some aspects of atheism fascinating. Sam Harris is now one of the “new atheists” who is in the public eye. Yet some of his statements are kind of hypocritical to me. He, like many other atheists, blame religion for starting wars and spreading hatred. But, in his books he launches and all out assault on Islam. If people looked beyond the scope of the media, they’d realize Muslims have no interest in killing people, and that it was one group of extremist terrorists that were responsible for 9/11, among other acts of terror. I will not deny that there have been atrocities carried out in the name of religion, but looking at recorded history, what percentage of wars have actually been started by religion? Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, both World Wars, etc. had nothing to do with religion. Another new atheist, Richard Dawkins, basically has launched an all out assault on Christianity, saying that God is just a delusion. Yet most of his reasons for supporting this conclusion are complete balderdash. One of his reasons was the age old question of “who created God?”, and says that a being as complex as God would need an explanation equally or more complex. God was not created, he is eternal. John Lennox pretty much destroyed him on this point, saying that “created Gods are by their nature delusions” and that “an explanation can’t be more complex than the thing you’re explaining, otherwise it’s not an explanation”. Dawkins also talks about the bible as a “bad source of morality” because of laws in the old testament. Again, he is misrepresenting Christianity. The old covenant was nullified with Jesus’ death. The old laws don’t apply anymore. For someone exclusively going after Christianity, you’d think he’d have some basic knowledge of their theology.
Sartre was the most prominent atheist of the 20th century and he had some quite interesting views. Thought that God was impossible. Yet it’s kind of funny that he said that “unless there is an infinite reference point by which everything can be measured, all finite reference points become meaningless”. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0013.html
He believed without God all things were permissible, echoing the thoughts of Frederick Nietzsche. That if God was thrown out, everything that he stands for goes out too.
I hope this is not seen as my crusade against atheism, just my expressing my disagreement with their ideas.
But there are other atheists that are spreading their own form of hatred. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2012/02/the-amazing-rape-promoting-atheist/
Stay classy. Good luck winning people to your side Mr. Kincade saying things like that.
But to conclude, no matter what anyone believes, make the world a better place, not a worse one.
I have never taken summer classes before, but here I am, going back tomorrow to prepare for my three credit hour class in June. I am not afraid, and understand the workload will be heavy. But since it is all I’m really doing (along with finishing an online management course), I doubt it will be horrible.
I’m pretty sure you subscribed to this blog which is more or less a collection of my personal thoughts and not my sports blog. That one has the title of “Had Enough Sports? Too bad, here’s more!”, if you want to subscribe to it instead.
It also would be cool if you put out some more posts onto yours. Getting readers can be hard, but everything starts small. I’m just starting too.
Originally posted on Luv Notes To Daughters:
We’ve seen that in regards to morality, the evolutionary impersonal answer of time plus chance plus the impersonal, or ‘-the force be with you-’ type answer in a couple of the world’s major religions doesn’t satisfactorily answer the question of man’s dilemma. Starting from the impersonal gives no answer to how objective right and wrong, noble and cruel, finite yet personal, have any meaning whatsoever. It was Sartre who said that ‘no finite point has any meaning unless it has an infinite reference point.’ This is just as true in the area of morals as it is in the area of metaphysics. Finite man has no place to rest any objective or absolute meaning or standard to the words ‘noble’, ‘cruel’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’ without some kind of infinite reference point to give those words substantive, objective content. This is huge, and you should never allow someone in your apologetic endeavors to miss this point and evade the implication. There is ‘no’ answer starting with anything impersonal; it’s just ‘what is’.
If you recall, it was the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814), the French philosopher, aristocrat, politician and writer whose cruel and libertine sexuality and lifestyle the term “sadist” comes, living during the French Revolution (1789-1799) who said, “What is, is right.” Can you see that starting with the impersonal, that is what man boils it down to, “Whatever happens to be, is right?” This is the natural outflow starting with the impersonal beginning. The problem though is that the Marquis de Sade could just as easily have said, “What is, is wrong”; for he had no place to rest his definitions of right and wrong, no standard or infinite reference point in which to give those words any meaning. As Schaeffer concludes, “If you begin with the impersonal, the universe is totally silent concerning any such words.”
Boring, boring, boring. It was nothing more than a bunch of guys talking for two and a half hours. Next to nothing happened. Not to mention it was very historically inaccurate.
“David Brooks praises the new movie “Lincoln” for illuminating “the nobility of politics” and, he hopes, inspiring Americans to reconsider their low regard for politicians. The film depicts Abraham Lincoln’s arm-twisting and political maneuvering in January 1865 to secure approval of the 13th Amendment, which, when ratified by three-quarters of the states, abolished slavery throughout the nation.
This was indeed an important moment in political history. But Mr. Brooks, and the film, offer a severely truncated view. Emancipation — like all far-reaching political change — resulted from events at all levels of society, including the efforts of social movements to change public sentiment and of slaves themselves to acquire freedom.
The 13th Amendment originated not with Lincoln but with a petition campaign early in 1864 organized by the Women’s National Loyal League, an organization of abolitionist feminists headed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Moreover, from the beginning of the Civil War, by escaping to Union lines, blacks forced the fate of slavery onto the national political agenda.
The film grossly exaggerates the possibility that by January 1865 the war might have ended with slavery still intact. The Emancipation Proclamation had already declared more than three million of the four million slaves free, and Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia, exempted in whole or part from the proclamation, had decreed abolition on their own.
Even as the House debated, Sherman’s army was marching into South Carolina, and slaves were sacking plantation homes and seizing land. Slavery died on the ground, not just in the White House and the House of Representatives. That would be a dramatic story for Hollywood.”
New York, Nov. 23, 2012
The writer, a history professor at Columbia University, won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for history for “The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.
Save your money and watch C-Span if you’re in to endless political speech. I fell asleep nearly half a dozen times. This is a nominee for Best Picture? Seriously, they might as well rename it Worst Picture. When films like The Hurt Locker (nothing more than 2 hours of talking about diffusing a bomb while using the F-word in every line) and The King’s Speech, boring to point you want to cut your testicles off with a butter knife and a complete overstating of history, can win, it proves all you need is to call it “history” and fabricate everything.
What ever happened to films with a beginning, middle and end with conflict, clear dialogue and a plot that moves along? That’s where GREAT movies are at.
Videotaping was vital to their winning super bowls.
Let’s take a look at all the excuses given to minimize it.
1. Everybody does it. False.
Notice I did not say NO other teams do it. The notion of every team doing it is false. There is the possibility other teams did it before Denver was caught doing the same thing in 2010. However, the rules changed before the 2008 season that put radios in defenders helmets. http://www.tampabay.com/sports/football/bucs/article794017.ece
Before 2008, it seems doubtful, but possible. Even if a few other teams had done it, does that give another team the right to break the rules?
2. It didn’t help.
Please. I don’t care what Goodell said. He was out to protect the league, nothing else. If the taping didn’t help, why did they do it?
3. He didn’t know. Wrong.
“The rule is clear,” said Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher, competition committee co-chairman. “There’s no need to clarify it.”
4. What they did wasn’t illegal until 2006. False.
Where did this come from? Was it because a memo was sent out to point out the rules? Here is a list of the rule changes prior to the 2006 season.
After the 2006 season.
Does anyone expect me to believe Tom Brady, who couldn’t start over Brian Greise in college, would just walk on to a team that was 5-11, and then become some sort of miracle worker? He threw 36 TD’s in 2010, over 1/3 of them were the Pats running up the score.
Or that Belichick, a coach who was so bad in Cleveland the franchise left the town, would suddenly become the best coach in the league? Give me a break.
Here are Romney’s lies from the first Presidential debate:
His lies about energy:
But, to be fair and balanced, here are the current President’s lies during his time in office.
But truthfully, the two men are the same candidate.
Both will continue the failures of Reagan and Bush, which have put us in multiple recessions. Reagan balanced the budget? You have got to be kidding. The dude may have brought some “prosperity”, but the dude tripled the deficit. Best president of all time? Please. He is likely the worst. He made us a debtor nation instead of a creditor nation.
Reagan and Bush are the two worst presidents in history, running up huge debts and piling on to the deficit.
I give Obama the edge as the better liar, because Romney’s lies are so out in the open. Here is a generator of all his flip flops.
RON PAUL 2012! VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY PREDICTED WE’D BE IN TROUBLE, YET WE ARE BECAUSE NOBODY LISTENED!!!