March 29, 2006


I'm still having fun making a mockery out of Fundies on Vox's comment board. They are so easy to humiliate, but I don't even think they realize it.

Here is a conversation with Vox's wife Spacebunny. It reminds me of a Monty Python skit. She is a typical retareded/dishonest Fundy. The premise is that these imbeciles say that morality stems from the word of God and isn't relative. I said Atheists have morality just like anyone else. Morality is based on sympathy, not the word of God. I'm asking her for HER definition of morality and to give me some examples.

I find it extremely amusing how those who claim to be "just as moral" as Christians are the ones frothing at the mouth and swearing. Very convincing boys.
Spacebunny | 03.29.06 - 10:18 am | #

Spacebunny, in your own words define morality and give examples of it. No real answer expected.

Oh and you mocking me is like a Down's child mocking Einstein.

Your lack of understanding and intelligence doesn't surprise me. Vox is pretty smart, and opposites do attract. My wife is limited intellectually too.
The Atheist Jew | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 11:19 am | #

I already defined morality for you.
Spacebunny | 03.29.06 - 11:50 am | #

My point is and always has been not about the definition of morality but what you base yours on. Evolution - dismissed several times here and other places. Your own sympathies?! Please, that moral relativism which IIRC you said you were not a moral relativist. Your arguments (if one can call them that) have been nothing but red herrings, straw men and ad hominens. Very convincing. I shall change my thinking at once.
Spacebunny | 03.29.06 - 11:55 am | #

Spacebunny you dodged my question again as expected.

I don't remember seeing your definition or examples.

Lets see them, or did you forget what you supposedly wrote?

Thanks for proving me right.
The Atheist Jew | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 12:05 pm | #

You only recently asked for my personal definition after I gave you what you originally asked for which was a definition of morality. How do you know that I don't go by the dictionary definition? I don't play the game of moving goal posts you seem to be so fond of.
Spacebunny | 03.29.06 - 12:07 pm | #

Answer my question Spacebunny. What is morality and give me a few examples.

You can cut and paste the answer you supposedly gave, because I saw nothing out from your own words.
The Atheist Jew | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 12:08 pm | #

I don't know how you define morality because you won't answer me directly.
I am asking for examples. Lets hear them.
The Atheist Jew | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 12:09 pm | #

You rode the little yellow bus to school didn't you?
Spacebunny | 03.29.06 - 12:13 pm | #

Wow, another insult but still no answer.


What is your definition of morality and give me some examples?
The Atheist Jew | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 12:15 pm | #

I gave you my definition, like I said, I don't play the game of moving goal posts like you seem to enjoy so much. Nor the cherry picking you are so fond of doing yourself, but accuse everyone else of doing.
Spacebunny | 03.29.06 - 12:15 pm | #

Give me the defintion again please and give me examples. Lets pretend you didn't give me the answer previously because I don't recall you doing so.

It is obvious that you are purposely not answering the question. It leads me to believe that you don't have a definiton of morality nor can you give examples.

It makes me lead to believe I am debating with someone who is either completely dishonest or someone with severe brain damage.

I knew you wouldn't answer me. How did I know that? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
The Atheist Jew | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 12:20 pm | #

Wow, another insult but still no answer.

This from the guy who took more than 200 posts to answer a question (and he got it wrong) but who has had an insult directed towards me or some other poster in practically every post he's written. I guess you really do live in your own little world of moral relativism. How very shocking.
Spacebunny | 03.29.06 - 12:21 pm | #

Give me the defintion again please and give me examples. Lets pretend you didn't give me the answer previously because I don't recall you doing so.

It is obvious that you are purposely not answering the question. It leads me to believe that you don't have a definiton of morality nor can you give examples.

Unlike you I don't play the game of "Let's pretend" if you can't keep up with the discussion (no surprise there) or can't be bothered to go back and find it, why on earth should I do it for you?
Spacebunny | 03.29.06 - 12:23 pm | #

Spacebunny you don't have to go back since you don't move the goalposts. Just answer the question again. One more time, and I promise not to ask again.

What is your definition of morality and give me some examples?

No honest answer expected, only insults.
The Atheist Jew | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 12:26 pm | #

Looks like I snared one with my Fundy trap at least.

BEAJ:Answer me one question. Do Catholics and Baptists share the same EXACT moral beliefs?

FUNDY LARRY: Of course not. Why should they, while informed by grace and divine revelation, there is still room for human freedom in the interpretation and application. God is not a tyrant, and our knowledge of him is necessarily incomplete.
BEAJ: Thank you for admitting that MORALITY IS RELATIVE.

The Atheist Jew | Homepage | 03.29.06 - 12:47 pm | #

Larry will spin my answer, but it doesn't matter, I won.


  1. Hnnn ehnnnn, well done!

    In my dealings with folks like this, it soon becomes obvious that the only morality that counts is the one that garners the maximum tithe rate…

  2. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
    ~Albert Einstein
    US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

  3. There is a difference between Christians saying there is latitude of interpretation due to Man having free will and the true relativist position. You cannot get away from the fact that most of the things you believe are from Judaism, then filtered through Christianity. I will wager that you frown on murdering innocent people, child sacrifice, grown men buggering young boys, stealing, malicious lying, and other things that you will no doubt claim are merely "common sense." The truth is that most of those things were quite acceptable in pre-monotheistic societies (everyone's always ragging on G-d for *almost* having Avraham kill his son, but in the end He did stop him and it was to dispel the widespread practice of child-murder that pagans engaged in). The things that you call moral are not ones you came up with youself, you absorbed them by osmosis from the Judeo-Christian culture that you've been immersed in since birth. Whether these laws came from a divine source or not, they are Jewish at their root and not inherent to the human mind or personality.

    It is possible to be a good person and an atheist, but only by following the Judeo-Christian ethics and rejecting their basis. If a large group of toddlers were dumped on an island somewhere and left to survive for a few decades, I can promise you that they would not naturally have a taboo against . . . . well, most of the things you are claiming to be instinctual for people. There would be rape, murder, stealing, and the like. Those things happen in Christian societies too, but they are less frequent and the social and legal consequences of the behavior are extremely high. Morality is not natural for most people, thus they need to be told a code that is allegedly from a higher source than mere Man.

  4. > It is possible to be a good person and
    > an atheist, but only by following
    > the Judeo-Christian ethics and rejecting
    > their basis.

    Gee, got any more completely baseless prejudice to chuck down that hole?

    BTW, baconeater, that was a lovely slapdown on the spacebunny!

  5. VQ, what I am saying is that man made up Judeo-Christian morals based on what was commonly felt just and sympathetic towards fellow man.
    You are assuming Goditit. I'm assuming that God was not needed to pass laws as he doesn't exist in my world.
    If man was as nuts as you say he was prior to the bible, chances are that man would have killed himself off many years prior to 4000 BC.

    My contention is that if I was born in a jungle and brought up by monkeys, guilt and sympathy would prevent me from causing harm to others. Not Judeo-Christian beliefs.
    Tribes in Africa that were void of such beliefs for the most part didn't go around murdering raping and stealing for the most part.

    Thanks for being civil here. You don't have to, but I respect the fact you are.

    TP, thanks, she deserved it. Sorry if you don't feel the same way Vox.

  6. HAHAHAHAHAA OMFG that was funny. The funniest part is that 99% of the shit you said went right over their heads.

  7. Sung to the theme song for Gilligan’s’ Island:

    Sit right down and you’ll here a tale
    A tale of a mystical fit
    It started on this science board
    And quickly turned to shit

    Now pbb called himself a science man
    A PHD for sure
    If it wasn’t for the insight of Devlsadvoct
    Leadb would get tenure
    Leadb would get tenure

    Well, lead’s story started going soft
    As soft as lead can be
    Ad-hominem and non-sequitur
    And some sophistry
    And some sophistry

    No data, no model, no predictions
    Not a single hypotheses
    If not for the logic of Devlsadvoct
    As boring as it could be
    As boring as it could be

    Lead got himself spanked today
    Devl put him in his place
    I’m sure he’ll change his profile
    To hide his disgrace
    To hide his disgrace

    Well join us here each day my friend
    We’ll be here for a long long while
    Earning our DHF’s
    With a great big IMPERTINENT smile
    With a great big IMPERTINENT smile

  8. OOps, wrong one...

    Fundie Entropy – closed system, no input since superstition and the supernatural ruled man. Fundie arguments and assertions rapidly loose coherence once reviewed and rebuttal begins (this is not peer review because I would not insult the intelligence of any thinking person on this board by labeling them a peer of a Fundie). Entropy accelerates as they near the end game of the Fundie cycle:

    Fundie cycle:
    1. Fundie post assertion, and gives false credentials
    2. Fundie gets slammed with reality
    3. Fundie gets caught in a lie
    4. Fundie refuses to answer inquiries
    5. Fundies throw baseless insults, incoherent post, imitates other posters, or threatens damnation
    6. Fundies revert to fantasy of triumph, thread posting, and quote mining
    7. Fundie starts over with same assertion, or phase-out…

  9. If you haven't noticed, the highest rates of rape and murder in the world are in Africa, in places that are still governed mainly by the might-makes-right philosophy. The amazing advance of protecting the weak and vulnerable even if it is inconvenient is not something universal, it is always accompanied by religious ideals (because if there is no non-relative standard of morality, why bother being nice to those inconvenient people?). Many African men don't think twice about rape, and the value of life over there is pretty cheap in general. When people are in a survival situation, they have sympathy for no one other than themselves, and possibly their family or tribe. Your sense of guilt (a classic Jewish trait ;-)) is NOT natural to most people. It is something you learn from your family and society . . . and all the things you would feel guilty about doing are solely based on Western (Jewish+Christian) ideas.

    Are you actually telling me there was no such thing as child sacrifice in pre-monotheistic pagan societies? There is a reason there is lots of stuff in the Bible about abhoring those who give their children over to Molech. How about the Aztecs and their bloody human sacrifices to keep their gods happy? Monotheism put a stop to all of that, or at least tried. Look at the history of British imperialism and you will see numerous examples of them interfereing with barbaric local customs that could not exist under Christianity (see: suttee).

    My point is that even if these rules are entirely man-made (I don't happen to think they are, but I used to and I understand why many people think that) they are the only basis of your personal morality.

  10. Also, I have no idea why y'all are using the word "Fundie" so pejoratively. A fundamentalist is only as good as his religion --- the Dalai Lama is a hardcore fundamentalist Buddhist! Fundamentalist Jews are not hell-bent on dominating the world and imposing their views, they just want to be left alone. Modern fundamentalist Christians do not blow up restaurants full of civilians, nor do they seek to execute people who convert to another religion.

    You can see where I'm going with this. The only "fundies" that are dangerous are Muslims, because they are practicing the purest, most fundamental version of Islam . . . . which shows that it is a violent religion that has not adapted to the modern world whatsoever, and has no plans to do so in the future.

  11. I am not going to argue that the 10 Commandments or the laws that were supposedly written by God (but were made by man) are no different that than Your founding fathers US Constitution laws(Declaration of Independance.
    They were made by man recognizing that they appeared to give the foundation of order as opposed to anarchy.

    You would have to provide me with proof that Africans have a propensity to rape. Perhaps more frequently than those in jail, but what percentage of them do? And why don't all of them.

    I'm saying evolution gave man common sense to put rules down.

    You are saying God gave man common sense to put rules down.

    But I still think that man is born with a common sense that doesn't have to be learnt.
    And I think that part of our sympathy is innate.
    And relative morality is based on ones sympathy.

    Again, I'm not denying that we aren't taught certain rights and wrongs...but it is relative how we sympathize to them. And I do think a lot of it is innate.

    I've heard some Christians argue that we are born with moralities given to us by God. I say it is evolution.

  12. I use Fundy predominantly as anyone, Muslim, Christian, Jew who dismisses scientific fact in order to keep their book from falling apart.

    Anyone who knows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the Ark story is allegorical at best and that evolution is fact is not a Fundy.

  13. South Africa, Sierra Leone, and the Congo have the highest rape rates in the world, which partly contributes to their astronomical HIV rates and thus, their abysmal life expectancies (I believe it is now around age **27** in Sierra Leone!). Googling "South Africa" and "rape" together will pull up thousands of articles on this.

    For a truly enlightening essay on Africa and the whole quality-of-life-as-correlating-to-general-cultural-values issue, check out this piece by Kim Du Toit, who lived there for years. It pretty much sums up my point that Western (and specifically Christian) values are essential to a civil and moral society such as the one we have in America.

  14. Moving away from religion and science and into strict philosophy, it is impossible to prove that a divine entity did not create the world a few thousand years ago, with lots of evidence to confuse us for Reasons Of Divine Inscrutability. It is possible, however unlikely. Even if you think their view of evolution is ridiculous, you should not be completely arrogant. Most of what science believes now is going to be disproven in the future, and major parts of the evolutionary theory are not exempt from this. How do I know this? Almost everything that scientists believed in previous generations has turned out to be dead wrong, or a mere simplistic shadow of what ultimately proved to be correct. Our understanding of reality may soon be shattered quite decisively if String Theory or any number of quantum phenomena turn out to be true, so don't get overly attached to any current notion.

  15. Vox, there hasn't been one discovery that has disproved evolution. Regardless of your idea of the future.
    Theories have only been improved upon.
    Every new discovery fits with creation.
    Yes, string theory, which I don't understand could have implications, but I doubt any or it disproves evolution.

    Now, there is reason to doubt how Jesus was crucified. It is a hot news story now.

    Getting back to philosophy maybe we aren't really responding to each other on the internet. Maybe we don't exist.

    Why do you have to even think that the earth was created only 6000 years ago just to go with your written word?
    I'll stick with science.

  16. Your link must have cut off. All I got was an article on guns.

    You seem to like to give "facts" like evolution is crap, and Africans rape because of nature, but you don't back this stuff up.
    Africa has a higher percentage of rapists etc. But it is because they aren't subject to the same laws and punishments we are.

    I'm sorry you think Christians are incapable of guilt with being guilty in front of God. That is sad.

    I've seen dogs act guilty and know when they've done something wrong.
    I've seen monkeys on nature shows do the same thing.

    But monkeys are Christians. They have a natural morality.

  17. VQ:

    Has the world you see developed from nothing? You said that: "Almost everything that scientists believed in previous generations has turned out to be dead wrong, or a mere simplistic shadow of what ultimately proved to be correct"
    Do you think that scientists were wrong about laser, microwaves, rocket engineering, viruses, etc, etc, etc? If your assumption were correct, we should still be in the Stone Age, because no technological development could have been possible in a world were scientists are always wrong. If it not were for the scientists that developed printing, you probably could not have read your bible.

  18. I repeat my point Mr. Bacon, no one believes in the God you don't believe in..not even you.

    It is up to you to find "Religion", or not. :)

  19. that was me...Rubin

  20. Moral Reletivism == vegetableMarch 29, 2006 11:15 PM

    But If all are alike both wrong and right, one who is in this condition will not be able either to speak or to say anything intelligible; for he says at the same time both "Yes" and "No." And if he makes no judgement but "thinks" and "does not think", indiffrently, what difference will there be between him and a vegetable?
    - Aristotle, Metaphysics

  21. I have a lack of belief in every God. Name a God that has anything to do with being a supreme being and I don't believe in him. There is no proof that God ever existed and no need for a God to exist.

  22. Moral Relativism. I've already proved that Catholics and Baptists have different moral values in different situations. People are like snowflakes, no two people think exactly alike, no two people share the exact same values for everything.

  23. But you did not yet prove you are not a vegetable. Aristotle's point is that if all is right and all is wrong, how are you or I different from a rock?

  24. Moral relativism doesn't have to mean that there isn't common ground somewhere.
    Personally I think murdering someone for no reason is an immoral act to everyone on this planet. So talking in absolutes doesn't work here.
    The other thing is we have evolved common sense. That is how are species has made it so far. Or we would have killed ourselves off by now.
    A rock has no common sense.

  25. I don't believe in moral relativism, because I don't believe in religious morality to begin with. That being said, I believe in social convention to dictate to people how to behave/not behave. This must be objective, or its not good public policy.

    Morality, generally, is defined as an external set of values to your own (as opposed to ethics, which are internal to you).

  26. Steve, even the definition of "moral" is relative. Some people define morals as ethics. Your definition of moral sounds like the definition of State Law to me. And even State Law is relative. One might be able to have a legal abortion one place but not another.

  27. Well, I'm not going to waste your precious comment space rehashing the comments I have posted on my own blog.

    I will however point you to my posts where I attempt to define "moral compass", as well as my own admittedly limited attempts to refute relativism. (The attempts are limited because of my amateur philosopher hobby, which are limited by time to post, the length of any blog posts, and my own limited intellect trying to grasp the limitless.)

    Any comments to my blog entries are more than welcome (as long as they are in good taste). In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Fundamentalist - I am a Catholic. (Not many realize it, but there is not just a difference - there are *many* differences.)

    BTW, I highly recommend Peter Kreeft's A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist. I think you'll find it to be worthwhile to read, if for no other reason, than to understand all the arguments for and against relativism.

  28. Orthodoxy, I define a Fundy as someone who ignores and/or science or tries to refute science by using the Bible or religion. Anyone who doesn't accept evolution and an ancient earth. I realize the new Vatican has stated that ID doesn't belong in science class and that science and religion can go hand in hand. That is progressive.

    I don't know what you believe when it comes to evolution and an ancient earth, so I don't know if you are a Fundy yet.

    Your article on relativism is interesting because although I don't think God gave us morality, I think we evolved much of our morality. However, since the definition of morality is relative depending on who you ask, and the environmental factors that affect one's own inward feelings of right and wrong, I know that morality is relative.
    However, this does not mean that the range is very broad.

  29. I would say that how people define morality is not so much "relative" as it is "variable". Like you said, for the most part, the range of what is generally accepted as moral behaviour is not very broad.

    My favorite author, G.K. Chesterton said, "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."

    My belief is that there are certain things (not all things, but a definite, non-null set) that are absolute truth. I believe this does not just apply to the "hard sciences" (e.g. 2+2 always equals 4), but that there are certain things that are absolute moral truths as well. From these, I believe the variances are where human perceive or even delude themselves into believing ("relative" to themselves) that some of these absolutes are "not that absolute". It's the old "it's right for you but not for me" or "if you do it, it's wrong, but if I do it, well, I had a good reason."

    Here we get into a big problem people have with Christianity. Christianity teaches that we have all sinned and all need forgiveness. Lots of people don't want to admit that (even Christians who have admitted to past sins), so some have said they don't need forgiveness because they have a good enough excuse.

    When we are called to forgive our neighbor, it is not because they have a good excuse, but it is precisely because they have done something wrong without an excuse. If every wrong is merely a perceived (but not actual) wrong, then there's no need for forgiveness - there would only be need for "adjusting personal moral boundaries".

    Since some wrongs are inexcusable, but can still be forgiven, the implication is that it is not a perceived wrong, but is actually, absolutely wrong. The moral code broken is a solid truth.

    "Thou shalt not steal" (as one example) is not something we evolved - it could actually go against the 1st fundamental law of evolution which states "survival of the fittest". Stealing food from one to feed yourself would actually be more in line with evolution.

    I'll admit that a lot of this is coming from what I remember of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, as well as Peter Kreeft's book mentioned previously. Lastly, I'd like to recommend Chesterton's Orthodoxy (from whence I took my username and blog name), which contains the following quote in Chapter V "The Flag of the World":

    Morality did not begin by one man saying to another, "I will not hit you if you do not hit me"; there is no trace of such a transaction. There IS a trace of both men having said, "We must not hit each other in the holy place." They gained their morality by guarding their religion. They did not cultivate courage. They fought for the shrine, and found they had become courageous. They did not cultivate cleanliness. They purified themselves for the altar, and found that they were clean. The history of the Jews is the only early document known to most Englishmen, and the facts can be judged sufficiently from that. The Ten Commandments which have been found substantially common to mankind were merely military commands; a code of regimental orders, issued to protect a certain ark across a certain desert. Anarchy was evil because it endangered the sanctity. And only when they made a holy day for God did they find they had made a holiday for men.

    As for whether I am a fundamentalist or not, you can judge that from this blog post I did just last night.

  30. Well, I'm not going to waste your precious comment space rehashing the comments I have posted on my own blog.

    BTW, I just realized I did precisely what I said I would not do. Sorry about that.

    If you don't mind, I'd like to use my last comment as the source for an upcoming post on my blog. It's been a while since I've attempted to write anything regarding moral relativism. (I've been focusing more on my Lenten Meditations than making other posts regarding faith and morals.)

    Thank you for being a catalyst for my mind to churn on these things. I appreciate the inspiration from your challenges to define morals.

  31. I'd be able to define you as a Fundy better if you were willing to commit to what you actually believe about evolution and the age of the earth. An I don't know puts you in Fundyland as far as I'm concerned, as does a Young Earth and/or non evolutionist belief.

    I think you should check back at what evolution is all about. I think survival of the fittest is pretty passe.
    The first law of evolution is that those animals who can adapt to their environment will survive. Stealing off another human, and being on that human's hit list is not a great way to survive. It can be done, but stress isn't good for any animal, and it lessens the chances of survival.

    I'll give you an example of evolution. In a dark cave pond, a blind slow fish with an excellent sense of smell has more of a chance of surviving than a swift fish with great eyesight and a good sense of smell.

  32. I have no problem with that. It's a free blogosphere. I don't even ask when I use comments. I wonder if that is moral relativity thingy.

  33. Just wondering what my belief on creationism vs. evolution has to do with the definition of morality, but to satisfy your curiosity, I will answer you.

    Before Pope JP2 made the comment that the theory of evolution is a viable theory, I always subscribed to the belief that the material universe was created. By what means and how long, I have no idea (and neither do scientists - their estimates range from 100,000 years to 15-20 billion years), because I was not there. I tend to believe the Big Bang theory (in fact there may have been or will be multiple Big Bang/Big Crunch cycles!), but all the details escape me, because I am not an astrophysicist. Astronomy is a very amateur hobby of mine, so I understand more than the average person, but that's about it.

    That explains my belief in the creation of the cosmos. As for the human being, I believe that the body could have formed gradually over thousands or even millions of years (we see some evidence of this in the statistics that show us getting taller and living longer as a species, almost entirely due to our intellects getting better, resulting in improved food production, which results again in stronger brains/intellects). As for the question of "missing links" - I'm quite frankly amazed we have as many fossils as we do! Why they all didn't completely decay is beyond me, but then again, I'm no geologist nor anthropologist.

    Anyway, I believe that God created the laws of nature and let them make the body of Man through those natural processes (maybe with some guidance here and there - after all, evolution doesn't necessarily always mean progress. Random mutations can be long-term negatives as well as positives.) The "beginning" that we are most concerned with is that He said to Himself "Let us make man in our image and likeness". This human soul that the Trinity breathed into the body of Man is like the divine nature, in that it is an eternal spirit - this part of us, like our morality, did not evolved, but was rather infused into us by God.

    The way I reconcile my "evolutionary beliefs" with my faith is that, although the Bible says the Universe was created in 6 days and humans in 1 day, it also says, "with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day". As my blog post from yesterday states, I do not believe that every single thing in the Bible is to be taken literally - there is history in there (although not as painstakingly detailed as modern, post-Renaissance histories), but there is also "myth/legend" (by which I mean stories that have a basis in fact, although some details may be embellished, similar to a fable), poetry, apocalyptic literature (a genre all its own!), and simple phrases (a.k.a. proverbs) To read it all literally would be to act like a Fundamentalist. My belief is that the Bible contains those truths God wants us to know about the moral universe He created - maybe some more, but it is presumptuous to read the Bible like a science text book.

    Additionally, I subscribe to the "Framework Interpretation" of Genesis, chapter 1. As the post at the preceding link says, "People have recognized for centuries that these are the ordering principles at work in Genesis 1. This is not something modern Bible scholars came up with (e.g., see Aquinas, ST I:74:1)." More recently, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote about this in his book "In the Beginning...A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall."

    So, now that I've pretty thoroughly answered you, could you answer my question: what does my belief in the beginning of the cosmos and mankind have to do with morality? Is it so that you can categorize me, so as to better determine whether to write off any and all future comments of mine as lunacy or idiocy, OR is it something else that I am missing?

    BTW, in case you were interested, I posted my comments (as well as some background) onto my blog. In the interest of fairness and truth, if you could verify that my post is an honest representation of your site and comments, I'd appreciate it.

  34. I'll check your site again shortly.
    You were the one who said you don't consider yourself a Fundy. I asked you a couple of questions to see if you fit my definition of Fundy. I wouldn't consider you one.

    But I will say you are wrong about what scientists think. Over 99% of scientists have concluded the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13 billion years old.

    See this link. A creationist site no less.

  35. Your post was completely fine. It is the truth. Not that I worry about being maligned, but you are completely honest and open, and obviously not one to run from questions. Just like me.

  36. One last (big) quote from Chesterton, and then I must go. I hope that my comments thus far have been, if not insightful and inspiring, at least entertaining.

    From chapter VI of Orthodoxy, "The Paradoxes of Christianity".


    I take a third case; the strangest of all, because it involves the one real objection to the faith. The one real objection to the Christian religion is simply that it is one religion. The world is a big place, full of very different kinds of people. Christianity (it may reasonably be said) is one thing confined to one kind of people; it began in Palestine, it has practically stopped with Europe. I was duly impressed with this argument in my youth, and I was much drawn towards the doctrine often preached in Ethical Societies--I mean the doctrine that there is one great unconscious church of all humanity founded on the omnipresence of the human conscience. Creeds, it was said, divided men; but at least morals united them. The soul might seek the strangest and most remote lands and ages and still find essential ethical common sense. It might find Confucius under Eastern trees, and he would be writing "Thou shalt not steal." It might decipher the darkest hieroglyphic on the most primeval desert, and the meaning when deciphered would be "Little boys should tell the truth." I believed this doctrine of the brotherhood of all men in the possession of a moral sense, and I believe it still-- with other things. And I was thoroughly annoyed with Christianity for suggesting (as I supposed) that whole ages and empires of men had utterly escaped this light of justice and reason. But then I found an astonishing thing. I found that the very people who said that mankind was one church from Plato to Emerson were the very people who said that morality had changed altogether, and that what was right in one age was wrong in another... When considering some pagan or agnostic, we were to remember that all men had one religion; when considering some mystic or spiritualist, we were only to consider what absurd religions some men had. We could trust the ethics of Epictetus, because ethics had never changed. We must not trust the ethics of Bossuet, because ethics had changed. They changed in two hundred years, but not in two thousand.
    A strict rule is not only necessary for ruling; it is also necessary for rebelling. This fixed and familiar ideal is necessary to any sort of revolution. Man will sometimes act slowly upon new ideas; but he will only act swiftly upon old ideas. If I am merely to float or fade or evolve, it may be towards something anarchic; but if I am to riot, it must be for something respectable. This is the whole weakness of certain schools of progress and moral evolution. They suggest that there has been a slow movement towards morality, with an imperceptible ethical change in every year or at every instant. There is only one great disadvantage in this theory. It talks of a slow movement towards justice; but it does not permit a swift movement. A man is not allowed to leap up and declare a certain state of things to be intrinsically intolerable...
    The only arresting point is this: that if we suppose improvement to be natural, it must be fairly simple. The world might conceivably be working towards one consummation, but hardly towards any particular arrangement of many qualities. To take our original simile: Nature by herself may be growing more blue; that is, a process so simple that it might be impersonal. But Nature cannot be making a careful picture made of many picked colours, unless Nature is personal. If the end of the world were mere darkness or mere light it might come as slowly and inevitably as dusk or dawn. But if the end of the world is to be a piece of elaborate and artistic chiaroscuro, then there must be design in it, either human or divine. The world, through mere time, might grow black like an old picture, or white like an old coat; but if it is turned into a particular piece of black and white art--then there is an artist.


    I hope, if nothing else, this whets your appetite to read more of this incredible "lost" writer, G. K. Chesterton.

    Good night, and God bless.

  37. Ah, now here's a study that comes as no surprise:

    In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

  38. Morality is what you do when no one else is watching.

  39. SA, that is an excellent definition:)