tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post6201959331992048331..comments2024-03-28T06:00:18.802-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: I Am Going to be Sorry in the Morning…bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-12081154792703492442018-08-14T09:05:49.397-07:002018-08-14T09:05:49.397-07:00Liberty was formally lost in America when the 18th...Liberty was formally lost in America when the 18th-century founding fathers made liberty a goal (almost a god) rather than a corollary of implementing the Bible's perfect law of liberty (Psalm 9:7-11, 119:44-45, James 2:12) as the supreme law of the land.<br /><br />For more on how Yahweh's triune moral law applies and should be implemented today, see free online book "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.<br /><br />Then "A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government."TedRWeilandhttp://www.bibleversusconstitution.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-8070859079061161702018-08-08T07:24:08.132-07:002018-08-08T07:24:08.132-07:00Yes, it is off topic. Keep it to yourself, or com...Yes, it is off topic. Keep it to yourself, or comment at another site where this might be relevant. bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-39832057917225820902018-08-08T07:22:32.759-07:002018-08-08T07:22:32.759-07:00Mr. Price, I was sent the article by a regular rea...Mr. Price, I was sent the article by a regular reader of this blog. Subsequent to my writing this post, I understood that I misunderstood the reason he sent me the article.<br /><br />I did not write a post to critique the article – you will not find a single quote from the article in this piece, and therefore not a single critique of anything written in the article. I used the article in order to make a general statement about my views of the failings of almost all church leaders - and these views I stand by, and many of these failings are brought to light via the work of Peterson. <br /><br />I did not make a single statement about CMI specifically.<br />bionic mosquitohttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-65526459239245517612018-08-08T00:07:07.785-07:002018-08-08T00:07:07.785-07:00I realize this is off topic but I'd like to po...I realize this is off topic but I'd like to point out that anytime a topic which can be related to scripture is brought up it entices those who think the holy scripture is literal truth and that the world is only 10000 years old (or whatever the number is) to comment. They probably claim pi is equal to 3 as well. These people are an embarrassment to Christianity.<br /><br /><br />SDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-3751287913775899182018-08-07T13:24:38.638-07:002018-08-07T13:24:38.638-07:00The article is not about politics, so it's puz...The article is not about politics, so it's puzzling that you are attempting to connect it to wars, etc. You have said you don't take Peterson as a theologian, but the whole basis of the article is the fact that Peterson has set himself up as one by giving an extensive lecture series on the Bible and presuming to tell us all what it "really means". The article rebuts his faulty theology and science (as he is a Darwin-pusher as well). It seems you're just upset that CMI doesn't comment on politics- which is outside the focus of our ministry in the first place.Paul Pricehttp://creation.com/paul-pricenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-57183896804208633222018-08-06T14:34:53.571-07:002018-08-06T14:34:53.571-07:00Perverts. Plain and simple.
Or do you not know th...Perverts. Plain and simple.<br /><br />Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10<br /><br />I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but this is NAP (Not About Peterson.)Mister Spockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04790678390017800846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33604581757828569492018-08-06T11:01:57.586-07:002018-08-06T11:01:57.586-07:00@Bionic: "Libertarians can’t hold a candle to...@Bionic: "Libertarians can’t hold a candle to Biblical scholars (and especially wanna-be Biblical scholars) when it comes to endless debate."<br /><br />Amen! ;-)<br /><br />I was going to quote some scriptures of my acquaintance but I decided to spare everyone the inevitable conflict that this would cause.<br /><br />The Scriptures by themselves are obviously insufficient. Study is insufficient. Discussion and debate are insufficient. The only real way to resolve scriptural conflicts once and for all is for God to continually make Himself available to answer questions in such a manner that everyone would understand to their own satisfaction.<br /><br />I believe that this is, in fact, what He does although He does it in a non-forceful manner. To access this help, we must put aside our per-conceived notions and beliefs and purposely seek for it.<br /><br />This is the only thing that I've been trying to say through these last two blogs. It truly amazes me that this one small, helpful suggestion could have led to so much controversy.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-88741127100118277762018-08-06T07:21:12.739-07:002018-08-06T07:21:12.739-07:00The thing that really nails the lazy, sloppy theol...The thing that really nails the lazy, sloppy theology of today's so-called "Christians" is their position of the "GAY" issue. One can understand the confusion when you consider the easily verifiable corruption in the translations in the handful of related texts. And, there are rabid-personalities on the extremes of left & right of this subject matter. But, if you approach the issue like a judge would on the precise meaning of the statute in the Torah, -you rapidly reach a conclusion very different than your basic Southern Baptist (& much more like Rabbi's such as Dr.Eliot Dorff). The group that really nailed this is a predominantly secular movement (that also has an apologetics section for Christian & Jews). This group is called "G0YS" - spelled w. a zer0. They nail it and their reasoning resonates in common sense with the Centers for Disease Control as well as the American Red Cross & World Health Organization. And g0ys absolutely DESTROY the likes of the Southern Baptist Convention - because of what the g0ys analysis of the Scripture implies about the OVERALL theological health of such organizations: The Blind leading the blind; -& all the caveats Jesus Himself warned of regarding the hypocrites in the Sanhedrin. If you want to gut modern Christendom with their own Bibles - www.g0ys.org is the place to go!MrPuzzleBoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02695167584855516863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-74226805063039721412018-08-03T21:41:18.194-07:002018-08-03T21:41:18.194-07:00You will receive one Alex Lifeson guitar pick for ...You will receive one Alex Lifeson guitar pick for this one<br /><br /><br />Owhyee CowboyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-74864313037050750762018-08-03T01:35:44.004-07:002018-08-03T01:35:44.004-07:00Hi Mister Spock
Thank you for your effort and p...Hi Mister Spock <br /><br />Thank you for your effort and please don't feel discouraged and don't stop commenting if you think you've something valuable to add.<br /><br />Here's something that might interest you with regard to a certain "youknowwhat"-ology and the way it is used by cults/sects (e.g. the sect of the Neocatechumenal Way, operating within the Church).<br /><br />In short: the secular or anthropological theo"thing" (Girard/Jung/JP) functions as a trojan.<br /><br /><a href="http://thoughtfulcatholic.com/?page_id=6399" rel="nofollow">The Xiphias Gladius Project</a><br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-62791821797232317522018-08-02T11:22:36.511-07:002018-08-02T11:22:36.511-07:00BM: Mr. Spock, you really need to calm down, both ...BM: Mr. Spock, you really need to calm down, both in this specific comment and generally in this thread.<br /><br />Again, you are reading into this something that isn’t there. I’m not sure why. <br /><br />I am not upset at all about this. A few people here made baseless and inaccurate comments about me, and I replied with some humor and mild sarcasm. For some reason, this has been interpreted as vitriol (your word) where none was intended. I’m completely calm, but I recognize that when it comes to commenting in this format or in emails it’s sometimes possible to see a tone of voice or emotion that isn’t there. But I assure you, this is like talking about the weather.<br /><br />BM: According to you, Dr. North did label Peterson a liberal; per North's own words, he labeled him a conservative.<br /><br />I’m guessing that he used the word conservative re Peterson’s comments on gender, pay issues, etc., and he was using the word liberal in the email to me re his theology.<br /><br />BM: we only have your word on the "liberal" and “Bible believers paying attention” part<br /><br />I forwarded two of North’s emails to you – if you check the properties of those mails, you will see they were sent to Dr. North and it was he that replied to them. And I suggested you forward them to him to confirm they are authentic. <br /><br />I will continue to read your blog, I will continue to recommend it, but per your request, I will stop commenting in this thread although I’m sure I will continue to post occasional comments in the future. (I really wish this topic were continuing, though, since Shnarkle VonBarkle (a great name) is way off base in his comments about Christianity and I’d like to reply to those.)<br /><br />And if I may make a final comment re Peterson, EMP said, now that he’s “found” Peterson, “I'm no longer hung up on material question of determining *who or what God is.* For now, I'm content with looking for Him in peace, love, community and dogged truth-seeking.” <br /><br />That’s exactly what Peterson’s ‘theology’ does – leads people away from a personal God, specifically Jesus Christ, not towards Him. Happy Trails.<br />Mister Spockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04790678390017800846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-37284995488850285172018-08-02T09:22:02.192-07:002018-08-02T09:22:02.192-07:00Jesus clearly claims divinity in John 8:56-59 and ...Jesus clearly claims divinity in John 8:56-59 and claims in John 14:1-11 exclusivity for salvation along with another claim of divinity.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73082162903663348032018-08-02T07:33:25.934-07:002018-08-02T07:33:25.934-07:00I've been looking at the links you've prov...I've been looking at the links you've provided in your article, and noticed that while neither one of us is what I would categorize as an apologist for JP, we both agree that there's a disconnect between Christians and the tenets of their founder which JP seems to have a better grasp of. I could be wrong here, but if there are problems in JP's arguments, I believe most of them stem from our inability to grasp what he's talking about. Here's an example:<br /><br /> "Man’s reason cannot explain everything nor understand everything. Peterson both accepts this and rejects this. This seems irrational."<br /><br />The problem is in not noticing that there's a difference between the irrational and the non-rational. So everything that can be explained or understood can be accepted whereas it would be rejected when one considers that not everything can be explained or understood. <br /><br />On a deeper level, he is also pointing out that while one may be able to explain and understand what is right and what is wrong, this alone isn't enough to enable one to do what is right and shun what is wrong. <br /><br />This spotlights the flaw or the inability of reason to do what reason knows is the right thing to do. It is irrational to do evil when one knows that it is irrational. So while one can accept the benefits of reason and rationality in their explanatory power, one will eventually reject them as insufficient to enable one to actually do what is right and correct. <br /><br />This is not just rational, it's incredibly perceptive. It's probably one of the greatest insights of Christianity. An intellectual understanding isn't the best motivation. In addition, one can understand that they're doing the right thing, and even do the right thing without ever receiving any lasting benefit because what they've done is purely an intellectual endeavor, or some game to stroke one's ego.<br /><br />There's something to be said for "learning by doing", but if what is done doesn't expand beyond one's understanding then it becomes a burden. The examples are numerous. <br /><br />We can understand that adultery is wrong, destructive, gambling is foolish, drug and alcohol abuse will eventually kill, etc., but our understanding is woefully inept at enabling us to do the right thing. The motions of the heart are not always rational, but are quite frequently non rational, and far superior as a source of motivation; what we might call a "no-brainer". So when the motions of the heart are in alignment with correct reason, one operates on a much more effective level than merely understanding the difference between the best path to take and the idiotic.<br /><br />I think this may be where belief becomes a deciding factor. If you believe that the butcher is incompetent, and is selling meat that could kill you, you're not going to buy it, but Christians today claim a belief that doesn't result in the same results. They don't really believe the tenets of their founder, and have no intention of following in his footsteps. So they fall short. Are we any better? If anyone is living a perfect life, perhaps they can claim they're rational. Most will admit they knowingly do what is stupid.<br /><br />One can accept the faculty of reason, but when it is elevated to the status of a god, then it must be rejected. I would submit that the fact that it has been elevated above the five senses illustrates the problem, and more than enough to send it back to where it rightly belongs. I accept it at that level, but reject its reign over the other senses.<br /><br /><br />shnarklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12085426871631417354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-76119354283093582932018-08-02T01:10:17.069-07:002018-08-02T01:10:17.069-07:00Tip re: semantics.
Substitute Protestantism/Calvi...Tip re: semantics.<br /><br />Substitute <i>Protestantism/Calvinist</i> for <i>Christianity/Christian</i> and it becomes a bit more clear what this discussion amounts to.<br /><br />Here's a good interview to perhaps expand the view a bit:<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5iaERTETvE" rel="nofollow">Jordan B. Peterson finally asked about the Catholic Faith</a><br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-45321144209063431352018-08-01T15:40:39.421-07:002018-08-01T15:40:39.421-07:00Dear Mr. VonBarkle, Thank you for saying so. Are y...Dear Mr. VonBarkle, Thank you for saying so. Are you familiar with the Tao Te Ching? I think you might enjoy reading some of the translations. I myself have read and enjoyed the LeGuin, the Mitchell, and the Gia-Fu Feng/Jane English among others. PegAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-37313806293565962112018-08-01T14:43:35.503-07:002018-08-01T14:43:35.503-07:00I will suggest that perhaps this exchange has run ...I will suggest that perhaps this exchange has run its course. I am willing to bet no minds will be changed. Let's just move on.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1228009832140612792018-08-01T13:49:48.542-07:002018-08-01T13:49:48.542-07:00Woody, it isn't much of a stretch when one con...Woody, it isn't much of a stretch when one considers the definition of omniscient; an all knowing being cannot be known. The difference is between knowing and known. What can be known can never be all knowing. Likewise, when one objectifies God, they are simply creating idols. <br /><br />As I pointed out before, this is where Peterson is able to find common ground between the atheist and theist. The fact that he uses the biblical texts themselves to show that God cannot be objectified, or known is what I find so amazing. It makes sense unless one believes or worships a god that isn't transcendent. Your own bible points out that "there is no other beside me", and that God is "incomparable" or transcendent. Transcendence is effectively no different than non-existence which levels the playing field considerably. As disturbing as this may be for "believers" it's what the texts state. Paul is even careful to distinguish between Christ who creates the world and God who is the origin of all creation. John's introduction is also in agreement, and essentially points out that God is the origin of existence, but if that's the case then apart from existence, God doesn't exist. <br /><br />I'm not the one who is bringing up transcendence here either so I don't know why anyone else would have a problem with this. I'm just pointing out the meaning of words, and the fact that JP has done a masterful job of pointing out the fact that our brains are hardwired to seek out the unknown. Some people feel compelled to attach labels or give the unknown a name, but it doesn't really matter except for purposes of identification, and as anyone who has read their bible knows, even demons can identify God, and it ain't gonna help them one iota. Feel free to interpret that however you please. <br /><br />The fact is that identification isn't identity, and we've all been duped by our culture into believing that this abstract construction of our own minds is real. It's nothing more than an idea that is as lasting as a wisp of smoke.<br /><br />Any half decent text on early childhood development will verify this empirical fact. Anyone who has had children should have noticed their own child's ability to develop an identity; a sense of self. This is the great deception. This is the Satan of the bible who tempts us to seek power, fame, money, riches, etc. Satan is nothing more than the personification of our own egos. <br /><br />So not only is it impossible to objectify or identify God, your own identity is nothing more than an idea that is associated with identifying marks e.g. fingerprints, iris scans, dental records, etc. and used by governments to render you a slave regardless of your libertarian ideas. <br /><br />You've already agreed to their terms and have become a compliant slave. They can't control an idea that has been denied so Jesus says, "Deny yourself", and "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". <br /><br />Disassociating from all these governmentally regulated and taxed identifiers is what makes Jesus a true libertarian. Too bad so-called Christians can't make that leap, and actually become liberated from their own self imposed bondage. <br /><br />They just love this idea of themselves too much to part with it. Death will sting those who are unable to follow Jesus' recommendations.shnarklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12085426871631417354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42564885577117838332018-08-01T12:28:25.071-07:002018-08-01T12:28:25.071-07:00"...or we can bury our scriptural differences..."...or we can bury our scriptural differences and move forward to define a lasting libertarian culture."<br /><br />This gets my vote!<br /><br />I have let such dialogues run a little, both in the Christians & Government post and this one; given the subject matter, I knew that I was the one who opened the door.<br /><br />But it seems to me that what has been said is sufficient.<br /><br />Thanks. bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-50564190802369893982018-08-01T11:10:57.415-07:002018-08-01T11:10:57.415-07:00@Snarkle: "... once you define God, you'v...@Snarkle: "... once you define God, you've automatically placed yourself into the idolater's camp. Again, Paul points out that you can't know God, but rather can only be known by God(Gal.4:9) ... The texts are quite clear that God is incomparable ..."<br /><br />Wow. You really have to stretch Galatians in particular and the scriptures in general to reach this conclusion. On the other hand, Jesus clearly states in his great intercessory prayer:<br /><br />"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" John 17:4<br /><br />Please feel free to draw your own conclusion from this statement.<br /><br />I'm sorry that you believe that "turning to God is to turn to one's own ideas". I do not see it that way at all. God has guided me in a manner above my ability many times - and, isn't that what is needed here? Certainly coming to the knowledge of the truth is what James was getting at when he stated:<br /><br />"If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him." James 1:5<br /><br />Now, we can argue scripture back and forth all day, and make poor Bionic very VERY sorry - or we can bury our scriptural differences and move forward to define a lasting libertarian culture. <br /><br />Let those who wish to rely on their own wisdom do so and let those who wish to access an intelligence greater than their own make the attempt.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-32100870505244102912018-08-01T09:03:11.565-07:002018-08-01T09:03:11.565-07:00Nick Badalamenti,
When JP says he doesn't wan...Nick Badalamenti,<br /><br />When JP says he doesn't want to be put into a box, I have to wholeheartedly agree because there are way too many people out there who claim the title of Christian, but have ideas that too many other people also tend to associate with Christianity. When someone tells me that they're a Christian as if to say this documents their honesty, integrity, character, etc. I immediately run the other way. I think JP's appreciation for Christianity resides in the teachings of Christ more than the religion itself, and his appreciation for the biblical texts seems to be the focal point of his lectures. <br /><br />I think the big questions for JP are the value of myth and meaning in the biblical texts rather than religion, especially religious practices that are carried out without any knowledge or understanding as to why they're being carried out in the first place.<br /><br />The divinity of Christ isn't really the crucial question to be asking in my opinion. The texts themselves aren't clear, and the reason he was crucified wasn't because he claimed divinity, but because he claimed he was king which, under Roman rule; was an act of treason. <br /><br />The teachings as well as how and why they're carried out are what determines who are followers of Christ, not whether or not they believe he was God. Despite all those who might protest this fact, nowhere in any of the texts will you find Jesus claiming that salvation rests upon whether or not one believes he's God.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />shnarklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12085426871631417354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-57347501644396483022018-08-01T08:40:15.539-07:002018-08-01T08:40:15.539-07:00Matt, any examples of Peterson's sophistry tha...Matt, any examples of Peterson's sophistry that you might be able to share? The only example I can think of is a video of him debating Matt Dillahunty (sp?) up in Canada where he seems to be attempting to put words into Matt's mouth. Matt calls him on it, and JP seems to get the message. Other than that I haven't really noticed him engaging in sophistry.shnarklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12085426871631417354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-11946551534681247772018-08-01T07:29:08.952-07:002018-08-01T07:29:08.952-07:00I think we are witnessing his intellectual develop...I think we are witnessing his intellectual development, "live" so to speak(glad it's not me on display!). I think this is the video you are referring to:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8<br /><br />In this video, he does reluctantly claim he's a "Christian", which is news to me as I saw him say he didn't want to be "put in a box" when asked about the existence of God in another video.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0O8Jw6grro<br /><br />I think he's an honest person, and I agree with another commenter that he's getting people that are agnostic/atheist or not otherwise inclined to think about Christianity in general.(speaking as an agnostic myself)<br /><br />I also believe, based on what I've heard from him up to this point, that he has reverence for Christianity in general.<br /><br />I can't judge what a "Christian" is or isn't as I don't feel qualified myself, but my understanding from Christians is most seem to believe that God uses people for his designs regardless of whether they are Christian or not...<br /><br />I guess the question is, in the big picture, is he helping Christianity or hurting it in general? I personally conclude the former, but obviously it's subjective and I'm not a believer in the divinity of Jesus at this time, which may make me unqualified to make such a judgement.Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36055579312524136452018-07-31T22:41:56.013-07:002018-07-31T22:41:56.013-07:00The problem isn't Peterson's Christian cre...The problem isn't Peterson's Christian credentials, which would seem to be non-existant but his sophistry.Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-17150733121221254132018-07-31T20:23:59.420-07:002018-07-31T20:23:59.420-07:00Mister Spock,
I apologize if I came across as a ... Mister Spock,<br /><br /> I apologize if I came across as a jerk, that certainly wasn't my intent. <br /><br /> I believe we are all adults here and can handle such questions with a modicum of respect and honest reflection, don't you?<br /><br /> LarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-78928738379315242762018-07-31T17:32:31.693-07:002018-07-31T17:32:31.693-07:00Mr. Spock, you really need to calm down, both in t...Mr. Spock, you really need to calm down, both in this specific comment and generally in this thread.<br /><br />According to you, Dr. North did label Peterson a liberal; per North's own words, he labeled him a conservative. According to you, Dr. North questioned why any Bible believer pays attention to him; per North’s own words, Peterson deserves his large YouTube following.<br /><br />In North's article, nothing about “liberal”; nothing about false Biblical teaching. You are right: it isn't either / or...but goodness, man: it can’t be both. <br /><br />At least not both with such vitriol - either from you or (apparently, as we only have your word on the "liberal" and “Bible believers paying attention” part) Dr. North.<br /><br />I really value your comments generally, but this is becoming too much.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.com