Category: Uncategorized

I had one of those ramp days yesterday. You know, when you’ve been stuck on a plateau for months, then one day, for no reason, you decide to throw on a few extra pounds and you suddenly discover that it turns out to be doable.

I started out with 10×90, then hit 8×100, 6×108 and 4×117 on the straight bar. I probably could have got five on that last one, but I wasn’t wearing a weight belt and my backbone felt as if it was about to explode right out of the skin, so I just put it down. After the straight bar sets, I’ve been doing four sets of 10x on the pulley machines; machines are lame but they do give you a nicer cut once you get your mass going with the free weights.

Now I’ve decided my goal is to be able to curl Spacebunny ten times, ideally sans a creatine boost. This is complicated by the fact that I’d also like to lose a few pounds and get ripped again. So, my bench has dropped twenty pounds, as normally happens when I’m not eating like a horse, but I’ve noticed that the smaller muscle groups, like the arms, sometimes aren’t negatively affected by having less fuel in the tank.

And full credit to anyone not named WB or BC who can name the author of the quote cited in the post title off the top of their head.

qwerty complains:

That has been my exact point all along, for which I am called names (old bitter man, asshole, pervert) by the good Christians on this blog.

All I’ve ever done on this blog is to state that some of us cannot believe. Those who do believe are not influenced by any logic or evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

That’s more than a bit of an exaggeration. When one baits and belittles, one should not complain when one gets bit. When one behaves like an anal orifice and indulges in the occasional vulgarity, one should not be surprised when one is labeled, more or less accurately, as an asshole.

There are plenty of regulars here who are not Christian. Some are Jews, some are atheists, most, I suspect, are agnostic. Since they have not had any problem with being attacked for their divergent belief or outright non-belief, the notion that one is being called names for that reason simply is not credible.

It’s not that hard. You can make a case against an idea, even a witheringly contemptuous one, without making it personal. Cedarford, just to give an example of one who is not exactly shy about disagreeing with me, has gone from being a considered a complete troll to one whose opinions must be carefully weighed primarily through the modifying his primary mode of address. (I can just see a few hundred of you nodding your head, then hating yourself for it. But give credit where credit is due.)

I seldom ban people simply for being jerks; you have to go out of your way to manage that. But being a jerk doesn’t intimidate anyone nor will it help you make your case. This may sound somewhat hypocritical given the way in which I often address others who are active outside this blog, but in those cases the negative tone of the communication has already been set by them and there is no direct debate between the critic and I. Also, in such cases the communication is made outside the framework of an intellectual community, unlike here where one’s character is often well-understood by others.

You don’t have to play nice here, but it is in one’s own interest, over time, to play polite.

In case there are those who wonder why Christians are so “paranoid” about the secular movement to force Christianity out of the public sphere and into the ghetto, here’s the latest explanation for why they might have just a few concerns about where things are headed in the West:

Hunted down at their workplaces by military police, the 25 Christians were rounded up and detained without any formal judicial procedure. Later that month, the parishioners and their clergy were brought to the road construction site, where spectators had been arranged in neat rows to observe the public execution of the pastor, assistant pastors, and elders. According to a report based on an eyewitness account, the five church leaders “were bound hand and foot and made to lie down in front of a steamroller,” accused of subversion and of being Kiddokyo, or Protestant Christian, spies.

The 20 parishioners were detained near their clergy, and watched, along with the assembled audience, as the five Christian leaders were told they could escape death if they denied their faith and pledged to serve only Kim Jong Il and his father, the first dictator of communist Korea, Kim Il Sung. According to the eyewitness, the clergy remained silent.

For their steadfast belief, the Christians were executed. According to the report, “Some of the fellow parishioners assembled to watch the execution cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed beneath the steamroller.”

Another account contained in the report says that on a summer day in North Korea in 1997, a young woman was washing clothes in a tributary of the Tumen River when she dropped a small Bible she had hidden amid the laundry. Spotted by a fellow washerwoman, the girl was reported to North Korean authorities on the suspicion that she was engaging in an exercise of thought or religion condemned by the state. The girl, believed to be in her 20s, and her father, estimated to be around 60, were arrested by local national security police and imprisoned for three months.

One morning, they were taken to a public market area, where, after a brief show trial, the father and daughter were condemned as traitors to the North Korean nation and its communist dictator, Kim Jong Il. The father and daughter were then tied to stakes a few meters from where they had been “tried,” and, before an assembly of schoolchildren, were riddled with bullets by seven policemen who fired three shots each into the pair. According to a report drawn from eyewitness accounts, “The force of the rifle shots, fired from fifteen meters away, caused blood and brain matter to be blown out of their heads.”

According to one defector who was grilled by North Korean border guards, the Kim regime fears that “Juche will be toppled by Christianity,” referring to the state ideology, and exercises brutal control over North Koreans who have been exposed to Chinese or South Korean Christian churches.

Do not forget those brave men and women, and pray that you never face such a test of your faith… or lack of it. I shall await with interest the usual explanation of how the North Koreans are really Christians ala the National Socialists, how Kim Jong Il was actually an altar boy in his youth, and so on….

Before anyone brings it up, I note that the Inquisition, (ironically, one of the most humane institutions of its time), was a long time ago. Christians might as fairly and accurately point to Nero; the point is that atheists and Muslims are killing Christians today.

And Juche will be toppled by Christianity. Evil knows its master. The gates of Hell will not prevail.

dlcarroll seeks clarity:

can you please give succinct definitions of the difference between ‘god’ and ‘God’ as you have used them lately?

This is pertinent for understanding; you have correctly and completely labored to show the blindness of the atheist with regard to spiritual things, but those same comments also tend to muddy the distinctions between Satan/Yahweh/Zeus/Moloch/Molech/ Asterah/Asherah/Baal/Beelzabub as like unto differences of (potentially) equally powerful football teams.

However much the Bible speaks of other gods, it is clear that historic Christianity is monotheistic (in the sense that there is one supreme God who is infinitely mightier than the sum of all other entities) and it seems disingenuous to suppose otherwise without qualification. To also assert that said Supreme Being is also at war with the lesser being(s) and has ordained that we enlist in His service does not contradict that.

Fair enough. An agreed-upon understanding of terms is always helpful when seeking to harmoniously grok in the fullness. I see it thusly:

1. god = a powerful supernatural being that is capable of interacting with the natural realm and is worshipped by humans or other supernatural beings. Examples: Satan, Moloch, Quetzalcoatl etc.

2. God = the Creator God of the Bible. Also known as Yahweh, Jehovah, the Lord God of Israel and numerous other appellations. At war with some of the aforementioned gods, worshipped by others.

3. false god = an imaginary being that may or may not be worshipped by human beings; while it may have a natural manifestation, it has no supernatural existence. Examples: The Great Spaghetti Monster, wooden idols, Shub-Niggurath, thunder.

4. mythical god = a being of historical legend which may or may not exist on the supernatural level. It is either a god or a false god, but as they are unworshipped and are not known to manifest today it is difficult to have an opinion on their existence. Examples: Zeus, Tyr, Morrigan.

Interestingly enough, it is difficult to condemn the atheist too harshly for his inability to understand the difference between belief and worship, especially given that in this case it appears to be built around the concept of monotheism. My two favorite online dictionaries give two similar, but significantly different definitions:

Oxford Online: Monotheism – the belief that there is a single god.
Dictionary.com: Monotheism – The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

As should be clear by now, the difference is rather important.

cZja doesn’t get it:

My point is that your argument assumes a distinction that the athiest doesn’t make or acknowledge. And that’s why I think it’s a weak argument.

And thus your point is wrong, because my critique merely demonstrates how that particular atheist witticism is both silly and Biblically ignorant. As the atheist rejects the supernatural, the reference to “one less god” clearly indicates a belief in any supernatural being that is worshipped by men. It says nothing about the characteristics of that particular being. Meanwhile, Christians believe in many supernatural beings, no few of whom are worshipped by pagans. Therefore, the critique can hardly be described as weak given how it eviscerates that particular criticism and reveals the critic to be uneducated on the matter.

The atheist doesn’t make the distinction between God the Creator and Zeus, Moloch or Satan. To him, they are all “gods”. Therefore, it is patently false that the Christian does not believe in more than one god, unlesss that Christian also denies that Satan exists or that there are those who worship him, in which case that Christian would be as Biblically ignorant as the godless wit himself. Which can, of course, be the case.

Now, I do agree that as an argument against atheism, my “argument” is very, very weak. This is mostly because it isn’t one.

Harry cites a bunch of verses from Isaiah:

Isaiah 43:10–…before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6–…I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God….

Repeating those verses that state there is one God and ignoring the many, many references to lesser gods not only fails to prove a case for monotheistic Christianity, it makes one look dishonest at best.

Renee puts her trust in the majority for once:

Most Christians will tell you that there is only one god. Some of them don’t even believe in the devil. If they don’t believe in Zeus, and they know why they don’t believe in Zeus, then it is probably for the same reasons I don’t believe in God.

Are you sure they are not telling you that there is only one God? I’ve noticed that those who are taking exception to my point are very free with confusing the concept of god and God. But the atheist quote refers only to gods, and as I have demonstrated, the Bible refers to many sorts of gods who are not God, from false gods made by man to the mighty gods of the assembly to the evil god of this world.

If there were no other supernatural powers, if there were no other gods, then there would be no need for God to command that there be no other gods before Him. Jesus Christ’s temptation in the desert would mean nothing, for without a god of this world, there was nothing with which to tempt him nor would that god’s desire for Jesus to worship him make any sense. Finally, how would sin and death hold any claim on humanity, why would Jesus Christ’s death be necessary, if they did not grant some god a hold on fallen man?

Finally, if we have an Advocate, who is part of the Triune God, what can the Accuser be if not another god?

UPDATE: Brody risks muddying the water in an attempt to clarify:

This is always the topic I tend to comment on, because I am really trying to comprehend what it is I could be missing. I think the atheist quote in believing in one less god than you do is not as well explained as you would have liked. But its basic gist is that you do not believe in Allah, or Buddha, or Wiccan Witch of the West.

That gist is incorrect. The atheist’s witticism expressly posits a notion that the Christian believes in only one more supernatural being than the atheist, due, I suspect, to the atheist’s reliance on the term “monotheism” instead of an actual knowledge of Christian theology.

I certainly believe in Buddha. I see no reason to doubt that he was a historical man. I do not, however, worship him. In like manner, I believe in the god Lucifer and the god Moloch; I do not worship them either.

Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn said a tougher stance by Jewish groups makes sense in today’s environment.

“There is a need for the Jewish community to adopt a more vigilant approach to monitoring the activities, statements and actions of these fundamentalist groups because they’re so clearly on the ascendancy in this country,” Kahn said.

What a great idea! Perhaps they could even lobby Congress to pass a law forcing Christians to wear yellow crosses so that the jewish community could more easily monitor their activities, statements and actions.

NRO’s Corner cites Steve Steinlight, a former policy director at the American Jewish Committee: “Reality is dawning on many American Jews that something is amiss, although it seems lost on some of the country’s most venerable Jewish organizations. There’s a sad, if comic irony associated with the fact that employees at organizations like ADL, the American Jewish Committee, and the Presidents’ Conference must pass through a gauntlet of concrete barriers, armed guards, metal detectors, and double bulletproof anterooms as they come to work each morning to protect them from radical Islamic terrorists, in order to spend their days studying and disseminating reports on the “threat” posed by Evangelical Christians.”

It clearly isn’t dawning on their so-called leadership, unfortunately.

Renee, in the course of posting a few relevant quotes, brings up a favorite of atheists who think they’re being clever:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
– Stephen Roberts

There’s is a fundamental flaw in Mr. Roberts’ idea, namely, Christians believe in many gods. We not only believe in an evil god who rules this fallen world as its prince, but we are consciously at war with him. Apparently Mr. Roberts, for all his attempt to position himself as intellectually superior to those he wrongly supposes to believe in only one god, does not understand the difference between “believing” and “worshipping”.

One need not be a Biblical scholar to understand this, after all, the very first of the Ten Commandments states: “You shall have no other gods before me.”

Belief is irrelevant. “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

Anonymous Deweysh Bag advocates the global gulag:

This Vox character has a twisted, tweaked, and, militant understanding of “citizen.” He’s frightened (as he should be) that with a public school education, our nation’s young can not grow to become the Christian Right. The libertarians are just scary, and applying that economic philosophy means that no one ever has to learn anything that their parents don’t want them to learn.

I subscribe to John Deweys’s philosophy of education and believe that we have a responsibilty to educate our children to be knowledgeable citizens of the world with responsibilities and skills that allow them to participate in global discussions.

As usual, we have massive projection here. I’m not the least bit afraid of public school educations, I am simply completely contempteous of them precisely because I was public schooled for seven years. Clearly, I have firsthand knowledge of the fact that our nation’s young can and will grow to become the Christian Right regardless of how they are schooled. Totalitarians of ADB’s sort always think that they can brainwash and kill enough people to keep the masses in line; they never seem to grasp that their repression creates the very opposition it is designed to eliminate.

ADB then goes on to prove my point of the purpose of public education:

Here’s something I pulled off a website to outline the issues:

Understanding of a citizen’s responsibilities to others, to society and to the environment:

Understanding of ethical behavior in personal, professional and public life:

Knowledge and skills for involved responsible citizenship at the local, state, national and global level:

Don’t see a lot about reading, writing and arithmetic there, do you? Just a lot of propaganda about being a good little fascist worker-bee global citizen.

From the Daily Telegraph:

The Brazilian man shot dead by police in the mistaken belief that he was a suicide bomber was killed with a type of bullet banned in warfare under international convention, The Daily Telegraph has learned. The firing of hollow point ammunition into the head of Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, is believed to be the first use of the bullets by British police.

Their issue was sanctioned after research suggested that they were an effective close-quarters ammunition for use against someone about to trigger a suicide bomb.

It is believed the decision was influenced by the tactics used by air marshals on passenger jets – where such bullets are designed to splinter in the body and not burst the fuselage. They have been assessed as posing less risk to people around the suicide bomber than conventional bullets but the effect on victims is devastating.

Like the overall Kratos policy, the decision to make dum dum-style bullets available was taken in secret. However, it is understood that the Home Office became aware three years ago that police were considering their use.

Ironic, isn’t it? The police state never has a problem using things like poison gas and hollow-points against its own citizens that it would never dare to use in war. The fact that the UK police did this secretly demonstrates that they are perfectly aware of how appalling their decision was.

The only thing I don’t understand was how the cretins involved could possibly think it wasn’t going to come out in time. I suppose they assumed that the discovery would coincide with the heroic killing of a suicide bomber, not the murder of an innocent man, and would therefore be accepted as a necessary evil.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz… what? Okay, the public schools can’t teach kids to read, write or do math, but you’re worried about something that combines philosophy, geology, theology and biology? Yeah, right. Ask a high school senior to explain evolution to you.

“Um, so, like people used to be, like, fish, you know, when they climbed out of the water, or something. Like, fish with legs. It was a long time ago. I don’t know.”

If you care what your kid is learning, then keep them out of the public schools. And if you can’t bother to do that for one reason or another, they’re not going to learn anything academic except by accident anyway, so what difference does it make whether ID or evolution is on the educationsts’ nominal curriculum?