DENVER (Dec. 9) – A gunman walked into a training center dormitory for young Christian missionaries early Sunday and opened fire, killing two of the center’s staff members and wounding two others. No arrests had been made by late morning.Police identified the victims as Tiffany Johnson, 26, and Philip Crouse, 23. Youth With a Mission said Johnson was from Minnesota and Crouse was from Alaska. Their hometowns weren’t immediately available.One of the injured men was hospitalized in critical condition and the other was in stable condition, police said. Both are in their 20s.Witnesses told police that the gunman was a 20-year-old white male, wearing a dark jacket and skull cap, who left on foot. He may have glasses or a beard.
I hate when innocents die, even those on the other side. My heartfelt condolences go out to the victims’ families. I hope they catch this guy and lock him away.
HeatheNZ:
I didn?t post Merriam-Webster?s first definition because I didn?t want to inflame already heated emotions. But for the sake of my honesty, here?s the entire list of definitions at
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism :
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
I find it interesting that even your definition contains a reference to atheism being a doctrine?
How was I failing to be fair and honest? I never claimed that the definitions I posted were the only ones (though yours is strikingly similar to mine?). And could you also explain how what I?ve said here is ?unreasonable??
Flanders, are you actually engaging in all these semantic gymnastics just to prove that babies are born believing in Jesus?
That’s sad.
Guess you?re either simply incapable or unwilling to contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion here.
jcc,
So, you’ve lied about the definition of Atheism. I’m not at all surprised. Thanks HeatheNZ.
But then you go and lie about Existentialism. We can’t really have that, now can we?
You describe Existentialism as the heart and soul of Atheism. That would only be true if your faulty definition of Atheism were the only one in use.
Existentialism does not require one to reject the idea of deities. Existentialists are just as free to believe in deities as they are free to reject them.
Are you asserting that Christian Existentialism doesn’t exist and that Kierkegaard was an Atheist?
Perhaps you should read this:
http://tinyurl.com/2j7nj7
jcc,
Because you take a small subset of Atheists (those who claim that no deities exist) and attempt to attack all Atheists on the basis of that belief.
By defining Atheism as a belief system, you’re attempting to shift the burden of proof onto us. This is the root of your attack, and it is based on the claim that only a small subset of Atheists make.
If you want to attack Atheism you have to provide solid evidence that deities exist (specifically your deity).
You also said this:
I am an Atheist. I define my Atheism as a rejection of Theism.
Should I not be calling myself an Atheist? If not, what should I call myself? Or could it be that I am being honest with myself?
Sorry Flanders. I though the fact that anti-choicers want to give the state godlike powers over women’s bodies was very germane to the discussion. I guess you disagree. C’est la vie.
alatham,
Thanks for responding to jcc. I seldom read his posts these days, as I find the hypocrisy, misrepresentation, and martyr complex often contained therein offensive.
Sorry, jcc, but IMO you’re not worth the effort.
alatham:
How did I lie? I originally posted the definition that was material to the discussion, then, to show that I wish to act in good faith, posted the entire set of definitions?which contained one clearly demeaning to atheists.
How did I lie about that?
Huh? My ?faulty? definition of atheism?it?s Merriam-Webster?s!!!!?as I posted in its entirety!!! Holy mackerel, I musta fallen into some kind of alternate existence where no matter what I say, atheists will automatically accuse me of lying and being intentionally deceitful. Can they really be that unwilling, or unable to debate an issue?
Ok, but to be logically and internally consistent?that is, in order for one to reconcile the precept that Existentialism provides no absolutes?then one cannot logically accept the absolute existence of God under such conditions.
No. I?m saying that such a philosophy is logically and internally inconsistent.
So are you saying that there are atheists who do believe in a deity?
Is it (atheism), or is it not a doctrine?
Ok, Jesus Christ.
All right. So, does that rejection of theism somehow allow you to acknowledge the existence of a deity? I?m terribly confused by what you?re trying to assert atheism to be and not be.
HeatheNZ:
Hey, no skin off my nose. But I would appreciate it if you?re going to accuse me of lying to offer tangible proof of it?rather than the drive-by tactic you just tried.
comment from jcc:
I think you missunderstand basic logic. The “or” in the the text is far different than an “and”.
The “or” means that the word can have any of those meanings. It does not mean that all those meanings are related. The word “cape” can mean “a sleeveless outer garment or part of a garment that fits closely at the neck and hangs loosely over the shoulders” or “
the short feathers covering the shoulders of a fowl”. That does not mean that all capes are made of feathers.
justme:
Actually, I?m pretty sure I correctly comprehend the basic logic of dictionary definitions?particularly ones containing clauses set off by ?or.? I believe that if what you are asserting here were true then the disparate descriptive ?or? clause would require it to be listed as a separate and distinct numbered definition (i.e. as in the case of the two semantic uses of ?cape? that you referred to).
So, in the case of the definition of ?atheism? that I posted, the ?or? clause descriptions are clearly listed within the same numbered definition which indicates that either description can be applied to that semantic use of the word.
jcc,
Look, religious delusions aside, I am not in favor of big government and everything you advocate regarding women’s health would not only turn into a huge bureaucratic and legalistic nightmare but it would also cost trillions of dollars to fund.
Every time a woman or doctor disagreed with the state they would have to go to court, someone would have to speak for the fetus OTHER than the parents, because what you are saying is PARENTS aren’t to be trusted to decide what is best for their family.
Although you want to wrap your argument with a responsibility bow, you make a case that no matter how much you sponge off the government OR charities as long god is happy that type of personal responsibility doesn’t matter.
I just don’t share your bleeding heart world view. As for mocking my charities, as soon as I advocate that all embryos MUST be born then what I plan to do to finance my crazy worldview would become relevant.
You are like one of those crazy animal rights people that wants to save all the lab mice, you go too far and alienate what would otherwise be supporters.
Please show me a charity for the disabled that sends disabled people a check every month to pay their expenses, they would need $2-3k a month I am guessing. You are the one claiming charities can do what s.s. and medicaid can do so pony up your evidence or is this something you made up as well?
As for continuing your tirade about my emotions I still don’t care what you think about how I should communicate and when I want to take your “how to communicate with a misogynistic ass” class I will let you know. Until then I will speak any way I want. I was gonna go through and cut all your totally EMOTIONAL responses as well to show you what a hypocrite you are but you already know so we can skip it.
As for the website you are blackmailing me to visit. I don’t think I’m going to meet your demands and using a kid as a human shield to make your case is pretty weak. There are millions of horror stories as well, should I insist you read them all. I have never said women should abort the disabled I said it is for a woman to decide and that I would decide against it.
I knew you wouldn’t answer the theological question and until you do you argument lays flaccid in the water of lake “i made all this crap up”.
jcc
How can that be, since after delivering the ten commandments to Moses, God then goes on with a bunch of other laws, some of which delineate exactly who should be killed?
I think it is a ridiculous assertion for you to claim you know god’s will because you read the bible, so have most people but they don’t claim that omnipotent knowledge.
“Thou shalt not kill”
Wow, really, because I believe in self defense and justice. I also believe INNOCENT people sometimes have to die for the greater good of a country, you know, like WAR.
Basically I believe “thou shalt kill whenever you feel necessary, but try to minimize the loss of innocent life”
Your god seems like a huge liberal to proclaim even serial killers should not be killed.
Hey Flanders, what are you trying to prove with all your dictionary slight-of-hand? That atheism doesn’t exist, or that atheists actually believe in gods? Tell us so we know exactly what to laugh our asses off at.
Why doesn’t the xian church just set up laws for its members? You guys can escort your women to the doctors and make sure they give birth then YOU can pay for its life.
Atheists are a minority and we are doomed to hell anyway, so why don’t you just focus on controlling xian behavior.
I mean the real problem here is I don’t share your mindset on anything and I think you are crazy and you are trying to explain why the laws of our government should mimic your interpretation of your male god idea, so just dominate xians and leave everyone else alone.
Problem solved.
dawnisis:
Ok, I think I?ve pretty much exhausted all hope at carrying on a dialog with you in which I?m able to retain your focus. Given that you seem to have at least gone to Nick?s site, I?ll attempt to answer your question. If this is not it, please direct me to the correct one:
Answer: What happens to them, I don?t know. That?s between them and the God who created them. As for why they ?have to be born at all costs,? well, it?s because they?re human beings?each possessing a soul; made in the image of God and as such are deserving of our respect. You and I both started our lives out as embryos and we are no less deserving of respect now as then. Since they cannot defend, protect or speak for themselves, then we must protect their dignity until they can.
If I was a god I would just put the dead fetus souls into the next available embryo.
Surely you are aware how many miscarriages the average woman has in her life?
What did your god do with all the souls?
Why can’t he just put them into a different embryo?
If this god guy made the figgin world I think he could figure out how to make sure everyone can be born. So why don’t you pray on that until you believe it jcc.
At least you finally admit you don’t know. I consider that a victory.
Until you know you can’t kill or hurt women.
karen:
So we?re on the same page, would you mind clarifying that a little more? (I don?t recall God giving specific instructions to Moses for him to kill anyone).
Moses shmoses. The New Testament did away with all that Ten Commandments business.
Or else it didn’t, depending on which part of it you believe. Galatians, or “not one jot or tittle”?
So many contradictions, there’s bound to be a little something for everybody.
jcc
OK.
Exodus 21:12-17
12 “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 “Anyone who attacks [c] his father or his mother must be put to death.
16 “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
17 “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
Exodus 21:22-25
22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 22:18-20
18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.
19 “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.
20 “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed. [d]
Exodus 22:29-30
29 “Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. [g]
“You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.
Exodus 23:20-26
20 “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. 22 If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. 23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. 24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. 25 Worship the LORD your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, 26 and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.
Being raised without the knowledge of xianity, this is some scary stuff to read.
I don’t understand how it can be so specific yet totally vague at the same time.
Isn’t a sorceress a female SORCERER? So only the female type should die?
Magic. Really. ROFL.
This is really the one that makes “Thou shalt not kill” a load of crap.
How is this not a call to xians/jews to kill EVERYONE of a different religion?
God clearly demands the SLAUGHTER of innocents instead of trying to convert those of different beliefs.
I also don’t understand how xians claim, when convenient, the old testament laws no longer apply, but to make dishonest arguments they point to the commandments AND to the tiny verse they claim proves got hates homosexuals. Either it doesn’t apply or it does. This picking and choosing is what makes you guys look like delusional jerks.
karen:
Yeah, Exodus has some pretty tough parts in it (as does Leviticus and Deuteronomy). But, to your point, the verses you listed were instructions on what to do to those who had been found guilty of disobeying God?s laws. They were not instructions to kill anyone without cause. And the last verse you cite (Ex.23:24), is God?s warning to the Israelites not to associate with the pagans in that region because they worshipped empty idols. God knew that if the Israelites intermingled with them then they would pervert their faith and break their covenant with God. The Israelites were God?s priestly people through whom He had chosen to reveal Himself to the world and he did not want them to be corrupted by pagan idol worshippers, so He allowed the Israelites to destroy them if they tried to corrupt them.
Great to see you still have access to a Bible!
dawnisis:
Actually, this is where either not having read the entire Old Testament or not having any prior instruction of it leads one to an erroneous conclusion?all because you took what you read out of context.
The Law God gave Moses (part of which was ?Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.?) was for how the Israelites were to punish other Israelites who did such things?not everyone they came in contact with. That is abundantly clear if you were to read it in its entirety.
How is killing people for practicing magic or worshipping a different god not MURDER without cause.
Cursing one’s parents???? That’s a just cause for murder?
Good grief jcc. I don’t get how your mind can twist what is clearly written.
So why don’t you also claim the 10 commandments only apply to the Israelites?
Even if “god” is only advocating jew to jew murder it still doesn’t change the fact that it’s a total contradiction.
What about cursing of parents? Israelites only?
What about god hating gays? Israelites only?
Please provide the verses where “god” specifies which rules are for who and when they no longer apply.
Do these laws still apply to the jews living today? When did they expire? If you say the new testament is when they became invalid then why did you bring up nonapplicabale old testament law in the 1st place?
jcc
First of all, how is sacrificing your firstborn not killing without cause? And did you remember to follow this law?
Second, God says DO NOT KILL. Those found guilty of disobeying the law could have been punished by some other means, and the Do Not Kill law would have been consistent. But since God changes his mind and says Except…it becomes a contradiction and puts people in the judge’s seat of whom to kill instead of god. So who’s going to decide who is a sorceress? And what if Joe accuses Mo of lying with a goat, but nobody saw it?
In other words, it doesn’t frickin’ matter that they were not instructions to kill without cause.
The commandment was not “Thou shalt not kill without cause.” It was “Thou shalt not kill.” Period.
Rusty
That’s the point. Christians often want to say that the NT did away with OT law, BUT, they don’t want that to include the Ten Commandments; they just want to exclude all the niggling laws that get in their way, like not eating shellfish and or working on the Sabbath.
Wow. You are such a hypocrite. Your entire mind revolves around taking biblical verses out of context.