Thursday, March 5, 2009

You're sleeping with your girlfriend, therefore God exists..?

I really have no idea how to approach this kind of twisted, illogical jumble of words strung together into an entirely religious diatribe. I am (but I shouldn't be) completely confused as to how one should even begin to comment. Is this being touted as some kind of breakthrough soul-winning apologetic approach?

In a nut shell (no pun...yes, pun intended), apologist Frank Turek is telling the story about him and a friend named David being approached by a young agnostic fellow after David was done teaching (convincing the already-convinced) about the evils of the "new atheism". After several back-and-forths with the young man, David threw down the gauntlet, let go with both barrels, and got to the obvious heart of the matter; “You’re raising all of these objections because you’re sleeping with your girlfriend. Am I right?” Turek continues - "All the blood drained from the kid’s face. He was caught. He just stood there speechless. He was rejecting God because he didn’t like God’s morality, and he was disguising it with alleged intellectual objections.
Take note that Turek neglects to quote the young man's tearful admission of "You're right, you're right! I am a horrible sinner deserving of eternity in hell. Thank you for revealing to me that god is real." All Turek does is give us his view of why the poor fellow was embarrassed and silent. Nice touch. Almost believable.
In the rest of the article, Frank goes on to show that every single atheist rejects god because they just don't want to believe, and don't want to be obligated to live a life of...well...godleness.

I kind of wish I were the one in this dialogue with Turek and David. When accused of sleeping with my girlfriend, the blood would have remained where it was, and I would have proudly (but discreetly :) proclaimed "YES, I am sleeping with my girlfriend, and it is wonderful. We love each other and enjoy our sex life. And for what it's worth, my girlfriend, of 2 years, is a Christian. And as best as I can tell, what little religion-induced guilt she may feel obviously does not detract from the pleasure she derives from our "sleeping" together.

I have to ask, is this modern day apologetics - when confronted by a (possibly) confused young man who is looking for answers, you grab him by the crotch and accuse him of using it?

Oh, and by the way Frank, since your entire article was to show the mentality of the non believer, and their propensity to shun god just because they want sex, shouldn't you do a little research into the sexual activities of those who believe as you believe? It seems that with every adolescent that you bring to the Lord, you also bring them closer to losing their virginity.

'ata boy Frank.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Absolute Moral...yada, yada, yada

Visits at Truthbomb Apologetics have yet to yield much in the way of reasonable arguments for why I should adopt the Christian faith...again.

Here's a tidbit from this post: "All of us know that there are absolute moral obligations. Who in their right mind would suggest that rape should be legalized? An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places. And an absolute Moral Law points to an absolute Moral Law Giver."

Allow me to dissect:

"All of us know that there are absolute moral obligations."
Who is he talking to? He obviously is not posing this as a know..."Don't we all know that there are absolute moral obligations?" This statement (not the post authors) is based on nothing more than a belief in what the bible says. It is not based on any observation of human interaction, for if it were, the statement could not be made. So, if you can't produce convincing evidence for your opponent, attempt to dazzle them with baseless claims.
I would like to ask the poster to name every single "moral obligation" for us. I mean, if we all know, beyond any doubt, that there are moral absolutes (put in place by the Christian god), then surely one or two of these believers could list for us these moral absolutes. And perhaps they could let us know which moral obligations are not absolute?
The ones that are so often repeated by them, when desperately trying to make make their point, are rape and murder. Are there any others? I want an exhaustive list by someone in authority, so that there are no questions. Because it seems to me that, with every claim made by Christians concerning "evidence" for the existence of their god, the only thing they succeed in producing are more questions from those who actually think for them selves.

"Who in their right mind would suggest that rape should be legalized?"
Indeed. And who in their right mind would mandate that the stoning to death of disobedient sons should be legalized? How about stoning a man for working on the sabbath? Who in their right mind would forbid the wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics? Who indeed?

"An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places."
Again, I sure would like a list. I have to assume that the current prohibition against stabbing an infant with a sward, or dashing it's head against a rock, is not a moral absolute? I mean, there was a time...? And if I am not mistaken, even rape and murder were tolerated, and even commanded by a certain absolute moral law giver?

"And an absolute Moral Law points to an absolute Moral Law Giver."
I could consider this point, if there was any indication that the absolute moral law giver (you speak of) was actually actively involved in enforcing his absolute moral laws. But he isn't, is he? He is conspicuously absent, leaving us humans as the law-makers, law-breakers, and law-enforcers, and we do it with such irregularity and inconsistency so as to leave the rational thinking person to conclude that YOU ARE WRONG.

But, I am under no illusion that any of this will make it past the perpetual bible colored lens that so many Christians view their world through.

Suggested reading here, and here.