Tue 9 Sep 2008
Fucking creepy….
4 Halos
Archived Posts from this Category
Mon 18 Aug 2008
Crazy Shit on Godtube! - RFID Chips, The New World Order and The End Times!
Posted by Going Churching[9] Comments
Wed 13 Aug 2008
Technomonk gives us a beautifully written account of his thoughts and feelings on raising his little girl to be free, independent and rational in his blog post, THRIVE!. I thought I would pass it along to everyone.
Fri 8 Aug 2008
Thu 7 Aug 2008
A Critique of Matt Slick’s Copy & Paste Bullshit on Relativism
Posted by Going Churching[6] Comments
Every once in a while, I like to torture myself by going over to Matt Slick’s website to read over the arguments that he establishes for use in the Christian/anti-atheist community. Included on his website is a copy/paste section, where users have access to simple talking points about various topics, that they can freely use on internet discussion forums, chat rooms, etc. One of the more ridiculous sections, is his answers for people arguing against the idea of relativism, or relative truth. Instead of enabling the neo-apologists on the internetz with valid, structured arguments against relativism, he basically shows people how to engage in bullshit sophistry.
Take a look at Matt’s page on relativism and come back for my comments. Done? Good.
Matt uses semantical and linguistic arguments to try and confuse the issue at hand. His tactic is to explode the notion of individualistic, experience-based perceptions of truth and reality found in relativism to an absolute position. Basically it boils down to something like, “relativism as an absolute construct is flawed because in it’s ‘anything goes’ nature of argument, it debunks itself as an absolute construct.” What Matt fails to realize is that while relativism may be an “absolute” construct of thought, it’s positions, or the quantity of the construct is not made up of notions of absolute truth, reality, etc. He argues against the notions, in an attempt to prove the absolute construct as false. In using this tactic, it is obvious that Matt misses the point of the content of the construct itself.
The approach that Matt Slick is taking here, is one wherein the counter position is only trying to “win” the argument by displacing the issue at hand. This is a dishonest approach by the counter position, which shows that they have no real concern in breaking down the ideas of relativism and showing them false, but only wish to easily dispense with their relativist opponent.
What does this do? Well, for one, it leaves the argument floating out in the aether. No one has addressed the nature of the relativist claims, and we are no closer to understanding a more comprehensible idea of what truth, reality, etc. is or might be. Secondly, it perpetuates the perverse notion that argument and debate within our cultures and societies is an establishment of contest. Throughout the history of honest intellectual debate, the point has never been to leave your opponent in the dust, licking his wounds in defeat. The point of honest intellectual debate is to progress towards a better understanding of the concepts and issues being addressed, for everyone involved, so that potential answers or solutions to those issues can hopefully be found. We see this disordered mentality present (as one example) in the U.S. presidential debates. The issues at hand are presented and argued, but after the lights have dimmed and the room starts to clear, immediately, news correspondents start debating amongst themselves who the victor of the debate was. Victory in a debate is only had when the issues present are resolved, or put to rest. This is not a victory held by one side, but shared by the community benefiting from the debate of those issues.
So, do I hold to the ideological construct of relativism? Yes and no. To an extent, all of our individual experiences shape our individual perceptions of functional and applied truth and our ideas of reality. The fact that there are multitudes that believe in magical super-beings that exist outside of time and space, while others believe that this is a ludicrous idea, shows us that there are obviously individual perceptions that lead different types of people to different types of ideas on how they live their lives. At the same time, there are elements to our individual perceptions on reality that we all seem to share. To a great extent, we all wish to have our individual freedoms to be able to perceive and apply our own truths on reality without forceful limitation. We all seem to care somewhat about self-preservation. On a more basic/silly level, we can all agree that breathing air is a necessity for human life, without having to debate it.
Aside from this, I think that truth is not absolutely relative to the point that it shouldn’t be explored. This is the problem I have with people like Matt Slick and his neo-apologist trainees, utilizing his copy/paste non-answers. We have to weigh our arguments against each other. We have to strive towards what the truth of reality might be, if there is a common reality to embrace. We have to pick apart our own arguments and the arguments of one another, based on the content of the issue at hand, in an honest manner, even if it proves to be difficult. If we continue to approach debate with the sole mindset of defeating our opponents, by twisting terms and arguing solely on the basis of linguistics and semantics, then we are not weighing the ideas themselves. We are not seeking the answers to our questions. We are defeating ourselves.
Tue 5 Aug 2008
I ran across this video from Youtube user victimlesscriminal today and found it very interesting. I would encourage you to watch it all the way through… to the very end.
Fri 25 Jul 2008
Where Was God? - Crane Falls On Old Man While Attempting To Raise Church Steeple!
Posted by Going Churching[1] Comment
Crane falls, kills observer at Oklahoma City church
An 80-year-old man was crushed to death by a crane that fell on his car, as it was trying to raise a new steeple at the church he attended. His wife, who was also in the car, remained in good condition.
The pastor of the church was quoted as saying that these two were “just great people.” Was this god’s plan for how this man was going to die? The crane company states that they perform about 10,000 jobs every year without incident. If the Christian god does exist, perhaps we can answer “where was god,” in this case. Perhaps he was right here!
This is yet another example of a freak accident that could have been prevented by an all-powerful god, yet was not.
Thu 24 Jul 2008
Welcome to the first installment of “Christianity DeTRACTed,” where we provide counter arguments for various Christian witnessing tracts that we encounter available on the internet, or via personal interaction. Our first tract comes to us from Crossway.org, a not-for-profit Christian ministry and exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing and all other means in order, by God’s grace.
Enduring Freedom, by Christin Ditchfield (full text available online, but quoted here for critique purposes)
“The United States of America is a nation built on the principle of
freedom. The Founding Fathers believed that men and women should be
free to assemble together, free to express themselves, free to defend
themselves, and free to worship God according to the dictates of their
own consciences. For over 200 years, our nation has gone to
extraordinary lengths to protect and preserve the freedoms we enjoy
today. With the passing of time, we have grown accustomed to these
freedoms–we expect them as a matter of course. We even take them for
granted.”
Here, Ms. Ditchfield is building a construct of human consciousness that she will use to exploit the mind of her reader. First, she plays on the patriotic ideas of the freedoms protected for us by the founding documents/fathers of the United States. Many of us have been raised as children learning to respect the foundations of our “loved” nation, and to embrace the freedoms granted by our constitutional documents. Christin knows this, and her tract is going to use this to her advantage.
“But as we’ve recently been reminded, our freedom and security are
not invulnerable to attack. Liberty has been our way of life, and now
that way of life has been threatened. History records the rise and fall
of many nations, many cultures, many peoples. When we consider the
dangers that confront us, we are faced with a frightening question: ‘Will our freedom endure?’”
Playing on the average American’s love of freedom, Ditchfield now drops the hammer on our patriotic emotions. “Don’t you love your freedom? Of course you do! You know, the freedom that we all know and love might not endure! Isn’t that scary?!?”
“The reality is that freedom can be won
and freedom can be lost. We have no guarantees for the future. No
wonder our hearts grow heavy.”
Of course we have no guarantees for the future. We can make preparations and reinforce protections to keep ourselves relatively safe for future events, but there is always a chance that things will go badly and that we will have to struggle in the future. This is one of the tactics that Christianity uses to persuade the mind of the individual into giving into their god construct. They will play on the insecurities that we all naturally have about wanting to be prepared for what the future holds for us. None of us want to be caught off guard, especially when we have responsibilities, like family and other duties. This is a basic fear tactic, that seems to work on a lot of people.
“There is only one freedom that will last forever, only one freedom that
can never be taken from us. That’s the freedom of the Spirit–the
freedom that comes from having a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ.”
So now that a fear element has been introduced, the reader’s mind is filled with questions about his/her own life/future (at least this is the goal). Will my family be safe? Do I need to worry about whether or not my livelihood is going to be damaged by political/military conflict? This leaves the mind of the reader in a vulnerable state. What a perfect time to introduce your “comforting” doctrine, to try and reassure your reader! Conveniently, this is exactly what Ms. Ditchfield does here. “You may not be able to trust the freedom you find in the physical world, but if you put your faith in our god, you can rest assured that you will have eternal freedom, that will never end!”
“The Bible tells us that we are all in bondage to something far worse
than a rogue government or enemy nation. We are in bondage to sin–the
darkness of our own hearts. Our failures and mistakes, our willful
disobedience to God’s laws–this separates us from Him. Our behavior
falls far short of His holy and righteous standards. The sin that
enslaves us leads ultimately to death and hell, an eternal separation
from God.”
“But God wants to set us free from sin. He longs to be
reconciled to us. In His love for us, He found a way: ‘For God so loved
the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him
should not perish, but have eternal life’ (John 3:16).”
“God sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross to pay the penalty for
our sin. Because Jesus died in our place, we can be forgiven. We can be
set free from the power of sin and death. We can be set free from guilt
and fear. ‘So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed’ (John
8:36).”
“If we put our trust in Him, we can face whatever the
future holds with confidence–knowing that our hearts are right with
God. He is with us. He will strengthen and sustain us. And when our
life on this earth comes to an end, we will be reunited with God in
Heaven. There we will experience unspeakable joy and unshakable peace
that will last for all eternity.”
“This is truly ‘enduring freedom.’”
“If you want to experience the freedom that comes from knowing Jesus Christ,
you might pray something like this:
‘Dear Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, in need of a Savior. Please forgive
me. I believe You are the Son of God. Thank You for dying on the cross
to set me free from sin. Help me to live in that freedom day by day.
Fill my heart with Your joy and peace as I learn to trust in You. Amen.’”
Basically, this is more of the same. Instead of focusing on the fear of loosing one’s freedom, this part of the tract is trying to persuade the reader that there is a much greater threat that they need to be afraid of. This threat is sin. I want to take a minute to point out the definition of sin used here. Christin tells us that sin is “the darkness of our own hearts.” How many people can this vaguely relate to? Every one of us deals with the inner turmoil of working out morality in our minds. Should we value others, or should we value ourselves over others? Should we struggle for what we have, or should we take what is not ours? Should we value human life, or is there sometimes justice in ending life? Now, for some, these questions are easily weighed, decided upon and applied in everyday life. But for many people, these questions aren’t as easily answered, and sometimes the fact that these questions aren’t easily answered leads certain individuals to wonder if they are just as prone to immorality as they are to moral acts. The message in this tract hopes to play on this very aspect of the human psyche. Get the reader to question themselves, so that this insecurity can hopefully be misinterpreted as a “dark side” or unwanted immoral state. If you can convince your reader to accept this premise, then all you have to do is provide them with the cure to their illness. Obviously this cure comes in the salvation found through accepting Jesus as your savior. It goes something like this:
“Look, I know you’re questioning yourself. You are unsure of whether or not you are making the right choices about your life. The reason you struggle with this is because we are all prone to evil. We are all prone to making self-destructive decisions because of the influence of sin in the world. It doesn’t have to be this way. There is a god that loves you and doesn’t want to see you struggle. You can be free from having to take control of your life and becoming a well-structured individual. You can scapegoat your problems off on the influence of sin/evil and never really have to address what the real roots of your problems are. As long as you give in to our doctrine and surround yourself with others in our faith that will prop up your newfound ‘enlightenment,’ you will never have to worry about your problems ever again, because the support group system that comes inherent in church attendance will keep your mind free from ever having to consider your overall condition. Everyone around you will be spouting the same mystical, supernatural nonsense about how bad the devil/sin are and how FREE they feel being a slave to a meaningless construct that plays to their childish emotional needs for an all-encompassing safety blanket. You can have all the mumbo-jumbo crutches you need through our doctrine! We call it freedom! Don’t worry, eventually we’ll be asking for 10% of your income. We love you.”
Tracts like these make me the sickest. Don’t break me down, to falsely build me right back up. Don’t play on my fears to try and brainwash me into your ideologies. Don’t create an illness, so that you can sell me the cure. There are multitudes of Christians who use these tactics. The Way of the Master kids do this very thing out on the streets, all of the time. This is manipulation. This is deceptive coercion. This is a fucking ridiculous ideology that needs to be identified and put in its place. If this type of rhetoric doesn’t expose Christianity as a brainwashing cult, I don’t know what does.
Tue 15 Jul 2008
To be the father of deception, Satan can’t lip sync for shit!
