User Profile: COMEBACKSOON

COMEBACKSOON

Member Since: March 19, 2013

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • February 22, 2014 at 12:20am

    Just finished watching Abrash’s talk at Steam Dev Days on what virtual reality could, should, and almost certainly will be in less than two years, then clicked over to my news feeds to see this. Looks like a potentially awesome utilization of VR for first person combat games.

    ACHIEVEMENT!! Got beat up by a BABY moose!

  • January 28, 2014 at 2:32pm

    Based on currently observable rates of erosion, scientists have concluded that the ditch between the giant rock and the destroyed house took approximately 2.7 millions years to form.

  • January 17, 2014 at 10:53am

    Blake – with respect, why do you think it would be impossible for God to make people fly, or to shrink them to the size of an ant? The verse refers to HIS power, not ours. I do not think these things are more fantastic than that He created the universe through the simple act of speaking.

    Of course, any contemplation of Christian Supernaturalism must be tempered with an understanding that no good purpose would be served in such things. I believe I could fly, if God willed it – however, I can think of no way that this wouldn’t subvert another’s ability to believe in something they cannot see (which I believe is the basis of faith and the proof of God’s righteousness in creation), and therefore cannot be the will of God.

    So before you accuse me of believing in nonsense, please note that while I believe such things are within the realm of possibility, I do not expect them to occur (until such time as God’s righteousness is proven to the world, and the unrighteousness of the faithless must be proven by their unbelief in what they do see, as in when the three angels preach the gospel to the world in Revelation, and yet no one repents – see also the two witnesses, which perform signs and wonders and are killed).

  • January 17, 2014 at 9:50am

    That the verse primarily applies as Merritt argues is absolutely correct, however that application is not mutually exclusive with the more popular understanding of the verse. In fact, I think even the popular understanding of the verse doesn’t take his words at their fullest meaning.

    If Christ, who created the world by the power of His word, is the one who strengthens me, then what could possible stand against me, if His will is that I should prevail? Not even the laws of physics, which He ordained and continually sustains, could hold me down IF IT WAS HIS WILL that I should overcome them!

    And that’s the key: His will. We can no more expect professional or any other kind of success when we go against His will than we could fly of our own strength, if, by His perfect wisdom and inexorable love, He sought to establish a greater eternity for us with temporary suffering than could ever be possible having lived a mortal life of comfort and prosperity. Dream big, but trust that God is at work for your good, even if you can’t yet see that good, for “all things work for the good of them that love God.”

  • November 13, 2013 at 12:03pm

    If you still take issue with the hard Christian stances on morality, you must understand the usefulness of understanding right and wrong. Not only is it useful for worldly purposes, helping us to live the best lives possible (where the law of morality is recognized and practiced by nearly all people, nearly all of the time), but understanding what is good and what is evil helps us to understand the nature of God, which is goodness itself. If you understood what God is proposed to be, your heart would break for longing to know Him better!

  • November 13, 2013 at 12:03pm

    @ thewrongsuspect

    Not sure which post to reply to, since you are posting all over the comments about Christians being hypocrites. That word gets thrown around a lot, and I just want to point out how you are partly right, but partly wrong.

    If hypocrisy means believing people ought to act one way, while yourself acting another way, then by definition, all Christians are hypocrites. We recognize a standard that we cannot measure up to. Our only hope is forgiveness.

    In that sense, the word hypocrite loses its usefulness – the word is meant to carry negative connotation, but its application to Christians in this way is a positive thing. And so, let me propose another sense in which the word can be properly applied to some, but by no means all, Christians.

    As I said, our only hope is forgiveness. Therefore, any “Christian” who condemns any living person to hell, should properly be called a hypocrite. “I seek the grace which is freely offered to all, but you should go to hell,” is a statement that no Christian should ever utter.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 12, 2013 at 1:57pm

    Read the article. They had more help than they needed to accomplish their mission. Of course the atheists get cut first from a religious organization’s mission.

    How would you respond to an article with the title “Christian organization declines Christians’ help in favor of atheist helpers”? That’s actually what was happening before (“Larocco said they appreciate the atheists’ help over the past two years, but said Thanksgiving and Christmas are prime time for volunteers and that the Kansas City Rescue Mission often has to turn prospective helpers away.”), but no one seems to care about that…

  • November 7, 2013 at 3:55pm

    “But unions and large employers argue that they shouldn’t have to pay the fee because they won’t benefit from the fund.”

    Well, if that’s the rule…

  • November 6, 2013 at 2:23pm

    How do you understand those passages? If I have misunderstood, I’d appreciate your insight. To clarify, I do not take this passage as a broad condemnation of all public or corporate prayer. But it does make clear that public prayer is anything but a religious duty. Nothing was stopping this man from praying silently for the children on his bus. His determination to continue leading those children in prayer seems to have been at least partly motivated by his desire to be seen as a very spiritual person.

    The parents that took issue with his actions brought the issue to his attention through his employer, who issued him a letter to let him know. He chose to ignore those parents’ concerns.

  • November 6, 2013 at 1:11pm

    Matthewe 6:5-6 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

    This man is no Daniel. He was not fired for praying, but for leading other peoples’ children in prayer. For better or worse, parents have spiritual authority over (and responsibility for) their children. These parents obviously didn’t want their children to be exposed to Christian worship and prayer. For me, this is not a matter of legislation or constitutional interpretation – it’s only a matter of respecting the authority of parents, which this man did not.

    If you want to lead children in prayer on a bus, get a job driving a bus for a Christian school.

    Responses (3) +
  • November 5, 2013 at 5:58pm

    Update: Upon close examination of video evidence, it was determined that the woman did not, in fact, hit her boyfriend with a truck. In truth, she only tackled him. It just looked like he was being run over by a truck.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 31, 2013 at 6:02pm

    Luc-

    Good, now we’re getting somewhere.

    First, your premise, if I understand correctly, is that the behavior of all social creatures, human or otherwise, religious or otherwise, is generally the same. But this is not true. While murder, rape, and theft may occur in some form in the animal kingdom, the cruelty of mankind is unmatched by the beasts. Of course, it is also true that the generosity and compassion of mankind is unmatched by the beasts as well. Having knowledge of God frees us from being ruled by our instincts, as the animals are. And that power makes us capable of greater good and evil.

    Furthermore, I’d like to ask why you would expect science to keep discovering how different and how wider the gap is between us and the lower animals (if God were real)? Remember that our premise includes the principle that this world is temporary, a means to an eternal end. And part of that eternal end is that His kingdom should be filled with FREE children. And free children must have had the opportunity to reject his love. And being temporarily subject to a mortal world like this one would allow just that. Therefore, if God were real, and perfect, I would expect to find few biological differences, and greater spiritual differences, which, as I outlined above, is exactly what we do find.

    But of course the “If x is true, we would expect to find y” logic is what led a hypothetical someone to believe that an invisible cat was sitting in his chair…

  • October 31, 2013 at 4:29pm

    Luc –

    You imply that I missed the larger point (an insult). I was merely answering a specific question, leaving the broader discussion alone. In your first response, you pretended that the challenge was different than either the actual challenge, or the broader discussion – at the same time, calling me “dense” (another insult).

    You know what they say about assumptions, right? At any rate, both of your assumptions are wrong. And based on your confusion of the term “amoral” (meaning having no understanding of right and wrong) and “immoral” (meaning having an understanding of, but no regard for right and wrong), a reasonable person could conclude that you don’t have much interest in metaphysical studies. One might wonder why you feel so compelled to debate on the topic, then.

  • October 31, 2013 at 4:07pm

    Luc –

    In my experience (not intuition), everything that exists began to exist as the result of some pre-existing cause. Since we know that the universe is not eternal in the past, the universe must have been caused to exist by something that existed prior to the Universe. One possibility is that the cause is the creator. Evidence. See how I logically connected existence (premise) with an eternal creator (conclusion)? Can you likewise logically connect existence with the nonexistence of a creator? I cannot see how the evidence better fits your conclusion.

    Convenient? You talk like I am just trying to win an argument. Whether or not you believe, I have accomplished my goal – to be a witness for God. From your perspective, I might be wrong, lying, or just crazy, but if you consider what I am saying, and you decide to believe, than you will receive a greater blessing than would have been possible if you waited until the proof was undeniable. On the other hand, if you continue to reject God, than I am a witness of God’s righteousness when you are unable to enter His kingdom. Not even your own mother will be prevented from enjoying eternal joy when she sees that God brought the truth right to your doorstep, but you chose godlessness (to be without God) and hopelessness instead. Everyone gets what they want, not everyone will enjoy it.

  • October 31, 2013 at 3:51pm

    Luc – Again, you are only listing reasons why you are not satisfied with the evidence. Your continued denial of the existence of evidence of any kind is irrational. It is irrational to say that something “isn’t evidence” for some proposition – the logical contradiction is that the same evidence better fits some other proposition.

    For example, if someone said to me that the fact that a chair appeared empty was evidence that an invisible cat was sitting in the chair, I would not tell him that that was “not evidence”. Instead, while I might acknowledge that the appearance of emptiness is what we might expect to find if there were an invisible cat sitting there, it seems far more likely that the chair is just empty. In other words, the appearance of an empty chair better fits the proposition that the chair is empty.

  • October 31, 2013 at 3:35pm

    Luc-

    Your challenge was “Why do other social species not “murder” each other?” Not, name as many social creatures as you can think of. I met your challenge (by raising one example of how other social species do murder each other), now you want to pretend the challenge was something different? This is not how rational men argue.

    To address the core of the discussion, though, amoral species are able to propagate without a biblical understanding of morality because mere instincts are sufficient for mere propagation. But mere propagation is not very desirable, is it? No, in order to enjoy a more desirable existence requires most men at most times to follow something reasonably close to the law of morality (which is what it is, regardless of what anyone believes it to be).

    But that is only part of the role that understanding morality plays for Christians. We try to understand the law of morality, not because our eternal fate depends on it, but because it helps us to understand our beloved Father. To us, the law applies as a list of “thou shalt’s” and thou shalt not’s”, but to Him it applies as the law of gravity applies to physical bodies – it describes what He is like. (Of course, you recognize this logic as also borrowed from Mere Christianity.)

  • October 31, 2013 at 3:22pm

    Luc-

    You are contradicting yourself. If you were simply unsatisfied with the evidence for the creator (existence itself, integrity of scripture under millennia of scrutiny, optimization of biological, ecological, and cosmological design systems, ancient and modern first-hand encounters, etc. etc.), then I could at least respect your intellectual position. Of course, I’d be giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually considered all available evidence with an unbiased mind. I note this because, while I would respect your intellectual position, I would also warn you that God knows your heart. If he gave you a faulty intellect that would honestly reject all of the above evidences and more that are made available to you, then maybe you will fall down and worship Him when you are transformed into eternity. However, if you simply rejected the sound evidence you were presented out of a desire to ignore God, that will not go so well for you.

    But in the same post you say that there is no GOOD evidence (which is a matter of opinion) and there is no evidence at all. To say there is no evidence for a creator, or no more evidence than for a Flying Spaghetti Monster, is mere ignorance.

  • October 31, 2013 at 2:55pm

    Lucretius – when a male lion replaces another male in a pride, for whatever reason, the new male will kill the young of the old male.

    If the same were done by a human, we would call it murder, because humans have an understanding of right and wrong (and murder is immoral killing, just like theft is immoral taking and fornication is immoral sex). Animals do not have that understanding and therefore are not judged the same way we are.

    There is more to morality than the herd instinct. I recommend C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity”. In it, Lewis explains that morality is not comprised of instincts, but, as instincts are continually in conflict (think herd instinct vs. self preservation), morality helps us choose which instincts to follow and which to ignore at different times. Instincts are like the keys on the keyboard, morality is like the sheet music that tells us which keys to play.

  • October 31, 2013 at 2:44pm

    The premise of such a statement is based on Hebrews 8:11, which states that all shall know the Lord. The degree to which a person could articulate that belief, is of course, variable. At any rate, since God cannot be disproven, it will always remain a possibility, however remote in your perception, that God is real.

    I therefore contend two conclusions. 1) the atheist who says “There is no God,” is the irrational one. 2) Most theists are not motivated in their beliefs by a fear of death, but facilitated by the abandonment of irrational self-deception. Such abandonment is merely easier in the face of imminent death.

    When death seems beyond the horizon, and all is going well with us, that self-deception allows us to ignore the voice of God, which we perceive to be trying to wreck our fun or hijack our time, but in reality, was only trying to guide us to a fuller kind of joy.

    Don’t ignore the possibility that there is a God in control who loves you more than you can imagine, and who is worthy of eternal praise!

  • October 31, 2013 at 2:11pm

    Lucretius and Humanist – Why would you expect God to speak in purely “scientific” terms? Would you really expect to find this in the Bible: “The fool hath produced electrical signals in his brain, which are understood by him as the thought, ‘There is no god’”?

    No. You understood what it means. And “literally” does not mean the same thing as “scientifically,” or “technically.” You can take this verse literally. While some language in the Bible is clearly figurative, the figurative language still communicates reality far more effectively than literal language would have. And understanding what is figurative and what is literal requires study of literature, language, and historical context.

    And if you reject the Bible without bothering about any of that, you will be without excuse. But it’s not too late. You have heard the truth today. Consider it carefully – nothing else you do today has any potential whatsoever to have an eternal impact.

123 To page: Go