The so-called “green energy” is too inefficient to meet demands, so the end result will be less electricity. That means rolling blackouts for all of us.
Can you guess who will never be subjected to rolling blackouts?
[-3] July 30, 2015 at 2:13pm
Your question is nonsensical because you have no way to define morality. What makes an action moral or immoral? How do you know what you’ve done is either good or evil?
Christianity isn’t about reward and punishment. In our system, atheists will get what they want, as well. Christians will enter into the presence of God, atheists will be removed from it. What we are really saying, is be careful what you wish for.
Your argument does not make any sense. You proclaim God does not exist, then you attempt to hold Him to a moral standard that you can’t define in the first place. How can anyone respond to that? There is no answer because you cannot define the question.
"Your question is nonsensical because you have no way to define morality. What makes an action moral or immoral? How do you know what you’ve done is either good or evil?"
Hypothetical question, termyt.
Tomorrow, your god disappears. It can do anything (presumably you believe it's all powerful, yes?) so it decided to disappear. Poof. Gone.
Graciously, it left all of life, the universe, and everything else unchanged. In fact, your god doesn't even leave a note saying it decided to un-exist itself.
How do you decide your morality tomorrow?
If you can think of an answer to that, you'll have an answer to your questions.
"Christians will enter into the presence of God, atheists will be removed from it. "
Ah, good ol' Pascal's Wager. "Believe or not, it's 50-50 so why not do it?"
How afraid are you of being judged by Osiris? Terrified?
No? Me neither!
What about all the other gods? What about the gods of sects that are similar to yours, but demand you hold beliefs that you disagree with; WBC for example?
Still not afraid. Good, we're still on the same track.
Now, imagine someone who believes in one of those other gods. Do you think they'll be afraid of judgment from yours? Will you believe in every god, knowing that doing so will make you in violation of hundreds of others? No?
Well that's how atheists feel about Pascal's Wager.
Before you trot it out next time you might want to... Think twice? Just a thought.
Think- The God of the bible can do anything that is according to his character, and logically possible. He can create time, space, and ,matter, since he exists apart from them. He cannot disappear, because He has promised not too, and is eternal in his nature.
Your question assumes that we depend on God to tell us each moment, personally, what is right. You set up a straw man, since that is not who He is, or who we are. We would still be left with His image in us, His creation around us, and His word.
You also misrepresent Pascal. He never asserted it was 50/50 wager, or that The God of the bible might be one of many, or that the gospel was one of many truth claims. There is only one God. There is only one truth regarding the salvation of man. The option is to believe it or not. The consequences are set.
Not believing is not Atheism, as it says nothing about the existence of God. Atheism is only possible if one is omniscient and omnipresent, which makes them God by defintion. What you are describing is someone who chooses to reject the evidence available, or refuses to investigate same. This is what Paul meant in Romans 1 by "...suppressing the truth..." It is done to avoid the requirements on us that come from acknowledging the God of the universe.
In all of this, you must borrow from a biblical worldview to argue against God. Reason, the orderly nature of the universe, and information cannot be produced by matter or nature. They are effects, not causes
Christianity absolutely is a religion based on reward vs punishment !
The old Hebrew religion suggested that Yahweh might or might not bother you or reward you or punish you, but, all in this lifetime ! After that, He would leave you alone.
Christianity takes it a large step further in that He will judge you and either allow you to continue kissing His arse for all time, or burn in Hell for all time, depending if you have behaved exactly how He wanted or not.
The promise of reward: Heaven ! Yippee ! Hooray !
The threat of punishment: Hell ! Oh no ! Please don’t ! Arrgh !
Spanky- What you assert is found nowhere in the Bible, or in biblical theology. Prove what you said, using the scriptures
"The God of the bible can do anything that is according to his character, and logically possible."
So you're already admitting your god is not all powerful, all good, and all knowing. Great! Then the hypothetical doesn't matter to you. I mean, you could still try to think of an answer...
"He never asserted it was 50/50 wager, or that The God of the bible might be one of many, or that the gospel was one of many truth claims. "
Exactly! Pascal never took into account any of the other options! Hence why his wager is so silly to use. Why do Christians keep doing so, I wonder?
"Not believing is not Atheism, as it says nothing about the existence of God."
True: lack of belief is atheism. And lack of belief in a god, just like belief in one, does not make a god true or false. Hence why some atheists (like myself) look at evidence, and go "Huh. Well that just doesn't make sense."
"Atheism is only possible if one is omniscient and omnipresent"
Oh, looks like you already messed up the definition of atheism. Atheism is lacking a belief in gods. Claiming "Gods do not exist" is gnostic atheism - it's a knowledge claim as well as a belief claim. Atheism is just the belief part.
Glad to clear that up. Want to make a bet if you'll use the wrong definition again, though?
"you must borrow from a biblical worldview to argue against God."
You mean "the existence of a god"? True: atheism is a rejection of theistic claims. Make your claim, and present your evidence.
Your protest is nonsense, because your argument relies on the existence of an unfalsifiable entity. Your whole premise is that a God is the arbiter of all morals. Which still begs the question. Absolute morality should be carved in stone. If God exists, he couldn’t change his mind. All just and all merciful are polar opposites. You can’t be both. If so, then God is an all-contradiction.
[-4] July 30, 2015 at 2:02pm
I don’t understand, Jonny. Aren’t atheists amoral by definition? If not, by what standard do they adhere to to define one as either moral or immoral? Popular opinion?
What is the higher authority that atheists will site to define morality, so that you can then apply it to the God you claim doesn’t even exist in the first place?
[-4] July 30, 2015 at 1:59pm
There are people who identify themselves as every make and model available out there that don’t give a damn about anyone other than themselves and their own appetites. Most of those types of people don’t understand anything about what they claim to belong to, just the simple act of belonging helps them fulfill their selfish desires.
Murdering the defenseless is not compatible with Christianity. You can claim to be a Christian and support killing inconvenient persons, but if you do, you are not actually following the tenets of what you claim to be.
Better to be naive about evil than an active supporter of it.
When you say "Murdering the defenseless is not compatible with Christianity", this is true. In the Bible, only God is allowed to kill the innocent and defenseless, or to order humans to do it.
[-2] July 30, 2015 at 1:53pm
Well she is at Harvard, so maybe, but she’s not in journalism, so it’s hard to say.
[-3] July 30, 2015 at 1:52pm
So you haven’t read Nietzsche, either, then. You are just throwing support behind one of the big thinkers of your corrupt socialist dream world which has brought nothing but misery to those trapped in it.
 July 30, 2015 at 1:47pm
So a ten year sentence and a repeat offense right after his release. Israel will likely lock him away forever, yet Israel will get a black eye for this while no one even mentions what would happen to attendees of a gay pride parade in Hamas-controlled Gaza.
 July 30, 2015 at 10:25am
Business owners ought to have the same right of free association everyone else is supposed to have, as further ensured by the 1st Amendment.
I would not do business with someone who did business that way you describe in your questions, but the person must be given the right to run his business in a way that would lead me to want to boycott him. That’s a basic requirement of Liberty. Without it, we are only free if we would choose to use our freedoms in the manner prescribed by the government. Iranians and North Koreans are at least that free, too.
The problem comes when such discrimination is encoded into law – which denies equal protection to the class discriminated against. Jim Crow laws were wrong for doing this 60 years ago. The “anti-discrimination” laws that sprung from that period are wrong for doing it today.
July 30, 2015 at 10:04am
Western Culture achieved what it has achieved based on the notion that all humans are made in the image of God and have dominion over the Earth.
This is why that great societies the Arabs and the Chinese had built for themselves while Christendom was wallowing in the Dark Ages ultimately floundered and got left behind. The idea that each one of us is individually valuable opened the market to fresh ideas and endless innovation that lead to critical discoveries like Steel and the harnessing of Electricity, which, among other such advancements, enabled modern society. The Chinese invented gun powder, the Europeans perfected its use as a tool (in addition to a weapon).
No other culture achieved what Western Culture achieved (without the West showing them how) because no other culture believed in the worth of common people as anything other than general, slavish labor. That realization comes from the notion that our worth is derived by our creator – we are created in the image of God, not some random formation of proteins and acids.
God was created in the image of man.
You say religion was responsible for changing society, and I say that society is responsible for changing religion. Slavery was rampant before the civil war, and equality has been slow in coming since (some argue still hasn't gotten to that point). This was supported by the church. Even the denomination of southern Baptist was created from the drive to support slavery. Now, people tend to ignore those parts of the Bible because it is considered immoral by most people.
I understand that people are uncomfortable without a mystical overseer to declare our dominance of the natural world for us. However, the natural world isn't how we want to see it, it is how it is. No holy myth book will change that.
July 30, 2015 at 9:56am
Nietzsche put forth and defended the notion that, in order for man to progress, he must throw off the bonds of morality. It is morality that prevents us from reaching our true potential. Her synopsis of Nietzche’s philosophy using his famous quote is quite accurate.
Progress implies you are making achievements toward a accomplishing a goal. I rarely hear what the anything more than a nice sounding sound bite. Progress to an extreme is no good. What is the goal with women's right, gay rights, animal rights?
 July 30, 2015 at 9:20am
A $135,000 fine for refusal of one business transaction, which was also a “first offense” smells like violence to me.
 July 30, 2015 at 9:05am
We are, indeed, a Republic in name only. When all three branches of the federal government routinely overstep their bounds, you cannot reasonably say the Constitution is worth any more than the paper its printed on.
Gay rights and Religious rights would not at odds at all if the Constitution were fully enforced and equal protection under the law was universally granted.
We have all of the abc commissions that are unconstitutional yet formed by our so called representatives. The ONLY branch of the government not elected is the judiciary. We cannot hold bureaucrats accountable until we understand that NO BRANCH of gov. can invest in them discretion to enforce or make law. That right must be held by elected officials or the courts.
There were three (3) safeguards built into the Constitution. The first forbade (in essence) the formation of bureaus as these would inevitably supplant the role of Congress to write laws. This was ignored in the 1880's with the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The second safeguard was kicked to the curb with the amendment to the Constitution regarding the election of senators. Originally the Senate was to represent the desires and direction the respective States wish to give the Republic. By making senators elected by the people and not their state legislatures effectively made the Senate too much like the House, except one cannot now get rid of bad ones nearly as easily.
The third is still there but is being undermined greatly by not adhering to its purpose and that is the Electoral College. The Presidency was never intended to be representing "the People". He was and should be an executive whose charge is to carry out the will of the people and the collective States together.
We are not so much a Republic as an oligarchy run and ruled by black robed judges and Wall Street bankers with a union boss or two thrown in for good measure. Sad but true.
 July 30, 2015 at 8:57am
I hope this is, indeed, a turning point for Mr. Brown, but that comment makes me doubt. There’s nothing special about his struggle and he is, by no means, “extraordinary” in the trials he faces.
His statement is not contrite, it is still filled with ego. He is not approaching God humbly, but defiantly.
In other words, there’s nothing in his statement to indicated he has changed any at all. Being tired of a lifestyle is not the same as changing it. It could be a good first step, though, and I truly hope he finds the peace and joy we all seek.
 July 27, 2015 at 1:50pm
When will these people finally understand?
Sexual assault is only a crime if it is committed by someone the left doesn’t like.
term: Think that statement applies to the word ' crime' in general ! Heck, the Left - filled with lawyers - doesn't even understand the meaning of the word illegal - when applied to immigration - anymore !
Which of course I stated before. A whole mess of people in this country are indeed above the law.
The Clinton's stepped on to many toes and gave the finger to, to many people. They are the Elite and Sc_rew the little people.
How long before this woman is killed in a "tragic blimp accident" or something equally unusual?
Apparently in college, now all forms of heterosexual intimate contact is considered rape, unless vigorously attested it was consensual prior to contact in writing in triplicated notarized by an attorney of the court, backed with video graphical deposition.
Gotta be careful what we wish for. As long as Hillary's a force in the race, no other democrat can gain traction (not even uncle Bernie, who has as much chance at gaining a nomination as Pataki). So let's hope she stays viable until, say, February or March.
Would much rather have her, or a last-minute replacement, as our opponent than Fauxcahontas, or even Martin O'Malley. Let's keep praying that Hillary maintains her grip on their nomination, because she's beatable. With every illegal immigrant now eligible to vote, Virginia and Florida will both turn blue, so our only hope is that voter turnout will be low on their side, because Hillary will not excite their base.
In the meantime, you go, Ted Cruz! Keep calling out the lying liars who lie in Washington.
HIllary is going down....and this time it is not on Huma.
Mark my words....Obama doesn't like her and he and Val, his gal pal, love Warren. Fauxcahontas will announce before October. That gives Hillary time to have another fall and bump her head so she has an excuse to drop out.
Mind you, Warren is no different than Hiltery except she has killed less people and has less baggage.
So jason what did you find out about who is financing this web site or rather who is paying this woman for the righteous indignation?
I hope Juanita Broaddrick speaks up. Her story about how Bill Clinton viciously raped her twice, chomping down on her lip like Hannibal Lecter is as disgusting as it is shocking.
 July 27, 2015 at 1:07pm
I have faith in the system, but I also have contempt for the government that abuses it and disdain for the citizens who allow them to.
 July 27, 2015 at 12:32pm
“who instead of stepping on the bag first attempted to run down runner Kevin Pillar”
The shortstop did this because stepping on second base in this case does nothing. With the runner advancing to first already out, there is no force-out at second. The runner must be tagged.
Since he survived that rundown, he should have been happy to stay at second, though. That was the key error in the play.
Noticed this also ... obviously the writer is not fully up-to-speed on the rules of baseball.
 July 27, 2015 at 9:04am
If anyone knows “ridiculous and sad,” it’s Obama.
 July 27, 2015 at 8:49am
That’s where all progressives live. They want the world to be a certain way so they pretend it is and ignore all evidence to the contrary. The whole global warming debate is a case study in this kind of fantasy.
 July 27, 2015 at 8:25am
Now that they are nuclear, it certainly does change the game. I have never really understood this conflict well, as a westerner – it must have something to do with Korean culture.
Never in the history of the world has a nation so wealthy and powerful (South Korea) ever lived in such abject fear of a nation so poor in weak (North Korea). They would not need to fire a shot to topple Pyongyang. With their wealth, it would be simple to infiltrate North Korea and its government. They’ve had 60 years. Well, maybe a few well placed shots, in the end, but still.
NK is nuclear? Bill Clinton said they would never get the material or technology, after the agreement was signed. How can this be?
Oh wait, bad countries with nuclear ambitions, lie in order to have sanctions removed.
Only thing keeping crazy whitewall hair man from launching the nuke, is China.
 July 27, 2015 at 8:14am
US Imperialism died early in the 20th Century – the last time Progressives had significant power in the US Government. If we fail to defeat them this time around, it will return in spades. The only way socialists can sustain the economy is if money comes in from someplace else. Places like Switzerland do that with tourism today, but the “traditional” way to do that was to conquer another country. Tourism will never sustain the US economy, so they will need to dig a little deeper.