When our friend Steve writes:

Taking the blog post and video together, we can say that White believes the following:

* God loves all men, though God’s love is not monolithic
* God’s will (his revealed will) is that all men obey his commands to repent and believe the gospel
* In that context (revealed will and command) we can say that God desires the salvation of all men

Having made those statements, much of what I (and others) have written in criticism of White as a hyper-Calvinist is no longer cogent. In my view, White has effectively exonerated himself from the charge.

I feel quite certain that White will take the position that this is nothing new for him — this has been his position all along. That may be the case, but this is new as far as his statements on the record. I know of no other place in White’s work where he has made these kinds of statements. I haven’t read all of his work, and I freely admit that he may have held this position all along while I suffered under a cloud of ignorance. But I doubt it. Citations anyone?

Citation 1

In response to the question quoted above, who denied God’s omnibenevolence? Evidently, our writer assumes omnibenevolence must mean unibenevolence: that is, that if God is all-loving, then He will not possess the capacity His creatures rightly possess: discrimination in the matter of love. We are not only not unibenevolent, as image bearers of God we, like Him, are able to possess, and express, different kinds of love. I do not love my cat as I love my children (and I think anyone who does is simply wacked). I have and properly express all different kinds of “love,” from loving my wireless laser mouse to loving my Tablet PC to loving my Felt F65 road bike—but none of those kinds of love come close to my love for God’s truth, God’s people, my family, my friends. If faced with a choice, I am going to choose based upon discrimination in my love. I am going to save the mother of my children before I save a stranger. I am called to love my wife as Christ loved the church. And my ability to do this is clearly reflected in God’s own actions. The love He showed Israel he did not show the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Babylonians. This is a simple biblical fact. All the “God loves you!” smiley face t-shirts do not change revelational reality.
Hence, I reject the assertion that omnibenevolence equals unibenevolence, i.e., having one equal, undifferentiated, indiscriminate warm fuzzy. There is no biblical basis for thinking otherwise.
Now, our writer expresses a very common human failing in these words: “When you claim that God only wants some people to be saved, you are really claiming that God is only partially loving.” Notice the unstated assumption: love = extension of redemptive grace. What is the only logical conclusion to be derived from such thinking? Either 1) God’s love demands God’s failure; i.e., God will be unhappy and unfulfilled throughout eternity because He tried, but failed, to save those He loved (more than one theologian has held this position); or, 2) universalism. God will conquer all in the end, all will be saved. But in neither case can God show redemptive, saving love to undeserving sinners while, at the same time, expressing His just wrath and anger against the rest. By insisting upon this concept, our writer robs God of His freedom, let alone His ability to freely chose to love redemptively. The false dilemma is clearly seen: by denying the difference between the love God shows to all of creation in providence in the merciful suspension of His immediate and just judgment upon all sinners, and the special redemptive love He freely bestows on vessels of mercy, our writer creates a false unibenevolence and on that basis says God is only “partially loving.” That makes as much sense as noting that I love my wife in a way I do not love a woman in Bosnia and saying I am “partially loving” as a result. I am not supposed to love the woman in Bosnia in that way, and God is under no compulsion whatsoever to love redemptively (which involves the extension of mercy and grace). To say otherwise is to say that redemption can be demanded of God, that grace is not free, but can be demanded at His hand. That is, in essence, the sum of this kind of objection.
And so we see that the rest of the objection bears no weight and has no merit for it is based upon a misuse of terms.

Next, it is asserted that the “any” and “all” are “called to repent.” Actually, the text says that God wills (11) for the “all” to come to repentance, and of course, this is quite true. And since God grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-25), God’s purpose will be accomplished, and is accomplished in the elect. They all, as a group, do repent. Why anyone would wish to say “It is God’s will that every single individual repent, but, alas, His will is constantly thwarted and refuted by the will of the creature” is hard to say.” CBF misses the point when it asserts that this cannot be the “beloved” because they have already repented. The point of the passage is that God will bring the elect to repentance throughout the time period prior to the parousia, the coming of Christ. At the point of Peter’s writing, the repentance of every single individual reading this book was yet future.

Next Dr. Geisler confuses the prescriptive will of God found in His law, which commands all men everywhere to repent, with the gift of repentance given to the elect in regeneration. It does not follow that if it is God’s will to bring the elect to repentance that the law does not command repentance of ev-eryone. This is a common error in Arminian argumentation.

~ The Potter’s Freedom, pages 149,150

The reference for (11) is as follows – “We do not here refer to the revealed will of God found in His law which commands all men everywhere to repent: we speak of His saving will that all the elct come to repentance, and His ability to perform that will.”

The first problem is that you are attempting to make someone’s use of your terminology to describe something (which is more precisely defined by the terminology he uses) the sine non qua of orthodoxy. He made it plain, by using your terminology to describe what it is he means by what he does say. In Dr. White’s terminology, the prescriptive will of God – His revealed will – is a command to obey the gospel. To repent and believe. When we offer the gospel, there is no distinction, and there can be no distinction, because God uses us as the means by which the gospel is proclaimed, offered, and commanded to all men. As long as I’ve been listening to, watching, and reading Dr. White, this has been what he says. In that sense God wills – commands – all men to repent, and believe – and thereby be saved. Not all men do so – for repentance and faith are both gifts of God.

The second problem is that you simply don’t know these men, and haven’t read enough of their work to be able to recognize what you seem to think they haven’t spoken about. I’m glad you recognize the possibility of your ignorance, but that doesn’t jive with your stubborn insistence upon their guiltiness, and the fact that even though you’ve been repudiated in your objections, you still “worry”. That, coupled with your insistence that somehow Phil has “gutted” his primer by very properly distinguishing between high and hyper calvinism (which he does in the primer itself!), he has rendered it practically useless. Sir, I’m sorry, but simply assuming your consequent just doesn’t work as an argument. If all of the people in question differ, most emphatically, with Byrne et al’s insistence that high calvinism they dislike = hyper-calvinism, that does not necessitate that the Primer is now gutted”to the point of uselessness.” Thsi is not a new definition, my friend. This is a historical definition, and Johnson explicitly warns about those who would attempt to “unthinkingly slap the label “hyper” on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to.” I second that warning, and really wish that folks would just stop and think about what they write.

Further, he says the following:

Another important consequence is that Phil Johnson has gutted his hyper-Calvinism primer to the point of uselessness. Johnson (quite unnecessarily as it turned out) said in defense of White that Dr. Allen had misinterpreted his Primer. Now that is not exactly what Johnson said, but that is the way his statements are being interpreted (by both White and Tom Ascol, and presumably many others).

Johnson, who is normally careful with his words, began muddying the waters — for the sake of his friend White — by introducing qualifications about optative expressions, and alleging his personal knowledge of White’s orthodoxy, and asserting the apparent misunderstanding of both by Dr. Allen. I deny that Allen misunderstood Phil’s Primer … he clearly understood it all too well. And White’s statements up until recently put him solidly in the hyper-Calvinist camp, whatever Phil may say about “misunderstanding his primer.”

As a consequence of Johnson’s defense of White, other people have begun seriously to misunderstand it, and now Tom Ascol, for example, is saying that Steve Camp is not a hyper-Calvinist because Allen misunderstands Johnson’s primer. Oh really!? Johnson would never (one hopes) say such a thing, but his sloppiness in recent weeks has given others a good deal of room to make these kinds of statements. The usefulness of his Primer as a benchmark has been eviscerated. And given Phil’s qualifications on “optative” language, his primer as a teaching tool has been eviscerated as well. I would never, given his recent qualifying statements about optative expressions, point anyone to that Primer. I will point people to Tony Byrne for real instruction on the point from this time forward. (Byrne will point us to Curt Daniel and Iain Murray … who presumably won’t be issuing “clarifications” that arise out of personal motives and result in more confusion.)

Now, as I read statements such as this, it reminds me of why the internet is not always a great tool for precise communication – especially when folks consider themselves experts on people whom they do not sufficiently understand, and have not read enough of.

To Steve’s first accusation concerning of Johnson, I can only point out that this isn’t his first use of “optative”, and not in this context, either.

What God has decreed isn’t a valid gauge for measuring what He “desires.”

Optative expressions (language describing a wish or a desire) pose a whole set of problems when applied to God. (That’s true for Arminians and Calvinists alike. The only system I know of that avoids this problem is Open Theism’s notion of a non-sovereign god for whom the future remains an unsettled mystery.)

However (granting an anthropopathic use of the expression “desire”), I think it’s a serious mistake to assume that God’s decrees and His “desires” are equipollent.

Now, isn’t this almost the exact same usage? Same context? Guess what? Dr. White is nowhere to be found.

As to Steve’s second accusation, take a look at this:

Nevertheless, Dr. Allen’s “defense” demonstrates conclusively that he doesn’t understand my definition of hyper-Calvinism. He relentlessly ascribes to me a position I have frequently refuted.

Now, isn’t that exactly what he said?

Now, there’s your citations. As I’ve said in my last two posts, the problem is not Dr. White’s, Dr. Ascol’s, or Phil Johnson’s understanding of hyper-calvinism, or inconsistency. It is the lack of understanding on the part of those who are quite evidently new to the subject, in the case of Dr. Allen, or yourself – or unbalanced in their approach, as are Tony Byrne and David Ponter. When you don’t know what you are talking about, or you have a long history of imbalance, (as well as the redefinition of terms, as do Byrne and Ponter), it becomes quite clear that the issue is not with those accused – who have a long history of opposing hyper-calvinism, in it’s various forms. The problem lies with those who haven’t a historical, balanced view of hyper-calvinism, and are, frankly, late-comers and/or axe-grinders.

As Dr. Ascol has said, with all due respect; “When I read Dr. Allen’s words that ‘it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism’ I want to laugh and say, ‘Welcome to the party, I am sorry it took you so long to get here.'”

Pastor Lumpkins, with all due respect:

I must wonder if you’ve actually been reading the responses offered to the position you, Dr. Allen, and Mr. Byrne are espousing, or whether you’re simply dismissing them, as you seem to do quite frequently in your meta, including your response to me. When practically every 5-point calvinist, upon encountering this definition of hyper-calvinism, repudiates it, does this not give you pause? Does it not make you wonder if, perhaps, you may have misunderstood the position of hyper-calvinism, and that of mainstream, 5-point calvinism? Now, far be it from me to suggest that you take a look at historical discussions concerning hyper-calvinism, but I do think they might be useful.

Let’s move along to your rejoinder(s).

1) To make a distinction between my saying Dr. Ascol “has no time to respond” and that “[he] will not take time to respond” is absurd, Razorkiss–the old distinction without a difference assertion.

But even if your point well taken, what does such have to do with whether or not leaders should insult rather than just keep silent?

The distinction I make is very germane, given that your assertion was that he had no time – that was not what was said. Second, to call a germane distinction “absurd”, is simply to stretch credulity 😀 When you’re wrong, please be kind enough to admit it? There is a significant difference between “has not the time”, and “will not take the time”. If you don’t see that difference, my apologies, but that does not make the distinction go away. “Has not the time” speaks to scheduling inability – “will not take the time” speaks to unwillingness to spend the time to do something. The two are, in fact, different. I’m sorry that your desire seems to be to dismiss the clarification outright, but the fact remains. The fact also remains that you made the point, to wit, that although Dr. Ascol had no time to reply, he did take the time to “insult” Dr. Yarnell. The assertion seems to be that his claim to have no time to do so is somehow false, given that he does respond in some fashion. Given that a response would take quite a bit of time, and the short sentence he does write would not, is this a valid assertion? The plea to a supposed “distinction without difference” fails, sir, miserably. It is an attempt to evade, and no more. I’m really not inclined to let you 😀

As to your second point, that, somehow, it’s an “insult” – his comments are, in fact, “rife with innuendo and misrepresentation”. If you don’t like the characterization, I really can’t change your mind, I do realize – but your opinion really does not entail that it is in fact an insult. Upon my reading of Dr. Yarnell’s closing comments, as referenced, they are indeed full to the brim of such commentary. If you don’t like it, too bad. I find that characterization wholly accurate, sir.

2) Concerning your query: “is Tony Byrne’s continued misrepresentation really worth linking to?”

False assumption #1: That Byrne continually misrepresents.

Mr. Byrne is flatly wrong when he discusses the definition of hyper-calvinism. He’s also wrong in applying “desire” to hyper-calvinism, in any. Given the fact that his concept of “desire” is wrapped up in his definition of hyperism, it’s very much to the point. I would have to say that “false” assumption 1 can be very easily demonstrated by the fact that he does misrepresent, (however those who are not calvinists understand his comments) in that his concept of “desire” is what he attributes to a definitional understanding of hyperism. This is not the case.

I find it quite amazing that the more substantive comments I made were completely ignored – while you focus on the comments I make concerning your lack of rigor in treating Dr. Ascol’s comments. In regards to Mr. Byrne, you don’t focus on the argument, but on your own opinions concerning Mr. Byrne. Those, sir, are obvious. You linked to the man in your post. So, yes, we’re aware of your leanings. I’m not really concerned with examining your presuppositions, but with examining Mr. Byrne’s constant intent to redefine what hyper-calvinism consists of. The controversy is about that very thing. What hyper-calvinism is.

Mr. Byrne’s position is consistently ahistorical. If you examine all of the hyper-calvinistic controversies in reformed, and especially in baptist history, you will find that they all revolve around two things. 1) The free offer of the gospel, and 2) the duty of all men to believe savingly in Christ.

Those two things are what hyper-calvinism, historically, denies. We can add a third distinctive of hyper-calvinism, too – that “hyper-calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will.” This is very true – BUT – as Phil Johnson’s Primer points out, Yet that distinction is an essential part of historic Reformed theology. This, sir, is what this supposed “definitional” distinction continually, erroneously, and doggedly denies. Yes, yes, there is a common belief in two wills of God. These two wills are not denied by anyone in the debate… quite right. That is NOT the issue at hand – as Mr. Byrne rightly points out – but, the issue at hand is ALSO NOT what Mr. Byrne DOES point out, either!

This ahistorical, incoherent, irrational concept of “desire” imported from an alien theology has nothing to do with historic calvinism, OR hyper-calvinism. It is foreign to the debate, and foreign to the issues which actually DO define the hyper-calvinism debate. That is the point which we have been making, all along. To try to make the effectual denial of Limited Atonement the linchpin of the hyper-calvinism argument is asinine, to say the least, and absolutely ridiculous, to say the most of it. It has no connection, whatsoever, to the actual terms of the debate, concerning hyper-calvinism. It is a complete misunderstanding of even the terms outlined in Phil Johnson’s Primer, let alone the historical discussion of the subject; even a cursory examination of the historical debate concerning hyper-calvinism, across any and all reformed traditions, will show you as much. If there was as much effort put into study of the actual terms that are discussed in the debate itself, rather than clinging to a novel, modern, redefinition of it, which has been debunked by every person involved thus far, there would be far, far less confusion about the issue, and no little progress.

False Assumption #2: That Tony’s post to which I linked is about Hyper-Calvinism proper. It is not. It is about Ascol & White’s fuzzy differences from one another

I didn’t think it was – per se. In fact, that has been my contention all along. That this silly, imported distinction belongs solely to Mr. Byrne. So, I would agree in that respect (but in that respect alone). It ISN’T about hyper-calvinism, in that sense. However, your own words don’t seem to agree, when you reference it as discussing hyper-calvinism in the context of your introduction to it!

Also, Tony Byrne has an excellent post that needs much consideration. He poses questions to both Ascol and White. By the way, Ascol has now publicly stated that he essentially agrees with White. Does that mean White comes off the Hyper-Calvinist list or Ascol goes on it? I think that will be an interesting consideration.

Hrmm? You reference his post – reference Dr. Ascol’s statement that they agree with other in what they are meaning – and then, ask if this means Ascol should go onto the hyper-calvinist list. Now, I do recognize that you may be finally seeing that this has nothing to do with the “list” – you other comment is “White comes off the Hyper-Calvinist list“. Frankly, sir, if there was a list, it would be entirely of Mr. Byrne’s making, given he seems to be the only person making this claim, that a denial of “God’s universal saving will” is somehow hyper-calvinism! Regardless, you can hardly claim that this has nothing to do with hyper-calvinism, as the discussion of whether God has this so-called will is what Mr. Byrne is defining as hyper-calvinism, and which Dr. Allen defined it as, in his presentation! In other words, what sort of silly equivocation to you expect me to fall for? That is _exactly_ the entire _point_ of Byrne’s post! To try to play divide and conquer, by either making Ascol deny that he believes the same thing, or making both out to be hyper-calvinists. Either way, he still isn’t denying his assertion that to deny God’s supposed “universal salvific will” is somewhow hyper-calvinism! Which is, you must admit, the main contention, no? So, because he doesn’t mention hyper-calvinism in the post – only discusses the point of contention by which Mr. Byrne is defining people AS hyper-calvinist – we’re not discussing hyper-calvinism? Obfuscation, anyone?

Sir, I engage in apologetics against every imaginable sort of belief system, and many of them happen to be intra-mural Christian debates. Such argumentation does not impress me. Such argumentation is childish, seeks only to obscure, not to get at the truth, and I can only assume, after watching your interaction with your own commenters, that you have a marked disinterest in seeking the truth of this matter. Your responses demonstrate it, quite conclusively. You dismiss whatever doesn’t fit into your neat little box of authoritative figures. If this were a Roman Catholic I was corresponding with, I would understand that mentality. From a Baptist, it is quite amazing. I’ve read quite a bit of the historical debate concerning hyper-calvinism. I do so, because I debate real, live hyper-calvinists. Since I do, I find great help and comfort in the study of those who have gone before in this discussion – just as I would find great help and comfort in reading Athanaius, when debating a Jehovah’s Witness.

False Assumption #3: That I or the readers here would take your profile on Hyper-Calvinism as representative of scholarly treatises while dismissing Tony Byrne’s

When you do read the debates between calvinists, and hyper-calvinists, in history, you will find exactly what I have outlined in my previous comment, as to what the debate is really about. If you insist on holding to Mr. Byrne’s erroneous definition, you will simply chase your tail around until your head spins, if you ever encounter a real hyper-calvinist. They will stare at you as if you have two heads. Their denial is of any will, whatsoever, for us to even give the command to repent and believe – to preach the GOSPEL to unbelievers, at any time! This is utterly beyond the typical, orthodox calvinist position, which DOES say that God commands all men to repent, believe, and be saved on those grounds. In fact, the hyper-calvinists believes that not only are we not to preach it – but that God does not demand faith as the duty of every man toward God. These are the tenets of hyper-calvinism. This silly strawman which you and your fellows insist on erecting is completely, and utterly wrong. So, make your appeal to authority if you wish. Mr. Byrne has, and my 5-point calvinist brethren will atest to this fact, completely, and utterly erred in his attempt to redefine hyper-calvinism. If it was in ignorance, it would behoove him to study the subject more thoroughly, and perhaps interact with real, live hyper-calvinists more frequently. If it was intentional, (and for a man of his credentials to be this appallingly ignorant of the theological distinctives of a group which was incredibly widespread in the time of Fuller and Spurgeon, was oft-encountered in more recent history, and still exists today, leaves me wondering what or who he has studied on the subject) then Mr. Byrne is guilty of nothing apart from utter libel of several men who have labored for Christ’s church for decades.

Complain how you will about these “mean” calvinists – but understand that it’s practically impossible for a calvinist to take you at all seriously when you stick to blatantly false understandings such as these. I’m quite annoyed at the lengths to which those who promulgate falsehoods will go to defend their obvious errors. If it is simple stubbornness, and refusal to admit your error, I invite you to repent, sir. If it is intentional, sir, shame is the least of your concerns. Dr. White, and Dr. Reymond are no more hyper-calvinist than was Spurgeon, or Fuller. To say so is absolute folly – and frankly, I think by this point you have to know it. To continue to defend it, to obfuscate when rebutted, and to quibble over minutiae while leaving the substantive portions of the argument untouched are symptoms I have encountered quite often, as an apologist. They are signs that your opponent knows quite well that they are wrong, and refuse to admit it. If i come across as harsh – I hope you recognize it for what it is. Righteous indignation at the defamation of good men – one of which is a friend. I’ve read the work of all of the other men defamed by Dr. Allen, but your comments are continually condescending and dismissive. You are the one who is propagating the debate, because, frankly, serious students of hyper-calvinism dismissed Mr. Byrne’s redefinition long ago, when he first started promulgating it. I don’t like our convention being the laughingstock of theological conservatism, because people from our convention make comments of this sort. So, this is one SBCer who is thoroughly disgusted by the complete lack of serious interaction being offered in response to our objections. If you don’t like this sort of language, sir, with all due respect, (for despite the harshness of my words, they are written with the intent of perhaps shocking you into a realization of where your positions stands, that you may perhaps understand the lack of historicity with which these claims are proferred) please stop listening to men who are clearly not students of history, and have clearly not studied calvinism and hyper-calvinism to be able to tell the difference. Stop linking to their articles, and hosting them on your website. If you don’t like this sort of response, please wake up, and please ratchet down the rhetoric. Historic calvinism does not affirm a universal salvific desire on the part of God. Hyper-calvinism has nothing to do with that issue, whether calvinism did, or did not, have that as a characteristic! These things, sir, and incontrovertible, and why a Doctor of Systematic Theology would possibly hold to this position baffles me. Sir, I’m not questioning your faith, or your passion for the people of your church – I am, however, questioning your wisdom in following men who obviously do not know calvinism, yet claim to be experts. I’m not a doctor of theology. I do expect doctors of theology to know more than I do about the subject, and whether the comment offends you, or not, they do not. I’m not impressed by a doctorate. I’m impressed by a theologian. When it comes to calvinism, these men are not theologians. They are crusaders, and it very much seems to me as if they are either woefully ignorant ones, or dishonest ones. I truly fail to see how they could honestly hold the positions they do , in any other way.

I will say, from the outset, that this post will have political overtones – but only peripherally. I’m not much of a political pundit, but the recent election has served to show a very clear demarcation in worldviews – the subject addressed by this blog. My wife has a childhood friend that she’s kept up with, who tends very much toward a liberal viewpoint of Christianity, social issues, and moral issues. As I read her take on the election, I was a bit taken aback at a nominal Christian expressing such things about a man with such an obviously antithetical viewpoint to orthodox Christianity.

“It felt like a big moment. I could imagine being part of this massive wave of people, with hope burning in our hearts, having faith that this vote wasn’t a risk but a shout for desperately needed change. … I didn’t quite believe it until I turned the channel to CNN, where at least they had put the holograms away for a few minutes, and my heart opened wide to receive the truth, the beautiful truth shining like the sun in my eyes. It’s true. It’s good. It’s here. Thank God.”

Now, if you’ll pardon me for a moment, that looks… idolatrous. I really don’t know how else to put it. A mere man, no matter how powerful, is not worthy of such speech. I can’t pare it down to anything else. I’d like to – but I really can’t see how it’s anything else. “Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.” Can we reduce this to anything else? As I also quoted in my response, “Woe to those who call evil, good, and good, evil.” When you pair this with the fact that Obama has voted for late term abortion of babies, has in fact voted for the death of babies who somehow survive their abortions, supports so-called homosexual “marriage”, has ties to Islamic groups likeCAIR, sat under Rev. Wright, whose theology was discussed recently by both Dr. James White and myself, not to mention his varied ties to shady characters of every sort – I find it amazing, when we are told to not let immorality, impurity, or greed be even named among us!

Are we not told that …”although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them?” What then, is the Scriptural response to such an action? Hearty approval of those who practice such things? Are we to idolize such persons? Consider them to be the answer to our prayers for… hope and change? We cannot, are not, and must not! Yet, some who claim the name of Christ do so. Why is this?

The answer is simple – and it fits the purpose of this blog exactly. Presuppositions. Those who are thinking in such a way, are “children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” What, according to the next verse, is the antithesis to such a state? “… Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

What further amazed me, was this comment on that post. “Just because you believe in someone’s right to choose to do something doesn’t mean you believe in that something they choose to do.” What is it we just talked about? What does Romans 1 warn us of? Those who give approval to such things. The argument that says sin should be allowed as a choice is specious on it’s face. Sin, my friends, is sin. Saying a certain sin is permissible shows something of our willingness to compromise the truth of God. Also, it shows what our view of truth really is. From where it is derived. Does that not sound likesubjectivism ? A relativistic view of man-derived truth, with no stable foundation? I can’t see it in any other way. The original poster, (in her request that I no longer comment on her blog) had this to say; “All I’m going to say here right now is that I continue to celebrate the difference of opinion we can have in our country. And that truly we are all different and I’d rather be accepting of that fact rather than spend time arguing, especially in the presence of people who don’t ascribe to our certain choice of belief. I don’t think we shed light by tossing Scripture (or Tertullian) back and forth between us.” She refers to the fact that I quoted Tertullian’s indictment (in his Apology) of the Roman practice of the abandonment of unwanted infants to the elements, and noted elsewhere that it made her think. I truly hope it did.. He also had a bit to say about abortion – and my point was that it was considered barbarous behavior 1800 years ago – yet we consider it somehow appropriate today. This is progress?

I’d like to examine the inherent presuppositions in her statement above. What I find interesting, first, is her equation of opinions to moral judgment. Is morality truly nothing more than an “opinion”, comparable to one’s like or dislike for, say, lemon meringue pie? Should the fact that people think morality is merely an opinion be celebrated? Then, take her next statement into consideration. Shall we, in fact, accept that simply because some people reject God, are hostile to God, and sin against God, this is ample excuse to refrain from casting down the strongholds we arecommanded to throw down, erected against the knowledge of God? Then, examine this innocuous-sounding phrase; “our certain choice of belief”. Ignoring, for a moment, that “certain”,definitionally, means “true, sure, settled” – certanus – do we really “choose” our belief? Is not faith a gift of God, as Scripture says? Do we, and I’ll be intentional – choose our epistemology as if choosing a hat? Isn’t that the very thing in contention? Whether it’s possible, whether we should? I think that we can find the crux of the matter right here. The underlying assumption is that we simply choose to believe this way – and others do not. Therefore, there is no inherent superiority to our belief – we just chose it, after all. It isn’t as if it’s intrinsically true. Therein lies the problem. This woman has ceded the grounds of truth to man, and removed it from the feet of God. She is not interested in God’s truth – at least not in practice. The last comment is particularly revealing as well.

“I don’t think we shed light by tossing Scripture (or Tertullian) back and forth between us.” This is a breathtakingly plain indictment of the grounds for her conception of truth. Scripture is not the only sure source of divinely revelatory truth to man, and for man. It is not the sole means whereby we mayknow God, and His requirements for us. It is merely something to be “tossed” – not “The Truth,” but merely “a truth” – for, and it is very apparent, there is no truth with a capital to her, and it saddens me to see it. I’ve been to her house, we’ve shared time together, and she’s been friends with my wife a decade and a half. She, however, is not seeing the Word as what it truly is. “the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left”.

The Word is our only source of truth – the Sword of the Spirit. Living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart, divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. That is what the Word is. I truly grieve that she does not see it as such – and she will see this post – and my hope is that she may, perhaps, be shown to the Word by it. I pray that thereby the Lord may open her eyes as to the nature of what she dismisses in favor of a merely temporal ruler, and for the opinions of men, who relegate the divine Word to merely another opinion. I’m sorry, but it’s anything but opinion. The Gospel – and the Word which proclaims it, that we may proclaim it in turn, is an exclusive Gospel. It is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. I can only pray, and I hope you pray with me, that all of the temporal fluff that obscures the truth of the Word’s centrality will be revealed to us all more and more – and to her most of all. We cannot compromise our view of Scripture, and subject it to mere opinion, as if it has no more worth than the bare estimation of man. Scripture is God-breathed, and we must treat it as such.

Once upon a time, in a wild little channel called #Scripture, a group of atheists sat there and mocked. For hours. Here’s how it went, including the title story, at the end.

[avalanch_] one does not deal with the irrational undesireables by taking them seriously and trying to argue with them. they refuse to listen to reason afterall.
[avalanch_] thus, much as we ridicule neo-nazi’s, so too must we ridicule theists.
[avalanch_] i can not help being superior.
[glk] Jesus stories do not sound like historical data. All gods are based on faith.
[ridge_`] avalanch_: in the end, it’s the most effective means of dispelling myths.
[avalanch_] ridge: i agree. the more we ridicule theism, the more the smart people will realize theism just isn’t cool and respect-worthy
[RazorsKiss] Prv9:8 Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you. (NAS)
[glk] Feel free to correct my facts
[RazorsKiss] avalanch_: the more you show disdain, the more you show condescension, the more it’s apparent what the fruit of your worldview is.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: do you not disdain criminals? do you not disdain the intolerant? the bigoted? have you no disdain for those that are simply less than you?
[avalanch_] no single religion has ever included more than 50% of humans.
[RazorsKiss] Who are the criminals? Who are the intolerant? Who are the bigoted? Who consider others less than themselves?
[RazorsKiss] Those who are consumed by overweening pride.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so, you have no disdain for pedophiles and rapists?
[RazorsKiss] Thus, we can see the fruit of your worldview.
[RazorsKiss] pedophiles and rapists have a disdain for their victims.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: and yet you have no disdain for them?
[RazorsKiss] I’m no better than they are.
[RazorsKiss] Neither are you.
[RazorsKiss] The true problem is that you think you are.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: ofcourse you’re better than they are. as am i. we are not all created equal, no matter what you might think.
[RazorsKiss] I don’t think we were. I think we’re all equally sinful by nature, however.
[glk] I never sin. Sin is violations of a religion rule. I have no religion or god.
[RazorsKiss] And what you disdain, I consider equally created in the image of God, if not identical in giftedness.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so, god created pedophiles? and this is a god you WORSHOP? what is WRONG with you?
[RazorsKiss] No, God created humans.
[RazorsKiss] Humans sin.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: we have no evidence of that whatsoever.
[RazorsKiss] So you’ll assume, yes.
[RazorsKiss] Some sin sexually, some sin intellectually.
[avalanch_] yet all are created equally by your god apparantly
[glk] I never sin. Sin is violations of a religion rule. I have no religion or god.
[RazorsKiss] We are created as humans, yes – and all humans have the image of God in their ability to think, and to act.
[glk] I was born, not created by any gods
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: so now *god* is a pedophile?
[glk] Gods are not detected. People invent gods and write holy books.
[glk] There was no Adam, Eve, original sin, talking snake, magic trees, Fall or world flood. Genesis is mythology.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: i’m sorry, i just can not believe in a god that allows such people to exist
[glk] There was no 6 day creation or Noah Flood. Genesis is mythology.
[RazorsKiss] Is equivocation your usual debate tactic?
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Or do you just do that when you lack an argument?
[RazorsKiss] Fallacies don’t become the eminently superior, do they?
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: i think the fact that evil exists in the world is reason enough not to worship god.
[avalanch_] this is hardly a fallacy
[glk] I detect none of the gods, Allah to Zeus.
[RazorsKiss] I think that argument by equivocation is hardly a sound argument.
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Let’s set up your argument as propositions, shall we?
[avalanch_] let’s not.
[RazorsKiss] 1. God created men.
[RazorsKiss] 2. Some men are pedophiles.
[RazorsKiss] 3. God is a pedophile.
Is this a sound argument, avalanch_?
[glk] Modern people lived over 200,000 years ago. Cave art dates to 30,000 years old. The first hominids date to about 6 million years old.
[RazorsKiss] Or is that a rampant equivocation?
[glk] There is no evidence for a Noah flood
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: 1. god supposedly created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE, 2. some men are rapists.
[glk] No water exists to flood the earth
[RazorsKiss] Define image.
[avalanch_] no, *you* define it. you’re the one who believes it.
[RazorsKiss] Why, you’re the one using it in an argument.
[RazorsKiss] Shouldn’t you be able to define what you’re attacking?
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: nope.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: you’re the one that made the claim god created us in his image. not me.
[glk] No science or history reference agrees with your stories.
[RazorsKiss] Well, I thought you were interested in a rational discussion – it seems I was mistaken.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: rational? with someone like you? surely you jest.
[RazorsKiss] Given that your first attempt at a “rational” argument was a demonstrable fallacy, I really find the accusation amusing.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: what on earth makes you think i was trying to hold a rational debate with you? you deserve nothing but my ridicule.
[glk] Gods do nothing
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: if i was trying to hold a rational debate, i certainly wouldn’t do it here.
[RazorsKiss] heh.
[RazorsKiss] then come over to #apologetics.
[avalanch_] i’d rather not. they’re as irrational over there as they are here.
[glk] I am old and very wise.
[RazorsKiss] oh… so what you’re saying is, you assume irrationality a priori.
[RazorsKiss] Right, well. That’s certainly… rational.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: anyone who believes in a magic skydaddy can’t possibly be very rational on the subject.
[ridge_`] avalanch_: again, ridicule debate works best. Do not stray from the system.
[RazorsKiss] yes, that’s certainly showing the massive depth and weight of your argumentation 😀
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: again, you are under the mistaken impression that i’m trying to hold a rational debate here.
[RazorsKiss] create a strawman… call it names… then dismiss it.
[avalanch_] RazorsKiss: don’t project.
[avalanch_] ridge: i concur.
[avalanch_] ridge: unfortunately they seem to mistake my mockery for attempts at rational arguments.
[avalanch_] ridge: which only serves to further heighten my amusement at ridiculing them
[RazorsKiss] or, perhaps, it’s all you’re capable of?
[ridge_`] You expect too much.
[avalanch_] ridge: well i do have standards.
[RazorsKiss] We could turn it around.
[RazorsKiss] Let’s say there’s a group that believe in random uniformity.
[RazorsKiss] That everything random is random in a uniform manner.
[RazorsKiss] Always random, just the same.
[RazorsKiss] These folks all assume that everything happens the same way.
[RazorsKiss] But that it all happens randomly, of course.
[RazorsKiss] And that this uniform randomness somehow gave rise to order.
[RazorsKiss] This uniform randomness is governed by something called entropy.
[RazorsKiss] This entropy ensures that things stay orderly.
[RazorsKiss] Because, after all, there has to be a reason for a magic boom.
[RazorsKiss] That magic boom created something from nothing!
[RazorsKiss] The nothing, which became something, had no reason for being something.
[RazorsKiss] But, because it was something, it couldn’t reasonably just stay nothing.
[RazorsKiss] It had to expand.
[RazorsKiss] In an orderly fashion, of course.
[RazorsKiss] Because entropy said so.
[RazorsKiss] This entropic order which expanded the nothingness into something, with it’s random uniformity, decided, in a randomly uniform whim, to start becoming things.
[RazorsKiss] Those things were obeying laws.
[RazorsKiss] Those laws are immaterial things with no origin, and no reason, that mysteriously ignore quite seriously, any attempt at reason.
[glk] The laws came from the big bang
[RazorsKiss] It’s quite a mystery, in a completely rational universe.
[RazorsKiss] Of course, this rationality has no origin, and it governs everything – sensibly, of course.
[RazorsKiss] For no reason, with eminently reasonable guidelines.
[RazorsKiss] Now, all of this something, which came from nothing, and is orderly in it’s obedience to entropy
[RazorsKiss] In it’s eminent reasonableness, decided to become orderly matter – which random caromed around the universe.
[glk] Laws made the order, like electricity and gravity
[glk] Solar systems for naturally
[RazorsKiss] Sure, glk – it’s lawfully obeying entropy in an orderly fashion.
[RazorsKiss] Everyone knows that, after all.
[RazorsKiss] They teach it in schools!
[RazorsKiss] So, anyway, where was I?
[RazorsKiss] Oh, yes. Orderly matter.
[RazorsKiss] Blindly obeying the random laws of nothing in particular, for no reason whatsoever.
[glk] You obey the blind laws of nature
[RazorsKiss] Right.
[RazorsKiss] So. This matter spends a long time – which is our new hero!
[RazorsKiss] And this time doesn’t obey random chance. oh, no.
[RazorsKiss] It has a goal! Entropy set it into motion, and it’s function is to overcome the evil forces of entropy
[RazorsKiss] Doesn’t that make it all better?
[RazorsKiss] So, our hero, time, spends… billions of years. Doing not a whole lot.
[RazorsKiss] Just blindly ticking.
[glk] The earth is 4.57 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
[RazorsKiss] Watching atoms spin around.
[RazorsKiss] It’s great fun.
[RazorsKiss] If time could have fun, and was anything but a deus ex machina.
[RazorsKiss] But, all assumptions have a deus ex machina – and time is ours!
[RazorsKiss] So, time does all sorts of incalculable things over countless eons…
[RazorsKiss] (because, duh – there was no one to count them?)
[RazorsKiss] And then we magically have a planet, built completely out of popsicle sticks and paper mache.
[avalanch_] i don’t think you understand how gravity works.
[glk] Over 300 other planets are observed
[RazorsKiss] And a big fireball, formed out of time’s massive boredom.
[avalanch_] but that’s okay. you’re oberying it anyway
[RazorsKiss] But then time realized that was all a dumb idea
[RazorsKiss] And went back to the original mindless plan
[RazorsKiss] Of spending forever, waiting for something to happen
[RazorsKiss] Well, all sorts of things happened, as far as is assumed – because noone was there to observe it
[RazorsKiss] And then there was a planet – and it was all due to chance and time.
but chance wasn’t really the hero. Time was.
[avalanch_] no, it was thanks to gravity actually
[glk] They can look back in time close to the big bang
[RazorsKiss] yeah, I guess all of those immaterial, and inexplicable magic laws had a bit to do with it.
[avalanch_] how did god? same fricking problem
[RazorsKiss] But we can’t go spoiling time’s heroic epic, can we?
[glk] it was the origin of space time matter and energy
[RazorsKiss] This is about TIME!
[RazorsKiss] Not about some silly laws that have no explanation from a naturalistic perspective!
[glk] The origin of the big bang is unknown
[RazorsKiss] We can’t go yammering on about some bunch of laws that just exist, can we?
[avalanch_] glk: m-model dude. M MODEL!
[avalanch_] ofcourse we can
[RazorsKiss] And the magic explosion is NOT CRITICAL
[RazorsKiss] Time, as everyone knows, is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of it all.
[avalanch_] it’s not an explosion.
[RazorsKiss] Don’t interrupt me, I’m mocking.
[avalanch_] *that* is mocking?
[RazorsKiss]Are you seriously expecting this to be a rational debate?
[avalanch_] don’t be preposterous.
[RazorsKiss] I can’t believe you could be so stupid as to think this was all about you.
[RazorsKiss] I mean really.
[RazorsKiss] Does the world revolve around you?
[RazorsKiss] Are you some sort of flat-earther? get real. I’m mocking here.
[RazorsKiss] Don’t confuse yourself – people are trying to mock.
[RazorsKiss] And mocking is key to the success of your time here.
[RazorsKiss] Remember that – it’s critical.
[RazorsKiss] So, anyway.
[RazorsKiss] The heroic time, and his bumbling, blinded sidekick, random chance
go reeling through history, screwing everything up, according to entropy’s orders
[RazorsKiss] And, automagically – because we assume this a priori – we couldn’t be telling this story otherwise, could we?
[RazorsKiss] Some rocks turn into magical pre-life amino acids
[RazorsKiss] It’s quite a loving sight
[glk] That is part of the mystery
[avalanch_] i wouldn’t call them magical.
[glk] Amino acids form naturally
[RazorsKiss] The heroes watching the mysterious, magical amino acids… gurgling
[RazorsKiss] Just… doing whatever magical things amino acids do.
[glk] Carbon meteorites contain amino acids
[RazorsKiss] And then, after about a billion years of staring
[RazorsKiss] They’re living organisms!
[ridge_`] We should have the science and knowledge NOW, what we’ll have in 200 yrs from now, if not for that blasted magic stratosphere man.
[RazorsKiss] It’s really an unremarkable thing, because, after all, no one’s around to remark
and no one will care for a billion or two more years
[avalanch_] ridge: hell, if the ancient greek civilization had continued, we could have been living on mars for centuries now
[RazorsKiss] Not that caring has any possible significance, even to modern descendants of those amino acids
[RazorsKiss] But, we digress!
[ridge_`] Time to crush this thing once and for all. But HOW?
[avalanch_] ridge: nanophage
[ridge_`] Facts do no good.
[RazorsKiss] And time, being a bit of a patient type, keeps enduring random chance’s bumbling lack of progress
[avalanch_] ridge: i’m telling you, nanophage. just a little mass genocide.
[RazorsKiss] But, entropy, with it’s constant need to tear things down
[RazorsKiss] Manages to form complex living creatures
[RazorsKiss] And random chance is mighty put out.
[RazorsKiss] Let me tell ya. he was still enjoying watching the amino acids, and now he has to try to screw something ELSE up.
[RazorsKiss] Entropy was seriously falling down on the job, you know?
[RazorsKiss] And random chance just wasn’t going to take this lying down.
[glk] The Stanley-Miller experiment produced amino acids from simple gas mixtures
[RazorsKiss] All of this added complexity just wasn’t working for him.
[RazorsKiss] See, it made more work for random chance
[RazorsKiss] And who wants more work?
[RazorsKiss] But time was inexorable
[RazorsKiss] You know him – he stops for no… complex organism
[RazorsKiss] I think I’ll stop story time for now – tune in next time for “random chance: multiplied unimaginably, and still unable to stop unlikely mutation!”
~The End

Well, I have to admit, it feels a bit like 3 years ago, yesterday. Big honkin’ hurricane in the Gulf, fear and agitation as people ponder their own helplessness in the face of the force of nature’s fury. The added weight, this time, of the memories of devastation, destruction, and loss of life. What is brought to mind most clearly at this time, however, is the fact that there are no accidents. There is nothing that is not the express will of God, or that is not His good and perfect will. With this thought in the forefront, we can only think one thing, when facing nature’s wrath.

This is our Father’s world. Do you really know, deep down in your heart of hearts, what the implications of this are? It’s truly a wonderful thing to behold. Not because I’m “smarter”, or more courageous. (As a side note, what else I find interesting is that our church is in the midst of a study of the book of Joshua, my namesake. What is the cardinal principle of this book? Be Strong and Courageous! Why? For the LORD your God is with you wherever you go!) When we look at all things through the prism of God’s glorification of Himself, and His promises to glorify Himself through us, can we submit to fear? Is it even an option for us to buckle beneath pressure, or bemoan our “fate”, as if God did not have a greater glory to involve us in, through it? I cannot imagine such a thing. I cannot wish such a thing. I cannot, because I know the God I serve. When faced with situations that threaten us, tempt us to ditch our faith, and abandon our hope, we can have only one response.

Joy. Does that sound strange to you? Perhaps it shouldn’t.

How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. ~ 2 Cor. 8;2

Didn’t we see that, after the last big storm?

Then he said to them, “Go, eat of the fat, drink of the sweet, and send portions to him who has nothing prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.” ~ Neh 8:10

Do you see, yet? What gives us strength?

But let all who take refuge in You be glad, Let them ever sing for joy; And may You shelter them, That those who love Your name may exult in You. ~ Psalm 5:11

Who is our shelter? What is the subject of the great hymn, “A Mighty Fortress”? Is this not the same principle?

For You, O LORD, have made me glad by what You have done, I will sing for joy at the works of Your hands. ~Psalm 92:4

Even hurricanes are the work of God’s hands. I’ll repeat something I said a long time ago, and has stuck with me ever since.

During the hurricane, it was an adventure. The kind of adventure guys really do like, and don’t really care if anyone thinks they’re crazy for liking. The wind made the house shudder, and shake. The trees’ branches were snapping off right and left, making an awful racket. The rain was driving so hard that it really was painful, when it hit you. Small objects were flying past you at 70+ mph – and all you could do was hold on. I’ll confess – I loved it.

I’m not crazy. I’m a typical guy, I think. I never felt like I was in *real* danger. But I knew I could have been. Adrenaline makes you feel like a million bucks. It’s that feeling you get when you take a curve a hair too fast in a sports car, and get dangerously close to spinning out of it – but you don’t. Your heart races, your blood is pumping so loud in your ears… and you feel alive. Okay, maybe I am a bit of an adrenaline junkie.

Mostly, though, I was in awe of the display of God’s might. Not that this was a “judgment”, or anything. Just the fact that God’s creation is so breathtakingly powerful, and knowing that God created it. If this storm is this powerful… and God made it… what must God be like?

I spent a good bit of the time curled up on the porch, head on my knees, tears in my eyes, and my heart in my throat. I wasn’t scared. I don’t think i was ever scared once, to be honest. It was too freaking cool. I was praising God, all by myself. Just me, and God, in the middle of this mighty storm – and I was singing. Brokenly, but I was singing. It was that awesome. It’s truly an experience I really don’t quite know how to share. God was just… there. He was with me. I’m not going to say I felt His “special hand of protection on me” – although it may well have been. I just know God was present, because His children can always feel it. I can’t explain it any other way.

I wasn’t scared. I wasn’t even worried. I was awestruck by how unbelievably magnificent a thing that His power had wrought. I can’t really say I’d still say the same, had I sustained more damage. We had almost nothing damaged at all. All I know is – that hurricane, from the inside, was quite possibly the coolest thing I’ve ever seen in my life. I couldn’t help but fall down and praise. I just couldn’t. I hadn’t told anyone this story yet – not really. Bethany heard it, sort of. I don’t know if I got it across very well to her at the time. It seemed a bit odd a thing to share, really. It’s what happened, though. In the wake of all the devastation, all the pain, and all the loss – I almost feel bad saying I think it was so neat. The actual storm WAS neat. What it did wasn’t so neat. The storm itself… I have never seen anything like it, and likely never will again.

I got to sit and watch the ENTIRE thing from a dry place, I was safe, and I praised God.

I said that back in this post, in Dec. of ’05.

In the midst of a possible dervish of destruction – you know what? God is still in control of things. He’s still the Author and Finisher of our faith. He still has His hand on the tiller. He still “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb 1:3). Fear not!

There is a perfect purpose in the midst of these events, no matter whether we can see it or not. So, while I did do some preparation for the hurricane’s landfall in my area, I also know I can’t lose sight of the fact that there is no room for “a spirit of fear” in the heart of a Christian – only for power, and for love, and for a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7). So, if you also find yourself in the path of a storm, or in the midst of difficulty; “Be strong and courageous! Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.” (Joshua 1:9)

I’ve live-blogged the last few hurricanes I’ve been around for – I’ll likely do the same with this one, as long as I can. I’m 8 miles north of the beach, same house as last time, and the same God is still my God 😀 Don’t worry. God’s in control, and His glory will be displayed in this. In the meantime, pray, meditate on His goodness, and even love this awesome display of might in His creation. I assure you – it is a powerful and blessed thing.

To this:

Bible Spoiler

“We take no position on Scripture or theology or morals,” said Donna Bott, a leader of a group called Episcopal Voices of Central Florida, which sponsored the meeting. “We are just Episcopalians.”

Great. Don’t takea position of theology – or Scripture. Just “be” your denomination.

Right.

Link.

Absurd? Oh yes.

(HT: crewbear, #prosapologian)

Is it moral to lie? – No. Next?

Do I really love my boyfriend quiz – if you have to take a quiz to find out… no.

How to tell your boyfriend it’s over – Must have failed the quiz.

Not to mention the ten trillion searches containing the word “kiss” – for obvious reasons.

To act like a completely amoral cynic, while scoring points off tragedy?

If so… I suppose it was “accomplished.”

Raving Atheist responds to my “award” from yesterday with a disingenuous “it was all according to the master plan” backpedal.

He just can’t admit it was in incredibly bad taste. His own atheist commenters are telling him exactly that – and he still won’t admit it. That’s what it takes to be a “Scornful Skeptic”, it seems.

It’s all really just “something to shame himself into behaving the rest of the year”. Im impressed. Not.

This is not only in bad taste – incredibly bad taste – but irredeemably caustic.

Take a few looks at it.

A hilarious atheistic satire highlighting the futility of prayer had to be scrapped late Tuesday night when twelve West Virginia miners miraculously failed to suffocate to death as expected.

A satire? His “original” satire was about how futile it is to pray to a God. It was to mock the faith of the victim’s families. To use real, just announced deaths as a cheap shot in favor, supposedly, of his viewpoint.

His satire, he says, “failed” – because the people were announced alive. So, of course, he posts the satire of the satire anyway – because now it applies again. They died, and God didn’t save them, yadda yadda.

It’s reprehensible.

It gets worse.

TRA said the discovery of twelve corpses would have been particularly funny to those who read his original piece, which was going to predict a “miracle” similar to the one credited for the survival of nine men from a flooded mine in Quecreek, Pennsylvania in 2002.

Funny? FUNNY? That isn’t even morbidly funny. That’s just ham-fisted gallows mockery.

TRA took solace in the fact that one dead body was found, but said it wasn’t enough to save the parody. “Maybe if five or six of them had died, I could have done a bit about how the survivors’ families were gloating about the selective ‘miracle’ that spared only the rigtheous,” he said. “But it wasn’t to be.”

“Nearly a whole hour wasted,” TRA said. “Is there no God?”

What an unadulterated, swilling stream of drivel-mouthed bile. I wouldn’t countenance that sort of comment on anyone. Anyone at all. It’s sick, it’s morally repugnant, and it’s an absolutely reprehensible thing to say.

You, sir, (and I use that term loosely) have truly “earned” your “award”. I refuse to call it “misguided”, or anything of the sort. It’s simply repugnant, and a discredit to anyone calling themselves an atheist. I can respect a person, regardless of their beliefs – I can’t, however, respect someone making a morally abhorrent comment like that.

What possesses people to heap scorn on an already painful situation?