Who is right? Both are, probably. The statement “you cannot be good without God” does not mean what the atheist, or non-atheistic member of the public, think it does. (more…)
Limited offer: For the opening of our new blog, Biblical Personhood, we now have all blog posts for FREE! This is only half of the usual price of nothing! Hurry while stocks last!
All jokes aside, if you like the posts on topics like gender equality or patriarchy on this blog, please drop in at my new one, which is now open. (Posts that were copied to Biblical Personhood will soon be deleted from this one.)
For those of you who visit this blog for its observations on patriarchy, egalitarianism, biblical womanhood and the like- I am still blogging on it. These topics are seldom off my mind nowadays, and I appreciate you, my readers.
I got more half-finished posts on this than will ever be worth finishing. My new blog, which will be solely about these themes, will be up as soon as I succeed in importing posts from this blog to that one. When the Biblical Personhood blog is up, you will be invited. Meanwhile, I am praying that God will use my words, and that I will not mislead in what I blog.
This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/benevolence-in-the-christian-bedroom-its-not-all-about-sex/
This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/how-not-to-bring-the-next-generation-back-to-church/
I made a boo-boo.
Some atheists told me that atheism is good for society and that the world’s most atheistic societies are also the healthiest. And that they get their views from a guy by the surname of Zuckerman. I saw right out that the Zuckerman numbers simply cannot be used to support what they say, and I assumed Zuckerman was very wrong.
And I made two blog post showing that what these atheists claim simply cannot be supported from the numbers, even those Zuckerman use. My boo-boo was to believe that Zuckerman indeed say everything that atheist/humanist blog commenters claim he does.
Today a commenter on this blog, Ianam, presumably an atheist or humanist, convinced me that Zuckerman’s views are more nuanced than I give him credit for. (Ianam also implied some slanderous nonsense on another topic – what Good News Clubs teach- that I know not to be true. I have the official certificate and experience to prove my knowledge of Good News clubs, but that is another story.) This led me to make blog changes and send him this e-mail, so Ianam know that I am trying to improve on my mistakes:
You posted on my blog today.
You will notice that I set my two Zuckerman posts from published to draft, so readers here can no longer see them. You convinced me that I misrepresented Zuckerman. You see, I always heard of him from atheists who indeed made the claims represented here.
But if those claims are not Zuckerman’s, but only that of his fans, then my posts are indeed up for major revision. The numerous misrepresentations of Internet atheists who quote Zuckerman need to be showed to be wrong, but I have no right to blame Zuckerman for what his fans say.
This happens time and again when I trust Internet atheists- they end up lying, and then I lie when I believe and quote them.
PS: I hope you were honest about your e-mail address, and this e-mail goes through.
Guess what? The e-mail did not go through…
Should this remind me about anything regarding Internet unbelievers?