From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:28 AM
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging against a pri
You claim that my reasoning is incorrect. But, you never give a valid argument that the atheist is not a fool for denying, if the Christian God exists, a God who will either, as some believe, destroy the non-believing soul at judgment or, as the orthodox position holds and I believe, banish the unbelieving soul for eternity to a hell prepared to punish Satan and his angels. So, prove to me that the atheist is NOT a fool for denying a God that will, at best, destroy him or, at worst, banish him to an eternity where the worm does not die nor the fire does not lessen.
As you are proving that the atheist is not a fool for denying God, you can also prove the following claims as well...
That it is NOT foolish to cheat the IRS (and, as examples, you can use the cases of Wesley Snipes and David Allen Coe -- the IRS still owns Coe's song catalog despite the fact that royalties have long since covered his tax and penalty debt -- or any other taxpayer who has tried to cheat the IRS and found out the IRS doesn't play...)
That it is NOT foolish to go up to someone who is larger than you and who has better fighting skills than you do and challenge them to a fight (here you can use as an example the case of Jorge Lugo who found out he COULD go through a plate glass window after throwing a bucket of ice at Charles Barkley)
That it is NOT foolish to abuse drugs (to support this assertion, you could mention that 28,723 people in the U.S. died from drug abuse -- both legal and illegal drugs -- in 2003)
That it is NOT foolish to smoke tobacco (to support this assertion, you could mention that around 450,000 people in the U.S. died from tobacco-related illnesses and cancers)
Batty, you have said before that the "fool" referred to in Psalms 14:1 does not refer to an atheist, that nabal should be understood in some different manner. But, who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or John Calvin?
"The fool hath said. As the Hebrew word nabal signifies not only a fool, but also a perverse, vile, and contemptible person, it would not have been unsuitable to have translated it so in this place; yet I am content to follow the more generally received interpretation, which is, that all profane persons, who have cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness. David does not bring against his enemies the charge of common foolishness, but rather inveighs against the folly and insane hardihood of those whom the world accounts eminent for their wisdom. We commonly see that those who, in the estimation both of themselves and of others, highly excel in sagacity and wisdom, employ their cunning in laying snares, and exercise the ingenuity of their minds in despising and mocking God. It is therefore important for us, in the first place, to know, that however much the world applaud these crafty and scoffing characters,
who allow themselves to indulge to any extent in wickedness, yet the Holy Spirit condemns them as being fools; for there is no stupidity more brutish than forgetfulness of God." (John Calvin's Commentary on Psalms - Volume 1 -- http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.xx.i.html)
Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or Charles Spurgeon?
"The fool. The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool universally. He would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and having denied God it is no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice. Sin is always folly, and as it is the height of sin to attack the very existence of the Most High, so it is also the greatest imaginable folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest evidence, which is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner could by his atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some sense, although much wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the existence of fire does not prevent its burning a man who is in it, so doubting the existence of God will not stop the Judge of all the earth from destroying the rebel who breaks his laws; nay, this atheism is a crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring down terrible vengeance on
the fool who indulges it. The proverb says, "A fool's tongue cuts his own throat," and in this instance it kills both soul and body for ever: would to God the mischief stopped even there, but alas! one fool makes hundreds, and a noisy blasphemer spreads his horrible doctrines as lepers spread the plague." (C.H. Spurgeons's The Treasury of David -- http://www.studylight.org/com/tod/view.cgi?book=ps&chapter=014&verse=001)
Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or Adam Clarke?
"Verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ] lbn nabal, which we render fool, signifies an empty fellow, a contemptible person, a villain. One who has a muddy head and an unclean heart; and, in his darkness and folly, says in his heart, "There is no God."And none," says one, "but a fool would say so." The word is not to be taken in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power, &c., but give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There are others, and they are very numerous, who, while they profess to acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they were persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward." (Clarke's
Commentary -- http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkepsa14.htm)
Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or Matthew Henry?
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here described is an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor of the world, no Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says this in his heart. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but wishes there were none, and pleases himself that it is possible there may be none; he is willing to think there is none. This sinner is a fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of it: he is wicked and profane, and this is the cause." (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible -- http://bible.christiansunite.com/mhcc.cgi?b=Ps&c=14)
Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown?
"The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked, with their hatred to the good, are set forth. Yet, as they dread God's judgments when He vindicates His people, the Psalmist prays for His delivering power.
1. Sinners are termed "fools," because they think and act contrary to right reason (Genesis 34:7, Joshua 7:15, Psalms 39:8, 74:18,22)." (Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible -- http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=ps&chapter=14)
If God exists, the atheist is a fool for saying there is no God. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and argues otherwise is likewise a fool...
Posted by: "Robert Baty"
Tue Octï¿½14,ï¿½2008 7:26ï¿½am (PDT)
That's Veto Roley failing to demonstrate he understands the issue as he
continues to run from his failed boast as to what he could prove
regarding Psalm 14:1.
Search as one might, I propose that one will not find where Veto Roley came close to
meeting his responsibilities to even try and prove his boastful claim that the Psalm 14:1
> "the fool sayeth in his heart
> there is no God"
means, is properly interpreted to mean,
> "all atheists are fools":
You will find Veto's failed "two-column thingy" that didn't even come close to addressing the above claim, much less prove it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]