Michael Irvin's induction speech

Maybe you don't know a lot of drug users and the struggle to overcome the habit. It's not a battle one always stays on top of in the battle to conquer.

 

Yawn, it wasn't just drugs in Irvin's case. He had a family at home when he was found in the apartment/hotel with the blow and the hos, screaming 'Do you know who I am.' IMO, he was always a grade A ass without much concern for anyone but himself.

 

Asked and answered here, I'm afraid.

 

To answer question No. 1: How do we know anything? Merely asking that question lends credence to my argument about the media assuming the God position. <i> If only we had a truth box or something! Then we'd know for sure </i>

Really, I don't think the media much cares whether a person is lying. In some cases, they kinda hope they do. They quote liars constantly; they're called football coaches. If the media views religion so objectively, why would the hypocrisy of those who claim it be any different?


To No. 2: I think C.S. Lewis answered that question better I can in Mere Christianity. I believe that any good thing must come from God, and if a non-believer lives what is called a moral life, it is by the common grace of their conscience given to them by God.

 

No idea what this answer means. Who is "you?" The media?

 

It was in the same graph, for crying out loud.

 

That's true only if you assumed Christians led perfect lives. We make mistakes constantly. A Christian life is certainly meant to turn away from sin, but if David, a murderer and an adulterer, was a man after God's own heart, so too can Irvin be.

If you want buy bullshit about Christianity, that's your thing. But Irvin's confession in entirely in keeping with his faith. Christians can even (gasp!) question their faith.

 

I'm calling bullshit on your running it verbatim argument. You would have cut it no matter what.

Your bias is above.

 

I guess my point in the first case was that the fig leaf of piety is used too often to neutralize criticism. The senator who visits brothels now contends that the matter is between him and his God. In the eternal sense, of course, that's true. But in the meantime, it's between him and his constituents - and the argument that all justice be left to God is merely a tactic for taking the case of his failed morality and personal hypocrisy off the public docket. The final judgment is indeed that, final, but in the meantime, we have to make the earthly judgments we're compelled to make (assuming God granted us free will).

As to the second point, is the morality of a good person somehow more moral, or more good, if we assume it came from God? I'm not sure.

 

Who died and made you buckweaver's mindreader?

 

Well, for one mindreader of Buck there seems to be a dozen who are an expert of mine. What's the difference?