Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Huck to Constitution: Get Right With God
This past Monday, as most of America now knows, Mike Huckabee effectively told the Constitution that it had better get right with God. In so doing, he committed the single most egregious Faith and Values’ blunder of the 2008 campaign.
In a follow-up interview with Steven Waldman and Dan Gilgoff, the former governor of Arkansas conceded that he may have phrased it “awkwardly.” Yet his subsequent responses to their insightful questions did little to suggest he did not mean what he said.
I will get to that fascinating interview next week. But today I want to return to Huckabee’s original words--words which will haunt this relatively young politician throughout his career:
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
Permit me to belabor the obvious: secularists, be they religious or not, will never forget this. Now let me make a somewhat less banal prediction: this assault on the national charter will make many of the Evangelical Americans who Huckabee is trying to mobilize very uncomfortable.
Say what you will about the old Christian Right, but it always picked its enemies carefully. Whatever their target -- secular humanism, Communism, homosexuality, Murphy Brown or the TeleTubbies -- Falwell and company knew better than to attack symbols near and dear to the hearts of the rank-and-file. It never occurred to them, for example, to propose congressional legislation banning Baseball.
Huck’s error was in taking on the Constitution, in putting it in its place. Its place, apparently, was somewhere under God and under (Huckabee’s interpretation of) the Bible. But why -- why? I ask -- would he brazenly instill this tension in the minds of his target audience?
I have had Evangelical students who can recite the Constitution chapter and verse, so to speak. Like many of their co-religionists they are patriotic in very conventional, mainstream American ways. They have no more interest in setting the Scriptures in competition with the Constitution than Jews have in exploring the possibility that the teachings of the great Rabbinic sages supersede the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Had Huckabee simply ranted about all of those “activist judges” who have misinterpreted what some scholars call "The American Scriptures," he would have been on far safer rhetorical ground. Instead, he inexplicably followed Alan Keyes down an intriguing avenue of theological speculation and intimated the existence of a scriptural chain of command.
I have, incidentally, often sensed that certain types of conservative Christian intellectuals share these misgivings. This is because our national charter refrains from citing the Bible or invoking the name of God. So, yes, there is a theological discussion to be engaged in there and maybe even a conference down at the seminary. But, no, this is not something that any wise politician would want to make into a campaign issue.
Huckabee’s endeavor to subordinate the Constitution will win him absolutely no new followers among non-Evangelicals. This state of affairs will not be lost upon pragmatic conservative Christians in the GOP who may throw their weight behind a less divisive, and more viable, candidate.
(For more information about religion and the candidates, Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs).
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
January 18, 2008; 12:04 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Huckabee Playing Both Religion Cards |
Next: The Democrats (They're Funny and Electable Too!)
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 23, 2008 8:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Professor quoted The Candidate as saying the following:
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
The Professor and many of the blog respondents seem threatened by this assertion of The Candidate. Why? Didn't the signers of The Constitution incorporate an amendment process into The Constitution? The signers weren't threatened by the possibility of amending The Constitution. At least, not threatened enough to eliminate the amendment process.
Some of the representatives at The Constitutional Convention represented a constiuency that did feel threatened by the possibility of slavery being outlawed through the amendment process, but they didn't win the day. The signers voted to allow The Constitution to be amended.
A statement by The Candidate that suggests amending The Constitution isn't an attack on The Constitution. The amendment process is part of The Constitution.
As for using Jesus' standards (as recorded by the writers of The Gospel) as a plumb-line for judging whether parts of The Constitution should be amended, the signers of The Constitution were of a similar sentiment. Among the signers, there wouldn't have been much disagreement with The Candidate's statement about amending The Constitution to better conform to The Word of God. Of course, there might have been discomfort with some of the ramifications of how that might have effected personal, econimic behavior.
Even today, it's the perceptions about personal ramifications of particular amendments that lead to discomfort with what is being suggested by The Candidate.
Those who are uncomfortable with The Candidate won't support him. Those who are more comfortable with him than with other candidates will support him.
Either way, let's not pretend that suggesting amendments based on certain religious beliefs is an attack on The Constitution.
Posted by: The Amender | January 23, 2008 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Michael,
Read Wonders for Oyarsa's post regarding man's law versus God's law. I think it will help you a little bit more to understand the viewpoint that I am coming from. It is fine to have man's law, but unless it is based upon God's law, we will be in a sad state as a country! (Look at any other country that does not have God as its core). Also, I was not trying to "preach" at you, merely state the obvious of the moral state of this country. I think, or at least hope anyone can see the downward spiral that we are in!
Posted by: mattinva | January 23, 2008 11:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You only need to see how little right-to-lifers get worked up over the daily destruction of embryos at fertility clinics to see where their morality is. These same right-to-lifers want to toss mothers in jail if they damage their fetus. The difference? Right-to-lifers forcing a mother by law to carry an embryo costs them nothing but if they were to rescue frozen embryos they would have to pay about $25/embryo/month to keep them frozen since they cannot (yet) force them into a woman's womb. So the horrible deaths by thawing of frozen embryos is ignored while mothers will be tossed in jail for a miscarriage. Their morality is directed by economics, not God, not goodness, not conviction. Where are the collection plates to pay for keeping frozen embryos frozen and thus alive?
Again, if the consequences of this amendment were understood no one would vote for it. If the right-to-lifers had to pay to save every embryo-person, they would quickly withdraw the amendment. They are all talk, no useful action. Their morality is not moral or consistent.
Oh, and getting back to the subject, this is why Huckabee is talking about God being more important than the Constitution, because the right-to-lifers are planning to attack the Constitutions of GA, CO and the USA this fall with this constitutional amendment. His statement made perfect sense if you are a one-dimensional right-to-life thinker, just the people he is hoping to get votes from. From Huckabee's point of view, it is not a blunder but instead a brilliant strategy since if he gets the evangelicals behind him he is a perfect choice for a republican VP since no other candidate is getting that demographic.
Posted by: Fate | January 22, 2008 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2: where did you get Jesus dying on Wednesday from? for believers, he rose on the third day, Friday being day one, Saturday being day two (as in the "next" day), and Sunday being the third day. glad to help you out on that one.
Posted by: JoeT | January 22, 2008 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2: where did you get Jesus dying on Wednesday from? for believers, he rose on the third day, Friday being day one, Saturday being day two (as in the "next" day), and Sunday being the third day. glad to help you out on that one.
Posted by: JoeT | January 22, 2008 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Fate -
Thanks for the additional post.
Funny how present-day fundie Xians want to impose their one-dimensional thinking on everyone else, including other Xian sects, non-Xian religions and the a-religious. Jewish law holds that a fetus is only a "potential life" until the baby's head exits the birth canal, at which point it becomes a full person. Even the early church had the concept of "ensoulment," where a fetus didn't receive its soul for up to 90 days after conception.
Both current Jewish law and early church teachings were much more liberal than the current crop of anti-rights crowd in allowing abortions.
The anti-women's-rights crowd proves over and over that their position has everything to do with politics, power and controlling others, and nothing at all to do with right and wrong.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 22, 2008 1:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark wrote: "There's no need to limit the argument on abortion rights to the worst-case scenarios."
Well, maybe there are other arguments, but the current GA amendment makes an embryo a "person" with all the rights of any person who is born and alive. The possible scenarios I gave are just food for thought. There are many more that are far worse.
The point of course is that if you are carrying a "person" inside you and the law is out to make sure it is equal to everyone else, including you, various scenarios would place a mother in legal jeopardy. One I am sure would develop is the GA police forming task forces to investigate all miscarriages reported by medical personnel because if a embryo or fetus dies, it is no different than a person dying, and so must be investigated if the medical team suspects the miscarriage was caused by smoking, drinking, poor nurishment, etc, just as the GA police today will investigate a baby who has been brought to the emergency room with a broken arm.
There is a reason a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason and that is that the embryo is not equal to the woman and what needs to be shown is the consequences of what an equal embryo would mean. The one-dimensional thinking by people like spiderman2 need such examples to provoke thought where little thought is evident or controlled by others.
Posted by: Fate | January 22, 2008 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Fate -
While I appreciate your post above defending a woman's right to abortion, there's no need to pander to the ignorant by conjuring up scenarios where the woman seeking an abortion is the worst kind of person imaginable (alcoholic & pregnant) or is in the worst situation possible (pregnant and dying from cancer).
The LAW in this country is that a woman has the right to an abortion for whatever reason. While most people I know strongly disapprove of abortion being used as a method of belated birth control, the fact is that it's a woman's legal right to have an abortion for just such a reason if she so chooses.
There's a lot of things that I find distasteful that are well within the law. But the law is the law until it is changed.
There's no need to limit the argument on abortion rights to the worst-case scenarios. Besides, the rabid religionists don't allow for those either. You'd be better off arguing it as a pure right, rather than as a very conditional right as you have above.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 22, 2008 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"A normal person" recognizes that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights created a completely secular government.
Citizens who support the Constitution are by defintion secularists and supporting the Constitution seems fairly normal to me!
Posted by: Freestinker | January 22, 2008 12:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2, your comparison of "secularists" versus "normal people" reminds me of other times when people who disagreed with an opinion were labeled and considered so different they required a label to signify they were not only different, but opposite in every way. They include nazis/jews, whites/slaves, muslims/infidels, indians/unclean, evangalicals/americans.
Maybe your view of God's perfection can explain: the appendix, one critical heart instead of two, and the fact that a human has exactly as many hairs on their body per square inch as a gorilla.
Posted by: Fate | January 22, 2008 11:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2 wrote: "A normal person would not think that way".
So spidy, how is a normal person to take this:
Georgia H.R. 536 states:
“Paramount right to life. (a) The rights of
every person shall be recognized, among
which in the first place is the inviolable right
of every innocent human being to life. The
right to life is the paramount and most
fundamental right of a person.
(b) With respect to the fundamental and
inalienable rights of all persons guaranteed
in this Constitution, the word 'person' applies
to all human beings, irrespective of age,
race, sex, health, function, or condition of
dependency, including unborn children at
every state of their biological development,
including fertilization.”
Now, consider a woman with a uterine cancer and is pregnant. An operation to remove her uterus will kill the embryo. Killing the embryo will be as much a crime as killing a living, breathing person since it equates the two, even if it is to save the life of the mother since no law allows the killing of one person to save another. So what happens if this amendment is passed? Me being a normal person KNOWs that the mother's life will be left in God's hands while she carries the fetus to term, if she lives that long. She also will be denied any chemotherapy or radiation since that would endanger the embryo. Do you disagree and if so why?
Consider a woman who is an alcoholic and is pregnant. The child is born with a rare condition that has been linked to alcohol consumption during pregnancy. How is this different than a mother who drinks and beats her child until the child is physically and mentally abused? What would keep this woman out of jail? If so under what legal justification does this woman deserve any deference to a woman who beats children?
Another woman is racing to a hair appointment and is doing 90mph when she loses control and hits a tree. She is pregnant and severly injured. She is taken to the hospital and has a miscarriage. The doctors work hard to save the fetus but it is only 8 weeks old, and dies. If the "person" who died was her 8 year old child she could go to jail for reckless endangerment and negligent homicide. What keeps this woman out of jail in your "normal person" opinion?
Huckabee wants to make America a theocracy, like Iran. He and his evangelical supporters need to be stopped or America will be lost.
Posted by: Fate | January 22, 2008 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A normal person praises his Designer for giving him 2 ears to enable him to listen stereo phonic sound or music. One ear would only absorb a mono sound and it's not delightful to the ears.
A secularists would think two ears just accidentally protrude out of his head. He has no idea why it's there but blame it to pure accident. Why it didn't protrude on their forehead, they never gave it some thought.
A normal person gives credit to whom it is due (his Creator). A secularist gives credit to the word "incidental" or "random".
A normal person knows were he came from. A secularists don't know where he came from.
A normal person thinks he is normal. A secularist thinks that he is normal. That's where the trouble begins -- when an abnormal thinks he is normal.
These secularist people are very hard to cure coz they think they are normal. They think Huckabee is abnormal because he often gives credit to the Supreme Being who made him. These secularist don't know who to thank for. Thank you ACCIDENT ?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 22, 2008 10:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Poor Huckabee, everybody who's not normal in this country blame their abnormality to him. And they are very many.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 22, 2008 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A secularist would think "That means miscarriages could send you to jail since it would be considered infanticide. Poor prenatal care would be akin to child abuse."
A normal person would not think it that way.
That's where the trouble begins when abnormal people think their thoughts are normal.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 22, 2008 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A strange atticle since Hukabee's strategy is so plain and simple. Evangelicals are pushing for 2008 referendums in some states (GA, CO) and on the national level to pass Constitutional Amendments that would "Establish legal personhood from the moment of fertilization." That means miscarriages could send you to jail since it would be considered infanticide. Poor prenatal care would be akin to child abuse. In other words, an embryo's rights would supercede that of the mother's.
Huckabee knows about this Evangelical push even if Berlinerblau does not. What surprises me a little is that I knew about it and I'm as far from being an Evangelical as you can get. So this article is more about the lack of Berlinerblau's professional journalism than anything else.
Huckabee was just playing up to his evangelical base that considers the Constitution, America and Human Rights to be out of touch with God. So what is new about that? The real story is that Huckabee wants to be president of a United States he loathes. Why not ask Huckabee how much he hates America Berlinerblau? That would be a good story to track since Huckabee's words speak to a hate for America and its people, except those faithful whose votes he desperately wants.
Posted by: Fate | January 22, 2008 9:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think Huckabee is terribly misunderstood on this note. I don't think he is really proposing anything substantially different than the man who said the following:
I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | January 22, 2008 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Many will be called but few will be chosen."
"Testifying to one's faith among and in front of the multitudes is a firm act of belief."
It is not to difficult to understand the former once the latter is so resoundingly rejected.
My goodness faith is about depth not shallow.
Character is about infatigueable endurance in faith and leadership not politics.
As one traverses the travail of the ages one finds faith enduring versus the multitude, not politics.
The Constitution is a personification of the faithful.
As pop culture and liberal relativeism depart from faith they depart from guiding principles like a ship at sea without a rudder casting about with no perceivable course to follow.
It does not stand. The guiding principles are lost.
A society in decay or decadence does not stand the travail of ages.
"The way that you wander is the way that you chose. A day that you terry is a day that you lose."
Thus, few will be chosen. . .
Posted by: Steve Ziner | January 22, 2008 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If we examine the Constitution, I think the only secular item there is allowing abortion. The rest are patterned after biblical doctrines. Even the separation of church of state was pushed by baptists to protect them from government interference.
Aside from abortion, what else in that document is secular? Am I missing something or am I just listening to dreamers ?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 22, 2008 8:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't know what troulbes me more, the fact that we have another bible thumping presidential canidate who's finding people to vote for his twisted, myopic views for America or the fact the this important news item has been religated to a small side column (no offence, Mr.Berlinerblau) in only major news organization in the U.S.
I realize that America needed to know that Hillary Clinton choated up and may or may not have, (the juries still out on that!) shed a tear. After all, that's big news....isn't it?
On the other hand, when a presidntial canidate openly states he thinks OUR CONSTITUTION should be changed so it meets up the thinking of a minority few, that hardly gets a blink from the press. Hey, don't you guys lean hard on that same secular document for protection in your line of work? Nice job.
Posted by: pooka | January 22, 2008 8:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A normal woman bears a child in her womb for 9 months. A secularist woman, usually 3 months only.
A normal man marries a woman. A secularist man marries a man.
A normal person believes somebody created him. A secularist person believes they are a result of an accident (whether a car accident, I don't know)
A normal person considers another person as his relative. A secularist person treats apes as their great grandpa.
A normal person thinks he is normal. A secularist thinks he is normal. That's where the trouble begins -- when an abnormal thinks he is normal.
These secularist people are very hard to cure coz they think they are normal. They think Huckabee is abnormal when they are the ones who are not normal. When did 3 months became normal to deliver a fetus?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 22, 2008 8:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jerry:
You'll get the "too many messages" warning sometimes because of a system glitch that causes multiple posts, or if you doubleclick the "post" button.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 22, 2008 8:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The United States is currently engaged in a war with forces who believe exactly the way Huck does, except they march to a different scripture. Their interpretation of that scripture leaves no room for diversity, supresses women, leads to militancy, devalues life and puts the power of government into the hands of radical clerics. When confronted with why any mention of God was left out of the U.S. Constitution, John Adams replied simply, "We forgot." How fortunate for us they did; how awful it would be for Huck to change that.
Posted by: Dean | January 22, 2008 8:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Shemhazai, Jesus died on Wednesday and was buried in the wee hours of Thurday. 3 days after, which is on the wee hours of Sunday, He rose again. I hope that answers your question. Sorry if I thought you were just sarcastic.
Anon, we're on the same boat. You misread my post. Iam not for abortion.
Bill Mosby, on Judgment Day, we can't point fingers on anybody for our fault. All people who goes to hell can only blame themselves. It's important that we don't just trust our soul's future to anybody including priests or preachers. We should examine carefully all doctrines before believing them. Check this websites :
http://spidermean2.blogs.friendster.com/spiderman2/
http://www.religion.bravehost.com
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 22, 2008 8:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What "rank & file" voters who are not living under the label of evangelical christian, but who are indeed of religious persuasion, what we will remember is that Huckabee is seeking to codify a theocracy. And that, dear friends, is our deepest fear - that this democracy which we all love, the moral foundation upon which it has been built, all of these will be not merely eroded, but vanquished in a political desire to be "God's Nation". For those of us who are believers who choose to think, to question, to study, the very concept of God's Nation is abhorrent - it reeks of crusades, of inquisitions, of pogroms, and the death of our nation. When men of any ilk begin to act as if they are "God's warriors" or "mouthpiece", I weep - for God has been usurped and man stands at the forefront.
Posted by: Bev | January 22, 2008 7:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Maybe he should become a priest, in which case, he should not run for the President of the U.S.
Posted by: Kim | January 22, 2008 6:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Um, if Jesus didn't die on Good Friday, when did he die? That's what just about every church I've come across has taught. How about, instead of calling us dumb, you actually say something that contributes to the conversation? If you think I'm wrong that, according to Christianity, Jesus died on Good Friday, then say when he died.
Posted by: Shemhazai | January 22, 2008 6:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
He says inconsistent things like this because he will say anything to make himslef look more "evangelical". But his thoughts on religion/politics are not well formed, and would not be even after 4 years of office, if he were to be elected.
Posted by: frank burns | January 22, 2008 5:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If we ignore ignorant, oppressive, thoughtless, narrow minded people, will they all go away?
Posted by: Ryuuzaki | January 22, 2008 2:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee claims that it's easier to change the Constitution than the words of the Bible.
King James and the many, many others who have created their own Biblical revisions might disagree, since they didn't need the approval of 3/4 of the State Legislatures to do so.
Posted by: melior | January 22, 2008 2:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2 wrote: "Do these dumb people know that having sex makes them pregnant? Why have sex in the first place if you're not ready to take responsibility? Abortion is just a product of disorderly behavior and stupid mind."
Is this a Christian talking that taking responsibility for "having sex" is only required when it involves having to get an abortion?? Well, that leaves people off the hook who "use" other people for sexual gratification purposes and then "ditches" them afterwards.
Must be nice spidey to lay your ethics and Christian beliefs done when it "suits" your agenda/needs.
If my father and brother were still living and you used me for sexual gratification then acted like you didn't know me after you got what you wanted, they would hunt you down and kick your a*s. My dad was from the old school and treated women with respect and he raised my brother to do the same. I always felt safe with him, but I knew better then to talk back to him too.
In fact, anywhere I went my brother he protected me from hurt and harm. My brother was a real man, the kind a women now days would look at as a commodity. He never stopped treating women with respect, always opened the door for them/me and was always there if I called on him. God I miss him.
Say what you will about Huckabee but at least he is not embarrassed to make a confession that a woman should be treated with the respect listed in Eph. 5:22-29. One thing I have to say about pat, at least he waited to say good-bye and didn't leave me hanging; even though I have NO respect for him now knowing he is your patsy, pun intended.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2008 2:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2-
"You can't blame anybody there [hell] who taught you false doctrines." Is that because there is no blame there, or because those who taught false doctrines are not there? Or what?
Posted by: Bill Mosby | January 22, 2008 1:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Who told you guys that I believe that Jesus died on a friday? You don't know much about Christianity that is why you always make wrong conclusion.
Too bad coz there are no excuses in Hell. You can't blame anybody there who taught you false doctrines.
Typical of secularists-- always hanging on the wrong info. Since when did they become right, anyway?
Idiot info makes people dumb.
Do they understand that statement? Naaa, of course they dont.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 22, 2008 12:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Shemhazai - to understand the crucifixion, you need to watch "Mr. Deity and the really big favor" – featuring the father, son and holy ghost -- Mr. Deity, Jesus and Larry
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls&mode=related&search
You won't regret it.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 22, 2008 12:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As I told you, these secularists are dumb. You have to teach them real hard so they understand things.
Actually, the anti-abortion law is not needed if all the people here are smart. It wasn't included in the constitution before coz most people in that era were smart.
Do these dumb people know that having sex makes them pregnant? Why have sex in the first place if you're not ready to take responsibility? Abortion is just a product of disorderly behavior and stupid mind. The U.S don't have much of these kind of people before that is why abortion was not much an issue before. But we're now living at a time where secularists are becoming many and the constitution has to deal with them properly.
The reason why communist states are very strict is because they have to suppress the stupidity among them. They are all atheists and all stupid. Without a strict law, they would crumble.
The same is happening with America. America doesn't need this anti-abortion law if only there are no secularists here like before. I just don't know where these people came from.
The choice is whether we put a strict law in the constitution or God will annihilate the secularists. But I already know the answer. The second one will prevail coz that is what's written in the Bible. God will annihilate the secularists and believe it.
The real issue here is Huckabee could be saving your life. Don't you get it? Naaa, of course you don't.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 11:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't see how Jesus died and then rose on the third day. You got Holy Thursday and the day of the Last Supper. He's crucified and died on Good Friday, seemingly in the afternoon with all that went on. Then there's Saturday and finally Easter morning. So, from death to rising, you have a day and a half. How is that three?
Posted by: Shemhazai | January 21, 2008 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2
You have zero understanding of the point I was making, and please do not ascribe to me thoughts I did not write. BTW - you evidently are terrible at reading minds, as well as writing a congent thought. Ever considered being deprogrammed?
MATTINVA:
Jaccques did not miss the point. Your interpretation is stating the obvious. That is the subject of the discussion...duh. Your inappropriate interpretations of the
Constitution and its origin are incorrect. We are not based on god's law, rather man's. Your conclusions about the current state of "morals" is pejorative, and perhaps, a projection. Quit preaching and get an education.
Posted by: Michael | January 21, 2008 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
he simply re-phrased the big issue from the 2004 election: amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. i'm not sure what the big deal is with what he recently said, as it doesn't sound any different than what was so popular in 2004 as a (winnable) political strategy at that time. he's more explicit with his intentions, but the intentions are the same.
Posted by: ashley | January 21, 2008 11:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If you ask them (secularists) about the history of the U.S., suddenly, the founders become secularists. If you would ask their ilk 200 years from now about Martin Luther Jr., there is no doubt they would also claim he's a secularist. But that wouldn't happen coz this generation is their last to preach lies. The bible had said it and the bible is a book that don't say things that's incidental. It says they will fry in Hell and it will happen. It says that Christ will rise again on the third day and it happened. It says that the U.S will rule the earth after the secularists here and abroad will be annihilated and it will happen.
Very plain and yet these secularists would break their heads just to understand it. The only word they understand is the word "incidental" which means "I don't know".
If you discuss with these secularists be forwarned that you are not talking to normal people. These people had so much respect with the word "incidental". They are the "I don't know" kind of people. But be careful coz just like their relatives in metal hospitals, they would suddenly know everything and as what Pam had said, "they had become intelligent that is why they don't believe in God." HAHAHA. That is really very funny. The same kind of laughter you'll get if you talk to mental patients.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 11:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If you ask them (secularists) about the history of the U.S., suddenly, the founders become secularists. If you would ask their ilk 200 years from now about Martin Luther Jr., there is no doubt they would also claim he's a secularist. But that wouldn't happen coz this generation is their last to preach lies. The bible had said it and the bible is a book that don't say things that's incidental. It says they will fry in Hell and it will happen. It says that Christ will rise again on the third day and it happened. It says that the U.S will rule the earth after the secularists here and abroad will be annihilated and it will happen.
Very plain and yet these secularists would break their heads just to understand it. The only word they understand is the word "incidental" which means "I don't know".
If you discuss with these secularists be forwarned that you are not talking to normal people. These people had so much respect with the word "incidental". They are the "I don't know" kind of people. But be careful coz just like their relatives in metal hospitals, they would suddenly know everything and as what Pam had said, "they had become intelligent that is why they don't believe in God. HAHAHA. That is really very funny. The same kind of laughter you'll get if you talk to mental patients.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 10:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Good reporting. I find it fightening to think he would be President. The harm he would do to this country. Intelligent design, religion, of course Christian (a coded word) and abortion, a criminal, punishable act, all in the Constitution. I hope voters are smart enough to see the consequences behind his rheteric. I do have to say I like his social programs, but I am not willing to sell the Constitution and my soul for them.
Posted by: Lorraine | January 21, 2008 10:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques, you are incorrect. You have no connection with the subject of your article, or you would understand that you are wrong. Being a conservative Christian, I understand where Huckabee is coming from and understand what he was trying to say. He was not trying to be anti-American, or unpatriotic, rather he was trying to explain the downfall of morals that this country has, and how the constitution needs to be based upon God's word; how we were founded! Please try to understand your subject matter before writing an article about it.
Posted by: mattinva | January 21, 2008 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques, you are incorrect. You have no connection with the subject of your article, or you would understand that you are wrong. Being a conservative Christian, I understand where Huckabee is coming from and understand what he was trying to say. He was not trying to be anti-American, or unpatriotic, rather he was trying to explain the downfall of morals that this country has, and how the constitution needs to be based upon God's word; how we were founded! Please try to understand your subject matter before writing an article about it.
Posted by: mattinva | January 21, 2008 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bear in mind that most secularists here believe that 2+2 is not 4. How can we debate with such people whose brains are out of sync with reality. They also think that evolution is "incidental". Incidental is just another term for "I don't know".
Do these people know that? Naaa.
How did seeds become intelligent to produce fruits and flowers? Their answer would be incidental or "I don't know".
How did monkeys turn to humans? Their answer would be incidental or "I don't know".
You ask them about the bible and suddenly they know everything. Truly out of sync.No wonder they kill each other in Europe during two world wars. The third would involve much of the U.S because the idiocy had reached its shores.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 9:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
i received a notice I had "submitted too many posts lately!
You had best do some checking on your past posts.
I just "joined" less than 6 months ago, and this is my SECOND!
What is your "limit" on posts? ONE a year??
Posted by: Jerry F. Abbott | January 21, 2008 7:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bush wasn't a REAL Christian.
Bush wasn't a REAL conservative.
The Christian Right put him into office twice. Fool me once, you're the fool. Fool me twice, I'm the fool.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 21, 2008 7:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Say what you will about Huckabee, but he has sense enough to know that if "take God out of this nation"....we're done for.
Hopefully he isn't another "great pretender" hoping to ride the backs of TRUE Christians into office. If so, he will be as big a failure as George W. Bush who did the SAME thing!
I have a view on politicians that my father told me as a lad and 75 years later it STILL holds true: "YOU CAN BE A POLITICIAN, OR YOU CAN BE A CHRISTIAN, BUT YOU CAN'T BE BOTH!"
Posted by: Jerry F. Abbott | January 21, 2008 7:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Say what you will about Huckabee, but he has sense enough to know that if "take God out of this nation"....we're done for.
Hopefully he isn't another "great pretender" hoping to ride the backs of TRUE Christians into office. If so, he will be as big a failure as George W. Bush who did the SAME thing!
I have a view on politicians that my father told me as a lad and 75 years later it STILL holds true: "YOU CAN BE A POLITICIAN, OR YOU CAN BE A CHRISTIAN, BUT YOU CAN'T BE BOTH!"
Posted by: Jerry F. Abbott | January 21, 2008 7:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark: Thanks for reminding me that Jacoby's book is in my "stack" waiting to be read. I may bring it to the top of the stack now.
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 21, 2008 7:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear SAD FOR AMERICA'S 'DISCOURSE': -
I suggest you and others read Susan Jacoby's excellent book, "Freethinkers," which goes into the secular roots of this country in great detail.
Funny how you cite state constitutions that mention god and Xianity while failing to mention that that argument was LOST when the federal Constitution was debated and agreed upon. The people who wanted to put the name of Jesus in the Constitution and to aver that the authority and powers of the federal government were given by god were defeated by the Jeffersonians (I do appreciate your quoting George Mason. It gives one a perspective of the positions that were roundly debated in writing the Constitution, positions that were rejected by the majority. Mason in fact refused to sign the Constitution because it didn't contain a Bill of Rights.)
I did see that you made a point of citing the constitution of Massachusetts, where you write: "See especially Massachusetts, written after much debate several years after the end of the war. The original Mass Const requires that everyone be free to publicly worship as he saw fit, but explicitly bases the government's right to govern on the Bible and Christianity. As a matter of fact, it required the governor to be a Christian (of any stripe--that is the key) and even had modified oath that Quakers could take when entering office."
Interesting. I wonder why you don't bother mentioning that Massachusetts struck out all religious restrictions from its laws in 1833, including requiring the governor to swear an oath as a Xian? That wouldn't be telling a lie by omission, would it? (Source: Jacoby, Freethinkers, pg 32).
It doesn't serve your debating position when you commit such obvious errors in reportage, especially when there are plenty of people lurking here just waiting to set you straight.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 21, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes Angela B, the world would be so much better if they all believed in Christ. And by gum, it should be the President's job to convert the world. We should bomb every country that does not accept Christ as Lord and Savior and force everyone to convert or die.
That's right. Our armed forces shouldn't waste their time fighting the War against terror, it should be The Crusades 2008!
And Abu Garaib can become the place where the Inquisitions should take place.
The thing is, what scares me the most is that you probably find nothing wrong with anything I'm saying Angela B.
You're all for it.
Posted by: jaded | January 21, 2008 6:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You sense that certain kinds of Christian conservatives share Huckabee's aspirations to put the Constitution in place. Of course. Surely you've heard of Christian reconstructionists and dominionists. That is exactly what they intend.
Posted by: Lilybelle | January 21, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff P.: It would be interesting to see what the democratic candidates did if they were asked about their views on evolution. They (in particular Obama) have been doing more than their share of pandering to believers this election season. I am fairly sure they would all come out on the side of evolution, but they might have a difficult time getting that hand up since it is probably a question they don't have a canned, preprogrammed answer for.
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 21, 2008 6:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Sal wrote:
"For those who don’t believe in God . . . may I recommend that you sincerely and genuinely ask God to reveal Himself to you and in time see if He doesn’t answer."
Well, that didn't work for Mother Teresa, and she tried a lot harder than I ever would.
She should have listened to her inner voice and admitted that God does not exist. Then, perhaps, she would have caused less harm by torturing people in her warehouses for the dying. She collected millions of dollars. She might have purchased some proper analgesics, contraceptives, and proper medical equipment, and hired qualified nurses, instead of letting all those people die in squalor.
"And if you don't, that's your prerogative no one is going to force you . . ."
Ah, I am sure you would force us if you could, Mr. Sal! But dag-nabbit they just won't let you torture atheists these days, will they? More's the pity, eh? You would save us from eternal suffering with a few days of wracking and burning at the stake.
". . . but you'll have only yourselves to blame when you stand before God...and one day, you will."
Nonsense. If God exists and he wants us to believe in him, he can give us enough evidence. He obviously doesn't want us to believe. He didn't even want Mother Teresa to believe.
Posted by: Jed Rothwell | January 21, 2008 6:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau's point is well taken. I believe, though, that another segment of Mr. Huckabee's targeted constituency may be even more offput by his recent crude observation in South Carolina concerning the controversy over that state's flag:
"If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."**
Every so often, a Christian gentleman's 'true' red, white and blue colors -- or stars and bars --shine through.
** Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 20, 2008, E7.
Posted by: Frances Wood | January 21, 2008 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau's point is well taken. I believe, though, that another segment of Mr. Huckabee's targeted constituency may be even more offput by his recent crude observation in South Carolina concerning the controversy over that state's flag:
"If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."**
Every so often, a Christian gentleman's 'true' red, white and blue colors -- or stars and bars --shine through.
** Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 20, 2008, E7.
Posted by: Frances Wood | January 21, 2008 6:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam said, "The more educated we become, the larger the percentage of non-believers. The more you know, the harder it becomes to swallow fairy tales."
Pam, evolution is the biggest fairy tale and it's a fairy tale that's not funny and harmless. When Europe adopted it, they began exterminating themselves. The U.S was left unscathed because very few believe it that time. But not anymore. Americans will continue to be slaughtered around the world and in this mainland in the near future as long as it adopts the dumbest doctrine ever created.
No wonder I find it very hard to teach people here. The same hardship I would encounter if I would teach apes.
Even 2+2 is not 4 ? How did you all reached high school ? Are you all high in drugs?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
DFC: I can't seem to forget Mitt Romney either, and his "religion" speech, as he courts the religious right.
By gosh, if he's putting it on his platform and wants us to see the importance he gives to religion and to the religious of this nation, then those issues should be debatable, talked about issues, "sensitivities" be damned.
The religious-right wants it to be an issue, then I say let it be an issue--we've had 7 years of a religious leader, so let's talk about the verifiable results--and the anticipation of a future with another potential primarily religious leader.
I'm still actually appauled that there were 3 Republican presidential candidates who raised their hands when Chris Matthews asked who didn't "believe" in evolution. Oh my gosh, what further damage could happen in the next 4 years with science-illiterate leadership... (Does anyone know what the Democratic candidates think about evolution?--)
Posted by: Jeff P | January 21, 2008 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angels, thanks but no thanks. I'll take God on my terms, never on the terms inferred or demanded by any state. The wall between the two helped make America great.
I hope this is the end of Mike Huckabee being taken seriously as a presidential contender.
Posted by: DFC | January 21, 2008 5:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This thread was hilarious.
I especially liked:
1) Angela's point that secular authorities were appointed by god. Ooops, guess we shouldn't have hung Saddam after all...
2) Angela's post repeating the usual gibberish about god being omniscient, omnipotent, and yet strangely not to blame for any bad thing that happens.
Believing that god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and personally responsible for the creation of every living thing on earth (with the perfect foreknowledge of everything that being will do), makes god directly responsible for everything that being does, including rape, murder, cheating on taxes, and not brushing its teeth.
Posted by: Grashnak | January 21, 2008 2:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This thread was hilarious.
I especially liked:
1) Angela's point that secular authorities were appointed by god. Ooops, guess we shouldn't have hung Saddam after all...
2) Angela's post repeating the usual gibberish about god being omniscient, omnipotent, and yet strangely not to blame for any bad thing that happens.
Believing that god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and personally responsible for the creation of every living thing on earth (with the perfect foreknowledge of everything that being will do), makes god directly responsible for everything that being does, including rape, murder, cheating on taxes, and not brushing its teeth.
Posted by: Grashnak | January 21, 2008 2:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark wrote:
I enjoy reading your posts that explain evolution while challenging the knuckle draggers and their childish, Biblical superstitions.
That said, you're casting pearls to swine when you address them to Spidey. He's hopeless - ignorant and proud of it. Unreachable and, therefore, unteachable."
Thank you.
Yes, I realize that engaging the likes of Spidey and Canyon is a waste of time as far as making any impression on them. I always hope that there are a few more intelligent believers on the thread who will find what I (we) say food for thought. Maybe not.
Spidey displays a kind of ignorance that goes even beyond Canyon's, and is more that I can ascribe simply to youth or even indoctrination. He seems, well, brain damaged. Unreachable, indeed.
Posted by: Pam | January 21, 2008 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sad wrote:
"Congress should never establish a particular religion, but neither should it take away the right of anyone to practice his religion. The secularists in America today are seeking to do just that, and masking it in this lie that our country was founded by secularists and atheists. This is manifestly untrue. "
I won't argue any of this with you except the part about what secularists mean to do. You have that all wrong.
Some of the founding fathers were deists. I doubt that any were atheists. Many were undoubtedly Christian, as was most of the population (still is). If you were to go back another century or two, you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Europe or the British Isles who wasn't Christian. But while they looked to the state constitutions (particularly Virginia's) when drawing up the national one, they were very careful to leave out the Christian references.
The more educated we become, the larger the percentage of non-believers. The more you know, the harder it becomes to swallow fairy tales.
But those of us who don't believe (I'm going out on a limb here by speaking for more than just myself, but it's the sense I have of it) aren't trying to take away anyone's right to believe what they want and to practice that belief, as is currently guaranteed by the Constitution. Again, for emphasis, we DON'T want to change the Constitution. The ones who want change are all on your side (the premise of this thread on Huckabee). We won't lie down for that.
Would we like to see religion ended? Speaking for myself now, yes. But not by law or force. It has to come naturally, by learning and enlightenment.
I think the world would be a much better place without it and the tensions it engenders, but I have no illusions about that happening any time soon.
Posted by: Pam | January 21, 2008 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear "Sad" - any reason why you didn't quote the US constitution - you know - the one that covers our whole country?
Maybe because god and christianity aren't mentioned in it at all?
It makes me seriously doubt that you are trying to inform people, but rather trying to push your own skewed views.
The US is a secular democracy in which people are free to practice religion or not. That is the truth - not the unfounded perspective you express above.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 21, 2008 2:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee is off-base and certainly bad for America. But I think most of the self-styled geniuses here missed the point. He is saying that if some people see a right to murder children in the Constitution (the right to privacy so constructed from the 9th as well as other Amendments) that perhaps we need to amend the Constitution to reflect the natural right of a person to experience life, rather than have it sucked through a vacuum before she ever has a chance in this world. He is certainly not suggesting some form of Dominionism a la Rushdoony.
And as for the tired trope of America's secular origins. Perhaps the disconnect here is because the discourse in the late 18th century was between educated intelligent men who did not see things quite so black as white as what passes for argument on this "Internet" thing.
I heartily suggest some reading: try any of the original Constitutions of the colonies. See especially Massachusetts, written after much debate several years after the end of the war. The original Mass Const requires that everyone be free to publicly worship as he saw fit, but explicitly bases the government's right to govern on the Bible and Christianity. As a matter of fact, it required the governor to be a Christian (of any stripe--that is the key) and even had modified oath that Quakers could take when entering office. By the way, future President and certainly Founding Father John Adams had a huge hand in writing this.
Read others, particularly George Mason, author of the Bill of Rights, had a hand in the Virginia Const, which also makes explicit the connection between Christianity and the rights of men and their government. The point is subtler than most of you give credit. The Founders and most in the Scottish Enlightenment and Age of Reason in general believed that God-- the God of the Bible, or a more general Deity--gave us our rights and clues on how to govern. They did not endorse any particular religion to the point of official status, or compulsory attendance, but they certainly pointed to Christianity as the foundation of their ideas.
They had left Europe where the state and the Church had been essentially one and the same since the days of Constantine. That is what they were against, not a general foundation of Biblical morals and authority. Even Thomas Paine said in Common Sense that the colonies were anticipated by God when he inspired the Reformation 250 years earlier. I.e. it was the Protestant character that the Founders sought to instill, namely that there are certain tenants of faith that are crucial to government--the right of all men to seek God in their own ways--but that a nation must still honor the sovereign God.
Huckabee clearly doesn't get it, and I think he is using religion as a way to get power. But that doesn't mean the rest of you reactionaries get it either. If you think America should be mostly secular that is fine, good luck with that, Christianity is not going anywhere. But if you look at the other writings of the Founders, the meaning on the Establishment clause becomes clear: it is there to protect the religious from the government. Huckabee and Dominionists threaten that, but so do vitriolic ALCU secularists.
Congress should never establish a particular religion, but neither should it take away the right of anyone to practice his religion. The secularists in America today are seeking to do just that, and masking it in this lie that our country was founded by secularists and atheists. This is manifestly untrue.
I will leave you with a parting quote. From a real document not a sorry Google search.
George Mason–VA declaration of rights:
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are
equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
Posted by: Sad for America's 'Discourse' | January 21, 2008 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius:
I'm going to assume you're familiar with the play "(proof)." One of my favorite scenes is when Hal is trying to convince Catherine to come hear his band play at a local bar. The bnd members are all mathematics graduate students, and one of their songs is entitled "i" - theysimply sit and do nothing for three minutes - it's an imaginary number...
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 21, 2008 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
lepidopteryx,arminius:
I don't recall where I heard this, but it is a good one:
"We are all just apes that have mastered indoor plumbing."
If mathematics beyond simple arithmetic was invented to confound mankind, it wasn't very intelligently designed, since it is studied (notice I didn't write 'understood') by so few people.
Maybe it was invented to drive the smart ones mad...
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 21, 2008 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
C'mon, now Mr Mark - do you really want to engage in debate with a religionist who makes an intelligent and compelling argument?
PS - check out Chris Everett's remarks on free will near the end of the current Jacoby thread - fascinating.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 21, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Lep,
It's a joke, of course. And watch that fortified coffee this early! (LOL)
Tell your long-suffering husband this one, from Lazarus Long:
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who can be taught to clothe and feed himself and not make messes about the house."
Posted by: Arminius | January 21, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I do love a good math joke. ;)
One of the places where my husband and I differ is that I see mathematics as a language, with a poetry all its own, and he sees mathematics beyond simple arithmetic as something invented by demons to confound mankind.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry, I did it again. That most recent anonymous post is mine.
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 21, 2008 11:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lepidopteryx:
Your theory about the approximation of small and large 2 is right on the money. It may be a joke that is lost on those that are not mathematically inclined. Full disclosure: I am Math inclined and it is funny as hell to me.
Believe it or not, I once went to a theoretical physics talk where the speaker made the approximation that pi, the speed of light, plancks constant and the square root of 2 were all equal to 1.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2008 10:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To the general reader:
As it appears to me that Spiderman2 is a youth, please do not think he is representative of one who has read and understood the context of the Bible. Remember, biologically, the synapses are not yet fully connecting and the need for a "cause celebre" overrides common sense and decency to the point of not treating people whom he doesn't know with the respect they deserve. One hopes time may change this. Meanwhile, a grain of salt is a propos.
Posted by: Parker | January 21, 2008 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius:
I was doing pretty well until I read your reference to small and large values of 2. Are you referring to rounding decimal values or are you fluent in some dialect of theoretical maths with which I'm not familiar?
Or did I just put a little too much Kahlua in my cafe au lait this morning?
Spidey:
You don't read comics but you base your screen name on one.
As for my name, it's my spirit name, which I felt was most appropriate for a message board on religious ideas. If you think it's comical, that's your prerogative. It's no scales off my wings.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 21, 2008 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam -
I enjoy reading your posts that explain evolution while challenging the knuckle draggers and their childish, Biblical superstitions.
That said, you're casting pearls to swine when you address them to Spidey. He's hopeless - ignorant and proud of it. Unreachable and, therefore, unteachable.
Why are there no religionists at this blog who can make their case intelligently and compellingly? Even the columnists write from a perspective of utter fantasy that's easy to dismiss. It's getting bleak around here for anyone looking to engage in real debate.
C'est la vie.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 21, 2008 10:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Someone should explain to spiderman2 that calling someone a pooh-pooh head is not a very effective form of debate. Or maybe he should go sit at the kid's table...
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 21, 2008 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." Zechariah 14:12
How accurate. There's no other phenomenon on earth that is capable of consuming flesh so fast that a person still stands on his feet as it happens. The heat must be very intense. How did the prophet knew it when there were no nukes in his time coz only a nuke can do such a thing with it's intense heat radiation?
Addicted, that scripture was a fairy tale before when nukes wasn't invented yet. Hell is also a fairy tale until you die and taste it yourself. The bible is not for idiots who says it's a fairy tale when they haven't read it or able to understand an intelligent book Why so much idiocy in this world? A little more time and it would be "showtime" - when tales become reality. Consumed in the flesh and not just with frightening words.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 8:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think the constitution should be amended to include the Bible as an official part of the Constitution. While the Christian far right is busy fighting about who has the True "True Word of God" the rest of us can enjoy our lives (and hopefully get someone sensible elected) as they lie completely impotent arguing the finer points of their preferred version of the same fairy tale...
Posted by: addicted | January 21, 2008 5:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Tom, should I say, the proof is in the eating? I hope you could live 15 years more so you could taste it. I hope you're not a secularist though. Because if you are, the pudding cannot taste itself.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 3:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam said, "Why do you think humans almost all have to have their wisdom teeth surgically removed? Did God just screw up the design? Or could it be that as we evolved a shorter jaw than our apish ancestors.. "
Imagine, we evolved from monkeys because some idiots took their wisdom tooth.
This is the kind stupidity that even God himself has no patience. I'm really convinced that these secularists are real fools just as God had described them.
Pam, the more you talk, the more foolish you become, so keep on talking so other secularists who reads it would be "enlightened". Im not sure though if that is possible. Idiots, enlightened? Naaa.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 3:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam said, "Hope you enjoy your ignorance."
I didn't paste her whole speech coz I didn't enjoy her ignorance. Pam, I said soil because it is where the seed come from if we follow thru with your evolution doctrine. It wouldn't come from the sky, would it? Maybe the soil taught the seed?
The seed has no brain and yet it can harvest sweet fragrance from soil. Hmm, incidental? I presume you have brains but I can give you a billion years of life and yet i won't expect you to produce a fragrant flower even if we use the word incidental. In areas of intelligence, there is no such thing as incidental. Only idiots believe that because that is how they think -- purely incidental and without intelligence.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 2:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Read more about fossil genes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040921081106.htm
Also, Spidey - Why do you think humans almost all have to have their wisdom teeth surgically removed? Did God just screw up the design?
Or could it be that as we evolved a shorter jaw than our apish ancestors, we no longer had room for them to come in? We just didn't lose the teeth as fast as the jaw shortened. Evolution waiting to happen. Although, since we invented orthodontic surgery, there's no more selective pressure to lose the teeth, so we're stuck with them.
Posted by: Pam | January 21, 2008 12:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lepidopteryx:
Anon:
Easy way toprove 2 + 2 = 4. Hold up 2 fingers. then hold up 2 more. How many fingers are you holding up? 4. No matter how many times you do this, it will always come out the same
Hey idiot, re-read the post. I asked you to determine "Who made this equation truth Fred? Can you prove it by announcing the source behind the founding truth?"
Not just because it has been in existence for many years and over and over again people have accepted it as truth.
Where is the proof that 2+2=4, by its initial development as truth?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 21, 2008 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Wow, I didn't know science was that intelligent."
Well no, how would you, since you've never made even a passing acquaintance with any of it.
This statement of yours is particularly moronic:
"Science also know how soil is able to bear tasty edible fruits and fragrant flowers and how soil know our sense of taste and smell. "
You do realize, don't you, that *soil* bears neither flowers nor fruit - plants do? And that plants are living things on which natural selection works?
Both the taste of fruits and their colors, meant to attract animals that will eat them and then disperse their seeds, and the sweet smell of flowers, meant to attract the insects that pollinate them, are the products of millions of years of evolution. Random mutation might change a smell, and if that smell is effective in attracting a pollinator, the genes of that plant, carrying the mutation, are more widely spread than those of its less attractive brethren. That's how natural selection works.
Oh, sorry, am I bursting your bubble? Did you think that God made the flowers smell sweet just for our pleasure? In case you still do, check out (and explain to me) the stapeliad family, with flowers that smell like either excrement or carrion - because its pollinators are flies.
The same applies to fruit, most of which is meant to be attractive to birds, which eat the seeds, soften the hulls by passing them through their digestive tracts, and then disperse them widely by flying and leaving seed-contining droppings wherever they go.
Humans are just incidental beneficiaries of all this evolution.
Want more? Birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have 5-way color vision (we know this because of the opsins in their retinas). Most mammals have only 2-way color vision. This is because the first mammals were small nocturnal creatures living in a world dominated by giant reptiles. In the dark, color vision is useless. Use it or lose it - when there is no selective pressure to maintain a gene, errors are allowed to accumulate until the gene no longer codes for the trait. We can still see these "fossil genes", and the errors in their code. We can tell, therefore, what once existed, but is now lost.
Some of the old world primates, including the great apes and humans, re-evolved one of the opsins when they became diurnal, because it helped them to see the more nutritious young leaves (which are often red) and fruit. New world monkeys still have only 2-color vision.
If we were created by God, why did he shortchange us on the color vision that he gave to newts? Their view of the world is incomparably richer than ours. And what are those fossil opsins all about?
And what about the great sense of smell that he gave to all the mammals that only have 2-color vision? Our ancestors lost that when we came out of the night and got our third color. We can't even imagine the things a dog knows about the world by way of its nose. BUT...the fossil genes are there in our DNA, telling us that we once had a much better sense of smell.
I could go on and on, but I know that all of this is WAY over your head, so I'm sure you'll just declare me stupid and steamroll on.
Hope you enjoy your ignorance.
Posted by: Pam | January 21, 2008 12:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff, there are a lot of people with more defects than you have. There are those who use their good looks for profit and as a result would go to hell. It would be sad if you'd go to hell just because of that defect. I've seen people with worse condition and yet very faithful to the Lord. Sometimes, I feel, they're the fortunate ones. MOre fortunate than most people. Much more than those with good looks but would spend eternal life in hell.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 21, 2008 12:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lepidopteryx: , I don't read comic books but if there's a one word comic book, it would be your name. Im not sure if that would count.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 11:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon, If you want a reply from me, please state your name.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 11:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
lepidopteryx, I don't read comic books but if there's a one word comic book, it would be your name.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Park, it's a simple verse and yet you don't understand it. It says hating WITHOUT A CAUSE. Also mine is not hating but reminding. It's like saying "hey, don't jump off that building coz you're gonna die. Geez, the idiot jump."
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Aaron said, "I am sorry, but you don't understand much about science. The most amazing thing about science is that it shows us the workings of the world, and the universe, can be understood logically. It doesn't require belief in anything supernatural such as any god. "
Yes, science has logical answers like why there is gravity in matter. Science also knows what started that Big Bang. Science also knows the mysteries about DNA. Science also know how to raise a dead back to life since it also know where life started. Science also know how soil is able to bear tasty edible fruits and fragrant flowers and how soil know our sense of taste and smell.
Wow, I didn't know science was that intelligent. Or is it just a secular way of thinking -- just plain stupidity.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 11:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Lep! Well met!
2 + 2 = 4 ?
Well, now. According to Murphy's Laws, 2+2=3 for small values of 2, and 2+2=5 for large values of 2. Politicians and 'creative' accountants are known to abide by this.
How you doin', dear lady?
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | January 20, 2008 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon:
Easy way toprove 2 + 2 = 4. Hold up 2 fingers. then hold up 2 more. How many fingers are you holding up? 4. No matter how many times you do this, it will always come out the same.
Spidey:
I find it hilarious that you of all people chide others about comic books.
Jeff:
As I was born with a severe club foot and have had all the toes on one foot amputated due to osteomyelitis over the past two decades, I'd reconsider Christianity if Jesus would make my foot whole so that I could wear cute shoes and toe rings...
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 20, 2008 9:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ken,
When I was a student at LSU, Brother Jed and Sister Cindy used to preachin front of the Student Union.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 20, 2008 8:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2,
I still don't get how you claim to be knowledgeable about the Bible, yet disregard Matthew 5:22, Matthew 7:1-2 and 7:21? I know you have formed strong opinions from some conflated teachings taught badly and understood badly, but to what purpose? (Perhaps yours is a secret purpose known only to you in how you apply the teachings of the Bible? Or are you just trying to make Huckabee look bad?)
Posted by: Parker | January 20, 2008 8:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace,
I looked at that web site. God save us, that is a bunch of religious Nazis, and the Huckster is in bed with them. I will not sleep well tonight. All should read it.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | January 20, 2008 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
SPIDERMAN2 wrote
"All I'm saying are just warnings from the Bible which was written even before you were born. All one has got to do is just follow it so you won't be included in the endtime judgment of God. What's so hard about that?"
----------------------------------------------------
Most people do not believe the words written in the Bible were written by God. If you were taught it was written by God, and still believe it, you will not understand.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Julie: >
Julie, you sound like my superstitious grandfather: He told my mother when she was in high school that she didn't need to go to college because "Jesus was coming".
Luckily my grandmother prevailed and my mother got her college education.
My mother is now in her eighties,and my grandfather long dead.
But the Crazies are still all around us.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2008 6:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think Huckabee intent was to add only 2 amendments to the Constitution to make it more Godly. For that, I think he should be excused -- instead of being accused of trying to subvert the Republic.
But, it begs the quesiton:
Why doesn't Huckabee want to add even more amendments to be more fully in line with the Bible.
Here's just a couple:
#1 Executing children that have not respected their parents. (Yes this was the penalty in the OT)
#2 Executing people who don't FULLY and COMPLETELY worship the Sabbath. (Ditto, this was strictly observed)
PS. There never was ANY biblical authority for chaning the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. (Which is why Seventh Day Adventists worship on Saturday.)
Now, good Christians will note that Jesus's commandments on love were meant to replace these
harsh OT laws.
But would these not include the OT laws against stoning gays? (There wer never any laws against abortion in the Bible. The OT never mentions abortion as a criminal act.)
I guess Jesus' love was "selective" --conservative Christians like Huckabee must be saying!!
That's the problem!
Posted by: ThinkAboutIt | January 20, 2008 5:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ANONYMOUS,
Please elaborate more on your last post. How is "The Christians you mentioned... hid their sin" consistent with "At least Christians don't hide themselves and are upfront..."?
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 20, 2008 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
My post: "At least Christians don't "hide" themselves and are upfront about making mistakes."
Pam wrote:
"Oh, PUH-LEESE!!!
Tell it to Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, and all those Catholic priests.
Don't EVEN try to to convince us with this canard"
I said, "at least Christians don't "hid" themselves. The Christians you mentioned as a rebuttal to my post "hid their sin" until they were caught. So your example of Christians not hiding what they do wrong is contradictory.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2008 4:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Though, just in case anyone wants to see more scary Dominionist ties to Huckabee: or wonders why most Americans ought to be concerned:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/175629/012/188/439174
Posted by: Paganplace | January 20, 2008 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 said: "Some people just have a wrong perception about science. When some person discover a scientific wonder, secularists puts the person or the technolgy on a pedestal. What they don't realize is that it's been there since creation but it's only now that it is discovered. It's the gold and not the miner, so to speak. Secularist concentrate too much on the miner and not the gold or the source of the gold. Typical of secularist foolishness."
I am sorry, but you don't understand much about science. The most amazing thing about science is that it shows us the workings of the world, and the universe, can be understood logically. It doesn't require belief in anything supernatural such as any god. To be sure there are interesting things that are discovered, but the real story is the not what we find, but rather the way in which we find them. Your example likens science to some 19th century miner randomly looking for veins of gold. It is not the result we scientists find to be the most important, it is the way in which we find them - the scientific approach.
So you are wrong about science. It is not the miner that is the story, and it is not the gold, it is the approach that allows us to show how finding the gold is a part of a beautiful self-consistent process requiring no belief in supernatural events. Science is the process. What you wrote is typical foolishness from those that don't understand science. You religious beliefs prevent you from seeing reality as it is.
Posted by: aaron | January 20, 2008 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ked sez:
"Now, say a prayer for the Nation..."
What a waste of good groveling that would be.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 20, 2008 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The threat posed by extremist religous groups in the US is not to be minimized. They indoctrinate children as the Soviet system did, and the radical Islamic madrass schools do today - even to the extent of establishing paramilitary camps. As their belief system becomes radicalized from within and challenged (or ignored, or flawed in light of facts) from without, they will turn to subversion. Faith untempered by reason justify any means, and desperate believers will engage in desperate acts.
Here is a recent post worth review...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/175629/012/188/439174
For those whose interest is in the American roots (& results) of the human frailties exampled by some commentators herein...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment
Now, say a prayer for the Nation...
Posted by: ked | January 20, 2008 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Some people just have a wrong perception about science. When some person discover a scientific wonder, secularists puts the person or the technolgy on a pedestal. What they don't realize is that it's been there since creation but it's only now that it is discovered. It's the gold and not the miner, so to speak. Secularist concentrate too much on the miner and not the gold or the source of the gold. Typical of secularist foolishness.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff P wrote:
J. Rhinehart:
That would be cool, wouldn't it! Although, I'm a pediatrician and I've never seen or heard that it's possible, depending on the distance from the end of the finger. In fact, even fingertip amputations seem to not really add length. I would be interested in knowing about this, if you can guide me into any studies about it.
Thanks for your post.
January 19, 2008 11:25 PM
------------------------------------------------------
Did a Google on {"fingertip regrowth" + regeneration} & found a comment by Presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich last March who said his brother had several fingers cut off & they grew back, with the fingernails somewhat different. He also includes a link to a Fox News Science Info website on the subject. If you're a doctor, I'm surprised you haven't heard of this. I didn't however find any "official" medical sites with this information. Another site said parts of other animals have been known to grow back & hypothesized as to scar tissue in humans being different. Not being a medical professional, I don't know the details of how a scar forms or why it does or doesn't.
It seems there should be more info somewhere.
In my own personal experience, I sliced off a side of one finger a few yrs ago around age 50 & it grew back bigger than before, not a scar but like a lump of skin; it sticks out now, & I tried to trim it down with the fingernail clippers but it's still there. It's beside my fingernail.
I look forward to the day when a replacement organ or limb can be grown from our own cells.
Posted by: J. Rhinehart | January 20, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Roy, what is hateful about believers? All I'm saying are just warnings from the Bible which was written even before you were born. All one has got to do is just follow it so you won't be included in the endtime judgment of God. What's so hard about that? Is it easier to rebel to God's word than just follow what it says?
You should not equate God with "godly" people or with me. Read the Bible and learn from it directly. Know him directly thru the bible.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff P., Im glad that you're interested with my opinion. Please read this website coz it may answer some of your questions.
http://spidermean2.blogs.friendster.com/spiderman2/
http://www.religion.bravehost.com
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 9:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If God's just a neocon / neochristian Republican, then I'm an atheist. I would rather take my chances in the afterlife than pledge allegiance to their hateful bigotry in this life.
Posted by: Roy | January 20, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ChaseMonster and HJByer -- C'mon, guys, use your heads - it's Satan who caused Huckabee's losses.
God gets credit for the good stuff and Satan gets credit for the bad stuff. Got that straight?
Plus, it's all part of God's plan. Get it?
If not, just stop thinking about it and take it on faith.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 20, 2008 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
All you secularists here are a bunch of fools. God said that the U.S is the chosen one. Now if you think you are not among the chosen ones, then you are in great danger coz this world will be cleansed from pests.
The U.S has been built by believers of God starting from the Puritans upto its descendants who are the faithful believers.
All these noises we hear from secularists are just temporary. Judgment is coming soon and we'll miss you guys a few years from now.
Huckabee may not win this election for now but I'm sure he would be the president the moment the pests are extinguished.
Terra Gazelle, I don't only know the past but also the future. Thanks to the Word of God , the Bible. But the book is only for the wise. No fools would be able understand it so all of you secularists really don't know what's coming your way. Enjoy life to the last minute coz God won't give you a second of enjoyment once it's over.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 20, 2008 8:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2:
I often hear the word "founding fathers" as secularists. Have you guys heard of the word "puritans" who first landed in Massachusettes and has built this country from scratch? Are you all ignorant? Where have you been?
Spidey...I hate to tell you this and break your bubble but-the Constitution of the United States was not ever a Puritan document. And the Puritans did not build this nation. And the puritans were one set of folks here..they were not the only group.
And the founders were not Puritans..read some history.
terra
Posted by: Terra Gazelle | January 20, 2008 4:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Darn it, darn it, darn it, ...Maybe it's just as well, but I was kind of hoping the evangelicals would have their toot before they started working on rationalizing how Romney or Giuliani is the only Godly choice.
But, it was bound to come out, sooner or later.
I knew when the corporate media was squirming so uncomfortably about polls and *gasp* Caucus processes that involve human interaction, not advertising and 'buying' all down to a science...
That they'd have to do something.
Course, then the Huckster had to go waving Confederate flags and talking about actually-literally-theocratizing the Constitution, and where are we now.
I was really kind of looking forward to actually seeing how the Fundies dealt with the issues with their man up front...
Now we gotta deal with Guy Smiley of a Romney claiming the manufacturing jobs will come back to Michigan, ...with what, his corporate pandering like he did in Massachusetts?
Oh, it'll be just like the Seventies: prop up the steel industry.... 's financial owners, and deregulate American efficiency and emissions requirements..... so the Asian companies can make cars that run on amounts of gas we can afford with cheaper labor while American companies keep saying we want bigger and lower-tech-cars with parts from... ummm... overseas.
Gee, that worked before. Ask Mr. Iacocca.
Pbbbbbt.
Now we got that and Mr. 9/11... Ok, you walked down the street and looked impressive *once* while people were dying cause you didn't think a walkie talkie upgrade was warranted..
And that's *all he ever runs on.*
Gods forbid a Christian should look at a Democrat, but, yaknow, I was kinda looking forward to these Fundies having their say for real.
Or.... Was the Confederate flag and the Christian-only-nation amendment *actually their say?*
Never mind.
Posted by: Paganplace | January 20, 2008 2:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Too bad Huckabee is a goner.
I would have loved to see him been taken apart.
Too bad.
Posted by: Richard | January 20, 2008 1:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
After Iowa, God issued a recall of Huckabee's candidacy for irreparable defects dangerous to our democracy. You scoff? How do YOU explain his subsequently losing each primary?
Posted by: jhbyer | January 20, 2008 12:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If Huckabee truly is a servant of God, shouldn't he be pulling out of the race, now that he is no longer God's choice as the Republican nominee?
I mean, just as he gave God the credit for his lone victory in Iowa, shouldn't he also be giving Him the credit for his subsequent losses in New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina?
So for him to continue campaigning is in complete defiance of God's wishes and is blasphemy!
Posted by: chasemonster | January 19, 2008 11:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
J. Rhinehart:
That would be cool, wouldn't it! Although, I'm a pediatrician and I've never seen or heard that it's possible, depending on the distance from the end of the finger. In fact, even fingertip amputations seem to not really add length. I would be interested in knowing about this, if you can guide me into any studies about it.
Thanks for your post.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 19, 2008 11:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
God has spoken tonight.
McCain is His man!
He liked Huckabee at first, and gave him his victory in Iowa, but later changed His mind and now is a BIG McCain Man!
However, and I want to make this clear, God may choose to switch candidates again in Florida. He may decide that Giuliani is His man.
Whatever the case, at least for tonight, God has chosen McCain and made him the winner!
Posted by: chasemonster | January 19, 2008 10:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is interesting to know that Nobel laureate Spider identified (with the direct help of God, probably, which is of course kind of unfair) that the DNA represents a von Neuman machine. The only things we then need to figure out then are: what is the CPU , where is the memory and the registers, and where is the control logic?
Spider, sorry, you're a fool.
Rest of the thread: ignore him, it's hopeless.
Posted by: Richard | January 19, 2008 10:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman,
Everything you post is blasphemy and ignorance. Get your nose out of your Bible and think about the vileness that you attribute to God -- characterizing God as a vanity-driven mass murderer. Huckabee promotes the same bibliolatry and blasphemy, and that is why he is unfit for national leadership.
Posted by: Steve | January 19, 2008 9:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
TO Jeff P,
I read your post saying you would believe in God if only one amputee from Iraq grew a limb back. Have you heard of childhood fingers growing back? If a child is under 10 yrs old, and the finger is not lost below the first joint, and if it is not stitched or otherwise interfered with, it will grow back. Perhaps it has something to do with stem cells, which become inactive with age.
Perhaps one day doctors will be able to treat a limb & make it grow back. They are now creating stem cells from adult skin cells.
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 19, 2008 9:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
TO ANONYMOUS,
I was reading these last back-and-forth's with interest. I noticed you said non-Christians live a lie & do not trust anyone, including God. You seem to contrast that with the openly honest lives of Christians.
Do you think all Christians are open & honest about their lives?
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 19, 2008 8:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous wrote:
"Pam wrote: 'who asked you to.'
And you shouldn't, PERIOD!~"
What????
I shouldn't ever ask you to make apologies for asking to be treated with respect????
I wasn't aware that I ever *had* asked *anyone* such a thing.
For that matter, I don't at all understand why you seemed to think I'd launch an ad hominem attack on you just because you asked me to explain what I meant by "Anonymous (the real one)." What kind of a pyschopath do you think I am? Are you confusing me with Spidey?
I think my posts on this thread have been reasonable and calm, on the whole. The only name-calling I've done is in regard to Angela B., when I was establishing my "mean" credentials. It was meant, at least in part, to be humorous.
It was certainly no worse than your sarcastic implication that I was likely to fly off the handle and spew rude invective when asked a simple question.
Posted by: Pam | January 19, 2008 7:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam wrote: "who asked you to."
And you shouldn't, PERIOD!~
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2008 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Colem: Amazing, thanks for the confirmation of Huckabee’s informant, a pat on the back is in order. Purposely a "lie" was told for Huckabee? Knowing that would certainly reveal a connection between the two, and that it did?
Will there ever be trust? Is there proof that Huckabee is a liar? If so state it in an effective form of communication. Otherwise the constant distrust without proof would lead to the public never trusting Huckabee and corrode and dismantle any hope of trust developing in the future with the public.
It serves as a barrier and a deterrent. To date, no proof so what are his critics hoping to find? So what if Huckabee makes a mistake and confesses to be a Christian, he is human. Is there any human being without errors in their life? His intentions are sincere and that says a lot about his character.
The main things are intact, such as fidelity, love for his brethren, hope for better things to come about for his country, absence of the desire to be deceitful, and the ability to forgive. Can we ask for anymore then that? Stop tinkering with it.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2008 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam,
I agree. I'm completely tired of his drivel.
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 5:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Im busy righr now and won't be able to make replies."
Pity.
Posted by: Pam | January 19, 2008 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Im busy righr now and won't be able to make replies. But just for you secularist who don't think. Study this :
DNAs are like computer programs on a CD but they act very differently. It's like plugging a CD on an electrical outlet and then that CD morphs into a CD player and plays its tune. That is how intelligent the maker of DNA is and I call that maker God. Science won't be able to reach that level of intelligence. They can only mimic or copy a DNA function but they can never understand it's secrets like how and why DNAs exist
The same inteligence will burn you after you won't be needing air anymore. Beware.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 5:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Sorry to disrupt your mode of posting on this forum, but I will not be choosing another 'handle name.' "
Don't put "handle name" in quotes - I never used that term.
Suit yourself. It does nothing to "disrupt [my] mode of posting", but it does engender possible confusion as to who a post is from, since several use "Anonymous." If this doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother me.
"Considering the post on this forum that contained 'character bashing and immature, and down right 'stupid' responses was exactly the reason that I ask you to avoid in the same in your response to me and was well within reason for me to request."
Who said it wasn't? And I responded as requested.
"I make no apologies for asking to be treated with respect."
Who asked you to?
Posted by: Pam | January 19, 2008 5:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, E Fav,
Gotta differ with you. An amputee is an amputee, regardless of belief. If Jesus came back today, I firmly believe He would heal whomever He met. In my humble belief, the love of God does not discriminate. I'm sure our modern Pharacees would disagree.....
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam,
Sorry to disrupt your mode of posting on this forum, but I will not be choosing another "handle name."
Considering the post on this forum that contained "character bashing and immature, and down right “stupid” responses was exactly the reason that I ask you to avoid in the same in your response to me and was well within reason for me to request.
I make no apologies for asking to be treated with respect.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2008 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff P: "My request would be much simpler: heal, in a controlled, observed setting, one amputee from the Iraq war. Just re-grow one limb, secondary to the prayers of others."
That would get my attention, to be sure, but it would't make me believe in the whole Jesus story, which could be unrelated to the existence of a God. I'm also pretty sure I wouldn't be inspired to worship this god -- healing only one amputee is almost as mean as not healing any, and is in keeping with his random healing record up to now.
Now if God healed an atheist amputee, then promised not to send him to hell, even though the atheist wouldn't give god credit for the healing, then I'd give him a second look.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 19, 2008 5:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"At least Christians don't "hide" themselves and are upfront about making mistakes. You lie if you try and say otherwise because you readily admitted to knowing that Christian's make mistakes and ask to be forgiven by God."
Oh, PUH-LEESE!!!
Tell it to Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, and all those Catholic priests.
Don't EVEN try to to convince us with this canard!
Posted by: Pam | January 19, 2008 5:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No character-bashing involved. We had been corresponding with one "Anonymous", who spoke with a certain characteristic style, and then a second "Anonymous" popped up, who spoke with a very different style, instantly recognizable as Spiderman2, who often forgets, in his eagerness to post, to add his handle.
I just wanted it to be clear which Anony I was replying to.
If you want no errors, choose a handle for yourself.
The sarcasm in your second paragraph is particularly charming, BTW.
Posted by: Pam | January 19, 2008 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark wrote: "As for the atheists, and the like, turning your back on God and claiming not to believe in Him, does not provide the excuse that you might think of allowing you to live a live with no morals. Most atheists I know have a higher sense of morals than do the religious people I know. That comes with the territory when you don't carry a religious get-out-of-jail-free card in your wallet (ie: forgiveness & salvation) to pull out when ever your morals and ethics take a hike."
Yes, you may be correct, but my guess is that if you open their closet of skeleton bones you will find that the only thing Atheist are better at then Christian who make mistake and ask forgiveness for are:
1. They are better at hiding their wrongs as to save face; therefore they live a "total lie" before others.
2. Are cold-hearted people that live in fear of trusting in anything or anyone? That is why they do not believe in God.
At least Christians don't "hide" themselves and are upfront about making mistakes. You lie if you try and say otherwise because you readily admitted to knowing that Christian's make mistakes and ask to be forgiven by God.
By your own admission you stated in your post that Christians "carry a religious get-out-of-jail-free card in your wallet (ie: forgiveness & salvation) to pull out when ever your morals and ethics take a hike.
It is better then living a lie and hiding all your life.
You have a good evening.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2008 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam wrote: Anonymous (the real one) wrote:
If the anonymous you are referring to is the real one then what do you consider the other anonymous to be?
Just curious, but I'd love to hear your intellectual, non-character bashing, mature, response. If you can respond in that manner.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2008 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"As for the atheists, and the like, turning your back on God and claiming not to believe in Him, does not provide the excuse that you might think of allowing you to live a live with no morals."
Most atheists I know have a higher sense of morals than do the religious people I know. That comes with the territory when you don't carry a religious get-out-of-jail-free card in your wallet (ie: forgiveness & salvation) to pull out when ever your morals and ethics take a hike.
BTW, my dear religionist - do you believe that all gods are real, or do you believe that there is only one god, and that he is your god? I suspect that the latter is the case, and if that is the case, then anyone who worships a god other than your god is no better off than an atheist, are they? In fact, they may be worse off for worshipping a false god in place of your "real" god. Those who believe in different gods than do you were who you were referring to above when you wrote, "and the like," correct?
Here's the thing: what if YOUR god is one of the false gods?
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 19, 2008 4:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Evil wrote: "I can happily admit I'm wrong (can you?), I just need valid evidence. Don't assume that because I don't believe, I won't or cant. I believe 2+2=4."
Who made this equation truth Fred? Can you prove it by announcing the source behind the founding truth?
Not just because it has been in existence for many years and over and over again people have accepted it as truth.
Where is the proof that 2+2=4, by its initial development as truth?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2008 4:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Roy, Just curious, where is the non-Christ like insinuation/behavior in spiderman2's post?
Roy wrote: "I didn't know that coming nuke is for pro-abotionist crowd also.
Real Christ-like, huh?
Spiderman2 wrote:
"I have a good advice. You abortionists should start looking up the sky. That MASS-ABORTIONIST nuke might slip pass the defense shield.
"Alas, alas, that great city... for in one hour is she made desolate". Revelation 18: 19."
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2008 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
All you secularists here. Wake up from your idiocy. Judgment is coming and be better be ready.
Spidey - that's the difference between my secular self and you - I don't believe in judgement day, therefore I have no fear or apprehensions. When death comes I'm ready.
Posted by: Julie | January 19, 2008 3:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, I'm afraid that Huck went someplace he shouldn't have gone. It might seem like a small wound now, but it will fester, and if he should get the nomination, the democrats will crusify him for this theocratic tripe. Sorry, couldn't resist. There is no place, and never has been, for someone that wants to force their morals on america in the white house. More and more, people are waking up, and realizing that religion, all religion, is just another santa clause story that you don't have to wake up from. One "anonymous" poster said that god wrote the bible. This is the kind of mind numbing idiocy that enlightnened humans can no longer tollerate. God never wrote anything. Every word in every religious text on the planet was written by people, and if some of the things that were written way back when the earth was flat and rested on the back of a turtle, were written today, the author would be given a special jacket, some drugs, and a padded room. Religion was created by people to manipulate and control people, by taking advantage of our inate belief in a power greater than ourselvs. I believe in god, the nature of which I can't begin to comprehend, but I do not believe in religions and people that would attempt to profit in money or power by taking advantage of that belief, and that includes Mike Wannabe.
Posted by: Hank | January 19, 2008 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is to Angela, Spider, and anyone else who thinks they've been "insulted" because of their beliefs, on here.
I am baffled by the arrogance displayed by many of you, including Huckabee in his speech. I don't care what you believe, but the fact that you insist on judging the rest of us is insulting. You might not call it judging, but when you start using the word sin and sinner, and implying the direction our souls will go when we die, that is all judging. How dare you! What gives you the right, especially when your own bible tells you to not judge others, and that you cannot know the mind of God. How dare you insist that we all live according to YOUR rules, no matter how much you insist that God wrote them. For you to then, after insulting us, and judging us when we won't conform to YOUR standards, how dare you imply that we're persecuting you for no reason!
Let's turn this on its head for a moment. You know all those other "crazy" religions? The Scientologists? The Jehovah's Witnesses? etc. The ones that come running up to you and start informing you that the way you're living your life is wrong. They all know because some book that claimed to be the truth told them. They disagree with the way you live your life, and want you to change, because they know that God, out of everyone in history, has informed THEM. How do you usually feel about them? Do you stop and consider what they have to say, giving it your full attention and consideration? or do you dismiss it or ignore them? That's how we feel about you, when you start getting on your high horse and start spouting scriptures about the way, the truth and the light.
It is completely arrogant of you to not consider that we have our own beliefs. We have come to these either being raised that way, or by seeking them out ourselves. Your preaching is more annoying and less effective then the telemarketers who call during dinner. Thank you, but I happen to like my long distance service. If I wanted to switch, I'd look up you, and not the other way around.
Pull your head out of your . . . clouds. Shut up and take a look around. You might not believe in other people's religions, but you can learn a lot from just being respectful.
Posted by: Shemhazai | January 19, 2008 1:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2--
I don't mean this to be in any way disrespectful, so please don't take it this way--
What evidence would it take for you to change your mind about your beliefs? (Any answer is acceptable.)
For me, who reluctantly lost my faith (several times praying that God wouldn't let it happen to me) it would only take one thing: Seriously, Thomas had to put his hands into the wounds of Jesus prior to his being willing to believe. My request would be much simpler: heal, in a controlled, observed setting, one amputee from the Iraq war. Just re-grow one limb, secondary to the prayers of others. One limb, among the several hundred amputees of this war.
If that were to happen, I (and probably billions of others) would see, like the disciple Thomas, that it's the real deal. I'd happily recognize the truth. It's not just that I'm some idiot that doesn't want to see truth, or that I'd want to lead others to error. I'm just trying to be intellectually and spiritually honest, which (if there is a God) I think he'd appreciate.
Respectfully, Jeff
Posted by: Jeff P | January 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Jeff,
Thanks! I read all your posts with interest and appreciation.
Attempts were made to raise me as Christian, but it did not take. After college, I was agnostic and/or atheist (depending on the mood) for over 30 years. Then, a spiritual experience turned me back..... there is freedom in religion, too, if you approach it in the right manner. It is not a series of laws, it is a doorway.
God does not hate. Any who say so should start at Matthew and continue up to Revelations. But stop there, for a real breather.
With respect,
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You guys don't understand anything. Not the Bible, not even Darwin's Descent of Man. Even Benjamin's last words.
Im telling this not to insult you but just to warn other people who may dangerously follow your footsteps.
All you secularists here. Wake up from your idiocy. Judgment is coming and be better be ready.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, thanks for your posts. I admire your independent spirit and share your passion regarding the protection of our great idea of government by the people, for the people. I would fight right beside you to keep it that way, as would many moderate others on both sides of the main argument.
What I see in postings from Angela B and Spiderman2 are desperate if not very geniune attempts to "fight the good fight." I think they see these conversations as the beginnings of the end of the world, a fulfillment of their prophesies, and almost a tangible delight in knowing they will be drawn up to heaven in the rapture while, all along, those of us they were trying to convince will begin the forever roasting at God's pleasure. I've actually read from these posters that "you'll never know how much God hates you..." sort of dialogue. They are hard-wired, damaged goods. But ultimately you (and they) are correct--it's fruitless to "argue" with someone who's certain.
I was a Christian for 47 years, only the last two of which the questions and conflicts and inconsistencies and a perception of "is religion really good for the world?" ultimately hurried my faith out of the window with the softness of butterfly wings, and it's been no going back, but a delightful discovery of real "freedom." It is wondeful to think freely, finally.
I appreciate your writings and willingness to share your thoughts, as I learn alot with each post. Thanks.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 19, 2008 11:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris,
Right you are, no use trying to talk to this idiot. I'm gonna go talk to a brick wall - at least it won't spew ignorance back at me. I am weary of trying to communicate with someone who has the audacity to call himself Christian, but is mired in Leviticus, and apparently has never read the Gospels.
With respect,
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, The statement you provided as Benjamin's words also states that he believes in Jesus. He is a Christian. Do you understand English?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
SPIDERMAN2,
Do you expect me to believe that you've read Darwin in the original? You're just repeating what your church community told you is in Darwin's books.
I know there's no real reason to communicate with you. In fact, interaction with you doesn't even qualify as communication. So to everyone else I apologize if, by stringing this numbskull along, I have impeded more enlightening discussion. C'est tout pour moi. (That's "See you, wouldn't want to be you" to you, SPIDERMAN2).
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 19, 2008 11:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Got to go guys. Read more about Benjamin Franklin so you don't claim that he's a secularist. You guys are reading too much comic books like the evolution theory. What do I expect from people whose lineage comes from apes?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidy2,
Will you EVER get your facts straight? Of COURSE Old Ben believed in God. Deists do just that. But Mr Franklin specified that he had doubts about the divinity of Jesus. Does that make Old Ben a true Christian?
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
chris, read about Darwin's "the Descent of Man" so you would know about evolution. Your grandpa is a monkey. That was what darwin is telling you.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, no wonder you don't understand anything, The statement you provided as Benjamin's words reflect of a person who believes in God. Stay with comics so you don't mislead other people.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
SPIDERMAN2,
You write: Arminius and Everett, you guys should agree first about Benjamin's religion before confronting me. Set your facts first. Im confused by the conflicting staements you make.
Funny, I've made NO STATEMENT about Benjamin's religion. You really ARE confused!
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 19, 2008 10:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Just like any other Republican, Mike Huckabible is doing his part to turn Christianity into the biggest joke of a religion on the planet.
Posted by: chasemonster | January 19, 2008 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
IDIOT,
Evolution does not say that humans came from monkeys. It affirms that humans and monkeys (and in fact all known terrestrial life) eventually share a common ancestry when you trace their respective ancestries back far enough. You really should try to educate yourself about something before you criticize it. As it is, all you are doing is making an ignorant statement, declaring it to be nonsense, and thinking you've proven something. For a good book on deep human geneology, going back to the beginning of life itself, I recommend The Ancestor's Tale by Dr. Richard Dawkins. Not only does Dr. Dawkins present the current evolutionary state of knowledge, but he describes the evidence upon which that knowledge is founded and discusses the analytical methods used to translate the evidence into a coherent model. It's written with an eye towards people like you who make blanket statements that evolution is a "religion", that there's no evidence for it, or that it's some kind of liberal conspiracy perpetrated by a politically-motivated cabal of the worlds leading academic institutions. But I don't want to give the impression that it's specifically directed at idiots like you; it's a great book and I recommend it to everyone else on the blog. Oh, and did I say you are an idiot? Good, because you are. An idiot, that is. Oh, and do you think I'm talking to you? Why? I haven't used any names, just the word "idiot", idiot.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 19, 2008 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius and Everett, you guys should agree first about Benjamin's religion before confronting me. Set your facts first. Im confused by the conflicting staements you make.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris,
What a spirited reply to our resident madman, Spiderman2! Well done.
Here is more info about Old Ben:
In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...:
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...."
Deal with it, Spidy2. If you can.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, It is only now that Episcopalians and Anglicans bend towards liberalism but during those times, these people were religious zealots.It's only this time also that people are so brave challenging God that is why it is only at this time that nukes are invented to be used against this so called "brave" enemies of God. God knows at what moment when He would let man "discover" about nuclear energy is. He timed it for the right period when most people would rebel against him.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
SPIDERMAN2,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_franklin
You are a SH*THEAD!!! When you talk that kind of TRASH about my homey BEN FRANKLIN you're in for an A$$ WHOOPING!!!
Why can't you see what an IDIOT you are?... Oh, that's why.
"Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so."
Poor Richard's Almanack, 1743
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
"He [the Rev. Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard."
Franklin's Autobiography
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 19, 2008 10:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 -
Ben Franklin was a nominal Episcopalian, but a Deist at heart. He supported all religious beliefs in the Colonies, but really adhered to none.
What planet did you say you were from?
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 10:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius, what books are you reading? Comics? Your ideas are out of this world. Study about definitions first before making statements.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 10:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris Everett said " Benjamin Franklin was a Bostonian who fled Boston as a teenager due in part to the stultifying atmosphere of religion that pervaded Puritan Massachusetts at the time."
Typical of secularist lies like humans come from monkeys. Benjamin Franklin is a religious person with some Quaker beliefs in him.
Talking about ignorance, Im tired of correcting all the ignorance that has been put forward by you and your ilk in this blog. It's so tiring that it's easier for God to just let you turn into dust than convincing you about things that you won't understand anyway.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee's planned attack on the Constitution is the result of the Christain right wing political evolution over the last 30 years or more as exemplified by "wackos" such as Falwell and Robertson. It is not surprising that they intend to suppress the Constitution in the name of God and establish a theocracy! This is exactly what the Founding Fathers strived to prevent!
Posted by: Ken | January 19, 2008 10:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee's planned attack on the Constitution is the result of the Christain right wing political evolution over the last 30 years or more as exemplified by "wackos" such as Falwell and Robertson. It is not surprising that they intend to suppress the Constitution in the name of God and establish a theocracy! This is exactly what the Founding Fathers strived to prevent!
Posted by: Ken | January 19, 2008 10:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"The authorities that exist have been established by God."
All of them? Hitler? Idi Amin? Augusto Pinochet? Saddam Husein?
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 19, 2008 10:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Correct me if I'm wrong -- but I have always thought our Constitution was about protecting our rights, not taking our rights away. I don't believe that our Constitution is fair game for people who want to amend it so that it lines up with their personal beliefs.
Posted by: Mary | January 19, 2008 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 -
You are beyond comprehension or acceptance. First, you tell us God will nuke the 'unbelievers'. Next, you twist history to suit your own mad beliefs. Are you for real, or simply here to stir up controversy?
Ah, yes, the founding fathers. Puritan? No. The term 'Founding Fathers' encompasses the group of men who served from the Declaration of Independence to the first actual Congress under the new Constitution. Over 50% were Episcopalian/Anglican, a far cry from Puritan. Further, some, like Jefferson, were Deists, and others, like John Adams and George Washington, were close to being Deists.
Get your nose out of the Old Testament and Revelations and try reading some real history. Then, when you go back to the Bible, start with the Gospels.
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 10:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
SPIDERMAN2,
The Puritans had very little to do with the founding of the U.S. The secular ethos that this country is founded on was primarily developed in Virginia by people like Mason, Jefferson and Madison. Much of the verbiage on natural rights and church-state separation that we see in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution can also be found, sometimes nearly verbatim, in Virginia colony documents.
Keep in mind that the colonies were just that, colonies. They were settled at different times by demographically different people. The Puritans were generally considered to be the "backward" demographic by people from the other colonies, and from cosmopolitan Bostonians as well. Benjamin Franklin was a Bostonian who fled Boston as a teenager due in part to the stultifying atmosphere of religion that pervaded Puritan Massachusetts at the time.
By the way, your behavior on this blog is despicable. YOU are clearly among the most ignorant poster on this blog, and yet your character is so poorly developed that you rail against everyone else's supposed ignorance while at the same time displaying your own.
Maybe the wisdom of the great Socrates (whom I assume you believe is burning eternally in the fires of Hell) will help. According to Plato, Socrates' greatest pleasure was to be proven wrong, because it removed an ignorance from his mind.
I know that nobody is going to change your religious beliefs, and I assume you are on this blog more to "witness for the Lord" than to converse respectfully, but there is a lot you could learn about history, philosophy, science, politics, etc, if you open your heart and mind to it. I also assume that the community of belief that you are immersed in is insular, that they hold themselves and their belief structure as the source of all truth, and that they characterize outside influences as dangerous and corrupt. But when you interact with the outside world, like you are doing now, the treatment you receive isn't because we're all "lost" or some such nonsense, it's due to the combination of ignorance and arrogance that you display.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 19, 2008 10:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It’s interesting that when people write about conservative Christianity, there are sharply divided lines between commentors. It’s either pro or anti, nothing inbetween. That’s why I don’t like to talk to religious conservatives. Christianity as it is practiced today seems to divide people, not bring them together. This is not what Jesus did in his lifetime, he chastised his fellow Jews for putting down other peoples, he openly associated with prostitutes & the mentally ill & Roman tax collectors. The only people he rejected (in the 4 Gospels) were his own people, the Pharisees.
In society today, who would the Pharisees be? In my mind, they’d be the most blatant Christians, the most vocal, the most arrogant, the chest-thumping or Bible-thumping proclaimers of their own Godliness.
Those so-called Christians of today are not Christ-like. In my mind, they don’t qualify as legitimate followers of Jesus. They don’t represent what Jesus taught.
Huckabee talks like one of these Pharisee-Christians.
And besides, Jesus did a lot of behind-the-scenes contacts with a lot of different kinds of peoples. He is quoted as saying he has “other flocks” to attend to besides the 12 disciples of the common people he chose to work publicly with. He was obviously close friends with a very rich man who gave him his tomb to be buried in, someone who was not in the circle of the 12 disciples. The 12 were only one group he taught.
Which reminds me of yesterday’s CNN video article about the widow of the Jewish archaeologist who says her husband died believing he had found Jesus’ tomb, but was afraid to say so because he believed it would cause another anti-Jewish pogrom. The National Geographic documentary on the tomb last year was of a family, & the son Jesus had a wife named Mary & a son buried there too. None of this is worrisome for the many rational minds of the world, but it seems to contradict the most outlandish assumptions of the Gospels, & of the church founded on those.
For a church which was founded on those assumptions, it would nullify it. It would bring in a dose of practicality, & that is modern Christianity’s huge weakness: it doesn‘t stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately. But it could, if it would get rid of those awful lies. If the only way you can be happy is to happily embrace lies, I’d rather be unhappy.
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 19, 2008 10:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Have you guys heard of Baptists in the early days of this nation fleeing Massachusetts and made their own state in Rhode Island because the government in Massachusetts are bias in favor of the Congregationalist religion hence the Establishment Clause was later incorporated in the Constitution? Where have you been?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 10:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I often hear the word "founding fathers" as secularists. Have you guys heard of the word "puritans" who first landed in Massachusettes and has built this country from scratch? Are you all ignorant? Where have you been?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 9:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, Roy, Christ-like and it's not over yet with nukes. Hell's door will welcome those nuked unbelievers also.
"And all unbelievers...shall be cast unto the lake of fire" Rev. 21.8
You guys don't know what King means. And you're not dealing with just a King but the Maker of this universe.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 9:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Never before have I read such an entertaining - and bewildering - blog. We have, on one side, the Theocrats threatening to turn our Constitution into a rehash of Old Testament laws, expounding mosquito theology, and advocating mass abortions of opponents. On the other side, some of the more angry non-believers are exhibiting a distressing tendency to lump all Christians in with the Huckabee crowd, and, further, to bash all religions without mercy. This blog is a textbook case of a verbal Charlie Foxtrot.
And here I am, stuck in the middle. I am Christian (note the spelling, no 'X'), but a progressive/liberal one. I do not push my beliefs on anyone, and accept without judgment all those who have decent beliefs or non-beliefs. I do not claim to have the only answer, I only hold that this is the path I have chosen to follow.
As to Angela and Company: I still hold to my soldiers' oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic or foreign. So if you try to subvert our Constitution, I will defend it with my life, if necessary, for you would be domestic enemies. And I am not alone.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | January 19, 2008 9:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankly, I'm glad Huckabee said such a thing. We know now exactly who is his, sans nuance. Anyone who has been paying attention has realized he is speaking what is in his heart...and mind. He is speaking for that bloc of voters who prefer that our Constitution be shredded in the name of their religion. Of course, all this blather of 'under God' is just that...blather. What this group is saying, and Huckabee is their leader, is that they will speak for all Americans, thank you, about *their* God, *their* interpretation of God, and *none other.* It is bad enough that religion has now permeated politics, where once it was considered the height of stupidity, but Huckabee has now opened that Pandora's box. Which Christian God is he alluding to? His evangelical one? Methodist's? Catholic's? Greek Orthodox? This man is not fit to lead this great country. This country prospered under a secular government and by doing so, gave freedom to each and every American to worship their God as they see fit, or not worship any God if they were anti-theists. By becoming basically a religious fascist, leading the rest of religious fascists, he has now given the voter a clean understanding of what he is all about. He is a basically charming, jovial man, not easy to dislike. Some of his political ideas are good, but this latest foray into changing the most precious document upon which our Founding Fathers created, to lead a quasi-political-religious movement smacks of utter stupidity. And we cannot afford to have yet another stupid man in the highest office in the land.
Posted by: Anniemargret | January 19, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So many "intelligent" people here bashing on Huckabee when he was only referring to abortion and gay marriage to be banned in the Constitution.
If those things are not that horrible, then why not make a reality TV show out of it? It just shows how this world has become so idiotic and I wonder why upto now WWIII has not started yet.
Evolution teaches that idiots don't survive. But how come these idiotic people are still alive? Is it because the sane people are still the majority and idiots are minority but just noisy?
I just hope Huckabee gets some bigger votes or else it's a sign that the "end" is at our doors already.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
SCOTT PETERSEN,
Read your history and you will discover that Cicero was the primary source for the structure of the U.S. government as enshrined in the Constitution. Cicero was a Pagan.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 19, 2008 8:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Here's and example of the new Christian scripture cherry-picking love and tolerance (neochristian God's standards):
Spiderman2 wrote:
I have a good advice. You abortionists should start looking up the sky. That MASS-ABORTIONIST nuke might slip pass the defense shield.
"Alas, alas, that great city... for in one hour is she made desolate". Revelation 18: 19.
I didn't know that coming nuke is for pro-abotionist crowd also.
Real Christ-like, huh?
Posted by: Roy | January 19, 2008 8:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
All these messages! I see 2 main themes: Some Christians think that America should be a Christian nation, and lots of Americans think a Christian theocracy under Huckabee would be a bad thing.
In the years that I attended churches, I learned two important lessons: there is an enormous difference between faith in God and faith in scripture; and fundamentalist Christianity, the army of those whose faith is in scripture, is the vilest kind of blasphemy.
I am a political independent, not a liberal, and I have voted for Republicans when I thought they represented the better choice. But I do not want America led by a blasphemer. Individually, religion and politics have a tendency to descend into sliminess; the miscegenous marriage of religion and politics spawns monsters of particular sliminess. After 7 years of the worst president in our history -- a man who purports to be led by God -- I think America should have learned its lesson about politicians who make loud religious noises.
Posted by: Steve | January 19, 2008 8:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards"
And who, Pastor Huckabee, gets to decide what "God's standards" are? Will it be Republican neocons like Dick Cheney who says "God's standards" are pre-emptive war and torture? Or will it be neochristians like Dobson and Robertson who, instead of teaching Christ's love and acceptance, incite their followers to hate those who look and sound different? Or will it be the hypocrites like Haggard, Vitter and Craig who were quick to judge and condemn others for the very behavior they themselves were doing?
This is what is so dangerous about Huckabee. He would amend the Constitution so it's in neochristian standards - a far cry from the teachings of Christ. This man is inciting sedition against the Constitution and the First Amerndment and should be arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned and tortured in Guantanamo no less than the other religious terrorists who are now there.
If joe-six-pack elects this hybrid of Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, may God have mercy on their fate and the fate of the rest of the world.
Posted by: Roy | January 19, 2008 8:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
R Lee,
I too went to Florida State (many, many moons ago). Every once in a while, this itinerant preacher and his wife "Brother Jed and Sister Cindy" would hang out in areas where lots of students would pass by and harangue them with their bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone name-calling. Do these folks still hang out there? I was wondering if they might be carrying Huckabee signs these days.
Posted by: Ken | January 19, 2008 8:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Judeo-Christian heritage has been the basis for Western Civilization,including the United States and its constitution. For example, long before America existed Jesus spoke about "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what it God's". The constitution did not invent separation of church and State, Jesus did.
Secularist have no reason to fear a "return" to this heritage, since it is what birthed Western civilization anyway, including rights we all hold dear such as freedom of conscience and social justice.
Posted by: Scott Petersen | January 19, 2008 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Great another religious nut job. What's the difference between Muslim radicals trying to force their way of life on you and Christian radicals doing the same thing? These institutions are destroying the world. They have been for 1000's of years. Having faith is one thing, forcing it on others is tyranny.
Posted by: GetAClue | January 19, 2008 7:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jefferson is spinning so hard in his grave that he may torque right out of the ground.
Posted by: willandjansdad | January 19, 2008 7:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
He meant what HE SAID AND i SUPPOSE SOME "RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES" believe it too.
In any case, isn't this the logical next step for their movement? Huckabee just happens to be a bit in a hurry
Posted by: John Quinn Sr | January 19, 2008 7:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sir:
Why have we substituted EVANGELICAL for FUNDAMENTALIST. Fundamentalism is historic in America. Evangelicalism (?) sounds (gasp)sort of European.
Posted by: phil | January 19, 2008 7:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I happened on this article and found it amusing.Having majored in English Literature and Humanities at Florida State,and passing the litmus test for exposure to bible thumping idiots like Huckabee;I find it refreshing.This was an excellent insight into the mind of a Populist trying to remain plugged in. A tongue in cheek and a grin comes to mind. Mr Huckabee should go back to Arkansas and count on his free hand,how he managed to get this far... R Lee
Posted by: R Lee | January 19, 2008 6:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Fun column to read, but I think the analysis is a bit too hopeful for us Constitutionalists. Huckabee won't ever see that kind of rhetoric as a political blunder or gaffe. This seems to be what he truly believes. I doubt he really expects to become president, at least by the conventional, primary-process means. I think he'd like to get enough of the whacko God vote to be able to swing the nomination or the platform, or enough of it to divide the convention and, God willing, slip in.
I, for one, hope he becomes he nominee. Maybe that way we could put an end to the GOP and their evangelical fellow travelers for a couple of generations.
Posted by: Rich P. From Princeton | January 19, 2008 6:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
God has nothing to do with decisions made by Congress, but ego has a lot to do with it. When Mr. Huckabee talks about God, he means to say, "What I say is right." Well, everyone thinks that what comes out of his/her own mouth is right, so Huckabee is no different than anyone else. People in glass houses...and we've already had one of those presidents these past 7 years.
Posted by: Dan | January 19, 2008 5:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Not only has the Post picked its party for this election, it has also clearly picked a candidate... Go Mitt! The Post's opinion page is so slanderous to any other candidate.
I do not think this corporate insider can win the hearts and minds of most American. Mitt reminds us all of the Guy who Laid us Off, cut our Health benefits, and made us work longer hours without compensation.
Posted by: Deanx | January 19, 2008 4:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
As a recovering Republican, I enjoy the dialogue that Mike Huckabee has started. For too long we have covered up these divisions using catch phrases such as: "Reagan Democrats" or "Christian right wingers". It is time to call out the real conservatives. Do you believe in the rule of law or the rule of man? The "rule of man" meaning the extent and way that YOU believe God's law should be the ultimate law.
I like Mike Huckabee. We share a belief in the Beatatudes (probably spelled wrong). But he and I disagree where he has drawn the line, as far as our country should be governed. To me that line seems to be from his perspective, "You are either with us or against us". In other words you are are either a heathen or a Christian.
As a country,we could be at a crossroads ( no pun intended). Do we want a Republican party that in other cultures would be called Hezbollah (roughly translated "Party of God") or a country that embraces the ideals of our founding fathers?
Posted by: Tom | January 19, 2008 4:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Future scenario --NO MORE ABORTIONS coz all the abortionists were "mass-aborted" already. Gee, I would rather have Huckabee's method of stopping abortion thru ammendment if MASS-ABORTION is the other alternative.
Well, what can we do if idiots would want the latter.
The way I see pro-abortionists state their case, MASS-ABORTION may not be a very bad alternative. From abortionists to dust, hmm, should I say I prefer they turn to dust?
I have a good advice. You abortionists should start looking up the sky. That MASS-ABORTIONIST nuke might slip pass the defense shield.
"Alas, alas, that great city... for in one hour is she made desolate". Revelation 18: 19.
I didn't know that coming nuke is for pro-abotionist crowd also.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 19, 2008 4:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Earth to Huckabee: in a republic, the Constitution is the law of the land and of the people; Scripture and God's Law is the law of the church and congregations.
Posted by: Mike | January 19, 2008 3:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Remember separation of church and state? Just putting that out there.
Posted by: Sup | January 19, 2008 2:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Look, the fundamental Christians' Christian Coalition, put Bush in Office not once but twice. . . . Now think about what Jesus said, "There will be those among you that will say Lord, Lord . . . I say unto you, 'Ye shall know them by the fruits they bare.'" . . . . And the Christian Coalition (who wants to take the 38 cal. gun of the state and shove it down everyone's nose to make them obey the Coalition's moral authority) has born us some pretty rotten fruit.
There needs to be a place where the law stops and just people begin. But the Coalition and the Republicans believe through their actions that "government governs best that governs MOST!"
Posted by: Coldcomfort | January 19, 2008 2:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm tired of treating religious zealots as if they have any special claim on morality. They are the same all over the world, they have no problem breaking any moral stricture as long as in their own mind, or in those of their equally twisted co-believers, it furthers their "cause", which they themselves or their leaders interpret from some scripture.
I believe this way of thinking has played a large role in making us into a nation that
- went to war against a country that never attacked us for false reasons,
- where many fundamental protections, some such as habeus corpus which in fact substantially predate the Constitution, and are part of our common Western heritage, have been shredded,
-where we are substantially less safe now from catastrophic attack due to situations such as the acquiring of nuclear arms by North Korea and the instabilities in nuclear-armed Pakistan, which developed as we sat idly by or took actions that actually exacerbated them
-where instead of the envy of the world we have become ridiculed
-where a prosperous economy has been wrecked, and unconscionable debts have been heaped upon our unsuspecting children
-where valuable time to counteract environmental degradation has been completely wasted, again passing huge problems on to the next generation, that will rightly I expect hold us in deep contempt
In other words, we have gone completely backwards, towards the type of bankrupt theocracy that we hardly admire elsewhere in the world.
The founders of our nation did their best to protect against the well understood danger of replacing a "reality-based" government with a "faith based" one. To our disgrace, we have allowed those who think they know better, given their "modern" sensibilities, to begin to undermine the priceless heritage that has endured now for two and a half centuries - to spit on all the generations that came before us, as well as all of those to come.
Posted by: Bill | January 19, 2008 2:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm no Constitutional lawyer but when Huckabee says:
"And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."
Isn't he saying that he wants to amend the Constitution, for instance on abortion, to put in a religiously based law? This certainly would put the amendment in direct contradiction with the Establishment Clause. There are many religions which do not have a problem with abortion, and this would certainly favor particular ones over others.
I think that the percentage of Americans ready to ditch the Establishment Clause, given how central it is to our existence as a nation, would be pretty small. An ad that made this point would not be an attack ad, but a reality check, and if it wouldn't be devastating, then I'm really out of touch with my own country.
Posted by: Bill | January 19, 2008 1:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mike B wrote:
As for the atheists, and the like, turning your back on God and claiming not to believe in Him, does not provide the excuse that you might think of allowing you to live a live with no morals. Whether you believe in God or not, He knows you.
I'm sorry you are so narrow minded to believe that because a person chooses not to believe in God that they live a less more or just life than those "believers". At least non believers such as myself don't fall in the hypocracy trap that plagues so many so called "Christians" these days. I'm decent and good - and you know what - I didn't need a book to tell me how to live my life. Boy, I guess it's a good think doctor seuss wasn't around all those years ago, you would all be living your lives according to green eggs and ham.
Posted by: Julie | January 19, 2008 1:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is a little bit off the theme of this thread, but anyway enlightening (if I may use this ugly expression, it reminds us so obnoxiously of the European Enlightenment, a dark phase in human development, as Mr. Romney threw in with subtlety in a recent speech).
I am reading the analysis of Isaac Asimov (I think he had an IQ >>140)of the bible. It goes chronologically through the bible. Now, in Genesis 1:1 it says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." But the Hebrew word, here translated as God, is "Elohim". That is the plural form so it would need to be 'Gods' instead of God. This obviously points to an original polytheism as the substrate. Well, if we might push this further one could argue that the trinity is an attempt to hide the polytheistic origin.
This should be very annoying, I would guess, for the firm believer in the uniqueness of the Christian belief, in one God, which is a central axiom.
This book is very interesting and I am so curious what's ahead.
Oh yes, on Huckabee, it's good he took his mask off: First my God, then America. And " I will tell you what God wants, so listen to me." That's how the kings in the past justified themselves, right?
Pied Piper.
Posted by: Richard | January 19, 2008 1:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
After hearing this comment, and numerous others by Huckabee I had to stop and wonder what country am I in? He represents regression rather than progression for our country - it sounds like he wants to take us back to the dark ages. If he's that intent on ruling with religion, can't he find some nice theocracy to campaign for?
Posted by: Julie | January 19, 2008 12:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In the Beginning, there was Fraud. All fallacies logically follow. And the Bored spake, let "Bong Hits 4 Huckabee" be writ on the South Carolina flag. Then burn it.
Posted by: Believe you me | January 18, 2008 11:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Has anyone noticed that in the DoI & the Constitution there is no mention of Jesus or Christianity? When Jefferson refers to God he states, "... the laws of nature and nature's God..." Old Tom was pretty careful with the written word - that's why he was the obvious choice to author the Declaration. In the context of the Enlightenment and Deism, God is manifested in nature, conforms to nature. {Ironically, such a point-of-view avoids the conflict of science & faith, since faith in God supports the examination of nature in order to reveal knowledge about Him.} This worked great until special interests found value in denying a God that conformed to the naturally revealed world, or maybe they were afraid, or just couldn't think profoundly.
So, I can understand why some extreme religous-based interest groups would attack the US Constitution, its Founders & its philosophical underpinings. It is their enemy. And I am their enemy. And I will fight for the Constitution, with my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.
Posted by: ked | January 18, 2008 11:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
How can a man whose religion is only 30% of the country's population decide that his religion gets to rule the country?
The 6 million jews in america won't be happy with "making the constitution right by god", nor will the muslims, buddhists, shinto, atheist, or anyone else.
The problem with Christians is that they don't recognise the rights of other religions.
Posted by: roninmodern | January 18, 2008 11:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it interesting the increasing scrutiny paid to Huckabee. I can only wonder the what the coverage and discussion would had been like if he were a Democrat stating international law must trump our constitution. Such secular internationalism would be accepted and given little attention. Thank you for the chance to share my opinion. God Bless America!
Posted by: Ozie | January 18, 2008 11:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Being such a religious family man who has raised a family which includes sons who torture dogs and try to go through airports with a firearm, one must wonder how this guy can possible run a country when he can't even raise responsible children.
Posted by: Doug Miller | January 18, 2008 11:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Being such a religious family man who has raised a family which includes sons who torture dogs and try to go through airports with a firearm, one must wonder how this guy can possible run a country when he can't even raise responsible children.
Posted by: Doug Miller | January 18, 2008 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There's no such thing as god. Just a bunch of frightened people who don't want to die, and the money grubbing opportunists who feed on them.
Posted by: Marc Schlee | January 18, 2008 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
the Huckster is toast ... he has revealed himself for the narrow minded theocratic rube that he is ... evolution? a hoax, a myth, never mind science.
The Constitution? just a piece of rag paper to be trampled by a theistic American Taliban.
He disgusts me, but I hope he's nominated, it will be a most interesting march off the cliff.
Posted by: fendertweed | January 18, 2008 10:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
God was here before the constitution. We owe our
life to God not the contitution. We had a better USA when we follow God so is simple you are either
with GOD or you are not we can not do anything
with out him, so we must learn to respect his will.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
pedroa
ps my first vote go to the man from Arisona 2nd to the governor (minister)
Posted by: P.A.S. | January 18, 2008 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
TO DUCK BLUE & PAM,
Thanks for the history.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"EDWIN KENNEDY wrote:
Even if Huckabee's comments can be read to mean something like, "The Constitution already has a faith foundation called 'In God We Trust',"
Now that this has been repeated, it may be time to point out that "In God We Trust" is not anywhere in the Constitution. It's a phrase added to some of the coinage during the Civil War, and made the National Motto in 1956 when the Red Scare was in full sway and some found it necessary to distinguish ourselves from the "Godless Communists."
Prior to that time, "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One) was the de facto motto, but it had never been made official. A mistake.
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 10:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela B: “let me ask you where did the sun, sky, moon and stars come from: "The Big Bang"”
OK, let’s assume there is a creator God. Let me ask you – what does the whole Bible story have to do with the creation of the universe? So a supreme being created the world, fine. Where do Moses and Abraham and David and Mary and Jesus and the holy Ghost come in?
Mr Sal: “So it is with God…not believing in Him doesn’t cause Him to not exist. God exists whether or not people choose to believe in Him.”
On the other hand, believing in Him doesn’t cause Him to exist. God doesn’t exist just because people choose to believe in Him. Cabeesh?
Chris Everett – try “The Bible Unearthed, by Silberman and Finkelstein http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller=
Mr Mark – XOXOXO – You are cookin’ tonight!
Posted by: E Favorite | January 18, 2008 10:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause." [George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792]
George could not have said it better.
Posted by: Duck Blue | January 18, 2008 10:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
EDWIN KENNEDY wrote:
Even if Huckabee's comments can be read to mean something like, "The Constitution already has a faith foundation called 'In God We Trust', one possible result of Huckabee's statement is that we could see a Quaker appointed Secretary of Defense, a Christian Scientist appointed to Secretary of Health and Human Services, a Muslim appointed to Secretary of the Department that now includes Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco, a Hindu appointed to Secretary of Agriculture, and a Roman Catholic to Secretary of State.
On the plus side, we would never go to war, never spend another penny on health care, alcohol would be banned, there would be no beef, and international relations would be based on a catechism.
Having just now realized where this led, maybe Huckabee is on to something good.
-----------------------------------------------
I like this. Cute. But Huckabee talks like an exclusionist Christian. That kind don't accept anyone who's different from themselves.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
TO CHRIS EVERETT,
I should have also suggested you find someone who loves the subject and study the Old Testament with them. No book will ever beat a one-on-one discussion with a knowledgeable person. Just don't take their opinion as the final word. Much of what is out there is speculation.
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 18, 2008 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Do you really have nothing better to write about? Huckabee is simply an ignoramus who doesn't put much thought into his comments.
Posted by: A | January 18, 2008 9:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"As for the atheists, and the like, turning your back on God and claiming not to believe in Him, does not provide the excuse that you might think of allowing you to live a live with no morals."
Is that what you think drives us? How little you know!
I know many atheists (am one, myself) and none are immoral, nor even amoral - and none wish to be. We simply went through the normal Christian childhood indoctrination, but were unable to swallow it whole without questioning it. We questioned, and found it wanting. Incredible, actually.
The lives we live are not different from the average American's.
Oh, yeah, and we don't just "claim" not to believe - we really *don't* believe.
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 9:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Amen ....
Posted by: Richard Bock | January 18, 2008 9:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris Everett:
Mr. Mark and others,
Can you recommend a good academic reference on the origin of the old testament. It's something that never interested me. Things are different now.
---------------------------------------------------
The Old Testament is an anthology. It's not from one source, or one time period, or one writer, or even one point of view. It's main cohesive factor is that it is a history of a small group of survivors. It shows how they came to be, & what they think of themselves. It often contradicts itself, & repeats, & leaves out much. It's heavily redacted, edited.
There are many discussions of possible sources/authors for each book. There are actually multiple versions of each book, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Despite what most Christians in this country are limited to being taught, "The Bible" that they are taught is "the" word of God is simply one version of many, which leaves out about as many books as it includes. I would suggest you look around in a good book store for Biblical commentaries. There are many. Pick something you're interested in, or start with something general.
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 18, 2008 9:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
And a Web site for the Old. WaPo won't let me post the link, but this is the site:
tempemasjid.com/maurice/3old.htm
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 9:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
And a Web site for the Old:
http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/3old.htm
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Her's one for the New Testament:
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 8:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark and others,
Can you recommend a good academic reference on the origin of the old testament. It's something that never interested me. Things are different now.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 8:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Michael,
You write about warriors and witch doctors.
I agree completely. The ability to awe and inspire is power indeed, and in ancient times there was nothing more convincing than an entrancing story. As Darwinian selective pressures asserted themselves, the entrancing story became more and more riveting, with more and more at stake, and greater and greater need to give more and more to it's demands, until life itself meant nothing compared to the promise of the story, and the very world dissolved into an untrustworthy illusion.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 8:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear J Rhineart -
Thanks for the reminder on Jewish polytheism. The OT does speak of other gods, and not in a make-believe sense as some would have you believe. The OT definitely believed that there were many gods.
As I was referencing Isaiah in the text you cited, I was speaking of Yahweh.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 8:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark wrote:
The Jews accept the fact the god creates evil. It's the Xians who can't wrap their heads around it, probably due to some theological problem they've created for themselves in the writing of their myth.
-----------------------------------------------
If you read the Torah in depth, you'll find polytheism - belief in many gods. Is this what you meant by "the god"?
If I remember my Biblical history correctly, it wasn't until Jews returned from Babylon around 500BC/BCE that they decided to believe in only one God. Before that, they worshiped one particular god (who guided them through the Sinai desert), but then so did every other nearby group. Each group had their own patron god, but they accepted the existence of many gods.
Better source, read the Book of Enoch; it describes many of the early Jewish Gods by name & description of what they were each known for.
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 18, 2008 8:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee wants Evengelical, Born-Again, Conservative Christians to gain control of the Republican Party, period.
Huckabee will do that the old fashion way -- by pushing forward Political Candidates for local, state, and national office who reflect his Evengelical Christian beliefs and convictions.
Since it takes money to be successful in running for political office, Huckabee will raise that money from Evangelical Churches and their tens of thousands of members, without much problem.
Evangelical Christians are True-Believers, and therefore very disciplined, and well organized.
They will be a formidable political force in America. At the very least, they will help dictate the issues that will be debated.
And they will erase the line that separates Church and State.
Which is another reason that I contribute my money and time to the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Leo Chen | January 18, 2008 8:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Alas, alas, that great city... for in one hour is she made desolate". Revelation 18: 19.
A 1-HOUR MASS ABOrTION OPERATION.
God is easy to deal with. If you like it, he'll provide it.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 8:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is a God and, like it or not, you either get right with God or you suffer the consequences. Our country has NOT been right with God for quite some time and we are paying the price. We are commanded to feed the poor, take care of the sick, not store up riches (as corporate CEO's are want to do), to not make war, to not engage in pre-marital sex, to not lie, not drink to excess (nor take drugs), not practice homosexuality, and much more. Some of this appeals to the "liberals" here, some to the "conservatives". Neither practice what Christ taught.
As for the atheists, and the like, turning your back on God and claiming not to believe in Him, does not provide the excuse that you might think of allowing you to live a live with no morals. Whether you believe in God or not, He knows you.
Posted by: MikeB | January 18, 2008 8:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The way I see pro-abortionists state their case, MASS-ABORTION may not be a very bad alternative. From abortionists to dust, hmm, should I say I prefer they turn to dust?
Before I leave, I have a good advice. You abortionists should start looking up the sky. That MASS-ABORTIONIST nuke might slip past the defense shield.
"Alas, alas, that great city... for in one hour is she made desolate". Revelation 18: 19.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 8:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The way I see pro-abortionists state their case, MASS-ABORTION may not be a very bad alternative. From abortionists to dust, hmm, should I say I prefer they turn to dust?
Before I leave, I have a good advice. You abortionists should start looking up the sky. That MASS-ABORTIONIST nuke might slip past the defense shield.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 8:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, what can we do if idiots would want the latter.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 8:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Sal,
Not believing that human beings need oxygen to live doesn’t void the truthfulness of the statement that human beings need oxygen to live.
So it is with God…not believing in Him doesn’t cause Him to not exist. God exists whether or not people choose to believe in Him.
----------------------------------------------------
You forgot the corollary to that argument.
Believing in God doesn't create God either. God does or doesn't exist, whether we believe or don't believe.
Belief doesn't create anything outside of ourselves. Belief changes us, inside. Belief says more about the person than it does about God.
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 18, 2008 8:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The way I see pro-abortionists state their case, MASS-ABORTION may not be a very bad alternative. From abortionists to dust, hmm, should I say I prefer they turn to dust?
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 7:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Few really get where Jesus the man-God was coming from. Same holds true for many other modern religions. Note, however, that the surviving indigenous traditions -- those few that have preserved some of their original authenticity -- do in fact reflect a more profound and more natural guide for individual life on the planet. Indigenous "laws" derive from the infinite, the transcendental source of life. Our man-made laws, however much they are revered, are subservient and derivative relative to those natural laws. Does Huckabee really grasp this, or is he simply spouting hollow Christian dogma? Maybe someone who knows him better can tell us.
Al Gabis
Fairfield, Iowa
--------------------------------------
Bravo, Al Gabis!
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 18, 2008 7:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Everybody is worried about Huckabee putting anti-abortion in the constitution."
No, nobody's worried about that. Huckabee hasn't a prayer (and I use the term advisedly) of getting the nomination, even from God's Own Party.
If by some miracle (and that's what it would take) he did, he would be *creamed* in the General, where clearer heads can weigh in. Annihilated.
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 7:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Huckabee's is a lunatic person, first we all the respect, reed the PREFACE our constitution, an then you can make an opinion, we can no go to the extremist of FANATICS, like many extreme Muslin. At The end we go finishing worst that the MUSLIN, I believed in GOD, my GOD, is unique, no JESUS that the Christians believed.
I agreed we Jacques Berlinerblau
Posted by: Alfonos Cardenas | January 18, 2008 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Future scenario --NO MORE ABORTIONS coz all the abortionists were mass aborted already. Gee, I would rather have Huckabee's method of stopping abortion if MASS-ABORTION is the other alternative.
Well, what can we do if idiots would want the latter.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Huckabee's is a lunatic person, first we all the respect, reed the PREFACE our constitution, an then you can make an opinion, we can no go to the extremist of FANATICS, like many extreme Muslin. At The end we go finishing worst that the MUSLIN, I believed in GOD, my GOD, is unique, no JESUS that the Christians believed.
I agreed we Jacques Berlinerblau
Posted by: Alfonos Cardenas | January 18, 2008 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Everybody is worried about Huckabee putting anti-abortion in the constitution. If I want to be president, maybe I'd suggest that all abotions be legal and be televised. I presume people would love me for that.
Maybe that's how God sees America right now and that's why he's allowing "mass-abortion" to all these secularists in the near future.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I like beef!
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 7:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I believe Huckabee made a calculated decision to have the Constitution rewritten with "God's stamp of approval". I also believe it ends his candidacy.
A large majority of Americans want God in Church, but not in government. More to the point, which one of the thousands of "God fearing" denominations would be tasked to rewrite or reinterpret the Constitution? There is no clean segue among most denominations, let alone among the various religions of the world that America has traditionally welcomed.
Even if Huckabee's comments can be read to mean something like, "The Constitution already has a faith foundation called 'In God We Trust', one possible result of Huckabee's statement is that we could see a Quaker appointed Secretary of Defense, a Christian Scientist appointed to Secretary of Health and Human Services, a Muslim appointed to Secretary of the Department that now includes Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco, a Hindu appointed to Secretary of Agriculture, and a Roman Catholic to Secretary of State.
On the plus side, we would never go to war, never spend another penny on health care, alcohol would be banned, there would be no beef, and international relations would be based on a catechism.
Having just now realized where this led, maybe Huckabee is on to something good.
Posted by: Edwin Kennedy | January 18, 2008 7:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee has been here in SC talking up religion. He preached at a local Baptist church, saying good works won't get a person into heaven. (The church's pastor said it was not meant as an endorsement.)
I've been getting multiple phone calls from Huckabee's campaign lately asking who I'm going to vote for. I was willing to answer one poll, even 2, but they're calling over & over & over. The calls are mostly from Herndon, VA. One taped message said Huckabee was a mainstream person, unlike McCain, another said Huckabee is a right-to-lifer who hates homosexuality & abortion, unlike Romney who's "switched sides on abortion 5 times in the last 15 yrs".
Huckabee also told an audience in SC that no one should try to tell them what to do about the Confederate flag, he said later to a different audience that the issue isn't one for the President anyway.
Huckabee will get some conservative votes, but he won't get the election, or even the nomination. He is pandering to the far right too much; no one else will be impressed by this kind of talk.
I agree with this article. My impression of Huckabee when I read that article today was "Huckabee thinks he knows what God thinks. How arrogant of him."
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
MICHAEL,
I have not read the essay you refer to. You suggest that religious people attempt to subjugate other people mentally so that their physical territory or possessions can be taken. Yes, this sounds very familiar.
I too comprehend the scientific method and appreciate its achievements.
However, I do not think the scientific method is appropriately applied when you say you see no difference between (include your list here). Wouldn't that be like saying: all white men are rich or all poor people are criminals? You say all religious people are dangerous and bad. Would you also say all atoms are alike? If you believe in the scientific method you must test and evaluate each and every form of religious person with great care. In fact you must test and evaluate each person separately.
-Jeff
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Michael, there are a lot of false religions around but if you bunch all religions as false, then you are the kind of person what Ayn Rand describes as "the people". THINK is the solution and a lot of people don't know what that term means anymore.
Whether "science" or religion, one has got to think deeper than what these people tell you. There are a lot of "scientists" as well as priests who don't know what they are saying or doing.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Michael, there are a lot of false religions around but if you bunch all religions as false, then you are the kind of person what Ayn Rand describes as "the people". THINK is the solution and a lot of people don't know what that term means already.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 7:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ayn Rand, in The New Intellectual, wrote about Attila and the Witch Doctor. Atilla conquers territory/things, the Witch Doctor subjugates "the people" so that they don't rebel. Each relies on the other. How does the Witch Doctor do it? By convincing the subjects that he knows more and has better judgment than they. Sound familiar? In my view, they do not know more and their judgment is clouded by wishful/magical thinking, if not desire for personal gain, or more likely, in addition to. I, like many others who comprehend the scientific method and appreciate its achievments, require more than mere testimony of strangers who's passion is irrelevant. I see no difference between Huckabee, Angela, and the coward with no name compared to the uneducated zealots in Morroco who proclaim the world MUST convert to Islam, or else.
Posted by: Michael | January 18, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If all these atheist had not seen a brain, it would not be farfetched that they would also conclude that they have no brain. An atheist would say "I can't see God and I can't see my brain,therefore there is no God and I have no brain. ". I won't be surprised if the latter is true.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 7:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I all these atheist had not seen a brain, it would not be farfetched that they would also conclude that they have no brain. An atheist would say "I can't see God and I can't see my brain,therefore there is no God and I have no brain. " Perfect.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 7:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Evil,
I understand the issue about what you are hoping for will cloud your judgement. In this case you have stated you want an orb that speaks to you. I hope you get just that - an orb that speaks to you. If you don't get it; I can understand why you wouldn't believe. I hope you get the proof you want. Ask for the proof you want daily.
Again, if you don't want proof you will not get it.
As for Pat Robertson? I didn't really pay any attention to him. You are not hoping to find proof of Pat Robertson's God. You want to find proof of loving God.
-Jeff
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 6:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm glad to hear it, Jeff. At least you're more consistent than most.
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 6:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Sal wrote:
"Refusing to believe the Truth doesn’t make said Truth any less true."
...and believing in something while refusing to listen to any evidence to the contrary does not make it true either!
He also wrote:
"An over-the-top example of this could be someone who refuses to believe that human beings need oxygen to survive. Not believing that human beings need oxygen to live doesn’t void the truthfulness of the statement that human beings need oxygen to live."
That is certainly true, but I can PROVE people need oxygen to survive in a minute, by holding my breath. At least, I would have proved it after I regained conciousness ;). On the other hand, there is abosolutely no verifiable physical evidence for the proof of gods. So your over the top example is logically misleading at best.
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 18, 2008 6:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
PAM,
I support a "right to life". If the mother's life is endangered I think she should be able to have an abortion if she wants. If the mother was raped I think she should be able to have an abortion. I do not support the death penalty. If I had a child, I would very strongly urge them not to become a soldier. I do not want to 'carpet-bomb' the Middle East. I agree with you that many Christians are hypocrites. I still consider myself a Christian.
-Jeff
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous (the real one) wrote:
"If you love the freedoms and protections of the Constitution for a diverse population, why don’t these fetuses have the same freedoms and protections you have? Is it the fetus’s fault for being conceived?"
No. It's because a fetus is not an autonomous, free-living human being until it's born. Do you count your age from nine months before your birth?
Can a fetus get a social security number? Is it counted in a census? How do you know that it will even be born alive? Until it's born - breathing, eating, wetting its diaper - it's just a *potential* life.
It's always been amazing to me that conservatives (including most Christians) are all for "the right to life", as long as you mean the life of the unborn - right down to a fertilized egg; but don't care a pin for the life of the mother, which might be endangered by carrying that fetus to term, and happily support the death penalty, and sending our young off to war. Many also think it would be a good idea to "carpet-bomb the entire Middle East." Such hypocrites.
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hello I like cheese!!!!
Posted by: JJJJJJJJJjjjjJJJJjJJjJjJJjj | January 18, 2008 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Unfortunately Jeff, my brain doesn't work that way. Most people's don't. If you sit and hope and hope and hope and hope for something to happen, your mind will eventually will it to be so. Your brain will choose to interpret a cloud, or a song or some other meaningless nonsense to mean what you're hoping for.
I can't do that. I DON'T hope God exists, why should I? If God exists, that means that some monumental jerks were right. Pat Robertson is right, Benny Hinn is right. Not good.
Honestly, if Heaven exists, so many people there will be such PIA that it's not a place I want to go. But I still would like to know the truth.
Posted by: Fred Evil | January 18, 2008 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If fred evil can document that a mosquito has crash landed, then I would say that he's a genius. But all these atheist are talking garbage. They have no proof to show anything. Global warming? Its been getting cold since the word existed.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous wrote - "Have you guys wonder why in spite of your so called "human intelligence" there are still a lot of planes and helicopters crashing down but I still have to see a mosquito crash landing?
Where is the intelligence coming from?"
To begin with, I am sure you do NOT know. You've never seen a mosquito crashland, and that's EVIDENCE?! Please, that's like saying you can prove fire exists because snowcones don't melt at night in Alaska!! It's gibberish.
Atheists think they have brains the same size an mosquitos? Are you high, or are you intentionally a mental fustercluck??
Posted by: Fred Evil | January 18, 2008 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Can't anti-abortion and Constitution mixed? What is it in abortion that it can't be touched by the Constitution? Do the "founding fathers" which secularists always mention, have mosquito brains? Those founding fathers were all God believing and what they never thought was people with mosquito brains would be reading their work.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 18, 2008 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Evil,
I'm glad you searched for proof of a loving God earlier in your life. I think if you want a glowing orb to talk to you to prove a loving God exists that's great. I sincerely hope it happens. I sincerely hope a loving God exists and wants to prove his existence to you. I hope you will take a few minutes every day to go to a quiet peaceful place and say silently in your head, "Please I hope you exist. Please show yourself to me if you exist. Please speak to me if you exist." Nothing else I ask for nor think is required. If you want proof, I hope you find it.
-Jeff
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It says "Anonymous" but I recognize Spidey's inability to type a coherent sentence...
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have a quote for people who believe we are a Christian nation:
"the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." -Article XI, The Treaty of Tripoli (1797). Approved by George Washington, ratified by President John Adams and unanimously by Congress
"It has been a settled opinion in my mind that there is...but one being who can understand the universe, and that it is not only vain but wicked for insects to pretend to comprehend it." --John Adams Sept. 14, 1813
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use." -Galileo Galilei
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.” --Sinclair Lewis, "It Can't Happen Here" © 1935
Posted by: think for yourself | January 18, 2008 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I thought, I sprayed out all the mosquitos in here already but the same mosquitos keep flying.
Have you guys wonder why in spite of your so called "human intelligence" there are still a lot of planes and helicopters crashing down but I still have to see a mosquito crash landing?
Where is the intelligence coming from?
With the way atheist secularists are thinking, this could be the how they look at mosquitos.. "Gee, Do I have a brain as big as mosquito's?"
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 6:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oops. On my last post, I referred to words in parenthesis when I meant quotes. Long story short, I lost the parenthesis somewhere during the editing of my post. They're there on the second appearance of the citation.
Had I been around in Biblical times, such mistakes would have qualified me as an "infallible" editor.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous - He could start with a handshake. A ball of lightning that SPEAKS to me could be another. According to you he is infinitely powerful, certainly he could get off his tail for 30 seconds and provide SOME sort of proof, no? I mean he spoke to Moses and all kinds of people in the Bible, but he hasn't talked to anyone at all for thousands of years? First he micro-manages, and the he's entirely hands-off? Sounds suspiciously a little too convenient for me.
If he's God, and he chooses to speak to me, I'm sure I won't misinterpret it (after all, he is all-powerful, and could simply MAKE me believe, right?). Thus far he has been conspicuously absent. Nor has he spoken to anyone else the rest of the world (including Xtians) doesn't think is insane.
I did spend much of my earlier life searching for him. The lack of results is what got me where I am today. Perhaps my stringent testing methodology is too much for him.
Posted by: Fred Evil | January 18, 2008 6:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Sal wrote:
"For those who don’t believe in God…may I recommend that you sincerely and genuinely ask God to reveal Himself to you and in time see if He doesn’t answer."
I'm going to go with the late Isaac Asimov on this one. He was once asked in an interview if he had ever tried to find God. He replied, "God is smarter than I am. Let Him try to find me."
Posted by: Craig | January 18, 2008 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee, wave bye bye to any prayer you had of winning dog-catcher. Good riddance.
Posted by: Michael | January 18, 2008 5:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What would be proof of God? Give an acceptable example.
Couldn't an orb of light be explained as ball lightening?
A booming voice in the sky? It’s some crazy Christian with a PA system as a hoax!
A quiet voice you hear in you sleep? Oh my, I've lost my mind -I need psychiatric drugs to make the voice stop.
A strange message written in the stars saying I am God and I exist? Intelligent extraterrestrials must exist and they are trying to trick us!
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 5:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous - No, I want proof one way of the other. It's maddening to constantly argue with people who accept NOTHING as evidence of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient omnipreent deity whom they worship ad nauseum. Yes, I do find those who accept as TRUTH, that which has no evidenciary foundation, to be fools. Why don't you?
Faith = Belief without proof
Belief without proof = foolishness
therefore
Faith = foolishness
If he exists, GREAT! Just end the ridiculous and endless arguments. If he doesn't exist, GREAT! just end the ridiculous and endless arguments.
I can happily admit I'm wrong (can you?), I just need valid evidence. Don't assume that because I don't believe, I won't or cant. I believe 2+2=4 because it is so. Very easily reproducable and testable, you can examine it 50 different ways, and it's still 4. Gods existence hasn't been proven in ANY way, yet 90% of the planet still believes in one form or another. That boggles my mind. How gullible is humanity, if 90% believe something with no proof? If there's proof, please forward it to me. I'd love to know the TRUTH.
"If you thought a God might exist which was loving and kind, you would want proof of his existence with all your heart"
Even if he wasn't loving and kind, I would still want to know, better a known evil, than an unknown.
Actually, even if he revealed himself, per Xtian thinking, how would you know it wasn't Satan masquerading as God? He is called the father of lies, how do you know Satan is not the good one, and God is evil? You don't know. Your own moebius strip of thinking has you tied into knots. Don't bother with logic, it only unties the knots, and releases you from your bond of 'faith.'
Posted by: Fred Evil | January 18, 2008 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Just an example of sharia law, Christian style.
Posted by: Dr. O. R. Raymond | January 18, 2008 5:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
People like Angela B show that they have absolutely no understanding of the history that brought this country into being.
In the British Isles that most colonists came from, there were established state religions, and the kings who ruled by "Divine right" were the heads of both state and church. They were overruled only by the Pope. All religious services were held in Latin, and the bible was also written in this dead language. Since the people did not speak it, they had to rely on the priests to tell them how to live, and what they had to do to be saved. Since the priests then were no better than they are today (baby rapers), this most often translated to the people giving everything they could afford, and then some, to the church, to buy (literally) expiation from their "sins".
Along came Martin Luther, and later Wycliffe, et al, saying that the people should be able to read the bible for themselves and understand their own faith. Profoundly disturbing to the Pope.
King Henry VIII was quite the religious scholar (taking his position seriously) and he found the ideas of Luther quite interesting, but wasn't quite ready to risk excommunication by the Pope, until his desire to change wives pushed him over the edge.
Now the English people had to suddenly switch gears. The Anglican church was what they were expected to be beholden to. It was the new state religion, and they were required to follow their leader. There were severe punishments for not attending services. This was agonizing for many, but by and large, they made the switch.
Now Henry dies, and his daughter, Mary (Bloody Mary) ascends the throne. Mary, the *Catholic*.
Oops - back to Catholicism. Those that refused were burned at the stake or beheaded. Maybe both.
Then comes Elizabeth I - back to Anglicanism. Then James I - Kirk of Scotland (but relatively tolerant of Catholics), then Charles I and II, Anglican, then James II, Catholic - one could get whiplash.
Each change of official religion meant persecution for those reluctant to make the switch.
Against this backdrop, colonists began coming to America. There were many reasons, but among them was the right to worship as they pleased.
When the time came to split with England, they wisely decided to get the new government out of the religion business and to protect all forms of worship. Thus it stands today, and anyone who wants to change it can do so over *my* dead body. I'm sure there will be others.
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ANONYMOUS writes:
Mr. Mark,
Say what you will, tag me with whatever you choose to, but the fact remains that by your own admission you stated that you hate certain "Christian attributes with a passion."
Dear Anonymous (and everyone else) -
Let it be noted that the words that appear in parenthesis above are Anonymous' words, not mine. I NEVER wrote "Christian attributes with a passion." That is Anonymous' entirely specious characterization of something I wrote in a previous post. My post was truly ecumenical in its lambasting of religion. Seems that Anon feels so hurt at my NOT singling out Xians for my lambasting that he felt the need to invent a few words of his own and to say that I wrote something that I didn't write at all.
Poor baby, that Anon!
Those words ("Christian attributes with a passion") are not in any way my "own admission," as those aren't my words. I have NOT stated what Anon says I have stated. In Anon's world, my pulling for the NY Giants to win this weekend equates to my saying that I hope everybody on the Packers team turns up dead tomorrow.
Anon is inventing words and putting them in my mouth. Typical, and a pretty big violation of a whole bunch of different rule sets.
I'd ask for an apology, but Anon would probably whine that I demanded he renounce Christ and swear fidelity to George Steinbrenner.
;)
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Just an example of sharia law, Christian style.
Posted by: Dr. O. R. Raymond | January 18, 2008 5:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Just what we need, another nitwit evangelical leader that talks to his invisible friend. The Constitution is as it is precicely to keep religious zelots from taking over.
We need to move forward, not retreat into mythology. We have enough problems in the world that are being made worse by right wing relious morons of every stripe and that includes these Bible thumping christian lunatics.
Until we get a good dose of moderation and start talking and dealing fairly with others, we will not achieve lasting peace and prosperity.
Posted by: ColeM | January 18, 2008 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why do you like the Constitution so much? How can checks and balances work without politicians who care foremost about the welfare of people instead of money, power, and prestige? Are there any candidates out there who could make the checks and balances work?
Is it the freedoms you like from the Constitutional Admendments? I think certainly people should have freedom to do anything they want as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else.
Does this candidate, want to make abortion constitutionally illegal? I guess it depends on whether a fetus is hurt by an abortion. If you love the freedoms and protections of the Constitution for a diverse population, why don’t these fetuses have the same freedoms and protections you have? Is it the fetus’s fault for being conceived?
Does a married homosexual couple harm others by a paper stating they are married? Perhaps it causes a gag reflex for some people? Causing someone else distress doesn’t seem important enough to curtail another person’s freedoms. For the Christians, doesn’t God allow people to sin? Doesn’t God allow people to choose right or wrong? If an action doesn’t hurt another person, why should a Christian restrict a person’s ability to choose 'wrong' via laws enforced by the government? Is this particular group of Christians so much better than God that they will keep someone else from sinning when God will allow them to sin?
For those of you who hate people who believe in a God without ‘sufficient’ proof, I wonder what proof you personally require? If you actually got that proof would you be happy or angry? Do you want God to prove his existence to you? Probably not, because if such a being exists I bet you think it’d be either an evil God, angry at you, or disappointed in you? You have no proof because you do not want proof. If you thought a God might exist which was loving and kind, you would want proof of his existence with all your heart. You would search high and low for proof. You would search to the ends of the earth for him. You would want to find him because he might be searching for you, because he might love you. You have no proof because you do not want proof.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 5:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous writes:
"Mr. mark if you were a steward of the bible you would know that the Hebrew word for "evil" is "bara."
Nope. You're wrong. And the word as it appears in Isaiah isn't "bara" anyway. If YOU weren't an apologist for the Bible, you wouldn't play so fast and loose with the Hebrew.
The Jews accept the fact the god creates evil. It's the Xians who can't wrap their heads around it, probably due to some theological problem they've created for themselves in the writing of their myth.
Here's a good commentary on the verse by Rabbi Tovia Singer:
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 5:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This country was founded by deists, not theocrats!
Deism is defined as:
n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
The founding fathers believed in religious freedom, not a belief in one person's God.
Huckabee (gosh I hate that name - makes him sound like a combo between a Hick - which he apparently is and Huckleberry Finn - who he's probably related to) is a complete moron.
That said, I hope he wins the Republican nomination so that he can get routed in the General Election by Billary.
Posted by: sc | January 18, 2008 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted on January 18, 2008 14:00
Chris Everett wrote:
"I agree with Reverend Huckabee - what America needs is Sharia Law. But Huckabee (PBUH) isn't taking his position all the way to it's naturaly conclusion - why even bother with a Constitution at all? It can do nothing except stand in the way of God's law, which is already clearly laid out in the Koran. We need to burn this vile document, make it a crime of apostasy to even have a copy of it, considering how dangerous it is."
Um, I assume you're kidding, Chris.
Someone needs to remind Huckabee that if he likes the idea of a theocracy, perhaps he should move to Saudi Arabia or Iran.
To me, as a person of faith, it's pretty simple: We need seperation of church and state FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BOTH. And please, fellow posters, quit debating Scripture. If you believe those words, fine. But please respect the rights of those who may not. Better yet, please respect each other's beliefs. (Wow, what a novel concept!)
Posted by: vegasgirl | January 18, 2008 5:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous - Despite your inability to post only once, I shall answer you only once. No, I do not owe Angela an apology. Angela originally said "maybe he shouldn't said(sic) that but it's true" And by that she meant a comment from Huckabee that included this line "that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards"
The problem here is, such amendments would disenfranchise many Americans from the freedom of religion, which INCLUDES the freedom FROM religion. That is not saying religion must be banned, quite the opposite. That you can have ANY religion you like, or NONE, so long as it does not infringe upon one's neighbors freedoms.
Are you not grasping why that makes her an 'awful American'? It's this, she wants her government to reflect her religion, AS DOES HUCKABEE. This necessitates the destruction of freedoms for those who do not believe or follow in the Xtian gods ways.
Angela wrote - "Not sure if you all know but you all believe that you are Gods"
HUH?! I love this claim, I am no god, I believe in NO god, how does that make me one, excepting that I TRULY have free will and can act upon it?
Mr. Sal wrote - "Refusing to believe the Truth doesn’t make said Truth any less true"
Very true, problem is, what is truth? You seem to believe in the Bible, and the (accepted) word of God. When I ask 'what word of God' you would point back at the Bible yes? Or your pastor? How many times has the Bible been rewritten? By who? Which version do you have now? Has any of it been mistranslated trhough the scores of tranlations and rewritings it has undergone? Do you have the original copy? I envision something like the grapevine from the movie Johnny Dangerously.
"Johnny and the Mothers are gonna rob the Savoy theatre tonight."
"Johnny's gonna kill my brother and mother at the Savoy theatre tonight?!"
"That's not what I said"
"Yeah, but I know this grapevine!"
Who's interpretation of which version is accurate? Good luck with that TRUTH.
I believe in FACT, not truth, although they are usually one in the same. Xtians love the word TRUTH, although they have no EVIDENCE to back it up. The Bible is not evidence, can you prove a chain of custody? There is no physical EVIDENCE of ANY God, be it Xtian, Hindu, Islam etc. How can you know the TRUTH if nothing can be proven? You don't. You BELIEVE in your TRUTH, which does not make it so. The semantics of it makes peoples heads swim, and eventually they stop arguing, because you equate your TRUTH with FACT, and they are often VERY different things.
For the record, I am all for those who believe to do so. If it improves your life, makes you happier, brings you joy, whatever, more power to you! Just keep it OUT of my government! If you faith is so strong (as Xtians must, for without faith their is no God, right?) If your faith is so strong, why must your government enforce it?
Posted by: Fred Evil | January 18, 2008 5:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Our whole concept of "freedom" is based on secular, humanist, enlightenment thought. Creating a society based on reason, ethics, and democracy clashes with any religious claim to worldly dominion.
Please, Anonymous and Angela, show a little respect for the type of thinking that - despite however ignorant, ineloquent, and offensive your opinions are - essentially created the notion that you have a right to express them at all.
And Anonymous, as for the negative psychological analysis you throw at anyone who disagrees with you, you can also thank secular, godless science for affording you such lingo.
Posted by: Annie | January 18, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
Say what you will, tag me with whatever you choose to, but the fact remains that by your own admission you stated that you hate certain "Christian attributes with a passion."
Now I don't know where the foundation of your teaching or hatred is from, but I do know that it is alive and thriving in you.
That fact speaks for itself.
Have a great evening I have to go.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Our whole concept of "freedom" is based on secular, humanist, enlightenment thought. Creating a society based on reason, ethics, and democracy clashes with any religious claim to worldly dominion.
Please, Anonymous and Angela, show a little respect for the type of thinking that - despite however ignorant, ineloquent, and offensive your opinions are - essentially created the notion that you have a right to express them at all.
And Anonymous, as for the negative psychological analysis you throw at anyone who disagrees with you, you can also thank secular, godless science for affording you such lingo.
Posted by: Annie | January 18, 2008 4:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Anonymous -
You're having trouble comprehending. There's no contradiction in my statements. None whatsoever.
One can have a tawdry faith and arrogance posing as humility while not being at all phony. You truly believe your faith due to your indoctrination into the same. That indoctrination and that faith lead you to treat the comical as serious, the unfounded as factual. The indoctrination has taught you to believe the phony to be the "truth," just as Americans' desire to believe that their president wouldn't lie to them led them to believe that gw bush's phony WMD lies were factual. Powell even had charts and pictures!
I'm afraid that your sense of victimhood is coloring your reading of my posts. The tawdriness and the arrogance are innate to the religion, not the believer. In a very real sense, the believer is just as much the victim of his religion's shortcomings and arrogance as are the people who have been killed for god throughout history.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If he truly believes this, how could he, if he were elected, complete his oath of office and swear that he would uphold and defend the Constitution if he doesn't believe in it!?
Posted by: mary | January 18, 2008 4:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. mark wrote: But, in the Holy Bible, god sez:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7. KJV
Mr. mark if you were a steward of the bible you would know that the Hebrew word for "evil" is "bara" and is translation is "to bring about, bring into existence, calamity, adversity, trouble, distress, and wretchedness. The idea is that God made the law reaping as well as sowing and evil and bad results will come when men sin.
God has decreed that calamity, adversity, trouble, distress, and wretchedness will come as a result of sin. God does not create sin. God simply made the law and penalties for breaking the law, which will always be in force.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 4:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark, this is your post done at January 18, 2008 3:29 PM. These beliefs that you reference in your post are held by Christians.
What I DO hate - and I hate it with a passion - is the tawdriness of faith; the arrogance posing as humility that one's personal beliefs, no matter how unfounded, no matter how comical, are somehow to be accepted as having even a shred of truth to them; the ego-centric and vengeful world view masquerading as benign benevolence
Then you posted this in response to my post:
Mr. Mark wrote: BTW - I don't for a second believe that Xians or religionists are phonies, except for the obvious phonies like Benny Hinn and Robertson. No, it's the BELIEFS that are phony. January 18, 2008 4:10 PM
So which is it you only hate christian's with "tawdriness of faith; the arrogance posing as humility that one's personal beliefs, no matter how unfounded, no matter how comical, are somehow to be accepted as having even a shred of truth to them; the ego-centric and vengeful world view masquerading as benign benevolence."
If so then you hate Christians, PERIOD. So tell me how do you judge which Christian has which of the attributes that "you hate with a passion."
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela B sez:
"God didn't create evil; man did!"
But, in the Holy Bible, god sez:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7. KJV
BTW, this is the true translation from the Hebrew word of "ra’ah"(resh ayin hey) which means "evil". All of the other later translations of the Bible from the Hebrew tried to find another word in English in order to get around this, using words like "disaster" and "calamity." Some Bible translations accept the word "evil" as translated, but then add a non-scriptural spin by imagining that men create moral evil while god is only responsible for physical evils, like floods and earthquakes (see the Amplified Bible for example).
Notice that "evil" is in the PRESENT tense in this verse. That means that God is CONTINUALLY creating evil, even now!
Looks like Angela needs to start reading her Bible right after she's done perusing those founding documents.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To Mr Mark, Fred Evil, Dr.R.P, yoyo, and others who refuse to believe in God...
Refusing to believe the Truth doesn’t make said Truth any less true. An over-the-top example of this could be someone who refuses to believe that human beings need oxygen to survive. Not believing that human beings need oxygen to live doesn’t void the truthfulness of the statement that human beings need oxygen to live.
So it is with God…not believing in Him doesn’t cause Him to not exist. God exists whether or not people choose to believe in Him.
Jesus said “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you…”.
For those who don’t believe in God…may I recommend that you sincerely and genuinely ask God to reveal Himself to you and in time see if He doesn’t answer.
And if you don't, that's your prerogative no one is going to force you, but you'll have only yourselves to blame when you stand before God...and one day, you will.
Posted by: Mr. Sal | January 18, 2008 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques:
Please check the Memphis Declaration thread at baptistlife.com
and the link by Auburn, Alabama FBC pastor Jim Evans.
In 2006 Evans preached at the National Cathedral in DC.
Posted by: Stephen Fox | January 18, 2008 4:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela B wrote: "entire world better get right with God"
Fred Evil retorted: “Whose god? Yours? Ganesh? Buddha? Jehovah? Jesus?Yahweh? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? etc. etc..?” He then added “[If]You want a theocracy, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran, and you can have all the religious ignorance you can handle.”
Why go to Saudi Arabia or Iran to hear about all the religious ignorance. You can have plenty of it right here. Just don’t listen to any. Go to Saudi Arabia or Iran only to see the “1001 Marvelous Nights.”
Posted by: LAWO | January 18, 2008 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
American Taliban? Or worse?
Which Bible anyway? As I recall, there are about 900 diferent translations into English. Or is the King James version the only definitive one?
Posted by: Hugh Elliot | January 18, 2008 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
American Taliban? Or worse?
Which Bible anyway? As I recall, there are about 900 diferent translations into English. Or is the King James version the only definitive one?
Posted by: Hugh Elliot | January 18, 2008 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I find this statement, as a governing philosophy, frighteningly close to that of the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Substitute "Biblical Law" for "Sharia Law" (not a great leap), and substitute Mike Huckabee for Mullah Omar, and the parallel is a little too close for comfort in America, at least the America I used to know and love.
Jack...
Posted by: J Brady | January 18, 2008 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred evil wrote: "No, I did not call you an awful American, though to be frank, you are. You want to do away with the unreligious government that serves ALL the people, and institute one which serves Xtians first, and perhaps only. Why in the world would that make you an awful American?"
Excuse me Mr. Evil but I think that you owe Angela an apoligy, the below is her post. I don't see anything in her post that says she "want to do away with the unreligious government that serves ALL the people, and institute one which serves Xtians first, and perhaps only."
In fact, it says the opposite; care to revise your statement, sir?
"Your question "Do I Love the Constitution"; I live my life obeying and submitting (yes, I said it) to the laws and authorities of this land. Romans 13:1-7... 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. HAVE A FIELD DAY!"
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred evil wrote: "No, I did not call you an awful American, though to be frank, you are. You want to do away with the unreligious government that serves ALL the people, and institute one which serves Xtians first, and perhaps only. Why in the world would that make you an awful American?"
Excuse me Mr. Evil but I think that you owe Angela an apoligy, the below is her post. I don't see anything in her post that says she "want to do away with the unreligious government that serves ALL the people, and institute one which serves Xtians first, and perhaps only."
In fact, it says the opposite; care to revise your statement, sir?
"Your question "Do I Love the Constitution"; I live my life obeying and submitting (yes, I said it) to the laws and authorities of this land. Romans 13:1-7... 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. HAVE A FIELD DAY!"
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred evil wrote: "No, I did not call you an awful American, though to be frank, you are. You want to do away with the unreligious government that serves ALL the people, and institute one which serves Xtians first, and perhaps only. Why in the world would that make you an awful American?"
Excuse me Mr. Evil but I think that you owe Angela an apoligy, the below is her post. I don't see anything in her post that says she "want to do away with the unreligious government that serves ALL the people, and institute one which serves Xtians first, and perhaps only."
In fact, it says the opposite; care to revise your statement, sir?
"Your question "Do I Love the Constitution"; I live my life obeying and submitting (yes, I said it) to the laws and authorities of this land. Romans 13:1-7... 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. HAVE A FIELD DAY!"
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Personally, I would like to hear more about the Holy Sh*t. I'm sure there must be a branch of theology on it. If some of it were to have been preserved in an earthern jar (or grail?) I'm sure that many people would want to buy it, make pilgrimages to it, or otherwise hold it in veneration. I wonder what kind of powers would be attributed to it. Would it ensure bountiful crops? Aid in digestion? Smite one's enemies? I'm sure there are answers to all these questions. I have heard that the Lord used his Spit to cure blindness, and it seems to me that Spit is nothing compared to Sh*t. I don't think the Lord used his Sh*t in the Bible; maybe it's power is beyond what was needed. Maybe it will figure in to the End of Days. These are the questions of TRUE science.
P.S. I've read that an Egyption Imam issued a fatwa that declared it a blessing to drink the urine of the Prophet (PBUH). That's one point of hard data, at least.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Anonymous -
Sorry, but your post doesn't really address much of what I posted.
BTW - I don't for a second believe that Xians or religionists are phonies, except for the obvious phonies like Benny Hinn and Robertson. No, it's the BELIEFS that are phony.
Americans believed gw bush's lies about WMD in Iraq. That didn't make Americans phonies, it just proved they were gullible. No, the "facts" presented at the UN by that lying charlatan Colin Powell were what was phony, just like the well-worn and hackneyed stories of resurrected gods are just as phony if the god is Mithras, Jesus, Osiris, Tammuz or any other mythical, resurrected god from our species' childish and fear-inspired past.
;)
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If (and it's a very big IF) Huckabee grasps two key points: the meaning of God, and the source of the Bible (which is ultimately the same source of all religions), then I must say that he is on target in his comments. He is saying that the constitution has an inferior place relative to the tenets of religion, or the "word of the living God" as he puts it. When he says we can't change "God's standards", I take it to mean that we can't change the laws of nature, which one would like to think are reflected in the beliefs and practice of people adhering to a particular faith. Of course, the religion that Huckabee is referring to -- modern Christianity -- has lost much of its original substance. The deep principles that gave rise to Christianity 2000 years ago have been twisted and confused into shallow, meaningless creeds over the centuries, and few Christians today really "get it" anymore. Few really get where Jesus the man-God was coming from. Same holds true for many other modern religions. Note, however, that the surviving indigenous traditions -- those few that have preserved some of their original authenticity -- do in fact reflect a more profound and more natural guide for individual life on the planet. Indigenous "laws" derive from the infinite, the transcendental source of life. Our man-made laws, however much they are revered, are subservient and derivative relative to those natural laws. Does Huckabee really grasp this, or is he simply spouting hollow Christian dogma? Maybe someone who knows him better can tell us.
Al Gabis
Fairfield, Iowa
Posted by: Alexander Gabis | January 18, 2008 4:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
WELL SAID!
The MAJORITY would not be so willing to screw around with the Constitution as Mr. Huckabee thinks. And, now that he has shown his hand, people will be watching his words more closely. And, even if by some miracle he were elected, he wouldn't get very far in trying to Biblify the Constitution.
What he said was very specific. He can't really try to dull the meaning without looking stupid. It's going to be watching him try as the campaign goes on. No other candidate will openly challenge him in a debate or otherwise out of fear of upsetting the Christian loonies, but the press will get them to denounce his plans. Then, he'll try to do some more 'splainin, and he look even dumber.
"And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."
--Mike Huckabee
It sounds so polished, as though he and some guys sat around and worked on the wording. It's going to be fun watching him have to take it back at the next debate.
One more thing...
Mr Berlinerblau, please use a different picture on your blog. You look really angry in your photo, like may you're just about to start screaming or you're going leap off the page and bit my nose off. Please don't bite my nose off.
Posted by: Jesus H. Christ! | January 18, 2008 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee is dangerous to the Constitution of the USA and man's freedoms. Will he eventually want to establish a national religion if he's president? Would he try and control many different aspects of the American way of life and try and interfere with our freedoms and choice? It appears that may be so.
Religion and politics should not mix and we should not mess with the Constitution in relation to abortion and gay marriage. States should decide on these issues, (get rid of Roe vs Wade too)and we also shouldn't let a few 'wise' men in black robes decide for the people on issues. The Supreme Court is there to "interpret" the law, not 'make up' the law.
MITT ROMNEY is the best candidate to take this great nation forward.
Posted by: Keriama | January 18, 2008 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Evil (what a "Name)
All of this is futile but just to answer some of your outlined questions: God didn't create evil; man did! God has chosen in his dominion to do what He likes; You are not the Potter and He the Clay. Not sure if you all know but you all believe that you are Gods. He is patient with all of us; not wanting any of us to perish. Let me ask you a question, Say, you're driving down the highway in a 30 mph speed limit and you're going 50 and then the law shows up and gives you a ticket; ALSO, How would you feel if someone murdered someone you love and the judge let them go; would you consider that mercy; no it would be injustice, corrupt injustice. just think about all the things that people think they do in secret; think of all the times you could've done what you consider a good deed and you didn't, think of all the times you've lied (it only takes one lie to be a liar), think about how many times you've stolen, and I can go on an on. We all have somewhat of a moral code; don't we, we would want the judge to throw the book at someone who has hurt, misused, murdered someone we love. We would want justice right; SO I ASK YOU HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU THINK HE'S GOING TO REQUIRE. HE'S NOT A CORRUPT JUDGE. BE HAPPY WHILE YOU ARE YOUNG, HAVE THE DESIRES OF YOUR HEART, BUT KNOW THIS; THERE WILL BE JUSTICE TO PAY WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. CALL ME INSANE, CALL ME ANYTHING YOU LIKE, I sleep w/a clear conscience and have peace. Most people have a false sense of peace or none at all if you could look inside their souls. EVERYONE,HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!
Posted by: Angela B. | January 18, 2008 4:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
These DISGUSTING comments should disqualify him from the race because we have a little concept called "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE".
What makes the comments disgusting is the assumption that his human interpretation of the bible equates to the word and intent of God, and that said interpretation is on par with the work of the founding fathers...the constitution.
I don't care who you are - your ideas do not represent God to me because you are human.
The constitution is "right with God", btw... It says the church and State should be separate...and the BIBLE agrees:
"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's".
Posted by: JBE | January 18, 2008 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam, my mistake mentioning you. I meant to say Angela.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark;
It was a pleasure to read your conversation with Angela. I hope she ponders your arguments,which were very well expressed.
But knowing the religious mind as do,I have no great expectations that Angela is even capable of considering your points,for if she were,she would
contradict everything we know about religious indoctrination,and how it sticks for life.
She is as confident of her position as the 9:11 bombers were of the 72 virgins awaiting them after their martyrdom.
That`s religion!
Posted by: yoyo | January 18, 2008 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"I believe it takes more belief not to believe in God than to believe in HIM."
No, Angela, all it takes is evidence-based KNOWLEDGE.
"but as with all beliefs or actions, there's always a consequence, whether good or bad."
He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake; he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for...oh, wait - that's Santa Claus. Oh well, same difference.
"When someone is ill or you're having a bad time of it, I'm quite sure you don't use his name as a curse word but you cry out to the one who you don't believe exists."
Can't speak for Mr. Mark, but in my case (and I suspect his) that would be completely wrong. Don't believe that old adage about athiests and foxholes, it's just religionist wishful thinking.
"there would be no way I would vote for someone who goes against my moral beliefs"
And no way that *I* would vote fo someone who goes against *my* moral beliefs, either. Most of them are probably similar to yours. But if you're talking about someone who goes against your *religious* beliefs, well, there we begin to cancel each other out.
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards".
Thus sayeth the Reverend Huckabee. His words sound a lot like something the Ayatollah Khomeini might say.
Posted by: Don | January 18, 2008 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela -
Thanks for the comments, but they continue to betray the fact that you either haven't read or don't understand the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
BTW - I don't cry out "oh god" when I'm having a hard time. Neither do I cry out "oh, please, science" when I need a bit of help. I keep my cries to, "oh, sh*t," and the like - though I avoid the phrase "Holy Sh*t" as I'm afraid Canyon Shearer would take it as my invoking the precious, human bodily functions of an ancient godman, and that would mean I had somehow taken said godman's name in vain.
We don't wish to offend (BTW - that's the editorial "we," not the schizophrenic "we").
;)
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 3:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark, You are wrong, faith is not cheap and requires a great deal “trust” that is way you biggest problem lays.
No one in this forum ever stated you “had” to be a Christian, however what was said was scripture quoted from the bible. It was made clear to you by me that I did not write the bible so do not hold me responsible for what it says, in that case I deferred you to God who is the author.
Is it my fault that you do not believe God exists, NO again? So you are stuck my friend. But that does not give you the right to put every Christian in a mold and say they are phonies like you have stated some many times.
NEWS FLASH, Christians are believers in Christ and are all at different stages in their walk with God. Some more mature then others, but NONE and I repeat this NONE of them are perfect. If you seek perfection you will find it in GOD and him alone.
As far as the ego, that is your trip my friend I do not ride on the wings of presuming everyone is wrong or against me if the trust in God. What a judgmental attitude, which is, precisely what drives people in general away from you?
Another NEWS FLASH Christian feel pain, hurt, heartache, sorrow, angry just like other humans and even God was angry and called unbelievers FOOLS so don’t condemn me for having human emotions at least I don’t stay in a “stagnant” position of angry and hate until it eats me alive to the point that I cannot have a healthy intimate relationship with another person.
For the record Huckabee has made mistake but may question to you is, who are you to judge his heart as whether he is a Christian or not? You ergo is Playing God, get real you are not better then anyone else, PERIOD.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark, You are wrong, faith is not cheap and requires a great deal “trust” that is way you biggest problem lays.
No one in this forum ever stated you “had” to be a Christian, however what was said was scripture quoted from the bible. It was made clear to you by me that I did not write the bible so do not hold me responsible for what it says, in that case I deferred you to God who is the author.
Is it my fault that you do not believe God exists, NO again? So you are stuck my friend. But that does not give you the right to put every Christian in a mold and say they are phonies like you have stated some many times.
NEWS FLASH, Christians are believers in Christ and are all at different stages in their walk with God. Some more mature then others, but NONE and I repeat this NONE of them are perfect. If you seek perfection you will find it in GOD and him alone.
As far as the ego, that is your trip my friend I do not ride on the wings of presuming everyone is wrong or against me if the trust in God. What a judgmental attitude, which is, precisely what drives people in general away from you?
Another NEWS FLASH Christian feel pain, hurt, heartache, sorrow, angry just like other humans and even God was angry and called unbelievers FOOLS so don’t condemn me for having human emotions at least I don’t stay in a “stagnant” position of angry and hate until it eats me alive to the point that I cannot have a healthy intimate relationship with another person.
For the record Huckabee has made mistake but may question to you is, who are you to judge his heart as whether he is a Christian or not? You ergo is Playing God, get real you are not better then anyone else, PERIOD.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark, You are wrong, faith is not cheap and requires a great deal “trust” that is way you biggest problem lays.
No one in this forum ever stated you “had” to be a Christian, however what was said was scripture quoted from the bible. It was made clear to you by me that I did not write the bible so do not hold me responsible for what it says, in that case I deferred you to God who is the author.
Is it my fault that you do not believe God exists, NO again? So you are stuck my friend. But that does not give you the right to put every Christian in a mold and say they are phonies like you have stated some many times.
NEWS FLASH, Christians are believers in Christ and are all at different stages in their walk with God. Some more mature then others, but NONE and I repeat this NONE of them are perfect. If you seek perfection you will find it in GOD and him alone.
As far as the ego, that is your trip my friend I do not ride on the wings of presuming everyone is wrong or against me if the trust in God. What a judgmental attitude, which is, precisely what drives people in general away from you?
Another NEWS FLASH Christian feel pain, hurt, heartache, sorrow, angry just like other humans and even God was angry and called unbelievers FOOLS so don’t condemn me for having human emotions at least I don’t stay in a “stagnant” position of angry and hate until it eats me alive to the point that I cannot have a healthy intimate relationship with another person.
For the record Huckabee has made mistake but may question to you is, who are you to judge his heart as whether he is a Christian or not? You ergo is Playing God, get real you are not better then anyone else, PERIOD.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela B -
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
-- Epicurus
Sorry, the 'prince of this world' has never spoken to me to my knowledge, no more than your concept of 'God' has either. What flabbergasts me, is that Xtians think that only their 'God' can be a force in this country. I'm still waiting for that force to materialize. All I see is snake oil salesmen like Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson happily leading the masses by the nose. Masses who donate huge sums to these untaxed churches, who then spend it lavishly on themselves (not all, but often enough).
You Xtians want respect? Then earn it by ex-communicating obvious fools such as these. Anyone can twist the Bible to mean almost anything. Recognizing those who do it for personal gain and punishing them apropriately would earn you Xtians some RESPECT, instead of the derision you currently deserve.
For the record, I don't hate God (can't hate what doesn't exist), I loathe the concept of God, because it inspires pointless passion, which ends in death, imprisonment or oppression.
No, I did not call you an awful American, though to be frank, you are. You want to do away with the unreligious government that serves ALL the people, and institute one which serves Xtians first, and perhaps only. Why in the world would that make you an awful American?
Posted by: Fred Evil | January 18, 2008 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark; with all do respect, when you say faith is cheap; well don't you have faith not to believe there is a real living God. I believe it takes more belief not to believe in God than to believe in HIM. Also, I do believe, no matter, what others opinion is; all things are governed by a SOVEREIGN, OMMINPRESENT, OMNIPOTENT Living God and he allows all of us to have the free will to believe or not to believe but as with all beliefs or actions, there's always a consequence, whether good or bad. As I stated previously, I abide by the laws of the land and that also means The Constituion. If someone is corrupt, then I take my plea to their superior. Why is it that you guys get so angry when someone mentions the word "GOD". ...When someone is ill or you're having a bad time of it, I'm quite sure you don't use his name as a curse word but you cry out to the one who you don't believe exists. In addition, there would be no way I would vote for someone who goes against my moral beliefs and you have that right also. You have the right to believe what you want to believe, but know this; we are all accountable to HIM...
Posted by: Angela B. | January 18, 2008 3:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton et al. are rapidly turning in their graves.
Huckabee is scary!
Posted by: Marilyn | January 18, 2008 3:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mike Huckabee is just as much a fundamental, religious fanatic as Tom Cruise and Osama bin Laden. Only in his case, he claims to be a christian, not a scientologist or muslim.
The Constitution IS in line with God, Buddah, Gaia, the rocks and trees on the land I live on, and the spirits of my ancestors. The part that Huckabee seems to be incompetent to understand is that the Constitution specifies NO religion in order to support the existance of almost all religions. As long as politicians, judges, and the people continue to interpret the Constitution along the lines of "do unto others", "do no harm", "and it harm none"; it will continue to be a functional document to follow.
Posted by: Michael D. Houst | January 18, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
whats again this shows you how dangerous these people are. this should be a secular nation and all they want to do is make it a theoracacy.
Posted by: spondog | January 18, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
whats again this shows you how dangerous these people are. this should be a secular nation and all they want to do is make it a theoracacy.
Posted by: spondog | January 18, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
whats again this shows you how dangerous these people are. this should be a secular nation and all they want to do is make it a theoracacy.
Posted by: spondog | January 18, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous wrote:
"Mr. Mark, I have read enough of your posts and it is clear to me that you are the one with the problem. Not Pam or the other posters here and certainly not those who quote scripture."
Gee, how did I get pulled into this? I haven't even posted on this thread yet.
You don't think I'm as mean and angry as Mr. Mark? Well, to quote Hillary Clinton, that just hurts my feelings.
Will this help? I think Angela B. is a seriously deluded, totally brainwashed, serial nut case.
Posted by: Pam | January 18, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is a back-story to Rev Huckabee's remarks that commenters should know about. The belief that our Gov't and Constitution are subordinate to (Rev Huckabee's) God is a well established ideology called 'Christian Reconstruction' or sometimes 'Christian Dominion'. Some of them do indeed believe that after their victory in America, we will follow Old Testament law, so that rebellious children will be stoned to death (along with adulterous women and similar violators of God's laws.)
This is the subtle message that Rev Huckabee was giving earlier with his emphasis on 'horizonal' vs 'vertical' loyalty. He used the vocabulary of the Dominionists.
Don't laugh too long or hard at these people. As Ms AngelaB gives witness--they have an ideology that is compelling to large numbers of Godly Americans who feel that the popular culture and modern life has left them adrift.
A quote I will not look up: "When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Well...they are here, wrapped in the flag and carrying their cross. We should not ignore them.
Posted by: JohnMcC | January 18, 2008 3:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark,
I'm with you 100%. It's high time to call Religion by its name: SUPERSTITION. Anything less is irresponsible.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
freidenker: Just because someone says something that you do not agree with does not make them wrong.
Nitch the name-calling and preserve for your worst enemies, because you will have them throughout life.
There will be people that hate you just because of who you are and what you stand for, because they cannot control you, and most of all if you disagree with them.
But I found that that is okay, those relationships were never meant to be if a person couldn’t trust or accept you. freidenker:
Once you have established with them your sincerity and it is rejected beyond a shadow of doubt, let them go and move on.
These people will ultimately try to make you look and feel like it is your fault when in fact they are personally attacking you and then when you return fire you are a "bad person."
Once you sift through it all you will come to the realization of what they have done and put you through. It is their loss, they are the one with the problem not you.
Angela is right, like it or not.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous -
One cannot hate that which does not exist. Ergo, I cannot possibly "hate" god.
What I DO hate - and I hate it with a passion - is the tawdriness of faith; the arrogance posing as humility that one's personal beliefs, no matter how unfounded, no matter how comical, are somehow to be accepted as having even a shred of truth to them; the ego-centric and vengeful world view masquerading as benign benevolence.
Faith is cheap, possibly the cheapest commodity going. It requires no effort, no intellect and - in the purest sense of all - no commitment beyond a willing suspension of disbelief and a big enough ego to assume that the entire cosmos was created simply so YOU might have a personal relationship with some supernatural being.
I will defend the right of you or anyone else to believe what you will, but that does not mean that I must accept your beliefs as being in any way founded in fact or truth. It's a simple case of loving the believer, hating the lie.
As far as anger, you misread me, ma'am. Perhaps you're not used to having your superstitions challenged in a public forum. Well, you best get used to it. Such challenges are only bound to increase as the world continues to loose the rusting shackles of religion, to embrace the mystery of the natural world and to wear ever more confidently the mantle of humankind's hard-won, self-derived and ultimately innate morals and ethics.
You are almost as much an atheist as am I, Anon. I but go one step further and reject your god in addition to all the other gods you yourself currently reject. Like it or not, you are but a step away from my position.
Come on over. Take the step. The water's fine and the grass is definitely greener.
Best to you.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques,
For once, I don't have anything to add. As a patriotic American, I feel like it's my duty to defend the Constitution from those who would attempt to destroy it and everything our country was founded upon. I don't see this as a religious issue, I see it as an attack on our country by a radical nut who thinks his version of the world is the only one that can or should exist.
Posted by: Matthew | January 18, 2008 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yep, too subtle...
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 18, 2008 3:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
you saps. this angela b is pulling your chains. no one can be as ignorant as she comes off. leave her alone and maybe she'll be quiet.
Posted by: freidenker | January 18, 2008 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The authorities that exist have been established by God."
Translation: "Might makes right."
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Give it a try, perhaps will we discuss it you can "vent" get it off your chest and start the healing process.
It is obvious that somewhere in your life someone hurt you and you haven't put it behind you yet. You don't have to be a Christian or love God not to hate and be full of anger?? or do you?
Really it is up to you, but you need help.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark:
You are dah Man! Are you going to answer that phsycobable up there from Anonymous (not me this time), or should I? Isn't it amazing that he can analyze you so well without even understanding what you don't believe.
Personally, I hate god like I hate all swiss cheese that is currently on Pluto. But maybe that is too subtle for anonymous.
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 18, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela B. I could't have said that better myself.
You are absolutely right.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I choose to believe God's word over man's word. Awful American; that's your opinion; it's not necessarily the truth; now is it! May God Bless You Mr. Mark...
Posted by: Angela B. | January 18, 2008 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela writes:
"The authorities that exist have been established by God."
The Declaration of Independence DIRECTLY REFUTES you when it states, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The powers of the US "authorities" are NOT derived or bestowed by god. They are derived from the consent of the governed. If you want to live in a country that believes that the authorities are god's representatives on earth, then you need to move to a monarchy. Saudi Arabia is nice this time of the year.
Again, you're a wonderful Xian and an awful American, Angela.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 3:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark, I have read enough of your posts and it is clear to me that you are the one with the problem. Not Pam or the other posters here and certainly not those who quote scripture.
One way to assess people and truly determine their position, the mature way, is how consistently they speak about the issue at hand when they are hurt, feeling pain, have heartache, and or angry at being wronged by someone. Having said that let me explain, people as a whole and in general suffer through difficult times in life.
This will cause them to go through different stages i.e., law of cause and effect. What a mature person will do is cry, express anger, express pain/heartache, and so forth. But ultimately you will always hear them go back to the basis of what they truly stand for and believe in and see them progress through the problem and put it behind them. Meaning the anger/hatred does not remain a permanent issue and they experience the healing process.
When people such as yourself always come across like you, angry, speaking words of hatred, suspicious of others, always on the defensive when not being attacked, never trusting others intentions, finding fault, and determined within yourself that if they make one, two, or even three mistake it validates you suspicion that they are not a trustworthy person. The point is you live perpetually in that state never coming out of it.
There is only one conclusion your defensiveness, criticisms, anger, and derogatory statements made about God, anyone that mentions God, and the Bible says that you are a God hater whether you admit it or not.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 2:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
...and we finally manages to squeeze some scripture out of Angela B!!
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 18, 2008 2:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry, that "Anonymous" comment up there is mine.
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 18, 2008 2:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To Mr. Mark,
Your question "Do I Love the Constitution"; I live my life obeying and submitting (yes, I said it) to the laws and authorities of this land. Romans 13:1-7... 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. HAVE A FIELD DAY!
Posted by: Angela B. | January 18, 2008 2:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela B wrote:
"The only thing I can say is that maybe he shouldn't said that but it's true,"
So it is OK for Huckabee to misrepresent himself in order to get elected? And how does that make him (and you) morally superior to the rest of us?
Sounds like a page from the German Nazi Party playbook of the 1930's to me.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 18, 2008 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This may be the best thing Huckabee has said yet--let's just "get it out there" so we'll know exactly where we stand on the issue--at least it's now even more transparent. Plus, we might not be further subject to another cell phone call "from God" as he's at the Republican conventions.
For any who might argue with Angela B--please, just admit she's right...it's much less painful that way.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 18, 2008 2:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Keep talking Huck. You've almost got enough rope to hang yourself.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 18, 2008 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ANGELA B. writes:
"Why even bother quoting Scriptures; you wouldn't understand as they're spiritually discerned."
Gee, Angela, in regards to this particular discussion, I would pay real money for you to once - ONCE! - offer to quote the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. The Bible has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the Constitution. The Constitution has no bearing on the Bible. Quoting the Bible in a Constitutional discussion is akin to quoting the rules of football during a cooking class.
I don't care if you love the Bible or "the lord." I want to know if you love the Constitution. Well, do you?
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 2:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm sorry - Huckabee's a Christian, right? That makes governance alot easier, since we already have the Pope. Maybe he'll personally burn the Constitution during his inaugural!
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is Berlinblauer obsessed with Huckabee?
Posted by: JR | January 18, 2008 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
My bad!!! I didn't realize what Huckabee's personal religious beliefs were. Forget the Koran, it's blasphemy! Impose the Vedic Scriptures!
Of course, the vile Constitution has still got to go.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with Reverend Huckabee - what America needs is Sharia Law. But Huckabee (PBUH) isn't taking his position all the way to it's naturaly conclusion - why even bother with a Constitution at all? It can do nothing except stand in the way of God's law, which is already clearly laid out in the Koran. We need to burn this vile document, make it a crime of apostasy to even have a copy of it, considering how dangerous it is.
Posted by: Chris Everett | January 18, 2008 2:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
DR. R.P.
Why even bother quoting Scriptures; you wouldn't understand as they're spiritually discerned. Also, as I stated before, Huckabee of course, should've never said what he said as he should've known better to discuss anything about God in this ungodly world. We are used to getting mocked and being ridiculed from this hard-hearted, unbelieving world. Also, let me ask you where did the sun, sky, moon and stars come from: "The Big Bang", chemicals that exploded in the sky; who's fantazing; it takes blind faith to believe something so unbelievable. I can't force anyone to believe what I believe but don't believe in trucks and stand on the freeway, you'll get crushed!
Posted by: Angela B. | January 18, 2008 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
DR. R.P.
Why even bother quoting Scriptures; you wouldn't understand as they're spiritually discerned. Also, as I stated before, Huckabee of course, should've never said what he said as he should've known better to discuss anything about God in this ungodly world. We are used to getting mocked and being ridiculed from this hard-hearted, unbelieving world. Also, let me ask you where did the sun, sky, moon and stars come from: "The Big Bang", chemicals that exploded in the sky; who's fantazing; it takes blind faith to believe something so unbelievable. I can't force anyone to believe what I believe but don't believe in trucks and stand on the freeway, you'll get crushed!
Posted by: Angela B. | January 18, 2008 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ANGELA B. writes:
"To Fred and DR. DP. It's amazing you don't even know me yet you want to call me an awful American; I love the Lord and I treat my neighbor with love and respect even when their unloving. I'm God's Child, set free from the bondage of this evil,...(blah, blah, blah)"
Angela complains of being called an awful American (which she apparently is), and offers no defense to counter the impression. Instead, she rants about what makes her a Christian! What's that tell you about Angela?
Here's the deal, Angela: this is the United States, founded upon secular documents, not the Bible. As Americans, we do NOTHING in this country to "glorify god/Jesus/et al." As Americans, we are not called to glorify Christ, believe in Christ, worship Christ or asked to do a damn thing in this country to "get right with god."
Your "loving the Lord" has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a good, bad or indifferent American, though in your case, it looks like it makes you an awful American. As we used to say in New York, your belief plus a subway token will get you downtown.
Do us all a favor a READ the Founding Documents. You will not find your Jesus there. You will not find your god there. You WILL find a secular democracy there, designed by our Founders to put the lie to the ignorant rants of religionists like yourself who believe that belief in any god is a prerequisite to being an American.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ANGELA B. writes:
"To Fred and DR. DP. It's amazing you don't even know me yet you want to call me an awful American; I love the Lord and I treat my neighbor with love and respect even when their unloving. I'm God's Child, set free from the bondage of this evil,...(blah, blah, blah)"
Angela complains of being called an awful American (which she apparently is), and offers no defense to counter the impression. Instead, she rants about what makes her a Christian! What's that tell you about Angela?
Here's the deal, Angela: this is the United States, founded upon secular documents, not the Bible. As Americans, we do NOTHING in this country to "glorify god/Jesus/et al." As Americans, we are not called to glorify Christ, believe in Christ, worship Christ or asked to do a damn thing in this country to "get right with god."
Your "loving the Lord" has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a good, bad or indifferent American, though in your case, it looks like it makes you an awful American. As we used to say in New York, your belief plus a subway token will get you downtown.
Do us all a favor a READ the Founding Documents. You will not find your Jesus there. You will not find your god there. You WILL find a secular democracy there, designed by our Founders to put the lie to the ignorant rants of religionists like yourself who believe that belief in any god is a prerequisite to being an American.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What, no scriptures?
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 18, 2008 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To Fred and DR. DP. It's amazing you don't even know me yet you want to call me an awful American; I love the Lord and I treat my neighbor with love and respect even when their unloving. I'm God's Child, set free from the bondage of this evil, wicked, self-deceived world through the atonement of Jesus Christ's blood on the cross. And again,if you really want to know if there really is a God; seek and you shall find; knock and the door will be opened. You prince of this world has blinded your eyes; blind guides leading the blind. The hardened cynics like the both of you don't want to know if you really would like to I dare you to start here: http://www.crosstv.com/apologetics.htm#wp02
Also, the reason why people don't really want to search for truth is they are self-deceived and also, love their sin.
Posted by: Angela B. | January 18, 2008 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am with Fred Evil on this, and think that people like Angela B are just awful Americans. They do not understand that one of the reasons the US has been so successful politically and economically is our ability to get things out in the open and expose stupidity quickly and efficiently (via our freedom of speech). The process is not perfect (proof is the fact that the Vietnam war went on for so long, as probably will this Iraq war), but most of the time the "sniff test" eventually works on stupid ideas. One hugely stupid idea is that if we just turned our country into a kneel-facing-who-knows-which-direction-and-praying-twice-a-day-to-the-lord-our-god-who's-feet-you-are-not-worthy-to-lick theocracy, "god" will just take care of us. Sorry, don't believe that for a moment, as I hope most people of this country also don't.
So I agree, Angela B can go to one of the many theocracies the world already has, or she can join spiderman2 in his bunker (spiderhole?) in Montana since he thinks China is going to nuke all us sinners any day now. Or perhaps she can do us all a favor and learn some history so you understand how important FREEDOM of SPEECH and FREEDOM of/from RELIGION is...
...or she can just quote me some scriptures, which seems to be the fallback for most believers on this site when their beliefs are challenged.
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 18, 2008 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques thanks again for a very well informed article. When I first heard this a few days ago I thought it had to be some mud throwing from another canidate. But it looks like Schmuckabee has just dug himself a whole with this one. He will soon be hanging out in the toilet with Mayor 9/11.
Ring Ring.
Hello? Hey Mike, it's God. He says you are an idiot.
Posted by: Patrick | January 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Angela B wrote - "entire world better get right with God"
Whose god? Yours? Ganesh? Buddha? Jehovah? Jesus?Yahweh? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? etc. etc..?
Have ANY of them been PROVEN to exist? If so, please point me to the proof. If not, then the government of the United States of America (a SECULAR NATION, like it or not, and DESIGNED that way by the Founding Dathers!) has no business involving itself in a selection of a particular religion's concept of the universe over anothers. It's in the Constitution, so suck it up and recognize that the US will NEVER officially be a Xtian nation. The more you and Huckleberry push it, the stronger the resistance will be.
Keep your religion in your CHURCH, and I will keep my overwhelming digust with those who believe in something without proof in check. Insist on spreading your religious blather, especially via the US government, and you will have the fight of your life on your hands. This is as much my country as it is anyone else's, and I'll not have this beautiful nation turned into a stagnant religious quagmire.
You want a theocracy, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran, and you can have all the religious ignorance you can handle.
Posted by: Fred Evil | January 18, 2008 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
We need a new public service ad:
This is your brain...
This is your brain on God.
Posted by: Enemy Of The State | January 18, 2008 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Absolutely, our Constitution above all other printed words is sacred. Jacque's sense that Huck's sincere seems terribly true. Let's hope he's right that Huck's profane designs upon our birthright will reduce him in due course to the footnote God wants him to become, even if I, being an atheist, do say so myself.
Posted by: jhbyer | January 18, 2008 12:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huck's crazy rantings, and the the others' statements to show who is the most Godly, have given a bad name to both religion and politics.
All of the current slate should be thrown out and a new bunch recruited from a less saintly crowd.
Posted by: Ralph | January 18, 2008 12:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As far as we know there are no gods.
To believe otherwise suggests that one was
indoctrinated as a child,or is otherwise foolish
and gullible.
There is no supernatural dimension to the universe.
There is only the natural world,this world we see around us.
It`s fun to believe in fairies and gods and
goblins and ghosts,and very comforting,no doubt.
But of course,such creatures exist only in
the imagination. Our very ancient ancestors
were unable to separate the imagined from the real,
and passed on down to us a lot of religious hocus pocus.
It`s time we acknowledged this,and learned to live
without ancient myths.
Posted by: yoyo | January 18, 2008 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The only thing I can say is that maybe he shouldn't said that but it's true, the entire world better get right with God as most of the world (religious folks who are outwardly spiritual but are not obedient to HIS requirements to be holy as HE is holy, loving HIM with all their mind, sould and strength,loving their neighbor as thy self, man-made religion, atheists, agnostics) who don't live a life up to God's standards (not man's standards) will one day stand before the just, holy, righteous judge of this ENTIRE world.
Posted by: Angela B. | January 18, 2008 11:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is actually rather savvy to shift marriage and abortion to constitutional issues. It throws red meat to partisans and lets the rest of us know that compromise is in the offing. You cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution - you have to compromise to do so.
The rest of the field is actually scarier, since they advocate going after "activist" judges and their jurisdiction, which would erode compromise and end judicial review of majority action. Now that is scary.
When Huckabee compares abortion to slavery, he is stating that a states rights solution is a bad idea. Not only does it erode the American nation but it cannot work, since people will travel to other states for abortion services (just as they travel to other counties now).
If Huckabee were saying he wanted a judicial solution, I would not be supporting him.
Posted by: Michael Bindner | January 18, 2008 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
A few weeks ago, Hick averred that the ONLY explanation for his success as a presidential candidate was that god was making things happen for him.
With his latest gaff, I'm going to go ahead and assume that the ghosts of the Founding Fathers had a hand in exposing Hick as the dangerous theocrat that he is.
Considering the impact Hick's statements about help from god and changing the Constitution will have on his candidacy going forward, I'd say ol' Yahweh just got kicked down a peg or three in the US power structure.
Let's hear it for The Founders!
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 18, 2008 10:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
spiderman2 said:
As I told you, these secularists are dumb. You have to teach them real hard so they understand things.
Actually, the anti-abortion law is not needed if all the people here are smart. It wasn't included in the constitution before coz most people in that era were smart.
---------------------------------------------------
Have you ever studied the history of abortion? it goes back in written history to 500BC. It obviously existed then, so certainly before then as well.
An 1870 survey of women in Berlin (then a very cosmopolitan city of Europe) found that 70% had terminated a pregnancy by various means. When asked how, one said she bought a potent from a magazine & took it; another used a piece of sharpened wood; another got up on furniture & jumped off over & over. No doctors.
Women have always practiced abortion, by many means. It is sad & infuriating that the radicals of the far right have hijacked this very important & common private procedure for a power-grabbing scheme today.
If that doesn't "teach" you, notice that the Old Testament talked about penalties to a man if he caused a woman to lose a child, but they never talked about penalties to a woman for ending her own pregnancy. I think wise men recognize that if a woman does not want a child, perhaps it's best she not have it. But it is recognized as her personal decision.
Death of life, any kind of life, is always momentous. Deaths of soldiers in an unjust war, deaths of children at the hands of adults, death by suicide from hopelessness, all of these are worthy of being opposed. But telling a woman what to do with her own body is tantamount to forcing young men to go fight & possibly die for a cause they do not believe in. That didn't work in Vietnam, it almost destroyed this country in the 1960's, and it will devastate us again if people like Huckabee are allowed to hijack abortion for political gain.