Good Show, Poor Theology

7jThank's.8i I compleatly agree with last post. hrm
This is my project ламинат step 5o

Very amazing site
Thanks, webmaster.

Cool blog
Thanks, webmaster.

Beautifull design
Thanks, webmaster.

Nice site
Thanks, webmaster.

Amazine site
Thanks, webmaster.

[...] Thank you for reading this post. You can now Leave A Comment (0) or Leave A [...]

Beautifull design
Thanks, webmaster.

Nice site
Thanks, webmaster.

http://sdjerpjdfgmerpppnhyjj.com sdjerpjdfgmerpppnhyjj
sdjerpjdfgmerpppnhyjj
sdjerpjdfgmerpppnhyjj

Неплохая тема для хорошего форума. Если вы так не думайте, то не пищите сюда и всё!
Я думаю это не сложно!

Spidey wrote:
"Many of his Apostles don't have a clear understanding of things to come. They are seeing it in a different glass. If I were born in their time, I would have the same situation."

You DO have the same situation.

"The CIA can learn a great deal from me if they will allow me to give them a little lesson."

You are one sick puppy - with delusions of grandeur. Get yourself to a good mental hospital before it's too late.

BTW, you *did* say on another thread, some months ago, that China would nuke the US, destroying all atheists in 2010. Changing your story now?

Read this, Spidey, and tell me why you're so much smarter than all the other doomsayers whose predictions have come to naught:
http://www.abhota.info/

You're really a joke, you know.

Spong's thoughts read like a parody of the modern liberal "Christian theologian." As a post-liberal centrist Christian who will vote for Obama, I am saddened by Spong's pompous academia-centric world view. As a theologian, it seems you don't have to believe anything -- theology is a safe and academic exercise. Spong-thought is what is extinguishing the mainline churches in the U.S. and in Western Europe. Kudos to Rick Warren, who, whether or not you agree with his conservative theology, is actually doing something that helps people, globally. How emabarrassing for those theologians in academia who despise those moronic scripture believers and Evangelicals! Quick -- increase the mocking and bolster the patronizing attitudes! And yet, Christianity is growing phenomenally throughout the world, in Eastern Europe, China, Africa, in South America and even in India. Our western culture does dull us from hard truths. We think our cultural versions of liberal and conservative are far more significant that they are. I yearn for God's truth, not an academic excuse for my beliefs and behavior. The peace of Jesus Christ be with us.

Michelle Obama said "Barrack will bring us the CHANGE the people need".

Most probably, that includes the kind of change when a future U.S president will present his First Lady but lo and behold, she's not a lady.

WHAT A CHANGE. And what a lady that would be.

Thanks to his future choice of court judges once he becomes president.

The second coming of Christ is so great that not even the universe can contain Him. If he first came as meek as a lamb, it's the total opposite in His second coming. The second coming evangelicals are hoping for is NOT the TRUE second coming but more LIKE the son of man coming. Similarly ALIKE but not the real deal. As I've said the real deal is so great that not even the universe can contain Him.

The way to interpret the Bible is NOT stick to a single verse or two. Compare it/them with other verses in the Bible and how it stands with current world events. Many of it's prophetic verses can only be undertood when the real event is happening or have happened. From there you can make deductions and make a more accurate interpretation of the other coming prophecies.

For that reason Christ mentioned this verse : "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12). His prophecies are time dependent. Many of his prophecies cannot be interpreted unless the exact time arrives. Many of his Apostles don't have a clear understanding of things to come. They are seeing it in a different glass. If I were born in their time, I would have the same situation.

The "man of perdition" Apostle Paul was talking about was not a man or "Judas", but a group of people who adopts the behavior of Judas. The CIA can learn a great deal from me if they will allow me to give them a little lesson.

Continue with your way of understanding the Bible but don't disregard mine coz they are useful especially in the present time when many of the prophecies will occur.

"We'll see who's right and who's wrong."

I'm telling you what the text says. If you have some reason why I should interpret it differently, feel free to let me know.

Cheers,
Dave

Arminius wrote "Witness his refusal to admit that I was correct about binary, math base 2."

More lessons about binary.

Decimal --- Binary
1 ------- 1
2 ------- 10
3 ------- 11
4 ------- 100
5 ------- 101

Both are writen differently but both are pronounced as one, two, three, four and five.
One plus one is always TWO whether decimal or binary.

Arminius wrote "Witness his refusal to admit that I was correct about binary, math base 2."

More lessons about binary.

Decimal Binary
1 1
2 10
3 11
4 100
5 101

Both are writen differently but both are pronounced as one, two, three, four and five.
One plus one is always TWO whether decimal or binary.

Pam wrote "Paul was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a disciple."

Wrong, read this : "Paul, an APOSTLE (disciple) of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:" (Eph 1:1)

"Nor did he write the gospels"

Not the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) but the rest are almost all his writings. It's clear you don't read the Bible.

"It was 2010, your doomsday year, right, Spidey?"

Wrong as usual. Just wait coz it will arrive soon but NOT 2010, 2011 nor 2012. You will know when it's coming if it's at your doorstep already-- where there will be no escape.

Pam,

I advise you and Dave to abandon On Faith, as I have, as Mr Mark has, and have many others. The megaspamming of JJ has had a lot to do with that, as well as the exponential increase of bigots and garden-variety idiots.

Spidey can no more be reached than we can teach calculus to a cow. Witness his refusal to admit that I was correct about binary, math base 2. He claims to be an engineer and know something about computers - he lies. He lies. All you will ever get from him are lies, hatred, and idiocy. He knows no more about Christianity than he knows about math. My God, you, a non-believer, know more about Christianity than he does.

Goodbye, I hope to meet you somewhere on a friendly blog. You write a good post, make a lot of sense, and have no tolerance for BS. All good points.

Last post ever here.

Arminius

"A big portion of the New Testament was written by Apostle Paul himself to the Greeks, moron."

Paul was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a disciple. Nor did he write the gospels.

Baah! Enough of you. You're just a waste of time. I'd advise you to give up, too, Dave.

I hope this forum continues, though. It was 2010, your doomsday year, right, Spidey? I want to hear what you have to say on January first, 2011.

Dave, time will be the ultimate judge. We'll see who's right and who's wrong.

Same with Pam, we'll see who'll be catching that nuke.

Pam wrote "Spidey, you are an incredible moron."

Im not sure about that but I wonder how it looks like how a moron would catch a nuclear bomb. We'll know who is the REAL moron coz it is she or he who will catch it in the near future.

A big portion of the New Testament was written by Apostle Paul himself to the Greeks, moron.

"Sorry, but your neat little black & white world doesn't really exist."

Unless you are severally colorblind. Sorry, a shameless joke.

Cheers,
Dave

"The Bible is not very easy to interpret. Its viewing glass becomes clearer as time progresses."

This is a cop out. Of course Scripture isn't easy to interpret. The most recent parts almost 2,000 years old. Furthermore, the John citation is completely irrelevant. The passage nowhere says anything about the eschaton. Pentecost, yes, but nothing about the Parousia. It cannot just be stated arbitrarily that the passages I've cited do not refer to a real, concrete second coming. I wonder if you are allowing some other presuppositions that you hold to influence your theology and reading of the text.

Cheers,
Dave

They can't bear them at that time coz the viewing glass is not that clear yet. Time makes the difference.

The Bible is not very easy to interpret. Its viewing glass becomes clearer as time progresses.

All I can say is let's us all wait. Doomsday will arrive and yet Christ will not appear. Sad to say but that is what will happen.

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)

"What original are you talking about? The kind that scales turn to feathers? You claim it's not original because some fool said it is not. What is your proof? You don't even know Greek as what Dave suggest."

Spidey, you are an incredible moron. It's well known among Biblical scholars that the texts on which the NT is based are not originals. Also that there might never have been an actual Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. No one knows for sure who wrote the gospels, or how many times they were copied before the Catholic church, at the Council of Nicaea, decided which ones would be be in the compilation.

Did you ever stop to wonder why they were in Greek, when Jesus and the disciples would have spoken Aramaic?

Do you know that there are different versions of the Bible with varying numbers of books?

Do you know that the texts that were left out at Nicaea were destroyed?

Read here (for a start): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

Sorry, but your neat little black & white world doesn't really exist.

Now, chapter and verse on that Jesus quote, please. And I expect it to refer to *this* generation in some way - not his own.

"It's a wrong perception that Christ will return on earth to rule personally."

Unfortunately the NT itself does not sustain your view. In 1 Cor. 4, Paul writes that Jesus will come again and "bring to light the things now hidden in darkness..." Further, after the ascension in Acts 1, the two angels state that Jesus will "come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Perhaps you would like to suggest that this is supposed to be a 'spiritual' coming. Unfortunately the incident in Acts shows us otherwise. He left to heaven bodily, and, as the angels point out, he will return in the same way, viz. bodily.

Cheers,
Dave

What I mean by "Christians" are TRUE Christians. NOT false Christianity like catholicism, and the likes of Arminius and Spong.

It's a wrong perception that Christ will return on earth to rule personally. His true children will inherit this earth and rule it with true justice.

Wisdom and mercy is the key. It's not perfect but it is much more pleasing than we have today.

My background is in Engineering and some computer programming. It deals with PURE science. Not a single evolutionary theory has crept into that field because NO evolutionary theory works in the REAL WORLD.

It's all fantasy and they can only thrive in the form of books --fictional books. NOT in applied engineering or computer science.

Scales into feathers? NOT in the REAL WORLD.

"Christians will rule this world as Paul prophesied because stupidity is no match with wisdom."

Well, actually he said that Christ would rule this world, which is a good thing since even we Christians need saving from ourselves sometimes.

Cheers,
Dave

10 is not ten if it's binary. It is still two. You don't pronounce it as ten but TWO.

Arminius, as usual you are stupid in whatever field you choose.

Christians will rule this world as Paul prophesied because stupidity is no match with wisdom.

Goodbye, any of my friends that remain here. There is no use in staying. Most of my friends here have left, because of the spamming of JJ and the drooling idiocy of Spidey. Not to mention the growing trend of hatred and racism. Life is too short to spend time dealing with bigots and idiots.

Hell, even CCNL has not posted of late. That tells us something.....

I'm outta here.

One last answer to Spidey.

Your knowledge of math is at the 1st grade level. Why am I not surprised?

1+1=10 for base 2. Ever heard of that? It is how computers operate... oh, excuse me, I should have known that you did not know. But what else can one expect here?

1+1=2 and as usual you still don't get it.

As usual, Spidey refuses to answer direct questions, simply blathering things that prove nothing.

He is an empty shell. He is the Bard's tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Just read the article. It was pretty interesting. As for the textual differences you had mentioned, there wasn't anything there that I wasn't previously aware of. Not only do we, in all likelihood, not have the original ending of Mark, but we probably don't have the original opening either. It's interesting that Ehrman came out of fundamentalism. I really think that that explains quite a bit, as well as the philosophical problem of evil that was mentioned.

Cheers,
Dave

"The problem, though, Dave, is that there *are* no originals. Not one. We have *many* copies, some known to be older than others, but none are original, and they do not wholly agree - *any* of them. Some of the disagreement is obviously simple copying errors, but there are also instances of completely different text, and obvious changes."

But this is true of all of our primary sources from ancient history. I agree that there are in deed divergences in some instances between the manuscripts. One obvious example is that insertion of a trinitarian formula in 1 John. Our oldest manuscripts lack it, which is why more recent translators have left it our or relegated it to a footnote. Overall, however, we seem to have striking uniformity for the larger bodies of the texts, whether biblical or whatever.

As I said before, this only presents a problem in viewing Scripture as, in some sense, the word of God if one adheres to a fundamentalist dictation theory on the nature of the Bible.

"At least read the article about Prof. Ehrman at the link I gave you, even if you don't have time for his book(s)."

Maybe I will, since you insist.

"I don't think it's necessary to learn Koine Greek and redo the work yourself. We'd all be in a pretty pickle if we had to do everything from scratch all by ourselves. One can read the books and make a judgement as to which makes the better case - there are also commentaries from other scholars and critics to aid in discerning."

If that puts us in a pickle, so be it. The problem with reading secondary literature in history and textual criticism, a problem which may not be as prevalent in the hard sciences as the latter are more objective than the former two, is that we bring with us our own presuppositions and can tend to focus on and give greater credence to those authors who best support those presuppositions we hold. I am certainly not immune from this, which is I try to read authors like Crossan, Borg, Vermes, and Sanders, as well as Wright and Witherington.

If we aren't willing to do the hard work, then we ought not to pretend that we have any sort of expertise.

Cheers,
Dave

This is one of the evidences :

"But the natural man receiveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: NEITHER can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14)

The problem of Pam is not evidence per se but that she's a natural man (woman). The Bible is NEVER wrong and this verse just proved it.

Spidey - I think that Pam is looking for some evidence that Jesus was talking about our current generation, rather than his own, or any of the ~65 in between. Do you have anything new to say?

Ah, yes, Spidey can't really add. 1+1=10 is true. He should think about it. If he is capable, that is. He won't find that in the OT or Revelation, BTW, but it is still true.

Arminius wrote "I've been dealing with Spidey nigh on six months now"

And even with 1+1, he can't agree that it is 2.

God knows He is dealing with fools and he knows what "proof" He will give them. The proof of FIRE will be coming your way.

As you finally see the PROOF, the PROOF will consume you into powder blown in the wind. The Bible is NEVER wrong. You won't be disappointed coz the PROOF you're waiting and looking for will ARRIVE SOON.

What original are you talking about? The kind that scales turn to feathers? You claim it's not original because some fool said it is not. What is your proof? You don't even know Greek as what Dave suggest.

Gather all your "fake" copies of the Bible and ask the idiot scholar you admire how did he know this verse is fake.

"But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." (Luke 12:5)

The Bible is NEVER wrong and it claim that those who don't believe will BURN. What a terrible plight you guys have.

The sacred assignment of a true religious teacher is to teach the truth. True Christians leader are to follow Jesus’ example and tell the truth regarding Jehovah God’s purpose and standards.

1Peter 2: 21-22: “In fact, to this [course] YOU were called, because even Christ suffered for YOU, leaving YOU a model for YOU to follow his steps closely. He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.”

Jesus denounced the religious leaders of his day because they were hypocrites and failed to live up to their role as true religious leaders.

John 8:44-47: “ YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]. Because I, on the other hand, tell the truth, YOU do not believe me. Who of YOU convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it YOU do not believe me? He that is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why YOU do not listen, because YOU are not from God.”
In favor of popular morality, many churches have changed their message. Priests and preachers have given up teaching that God requires obedience. Instead, many teach that each individual must decide for himself what is right and what is wrong. Trying to gain popularity, some religious leaders claim that God accepts you no matter how you live. Such teaching calls to mind what the Bible foretold: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.”—2 Timothy 4:3
What does the Bible teach? It plainly states: “Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit God’s kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10)
Religious frauds are also described as “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.” The Bible goes on to say: “Their end shall be according to their works.” (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Their works include “loose conduct,” which is a brazen disregard for high moral principles. (2 Peter 2:1-3, 12-14)
An increasing number of religious leaders and their followers adopt—or at least condone—unchristian practices, such as homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. Compare these widely accepted views and lifestyles with what the Bible states at Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Hebrews 13:4; and Jude 7.
Christians should heed the Apostle John’s words not to take our religious beliefs lightly or for granted. “Do not believe every inspired expression,” he warns, “but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.”—1 John 4:1.
Genuine Christians are not influenced by the ebb and flow of popular views but cling firmly to Bible truth. Wrote the apostle Paul: “This is what I continue praying, that your love may abound yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment.”—Philippians 1:9.
Abhorring practices God hates does not mean hating people.

NotSoGreatScot:

You may be right about Spidey. After some little thought, it becomes apparent that he does not have any imagination at all, and is probably parroting the twisted message of some idiot in a pulpit somewhere.

Pam: I think you give Spidey too much credit by saying he made it up out of whole cloth. His arguments are more like fragments of the remnants of the cloth that the tailor rejected.

Hi, Pam,

I've been dealing with Spidey nigh on six months now, IIRC, and I have also asked him to back up his absurd claims. He never does. He just says we are all stupid because we can't see it - Translation: Spidey is making it up.

"...Ben Witherington III has also stated that we are today closer than ever to having our Greek NT being in line with the originals."

The problem, though, Dave, is that there *are* no originals. Not one. We have *many* copies, some known to be older than others, but none are original, and they do not wholly agree - *any* of them. Some of the disagreement is obviously simple copying errors, but there are also instances of completely different text, and obvious changes.

Since all are copies of copies, older isn't necessarily better.

At least read the article about Prof. Ehrman at the link I gave you, even if you don't have time for his book(s).

I gain reading time by listening to books as I drive to and from work - Misquoting Jesus is available for download from Audible.com (no, I'm not getting paid for the plug).

I don't think it's necessary to learn Koine Greek and redo the work yourself. We'd all be in a pretty pickle if we had to do everything from scratch all by ourselves. One can read the books and make a judgement as to which makes the better case - there are also commentaries from other scholars and critics to aid in discerning.

We judge science by the qualifications of the scientists, as well as quality of publishing journals, peer reviews, and repeatability of observations and/or experiments, among other criteria. Textual criticism isn't much different.

"About Christ warning about "this generation" to burn, there was no mistake about it coz THIS generation will experience doomsday. Christ always speak with hidden meanings and what he meant by "this" is NOW -- OUR GENERATION. Wait for it coz it's coming soon."

Chapter and verse, please. I don't care if the meaning is "hidden", I want the words you're taking this from. Otherwise, I can only assume that you're making it up out of whole cloth. Lt's see, what was it you said? Oh, yeah, "They would become fools in the eyes of their audience if it's a lie." You're looking pretty much like a fool right now.

"I have no idea how accurate the dead sea scrolls or other bases for the O.T. are, but are you familiar with the books of Prof. Bart D. Ehrman? He is a textual critic, and finds that there are more than 200,000 differences among the 5,700 documents on which the gospels are based - more differences than there are words in the N.T.!"

I'm familiar with him, though I have not read him, nor do I have the time right now. I would have to read, eventually, his work and assess his argument. The only thing I could say in response, and this would be admittedly week, is that Ben Witherington III has also stated that we are today closer than ever to having our Greek NT being in line with the originals. Whichever scholar is right, I could not tell without 1) learning Koine Greek and 2) studying the primary sources myself.

Cheers,
Dave

What is the purpose of the writer/writers lying about a four-legged flying creature? They would become fools in the eyes of their audience if it's a lie.

Do you think I would tell you not to eat a 10 foot chicken if there is no such thing?

If your idiot evolutionists haven't seen the dead sea scrolls for centuries, what made you think they should find all the hidden fossils?

I'd rather believe that book and what it says than believing some idiot folks who say scales can turn to feathers or dinosaurs turn to birds. Whhhattt?

***

About Christ warning about "this generation" to burn, there was no mistake about it coz THIS generation will experience doomsday. Christ always speak with hidden meanings and what he meant by "this" is NOW -- OUR GENERATION. Wait for it coz it's coming soon.

Why would he burn that generation when it is this generation that is populated with millions of FOOLS. The nukes are there and ready to fly. What more proof do fools want?

***

Copies and copies and original copies. We have it, but on the evolution side, not even a drawing or a sketch of a "common ancestor". Just PURE IMAGINATION and no proof whatsoever. Chocolate cakes cooking themselves. Wow , what a fantasy.

We have historical proofs, present proofs and future proofs. Doomsday; that will be our GRAND PROOF and it's coming just a few years from now.

Look for a pretty location (with your fellow evolutionists) with your telescopes as you wait for the proof coming your way. The bible is NEVER wrong. It will not disappoint you coz the "spectacle" would come your way.

Dave L says:
"That mistakes were made in the transcribing of Scripture is only a problem for one who holds a fundamentalist dictation theory of the Bible."

Well, that would pretty well describe Spidey, I think. :)

I have no idea how accurate the dead sea scrolls or other bases for the O.T. are, but are you familiar with the books of Prof. Bart D. Ehrman? He is a textual critic, and finds that there are more than 200,000 differences among the 5,700 documents on which the gospels are based - more differences than there are words in the N.T.!

I recommend his book, Misquoting Jesus.

Read about him here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

"OBTW - the Dead Sea scrolls were copies of copies, of copies, of copies...on and on. All copied by hand. You don't think a tiny mistake or two might have crept in?"

Of course. That happens even today, and we have modern word processors, printers, and copiers. the intriguing thing is, though I don't say that this somehow 'proves' the Bible to be true, is how similar our contemporary Hebrew scriptures are to the Dead Sea scrolls. Did ancient scribes make mistakes. Sure. They were human. Good scribes, however, made a heck of a lot less errors than most of us would have made if we were to be tasked with handwriting out a whole book. The evidence that we get is that ancient scribes, and not just those at Qumran, deeply cared about accuracy in their copying. That mistakes were made in the transcribing of Scripture is only a problem for one who holds a fundamentalist dictation theory of the Bible.

Cheers,
Dave

Spidey says:
" If these people claim that there were four-legged "fowls" in their time, what right do you have to oppose it?"

The right given to me by science. Birds are part of the fossil record - right back to the archaeopteryx and beyond to the feathered theropods. All have only two pairs of limbs - two wings (still arms in the theropods) and two legs.

Why don't we have any fossils (or drawings, or sculptures) of these birds with wings and four legs? Please tell me how their skeletons would have been organized.

And as for insects, we have many fossil casts, not to mention many thousands preserved in amber (which takes 20 million years to form), and *all* have six legs. Not to mention that the ones mentioned in that Biblical passage are still extant today - with *six* legs. What happened, Spidey, did they EVOLVE??

Now please address the other verses I gave you. And don't forget to include that verse where Jesus says that our current generation is going to burn. I'm waiting for that one with bated breath. I will keep asking for it in every thread where I find you as long as On Faith lasts, so you might as well cough it up now. Or admit that you can't.

OBTW - the Dead Sea scrolls were copies of copies, of copies, of copies...on and on. All copied by hand. You don't think a tiny mistake or two might have crept in?

Frederick says:
"Not to pick on Spidey particularly..."

Oh, go ahead. :D

You're right, of course. Invoking God as an answer puts an immediate halt to all further inquiry. If all of us had done that, we'd still be living in caves.

The book of Leviticus is part of the dead sea scrolls which means they were written by REAL PEOPLE long time ago. If these people claim that there were four-legged "fowls" in their time, what right do you have to oppose it? They were there and you were not.

Unlike evolution, there is NO SINGLE PROOF that monkeys can turn into human. The only "proof" you have is the phrase "MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO" and "bones" which cannot speak. Ours were people who have brains and intelligent enough to WRITE THEM IN SCROLLS.

We have evidence thru the discovery of the scrolls. They are NOT FICTION. You folks deal with fiction --amazing stories like humans turning into wolves.

Our kind of science is based on facts and not LIES like humans turning into wolves or monkeys into humans. We believe a chocolate cake needs a baker. You folks believe there is NO need for a baker. IDIOTS make cakes that way. They just wait for the chocolate cake to bake itself. wHHHHAAAt?

Greetings to all. Here [url=http://www.bluetry.biz] here [/url]
the theme of your discussion is in more detail stated

Not to pick on Spidey particularly, this kind of thinking is virulently opposed to human understanding, not just of biology, but ALL science.

"I can't imagine how life could have started from chemistry, so God did it."

"I can't imagine how complex life forms evolved from simple beginning, so God did it."

"I can't imagine what might have caused the Big Bang, so God did it."

It is a surrender of the quest for knowledge, and a retreat to mysticism and superstition.

It is a mentality crippling to our country, should it permeate our culture (which perhaps it already has), because it makes us weak in the sciences to the advantage of any and every society that does not make such a retreat into ignorance.

"God did it" is nothing more then a willful surrender to ignorance.

Can you believe they want to try and teach Spidey's 'science' in public schools? How the Hel would you *grade* it?

Maybe you could get points on every question for either the right answer out of a b c or d, or if you say:

e) Jesus
f) Something Incoherent about monkeys, chocolate cake, or dead leaves,' or
g) You're Going To Hell For Asking?

:)

Hi, Pam and Paganplace,

Spidey won't answer any questions about errors and contradictions in the bible. I asked him some too. If he ever gets the guts to stop hiding under his bed, and returns, we can ask again.

Pam, i'll get back to you later. I just have some errands to do.

c ya later

I cannot comprehend Spidey's obsession with 1+1=2, unless he has just learned to count that high.

Anyway, it is just as correct to say 1+1=10.

"Why would it only take a tiny egg cell and a sperm to "evolve" into human but would it take MILLIONS OF YEARS from monkey to humans? Hmmmmm?"

A sperm and egg don't 'evolve' into a human, Spidey. The process of this happening *did,* however, evolve over millions of years.

Spidey says:
"c ya later."

As usual, when the going gets tough, the Spideys run for cover.

A chocolate cake can't cook itself but a cacao fruit can because it's a "natural" thing. Whhaaattt? Use the same kind of reasoning and it would be no wonder if a building would take MILLIONS OF YEARS to be converted from two-storey into three.

c ya later.

Spidey asks us, "Why would it only take a tiny egg cell and a sperm to "evolve" into human but would it take MILLIONS OF YEARS from monkey to humans?"

I'd file this under "Questions that aren't even wrong?"

"Pam, read about reading comprehention. The "fowls" referred to are "four-legged flying creeping things"."

Don't talk to *me* about reading comprehension, you little cretin!

Please refer to my post of Aug. 23 at 6:52 PM -the actual words of the Bible that refer to 4-legged *fowl*, and the following verses that refer to 4-legged insects.

But even if I were to play your stupid game, please tell me - what "flying, creeping thing" has *four* legs???

And I want that Jesus reference.

Don't try to change the subject to evolution - the discussion is about the infallibility of the Bible, which you claimed is "NEVER WRONG."

Sorry, Spidey, but we're playing *this* game in *your* ballpark.

No slimy slithering - answer the charges!

Why would it only take a tiny egg cell and a sperm to "evolve" into human but would it take MILLIONS OF YEARS from monkey to humans? Hmmmmm?

For engineers it is easiear to convert a two storey building to three storey than build it from scratch.

If you have an evolutionists engineer, it would take him MILLIONS OF YEARS to convert that building from two-storey to three. VERY FUNNNY AND VERY STUPID.

1+1=2. What's your view?

Pagan, Im not talking about earth existence or the universe. The evolution Im referring to is your theory that monkeys turn to humans. Where's the proof? Don't mix it with earth's evolution and PIGGYBACK to its science.

Please don't use the phrase "once upon a time" or "the cacao just existed by itself coz it's the natural thing to happen". Whhhhaaat?

Evangelical Christianity Leads to More Abortions

the world wide data is completely clear, as Bishop Spong states.

Where evangelical Christian philosophy dominates, the abortion rate, and ESPECIALLY the STD rate, is much higher than where information flow and public policy practices are based on an educational, morally responsible, informational approach to the issues. I.E. in just about all of Europe.

Irony of ironies.

Ah, Spidey's back.

Got it backwards again. *All physical evidence* says that life is millions of years old.... the solar system and universe... Billions.

Because you think that this constitutes a 'supernatural length of time' leaving physical evidence of observable and ongoing processes, you can't understand the difference between a plant evolving and growing, and a human making a cake.

Try talking when you can actually *understand* what you're calling the rest of the world 'stupid' for, kid.

Evolution uses supernatural length of time to "prove" their case where it is impossible affirm their claim.

Not a single evolution theory can be proven in the lab where time is short enough for observation. They have to say MILLIONS so it would not be possible to prove.

One even claim the cacao fruit just edxisted by itself. How funny and VERY stupid.

1+1=2. Lets wait and see how these idiots present a different answer.

Pam, read about reading comprehention. The "fowls" referred to are "four-legged flying creeping things". What's inacurate about it compared to monkeys turning to humans? We have the scrolls as proof while you have nothing but MILLIONS OF YEARS of pure storytelling without a single proof. No single laboratory experiment. "Millions of years ago" akin to "once upon a time".

Idiots burn and it would not take millions of years to happen. Just wait.

On your side you would say "we CAN'T prove our theory coz it would take MILLIONS OF YEARS to happen. Whhhaaaatttt?

Evolution uses supernatural length of time to "prove" their case where it is impossible affirm their claim.

Not a single evolution theory can be proven in the lab where time is short enough for observation. They have to say MILLIONS so it would not be possible to prove.

One even claim the cacao fruit just edxisted by itself. How funny and VERY stupid.

1+1=2. Lets wait and see how these idiots present a different answer.

Pam, read about reading comprehention. The "fowls" referred to are "four-legged flying creeping things". What's inacurate about it compared to monkeys turning to humans? We have the scrolls as proof while you have nothing but MILLIONS OF YEARS of pure storytelling without a single proof. No single laboratory experiment. "Millions of years ago" akin to "once upon a time".

Idiots burn and it would not take millions of years to happen. Just wait.

On your side you would say "we CAN'T prove our theory coz it would take MILLIONS OF YEARS to happen. Whhhaaaatttt?

Speaking of fear and boredom - It is St. Bartholomew's Day. In 1572 French Catholics decided it would be a good day to go out and kill 5000 French Protestants. Christians killing Christians for practicing the wrong type of Christianity.

Is it possible that the last person who really understood Jesus was crucified by the Romans in ~30 C.E.?

Well, don't let me stop you, Anna. Maybe that boredom's telling you something. :)

Christians are wrong, but all the rest are bores.

"How is it that it takes us modern educated types to take it literally?"

I think, Scot, that the narrative goes something along the lines of "Without Xtianity, people fear what they do not understand... But have no fear, cause you understand now... Well, as long as you don't think too hard. Blame the liberals if you don't. But fear. We are your refuge from that fear.. Which of course exists. "

Peter wrote: "Our ancient ancestors were more ignorant than we can ever appreciate" - yet they knew which parts of what we now call the bible were myth and allegory.

How is it that it takes us modern educated types to take it literally?

"cant say that i agree with what you typed up... care to explain deeper?"

Can't say I think that'd be productive, 'Christian,' seeing as how you seem quite a bit more *automated* than the rest of the flock.

Any other websites you'd like to advertise? Already spent my money on hotel reservations in Moscow, though.

Glad to see you're back, Spidey. Now, how about answering the question about the Jesus statement that our particular generation would burn. Chapter and verse, please.

Then get back to explaining the verses that I gave you showing that the Bible is clearly *wrong* about many things.

I'm waiting.

I would like to say that i really like your site www.civilcommotion.com a lot
now.. back on topic hehe
I cant say that i agree with what you typed up... care to explain deeper?

Hi, again, Dave. :) Funny, isn't it, how some people 'take on faith' that 'the ancestors were stupid,' yet don't take the trouble to actually figure out that actually, it's the *modern* view of ancient Pagan religion, that's informed by the Christian religion that over time recontextualized it, into some caricature that all that was acheived by trivial and benighted people.

Many atheists will walk right up to me and expect that narrative to hold. "You only have your religion cause you fear what you don't understand,"

I tend to look at them blankly and say, "No, between Christians and atheists and me. Understand all you want, there's always more."

I think both monotheism and atheism *most fear to understand *ourselves.* Cause there's some idea, inherited from Abrahamic monotheism, that that understanding would lead to a realization that the reality of ourselves is so horrible it must be controlled by authoritative words.

Blindness. You won't defeat that by dismissing your experience.

Science and reason, do things a certain way, and it's good to do so. But spirit, and emotion, ....The key there isn't stopping the song, it's watching the tune.

"Our ancient ancestors were more ignorant than we can ever appreciate, and the fact that we accept and believe the bizarre superstitions they passed on down to us makes no sense."
"Our ancestors were not seers...they were like blind people.. blinded by their ignorance - and unable to distinguish fantasy from reality - saw spookie thingies everywhere."

They were actually more knowledgable than you realize. To take the Roman empire for example, the belief in the gods was certainly not universally accepted as evinced by Cicero's 'De Natura Deorum'. As for the various religious beliefs held, we can look at both the virgin conception and birth of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead. In the gospel of Matthew, Mary's pregnancy is scandalous to Joseph, not because he doesn't know where babies come from, but because he does. As for the resurrection, this was looked down upon by Pagans who heard of it because everyone knew that dead people don't come back from the dead. It's not as if people were going around expecting folks to all of a sudden come out of their graves left and right. The classic example of the expectation that people stayed in their tombs is the rather common grave inscription "I am. I am not. I was. I was not. I don't care."

"Reality says there are no gods."

There is argument given to support this claim. If there is something in our body of knowledge that entails that there is no God and or gods, you have yet to state what that is. Perhaps you mean to suggest that we now know of things like natural laws that show us how the universe is run, thus rendering talk of a God working through creation superfluous. This, however, does not entail God's non-existence, nor the irrationality in our believing in his existence. Rather, what it shows is that we have to renew our understanding of how the world works and renew our understanding of the natural/supernatural distinction.

Cheers,
Dave

" peter:

"Reality says there are no gods."

No, reality says it's highly unproductive to figure a rationalist view of Gods overrides reality.

"Our ancient ancestors were more ignorant than we can ever appreciate,"

Actually, they were far less dependent on an absolutist literalist mind than we can ever appreciate.

Well, without trying, anyway.

We live as subjective creatures who are capable of reason. Forgetting either aspect of this, is to our detriment. As history shows.

We can neither banish physical reality, and the effects of our actions within it, nor the fact that we are ...dreaming beings.

Confusing either part for the whole both leads us to much grief, and gets tedious.

Literalist belief tries to be legalistic reason (supported, often, by poor reasoning) with bad facts.

There's neither spirit not real reason to that.

Fighting over that division only makes the division seem more real and important. It's an argument designed to go nowhere. Make people give up and accept either of two 'one truths' that happen to be more manageable than free and inspired and thinking beings.

Reality says there are no gods. Our ancient ancestors were more ignorant than we can ever appreciate, and the fact that we accept and believe the bizarre superstitions they passed on down to us makes no sense.

Our ancestors were not seers...they were like blind people.. blinded by their ignorance - and unable to distinguish fantasy from reality - saw spookie thingies everywhere.

We should chuckle and feel sorry them. At least they had a good excuse for believing in gods and angels and fairies and dragons - they didn't have schools and books and science to help them understand the real world. The folks today who believe in the Magic SkyGod and all kinds of other superstitious rubbish don't have that excuse.

"In fact, the Bible itself foretold of such distortions purported by senior religious leaders who seek to simply fashion their version of truth to satisfy their own desires, not to submit to a loving and gracious Creator."

Is that why you seem so Hell-bent on voting for those who show you the public piety you want, and yet in fact funnel the national wealth to the greediest and least-caring among us?

You would *think* that if your own beliefs said this was bad news, you could work that out before trying to impose them on everyone else.

Bishop Spong is saying here that in fact *educated Christians* know better than to fall for this.

Or soundbytes and displays of obligatory public piety, as if that ever gives us good government.

You guys *got* your man in twice, and look at this mess.

Now you want to be the ones to decide *again?*

If your religion is so compelling, it's *you* who show little faith in it, by trying to use earthly power to *command* whatever your leaders tell you you want by pandering to your own ignorance.

That's not how we're supposed to do it in America.

Wherever religion is allowed the kind of political power you want, it dies.

But not in any kind of tidy manner, I assure you.

That's why in America we have a secular government. Not just to protect government, not just to protect minorities. But to protect *you.*

From the corruption of that which you long for.

John Spong's use of "educated" shows his deep prejudice toward an extremely biased and anti-Christian educational establishment that is, in fact, the true Flat Earth Society. The only backwaters of knowledge and education exist in the minds of faithless modernists who refuse to accept the plain truth of God who speaks clearly in the historic documents known as Holy Scripture acknowledged by the church to be trustworthy and reliable. In fact, the Bible itself foretold of such distortions purported by senior religious leaders who seek to simply fashion their version of truth to satisfy their own desires, not to submit to a loving and gracious Creator.

So refreshing to read "intelligent Christian" comment and enlightenment.
Reflecting back to My Own Salvation, the knowledge gained from study and revelation, I really don't see a corealation when I see, and hear from this, Religious Right, Christian Coalition (Money Launderers for GOP), etc, etc.
Not surprisingly, they've layed low this time what with the Foleys and Craigs rearing their ugly heads, but since California, they're coming.
One thing I'll give Rev. Wright. He proved he was'nt shilling for the Left! Don't expect any proof from the Right!

Well, JJ, I wasn't 'evading' your question, I was *ignoring* it, since it's off-topic and based on false premises, ...but if you insist:

" A Marriage (oral or Writtenly) is Sacred (if Ye Know What that Word Means) between a real Gent (Mavorite) and a Real Lady (Sporade) is IT! Never Between a 1/2 Man & !/2 Women! aka QUEERS!

"So: P A G A N Queer: Yes or NO! Please no in between! YES or No on Marriage Question. Please don't tell Us Ye Don't Knoweth!???

"We are still waiting for answer that ye Evaded on this straight Blogg: Soo,: YES (Yea) or NO (Nay)!?"

Obviously, I say Yea. Even by your own premises.

Cause if queer folks are, as you say, '1/2 man and 1/2 woman,' then what do you get if two such people marry?

Let's add it up, shall we?

Let's see, one half man, plus one half man, plus one half woman, plus one half woman.

Well, what do you know.

Marriage between one man and one woman.

Baddabing.

Hallelujah. :)

First off let me say that i really like your site christian-dating.top-seo-solutions.com a lot
now.. back on topic lol
I cant say that im 100% with what you wrote... care to explain more?

"PaganPlace: Agreed with regards to the sun. The only part of your post I disagreed with was that I thought you implied that entropy ONLY applies to closed systems."

Well, the point there, Scot, was that the idea (in that half-educated way of 'scienceyness' of people trying to make religious points by making ignorance sound scientific) that 'entropy' somehow makes evolution impossible... are at the very least ignoring the fact that Earth's biosphere has consistently had massive energy inputs all throughout the history of the Earth, most conspicuously, that big glowing ball in the sky. :)

So, therefore, you can't take an ignorant view of say, 'Entropy means everything falls to 'disorder' so you can't have increasing organization.'

These 'Intelligent Design' arguments consistently ignore the scales of time and space and how much *matter and energy* there is out there: in fact, it's usually their complaint *that* knowledge contradicts their desire to see everything operate on scales of human lives and written histories.

Cause it makes them feel *small.*

This isn't a 'chocolate cake,' Spidey. Not an artifact. It's much cooler.

A weird set of people.

a. They believe that they came from monkeys
b. They believe that the chocolate cake can bake all by itself and continuously improving everytime it repeatingly bakes itself.
c. They find it hard to prevent pregnancy and if they become pregnant, they rip the fetus out.
d. They marry with the same sex.

The terrible thing is they want these weird beliefs to be written in our Constitution. Their objective is to make the Constitution the COMIC book of the land.

Truly, a weird set of people. But God is almighty. He created this world in a way that the weird will annihilate the weird. They will self destruct.

Once a person is convinced that chocolates can bake all by itself, you can EASILY feed all kinds of garbage in his mind without resistance.

Garbage like abortion, gay marriage becomes NORMAL in their sight. Whatever is normal becomes abnormal. The NORMAL constitution which served America for so many years becomes ABNORMAL to them so they have to CHANGE IT to become like themselves -- TO BE ABNORMAL.

Evolution is the belief that the chocolate cake can bake all by itself and continuously improving everytime it repeatingly bakes itself.

Very funny and yet it's now in many science books. In time when people become sane again, those same "science" books would be sitting side by side in bookshelves where batman and spiderman are found.

These people think CARTOONS ARE REAL. .

Anonymous 2: In the mean time, entropy, in the form of random failures of DNA to replicate perfectly, is one of the driving forces for evolution. Evolution actually ceases when living things stop reproducing, and passing their traits on to their progeny.

PaganPlace: Agreed with regards to the sun. The only part of your post I disagreed with was that I thought you implied that entropy ONLY applies to closed systems.

I was disheartened after watching the 'Rick Warren Show.' John McCain was definitely the winner. The Right has done an effective job of manipulating evangelicals and directing their allegiance to the Republican party, in spite of its lack of heart for the needy and hopeless and in spite of this war and the pain, suffering, and loss it has caused. If only evangelical voters would pay attention to Obama's pro-life platform to reduce the loss of unborn lives while caring for children and families, reducing arms and preventing war! The Right has done nothing to save unborn lives, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or to love "sinners." The Right is all about division and strife. I hate knowing that a few 'sins' could decide who our next president will be -"sins" the Right has enlarged and claim are just too terrible. I am sick of the hatefulness, dire warnings, and the cruel, self-righteous finger pointing and name calling, using God's word in convenient ways as a weapon against any democrat. Pat Robertson teaches about his angry God and how He lifted that "veil of protection." John Hagee said his vengeful God was angry with New Orleans because of a homosexual parade scheduled there and that is the reason for Katrina.
This country needs to grow up and heal the wounds the Religious Right has inflicted in the name of God. Our media needs to stop giving the frauds the attention they crave and our candidates need to stop going to them for votes. The famous tv preachers do not represent me or any other Christian I know so I do not understand why they are the ones given the welcome mat by our media to speak on behalf of Christians. I do not recognize their "religion." They are all about self-promotion and political organizing and building personal power and wealth. They undermine democracy by manipulating their gullible fans, telling them how to vote and how to think and teaching prejudice and mongering hate and fear. They are legalists and are so UN Christian. What good are laws without compassion?

posted Aug 20, 2008 at 09:12:19

For three and a half decades abortion has been marketed as "reproductive choice," as late term contraception. By referring to the growing baby in the womb as a clump of cells/parasite etc, the real nature of abortion has been denied, namely the killing of an unborn child.

When such a propaganda has been around for so long, it is no wonder that it has become part of the normal thinking process and women are able to abort their children without qualms. It is a wonder, considering how aggressively a pro-abortionist propaganda has been propagated for so long that pro-life groups have not given up.

Proper education about what abortion is really about needs to be stepped up. At least consciences that have not yet been hardened by the pro-abortionist propaganda should be made aware and sensitive to the real science concerning abortion.

The hardened responses of pro-abortionists on various threads of this forum, whether believer or atheist, shows that those who have bought into the propaganda over several years are beyond reach.

The hope for change lies with the young who are still uncorrupted by pro-abortion lies.

To the bright anon, acolyte of the blessed Spong:

Your history is so, like, historical. Xtianity is a religion of slaves, women, and other dumb, unenlightened, ancient people.

Those stupid peasants all got together in a tiny little room and dreamed it all up. Of course, they couldn't write--being illiterate and dimwitted all that--so they had to wait for that fanatic Paul to fall off his horse and have an epileptic fit (or did he have an epileptic fit and fall off his horse?) and three years later come to visit them so that they could write it all down.

Then they all got together again and wrote it down differently and went to synagogue where they announced the Messiah had come, whereupon the Jews threw them out. Then they hopped on a boat and took the funny, made-up faith to all the cities of the Empire, getting thrown to the lions for their trouble.

Makes sense to me! (But then I am an atheist.)

Yours without faith,

Anna

spiderman" Since when did man learn to walk on water; pass thru a wall, resurrect after 3 days after dying of loss of blood?"

No he did not. these were stories made up by Christians many years later> Muslims have similar mythology: Muhammad fed a huge congregation from very little food.

Let me begin by saying that i really like your blog kraalspace.blogspot.com a lot
now.. back to business haha
I cant say that i agree with what you wrote... care to explain more?

Thank you Mr. Spong for your contribution to the discourse. I've read some of your work and I find that we are in agreement on many issues concering religious practice and the importance of faith in modern life.

Please continue the necessary work!

WHERE ARE AMERICA'S RELIGIOUS LEADERS ?

*** SADLY THIS REPRESSIVE JUDICIAL INJUSTICE HAS BECOME AN AMERICAN ART FORM !!!

***WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????

**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.

****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.

Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.

This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.

This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!

Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!

For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.

It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.

This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!

***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!

A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE::
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM. ** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com

FIRST THE BLACK AMERICANS, AND NOW ALSO OUR LATINO AMERICANS !!!

WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED !

***THE MOST DEVIOUS AND DECEPTIVE MEANS TO KEEP CERTAIN GROUPS OF AMERICANS IN US PRISONS, IS TO NOT OFFER THEM LEGITIMATE HC RIGHTS TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS !

THIS LEGAL HORROR OF THE MANNY GONZALES CASE, ONLY POINTS OUT JUST ONE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY ALL MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING POOR AMERICANS DESERVE EQUAL AND JUST OPPORTUNITIES WITH PROPER LEGAL COUNSEL TO OUR FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS. (THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER LEGAL CASES NATIONWIDE THAT ALSO DESERVE TO BE PROPERLY REPRESENTED TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL ! )

FOR OUR US CONGRESS TO CONTINUE TO DENY LEGITIMATE HC RIGHTS TO OUR FEDERAL COURTS FOR POORER AMERICANS AND OUR US SUPREME COURT AWARD ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL LAWYERS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO HC IN OUR US FEDERAL COURTS,MAKES A PICTURE PERFECT MOVIE SCRIPT ( OF AMERICAN INJUSTICE ) FOR MICHAEL MOORE OR SPIKE LEE TO PURSUE !!!

**What we have here in this Manny Gonzales criminal case is a jury,judge and DA taking care of their communities safety from gangs in a typical vigilante hang them high process.The presiding judge tells both attorneys(defense and prosecutor)prior the trial that this specific case is not gang related and advises the DA to instruct their witnesses not to mention or insinuate gang association information to the jury.
** At this point in this trial the presiding judge is aware of and and protective of the defendants rights to a fair trial,knowing darn well that if a LA jury is lead to believe (rightly or wrongly)that a defendant is affiliated with a gang that a fair trial is almost impossible. What happens next when this DA decides to use gang association (over the presiding judges orders and objections)on this jury is really quite devious.LA judges are allowing these type of unjust trials to continue knowing these defendants can appeal for a new trial from prison after they lose their jury trials.
** Local DA's know this local judicial system will not dismiss a jury due to DA's using gang association with defendants and they have a free hand to play their jury to the max.This play acting between the presiding judge pretending to protect the defendants right to a fair trial and the devious DA who wants to protect our society by taking justice into their own hands,is a little what Manny Gonzales and his public defender had to deal with.
** Any judge that allows a rogue DA to disobey their specific orders on misleading their jury into believing the defendant is either a gang member or the specific crime is gang related should have the common sense and decency to dismiss the jury and call for a new trial.
** This kid Manny Gonzales tried as an adult needed this judge not just to set the guidelines in the beginning of the trial with this rogue DA, but also to continue to protect the defendant with his right to a fair trial throughout the entire trial. When this presiding judge allowed this trial to continue, the jury believed both the DA and the judge that Manny Gonzales was a gang member and this specific shooting incident was not related to his affiliation with gang activity. Every night during this two week trial this jury went home and had the opportunity to watch gang violence reported on the nightly news.How could anyone think that Manny Gonzales and his public defender in tow could defeat a presiding judge,rogue DA and a inflamed jury with nightly exposure to gang TV violence?

*** If anyone deserves a call for GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME A NEW TRIAL Manny Gonzales Does !!

YAHOO & GOOGLE MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM !
** IT IS A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com

John, why continue trying to reform Christianity at all? It (along with every other religion) has clearly had its day in regard to its ability to make useful contributions to the human condition and to understanding our world and our place in it. When educated people look for "ultimate truths" supposedly spoken to sand-strewn "prophets" and written in bronze age manuscripts, something is clearly amiss.

Not only is the bathwater dirty, the baby's not even there. Time to jettison the whole lot...

An interesting article on the topic of abortion:

"Beyond the legal right; why liberals and feminists don't like to talk about the morality of abortion" by Jason DeParle
Washington Monthly, April, 1989

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v21/ai_7537791?tag=artBody;col1

"The Saddleback Forum was good theater, but it was theologically naïve."

I'm sure this criticism is founded in a long praxis of both theater and theological naivety, yet there seems to be a bit of jealousy in the statement.

This (read below) in the hands of a group of people who feel their god wants to teach their children to strap on a bomb, kill themselves and as many innocent others as possible as an act of worship. This worries me:

Pakistan’s Dr Nuke bids for the presidency
The ‘rogue scientist’ blamed for selling bomb secrets has strong popular support, writes his confidant

"Last week a group of lawyers in the Pakistani city of Lahore marched in support of Khan’s candidacy. His actual election, requiring a majority vote in the national assembly, would shock the world, which was aghast at revelations, four years ago, that Khan had sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. But it would be justice of sorts.

Khan was not a rogue agent selling centrifuges to enrich uranium – and enrich himself. He was a loyal and obedient servant of a succession of military and political regimes in Islamabad. Generals and prime ministers traded his talents, which also included making an atomic bomb and two different missiles capable of carrying it, for a range of diplomatic and political favours."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4595628.ece

washpost18:

"What makes murder of a child after its birth wrong but its murder within the womb right? A different name given to it while it is in the womb?"

Because it's not a child in the womb.

But let's take your premise and run with it. It'll illegal to serve a child alcohol, or give them cigarettes, or expose them to pornography. By your reasoning any pregnant woman seen drinking alcohol, or smoking, or watching porn, should be arrested on a charge of at least child endangerment. When your ilk start pushing for the law to be enforced in these circumstances you might have a point. Until then you're ideologically confused and morally bankrupt.

August 23, 2008 4:34 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Think the word "projection" when you accuse anti-abortionists as ideologically confused and morally bankrupt.

Who is blatantly ignoring the science presented over and over again - human embryology, fetology, Hippocratic Oath, (Hippocrates no other than the father of Western medicine), ultrasound, the high technology used to monitor the child in the womb - in defense of a growing child in the womb? It is the pro-abortionists! Without the lie they propagate about a growing child in the womb - that it is a parasite/clump of cells etc, they would have to admit that abortion is merely a harmless sounding word for murder of a growing child in the womb.

Mr Spong has no authority to speak about anything except one thing: He left the diocese of Newark in shambles. He is an expert at taking growing churches and transforming them into rot and decay. Even today almost 10 years after his retirement the budget in 50% unfunded.

Oh, dear. Apparently Spidey has crawled under his bed, assumed the fetal position, and is sucking his thumb. Why am I not surprised? He has no answers, but will soon be back with his mindless claims... but no answers. He has no answers, because he is not a Christian.

While you're at it, Spidey... the bible is always true? OK, please enlighten me.

Matthew and Luke differ on the genealogy of Jesus.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree that the Last Supper happened on the Passover, but John says that it happened on the day before the Passover.

Now I know you are not familiar with the Gospels, but, last time I checked, they are included in the bible. Maybe you could overcome your despite of Jesus, and have a look at the Gospels, and try to clear this up.

Yeah, right....

Good post, Pam.

Spidey seems to have forgotten a lot of things. Like why did God create everything, and then created man and woman at the same time in the first creation story. But then... oops.... all of a sudden He again created man, with no women. So then he created a bunch of other stuff, including animals, which He had already created before man and woman in the previous myth, but then He remembered that He had already created woman, and needed to do it again. Then the story gets confused with a tree and a snake, neither of which featured in the previous creation story.

Have at it, Spidey. For once, try a true reasoned rebuttal... oh Hell, why do I bother?

Spidey says: "The Bible is NEVER wrong. The four legged 'fowl' you're talking about is actually a 'winged crawling thing'.

Oh no, Spidey, you don't get off that easily! Here are the actual words (emphasis mine):

11:20 All *fowls* that creep, going upon all *four*, shall be an abomination unto you.
11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all *four*, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the *locust* after his kind, and the *bald locust* after his kind, and the *beetle* after his kind, and the *grasshopper* after his kind.
11:23 But all other *flying creeping things*, which have *four feet*, shall be an abomination unto you.

And what about all the other references?

Also still waiting for that Jesus quote reference.

"It's not love, it's stupidity."

Describes Spidey perfectly. He is forever removed from Jesus and his message of love. He would no more recognize true Christianity if Jesus Himself came down and tried to explain it to him.

I have never, in a long life, ever met a more demented, hateful, and completely closed-minded bigoted person. Even JJ, in all his scatological insults, cannot match Spidey.

You are very sick, Spiderman2. Please seek help before it is too late.

The twisted soul is yours, Arminius, so STOP aborting fetuses and don't marry Mr. Spong. You're a funny man if you call yourself a Christian.

It's not love, it's stupidity.

Pam, somebody who believes in evolution is mentally impaired. It's natural that he/she cannot understand a much intelligent book like the Bible. Look at Arminius, a "christian" who's not a Christian. He's confused.

Look at you? The Bible is NEVER wrong. The four legged "fowl" you're talking about is actually a "winged crawling thing".

You guys believe that monkeys turned into human akin to humans turning into wolves. What's more funnier than that? You can't expect a person who believes such crap to understand the Bible, would you?

The prophecy will be fulfilled. It is scientific that idiots easily burns themselves and BURN they would.

The Bible is NEVER wrong.

c ya later guys.

The dementia is yours, Spidey. This is blatently obvious to anyone here but you.

ONE LAST TIME: The definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ. In case you forgot, His name is Jesus, and his story is in the Gospels. But of course, you don't know about that, do you? Why cannot you drop your obsession with the myth of the burning lake, your perverse wish to see others suffer, and embrace the love preached by Jesus?

Because of your ignorance of, nay, your refusal to recognize, our Risen Lord, you are not a Christian. I am.

May God have mercy on your twisted soul.

Hi, Pam,

Yes, Spidey is such a lovely moving target. An eight-year old could out-debate him, but he is so hopelessly brainwashed that he refuses to notice any facts that refute his madness.

Let's keep up the good fight.

A "christian" who's not a christian is a form of dementia, Arminius.

Same like marrying a "woman" who's not a woman or somebody who treats a fetus like a cyst.

It is not farfetched that someday, you could marry a dog. Abortion was a farfetched idea years ago but it is not now. Thanks to your tribe's demented thinking.

Marry Mr. Spong, would you?

"But it will fall on deaf ears. He is not curable."

Hi, Arminius. Yeah, I know. I just have trouble letting some of his demented statements stand. :)

NotSoGreatScot:

Therefore, given a constant increase in entropy in an open system (e.g. the physical universe) evolution would eventually cease.

That is why I wrote that evolution is fine until it hits entropy.

"The same "man" said that a big portion of this generation will BURN."

OK, Spidey, I gave you chapter and verse - now you tell me where in the Bible Jesus says that specifically about *this* generation.

Jenny,
My mistake; per my last post:
His name is Orris, not Otis.
It was Penthouse, not Hustler magazine.

Pam,

Well done, good reply to the demented Spidey. But it will fall on deaf ears. He is not curable.

You forgot something - on the first day of creation, dusk fell. Unfortunately, the sun, which makes morning and evening possible, was not created until the fourth day.....

I hope Spidey is led soon to his nice, warm padded cell soon.

Jenny,

Bishop Spong put himself in a rather poor position in Newark. He had hitched his star to the 'Gay Rights Agenda' bandwagon that was being championed by Louie Crew and others. Spong was happy to do this because it fit both his process theology and his 'avant garde-ness' (sorry, new word). I suspect that he didn't know that several of his priests were involved in some unseemly behavior until later. But since he was having an affair with his assistant, he couldn't very well blow the whistle too loudly. I suspect that the presiding bishop (then Ed Browning) had to step in and solve that one. Spong, like Otis Walker in Long Island, had some out of control clergy. Walker's diocese was actually featured in Hustler magazine.

"The real problem with Christianity is that it is a blasphemous faith as it worships a man"

Since when did man learn to walk on water; pass thru a wall, resurrect after 3 days after dying of loss of blood?

The same "man" said that a big portion of this generation will BURN. So start counting so we'll see if he's a fake or not.

"Could be worse - could be Spidey, CCNL, or, heaven forbid, JJ"

Nothing could be worse than you Arminius, a "Christian" who's for abortion and gay marriage. What's next? Marriage with dogs?

If it's "love", then it's ok for you I guess. Try marry Mr. Spong. Give the world a moment of "2 stooges" kind of a show.

The real problem with Christianity is that it is a blasphemous faith as it worships a man, a good but imperfect man , as God. What Christ taught was noting new but some of it was good. Nothing that he taught was original. Rick Warren is the new face of this blasphemy.

Washington Post, is this the best you can do? John Shelby Spong, atheist and agnostic rolled into one, to comment upon Religious Issues? The man does not have a bone of faith in his body, let alone Christian Faith. He's singularly unqualified to comment on any faith issue of any sort, because he has demonstrated time and time again in his writings that he possesses exactly NONE.

What's next, you guys lining up Michael Phelps on nuclear physics?

Kobe Bryant on the Shooting of President Lincoln?

Or maybe President Bush on Jane Austen?

I can't wait to see who you'll profer next as an "out of their element" commentator.

KTF!....mrb

Notsogreatscott says:
"In processes involving non-closed systems the entropy of the universe is always increased. Living things are non-closed systems, and are constantly expending energy to prevent entropy from overtaking them. When they stop expending energy - well dust to dust."

They are also always taking in energy, which comes ultimately from the Sun. Therefore, life on Earth is not a closed system. The Sun, hoever, *is*. When it converts all of its fuel, it will die, and so will any life that may be left on Earth at that time.

Spidey wrote:
"Pam wrote "Do I need to give you chapter and verse? I can, you know."

I hope you do coz I think you're referring to verses that I think are personifications."

OK, Spidey, here they are:
Bats - Leviticus 11:13, 19 and Deuteronomy 14:11, 13
Four-legged fowl - Lev. 11:20
Four legged insects - Lev. 11:23

And a few more:
Cure for Leprosy - Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.
Lev 14:2-52. Think this works?

Rabbits and coneys are unclean because they chew cuds but don't have "parted" hoofs. Lev. 11:5-6. When was the last time you saw a rabbit chewing its cud?

Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats. Genesis 30:37-39 God (or an angel) praises Jacob for his fancy genetic work in Gen.30:37-39. 31:11-12. Telegony, anyone?

Genesis 9:2 suggests that all animals fear man. Many (wisely) do, but I wouldn't advise saying "Boo!" to a mama grizzly with cubs. Nor a great white shark when you're bleeding. We were also supposedly given "dominion" over them all, but we've only managed to domesticate a relative handful.

"And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." Gen. 1:17. The firament being, of course, the hard shell that separates the waters above from the waters below. Rain is caused by opening a window in this firmament, and ended by shutting it. The sun and moon also hang from the firmament.

Gen. 23:22, 24:8 mentions unicorns. Specifically, it says that God has the strength of a unicorn. Funny, I would have guessed him to be a bit stronger...

Job 9:7 "Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not." Only possible if the Earth is fixed and the sun moves around it.

Job 11:9 "The measure thereof is longer than the earth." What is the length of a sphere?

There are so many more...

"What makes murder of a child after its birth wrong but its murder within the womb right? A different name given to it while it is in the womb?"

Because it's not a child in the womb.

But let's take your premise and run with it. It'll illegal to serve a child alcohol, or give them cigarettes, or expose them to pornography. By your reasoning any pregnant woman seen drinking alcohol, or smoking, or watching porn, should be arrested on a charge of at least child endangerment. When your ilk start pushing for the law to be enforced in these circumstances you might have a point. Until then you're ideologically confused and morally bankrupt.

Joktan Eberu:

Why don't you take yourself back to Stormfront where you can be amongst your type?

PaganPlace and Anonymous2: I think you both have it wrong.

In processes involving non-closed systems the entropy of the universe is always increased. Living things are non-closed systems, and are constantly expending energy to prevent entropy from overtaking them. When they stop expending energy - well dust to dust.

Bishop John's post is a wonderful testament to the Episcopal Church's headlong rush to apostasy and irrelevance. The world wide members of his own communion rightly reject this view.

When Christ's own no longer recognize sin then what more can be said?

I do enjoy the snobbery expressed in the idea that only highly educated persons can understand his position.

fartnoker

Bishop Spong - The Guttmacher Institute and CDC data do not confirm your assertion that abortions have spiked during the Bush terms. Guttmacher data shows a slight decrease from 2000 to 2005 (continuing a downward trend since the late 1980s) CDCs latest report shows no real change from 1998 to 2004.

http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm

The latter report also belies earlier posters who claimed that the feds have stopped tracking abortion statistics. However it is a mystery why it took CDC until November, 2007 to report on 2004 data.

The Guttmacher data do support one assertion that Bishop Spong made. Less than 14% of the women requesting an abortion believed that they were using contraception correctly at the time they became pregnant.

Clearly half (perhaps as many as 75%) of abortions could be prevented with better contraception education and availability.

How can anyone call themselves "pro-life", yet be against better contraception education?

A voice of Reason in the world of Faith. What a tragedy for the United States that we cannot have more thinkers, writers and teachers like Spong who can at least make an attempt to speak these ideas in a country of increasing illiteracy, declining democracy and a failing Liberalism. We don't even know our own history. We don't care.

It is sad that both of these candidates had to put themselves in a position where they felt they had to pander to the public in order to pass a completely intrusive, abusive and misunderstood litmus test on "faith."

CORRECTION OF MY PREVIOUS POST

It does not contradict atheist Stephen Jay Gould who I believe hypothesized that the path of evolution has only been observed in limited segments of time and that its path may actually zig zag, such that creatures more evolved for a million YEARS may be surpassed by more primitve ones in the next million.

Paganplace --I'm not a physicist but as I understand, the entire physical cosmos, not just closed systems, is moving towards entropy.

This contradicts the jesuit priest Teilhard de Chardin who argued, perhaps somewhat like you, that the universe was evolving toward greater complexity coupled with deeper interiority or ability to reflect.

It does not contradict atheist Stephen Jay Gould who I believe hypothesized that the path of evolution has only been observed in limited segments of time and that its path may actually zig zag, such that creatures more evoloved for a million creatures may be surpassed by more primnitve ones in the next million.

In any case the fundamental ontological questions aren't addressed or may even be asked by science, for it only addresses what can be expressed mathematically. Yet mathematics has not been proven to be the logical basis of reality.

Humility in the face of the awesome mystery in which we are immersed would help evolve the dialogue between all parties, don't you think?

The current influx of Russian posts from Moscow is quite puzzling. A quick online translation shows that it is all about hotel lodging. I suspect that somebody has his sending address wrong.

Could be worse - could be Spidey, CCNL, or, heaven forbid, JJ.

Using an online Russian to English translator, the text of the latest post by Ivan reads:

Here we wish to suggest to reserve a room to you in hotel Irbis, Moscow. Certainly, it is one of the best hotels of Moscow. In our hotel to you will offer a decent level of comfort, fine service. Precisely обученый the personnel will make your finding in hotel Irbis, Moscow pleasant and unforgettable. Excellent rooms of hotel Irbis, Moscow are equipped by all necessary for convenient stay. Professional, просчитаный up to insignificant, on превый a sight
, Details, design of an interior, fine furniture, совр

In other words, not to worry. Just more spam.

The morons from Russia chimed in. Write propaganda so we can read it and laugh.

Jack, I wish that you knew some of the writings of the early heretics so that you could see what your ideas would look like if they were expressed by first-class minds.

--
Only Jealous/lost Queers can make Fun of the 4-way Totem Pole Reality!

ATT: P A G A N P L A C E; A R M i N i U S, B - M A N etc.., an Openly QUEER-GANG of National vile Homosexual(s) on WAPO whom was Told To Leave this Straight-Blog for a Non Straight Blog of Many!

Why Don't Ye Evilgelicals & QUEERS NATIONALS LEAVE Us STARIGHTS ApocalyptarIan-NATiONALS ALONE! Go to Queer Bars, Queer Blogs, Querr Church’s, not Here! (Straight-Place)!

QUESTION f.a.g.i.t QUEER : P A G O N -- P L A C E. et al:

Stop Evading the Mavorite & Sporade Hol{i} Question!

" A Marriage (oral or Writtenly) is Sacred (if Ye Know What that Word Means) between a real Gent (Mavorite) and a Real Lady (Sporade) is IT! Never Between a 1/2 Man & !/2 Women! aka QUEERS!

So: P A G A N Queer: Yes or NO! Please no in between! YES or No on Marriage Question. Please don't tell Us Ye Don't Knoweth!???

We are still waiting for answer that ye Evaded on this straight Blogg: Soo,: YES (Yea) or NO (Nay)!?

Ahhhh. When Ye PAGAN QUEER Nationalis today are asked for a YES or No on the 'Marriage is Between a Real Man & Woman as Sacred, that Ye F.A.A,G.S. are ignoring this like count Daciula runs away from a Cross!

As someone with a BA in psychology from the University of Virginia and an MDiv from Virginia Theological Seminary (which I believe was his own alma mater), I beg to differ with his statement that "Homosexuality is also fading because the pejorative definition of homosexuality as either a mental illness (the liberal evangelical position) or a chosen act of moral depravity (the conservative evangelical position) are both dismissed today as incompetent among educated scientists and doctors." I know many educated people (in theology and in the sciences) who disagree strenuously with Bp Spong.

Bp Spong has a great gift of inflammatory writing. I do wish he would strive for accuracy as much as he strives for dramatic effect. (Of course, if he aimed at accuracy, he would lose the effect he desires.)

Fact 1: Liberal judges would populate courthouses if Obama sits in the White House.

Fact 2: Calling himself a christian does not mean anything because of Fact 1.

FACT: John McCain Smoked Lots & Lots of 'POT' when in NAM, both as when Active & When in the 'Clinker'! Note John Mcan a Worms also 'Chased The Dragon'! "i" hath the 'Affidavits"!

FACT: John McCain Smoked Lots & Lots of 'POT' when in NAM, both as when Active & When in the 'Clinker'! Note John Mcan a Worms also 'Chased The Dragon'! "i" hath the 'Affidavits"!

FACT: John McCain Smoked Lots & Lots of 'POT' when in NAM, both as when Active & When in the 'Clinker'! Note John Mcan a Worms also 'Chased The Dragon'! "i" hath the 'Affidavits"!

The question former bishop Spong needs to be answering is why he covered up for homosexual, sexual predators, who were priests who served under him as priests during his tenure?

He vilified and persecuted the parishioners who came to him seeking help. And was more concerned with protecting and hushing up the abuse that had harmed the teenagers who had been raped and abused.

Bishop John Shelby Spong

Your (fallen from) Grace:

Tell me, Your (fallen from) Grace, when did you lose your faith?

And how did you manage to sell all those 'religious' books when you were not religious! Guess you used your title as Bishop and when those poor dumb saps started reading they thought they were going to read something about God, and what they really got was, well, the gospel according to John (Shelby Spong). Oh! That was smart of you, even if Greek was,well, Greek to you. And those pew peasants don't deserve accurate exegesis anyway. They're so uneducated, not like you and me. I, like, admire your ability to get along with stupid people. I cannot, it is one of my few flaws.

And you managed to stay in the wealthiest of Churches--even if a few did burn down--long enough to draw a very comfy pension. And now you write about no faith on "On Faith" (it's really No Faith but David Waters is dyslectic.)

I never had any faith to lose, but if I did have any I wanted to get rid of, YOU would be the priest I'd seek out. I feel we are very similar. What is your sign?

Yours sympatically,
Anna

Pam wrote "Do I need to give you chapter and verse? I can, you know."

I hope you do coz I think you're referring to verses that I think are personifications.

The Bible is NEVER wrong.

People will burn just as it had prophesied. Incidentally they are the people who don't believe it like Mr. Spong.

A wolf in sheep's clothing, how accurate and what a shame.

Pam wrote "Do I need to give you chapter and verse? I can, you know."

I hope you do coz I think you're referring to verses that I think are personifications.

The Bible is NEVER wrong.

People will burn just as it had prophesied. Incidentally they are the people who don't believe it like Mr. Spong.

A wolf in sheep's clothing, how accurate.

Seraph (Aug 23, 5:34 AM) wrote: "It also seems naive to, while claiming to be a Christian theologian, downplay the evangelical concern for life."

As I recall, Bishop Spong does not necessarily regard the status of the unborn as morally neutral. However, the Episcopal Church has made that claim indirectly by formally affiliating with an independent "pro-abortion" organization.

Several years ago the Episcopalian scholar PHilip Turner idenified two "traditions" which divide the contemporary Episcopal Church and had this to say:about the "bureaucrataic/prophetic tradition" which Bishop Spong represents:

"This tradition assumes that "authority exists because koinonia is not possible. Public life in all its forms is marked by an irreducible pluralism...(so that) authority functions not to guard common beliefs and ways of life but to insure that all shades of opinion are allowed expression and provided access to both political office and to social benefits." Social life is seen as a struggle for power, and it is the role of the prophet to "unmask the injustices of power (which are hidden by tradition and maintained by authority) and to establsih the rights of individuals both to their opinions and to their fair share of social reward."

If this is a true characterization of Bishop Spong's prophetic role, it would be entirely appropriate for him to speak in behalf of the unborn who - in the contemporary Episcopal Church - no longer enjoy moral status.

"

The public doesn't know what it wants, it just knows it wants it good and hard.

Gerald O'Collins, a liberal Roman Catholic and Professor of Fundamental Theology, Gregorian University, Rome, stated that Spong’s "work simply does not belong to the world of international scholarship. No genuine scholar will be taken in by this book. ... What is said about a key verb St. Paul uses in Galatians 1:15f. shows that the bishop [Spong] has forgotten any Greek that he knew. [Spong argued his case based on a Greek word that is not in the passage] ... [my] advice for his next book is to let some real experts check it before publication."
Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury and a liberal Anglican, wrote a response to Spong's 12 points in 1998, (when he was the Bishop of Monmouth). Williams wrote, "... I cannot in any way see Bishop Spong's theses as representing a defensible or even an interesting Christian future. And I want to know whether the Christian past scripture and tradition, really appears to him as empty and sterile as this text suggests."
This is from two major church leaders who, in theory, would be sympathetic to his theology.

Гостиница Катерина-сити, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/hotel_540_otdyh_moscow/

На этой ссылке мы предлагаем Вам бронирование номеров в гостинице Катерина сити, Москва. Несомненно, это одна из лучших гостиниц столицы. Здесь Вам предложат приличный уровень комфорта, великолепный сервис. Хорошо обученные сотрудники превратят Ваше пребывание в отеле Катерина сити приятным и незабываемым. Отличные номера отеля Катерина сити оборудованы всем нужным для комфортного пребывания. Профессиональный, продуманный до мелких деталей, дизайн интерьера, отличная мебель, современная электробытовая техника все это лишь усилит Ваши приятные впечатления от отеля Катерина сити.

Отзывы о гостинице Катерина сити, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/reviews.php?id=215006510&return=/hotel_540_otdyh_moscow/

Гостиница Гелиопарк Эмпайр, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/hotel_549_otdyh_moscow/

На нашем портале мы предлагаем Вам забронировать номер в гостинице Гелиопарк Эмпайр, Москва. Однозначно, это один из лучших отелей Москвы. Тут Вам предложат отличный уровень комфорта, великолепный сервис. Хорошо обученные сотрудники превратят Ваше пребывание в отеле Гелиопарк Эмпайр приятным и незабываемым. Отличные комнаты отеля Гелиопарк Эмпайр оборудованы всем нужным для удобного пребывания. Профессиональный, просчитаный до мелочей, дизайн интерьера, изысканная мебель, современная электробытовая техника все это лишь увеличит Ваши приятные впечатления от отеля Гелиопарк Эмпайр.

Отзывы об отеле Гелиопарк Эмпайр, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/reviews.php?id=689914279&return=/hotel_549_otdyh_moscow/

Speaking of naivete, the good bishop would have us believe what statistics do not show. Most abortions in the United states do not happen among teens where birth control and sex education classes may make a difference. They happen among the 20 something crowd,a group with access to reproductive services and where school and education based interventions seem to have little effect.

It also seems naive to, while claiming to be a Christian theologian, downplay the evangelical concern for life. One would expect that those who claim to speak for the "true God" would show more reverence for his creation and that caring for "the least of these" would surely include the most helpless.

Fortunately theologians of this "caliber: are a tiny minority in American Christianity and politics.

Naivete indeed

Seraph

Гостиница Евролюкс, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/hotel_508_otdyh_moscow/

На нашем сайте мы готовы предложить Вам забронировать номер в гостинице Евролюкс в Москве. Безусловно, это один из лучших отелей Москвы. Здесь Вам предложат достойный уровень комфорта, великолепный сервис. Точно обученый персонал сделают Ваше пребывание в гостинице Евролюкс приятным и незабываемым. Великолепные номера гостиницы Евролюкс оборудованы всем необходимым для беззаботного пребывания. Высокопрофессиональный, продуманный до мелких
деталей, дизайн интерьера, изысканная мебель, современная электробытовая техника все это лишь увеличит Ваши приятные впечатления от гостиницы Евролюкс.

Отзывы об отеле Евролюкс, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/reviews.php?id=623833550&return=/hotel_508_otdyh_moscow/

Obama's choice of judges are too liberal. It will fastforward the few years remaining towards doomsday.

Hopefully Senator Obama and Senator Biden, if elected in November will support Physician Conscience on abortion.

Contraception up to the point of implantation is not abortion. After implantation the embryo should be protected.

Availability of contraceptives is one way to reduce abortions, so it should never be restricted in anyway.

A physician should be able to able to follow his conscience and say NO to performing abortions.

"It's a little late to try and explain that stuff that leads to me joking about my karma, Dave, but I started typing something for you."

I look forward to hearing from you. Have a good night's sleep.

Cheers,
Dave

Anyway, what *I* want to do is get some sleep. So, (It's a little late to try and explain that stuff that leads to me joking about my karma, Dave, but I started typing something for you. Kind of off-topic, anyway)

You wanna impress Pam with your grasp of 'science,' Spidey, tell her all about your 'Dead leaf' theory of how the Bible is never wrong about the amount of water on Earth or the circumference thereof.

Pam, I appreciate your last post. I like it. Anything based on science is commendable. I hope you do the same kind of thinking and research if you study your existence and not treat it as a chocolate cake which can bake all by itself. Soil or CO2, it doesn't affect my point. There is always an intelligent input in every intelligent object, chocolate cake or cacao fruit.

I'm hoping you don't swerve back to your usual kind of science like scales turning to feathers. Let's stick to pure science as you just did. BRAVO.

OK, Spidey: I asked:

""Pagan wrote "What do you want to do now?""

You replied:

"Nothing but stupidity has something reserved for you. I don't have to do anything. The Bible says that people like you will burn."

Was that an answer to my questions?

I asked: What do *you* want to do now?

And, What do you expect to happen when you do?

Do you understand these words?

"The Bible is NEVER wrong."

No? How about where it says that a bat is a bird? Or where it talks about 4-legged fowl, and 4-legged insects? (Jeeze, considering how many of them he made, wouldn't you think he'd know how many damned *legs* they had??) And that barely scratches the surface of the wrong things...

Do I need to give you chapter and verse? I can, you know.

Im glad that engineering is based on pure math. No crazy doctrine can easily infiltrate it. Either your structure will burn or collapse if a slight miscalculation happens. In other "sciences" like evolution, one can claim that scales can turn to feathers. What you only need is a BIG mouth. Who can prove or disprove a fairy tale? If they believe that they are like "magicians" who existed all by themselves because it's ONLY NATURAL, who can dispute that? All I can say is DREAM ON.

Pagan wrote "What do you want to do now?"

Nothing but stupidity has something reserved for you. I don't have to do anything. The Bible says that people like you will burn. I believe that coz that book have shown me it's ACCURACY. If you don't believe it, just wait. The Bible is NEVER wrong.

"And by the way, the ingredient to make cacao fruit is the soil. "

Spidey, Sweetie, have you ever heard of Jan Baptista van Helmont? No? Thought not.

He conducted a little experiment a few years ago (as in early 17th century) where he grew a willow tree in a pot of soil for five years, adding nothing but water, and protecting the soil against accidental loss or addition. He then weighed the tree and the soil. The tree had gained 164 pounds, but the soil weighed only slightly less than when he started.

He erroneously concluded that plant matter was made mainly from water, but we now know that in fact, plant matter is made from CO2.

My point is that we've known for some four centuries now that plants aren't made from soil. Where have *you* been?

" spiderman2:

""Paganplace wrote "No, it's not. It'll happen without 'science.'""

"If growth is not a science, I'd like to know what is science."

Growth is a natural *process.* Science, is the study and accumulation of knowledge and rational interpretations of things and processes in the natural world.

These are actually different things.

"This is actually a laughable assertion, but I'm almost immune to these kind of laughable statements. Im almost used to it especially when universities are filled with professors and "scientists" who think the same way."

Well, you're certainly demonstrating quite an 'immunity' to what they teach in university, I'll grant you that.

What do you want to do now?

"the math also pretty much says it's actually likely that all possible universes actually do exist as much as this one."

Please explain the math to me. Admittedly, physics is not my area of academic focus so I have not been privy to said math.

Cheers,
Dave

Paganplace wrote "No, it's not. It'll happen without 'science.'

If growth is not a science, I'd like to know what is science. This is actually a laughable assertion, but I'm almost immune to these kind of laughable statements. Im almost used to it especially when universities are filled with professors and "scientists" who think the same way.

Attention EVOLUTIONISTS!! , LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE?

" spiderman2:

(me)""Spidey, the cacao *grows.* No one 'designed and made it.' It's not an artifact.""

"As if the cacao fruit is a much simpler phenomenon than a chocolate cake."

Agricultural practices aside, to us, it *is.*
We like to think in terms of making a plant or an ecosystem being something similar to what we do when we bake a cake.

But, no. It's not like that.

" Growth is a complex science."

No, it's not. It'll happen without 'science.'

Understanding it is more complex than a cake metaphor, though. Heed that. :)

" If it is that simple, we would be "growing" buildings by now. Given the correct temperature, the chocolate cake will "grow". I hope there will come a day when the chocolate cake will just grow even without the help of an oven."

Why would you want that? These are things *we* make for each other.

"Doomsday is near coz its only MAIN ingredient is STUPIDITY."

Let's wise up, then, shall we?

Longing to see everyone who doesn't believe an irrational idea 'burn' isn't exactly what I'd call *smart.*

So, smart guy.

What's your play?

What do you want to do now?

And what do you expect to happen when you do?

"Spidey, the cacao *grows.* No one 'designed and made it.' It's not an artifact."

As if the cacao fruit is a much simpler phenomenon than a chocolate cake. Growth is a complex science. If it is that simple, we would be "growing" buildings by now. Given the correct temperature, the chocolate cake will "grow". I hope there will come a day when the chocolate cake will just grow even without the help of an oven.

Doomsday is near coz its only MAIN ingredient is STUPIDITY.

I mean, peace to you, too, Anonymous2.... but you can't just take a little bit of 'scienceyness' and say 'This means Jeezus.'

You're much better off sticking with the red letters and leaving the rest to the world.

"Spidey, the cacao *grows.* No one 'designed and made it.' It's not an artifact."

As if the cacao fruit is a much simpler phenomenon than a chocolate cake. Growth is a complex science. If it is that simple, we would be "growing" buildings by now. Given the correct temperature, the chocolate cake will "grow". I hope there will come a day when the chocolate cake will just grow even without the help of an oven.

Doomsday is near coz it's only MAIN ingredient is STUPIDITY.

"evolution is real....until it hits entropy..."

Talk to me at the end of the stelliferous era, then.

'Entropy,' as you doubtless want to inappropriately-apply, ... refers to what happens in *closed systems.*

Earth is not a closed system, as evolution of life forms applies. We have a conspicuously-constant external input.

evolution is real....until it hits entropy...

seek...and you shall find...knock...and it shall be opened...ask...and you shall receive...so said Jesus... that is, Yeshua, the Christ, the One the Israelis were waiting for but (except for a few) did not recognize during the visitation...so now it's fasting time...

seek and you shall find.... sure worked in the visible ...world ...defined by science...did it not?

Peace to all persons of good will.

Spidey, the cacao *grows.* No one 'designed and made it.' It's not an artifact.

What makes you think universes are any different?

The chocolate cake vs. the cacao fruit.

I can make a cacao fruit using soil as ingredients while the chocolate cake can bake all by itself. Never mind the oven, it will just appear. Never mind the mixer, the sugar, the baking powder, and the milk coz they will just mix themselves and put themselves in the oven.

This is how idiots think and it's not a wonder if DOOMSDAY will occur. Doomsday has only one major ingredient to happen. It is STUPIDITY.

frederick wrote "WAKE UP PEOPLE! We are in a dangerous time."

You hit it boy right ON THE NAIL.

Blog of Secretary Mike Leavitt on Physician Conscience:

http://secretarysblog.hhs.gov/my_weblog/2008/08/physician-con-2.html#comments

""More credible as well, though not so easily understood by the non-scientist and non-mathematician, is the postulation that there have been, are, and will be, countless “big bangs” throughout time and space, forever converting energy into matter and vice-versa.""

"It's possible, but how could we know this if it were to occur? I assume you are referring to multiple universes, but given that space and time are relative, and that the universes are not spatially related to each other, how does it then make sense to say that anything is 'going on at the same time'?"

Simultaneity is actually a bigger problem *within* a given universe than between branches of a multiverse. Certainly, Hindu 'Scripture' about universes arising and receding over and over is more in line with what science knows, FWIW, but the math also pretty much says it's actually likely that all possible universes actually do exist as much as this one. Which leads me to personally entertain the pet theory that karma must draw my attention to the worst of all possible universes in which I'm not presently *dead.*

Cause, *dag.* I mean... Look around... :)

As for general cosmology, though, this universe doesn't have to have come from nothing, ...could just be a shadow... a spark, even, out of stuff best charted in eleven dimensions intersecting.

As if 'This Is Way Bigger Than Us' weren't already in our understanding, yet. :)

"Christian:"

"Would be nice to hear your input."

What, on our thinly-veiled advertising spam for another 'Christian breeding program' 'dating service?' I think Eharmony dornered that market.

I think you're a bot. That's what I think. :)

Well, I crossed a nice post of yours, Frederick, let me talk to Andrew a minute, first:

"But does religion (any and all of them) offer hope to the suffering masses?"

No. Suffering individuals, any and all... Maybe. Sometimes, it does. Thinking of it in terms of something to impose on or sell to 'masses' is where it goes wrong. That's a key distinction lost on many who really think a unitive 'One Truth' is in one way or another 'The Way.'

" If religion is based on utter improbability and lies, then the hope it offers is just as false as the premise it’s based on."

Iff that is the case, then that's what that is. Lies, well, the effects of those are self-evident, to a Wiccan, at least.

Improbability... Well, Atheists should not argue against one single improbability as if it actually *were* one of only two choices for a human.

Cause that's how they getcha. The indocrination is set up that way.

Hope is *not* as the monotheists say, in convincing everyone to profess the same as you, and then expect things to magically-work out.

That. Never. Works.

Don't matter who does it. It's not a matter of finding the right thing to impose. It never works.

"A grounding in reason, mixed with a healthy awe of the beauty and force of nature, together with respect for the worth of all human and most nonhuman life, is the best and only hope for this unstable world of ours."

And that's definitely where we're at. This is what *most* modern Pagans see as a right relationship with the world. And so many 'half-men,' as in mainstream Christians and others are learning to say and some of them always knew.

It's not always about words and 'proofs.'

It's *never* about contradicting what we *can* know. But it's not always about 'Who's The Big Right Guy.'

Those biases, 'All religions promise You Meet The 'Big Guy When You Die.'

How would that go?

'God.' "So.... How ya doing, PP?

"Freshly dead, thanks very much. Might take me a minute to get with this *not constantly distracted by rheumatoid arthritis thing. Is this my brain? Am I thinking? I'm sure I'll have good conversation in a minute... What's memory? :) "

I have trouble figuring I exist so that if I'm a very good girl I can bore the crap out of the Architect of the Universe with technical questions basically amounting to, 'Ok, what the Frick was all *that?* ' :)

Also, I've actually died in this life and it goes different. :)

So, back to Frederick:

" Frederick:

"I will say this Paganplace, despite whatever delusions hold you in thrall, you are an awesome human being,"

Why, thank you, Massa, for a humble 'thrall' I do my best.

" and, were we ever (god forbid) in such a situation, "

Interesting hypothetical forbidding for an atheist defending a Pagan against something 'God' forbids. Eh, it gets weirder. :)

"I would defend you to the death against the armies of fanaticism (strong as they are now, and stronger as they may yet become)"

See, this is the thing. That stuff is not *strength.*

It's meant to *occupy* *our* strength. And all these other folks'. It's like 'spiritual trolling.'

Still, I'm sure you'd be a valorous defender if it manifested somewhere past metaphor.

Understand that Arminius isn't 'half-Christian,' he's doing that thing *all the way.* Jesus ain't just bait on St. Paul's hook to him. Which is how the 'Real Christians' as you let them call themselves operate.

They'll just build a 'Creation Science Museum' and tell kids like Spidey to go, 'Aha, the doctrine of Darwin changed!'

And not be like, 'That's why it's *science,* not *dogma,* my apocalyptarian little friend.'

Frankly, they probably aren't too interested in martyring any more Galileos, unless it comes hidden in a Bush appropriation bill for NASA or something, that claims to want to go to Mars but cuts all budget for life-support to actually make that happen, or anything that might track environmental problems, but will still give nice contracts to military folks.

They want to burn 'Witches,' ...it won't be you they come for, first, no. They'll just make it easy to let it happen when they come for me.

Play that smart, if, Gods avert, it does come down any that splashy. Which it probably won't.

They may not like evolution, but they love information control and all the other 'weapons' science hands them.

The masses of Fundies are being played by some folks who takes advantage of their belief that anyone speaking 'Jesus' couldn't possibly be *lying to them and manipulating them.*

Those that may say 'no' to that, well, might not break down along the lines they try to divide us by.

Cause one thing about manipulators that everyone keeps forgetting. They *lie.*

Don't let em frame your universe for ya. We're all in this together.

Oi people
I really love the template of christian-dating.top-seo-solutions.com. Looks good, keep it up!
anyways..
Im a very "faithful" christian and I guess I have a couple questions on my mind..
I've been thinking a lot about dating.. but im not sure where to go with that.
My brothers have been telling me christian dating is the way to go.. so I've done a little research on christian dating greeley colorado and found some stuff on google
Would be nice to hear your input.

"The idea of an omnipotent, judgmental creator is a human construct to (1) justify and augment political power in ANY religion’s professional leadership, and (2) assuage the terrors of nature’s sometimes fearsome forces, disease, and death."

If we presuppose there is no such being as God, then something like this may be true. For those of us who don't share this presupposition, however, the rise in religious belief would be explained another way.

"More credible as well, though not so easily understood by the non-scientist and non-mathematician, is the postulation that there have been, are, and will be, countless “big bangs” throughout time and space, forever converting energy into matter and vice-versa."

It's possible, but how could we know this if it were to occur? I assume you are referring to multiple universes, but given that space and time are relative, and that the universes are not spatially related to each other, how does it then make sense to say that anything is 'going on at the same time'?

"But does religion (any and all of them) offer hope to the suffering masses? If religion is based on utter improbability and lies, then the hope it offers is just as false as the premise it’s based on."

St. Paul would be in agreement with you on this one. I can only speak as a Christian, since that is my tradition. There is indeed a future hope, that of the resurrection of the dead as part of God putting the world back to rights. This future hope grounds the Church's hope and task in the present to anticipate what this will look like by bringing shelter and comfort to the widow, the alien, and the orphan, etc. And I know someone may be itching to point out that there are obvious instances where the Church has failed in this endeavor, as well as obvious instances where it has done what it's supposed to, so let's move past crass oversimplifications.

I would like to question the conclusion to be drawn from the use of the term 'improbable'. If Christianity or any religion is based upon lies, then you're right; the premises for the hope would be false and so would be the conclusions. Improbability, however, does not entail falsity. For example, it is improbable to assert 1) Alvin Plantinga is a professor at Notre Dame, and 2) Alvin Plantinga is a Calvinist, given 3) a vast majority of professors at Notre Dame are Catholic. Yet it is still true that he is both a professor at Notre Dame and a Calvinist. Thus, Christianity, or any religion for that matter, could be improbable (I leave as open for the moment the question of its probability) and its hope still be true because the premises could still be true.

Cheers,
Dave

Oh, and I forgot,

Evolution is real, if you can't deal with it, here's a Jesus-shaped shoulder to cry on, you little puke!

WAAAAAAAAAH!

And sorry, Paganplace....

It needs to be said

What people like me say now may not be helping you directly, but it will help your children's children

Specifically:

1) A woman has the right to do whatever the f--k she wants to with her body.

2) Gay men and women should enjoy EVERY SIGLgE legal right as people who hump "normally".

3) Gawd has no place in politics

4) If you don't like 1 through 3, call me at 555-EAT-SH!T for your ticket to the 21st Century, A-hole!

In any case, I think we are natural allies as it now stands, we should work together to vote for ...

FILL IN THE BLANK_____________________________

You know, Frederick, I'm not sure you understand the situation, here:

" Frederick:

"Sorry Paganplace, your ideals presented heretofore, and reminiscent of Pope John Paul II, I dismiss as rubbish, as do I Arminius' challenge of "sworn enemy'."

Haha. Ooooh, there's one for the books. I'm 'reminiscent of JPII.' :)

"Believe it or not (though you would be wise to believe it), people like me, who stand for FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, are your dearest allies."

I'm very fond of reason. Trust me. But I do want to say, 'OK, you guys deal with the F'n machines, and I'll handle the 'sky gods'. :)

"Without us, your thoroughly polite and ecumenical religions will be the first to fall to the sword when the cheesy evangelicals take over.."

I think you misinterpret the situation as regards who's already on the 'front lines,' and have been throughout this 'culture war.' As in our actual bodies and children and real circumstances.

You 'fight' on *their* terms, and guess who catches all the actual violence. *what you say isn't helping us, friend.*

"...and then you will run to absolute secularists like me, who will, I swear it, give you total and unconditional cover against their inquisitorial impulses."

I'm an absolute secularist, myself. For America, anyway.

Just cause you may believe that's not 'real religion,' doesn't mean that wise clergy don't know better than to try and rule.

I will say this Paganplace, despite whatever delusions hold you in thrall, you are an awesome human being, and, were we ever (god forbid) in such a situation, I would defend you to the death against the armies of fanaticism (strong as they are now, and stronger as they may yet become)

You, too Arminius, come in the camp.

In any future age of enlightenment, there must be room for poetry, art, and freethinking!

Hopefully we can gain free transit to this new world without any conflict whatever.

The idea of an omnipotent, judgmental creator is a human construct to (1) justify and augment political power in ANY religion’s professional leadership, and (2) assuage the terrors of nature’s sometimes fearsome forces, disease, and death.

More credible to anyone with an open mind is evolution — if reasonably well studied and understood. More credible as well, though not so easily understood by the non-scientist and non-mathematician, is the postulation that there have been, are, and will be, countless “big bangs” throughout time and space, forever converting energy into matter and vice-versa. One doesn’t have to thoroughly understand it to accept its likelihood over the simplistic notion of an ethereal Father in Heaven.

But does religion (any and all of them) offer hope to the suffering masses? If religion is based on utter improbability and lies, then the hope it offers is just as false as the premise it’s based on.

A grounding in reason, mixed with a healthy awe of the beauty and force of nature, together with respect for the worth of all human and most nonhuman life, is the best and only hope for this unstable world of ours.

Still, though, Arminius, you're right to be offended. Put down the sword and I'll bring out the harp. :)

" Frederick:

"Yes, Arminius, I am a jerk, and I suggest you learn to deal with people like me."

I suspect he's showing you something of how these deals go down. If you're done jerking.

" No offense, because I get the impression we would have a great time over a beer,"

Now there's a hopeful sign...

"but you are a half-Christian, half-whatever. You are half-man. Someone who makes apologies for what he belkieves."

Whooooooa.... That was one quick bunch of beers! Easy, tiger.

Are you accepting the Fundies' definition that a 'Real Christian' is a hypocrite and Bible beater that you can argue over Bible verses with and show how false and hypocritical that is?

Arminius is actually pretty good at harshing on those guys. But maybe you like 'Real Christians' to be so twisted they see themselves going around corners? With nice tidy rival sets of facts and poor reasoning skills for you to fsee as 'living strawmen' to prove 'all religion is simple enough for me to dismiss?'

""If you had the courage of your convictions, half-stated as they are, you would take a stand one way or another."

You see, here again, Frederick, you're just swallowing the Religious Right's view of what constitutes 'real' Christian convictions.

"Culture war means what it says. I am fighting to DESTROY the tainted, polluted, disgusting worldview of Xtianity."

Have you really found a target in this man, Frederick?

I have no problem with Arminius' God or savior, .... I don't believe in the Christian *world.* Except as it fulfills its own prophecies as best it can all the damn time with 'wars.'

"I am not the "good Cop" you may be used to on this polite forum. I am all out opposed to the obscene religion of Xtianity and all that it stands for."

I am not seeing any badge at all on you, Frederick. Do you really want to wear one?

I'm opposed to the obscenity, too. Cause it insults my ancestors, who tried to make good on that religion. (Yeah, we Pagans are funny that way these days.)

But maybe cause Gods of a 'destroyed' sort of religion found me in unlikely places, and, well, I therefore find having your religion 'destroyed' a) ineffective, b) Messier than one thinks, and c) Insensitive.

"It is anti-life. I am pro-life."

Great. Come on back to life. Living well is the best revenge.

"I will not let the pigs of fundamentalism win this country over."

*You,* my fellow human, are going to *live.* And hopefully, you will help us fight this fundamentalism.

But I'll say the same thing to you as I say to the Fundamentalists, ...who think all ills will be cured if only all points of view but their own are 'DESTROYED.'

Even if that *ever worked,* we're out of time on any such thing.

We're it. As we are now. And as we can be, now.

Time to start acting like it.

"If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I'll be dancing there with my candle, whipping up a chocolate cake. :)

Arminius

You believe in the supernatural just like Spidey.
Ok..so you're a lot smarter than Spiderman2, but you both believe in the unbelievable; with no good reason.

You are both the victims of the religious meme. Both the result of the local religious groupthink.
Both the creations of the religious environment in which you grew up. It's powerful stuff. But to the un-indoctrinated, religious belief makes no sense at all. I am sure it's all a scam. The very idea of a supernatural world and a God and all that stuff sounds just as outrageously silly as the 72 virgins the 9/11 terrorists expected to snuggle up with after they blew up New York for Allah.
They were no more irrational and misled than your average Christian. Except we can see the irrationality when it's the other guy's religion. We are reared to accept fantasy as fact. Our fantasy is good. Other guys fantasy not so good.

Best to put the boot to Fantasy Land. It's the oldest scam of them all. The supernatural world exists only in our imaginations.

Sorry Paganplace, your ideals presented heretofore, and reminiscent of Pope John Paul II, I dismiss as rubbish, as do I Arminius' challenge of "sworn enemy'.

Believe it or not (though you would be wise to believe it), people like me, who stand for FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, are your dearest allies.

Without us, your thoroughly polite and ecumenical religions will be the first to fall to the sword when the cheesy evangelicals take over..

...and then you will run to absolute secularists like me, who will, I swear it, give you total and unconditional cover against their inquisitorial impulses.

You two [because, for all I know, there are (hopefully) only two of you] are victims of a slave mentality, eager to take the scraps from the master's table. I would expect this from Xtians, who follow a religion created for slaves (by masters) but I am admittedly a bit disillusioned that this kind of noise would come from a "pagan", goes to show that the pagan spirit may be dead, indeed.

So the point is, though I truly believe you and I would get along famously were we to meet physically, that you two are seriously in danger of becoming victims of the religious right's war against you.

But worry not!...people like me will protect you!

Ok, you're making flustered typoes, too, Arminius. I'm sure you didn't mean to claim you're a Fundie by Frederick's definition. :)

Sorry if I'm provoking, too much, just that maybe the answers to Fundies isn't to *entrench* like that. Especially for those who extol reason.

Sometimes, it's like with ghosts. I look at materialists, I look at fundies.

You can go somewhere with a Bible, or you can bring scientific instruments... Make a bunch of noise as if something is 'proven' by that human experience.

I see similar troubles dealing, because in both the Christian and hard-rationalist world, *this ain't supposed to be happening,* whether you're trying to 'debunk' em, 'document' em, or 'banish' em.

But these things keep happening. And the question never really asked is, 'What do we do about it,'

So someone like me gets called. Or folk traditions that are a little more flexible, sometimes.

There are those desperate to 'prove' things, without so much questioning their premises, ....and, there are those who understand that we are in fact subjective creatures. And the rest is... Living.

Doesn't make a religious book scientific 'fact,' no. Certainly not.

But who said it had to be?

The same monotheists who invented 'atheism.'

Bishop Spong, what has not received adequate attention in the Episcopal Church is its decision to lobby publicly for abortion-on-demand, rather than to confine its resolutions for pastoral guidance. You may recall former Presiding Bishop’s signing of an Interfaith Letter to the members of Congress urging them to sustain President Clinton’s veto of a proposal to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure. If it is true that the Presiding Bishop represents the Episcopal Church to the outside world, then, as far as I know, this remains its public position in terms of its attitude toward the unborn.

I expect that most Americans assume that the Episcopal Church has a pro-life position in some fashion, but I don’t believe that would pass muster in the court of public opinion. In any case, during this intense election season, it seems to me that if the Episcopal Church were concerned about the well-being of the nation, it would speak clearly to the American public about its abortion history.

The point isn't the typo, Frederick, ...I was just pointing out.... Freedom of thought. Who says certain 'literalist' Christians get to define things by 'yes/no' and either they or you are 'Ultimately right?'

As I said earlier, that's an argument *designed* to go nowhere.

"Those thing said, read the Bible (or substitute your holy book of choice)."

Are you versed in other 'holy books?' Or did you just assume they're the same, and read in the same way, as Fundamentalist Xtians say?

"It is nonsense. PROVEABLE nonsense."

Yes. Cause they believe it's a rival set of rationalistic facts.

Not very sophisticated that way, no.

Frederick:

So I am 'half-Christian'? By whose definition? If you define 'Christian' as a fundie, then, by damn and hell, I am a true Christian, and the fundies are lost in the darkness. Look, dude, my belief is rooted squarely in the Gospels. Anything else is commentary, background, or mythology. Where are the fundies? In the worst parts of the OT and Revelation.

Half-man, am I? You want a piece of me? My ancestral Celtic fury is at a boil. You are a real loser to call me that. I have taken a stand, you just don't have enough brain cells to string together to understand it. You don't understand because you see everything as binary, just as fundies do: either someone is like you, despising all believers, or like the fundies, who despise all who don't agree with them. You apparently cannot comprehend that between those two extremes, is most of humanity.

True Christianity is not anti-life. Do NOT judge me by the fundies. You have much to learn. But apparently, you are just as set in your ways as Spidey. All I can see from your rant is that now we are sworn enemies, because you have declared war. It did not have to be this way. My whole purpose here is to learn and converse. Apparently you can not do that, any more than Spidey can.

" peter:

"Religions are death cults in that you gotta be dead in order to meet the Big Guy."

*If* and *inasmuch as* they say that.

Back to the thing of casual atheist definitions of 'religion' without questioning the definitions of the Christianity that told them what 'religion' is.

"Religions are death cults in that their trump card is a get-out-of-death-card. If you really believe in the Skygod...you'll live for ever and ever amen.
What's not to love?"

Well, it's one thing to be scared of 'death and judgement' enough to never want to die... Quite another to consider the pragmatic possibilities of spending a hundred years with the contents of your present head, never mind a thousand.. or ten thousand... or... a million, or ten million.... Then ten more of those ? Then how many of those make up a billion? Twenty eight billion? Infinity?

That's just not thinking. That's letting someone else define your argument for you. A lifetime or two at a time, that's the way. Even two can get pretty awkward.

Anyone who wants to 'live forever' as they are just hasn't thought it through, I think.

It is worth stating that I already corrected my typo pointed out by Pagan Place.

I would also like to say that my lat post had a militant tone inconsistent with my character and intentions (though consistent with my beliefs).

Those thing said, read the Bible (or substitute your holy book of choice).

It is nonsense. PROVEABLE nonsense.

For gods sake, we have our two candidates all but giving fellatio to the male equivalent of Oprah on National TV in front of the world (who, pay attention Arminius, LAUGH AT THIS KIND OF STUFF).

Meanwhile, Russia bombs thew sh$t out of Georgia, and we can do NOTHING!

WAKE UP PEOPLE! We are in a dangerous time...PEAK OIL, GLOBAL WARMINTG!!!!!! and our decisions are based on a wierdo fundie who wrote a book called "Purpose Driven Life!"

COME ON!!!!

WAKE THE F--K UP!

Frederick;

Keep up the good work. You make a lot of sense and it's good to read.

"My real enemy is freedom of thought,"

Oops, Frederick? I wouldn't point out that slip except for how you say *this.* *emphasis added by me*

"which is DEFINITELY on the defensive, not from (pardon me) ***watered-down Xtians like Arminius, nor from Wicca folk like you, but from REAL XTIANs,***

Who says the Religious Right are the *real Christians?*

Frankly, *they're* the ones who are mixing their political and religious and rationalist drinks. Those Christians who take it straight up are more like Arminius.

Though some may tell you differently.

"who are very organized and want to own our government, from the towns to the counties to the states on up to Uncle Sam."

Which is what happens when you start trying to claim existential 'truth' by authority.

When that's not the important thing.

We need our science and policy to be be based in fact, but also mutual human experience and fellowship.

Screaming how wrong these Fundies are on the science, ....mostly makes em just hire someone to make their BS 'sciencey.'

Arminius ain't watering it down. Someone else is.

Don't water down rationality by insisting on proving negatives, either.

Religions are death cults in that you gotta be dead in order to meet the Big Guy.

Religions are death cults in that their trump card is a get-out-of-death-card. If you really believe in the Skygod...you'll live for ever and ever amen.
What's not to love? Except it's BS. But the fearful dig it. Its what they want to hear. It doesn't have to make sense. Just has to sound comforting.And if ALL these other scared folks believe it...well it must be true. Doesn't matter if it insults one's intelligence. All those other folks think its true.

Religion will go the way of astrology and alchemy.
It's just a matter of time.

Yes, Arminius, I am a jerk, and I suggest you learn to deal with people like me.

No offense, because I get the impression we would have a great time over a beer, but you are a half-Christian, half-whatever. You are half-man. Someone who makes apologies for what he belkieves.

If you had the courage of your convictions, half-stated as they are, you would take a stand one way or another.

Culture war means what it says. I am fighting to DESTROY the tainted, polluted, disgusting worldview of Xtianity. I am not the "good Cop" you may be used to on this polite forum. I am all out opposed to the obscene religion of Xtianity and all that it stands for.

It is anti-life. I am pro-life.

I will not let the pigs of fundamentalism win this country over.

If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

So, what I'm saying, Frederick, I that there is great value to a rational point of view. But what tends to scare the *ahem* out of both 'hard atheists' and book-religionists is one simple fact.

We are subjective creatures.

More than most want to admit these days in our culture.

And all the 'factual certainty' in the world about it, whether you define 'One God with a book' or 'No God' as 'authoritative ...doesn't change the fact that we have to live with each other on a very subjective basis. And we can choose what that is.

I also s Doesay we're not alone. You may believe me or not. Doesn't much matter to me. If a show of obeisance was what pleases my Gods, They'd have asked you by now. But to my experience, They aren't concerned about us believing in belief in the way you seem to find of crucial (word) importance.

I'm still the one who might end up chasing your nightmares away. Maybe you can chase away some of mine that you cited. Sok. That's life.

So be it. :)

Fredrick:

You really are a jerk, the non-believer equivalent of a fundamentalist.

I do not fear death. I wonder about any afterlife, but have the good sense to know that I cannot know what to expect. I am, despite your fondest wishes, not obsessed with it. Frankly, I don't give a damn about any afterlife; I try to live this life as best as I can. If I am judged after I die, then I will be judged by how I lived, not about anything else.

Yes, I picked up on the unfortunate fact that you oppose any form of belief. I do not oppose the position that you hold, even though I do not agree with it. I do not hold you as heinous to the point of nausea. I don't suppose you have heard of the first amendment, or of 'live and let live'. Are you really that bigoted?

Money? Give me a f***ing break! I can go to any Episcopal church in America, without any demand for money. Requests, sure, and I do what I can, but it is a small amount.

You have much to learn about your fellow man, and how to help peace on earth by being tolerant.

sorry...my last post should be "my enemy is the enemy of freedom of thought"

I think that's my cue to turn in

Well PP, if you thought THAT post was bad, read my last one.

My real enemy is freedom of thought, which is DEFINITELY on the defensive, not from (pardon me) watered-down Xtians like Arminius, nor from Wicca folk like you, but from REAL XTIANs, who are very organized and want to own our government, from the towns to the counties to the states on up to Uncle Sam.

Make no doubt about it...they want 2/3s populace vote to ensure gays never marry, all babies get born, like it or not, and a cross, that vile disgusting symbol, is planted in every classroom in AmeriKKKa so we all love Jeeebus.

Fight this...DON'T LET IT HAPPEN!!!

Well, Frederich, what you quote of me was all in relation to you claiming, 'If gods didn't exist, we'd have to invent them,' (and apparently, therefore you figure they all *must have been 'invented' and this must necessarily be the same bad thing, even if it's the nature of the humanity we got that we'd 'have' to. And apparently, this makes our nature *what?* Wrong? Fallen? To be suppressed as if we weren't creatures with certian kinds of brains?

"" Frederick:

"So I'm like, What you sitting around complaining for? :)"

"Oh....I don't know... Maybe ignorance?"

You could complain about that. Ignorance of what? Your 'one truth?' Or... Just the factual truths we *can* know by certain reliable methods?

Can you see the difference?

"Maybe the declining status of US scientific relevance?"

Again, this sucks. When you get done 'obliterating' religion, will we have that relevance?

"Maybe the civil rights of gays and other minorities?"

Bothers me personally. It especially bothers me personally that some people are arguing for centuries on end whether or not 'God Hates PP And Her Sweetie' and acting as if what either of you think is really what counts. :)

"Maybe women's rights to make decisions about their guts?"

Same thing.

"Maybe just the (normal) reaction to gullibility that makes bile rise in the back of our throats?"

Hey, you don't like it as a scientist, try being a mystic that actually has to go *disentangle* people from charlatanry. :)

"Something like that, anyway...."

How bout something like this. Not squabbling over the unverifiables as though either a book or science could prove a negative, and we get together as humans?

Well, Paganplace, that sounds all nice and good.

Probably akin to what the Polish told eachother before the Germans invaded.

I suppose all I'd say to you (on this subject) is that it would be wise to realize the threat of evangelicalism (and fundamentalist Xtianity generally) REALLY IS in our country.

Would a coalition of fundamentalist theocrats actually win the entire government (which isnt very far off and has come scarily close to happening in the last 7 years), you wont have freedom to play with Wicca crystals, I wont have freedom to pursue science and philosophy .... etc .... get it?

AKA....no more nice Arminius's to play friends with.

AKA...American Taliban, but not just as a conjecture, as a REALITY.

That's what I fight against...a much bigger threat to freedom than Al Qaeda, Al Queso, or whoever...

Paganplace,

There is no reason apparent in the entire universe that we cannot dispense with the Spideys and fundies, and talk about music and poetry. Anyone who has a problem with that can cheerfully be shoved off to hell.

Yup, 'War Pigs' is pure Christian thinking. So how about Country Joe and the Fish? A ballad, 'Vietnam Rag', done at Woodstock, if memory is correct:

C'mon all you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs a helping hand
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam...

This morphs nicely into:
C'mon all young women and men
George Bush needs a helping hand
He's got us all in a terrible jam
Over in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Christian, also Pagan. Stop the madness.

My handle is Pagan, from Arminius, the German hero who destroyed three Roman legions in the Teutoburgerwald in 9 AD, causing Augustus to scream, 'Varus, give me back our legions!'.

True religious thinking is about people too, just with a deity (deities) included.

Oh, well. Enough mental meandering.

If I can speak for Arminius, Frederick, as he may be typing about music as we speak thanks to me, ( :) ) I assure you he doesn't speak as that sort, and often takes flak for it, just as does Bishop Spong.

Frankly, in some ways, I see absolutist atheists and Christian fundamentalists *as* having much more in common than maybe the usual view which places you as exact opposites with everyone else in between. You both see the world in terms of verbal absolutes, and simply fight over conclusions to the same old pointless arguments.

Some of us are actually trying to live. And figure it means something to communicate, even. Maybe even live sincerely as though we aren't the biggest creatures in the universe, without accepting that we have to be less than we are, dumb down, or punish ourselves in order to have that experience.

Seala:

Anomyous August 21, 2008 10:56 PM wrote:
What don't you understand about: THOU SHALT NOT KILL?

So why do so many American Evangelicals support the War in Iraq, the Death Penalty, no Gun Control, and polluting the World When "thou shalt not kill" applies to more than American unborn babies (and most likely only White ones.) then they can talk without logs in their eyes.

August 22, 2008 4:18 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anonymous: "Am I to take it that you are a wee better than vegan/meat eating animal rights activists who say anyone who approves of animals being killed for food should not complain about ABORTION?!!! To them killing a growing a child in the womb and killing an animal for food is exactly the same. (Never mind many of them eat meat too, and all of them use animal products such as leather, but that is alright as long as they don't complain about abortion.) Perverse logic."

SEALA: "Actually I am a Christian who believes "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that."

August 22, 2008 7:00 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anonymous: If Thou Shalt NOT KILL, means exactly that in your Christianity, how come butchering children growing in their womb does not count as killing? Read Psalm 139 and Luke chapter 1 in a Bible that is generally read by all Christian (not your special one where killing growing babies in the womb does not count as killing because they are not "persons").

FYI I'm against war and the death penalty. I protested against the invasion of Iraq AND I'm AGAINST abortion.

Just a couple of points to note regarding war and the the death penalty since so dearly like to compare it with the death of innocent, voiceless, defenseless growing children in the womb.

War

War is fought against people who are identified as enemies.

In a war the party that is attacked usually puts
up a defense or surrenders willingly if they can't.

In religion war is justified ONLY in self-defense, to stop an aggressor.

In politics wars have been fought to gain power and take over another person's land and property and rule them.

The Geneva Convention lays down rules when anyone is engaged in a war. There is such a thing as war crime.

*Targeting unarmed civilians counts as war crime.*

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Where exactly according to the above criteria for war does a growing, defenseless baby in the womb fit?

Whose enemy is the baby?

What aggression is it guilty of?

And how does it defend itself? What weapons does it use to counter the metallic and chemical weapons used against it to kill it?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment in a democracy that still uses the method (btw, it has been abolished in most democracies)is meted out to criminals of the worst kind. They have hurt a person/persons in a way that has crossed the threshold of public tolerance.

Criminals have lawyers to defend them and only after the case has been lost after as many appeals as the law of the land allows, does the criminal finally have to face death. In all that time, the criminal is allowed to defend himself, present his side of the case.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
By the conditions under which a criminal is meted out capital punishment, when was an innocent growing child in the womb guilty of crime?

When did the child ever have an opportunity to present its case and demand its right to life, beg to be allowed to live in the womb until it was old enough to be taken care of by a stranger if its own mother did not want it?

What was it guilty of except its existence, for which is was not responsible?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How many innocent civilians are killed in war everyday? How many innocent criminals get capital punishment meted out to them?

Yet in the US alone, every single day, around four thousand innocent, voiceless, defenseless children in the womb are slaughtered because their mothers do not want them; mothers who consider it their hard won "right" to kill their unborn children.

It is an atrocity that needs to be addressed by those who consider it an atrocity because the victims have no voice and dead children do not talk.

"So I'm like, What you sitting around complaining for? :)"

Oh....I don't know...

Maybe ignorance?

Maybe the declining status of US scientific relevance?

Maybe the civil rights of gays and other minorities?

Maybe women's rights to make decisions about their guts?

Maybe just the (normal) reaction to gullibility that makes bile rise in the back of our throats?

Something like that, anyway....

"I think that Voltaire is probably right in the assertion as you've presented him that, if there is no God, then human beings would still think up something for veneration."

And on this, I'd say, if that's the case, maybe it's best not to fuss about 'who's ultimately right' as certain Christians prioritize above all other concerns, ...and figure out what's productive and liberating to do about this state of affairs?

I keep hearing that line from some atheists, 'If Gods didn't exist, we'd have to invent them.'

So I'm like, What you sitting around complaining for? :)

Arminius states:

"My view of Christianity is not one of a death cult, whatever you mean by that, but a celebration of the gift of life and of Creation."

I suppose you might like to know what I mean by "death cult".

I mean a cult obsessed with what happens after you die (aka Xtianity or Islam), of which we, being alive, by necessity cannot possibly know, or a cult obsessed with the attainment of death in order to enter a utopian state (aka Xtianity, Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism, etc), or a cult obsessed with dead figures (aka Xtianity, Mohammadism, Stalinsm, Maosism, North Korean religion, etc.)

And to take it a step further, I oppose any form, whatsoever, of supernaturalism, its just that death cults, like especially Xtianity and Islam, are particularly heinous to the point of nausea.

And if that's your bag, all I can tell you is that you've been duped for your $$$ (and, make no mistake, you are paying somebody $$$ ... the fact that you know I'm right, despite your reply, and yet you will still give them $$$ proves the power of the death cult over your mind)

Sure, Arminius. :) (And again, I reflect that in a kinder and more spiritual world, we'd be talking about music and poetry rather than "Is a kid who thinks throwing Donald Duck into the flames he's fixated on will save Spiderman from suffering the same fate as all the other comic books?"

I mean. You know Black Sabbath? Like, check out the song 'War Pigs.' Probably one of the most Christian songs I know. And in a good way.

Actually a very Jesus-like message, just that Fundies got so hung up on saying, 'They're bad for talking about this evil,' and then of course certain other bands started trading on the Fundie line and promoting the very thing the Fundies love to hate, which is always better for business than real art.

Rock and variants of that are really about human experience, whatever the issues they may raise are. Depart from that, and you could lose something... You know, like my screen-name comes from a Waterboys song. That just happened to be playing. I wasn't feeling all that creative that day.

All very Pagan songs, but not about Paganism, the most of them. Like, say, a song that says, 'You Saw The Whole Of The Moon,' ...that's different from a song in the same meter that might say, 'Let's All Go Worship The Moon,' (cause it's not *about that.* :) )

Meanwhile, like that kind of artificially-promoted Creed song, prelude to trying to sneak more overtly-evangelical stuff into the mainstream, ....was actually pretty good if you weren't inclined to bristle about some of the language. I remember seeing the video and thinking, 'Wow, if this guy would stop crucifying himself, this could be Irish Pagan.' :)

The reason rock's so special is cause it's about people. When it tries to be otherwise, it tends to fail.

What a laugh. Educated people cannot relate to an evangelical world view? Only the most naive and elitist among us could possibly believe that there are not many millions of well-educated evangelicals. True, there are probably more who are not well-educated, but there are large numbers of well-educated evangelicals, including myself.

What Spong perhaps means is that people steeped in his worldview cannot stoop to the level of those simpleton evangelicals. Perhaps he should study the word "arrogance".

I also wonder what Spong thinks is a "religious" mindset, to which the candidates "pandered". One would think that a Bishop, even an ex-Bishop, might be considered "religious"... maybe even of a "religious mindset". Otherwise, perhaps they should have considered a more productive life than that of someone in a religious hierarchy.

Kwotes, thanks for the response. I think that Voltaire is probably right in the assertion as you've presented him that, if there is no God, then human beings would still think up something for veneration. I have one question and one objection. My question first: does he think that this is something we do -knowing full well that our beliefs are false-, or perhaps, like Nietzsche or Marx, that it is something that a few do in order to secure positions of power and wealth for themselves? Or is it merely a description of how humans operate, Voltaire assuming as a matter of metaphysics that there is in fact no God, but stating that people go on thinking that there is one or many for various reasons?

Now for the objection. I respectfully object to the claim that this provides a case for there being no God. It seems, as stated, that Voltaire is merely assuming that there is no God, which he is certainly well within his intellectual rights to do, and coming up with a narrative to explain why belief in God or gods had arisen. I would venture to guess that Voltaire had other reasons for his atheism, but that this narrative wasn't one of them.

Cheers,
Dave

Paganplace,

Some Metal borders on the spiritual. Here is a chorus from Manowar, and it seems delightfully Pagan to me:

Fly away to rainbows in the sky
Gold is at the end
For each of us to find
There the road begins
Where another one will end
Here the four winds know
Who will break and who will bend
All to be the master of the wind

Im the context of my previous posts, I really don't see the point of attacking Christians for their beliefs which are of a mystical nature, only for failure to live up to them or for misrepresentation.

None believers also have problems acting on their beliefs. Many live for example as if death were irrelevant when the truth is that they can die suddenly and at any moment without even understanding why they were born. A little humility in the face of this is at least wise and who knows what it would allow to happen. It's also a sign of civilization.

Paganplace,

No, it does not sound familiar. I would not look for stuff like that.

Anyway, Arminius, plenty of good music out there, just that 'Christian Metal' is kind of like, 'Apocalpse is coool... Yer all gonna buuuuurn, get all ...righteeeeous.... Cause you can't get *laaaaid.... And still watch em buuuuuuurn... Naaarrr...."

Sound familiar? :)

"He is saying a (chocolate) cake can't bake itself. Something most posters agree with- unless the pagan can light a candle, dance in a circle, and whip one up.."

It's a small circle in *my* kitchen, but I can actually do that. Problem? :)

candide:

The real Jesus had nothing to do with the inventions of Paul of Tarsus, a fraud if ever there was one.

August 22, 2008 4:35 PM

candide:

Not only is evangelical Christianity for the ignorant and benighted, all of Christianity is based on misconceptions, fraud, and stupidity.

August 22, 2008 4:34 PM

______________________________________

FYI all:

CANDIDE is a rabid Muslim who loves to post anti-Christian rants.

Actually, if you really *listen* to a lot of metal, well, actually, from an outsider's point of view, it's almost totally *steeped* in the Christian point of view, even if it's going like, 'Bloooowwwwwh! I'm da scary divil! Thinking bout the divil is coooool'

Not always quite like that... but some dude screaming, 'Odin's gonna gitcha.....' as a different gimmick from 'Divil's gonna gitcha,' isn't the same as Nordic Paganism.

It's like there was this ostensibly-Wiccan 'metal' band out there, called themselves 'Skyclad.'

Funniest fricking thing I ever saw. Same thing, new gimmick. Since it was *my* religion they seemed to have appropriated for that gimmick, it was less funny. Which is probably why I didn't actually lose organs while laughing. :)

"Just so I get it, what is spiderman's fascination with chocolate?"

He is saying a (chocolate) cake can't bake itself. Something most posters agree with- unless the pagan can light a candle, dance in a circle, and whip one up..

Damnit, Paganplace, I AM trying to find good music. I don't like the overkill on religion any more than you. Just trying to give you some possible leads, and looking for some for myself.

Frederick:

I must confess that I got a substantial laugh out of your post. Shame on me....

My view of Christianity is not one of a death cult, whatever you mean by that, but a celebration of the gift of life and of Creation. And I do NOT believe that the end justifies the means.

Yes, I try to refute nonsense, such as Spidey's - although he is really a lost cause. Our definition of 'nonsense' obviously differs. But I try to do it with words, sparing the hammer unless absolutely necessary. I have, on occasion, used the hammer, with the full fury of my ancestral Celts.

" Arminius:

Paganplace,

"So, then, try to imagine Pagan Metal.

Oddly, there is something close to that: Nordic Metal. Deals a lot with the Nordic gods."

But, *usually* as 'substitute devils,' or otherwise in a way yer local Nordic Pagan kindred might find laughable. Same thing.

It's very hard to turn rock forms to overtly-religious messages, without losing passion and authenticity because that's kind of not what those forms are *about.* Yaknow?

I mean, there's great rock by Pagans and Christians, and the perspective comes through, but once someone starts trying too hard, it's all over. :)

I am a man of principle, and would never consider a comic-book-named (fitting) reader of comic books (without pictures) an "ally.

If he moves more people away from the death cult, then he is doing a good job, but, unlike the vast bulk of the Xtian side, I am not one who believes that the ends justifies the means.

I would rather refute nonsense wherever I find it, and philosophize with a hammer.

Paganplace,

So, then, try to imagine Pagan Metal.

Oddly, there is something close to that: Nordic Metal. Deals a lot with the Nordic gods.

Frederick:

No, you won't find chocolate in the bible. Or nuclear devices. Or his theory about the fall of leaves proving Noah's flood. Or brains from soil. Or his wild predictions. He is an endless source of entertainment.

Note here that I am a believer, a Christian. Not your typical Christian, but quite liberal and coming from the spiritual side of things. Not that this makes any difference with you, I know - I can deal with that. But Spidey has done more harm to Christianity on these blogs than all the other fundies put together. In that sense, he is your natural ally.

I should have said Xtian music posing as metal.

As I've said, "Christian Metal" is an oxymoron.

Any real metal is neutral to or opposed to Xtianity.

Any metal posing as Xtian is just emo music with heavy guitars.

" Arminius:

Paganplace,

If you still don't like Metal, consider that the birth of Metal is considered to be with Led Zeppelin."

I didn't say I don't like, or even somewhat understand it, Arminius, ...just don't 'love' it in that way that would upset me if I did upon hearing evangelizers *mangle* it to appeal to ... well, whatever.

I mean, like Slayer, and Metallica, they're Christians, right? The former I have little use for, the latter, have some good songs, ...even back when punks and metalheads were acting the part of rival tribes, ...Zeppelin, Metallica, you could get together on that. But...

Well, it's like Christian Rock. Bloody awful.

A simulacrum for advertising.

Just so I get it, what is spiderman's fascination with chocolate? I don't remember reading about that in the bible?

Paganplace,

If you still don't like Metal, consider that the birth of Metal is considered to be with Led Zeppelin.

Hi, Paganplace,

I am willing to give Christian Metal a try. If it resembles Spidey, into the trash it goes.

Metal, by the way, has a myriad of varieties. Some are very easy to take, such as much of Metallica and Savatage, and Blind Guardian. Others, well, not so easy.

1,2,4 5... ooops something is missing. Yup, just like the gap idiots dismiss from their minds the transformation gap between the soil and the cacao fruit. There is something in between and they choose not to look at it. 1,2,4,5 ...1,2,4,5..

Idiots.

C ya later guys and let's hope we'll find a cure for stupidity.

P.S Stupidity is tha MAIN cause of doomsday and you guys help fulfill the prophecy. No cure for stupidity and so the prophecy will take place.

What a pity.

" Arminius:

Paganplace,

I happen to be a Metal fan. Being a Christian, I would like to hear Christian Metal. "

You really wouldn't. Especially if you love metal. Which I really don't. It's the usual j/o except it's all about ...well, what Spidey is all into. With the predictable results of taking the 'sex' out of sex and aggression.

" spiderman2:

"No cure for stupidity."

Well, there is. But it involves more effort than 'dead leaf' theories and your usual deal, Spidey.

Do you really somehow feel... *smarter* when you get done indulging your own stupidity, here, Spidey? Or do you have to run off somewhere and recharge? :)

"The hottest man-made creation is a nuke explosion. Google it so you don't spread your stupidity."

Well, ...consider if that involves 'burning.' If you know what burning is. :)

But that's pretty immaterial. What I want to know is 'Why does your God need a nuke?'

And... "Why you got the tent in the pants over it?"

Big guy?

A hydrogen bomb can incinerate a whole city in less than one hour.

Arminius,

If you like extreme metal, and want some Christian stuff, listen to Pantokrator, Mortification, or Zao.

Not a Christian personally but these bands make good music.

"The hottest man-made creation is a nuke explosion."

Uh....I beg to differ.

Laetita Casta is MUCH, MUCH hotter.

Somebody needs to get out and get some (I'm lookin in your direction, spidey!)

Paganplace,

I happen to be a Metal fan. Being a Christian, I would like to hear Christian Metal. Also, are you aware that there is such a thing as Islam Metal? For real! Music, even Metal, is universal.

Bravo, Reverend Spong for an elucidating article! I have long thought so-called 'conservatives' (mostly Republians, were completely lopsided in this terrible and thorny issue . No one is really 'pro-abortion.'No one really thinks abortion is wonderful. What is really the issue here is whether we want the federal government to mandate whether a woman has the option to an abortion, a grave and difficult decision that the majority of women must make. Many are in terrible circumstances. But the real issue is the ludicrous simplicity of the anti-abortion groups, where the word 'sex' is never allowed to be openly discussed. They pretend 'their kids' would never 'do it' and scream loudly if adequate sex education would be taught in the schools, assuming, wrongly of course, that all parents are wise and healthy enough to teach their children to be sexually responsible. So rather than teach their children this, or prevent schools from teaching it to children who do not have the advantage of a 'good family' they would prefer to scream loudly about abortions. The only way to resolve the abortion issue is to tackle it at the fundamental root...by prevention of pregnancies!

No cure for stupidity.

The hottest man-made creation is a nuke explosion. Google it so you don't spread your stupidity.

A hydrogen bomb can incinerate a whole city in less than one hour.

Plain Truth said:

JP.in.CA.PA.FL:,

You speak on your own authority I speak what God's word says. Jesus said He is God Spong says He is not. Spong will have to give an account for claiming to represent God and denying Him at the same time. You and Spong better repent or you will both face God's wrath.

__________________________________________________

So, Plain Truth...you speak for God?!?

I'm sure God is impressed with your willingness to speak with such authority on their behalf!

Wow...I'm not sure this is the result of a bloated ego, mindless absurdity or rigidly entrenched arrogance, but you nonetheless certainly enjoy the sick idea of wishing for the suffering of someone you don't theologically agree with, via calling for a punative God's wrath if we don't repent for questioning your understand of God's word.

Do you now see how idiotically pious you sound? I'm sure were you not so scarily convinced of your righteousness, God would be laughing at you. Funny, the rest of us aren't. Were just weary of your kind.

You are the embodiment though, of exactly what I and many others see is so very wrong with certain devout religious people of a conservative ilk...you are filled with bile and anger towards people who even remotely question your interpretation of religion, faith, or how others conduct their life separate of your belief structure. You throw around the repentance and wrath threat around like an old Sicilian grandmother throws around curses to those who disobey her.

People like you are borderline disturbed at best. Power-mad religious 'leaders' and your rigid interpretations of scripture just inflame your insanity.

If anything, you should be asking for repentance yourself for passing such judgement on others.

You are no more an authority on God's word than I am. You may have read God's word (bible, I suppose, unless God has a blog site I'm not aware of), but you grossly misinterpreted the message.....again, the 'love thy neighbor as thyself' one, especially. Maybe you hate yourself? If I thought like you did, I probably would hate myself too.

Concern yourself with your own damn life and please leave the rest of us alone, or at least add to the discourse with some wisdom and understanding....not some childish curses of repentance and wrath thrown at those you disagree with.

You are pathetic, about as much as I am for trying to reason with you.

Good Day, and bless you!

uh....forget the "I am" in the message below.

Y'know, this forum should give us some spidey-edit powers

hehe...I am "Christian Metal" is a contradiction in terms if there ever was one.

Arminius--

Regarding stupidity:

The size of the 1945 Hiroshima bomb was 20 kilotons. The average size of a nuclear weapon today-- 550 kilotons.

"Oh Jeebus, spare me from spidey's chocolate cake! Lead me unto your WARM, nuclear-death dealing, armagedd-o-lisuous arms! Let me be enraptured by your burning, fiery, FLAME-ON embrace."

I think he listens to 'Christian Metal.' (Gods, talk about dreadful)

So...are there any serious thinkers willing to refute the author's position that evangelicals, should they ever gain the whole government (god forbid), foment a "tyranny of the majority"?

Or is this all just about spiderman's nuclear fetish?

Regarding the stupidity of Spidey about nuclear bombings:

Hiroshima: the bomb instantly obliterated the center of the city for a radius of about one mile. There was no burning - it was vaporized. But for several miles beyond, burning went on for at least a day or more.

One hour, my a**. Spidey needs to brush up on his science. Somehow, I doubt that he is capable.

" spiderman2:

"For centuries, doomsday was an "impossible" prophecy. No city can burn in one hour until the formula E=mc^2 arrived."

I assure you, somewhat more effort went into that. Deliberate effort.

By people.

You have the formula.

*lookin around*

OK. *spreading arms.*

Nuke me.

Simple, right?

What you waiting for, bug guy?

"Another one simple formula revealed and you guys could find yourself burning in hell."

If I encounter rapid oxidation while not having a body to burn (considering that it hasn't seemed to happen in previous incarnations, whatever I believed at the time) ...cause I didn't listen to *you,* Spidey, I'll still question the 'formula' you propose.

I think the formula's easier. You *like* to talk like that. And so you do. cause it distracts you from something.

"The intelligence is so great that it's impossible for idiots to grasp. I hope there's a cure for stupidity."

Careful what you wish for. :)

Yes, yes, spidey.

We all understand that you spidey-sense tells you that Jeebus wants to kill us all.

Wonderful! Great! He sounds so....cozy....and definitely WARM!!!!!!!

Oh Jeebus, spare me from spidey's chocolate cake! Lead me unto your WARM, nuclear-death dealing, armagedd-o-lisuous arms! Let me be enraptured by your burning, fiery, FLAME-ON embrace.

For your future information:

The plume from a mushroom cloud continued to expand for about one hour after the nuclear bomb was detonated above Hiroshima.

from a recent International Journal of Health Geographics study:

"Blasting and burning are how nuclear explosions kill at first. "The entire U.S. has specialized facilities to treat roughly 1,500 burn victims, which is far less than the burn casualties produced by one single small nuclear explosion. Additionally, most of these beds are already occupied," the study authors note. Just the small explosion in the study would produce from 3,132 cases of third-degree burns (in Washington D.C.) to 20,660 cases (New York), they conclude, with the numbers growing about 10 times higher for the larger blast. Third degree burns are the most serious ones. "Even a small nuclear event will totally overwhelm our hospitals' ability to take care of resulting burn casualties," the authors conclude.

Radiation and radioactive fallout plumes would kill more people and create more patients for hospitals. "In a nuclear explosion, over 400 radioactive isotopes are released into the biosphere," the study authors note. Just the small 20 kiloton explosion would produce from 46,579 cases of deadly radiation poisoning (in Atlanta) to 429,172 cases (in New York), they conclude, adding that 90% would die.

A large blast would destroy or make unsafe 50% to 56% of all hospital beds within 20 miles, the researchers say. Atlanta, with more suburban hospitals, fares slightly better than other cities in the event of the smaller blast. But overall, "the nationwide trend of locating a majority of the major urban health care institutions in downtown areas would result in a staggering loss of the total institutional health care delivery following nuclear weapon use," they conclude."

For centuries, doomsday was an "impossible" prophecy. No city can burn in one hour until the formula E=mc^2 emerged.

Just one simple formula and the prophecy became a possibility.

Another one simple formula revealed and you guys could find yourself burning in hell.

The intelligence is so great that it's impossible for idiots to grasp. I hope there's a cure for stupidity.

For centuries, doomsday was an "impossible" prophecy. No city can burn in one hour until the formula E=mc^2 arrived.

Just one simple formula and the prophecy became a possibility.

Another one simple formula revealed and you guys could find yourself burning in hell.

The intelligence is so great that it's impossible for idiots to grasp. I hope there's a cure for stupidity.

"I have met people who are into Wicca (not calling you a Wiccan, just the only people I have ever met who have anything resembling any "ancient" pagan beliefs I've ever met), and, to be frank, they have been just as deluded as Xtians with their fantastical beliefs."

People who are 'into Wicca' (see, there's the bias of us not being a 'Real Religion' right there) are not necessarily the same thing as Wiccans... or, necessarily, very far along if they are. Frankly, as a general rule, the more you know, the less you say. But I guess I'm a 'moderator' out in the world. :)

This isn't a 'revealed tradition' you can just ingest or read something, and 'believe' ...in fact, we like it that way. It's a body of practice and an ethical framework, and ...a rather diverse faith-group. So, yeah, I'm a Wiccan, nominally-at least, though much of that has less to do with 'supernatural claims' than, as so many, finding a way to share what was already going on with me. Heritage, culture, the 'religion' part of things, too.

So, again, convenient assumptions of 'atheists' that all views of God or Gods are really just particularly ill-informed schools of rationalistic thought, ... just don't always apply.

But atheists are convenient props for Fundies to claim that's all there is to all this stuff.

"And by the way, the ingredient to make cacao fruit is the soil. If you want to know how it's done, ask the "person" who owns the "supernatural oven". The ingredient is there (the soil) and the "baked" product is there (the cacao fruit). But the process is hidden by the "person" who keeps the "supernatural oven"."

Let me guess....is it....

...Spiderman?

I knew it!!!! What do I win? new spidey-underoos?

And by the way, the ingredient to make cacao fruit is the soil. If you want to know how it's done, ask the "person" who owns the "supernatural oven". The ingredient is there (the soil) and the "baked" product is there (the cacao fruit). But the process is hidden by the "person" who keeps the "supernatural oven".

In time, there'll be a lot of burning going on.

""Cities will burn in one hour". While this statement was "supernatural" a hundred years ago, NOT ANYMORE today."

Actually, Spidey, it does take a while to *burn* a city. Ask Tokyo or Dresden, or, as I like to say, 'Rome wasn't burned in a day.'

Technically-speaking, I think you can say a nuke might *incinerate* a city, but I don't think oxidation actually occurs.

I know you're like maybe sixteen by now, Spidey, but are you doing it in the world of twenty years ago?

'Nuclear annihilation' is a threat we all lived under, Spidey, but *we made it.* OK?

What alarms some people is that after all that, some 'God' isn't going to make our personal deaths that tidy. So they look for something else... Or cluster to the idea of nukes like Fundies at NORAD.

But. We're going to live. If we screw it up, it won't be pleasant, but it won't be a tidy 'end of everything.'

So we need to not do that.

OK? You need to chill a bit. Fetishizing 'Apocalypse' and hurting other people won't help you. Or anyone.

If you would like more out of the world, it's time to come live in it, Spidey. It's worth doing. There's nothing you can 'abolish' to make it safe.

You seem to need to believe all this wonder is a chocolate cake or a watch or another kind of artifact, made by a wrathful deity to ....like you, demand love or destroy it all like so many toys.

But such destructions aren't a God. Not even your God. If it happens, it'll be *us.* You.

We don't want that.

Cause, no, it's not an artifact made by a particularly fickle and jealous God who might be slightly-appeased by hating gay people.

It's better.

Paganplace....

...so, i guess you have peaked my curiosity.

Just what are your "religious" (or theisitic, deistic, pantheistic, whatever, beliefs)

I have met people who are into Wicca (not calling you a Wiccan, just the only people I have ever met who have anything resembling any "ancient" pagan beliefs I've ever met), and, to be frank, they have been just as deluded as Xtians with their fantastical beliefs.

"Chocolate cakes cannot bake itself. And so does other more complex objects like cocoa seeds."

Yes, yes, and grammar does not teaches it-selves.

Surely there are some more "sophisticated theologians" (oxymoron, I know) that On Faith has to throw at us atheists.

Or do we just get the gold medal and go home?

Well, it's comedy hour again, starring Spidey.

Now it's burning comic books. Comic books, for God's sake!

Not to mention the self-baking chocolate cake.

Before that was his theory of how the water subsided after Noah's flood: the trees that came out somehow managed to pile up several miles of leaves so that the ground rose.. I laughed for days.

Then there was the thing about evolution being false because one can't make a brain out of dirt.

Not to mention his predictions, supposedly taken from the bible, that America will soon be at war with 15 different countries. Would he explain it? No.... of course not.

Oh, yes - in one blog about the slaughter in the church in Knoxville, TN, he had the non-Christian gall to tell everyone that the dead were going straight to hell....

Pity Spidey. He walks in darkness.

"Cities will burn in one hour". While this statement was "supernatural" a hundred years ago, NOT ANYMORE today.

Chocolate cakes cannot bake itself. And so does other more complex objects like cocoa seeds.

Idiots, where are your brains?

" Frederick:

"Well, Paganplace, just so it is known, I reject all forms of supernaturalism."

I hadn't guessed. :) I don't reject Mystery, just *mystification.* Call me a Penn and Teller of the 'supernaturalist' world. :)

"If your worldview contains supernaturalist elements, than I reject them (not that you'd have any reason to care, just trying to not appear soft in front of my fellow atheists)."

Wouldn't want *that,* would we? Why, they might... not let you into atheist oblivion over it. :)

"But if they do no harm and make you happy, than go for it!"

In some regards, it's not 'happy,' per se. Just life. I've... walked among many people's nightmares, (and, in fact, some of the most tawdry and banal charlatanry) ...and maybe what'd *really* scare people is to know it's just so much like anything else.

But there's wonders, too. Like anywhere, there's wonders.

"(I'd say the same for Xtians, but their beliefs ARE doing harm, and I doubt they make too many folks happy"

Maybe, there you go conflating 'faith' and 'belief.'

I have my beliefs. Also some faith that if they're 'illusory,' that 'reality' ain't out to get me, and is probably just that much more interesting than the nightmares of Xtian belief.

" ATT: Spiderman with his nuclear holocaust fetish)"

*sigh....* Yeeeah. That's... definitely a bad side-effect of 'Xtian belief.' Saw a whole lot of it in the 80s.

"So how do dumb people bake their chocolate cake? Hmmm?"

How do dumb people bake their chocolate cake?

That has to be in line for it...in fact, it may take the CAKE (hehe) for the dumbest question I've ever heard.

Duncan Hines, of course!

Pam wrote "Spidey, the more you write, the dumber you sound "

So how do dumb people bake their chocolate cake? Hmmm?

Well, Paganplace, just so it is known, I reject all forms of supernaturalism.

If your worldview contains supernaturalist elements, than I reject them (not that you'd have any reason to care, just trying to not appear soft in front of my fellow atheists).

But if they do no harm and make you happy, than go for it! (I'd say the same for Xtians, but their beliefs ARE doing harm, and I doubt they make too many folks happy ATT: Spiderman with his nuclear holocaust fetish)

"The day will come when evolutionists will all burn and their works will be lined up with comic books like Goofy and Donald Duck. While we believers laugh at the comic books, they are floating somewhere and burning."

Well, that's an interesting assertion, there, *Spiderman.* :)

PaganPlace;

Hi. We live in a savage world (in short).

Either god is one sick and useless dude, or there ain't no god. I do believe the latter. In fact I'm
convinced that there is no god. The whole idea is silly like the Tooth Fairy is silly.

The world itself can be understood quite well without positing a magic skygod to 'explain' everything. Might as well posit a celestial glow-worm, or a pink unicorn, or even a FSM.

The older I get the more I resent the idiocy of religious claptrap and belief in the supernatural.
Its the oldest con-game of them all, and enriches mainly the clerics, those little-boy-loving indoctrinators.

Yes, yes, spiderman...

I cant wait to burn in your Spidey-Armageddon.

I'll be sure to wear my Aqua-man underoos to save me from the Spidey-flames. Maybe if I put on a Spidey-hood Jeebus will come save me from Spidey-Satan.

In any case, tune in next week....it's bound to be Spidey-riffic.

KABOOM!!!!!!

" Frederick:

"Well, Paganplace. I guess I just don't know what your "religious" system is."

That was kind of my point, actually, before you run off and accepting monotheists' definitions and taking em 'one better.' Among those definitions are notions that 'Pagan' views of what a God is are just inferior and less 'authoritative.' ;)

"So far it does not sound like something that threatens me, my state, my country, or the world (ala Xtianity or Islam), so here we are then....good neighbors."

That's what we'd all like to be. My religion may not say, 'Excrement is unclean, and evil,' but it does say, 'Don't excrete where you eat,' :) It's my state, and my country, and my world, too.

I assure you it's very real to me, and my people, and, in fact the *more* so because it's not in contradiction to what science or experience or a great diversity of what many cultures not demanding certain absolutist book-assertions, *do* know.

Takes some effort that way, but it's worth it.

It's not *lousy* that life feeds life. And if it were, there'd be little sense *complaining* when it remains to *get the point.* :)

Let there be honor and fellowship between the many tribes. :)

"One hundread years later, evolution changed its doctrine declaring that humans and monkeys come from a "common ancestor" which is an admission that their first theory (evolution from gorrila to human) was IMPOSSIBLE."

Spidey, the more you write, the dumber you sound - keep on typing. I save your posts just in case someone asks why I'm an atheist.

A hundred years ago, the theory of evolution (although a dumb theory) has more credibility than doomsday (which tell that cities can burn in one hour).

One hundread years later, evolution changed its doctrine declaring that humans and monkeys come from a "common ancestor" which is an admission that their first theory (evolution from gorrila to human) was IMPOSSIBLE.

While evolution changes its stance everyday, DOOMSDAY'S chance of happening is becomming stronger with the invention of nukes.

The day will come when evolutionists will all burn and their works will be lined up with comic books like Goofy and Donald Duck. While we believers laugh at the comic books, they are floating somewhere and burning.

What a pity.

Frederick is quick to see a gramatical error but he can't see the FIRE just in front of him. Typical of idiots.

Chocolate cakes can't bake itself, idiot.

Well, Paganplace. I guess I just don't know what your "religious" system is. So far it does not sound like something that threatens me, my state, my country, or the world (ala Xtianity or Islam), so here we are then....good neighbors.

And I enjoy poetry.

Mind you, you can go ahead and talk at the likes of 'Plain Truth' as much as you like, for all the good it does.

Yes...the theory of evolution"s" is for idiots.

So is the internet"s".

Hi, Paganplace,

You said, "What binds the hunter to the hunted?"

Yes, indeed. I know hunters who are bound to their prey by respect - the hunt to them is pretty much a spiritual experience. When they come to the kill, it is a mix of barbarian joy and something else - a gain to them, a loss to the wild? I don't know, but I sense it in them, and detect it when they speak of the hunt. It is something profoundly different than what the average Bambi-protector would expect. Not that a Bambi-protector would have any more tolerance than your average fundi would have to you or me.

A hundred years ago, the theory of evolutions (although a dumb theory) has more credibility than doomsday (which tell that cities can burn in one hour).

One hundread years later, evolution changed its doctrine declaring that humans and monkeys come from a "common ancestor" which is an admission that their first theory (evolution from gorrila to human)was IMPOSSIBLE.

While evolution changes its stance everyday, DOOMSDAY'S chance of happening is becomming stronger with the invention of nukes.

The day will come when evolutionists will all burn and their works will be lined up with comic books like spiderman and batman. While we believers laugh at the comic books, they are floating somewhere and burning.

What a pity.

"I almost hate to say this, because you sound like a moderate "moderator" sort."

Very astute. I've stood between Army guys and Marines spoiling for a brawl, in fact, which isn't bad for the sort of lil Gothy-punk chick I was at the time. :)

"But many gods are just as bunk as one god."

This, of course, hinges on you accepting a monotheist view of what a 'god' is in the first place.

"In fact, one god is closer to the real number, and, therefore, more accurate, and more within the margin of error."

I forget, does nothing count as a 'real number?' And who's counting? :)

"Whether you cloak psuedo-religious beliefs that border on poetry or whatever, the supernatural just isn't real."

Ah... So now, religion you can't handily dismiss by monotheist definitions isn't 'real religion,' which is interesting if you think religion isn't real in the first place.

You bet your bippy there's poetry.

Speaking of closer-to-real.

"If it was, it would be natural."

Frankly, to my experience, it's *quite* real, but I don't have the extraordinary 'proof' for such an extraordinary claim.

But ...Yes, it's natural. To our brains and consciousness at the very least... Unless we take steps and definitions to *make* it unnatural.

That was kind of my point. I guess you just don't like it. As you will, then. :)

JP.in.CA.PA.FL:,

You speak on your own authority I speak what God's word says. Jesus said He is God Spong says He is not. Spong will have to give an account for claiming to represent God and denying Him at the same time. You and Spong better repent or you will both face God's wrath.

Hi Dave;

Voltaire said that if there was no God the people would invent one.
In fact the people have invented thousands of gods, from Apollo to Zeus, from Shiva to Vishnu. None of them real, of course. All made up, just like Allah and the one the pope talks to.
Voltaire was saying that this is what we do; make up gods. And history supports this.

" peter:

"All God's creatures are hunted.
And all God's creatures are the hunters."

What binds the hunter to the hunted? :)

"Lousy job, God. Truly pathetic. Just the same as if there was no God;"

Why do you say that? By what standards?

What's so 'lousy' about the natural cycle? About, to wit, one of the things people have been 'made' to do? My religion has Gods and Goddesses of the hunt, just as much as of agriculture.

I mean, I'm as averse to *dying* as the *next* vertebrate, but I'd hardly think it *lousy or pathetic* if I were to die by predator. I'd put up an honorable fight, too. That's the way of things. (The park service taking a somewhat dimmer view of these things for good reasons notwithstanding.)

That's *part* of the creatures we are, and you don't have to believe in any Gods to learn to respect that. But it can help.

Spong wrote "The pity is that the same people who fight against abortion also fight against sex education, birth control and the availability of safe contraceptives."

This is NOT accurate and can be categorized as a LIE. CATHOLICISM is NOT evangelical and it is mainly catholicism that has this stance.

It is the promotion of promiscuity that evangelicals are against of. You don't educate a person about sex by giving him/her condom. Try doing that to your 14 year old relatives, IDIOT.

"It is the promotion of promiscuity that evangelicals are against of. You don't educate a person about sex by giving him/her condom. Try doing that to your 14 year old relatives, IDIOT."

And the guy who cant get laid finally makes an appearance.

Paganplace,

I almost hate to say this, because you sound like a moderate "moderator" sort.

But many gods are just as bunk as one god.

In fact, one god is closer to the real number, and, therefore, more accurate, and more within the margin of error.

Whether you cloak psuedo-religious beliefs that border on poetry or whatever, the supernatural just isn't real.

If it was, it would be natural.

"The pity is that the same people who fight against abortion also fight against sex education, birth control and the availability of safe contraceptives."

This is NOT accurate and can be categorized as a LIE. CATHOLICISM is NOT evangelical and it is mainly catholicism that has this stance.

It is the promotion of promiscuity that evangelicals are against of. You don't educate a person about sex by giving him/her condom. Try doing that to your 14 year old relatives, IDIOT.

"Every time I give to the poor, they make a bee-line for the liquor store. =P"

You've followed them, then?

"My church has programs whereby we actually make baglunches and take it to the homeless in Washington DC. I recommend finding a church in your area that has ministries reaching out to the poor and disenfranchised in your community and get involved."

But why must it be through a church? Why not a "Help the Homeless" group? Why not just whip up some lunches in your kitchen and hand them out yourself?

"Or you could just sit online and talk about how bad religion is....."

Don't make assumptions about me - you don't know me.

I mean... think about it... these same arguments have been going on more or less the same for hundreds of years, at least, because they are in terms *designed* to somewhat-occupy intellectuals without ever really threatening the status quo.

Those definitions were *written* by people with a certain sort of agenda, and so much of what's *really* interesting just isn't taught as such.

If you say, 'Faith is the same as religious belief and both of these are the same as a rival set of unproven or disproven 'facts,' can faith and reason get along?' ...well, of course the answer is, 'Not so much.'

But it doesn't have to be that way.

All God's creatures are hunted.
And all God's creatures are the hunters.

Lousy job, God. Truly pathetic. Just the same as if there was no God; which, of course, is probably the case.

"There is a good case to be made that God is man's invention, as Voltaire implied. While there is no good reason to believe that any gods actually exist.

God, it would seem, is in the mind of the believer.
And nowhere else."

I have not read Voltaire, and it is unlikely that I will have the time once classes start again shortly. What is the case that he makes?

Cheers,
Dave

"Apocalyptic belief is a function of faith - that luminous inner conviction that needs no recourse to evidence."

My description of faith, though not the common one, goes, "Belief is thinking you know something. Faith is not needing to."

I would say, *real faith* needs no belief in an Apocalypse, or any anti-rational thing.

But people really do muddle those two things, 'faith' and 'belief' ....on *both* sides of the endless Monotheists v Atheists back-and-forth.

"Amazing how many atheists speak with such certainty on the Christians being wrong, but still unquestioningly-accept their definitions of what a 'god' is. :)"

How about anything supernatural.

Apocalyptic belief is a function of faith - that luminous inner conviction that needs no recourse to evidence. It is customary to pose against immoveable faith the engines of reason, but in this instance I would prefer that delightful human impulse - curiosity, the hallmark of mental freedom. Organized religion has always had - and I put this mildly - a troubled relationship with curiosity. Islam's distrust, at least in the past two hundred years, is best expressed by it's attitude to those whose faith falls away, to apostates who are drawn to other religions or to none at all.
In recent times, in 1975, the mufti of Saudi Arabia, Bin Baz, in a fatwa, quoted by Shmuel Bar, ruled as followed "Those who claim that the earth is round and moving around the sun are apostates and their blood can be shed and their property can be taken in the name of God." Bin Baz rescinded this judgement ten years later. Mainstream Islam routinely prescribes punishment for apostates that ranges from ostracism to beatings to death. To enter one of the many websites where Muslim apostates anonymously exchange views is to encounter a world of brave and terrified men and women who have succumbed to their disaffection and intellectual curiosity.
And Christians should not feel smug. The first commandment - on pain of death if we were to take the matter literally - is Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. In the fourth century, St. Augustine put the matter well for Christianity, and his view prevailed for a long time: "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn."

And yet it is curiosity, scientific curiosity, that has delivered us genuine, testable knowledge of the world and contributed to our understanding of our place within it and of our nature and condition. This knowledge has a beauty of its own, and it can be terrifying. We are barely beginning to grasp the implications of what we have recently learned.
And what exactly have we learned?

I draw here from a Stephen Pinker essay on his ideal of a university: Among other things we have learned that our planet is a minute speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that
our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the history of the earth; that
humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods of ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified, that we cannot create energy or use it without loss.

Ian McEwan. "End of The World Blues".

Christians believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh (in the form of a cracker) and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was tricked by a malevolent entity (disguised a talking snake... with legs) into eating a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that people who ARE NOT so stupid and gullible that they can be coerced, misled, cajoled, deceived, frightened, brainwashed or bamboozled to the point of actually BELIEVING such outrageously ridiculous codswallop are stupid idiots, who should all be wiped out

If I killed my daughter so that I could forgive my dogs for barking all night, that would be murder.

If God killed (or allowed to be killed) his Son so He could forgive humanity for their sins, that would be the teachings of Paul.

Why did Jesus need to die for our sins to be forgiven? He didn't.

God sent His Son into the world, and the evil world killed Him. Then God raised Jesus up from the dead to show the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

Paul, as a Pharisee, could not imagine atonement without a blood sacrifice. His extreme Judaism has affected Christian theology way past what Jesus would have taught.

Don't forget that Paul never even met Jesus.

"the rest of you Christians (you are only 1 god off the real number, after all),"

Amazing how many atheists speak with such certainty on the Christians being wrong, but still unquestioningly-accept their definitions of what a 'god' is. :)

Dave L.

Read the quotes and draw your own conclusions.
There are clear and self-explanatory.

There is a good case to be made that God is man's invention, as Voltaire implied. While there is no good reason to believe that any gods actually exist.

God, it would seem, is in the mind of the believer.
And nowhere else.

"Evangelicals have a right to be involved in politics. They also have a responsibility to educate themselves on the issues. Thank God they are a minority of our population."

There's a good reason they are a minority: homo sapiens, after all, does have a mean level of intelligence.

Now, all that is left to do is to leave them be, and raise the enlightenment of the rest of you Christians (you are only 1 god off the real number, after all), and we can do a bang-up job to support the rights of the evangelic minority, while we live our lives Bush-free

and finally...

I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.
Thomas Edison in Columbian magazine.

By simple common sense I don't believe in God.
Charlie Chaplin

Neither in my private life nor in my writings have I ever made a secret of being an out-an-out unbeliever.
Sigmund Freud. in a letter to Charles Singer.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
Isaac Asimov 1920-1992

As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them.
Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 - 1821

I cannot believe in God when there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a supreme being and creator.
Jodi Foster quoted in The Calgary Sun interview July 10 1997

I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other, and do what we can for each other.
Katherine Hepburn. in Ladies Home Journal, Oct 1991

The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it, and some clever fables; and some blood drenched history; and som
Mark Twain. in Letters From The Earth.

e good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1815-1902. Feminist leader in "Eight Years and More."

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again; that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and world-wide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
Carl Sagan Pulitzer Prize -winning astronomer, in The Demon-Haunted World.

I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity or Islam - good people, yes, but any religion based on a single, well ... frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion, but an ethical and educational system.
Gore Vidal in "At Home".1988.

"The Good Book - one of the most remarkable euphemisms ever coined."
Ashley Montague Anthropologist and Harvard science professor

More quotes...

The old testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism, disbelief - call it what you will - than any book ever written.
A.A.Milne 1882 - 1956. author of the Winnie the Pooh books.

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr Woods.

In the realm of science, all attempts to find any evidence of supernatural beings, of metaphysical conceptions, as God, immortality, infinity, etc.,thus have failed, and if we are honest, we must confess that in science there exists no God, no immortality, no soul or mind as distinct from the body.
Charles Proteus Steinmetz 1865 - 1923. Inventor and Engineer writing in The American Freeman newspaper July 1941

As a historian, I confess to a certain amusement when I hear the Judeo-Christian tradition praised as the source of our present day concern for human rights...In fact the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Historian in a speech at Brown University 1989.

Religion is an illusion.
Sigmund Freud; The Interpretation of Dreams.

Surely the ass who invented the first religion ought to be the first ass damned.
Mark Twain.

The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.

Thomas Paine, 1732 - 1809. British/American Revolutionary Hero.

In those days in Far Rockaway there was a youth center for Jewish kids at the temple...Somebody nominated me for president of the youth center. The elders began getting nervous, because I was an avowed atheist by that time.
I thought nature itself was so interesting that I didn't want it distorted by miracle stories. And so I gradually came to disbelieve the whole religion.
Richard Feynman. Nobel Prize-winning physicist in "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"

Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.
James Watson Nobel Prize-winning biologist and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.

Evolution, as such, is no longer a theory for a modern author. It is as much a fact as that the earth revolves around the sun.
Ernst Mayer. 1904-2005 "Twilight of The Idols"

Which is it; is man one of god's blunders?
Or is God one of man's blunders?
Nietzsche in "Twilight of The Idols"

How can any woman believe that a loving and merciful god would, in one breath, command Eve to multiply and replenish the earth, and in the next, pronounce a curse on her maternity?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. 1815-1902.Feminist leader

The study of theology ,as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing.
Thomas Paine 1737-1809 "The Age of Reason".

A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically?
Francis Crick 1916-2004. Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. in "What Mad Pursuit".

The old testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism, disbelief - call it what you will - than any book ever written.
A.A.Milne 1882 - 1956. author of the Winnie the Pooh books.

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr Woods.

In the realm of science, all attempts to find any evidence of supernatural beings, of metaphysical conceptions, as God, immortality, infinity, etc.,thus have failed, and if we are honest, we must confess that in science there exists no God, no immortality, no soul or mind as distinct from the body.
Charles Proteus Steinmetz 1865 - 1923. Inventor and Engineer writing in The American Freeman newspaper July 1941

As a historian, I confess to a certain amusement when I hear the Judeo-Christian tradition praised as the source of our present day concern for human rights...In fact the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Historian in a speech at Brown University 1989.

Religion is an illusion.
Sigmund Freud; The Interpretation of Dreams.

Surely the ass who invented the first religion ought to be the first ass damned.
Mark Twain.

The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.

Thomas Paine, 1732 - 1809. British/American Revolutionary Hero.

In those days in Far Rockaway there was a youth centre for Jewish kids at the temple...Somebody nominated me for president of the youth center. The elders began getting nervous, because I was an avowed atheist by that time.
I thought nature itself was so interesting that I didn't want it distorted by miracle stories. And so I gradually came to disbelieve the whole religion.
Richard Feynman. Nobel Prize-winning physicist in "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"

Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.
James Watson Nobel Prize-winning biologist and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.

Evolution, as such, is no longer a theory for a modern author. It is as much a fact as that the earth revolves around the sun.
Ernst Mayer. 1904-2005 "Twilight of The Idols"

Which is it; is man one of god's blunders?
Or is God one of man's blunders?
Nietzche in "Twilight of The Idols"

How can any woman believe that a loving and merciful god would, in one breath, command Eve to multiply and replenish the earth, and in the next, pronounce a curse on her maternity?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. 1815-1902.Feminist leader

The study of theology ,as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing.
Thomas Paine 1737-1809 "The Age of Reason".

A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically?
Francis Crick 1916-2004. Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. in "What Mad Pursuit".

John Former Senior Warden:

I googled 'Centers for Disease Control Abortion' and found no data more recent than 2001. It has been mentioned here that the Shrub put a stop to the gathering of these statistics when he shambled into office. It would seem that this is correct. Exactly where did you get your statistics? Please furnish a link.

Atheists.....God love 'em. Welcome to our forum. If only I had more time today but 5:00pm EST quickly approaches and so does my ride. Alas, another day, another battle.

Magpie.

You have become, as a result of your own innocent inquiry, a target for indoctrination.

Your staring down the laser beam of the Borg. Their "sticks" are guilt and damnation, their "carrot" is eternal life worshiping a mountain god and his zombie son.

If your native intelligence is insufficient to recognize the hocus-pocus presented below, just remember, when they start asking you for $$$ (and they, though probably not Beowulf, most certainly will), you were warned.

Kwotes, is this list of quotes you've provided supposed to prove something? If it is to be implied, and I'm only guessing that this was the point, that all members of the intelligentsia are either atheists or believe things radically opposed to traditional Christianity, then I would have to say that this would be false (I recognize that this may not have been your point; I certainly do not want to be chasing straw men).

Cheers,
Dave

According to the Centers for Disease Control. Overall the number of abortions has fallen 13 out of the past 14 years. You state It is not a surprise, therefore, that abortions have risen rapidly during the administration of pro-life George Bush.

Seems like the purple shirts are ignorant or have their own agenda.

No problemo, Magpie. Here we go:

1) "How do you make the leap from God wanting humans to be obedient to the murder of Jesus as a substitute sacrifice?"

I thought I explained that in my last post? In a nutshell: we're bad, He's good, animal sacrifices are insufficient to change us from the inside, only to cover our bad stuff. Christ's sacrifice IS sufficient to change us from the inside AND cover us permanently.

Jesus said, "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17-18 KJV)

It wasn't a murder. He allowed Himself to be subjected to Capital Punishment on our behalf.
-----------------------------------

2) "Why would an all-powerful God need to make these compromises?"

Because He loves us THAT much that He is willing to do for us, what we cannot do for ourselves.

[For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16]

-----------------------------------

3) Why would God want to absolve humans of sin in one fell swoop? Doesn't that enable them to just go out and sin again? Why wouldn't God want human to pay for their wrongs?

Because the old system wasn't working. It's like buying a brand new car rather than continuing to fix an old one.

The Apostle Paul talks about not using our freedom in Christ as a license to sin, but rather, as a freedom from it. The Israelites proved that no one stays "clean" very long. Without spiritual cleanliness, God cannot tolerate us for He cannot tolerate sin. Christ's "covering" gives us the ability to have a continual relationship with God.

Humans tried to pay for their wrong, but the payment itself became an excuse to sin more. (i.e. I can keep sinning today since I'm sacrificing a bull tomorrow.)

----------------------------------

[Wow you have alot of questions. LoL!]

----------------------------------

4) Also, Jesus wasn't considered a god until he died, right? So how would the sacrifice of the human, not-god Jesus satisfy this requirement for a divine sacrifice?

Actually, if you read thru the Gospels (especially John) He claimed to be God pretty regularly. It's why the Jews kept trying to stone Him all the time.

---------------------------------------

5) ".... I just don't understand the ethical underpinnings of a religious worldview that says you can do anything you want -- commit any heinous crime -- but you'll be forgiven if you just have faith..."

Well, the point is to NOT sin. Real Christians don't live a lifestyle of sin. Everyday, they progress in character and spirit. We become more like Him little by little, everyday. (Sanctification.)

Also, the Bible teaches that "Whom the Lord loves, He disciplines." In other words, if you sin intentionally, you will be disciplined.
------------------------------------------

6) And one other thing. Lumping "Hindu/Buddhist/New Age" beliefs together is absurd and misinformed. While "New Agey" beliefs are often grounded -- shallowly -- in other belief systems, you can hardly claim that the ancient belief systems of Hinduism and Buddhism are equally vapid.

I lump them together simply because their belief system doesn't require "god" to be a person. It is more of a force; a universal consciousness to be tapped into. (One with Nature and all.)

--------------------

I'm done for today. My email is allenc12373@yahoo.com if you'd like to continue this conversation.

:)

more quotes from "Atheist Universe".

The study of anthropology confirmed my atheism, which was the faith of my fathers anyway. Religions were exhibited and studied as the Rube Goldberg inventions I'd always thought they were.
Kurt Vonnegut jr. "Self Interview"

There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence.
Albert Schweitzer 1875-1965. Physician, philosopher and humanitarian "The Quest of The Historical Jesus."

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, ie.,by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
Albert Einstein. in his biography,"The Human Side."

Miracles have no claim whatever to the character of historical facts and are wholly invalid as evidence of any revelation.
John Stuart Mill 1806-1873. philosopher,economist,logician,in "Theism."

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
Bertrand Russell 'Christian Ethics,' from "Marriage and Morals."

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind.
H.L.Mencken. Editor and critic, NYTimes Magazine Sep.11,1955.

Christianity is such a silly religion.
Gore Vidal, Time Magazine, Sep 28, 1992.

If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you are schizophrenic.
Thomas Szasz MD, Psychiatrist, in "The Second Sin."

There is no Hell. There is only France.
Frank Zappa

I cannot imagine a god who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a god, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
Albert Einstein, quoted in the NYTimes April 19 1955.

One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed that the world was flat.
Mark Twain in "Notebook."

Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven.
I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.
Isaac Asimov 1920-1992. Scientist and novelist.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...
Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein in "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9,1930

"Not only is evangelical Christianity for the ignorant and benighted, all of Christianity is based on misconceptions, fraud, and stupidity."
"The real Jesus had nothing to do with the inventions of Paul of Tarsus, a fraud if ever there was one."

Two strong claims about the birth of Christianity that you provide no historical argumentation for.

As for the comment about evangelicals, it is about as silly as the sweeping claims made by evangelicals and fundamentalists apropos of atheists.

Cheers,
Dave

Belief,thus, in the supernatural, great as are the services which it rendered in the early stages of human development, cannot be considered to be any longer required, either for enabling us to know what is right or wrong in social morality, or for supplying us with motives to do right, and to abstain from wrong.
John Stuart Mill 1806-1873 Philosopher. "Utility of Religion."

Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak minded who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick there noses in other people's business.
Jesse Ventura. Playboy Mag. Nov.1999.

I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
Albert Einstein in his biography, "Albert Einstein; The Human Side."

The pioneers and missionaries of religion have been the real cause of more trouble and war than all other classes of mankind.
Edgar Allan Poe.

Missionaries are perfect nuisances and leave every place worse than they found it.
Charles Dickens 1812 - 1870.

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.
Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

We have the most religious freedom of any country in the world, including the freedom not to believe.
Bill Clinton 1996 presidential debate in San Diego

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 in a letter to John Adams April 11,1823

The luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn't believe in God, and so he had no hang ups about souls. I see ourselves as products of evolution, which itself is a great mystery.
James Watson Nobel Prize-winning biologist, and co-discoverer of the DNA's structure, in Discover magazine, July 2003

All thinking men are atheists.
Ernest Hemingway in "A Farewell To Arms"

I have seldom met an intelligent person whose views were not narrowed and distorted by religion.
James Buchanan 1791-1868

I don't believe in god because I don't believe in Mother Goose.
Clarence Darrow speaking in Toronto Canada 1930

As far as I remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
Bertrand Russell.

I'm not someone who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in.
Bill Gates

What I got in Sunday School was simply a firm conviction that the Christian faith was full of palpable absurdities, and the Christian God preposterous. The act of worship, as carried on by Christians, seems to me to be debasing rather than ennobling. It involves groveling before a being who, if he really exists, deserves to be denounced instead of respected.
H.L.Mencken in a letter to Will Durant.

My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul, but I simply do not believe it.
Thomas Edison in "Do We Live Again"

All quotes from "Atheist Universe", by David Mills. Pub Ulysses Press.2006

The real Jesus had nothing to do with the inventions of Paul of Tarsus, a fraud if ever there was one.

Not only is evangelical Christianity for the ignorant and benighted, all of Christianity is based on misconceptions, fraud, and stupidity.

Beowulf states:

"...In the Torah, God laid down laws for us to follow. When we break those law, we are deserving of death. God allowed for innocent animals to take our place via the sacrificial system...Christ, being fully God & fully man, died in our place...His "deity-ness" enabled that sacrifice to count for all men for all time. Thus, HE was the dove, lamb, or bull on our behalf.

We call it Propitiation."

Can anything be more obscene and immoral than the idea of shedding innocent blood on behalf of a guilty person? I'm hard-pressed...perhaps raping a child for the sexual misconduct of its parent.

If you must pick a god, you'd think you'd choose one whose morals were superior to your own.

How anyone's faith can survive a reading of the Pentateuch (with its 8000 year old birthday-cake cosmos, blood-hungry mountain god who, mysteriously, remains unseen by all but the priesthood, countless "sins" atoned for by bizarre recipes of cereals, livestock, and specific blood-splattering formulas, to mention nothing of its sheer brutality) is quite frankly beyond me and speaks volumes either of (a) the staggering efficacy of religious indoctrination or (b) the staggering inefficacy of our country's educational system.

All this rubbish would seem comical if you could numb yourself to the barbarity, but then it is painfully SELF-EVIDENT that this whole scheme was cooked up by a would-be priestly class intent on using guilt and power to exploit the agricultural resources of an underclass and to legitimize conquest.

Christianity is as obscene as it is absurd, and the fact that two presidential candidates have to go to some Oprah-style self-help guru to pander to the brainwashed masses is, in my opinion, a national embarrassment of Biblical (pun intended) proportions.

Plain Truth said:

Spong, you have no right to judge anyone as you have denied that Jesus is the incarnate God and thus have denied the faith. You sir are a heretic and you will face God's wrath unless you repent.

Plain Truth (odd name)

IF there is a wrathful and just GOD, you and your judgemental brethren should be the FIRST on his list. Just because the man asks you to open your mind and think from a different perspective, which might challenge some aspects of your self-righteous interpretaiton of faith, it doesn't give you the right to call for his repettance or wishing God's wrath on him.

How very 16th century of you. Depressing.

You and your kind are the reason intelligent, reasonable and perfectly wonderful people of faith are turned off by conservative religion and their idiotic dogma-driven mean-spiritedness. Did you miss the part of practicing love, forgiveness, patience, tolerance and understanding, or do you just find the more punative aspect of wrath more delightful?

Frankly, 'Plain Truth' (cough) those of us who agree with the direction of this article ARE more than a little leery of your arrogance and self-absorbed supposed righteousness in damning others who don't live by your obviously tortured interpretaion of scripture, faith and life.

You are sad, indeed. May you find some peace within you before your time to meet the maker. You probably have just as much to reconcile with the deity as any sinner of your observation.

Peace be with you, nonetheless.

Beowulf,

Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for that explanation.

But, of course, I have questions.

How do you make the leap from God wanting humans to be obedient to the murder of Jesus as a substitute sacrifice?

Why would an all-powerful God need to make these compromises?

Why would God want to absolve humans of sin in one fell swoop? Doesn't that enable them to just go out and sin again? Why wouldn't God want human to pay for their wrongs?

Also, Jesus wasn't considered a god until he died, right? So how would the sacrifice of the human, not-god Jesus satisfy this requirement for a divine sacrifice?

You see, it just doesn't add up -- any more than the notion of faith without good works being enough to "save" humans. And, no, I'm not Catholic. I just don't understand the ethical underpinnings of a religious worldview that says you can do anything you want -- commit any heinous crime -- but you'll be forgiven if you just have faith.

And one other thing. Lumping "Hindu/Buddhist/New Age" beliefs together is absurd and misinformed. While "New Agey" beliefs are often grounded -- shallowly -- in other belief systems, you can hardly claim that the ancient belief systems of Hinduism and Buddhism are equally vapid.

Or maybe you can. You are, after all, a Christian. :>)

Christians believe that Jesus existed as one of the 3 divine persons that conastitute God according to scripture and that he incarnated, as promised to Israel, to redeem us. We believe that in allowing himself to be cruxified while being innocent, he intended to atone for our sins, and effectively did, forever.

It is an act of love beyond human understanding and one that can be believed only through an experience of Christ's unparalleled love that issues in the kind of faith that is incomnprensible to non-believers.

His atonement is an invitation to love, not a guarantee of salvation. It should be obvious that a Christian who is not faithful to the experience of the gift of Christ's love, who does whatever the hell he or she wants and does not even repent, is not 'saved'. It doesn't matter if he or she claims to be a Christian and confeses to believe in Christ. Their rejection of love is evidence that they do not really believe, or have not really accepted Christ, and are therefore not really Christian.

In that context one can then examine the outrageous behavior of some so called Christians in the name of Christ.

Christ would never have invaded Iraq and killed over a million people, the mayority innocent, or aborted any human being, or accumulated wealth while millions are in desperate need. Those who engage or defend such crimes should not be doing so in his holy name, but rather in their own selfish non-christian one. Otherwise it's also blasphemy.

magpie:

Prove that He did not die on the cross you the sins of His people???

BeowulfthePolitician:
"[Some] movements accept all belief systems as equally valid."

I think if you look closely you will find that NO belief system accepts ALL belief systems as being equally valid. The ones you mention may be particularly diplomatic about their judgements, but they still distance themselves from some others, especially New Age (very snooty). Also, the high level of abstraction of a belief system clearly isolates it from others that are more "physical." Finally, Buddhism and Hinduism are relatively "open," meaning they can easily evolve. I'm not sure about Unitarianism. Isn't it Christian based? The belief systems that are truly open must be alien to what we commonly observe in a "religion." They are called "philosophy."

Anna the Atheist:

I am poor and my knowledge compared to all the knowledge in the universe is a speck. You must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere-present to assert there is no god. I think you are really jealous and wish to put yourself in his place. You speak as though you have all authority so I guess you really do believe in god only you are him.

"The oldest con line in the book. The emperor's new clothes."

Pam, while you have a point, characterizing the argument as a con is too simplistic. It falsely assumes that there's a deliberate motive to deceive. That's the same objection that the argument itself poses - the argument avoids criticism by assuming that the problem is with the critic. That is characteristic of any closed system of thought.

Spong, you have no right to judge anyone as you have denied that Jesus is the incarnate God and thus have denied the faith. You sir are a heretic and you will face God's wrath unless you repent.

Good for the author, Bishop Spong!

If only he could get on "Larry King Live" or some other major cable venue! We need to hear this point of view more often in the public square!

Pam wrote:

"If no preacher ever asked for money, but rather told his flock to give *directly* to the poor, I might actually have to give religion another look."

------------------

Every time I give to the poor, they make a bee-line for the liquor store. =P

My church has programs whereby we actually make baglunches and take it to the homeless in Washington DC. I recommend finding a church in your area that has ministries reaching out to the poor and disenfranchised in your community and get involved.

Or you could just sit online and talk about how bad religion is.....

"You believe because you have seen, but blessed are those that believe and have not seen."

The oldest con line in the book. The emperor's new clothes.

If no preacher ever asked for money, but rather told his flock to give *directly* to the poor, I might actually have to give religion another look.

Then again, naah.

Magpie wrote:

"Your claim that only one religion can be "right" ignores the simple fact that the concept of "god" transcends what humans can imagine. In fact, the god you pray to, the god Muslims pray to, the god Jews pray to, and the gods the Hindus pray to are just different manifestations of the same all-encompassing "god-ness" -- we just call it different things."

-----------------------------
Your definition of "god" as "all-encompassing god-ness" mirrors the Hindu/Buddhist/New Age definition.
=================================

"I want to know what it means when you say, 'Jesus died for our sins'."

-----------------------

Fair enough. In the Torah, God laid down laws for us to follow. When we break those law, we are deserving of death. God allowed for innocent animals to take our place via the sacrificial system. Problem was, people tended to do live their lives however they chose, knowing full well that on the Sabbath, those doves' or bulls' sacrifices would cover their actions. God began to express his displeasure to this by oftentimes proclaiming, "Obedience I have desired over sacrifice." The messianic prophecies began pointing to a new covenant where, "He would write His laws on our hearts." (He wanted us to change and stay clean internally, not just externally.)

Christ, being fully God & fully man, died in our place, fulfilling the requirements of the law of a sinless sacrifice on our behalf. His "deity-ness" enabled that sacrifice to count for all men for all time. Thus, HE was the dove, lamb, or bull on our behalf.

We call it Propitiation.

I apologize for my more smart-alecky tone earlier.

Because you forgot to put your name into the "name" box. Now stop maquerading as me!

L.Kurt Englehart, the response was mine. I don't know why it registered me as anonymous.

Beowulf:

A "warm fuzzy"? Wow, what a put-down. Is that what you think people of other belief systems are trying for?

Your claim that only one religion can be "right" ignores the simple fact that the concept of "god" transcends what humans can imagine. In fact, the god you pray to, the god Muslims pray to, the god Jews pray to, and the gods the Hindus pray to are just different manifestations of the same all-encompassing "god-ness" -- we just call it different things.

When you say, "We believe in the 'Jesus, son of God, dying for our sins story,' because it is well-attested to in history," you still haven't answered what I asked about. I don't want to know where in all the man-made literature Jesus' miracles are attested to. There's never been a shortage of believers to support Christian claims. I want to know what it means when you say, "Jesus died for our sins."

I hear people mouthing this constantly, often robotically, and it just doesn't seem to have any meaning. How does Jesus' murder two thousand years ago have anything to do with "sins" you commit now? This is what I want explained ... without the circular reasoning that happens when you spout answers from your scripture.

L.Kurt Englehart wrote:

"Belief systems are logical unities that intend to exclude other alien unities. The problem of exclusion cannot be resolved within the system."

------------------------------
Not so. Buddhism, Hinduism, Unitarianism, & the New Age movement accept all belief systems as equally valid.

=================================

"Integration requires a perspective logically above the systems. Cultural osmosis usually accomplishes this by what has been called syncretization. No closed belief system can exist forever, nor can it resist the influences to integration from the surrounding belief systems. In a sense all belief systems are "wrong." Only evolution decides what is "right."

--------------------------------
Nominally speaking, I agree up to a point. With the advent of Women's Suffrage in the mid-1800's, women's rights became an issue that is hotly contested in religion today...how to integrate their new-found equality with what religion teaches.

Certain racist elements in America's past attempted to twist Christianity as a tool for racial segregation. Thankfully, that changed, however the religion itself didn't change, just the laity's interpretation ( or rather, misinterpretation) of the religion.

Freestinker wrote:

"My definition of morality (i.e. the common English definition) certainly does allow for the possibilty of an absolute to exist but it requires proof first. So far, no proof has been presented much less verified"

-----------------------

Therein lies the conundrum. How to prove the Supernatural. Jesus had a disciple named Thomas, who also, always required proof as well. After Jesus had manifested Himself to Thomas, Thomas declared, "My Lord & My God." Jesus replied, "You believe because you have seen, but blessed are those that believe and have not seen."

I could no more "prove" God, then I could Santa Claus, however, I could start with Jesus. I can show you the over 300+ Messianic prophecies He fulfilled. I could recount recorded eyewitness accounts of His miracles; his claims to be the Same as the Father, to forgive sins, to raise the dead, and raise Himself from the dead. But, ultimately, neither you nor I was there to witness it, so it will always be a matter of Faith.

Men did indeed write the Bible as they were moved by God to write. Some revelation came by visions, some by actual audible commands, some by dreams, and some by God-inspired wisdom as the author explained Christian doctrine to their readership. I would disagree that the language is not ambiguous, but rather, we tend to interpret (or misinterpret) it through our own paradigms and level of education.

Hermaneutics (art & science of Biblical interpretation) teachs us the "right" way to read it. The more acquainted you are with ancient Hebrew & Greek culture & language, the better you will understand the Bible.

You are correct. I can never prove God exists, but then, God requires the faith first to reveal Himself. I recommend you give God a "30-day trial". Regardless of what you have attempted in the past, try pray every day for just a few minutes and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. If after 30 days you hear/see/experience nothing, then you know for sure. You have nothing to lose.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1(KJV)

BeowulfthePolitician:
"The problem is, they can't all be right. They are mutually exclusive. Someone's wrong."

Belief systems are logical unities that intend to exclude other alien unities. The problem of exclusion cannot be resolved within the system. Integration requires a perspective logically above the systems. Cultural osmosis usually accomplishes this by what has been called syncretization. No closed belief system can exist forever, nor can it resist the influences to integration from the surrounding belief systems. In a sense all belief systems are "wrong." Only evolution decides what is "right."

"So when people say a particular god exists, what they are saying is their belief (in that god) exists and who can argue with that?"

Freestinker --

Well, yes, exactly!

My point was that Beowulf appears to reject any concept of "god" that is different than his/hers.

To each our own, eh?

magpie wrote:

Beowulf:

"In fact, I have experienced God and believe in God. I'm not asking about belief in a higher being. I'm asking about

----------------------------

First of all, my apologies for assuming you were an atheist/agnostic.

We believe in the "Jesus, son of God, dying for our sins" story", because it is well-attested to in history. His life fulfilled a large majority of the ancient Hebrew Messianic prophecies, and His miracles were so well-known that even the non-religious Roman historian, Josephus, in his book, "Antiquities" (A.D. 90), made mention of them.

=========================================

"No, it's not a "crazy notion" that God exists. But God means different things for different people of different belief systems. And that is what you, in your narrowly focused perspective, cannot tolerate."

----------------------------

Yes, every devout religion professes to "experience God". Hindus profess it after a particularly inspiring meditation session as do members of the 3 Abrahamic Faiths during prayers.
I'm sure Wiccans and other religions experience something similar, too.

The problem is, they can't all be right. They are mutually exclusive. Islam & Hinduism can't both be right. Islam rules out polytheism, Hinduism embraces it. Mutually exclusive. Christianity teaches Christ alone for salvation, Judaism teaches the Law + Prophets equals whatever version of "salvation" they have. Again, mutually exclusive.

Just because we all experience a warm-fuzzy when we pray/meditate doesn't mean we're all theologically correct.

Someone's wrong.

Regarding your description of me as being narrowly focused....Thank You.

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14 (NASB)

------------------------------

Marc Edward:

Mark, not quite true:

“Those species closest to humans (apes) the "norm" is for the leader of the tribe to have a harem while the lesser males get nothing.”

This is only true for gorillas, who are not closely related to us. Chimps are. In chimp societies, all the males have sex with whichever of the females (regardless of said female’s preference). Orangs live alone – males have larger territories than females and mate with those females whose territories overlap with theirs once every 2 years or so when they are in heat. Males whose territories overlap one another are killed. Bonobos have the same pattern as chimps except that females can say no and sometimes the entire tribe will have a bisexual group orgy.

So, chimps are our nearest relatives and their mating set-up is essentially like a biker gang with a shared harem. But we are not chimps. As you pointed out each primate species has a very different strategy. Since almost all Human societies around the world generally practice monogamy (except for high-status males), it makes sense to assume that this is the norm for our species. I know you want it to be different, but it’s just that way.

“You write "There is no “start date” for marriage any more than there is a “start date” for the Human species." Well, there's no exact date, but certainly our species of human weren't around 100K years ago.”

So? Somebody was here and they are your ancestors. And because they practiced heterosexuality and (mostly) monogamy, here you are. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Don’t pee on Superman’s cape. And don’t mess around with ZZim.

PS – According to Wikipedia, anatomically modern Humans evolved between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Originally I pulled the number 100,000 out of the air with the intent of communicating the idea “as long as we have existed as a species”. It turns out my number was dead-on accurate. High fives for me!

Beowulf wrote:
"You mean YOUR definition will not permit an absolute to exist, let alone, outside of mankind. Couching it in the 3rd person doesn't make it authoritative. ;) Morality is defined by the Eternal Law-Giver, God the Father."

Beowulf,

My definition of morality (i.e. the common English definition) certainly does allow for the possibilty of an absolute to exist but it requires proof first. So far, no proof has been presented much less verified. Your definition, on the other hand, is just your belief and requires no proof. It's not a fact.

The fact is men wrote the Bible, not any god and the words they used were often very ambiguous, making their meaning hardly absolute by any definition. That's why people argue endlessly about what they mean. When you can prove that a god exists and that it actually revealed it's ideas to the men who wrote the Bible, you will have convinced me. Otherwise that is just your belief. That is where we differ. We can certainly agree to disagree here but the facts are on my side, while belief alone is on yours.

"tyranny of the majority" and "religious imperialism"

Some of you may recognize my spoor here, but others deserve to know who the idiot is.

"tyranny of the majority" and "religious imperialism"

Nazi Germany was imbued with religious imperialism. What we have going on in the US is not religious but churches maneuvering for political power based on protecting parochial moral interests. The churches' interests in politics have been stimulated by an obsession of the public with moral conservatism. This can be seen to be happening world-wide. So the "majority" we are talking about here is not, for example, evangelical churches. The majority is the public that, for example, elected George Bush to two terms as president. That is where the tyranny kicks in. The Republican constituency has no interest in democracy. For them it's winner take all. These people can create a dictatorship because they have the numbers. Their justification: It's a democracy! No. In a democracy the winners have to protect the interests of the weakest members first, not last.

Magpie wrote:
"In fact, I have experienced God and believe in God. I'm not asking about belief in a higher being. I'm asking about the "Jesus, son of God, dying for our sins" story.

By implying that I don't believe in God because I don't buy this story, you are also suggesting that followers of other monotheistic religions don't believe in God.

No, it's not a "crazy notion" that God exists. But God means different things for different people of different belief systems. And that is what you, in your narrowly focused perspective, cannot tolerate."

Magpie,

From my perspective, the word "god" always refers to a religious belief. If the belief exists, then by definition so does the god! They are one in the same. So when people say a particular god exists, what they are saying is their belief (in that god) exists and who can argue with that?

To: Bishop John Shelby Spong

Your Grace-i-ness,

Just wanted you to know that I don't blame you at all for sleeping with your girlfriend while your wife was a bit doo-lally. And I am so awed by your ability to change your theology to respect your,like, your sexual proclivities. I am all for respecting one's sexual proclivities; I do it ALL the time. Respect my sexual proclivities.

I wanted you also to know that if I WERE a theist, I would want to be a theist in YOUR church. You are so bright and well educated. Not at all like your founder, Jesus Christ, an illiterate carpenter from a dreck place in Judea, who talked and preached to peasants--peasants!--what can you do with such a stupid founder? No wonder you say He wasn't God. I mean, would God, hang around with stupid, poor people? Certainly not!

You seem very familiar, though, bishop. I feel your aura, even through the blog. Maybe we have met in another life, maybe we're soul mates.

Yours respectfully,

Anna

FREESTINKER (my new BFF) wrote:

"My point is that there is no such thing as "moral absolutes". Morality is always relative to the people who define it. Morality cannot exist without people to define it. You appear to desire an absolute, that by definition cannot exist."

==================================
You mean YOUR definition will not permit an absolute to exist, let alone, outside of mankind. Couching it in the 3rd person doesn't make it authoritative. ;) Morality is defined by the Eternal Law-Giver, God the Father.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree regarding Absolutes vs Relativism. We both seem well-entrenched in our ideas.
====================================

"Beowulf,
Not so, my friend. The unchanging documents you refer to were written by men and the text always changes over time (albeit very slowly at times). And as you noted, the various interpretations of the changing text also change over time. The evolution of the Christian Bible and the various different applications of it's principles over time is a prime example. You can believe, as a matter of your religious faith, that there is some 'absolute morality', but that doesn't make it so. The concept of human morality is always relative, by definition. To argue otherwise simply defies reason."
=================================

Having extensively researched the "evolution" of the Bible, the only real "change" has been the addition of vowels in the Hebrew & punctuation in the Greek. The message remain unchanged. The incredible amount (5,000+) of ancient manuscripts we have available today only strengthens our confidence in the reliability of the Bible. (If you really want, I can break it down manuscript by manuscript for you, but for that, we really should exchange emails.)

Zzim writes '“Hundreds of thousands of years?”

Fine, make it “an indeterminate time frame that goes back way farther than the existence of written record-keeping”. Societies evolve in the Darwinian sense in the same manner that our bodies do. One-male-one-female bonded mating pairs are written in our genetic heritage, all the way back to the dawn of the species.'

Have to disagree with you on that one. Those species closest to humans (apes) the "norm" is for the leader of the tribe to have a harem while the lesser males get nothing. There are some species of primates where everybody has sex with everybody, and none where you have lifelong mates. Given that we share a lot of behavior with primates (and mammels in general, and even birds) it seems unlikely that oneman-onewoman marriage has been a norm for very long at all.

You write "There is no “start date” for marriage any more than there is a “start date” for the Human species."

Well, there's no exact date, but certainly our species of human weren't around 100K years ago.

'And regarding your comment on: “I believe that God is just (and has an ironic sense of humor as well, but that's another subject) and the idea that God would create a whole class of people who's only expression of sexuality will get them dammed doesn't make sense at all. Celibate people may not die of celibacy? If that celibacy isn't voluntary they might well take their own lives. Sex is part of our nature and part of marriage. Pretending that gay people should just not "fall in love" and not have sex is a stupid argument made by somebody with an childs understanding of right and wrong”
Dunno, you lost me there. I don’t think killing yourself for lusting after members of the same gender is a good idea. Heck, there’s more to life than sex.'

Too many people take their own lives, especially among teenagers. One reason is that we have evolved to be social animals, existing as part of a larger whole (like dogs or sheep). I believe that if one feels one's self to be useless, to have no place, than suicide is going to be a lot more likely. Look at how people who lose their jobs or all their money might kill themselves. In the same way, if you tell somebody that their sexuality is unnatural and wrong and there is no moral outlet for it, well, how's that going to affect them. If you think there is more to life than sex, you're forgetting what it's like to be a male teenager.

Beowolf writes,
' I guess at the end of the day, no one really knows who's "predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His image" and who isn't, so I treat everyone as if they ARE predestined.
It seems as though your friend is looking for an excuse Not to live for God, which is indicative of a lack of relationship with God. '
-----------------------------------------

This is the real kicker about the Free Will/Predestination argument. Whichever side of that fence you fall on, Jesus requires us to ACT as though all men have free will, so why worry :).

As to the OP, especially regarding the Homosexual issue, I look at it this way. Jesus gave us exactly two litmus tests to use when it comes to sin (or the lack thereof): Does it fail to meet scriptural humanistic requirements ("Love your neighbor as yourself"), or does it fail to meet theistic requirements ("Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind and strength")?

Reading Pauline doctrine regarding homosexuality, it appears on the surface that he is dealing with the former - but long term, stable homosexual relationships compare favorably with their common law equivalents. I can find no examples anywhere that show that a love-based, adult homosexual relationship in any way passes that litmus test. Plus, some argue that this, in typical Pauline fashion, was a “setup” for the Jew more concerned with “abomination” (meaning, breaking OT law) than with Jesus’ litmus tests (as compared to the rest of the paragraph in Romans).

I am left assuming that to be a sin, of and by itself, it must be failing the second test - that there are Godly commandments that directly prohibit it. But the main OT law that deals with this issue is strange. First, it only deals with MALE homosexual behavior. This is particularly odd, since the following law *specifically* refer to BOTH men and women, and the ones preceding it clearly apply to both sexes. This doesn't totally discount the possibility, but I have difficulty sometimes separating God's edicts to the Israelites for the purpose of making them a "holy" nation (kept apart/separated) and those whose purpose was to cement the theistic relationship for all of us.

Like a Science, that believing in the OPPOSiTE of MYTH, is a Religion! aka Believing in TRUTH!

Ministryly Legislating from the Rabbi Jesus Pulpit, should never compete, nor interfere with , any SECULAR Legislating from the Bench!

"i" bet , Ceasar would have had all Three Clowns; Rick Warren , Obama & McCain nailed to a 4-way-Todem-pole like their Rabbi Jezeus the god(s) players!

Beowulf:

You said, "Perhaps the intelligent, intellectual, educated people like Barack Obama know something you don't. Perhaps, it's not quite the myth you describe it to be. Maybe, just maybe, Obama has actually experienced God and has discovered Him to be real. Could you fathom such a crazy notion...that God really exists?"

You're proving my point for me.

In fact, I have experienced God and believe in God. I'm not asking about belief in a higher being. I'm asking about the "Jesus, son of God, dying for our sins" story.

By implying that I don't believe in God because I don't buy this story, you are also suggesting that followers of other monotheistic religions don't believe in God.

No, it's not a "crazy notion" that God exists. But God means different things for different people of different belief systems. And that is what you, in your narrowly focused perspective, cannot tolerate.

Beowulf replied:
"I agree with the above section, however moral absolutes prevent a society from degenerating into an evil and depraved (sorry for the loaded terminology) community. Just because we gather together and agree that something is right, doesn't necessarily make it right.

Beowulf,

My point is that there is no such thing as "moral absolutes". Morality is always relative to the people who define it. Morality cannot exist without people to define it. You appear to desire an absolute, that by definition cannot exist.

Beowulf said:
"Actually, in a theocracy, the objective standards remain unchanged. You might have a battle of interpretation between conservatives and liberal clerics, but that's no different than prosecutors and defense attorneys challenging and/or defending the meaning of our secular laws today. At least with a theocracy, you have a set, unchanging document that serves as a meter stick for truth."

Beowulf,

Not so, my friend. The unchanging documents you refer to were written by men and the text always changes over time (albeit very slowly at times). And as you noted, the various interpretations of the changing text also change over time. The evolution of the Christian Bible and the various different applications of it's principles over time is a prime example. You can believe, as a matter of your religious faith, that there is some "absolute morality", but that doesn't make it so. The concept of human morality is always relative, by definition. To argue otherwise simply defies reason.

P.S. By the way, the formatting of your posts is excellent and I also appreciate your gentle tone and precise language. It makes your posts a pleasure to read and your arguments easy to follow.

magpie:
What I don't understand about the whole Christianity thing is the concept that "Jesus died for my sins." It's a statement that rolls glibly off the tongues of "born-again" Christians, but it's also professed by intelligent, intellectual, educated people like Barack Obama...So, my question is, how can otherwise intelligent people buy in to this myth and say things like "Jesus died for my sins"?
===================================

Perhaps the intelligent, intellectual, educated people like Barack Obama know something you don't. Perhaps, it's not quite the myth you describe it to be. Maybe, just maybe, Obama has actually experienced God and has discovered Him to be real. Could you fathom such a crazy notion...that God really exists?

Freestinker:
"What constitutes a True Christian has nothing to do with our gov't. This was a side conversation between myself and Blueball regarding an acquaintance of his. I completely support separation of Church and State as I definitely do not want the state telling me who I can worship and where."

Beowulf,

I'm happy to hear that! I mistakenly thought your comments were a response to the topic question and Mr. Spong's post. My apologies.
==================================

The sidecomments tend to be more interesting & better-reasoned than anything Spong writes. Plus YOU are so much fun to talk to! =)

For many people, "Jesus died for my sins" is just an ambiguous slogan to be blindly repeated whenever the relifious question comes up. Without elaboration, it is practically meaningless.

It is curious that Rick Warren didn't try to flesh out the details of these ambiguous answers. Why even ask the question at all if you don't intend to flesh out what the answers actually mean? That speaks volumnes to me.

Evil Overlord said:

What exactly is a "naive theology". Since the whole concept of theology rests on faith in what cannot be demonstrated, how can one be more or less naive than another? Any atheist would be certain to argue that theology in itself is naive, and that there's no point arguing the difference between foolish and silly.

----------------------------
That's more or less my point of view. The idea that there's "sophisticated" theology makes me giggle.

I do agree with Mr. Spong's sense of relief that evangelicals are a minority of the population. The best thing we could do as a nation is to improve our system of education, which would go along way to reducing their numbers even further.

Freestinker quoted me then replied:

Beowulf said:
"If there is no objective standard with which to measure our actions, then no action can be considered wrong. The ends justify the means. Is killing wrong? What if my neighbor killed my son. Am I wrong in killing one of his? (Ironically, Honor Killings still occur in the Middle East today are are punished very lightly. This from a recent WashingtonTimes article.

The concept of moral relativism is as old as mankind itself. No matter how re-packaged and re-presented it is."
-------------------------------------------------

Beowulf,

"Human morality has always been subjective or relative to each culture's societal norms. Objective standards are rarely fixed forever but we have do have them. In our democracy, those objective standards are proposed, debated openly, and codified by the people or our representives in law. Laws change as the culture changes."

========================================

I agree with the above section, however moral absolutes prevent a society from degenerating into an evil and depraved (sorry for the loaded terminology) community. Just because we gather together and agree that something is right, doesn't necessarily make it right.

--------------------------

"In a theocracy, those objective standards are decided by the ever-changing religious opinions of unelected clerics so I much prefer our method of moral relativism."
----------------------------

Actually, in a theocracy, the objective standards remain unchanged. You might have a battle of interpretation between conservatives and liberal clerics, but that's no different than prosecutors and defense attorneys challenging and/or defending the meaning of our secular laws today. At least with a theocracy, you have a set, unchanging document that serves as a meter stick for truth.

Unfortunately, moral relativism doesn't provide the same standard as evidenced by homosexuality being added into the Constitution.

(P.S. Disclaimer: I don't hate homosexuals. I actually have homosexual friends. I just don't believe that behavior deserves special treatment.)
----------------------------------

What I don't understand about the whole Christianity thing is the concept that "Jesus died for my sins." It's a statement that rolls glibly off the tongues of "born-again" Christians, but it's also professed by intelligent, intellectual, educated people like Barack Obama.

What does it really mean? And how can smart people believe such a fairy tale?

I respect and admire Jesus for being the great teacher he was. But all the hocus-pocus about God "sending his only son" to "atone for our sins" through a brutal murder and imaginary resurrection just really strains credibility.

So, my question is, how can otherwise intelligent people buy in to this myth and say things like "Jesus died for my sins"?

"What constitutes a True Christian has nothing to do with our gov't. This was a side conversation between myself and Blueball regarding an acquaintance of his. I completely support separation of Church and State as I definitely do not want the state telling me who I can worship and where."

Beowulf,

I'm happy to hear that! I mistakenly thought your comments were a response to the topic question and Mr. Spong's post. My apologies.

Beowulf said:
"If there is no objective standard with which to measure our actions, then no action can be considered wrong. The ends justify the means. Is killing wrong? What if my neighbor killed my son. Am I wrong in killing one of his? (Ironically, Honor Killings still occur in the Middle East today are are punished very lightly. This from a recent WashingtonTimes article.

The concept of moral relativism is as old as mankind itself. No matter how re-packaged and re-presented it is."
-------------------------------------------------

Beowulf,

Human morality has always been subjective or relative to each culture's societal norms. Objective standards are rarely fixed forever but we have do have them. In our democracy, those objective standards are proposed, debated openly, and codified by the people or our representives in law. Laws change as the culture changes. In a theocracy, those objective standards are decided by the ever-changing religious opinions of unelected clerics so I much prefer our method of moral relativism.

You are right though, moral relativism is as old humanity. In, fact it is the only kind of morality that has ever existed!

Гостиница Ассамблея Никитская, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/hotel_540_otdyh_moscow/

На нашей страничке мы готовы предложить Вам бронирование номеров в отеле Ассамблея на Никитской, Москва. Несомненно, это одна из лучших гостиниц Москвы. В нашем отеле Вам предложат высокий уровень комфорта, великолепный сервис. Хорошо обученные сотрудники сделают Ваше пребывание в отеле Ассамблея Никитская приятным и незабываемым. Прекрасные номера отеля Ассамблея Никитская оборудованы всем необходимым для комфортного пребывания. Профессиональный, просчитаный до мельчайших деталей, дизайн интерьера, изысканная мебель, современная бытовая техника все это лишь увеличит Ваши приятные впечатления от отеля Ассамблея на Никитской.

Отзывы о гостинице Ассамблея на Никитской, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/reviews.php?id=215006510&return=/hotel_540_otdyh_moscow/

Spong's intellectual pride has led him into the serious errors he professes in this article. He has forgotten that, "...the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." (1 Corinthians, 1:25).
Those who heed his advice and those of a similar mind do so at their immortal peril.

Freestinker:
All this disagreement over what constitutes a "True Christian" and what doesn't is exactly why the founders tried their best to separate religion and government. We need consensus in government and religion always divides people and with religious liberty, that is to be expected and even encouraged. If we heed their advice, we should also separate faith from politcs as much as possible. Faith only should guide individuals that have it, never public policy that applies to all.

=========================

What constitutes a True Christian has nothing to do with our gov't. This was a side conversation between myself and Blueball regarding an acquaintance of his. I completely support separation of Church and State as I definitely do not want the state telling me who I can worship and where.

wmarkw wrote:

"But anyone who still thinks 2-3000 year old ideas are the best, except when they're obvious like not murdering, should club a squirrel for dinner tonight."

=========================

Obvious to whom? The problem with an enlightened a' la carte Episcopalian approach, is that nothing is "obvious" anymore. Who determines what is "obvious"? 40yrs ago it was obvious that homosexuality was a sin.

If there is no objective standard with which to measure our actions, then no action can be considered wrong. The ends justify the means. Is killing wrong? What if my neighbor killed my son. Am I wrong in killing one of his? (Ironically, Honor Killings still occur in the Middle East today are are punished very lightly. This from a recent WashingtonTimes article.)

The concept of moral relativism is as old as mankind itself. No matter how re-packaged and re-presented it is.

All this disagreement over what constitutes a "True Christian" and what doesn't is exactly why the founders tried their best to separate religion and government. We need consensus in government and religion always divides people and with religious liberty, that is to be expected and even encouraged. If we heed their advice, we should also separate faith from politcs as much as possible. Faith only should guide individuals that have it, never public policy that applies to all.

Fantastic, Bishop Spong!!!

You hit the nail on the head!!!

Vote" Marriage is between a Real Gent (MAVORiTE) & a Real Lady (SPORADE), never 1/2 Humams!

DEATH to ALL, Every & ANY selfish/Fedish Aids Spreading 'Reckless-Risk-Takers' , aka H O M O S E X U A L S, L E S B I A N C A's, aka B i S E X U A L S. *

Vote" Marriage is between a Real Gent (MAVORiTE) & a Real Lady (Sporade), never 1/2 Humams! Never between a 1/2-Men & a 1/2 WoMen!

* Note: Transvestite is a Man freakishly being in a Womens Body or a Womans body freakishly being in a Mans body, Hormonically!

Otherwise; All Else are Nut Cases! aka Sick Puppies, And should be sent on an Island, away from Straight-Society until Rehabilitated!

Note: ALL, EVERY & ANY PEDPHiLE should be Castrated & have a Forehead Branded under SATATE SECULAR Syustem in Sweet Sweet [Straight Nation] U.S. of A.!

Jesus Sanchez taunted:

John 21:20 .... Peter turned around and noticed the disciple whom Jesus kept loving following them. He was the one who had put his head on Jesus' chest at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?"

and

John 19:25-27 ... "Near The Cross of Jesus stood His mother, His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."

... so, all you Bible thumpers, what's up with this???
=====================================

There are numerous greek words for "love". (I assume you quote this verse as some sort of "proof" of homosexuality.)The one used in both passages is "agape" which translates to "Godly love." The word you're hoping for is "eros" which means, "erotic love". Sorry to disappoint you.

The Episcopal church is declining for the simple reason that its members have become too educated to believe in traditional, primitive Christianity.

People who still cite the book of Leviticus as a moral code should acknowledge that its laws have been abandoned for centuries on things like not eating pork, sacrificing sheep to atone for sin, and requiring women to remain home during their menstrual cycles.

Most of the traditionally Christian world today has trifurcated into the secular, the backwards and the tongue-biters (people who mouth creeds they don't mean). Spong's ideas might be the best way to turn Christianity into something palatable for a modern human. But anyone who still thinks 2-3000 year old ideas are the best, except when they're obvious like not murdering, should club a squirrel for dinner tonight.

blueball wrote:
Beowulf,

Thanks, your answer is consistent with Calvinism as i understand it, but it preserves the ambiguity over free will vs predestination that I wanted to get you to look at. Does my friend have free will?
Calvinism woud say, no, and there is nothing you or I or he can ever do about it. If he is saved, he might as well go on treating the rest of the world like dirt--God has already elected him to salvation.
OTOH, if he is damned, there is nothing he can do about that either.
So, in his biblical smugness, he lives as he pleases.
Why shouldn't he?

========================

I guess at the end of the day, no one really knows who's "predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His image" and who isn't, so I treat everyone as if they ARE predestined.

It seems as though your friend is looking for an excuse Not to live for God, which is indicative of a lack of relationship with God.

I John 3:1-10 goes into detail about what a true child of God looks like. Based on that definition, your friend was never truly saved to begin with. (Also, if you recall Jesus' Parable of the Sower, it sounds like your friend was the seed cast into the thorns. Grew up but was choked out by the cares of this world. Only the "good" ground that produced fruit could be considered a true Christian.)

To add to my previous comment:

Indeed, that is why it's reported today that Evangelical conservatives want to separate religion from politics.

It exposes them.

Evangelicals' notion that 'once saved, always saved', no matter what one does or if one does not genuinely repent is not grounded in scripture.

It's not even a Christian idea but rather the natural outcome of selfish and, in the case of a nation, of hegemonic thinking. Indeed, it permits a person or a nation to call itself Christian and do whatever the hell it wants.

It's an anti-Christian doctrine, for it misrepresents Christ as if the consequence of sin (as the opposite of love) for believers is somehow different than for non-believers.

It is the epitomy of a self-serving 'christianity'.

Beowulf,

Thanks, your answer is consistent with Calvinism as i understand it, but it preserves the ambiguity over free will vs predestination that I wanted to get you to look at. Does my friend have free will?
Calvinism woud say, no, and there is nothing you or I or he can ever do about it. If he is saved, he might as well go on treating the rest of the world like dirt--God has already elected him to salvation.
OTOH, if he is damned, there is nothing he can do about that either.
So, in his biblical smugness, he lives as he pleases.
Why shouldn't he?

"The questions asked reflected an evangelical world view that is one to which educated people today cannot relate." What kind of statement is that? The only thing that can be said about it is that it is narrow, false, and disconnected. I'll be glad when this guy is finished making a career out of disparaging people who don't think like he does.

Morning back, Mr. Mark:

“Hundreds of thousands of years?”

Fine, make it “an indeterminate time frame that goes back way farther than the existence of written record-keeping”. Societies evolve in the Darwinian sense in the same manner that our bodies do. One-male-one-female bonded mating pairs are written in our genetic heritage, all the way back to the dawn of the species. Caveats: this is not the entirety of it - for high status males, polygyny is the norm - for low status males, not mate at all is the norm – but for the 90% of us rank-and-file guys, one mate is normal - polyandry is almost never practiced. This structure is a world-wide cultural constant, rarely deviated from. I could have said 10,000 years or 10,000,000 years, the argument is still valid. There is no “start date” for marriage any more than there is a “start date” for the Human species. How we perceive our natural pair-bondings has evolved as we have. When we as a species reached the point where we could talk, we developed oral traditions of our customs. When we became writers, we began to write our customs down. So when the ancient Egyptians wrote their marriage customs down, they were merely recording a pre-existing cultural norm in a sacred and written context.

And regarding your comment on: “I believe that God is just (and has an ironic sense of humor as well, but that's another subject) and the idea that God would create a whole class of people who's only expression of sexuality will get them dammed doesn't make sense at all. Celibate people may not die of celibacy? If that celibacy isn't voluntary they might well take their own lives. Sex is part of our nature and part of marriage. Pretending that gay people should just not "fall in love" and not have sex is a stupid argument made by somebody with an childs understanding of right and wrong”

Dunno, you lost me there. I don’t think killing yourself for lusting after members of the same gender is a good idea. Heck, there’s more to life than sex. You are not just a walking gonad.

It certainly is no wonder that the Episcopal church has lost relevancy, but for a few that like to feel the comfort of Christ as a component in their life but do not otherwise acknowledge him or try to live in the manor set forth in scripture. "Practical atheists" is the term that is given to those who say they believe in Christ but then leave it at that. There are many in this culture. This bishop personifies that concept. I feel sorry for the faithful who have no strong leadership with theological backbone

As the Episcopal church was founded on the premise that the King makes the rules and not God, then so goes the good bishop's reliance upon scientists and culture to define morality. It really will be just a matter of time before society, and at least the Episcopal church, view pedophilia or bestiality as a matter of personal wiring. In the bishop's theology, nothing is off limits if man has the natural urge for it. What a sad theology that the Episcopal church must have if this is one of the stalwarts.

Actually, it is the thinking and faith-filled person that would really find their path away from such weakness and lack of faith as offered by this man and his heirarchy.

BLUEBALL wrote:

Beowulf, you are wrong about the answer to "once saved always saved". Study "TULIP". Study the debate over free will vs non-free will Christianity. Study, study, study!...Pray tell, oh bible thumpers, will my erstwhile friend go to hell? Should he "repent" tho already saved?

=============================

To your friend I would say, "Whom the Lord loves, He disciplines". I would encourage him to turn from his current lifestyle before the discipline begins.

Also, having been the "Prodigal Son" myself in times past, if your friend is TRULY saved, then that period of his life will run its course and he will come back. However, if he has never truly repented & sincerely accepted Christ in the first place, he'll continue in that lifestyle until his death & into a bleak eternity.

If your friend never repents, I would categorize him as a "False Convert", meaning he was never truly saved to begin with.

This is the most cogent explanation and analysis that intelligently dispels the errors and omissions of religious fanatics that I have ever read in my 73 years of living. It is a masterpiece of logic and intelligence that should be required reading in schools around the world.

Seriously, you people are nuts.

Yes, the one woman one man theory of marriage is contradicted by lots of OT passages. How many wives did Solomon have? Just one example.

If we rely on Paul, remember that Paul said that celibacy is best, but if you just had to have sex, you should get married. Under Paul's theology, it would be desirable for the human race to die out.

Frankly, I think to put the words of Paul on the same level as the words of Jesus is blasphemous.

Exactly, Blueball. Freewill Baptist is an oxymoron.

Calvin believed in predestination, based upon a purely literal reading of the bible. He believed that that people who are saved and sit beside you in church didn't get there because of what they did; they got there because God selected them before they were even born.

(And how convenient that is for the people in church, and how wonderful to know that they were chosen)

Under that argument, God created homosexuals and made them damned before they were born. So why should they care what they do?

The nature of fundamentalist belief in the Bible uses their God as a protector of their tribe. The tribe has to survive the predations of other tribes who may want their land or livestock. Therefore, their protective God was in reality a war god. The fact that he was a jealous god by nature was more an artifact of the tribe being a jealous tribe. Their god could not bless any other tribes who they may wish to war against. Pretty simple.

A lot of beliefs follow from the tribe's need to survive. Marriage is about producing children who may become warriors to protect the tribe. Abortion negates possible soldiers, ergo it is anathema. Homosexuality negates possible soldiers too, ergo it also is anathema. Masturbation also means a lack of production of children, so it needs to be condemned as well. The Hebrew tribe saw girl children as important too, unlike many tribes or ancient cultures. Why? Same reason... more children, or soldiers may come from those girl children or infants.

We mostly don't live in a world that is this harsh any more, so why don't we change our attitudes from this fundamentalist kind of thinking? Some of us have, but many seem to appreciate the simpler thinking of the ancient ways of life. Who knows why, since they are fortunate not to be living like that themselves. I don't get the attraction of it myself.

Joe quoted me then replied:

Quoting: "When He says, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me" He means it."

He also seems to acknowledge the existence of other Gods, of which he is the foremost.

You might argue that money is another God, but then that would damn the entire United States and our dog-eat-dog capitalist society.

=========================

"Gods" implies no others targets of worship. Israel's neighbors had their own set of gods they worshiped; doesn't mean those gods actually existed. Yahweh didn't want His people worshiping anyone or anything but Himself.

I would absolutely agree with your point on money & our capitalist society. I would say that our current credit crisis was brought about, not only by our own national greed & financial "irrational exuberance", but also, divine retribution for that greed. (Though that's just my own personal belief. I don't posit that as fact.)

Beowulf, you are wrong about the answer to "once saved always saved". Study "TULIP". Study the debate over free will vs non-free will Christianity. Study, study, study!

I know a guy (erstwhile friend) who is saved and believes that he can do no wrong.

He is not unique. These people are dangerous.

In fact, people who believe in free will are not Calvinists at all. Calvinism is the "conservative" view in Protestant religions. Free Will is commonly called "Liberal" because it allows humans to choose to act as God wants us to.

Great discussion here but no answer to the "sinner" who acts against morality after he has had his saving/conversion experience.

Pray tell, oh bible thumpers, will my erstwhile friend go to hell? Should he "repent" tho already saved?

As the scriptures say, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent. So where does that leave the philosophers, scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in His wisdom saw to it that the world would never know Him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save this who believe.

Morning ZZim - you make a lot of interesting points, but I had a question about this one thing -
"One a side note, I think the idea that the Egyptians invented marriage as a civil institution is silly. Perhaps they codified and recorded the idea into a legal statute, but marriage certainly existed for hundreds of thousands of years previously."

Hundreds of thousands of years? That seems pretty doubtful. What we recognize as humans have not been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Are you saying Neanderthals had marriage? Or Homo Habilis? Aside from cave paintings, we have no evidence of human settlements that go back further than 12,000 years, no? Why do you assume there was any kind of "one man - one woman" marriage?

You also write "Good point Marc, but irrelevant because Backwaters dispenses with it in advance: "b) Regardless of inclinations, the decision to act is always a choice. On that level, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are on equal footing. Sex is optional -- whether it's with someone of the same gender or not"

And you replied that “Eating is optional too.” Heh-heh, people who do not eat die. Celibate people do not die (of celibacy). Your argument is silly"

Your creative snipping kind of left out the point. I believe that God is just (and has an ironic sense of humor as well, but that's another subject) and the idea that God would create a whole class of people who's only expression of sexuality will get them dammed doesn't make sense at all. Celibate people may not die of celibacy? If that celibacy isn't voluntary they might well take their own lives. Sex is part of our nature and part of marriage. Pretending that gay people should just not "fall in love" and not have sex is a stupid argument made by somebody with an childs understanding of right and wrong.

Anon writes:
"Bishop Spong claims "that abortions have risen rapidly during the administration of pro-life George Bush."
This oft-quoted liberal myth is absolutely FALSE.. as even cursory data analysis would show (see links below)."

I am not sure where Spong gets his numbers, but your links are questionable. As the Feds stopped tracking abortion rates when Bush43 took office (I wonder why?) and many states don't track abortions either, I have to ask where their numbers come from. Are they estimates? Guesstimates?

Have a nice day Ya'll!

Marc Edward quoted and replied:

"b) Regardless of inclinations, the decision to act is always a choice. On that level, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are on equal footing. Sex is optional -- whether it's with someone of the same gender or not"

Eating is optional too. You display a child's understanding of sex. God gave us sex. Sex plays an important role in marriage beyond child production. Gay people have as much right to pleasure as straight people, and a just God (and I believe God is just) wouldn't make one set of people a certain way just to set them up for failure.

==============================

Comparing homosexual behavior to eating is one of the most egregious uses (actually, misuses) of an analogy I have ever seen. Sexual behavior is NOTHING like eating. You can forgo sex and still live. You CANNOT forgo food and still live. If this is the logic of the "educated", I'll take the "backwaters" any day of the week.

And just to clarify what seems to be a continual misconception: ALL Christians are called to be evangelical.

However, the term has been redefined by both the media and conservative Christians to include only the right wing.

If you hold to scripture, Bishop Spong is every bit as evangelical as Rick Warren.

And for a final note - Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, but he says a lot about wealth and greed. The US is founded upon dog-eat-dog capitalism and the rich are often our heroes. We are the modern incarnation of the Roman Empire with our military and our marginalization of anyone not a citizen.

We shouldn't set up a hierarchy of sin -- that is for God, not man, to do -- but if we did, greed is probably far worse than homosexuality based upon the teachings of Jesus.

We like to ignore that.

Quoting: "When He says, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me" He means it."

He also seems to acknowledge the existence of other Gods, of which he is the foremost.

You might argue that money is another God, but then that would damn the entire United States and our dog-eat-dog capitalist society.

ANONYMOUS 2 wrote:

"Question for evangelicals:
Is 'being saved' a guarantee of 'salvation', no matter what further sins are committed thereafter, or whether one truly repents for them or not?
I believe in the resurrected Christ but would not ever be able to answer affirmatively to such a question.
How about evangelicals?"

============================
BEOWULFTHEPOLITICIAN wrote:
Your question deals with a minor doctrine called Eternal Security which has been debated for centuries in the Church. It is not considered a "salvation issue" so you're free to pick a side. Fundamentalists believe you can forfeit your salvation through a consistently sinful and rebellious lifestyle while liberals believe you can never lose it regardless of how you live. I tend to fall in the 1st camp but I have heard very convincing arguments for both sides. I say it's better to be safe than sorry. ;)

* * * * * * * *

As a Southern Baptist, not a particularly liberal or even moderate protestant denomination during the past twenty or so years, we have professed the belief that "once saved, always saved." I have struggled with this doctrine as well. However, it is taught that God would not take away that which he has given. Eternal rewards will be based on the "sin" factor for those who have backslidden in their faith.

Therefore, I am suggesting that even very conservative Christian groups adhere to the "eternal security" doctrine. We sing about it as "Blessed Assurance." In my church, to oppose this doctrine of "once saved, always saved," makes me a liberal. Believe me, I know first hand.

Quoting: "Fundamentalists believe you can forfeit your salvation through a consistently sinful and rebellious lifestyle while liberals believe you can never lose it regardless of how you live."

That is wrong. "Once saved, always saved" is one of the key beliefs of fundamentalists such as Baptists, while liberal denominations such as Methodists believe in backsliding.

Cletus wrote:

"The god of the bible kills and tortures indiscriminately. He went as far as drowning virtually the entire population like so many sewer rats. Presumably, a large number of them were "innocent children" (who actually had been born). I like to think that if he actually existed, he'd be all for maximizing suffering and death."

===============================

Actually, He was VERY discriminate. I often encounter people who judge God through THEIR set of morals. They fail to realize that when the Creator of the Universe says, "Don't touch that stove", He MEANS, "Don't touch that stove".

If He says, "Thou shall have no other gods before Me", He MEANS it. In those days, everyone was flaunting His commands. They didn't care what He thought. They earned the "due recompense" for their deeds. Also, as far as "innocent children" is concerned, the OT had a principle of the "sins of the fathers are visited on the children". It doesn't seem fair in OUR eyes, but Chronological Snobbery doesn't justify the condescension. Bottom line: He has rules. Follow them and live, break them and (you & possibly your family) suffer.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." -Romans 6:23

Thanks Tonio!

On the topic of sex education I forgot to mention that not only have abortion rates fallen dramatically since evangelicals have exerted some political muscle to provide moral relevancy and personal responsibilty to the subject, but so too have unwanted pregnancies.

SEALA wrote:

"To answer the writer who asked if there is a Christian denomination that beleives as Spong does, the answer is a qualified "yes": Episcopals."
Does Rev. Fred Phelps represent the views of all American Baptists?"

===========================

I'm neither acquainted with Fred Phelps nor am I a Baptist so I wouldn't be able to answer that question. Also, as there are various Baptist denominations, I don't think that would be an accurately worded question, either. (Much like, "Do you still beat your wife?")

"Lifestyles that are not destructive to their practitioners or to society at large are not immoral"

ZZIM, good argument. Defining morality as following rules makes no sense, either in principle or in practice. The definition discourages individuals from thinking about the possible destructive consequences of their actions. It asks individuals to put their entire trust in someone else to decide what is moral and what is immoral, and there would nothing preventing a person with that power from deciding these according to a personal agenda. Also, there is no basis for the assumption that sin is whatever a religion's scripture says it is, because that assumes that the religion's deities exist and the deities were the source for the scripture's text. That's also a trust issue, because individuals are asked by the person who produced the text to simply accept the claim that the text had a divine source.

ANONYMOUS 2 wrote:

"Question for evangelicals:
Is 'being saved' a guarantee of 'salvation', no matter what further sins are committed thereafter, or whether one truly repents for them or not?
I believe in the resurrected Christ but would not ever be able to answer affirmatively to such a question.
How about evangelicals?"

============================

Your question deals with a minor doctrine called Eternal Security which has been debated for centuries in the Church. It is not considered a "salvation issue" so you're free to pick a side. Fundamentalists believe you can forfeit your salvation through a consistently sinful and rebellious lifestyle while liberals believe you can never lose it regardless of how you live. I tend to fall in the 1st camp but I have heard very convincing arguments for both sides. I say it's better to be safe than sorry. ;)

This post promises to comment on theology but there is no substantive discussion of theology--only social science issues which Mr. Spong asserts "everybody knows." Mr. Spong's approach to moral issues is apparently dictated by what sociologists and psychologists say. Some theologian. No wonder the Episcopal church is collapsing.

RBStandfield(aka, "Kool-Aid Drinker") wrote:

"I know and worked with Jack Spong...I would suggest that if the human race hasn't learned anything in the last 2000 years, we are a sad lot.
------------

The human race has learned that pompous, senile windbags are a dime a dozen, here today, gone tomorrow.

====================

"BTW, as a follower of his teachings does not mean I follow all of the other Biblical prophets..."

----------

For Spong to be considered an "other Biblical prophet" he would have to:

A) Actually believe in the Bible.
B) Actually Prophesy.

2 things he has yet to achieve.

Why slander Pastor Warren? The purpose of his forum wasn't to to provide a religious test, but was to facilitate the candidates efforts to speak directly to peoples of faith.

To say that "the pejorative definition of homosexuality...are both dismissed today as incompetent among educated scientists and doctors" is misleading and untrue. They may be dismissed, by some, but not as a result of any scientific education. There is no proof that any sexual practice is driven by anything more than a biological urge. The preference for how to satisfy that urge is a choice.

Your assertion that evangelicals fight against fight against sex education, birth control and the availability of safe contraceptives is also misleading. Evangelicals practice all, but in a setting not controlled by the values of liberals in a secular government program. The fight against the motives of secular sex programs has not resulted in an increase in abortions, as you state, but has resulted in a decrease of over 10 abortions per 1000 women ages 15 to 44. That's a decrease of over 35%. Abortion rates have been falling since 1980, which happens to coincide with Jimmy Carter's call for evangelicals to assert their will in politics.

The "Flat Earth Society" is no more dangerous to society than the dictates "Enlightened" liberals who attempt to shut off discussion by flaunting their elitist knowledge. Whether either are derived from supposedly scientific theory, or just superior thinking they are only a fraction of the debate.

"The questions asked reflected an evangelical world view that is one to which educated people today cannot relate."

Mr. Spong, if you really believe that, you are very sheltered and clearly out of touch with millions of mainstream Americans. Like many Evangelicals, I have a graduate degree. I also have an Evangelical world view. Rick Warren asked questions that many of us want to hear the candidates answer. We found both the questions and the answers very helpful.

The god of the bible kills and tortures indiscriminately. He went as far as drowning virtually the entire population like so many sewer rats. Presumably, a large number of them were "innocent children" (who actually had been born). I like to think that if he actually existed, he'd be all for maximizing suffering and death.

I don't agree with everything you stated - but this was a brilliant essay. I personally think the evangelicals are a problem are some of the biggest hypocrites and racists and are not of God.

Evangelicals use religion to justify their political and other types of oppression and double standards.

"Tyranny of the masses (or majority)" is a phrase originally used by Alexis de Tocqueville in his work "Democracy in America."

John Stuart Mill did respond to this work, as did many of his contemporaries, as "Democracy" was one of the earliest commentaries on American social politics.

Bishop,

I would expect a little more respect, a little more composure, and a lot more rational and theological depth from you. Especially the note at the end, when you grudgingly and very condescendingly acknowledge the right of evangelicals to be involved in politics, but then call them ignorant, invoke God's name in relation to their percentage of the population (how can you be so glib?), and then sharpen your rhetorical edge against a straw man (the nonexistent evangelical majority which you already stated did not exist).

If God is directly involved in the size of the Evangelical Christian population, then perhaps God is also directly involved in the smaller and rapidly shrinking size of the Episcopal Church--USA? It is very disappointing that the only time you mention God in the entire posting is in such a way.

Oh well. I knew there were good reasons I had never read any of your books. I thought it was just for the wacked-out theology... I hadn't counted on the arrogance which you display towards fellow Christians who don't completely agree with you.

Using words like "moron" and "jackass" doesn't count as discussion or even argument. It is just name calling... obviously unworthy of an intelligent person. Don't do it!

Гостиница Альфа Измайлово, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/hotel_508_otdyh_moscow/

У нас на сайте мы можем предложить Вам бронирование номеров в отеле Альфа Измайлово в Москве. Безусловно, это один из лучших отелей столицы. В нашей гостинице Вам предложат отличный уровень комфорта, великолепный сервис. Отлично обученные сотрудники превратят Ваше пребывание в отеле Альфа Измайлово приятным и незабываемым. Роскошные номера отеля Альфа Измайлово оборудованы всем необходимым для удобного пребывания. Профессиональный, просчитаный до мелких деталей, дизайн интерьера, прекрасная мебель, современная электробытовая техника все это лишь увеличит Ваши приятные впечатления от гостиницы Альфа Измайлово.

Отзывы об отеле Альфа Измайлово, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/reviews.php?id=919325086&return=/hotel_510_otdyh_moscow/

Wow...what an elitist jackass

Mr. Mark, I think you’re all wet about the legitimacy of Christians’ belief in marriage as a sacred institution. This is a very deep core concept of the religion of choice for 92% of Americans. I think you should be more respectful.

One a side note, I think the idea that the Egyptians invented marriage as a civil institution is silly. Perhaps they codified and recorded the idea into a legal statute, but marriage certainly existed for hundreds of thousands of years previously. It’s simply too fundamental to Human nature to be otherwise. And given just how extraordinarily devout the ancient Egyptians were, I can’t imagine they didn’t have a religious component to the marriage contract. Saying that ancient Egyptian marriages were civil affairs devoid of religious meaning sounds akin to asserting that ancient Egyptian temples were bricks and mortar devoid of religious meaning. Just because we only have written evidence of the relevant legal code and none of the relevant religious writings doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. And just because we don’t have records of the rituals performed in the temples doesn’t mean they weren’t performed there. Thirdly, my understanding of Egyptian culture is that the concept of “civil law” would have been meaningless to them. Court proceedings were generally considered religious rituals sacred to Ma’at, goddess of truth and justice.

Oh yeah, regarding this, “’I'd say it … puts the lie to your assumption that god instituted marriage. It was man's idea and his alone, not god's.” I don’t assume any such thing. You assumed that I assumed such things. And you forgot to capitalize “God”. Show some respect, it’s only polite.

Then you say “The only reason the religionists have a problem is because the erroneously believe that marriage was instituted by god and is a sacred institution, when it clearly isn't.”

Clearly to them it is. Why borrow trouble? You need to be more respectful of other peoples’ cultural traditions. If you were visiting a remote headhunting tribe in the Amazon and found that they worshipped a strange porcelain object that fell from the sky, would you take a dump in it? No.

Finally this: “Here's a thought, maybe an experiment: have the State declare that civil unions will receive a larger tax deduction than marriages. Then, let' see how many god-fearing Xians rush to have their marriages declared to be civil unions”

I think it is probably you that would be surprised. You really need to spend more time talking to a more diverse group of people. Seriously, this is the sort of bias that can only come from speaking exclusively with other folks that closely share your own mindset and world view. Throughout our discussion you have been skeptical of the validity and depth of feeling of the Christian view of marriage as a sacred institution. I think that if you were to expand your horizons by meeting and talking to people who don’t share your views, you might come away with a bit more respect for them, whether you agree with them or not.

Bishop Sponge is a terrific writer. It is sad though that as a religous leader, he can't help but condmen theology with which he disagrees. Sponge uses the 'everbody knows' adage to condemn evangelcial positions on abortion. Perhaps it is the mistreatment of the gift of love that causes unwanted pregancy and not a lack of condems. On homosexuality, Sponge infers that homesexuals are born that way. Does he consider that maltreatment by fathers telling young boys and girls that they are no good and never will be is one reason that causes children to mask their heterosexual nature. It would be wonderful if we could learn to bless the differences in our religious views instead on constantly condenming them.

The Evangelicals believe their Jesus is the real Jesus, and anyone who disbelieves goes to hell. The Catholics believe their Jesus is the real Jesus, and anyone who disbelieves goes to hell. So do the Episcopalians and all of the other Christian sects. Jews and Islam believe everyone outside of their respective beliefs go to hell. It is impossible to be all of these various sects at the same time. Therefore logically, we are all going to hell. Better find some different topics to fight on this earth. How about race or wealth or brain power as a yardstick for the chosen status? Folks, it is neither your God nor mine. Please, let God not be the litmus test for elected officials.

i appreciate this very much. As a unitarian universalist I pray that the world unite in seeking truth . I hope responsible leaders of all faiths will oppose literalism in interpreting scripture. Was there a Jesus? Why did he die? Was he man or god or both? Was he the son of God in some sense beyond that in which we are all children of God?
Biblical literalism was created by man, just as the Bible was. We all believe that God is love, and love is his commandment to all humanity: give, recieve, renew, repeat, rejoice
in love. Reject all claims of revelation and all
pretense at knowing god's will for individuals or humanity. We cannot know god's will in an eschatological sense--but we can instinctively tell love from hate. Love the living creation of god, not the musty musings of mortal mystics. Stop the abortion of actual human lives that war and evangelical hatred permit. Beat your rocket launchers into windmills.

Very apparent this commentator, Mr. Spong has been given over to a depraved mind, a religious mind, but a corrupted one at that.

The day is already on the forefront where religious commentators will give their OK for adults having sexual relations with children because a scientists says "that's the way they are wired" or sexual relationships with animals. The moral spiral is downward. The one who has the backbone to communicate where right is right and wrong is wrong will be considered the militant extremist.

When did a scientist become the voice of truth for human morality?

Ok, reality check. Anyone who equates sucking an unborn fetus out of a womb with a vacuum tube with soldiers who, whether you like the war or not, are putting their lives in harm's way for the freedom and safety of people who spent 30 years under the repressive and top-10-all-time-mass-murderous reign of Hussein is a moron.

Anomyous August 21, 2008 10:56 PM wrote:
What don't you understand about: THOU SHALT NOT KILL?

So why do so many American Evangelicals support the War in Iraq, the Death Penalty, no Gun Control, and polluting the World When "thou shalt not kill" applies to more than American unborn babies (and most likely only White ones.) then they can talk without logs in their eyes.

August 22, 2008 4:18 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Am I to take it that you are a wee better than vegan/meat eating animal rights activists who say anyone who approves of animals being killed for food should not complain about ABORTION?!!! To them killing a growing a child in the womb and killing an animal for food is exactly the same. (Never mind many of them eat meat too, and all of them use animal products such as leather, but that is alright as long as they don't complain about abortion.) Perverse logic.

Actually I am a Christian who believes "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that.

One of the many paradoxes about Evangelicals is that they cherish the life of their embryos but readily sacrifice their grown children in Iraq. Protect those cells so that they can be ground up in a senseless war-although to an Evangelical it has everything to do with patriotism that is as unquestioning as their literal adherence to the Bible. What a shame to go through life with blinders on, as certain of salvation as General Lee was of victory during Pickett's Charge.

What gives you the right to say that the questions were some that educated evangelicals today "cannot relate." I'm an educated person and I can relate to and I also care about the issues that were covered. Maybe you don't know how to define educated if it doesn't agree with your liberal view.

So, only if Rick Warren and others were "educated" like you would they have they enlightenment you claim to possess.

Your article is the most pompous piece on the subject I've read. The subject could have been "Exercise" and it would been no less smug. "If only those people exercised like me would they have the right type of fitness" you would say.

Wow.

seala:

Anomyous August 21, 2008 10:56 PM wrote:
What don't you understand about: THOU SHALT NOT KILL?

So why do so many American Evangelicals support the War in Iraq, the Death Penalty, no Gun Control, and polluting the World When "thou shalt not kill" applies to more than American unborn babies (and most likely only White ones.) then they can talk without logs in their eyes.

August 22, 2008 4:18 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Am I to take it that you are a wee better than vegan/meat eating animal rights activists who say anyone who approves of animals being killed for food should not complain about ABORTION?!!! To them killing a growing a child in the womb and killing an animal for food is exactly the same. (Never mind many of them eat meat too, and all of them use animal products such as leather, but that is alright as long as they don't complain about abortion.) Perverse logic.

To answer the writer who asked if there is a Christian denomination that beleives as Spong does, the answer is a qualified "yes": Episcopals."

Does Rev. Fred Phelps represent the views of all American Baptists?

Of course evangelicals have a right to be involved in politics. They also have a responsibility to educate themselves on the issues. Thank God they are a minority of our population. If they were not, then America would be subjected to what John Stuart Mill called "the tyranny of the majority." That is not democracy in action, that is nothing more than religious imperialism.

++++++++++++++++

That's very true, living as both a racial American minority and a non-Christian in this nation, which seems (with respect to the "old Europe") to be more and more religious.

I have no understanding as to why grown up people believe so deeply in these fairy tale stories of divinity, in THE Divinity, whom they say created the universe. Such observation is of a knowledge that is NOT possible; and yet they say it's they who made it; it's the Creator himself.

Huh?

Anyway, I thought --- if college reading memory is still in tact --- that Alexis de Tocqueville (not John Stuart Mills) was the person who used the "tyranny of the majority" phrase, in his DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, after a brief tour of the American society, a society of which he both admired and feared, because from his nobility station, it's obviously dangerous, as you have masses who are nowhere close to being as educated as you are [as de Tocqueville and his pampered French aristocracy, well, yeah, the bloody Brit aristocracy, too: same thing], who are, through simple majority congregation and aggregation, could dominate political offices and could, therefore, promulgate rules and laws that give them an advantage over a small aristocratic minority such as de Tocqueville....

But I guess John Stuart Mills could have used the same phrase, too, being that both Mills and de Tocqueville were from the lower-upper class with exceptional classic education in reading and writing....

Anomyous August 21, 2008 10:56 PM wrote:
What don't you understand about: THOU SHALT NOT KILL?
So why do so many American Evangelicals support the War in Iraq, the Death Penalty, no Gun Control, and polluting the World When "thou shalt not kill" applies to more than American unborn babies (and most likely only White ones.) then they can talk without logs in their eyes.

"To answer the writer who asked if there is a Christian denomination that beleives as Spong does, the answer is a qualified "yes": Episcopals."

This claim is simply not true. There is no standard Episcopalian theology specifically, nor an Anglican theology more broadly. There are indeed evangelical Episcopalians, myself included. To make such a sweeping claim does not do justice to the multiplicity of views held by Anglicans.

And BTW, an abortion clinic is not a bedroom. It is a place where unborn growing babies in the womb come to die.

Even as I write this, even as you read this, in some abortion clinic, an innocent, voiceless, defenseless baby is fighting a losing battle for its life.

Does one look away and make believe it isn't happening because dead babies don't talk?

tired of the same debate:
Didn't we have this debate 30 years ago? It's not about when life begins or when a fetus gains human rights. It's about the rights of the unborn versus the rights of the mother; the right to live versus the right to choose.

If you believe that all life is sacred, and you believe that all killing of humans is bad, then that's one thing. (Why draw the line at humans?--Thou shalt not kill... mosquitos?) But until I see so-called pro-lifers stand up as strongly for starving children around the world, stand up against all war, stand up against all disease and all poverty, stand up against the death penalty, then the pro-life of a baby argument just rings hollow. It's nothing more than ego-driven selective morality.

There is a valid pro-life argument to be made. But then it must go up against the arguments in favor of treating women as fully human beings with inalienable rights, too.

August 22, 2008 12:49 AM

______________________________________

Since nearly four thousand innocent, voiceless, defenseless babies in the womb are killed everyday in the US in the name of right of convenience for the mother, the debate does not end.

First comes right to life. Everything else must take second place, otherwise no court needs to convict a murderer.

A candidate's religious preference--or lack thereof--has no place in a political campaign. We're electing a president, not a pope.

Some cursory research will reveal the contempt with which our founding fathers regarded religion. And yet, the extreme right holds them up as pious pillars of 'faith'. They were not.

Frankly, I have more 'faith' in string theory than I do any of the so-called 'world' religions. And string theory can be described and defended mathematically. Religion cannot.

An open mind is our only hope of adapting to the changes we will have to make to survive in a changing world--economically, environmentally, socially, and in every other way. Evangelical rants are a recipe for disaster.

The god that some of you talk about must be such a pedant. Cares about nothing except what goes on in your bedroom. Second thoughts maybe he is just an old pervert who like to watch

Didn't we have this debate 30 years ago? It's not about when life begins or when a fetus gains human rights. It's about the rights of the unborn versus the rights of the mother; the right to live versus the right to choose.

If you believe that all life is sacred, and you believe that all killing of humans is bad, then that's one thing. (Why draw the line at humans?--Thou shalt not kill... mosquitos?) But until I see so-called pro-lifers stand up as strongly for starving children around the world, stand up against all war, stand up against all disease and all poverty, stand up against the death penalty, then the pro-life of a baby argument just rings hollow. It's nothing more than ego-driven selective morality.

There is a valid pro-life argument to be made. But then it must go up against the arguments in favor of treating women as fully human beings with inalienable rights, too.

"Bishop" Spong is no man of God at all. He is more or less an atheist. His comment about Evangelicals not being "educated" is laughable. I guess noted Christian scholars and debaters like William Lane Craig, Allistair McGrath or R.C. Sproul are not educated...Ha! Spong would be obliterated in any debate with them--and he knows it. What he writes is no different and of no greater depth than the Democrat Party platform or talking points.

Thank God (the Christian God of the Bible--the only true God--oh, my how closed minded of me!)... that he is a "former" Bishop.

I'm not sure if Mr. Spong takes issue with religion per se, (it wouldn't seem to be the case since he is a former bishop), or simply the brand of evangelical Christianity practiced by churches like Saddleback. It's commendable that he appears to reject prejudice against homosexuality and that he supports sex education and distrubution of contraception. But I'd say it's equally "Flat Earth Society" to believe in resurrections, virgin births, miracles, heaven, hell, revealed knowledge, "holy" books, and all the other myths and dogmas put forth by religion.

Although I realize that it's politically untenable, I'd like a candidate that says "Religion is a private matter, it has no place in politics." Supposed "religious moderation" provides a smokescreen for fundamentalism. I am much more interested in the promotion of reason as the guiding principle of our civic life than in the squabbling over who's religious views are more acceptable.

You don't have to be a leftist to disbeleive in god and religion. Many libertarians are atheist, and are tired of having god shoved down out throats by politicians. I do fault Spong for pretending he still believes any of it, and using that platform to criticize the orthodox.

For the most part, I don't care what religion in which people believe. I do wish the courtesy was also reciprocated more than it is. Last I checked, I'm no more responsible for Stalin than Christians are for Hitler.

Warren ,

You say "educated" people cant relate to Warren ?
I live here in the northeast. The church I attend
has the same theology as Warren, we have more then our fair share of doctors lawyers and college grads.
But even if our church didnt, and many church
congregations are quite poor and dont have the same resources/opportunities, you should be ashamed of your lack of respect for other peoples beliefs and insulting them by inferring only"non educated" people have these beliefs. Jesus never attended
college. John the baptist by your definition "was not educated" but oh did they change the world.
How dare you sound so elitist, does your church have education requirements ??

John 21:20 .... Peter turned around and noticed the disciple whom Jesus kept loving following them. He was the one who had put his head on Jesus' chest at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?"

John 19:25-27 ... "Near The Cross of Jesus stood His mother, His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."

... so, all you Bible thumpers, what's up with this???

I believe that many of these "conservative christians" would much prefer to throw stones at those having abortions or those who are gay because it takes them away from their own failures and foibles in following Jesus path. It is something of the ego, not of God, and gays or people having abortions enable these ego-religious people to self-righteously ignore the log in their own eye! I seem to recall something that Jesus said about this...

Good show...but above Obama's pay-grade, donchaknow.........

How can Spong call himself Christian?

Taken from:
A Call for a New Reformation
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html
by John S. Spong

Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation out of which human life was still evolving. Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries; we were evolving, and indeed are still evolving, into higher levels of consciousness. Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative. So did the interpretation of the cross of Calvary as the moment of divine sacrifice when the ransom for sin was paid.

...

The issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

...

Romans 1:21-22 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Nin Privitera wrote:
"Despite my Masters Degree and 50 hours of graduate work, I still believe that abortions are despised by God( there is a such a One) and that homosexuality is sin because it is a response to a flawed lifetime experiences and guess what, I don't believe that the earth is flat, I don't fight against contraceptives, and I believe in sex education but probably not your version of it."

So, Nin, I'd be interested in knowing if you feel so "completed" and so well versed in your understanding and mastery of Jesus' teachings (with your 50 hours of graduate work and a masters degree), that you feel the right to tell other people what to do with your body? I had a vasectomy a few years ago, what does God tell you about that, since you are so endowed with such perfect understanding of God? Was I right to have the surgery, or am I guilty of killing many children because I can no longer impregnate a woman? I believe your beliefs stem from your own ego and arrogance rather than from any deity and have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. I also believe that you have a little more work to do on yourself before you come to me telling me what to do with my body.

It's really wonderful reading the posts from all those whom have made the sound choice to be heterosexual. You are to be commended. I do not think that you should be condemning those whom you are of the opinion have chosen to be homosexual. What's worse is that you use the Bible to justify your anti homosexual prejudice. That is not even an original idea; that book has been used to justify many nefarious acts including the degradation of women and support of slavery and segregation.

As a former minister, I agree with Rev. Spong on many points but would take this a bit further. Evangelicals, Wiccans, Muslims, as well as Non-theists and others are, in a pluralistic society, welcome to be involved in politics. Yet, as Thomas Paine pointed out in "Common Sense" regarding a truly free and secure government, "however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right." What was and is lacking in these rather shallow religious "debates" in the public sphere is this simple voice, not from On High but from reasoning persons who would lead us better if they had a deeper understanding of the origins of this country founded on common sense.

An infant, that is born, can no more defend its own life than an unborn child can.

A born child needs much more attention and care than a child in the womb for its survival.

Yet how could it be that if dependency on another person for its life, is used as an excuse for abortion, and yet infanticide is treated as murder?

Dear ZZim -

Thanks for the response.

I wonder why you feel my pointing out that marriage is an institution that was started by the Egyptians as a civil union is a tangent to your assertion that marriage is a sacred institution. I'd say it goes to the heart of the matter and puts the lie to your assumption that god instituted marriage. It was man's idea and his alone, not god's.

As far as the "age" thing, yes, I misspoke there. My mind set was thinking in the other direction, ie: that marriage can't be denied to people once they reach legal age. In other words, you can't tell older people they can't marry due to their age (just like you can't deny their mortgage application based on age). Clearly, this wasn't what you were talking about.

I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with civil unions, as long as they entail exactly the same rights as marriages. This is a question of equal rights, not nomenclature. However, if gay people wish to marry, I have no problem, with them calling it a marriage. The only reason the religionists have a problem is because the erroneously believe that marriage was instituted by god and is a sacred institution, when it clearly isn't.

Here's a thought, maybe an experiment: have the State declare that civil unions will receive a larger tax deduction than marriages. Then, let' see how many god-fearing Xians rush to have their marriages declared to be civil unions.

Vince Lombardi once said that you could only go as fast as the slowest student, and that is generally the way that I view the Republican party and "conservative christians". Knee jerk responses that sound good on the surface without contemplation or a deeper understanding of the problem. Mankind truly does create God in their own image, and I say that as a believer in Jesus Christ. I regret that so many "conservative christians" seem to prefer to make the Bible into a cook book rather than put in the time in contemplation, meditation and prayer. This is the ultimate "dumbing down" of our society, in my opinion...

Effulgence:

"JoeT, the soul, like God, cannot be proved empirically. The soul of necessity can live only in a body that is alive. So keeping the body alive that houses the immortal soul is man's duty."

Can you smell that? A thing which cannot be proven is raised as a premise, assumed, and then all things flow from it.

It all falls apart instantly. How can you stand there and miss that?

....

How is it that you believers this kind of thing?
Do you only use logic when it suits you, and abandon logic when it does not?

Amazing, breathtakingly amazing.

August 21, 2008 10:10 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What don't you understand about: THOU SHALT NOT KILL?

What don't you understand about the claim of medical science that the fertilized ovum is a separate human being, that is alive and growing in its mother's womb, no matter how medical science chooses to call that developing human at different stages of its growth.

Does an infant, toddler, pre-schooler, teenager, etc all mean different persons or just different names for the same person at different stages of its growth?

What makes murder of a child after its birth wrong but its murder within the womb right? A different name given to it while it is in the womb?

Question for evangelicals:

Is 'being saved' a guarantee of 'salvation', no matter what further sins are committed thereafter, or whether one truly repents for them or not?

I believe in the resurrected Christ but would not ever be able to answer affirmatively to such a question.

How about evangelicals?

This article is typical of Spong - warmed-over Bultmannian Existentialism served ala 60's liberal style with a side of snide. His argument is basically: Evangelicals are either dumb or mean or both because they don't think the way he does. He speaks with a scientific certainty that no scientist claims and then dismisses those who disagree with him as unenlightened. Ironically, he has degrees in Liberal Arts and Theology with no earned doctorate - nothing in the sciences. No, I think he is just an attention seeker, whose days in the rather small Episcopal spotlight are no more.

this blog was very presumptuous.

Poor theology?!

I think you need to educate yourself on what is good theology. You did not show that you really grasped what was really discussed with the discussion other than what you inaccurately assume.

There is a much broader mission that many Christians hold that you don't seem to grasp or understand.

I enjoyed the writer's views as I value reason as well as faith, and much of what he discusses emphasizes reason.

Religion and reason should be compatible and complimentary. As truth is approached, there should be no conflict between heart and mind.

Ever wonder what it is that is beyond words, writings, concepts, judgments or opinions. Could it be an experience of truth (that which never changes)? Or perhaps even an experience of that without which experience is not possible.

"JoeT, the soul, like God, cannot be proved empirically. The soul of necessity can live only in a body that is alive. So keeping the body alive that houses the immortal soul is man's duty."

Can you smell that? A thing which cannot be proven is raised as a premise, assumed, and then all things flow from it.

It all falls apart instantly. How can you stand there and miss that?

I remember last christmas the washington post had a guess writer, a young lady who described her heartbreak at learning there was no santa claus.

The apparently survived the experience, and goes on to say that we don't need santa claus because we have jesus.

How is it that you believers this kind of thing?
Do you only use logic when it suits you, and abandon logic when it does not?

Amazing, breathtakingly amazing.

homosexuality is a sin (along with man others):

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:26-27 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

God gives us free will to believe whatever we want but in the end He will have the final word.

Hebrews 9:27 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Romans 14:11-12 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Believe what you want, but Jesus said:

John 14:6 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

JoeT, the soul, like God, cannot be proved empirically. The soul of necessity can live only in a body that is alive. So keeping the body alive that houses the immortal soul is man's duty.

No saint or Pope advocated abortion on the grounds one does not know when the soul enters the body. Since the soul cannot be proved empirically at any time in the life of a human being, it could be used as a pretext to kill anyone at any time.

JoeT, the soul, like God, cannot be proved empirically. The soul of necessity can live only in a body that is alive. So keeping the body alive that houses the immortal soul is man's duty.

No saint or Pope advocated abortion.

JoeT:

Anonymous: we can hope. but don't hold your breath. I fear that too many heard "life begins at conception" and didn't wonder how McCain knows that when the great saints and theologians didn't, and the Popes thought that "ensoulment" came 40 or 80 days after conception. at least Obama only pretends to be President, not God.

August 21, 2008 2:33 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read a textbook of human embryology, watch some YouTube videos of fetal development and abortion procedures, ask a fetologist, watch ultrasound of unborn children,read the Hippocratic Oath...

It would seem that some reliable people DO know when life begins. Medical science does.

Got an interesting rant-back from Mr. Mark: “Yes, your list of restrictions on who is allowed to marry makes my point. Every one of your restrictions applies REGARDLESS OF age, race or sex. I'm fine with those restrictions.”

Which was an interesting thing for him to say, since I did in fact mention AGE as being a restriction in all states. It makes me feel like he’s not listening to me, but rather he’s just waiting for his chance to talk.

Then he goes off on a tangent: “However, averring that a restriction against gay marriage is "just another restriction" is patently false. A restriction against gay marriage discriminates against sexual orientation, which is a discrimination that has been outlawed in the workplace, in hiring decisions, etc. Gay rights already have standing in law, and the right to marriage is just another right that will eventually be granted to gays (hopefully, sooner rather than later). “

This is interesting that he uses this argument. It’s the same one I hear from Christian fundamentalists who tell me I have to beware of the “gay agenda”. Ooh, scary! I’m sorry, Mark, but I totally disagree with you and the Christian fundamentalists on this one. I don’t see any connection between job protection and turning the definition of marriage inside-out. I just don’t.

Then he says some stuff about how Ancient Egyptian law ought to apply here or something like that and concludes …. Dunno, lost the train of the argument there. Anyway, I don’t see any reason why civil unions are such a bad thing. If gay Americans want certain privileges currently enjoyed by married people, then by all means they should agitate for civil unions. Most Americans agree with me. If they would rather start a fight with the Christian fundamentalists that they are guaranteed to lose and get their cause set back, that’s up to them.

By the way, I understand that this is a debate within the gay community, with some individuals preferring to not care, some preferring “civil unions”, and some preferring “marriage”.

Anyway, then Mark wraps up by alleging that I bad-mouthed the French. Which mainly reflects on his sense of humor rather than mine.

Good night.

So, Effulgence, I'm assuming you include Spong in the yucky crew? He was indeed a bishop and may still consider himself some type of Christian. (Spong - any comment on this, old guy? A waiting world wants to know just what amount of ignorant biblical claptrap you agree with!)

On the other hand, he appears to agree with you. Does that make him an atheist, or you a liberal episcopalian? Sorry, wait a minute - is there a difference? Oh golly. (What? Episcopalians like purple robes and "collects"? THAT'S the difference?) Quite the conundrum, indeed.

Really, this Kindom of God I hear the believers talk about, it sounds like an awful place.
What's the kick? You get to spend all of eternity basking in the effulgence of this great deity you fear so much?

Even if I could believe this crap, I wouldn't want this reward. If Falwell and Dobson are the kind of people who are allowed in, why would I want to go?

Are the homos who decide not to act on the homosexuality and thus earn this eternal piss, are they still going to be gay in heaven?

Oh, the ways of god are mysterious and not for you to know. So you kiss his butt throughout your life and you get this awful reward?

Do you really have to wonder why atheists consider you a bunch of losers for believing this crap? You've already lost, and if you get what you want, you're going to lose for eternity.

And if you can't figure out what's moral and what's not without someone telling you, you're worse than a loser, you're an imbecile.

Dear John Shelby Spong-

Despite my Masters Degree and 50 hours of graduate work, I still believe that abortions are despised by God( there is a such a One) and that homosexuality is sin because it is a response to a flawed lifetime experiences and guess what, I don't believe that the earth is flat, I don't fight against contraceptives, and I believe in sex education but probably not your version of it.
I guess I should apologize for taking up some of the air that you breathe in your lofty level of enlightenment.
Of course, perhaps responding to your statement is above my pay grade, too.
God bless or is that just being redundant?

John Spong is wrong. McCain never mentioned Jesus by name. John's quote is wrong. John McCain said something like "Faith saved me." The least that Spong and other McCain supporters can do is quote both McCain and Obama correctly.

The reason that I call Spong a McCain supporter is because I received an e-mail two days ago that misquoted Obama on a passage in his book. To misquote someone is worse than plagiarism in my book because it shows either very poor scholarship or a conscious effort to distort the facts.

Spong seems to suggest that anyone holding an evangelical viewpoint must not be "educated" and, therefore, are naive. I hold a Master's degree from a United Methodist Seminary. That degree carries a bit of weight in most theological circles. It is a bit narcisistic to hold his viewpoint - and should be offensive to those of the evangelical "minority."

I wonder if this attitude is one that Jesus spoke to as he said that we must become like little children to inherit the kingdom of God. I think I'll stick to Jesus' side of the equation.

Oh great, another liberal religious "scholar" who attributes moral decisions to "educated scientists and doctors". Why is the "eschew worldly wisdom" part of the Bible the one that left-wing believers love to ignore most?

Either you believe that God determines - and reveals/teaches/dictates - morality... or you don't. But don't pretend that you believe in God, then credit mankind for the determination of morality.

He makes good points about the shallow candidate responses, and sex education... and then utterly ignores the possibility that homosexuality may be something that passes all humanist moral checks but may yet be incorrect in a canonical morality. It's not so much whether or not I disagree with Spong here as the fact that his argument is cloying, simplistic, and inane.

What exactly is a "naive theology". Since the whole concept of theology rests on faith in what cannot be demonstrated, how can one be more or less naive than another? Any atheist would be certain to argue that theology in itself is naive, and that there's no point arguing the difference between foolish and silly.

Incidentally, all, could we just collectively admit that Spong is rather quaint? I quote this week's column of the inestimable Dan Savage to provide an idea of what Spong should consider "celebrating" under his totally chill theology. (I've trimmed the language, and sadly ironic if it gets cut for profanity.) In all events, here goes, and please be tolerant and forgiving:

"And if you are going to speculate, ALIY, how dare you stop at gay? A boyfriend or a girlfriend? What if he's bisexual and wants boyfriends and girlfriends? Or what if he's poly and wants scads of boyfriends and girlfriends? Or what if he's asexual and doesn't want anyone? Or, hell, what if he's into inanimate objects like that British guy who got arrested for f***ing a bicycle? Or into dead animals like the nut in Wisconsin who got arrested for f***ing a dead deer? Or what if he's a cuckold fetishist and wants a girlfriend who [OK, this is a bit much for a family paper]. Shall I go on?"

Drinking from the Lavender Bowl hardly seems all that shocking anymore. Spong is rather like Daffydd in Little Britain's "Only Gay in the Village" routine. Delightfully clueless.

AMEN.
Let's do away with all faith based initiatives...let's keep separation of church and state...and freedom of relegion.

Spong equates the Bible's textual "condemnation of homosexuality" to the views of the "backwaters of knowledge and education" and the "Flat Earth Society." Now, no great scientists they, the Bible's authors, but if they were so morally hopeless that Spong would not wish to live under their teachings, why are they any better in pronouncing on any other issue? Maybe the Bible is just a bunch of ignorant wittering, it would seem. If Spong disagrees, I wonder where his theological exegesis and personal preferences diverge. I imagine it would be at very few points.

Nietzsche's philosophy of the body is much more agreeable to Spong than the Bible, and from a far better educated source. So, Spong - should we ditch the old desert bumpkins and hail the Ubermensch?

Dear ZZim -

Yes, your list of restrictions on who is allowed to marry makes my point. Every one of your restrictions applies REGARDLESS OF age, race or sex. I'm fine with those restrictions.

However, averring that a restriction against gay marriage is "just another restriction" is patently false. A restriction against gay marriage discriminates against sexual orientation, which is a discrimination that has been outlawed in the workplace, in hiring decisions, etc. Gay rights already have standing in law, and the right to marriage is just another right that will eventually be granted to gays (hopefully, sooner rather than later).

The aversion to gay marriage is equivalent to past aversions to inter-racial marriage (another union the Xians abhorred on Biblical grounds). Withholding the right of marriage from gay people is equivalent to withholding the vote from women or full citizenship from black people. It is the equivalent of outlawing Protestant religion from a country that is predominantly Catholic.

You also err in stating that marriage is a "sacred institution." The FIRST marriages on record were those of the Egyptians, and they were purely CIVIL in nature. The religious patina was a later addition to what was a civil arrangement.

Ergo, ALL marriages have as their foundation a civil union. Ergo, gay marriages are at base civil unions as are all straight marriages.

In short, the "sacredness" of marriage is a late addition to the concept; a Johnny-come-lately party crasher hell bent on ignoring the entire reason the party was being held in the first place.

As far as bad-mouthing the French, well, what can one say. Americans are jealous of the French, and for good reason. Like everything else we can't ever hope to be, we belittle in a lame exercise to mask our obvious shortcomings. They're sophisticated, we're red-necks. They've got Paris and we've got a cheesy replica of the same sitting in Vegas.

Makes one proud to be an uh-MURK-in', doesn't it?

Hostility to bigotry is not another kind of bigotry, it's self-defense.

I'm imagining something here, a thought. Perhaps the believers who believe the hardest are the ones who have the greatest difficulty swallowing it. It's a very large crock to swallow, maybe those who actually can think and reason a bit are finding more resistance in themselves than they would like.

So they yell the loudest, demand the most, and fight the hardest against those who just don't seem to care about what they believe. They've been told that homosexuality is a sin, and look at that - there goes thousands, millions even of people shamelessly being homosexual, like they don't care at all.

Their self righteousness doesn't come from within the bible itself, nor from either of their gods (father and son right?) ... no, it comes from the internal struggle they're having with it. They're not just trying to force the homosexuals to stop living that way, they're trying to force down that little voice of reason that's yelling up from inside them: Hey, this stuff is a crock!

Standing In For Jesus by John Shelby Spong

Feel good is the Gospel of Reverend Spong.
But then there is the Eye of The Needle.

Mr. Mark said: "The unctuous reality of this situation is that it is the religious who are MAKING THE CHOICE FOR homosexuals by denying them the same rights that every straight person in this country enjoys."

Not true. The State places numerous restrictions on who may marry. The list varies by state, but for the most part includes:
- Must be of legal age
- Must not be under duress
- Must not be closely related
- Must not be currently incarcerated (actually, this may not be the case any more)
- Must not be mentally impaired
- Must not be the same gender
- Must not be currently married to someone else

So there's a whole list of restrictions that exist on the institution of marriage. Same gender is just one of them. By the way, if people were willing to accept civil unions as a compromise solution, the issue would get resolved pretty quickly. A major component of the backlash against the push to change the law is the use of the word "marriage". Marriage is a sacred institution to many Americans and they don't want it messed with. "Civil Union" on the other hand, sounds French and we don't really care what naughty things the French do. They probably invented French kissing too.

For all of you who profess to condemn Gays and their relationships based on your biblical interpretations of scripture (no matter which one), you forget one very important thing....there are also quite a large number of other people in this country, in fact in the world, who DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU!

We don't buy into your beliefs of so-called 'sin', nor do we don't want to belong to your religious institutions or follow your teachings, and fight like heck to attempt to keep your obnoxious, arrogant and sanctimonius viewpoints from being shoved on the rest of us, whether by enforcement of law, placing our legal status to a popular vote or even destroying our lives, sometimes violently through your more heinous verbal call for our eradication if we don't 'repent'.

You are a sick lot and have a great deal more in common with the Third Reich than with Jesus! How dare you compare your blatent bigotry with his call for love and peace and tolerance. Your supposed righteousness is not a reason for arrgoant, willfull ignorance.

You cannot continue to use cherry-pickled bible passages to justify your hatred either. Taken on that level alone there are far more of you whose haughtiness would never allow an up-front examination of your own personal life to see if YOU live by such commandments and teachings If you did you'd be mighty surprised at how your 'lifestyle' of judgement, hypocracy and damnation of others would be far bigger sins.

There are millions of us who don't live by your interpretaions of religious scripture and understand instead the fact that America is a democracy...not a conservative Christian theocracy, and we've had just about enough of your droning on about how you folks are 'oppressed', having to live with others who are different or don't believe in your worldview. You don't have to like gays, their families or gay marriage...but you have no business taking to the streets to damn us, vote us into a second-class legal status or call for America's or our destruction by your seemingly angry punative God. That is beyond the rational and only showcases your lack of intelligence and rational thought.

We will also never allow your take-over of society by your twisted, embittered and angry biblical interpretations of how others should live. In fact, as long as you continue to attempt to make society into your own little Christain Talaban, expect to continue to be called-out, mocked, marginalized and made fun of by just about everyone who values reason, education, intelligence and fact-based conclusions (and not the ones trumpted out by your 'think tanks' that are known to twist, forge or invent data that are patently lies and falsehoods) at every turn, and that is one he** of a lot of people.

In fact, if we didnt believe so much in a live-and-let-live philosophy we would attempt to marginalize, in any way we could the obtuse influence your narrow-minded religious beliefs have on others (particularly gay people). In fact, many of us wish in vain for nothing more than religious conservatives to begin to accept that not every one believes the way they do, and that it is allright for others to live a different way. Instead your 'so-called' leaders call you to act as though you are in a war, and you dig in your heels and act, sometimes irrationally and with tragic results, at the thought that two adults can do what they want with their lives, bodies, families, livelihoods and legal rights.

Religious conservatives have done more to make people's lives miserable and ruin America as we know it than at any other time in our history through demonizing education, scientific research, rational debate, fact-based conclusions and evidence by stacking courts, legislatures and school boards with people who are woefully out-of-touch with the idea of representative democracy.

Your ignorance is not to be celebrated or cheered, it is to be called-out and derided at every turn. The only thing you've contributed to is the downward slide of rational intelligence and reason and the dumbing-down of the more insular members of our soceity. The only reason they feel such power is that a major political party has pandered to them and their un-enlightened world-view for far too long...to the detriment of us all.

If we do survive as a society it will be because we overcame your backwards influence. We are at a very dangerous turning point in the world and you are a major cause as to why we are here. The inquisiton isn't far off if the religious conservative movement is allowed such undue influence. Just read their pamphlets and web sites....they are a scary bunch.

Willfull ignorance is far more dangerous than natural stupidity.

I have read John Shelby Spong "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" and I rate his book highly and his thinking. He make good sense to me and I enjoy his remarkable liberal mind and searching questions. He is a serious critic and a intelligent researcher

ZZim writes:

"Marc Edward writes: “Backwaters … one's sexual preference is not a choice at all. I was always straight, no choice involved.”

Good point Marc, but irrelevant because Backwaters dispenses with it in advance: "b) Regardless of inclinations, the decision to act is always a choice. On that level, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are on equal footing. Sex is optional -- whether it's with someone of the same gender or not"

False analogy.

Religions state that all sexual acts outside of wedlock are immoral. They then deny homosexuals the right to marry based on their religious fantasies, thereby slamming the door to homosexuals being able to have the "moral" sexual encounters that come with marriage, while also denying them the right to make a binding legal commitment to the person they love.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals are NOT on equal footing for the SOLE REASON that religions wish to discriminate against homosexuals. In the USA, we believe in equality among ALL, which is a foundational reason for gay marriage to be legalized in the entire country.

The unctuous reality of this situation is that it is the religious who are MAKING THE CHOICE FOR homosexuals by denying them the same rights that every straight person in this country enjoys.

The offensive is real and it is ugly, and it has the effect of demeaning the instigators (religious) while it injures the intended victims (gays)

Perhaps if a group of people with lots of money started heavy duty advertising promoting curousity, science, research, and the scientific method on TV and media oriented towards kids and teens, the next generation would grow up more skeptical of religion than not.

Additionally, one might contemplate repeated listings of crimes done in the name of Christianity. Ove and over and over for the next fifteen years until the whole idea of God and religion becomes silly in the minds of everyone under forty.

It could be a fascinating social experiment.

First, there is significant scientific literature showing a genetic predisposition for homosexuality.
"Maybe I'm just living in those backwaters of knowledge and education, but this is news to me. It'd be nice for this learned writer to provide a link or two to the proof that supports his claim." Two examples of many are

Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28
George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers
Science 23 April 1999 284: 665-667

Evidence for homosexuality gene
R Pool
Science 16 July 1993 261: 291-292

As a follower of Christ, I find nothing in Christ's teachings that would suggest anything other than agape for all of human race including homosexuals.

Then there are those who are "Pro-life until gurney ready".

I know and worked with Jack Spong. Yes he he is sometimes very un-PC, but seldom unperceptive. I would suggest that if the human race hasn't learned anything in the last 2000 years, we are a sad lot.

BTW, as a follower of his teachings does not mean I follow all of the other Biblical prophets. They have much wisdom, but ....

I hope to God your are right. A very excellent commentary on the dangers of the "moral" majority.

a tyranny of the majority is precisely what democracy is all about despite some caveats about minority opinion. just look at polygamy. its been practiced all over the world. one tribe in the amazon has it both ways, women also have multiple men. so if mccain gets elected by a majority the utility of his majority will be served...i.e. a new chief justice + to kill the choice of abotion. democracy indeed.

Marc Edward writes: “Backwaters … one's sexual preference is not a choice at all. I was always straight, no choice involved.”

Good point Marc, but irrelevant because Backwaters dispenses with it in advance: "b) Regardless of inclinations, the decision to act is always a choice. On that level, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are on equal footing. Sex is optional -- whether it's with someone of the same gender or not"

And you replied that “Eating is optional too.” Heh-heh, people who do not eat die. Celibate people do not die (of celibacy). Your argument is silly.

Mr. Spong has absolutely no credibility. He should have just become an aircraft engineer and then held seminars on how the Wright brothers were so stupid to think it was ever possible to fly in the first place. Why is he even a clergyman? He just wrote an article calling all religious people idiots and claiming that only clergy know the deep, philosophical mysteries of life. Get over yourself. I guess having a job in the Episcopal church is like having a government job- no knowledge, passion, or convictions necessary.

I have read many of Bishop Spongs books and attended his "Living the Questions" course.

For him to attack Evangelical theology is almost laughable were it not so unChristian.

This is a man who has abandoned almost all the Christianity in which he once believed and practiced as a Bishop. He preaches inclusiveness for gays but is hostile to traditionalists, orthodox, and evangelicals in his own Episcopalian Church. Others of his writings are highly critical of Catholics and Baptists. He leaves no stone uncast !

His Theology is very liberal, actually very unChristian. He is openly hostile to many of Christs and St Pauls teachings. Christ is not risen, there is no Trinity, Paul is gay and homophobic, there are no miracles, no Saints, the Bible is a historical document with many inaccuracies... indeed... I doubt a single Christian has ever joined the Episcopalian Church on the basis of Spongs Dark Theology.

I'll take Rick Warren's messages of Hope and Service to others over Spong any day.

Dave writes
"Mr. SpongBobSquare Pants,"
Can you prove that abortions have gone up? All of the the reports from the government show that abortions have gone down during Bush's term."

Totally untrue. The goverment stopped tracking abortion rates when Bush took office. You are a rather dishonest and immature person.

Bishop Spong -- hero to hundreds.

Backwaters writes -
"Homosexuality is no more a choice for gay and lesbian people than heterosexuality is a choice for straight people."

"a) Maybe I'm just living in those backwaters of knowledge and education, but this is news to me. It'd be nice for this learned writer to provide a link or two to the proof that supports his claim."
__________

You could do a little of your own research. However maybe you could enlighten us. At which point in your life were being gay and being straight equally attractive options for you, and you got to "make a choice"?
If you were a little more introspective, you'd understand that one's sexual preference is not a choice at all. I was always straight, no choice involved.

"b) Regardless of inclinations, the decision to act is always a choice. On that level, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are on equal footing. Sex is optional -- whether it's with someone of the same gender or not"

Eating is optional too. You display a child's understanding of sex. God gave us sex. Sex plays an important role in marriage beyond child production. Gay people have as much right to pleasure as straight people, and a just God (and I believe God is just) wouldn't make one set of people a certain way just to set them up for failure.

In short - you have been in a moral backwater too long!

Bishop Spong claims "that abortions have risen rapidly during the administration of pro-life George Bush."

This oft-quoted liberal myth is absolutely FALSE.. as even cursory data analysis would show (see links below). Perhaps it is intended to justify MORE Planned Parenthood and sex-education funding ?

The abortion rate per 1000 woman peaked in 1981, the actual highest number in 1990, and has been on a slow but steady decline since. Some argue growing cultural and legal impediments are slowing the rate.

The abortion numbers are still tragically very high exceeding a million a year... over 3000 a day ! and rarely for medical necessity. Indeed 9 out of 10 Down's Syndrome fetuses are aborted. .surely a crime before God but not Spongs God... and a point of enormous sadness for thousands of families with such happy loving children. Sarah Pollin, Governor of Alaska recently choose to keep and give birth to her child.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/
abortion/graphusabrate.html

http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/
poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html

Thank God Jesus died for our sins- including the sin of Spong's pride.

Mr Spong, I couldn't have said it better myself, and I'm sure I've tried!

Truly one of the best articles written about the Faith Forum at Saddleback Church. I totally agree with Bishop Spong ... although I would have been a little nicer to the Evangelicals.

Allen McBride:
Beowulf, you say, "Unfortunately, the God of the Bible is incompatible with an open sexual lifestyle choice."

I've seen the Scriptural references you mention. Some say they don't stand up against the Bible's broader picture of a loving God, and some say they do. I don't know. But if the God of the Bible really is incompatible with free and loving relationships, then I agree with you: it is unfortunate indeed.

===============================

The God of the Bible has many attributes of which Love is one. Another one of His attributes is Justice. God is absolutely Just. He will not allow violations of His laws to go unpunished.

In the OT, He often declared, "Obedience I have desired rather than sacrifice", numerous times. In the NT, He taught, "He who loves me keeps my commands."

To serve the God of the Bible, requires true obedience to His commands; even if it means denying ourselves a primal desire fulfilled that is incompatible with His commands.

Beowulf, I would add to your response The OT Guy, there's also the United Church of Christ, some branches of the Society of Friends, and, I'm sure, more that I don't know about. Also, Unitarian-Universalism no longer calls itself a Christian denomination, as far as I can tell.

Thank you, thank you and thank you. Telling people to GROW UP is never easy, particularly when those people are arrogant, hateful, self-righteous and have convinced themselves they are "God's Chosen." And while we're on the subject, let's not forget the Evangelical "position" on Israel. Evangelicals support a violent, racist and brutal military occupation based on lies and our corresponding wars in "support" of it, seemingly out of their overwhelming need to be "saved" and to force some Old Testament prophecies to fruition, even if they have to force Armageddon on us all to do so. Not all Christians are hateful and arrogant, but you would never know that by looking at the (white) Evangelicals.

The OT Guy wrote:

"(That's Off-Topic, not Old Testament)

I know this isn't the point, but are there any actual Christian denominations that practice Spong's theology? Like believeing Jesus was a human who preached a new variation on Judaism to make it universal for everyone; and that the gospels are an attempt to duplicate Jewish liturgical writings, but are the mythology rooted in ancient people's understandings?"

===============================

Yes, it's called Episcopalianism. On paper, they pay lipservice to traditional Christian beliefs, but in practice, they espouse the very dogma you present. A second denom would be Unitarianism.

Dee El, I'm glad that you qualified your 'yes' answer about whether there are denominations that affirm Spong's ideas. While there may be some in your church that hold to his ideas it's not accurate to say that they represent the views of the Episcopal Church in general. There may be some in the American Episcopal Church... a group whose minority status is beginning to become more apparent, by the way. Very few in the worldwide Anglican communion.

As far as being a denomination that allows Christians to be 'free to explore their faith', the American Episcopal Church has proven by actions to be more intolerent organizationally than any of the other American denominations. I won't get into the debate on the pros or cons of homosexuality. Suffice it to say that Spong, the American Episcopal Church and parishioners who demean others by presuming that a difference of opinion is based on ignorance or bigotry have set back religious progress in this country more than any "narrow minded right winger" ever could.

How things have changed! My Dad used to joke for years that an Episcopalian was a Catholic who turned Republican. These days the switchers from Catholicism are more apt to be fundamentalists like Governor Pawlenty,former Congressman Kasich or Indiana Congressman Pence. This is being said by one raised Irish, Catholic and Democratic (note the correct name of party) and not in that particular order.

Beowulf, you say, "Unfortunately, the God of the Bible is incompatible with an open sexual lifestyle choice."

I've seen the Scriptural references you mention. Some say they don't stand up against the Bible's broader picture of a loving God, and some say they do. I don't know. But if the God of the Bible really is incompatible with free and loving relationships, then I agree with you: it is unfortunate indeed.

Bishop Sponge is quite literally preaching to his own choir: he attacks evangelicals for being theologically naive--and must assume his audience will nod in self-satisfied agreement--but he offers no real examples of such naivete (his points about abortion and homosexuality are more political and practical than theological).

For the record, I am fairly agnostic but like to see fairness applied to all sides in such discussions. But Bishop Sponge has offered a baseless attack because he has failed to base his comments on anything at all.

Allen McBride wrote:

"...But pressure is also coming from the bottom up, from millions of ordinary people, intelligent and open-minded enough to see that a loving God would not condemn people for engaging in loving sexual relationships."

============================

Unfortunately, the God of the Bible is incompatible with an open sexual lifestyle choice. (Hetero or homo.)

Though today, there exist numerous misguided clergy who endorse sexual freedom, this view is in stark contrast to the holy book they profess to know.

There are numerous Scripture references in both the Old & the New Testament which address this issue in no uncertain terms. I could quote them for you but I'm certain you wouldn't care. You just want someone to tell you what you want to hear and Spong does not disappoint in this area.

Both You & Spong should consider converting to Hinduism. There you will both find the freedom to create your own truth as you see fit.

Dear Digitles

You sound proud of your ignorance, and would like to promote it as a good thing.

Ignorance and intolerance...

Bigotry and racism...

Snobbishness and supriority...

the trade marks of the Conservative Christians.

Everything, but love; that is YOUR Christianity.

Mr. SpongBobSquare Pants,

Can you prove that abortions have gone up? All of the the reports from the government show that abortions have gone down during Bush's term.

To me the Bible is like the Constitution its a document that is not a 'living' document.

I'm surprised there has been so much objection to the Warren debate since I learned more about both candidates in 2 hours then I have in a year of primaries. How can you compare the joke that the YouTube debate turned out to be to this latest debate. I would like to see the same style of debates from now on. You can hold them in a aircraft hanger for all I care but I want to hear a complete answer.

I think McCain was so much better in his answers. Simple, to the point without the need of fluff to make his point. No questions or trying to read between the lines like Obama with his answers.

And for all you losers who think McCain had the questions already or overheard them lets keep in mind both Obama and Mccain new what the topics of the questions were going to be before the debate. Plus both candidates were given the first two questions before hand.

And for people saying it was unfair for Obama to be in that kind of setting because he didn't get the response that McCain did that's BS. How many conservative speakers on college campuses are not allowed to present their ideas without students shouting them down or throwing things at them.

It was a fair debate and very informational for me.

again to RW, on the topic of "slaves"

Most Christians can articulate the various forms of bondage they recognized around the time they were Born Again.

The Prodigal found that he was more enslaved than one of his father's "slaves/servants."

Thoreau wrote that he was most safe during the night he was imprisoned by Sheriff Sam Staples for failing to pay a poll tax. Thoreau wrote that he was protected there from his fellow man.

A friend may be enslaved by the bottle or a one-armed bandit. Christ describes how the truth will make everyone free - and that clearly is from many forms of slavery...not just the ones experienced by Roman, Greek and other peoples through the ages who were chattels. The bondage can be spiritual and it can be worse than the physical.

Wow, I was preparing a point-by-point refutation of "Dr.FeelGood's" theology, when approximately 50 people (slight exaggeration) beat me to it. I guess I can prepare for my Flat Earth Society's meeting tonite instead. (We will be comparing different models of shotguns and who has the best-looking King James Version Bible.)

One senses that Mr. Spong is in dire need of remedial "education" on the actual meaning of the English word "educated." He clearly seems to think it means “people who agree with me.” As a holder of four degrees, including an earned Ph.D., I think most people, including my peers in AAAS, view me as quite an "educated scientist." However according to Spong I can’t be "educated" since I don't agree with him. His sophomoric mode of argument would be funny were it not so misleadingly authoritative to his likely only moderately educated followers. Obviously reality is more complicated than Mr. Spong’s sadly limited (atheist = smart, religious = dumb) worldview is able to comprehend. Perhaps some day he’ll be better educated.

Responding to RW

How old was Jesus during his adult ministry? 30-34?

How can I respond with those ages, the Bible tells me so.

I am not about to submit matters of Faith and God's will to "majority rule" or contemporary consensus.

Even for some of the Great Feasts, God instructed Moses to sometimes take a "ewe lamb." Yes, distinct from a "male lamb, blemish free, of one year," a "ewe lamb." The instructions are clear, our understanding of them needs His clarification.

Why would a Christian place his faith in one, or many, men/women? The Bible tells us not to do so.

In a basic logic course, taken years ago, one of the foundational premises was that majorities have no better means of determining truth than individuals. Many of us long ago learned to disregard what the majority believes.

Even Emerson cited Jesus, as against crowds, in his "Self Reliance." "To be great is to be an individualist."

Oi people
I really love the look of christian-dating.top-seo-solutions.com. Looks good, keep it up!
anyways..
Im a very "strong" christian and I guess I have a few questions on my mind..
I've been thinking a lot about dating.. but im not sure where to begin.
My friends have been telling me christian dating is the way to go.. so I've done a little studying on knoxville christian singles and found some stuff on google
Would be awesome to hear your input.

Гостиница Заря, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/hotel_554_otdyh_moscow/

На этой ссылке мы хотим предложить Вам забронировать номер в отеле Заря, Москва. Однозначно, это одна из лучших гостиниц Москвы. В нашей гостинице Вам предложат отличный уровень комфорта, великолепный сервис. Хорошо обученные сотрудники превратят Ваше нахождение в отеле Заря, Москва приятным и незабываемым. Роскошные комнаты гостиницы Заря, Москва оборудованы всем необходимым для удобного пребывания. Профессиональный, продуманный до мельчайших деталей, дизайн интерьера, отличная мебель, современная бытовая техника все это лишь увеличит Ваши приятные впечатления от отеля Заря, Москва.

Отзывы о гостинице Заря, Москва-
http://moscow.puteshestviy.net/reviews.php?id=499376085&return=/hotel_554_otdyh_moscow/

Amazing.

John Spong has arguably done more damage to his church and to to his fellow Christians than any man since Diocletion, yet the Post continues to give this self-righteous windbag a forum for spouting his nonsense to a wider world.

The height of this man's arrogance is visible in today's piece. He says that his newly invented understanding of theology is more valid than two millenia of Christian belief, and professes that those who don't agree with his warped view of, say, homosexuality or abortion are "naive," "ignorant" and/or "uneducated."

He and the minority who think like him are presumably the educated elite who will change the world, without giving the rest of us naive, ignorant and uneducated Christians a say in the matter.

You call yourself a minister of the gospel?! You Sir are mentioned in the New Testament frequently.. the same type of "minister" as the Sanhedrin who put Christ to death. Your shameful excuses for what God notes as an abomination will be placed on your bill and you Sir will be held accountable when you will on your own face God. All of your liberal friends will not be there rooting you on to bash believers in Christ, to throw away sound doctrine that God himself laid down as a foundation for our lives. I feel sorry for you and pray your eyes will be opened before it's too late.

I have read or watched Rev. Spong and read Rev. Warren's "A Purpdose Driven Life." It was Rev. Warren's message that played a substantial role in my return to Christ and his Church. Rev. Spong's lectures left me empty and feeling hopeless about Christianity and its churches.

EXCELLENT column!

JSS wrote:

""Jesus saved me," said Senator McCain. "Jesus died for my sins," said Senator Obama.

Rick Warren, satisfied that the religious mantras had been stated, did not ask what each phrase meant. If he had, we would have had glazed-eyed candidates."

Two obvious follow-ups:

1. So, do you believe in supernatural beings as outlined in the Bible? God? How about ghosts and evil spirits?

2. Since you answered "yes" to Question 1, do you believe UFOs are alien spacecraft from another world?

To Silence Dogood: is it revisionist to give women equal rights, or to stop owning slaves? There are things that were at one time agreed by all to be supported by the Bible, but are now agreed by (almost) all to be wrong.

For Bishop Spong to suggest that there are more such changes in the wind is hardly incredible.

John Shelby Spong reminds me of Al Gore. Both think that they are the smartest persons in the room, and both are accomplished in the art of hyperbole.

Mr. Spong, there are countless people much more intelligent that you and more educated that you who hold to an evangelical world view.

There are countless "educated scientists and doctors" who do not "dismiss" the teaching against homosexuality contained in the Bible.

Concluding that homosexuality is a sin is not sign of "living in the backwaters of knowledge and education." It is a sign of literacy. Mr. Spong, can you read? Then turn to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which states:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Did you notice that homosexual offenders are compared to thieves, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers?

Mr. Spong, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. But don't claim that all persons with education and intelligence agree with you, because that is not the truth. Of course, you already knew that, even though you stated otherwise in your essay. Doesn't that make you dishonest? What does your church teach about that?

By the way, I earned an undergraduate degree in chemistry, followed by a juris doctor degree, and am a practicing attorney. There are persons far more intelligent and educated than me who hold to an evangelical worldview, contrary to the silly assertions in your essay.

Thanks for your support, Backwaters!

I don't have any links on it either, but scientific literature is rending toward the conclusion that about 90% of male homosexuals are simply genetically predisposed that way. And that about 50% of lesbians are in the same category. The genes responsible for this are completely different for men and for women. There is no relationship between male and female genetic predispositions toward homosexual behavior. Some people have it stonger than others. Some people are sort of indeterminate or attracted to both genders. Gay women are about 1-2% of the population, gay men are 5-10% of the population (closer to 5 though). These percentages are about evenly spread thoughout cultures around the world and historically constant as well.

Yeah, it's natural. But like I pointed out before - that's not an acceptable moral argument. Farting in church is natural too, but that doesn't make it right, lol. Morality is doing the right thing regardless of what you REALLY want to do. Spong needs to come up with a new argument - "natural is good" is as outdated as paisley shirts, love beads and bell-bottom jeans.

Isaiah 53:6
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

The item is typical of the author who strikes a position from which he somehow positions himself as an identifier of what contemporary "times" call for. While presumptive on that account, the article also presumes that God and His will are not from "everlasting to everlasting." In other words, like Bob Zimmerman's "The Times, they are a'changin'" song, Spong portrays himself as minstrel who has strolled into Nottinghamshire to sing to all listeners a new song regarding the creator of the universe and true author of time; even time as we know it.

Readers and Bible students can reject anyone's view that everything is subject to revisionism. It just happens to be Spong's tool - let man be like God and revise things so we can be more comfortable.

Bishop Spong,
your post bring more questions than answers. Why you talk about heterosexuals and homosexuals but you omit the bisexuals (that outnumber the later group)? What is your moral opinion of the large number of persons sexually active with both sexes?
What is your definition of homosexuality as you used in your post? The Merriam-Webster OnLine give us two different definitions.

To answer the writer who asked if there is a Christian denomination that beleives as Spong does, the answer is a qualified "yes": Episcopals. It is not an orthodox religion. It is an orthopraxy. People are free to explore their faith in the context of tradition and writings and come to their own conclusions. Some have decided to be evangelical. Some have taken a mainline approach. Others have more radical views. All can be seen as within the Christian tradition -- if one views that tradition as starting in the first century not the fourth when the established church banned a whole host of alternative views of Christianity, giving us the current narrow, codified set of beliefs that we have with us now.

As someone who has heard Spong speak, he is one of the more thoughtful and articulate Christian theologians among us. As he alludes, many Christians repeat jargon with little thought. He constantly challenges. If one's jargon can not stand up to serious discernment, what is it really?

Also, Spong has lived a long time. Part of his perspective is growing up in the Episcopal Church in North Carolina 7 decades ago when it was confirmed belief in the church that minorities were morally inferior, women were to take a place behind men, and a number of other attitudes now understood as false were accepted as Biblical truth. He has seen society evolve, including the throwing out of once cherished religious beliefs, beliefs that even conservatives today would consdier false and abhorrent. When he looks at societal attitudes about Gays and Lesbians, he is seeing it from that perspective.

I don't expect what I have written to have much affect on those who disagree with Spong. We are in a time where people make up their minds with little critical thinking. This is true on the left and right, politically and theologically. What he offers is not a set of beliefs to cling to. He would not want to be put in that position. He offers a place where one can look long and hard at their lives, their beliefs and come to some understanding about what that really means in the greater context. If you are an evangelical willing to go on that journey and sometime later find yourself, after discernment, back where you started, so be it. It is in the willingness to look long and hard at life that matters.

"Homosexuality is no more a choice for gay and lesbian people than heterosexuality is a choice for straight people."

a) Maybe I'm just living in those backwaters of knowledge and education, but this is news to me. It'd be nice for this learned writer to provide a link or two to the proof that supports his claim.

b) Regardless of inclinations, the decision to act is always a choice. On that level, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are on equal footing. Sex is optional -- whether it's with someone of the same gender or not.

Finally, I very much concur with the thoughts of another commenter, who pointed out the silly "what is natural cannot be sin" "logic." The Bible provides a number of instructions about how to overcome our natural urges -- how to conform ourselves to God's will and become more like Him. Homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures, as is any sex outside of marriage. A man and a woman having sex is "natural," but is still sin if it's outside of marriage.

качественно раскрутить сайт http://gb.seo-miheeff.ru/index.php?page=40 Профессиональная раскрутка сайта, оптимизация, сопровождение сайтов.

I think gbseomiheeffru had the best reponse to the article.

I think gbseomiheeffru was the clearest of all the responders.

Spong talking about anything religious is completely irrelevent. He and his crew have brought a cataclysmic schism to the American Episcopal Church. He has nothing to say to me about anything remotely religious and he doesn't have the scientific bona fides to back up any of his 'facts'. As irrelevent as the whole Rick Warren forum issue is, having this knucklehead add to the din makes things even worse.

I can't believe this guy portends to be writing "on faith." This is like having Satan himself preach on how to be a better Christian. He preached on faith and yet does not appear to have any. I don't know what he thinks faith is, but it certainly isn't what he writes about. He lacks an authority to be a writer of such a column.

(That's Off-Topic, not Old Testament)

I know this isn't the point, but are there any actual Christian denominations that practice Spong's theology? Like believeing Jesus was a human who preached a new variation on Judaism to make it universal for everyone; and that the gospels are an attempt to duplicate Jewish liturgical writings, but are the mythology rooted in ancient people's understandings?

John, your argument is weak because you only implied part of your argument without stating it.

As I read it, your argument is this:
A – (stated) Homosexuality is natural and
B – (implied) That which is natural cannot be a sin, therefore
C – (stated) Homosexuality is not a sin.

I agree with you on A, but disagree with you on B. There are many natural, normal and instinctive behaviors that Humans indulge in that are completely sinful. For example robbery, murder, rape, infanticide, sexual slavery and genocide are all behaviors Humans have engaged in throughout history regardless of prevailing social norms. These acts are all natural to us as a species. Our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, have been observed conducting all of these activities. Therefore, I must either reject your argument or be forced to conclude that these are all moral acts.

How about if I propose a new argument:
D - Homosexuality is not destructive to its practitioners or to society at large,
E – Lifestyles that are not destructive to their practitioners or to society at large are not immoral, therefore
C – Homosexuality is not a sin.

How about that? Either way, part B of your first argument is not acceptable.

The arrogance of Spong in this article is rather incredible. He obviously believes that the intellectual foundations of his own beliefs are superior to the two candidates'. Nonsense. Does he want to debate these issues with Obama, one of our few politicians who actually seems to be able to think through his own positions? Or does he believe that his ivory tower pontifications trump the impact that McCain's life experiences (over 5 years in a N. Vietnamese prison with moments of extreme torture) have had on his religious beliefs? Please save us from these pointy-headed geniuses.

It's good to see this spirited attack on anti-gay bigotry. But to criticize only Vatican and Evangelical leaders? Surely Rev. Spong is aware that plenty of leaders in his own denomination condemn homosexuality as a sin. The Archbishop of Canterbury wouldn't even let an openly gay bishop attend the Lambeth Conference. And these are ostensibly educated people. Rev. Spong should acknowledge the bigotry among his own colleagues before attacking other denominations.

Rev. Spong should also consider that pressure for acceptance of GLBT people is not merely "trickling down to the masses." There is some of that, and leadership is important. But pressure is also coming from the bottom up, from millions of ordinary people, intelligent and open-minded enough to see that a loving God would not condemn people for engaging in loving sexual relationships.

раскручивать сайт http://gb.seo-miheeff.ru/index.php?page=41 нет смысла раскручивать сайт на котором нереально что-то прочитать, потому что все тексты убегают и дизайн уровня домашней странички на народ.ру

Anonymous: we can hope. but don't hold your breath. I fear that too many heard "life begins at conception" and didn't wonder how McCain knows that when the great saints and theologians didn't, and the Popes thought that "ensoulment" came 40 or 80 days after conception. at least Obama only pretends to be President, not God.

This is a wonderful "high brow" religious essay. Maybe there is some hope, after all.