Young Christians move away from partisan politics

WALTER,

i really don't see the point of discussing anything w/rco. if he cannot admit the bible places men above women, there's no convincing him of anything. it's totally iorrational. he brings his modern sense of morals and applies it to the bible.--Walter

Why not stop whining and just respond to the rebuttal arguments I offered in my latest series of posts?

Try being thorough by responding to each paragraph/rebuttal. That would be a refreshing change.

continue here, if interested:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Amarnath_Amarasingam/2010/11/this_time_politicians_need_to_be_on_the_right_side_of_history.html

i really don't see the point of discussing anything w/rco. if he cannot admit the bible places men above women, there's no convincing him of anything. it's totally iorrational. he brings his modern sense of morals and applies it to the bible.

test

Hi Walter,

Where have you been?

I've been watching your discussion with RCofield unfold.

Where do you suggest we go next. Hopefully we can incorporate the two blogs we are on currently.

WALTER, Part 1 of 7

"...still quite out on the limb on the abortion, slavery and prostitution issues..." hahahaha man, that's funny too! i didn't say "move on from god the abortionist...." just because you can't call a slave a slave, you think you've out-debated me or something... hahahaha. the bible says the hebrews could OWN foreign SLAVES... get over it. i just don't see the point of discussing slavery any further.

Exodus 21:16 Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found(B) in possession of him, shall be put to death.

I Timothy 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...

we need to go to something easier and more ubiquitous - like sexism.

Something “easier?” Are you finding the abortion, slavery, and prostitution discussion tough going?

and i've already said i'm against all involuntary forms of prostitution.

Did you ask Mrs. Walter if she would have thought you immoral if you were in the habit of visiting prostitutes prior to your engagement? And don't forget (you seem to be struggling with remembering), the debate is whether your “Enlightened” morality is superior to that of Scripture. Is Mrs. Walter as broad-minded about prostitution not being immoral as you are?

how is my not commenting on home-schooling or whatever sexist?! as far as i'm concerned that was all a distraction that has NOTHING to do with the bible's sexism.

Hey, you are the one who derisively used the term “baby-makers,” not me. That, my friend, is a pure, undiluted sexist statement. If you doubt me, poll the women at the church where you attend and see what kind of response you get from them.

WALTER, Part 2 of 7

but as you said "noble high calling and privilege of women to bear children", i thought of that gen 3 "sexism verse" i proof-texted earlier: NIV 16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” ESV 16To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; (O) in pain you shall bring forth children. (P) Your desire shall be for[f] your husband, and he shall(Q) rule over you."

Now stand back and watch yourself make a fool of yourself:

think about it. up to that point god may have been undecided as to where babies would come from...! it could have been men... presumably, in your cartoon six-day-creation/talking-snake world, no babies had ever been born... even among other animals, i suppose. the universe was probably only a week or two old, right? anyway, certainly there had been no human babies born yet. seems like the default solution might be something like "birth from the man's rib" (or side or however you want to translate that word).

Now, let's see. God created Eve as a woman, replete with a complete female reproductive system....and you think God was “undecided as to where babies would come from?!” And you think God blew it because he didn't ordain that children be born from man's rib? LOL. And you think the christian “world” is cartoonish?! Your above speculation could only be hatched in the fevered mind of rabid anti-theism.

WALTER, Part 3a of 7

anyway, in addition to placing her, and all womankind in your view, under the rule of men, he also curses them with childbirth, and not only that, but painful childbirth. it's a possible way to look at it. doesn't reall y seem likely. most translations use some form of "multiply" - which indicates there was something there to begin with. young's literal translation says: "16Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'" - seeming to focus on some sort of emotional pain - sorrow... weird... how do we know which version is the inerrant one...? but i digress...

Ah! You manage to misinterpret yourself into a corner right out of the chute. That man would “rule” over the woman was part of the curse, Walter. That means that the “ruling” referred to here is a result of sin. This is speaking of the very male “domination” of women that you (and I, for that matter) view as sexist and misogynistic!! This “rule” of man over woman has nothing whatsoever to do with the passages that you view as placing women “under the rule of men.” (Much more on this when you have run yourself out on the proverbial limb a sufficient distance.)

And Young's Literal Translation “Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow .....,” far from being contradictory to the other translations you cite, actually does two things. First, Young's first use of the word “multiply” is a clear reference to childbearing, so this (as well as the other translations) quickly repudiates you goofy idea that God had not yet decided how children would be born. Ge. 1:28And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth....” His second use of the word multiply is simply stating that childbirth, which prior to the entrance of sin would have been painless, will now be accompanied by a multiplicity of pain (because of their sin and rebellion against God).

WALTER, Part 3b of 7

on "god the abortionist"

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx328.htm
1. "abdomen swell" ... "thigh waste away" --- NASB, NIV
2. "belly swell" ... "thigh rot" --- KJV, NKJV
3. "miscarriage" ... "untimely birth" --- NEB
4. "belly swell" ... "womb shrivel" --- The Message
5. "womb swell" ... "thigh fall away" --- ESV
6. "never able to give birth to a child" --- CEV
7. "body swell" ... "thigh fall away" --- ASV
8. "belly swell" ... "thigh shrivel" --- HCSB

=========================

This is laughable. You quote no less than eight translations to “prove” that the Nu. 5 prescription was for abortion. Of these eight translations, only one of them even comes close to supporting your contention. And that one, the NEB, translates from the wrong Hebrew word to come up with “miscarriage.”

Then you quote a long commentary that uses terms like “may indicate a miscarriage,” “convey the idea of miscarriage,” and “suggests the fetus falling out.” You know what all of that means Walter? I means the commentator is speculating, just as you are. The bottom line is that this passage nowhere indicates that this ritual was for the purpose of aborting an unborn child, while it is quite evident that it is giving a prescription whereby God would reveal infidelity.

Further, your commentator makes the emphatic statement: “...the impact of the bitter water would be to abort the pregnancy....” The commentator, in effect, does the same thing you are doing—adding all kinds of wild, speculative, self-imposed ideas into the passage. This type of twisting of scripture is warned of as follows:

2 Peter 3:16 “There are some things in them (scriptures) that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

WALTER, Part 4 of 7

so, this interpreter has the integrity to admit this ritual would "abort the pregnancy" if the woman was pregnant. and he credits/blames god as the "agent of termination". nice... let's add that to His list of titles... he calls the abortion a "consequence of the woman's sin" - like she (and the baby?) deserved it. it's nice that this interpreter goes on to say in effect that even though god aborts babies that doesn't mean we can/should. regardless, he calls an abortion an abortion.

All of which amounts to nothing more than you creating a straw-man of someone else's tortured interpretation.

my pastors have a great expression for when god does things that seem horrible to us. they say "let god be god".

Another example of why I am not a fundamentalist.

here's another from a jewish study bible. [links expurgated]
he calls it a "miscarriage" in the study notes. apparently lots of people admit it's an abortion.

“It's called a miscarriage in the study notes?” I wonder why it is not called a miscarriage in the actual text, Walter? And “apparently lots of people admit it's an abortion?” Well, apparently “lots of people” think it is perfectly acceptable to rip a child limb by limb from its mother's womb. That doesn't mean they are right.

WALTER, Part 5 of 7

and then the LARGER point on "god the abortionist": aside from these ritual abortions apparently performed by the ancients, god aborts 30-50% of pregnancies "spontaneously" - even today. jeez, how many billions of babies would that be since the beginning of time? doctors call these "natural" murders "miscarriages" or "spontaneous" abortions - but wise folks like you and peter know that god kills these babies...right?

while i am saying god's being immoral by today's western enlightened standards, i'm more pointing out to you that he's not perfect. even if we do all this stuff, he should be way above it...

It is really beyond me how the hypocrisy seems to escape you. In one paragraph you erroneously fault God for “killing these babies,” (even the “fertilized egg” babies), then two paragraphs later you try to defend it and say it's really OK.

And “even if we do all this stuff, he should be way above it...?!” Walter, why do you keep on loosing track of the point of our debate? You have contended from the very beginning that your “Enlightened” morality is superior to that of the bible/God. You really should decide which way you want to argue and just stick with it.

and B), i don't think a fertilized egg is a child. i know it's difficult to understand because it's not black/white. i know a fertilized egg is alive, but i don't consider it human. it will be human, hopefully - at least 50-70% or so of the time. it's a potential human. i think the "morning after pill" is probaly the least bad way of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. further, i think there's a difference btwn a 1 or 3 day old fertilized egg and a 3 month old fetus. i can't even say where the line is. (you know, it's almost like trying to spot "transitional forms" in the fossil record - when every fossil could be thought of as "transitional"). anyway, i'm not in favor of late-term abortions - unless the mother's life is at stake.

WALTER, Part 6 of 7

Wow. So let me see if I understand your defense of abortion:

Its OK as long as the fertilized egg is not yet human, though you admit that, left to the natural course of gestation and birth, it will “become” human. You don't know exactly when it becomes human, but you are quite certain that in its initial stages it is not human. Therefore, you think abortion is acceptable except for late-term (presumably 3rd trimester?) pregnancies.

You further admit that you really have no earthly idea when a child becomes human, and then you offer this masterpiece of logic: “you know, it's almost like trying to spot 'transitional forms' in the fossil record - when every fossil could be thought of as 'transitional.'”

Excuse me for a moment. My head just exploded and my brains are scattered all over my office. Give me a moment to collect them.....

Ok, I'm back. Did you figure out what you just did while I was away?

Walter, you appear to be quite ready to consider all fossils as transitional forms for the sake of your views on evolution.....but when the logic is reversed you only consider some fetuses (“late-term”) as babies!

Let me show you the bottom line here: If you don't know when a fertilized egg becomes human, and therefore the victim of murder if aborted, you don't abort any fertilized eggs. This is logic on the level of an elementary school child, yet, for reasons that can only reside in the dark recesses of an utterly depraved heart, you, and millions like you blindly defend this barbaric practice.

WALTER, Part 7 of 7

***pardon me while i self-worship: temple tantrum! hahaha-that's funny. i crack me up!

Its really not funny when you have to call attention to it. And its really not that funny to me when I have heard/read Christopher Hitchens use it on a number of occasions. Given that you did not acknowledge your source, it is not only not funny...it is plagarism.

oh brother. "..quite nicely..." you say? who's worshipping who? i believe psolus' remarks about worshipping himself were mocking.(?)

I'm well aware that Peregrine was “mocking” with his statements. What seems to be lost on both of you is the fact that he is doing precisely what he is mocking.

why do you think there has to be "worship"? if we reason "society functions better if we respect each other", why is that human-worship? and why if i reject the fables, miracles and promises in the bible am i worshipping man? or worshipping myself? is that what the bible says i'm doing? i'd say humanism is much less self worship than something like "self-sacrifice" or "be nice to each other".

You really need to go back and re-read that post.

And yes, Walter, we are all aware of the long and storied history of “self-sacrifice” on the part of all the Darwinist/Atheist/Socialist/Secularist/Humanist Saints. The irony of your use of the term “self-sacrifice” is lost only on those who are ignorant of the sordid history of your adopted philosophy.

PS. You are really having to do a lot of research between posts, aren't you? :-)

walter-in-fallschurch,

"i believe psolus' remarks about worshipping himself were mocking.(?)"

Actually, I was quite serious.

I'm talking vestments, votive candles, incense, sacrificial wine (Three-Buck Chuck - cabernet sauvignon or merlot), genuflecting, prostration, gregorian chanting, organ music, scented oils, K-Y Gel, palm fronds, palm ashes, animal crackers, sacrificial chickens, goats, and sheep; the whole nine yards.

part 1 of 5:

WALTER: more excellent comedy... thanks. and yes, i've moved on from slavery and prostitution (if that's ok w/you) to sexism. any apology to those horribly sexist passages i referenced?

RCO: "I'm sure you are wanting to “move on,” but I think you are still quite out on the limb on the abortion, slavery and prostitution issues in which your obviously-held double standards still beg a reasonable defense (see my post @ November 10, 2010 9:35 AM). I know they can’t be reasonably defended, but I would still like to see you squirm your way through an attempt."

my reply:
"...still quite out on the limb on the abortion, slavery and prostitution issues..." hahahaha man, that's funny too! i didn't say "move on from god the abortionist...." just because you can't call a slave a slave, you think you've out-debated me or something... hahahaha. the bible says the hebrews could OWN foreign SLAVES... get over it. i just don't see the point of discussing slavery any further. we need to go to something easier and more ubiquitous - like sexism. and i've already said i'm against all involuntary forms of prostitution.

how is my not commenting on home-schooling or whatever sexist?! as far as i'm concerned that was all a distraction that has NOTHING to do with the bible's sexism. but as you said "noble high calling and privilege of women to bear children", i thought of that gen 3 "sexism verse" i proof-texted earlier:

NIV

16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

ESV

16To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; (O) in pain you shall bring forth children. (P) Your desire shall be for[f] your husband, and he shall(Q) rule over you."

think about it. up to that point god may have been undecided as to where babies would come from...!

it could have been men... presumably, in your cartoon six-day-creation/talking-snake world, no babies had ever been born... even among other animals, i suppose. the universe was probably only a week or two old, right? anyway, certainly there had been no human babies born yet. seems like the default solution might be something like "birth from the man's rib" (or side or however you want to translate that word). anyway, in addition to placing her, and all womankind in your view, under the rule of men, he also curses them with childbirth, and not only that, but painful childbirth. it's a possible way to look at it. doesn't reall y seem likely. most translations use some form of "multiply" - which indicates there was something there to begin with. young's literal translation says: "16Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'" - seeming to focus on some sort of emotional pain - sorrow... weird... how do we know which version is the inerrant one...? but i digress...

continuing...

RCO: "how about your absurd contention that Numbers 5 proves “God is an abortionist” (see my post @ November 10, 2010 9:38 AM). You really do need to give evidence for this repulsive charge, or you need to concede that you have yet again allowed your irrational hatred of God to expose your foolishness (just as you had to do with Ex. 21:22).

i've asked you a few times what you think "make your womb swell and your thigh fall away" means.

on "god the abortionist"

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx328.htm
1. "abdomen swell" ... "thigh waste away" --- NASB, NIV
2. "belly swell" ... "thigh rot" --- KJV, NKJV
3. "miscarriage" ... "untimely birth" --- NEB
4. "belly swell" ... "womb shrivel" --- The Message
5. "womb swell" ... "thigh fall away" --- ESV
6. "never able to give birth to a child" --- CEV
7. "body swell" ... "thigh fall away" --- ASV
8. "belly swell" ... "thigh shrivel" --- HCSB

More examples could be given, but these should suffice to give the general drift of interpretive theory. The KJV and NKJV employ the word "rot," which doesn't actually mean to us today what it did several hundred years ago. These verses "may indicate a miscarriage -- rot literally means 'fall'; see Job 3:16, where a similar Hebrew word refers to untimely birth" [The Ryrie Study Bible, KJV, p. 217]. Many biblical and linguistic scholars believe these two expressions convey the idea of a miscarriage, especially the idea of "the falling of the thighs," which they firmly believe suggests the fetus falling out of the mother between the thighs. The NIV has a footnote to Numbers 5 which states that these terms may mean: "cause you to be barren and have a miscarrying womb." There is significant debate as to whether the women undergoing the trial by ordeal were all pregnant at the time. Frankly, it seems extremely unlikely to believe that in every case the accused woman was pregnant. Nevertheless, it is certainly probable that in some cases she most likely was, and that perhaps the husband had doubts that the child was his. In such cases, the impact of the bitter water would be to abort the pregnancy , and she would be unable to conceive thereafter. If she was guilty of infidelity, but was not pregnant at the time, then she would be unable ever to bear children in the future. In the former case, however, please keep in mind that the water itself was not the agent of termination ... God was!! This in no way suggests God's approval of abortion, but rather shows that this was to be a horrible and deadly consequence of the woman's sin....

the penultimate part of this particular post...

so, this interpreter has the integrity to admit this ritual would "abort the pregnancy" if the woman was pregnant. and he credits/blames god as the "agent of termination". nice... let's add that to His list of titles... he calls the abortion a "consequence of the woman's sin" - like she (and the baby?) deserved it. it's nice that this interpreter goes on to say in effect that even though god aborts babies that doesn't mean we can/should. regardless, he calls an abortion an abortion. my pastors have a great expression for when god does things that seem horrible to us. they say "let god be god".

here's another from a jewish study bible.

http://books.google.com/books?id=aDuy3p5QvEYC&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&dq=jealousy+trial+ancient+jewish&source=bl&ots=YInsYG7u67&sig=y0-p7ySLUxlt3VRhtCrTrOR3BBI&hl=en&ei=uzXcTIKSI4KClAfT74TtCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

he calls it a "miscarriage" in the study notes. apparently lots of people admit it's an abortion.

and then the LARGER point on "god the abortionist": aside from these ritual abortions apparently performed by the ancients, god aborts 30-50% of pregnancies "spontaneously" - even today. jeez, how many billions of babies would that be since the beginning of time? doctors call these "natural" murders "miscarriages" or "spontaneous" abortions - but wise folks like you and peter know that god kills these babies...right?

last part:

RCO: "You contend (erroneously) that God is "immoral" for taking lives in the execution of divine judgment--YET, you argue that it is a woman's "right" to murder her child in her womb. The contradiction/double-standard is evident to anyone except yourself and those like you who are blinded by an irrational hatred of God.

1) while i am saying god's being immoral by today's western enlightened standards, i'm more pointing out to you that he's not perfect. even if we do all this stuff, he should be way above it - like jesus supposedly was - except for his temple-tantrum***, and possibly those pigs he cursed and killed (maybe he went to the fartmer afterward and made restitution for the pigs... imean, the bible doesn't say that didn't happen).

and B), i don't think a fertilized egg is a child. i know it's difficult to understand because it's not black/white. i know a fertilized egg is alive, but i don't consider it human. it will be human, hopefully - at least 50-70% or so of the time. it's a potential human. i think the "morning after pill" is probaly the least bad way of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. further, i think there's a difference btwn a 1 or 3 day old fertilized egg and a 3 month old fetus. i can't even say where the line is. (you know, it's almost like trying to spot "transitional forms" in the fossil record - when every fossil could be thought of as "transitional"). anyway, i'm not in favor of late-term abortions - unless the mother's life is at stake.

***pardon me while i self-worship: temple tantrum! hahaha-that's funny. i crack me up!
---------------------------------

RCO: "And then there is the issue of your perplexity over the self-worship of humanism, to which I responded quite nicely (see my post @ November 10, 2010 9:59 AM). [Walter, you are a self-professed humanist. Humanism begins with man as the starting point, the existential epicenter of all things, works out all of its philosophy from man-centered presuppositions, and, not surprisingly, culminates in an utterly man-centered polemic (i.e. all of your posts contending that man determines morality).]"

oh brother. "..quite nicely..." you say? who's worshipping who? i believe psolus' remarks about worshipping himself were mocking.(?) why do you think there has to be "worship"? if we reason "society functions better if we respect each other", why is that human-worship? and why if i reject the fables, miracles and promises in the bible am i worshipping man? or worshipping myself? is that what the bible says i'm doing? i'd say humanism is much less self worship than something like "self-sacrifice" or "be nice to each other".

WALTER,

Heeeeeere kitty, kitty, kitty...

WALTER,

more excellent comedy... thanks. and yes, i've moved on from slavery and prostitution (if that's ok w/you) to sexism. any apology to those horribly sexist passages i referenced?

You’re welcome.

I'm sure you are wanting to “move on,” but I think you are still quite out on the limb on the abortion, slavery and prostitution issues in which your obviously-held double standards still beg a reasonable defense (see my post @ November 10, 2010 9:35 AM). I know they can’t be reasonably defended, but I would still like to see you squirm your way through an attempt.

Not to worry, though. I will get to your "sexism" charge in due time.

as far as my lack of responses to you last "half dozen" posts - are you talking about your prostitution posts? or those heart-warming stories about the home-schooled "scholars" - neither warrant comment from me.

My, my. You denigrate the noble high calling and privilege of women to bear children, but a real-life account of women who are doing so in a God-honoring and highly commendable way doesn’t “warrant comment” from you? Aside from the obvious elitism in your response, that seems more than a little “sexist” to me, Walter. You are really wasting no time in establishing your ever-present double-standard in your jaunt into “the bible is sexist” accusation, are you?

And as far as my "prostitution posts," you didn't find my suggestion that you ask Mrs. Walter if she thought it would have been immoral for you to visit prostitutes before you married her...provacative? By the way, what was her response? I bet she is not nearly as broad-minded on the issue of prostitution as you are, is she? :-)

are there topics i've left out?

Oh, I dunno, let’s see here…..oh, yeah. In addition to the aforementioned, how about your absurd contention that Numbers 5 proves “God is an abortionist” (see my post @ November 10, 2010 9:38 AM). You really do need to give evidence for this repulsive charge, or you need to concede that you have yet again allowed your irrational hatred of God to expose your foolishness (just as you had to do with Ex. 21:22).

And then there is the issue of your perplexity over the self-worship of humanism, to which I responded quite nicely (see my post @ November 10, 2010 9:59 AM).

It seems that in your haste to get as much blasphemy into print as you possibly can you have forgotten how to engage in a point/counterpoint debate.

Just a test.

test

Hi PSolus,

Thanks for the tips. I'll give it a try.

You seem to struggle with any argument, and therefore attempt to step away from the argument by asking irrelevant questions rather than addressing the argument. - PSolus

Maybe the understatement of the year Psolus.

"Simple-minded? Actually, the majority of my congregation, both men and women, are very well educated."

I'm sure that many simple-minded people manage to get an education; I do know that many of them manage to get themselves elected to public office.

"And we even have a couple of recognized world-class scholars among us, though I am sure none can match your arm-chair genius."

Well, you have work with what you get, I guess; such is the cross that you bear.

"Haven't encountered any witches....yet."

You're probably just not looking hard enough.

"I am fairly certain we won't burn any if we do."

Perhaps you just don't love baby jebus enough.

"Ah! I can accommodate you there. We do have a couple of kids who were diagnosed ADHD. Turns out they were mis-diagnosed."

Do I sense a miracle coming?

"After only a few weeks of us teaching their parents how to properly love and instruct them (from the bible....gasp!) they suddenly became very well-behaved kids and no longer needed the doctor-prescribed medication. Some people in the community thought it was a miracle, but we assured them that it was only the proper interpretation and application of the bible that yielded such positive results."

Thank you baby jebus!

Something similar happened to me: As a child, I was misdiagnosed as being deceased (in reality, I just didn't have that much of a personality). After an itinerant preacher smacked me on the head with his bible, I started swearing like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Some people in the vicinity thought that is was a miracle, but the preacher assured them that it was only the proper interpretation and application of the bible that yielded such positive results.

"We've managed to avoid torture and imprisonment for most of them."

Is there no limit to your charity?

"Usually by the time they seek us out they have become quite sick of worshiping themselves..."

Yeah, it can be quite tiring, not to mention the chafing.

"...and from there its just a matter of applying a little scripture and reason and they quickly come to their senses."

Praise baby jebus with great praise!

"Really? You [walter-in-fallschurch] liked that? Well, let me see if I can provide further comic relief for you:"

[angry bibley stuff expurgated]

Ha ha, that's pretty funny... Got any more of that?

"You [walter-in-fallschurch] have become quite the case-study for my Sunday afternoon apologetics class. Sadly, you supply a stark illustration of what scripture describes of the depravity of the human heart."

Feel free to include me as well.

"Don't worry. I have withheld your name, location, "church," and "pastor.""

No need for discretion:

Name: Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus
Location: Washington DC
Church: Royal Palace Club and Lounge (No Cover, Two Drink Minimum)
Pastor: Ginger Busch
Vice Pastor: Lushious Yiams

rco,
re that proverbs verse:

more excellent comedy... thanks. and yes, i've moved on from slavery and prostitution (if that's ok w/you) to sexism. any apology to those horribly sexist passages i referenced?

as far as my lack of responses to you last "half dozen" posts - are you talking about your prostitution posts? or those heart-warming stories about the home-schooled "scholars" - neither warrant comment from me.

are there topics i've left out?

WALTER,

you know something i find really funny? people quoting scripture about wicked unbelievers to wicked unbelievers.

hahahaha

hahahaha... thanks, man - good stuff there.

Really? You liked that? Well, let me see if I can provide further comic relief for you:

Proverbs 1:24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when terror strikes you,
27when terror strikes you like a storm
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you.
28 Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
29Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
30 would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof,
31therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices.

You have become quite the case-study for my Sunday afternoon apologetics class. Sadly, you supply a stark illustration of what scripture describes of the depravity of the human heart.

Don't worry. I have withheld your name, location, "church," and "pastor."

PEREGRINE,

I can just picture you whipping your simple-minded congregation into a frenzy,

LOL. Simple-minded? Actually, the majority of my congregation, both men and women, are very well educated. And we even have a couple of recognized world-class scholars among us, though I am sure none can match your arm-chair genius.

and leading them off with pitchforks and torches to burn some witches,

Haven't encountered any witches....yet. I am fairly certain we won't burn any if we do.

exorcise some poor kids who have ADHD,

Ah! I can accommodate you there. We do have a couple of kids who were diagnosed ADHD. Turns out they were mis-diagnosed.

After only a few weeks of us teaching their parents how to properly love and instruct them (from the bible....gasp!) they suddenly became very well-behaved kids and no longer needed the doctor-prescribed medication. Some people in the community thought it was a miracle, but we assured them that it was only the proper interpretation and application of the bible that yielded such positive results.

and torture and imprison as many evolutionary, darwinistic man-worshippers as you can get your hands on.

We've managed to avoid torture and imprisonment for most of them. Usually by the time they seek us out they have become quite sick of worshiping themselves and from there its just a matter of applying a little scripture and reason and they quickly come to their senses.

rco,
you know something i find really funny? people quoting scripture about wicked unbelievers to wicked unbelievers. (like in part 3 of your recent post to me.)

hahahaha

imagine the "mr.bill" voice:

ooohh noooo i'm a suppressing the truth! and slandering... i'm a foolish hater of god, oooohh noooo... and i'm insolent, haughty, boastful, and an inventor of evil (wow!) who's disobedient to my parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless... oooohh noooo.... aaaaaaaah...

hahahaha... thanks, man - good stuff there.

btw, you chided me, suggesting i define "sexism" before accusing the bible of being sexist. I DID! in part one of my recent 3 part post. and, again, clearly by the merriam webster definition, the bible is sexist.

RCofield,

"Yet it is self-worship, nonetheless."

Yes, it is, nonetheless.

"And God, the Righteous Judge of all the earth replies:"

[bunch of pseudo-bibley stuff, ostensibly addressed to me personally, expurgated]

That is some rousing stuff you have there, especially the bit about the vomit and mire - I just can't seem get enough theological discussion of vomit and mire in my life.

I can just picture you whipping your simple-minded congregation into a frenzy, and leading them off with pitchforks and torches to burn some witches, exorcise some poor kids who have ADHD, and torture and imprison as many evolutionary, darwinistic man-worshippers as you can get your hands on.

"To which Peregrine responds:"

[astute and erudite retort expurgated]

"To which the Righteous Judge replies:"

[imagined reply from nonexistent righteous judge expurgated]

Yay!

PEREGRINE,

Bear in mind that I'm probably using a different definition of "worship" than you are.

Yet it is self-worship, nonetheless.

And the defense requests that all comments by the prosecuters, RCofield and peterhuff, be stricken from the record, and that all charges of heresy, blasphemy, impiety, dissension, and apostasy against the defendant, one Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus, be dropped, with prejudice, and the he be released from confinement and be allowed to return to his life of heathenistic self-worship and vile reprobation.

And God, the Righteous Judge of all the earth replies:

2 Peter 2:17 Peregrine, you are a waterless spring and mist driven by a storm. For you the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. 18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, you entice yourself by sensual passions of the flesh rather than escaping from your error. 19 You think you are promised freedom in your ways, but you are a slave of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after being exposed to the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you are again entangled in them and overcome, your last state, Peregrine, has become worse for you than your first. 21 For it would have been better for you to never have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to you, Peregrine: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

To which Peregrine responds:

So, am I free to go?

To which the Righteous Judge replies:

You are free to go.

RCofield,

"Humanism begins with man as the starting point, the existential epicenter of all things, works out all of its philosophy from man-centered presuppositions, and, not surprisingly, culminates in an utterly man-centered polemic (i.e. all of your posts contending that man determines morality)."

Yeah, that sounds about right, except that I would replace "morality" with "ethics".

"At least PSOLUS rightly acknowledges that all of this is man worshiping himself. He just doesn't realize the implications of it."

Bear in mind that I'm probably using a different definition of "worship" than you are.

And, I'm well aware of the implications - that's exactly why I do it.

"You haven't even yet realized that it is man-worship."

Uh, "man-worship" sounds a little... uh, you know... uh, how can I put this... I don't want to be a bully... so it's a little delicate... not that there's anything wrong with it...

RCofield,

"Your responses are starting to sound like those of a third-grade child having an argument with a classmate on the playground."

Starting to?

Where have you been the past several months?

Have you not been paying attention?

"You flatter yourself yet again."

Yes I do, yet again.

"I rest my case on that point."

And the defense requests that all comments by the prosecuters, RCofield and peterhuff, be stricken from the record, and that all charges of heresy, blasphemy, impiety, dissension, and apostasy against the defendant, one Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus, be dropped, with prejudice, and the he be released from confinement and be allowed to return to his life of heathenistic self-worship and vile reprobation.

"And I rest my case on that point as well."

So, am I free to go?

WALTER,

i'm always perplexed by people like peter and rco's reaction to people like me and psolus' disbelief of the bible. somehow, they jump from "i don't believe the bible is true" to "i worship myself". it's quite a leap of illogic.

LOL. You really aren't paying attention, are you? Look at these statements from PSOLUS:

Well, Peregrine thinks that that is much too high a price to pay in order to interpret a work of fiction, and will therefore continue to worship himself. And, I think we all know what Peregrine means when he says "worship", am I right, folks?

AND:

Well, Peregrine is quite enamored with humanistic arguments, and Peregrine does not think that any argument that begins with man as its starting point will, inevitably, affirm said man's wisdom in said man's own mind, thus rendering him a fool.

Walter, you are a self-professed humanist. Humanism begins with man as the starting point, the existential epicenter of all things, works out all of its philosophy from man-centered presuppositions, and, not surprisingly, culminates in an utterly man-centered polemic (i.e. all of your posts contending that man determines morality).

At least PSOLUS rightly acknowledges that all of this is man worshiping himself. He just doesn't realize the implications of it.

You haven't even yet realized that it is man-worship.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

but she must have been pregnant at least some of the time, right? and, you didn't answer my question: what does "her womb will swell and her thigh shall fall away" mean in your estimation?

LOL. “but....but....but....” The text says nothing about pregnancy. And why do you want me to tell you what the text means? Do you not understand that if you are going to declare what a text is saying the burden of proof rests on you?

i think most translator/interpreters take it as an abortion.

So...show me the “translators/interpreters” who contend this is a prescription for abortion.

well, are you saying the ritual not intentionally, specifically, meant to abort the fertilized egg?

I'm saying that if you are going to contend that it does the burden of proof rests on you. This is yet another classic case of proof-texting where you have pre-determined the meaning of the text. So use the commonly accepted tools of interpretation and show me how it says what you are saying it says.

regardless of whether they intended to abort the fertilized egg, that IS what would happen - at least sometimes.

LOL. That “IS” what would happen? Let's see. You arbitrarily state what the text is saying without any support, then begin to draw conclusions based on said arbitrary interpretation. Now the burden of proof rests on you to show how a woman drinking water with dust in it would induce an abortion.

can't believe your sticking to your "the bible isn't sexist" guns...i'll address that soon. i guess given the corner you've painted yourself into, you can't just say, "that's they way it was back then". it's really much simpler. less gymnastics involved.

You really would like for me to say “well, that's just the way it was back then,” wouldn't you? The problem is that your thinking is so clouded by the modern “feminist” movement you don't even recognize what “sexism” actually is. I tell you what, why don't you define “sexism” before you jump the gun trying to “prove” that the bible is sexist?

Ooooops! I see you have already jumped the gun.

Why don't you back up and give me your definition of sexism before I begin responding?

And shall I presume that there will be no direct response forthcoming to the arguments I presented to you in my last half-dozen or so posts?

WALTER,

Part 2 of 3

As it appears that you are ready to move on to your “the bible is sexist” straw-man, in the interest of keeping track of where we have been, I want to summarize where we have been. In doing so, I will be giving you a snapshot of where you are going to wind up with your “the bible is sexist” argument.

The context of our debate is this: "Enlightened," subjective morality compared with the objective morality of christianity/the bible.

You have contended that abortion/prostitution are not immoral. I have clearly demonstrated that they are immoral (by your own measure of immorality--that which adversely affects someone else), and that your subjective view of morality is forcing to to hold the following double standards:

You contend (erroneously) that God is "immoral" for taking lives in the execution of divine judgment--YET, you argue that it is a woman's "right" to murder her child in her womb. The contradiction/double-standard is evident to anyone except yourself and those like you who are blinded by an irrational hatred of God.

You contend (again, erroneously) that God/bible condone and advocate forced slavery--YET, you champion the legalization of prostitution, possibly the most debauched and dehumanizing forms of slavery. Again, the double standard is astoundingly evident.

And now, you are going to condemn scripture as "sexist"--YET you want to make it legal for men to profit from, gratify themselves with, and dominate women sexually. And this is but one of about a dozen inconsistencies that I am going to nail you with on the “sexist” issue.

And you do this all the while boasting that your "enlightened morality" is superior to that of Scripture.

WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

Now, let me give you a snapshot of yourself (and PSOLUS) from scripture. I have added italics to the points that paint the broad strokes of your sad portrait with my comments in bold:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.(as you do with your asinine treatment of the bible) 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened (you are no longer able to distinguish between good and evil). 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man (your evident self-worship) and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. (i.e. Homosexuality, Prostitution, etc.) For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind (a mind that sees evil as good and good as evil, as is evidenced in your hatred of God/scripture and love for debauched behavior) to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, (I have seldom encountered the kind of hatred God that is so evident in your posts), insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree (which you both mock shamelessly) that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (as you do those who practice abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.)

The apostle Paul painted your portrait 2000 years in advance. And some people don't think that the bible was divinely inspired.

i'm always perplexed by people like peter and rco's reaction to people like me and psolus' disbelief of the bible. somehow, they jump from "i don't believe the bible is true" to "i worship myself". it's quite a leap of illogic.

PEREGRINE,

I did not write that "literary critics" considered the bible to be a "work of fiction"; I wrote: "I avoid arguing the minutia of the bible for the same reason that I avoid arguing the minutia of any work of fiction - in the end, it just doesn't matter." THEN: Well, Peregrine thinks that that is much too high a price to pay in order to interpret a work of fiction, and will therefore continue to worship himself.

Your responses are starting to sound like those of a third-grade child having an argument with a classmate on the playground.

No, my comments make it quite clear that I disagree with your views regarding the bible, and your reaction to my comments appears to indicate that they make you very uncomfortable, perhaps because you have some doubts about the bible that my comments may have brought to the surface?

You flatter yourself yet again.

Well, Peregrine thinks that that is much too high a price to pay in order to interpret a work of fiction, and will therefore continue to worship himself. And, I think we all know what Peregrine means when he says "worship", am I right, folks?

I rest my case on that point.

Well, Peregrine is quite enamored with humanistic arguments, and Peregrine does not think that any argument that begins with man as its starting point will, inevitably, affirm said man's wisdom in said man's own mind, thus rendering him a fool.

And I rest my case on that point as well.

rco,
pt. 1of3
i said something to the effect of how you can proof-text a few verses exalting women all the while ignoring the overarching prevailing lower status for women in "biblical society" - and sure enough you did.

i guess proverbs 31 is a nice (if demanding) passage describing the duties/characteristics of a good wife - and how "precious", industrious, business-savvy, loyal, god-fearing, faithful and praise-worthy she is. that's lovely, but there's nothing about being equal or having the same rights as men - or being the head of a houshold.

this is just an absolutely preposterous position that you've forced yourself into. there are 100s of verses where it's made pretty clear that from (supposed) god's perspective MEN run the show here on earth. it was a sexist society. sexist MEN wrote the bible. it's reflected in the genealogies, the inheritance laws, and even how far into "the temple" you could go. see this plan: http://www.bible-history.com/jewishtemple/JEWISH_TEMPLESchematic_Plan_of_the_Temple.htm women could only enter to as far as #9 "the court of women". that's sexist.

Definition of SEXISM (from merriam webster)
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

1tim2:

11Let a woman learn quietly(T) with all submissiveness. 12(U) I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13(V) For Adam was formed first,(W) then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but(X) the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through(Y) childbearing—if they continue in(Z) faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 cor11:

3But I want you to understand that(E) the head of every man is Christ,(F) the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and(G) the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife[b] who prays or(H) prophesies(I) with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same(J) as if her head were shaven. 6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since(K) he is the image and glory of God, but(L) woman is the glory of man. 8For(M) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but(N) woman for man. 10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.[c]

besides all that silliness about hats and shaved heads, this passage describes the heirarchy: "man is to christ as wife is to husband" and "man is to god as woman is to man" and "woman was created FOR man". come on...there's no equality for women here. it's god, man, woman - in that order

1cor14:

As in(AH) all the churches of the saints, 34(AI) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but(AJ) should be in submission, as(AK) the Law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

this is clearly discrimination based on sex. how can you "apologize" it otherwise?

1pet3:

1Likewise, wives,(A) be subject to your own husbands, so that(B) even if some do not obey the word,(C) they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2when they see your(D) respectful and pure conduct. 3(E) Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4but let your adorning be(F) the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham,(G) calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and(H) do not fear anything that is frightening.

7Likewise,(I) husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker(J) vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

now, you may protest that atleast this last part is "pro woman". well, it's really not. it's really more condescending. "weaker vessel"? i really don't know what "prayers...hindered" means? there's nothing here about submitting/subjecting to the will of your wife. nothing about equal rights for women.

eph5:

22(AR) Wives,(AS) submit to your own husbands,(AT) as to the Lord. 23For(AU) the husband is the head of the wife even as(AV) Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is(AW) himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit(AX) in everything to their husbands.

25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church...

"wives submit..." but "husbands love..." it's not equality. and here's another sexist analogy: "husband is to wife as christ is to church".

col3:

18(AV) Wives, submit to your husbands, as(AW) is fitting in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives, and(AX) do not be harsh with them.

gen3:

16To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;(O) in pain you shall bring forth children.(P) Your desire shall be for[f] your husband, and he shall(Q) rule over you."

ex20:

17(U) "You shall not covet(V) your neighbor’s house;(W) you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s."

"wife" is ranked below "house" among possessions...but at least above "servant(slave)/ox/donkey"- so they had that going for them. you can't say "wife" could mean "husband or wife" because the next part specifically says "male or female" servants.

you keep talking about context and all that. don't you think ANE culture was sexist? maybe every other other culture except the jews were sexist? come on... just about every culture we know of throughout the HIStory of mankind... um, i mean humankind has been sexist. the few that aren't are notable as exceptions. black men were "given" voting rights in america after the civil war, but women only got to vote in the 1920s... and, TODAY, the weaker sex cannot be trusted to vote, much less preach at my sweet little church up the street... their position is sexist, but firmly grounded in scripture, i'd say (though they do allow women to pray w/o hats contra 1cor11...).

oops... gosh darn it. jimmeny cricket!

hope fully obviously all those times below where i referred to "deut5/god-the-abortionist"...should be NUMBERS 5.

in archaeology, it's around 800-900 bc when the bible slowly starts to become "verified by commonly accepted means" - at least w/regard to the mundane aspects of towns and rulers and neighboring cultures actually existing as described in the bible. around the mid 700s "biblical archeology" starts to "line up" pretty well with regular archaeology.

the old testament makes gross errors in describing 2200-1000 bc - for instance portraying the town moses encountered as existing in 1400 bc, whereas those not constrained a priori by the biblical timeline put those towns in the 800s.

the new testament is much better about this sort of thing - covering a shorter period of time, being written more recently, and being written closer to the supposed events being portrayed.

RE: Deuteronomy 5--"god the abortionist."

WALTER: this is the big one. is this an abortion? what do you think "her womb will swell and her thigh shall fall away" mean? sounds like an abortion - if she had indeed been unfaithful and gotten pregnant. i think most translator/interpreters take it as an abortion.

RCO: Ummm...Walter, the text plainly says that the prescribed ritual is for determining whether or not the woman has committed adultery, not whether or not she is pregnant.

my reply:
but she must have been pregnant at least some of the time, right?

and, you didn't answer my question: what does "her womb will swell and her thigh shall fall away" mean in your estimation?
--------------------

RCO: Nowhere in the text does is even insinuate that the point of the ritual is to abort an unborn child. The text does plainly say that the ritual would yield physical evidence if the woman had been unfaithful, irregardless of whether or not she was pregnant.

my reply:
well, are you saying the ritual not intentionally, specifically, meant to abort the fertilized egg?

regardless of whether they intended to abort the fertilized egg, that IS what would happen - at least sometimes. they must have known that - or at least god must have known... can we agree that in SOME cases the woman who cheated became pregnant? (well, of course we can't...because that would make god an abortionist.)

re sexism:
can't believe your sticking to your "the bible isn't sexist" guns...i'll address that soon. i guess given the corner you've painted yourself into, you can't just say, "that's they way it was back then". it's really much simpler. less gymnastics involved.

RCofield,

"Ummm...Peregrine, the bible is not considered by literary critics to be a "work of fiction."

I did not write that "literary critics" considered the bible to be a "work of fiction"; I wrote: "I avoid arguing the minutia of the bible for the same reason that I avoid arguing the minutia of any work of fiction - in the end, it just doesn't matter."

"There's just too much of it that has been verified by commonly accepted means."

If I recall correctly, I read the exact same thing about "The Da Vinci Code".

"The classification of the bible as "fiction" belongs only to arm-chair geniuses such as yourself who understand nothing about the bible."

Thank you.

"Watch. You are about to prove my point for me:"

[Extremely wise and well thought out observations about the bible by an arm-chair genius removed so as not to overtax the gentle reader. You're welcome.]

"Your comments make it quite clear that you understand nothing about the bible and that you are both unwilling and incapable of understanding anything about the bible."

No, my comments make it quite clear that I disagree with your views regarding the bible, and your reaction to my comments appears to indicate that they make you very uncomfortable, perhaps because you have some doubts about the bible that my comments may have brought to the surface?

"Actually, RCofield knows that anyone who can stop worshiping themselves and simply apply commonly accepted rules of interpretation can properly interpret what the bible says."

Well, Peregrine thinks that that is much too high a price to pay in order to interpret a work of fiction, and will therefore continue to worship himself.

And, I think we all know what Peregrine means when he says "worship", am I right, folks?

"RCofield is just not as enamored with humanistic arguments as Peregrine and Walter seem to be, and RCofield recognizes that any argument that begins with man as its starting point will, inevitably, affirm said man's wisdom in said man's own mind, thus rendering him a fool."

Well, Peregrine is quite enamored with humanistic arguments, and Peregrine does not think that any argument that begins with man as its starting point will, inevitably, affirm said man's wisdom in said man's own mind, thus rendering him a fool.

RCofield

"I guess that would depend on whether or not you completely dismiss the biblical account of creation, wouldn’t it?"

Can you tell me whether or not I completely dismiss the biblical account of creation?

Can you tell my why I might completely dismiss the biblical account of creation?

"Hmmm….I wonder what you think about that explanation of the origin of the universe?"

So, you cannot tell whether or not I completely dismiss the biblical account of creation, can you?

"Let’s see….you play on my faux pas by saying they will “bring there own service staff”…. [emoticony stuff expurgated]"

Well played - you notice that I have a little brain fart, and then you turn it to your theological advantage.

Kudos - you make your god proud, I'm sure.

"And thus you avoid answering a question where an honest answer would undermine your argument…."

No, I just don't bother to answer a question that has nothing to do with my original argument, and was meant to simply distract from and step away from the original argument.

"Precisely. Hence your knee-jerk reactions. “Woof….woof….woof…”"

Uh... Are you OK?

"It’s not my fault that you react irrationally to a word that most 12 year olds can easily define without “automatically” convulsing."

Did you read somewhere that I react irrationally when I read or hear the word "immoral"?

Did you read somewhere that I automatically convulse when I read or hear the word "immoral"?

"Which all-too-common scenario you promptly manage to carry to a level of perversion that would hair-lip a crocodile."

So, in your mind, imagining a scenario in which someone beats and rapes another person's daughter, and then presenting that scenario to that person to make a theological point, is not, in and of itself, perverse?

You appear to have a higher tolerance for perversion than even I have.

Good for you.

"Both you and Walter seem to struggle with any argument one step removed."

You seem to struggle with any argument, and therefore attempt to step away from the argument by asking irrelevant questions rather than addressing the argument.

PEREGRINE,

RCofield believes that his bible says exactly what he has interpreted that his bible says, irrespective of any argument that you, or anyone else, makes.

Actually, RCofield knows that anyone who can stop worshiping themselves and simply apply commonly accepted rules of interpretation can properly interpret what the bible says.

RCofield is just not as enamored with humanistic arguments as Peregrine and Walter seem to be, and RCofield recognizes that any argument that begins with man as its starting point will, inevitably, affirm said man's wisdom in said man's own mind, thus rendering him a fool.

PEREGRINE,

I avoid arguing the minutia of the bible for the same reason that I avoid arguing the minutia of any work of fiction - in the end, it just doesn't matter.

Ummm...Peregrine, the bible is not considered by literary critics to be a "work of fiction." There's just too much of it that has been verified by commonly accepted means.

The classification of the bible as "fiction" belongs only to arm-chair geniuses such as yourself who understand nothing about the bible.

Watch. You are about to prove my point for me:

As far as I am concerned, the bible is a meaningless collection of myth, poetry, and pornography that was written by any number of men (and, perhaps, a woman or two), over a period of any number of years, and that was then been selectively collected, translated, and edited, by any number of men (and, perhaps, a woman or two), any number of times, over a period of any number of years.

All of the hallelujahs, the begattings, and the cubits are immaterial to this world, and, to my mind, are simply not worth discussing.

Your comments make it quite clear that you understand nothing about the bible and that you are both unwilling and incapable of understanding anything about the bible.

WALTER,

you could further divide those small odds by the chance that christianity is even the right religion/scripture out of all of today's and all of ancient history's (and the future's, i suppose) religions. i mean, what if the pacific islanders who knew for sure that god grew from a coconut or whatever were right?!

And what, pray tell, do you think the odds are that you have chosen the right atheistic/humanistic religion out of all of today's and all of ancient history's (and the future's, I suppose) atheistic/humanistic religions?

I mean, what if Richard Dawkins is right and the first life forms "seeded" on this planet were put here by "extra-terrestrial" beings from another planet?

I mean, if that were discovered to be the case, isn't it possible that you should be worshiping a little green man from Mars instead of worshiping yourself?

WALTER,

so you say the bible isn't sexist? where's the corresponding verse where a woman who suspects her husband of cheating brings him to the priest and if he's guilty his dick falls off? oh, that's right - the penalty for a man who cheats on his wife is that he must marry the adulteress and bring her into his house - along with his "other" wife (wives?)...

LOL. I think that is a punishment quite fitting to the crime. The man has to take complete responsibility for having "become one" with the woman in their sexual union (that is, after all, how God designed it). He must now provide for said woman for the rest of her life because of his immoral conduct with her, and, what's more, he has to bring her into his own home, thus exposing to his wife in no uncertain terms the nature of his infidelity.

IF you understood anything at all about the "psychological make-up" of a woman, you would recognize immediately that this man would have been let off lightly had his only punishment been that his "dick fell off."

Are you unfamiliar with the adage "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?"

WALTER,

RE: Deuteronomy 5--"god the abortionist."

this is the big one. is this an abortion? what do you think "her womb will swell and her thigh shall fall away" mean? sounds like an abortion - if she had indeed been unfaithful and gotten pregnant. i think most translator/interpreters take it as an abortion.

Ummm...Walter, the text plainly says that the prescribed ritual is for determining whether or not the woman has committed adultery, not whether or not she is pregnant.

Nowhere in the text does is even insinuate that the point of the ritual is to abort an unborn child. The text does plainly say that the ritual would yield physical evidence if the woman had been unfaithful, irregardless of whether or not she was pregnant.

This is yet another example of your irrational, rabidly anti-theistic interpretation of scripture, and it is utterly void of literary interpretive integrity.

2 Peter 3:16 There are some things in (scripture) that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

As to this:

i think most translator/interpreters take it as an abortion.

Could you be so kind as to share your sources with me?

PEREGRINE,

“So, in your mind, choosing to not believe that something happened is identical to being "darned sure" that it did not happen?”

I guess that would depend on whether or not you completely dismiss the biblical account of creation, wouldn’t it? Hmmm….I wonder what you think about that explanation of the origin of the universe?

“And, you probably will not need to wait on them, as they will probably bring there own service staff.”

Let’s see….you play on my faux pas by saying they will “bring there own service staff”…. :-)

“Don't bother, I already know your answer.”

And thus you avoid answering a question where an honest answer would undermine your argument….

“What makes you think that I'm actually taking the trouble to think about any of this?”

Precisely. Hence your knee-jerk reactions. “Woof….woof….woof…”

“It's not my fault that you have a limited, superstitious, vocabulary.”

It’s not my fault that you react irrationally to a word that most 12 year olds can easily define without “automatically” convulsing.

“Hey, you're the one who thought up the scenario of someone beating and raping my daughter.”

Which all-too-common scenario you promptly manage to carry to a level of perversion that would hair-lip a crocodile.

“The actual question was concerning the legality of prostitution.”

Both you and Walter seem to struggle with any argument one step removed.

“Another tip: If you blockquote a paragraph, you don't need to also enclose that paragraph in double quotation marks; that's redundant.”

Much obliged.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 6

didn't you get another email from the pastor saturday night at 8:25 pm?

I did. Posted that on the fly Sunday morning without having checked my email again. My apologies.

That being said, the article pastor Wattles sent me directly contradicted at least 3 of his own articles faith as stated on his own church website. I was surprised to find him referring me to an article that clearly uses liberal higher textual criticism as its basis of interpretation. The church you are attending may not be as “fundamentalist” as you think it is. Anyway, it was disappointing that pastor Wattles seemingly couldn’t respond directly to the issues I raised in my email to him.

as i mentioned originally, his position on israelite god-regulated slavery is that it WAS NOT voluntary for "foreign slaves". that's very different from your tortured rationalizations where you say that foreigners "must" have been there by choice.

Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

alcohol destroys lives. should it be illegal?

As I have stated before, it is an incontrovertible fact that governments cannot legislate morality. My argument is not against legalizing prostitution. My argument is that your “enlightened” morality fails to see the indisputable immorality of prostitution.

as for child prostitutes... i'll only say it once more, then i'll have to start ignoring your child prostitution talk: I'M AGAINST IT! forcing children to have sex should be illegal and severely punished. child prostitution is bad, in my estimation. it should not be legal. people involved w/child sex practices should be locked up.

Yet, because of your flawed, subjective view of morality, you would have prostitution legalized even though it is responsible for enslaving in excess of 2 million children each year. And you’ll “start ignoring (my) child prostitution talk?” That sounds suspiciously similar to your “I got angry about your abortion talk before and I could get angry again” posturing of a few months ago. I’m sure you would like for me to stop talking about abortion and child prostitution, as they are glaringly obvious weaknesses in you “enlightened morality” position. Ain’t gonna happen.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 6

anyone who "forces" an adult to be a prostitute should be locked up too. why do you keep accusing me of wanting to "force" people into being "sex slaves". what's up with that? anyone who "forces" anyone to be a prostitute should be locked up. duh...

Yet, because of your flawed, subjective view of morality, you would have prostitution legalized even though it is well know that adult women involved in prostitution are seldom involved volitionally.

but if it's voluntary, that's a whole different thing. for that wife "across the desk", i'm sure it hurts. her husband was unfaithful. he was immoral in as much as he made vows to his wife to "be faithful" and so forth. still, though, i think that's a promise between him and his wife (and possibly god, depending on the vows (and presuming s/he/it exists...)). there's no reason for the government to have anything to say about whether/how a man cheats on his wife.

Yet, because of your flawed, subjective view of morality, you would have prostitution legalized with no concern whatsoever for the pain inflicted on families. This “enlightened” morality of yours is about as internally contradictory as it gets.

how about for single men? would that be less immoral?

Gee, Walter, I dunno. Why don’t you ask your wife if she would have viewed you as immoral if you were in the habit of visiting prostitutes prior to asking for her hand in marriage?

you keep saying it's a question of morals, but i think i answered your question of whether it should be legal. there's a difference there, at least in my relative, subjective, secular humanist world....

LOL. Actually, I asked you if polygamy was immoral in your view. You responded that it was not really something that you would be involved in, but that it should be legal along with prostitution! I didn’t even ask you about prostitution, you were just trying to demonstrate what a broad-minded individual you were.

Your problem is that you would like to say that abortion, homosexuality, polygamy, prostitution, etc. are immoral (because you are really juuuuust a little uncomfortable with them), but you are trapped in the “relative, subjective, secular humanist world” that exists only in your head.

WALTER,

Part 3 of 6

is the bible sexist?
i can't believe that's even in question. i picked slavery to expose the bible's immorality just because because it is so universally reviled nowadays - whereas many people are still sexist. you really think the bible isn't "sexist"? wow...if you can't see that, of course you can't see (i.e., admit of) how the bible is "slavist".
of course you can proof-text a few "be nice to your wife" verses, but you really can't see how everything is "slanted" for males? it's not surprising, that's just the way society was back then. and the MEN who wrote the bible just happened to capture the day's prevailing sexism. it would have been shocking if the bible were not sexist. i mean, they don't call abraham et.al. "the patriarchs" for nothin'.
and how many queens of israel and judea were there?

If you will make a list of countries where women’s rights are most advanced, you will find that those same countries are the ones that have been most influenced by Christianity. That should cause you to at least consider that you may not understand what the bible has to say about the place of women in society.

WALTER,

Part 4 of 6

you (think you) know for a fact everyone on earth is descended from the eight people on the ark. well...actually, just noah and 4 nameless women...the priests didn't even bother to tell us the womens' names....they were basically scenery (and baby-makers).

“Baby-makers?” Who is being sexist here, Walter? You are sounding more and more like most of the males in our culture who have been neutered by the modern “feminist” movement. In this view a woman must go out and work like a man, bring home the bacon like a man, and generally comport herself like a man. The pathetic thing about this view of “feminism” is that it is really “masculinism.” If a woman chooses to stay at home and “make babies” she really just isn’t a modern “woman.” How utterly absurd and self-contradictory.

Let me tell you about a group of “baby-makers” in our community. We have a large local home-school group that we started 9 years ago. It is comprised of fathers and mothers that decided that the women would be women and the men would be men. The men committed themselves to being first, good husbands to their wives, secondly, good fathers to their children, and thirdly, they took on the responsibility of being the sole “breadwinners” for their families. The women committed themselves to being stay-at-home wives and “baby-makers” who would teach and educate their children at home.

These women are, on the whole, some of the most intelligent, gracious, kind, loving, and physically beautiful women in the entire community. They are the very epitome of femininity. And the children? Ah! Let me tell you about the children.

We regularly monitor their academic progress with the use of the standardized CAT. They consistently score well above the state average on these tests. We have, to date, graduated 8 of these children at senior high school level proficiency, 2 of them accomplishing this by the age of 16. Of these 8, every one of them has scored extremely high on the ACT college entrance exams, and every one of them have received full scholarships to major universities.

WALTER,

Part 5 of 6

Of these 8, two have completed their four-year degrees and graduated with 4.0 averages! Both of them received numerous honors over the course of the last 4 years, and were co-recipients of the Jenkins Chastain Citizenship award, the highest award given at their university.

One of them received a full academic scholarship to study international law at Vanderbilt University (one of only 4 such scholarships awarded nationally each year). The other graduate, our daughter, received the Rotary International Scholarship which will pay her full tuition and housing at Cambridge University, England, where she will earn her master’s degree in business administration.

Baby-makers? You bet. Prolific, happy, content, intelligent, talented, beautiful baby-makers. And they are making some pretty spectacular babies, too.

Ever heard the old adage “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world?”

Pr 31:28 Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her…

WALTER,

Part 6 of 6

You know, I think I will post a rather lengthy section of Proverbs 31 here. Read this, for this is the picture of biblical womanhood, the definition of true femininity. Your “modern,” “enlightened,” feminist pales in comparison to the biblical woman.

Proverbs 31: 10 ¶ An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels. 11 The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. 12 She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life. 13 She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands. 14 She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from afar. 15 She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and portions for her maidens. 16 She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. 17 She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong. 18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable. Her lamp does not go out at night. 19 She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle. 20 She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands to the needy. 21 She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet. 22 She makes bed coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land. 24 She makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the merchant. 25 Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come. 26 She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. 27 She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. 28 Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: 29 “Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.” 30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates.

Who is being “sexist” here, Walter?

RCofield,

"So…you have no idea how the universe did come to exist, but you are darned sure about how it did not come to exist."

So, in your mind, choosing to not believe that something happened is identical to being "darned sure" that it did not happen?

Seems like a rather large leap, even for a practitioner of belief-logic.

"Yes. And if they ever get there they will find a good number of us waiting on them."

Somehow I doubt that they will ever get to where you believe that you are going.

And, you probably will not need to wait on them, as they will probably bring there own service staff.

"I’ll answer that when you answer the question I posed."

Don't bother, I already know your answer.

"You don’t say!"

But, I do say.

"Ummm…no, I was referring to your “automatic,” knee-jerk reaction to hearing the word “immoral.” It is rather silly that a “thinking man” such as yourself can’t rise above the level of Pavlov’s dogs."

What makes you think that I'm actually taking the trouble to think about any of this?

"But not immoral. The absurdity of that is obvious to all but yourself."

It's not my fault that you have a limited, superstitious, vocabulary.

"You are one sick puppy, Peregrine."

Hey, you're the one who thought up the scenario of someone beating and raping my daughter.

"The question spoke to immorality. Or, lest your delicate sensibilities be further offended, ethics."

The actual question was concerning the legality of prostitution.

"Thanks for the editing tip."

No problem.

Another tip: If you blockquote a paragraph, you don't need to also enclose that paragraph in double quotation marks; that's redundant.

PEREGRINE,

“I don't know - I don't pretend to know what I don't know, and I don't believe that I know what I don't know.”

So…you have no idea how the universe did come to exist, but you are darned sure about how it did not come to exist.

“That said, we do have some of our best people working on it.”

Yes. And if they ever get there they will find a good number of us waiting on them.

“Then you agree that prostitution should be legalized, right?”

I’ll answer that when you answer the question I posed.

“What you read about is call Pavlovian conditioning or reinforcement.”

You don’t say!

“Do you actually believe that "prostitution" means Pavlovian conditioning or reinforcement?”

Ummm…no, I was referring to your “automatic,” knee-jerk reaction to hearing the word “immoral.” It is rather silly that a “thinking man” such as yourself can’t rise above the level of Pavlov’s dogs.

“In my opinion, yes, that would be quite unethical; it would also be wrong, violent, cruel, barbarous, vicious, inhuman, savage, repellent, revolting, perverted, disgusting, reprehensible, and sickening. In the opinion of the good people of the District, that would also be illegal, and the authorities would do everything in their power to apprehend, charge, convict, and punish the perpetrator.”

But not immoral. The absurdity of that is obvious to all but yourself.

“Do you often think about those sorts of things? When you do think about those sorts of things, do you ever imagine you, yourself doing them? How do you feel when you think about doing those sorts of things? Do you touch yourself when you think about doing those sorts of things?”

You are one sick puppy, Peregrine.

“Do you actually believe that "prostitution" means beating someone's daughter unconscious and raping her?”

The question spoke to immorality. Or, lest your delicate sensibilities be further offended, ethics.

Thanks for the editing tip.

peterhuff,

http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_blockquote.asp

Walter, how do you do the indenting of paragraphs again? I like that feature.

Hi Walter,

As for interpretation Walter, words in context and culture do have specific meanings you know. Other things need to be taken into consideration such as who is being address, type of language, time lines, other Scriptures.

WALTER: "you could further divide those small odds by the chance that christianity is even the right religion/scripture out of all of today's and all of ancient history's (and the future's, i suppose) religions. i mean, what if the pacific islanders who knew for sure that god grew from a coconut or whatever were right?!"

Yeah, right Walter. No ancient manuscripts are better attested to or accounted for.

There are so many proofs Walter. Where do you want to begin? Oh, I forgot, we are still working on the moral issue, with no definite resolve to the problems of your world-view. It can't make sense of itself.
Remember, you are just a biological machine and with no creator you are the product of random chance. To unpack that statement it would take as long as this debate on morals, I think.

peterhuff,

"Funny, but you seem to interpret a lot of what I am saying correctly, and I'm the author so I should know."

See below.*

"You find a correct way of interpreting my thoughts."

I try.

"Just astronomically lucky I guess."

If you actually knew me, "astronomically lucky" are the last words that would come to mind in describing me.

"Well, with that way of looking at it you are at the mercy of doubt,..."

Do you consider yourself to be at the mercy of belief?

"...but I bet that is not the way you really live."

I'm generally quite skeptical.

"Do you doubt that a green light is really green?"

Well, I always look both ways before and while driving through an intersection, whether it is controlled by a traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign, or no sign at all.

"It must be nice to be the center of the universe!"

* My interpretation of your original "It's all subject to you" comment may not have been 100% on the mark.

I presumed that you meant to type, "It's all subjective to you"; hence my comment, "Yes, it is all subjective to me", which could have been better phrased, "Yes, to me, everything is subjective".

That said, according to modern cosmology theory, while there is no specific locatable center to the universe, every location, and, hence, each person, can validly be considered to be the center of the universe.

So, yes, I probably can validly consider myself to be the center of the universe, and, yes, it probably is nice.

god the abortionist:

i quote extensively to get the "flavor".

the word of god, deut 5:

A Test for Adultery

11And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 12"Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, 13if a man(J) lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her,(K) since she was not taken in the act, 14and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, 15then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour.(L) He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance,(M) bringing iniquity to remembrance.

16"And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the LORD. 17And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD and(N) unbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, 'If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21then' (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman)(O) 'the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22May this water that brings the curse(P) pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say,(Q) 'Amen, Amen.'

deut5 cont.

23"Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. 25And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand(R) and shall wave the grain offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26And the priest(S) shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman(T) shall become a curse among her people. 28But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.

29"This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife,(U) though under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife. Then he shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall carry out for her all this law. 31The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman(V) shall bear her iniquity."

1. i love the part where they're talking about mixing up the magic potion, and waving certain grains around. it's just too funny. can't make that stuff up! whatever you do, DON'T put frankincense in the there...god tells us the potion won't work if you do that....!

2. so you say the bible isn't sexist? where's the corresponding verse where a woman who suspects her husband of cheating brings him to the priest and if he's guilty his dick falls off? oh, that's right - the penalty for a man who cheats on his wife is that he must marry the adulteress and bring her into his house - along with his "other" wife (wives?)...

3. this is the big one. is this an abortion? what do you think "her womb will swell and her thigh shall fall away" mean? sounds like an abortion - if she had indeed been unfaithful and gotten pregnant. i think most translator/interpreters take it as an abortion.

4. i guess in the big scheme, it's not really a big deal as to whether THIS (deut5) is an abortion: god does it to about 30-50% of all fertilized eggs. don't get hung up on the statistics. whether it's 10% or 50% it DOES happen.

Hi PSolus,

ME: "You seem to think that there can't be a correct interpretation of Scripture."

PSO: "I think that there can probably be an almost infinite number of interpretations, and that the probability of stumbling upon the correct interpretation is probably at least inversely proportional to that, and that the probability of recognizing that one has stumbled upon the correct interpretation...."

Funny, but you seem to interpret a lot of what I am saying correctly, and I'm the author so I should know.

You find a correct way of interpreting my thoughts. Just astronomically lucky I guess.

ME: "But then again, you deny that truth is knowable also."

PSO: "Actually, I doubt the truth is knowable."

Well, with that way of looking at it you are at the mercy of doubt, but I bet that is not the way you really live. Do you doubt that a green light is really green?

ME: "It's all subject to you."

PSO: "Yes, it is all subjective to me."

It must be nice to be the center of the universe!

Supper is ready. Bye.

peter:
"You seem to think that there can't be a correct interpretation of Scripture."

psolus:
I think that there can probably be an almost infinite number of interpretations, and that the probability of stumbling upon the correct interpretation is probably at least inversely proportional to that, and that the probability of recognizing that one has stumbled upon the correct interpretation....

Well, the mathematics of that is well beyond my capabilities.
--------

you could further divide those small odds by the chance that christianity is even the right religion/scripture out of all of today's and all of ancient history's (and the future's, i suppose) religions. i mean, what if the pacific islanders who knew for sure that god grew from a coconut or whatever were right?!

peterhuff,

"At least we are willing to lay down our reason for our interpretation."

Must be that protestant work ethic.

"You seem to think that there can't be a correct interpretation of Scripture."

I think that there can probably be an almost infinite number of interpretations, and that the probability of stumbling upon the correct interpretation is probably at least inversely proportional to that, and that the probability of recognizing that one has stumbled upon the correct interpretation....

Well, the mathematics of that is well beyond my capabilities.

"But then again, you deny that truth is knowable also."

Actually, I doubt the truth is knowable.

"It's all subject to you."

Yes, it is all subjective to me.

"You make your own truths, which so often is no truth at all."

I never claimed to make any truth; you have simply chosen to believe that I have claimed that.

"And you ignore your own prejudice and bias in everything you write."

I am well aware of my prejudices and biases; I'm just to embarrassed to acknowledge them.

"You have admitted so many times that nothing makes you right."

Yes, I have, and I am absolutely right about that... Doh...

"You just float through life trying to avoid committing yourself to anything."

You're beginning to sound like one of my ex-girlfriends; hell, you're beginning to sound like all of my ex-girlfriends.

"That suggests to me you are hurting and hiding some deep scars."

I did previously mention Cindy Montenegro, didn't I; and, she wasn't the only one who broke my heart; there has been a string of them.

"You talk of immoral behavior as if it were a joke."

No, I write about "immoral" behavior as if it were a superstition.

"I've asked you repeatedly why I should believe anything you are saying and you can't give any meaningful response to that either PSolus."

My response is, and has been, that you should believe nothing that I write; instead, you should think for yourself - that you should doubt what I write, and challenge what I write, and develop your own thoughts, based on something other than belief.

"It is just one unsubstantiated meaningless opinion/statement after another PSolus."

Yeah, well, I guess that pretty much sums things up nicely.

peterhuff,

"Not bad for someone who admits to never having read it!"

Why, thank you.

"(Don't thank me)"

Doh...

Actually, I don't have to read it - 70% to 80% of Americans are more than happy to read it to me, on an almost daily basis.

"What do you have to substantiate such claims."

You mean: Who.

The answer is: Me.

"Please give your sources."

I am the only source you need concerning what I think.

"It is not hard to see your hatred of God."

Can one actually hate what one is not aware exists?

I don't hate unicorns.

"You expunge every reference we include."

Actually, I expurgate them.

"They grind at you PSolus"

No, not really.

[grindingly bibley stuff expurgated]

Doh...

Hi again, PSolus,

PSO: "As peterhuff believes in the same interpretation of his bible that RColfield believes in his bible, he has no choice but to believe that RCofield is winning all of his debates with everyone that he is debating, irrespective of anything that is discussed in the debate."

At least we are willing to lay down our reason for our interpretation. You seem to think that there can't be a correct interpretation of Scripture. But then again, you deny that truth is knowable also. It's all subject to you. You make your own truths, which so often is no truth at all.

And you ignore your own prejudice and bias in everything you write. You have admitted so many times that nothing makes you right. You just float through life trying to avoid committing yourself to anything. That suggests to me you are hurting and hiding some deep scars.

You talk of immoral behavior as if it were a joke. I've asked you repeatedly why I should believe anything you are saying and you can't give any meaningful response to that either PSolus.

It is just one unsubstantiated meaningless opinion/statement after another PSolus.

Hi PSolus,

PSO: "As far as I am concerned, the bible is a meaningless collection of myth, poetry, and pornography that was written by any number of men (and, perhaps, a woman or two), over a period of any number of years, and that was then been selectively collected, translated, and edited, by any number of men (and, perhaps, a woman or two), any number of times, over a period of any number of years."

Not bad for someone who admits to never having read it! (Don't thank me)

What do you have to substantiate such claims. Please give your sources.

It is not hard to see your hatred of God. You expunge every reference we include. They grind at you PSolus Hebrews 4:12).

walter-in-fallschurch,

"don't know if you've been following along, but peter seems think rco has "demolished" my simple observation that the bible allows the israelites to own involuntary slaves. what say you?"

Bear in mind that peterhuff and RCofield are, above everything else, true believers.

Their whole lives revolve around them believing exactly what they believe to be true, for whatever reason that they have come to believe what they believe.

RCofield believes that his bible says exactly what he has interpreted that his bible says, irrespective of any argument that you, or anyone else, makes.

As peterhuff believes in the same interpretation of his bible that RColfield believes in his bible, he has no choice but to believe that RCofield is winning all of his debates with everyone that he is debating, irrespective of anything that is discussed in the debate.

No amount of logic can defeat unthinking belief, especially unthinking belief that has been magically "revealed" to a true believer by a magical entity; logic and reality simply cannot compete with magically "revealed" belief in the minds of the true believers.

I avoid arguing the minutia of the bible for the same reason that I avoid arguing the minutia of any work of fiction - in the end, it just doesn't matter.

As far as I am concerned, the bible is a meaningless collection of myth, poetry, and pornography that was written by any number of men (and, perhaps, a woman or two), over a period of any number of years, and that was then been selectively collected, translated, and edited, by any number of men (and, perhaps, a woman or two), any number of times, over a period of any number of years.

All of the hallelujahs, the begattings, and the cubits are immaterial to this world, and, to my mind, are simply not worth discussing.

BTW, peterhuff is currently involved in a great theological debate with GolenEagles in the Mohler thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/r_albert_mohler_jr/2010/11/new_political_equation_for_religious_right.html

I am certain that when the dust settles, RCofield, as peterhuff's advocate, will believe that peterhuff will have "demolished" GoldenEagles with his superior belief-logic in defense of their personal belief-system at the expense of GoldenEagles' personal belief-system - which really don't look that different to me, although I have to give GoldenEagles high marks for imaginative imagery; he/she is like a modern day Rimbaud (irony intended).

GoldenEagles does not yet have an advocate (surely there's a Verlaine somewhere out there for him/her), but if one of his/her fellow travelers happen upon the great debate, I'm just as certain that GoldenEagles' advocate will believe that he/she will have "demolished" peterhuff with the belief-logic that has been revealed to him/her by his/her personal magical entity.

rco,
didn't you get another email from the pastor saturday night at 8:25 pm? as i mentioned originally, his position on israelite god-regulated slavery is that it WAS NOT voluntary for "foreign slaves". that's very different from your tortured rationalizations where you say that foreigners "must" have been there by choice.

alcohol destroys lives. should it be illegal?

as for child prostitutes... i'll only say it once more, then i'll have to start ignoring your child prostitution talk: I'M AGAINST IT! forcing children to have sex should be illegal and severely punished. child prostitution is bad, in my estimation. it should not be legal. people involved w/child sex practices should be locked up.

anyone who "forces" an adult to be a prostitute should be locked up too. why do you keep accusing me of wanting to "force" people into being "sex slaves". what's up with that? anyone who "forces" anyone to be a prostitute should be locked up. duh...

but if it's voluntary, that's a whole different thing. for that wife "across the desk", i'm sure it hurts. her husband was unfaithful. he was immoral in as much as he made vows to his wife to "be faithful" and so forth.

still, though, i think that's a promise between him and his wife (and possibly god, depending on the vows (and presuming s/he/it exists...)). there's no reason for the government to have anything to say about whether/how a man cheats on his wife.

how about for single men? would that be less immoral?

you keep saying it's a question of morals, but i think i answered your question of whether it should be legal. there's a difference there, at least in my relative, subjective, secular humanist world....

is the bible sexist?

i can't believe that's even in question. i picked slavery to expose the bible's immorality just because because it is so universally reviled nowadays - whereas many people are still sexist. you really think the bible isn't "sexist"? wow...if you can't see that, of course you can't see (i.e., admit of) how the bible is "slavist".

of course you can proof-text a few "be nice to your wife" verses, but you really can't see how everything is "slanted" for males? it's not surprising, that's just the way society was back then. and the MEN who wrote the bible just happened to capture the day's prevailing sexism. it would have been shocking if the bible were not sexist. i mean, they don't call abraham et.al. "the patriarchs" for nothin'.

and how many queens of israel and judea were there?

you (think you) know for a fact everyone on earth is descended from the eight people on the ark. well...actually, just noah and 4 nameless women...the priests didn't even bother to tell us the womens' names....they were basically scenery (and baby-makers).

PSolus,
don't know if you've been following along, but peter seems think rco has "demolished" my simple observation that the bible allows the israelites to own involuntary slaves. what say you?

RCofield,

"Correct. His name (the moral standard) is Jesus Christ. I’m sure you’ve heard of Him."

Didn't he pitch for the Giants back in '95?

"How do you think the universe came to exist?"

I don't know - I don't pretend to know what I don't know, and I don't believe that I know what I don't know.

That said, we do have some of our best people working on it.

"You scored 2 correct out of 5. There are kids in our local Jr. High school who could have done equally poor. Maybe you are not as good as I thought."

I can only hope that I am not as good as you think.

"Um….I didn’t ask you if you thought the scenario I offered was immoral…or if anyone should be “allowed” to do “A” under any circumstances whatsoever…
And “torturously specific scenario?” You’re reaching there."

Then you agree that prostitution should be legalized, right?

"That’s interesting. I once read a study where a test group of dogs were treated to the sound of a ringing bell just before they were fed. After thirty days, the dogs “automatically” began salivating at the sound of a ringing bell even when no food was forthcoming. Hmmmm…."

What you read about is call Pavlovian conditioning or reinforcement.

Do you actually believe that "prostitution" means Pavlovian conditioning or reinforcement?

"Oh, do pardon me, sir. Let me rephrase the question so that you can understand it.
In your “real world,” if someone beat your daughter unconscious and raped her would that, in your opinion, be “unethical?”"

In my opinion, yes, that would be quite unethical; it would also be wrong, violent, cruel, barbarous, vicious, inhuman, savage, repellent, revolting, perverted, disgusting, reprehensible, and sickening.

In the opinion of the good people of the District, that would also be illegal, and the authorities would do everything in their power to apprehend, charge, convict, and punish the perpetrator.

Do you often think about those sorts of things?

When you do think about those sorts of things, do you ever imagine you, yourself doing them?

How do you feel when you think about doing those sorts of things?

Do you touch yourself when you think about doing those sorts of things?

Do you actually believe that "prostitution" means beating someone's daughter unconscious and raping her?

PEREGRINE,

“You believe that your "god" has established an absolute, incontrovertible moral code,”

Correct. His name (the moral standard) is Jesus Christ. I’m sure you’ve heard of Him.

“which he documented in his magical diary,”

Incorrect.

“which only you and a select group of others can interpret correctly,”

Incorrect.

“and that it is your job to enforce that absolute, incontrovertible moral code on other people, regardless of their beliefs, or lack of belief.”

Incorrect.

“I'd also bet that you believe that the earth is no less than 6,000 years old and no more than 10,000 years old, and that it was created by your "god" at the same time (give or take 6 days) as everything else in the universe.”

Correct. BTW: How do you think the universe came to exist?

You scored 2 correct out of 5. There are kids in our local Jr. High school who could have done equally poor. Maybe you are not as good as I thought.

“This is a perfect example of what I call "belief-logic" - if a belief-fevered brain can manufacture a single, torturously specific scenario in which doing A can be considered bad in the specific situation, then doing A is considered absolutely, incontrovertibly "immoral" in every situation, and no one should ever be allowed to do A under any circumstances whatsoever.”

Um….I didn’t ask you if you thought the scenario I offered was immoral…or if anyone should be “allowed” to do “A” under any circumstances whatsoever…

And “torturously specific scenario?” You’re reaching there.

“Your confusing me with yourself; it is not my job to determine what is immoral for other people, that is your job, using your belief in your "god", and your belief in what you interpret that his magical diary says.”

I’m sorry. Incorrect again. See above.

“When I read or hear the words "morality", "moral", and "immoral", I automatically think of imaginary, absolute, incontrovertible codes laid down by imaginary "gods".”

That’s interesting. I once read a study where a test group of dogs were treated to the sound of a ringing bell just before they were fed. After thirty days, the dogs “automatically” began salivating at the sound of a ringing bell even when no food was forthcoming. Hmmmm….

“In my real world, I prefer to use the words "ethics", "ethical", and "unethical".”

Oh, do pardon me, sir. Let me rephrase the question so that you can understand it.

In your “real world,” if someone beat your daughter unconscious and raped her would that, in your opinion, be “unethical?”

RCofield,

"My, my, Peregrine. You not only know what I believe, but you know WHY I believe it. You ARE good! Do tell me more about myself."

No problem.

You believe that your "god" has established an absolute, incontrovertible moral code, which he documented in his magical diary, which only you and a select group of others can interpret correctly, and that it is your job to enforce that absolute, incontrovertible moral code on other people, regardless of their beliefs, or lack of belief.

I'd also bet that you believe that the earth is no less than 6,000 years old and no more than 10,000 years old, and that it was created by your "god" at the same time (give or take 6 days) as everything else in the universe.

Am I wrong?

If so, what do you actually believe?

"So...in your experience...when a man (lets say a man with a wife and children) has sexual intercourse with a prostitute it has no effect on any person other than himself?"

This is a perfect example of what I call "belief-logic" - if a belief-fevered brain can manufacture a single, torturously specific scenario in which doing A can be considered bad in the specific situation, then doing A is considered absolutely, incontrovertibly "immoral" in every situation, and no one should ever be allowed to do A under any circumstances whatsoever.

"And, in your opinion, is there anything whatsoever that a person could do that you would consider immoral,..."

Your confusing me with yourself; it is not my job to determine what is immoral for other people, that is your job, using your belief in your "god", and your belief in what you interpret that his magical diary says.

"...or do you apply the "superstitious church-word" definition of immorality unilaterally?"

When I read or hear the words "morality", "moral", and "immoral", I automatically think of imaginary, absolute, incontrovertible codes laid down by imaginary "gods".

In my real world, I prefer to use the words "ethics", "ethical", and "unethical".

PEREGRINE,

"You believe that prostitution is "immoral" either because you have been told to believe that prostitution is "immoral", or because you have interpreted something in your magical book of flexible, interpretable magic to convince yourself that prostitution is "immoral"."

My, my, Peregrine. You not only know what I believe, but you know WHY I believe it. You ARE good! Do tell me more about myself.

"In my experience, the word "immoral" is simply a superstitious church-word, usually used to describe something that person A does not want person B to do, even though the act of person B doing the "immoral" thing has no effect on person A, or on any other person."

So...in your experience...when a man (lets say a man with a wife and children) has sexual intercourse with a prostitute it has no effect on any person other than himself?

And, in your opinion, is there anything whatsoever that a person could do that you would consider immoral, or do you apply the "superstitious church-word" definition of immorality unilaterally?

RCofield,

You believe that prostitution is "immoral" either because you have been told to believe that prostitution is "immoral", or because you have interpreted something in your magical book of flexible, interpretable magic to convince yourself that prostitution is "immoral".

Prostitution is no more inherently bad than lending money for interest (once, also thought to be "immoral"), women working in health care (also thought to be "immoral" because she might see a naked, strange man's "thing", or, worse, have to touch a naked, strange man's "thing"), autopsies (also thought to be "immoral" because it desecrated the work of "god"), interracial sex and marriage (not what "god" intended), gay sex and marriage (definitely not what "god" intended; see GoldenEagles comments for specific details), masturbation (sounds like so much fun, there must be something "immoral" about it), etc.

In my experience, the word "immoral" is simply a superstitious church-word, usually used to describe something that person A does not want person B to do, even though the act of person B doing the "immoral" thing has no effect on person A, or on any other person.

WALTER,

"you're a piece of work, rco. because some people cheat on their wives with prostitutes, prostitution should be illegal?"

As you well know, I argued that prostitution is immoral because it destroys peoples lives, NOT that "because some people cheat on their wives with prostitutes, prostitution should be illegal. The extent to which you manage to distance yourself from the consequences of your radical ideology is appalling.

And you are again forgetting the context of our debate: "Enlightened," subjective morality compared with the objective morality of christianity/the bible.

You contend that abortion/prostitution are not immoral. I have clearly demonstrated that they are immoral (by your own measure of immorality--that which adversely affects someone else), and that your subjective view of morality is forcing to to hold the following double standards:

You contend (erroneously) that God is "immoral" for taking lives in the execution of divine judgment--YET, you argue that it is a woman's "right" to murder her child in her womb.

You contend (again, erroneously) that God/bible condone and advocate forced slavery--YET, you champion the legalization of prostitution, possibly the most debauched and dehumanizing forms of slavery.

You condemn scripture as "sexist"--YET you want to make it legal for men to profit from, gratify themselves with, and dominate women sexually.

And all the while boasting that your "enlightened morality" is superior to that of Scripture.

You can appeal to "any non-christians out there following along" all you want; anyone who does not see your double standards ain't payin' attention.

BTW: I still haven't heard back from the pastor of the church you attend. Why don't you bump him about it today? I would really like to know which way I will have to handle this nifty little piece of "evidence" from them that you have offered in contradiction to my position on the biblical view of slavery.

If I don't miss my guess, his position on this issue is much nearer mine than yours. Wouldn't THAT be embarrasing?!

[Dorothy watches the Wicked Witch melt]
Wicked Witch of the West: You cursed brat! Look what you've done! I'm melting! melting! Oh, what a world! What a world! Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness? Oooooh, look out! I'm going! Oooooh! Ooooooh!

peter,
i imagine given your presuppositions, that you think rco is "demolishing" my position, but that's because you already agree with his positions.

you've both said you think the bible is infallible and inerrant. givcen that, how can any proof otherwise "work"? you guys will just reinterpret words like "slavery" and "god is to men as men are to women" as good things...congrats on your "interpretations" - if they help you maintain the "god in heaven is watching me" thoughts...well isn't that special?

as far as whether rco is actually "demolishing" my positions, your opinion on that is about as unbiased as abbott's opinion of costello. i daresay just about any non-christian would disagree with you on that.

any non-christians out there following along?

you're a piece of work, rco. because some people cheat on their wives with prostitutes, prostitution should be illegal?

should alcohol be illegal?

PEREGRINE,

You may be hyper-ventilating. Try breathing into a paper bag.

And "little evangelical?" Walter thinks I am a "little bastard" and you think I am a "little evangelical." What's up with you guys thinking I'm little?

Wanna arm-wrestle me?

RCofield,

"Apparently consequential enough that you felt it necessary to try discounting what was hardly more than a passing comment."

Oh, man, you're demolishing my arguments, and that from life experience too, compiled with sound logic.

Every step I take, every argument I throw your way appears to be so lame when you start dismantling it.

You're right; your beliefs and comments are so consequential that I fear for the very existence of evolution theory in the face of your life experience and sound logic.

You cursed brat!

Look what you've done!

I'm devolving! devolving!

Oh, what a world!

What a world!

Who would have thought a good little evangelical fundamentalist like you could destroy my beautiful evolution theory?

Oooooh, look out!

I'm going!

Oooooh!

Ooooooh!

PEREGRINE,

"do you actually believe that your comments and beliefs about evolution theory are consequential?"

Apparently consequential enough that you felt it necessary to try discounting what was hardly more than a passing comment.

PETER,

"What do you make of GoldenEagles comments?"

I was afraid you were going to ask me that. :-)

I've just been watching from the sidelines trying to get a bead on him, but I am clueless so far. Demonology seems to be his entire hermeneutic.

It appears that he likes to pontificate, so I'm sure he will tip his hand sooner or later.

RCofield,

"You flatter yourself."

I've been known to do that.

"Indeed.

You really are just flying by the seat of your pants and have no idea how to counter my comments on evolution theory."

I don't have to counter your comments on evolution theory; do you actually believe that your comments and beliefs about evolution theory are consequential?

"So...why address me at all?"

Ummm... To flatter myself?

"Oh, wait. I remember. Gratuitous ichthyology. You're welcome."

I was wondering if you understood that.

"Ever thought about joining a bridge club?"

No; but, do you know of one that needs a fifth?

Hi Walter, RCofield,

Wow Walter, RCofield is demolishing your arguments, and that from life experience too, compiled with sound logic. I think he is right on about your bias to the Bible. Every step you take, every argument you throw his way appears to be so lame when he starts dismantling it.

RCofield, I'm sorry I went on the Al Mohler blog. What do you make of GoldenEagles comments? I wasn't paying attention to what he said after he mentioned the father/mother reference to God earlier in the blog, but he has also been very explicit in his graphic portrayal of the sex act. Gimpi pointed out to me some of his comments which he believed I supported, so I went back and read his latest posts. Interested to here your opinion.

PEREGRINE,

"I think that you're hoping to get a good secular education."

You flatter yourself.

"Your comments about evolution theory are all that need to be said."

Indeed.

You really are just flying by the seat of your pants and have no idea how to counter my comments on evolution theory.

"It's only fair; I apply that unilaterally to every opinion that you post."

So...why address me at all? Oh, wait. I remember. Gratuitous ichthyology. You're welcome.

Ever thought about joining a bridge club?

"Sure, why not?"

Especially so.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 4

WALT: “well, if it were legal all these abuses would be "reportable." no prostitute is going to go to the cops and say, "my john hit me" or stole or or whatever. by making it illegal, the whole thing goes underground and opens up prostitutes to a whole variety of abuses she wouldn't have to deal with if it were legal. beating, abuse, stealing, whatever, would be dealt with like any case of such crimes. it's already illegal to steal, beat etc... all that horrible stuff you talk about is not inherent in prostitution.”

Not inherent in prostitution? You gotta be kidding me. Are you basing your statements on a recent viewing of the movie “Pretty Woman” or something? These kinds of abuses CHARACTERIZE the prostitution industry. Do you honestly think these abuses would suddenly cease to exist if prostitution were legalized? I do think you know better. Are you being intentionally naïve just to maintain your position here?

WALT: “oh, puleeze... your hyperbole is ridiculous. "the most “sexist” statement I have ever seen in print!" really?!”

To contend that it should be legal for men to profit from, gratify themselves with, and dominate women is about as sexist as it gets, Walter. No hyperbole there. I really am beginning to wonder about you guys out there in Falls Church.

WALT: “like i said, ownership of women is already illegal (unlike in ancient israel...). but if a woman VOLUNTARILY wants to charge people to have sex w/her, and if people VOLUNTARILY want to pay her, then what's the big deal? as i've said numerous times, i'm against all those "abuses" which you associate with prostitution.”

The absurdity of your argument is quite evident when one acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of female prostitutes are not volitionally so. You want to pretend that this would somehow magically reverse itself were prostitution made legal. The obvious reality is simply this: If prostitution were made legal the demand would increase exponentially, and the number of women being forced into the slavery of prostitution would skyrocket. You are really reaching here to try and defend prostitution as amoral.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 4

WALT: “and, speaking of sexist reading, did you skip over about half of the bible?! now that's one of the most sexist books i've ever read. the o.t. is ridiculously sexist, and you may recognize this from 1corinthians14:”

LOL. Half of the bible? Who is using hyperbole here?

Your understanding of the biblical nature of the relationship between men and women is characteristically poisoned with your anti-theistic bias. The passages that you cite do not stand in isolation to the exclusion of the remainder of the bible. While I will not here engage you fully on this issue, the bible (and biblical Christianity) elevates women in a way that no other worldview does, including “Enlightenment Principles” and secular humanism. Consider this one passage:

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…

You get that? Husbands, SERVE your wives as Christ serves the church. Husbands, love your wives self-sacrificially, putting her needs before yours, even as Christ sacrificed Himself for his bride, the church. Where, in all of your “Enlightenment” philosophy do you find anything that elevates a woman the way that passage does? How about this one:

1Pe 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an **understanding way**, **showing honor to the woman** as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life…

The charge is to understand the woman that is your wife. Honor her. Protect her as the physically and emotionally more vulnerable partner in your marriage. You said earlier that “I make NO claims to "understanding" the "psychological make-up" of women....” Why the heck not? I mean, if your morality is so far superior to that of the bible, why would you not make every effort to understand the psychological make-up of your wife? And “honor her?!” How is that sexist? The flat out fact is that it the exact opposite of “sexist,” which is pretty good evidence that you don’t understand at least “half of the bible,” if I may borrow you hyperbole.

You see, Walter, these two passages place the bar so high when it comes to honoring and exalting women you will find nothing even approaching them in any other worldview or philosophy outside Christianity.

I think I challenged you to do this earlier (or was it TWMATTHEWS?). If you will make a list of countries where women’s rights are most advanced, you will find that those same countries are the ones that have been most influenced by Christianity. That should cause you to at least consider that you may not understand what the bible has to say about the place of women in society. Much, much more on this at a later time.

WALTER,

Part 3 of 4

WALT: “well, making it illegal hasn't made it disappear... i think you think that by outlawing something you don't like, it will go away.”

I think you are forgetting the question at hand there, that being the morality of prostitution. You cannot possibly make a case for prostitution being morally acceptable, given the damage that such behavior causes to all parties involved. I think you know that you can’t make such a case; you just can’t bring yourself to admit such.

WALT: “there's no place for child prostitution - nowhere have i said i'm in favor of that. you're trying to put words into my mouth or arguing against straw men with all that child prostitution stuff. as for adult women (and men) prostitutes, yeah, it would be safer for the women if it were legal.”

What you are failing to acknowledge is the fact that statistics show there are over 2 million children each year who are forced into prostitution. It is absurd to think that this would somehow disappear if prostitution were legalized. To the contrary, it would increase. As for it being “safer for the women if it were legal,” you miss the point yet again. It would still be immoral and to think that it would somehow be “safer” borders on the delusional. You really do underestimate the depravity of the human heart.

WALT: “that's a personal thing - between the man and his wife. there's no "violence" in sex - unless agreed to by consenting adults. the "violence" of extra-marital sex is not something one can legislate against.”

Again, the point is whether or not it is immoral, not whether or “one can legislate against” it.

WALT: “whether i understand it or not, if an adult woman (or man) wants to get paid for having sex w/a concenting adult, that's her/his business. they're consenting adults.”

Ah yes, the “consenting adults” fig leaf. If two consenting adults collaborate to commit any act whatsoever, as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else, then go for it. Aside from the obvious absurdity of this argument (it obviously cannot be sustained) the problem is, when “consenting adults” commit immoral acts such as those committed in relation to prostitution, other people ARE affected. STD’s, dehumanization, guilt, shame, wounded spouses, broken marriages, fractured homes, devastated children….the list goes on and on.

WALTER,

Part 4 of 4

WALT: “i think that since you personally dislike the idea of prostitution, you think it should be made illegal for everyone else.”

You know, Walter, I sometimes think you live in a vacuum. You seem to be the quintessential ideologue who postulates all sorts of “Enlightened” philosophy while, apparently, somehow never having to face the consequences of your ideas. Abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, and on and on--all amoral and permissible, even commendable in your estimation. Problem is, I bet you have never had to come face to face with some of the horrific costs of such ideology.

Do you know what it is like to see a woman who has aborted her child come to the realization that she is complicit in the murder of her own offspring? Have you ever witnessed the overwhelming guilt and inconsolable grief of such a woman? Or the horror of a husband who consented to said abortion and later realizes that he, too, is party to the murder of his own child?

Or have you ever had a couple sit across the desk from you when the man has been caught visiting a prostitute? Do you have any idea of the unspeakable pain inflicted on his spouse, or the shame and guilt that such a man experiences?

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a woman who has discovered that her husband is meeting other men at rest areas to have homosexual encounters with them? Can you even begin to imagine the betrayal she must feel, not to mention the stark fear of knowing that she has been exposed to life-threatening disease as a result of her husband’s homosexuality? How about the teenage children of said couple? Can you fathom the horror of them watching their father die of AIDS one inch at the time, knowing all the while exactly how he contracted it?

Do you know what it is like to stand by the death-bed of a homosexual who is dying of AIDS? Have you ever seen the sheer terror that overcomes such an individual when they realize that they are about to die as a result of their “lifestyle” choices?

If you have not seen such things up-close-and-personal you really don’t understand the full scope of the ideas that you are trying to champion here. If this is your idea of “enlightened morality,” a morality that is “superior” to that of the bible and Christianity…well, you can keep your ideas about morality. They are really nothing more than a putrid, depraved pile of bunk.

RCofield,

"Yet I am willing to subject my position to your scrutiny."

I think that you're hoping to get a good secular education.

"The fact that you consistently refuse to objectively scrutinize my position after declaring that I lack understanding and am incapable of understanding evolution theory probably says about all that needs to be said."

Your comments about evolution theory are all that need to be said.

"So we are in agreement that I should not take your opinions seriously?"

That is my current understanding.

"Should I apply that unilaterally to every opinion that you post?"

It's only fair; I apply that unilaterally to every opinion that you post.

"Indeed. Especially unsupported opinions."

Sure, why not?

PEREGRINE,

"It's not my job to demonstrate your lack of understanding to you."

Yet I am willing to subject my position to your scrutiny. The fact that you consistently refuse to objectively scrutinize my position after declaring that I lack understanding and am incapable of understanding evolution theory probably says about all that needs to be said.

"Then you agree: I don't need to objectively do anything."

So we are in agreement that I should not take your opinions seriously? Should I apply that unilaterally to every opinion that you post?

"Yeah, well, you know what they say about opinions..."

Indeed. Especially unsupported opinions.

RCO: Do you understand nothing about the psychological make-up of a woman and how see views sexual intercourse?! You appear to think women somehow enjoy the sort of abuse that is inherent in prostitution. Talk about sexist! Your double standards are beginning to take on a life of their own here.

my response:
i make NO claims to "understanding" the "psychological make-up" of women.... really, that's not (or shouldn't be) under the purview of laws. whether i understand it or not, if an adult woman (or man) wants to get paid for having sex w/a concenting adult, that's her/his business. they're consenting adults.
----------------------

RCO: Simple question: Do you know of any woman who, possessing a sound mind, would “voluntarily” subject herself to the dehumanizing act of prostitution?

my response:
not to my knowledge - but i don't know any prostitutes. but, obviously there ARE women who voluntarily become prostitutes - because we're talking about it. and it's not called "the oldest profession" for no reason. i think that since you personally dislike the idea of prostitution, you think it should be made illegal for everyone else.

WALT: blah, blah, blah... have fun railing against those things. in fact, i'll jump right in with you. those things are largely products of prostitution's being illegal.

RCO: Women being forced into prostitution is “largely a product of prostitution’s being illegal?” Children and women being abused, subjugated, and enslaved is “largely a product of prostitution’s being illegal?” Again, do you think such abuse would magically disappear if prostitution were made legal?

my response:
well, making it illegal hasn't made it disappear... i think you think that by outlawing something you don't like, it will go away.

there's no place for child prostitution - nowhere have i said i'm in favor of that. you're trying to put words into my mouth or arguing against straw men with all that child prostitution stuff. as for adult women (and men) prostitutes, yeah, it would be safer for the women if it were legal.
-------------

RCO: “Bottom line: Prostitution represents one of the most violent and repulsive forms of SLAVERY known to man. The violence done to women (and men and even children) in prostitution is almost immeasurable when one thinks about it even for a moment."

WALT: “it is only slavery if it's involuntary. i'm against "violence" being done to women and men and children.”

RCO: So…Walter, how is “violence” not being done to a woman when a man pays money to her (or her pimp/madame) to have sexual relations with a woman who is not his wife?

my response:
that's a personal thing - between the man and his wife. there's no "violence" in sex - unless agreed to by consenting adults. the "violence" of extra-marital sex is not something one can legislate against.

RCO: "The purposes of this ownership are financial gain, sexual gratification, and/or power and domination."

WALT: “ownership of a person is now illegal. "financial gain, sexual gratification and/or power and domination" are not, and should not be, illegal.”

RCO: Financial gain from the prostitution and consequent abuse of women should not be illegal?! Who’s being “sexist” here, Walter? And sexual gratification at the expense of a woman’s virtue and having power over a woman’s body and exercising domination of said woman should not be illegal?!! Wow. Maybe you want to re-think that statement? If not, that may be the most “sexist” statement I have ever seen in print!

my response:
oh, puleeze... your hyperbole is ridiculous. "the most “sexist” statement I have ever seen in print!" really?!

like i said, ownership of women is already illegal (unlike in ancient israel...). but if a woman VOLUNTARILY wants to charge people to have sex w/her, and if people VOLUNTARILY want to pay her, then what's the big deal? as i've said numerous times, i'm against all those "abuses" which you associate with prostitution.

and, speaking of sexist reading, did you skip over about half of the bible?! now that's one of the most sexist books i've ever read. the o.t. is ridiculously sexist, and you may recognize this from 1corinthians14:

"As in(AH) all the churches of the saints, 34(AI) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but(AJ) should be in submission, as(AK) the Law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

that's plainly sexist.

or this from 1cor11:

"But I want you to understand that(E) the head of every man is Christ,(F) the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and(G) the head of Christ is God. ..... a man ... he is the image and glory of God, but(L) woman is the glory of man. 8For(M) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but(N) woman for man."

again, plainly sexist.

rco, i assume the pastor did get your slavery email - the one i was cc'ed on.

responding to your post of November 1, 2010 11:27 AM

RCO:"Prostitution, in the vast majority of cases, represents the OWNERSHIP of women and children by pimps, brothel owners, and even customers."

WALT: this sounds like you're talking about illegal prostitution. if it were legal, there wouldn't be pimps etc... and, come on, i never said anything about legalizing it for children.

RCO: Walter, do you honestly think that pimps, brothel owners, and abusive “customers” would somehow magically disappear if prostitution were legalized?! Good grief, man, your naiveté on these issues is sometimes breathtaking.

my reply:
well, if it were legal all these abuses would be "reportable." no prostitute is going to go to the cops and say, "my john hit me" or stole or or whatever. by making it illegal, the whole thing goes underground and opens up prostitutes to a whole variety of abuses she wouldn't have to deal with if it were legal. beating, abuse, stealing, whatever, would be dealt with like any case of such crimes. it's already illegal to steal, beat etc... all that horrible stuff you talk about is not inherent in prostitution.

RCofield,

"Yet, still, you have failed to demonstrate how I have done so."

It's not my job to demonstrate your lack of understanding to you.

You may be confusing me with someone else.

"You tryin' to teabag me?"

Do try to control yourself.

"You do if you want me to take your opinions seriously."

Then you agree: I don't need to objectively do anything.

"Speaking of which, I am of the opinion that it is you who do not understand evolution theory...or abortion...or worldview apologetics...or theology..."

Yeah, well, you know what they say about opinions...

PEREGRINE,

"I don't need to; you, yourself, have demonstrated that you do not understand evolution theory."

Yet, still, you have failed to demonstrate how I have done so.

"Did you have some tea with that vote?"

You tryin' to teabag me?

"I don't need to objectively do anything."

You do if you want me to take your opinions seriously.

Speaking of which, I am of the opinion that it is you who do not understand evolution theory...or abortion...or worldview apologetics...or theology...

"Perhaps you shouldn't have started."

Perhaps.

RCofield,

"Perhaps I am under no obligation to understand unsupported opinions."

Fortunately for you, you are under no obligation to understand anything.

"You have yet to demonstrate that I do not understand evolution theory."

I don't need to; you, yourself, have demonstrated that you do not understand evolution theory.

"And it appears that you are either incapable or unwilling to do so. My vote is for the former."

Did you have some tea with that vote?

"True, but you would need to objectively support your opinion for said opinion to be taken seriously by anyone other than yourself."

I don't need to objectively do anything.

"Weren’t me. Your conscience, maybe?....Nah. I knew better than that before I finished typing it."

Perhaps you shouldn't have started.

PEREGRINE,

“Perhaps it's an opinion that you are incapable of understanding, or that you are unwilling to understand.”

Perhaps I am under no obligation to understand unsupported opinions.

“Does your not understanding evolution theory rise to the level of evidence that you don't understand evolution theory?”

You have yet to demonstrate that I do not understand evolution theory. And it appears that you are either incapable or unwilling to do so. My vote is for the former.

“I don't need to be a scientist to recognize someone not understanding science.”

True, but you would need to objectively support your opinion for said opinion to be taken seriously by anyone other than yourself.

“Was that you outside my window last night?”

Weren’t me. Your conscience, maybe?....Nah. I knew better than that before I finished typing it.

rco, et al,
what a week... any how i'm sure you're all waiting for my latest utterings of wisdom...soon come, soon come....

RCofield.

"And it remains an unsupported opinion still."

Perhaps it's an opinion that you are incapable of understanding, or that you are unwilling to understand.

"Um...no, I am stating that your mere opinion that I don't understand evolution theory does not rise to the level of evidence that I don't understand it."

Does your not understanding evolution theory rise to the level of evidence that you don't understand evolution theory?

"Perhaps your statements that I "understand nothing about science in general" and that I am "arguing against a scientific theory that (I am) incapable of understanding?""

I don't need to be a scientist to recognize someone not understanding science.

"Precisely."

Well crafted.

"School of Hard Knocks. Post-graduate level."

Has someone started receiving testosterone injections?

"I think we are all aware of that at this point."

Was that you outside my window last night?

PEREGRINE,

"Actually, it's an opinion based by your comments about evolution theory."

And it remains an unsupported opinion still.

"Are you implying that you are simply unwilling to understand evolution theory?"

Um...no, I am stating that your mere opinion that I don't understand evolution theory does not rise to the level of evidence that I don't understand it.

"What is unclear about my being or not being a scientist?"

Perhaps your statements that I "understand nothing about science in general" and that I am "arguing against a scientific theory that (I am) incapable of understanding?"

"Well, I guess that that's that; nobody can argue with "succinctly"."

Precisely.

"Where did you go to learn that, Sunday school?"

School of Hard Knocks. Post-graduate level.

"I also play with myself on occasion."

I think we are all aware of that at this point.

RCofield,

"Actually, you only postulated an unsupported opinion."

Actually, it's an opinion based by your comments about evolution theory.

Are you implying that you are simply unwilling to understand evolution theory?

"Do YOU think you are highly educated?"

I really don't think about it all that much.

"No. I was calling for clarification."

What is unclear about my being or not being a scientist?

"Recalling. Succinctly."

Well, I guess that that's that; nobody can argue with "succinctly".

"I don't think you are deceiving anyone but yourself."

But, are you sure?

"Passive? Yeah, I can see that."

Ouch.

"Aggressive?! Were you raised by poodles?"

Ouch again; please, jebus, make him stop.

"I get out enough to know that I have a worldview."

Where did you go to learn that, Sunday school?

"These grossly immoral acts are the faces of Walter's "evolving" morality and PSOLUS's "I believe nothing" passivity."

I also play with myself on occasion.

WALTER,

You still out there, buddy?

Did you and your pastor get my email?

PETER, WALTER, PSOLUS, et al

Our previous thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Danielle_Bean/2010/10/show_me_what_you_believe.html

PETERHUFF,

"I read the Al Mohler blog. Did you know he endorsed Nancy Pearcey's new book?"

I didn't. She gained a strong endorsement there.

"Here is Nancy quoting Colin Hay, 'Why We Hate Politics':

...Secular political philosophies inevitably end in sheer pragmatism and utilitarianism." Saving Leonardo, p.3"

Well said. Pragmatic utilitarianism is the secular philosophy behind such immoral movements eugenics, euthanasia, and racially applied abortion practices. These are all masked from the public view behind the doors of sterile environs, hence the public outcry is virtually non-existent. These grossly immoral acts are the faces of Walter's "evolving" morality and PSOLUS's "I believe nothing" passivity.

PEREGRINE,

"I just did."

Actually, you only postulated an unsupported opinion.

"You think that I'm highly educated?"

Do YOU think you are highly educated?

"You think that I'm a scientist?"

No. I was calling for clarification.

"Are you recalling, or believing?"

Recalling. Succinctly.

"No, actually, I've been deceptive and passive aggressive all my life."

I don't think you are deceiving anyone but yourself. Passive? Yeah, I can see that. Aggressive?! Were you raised by poodles?

"I'm beginning to wonder if you get out at all."

I get out enough to know that I have a worldview.

Hi RCofield,

I read the Al Mohler blog. Did you know he endorsed Nancy Pearcey's new book?

I like what he said here,

"First, we must remember that elections are about ideas. A seismic election like this one is especially about ideas. In this case, an unmistakable message was directed to President Barack Obama. There was a massive judgment on his policies and leadership. His ideological liberalism is not shared by a majority of America's voters. His association with the values of the intellectual elites and his commitment to an expanding role of government distanced him from the electorate. Americans will now watch to see if the president got the message."

Here is Nancy quoting Colin Hay, 'Why We Hate Politics',

"Politicians are assumed today not to be selfless representatives of those who elected them, or beneficial guardians of the public good,...They are, instead, self serving and self-interested rational utility-maximizers," advancing only those policies that benefit themselves. Secular political philosophies inevitably end in sheer pragmatism and utilitarianism." Saving Leonardo, p.3

And the world-view that divorces morality from politics took root in the universities, the hotbed of todays ideology. The intellectual elite, not Mr. Deeds, have gone to Washington.

As Mohler said,

"The issue of same-sex marriage will inevitably be nationalized within the next two years, in the courts if not in Congress. The issue of abortion will not go away, nor will human embryonic stem cell research and a host of other controversies. Even as these issues are reshaped by new developments, you can count on them coming back to the forefront."

Obama has tossed aside these moral issues in favor of a more liberal agenda. I guess we will see in the next election just how deeply these issues have again fractured your country in the fight for power between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, anything goes verses lets have some moral restraint.

""Luckily, younger Christians are rejecting this wrongheaded thinking. While they still accept our faith's call to be good citizens, they are abandoning the culture wars that divide so many people of faith across party lines.""

Well, hopefully we'll be welcoming you back to America pretty soon. Or what's left of it. Maybe with a 'My Gods, kids, what took you so long?' (Pardon if people don't tend to trust activists with Bibles after the last thirty years, but, look at Georgia, as described, after all. This is where that 'culture war' and corporate economics brings places: legislatures backed into a corner and in many ways *having* to make state Constitutional amendments, to impose regressive fees, ....so there's an ER for someone to go to, even if they only got around to mandating seat belts last year.

(And when it comes down to that vote, what are you going to do, say, 'Bleed out on the street, it's 'taking back the country!')

Seems to me like all that stuff described is the real fallout of making 'Amendments not to raise (any but regressive) taxes.'

As another Christian living in Georgia, I wonder if you and I left the same blank on our ballots. There was one race where I could not force myself to vote for either candidate.

I'm fascinated by the constitutional amendments on our ballots. I'm convinced that the Lege has given up on the integrity of the State Constitution and is now using the amendment process as sort of an answer to California's initiative system--a way for the Lege to blame unpopular decisions on the voters.

The Trauma Care vote is a perfect example. Instead of actually raising money through existing means to pay for trauma centers, the Lege instead inserted a brand new (and regressive) tax into the Constitution and will have the cover for the next election by claiming (correctly) "the voters approved it!". The "environmental protections" is another doozy. What it actually does is authorize the legislature to budget anything remotely involved with energy efficiency by hiding its costs in the budget by claiming future savings. I consider myself a caring-for-creation voter, and on one hand am glad to give the Georgia Lege any excuse to promote energy efficiency, but I am dismayed by the deliberately confusing wording designed to get "yes" votes from people of conscience who may otherwise be disengaged from the sausagemaking that is politics. This was the first year that the Secretary of State had the power to give a one sentence, clarifying summary of each question, and he really didn't help clear anything up.

GabrielRockman:

I agree. There was a fairly prominent office that I left unmarked on my ballot because I could not in good conscience vote for either candidate. On occasion, that will happen. And often the lesser of two evils is too evil.

But there were many, many offices that I did vote for. Additionally, there were non-office votes that I made for everything from trauma centers to environmental protections in my home state of Georgia.

Jonathan

To be fair, in spite of the Catholic Church's clear and strong condemnation of abortion (and those that support it), the Church has never claimed that voting for a pro-choice candidate is *always* wrong, and it's never claimed that voting for an anti-abortion candidate is *always* right. Obviously, an anti-abortion candidate who launches unjust military invasions resulting in mass carnage can hardly be called "pro-life"!

Hey Guys,

Our old thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Danielle_Bean/2010/10/show_me_what_you_believe.html

The problem with your logic is that you've assumed that voting makes you a good citizen.

If there is no candidate deserving of one's vote, then voting for a candidate who does not deserve your vote would, in my opinion, make you a bad citizen, not a good one. Therefore, in many cases, not voting would be fulfilling one's duty to be a good citizen.

Well said, sir.