Raising little blasphemers

Hi Farnaz,

I listened to the link provided in your post. I do not see the caretakers act of defiance as an act of faith, but as an act of rebellion if it is in any way an illustration of the Christian faith.

It seems that we have forgotten who the Sovereign Lord is.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." (Proverbs 1:7)

We have got it all wrong. We seek the glory, honor and praise when the glory, honor and praise belongs to God. He is worthy of it. Who has power, who has wisdom, who has compassion, who has understanding like He does?

FARNAZ: "Calling her by her title is a matter of respect, for one thing. But that disturbs me far less than your caution regarding the R. Brous. What exactly did she say that Arminius should ignore."

She said, "The Bible is, fundamentally, a set of rules that challenge us to break the rules."

I have explained in the posts on this forum why this is misleading. It is so much more than just a set of rules.

She has also said that, "One of my teachers once said that the way to raise a religious child is to teach her defiance. If she doesn't learn how to question authority, to challenge what seems unjust, to refuse to follow directions that don't make sense, she'll never achieve true piety."

She goes against the Word of God in His admonition to raise a child in the teachings of the faith, not in defiance of it. She is for teaching her children to defy the living, holy, pure, true God. I don't think that is wise, as I have stated before.

The question comes back to Why is she right when she opposes what God has said?

Hi Schaum,

SCHAUM: "You should be writing for National Lampoon: they do not require proof from their writers, and since your irrational fantasies of your sky-god and his “son” neither offer nor find proof, you would fit in quite well."

The proof is in His special revelation, the Bible. That is where it starts. That is the highest validation I can point you to. But that is not all. We could argue until the cows come home, you with your experts and I with mine, but what will that solve? Your mind is set in stone. First you need to get honest with your world view and ask some tough questions.

SCHAUM: "The simple truth is that first you do not exist; you are born; you live a short while; you die; you again do not exist."

The simple truth is that you do not KNOW this as certain. Since you have not died, how do you KNOW that your inner being, the part of you that makes you you does not continue on after the body dies? You don't.

SCHAUM: "I am sorry that reality is so difficult for you to accept. Your fear of not existing is obviously quite painful for you. It is, nevertheless, reality – and reality is something with which you need to become familiar."

How do you KNOW what is reality? Does your subjective mind determine what is real? If we see reality in two different lights does your mind determine what actually is real? How familiar are you with being dead? How limitless is your mind? How much do you actually know? Do you know what my middle two initials are? Does your mind see every facet of every fact and how it is related to every other fact? Does it even see the relationship in its entirety between life and death?

SCHAUM: "Your desperate fantasies about “god” and a “savior” are not reality. They do not exist."

How do you KNOW this? First convince me that you are all knowing, that you can be certain.

As for desperate, the atheist world view is desperate. It has no ultimate meaning, purpose or hope. It is ultimately meaningless and yet you act as if there is meaning and purpose and hope in life. In this sense you borrow from the Christian framework. Why? All you are is a random bunch of molecules reacting to stimulus. You originated from a meaningless, purposeless, impersonal, uncaring universe, first by a random happenstance called the Big Bang as far as scientists can make out, or at least from what the most popular consensus can figure out, in which there was no intent. Then by an impersonal biological accident, life came into being from non-living matter and for some reason it wanted to survive. S--t happens. Talk about fantasy, please.

You have life coming from non-life. Where do you see that happening?
You have personality coming from the impersonal. Where do you see that happening?
You have intent, meaning and purpose coming from purposeless, mindless, meaningless chance, for without a Mind to design, intend, purpose, things just happen. How does that happening?
Please tell me.

Oh great! An angry atheist with a chip on his shoulders.

Schaum, there are smatterings of similarities that would come as people lost touch with the truths revealed by God.

How do you KNOW that these mystery religions came before the biblical revelation spoken of in the OT and NT? What are your earliest accounts and how many are there to compare? How do you KNOW that God's revelation to these biblical writers was not passed on by word of mouth to other cultures and tribes and peoples and then mythologized and turned into a fantasy religion? How do you KNOW that these other blood cults did not have an trace of truth and understanding in mimicking the biblical covenants and sacrificial offerings for guilt and sin? How do you KNOW that all world religions were not originally traced back to God's revelation contained in the Bible; that people did not pervert the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:18-25)?

You don't. Your world view can know nothing objectively, absolutely, or certainly, unless it borrows from the Judaeo–Christian framework. FYI, it requires an objective absolute certain reference point for truth or ethics or knowledge to be known in the first place. You have to have a standard to compare anything to, and if that standard is constantly changing from culture to culture and from age to age how can you ever call any standard right or good or evil?

The irrational part is that you can come up with good or evil without an absolute, objective standard. I want you to explain how. Let's see how your basic assumptions work and how reasonably you can explain yourself.

Why do you get to chose what 'is' or what 'ought' to be? You pretend to know more than God does. Convince me why it is wrong to steal your wallet? If there is no universal, objective measure then what makes it wrong? The answer is nothing. It just becomes your opinion, your feelings, your preference, your subjectivity in opposition to mine, and may the best man win. Force is the only thing that you can point to to justify one view over the other. The more people you can get to side with you the more you can bully any opposition. But don't call it good, and don't call Hitler's Germany wrong or evil with such a world view.

I've noticed how much you atheist's like to criticize God, but first try making sense of evil from your framework before poking your finger at Him. Why do you get so upset about evil? If all we are are biological bags of molecules in motion what difference does it make and who cares?

Yet that is where your world view is its most inconsistent, where it glaringly falls down. You point the finger without an adequate explanation of your own, all the while borrowing from the Christian world view that recognizes that certain things are definitely wrong, all the while living in the world that He created, with the food, shelter, oxygen and life that He has granted you. Go figure?

Peter Huff:

You should be writing for National Lampoon: they do not require proof from their writers, and since your irrational fantasies of your sky-god and his “son” neither offer nor find proof, you would fit in quite well.

Your fear of living life on your own, unable to cope with life without your “absolute” point of reference which you find in your made-up religion, is your undoing. The sky-god that you regard as the “absolute” point of reference is a fictitious entity whose existence you cannot prove, except with self-referencing dependence upon the “revelations” of the “bible”; the delusional use of scripture to “prove” other scripture just doesn’t work, you know, except in your head.

Not only are you unable to prove the existence of your sky-god, neither can you prove that his “son” ever existed. The fantastic jesus myths are that and nothing more. You are obsessed with a blood sacrifice cult which was invented by man for the purposes of gaining control and power over other men, and to keep women in submission; it is this and nothing more.

The simple truth is that first you do not exist; you are born; you live a short while; you die; you again do not exist. I am sorry that reality is so difficult for you to accept. Your fear of not existing is obviously quite painful for you. It is, nevertheless, reality – and reality is something with which you need to become familiar. Your desperate fantasies about “god” and a “savior” are not reality. They do not exist.

Part 2

By Christ, the voluntary, perfect human sacrifice, God's law is met fully and His justice and punishment for sin is also met fully. Christ's life a ransom for ours, for if Adam had eaten of the tree of life in the Garden he too would have lived forever. But Jesus said, He is the bread of eternal life, and He offer this life to us. Eternal life is something that only God has. So our faith in Christ is also a recognition that, as our substitute on the cross, we died of our old nature there - it was crucified in Christ taking our punishment - and when Christ rose we rose with Him, for He is now our life, our eternal life. God will not punish both His Son for the sins we have committed and us who have their faith in what the Son has done for them. That would be double indemnity.

This is not something made up like your Babylonian wives tales Schaum. They came after. This substitutionary death was foretold in Genesis 3:15 and throughout the OT. Is it any wonder that these old myths are found in ancient cultures, because, like the Flood stories, there was somewhat of an understanding of what God would do, prophesied in the OT writings and spread by word of mouth until they were mythologized.

The question is what are the earliest records of these stories and where did they come from? It is the contention of the Christian and the Jew that these Babylonian and ancient stories were borrowed from the OT and NT writings.

Hi Schaum,

From Scripture I do not believe the Eucharist is taught. Transubstantiation is foreign to the Words of Jesus.

The symbolism in the wine and the bread is a reminder of the substitutionary atonement for the sins of the believer. Jesus explains both in various passages such as in His teaching in John 6.

"The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (John 6:63b)

Blood represented the life of the person in that when you drain a person of blood you take their life, and bread gave the body nourishment and life.

The old covenant was inaugurated with blood to show that the cost of sin is expensive. It cost the guilty person his best animal. God's provision in the old covenant was a substitutionary offering of an animal rather than a person. It should have been the guilty person since it was a person who sinned against God and did what was wrong in His sight, not the animal. Instead it was the animal.

"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that ARE [notice the sacrificial system is still in place since the Temple has not been destroyed yet, so this was written before 70AD] already here, He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but He entered the Most Holy Place by His own BLOOD, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctified them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God.
For this reason Christ is a Mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may received the promised eternal inheritance - now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (Hebrews 9:11-15 and onwards to 10:18)

"Therefore when Christ came into the world, He said:
'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You prepared for Me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings You were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am - it is written about Me in the scroll - I have come to do Your will, O God.'
First He said, 'Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings You did not desire, nor were You pleased with them' (although the law required them to be made). Then He said, 'Here I am, I have come to do Your will.' He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:5-10)

Gee, Hitman2 has been quite busy, engaging all sorts of heavyweights.

I wonder if he's read Boyl's "Hitman." Maybe, I'll ask.

Hi Peter,

I'm here now. (Clearly.) Hi Schaum, Pam, Arminius, Moderate (or Mary Cunningham)

"The roman catholic corporation teaches..."

The Zyclon SSchaum hates catholics. Surprise surprise surprise.

Farnaz:

"But if all is up for discussion, I'm there. That would include the origins of the Eucharist..."

The roman catholic corporation’s “eucharist” is, like everything christianity teaches, stolen from other religions; in fact, it originated long before the existence of the “church”. An ancient Babylonian woman, Semiramis, who is thought to have been a queen, married her son Nimrod and subsequently declared herself to be a goddess. She is known under a variety of names, including Diana, Venus, and the Queen of Heaven.

When her son/husband, Nimrod, died she declared him to have become Baal, the sun-god. She subsequently gave birth to Tammuz and declared that he was the reincarnation of Nimrod, and further claimed that she had borne him without the help of a man. From this evolved the mother/child worship which Christians practice. Many images and statues of Semaris, the queen of heaven, and her “immaculately conceived” baby, Tammuz, were erected: Semaris became known as the mother of Baal, or, simply, the “mother of god”.

Much later, in Egypt, the Egyptian priests developed the ritual known as “transubstantiation”, by which they pulled their sun-god out of the sky and placed him in a wafer. The Egyptians would then eat their god for “spiritual nourishment”. Sound familiar?

The roman catholic corporation today worships Mary as the “Queen of Heaven”, although few if any realize that they are actually praying to Semaris, the Babylonian queen of heaven. And Rome has perverted the Tammuz into jesus. Papal worship is nothing more than the worship of Nimrod and his wife/mother.

The superstitious members of the roman catholic corporation not only believe their priests have the power to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, they also believe that the substance of bread and wine are gone and fully transformed into flesh and blood, notwithstanding the fact that it still looks/feels/tastes like bread and wine.

The roman catholic corporation teaches that eucharistic "adoration," and "processions" are not idolatry because 'jesus' is fully contained in the wafer, and that worshipping the wafer is, in effect, worshipping 'jesus.' Papists are rarely aware that the Egyptians originated ''transubstantiation" to put their sun-god into a wafer to be eaten just like they do. When you bow down to that eucharist cracker, you are not bowing to the creator of the universe, but to a sun-god. Why do you think that your monstrance (device that the wafer is placed when it is being adored) is shaped like a SUNBURST? That is because your wafer-god is a sun-god!!! It is not jesus that you worship in the eucharist, it is Tammuz, it is Osiris, IT IS BAAL!!!

These pagan rituals originated in ancient Babylon; it is therefore no wonder that john refers to the roman catholic corporation as 'Mystery BABYLON" in Revelation Ch 17.

Hi Farnaz,

Sorry for butting in on your conversation with Pam, but I noticed this,

FARNAZ: "They "literally" mean differently to us--all."

It is possible to misinterpret, but in order for language to convey a message there must be a correct way to interpret a 'literal' or figurative statement. It is meaningless if you can't correctly understand what the author is saying. Figures of speech open up other possible meanings, but the context determines what kind of genre is being discussed and what the figurative use means, if the author discloses the figurative, such as Jesus did to the disciples when talking in parables. Therefore, Scripture interprets Scripture. That is the rule of thumb in order to understand what God is saying, for He is not a God of confusion, He has made Himself understood by His Son in specific ways, along with the prophets of old. But who better to show us understanding than the Son, and the Holy Spirit whom He promised to those who would believe in the Son?

The common everyday examples that are used in reference to the color green are an example of what I mean by the use of language.

1) The grass in the front of my house is green. Literal.

2) I'm green with envy. Figurative.

3) That guy is loaded with greenbacks. Figurative.

You can tell the difference.

In the same way God speaks to us in language that we can understand, and He speaks to us by His Son, who became human and interacted with us. There is historical narratives, poetic and apocalyptic passages, symbolic and typologies language throughout the Bible, especially in the OT that are explained in the NT. The actual history of the Jewish people is a history that God uses not only to bring the promised Messiah into the world, but also to convey a lot of spiritual truths. So actual history is used to teach man his folly outside of God.

"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may KNOW Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true - even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)

"Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist - he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1 John 1:22-24)

Throughout the OT the testimony from God is presented about the Son on every page in symbol, types, prophecies. That is the spiritual. The literal is the history conveyed in the Bible from the history of Adam to Abraham to David to Jesus, to the rise of the church age and the preaching of the gospel message until the close of the Jewish age and destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

"As for my "bailiwick," the problem we've encountered is your desire to keep the "NT" sacred. No can do. You asked for quotes. You've gotten them. MOre whenever you'd like."

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never held either book "sacred," or anything like that. Nor have I ever asked you for quotes.

You, however, will not hear a single word against the Tanakh in particular, or the Jewish faith in general.

I am evenhanded - I hate all religion and the ignorance that it keeps the human race wallowing in.
-------------------------------------------
Incorrect from beginning to end. The to-do of some months back focused only on your refusal, along with a couple of others to deal with "NT."

You focused exclusively on "OT" and when I made the simple point that one could not deal with Tanakh, while leaving the "NT" sacred, the fireworks began.

Dealing with both texts is no problem for me. But understand, they are TEXTS, which means that given the differences in our backgrounds, etc., we do not read them the same way.

They "literally" mean differently to us--all.

But if all is up for discussion, I'm there. That would include the origins of the Eucharist (Mystery religions), additions to the "NT" through the fifteenth century, the Sanhedrin meeting that never happened (far from my "opinion"), etc.

Lot, Abraham, etc.

"As for my "bailiwick," the problem we've encountered is your desire to keep the "NT" sacred. No can do. You asked for quotes. You've gotten them. MOre whenever you'd like."

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never held either book "sacred," or anything like that. Nor have I ever asked you for quotes.

You, however, will not hear a single word against the Tanakh in particular, or the Jewish faith in general.

I am evenhanded - I hate all religion and the ignorance that it keeps the human race wallowing in.

My pleasure Farnaz! Numbers 6:24-25 with John 1:14-18 and 2 Corinthians 3:7-4:18, esp., 4:6. What can be more Jewish than to believe in the Messiah that God has sent?

The message came first to the Jew, the very people whom God made that first covenant with. The sacrificial system that was inaugurated in the OT is no longer in place. There is now a better one (Hebrews 7:11, 18, 19; 8:7-13)!

An understanding of these things is what God intended in Jesus.

Hi Farnaz,

FARNAZ: "Peter, Rabbi Brous is not an atheist. Did you read what I wrote?

I never said that she was. She was referring to them, just like Mary was.

Yes, I see what you wrote and I don't see how you are connecting what Mary said as being in the right context of how she said it.

Here is the original question from Sally Quinn that the Rabbi responded to,

"Atheists are others are protesting a new law in Ireland, under which a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if "he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion..... Should Ireland or any nation have a law against blasphemy?"

FARNAZ: "What do you not understand in what I wrote?"

You're the judge of what you wrote, after all, whose knows better than what an author intends other than the author, but as the author I think you got mixed up on the original theme from Sally that the Rabbi and Mary's response to.

If words have certain meaning depending on the context in which they are used, then the author can clarify if something is mistaken and try to explain more precisely what is actually being said.

From the words that Mary used I believe she is being sarcastic and using irony to emphasize the points the Rabbi was making in context with the original theme question that Sally posed.

FARNAZ: "Also, I wrote three other posts to you."

I responded to earlier posts on the other forum we are involved in. I'm keeping up as fast as my little old brain can process the information, but it will soon be time to hang up my computer punching skills for supper. If I could type or think through this faster you would not be three posts ahead. I like to sift through and analyze what is being said.

Thanks, Peter.

Hi Farnaz,

FARNAZ: "Peter, Listen to the link. This isn't exactly what she means, though. Also, see Paul Tillich, not an exact match either. There is no exact Christian equivalent for what she is speaking of. Read the Tanakh. There you will find the answer."

Farnaz, the Old Testament is only part of God's revelation. The fulfillment is in the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

'In these last days.' Ask yourself what that refers to? Jesus was always making statements such as in the Olivetti Discourse about 'this generation', 'the end of this age', 'when you see' or 'when you hear', etc, etc.

It pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the end of the age of the sacrificial system. The perfect sacrifice was fulfilled in Jesus. Something most every book of the OT was referring to had now been accomplished by the death and resurrection of the Messiah. And to make this clear God destroyed the OT system of things by putting an end to the Jewish system of sacrifice and Temple.

"To the Jews who believed Him, Jesus said, "If you hold to My teaching, you are really My disciples. THEN you will KNOW the TRUTH, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)

"He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter His glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself." (Luke 24:25-27)

The Book of Isaiah 53 talks about the sacrifice that Jesus would make.

"Yet it was the LORD's will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer, and though the LORD makes His life a guilt offering, He will see His offspring and prolong His days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in His hand. After the suffering of His soul, He will see the light of life and be satisfied; by His knowledge My righteous Servant will justify many, and HE WILL BEAR THEIR INIQUITIES...." Isa. 53:10-11)

Jesus is that Servant!

"Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven...for the bread of God is HE who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world...For I have come down from heaven not to do My own will but to do the will of Him who sent Me." (john 6:32a, 33, 38)

Pam,

I have no desire to defend one against the other, Farnaz - that's your bailiwick
----------------------------------------
No, it isn't.

Jews no longer refer to the New Testament (sic), without either (sic) or quotation marks.

There is ample literature on this. Replacement ideology has led to the worst bigotry and persecution imaginable. Of us.

Some Jews call it the Christian Testament or the Christian Bible.

Liberal Catholics, Protestants, several on this panel refer to Tankh, either as Tanakh, or as the Hebrew Bible or Scriptures (less desirable). They refer to the "NT" (no sic, note), as the NT or Christian Testament. They know that "Old Testament" is offensive and do not use the phrase.

The Vatican is having one heck of a time as one sees on their web site from time to time. They really would like to try, deny replacement or supersessionist ideology while still somehow holding on to typology. They cannot, of course, although Catholic theologians, eg, Rosemary Reuther have begged them too. It's a nasty business, but informs Christian/Catholic theology. A good start on the moral dangers of typology is either Reuther's "Faith and Fratricide" or Levinas, Nine Talmudic Essays. Don't be put off by the title. References to the Talmud are minimal, and the essay on typology is brilliant, crystal clear.

As for my "bailiwick," the problem we've encountered is your desire to keep the "NT" sacred. No can do. You asked for quotes. You've gotten them. MOre whenever you'd like.

"I indicated that I was referring to Matthew."

Sorry, I didn't (still don't) see that. Where?

"Of course, I use "sic." Many people do. Think of the title and the ideology. The reason should be apparent."

It isn't to me. These are the titles in the Christian Bible. That the Old Testament is substantially the same as the Tanakh is neither here nor there. It's their silly book, and they can call it whatever they want. Using "sic" indicates a mistake, and it's no such thing. How would you have people refer to it so that others understand the reference? You're saying that there's a more correct title - what might that be?

"However, I warn you, Pam. I'm not going to go mano a mano with you on the Tanakh vs. the New Testament (sic)."

I have no desire to defend one against the other, Farnaz - that's your bailiwick. To me they're equally fanciful and absurd.

Peter,

Rabbi Brous is not an atheist. Did you read what I wrote?

What do you not understand in what I wrote?

Also, I wrote three other posts to you.

Hi Farnaz,

MARY: "Poor Ireland! First paedophile priests, then the credit crunch, now American atheists and AMERICAN (ATHEIST) JEWS are on its case."

Dripping in sarcasm. Moral sense is hard to be found otherwise, for how can anyone sympathize with such behavior from priests, or how can an atheist or a person of Jewish descent deny God and still have an objective standard for "good" without borrowing from the very thing that they oppose? As I said before, laid down your case for anything objective outside of God, the one and only Being who is able to know/understand/fathom all things, past, present and future.

Peter,

READ. Also, see my two earlier posts.

"The Bible is, fundamentally, a set of rules that challenge us to break the rules. Abraham challenges God over the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah. How dare you - Abraham asks God - act so unjustly? Irreverence can be an act of courage and sometimes even an expression of faith."

Peter,

See also my earlier post.

SHARON: "One of my teachers once said that the way to raise a religious child is to teach her defiance."

YES! Jews are not Bible bins. The whole of Judaism is founded on debate, the terms of which are rigorous.

But before one gets there, question! Question, question, question!

Peter,

Listen to the link. This isn't exactly what she means, though. Also, see Paul Tillich, not an exact match either. There is no exact Christian equivalent for what she is speaking of. Read the Tanakh. There you will find the answer.

Rabbi,

Thanks for a well-reasoned post. I really hope the people who responded aren't representative of all the people who read it.

In some Kabbalistic work there's a passage on the necessity of "heretical faith" for clearing away ideas that have outlived their usefulness. Heretical faith is not the opposite of faith, it's necessary to keep faith vital.

Here's a very interesting Christian thinker named Peter Rollins, reading a parable from his book "The Orthodox Heretic" with a very similar message:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCLDMMA6Sw0&feature=related

Posted by: decentdust | January 10, 2010 8:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

Here is 'Rabbi' Sharon's statement,

SHARON: "One of my teachers once said that the way to raise a religious child is to teach her defiance."

Teaching defiance is only going to produce a defiant child. You need to know/see true light (John 8:12) in order to understand what is the 'good' standard. What a person is taught is what they mirror to a large extent in later life. A parent who smokes or drinks or swears is far more likely to promote the same behavior in their children. Unless another, 'better' way is mirrored what is the likelihood a child will practice anything else when he/she gets older?

Hi Peter,

Please look again:

"Poor Ireland! First paedophile priests, then the credit crunch, now American atheists and AMERICAN (ATHEIST) JEWS are on its case.
---------------------
I have no problem with atheists. R. Brous, however, is not an atheist.

And in what way does her Jewishness preclude her expressions of sympathy?

Why has not Mary Cunningham posted on Protestant threads, perhaps attacking "American (atheist) Protestants?

But, you see, she never does.

-------------------------------------------
And then there is this:

We Irish are good at martyrdom and we can only count our blessings in the midst of woe: the last one being that Rabbi Blous and her defiant, (probably) ill-mannered children will not be visiting us. You have to take your solace where you can.

Clearly, you can see the problem here.

Hi Farnaz,

MARY: "Poor Ireland! First paedophile priests, then the credit crunch, now American atheists and American (atheist?) Jews are on its case. But we’ll survive. We managed to outlast Oliver Cromwell, then the English, then the ‘British’ (whoever that is), and these were a lot worse."

I think you are reading into Mary's text that Mary is an atheist, but looking at the theme of the forum is Mary not juxtaposition the 'Rabbi's' statements about Ireland on its perils by citing these groups, in my opinion at least?

MARY: "We Irish are good at martyrdom and we can only count our blessings in the midst of woe: the last one being that Rabbi Blous and her defiant, (probably) ill-mannered children will not be visiting us. You have to take your solace where you can."

I agree that allowing defiance is not the way to teach a child respect and bring them to an understanding of what is good. You teach a child how to be defiant and that is going to be the set of values that child takes into the future. If you mirror what is good and right, taken from the standard that is God's word, when they are older they are less likely to depart from it (Deuteronomy 6:7-9; Ephesians 6:4).

Unless they have a final objective reference point they're not going to know how to be anything but defiant anyway. That has been the course of human history since the Fall, at which time man took over the position of determiner of what good was. That defiance to God was evil and is, apart from Satan, the source of all the evil that is in the world today.

The evolutionist has no way of justifying evil. He lives by a double standard, always borrowing from the Christian standard and yet living like the God of Christianity does not exist (Romans 1:18-3:23).

JustThenTillNow:

It will place a strain on your intellectual powers, but We ask that you attempt to pay closer attention to what you read and what you say: We were speaking not to Pamsm, but to Mary Cunningham.

We think that the frustrations which you suffer would be greatly relieved if you got yourself a boy. We strongly recommend that you invest yourself in membership in NAMBLA, the North American Man/boy Love Association. http://www.nambla.org/

Cras vel odio. Vestibulum feugiat laoreet magna. Vivamus semper, ipsum sit amet bibendum lobortis, erat leo elementum est, vel ullamcorper tortor augue a tortor. Phasellus eget nibh at felis condimentum elementum. Vivamus quis sem id diam facilisis hendrerit. Phasellus placerat dapibus magna. Vivamus id nunc. Proin laoreet dapibus nibh.

Hi Farnaz,

FARNAZ: "Like "Sharon"? Are you a personal friend of the rabbi? Have you lost your mind?"

No, I don't know her personally. Is it wrong to use her first name? Should I always put 'Rabi' before it? Who makes the rules, Farnaz? I'm not a Jew by physical descent, nor have I converted to Judaism or Kabbalism. She is not my 'Rabi.' She is not my teacher, the Lord Jesus is.
--------------------------------------------
Hi Peter,

Calling her by her title is a matter of respect, for one thing. But that disturbs me far less than your caution regarding the R. Brous. What exactly did she say that Arminius should ignore.

As for Mary Cunningham, THINK, Peter, before you post. Here is her post. I'll paste the others when you reply to this one.
---------------------------------------

Rabbi Brous.

Posted by: Mary_Cunningham | January 10, 2010 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Poor Ireland! First paedophile priests, then the credit crunch, now American atheists and American (atheist?) Jews are on its case. But we’ll survive. We managed to outlast Oliver Cromwell, then the English, then the ‘British’ (whoever that is), and these were a lot worse.

We Irish are good at martyrdom and we can only count our blessings in the midst of woe: the last one being that Rabbi Blous and her defiant, (probably) ill-mannered children will not be visiting us. You have to take your solace where you can.

Farnaz,
"# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12
# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30"

etc.

You do realize that the New Testament (you always add "sic" - what would you have us call it?), is a collection of 27 books, don't you? Your listings of chapter and verse to support your interpretations aren't very useful without knowing which book you're referencing.
-
----------------------------------
I indicated that I was referring to Matthew.

In the past, I've also cited and quoted MLJ, etc.

Of course, I use "sic." Many people do. Think of the title and the ideology. The reason should be apparent.

However, I warn you, Pam. I'm not going to go mano a mano with you on the Tanakh vs. the New Testament (sic).

Farnaz,
"# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12
# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30"

etc.

You do realize that the New Testament (you always add "sic" - what would you have us call it?), is a collection of 27 books, don't you? Your listings of chapter and verse to support your interpretations aren't very useful without knowing which book you're referencing.

"Pamsm is hardly dull witted."

Thanks, JTTN, but I think he was adressing Mary Cunningham.

Hi Farnaz,

FARNAZ: "Like "Sharon"? Are you a personal friend of the rabbi? Have you lost your mind?"

No, I don't know her personally. Is it wrong to use her first name? Should I always put 'Rabi' before it? Who makes the rules, Farnaz? I'm not a Jew by physical descent, nor have I converted to Judaism or Kabbalism. She is not my 'Rabi.' She is not my teacher, the Lord Jesus is.

Hi Farnaz (January 10, 2010 7:25 PM ),

FARNAZ: "Sorry, Rabbi Brous, but your thread has been infested with racists, and they must be removed."

FARNAZ: "This, from the Racist, Mary Cunningham, relative of the bastard, Whistling, no doubt."

FARNAZ: "Hilarious! First, we get the Nazi bastard, Whistling, and then his co-racist, Mary Cunningham."

FARNAZ: "Poor racist Catholic, Mary. Poor, poor bigoted fool."

Thanks once again Farnaz for your loving, unracist, neutrality, unbiased words in this matter! (^8

It is awfully hard not to be unbiased once you take a side, but the question is how do you justify your particular side as being true?

Is your opinion that 'good' that it determines what 'is' or 'ought' to be? Does your mind engulf all knowledge of past, present and future; events, actions and outcomes in which you state so emphatically what 'is' or 'ought' to be? If not, How do you determine if it is objective?

Or do you determine the 'good' by strength of numbers, majority rules, or by the mere force of your opinion? What criteria do you have for meeting the standard of objectivity from these kinds of situation?

Or do you 'feel' that evolutionary science is the criteria for evaluating the objective truth by?

How do you determine its objectivity?

Please point to something outside yourself that we can logically test your suppositions by and know that what you say is true.

Peter Huff,

Don't let people like Sharon, the Pope (who has so nobly graced our presence on this post), Farnaz or anyone else create a smoke screen by fanciful words. God's word is our highest authority, measure and standard for it transcends man's limited subjective knowledge, ideas and ideals on what is right and wrong. Without His revelation we are lost.

"Don't be deceived, my brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created." (James 1:16-18)

There is only one perfect standard, just as there is only One perfect, true and living God.
-----------------------

Like "Sharon"? Are you a personal friend of the rabbi? Have you lost your mind?

peter, pam
let's go to the first one peter just linked to.

Hello Walter, Pam,

This forums is busy. Any other suggestions?

How about here,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/vashti_murphy_mckenzie/2010/01/yea_for_the_first_amendment.html

OR,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/mathew_n_schmalz/2010/01/archaic_and_dangerous.html

Arminius,

Don't let people like Sharon, the Pope (who has so nobly graced our presence on this post), Farnaz or anyone else create a smoke screen by fanciful words. God's word is our highest authority, measure and standard for it transcends man's limited subjective knowledge, ideas and ideals on what is right and wrong. Without His revelation we are lost.

"Don't be deceived, my brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all He created." (James 1:16-18)

There is only one perfect standard, just as there is only One perfect, true and living God.

Hi Arminius (January 9, 2010 11:08 AM ),

ARMINIUS: "Now then - seems to me a guy by the name of Jesus broke a LOT of rules."

It depends if you are talking about human 'traditions' or God's commands? This Rabi Sharon is making the inference that this is what the Bible is, just a rule book. It is oversimplified and misinformative unless you include 'the rest of the story.'

The good news is that, "if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come. All this is from God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was was reconciling the world to Himself through Christ, not counting men's sins against them...God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:17-19, 21)

The Bible is more than just about the sovereign God's laws that are in place so that man has an objective standard to measure good by. It is also the account of man breaking that good standard by making himself the final reference point, and it is about God's measures to restore man to a just and righteous relationship with his Maker by a way that does not compromise a just, holy and pure God's character.

All these other religions, rules and regulations are man's attempt to meet the standard of God by man's own means, hence they are a method of works righteousness, a meriting of God's favor by what you do rather than on the merits of what the matchless Christ, the Messiah, has done. The problem is that they don't meet a perfect holy standard. Only Christ has done that.

That is why, as Christians we point to Christ. He exceeds all other religious leaders or founders of religious beliefs.

"but because He lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them. Such a High Priest meets our need - One who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever." (Hebrews 7:24-28)

PopeBentdickXIV,

"You unspeakably dull-witted cow."

Pamsm is hardly dull witted. You, however, clearly have your own potholes to puke into. Please keep your comments to a minimum then, unless you have something valuable (to others!) to say. God knows, we have no need for other egocentric pontificators to start stroking their own bent intentions. Or bent intuitions. Either way.

Mary Cunningham:

You unspeakably dull-witted cow. My name is Pope Bentdick XIV. If I had wanted my name to be Pope Benedict XVI, I would have selected that name.

Your bigotry and lack of perception are exceeded only by your fatuity and lack of intuition.

Rabbi,

Thanks for a well-reasoned post. I really hope the people who responded aren't representative of all the people who read it.

In some Kabbalistic work there's a passage on the necessity of "heretical faith" for clearing away ideas that have outlived their usefulness. Heretical faith is not the opposite of faith, it's necessary to keep faith vital.

Here's a very interesting Christian thinker named Peter Rollins, reading a parable from his book "The Orthodox Heretic" with a very similar message:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCLDMMA6Sw0&feature=related

Rabbi Brous,

Again, I wish to thank you for your wise essay. God-wrestling is a long tradition in Judaism, but see also Paul Tillich.

As for the Christian/Catholic racists posting here, I am sorry. No doubt, you know what, in large part, has converted them to hatred, but nonChristians may not.

Therefore, I shall be posting from their "New Testament" (sic) from time to time.

I wonder, too, if you are aware of the Nazi priests (literally, they are Nazis) that live among us. More on them, later.

Selected Lunatic Highlights from the New Testament

# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

# "The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. 10:14-15

# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

CONTINUES BELOW

CONTINUED:

# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient. So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

# Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

# "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

# In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

# The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

HI SPIDERMAN,

How are you? Happy New Year!

Regards,

Farnaz

Sorry, Rabbi Brous, but your thread has been infested with racists, and they must be removed.

This, from the Racist, Mary Cunningham, relative of the bastard, Whistling, no doubt.

Poor Ireland! First paedophile priests, then the credit crunch, now American atheists and American (atheist?) Jews are on its case.
----------------------------
Hilarious! First, we get the Nazi bastard, Whistling, and then his co-racist, Mary Cunningham.

Really, pathetic. American Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, Jews, agnostics, all feel deeply for the people of Ireland.

Mary Cunningham, alas, does not. An immigrant to England, whose attitudes toward her Irish Catholic co-religionists, remain horrific, sympathizes only with the Vatican.

Poor racist Catholic, Mary. Poor, poor bigoted fool.

Brous - I want my children to grow up to be like Abraham and Moses and Hannah - whose confrontations with God were severe, unrelenting, and perhaps even blasphemous

You might want to reconsider your desire for your children to follow such role models. There is strong evidence that the Abrahamic lineage had heritable organic mental illness. If Abraham were to consider putting Isaac to the torch in today’s world because god told him to test Abraham’s love of god (auditory hallucinations), this most certainly would have resulted in his commitment to the loony bin. If Abraham’s wife Sarah had failed to alert authorities, Isaac would have been removed from that crazy family. As for Moses, he had the hallmarks of schizophrenia, including auditory and visual hallucinations (e.g. the burning bush), as well as tendencies to act on them (e.g. putting to people of the golden calf to death).

Not only was the lineage schizo, but their god was too (e.g. Abraham and Isaac. Moses is plagued by a god who loves him and then tries to kill him, gives him visions of burning bushes, laws, a bad sense of direction, and finally discourses on what to do to non-believers), which isn’t surprising in that god was made in man’s image; oops, the other way around. The god of the Old Testament is a malevolent, capricious, sadistic, lunatic god.

Mary C,

The fight here is not against the Irish, it is against the blasphemy law, which is clearly a violation of free speech. Nobody is trying to take over the Emerald Isle, or eradicate any religion.

Rabbi Brous.

Poor Ireland! First paedophile priests, then the credit crunch, now American atheists and American (atheist?) Jews are on its case. But we’ll survive. We managed to outlast Oliver Cromwell, then the English, then the ‘British’ (whoever that is), and these were a lot worse.

We Irish are good at martyrdom and we can only count our blessings in the midst of woe: the last one being that Rabbi Blous and her defiant, (probably) ill-mannered children will not be visiting us. You have to take your solace where you can.

PS—to the last ejeet. Pope Benedict XVI : 16th, you moron, written XVI not XIV which is fourteen.

My sons in Christ:

I encourage all men to convert to, and be confirmed in, the Roman Catholic Church of Pedophilia. Even the body of Christ cannot compare to the body of a boy!

If this turns into a law then all Catholic priests in Ireland would be penalized for being blasphemous.

Catholicism has many blasphemous teachings including the belief that the pope is the vicar of Christ and his infallibility.

Mary worship is also blasphemous. God has no mother. Christ himself declared in disgust, "who is my mother?"

Catholicism has been a blasphemous doctrine for centuries and it's time that their priests pay 35,000 dollars each.

And yes, it's a staunch supporter also of Darwinian evolution. What do we expect?

Do they truly believe that somewhere in time, their pope's great great grandpa was an ape? It's very sad to think that they have duped billions of people.

This can't go on and on.

"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

That day is coming very soon.

Terrorism (like this blasphemy law), in different forms , will always be present with us unless the seeds of terrorism like false religions (Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, liberal Protestantism), gay marriage, fornication, DARWINIAN EVOLUTION, and atheism continue in their stupidity.

It's not gonna get better. The worst is still yet coming when the stupidity that I mentioned above will rear their very ugly heads.

The good news is that when these things self destruct, the days ahead will be a thousand years of peace.

Sadly for many people, which includes the liberal gay-marrying evolutionist (leftist democrat) parts of America, and America's (future) enemies around the world, that thousand year peace will only happen in their absence.

Stupidity is self-destructive and doomsday is a result of a world GONE MAD.

A single plant leaf is a solar cell, a battery, a food maker, an air cleaner, a medicine,etc ALL merged into one single leaf and yet THE IDIOTIC EVOLUTIONISTS CAN PROUDLY CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN TO THAT.

And yet this kind of stupidity is taught around the world. Expect the worst as the fruit of that madness will consume them like a voracious wild animal or BEAST.

God is not at fault here. Man's destruction is SELF-INFLICTED.

BANNING EVOLUTION AT ONCE, can actually prevent doomsday but you can't let a crazy man cure himself. In other words, it's not going to happen until they self-destruct with their stupid doctrine.

abraham wasn't being irreverant with GOD. he had a relationship with the LORD. the only willful opposition i see in the bible which was good was when the prophets told the people that their priests and leaders were leading them against GOD and they would be punished if they continued.and as far as sodom and ghomorah went GOD turned out to be right (duh) there wasn't any worth saving. anyway, this p.c. law is about islam. the irish must think they will end up like van gogh . it is time to tell the muslim to patrol their ranks, before the world tires of their continuing destruction.

It don't waste time worrying about God and other non-existent pixies.

Uh-OH! The Christians had better watch their mouths when talking about things like Pork, which could offend Muslims. If they say good things about Pork, that is blasphemy against Islam and they could be fined.

Wait, Ireland is Christian, not Muslim. Disregard warning on praising pork.

Hey, Whistler!

ACHTUNG!

Got yer required copy of that foul forgery, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in yer pocket?

Is yer head properly shaved?

Is yer swastika tattoo on yer arm visible?

Did ya get the words 'Arbeit Macht Frei' tattooed on yer arse yet?

And the bastard, Whistling, is among us again.
The worm that flies in the night infects the afternoon.

Rabbi,

Your children may become atheists, or Catholics. You never can tell.

One person's blasphemy is another person's truth.

Whistling,

Thanks for clarifying your first post. I almost misinterpreted your thinly veiled agenda the first time around.

If the rabbi's description of how Jewish children are taught is correct and usual...

it explains why they have gotten along in the world so badly. A really striking history that is repeating.

And not for challenging and defiance to God, I think.

R BROUS,

You so fond of free speech?

The one that galls me are the laws against
holocaust denial. There are countries where you can't even question the scope of that (now very much questioned) whole thing.

By the way, is it a usual thing for Jewish children to be taught defiance? Explains a lot about the history of the world, not to mention current behavior.

"they should however pass a law that says that anyone overhearing someone curse about GOD, can punch them once without making it a police matter as long as no bones are broken..."

Instead, let's pass a law that lets me punch out any fundamentalist that tries to shove his perverted view of Christianity down my throat.

samx...what a great collection of quotes...saved.

The so-called holy bible was thrown out of court as a legal document in the 1925(!) Scopes Monkey trial. Period.

Sang to the tune of Johnny Paycheck's "You can take this job and shove it"

"You can take your book and shove it
you can't force your sh*t on me"

is this no different than going after those who don't agree with homosexuality...
and they do so in canada...
so it's a bad idea, no matter where the laws are passed...
they should however pass a law that says that anyone overhearing someone curse about GOD, can punch them once without making it a police matter as long as no bones are broken...

in Ireland the predominant religion is the Catholic church - which as we all know often bases its motives on protecting its own institutional perogatives rather than anything to do with religion or the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I see this law as basically the Catholic church outlawing any kind of criticism of it. What the children of Ireland will grow up with will be ingrained that one doesn't criticize or question authority. One doesn't have to be an athiest to hate this bill and what it stands for.

It has always been my assertion is that if your religion or faith cannot stand up to inspection, there's not much in it. I wholeheartedly believe that questioning Go does not show a lack of faith, but the exercise of the inquisitive minds with which the creator endowed us. And just what is blasphemy? Monty Python's "Life of Brian?" Not to me. Murder in the name of God? Surely.

Rabbi,

Well done! I often wonder why many of my Christian brethren are so afraid of debate and doubt. Some seem to be worried that our beliefs are not strong enough to be tested. Didn't Jacob "wrestle with God?" In the Christian Bible Saint Thomas doubted the resurected Jesus even though he knew Jesus as a disciple and met him after death. Doubt and struggle is inevitable and can often be productive. What if Martin Luther or the anti-slavery Quakers had never questioned the status quo?

"I strive to raise children whose faith won't be shattered by dissenters"
______________
The continuum of religion relies upon drafting your children into something they have no cognitive ability to look at objectively. As the saying goes: it is impossible to reason people out of affiliations they have not been reasoned into. As Pink Floyd said: "Hey teacher, leave them kids alone"

Hi, Peter Huff,

I hope you are having, and will continue to have, a good new year.

Now then - seems to me a guy by the name of Jesus broke a LOT of rules.

Be very careful. Before a child should start to be defiant, she/he must have assimilated a large amount of informations - correct as much as possible- in order to make an "informed" decision.
Defiance without informations lead to mistakes. The trouble is where do you find correct informations? In Wikipedia? In Britannica? Where? Certainly not in a religious school.

Rabbi Brous,

An excellent post and an excellent point. In fact "God wrestling" permeates Tanakh.

Farnaz

Hi Sharon,

You said,

"The Bible is, fundamentally, a set of rules that challenge us to break the rules. Abraham challenges God over the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah. How dare you - Abraham asks God - act so unjustly? Irreverence can be an act of courage and sometimes even an expression of faith."

It is not quite that simple and I don't see the connect between irreverence and faith. But in a nut shell, the Bible is God's special revelation about Himself and man, and man's choice to know good and evil, the consequences of disobedience and the solution for restoration and reconciliation.

Pam,

I realize your aim with your coal discussion, and of course I agree with it. I thought some more ammo might add to your argument.

Hi Arminius,
I wasn't trying to write a comprehensive essay on coal, but just to show that A) swamps are one way that fossils are preserved, and B) that there are "young" coals and "old" coals in the same state - so it didn't all happen during the mythical flood.

Here's more:
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalkinds.htm

Hi, Pam,

You might have included anthracite in your catalog of coal types. This is metamorphic bituminous coal, and is almost pure carbon. Burns clean with good heat and with very little smoke. Still mined some in Pennsylvania. It has no volatiles, so some bituminous coals have more BTUs.

Peter, to continue our conversation from the other thread -

Addendum to post on fossil formation: Don't forget swamps and peat bogs.

There have been times in Earth's history when all continents were a single mega-continent, lying along the equator. The climate was hot and wet, and the atmosphere richer in oxygen than it is today. The land was mostly swamp. Animals and plants that died, sank into swamps and were covered with muck.

Peat bogs come from dead plant material in wet conditions. They preserve dead bodies very well. Surely you've seen pictures of the bog mummies of Denmark and elsewhere. If not, look here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bog/iron-nf.html

Eventually, when buried under volcanic rock, and under great pressure, peat becomes lignite. With still more time and pressure, lignite becomes bituminous coal. Kentucky has both - coal from the Paleozoic era, Pennsylvanian period (290-325 mya), and lignite from the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras, Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, respectively (35-80 mya). Fossils are found in coal beds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18279510/

“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
~Georgia Harkness~

“God has no religion”
~Mahatma Gandhi~

“The church is always trying to get other people to reform; it might not be a bad idea to reform itself a little, by way of example”
~Mark Twain~

“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”
~Mahatma Gandhi~

“The problem with writing about religion is that you run the risk of offending sincerely religious people, and then they come after you with machetes.”
~Dave Barry~

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
~Seneca~

“Many have quarreled about religion that never practiced it”
~Benjamin Franklin~

“When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”
~Bishop Desmond Tutu~

“Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich”
~Napoleon Bonaparte~

“Priests are no more necessary to religion than politicians to patriotism”
~John Haynes Holmes~

“A soul you say? Give my pocketwatch to a savage and he'll think it has a soul.”
~Napoleon Bonaparte~

“All Bibles are man-made”
~Thomas Alva Edison~

“We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell”
~Karl Popper~

“I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth.”
~Carl Sandburg~

“Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think.”
~Arthur Schopenhauer~

“Religions are all alike -- founded upon fables and mythologies”
~Thomas Jefferson~

“My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature”
~Albert Einstein~

“A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.”
~Dr. Carl Sagan~

“If the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, then and only then will truth, prevail over fanaticism”
~Thomas Jefferson~