We're Electing a President, Not A Holy Fool

Mr Mark,

Don't take it personally. The god squad is famous for hit and runs!

Dear DITLD -

It looks like this thread has been deserted.

I'm still smarting from my disappointment that none of the faithful provided an answer to my 4 questions from JANUARY 24, 2008 3:29 PM.

I'm not surprised I didn't get an answer, just disappointed...again.

If anyone is still looking at this thread, I am sure dissappointed in the next question about the signifigance of religious leaders. I cannot relate to it at all. Maybe I will sit this one out.

Daniel ITLD,

Re your reply to 'Truth': Well done. I am behind you 110%. That sad individual has no concept of what Jesus said - I hesitate to even call him Christian, so mired is he in Old Testament rules and end-of-days stuff. Nothing, nothing does he say about how our Lord told us how to live NOW, which is the true preparation of whatever the hell may come after. Nothing about how to deal in love with our fellow inhabitants of God's glorious creation. And the endless drivel about Denmark being founded by a lost tribe? Gimme a break!

Chip on his shoulder? Hell, it's a damned log.

Arminius

Dear Mr. Truth

I can't say what I think of you because that kind of language is censored here. But you are a jerk.

Reference to God in any government document is a political statement, a nod to the form of tradition and custom as practicesd by the people but has ZERO meaning as far as any relgious doctrine is concerned and has ZERO meaning as far as any spiritual truth is concerned. Who the Hell cares what is written on money? Who cares if it says "in God we trust..." or not? It's money, for crying out loud! Do you think God cares what is written on man's money?

Your question is rediculous and absurd. You ask sarcastically, what would any of us say to those people who wrote the Constitutions with the word God included, which turns out not to be the case after all. The answer is really quite easy: we would merely say to them what we would say to anyone else.

You are a real example of the angry, sorehead Christian, with a nasty chip on your shoulder. Being a Christian does not seem to be doing you any good. Every time a hypocrite like you speaks, it just crushes down the reputation of Christianity more, and more, and more.

Thank you very much Mr. Truth for your contributiohn to this discussion.

Mr Mark,

You are most probably correct. Fundies are (in)famous for twisting things to match their agenda. Anything, anything on a site promoting the inserting of religious beliefs into the law of the land must always, repeat, always, be mistrusted.

Keep up the investigation. Even though we differ greatly in belief, we have, I must admit, a common foe.

Arminius
A Christian
Note the spelling, no 'X'. (GRIN!)

Arminius -

I'm getting the uneasy feeling that this WVA "Preamble" is a Xian-driven urban myth. I have done a number of searches on the words that start this supposed citation, and the only sites coming up are Xian-apologist no-separation-of-church-and-state sites. No government sites, no law sites, nothing.

This might be one of those bogus quotes that get recycled among the grasping-at-straws faithful.

What do you think?

Truth,

To tell you the truth you made a big point.

You said:"I would be very interested to hear your excuses or flawed hypothesis how that 50 or so random people over the past few hundred years were/are misguided."

Well stated: 50 or so random people over a long period of time cannot be misguided.

For example, more than a billion people cannot be misguided when they mention for more than one thousand years the name of Allah, The Creator and Lord of the Universe. They actually have the eternal truth.

But behold! other two billion people cannot be misguided when they mention for almost two thousand years the God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So they also have the eternal truth.....

But wait again, what about the other three billions of people in the earth? Well... they also must have their particular truth, whatever the god or gods they mention.

Yes, 50 or so random people over the past few hundred years were not/are are not misguided when they mention god in the constitution of the states. The only problem is that they have their own truth.......

Misguided

MOONMAN is truth!!!

West Virginia shines with MOONLIGHT!!!

West Virginia is lit with MOONSHINE!!!

TRUTH is a lie!!!

TRUTH knows not MOON!!!

TRUTH shines no light!!!

TRUTH worships dead corpse Jesus!!!

Jesus is dead!!!

Jesus is gone!!!

MOONMAN is here!!!

MOONMAN is now!!!

TRUTH, come to MOONMAN!!!

TRUTH shall become MOON!!!

TRUTH shall be fully MAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

Mr Mark,

You are quite correct about the WV constitution. I took a look at it, on the official WV site. No mention of God.

Arminius

Dear Truth -

Re: the preamble to the WVA Constitution: before I posted my response, I referenced the WVA State Legislature site and looked up their State Constitution. It appears here:

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/WV_CON.cfm

I searched the site for a preamble and found none available at the WVA State Legislature website, ergo my statement that their State Constitution doesn't contain a preamble.

The link you provided (-www.abanet.org/publiced/conversations/constitution/preamblelesson.pdf --) takes one to a pdf document issued as part of an educational prospectus produced by the American Bar Association. A WVA preamble is given as an example of a State preamble as part of a suggested exercise on having students write a new preamble to the federal Constitution. The following is included as a note:

"West Virginia adopted its first Constitution in 1863, when it became the 35th state in the Union. The state is now governed by its second Constitution (1872)."

So, my question is this: is the preamble you cited from their first Constitution of 1863, and if so, was that preamble dropped from their second Constitution of 1872, ie: the WVA Constitution that is now in effect? If the WVA Constitution still contains the preamble you cited, why is it not available at the WVA State Legislature website? Are you suggesting that an ABA teaching guide is a more-authoritative voice on the WVA Constitution than the WVA State Legislature's own website?

Thanks for any info you can provide on this.

Jeff, Mr Mark, and Daniel ITLD,

He's baaaaaaaack! And his post makes me feel like I'm listening to someone raving in a padded cell. I know this is an unkind comment, but he literally pushes me away with his verbal outrage. Whatever his religious views, I see very little there that is really Christian.

Arminius

>>How would you have told those in the 50 states of our union that scribed the preambles to their constitutions that they, all 50 of them, are unintelligent, unenlightened, somewhat misguided, dumb...or whatever verbage you may use?"

>>Of course, no one would talk to a state, because, as I said before, a state is not a person and cannot carry on a conversation.

The question was how would you have told THOSE in the 50 STATES. THOSE and STATES are obviously separate in the question. Do you think a 6th grader might even realize that referring to THOSE in STATES may just mean a person. With all due respect, your spin is pathetic, my friend.

Also, I find it truly amazing that people spin 'Creator' and 'Author of our Existence' to not equal God (referring to Mr Mark stating God is not mentioned in certain preambles)

Feeble attempt, again, my friend.

BTW:

STATE CONSTITUTIONS PREAMBLES
West Virginia Constitution Preamble
"Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the state of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity."

the above from www.abanet.org/publiced/conversations/constitution/preamblelesson.pdf

Sorry, Mr Mark....Google Mars doesnt work on earth.

Still no answers to why, oh to give you the benefit of the doubt (which I really dont have too), 49 state preambles mention a Creator, God?. Are you going to tell us they were all fools too? (as someone above stated of me) Sorry, but I do sense a bit of brown-nosing amongst you. Unfortunately, that proclivity does not show much of any comprehension of subject matter either.

And Lepi.
Do a study on where the 12 tribes of Israel ended up. Judah/Benjamin/Levi...most descendants of these you will find modern day state of Israel. Interestingly, tribes such as Dan (who became Danites (Danish) you will find), Reuben, Asher...descendents ended up in NW Europe. Study into how the prophet Jerimiahs clan ended up in the British Isles..how the throne of David was brought there. And especially how Ephriam and Manasseh's blessings by their father could only foretell the British Commonwealth and the US, respectively. Much much more....Its all there, my friend.

You know I have learned some great stuff today too, Jeff P. The spin zone is not just on FOX.

Remeber folks...even if you dont believe in a creator God....think about it. Mankind has many gods they tout. Why is that? Is it mans doing....or is it God's doing? One family of man who are each and every one brought into this world the same way. If one is a believer, one God is not so hard to see. If we take man's word...well, thats how Webster came up with the word confusion (I say tongue in cheek)

Why so much confusion? Oh how we wish we could ask someone 2,4 or 6 thousand years ago. But take heart...the answers will come.

Jesus Christ said to watch. Take it to heart folks...times a tikin'. 'Study' (to show yourself approved) is also in scripture. Lots to study..but the answers are all there.

I bid you good day, all.

Jeff P,

Thanks! And thanks also for your comment about wanting more folks like Daniel ITLD and myself. I think that he and I get kinda lonely here, being the token moderate Christians. But the Pagans and the reasonable non-believers are pretty good company!

Arminius

Arminius, the feeling is mutual. You are always a breath of fresh air, thanks always for your contributions.

Jeff P,
You said: "You know I have learned some great stuff today--thanks for all who contribute in a way we can all learn."

You got that right! That's why I am here, to learn. And I have learned a lot, to be sure, but only from people who don't have an obvious axe to grind. Fundies teach me nothing, nor do the more strident atheists.

Arminius

Mr Mark:

Thanks for the visual description. I really like Jon Voight, just having seen him again in National Treasures: Book of Secrets. My son and I really had a blast with his character. So thanks, I can now have a mental picture of you in general!

And as far as being in shape, I really like the shape of Jon Voight's daughter, Angelina Jolie. But that's definitely not appropriate for an "On Faith" dialogue..

You know I have learned some great stuff today--thanks for all who contribute in a way we can all learn.

Truth:

Are you trying to claim that the Bible foretold the founding of the United States? PLEASE show me that prediction chapter and verse.

Gaby:
Heathen isn't a bad word - its root meaning is "one who dwells on the heath." Just like the root meaning of "Pagan" is "one who dewlls in the countryside." Religiously, these words simply refer to the various local deities and their worshippers. The word "Witch" comes from an ancient word meaning "Wise." Nothing evil in any of those words. Certain Christian preachers have tried to make them into slurs, but they don't own the words.

Truth,

So if a majority of people (as expressed in State preambles), mention Zeus, that would confirm the existence of Zeus?

And if they don't, then Zeus does not exist?

I think I get it now.

If a majority of humans believes in a particular god, it must exist and if the majority doesn't believe in that god, then it doesn't exist.

You claim the god of the bible exists but since a majority of humans (worldwide) don't believe in the god of the bible, then by your own logic the god of the bible clearly must not exist.

Furthermore, since a majority of humans does not believe in any one particular god, then no gods exist.

But never mind, persuasive as they can be, Ad Populum (bandwagon) arguments are completely irrelevant anyway.

JEFF P:
Mr Mark, I'd vote you in precisely because of your 10 points--you're human!

I just don't know if you LOOK like a president..."

I have been told on many occasions that I resemble the actor, Jon Voight. That is becoming less so as my hairline recedes (in fact, the chances of it coming back are as bad as those for "victory" in Iraq!). That said, I DO have blond hair, I stand at 6'2," and at 50+years of age, I keep in shape and still have a 34" waist! Plus, life-long Democrat.

DANIEL IN THE LION'S DEN sez:
"Dear Mr. Mark

You are so smart."

I will confess that 45 minutes ago, I knew nothing about what any state constitution said about god in its preamble. However, I have learned that whenever a religionist utters an absolute (in this case, Truth's assertion about god in preambles) it's my cue to immediately launch an internet search to validate their claim, which is what I did by Googling the phrase "state constitutions mention god."

Two seconds later and I had hundreds of sources at my disposal. I compared 3 of them from reliable sources and felt satisfied that the info I was about to post was accurate.

So, I'm only "smart" in that I know how to access and evaluate information, not that I already know the information.

Jeff P. and Mr. Mark, good combacks, both!

Daniel ITLD and Arminius, I wish there were more of you around!

Mr Mark

To be President, you have to 35 years old, and you have to have a wife who can fake an adoring look at you at all times.

Dear Mr. Mark

You are so smart. (In case you could not tell, I meant that in a good way).

What are the odds, we will ever hear from Mr. Truth again

Mr Mark, I'd vote you in precisely because of your 10 points--you're human!

I just don't know if you LOOK like a president...

Mr Mark,

Nice research on state constitutions. Oddly enough, my state of Georgia does mention God, but just calling for his guidance.

I am, however, wondering just what planet 'Truth' lives on.

Arminius

Mr Mark asks: "Why are those without evidence, facts reason or logic to support their beliefs so prone to thinking they've got the inside track on what constitutes truth?"

Because without any facts, an argument from abiguity is all they have. By conflating the word "truth" with "belief" they can escape the burden of proof which is otherwise impossible for them to meet.

Bagt writes:

"I would rather have someone like Mr. Mark in office than the likes of those we've had over the last 50 decades."

Why, thank you for the kind words.

However, I don't think I'd ever make it through the vetting process to run for office, for the following Top Ten reasons:

1. I'm an atheist

2. I'm probably considered a strident/radical atheist

3. I've only been married once and I've never been divorced (obviously, I couldn't run as a Republican, at least this year).

4. I probably used a swear word in church back in 7th grade, and with today's background checks, it would show up at the worst time possible

5. I participated in the very first Earth Day

6. I don't follow NASCAR and wouldn't know Jeff Gordon from Commissioner Gordon

7. I dislike both country and gospel music

8. I've drawn unemployment benefits more than once in my life

9. I currently have two speeding violations on my driving record, one, 4 mph over the limit, one 8 mph over the limit.

10. I could never end any speech I gave with the obligatory, "God bless you, and god bless the USA".

;)

Sorry, on my previous point, I accidentally deleted a few words.

My statement should have read, "There is NO MENTION OF GOD IN THE PREAMBLES to the state constitutions of New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia as their constitutions don't have preambles."

The rest of the post stands.

Gaby, I had the same question for "Truth."

Does the sentence mean, in light of the fact that there will never be a time when mankind all recognizes that there is one god, always has been, always will be.... , therefore there is need for a theocracy?

All 50 states, in all the preambles. That must PROVE there is a god!

But wait... I'm a physician, and I along with millions of physicians throughout history (much longer than the 50 state preambles) have sworm the Hippocratic Oath. Here's the start of it:

"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygeia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: ...."

By this measure, I've PROVED that this is a polytheistic world...

Truth sez:

"As you put it sometime Mr. Mark..."Again, care to comment why 50 states with 50 preambles mention God?"

Well, you're wrong.

There is NO MNETION OF GOD IN THE PREAMBLES to the state constitutions of New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia.

There is no mention of god WHATSOEVER in the West Virginia constitution, and the word "god" is used only the constitutions of NH, VT & VA in language that guarantees people the right to religious freedom (Ex: NH Part 1, Article 5:
"Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience") and sometimes in the Oath of Office.

Care to comment?

For Mr. Truth

States are not people; they are political constructs; a state is a concept in man's mind, although seeming rock-solid and real, but like many things to which we attribute reality, they are not real.

So the preamble of a state constitution is merely a political statement and any reference to God does not mean that there is a conscious state with religious belief; it is a political nod to "ceremonial deism" which means a reference to God by a state, for traditional form only, without any real religious intent, purpose, or meaning.

Your question to atheists was:

"How would you have told those in the 50 states of our union that scribed the preambles to their constitutions that they, all 50 of them, are unintelligent, unenlightened, somewhat misguided, dumb...or whatever verbage you may use?"

Of course, no one would talk to a state, because, as I said before, a state is not a person and cannot carry on a conversation.

I think that in your religious belief, you are framing it in the worldy and political constructs of man, which I do not believe, at least, would seem very important to God.

I can tell you are a little bit ticked, but I am not sure why. Why don't you just state what your beliefs are and why, a little more directly.

Truth,

I would rather have someone like Mr. Mark in office than the likes of those we've had over the last 50 decades.

Also,

"A theocracy would be a totally unecessary term/situation if all of mankind grasped that there is only one God. Always has been. Always will be."

What in hell is that supposed to mean? You have found the "real" god and whoever believes otherwise is a heathen? So all the non-christian people of the world deserve a theocracy to jam christianity down their throats?

What a pompous fool you are!!!!

Sure....50 preambles mentioning God are brainwashed people..

And those that comment derrogartorily...well, the think they are the enlightened ones. There is the actual hogwash.

As you put it sometime Mr. Mark..."Again, care to comment why 50 states with 50 preambles mention God?"

Or perhaps you have no answer other than your own 'feelings' or 'fables'

Nonsense to you, pertinent to millions of others.

You can be sure you wont be chosen to lead the people. How thankful we can be for that.

I just finished reading 'From Jesus to Christianity' by Michael White and I found it a scholarly and well researched book. The author discusses the different movements, and their writings, that existed during the first four genartions after Jesus. Anyone interested in that early age of Christianity might find this book a very good read.

Jeff P-

I'm also open to new logical, reasonable, verifiable knowledge. I just rank the possibility of god existing down there with fairies and alien abductions.

If god does exist, I need to question his omniscience as he apparently never saw the scientific method coming. ;)

Mr Mark:

Suffice it to say we're on the same wavelength, rightly or wrongly. But I'm open to new logical, reasonable, verifiable knowledge, as I know you are.

Truth:
Certainty="Truth"=Brainwashed.

Dear Jeff P -

I second your thoughts on Truth's condescending hogwash.

BTW - considering the posts above, wouldn't "Fact-less Fantasy" seem a more-apt moniker than "Truth?"

Why are those without evidence, facts reason or logic to support their beliefs so prone to thinking they've got the inside track on what constitutes truth?

Oh, almost forgot - because a few scared-to-death barbaric nomads wrote down some nonsense a few thousand years ago.

Thanks, Truth, for the condescending hogwash.

Question to the atheists who commented above: Humor me. How would you have told those in the 50 states of our union that scribed the preambles to their constitutions that they, all 50 of them, are unintelligent, unenlightened, somewhat misguided, dumb...or whatever verbage you may use?

I would be very interested to hear your excuses or flawed hypothesis how that 50 or so random people over the past few hundred years were/are misguided.

True, there are no votes in heaven. Scripture says no man has ascended to heaven. Put the blame where it truly belongs with regard to not understanding what the bible really says. And it ain't God who's to blame.

A theocracy would be a totally unecessary term/situation if all of mankind grasped that there is only one God. Always has been. Always will be. Wouldnt be an issue. Again. Mans problem for not understanding that. Not God's.

And there is but one God. This age of mankind, as others past, do not fully realize this yet. But we will. The courses we have taken are not the fault of a creator God. We collectively have eliminated Him from our lives in so many ways that true knowledge of Him is lost...for now.

Additionally, I wouldnt discount the Kingdom of God unless you really study into it. Its all in the scripture carried by millions in this world. And by the way..it wont be in heaven. Read the book.

Truth said:

"One would wonder why those that deny the existence of God even desire to live in a land where every states preamble to their respective constitutions acknowledges God."

I never wonder that. Why would you wonder that? People just live where they live, don't they?

TRUTH sez:
"One would wonder why those that deny the existence of God even desire to live in a land where every states preamble to their respective constitutions acknowledges God."

One might wonder why those yearning to live in a theocracy don't take flight from our very-secular democracy. I find it rather odd that those privileged to live in a one person-one vote democracy long to spend eternity in a kingdom, ie: a dictatorship.

There are no votes in heaven, neither are the Rights of Man recognized as having any standing whatsoever in the heavenly realms of the gods. What's funny is that the believers are told this going in, yet they still can't wait for the day when their freedoms are dashed against the stone of god's capricious laws.

For me, I'll take the democracy enshrined in our Constitution, for our Constitution calls for - and has already delivered - a higher righteousness than any god has ever imagined or, more importantly, has ever promised.

Mr. Mark,

Interesting reference. I put it on my list of NT documents to peruse more carefully at a later date.

Whether Jesus lived or was a fictional character, he was no doubt one of the most embellished characters of history or fiction. The likes of Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen and the Jesus Seminarians have removed the embellishments, some might say flaws, so that by the time they finished there is not a whole lot left that was not there beforehand in the codes of the ancients. And whether historic or fiction, Jesus' "biographers" did encapsulate some of the great rules of living a good life i.e. the Beatitudes and the Two Great Commandments. Do we need anything else??

Dear Daniel -

If you're into reading more about how the Jesus story evolved, then I highly recommend the following site:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

It's a lot to read, but it's very interesting and copiously referenced. There are additional articles at the site that are equally compelling.

One would wonder why those that deny the existence of God even desire to live in a land where every states preamble to their respective constitutions acknowledges God.

It seems that those of us who do believe that we are not a just a fluke of chance are looked at as base or unintelligent to all those who believe otherwise. I would personally rather be considered that along with those who lived scores of years before me who believed the same way and were not ashamed to acknowledge God in their preambles...in all 50 states.

Those who deny God really have no clue whatsoever as to the destiny of our country that was foretold centuries, yea millenia, ago.

Arminius

Thanks for that site. I looked at it. I have never thought much about such things. I notice that all of the various frequent commenters have their own specialized interests. I seem to be a little more interested in philsophy, in general, and not as interested in analyzing every word of the Bible for meaning, or researching all of he documented sources from so long ago.

I know of a verse from Mark, with an interesting aside, that I was taught as a child, but I cannot cite it right now, because I never memorized the Bible. I wonder why I never did that? (I have to go look it up, and post it later).

Daniel ITLD,

Q is the theorized compilation of the sayings of Jesus used, along with Mark's Gospel, by the authors of Matthew and Luke. See this link:
http://www.livius.org/q/q-source/q1.htm

Since the conversation seems to be in a lull, I was wondering if anyone could tell me what is the meaning of Q.

I guess I must really be out of it, since I have never heard of it before.

Susan Jacoby for President!!!!!!

And Preacher "Huck" for Pew Cleaner!!!

Mr Mark stated:

>>Nature and life finds a way. The fact is that human homosexual couples can have children by using a third party, just like flowers.

Cant be 'just like flowers' my friend. Human conscience is a factor. One of the three in the human realm that provided the surrogate may have a change of heart, desire a relationship with the child. Emotions, hurt feelings, despair....you name it...all are fair game.

You promote to society a realm of confusion...not an alternative.

..and so it is with mankind.

..Breakdown ahead. Watch out.

Unbelievable.

The only redeeming factor to commenting on Mr. Marks comments such as this is that it (his 'suggestion') will be corrected before it is too late.

"We're Electing a President, Not A Holy Fool"

or perhaps...

"We're Electing a President, and glad it won't be Susan Jacoby"

I am the Anonymous above at 9:03 AM

I think Gerry said,

"Everything humans don't understand (yet) = god(s)."

And he also said, that religion is cultural.

Yes, the various ways in which people practice their religions is purely cultural, and not necessarily relevant to any kind of true understanding of spiritual things. A culture is defined by the way people do things, including the way people pray. The thing that makes a Christian different from a Moslem is not that one of them has the truth and one of them does not, but in the way that that they do things in the practice of their relgions.

But, an individual can take what has been handed to him by previous generations, and mull it over, and think it over, and compare it to what is known today, and give it newer or different meanings than traditionally relgious people would. Some people that do this may end up as atheists; others may end up with a characterization of God that is unique to their way of thinking, which of course could not be prescribed by the a society's culterual customs, or derived from antiquated relgious text.

Yes, things which we do not understand or know about, but may wonder about, we attribute to God. In the past, that included a lot more stuff than it would today, since we are aware of so much of the workings of the world than we did in the past. Characterizations of God cast in a world more ignorant than our own, must of course give way to newer and different characteriZations of God. Many people, fundamentalist protestants and orthodox catholics, as well as people of many other religions are stuck in old ways of thinking that absolutely don't make sense anymore. They are sure they are right, but I am equally sure that they cannot be.

GABY writes:
"Mr. Mark,

"Thanks a bunch for the biblical abortion link.

"The way I read it is that they knew all about abortio even way back then, yet no one ever comdemned it. So what's up with the with Huckabee and his ilk?"

Abortion is simply a fact of life among biological species. This fact was driven home to me when my wife and I lost a baby at 26 weeks. After the incident, our doctors informed us that fully 25% of pregnancies don't go full term. Small consolation for our loss, but it does give one a perspective that isn't readily offered to those seeking to have children.

So, yes, the ancient people realized that abortions occurred. I imagine those that happened "naturally" were seen as god's will, and those that were induced "unnaturally" were to be dealt with through laws that were seen as an extension of god's great plan. The ancients lived much closer to death than we do today. It's an experience that informed their lives directly in a way the civilized world can't imagine today.

Religion's great and ghastly skill is the ability to take the natural world and assign guilt and consequence to that which will happen without any assistance from those at which that guilt and consequence is directed. From the outright theft of the innate and hard-won sense of morals and ethics that we humans have gained through our evolution, to the causes behind the premature death of fetuses, to the reason behind the very rising of the sun, religion rushes in to take credit for that which it had no hand in either devising or determining.

What's up with Huckabee and the anti-choice crowd, you ask? Politics, plain and simple. The same politics religion has employed throughout time immemorial.

Thanks for the chat.

Gerry,
I do not know any Pagan that thinks the gods they honor are the one and only truth, they just are for them. In fact I am a soft Polytheist. I also believe that truth is a kernal that all religions build around...like a grain of sand that becomes a pearl.

We are not children of the book...but of the Earth. That makes a huge difference.

terra

Mr. Mark,

Thanks a bunch for the biblical abortion link.

The way I read it is that they knew all about abortio even way back then, yet no one ever comdemned it. So what's up with the with Huckabee and his ilk?

By the way, I am not pro-abortion, but outlawing it is not the answer. Some restrictions, however, would be welcome.

Hi, Gerry - I'm feeling a little short on imagination this morning, but here are two real-life modern examples:

The church of the flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/

The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter day Saints

Everything humans don't understand (yet) = god(s).

Lack of understanding the world = indisputable fact.

Therefore:

God = indisputable fact: There is a lot we don't understand! (lol, God is a question of semantics!)

Otherwise, anyone with some degree of poetic fantasy could easily construe a religion around this indisputable fact. Such "poets" will find, and always have found, myriads of followers, "believers" with some lower level of fantasy than theirs. The acceptance of this "poetry" by "believers" is always the more fanatic, the more abstruse the contents of the poems.

And once such a religion - any religion - is thus established, it becomes culture and tradition. Culture and tradition, of course, are sacred, so the contents of the original "poem" are sacred and become an "eternal truth", the more so, the more abstruse these contents. It is that easy.

I invite everyone with some writing ability and some degree of fantasy to draft a religion with the most improbable content. (Harry Potter comes to mind).

Religion is culture (even for the Jihadist, judging by her report of her multicultural ancestry), and NOT "truth"! And as culture, granted, it may have a social value as a helpful means for self-definition (we are "we", I am "I"!).

Godfrey, you've been getting too much of your information from the likes of Swift Boaters and Rush Limbaugh.

Athena,

Thanks for the reference. I withdraw my remark about alleged murders.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't address the rest of the allegations I repeated.

I stand by the words I attribute to Ken Starr, because I got them from the man that Starr said them to.

I stand by the allegation that Hillary was up to no good with the famous beef transaction. NO outsider makes money in commodities. I remember a reporter in New York tried to duplicate Hillary's beef futures success, and the first thing that happened was the market ran her stops and closed out her position at a total loss (though the reporter didn't recognize what had happened). Only insiders make money in commodities. Or politicians that are laundering bribes.

The other stuff... who knows? Considering the likely criminal behavior, it all strikes me as believable.

Dear Jeff P -

Thanks for the shout out on Susan's "Freethinkers." I'm in the middle of it right now. Wonderful book. I'm learning a lot.

She's inspired me to read Thomas Paine. I hate to admit it, but I've never read "Common Sense" or "The Age of Reason" in their entirety. THAT oversight will be corrected after I finish Freethinkers as I just picked up his major works at Border's on Friday.

Brava, Susan!

The Moderate writes:

"Do you have proof or any reference from antiquity that supports a "Q" source? If so, provide citations. Otherwise it is an appealing scholarly myth. One that sells books."

What's that got to do with the argument?

Chew on this: IF the Q existed, it was a fiction as well, just like the 4 canonical gospels.

Here's one for you: can you show me an existing piece of wood scaffolding that was used to support the building of arches in Roman viaducts? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that the scaffolding didn't exist.

The Q Document is possibly the scaffolding on which Matthew and Luke were built. Yes, it's a modern concept, but such concepts arise when scholarship discovers evidence pointing to something that is conspicuous through it's absence. There's no physical evidence for dark matter, but scientists have come up with that term to account for the fact that there isn't enough matter to fill the universe.

BTW - can you provide a single source for any of the gospels that dates to earlier than the third century? No, you can't. The entire dating of the writing of the Gospels is NOT based on sources that date to those times, but on inferences in the text that tell us that the gospels *could NOT have been written BEFORE* a certain date. In other words, a document dating from the third century mentions the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. That tells us that the original source had to be written after 70AD.

You're engaging in linear thinking while demanding a level of proof for the Q document that you don't demand for any of the NT. Why is that?

Your agenda is showing.

Dear E Favorite:

"By the way, do you know what a myth is? It’s a story about people. It’s fictional, meant to illustrate a point about human nature,.."

Yes, I know what a myth is. Do you know one when it bites you in... uh, on your nose? Did you have a citation from antiquity supporting "Q"? Or Not? If so, give it. If not, you are taken in by a scholarly myth.

My post just above -

Jeff P -

I haven't read Karen Armstrong but she may be a cohort of author Elaine Pagels, the comparative religionist from Harvard. Pagels has plugged her books anyway.

It's interesting to me that modern Judaism doesn't seem to push 'afterlife' beliefs or metaphysics in any substantial way, and yet the Kabbalah as a system of beliefs and pratices from the mystical Judaism of the Middle Ages is full of ideas about reincarnation, angels, otherworldly planes and realms, and a broad collection of decidedly 'supernatural' events and occurances.

Kabbalah is a deeply complex mystical/esoteric system for which I personally have great respect.

My latest Christian-oriented read will be 'Who Killed Jesus?' by CCNL's favorite author, John Dominic Crossan. I may give a book report at a later date.

After 40 years of religious studies (mostly concerning forms of mysticism) I have yet to find anything that exceeds the simple but exhilarating profundity of Zen - a most extreme form of (intuitively based) existentialism.

'The Zen Teaching of Huang Po on the Transmission of Mind' (John Blofeld) is both the shortest and most profound book on my bookshelf.

To Susan Jacoby:

You know I haven't given near enough credit to Susan Jacoby with her incredible "Freethinkers." Thank you Susan for an inspiring read. I wish we had something the equivilant of the Salons of Paris where great ideas could be discussed in an public forum. Yours was a welcome book, and I can't wait for your next one.

Also, I've got to get more stuff about Robert Ingersoll. If he were around now, I'd vote him as a write-in for President. What a level-headed, good-spirited person.

I wonder if you've ever personally met Jennifer Michael Hecht, as I also loved her book, "Doubt, a History"? You guys have put together some awesome scholarship and we all benefit from it. Thanks again.
Jeff P

Terry: I'm enjoying a book by Karen Armstrong called "The Great Transformation, the Beginning of Our Religious Traditions." I've learned so much regarding early "Israel" beliefs, and was surprised to learn they weren't monotheistic for a long-while. In fact, the God of Moses was considered the war-God, where Baal was an otherwise handy chap to have around for most other purposes. I wonder how many folks know this history?!

Armstrong is a really awesome author living in the UK with 7 years experience as a nun within the RCC. Uniformly now she considers herself a "deist," and her scholarship is excellent. Have you read any of her stuff?

E-Favorite, I finally completed "Don't Believe Everything You Think." It was a good read and I think I'll have my high-school kid read it in all his spare time!

Moderate: “High book sales. Totally mythical.” Like the Bible, right? (Sorry, couldn’t resist!)
By the way, do you know what a myth is? It’s a story about people. It’s fictional, meant to illustrate a point about human nature, e.g., the desire for a second chance (resurrection) the desire for freedom from oppression (exodus).

The “Q” source is an idea, a concept, based on speculation and analysis of tangible information that’s devised to try to explain something (how the Gospels evolved).

I neglected to mention an important feature of the argument for and against 'afterdeath survival'
and perhaps the most important ingredient. Spiritualists and religionists of all makes and models are really implying & arguing for the existence of a non-material component of the human make-up that can and does exist separately from a corporeal host. This could be defined as anything ranging from an individual eternal soul to transpersonal cosmic pure awareness.

Further, this (spiritually substantial) separate entity or 'substance' must abide in the (corporeal) body in order for sentient earthly life to live, breath, metabolize, and have it's being. Notice that Buddhists attribute this universal force to all living entities, while other religions (Hinduism excepted) do not pay much attention to the spiritual make-up of 'lower' lifeforms. Old testament religion is seemingly concerned almost exclusively with human fate.

Clearly folks grounded completely in an atheist/materialist world view will disagree with 'the non-physical spiritual' view as above. But they may be right, who can say with absolute certainty??

All religion is based on the belief and faith in immortality & this belief could be considered the foundation of both theistic and non-theistic religions. Logically (theistically) speaking, it even trumps the belief in a divine creator. Without life after death, there is no basis or need for a creator. This seems to be a fact that is largely ignored by the (theistic) religious faithful.

Arriving at this point, the question of what actually survives death is next in line of importance (we still haven't arrived at the need for a creator yet). The Hindus believe in the eternal Self/Atman, which is commonly shared by all sentient creatures - individual 'particles' of this Self composes the (apparently) separate entity that survives death and goes on to reincarnate. Spiritual knowing (moksha) is the path to ultimate unity with the Self.

Buddhists have disavowed the eternal existence of a soul or a cosmic Self (anatman) and yet admit that a 'stream of individual consciousness' must survive death in order to reincarnate based on karma. The continuation of a self-conscious 'I' e.g. self-awareness and it's final destiny remains a mystery, but no creator is involved in the manifestation/emergence of life or the phenomenal universe. As above, enlightenment (satori) reveals the true (void) nature of existence. Hinduism and Buddhism share much in common as well as many significant differences.

And finally, the (3) Abrahamic faiths maintain that every person possesses an eternal soul - now we have finally arrived at the need for the concept of a creator. Who after all creates and manages the collective destiny of an infinity of spiritual ego entities?? There must be a divine maker in the mix and this creator oddly recapitulates many human qualities. The goal is eternal salvation through the direct action of God. The devil is in the details of just how to get this done.

Buddhism and even Hinduism (and their metaphysical structures) are not antagonistic to science and scientific cosmology in particular, but conflict between science and religious faith does seem to be the frequent domain of fundamentalist interpretations grounded in Christianity and Islam.

The vast complexities of religion and all the arguments for and against still come down to the one core issue of Immortality and of course without a belief in the persistance of life in some form after our corporal demise, religion has no basis.

Believers (in the afterlife) have much to sort out, but non-believers have no such metaphysical conundrum to resolve. This seems to be the sub-text of every argument for and against religious faith and yet is seldom discussed.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

We all know that Mohammed was the Father of all the Ugly, Wingie, Talking, Flying, Fictional Thingies and that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is simply a contemporary manifestation of said Ugly Thingie!!!!

I am sure your local iman/cleric, the devil's rep, will have added information for you.

Now who is the FATHER OF ALL DEVILS ?
Rightly said by Iranian President before US mad bushy bush use the words axe.o.e.

AND this is the kind of LIBRATION AND FREEDOM your SECULAR, CAPTILIST, DEMOCARTE, CORPORATE MONSTOR ADMINISTRATION ESTABLISHMENT is providing to the world NOW for more than half century. YOU ARE SO PROUD OF.

GREEDY INTOLRATE ANIMALS!!!!!

CCNL,
Now the World is fully aware of USA
1- Pentagon military organization "Chaos Theory" all over the world to support its Weapon Industry with more than 18000 fighter plans and more than 1800 war ships IN SERVICE which ALONE IS BIGGEST THEN THE REST OF THE WORLD WEAPON INDUSTRIES & ARMS IN SERVICE COLLECTIVELY including Russia, China, India, Europe, NATO etc. And responsible of supplying illegal weapons all over the world FUELING ALL KIND OF BLOOD SHED ESPECIALLY IN CONTINENT OF AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST.
2- And USA White House civilian government "Conspiracy theory" to support its advances to control world resources.
Your and your Govt. credibility SUCKS.
Liars and conspirers!!!
Your pentagon driven Media conspires and All US dumb heads do is just follow the media slogans.
For example:
YOU and your stupid Bushy Bush call Iran Exe of Evil.
If some body with the slightest sense analysis. IRAN HAS NEVER SHOWN AGGRESSION WITH ANY BODY IN LAST 250 YEARS. It was puppet Saddam of Iraq who attacked Iran on his USA bushy master administration behalf.
IRAN HARDLY HAS ANY AIR FORCE & NAVY.
But USA mad administrative dogs talk about what if Iran will acquire nuck. They haven't yet.
This reason is so STUPID. The question is....
What about Pakistan already nuclear with ability to deliver.
What about Korea WHO THREATEN US RIGHT AT ITS FACE, what about Russia.
What about Mad Israel. Which is REAL THREAT WITH NUCKS to the whole Muslim world. If one look according to the MAD USA ADMINISTRATION PROSPECTIVE!!!
IT IS AGAIN PENTAGON + WHITE HOUSE driven Chaos and Conspiracy theory by Zionist controlled Media and stupid US masses again ONLY REPEATING media words like axe of evil, shia sunni, Iran Arabs bla bla bla without putting any burdon OR strain on there brains to once try to think REALISTICLY, same way like they believed in there Tyrant Rulers when there Rulers bluntly lied about EVERY THING to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dear Mr Mark.

"Your statement about the Q document exhibits a cursory and dismissive knowledge on the subject. Terming it a "scholarly myth" is an opinion not shared by any number of Biblical scholars."

Do you have proof or any reference from antiquity that supports a "Q" source? If so, provide citations. Otherwise it is an appealing scholarly myth. One that sells books.

Mr Mark.

Thanks for the feedback.It'll probably help me.

"What is not speculative is that the gospels were not written by guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Biblical scholars have determined that the gospel writers are anonymous and are not contemporaries of Jesus."

What you assert is not speculative, it is mendacious. Not on your part, but on the part of the popular press books that you buy. "Biblical Scholars" have no facts to support such a conclusion. It does sell books, though.

Dear E Favorite:

"Moderate - yes, Q is speculative. It's a hypothesis, not a myth."

Is speculative, and a Myth. Many modern scholars package and sell myths about early Christianity. They make very good money at it, I might add. Q started out in an earlier generation, and in a more serious scholarly community. But it has devolved into a highly commercial enterprise. For example, selling the Gospel of Thomas as "Q" is a very successful enterprise. High book sales. Totally mythical.

An update on Ghandi's anti-Jewish commentary -

From today's news:

"Gandhi's grandson quits N.Y. peace center
By Ben Dobbin

Associated Press

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A grandson of Mohandas Gandhi has resigned from a peace institute after drawing condemnation for saying in an online forum that Israel and Jews "are the biggest players" in a global culture of violence.
Arun Gandhi, the fifth grandson of the revered pacifist, said yesterday the board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, based at the University of Rochester, had accepted his offer a day earlier to step down as president.

Gandhi cofounded the institute with his wife, Sunanda.

He was on a panel of scholars, writers and clergy who discuss a new topic weekly on the Washington Post's "On Faith" page and his comments, posted Jan. 7, drew a torrent of criticism.

He wrote that Jewish identity "has been locked into the Holocaust experience - a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of [how] a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends.

"The Holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. . . . The world did feel sorry for the episode, but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger."

Describing Israel as "a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs," Gandhi asked whether it would "not be better to befriend those who hate you?"

"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity," he added.

Gandhi later apologized "for my poorly worded post," saying he should not have implied that Israeli government policies reflected the views of all Jewish people.

"I do believe that when a people hold on to historic grievances too firmly it can lead to bitterness and the loss of support from those who would be friends," he wrote in a follow-up.

The school declined immediate comment on the controversy, saying the institute's board "is separate from the university."

An update on Ghandi's anti-Jewish commentary -

From today's news:

"Gandhi's grandson quits N.Y. peace center
By Ben Dobbin

Associated Press

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A grandson of Mohandas Gandhi has resigned from a peace institute after drawing condemnation for saying in an online forum that Israel and Jews "are the biggest players" in a global culture of violence.
Arun Gandhi, the fifth grandson of the revered pacifist, said yesterday the board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, based at the University of Rochester, had accepted his offer a day earlier to step down as president.

Gandhi cofounded the institute with his wife, Sunanda.

He was on a panel of scholars, writers and clergy who discuss a new topic weekly on the Washington Post's "On Faith" page and his comments, posted Jan. 7, drew a torrent of criticism.

He wrote that Jewish identity "has been locked into the Holocaust experience - a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of [how] a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends.

"The Holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. . . . The world did feel sorry for the episode, but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger."

Describing Israel as "a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs," Gandhi asked whether it would "not be better to befriend those who hate you?"

"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity," he added.

Gandhi later apologized "for my poorly worded post," saying he should not have implied that Israeli government policies reflected the views of all Jewish people.

"I do believe that when a people hold on to historic grievances too firmly it can lead to bitterness and the loss of support from those who would be friends," he wrote in a follow-up.

The school declined immediate comment on the controversy, saying the institute's board "is separate from the university."

DREW writes:
Mr Mark;
I'm disappointed in you.And such a dismissive last line."

Drew, I have a confession to make, and that is that I probably owed you a more-considered answer. The sorry truth is this: I don't read your posts with the same attention to detail as I do others for the simple reason that you don't apply the standard rules of punctuation to your writing. That may sound trite, but for me, bad punctuation makes your posts difficult to scan, so I give them at best a cursory look.

It would help your cause if you would place a space after a period before starting a new sentence. It would help if you'd place a space after a comma within a sentence. It would help if you would avoid using the return key on your keyboard and allow the blog to decide when to send a sentence down to the next line. It would help if you'd drop a line before starting a new paragraph, and to break up your posts into more paragraphs.

Again, this may seem trite to you, but in my case, I can't spend the time overcoming sloppy punctuation to get to the heart of your messages. If you are interested in communicating your message effectively and efficiently, then if behooves you to format your posts in the most-readable way possible.

Thanks for your understanding in this matter.

:O

Thanks, Chris, I consider that high praise coming from you. :)

Pam,

I appreciate your clear and articulate posts on evolutionary biology and psychology.

John Stephens,

I am perhaps the least religious man on the planet, but between "Huckleberry Bee", marijuana seeds and a big jug of Jesus wine, I'm a believer!

Godfrey: Please do yourself a favor and visit http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/clintons.asp for the truth about all of these Bill and Hillary Clinton stories. While I do not support Sen. Clinton for President - mostly because I don't want another dynasty - I don't like to see people slandered in such a mean-spirited way.

I truly believe that ending a genetic line by not having children might be the best course in some cases. Unfortunately, it's usually the idiots and people that can't care for their kids that end up breeding like rabbits, while intelligent people who delay having a child until they can properly care for it end up having problems.

As I think about it, Terra's not the only one with friends who are gay and are cherished. Some of the smartest, kindest, and most generous people I know happen to be gay as well. Perhaps there's a lesson in there for us to take away as well.

I agree with Terra on this. It appears to me that when a population explodes in the manner that we did, nature will find a way to restore the balance- and I think homosexuality is only one of the ways in which this happens.

Consider- we are the only critters on this Earth who have figured out enough about how we work that we are actively looking to cure diseases and things that wipe out other animal population. Then Nature turns around and gives us new things like MRSA, SARS and all the other stuff we're not able to cure.

Nature is always going to be one step ahead of us no matter how technologically advanced we get.

Someone suggested to me that the rise of autism that we see in this country and else where may be a product of evolution of some sort- and that has stayed with me as I work in a field where more and more kids are being diagnosed at earlier ages and nobody has any idea what causes it.

Terra,

There is not a single ounce of hate in you, dear lady.

Blessings to you, too,

Arminius

John Stephens,
LOL...
Well I bet that was not tried in Congress to try to legalize Herb!
LOL

Arminius,
maybe I will take a vacation from the forum. If I am reading as hateful, (I know I can be sarcastic...) then I need to take a break. Thanks for having my back . Blessings,
terra

Terra Gazelle et al.:

I'm pretty sure it's going too far to call homosexuality a "biological screwup," considering that every mammal (not just the inbred human race) has a rate of homosexuality that stays pretty steady. With human beings, it looks like it's around 4%. With dolphins, it seems to be a steady 41%. Any trait that occurs at such consistent rates has to be considered a feature, not a screwup.

Terra Gazelle:

It’s been too long; I can no longer cite chapter and verse; but wasn’t it Hillary who said, “I loathe the military?” And didn’t she call her Secret Service guards her “personal trained pigs?” And didn’t she, at Yale, edit the _Yale Review of Law and Social Action_, which encourage people to kill police officers, and portrayed officers with pig faces? And didn’t she say of Gennifer Flowers, “We have to destroy her?”

Also, see here for Hillary’s long history of obscene anti-Semitic and racists remarks, with sources cited: http://www.hilltruth.com/whitewater_summary.html

I recall that there were many hateful statements, some of which made my hair stand on end, but I can’t remember them anymore.

But I remember what Kenneth Star said about investigating the Clintons. He said it was more like investigating organized crime than like investigating public officials.

Speaking of crime, I don’t know what you know about investing in commodities, but I know that it was absolutely impossible for an outsider—any outsider—to make $100,000 in beef futures—or any commodities futures. It couldn’t be done. Probably still can’t be done, but I’ve been out of touch. (Check here for more on this: http://www.hilltruth.com/whitewater_summary.html )

And now comes Linda Tripp confirming what has long been suspected: it was Hillary who ordered the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. And while Vince Foster collapsed at the horror of the outcome, Hillary was completely heartless about it. And Foster was writing a letter on the subject when he was shot in the head. And Foster was found with the gun clenched in his hand, which doesn’t happen in cases of suicide.

And there are a number of other allegations of murder against the Clinton camp that have never been investigated.

I’m sorry I can no longer cite more of the hatred that has come out of Hillary’s mouth, but I assure that it has.

Daniel,

I like your view on suffering and its meaning in the natural world.

We do not question the movement of the tectonic plates and how that affects the geology of a restless earth. And those activities can result harmful effects on life. Also, the shift in the tectonic plates gives way to new and fertile lands by way of erupting volcanoes. The abundance of life on earth can be attributed to the break up of the super continent Pangaea into the continents we have today which happened about 250 million years ago. There is always benefit and harm accorded to almost any event. The dinosaurs suffered sudden extinction because of a calamity that hit earth 65 million years ago. But that catastrophe also resulted in the rise of the mammals. And hardly any one would deny the existence of God on that basis.

The same principle can be applied to certain “errors” when dealing with human abnormalities. The human genome is made up of about three billion base pairs and roughly twenty thousand genes. Gene coding sequence is copied in a process called transcription; sometimes mistakes or misspelling happen in the copying process. These “errors” exist because of misspelling or mutations in the gene coding of our DNA and can be summarized as follows: “Most of those mutations occur in parts of the genome that are not essential, and therefore they have little or no consequence. The ones that fall in the more vulnerable parts of the genome are generally harmful, and are thus rapidly culled out of the population because they reduce reproductive fitness. But on rare occasions, a mutation will arise by chance that offers a slight degree of selective advantage. That new DNA “spelling” will have a slightly higher likelihood of being passed on to future offspring. Over the course of a very long period of time, such favorable rare events can become widespread in all members of the species, ultimately resulting in major changes in biological functions.”

Those spellings might have been instrumental in our development of language, increasing the size of our brains and other beneficial traits that define who we are as humans. Again we have the same process in play here. The same mechanism that results in harmful effects on us as humans is also responsible for our betterment. Sometimes we tend to not see the forest for the trees and forget to see the big picture. Consequently we should not jump to such conclusions as ‘God makes mistakes’ and therefore ‘he is not perfect.’ Or deny the existence of God on those bases.

Waldo, It again is in your perspective.
I had a baby that died in 1966 of spinal menengitis. Back then they called it an orphan disease, not enough people died of it to make it worth while to study...my three week old daughter died of it. When she was born her hips had not developed like they should have and she was tiny. She had trouble being born and if she would have lived she would have been in a cast and had to have several surgeries. Was she an error..no. Never. She was no more an error then I am with bad eyes. She was born as she was...a blessing that was lent to me.

maybe we have a different understanding of error. To me error should not be..and I have never met anyone that was not neccessary on this earth.

terra

John Stephens:

I'm not sure I exactly agree with your post, but I thank you for a great laugh! Nice to see some humor here.

Arminius

Two things that would be really neat to adopt as law into the Constitution from the Bible:

Behold, I give you every herb bearing seed; it shall be meat for you. [Genesis] Marijuana is an herb bearing seed. Thou shalt not Bogart that joint.

And bring any wine or strong drink and come and celebrate before the Lord. The first miracle of Jesus was making 90 gallons of fine wine from water at a party.

Everybody's so bloody uptight about religion. Actually, God is a lot of fun.

Let's boogey!

Shelley,
i did not say that she said anything of hate, and I did not ever intend that my remarks would be hateful or sarcastic. If any of my remarks were hurtsome I am sorry, for I do not mean them that way.
I would like you to show me what remarks I have made that are as you describe.

Oner persons fairy tale is another persons reality..it's all in the perspective.

terra

It must be obvious to everyone that Huckleberry Bee is just pandering for votes.

Shelley,

Excuse me, but where are you coming from? I see sarcasm sometimes from Terra, but never any hate.

Arminius

Terra,you should go back and read Meg's comments.
you distorted everything. She never said half the
things you say she said,and I didn't see any hate and sarcasm which I so frequently see from you.
You live in a fairyland all your own don't you Terra,like Ma Kettle.

Terra Gazelle.

I agree with Meg on this.Nature is not perfect.
Nature screws up all the time.I have a friend with 6 fingers on each hand.
I think Meg was making the point that 'intelligent design' is a lousy idea because there is no Designer..
As there is no God,anything goes.Accidents happen.
We are what we are.If we were born with all our parts,and everything works as it should,then we're lucky. But screwups happen.No matter what you call them.

Mr Mark;
I'm disappointed in you.And such a dismissive last line.
Trying to see things from the gene's point of view is hardly thinking inside 'the box'.It's called socio-biology.
The suggestion is that perhaps the (human)gene is really in control here,to a greater or lesser extent. It's an interesting field of inquiry from which scientists are learning a great deal about what being human is all about.

Chris wrote: "Take a gene's eye view. You never had the ability to pass on your genes in their entirety - none of us do - cloning is still a few years away! Your genes are all around you, in your family, friends (also family), aquaintances (still family), strangers (still family) and even animals (still family). Anyone who contributes to life, by whatever means they choose, is a genetic success."

Yes, I do have nieces and nephews. :)
That sort of thing (actual genetic family) is the basis for the evolution of altruism, of course.

Drew,

If "...homosexuality is a genetic error. The genes are doomed to extinction", as you say, is there any evidence that this is happening? I am aware that it is a logical conclusion, but where is the data?

Perhaps that gene is always with us, and triggered in some way. Hell, I don't know. I just don't see it either diminishing or increasing.

Arminius

The reason homosexuals have a problem in society is society. How are they defective? because they have an attraction for same sex? I come from a family of dark haired, dark eyed people...my one brother has red hair and blue eyes; as did my Father's great grandmother and his mother's father.. Is that defective because he was different? No. He was as smart and as productive as anyone else. He was just different from others in his society.

And Meg...You feel ,as a gay woman that you are an error? Gosh sweety...how sad.

I guess it is because I do not believe there are ever errors created. Everything is for a reason...my friend might not be the fine person he is without the patience and compassion he had to learn and can now give to others. No, there is no error. The God I believe in does not make errors, mistakes are only in the eye of others. Some of the best art I have created has been because of an error, (something not planned).

If being gay was just a ooops on the part of god/life force, creation...then there would be an eratic population through out history. Well that is not correct, it seems that in nature homosexuality stays fairly at the same rate until the population is under stress.

Among human populations, homosexuality occurs at a certain rate in all populations. Thus homosexuality is natural and inevitable. Data suggests that homosexuality may be at least partly genetically determined. A semi-technical paper at the University of Texas with the title "Biological Correlates of being Gay - Biological Determinism?" is available at www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html

Among plants, sometimes flowers possess both male and female sex organs, sometimes they are unisexual and on different plants, sometimes unisexual and on the same plants, sometimes flowers are designed so they can't self-pollinate, other times they have to pollinate themselves, and some plants skip the sex scene altogether by reproducing vegetatively.

The higher up the evolutionary scale you go, the kinkier it all gets. Among communities of mice and other mammals, when population density reaches a certain high level where diseases and famine threaten, not only does homosexual behavior appear but also parents begin killing their own offspring. It's always the case that the Creator chooses the welfare of the community over that of the individual.

Why would the Creative Force create this state of affairs among humans? I don't know, but my own experience with human gays is that, on the average, they are more sensitive, insightful and caring than the rest of us, so maybe that's enough of an answer right there.

Moreover, since the Creator has made it so that among higher mammals homosexual behavior increases in populations under stress, and humanity right now, because of overpopulation and inequitable distribution of resources, is under enormous stress, the phenomenon of gays suddenly stepping forth to demand their right to establish stable family units while not themselves contributing to even greater overpopulation, can be seen to be not only natural but also, literally, a goddess-send.

No there is no error when it comes to gays...they are as they are born to be.

terra

terra

DREW writes:
Mr Mark

"I'm wondering whether your objectivity is necessarily warranted.
I mean doesn't sociobiology suggest that
'the whisperings within' guide our behavior in the interest of the 'selfish gene'?(also written about by Dawkins).
If the gene(s) is 'trying' to accomplish something,
(ie its survival and transmission) then it can be successful or unsuccessful,wouldn't you say?
It seems Meg maybe has a point.Genetically,homosexuality is a cul-de-sac.
The gene does not propagate as it was supposed to.
In other words,it screws up.
In this way I would say that homosexuality is a genetic error. The genes are doomed to extinction."

Consider the lilies of the field.

Are they unable to reproduce? Is their "sexuality" a cul-de-sac? It is, if one expects flowers to hop into bed with each other or with themselves and have sex.

Flowers depend on third-party pollinators to reproduce - bees, birds, whatever. The male gamete gets transferred by bees et al to the carpel where sits the female gamete. There are no errors in these genes or in the way flowers are pollinated. It's just different from the way animals do it.

Nature and life finds a way. The fact is that human homosexual couples can have children by using a third party, just like flowers.

Think outside of the human box and explore the wonder of nature's box.

Daniel: "What if there is no such thing as evil? Mabye it is just a collection of people's impressions of bad or calamitous events."

The same could go for "good" - so even less reason for God

Mr Mark;

I was looking forward to you responding to Drew's comments at Jan25. 1:37pm.
It was just getting interesting.

Regards.

Gaby -

Biblical verses that speak of abortion. God both approves of and demands it in some cases.

Tried to post the text, but it was embargoed.

Click here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Gaby

I do not know of any verses in the Bible that speak out against abortion. It is the opinion of some people that human life begins at the moment of conception, and it is the opinion of others that there is a gradual transformation from the single fertilized egg to the fully formed human baby some time later.

You can bet if there were a supporting verse, they would blow out your eardrums, yelling it at you.

However, I do remember reading a verse from the Bible that commands abortion under a certain extreme circumstance; maybe if I wrack my brain, and research it a little, I can recall where that was. It would be interesting to toss back at the Bible-quoters.

Since this Huckabee flap is largely an abortion issue, I have a question that I hope one of you can answer.

I have no idea where in the bible it says abortion is a sin or where it is defined at what stage a fetus is a viable human being.

Can someone please enlighten me?

Pam,

Take a gene's eye view. You never had the ability to pass on your genes in their entirety - none of us do - cloning is still a few years away! Your genes are all around you, in your family, friends (also family), aquaintances (still family), strangers (still family) and even animals (still family). Anyone who contributes to life, by whatever means they choose, is a genetic success.

E Favorite?

What if there is no such thing as evil? Mabye it is just a collection of people's impressions of bad or calamitous events.

I wonder about "suffering." Everyone suffers in life, alot. When you hear someone mouthing off plattitudes about how suffereing is good for us, and only makes us better, and that is why we have suffering, then you know that person hasn't suffered much, yet.

Drew;
Liked your comments about the genes.
My point was more about intelligent design,and unintelligent design.
The ID brigade look at something wonderful and impossible to understand like the eye,and say it must have been designed by a brilliant designer;
no other way to figure it.So it's good to show examples of design errors.Some designer ugh!
Intelligent design is a two edged sword,was my point,I think.

Arminius - the problem of evil may drive some people away from religion, but it's because the existence of evil suggests the absence of a benevolent god, not because God is perceived as being evil.

See the difference?

Of course,considering homosexuality as a mistake or an error,is not at all a put down of homosexual people themselves.The people are not errors,the people are not mistakes.
Its the gene that is in error.The mistake is genetic.
But gay people themselves often compensate by being often unusually creative,seeming to combine male and female characteristics in a wonderful way.
I know gay people,they're amazing.

Anon,

Hillary needs to dump Bill real, real soon.

With respect to the update on our War on Terror and Aggression, note the time period covered is from WWII to 2008. I am sure you know the Presidents involved during each situation (FDR to George Bush). Add them during your perusal.

Our War on Terror and Aggression:

An update ( or how we are spending or have spent USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression.)

A Partial Body Count-

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

1b) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 80,625 – 88,048 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror and Aggression:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!!

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. Although a bit dated, the terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends.

14. And of course the bloody terror and aggression brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Roy.
Don't rise to Angela's bait.You may regret it.

Drew;
Gee Drew,maybe there really IS a God.
Maybe He's a molecule of some sort.
One thing we've never considered is molecular intelligence.We assume insects are too small to have brains,and that molecules at such an infinitely tiny size cannot have a brain.
But if genes are maybe organizing us hosts for their larger purposes,and if we are not otherwise of any importance except as we serve their needs,maybe somewhere there's a special gene who is God.
I think it's scientist Matt Ridley who calls God the "Genome Organizing Device",and he may well have a point.
Good discussion.

Angela B. says: "The world is worse that Sodom and Gomorrah and we know what happened to them." No, WE don't know Angela. I remember reading an account in the Old Testament but it didn't remind me of anything "Christian" Don't use the collective WE when WE don't all believe the Bible is infallible.

I would not say being gay is a mistake. It is my observation that many gay people seem to have a collection of unusual traits in addition to sexual orientation. Perhaps this collection of traits, contributes to the success of man, as a society. I do not notice that having gay people as a certain percentage of the population is causing less people to be born.

Conservative born-again Christian Evangelicals, and their Catholic mirror-images, are backward, cloistered, sheltered, and in fact, just plain silly, when it comes to their unreasoning hostility against, and fascination with, gay people. If it were not for the tragic fact that they are aggressively and malilciously set upon a program to ruin people's lives, they would be comical. They are bigotted, plain and simple, once again, with the love of Christ, with-held, and hide behind God and the Bible, to justify and excuse their very bad behavior.

What Christians.

Yes, as Mr. Mark says, nature is nature - and uncaring. All the same, some "errors" work, and some don't, and this is the basis for natural selection, and thereby, evolution.

To the extent that an organism is flawed enough to fail to pass on its genes, it is unsuccessful, and can therefore be seen as an "error."

This doesn't always apply to gay people. Many do reproduce, either by artificial insemination, or by, presumably, "closing their eyes and thinking of England" during the requisite act.

I, myself, am an evolutionary dead end. I'm heterosexual and I have only one head, but I chose not to have children, so I can be seen as as much of an aberration of nature as an animal that dies shortly after birth because its organs are on the outside of its body cavity.

From a biological standpoint, reproduction is the sole arbiter of the success or failure of an individual. If that little two-headed turtle can lay eggs, or fertilize those of some other turtle, (s)he's as good as any "normal" turtle as far as nature is concerned.

E Fav,

You are perhaps correct in your assessment of how an atheist feels about things screwing up. Yet I would contend that the problem of 'evil' has driven many from religion. If one is religious, it is a real conundrum. Daniel has a good handle on it, I think, even though his hasty judgment of atheists was overshot.

Arminius

Daniel: "and atheists look upon these events to prove that God is really malevolent, or uncaring, or even does not exist."

Nope - atheists know that God cannot be proved or disproved. We think, however, based on the huge lack of evidence that there almost certainly is not a god. Of course we don't ascribe attributes like "malevolent" or "uncaring" to a nonexistent entity.

Mr Mark

I'm wondering whether your objectivity is necessarily warranted.
I mean doesn't sociobiology suggest that
'the whisperings within' guide our behavior in the interest of the 'selfish gene'?(also written about by Dawkins).
If the gene(s) is 'trying' to accomplish something,
(ie its survival and transmission) then it can be successful or unsuccessful,wouldn't you say?
It seems Meg maybe has a point.Genetically,homosexuality is a cul-de-sac.
The gene does not propagate as it was supposed to.
In other words,it screws up.
After all,at the molecular level,we are not really sure WHAT goes on. Some sociobiologists suggest that we are simply vehicles,constructed by genes as a good way to ensure their survival and transmission on into the future. Like we are really just a bag of genes wrapped up in skin,
controlled and manipulated by the genes,doing their bidding,and only occasionally seeming to hear the whisperings within nudging us to do certain things and we are not sure why.
The greatest of course is sex.Isn't it wonderful?
Its great because that's what it's all about.
Its the act of transmitting those little critters on to another generation..the GREAT moment,the CLIMAX!
In this way I would say that homosexuality is a genetic error. The genes are doomed to extinction.

Anon:

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my use of the word "function." I meant function biologically. The club foot with which I was born hinders my ability to function biologically. Due the poor enervation, a small injury resulted in the eventual amputation of four and a half toes from that foot, because I didn't feel the injury and didn't realize anything was wrong until signs of massive infection manifested. Because of this, my coordination is affected - I don't run well, and often stumble even when walking. In a life-threatening situation, this could affect my chances of survival.

Homosexuality is not a defect. It doesn't impede a person's ability to function biologically. The fact that they often have difficulty functioning socially is a flaw in our society, not in the homosexual person.

I know that being gay is not easy. There are many BGLT people in my circle of family and friends. I don't see them as defective.

Dear Jimbo -

Thanks for the comment.

I can't agree with you on the concept of "natural errors." If people die in a flood, did nature make the error, or did man make an error building homes in a flood zone?

As far as the twins joined at the head, both twins may well have lived had the surgeons not elected to attempt the procedure (not knowing the details of this particular case, I'll make the assumption that they weren't in danger of imminent death. I could be wrong). In fact, two-headed creatures happen quite often in nature. I just saw a two-headed turtle on TV this morning. The turtle doesn't consider its two heads to be a horror or an error of nature because it can't reason. WE might see it as an error, but again, that's our perception.

In nature, wildly mutated animals don't last long. They may be pushed from the nest, or their lives may be so difficult that they don't live long. There's no horror there, just reality. Many insects and worms have a life span of only a few weeks. Is it a "horror" that they don't live longer? If a turtle has a life span of 100 years, but a mutated two-headed turtle may live only a few weeks or years, is that a horror? Most animals in the wild end up as some other animal's dinner in short order, including those sparrows that god supposedly watches over. Most sparrows don't make it out of the nest.

No, it's OUR perception that drives this belief in horror and error, not nature itself. Nature is neutral. We are not.

Q. Do we suffer at the caprice of God?

A. Yes. The story of Job itself demonstrates this explicitly (along with other stories in the Bible).

That this is something that would never occur to those who have been brainwashed, or have insufficient critical analysis skills for their own Holy Book (but not other's Holy Books) is not difficult for me to imagine.

Freestinker;

God is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm with you Mr Mark,but as a human with a human perspective (how could it be otherwise?) I will continue to see natural errors as horrors when they afflict me or mine;or even you and yours.
I caught the PBS special a few months ago which showed surgeons trying to separate twins joined at the head.Only one survived. It haunted me for days.
"The horror-the horror", happens in nature all the time,and its difficult to be philosophical about it.

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people despair at the suffering in the world. But I know that suffereing is part of the nature of things that constitutes the world in which we all dwell. A baby would not be precious if there were no death. Perhaps this is not something that people think of easily, yet most people would not disagree with it, if you point it out to them.

Do we suffer at the caprice of God? This is something that would never occur to me, and it is diffucult for me to imagine why people would think this.

Alot of Christians and Muslims seem to believe that events such as earthquakes or the tsunami are God's direct punishment and retribution for the wickedness of man. Other Christians look upon this as God's caprice against man, and cannot comprehend why, and their belief is weakened. Alot of unchurched people, agnostics, and atheists look upon these events to prove that God is really malevolent, or uncaring, or even does not exist.

I do not believe that catastrophic events such as the tsunami are God's punishment, nor God's caprice, nor God's malevolence. I believe that suffereing is an innate quality of the nature of things that constitute the world in which we all dwell.

We have gravity. Wouldn't we all agree that gravity is a good thing? It gives us the feeling of up and down, the most basic sensation that we have to orient ourselves in this physical world and to navigate our way through it. Gravity enables us both a place to stand, and a place to rest. It enables us to build our houses, and to found our cities. Yet, people fall down the steps and off ladders, and out of windows. Planes crash. But as bad as these things are, how could we wish gravity away, without also wishing away all of existence and all that we know?

In the same way, the tsumani is a characteristic of the nature of things: of gravity, of the world being separated into dry land and sea, of the tectonic plates upon which the continents rest, of the people who find the coastal areas desirable places to live. If you were God, you could end suffering by making all of the people vanish. But that is not what we have in mind by ending suffereing. Likewise, God could end suffering by making all of physical existence vanish. But that too is not what we want.

But just because I accept suffereing as part of the deal, that does make me callous. Quite the opposite. Because I have suffered, I feel empathy for the suffereing of others, and I want to help relieve it where ever possible. If you had me over to your house for dinner, and you were in the kitchen chopping onions, and the knife slipped, and you cut your hand, you would be very lucky to have me as a guest in your living room. Because I would take care of you and help you no matter how serious the injury. I would not be squeamish, nor faint-hearted at the site of blood, nor at the site of anything else.

Jesus never promised us a life without suffering. Christians who expect this have not properly understood the teachings of Christ. Jesus offered to suffer with us. And when you show him your scars, he will understand because he has scars, too.

It's surprising to me that someone of Huckabee's limited intellectual capacity as clearly demonstrated by his religiously inspired statements (including this recent gaff on Constitutional ammendments and the bible) is not only running for president but has actually had some (limited) success in this effort.

It does show that fundamentalism still has political clout, although apparently fading in the distance like a train whistle.

To attribute a person's sexual orientation to the same kind of genetic flaws that cause many (anomalous) mental and physical disabilities is showing the same kind of biblically inspired ignorance that motivates Huckabee & his support of creationism, alteration of the Constitution to reflect religious beliefs, etc. etc. In actual fact, homosexual behavior is part and parcel of everyone's make-up, potentially speaking.

Under extreme & diverse circumstances even the most dominant (male or female) hetero will readily engage in homosexual behavior (e.g. any prison system in the world). One could easily argue that circumstance dicates sexual behavior as readily as genetic pre-disposition.

In free societies, homosexual taboos are breaking down along with fundamentalism, but it's not an overnite process. More individual education (and less group mimicry) equals less superstitious belief and fewer opinions based on uninformed prejudice and intolerance (given that belief systems have a powerful and inflexible emotional undergirding, it's not surprising that common sense is often trumped by pre-disposing and fallacious beliefs and attitudes).

One would think that if a person has seen through the shibboleth of organized religion they would just as easily see through other culturally and socially inspired fallacies (e.g. judgemental opinions regarding homosexuality) but such is not always the case. In the end, when one relies on the knowledge of science vs the mysteries of faith and religion, more cerebrally based rationality and less unreflective emotion is usually the path to the correct answer.

Hi Lepidopteryx;yeah i respect your viewpoint.

Up until recently,to be homosexual meant exclusion from much of society,and most gays stayed in the closet,and led lonely lives pretending to be someone else,someone who people would not hate and throw stones at. For some,its still like that. For many others,today they are free at last;much of society has smartened up,and understand that homosexuality is not a choice but a condition caused by that extra chromosome,etc.
Some people would prefer to be born with only one leg,or no arms,to them anything's better than being homosexual.
Homosexuality does interfere with one's ability to function normally,as a guy,or as a girl to those who are born that way. It's a difficult card to have been dealt.Adjusting to it is very difficult and fraught with pain,embarrassment and all manner of other difficulties. And some have been killed for being gay,while many others have been ostracised(?) and hated.
Trust me,it aint easy being gay.

Daniel ITLD,

I checked out the link. Incredible, thanks! That guy must have read my mind. Gotta buy the books.

Jesus is a Liberal.

Arminius

Well said, Mr Mark!

Here is a link to the CNN website, about a Christian critic of Christianity; I am not the only one. Take a look at it, if you care to:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/01/24/best.selling.christian.ap/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Nature isn't perfect or imperfect. Nature is what it is.

It's a purely human conceit to say that nature is imperfect. We make a mistake judging nature from a purely human perspective. Something negatively impacts humans, and we term it imperfect, yet that very imperfection may be absolute perfection for some other organism occupying the same terra firma as we humans.

Forest fires and tsunamis may seem imperfect to those humans caught in their paths, but they certainly serve a purpose in renewing nature and life itself.

This conceit that the world revolves around us and our experience of the same comes from our religious traditions, traditions that teach us that the world and the cosmos were created for us to dominate. Yet, we god-empowered humans are easily felled by the "perfections" of invisible micro-organisms and the equally perfect effects of large-scale natural disasters over which we have no dominion whatsoever.

Seen in this light, the only imperfection in nature is our perception of our role in the natural world.

Waldo:

Sometimes Nature does make mistakes, such as conjoined twins, or your daughter's condition.

But I see "mistake" as connoting something that interferes with an organism's ability to function normally and/or survive to adulthood. Homosexuality does not in any way interfere with a person's ability to function normally or to survive to adulthood. Like hair color/texture, eye color, skin color, etc. there is no right or wrong sexual orientation - homosexual is just one point on the spectrum.

I agree with the comments of Waldo (1/25/2008, 10:39AM).

Indeed Nature (the "god" of Thomas Jefferson, Einstein, etc..) is not perfect.

If Nature were perfect their would be no trial and error, only trial and perfection. I suspect the reason our society likes to turn its eyes away from those the are born with the "error" part of Nature's trials is that such errors by Nature do contradict the construct of God most in Western Civilization believe in (i.e. an all knowing, all powerful, all loving deity). And indeed, such errors by Nature *DO* provide strong evidence that supports such a God does *NOT* exist.

Waldo, I too choke up thinking of your daughter.

Thanks Waldo, you're right.

Terra Gazelle.

I agree with Meg on this.Nature is not perfect.
Nature screws up all the time.I have a friend with 6 fingers on each hand.
I think Meg was making the point that 'intelligent design' is a lousy idea because there is no Designer..
As there is no God,anything goes.Accidents happen.
We are what we are.If we were born with all our parts,and everything works as it should,then we're lucky. But screwups happen.
My daughter was born with cancerous growth at the base of her spine.When they removed it they discovered that it was quite large,had entered the abdominal cavity,so went in again and cut it out.
She was bombarded with chemo and other treatments for several years.
She is now an adult,very small,very thin,unable to have kids,and very slow intellectually.
The treatment had destroyed her growth hormones.
I choke up just remembering what she went through as a baby.
Nature screws up constantly.There is no god to help,or to blame.There is only this real world which everyone knows is not perfect.

It's true that as a southern baptist Willy Boy didn't full understand what sex was and wasn't,
but the vastly hypocritical & hyperbolic assault that he suffered at the hands of a GOP dominated congress was very educational, I'm sure....this had exactly the effect congress at the time hoped for, and 8 years of GWB has been the very unfortunate result.

Still, Bill is significantly overweighted in the presidential plus column as to his overall performance, whereas I see nothing but minus signs in the Bush/Cheney column. Bill has weathered the storm & seems to have landed on his feet. What Hillary probably demonstrated throughout the ordeal was staying power and maybe some other positive character traits that will stand her in good stead as president (not the least of which was presidential ambition!).... but you've got to want it to get it.

No, I think Hillary has what it takes ......

CCNL - we can do without the oft posted progress report on all the itemized successes that you've attributed to the Bush administration - and rife with inaccuracies & pro-GOP dissembling.

Good luck with your candidate McCain!!

Morning Arminius..
Thanks for support on this.Yesterday was truly bizarre with whatsisname taking over the blog
for no better reason than heshe craves the attention.

Marrying and then not divorcing "Willy Boy" vitiates any brain power Hillary might have!!!!

Waldo,

OK, I'll hold off on Angela. I was mentally composing a reply, but my head is already bloody from pounding on the proverbial brick wall. I do wish she could understand that the reasons she upsets people is not so much what she says, but how she says it. Nonetheless, she is still welcome here.

Arminius

Terra.
Ignore my last remark to read more.
I'm sure you are well read.
My fingers got away on me.

May I urge people to ignore Angela today?
That means you too Arminius and Daniel ITLD.
Responses encourage himher.
Its the attention that keeps himher coming back.
Angela took over the whole blog yesterday,
lets be smart and not allow it to be hijacked again.

I figure it'll take at least two people in the Oval Office working full time for 8 years to undo the damage one lame-brained born-again christian president has done to the USA - who better than the Clinton team??

It's looking more and more like McCain will be the GOP candidate and that is really no surprise -he's a war-monger and a pandering pseudo-conservative, but without the bible belt baggage & just what the GOP would support now.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals are being marginalized as we speak - if Huckabee couldn't pull it off in S. Carolina (and he couldn't) he's dead in the water.

Hillary has got the brain-power to get the job done and that's what we need now - a massive infusion of intelligence in the government & in the White House. While I would have supported Edwards, his history with Kerry preceeded him - he would make a good VP but that's really a position that has lots of good potential democratic possibilities.

In the coming years we may even be ready for a Buddhist as POTUS - but then again, what self-respecting Buddhist would want it??

Terra Gazelle;

Your friend has nothing to do with it.
It's not a compassionate issue.
Homosexuality is a biological screwup.
I am gay.Does that give me more authority?
I am fifty and gay.
Nature errs all the time.How about siamese twins?
I guess if you have a friend who is a siamese twin who survived being removed from her sibling,to whom she was joined at the head,you'd think that was not a screw up because it slighted your friend.
get a grip terra.
Read more.

Good Morning; First, I'd like to say don't all who post on here have different views? When someone posts their views they have the right and so do I. The same passion as everyone on here as, so do I. It's not about knowing everything; none of us do. Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment in the Constitution. Also, I believe everything that I speak about and do not waiver on my beliefs just as you do. However, what I do find to be disconcerting is those who have posted on this website claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about. Since, I'm considered a fundamentalist and a Bible beater, everything I stated was biblically correct. Is it not true (for those who profess to be Christians) that Jesus' message was hated by the unbelievers and the believers; is that not so? Also, are we not commanded always to be prepared to give a reason for the hope they have. Was this not quoted in Ezekiel 1:1-8; 1 He said to me, "Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you." As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me.
He said: "Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says.' And whether they listen or fail to listen—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you." How about in Jeremiah 20:8-10; Whenever I speak, I cry out proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the LORD has brought me insult and reproach all day long.
But if I say, "I will not mention him or speak any more in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot. I hear many whispering, "Terror on every side! Report him! Let's report him!" All my friends are waiting for me to slip, saying, "Perhaps he will be deceived; then we will prevail over him and take our revenge on him." I am no better than you as a believer and never have I claimed to be but I am called to witness and share the gospel and that's what I've done here. We are all on a journey and I pray that we as a nation, not protest against our differences in opinion with cruelty, slander and hate. In closing, my opinion regarding the Constition as already been stated. God Bless You and May HE have mercy on all of us....

Terra,

Your parable of the spiritual teacher is stunningly beautiful and profound. It really got to me, and touched something that I too believe: many paths to the truth. That parable is now engraved in my memory. Thanks!

Arminius

Daniel ITLD,

Good reply to Someone. I am with you all the way. His rebuttal was pretty lame, IMHO.

Keep it up!

Arminius

OOOoops! Should be "To err is human..."

which is all too obvious above.

Drew - “Oo err is human; to forgive is human.”

The original quote is by Alexander Pope, 18th century English poet, but I like my 21st century version better.

Then there’s 18-19th century Scottish poet and novelist, Sir Walter Scott’s “Ah what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” which I think is fine as is. I see this most among fundamentalists of any kind who have to test their minds in knots to believe in supposedly unchanging, but often contradictory and sometimes wacky dogma. What they don’t seem to realize is that their ever more tangled web of self-deception is obvious to others.

It seems like non-fundamentalists are more able to give up the deception early on to avoid that tangled web.

O "Obfusing" Jist (formerly Jihadist),

Correct and Critical Thinking:

Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe even Jist!!!!! "

Meg,
Screw up? Why do you say screw up? there are homosexuals in all species. If it was a "screw up" it would not be so common. It is meant..my friend is a good person and who he is is a wonderful human being..he is NO screw up by some drunk designer.

People are not srew ups or some proof against some hair brained hypothesis. Facts do that.

terra

Drew,You are right all religions hold truth.

The Master
Many centuries ago there lived a woman who was a great spiritual teacher. She drew many students who wished to learn what she revealed. They formed a group of devoted disciples. After many years of study the disciples left and journeyed to other lands, hopeing to spread the teachings they had learned.
The years went by and one day the disciples returned qnd sought out their old teacher. Once they found her, the disciples posed a question to the Master. "We have", their spokesperson said," traveled to many lands, and discovered many different teachings that are unlike the ways you have taught us." The master calmly nodded in acknowledgement, and the disciple continued,"Therefore we are confused, so can you tell us what is the true religion?"
The master looked up with a patient smile and replied," All of the religions of the world are like individual pearls. Each of them formed from a different grain of sand, in different waters, under different conditions." Then the Master looked directly at the spokesperson and spoke softly. saying," But if you ask me which is the true pearl, I will tell you none are the one true pearl, the truth is the thread that runs through each pearl holding them together as a necklace, and that is the truth you seek."

Maybe homosexuals show unintelligent design.

If there was a God there wouldn't be any homosexuals,
because He would have got it right first time and every time.If God's the Great Designer men would be men,women would be women,and there wouldn't be anything in between.Intelligent design right?
But in the real world screw ups happen.And there is no god.
Well that's my argument and I'm sticking to it.

Pam,
I understand what you are saying...my best friend is a black gay man...I am a middle aged white woman. I think that he is the kindest, most balanced human I know. He has had so many reasons to hate humanity, and he doesn't. I admire him so much for being filled with true compassion for others.

Then there are people like those holly rollers that hold the bible up...say God Bless alot and then call dear souls abominations...or that they are to be gotten rid of..like Hitler with the death camps.

But as a Wiccan I truly believe that what is put out in the universe does return..and they will reap their just rewards. I wonder what their god really thinks about how they treat his other children?

Goddess Bless Pam,
terra

SOMEONE has gotta be ANGELA with a new handle.

Pam;
Yes of course,if there was a god we would surely know it.But the religious will say that there's a reason HE doesn't want us to know it,and so on and son.
Any reasonable thing you might expect of an Actual God,some communication however small,some interventions when things get out of hand,as in wars, and catastrophes like tsunamis,earthquakes,famines,etc.It never happens.
He's a no-name god,who never does anything never says anything and ignores prayers.Why anybody would want to believe in this do-nothing god has always puzzled me.
Only the religious can tell you why,with different answers depending on which religious person you ask.In religion there's no one truth.There are hundreds of truths.All different.All true.
Now I'm babbling.And I Gotta go.

Someone,
Your post above, answering DITLD, is couched in the phrases of sweetness and light - but then I come to this: "Huckabee fights for ... the abolition of homosexuality, as do I, and that's great." And my blood just boils.

NO - that's NOT "great." That's pure, unadulterated homophobic bigotry, and it's just as ugly as using the "N" word when referring to African-Americans. It makes me think that you're the lowest kind of pond-scum that this country can produce.

No, I'm not gay, but I have a number of friends that are, and they're wonderful people. The gay couple that live across the street from my elderly mother have been incredibly kind and helpful to her. No Christians have come around to shovel her sidewalk when it snows, or to take her to the hospital when she got appendicitis.

I suppose, courtesy of your damned book, you think that being gay is a "lifestyle", and a "choice." It would be so nice if you cretins would read a little science now and then. A gay person doesn't choose his sexuality any more than you chose yours. Could you become aroused by someone of your own sex, if you chose to? Of course you couldn't. If it were a choice, why would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual - opening themselves to hatred and discrimination from jerks like you?

There is a point, in utero, when the fetal brain, under the influence of hormones produced (if everything is on schedule) by its own gonads, becomes sexualized. That is to say, the brain becomes feminine or masculine, with all that that entails. If the hormones aren't there at the right time, or are there in the wrong amounts (both men and women produce estrogen and testosterone - just in different proportions) the brain may end up not matching the body, and a homosexual is born.

Most gays report realizing what they are at a very early age. Most fight it for many years and go through all sorts of mental trauma. Some even commit suicide. Does that sound like a "lifestyle choice" to you??

Go crawl back under your religious rock, and take your bigotry with you.

Someone,
You write about how terrible people are...,how Clinton was a bad boy...you judge others and sign off with a God Bless.

If putting bits of the bible in the constitution does not make it Christian or religious...putting passages of Spiral Dance, by Starhawk (a panelist here) in the constitution will not make it Witchcraft. Right?

I gather you would not like that...but, you sputter, Christianity is DIFFERENT! No...it's a religion.
terra

Someone

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. You asked. Many Christians post here with a nasty chip on their shoulders. What am I and others to think of them?

I have many Christian friends whom I like very much. But they do not "witness" to their co-workers, as Angela suggested I should, and they do not walk around with an arsenal of Bible quotes to show off how good they are and how "smart" they are. And they do not assume they are better than everyone else.

But of course, who ever hears from them? It is only from the unruley Christians with a chip on their shoulders that anyone ever hears about.

And one last thing, I am aware that everyone loves their own "loved" ones. Even Jesus said, "what is the credit in that?" I am aware that love is more than just being nice.

What do you think love is?

beam08,
There is magick in words, in the sounds and the flow of the words.

To protect what is wild is to protect what is gentle. Perhaps the wildness we fear is the pause between our own heartbeats, the silent space that says we live only by grace. Wilderness lives by this same grace. Wild mercy is in our hands.
--Terry Tempest Williams

I find that a beautiful flow of words..it effects the spirit.

"It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination nailed it yet, and they never will because they're all too self-righteous to realize
that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains need to wake up.
I have issues with anyone who treats faith as a burden instead of a blessing." -- Serendipity in "Dogma", by Kevin Smith

And the speak of my faith?

“Our Life is the Divine Life of the universe. Our means of keeping in touch with it cannot be through any man-made dogma, but through nature, which man did not make. Man’s hands wrote all the holy books and sacred scriptures; only the book of nature was written by divinity.”
-Doreen Valiente

Words tell a truth that is felt.

terra

Drew,
If I were to wake up to such an apparition as you describe, I would think that A) I was having a particularly vivid dream, B) that I had developed a brain tumor, or C) that some smart-a$$ friend had slipped me a mickey.

If I somehow lost all of my rationality and believed it, I would most likely not tell anyone about it, not wanting to be consigned to a rubber room.

All that said, however, if there was a magical, omnipotent god and he wanted us to know about him, it wouldn't be a difficult trick to convince us.

DITLD: "I do know that when a Christian speaks, he is giving his personal thoughts and opinions and is not speaking as God's voice would speak. When a Christian assumes that attitude with me, I am offended, as I assume are people of other relgions, as well as atheists. I know your judgement is cocked and ready do judge me harshly, should I indicate a Christian belief that deviates from what you think is God's will.

Just read my opinions and thoughts and make of them what you will and leave the inner will of my belief alone."

Whoa whoa whoa...no need to be upset. First of all, what "attitude" are you speaking of? Either you are not quite clear enough, or I am just missing it totally. I'm a bit confused. Also, what makes you think my judgment is "cocked" or that I will judge you. I respect people for their beliefs, you included. I may preach God's Word to the world, but I do not force it upon anyone.

Here's what I gathered from your post. You seem to think you know all Christians, and you've compartmentalized them into different shelves and assumed they all act the same within their "sect." You assume ALL fundamentalist act the same, and all the conservatives act the same. They all do not understand love, but you, however do. You have already labeled me as one of those 2 categories, and therefore assume I will judge you, which is only based on your definition of the group you have put me in, which happens to be false.

Love means to sacrifice. It does not mean "to be nice." A husband and wife love each other, and are willing to sacrifice for each other's needs. The same goes for the friendship realm. We all have friends, most of whom we LIKE. But we have one, maybe 2 individuals that we love and care for, like Jonathan and David in the OT. Our best friend is someone whom we will help make right decisions, even if that means that person will be mad at you for a while. We sacrifice for that person. However, most would not show that same courtesy to someone they just met the other day. That's what the Lord did for us, and I am forever in debt to Him for His grace.

I do not demand anything from anyone, except common courtesy and respect for each other and their opinions. It is our God given right to believe as we wish.

Godfrey:

"Surely not if President Hillary Clinton presides over the debate."
Damn. I completely missed the election.
"President Hillary Clinton"

God, I hope not. I think that woman is a hater and a destroyer, and I don't want her anywhere near power.
~~~~~~
Oh really? You know her? So tell me Godfrey, what proof that Hillary is a hater? When she worked pro bono for the Chidren's Defence fund?

Hillary Rodham attracted national attention in 1969 when she delivered a controversial address as the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College. She began her career as a lawyer after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973, moving to Arkansas and marrying Bill Clinton in 1975, following her career as a Congressional legal counsel; she was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979 and was listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991.
in 1997 she helped establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

She became the only First Lady to be subpoenaed, testifying before a federal grand jury as a consequence of the Whitewater scandal in 1996. She was never charged with any wrongdoing in this or several other investigations during her husband's administration.

As a child, Hillary Rodham was involved in many activities at church and at her public school in Park Ridge. She participated in tennis and other sports and earned awards as a Brownie and Girl Scout.[8] She attended Maine East High School, where she participated in student council, the debating team and the National Honor Society. For her senior year she was redistricted to Maine South High School,[9] where she was a National Merit Finalist and graduated in 1965.[9] Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice.[10]

Raised in a politically conservative household,[11] at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of vote fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon,[12] and volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964.[13] Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, like her father a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962

In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science.[15] She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year.[16][17] However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position;[16] she characterized her own nature as that of "a mind conservative and a heart liberal."[18] In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.,[8] and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[19] Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.[20] In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association.[21][22] She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her changing political views.[20] Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.[20] Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention

In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students,[24] she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.[22] According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.[25][26] She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;[8] she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.[27] That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).[28][29]

Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.[30] During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[31] learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).[32][33] She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital,[32] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.[31] In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education;[34][35] Edelman would become a significant mentor to her.[35]

She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973. She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[45] Her first scholarly paper, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973[46] and became frequently cited in the field.

During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[49][50] Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,[32] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[50] The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.

Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977.[30][66] In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana)[67] appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation,[68] and she served in that capacity from 1978 through the end of 1981.[69] For much of that time[70] she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so.[71] During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million,[64] and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.[

Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years (1979–1981, 1983–1992). Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year,[72] where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

She has alot more accomplishments in her life and maybe some surprises for folks that think they know her. I am not voteing for her, but only because I do not think the republicans would allow her to do all she can. Godfry, where is the hate? Find it. Find where she is the hateful bitty that she has been portrayed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
~~~~~~~~~
terra

Pam,

Interesting about the KJV. I'll have to check out that series. I become more and more interested about the evolution of language the more I read about it - much more fluid than I've ever realized.

I would guess that, at the time of the KJV, that sense of awe was multiplied by the fact that a still relatively small percentage of the population could actually read it (assumption on my part - correct me if i'm wrong).

regards,
Beam

Critical Thinking? Critical Thinking? Something to do with logic, reason and soundness?

It is something like this:

- All cucumbers are vegetables, but not all vegetables are cucumbers?

- All atheists are rational and logical, but not all rationalists and logicians are atheists?

- All believers are delusionists, but not all delusionists are believers?

"I no go university"
- Malaysian bumper sticker.

Arminus-

The language thing is admittedly nitpicking - probably much less of it in my (northern) baptist congregation than most other churches. Just one of many things I don't "get" about religion.

And I'm really not a Huckabee fan or anything like that - there's a host of candidates from either party I'd sooner vote for. But I've heard about consumption tax from other people on the political sidelines for years now, and this is the first I'd heard of it from any candidate. Its rather interesting to think about, but probably far from workable in practice. I also thought Trump's one time, 14% tax on the top 1% of earners warranted more discussion, but I guess its not to be.

regards,
Beam

Beam08 wrote:
"Agree that Elizabethan English is beautiful. However, I think it may be used in religion sometimes to convey a sense of "this stuff is really old and must be true," even though english is far from how "this stuff" was originally spoken"

I listened to a lecture series on the history of the English language - fascinating stuff! (Available from The Learning Company, along with many other excellent courses - and no, I don't work for them.) You are exactly right - the language of the King James version was archaic in the time of King James I - it was used for precisely the reason you guessed - that, and to inspire a sense of awe.

EFavorite;

Yeah,I was tempted to continue it a bit longer,it's like ping pong,you just have to keep hitting the ball back,no matter what they say,just hit the ball back. You dont have to make sense.God's on your side,you keep using him,and hitting the ball back.

So Angela,in effect,holds all the cards (to change the metaphor).The atheist has to make sense,the believer doesn't have to.
Anyway,I was a bit over the top,and you nailed me good.
It was interesting,but you're right,I didn't do Christians any favors,and I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself.
Hope God forgives me,that is,if there is one.

Jeff P

I also want to thank you for the kindness in your reply. You firmly stated your opinion, but in a very thoughtful and nonabrasive way, and I respect that. If only people, on both sides of the spectrum, could learn from you.

Now, for the Huckabee topic. I will admit that I admire him for his fire, and his strength to fight for something he believes in. I can't stand people, like Obama, who, in my opinion, says only what's popular. Obama knows the perfect words to say to be a popular candidate, but popularity means nothing the day he becomes president. It is easy to say the right things, but "putting your money where your mouth is" is a total different issue. Huckabee fights for "pro-life" and the abolition of homosexuality, as do I, and that's great. No one can prove when a person becomes a soul inside the womb, so he has no choice but to be firm in his beliefs, and I appreciate that.

As for the comment he made. There are many things that he could have meant. One possibility is that he believes SOME principles found in the Bible should be part of the constitution, which, is not a bad thing. I find it humorous when someone mentions changing the constitution. It's like people curl up in a corner and melt, like the wicked witch of the west. It's as if they were told they had a fatal disease. Then, when I remind them that our founding fathers, who created the constitution, acknowledged the importance of God in society, whether or not they believed in Him, they throw out the "well, our founding fathers weren't perfect" line. Critiquing the Constitution will not bring the world to an end. Just because something is found in the Bible does not make it "Christian" or "religious." It would not be a bad thing to have an amendment that speaks about stealing. Is that a commandment found in scriptures? Yes. But does that mean we can't put that in the Constitution. Well, no. It's a moral principle, not a religious statement. The USofA could use a "moral guideline." People are becoming worse individuals. School drop out rates are the highest they have ever been, teen suicides are off the roof (no pun intended), violence gets worse every day. In my opinion, we need a president who will focus on the political and moral problems, and not be ashamed to do so. Both need to be taken care of SOON. Now I know I'm going to get an onslaught of comments asking me where does Mike, or I, get the authority to tell us which moral guidelines to follow. I don't have a sufficient answer for you that will satisfy you, but at least Mike will not make the mistake of sending a message to our young kids that you can have sex with anyone you please and not get caught, or suffer consequences, as our great and mighty president Clinton did.

So I guess it is up to us to analyze Huckabee's statement and come up with our own conclusions as to what he meant. I personally think that this quote does not adequately state Mr. Huckabee's intentions. I don't think anyone can honestly say that our country is in a good moral state. We, as Americans, can not ignore the problem at hand, and something needs to be done to fix it, and I believe that this is Mike's intention. Again, this is just my opinion, and I would like to hear others'. Thanks!

God bless!!!

Nice to see you, friend.

Since I don't go to church, I am less concerned with what translation is used there.

Though I AM concerned.

However, from the point of view of a humanist and a literary critic,

I must say that I ADORE the King James Version, and find it so much more eloquent than any modern version.

We would not think of "updating" Shakespeare.

I am not against Updating. I am against ditching a literary treasure for a middling modern "translation."

I am FOR richness and eloquence of expression, which I believe leads to a deeper spiritual sensibility

Love to you, A-man.
Henry

For Someone

I am not an atheist and I am a believer. I am not a Fundamentalist; I believe that Fundamentalism is a fearful reaction to a complicated world, and making the simple choice of mental conformity to a rigid and unbending dogma is the easy way out. Fundamentalism does not have to be about a religion; for example Communism was also a kind of Fundamentalism. I think that Fundamentalism is a dysfunctinal psychological state, and is basically, pretty unhealthy.

I also believe that a person's belief is formed mysteriously by an inner will, and is not easily changed, by oneself, and certainly, impossible to change by another person. I therefore feel that attempts at changeing a person's beliefs are futile and pointless, and will come to nothing. If people have Bibles, and if they can read, do not insult them with your Bible quotes. Uninvited Bible-quoting is rude, disrespectul, and pretentious.

Because I feal threatened by Fundamentalist Christianity, and because I know that I can neither change your belief, nor you mine, it is not necessary for me to describe, in this setting, in detail what makes me a Christian. I do know that when a Christian speaks, he is giving his personal thoughts and opinions and is not speaking as God's voice would speak. When a Christian assumes that attitude with me, I am offended, as I assume are people of other relgions, as well as atheists. I know your judgement is cocked and ready do judge me harshly, should I indicate a Christian belief that deviates from what you think is God's will.

Just read my opinions and thoughts and make of them what you will and leave the inner will of my belief alone.

Many people who are called "conservative" Christians or Evangelical Christians speak of love and in fact, frame their entire belief system around this word "love." But they are loveless, without love, and in fact hard, and mean-spirited people. The instruction is to love your neighbor. Do these Christians give even 5 seconds of thought about what this word "love" might mean in this context? No they do not. It is just a word, part of the dogma, that they feel compelled to utter, without knowledge or meaning. If you give no thought to the word, and in fact, do not even know what it means, then how can you carry out the instruction? You cannot. It is quite plain that many conservative Christians fall into this pattern.

Conservative Christians are a little mixed up and have got their Christian religion all confused with the politics and material motivations of man. All of the symbolism of this belief system is about authority, struggle, victory, defeat, punishment, and damnation. These are all ideas derived from the governments and political systems of the nations of the world, and are in short, silly, when applied to spiritual things. Conservative Christians frame their religous thinking in terms of laws, courts, justice, police, punishment, and prison. Since you asked, I can only regard this type of belief as "absurd."

Christians are to love their neighbors, not just other Christians. Many Christians reserve their love only for other Christians, and even then, it is rationed jealously. They do not love their neighbors; it is a difficult instruction to put into practice, but that does not mean you should not try; many Christians do not even try.

Christians are not better than other people. I know that from my observations every day of the week, every week of the year. Yet many Christians that post here, make it quite clear that they are indeed better and superior to atheists and people of other relgions; they are not.

Conservative Christians demand that other people change their beliefs, without understanding that belief is complex, and cannot be turned on and off like water from a tap, and that the inner will inside of each of us forms in a way that connot be suject to coercion. And then Christians issue forth threats to people who do not change their beliefs, and they call for puishments against such people, and they seem to take pleasure and delight in the hoped for future suffering of these people. There is no love in this, not even the tiniest drop of love.

I hope to go to Heaven, though I cannot imagine what it will be. (I hope it is not a city with streets of gold; I don't care for cities). I hope to see my dearest and most precious loved ones their whom I miss very much. I hope to see Jesus there, and I hope he lets me show him my scars.

Hi, Beam08,

I agree, any church service held in Elizabethan English would drive me away. It must be contemporary to relate to NOW, not force us back into a false golden age. The New Testament was written in Greek, of course, but Jesus and his fellow countrymen spoke Aramaic - unless they had to speak to the Romans, when they had to find somebody to translate into Latin. Hebrew was there, but used for religious purposes. Any rabbi had to be versed in it; Jesus probably was.

Yes, I too am lamentably ignorant in things economic. And yes, congress has a rather poor record of happy mediums.

Arminus

Arminus,

Agree that Elizabethan English is beautiful. However, I think it may be used in religion sometimes to convey a sense of "this stuff is really old and must be true," even though english is far from how "this stuff" was originally spoken (keep in mind, I'm no language scholar here). For me, if some of the old-timey religion language were dropped, it might be more appealing to listen to - although I've obviously already made up my mind.

Also agree that, as Huck-structured, Huck-tax is regressive, favors the rich, and sucks. That being said, there is an appealing quality to a consumption tax - that being that criminals would also pay taxes, which I have heard represents gazillions in lost revenue every year. It seems like there should be a happy medium somewhere between consumption and income taxes that would result in less taxes overall without destroying the economy. 2 things with that last sentence though: 1 - I'm hopelessly naive about the economy, and 2 - no one should trust the federal government to find a happy medium anywhere.

regards,
Beam

Hi, Terra,

"I read some where that the early church fathers named the four books..that they really did not know who wrote them."

Luke and Paul may have been instrumental in the construction of the early Canon. the traveled together, and probably wrote together. An interesting point is that there was no recorded dispute at the great councils about the content of the Canon, but bitter and protracted disputes about the meaning of every "iota". This suggests that the Canon was handed down from someone taken as authoritative by the whole community, rather than having been drawn up by a committee of church fathers later than the Apostles.

We are pretty sure that Luke wrote the Gospel According to Luke. Or, as the old academic saw goes: It was either written by Luke, or a different author of the same name. 8^))

Luke having more in it than Mark and Matthew may well be caused the Christian community's belief in Resurrection appearances. You may believe in the Resurrection or not, but the early Christian community clearly did. Their subsequent search for extraordinary aspects of the life of Jesus that would explain the extraordinary events after its end was a natural consequence of this belief. Biographers do this all the time. When someone does extraordinary things, for great or ill, we seek to find clues in their biography to how these things came about.

The gospels in the Canon are ones that were either attributed to eye witnesses early enough that the community knew who they were (Mark and Matthew), or derived from direct interviews or work with eye witnesses (Luke and John). There are many other "Lost Gospels" written, at places removed in space and time from the original events described in the synoptic gospels, which offer interesting variant interpretations.

John contains a much more sophisticated theology than Mark and Matthew, which has caused it to be attributed a later date than the synoptic gospels. An alternative explanation is that the the author had a neoplatonist education and was simply more cosmopolitan than the others than Matthew and Mark. This obvious but seldom discussed difference, would be contribute to uncertainty of its dates.

Generally, the nineteenth and twentieth century skeptics simply take as their gospel that what is described in the gospels is impossible. Therefore, the gospels were composed and heavily edited over the next three or four centuries because it would take that long to construct the myths contained therein. This assumption proves that no eye witnesses could have recorded these impossible events from personal memory.

If you are interested, there is an excellent book called "Hidden Gospels" by Philip Jenkins (though, I take it you may be more interested in "On the Mysteries" by Iamblichus, or "The Golden Sayings" by Epictetus).

Be well.

Beam08,

The 'Church language' you speak of is Elizabethan English, the language of Shakespeare and the King James Bible. Considered by many, myself included, to be the most beautiful spoken and written English ever. But that is opinion... my church does use modern English, but the phrase 'peace be with you' can be heard.

The Huckster's tax plan is regressive, favors the rich, and sucks.

Arminius

Jeff P

You never know. You would be surprised at how thirsty some high-school students are for knowledge these days. It's funny you bring up a "Critical Thinking" course. When I was in high-school, I attended a Christian school for a couple of years because the public school in my district was "ghetto." I lived in the slums of Chicago, and my parents didn't trust the public school. Too many gangs, and too much violence. But, things changed, and I ended up in a public school. But while attending the Christian school, I participated in a 1 semester class called "Critical Thinking." The teacher I had was the wisest, smartest man I have ever known, however not the kindest. If there was any man qualified to teach this course, it was he. And it was this 1 semester course that open my mind to reality, and gave me the thirst for knowledge that I have today, and is ultimately why I am a born-again, blood bought, Bible believing Christian. Call me weird, that's just the way it is. I was not "born, bred, and brainwashed," I came up with the conclusion myself. I was just a sophomore in high-school at the time.

So you might be pleasantly surprised with your son. I'd give it a shot.

Drew - thanks for 'fessing up - I knew “John” was too bad to be true.

Lepi - I suppose Mary's Big O was being assumed into heaven. That's pretty hard to top. Not that I would know. God works in mysterious ways, and he’s omnipotent, which, when you think about it, begs the question – why no more than an only-begotten son?

Jeff P – from the little I read, I think a high school kid would enjoy the book. It’s easy to read, with everyday examples, and I agree, learning critical thinking skills is very important. Some people have them naturally, but everyone can and should be taught.

"Surely not if President Hillary Clinton presides over the debate."

Damn. I completely missed the election.

"President Hillary Clinton"

God, I hope not. I think that woman is a hater and a destroyer, and I don't want her anywhere near power.

I've lurked on a lot of threads before, but this one is so darn fascinating I have to comment (you people make it hard to get any work done (not that I'm working this late)).

I'm wondering if anybody else is turned off simply by the language of religion - meaning that, I think there's an awful lot of early english language retained in everyday use in churches today. My family is still relatively religious, and I go to church with them from time to time (even though I'm pretty much atheist/agnostic (depending on the day)), and I'm always stunned when somebody says something like: "peace be with you." I know it's well intentioned, but who the hell says something like that in today's day and age. That, combined with all the "thee's" and "thou's" makes it seem like the church is trying to retain some semblance of how it was 500 years ago. I've often joked with my sister that 500 years from now, people will say "yo, what up G?" in church instead of "peace be with you," simply because that's what people said 500 years ago.

There are probably a lot more relevant and blatant examples of church-speak that people can think of. I just think that there's a real disconnect between religious people and non-religious people sometimes, simply because of the way religion is traditionally spoken about.

Enough about that. Back to the original topic: Huckabee. I'm no fan, but is anybody up for the federal consumption tax? That seems to be the only mildly redeeming quality about his campaign.

Beam to all.

Jeff.P

Hi Jeff. Delighted to meet someone else who read and enjoyed the terrific book by Jennifer Michael Hecht called "Doubt;A History". I preferred it to any of the books written by any of The Three Amigos,because it has such range and sweep.
Yoyo was enthusing about it several months ago on this thread,and I got a copy.Just outstanding.

Who wrote "Don't Believe Everything You Think"?
Love the title. Must check it out.

"Interesting that you close with a quote from a song reputed to be about Charles Manson...but I'm guessing that you knew that."

I have heard that, yes. :D

Pam;
What if you woke up tonight because your room was lit up,and you opened your eyes and saw God standing there illuminated and ethereal but with such presence that you KNEW immediately that this was the real thing.You'd never felt so wide awake in your life,never felt so AWARE so energized but so relaxed and comfortable with this amazing presence who moved towards you and took your hand and you felt the warmth and reality that was his hand and he smiled at your smiling face and nodding he slowly disappeared,leaving you transformed and excited beyond anything you ever imagined or experienced.
What would you say to people? What would they say to you when you told them?
If you can pretend it happened to you,really pretend,you may have an idea what it feels like to be an Angela or John. From their point of view magic is real,God IS,and nonbelievers are just plain wrong.
No the above scenario did not happen to me or anyone I know of.I'm atheist,but I can never get 'through' to believers,and nobody here can either.
That's why I sometimes close my eyes and pretend there REALLY is a God.Just to see how it feels,and try to think how I would defend it and/or explain it to unbelievers.
It would be easy to defend it from attack,like John did back there.That was me by the way.And it really is a piece of cake to defend,because you don't have to make sense.
One can say things like 'God works in mysterious ways' for ever,for any situation,or, 'You will understand when you are ready to accept him in your heart',
and stuff like that.
But I could never think of a really persuasive argument to get people to believe that a God exists if they just don't believe it.
So religious folk here are wasting their time trying to convert us heathens.It'll never happen unless God starts dropping in on some of us,at night,shakes our hand and flies off,leaving us transformed. Until that day,I'll remain an atheist.

E-Favorite:

Let me know what you think. I'll look for you in the postings!

I honestly wish that there could have been a college-level course, required of all entering Freshmen, called "Critical Thinking" that would have introduced the methods and mistakes of human thinking and reasoning, as a prequel to being able to fully enjoy, question, discuss and debate all that was to come in the subsequent years of learning--philosophy, theology, art, literature, theater, music, love, sex--the whole sphere of being a human being. I'm sorry that I'm only learning some of this stuff after 47 years of being here!

I'm tempted to ask my high-school aged son to do this reading, although I think he'd just roll his eyes up and wonder if I'd had enough sleep.

God is a concept by which we measure our pain.

E fave:

**God sounds like a really bad lay.**

Talk about wham-bam thank you ma'am. Poor Mary didn't even get an orgasm out of the whole affair.

Jeff P - both books you recommended just arrived. I plan to start on "Don't believe what you're thinking" tonight.

Chip: "conceived by God -That's it? No special fancy terminology? No fireworks? No dinner and a movie first?"

Good points. It was God at his most subtle. No trumpets, no gnashing of teeth, no choir of angels.

God sounds like a really bad lay.

Someone:

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your
explanations.

I too, take an active interest in how we learn, how we think, our decision making processes, and yes I've had that same thought regarding "I've never had an original thought in my life..." which is profound but true.

It was amazing to read "Doubt, a History" by Jennifer Hecht and see how these magnificant thinkers, so many thousands of years ago, had exceedingly brilliant ideas which ring so true for us today.

I've just completed "Don't Believe Everything You Think" which is an exceptional discourse on the common mistakes we made when establishing our beliefs or ideas, and even our memories.

I do think you'll hear people pipe-in when there's some Christian-speak in the guise of "expect persecution when you're speaking the TRUTH" type-of-thinking, even if that speak is designed to comfort those willing to "fight the good fight."

Yes the Bible does seem to welcome "persecution" in the fight for God's Causes as a way to rack up more jewels in the crown, and I wouldn't be so sensitive about that, but that it preceeds an election year where Fundamentalist Republicans have used Bible-thumping scare tactics to persuade the necessary majority in this country into group-think for too long now. Huckabee (the original topic of this post) is going a long way toward that group-think, and his focus of the "persecution" of the family by homosexuality (last election code word: family values) and the unborn (every election code word: pro-life) is just another way the persecuted Christians must know and biblically confirm that they're correct.

George Bush uses that very logic--Certainty that doesn't "suffer doubt," combined with the confirmation that since the decision can't be supported by good data and is not popular, it must therefore be the correct decision!! Lose the majorities in the House and Senate in '06, get a studied recommendation from a respected committee regarding the war in Iraq, and decide instead to go for a SURGE!

No I don't particularly expect minds to be changed from this forum, but I do expect minds to think and to be challenged at least.

Ironically, my mind was changed regarding "faith" as virtue by reading the comments of ScienceMusings.com from Chet Raymo's posts for over two years. Several folks there were very influential on my decision to re-think Christianity. It can happen that reason and logic can finally allow uncritical questioning of even long-held beliefs.

I also value the opinions from people here. It's a wonderful community. Thanks again for your thoughtful response. Sorry for my longer rant!
Jeff

Pam,

Interesting that you close with a quote from a song reputed to be about Charles Manson...but I'm guessing that you knew that.

"I reply;This is easy.The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to preform. Of course because God is on another level to us.we are not supposed to understand.If we understood everything we wouldn't need to have faith in stuff would we??It wouldn't be the same.It would in fact be,well,different.
Look at it this way,if He wanted us to understand we would understand.Do you understand?Thats why we dont understand. And,logically,it follows that,in the end,naturally,we will undersatnd.
but only when we get to the Other Side,when all will became clear.And we cant come back and spoil it for everyone else,so thats why dead people dont come back.That is where the saying 'dead men tell no tails'originates.
BTW your dead wrong about Jonah.You should read your bible more,then we'll talk about it."

Let me ask you something - if you decided to make up a religion - wholly out of your own mind, and knowing that it was untrue - maybe for power, maybe for profit, maybe just to see if you could - isn't this just the sort of crap you'd come up with when they objected to the logic (or lack thereof) of your stories?

This has long been my major objection to religious stories. They all come down, in the end, to MAGIC. It's the last refuge of all religious apologists. Why would God even bother with setting up immutable natural laws if he intended to violate them at every turn? And why has he stopped doing magic for the last 2000 years?

"It seemed like he knew me
He looked right through me
Come on home, girl he said with a smile
You dont have to love me yet
Lets get high awhile
But try to understand
Try to understand
Try try try to understand
Im a magic man."

Heart

Moonman (PBUH)!!!!!

Mr Mark;

" ... a god whose science avers that bats are birds, who discusses in all seriousness fire-breathing dragons and unicorns, who posits that the Earth is flat, who doesn't know a whit about marsupials or micro-organisms, a god whose default moral answer to any human failing large or small is typically death by stoning, who condones slavery and treating women as property yet demands death by stoning of children who talk back to their parents."

I would be foolish to believe in a god like that, especially without hard evidence that a god like that actually exists.

Hi, Lep!

You're breakin' my heart! Guinness and crawfish?!? I just ate dinner and ya got me hungry again.....

Thanks for the offer, I wish I could teleport there.

Arminius
(weeping at his loss)

FCSANDERS writes:
"Just because a person believes in a higher power than themselves it doesn't follow that they are fools."

You Christians always wrongly assume that atheists and non-believers consider themselves the highest power in the universe.

That isn't true. There are many incredible powers in the universe, from the sun to gamma rays. From a natural perspective, humans are pretty far down the list of what can be considered powerful.

On the intellectual front, most atheists I know are well aware that there are fellow humans out there (Einstein et al) who are far superior in intellect than themselves. There are also those individuals who are far better examples of mankind's best nature. Personally, I stand in awe of such humans and their intellectual and human prowess. I have no problem saying that Einstein was on a far higher plane of intellectual power than am I, and I have no problem saying that many humans are better humans than am I.

What I don't believe is that there is some god or any supernatural being out there who qualifies as a "higher power." Indeed, if we wish to speak of specific gods, then the god of the Bible is quite an insipid and hapless idiot, both in matters scientific and matters moral.

In matters of human relations, he is a capricious charlatan who hasn't a clue as to what morals and ethics are all about. In matters of science, he gets it wrong every single time he offers a scientific explanation for the universe, offering the most-childish and risible explanations for how things (as it turns out) don't work.

Here, then, is the higher power the Jews and Xians worship - a god whose science avers that bats are birds, who discusses in all seriousness fire-breathing dragons and unicorns, who posits that the Earth is flat, who doesn't know a whit about marsupials or micro-organisms, a god whose default moral answer to any human failing large or small is typically death by stoning, who condones slavery and treating women as property yet demands death by stoning of children who talk back to their parents.

You may call that a higher power. I call it the lowest of the low, and I've got the book (the Bible) to prove it...and the ongoing explanations of science and mankind's evolution to confirm it.

Oops - Lepidancer is my handle for another forum - damned auto-complete!

Someone:

Well put. I had a feeling you were just a bit rushed in your earlier post.

FCSanders:

Truth is, we're all fools. Welcome to the club!

Arminius,

Thanks for having my back, luv! The Guinness is cold and the crawfish etoufee is hot. Come on over, cher.

John, I assume you're kidding. If not, please give me a link showing a whale (or even a fish) capable of swallowing a grown man whole, as well as some information as to how exactly a human being could survive inside such a beast without being consumed by digestive fluids and crushed by peristalsis. Also, keep in mind that fish don't vomit. And any fish large enough to swallow a man whole and then vomit him up on dry land would have beached itself.

Arminius,

Thanks for having my back, luv! The Guinness is cold and the crawfish etoufee is hot. Come on over, cher.

John, I assume you're kidding. If not, please give me a link showing a whale (or even a fish) capable of swallowing a grown man whole, as well as some information as to how exactly a human being could survive inside such a beast without being consumed by digestive fluids and crushed by peristalsis. Also, keep in mind that fish don't vomit. And any fish large enough to swallow a man whole and then vomit him up on dry land would have beached itself.

Preach it FCSanders!

Right on FC,

Remember he who laughs last laughs best.
See you in the Kingdom.

E Fav, "Chip - simple -- "conceived by God""

That's it? No special fancy terminology? No fireworks? No dinner and a movie first?

Just because a person believes in a higher power than themselves it doesn't follow that they are fools.A lot of people think atheist are fools also.

To Jeff P and Freestinker, and anyone else...

Let me remind you 2 what you said.

Jeff: Most of us are here to learn from one another, not to persecute

Freestinker: Nobody here (except for a few gratuitous meanies) hates Angela B., Mark, or anyone else.

Both of you have left in small exceptions, and that was simply what I was talking about. Neither of you can tell me that persecution does not happen, and neither of you can tell me that is has not happened here on this forum. I couldn't care less if people don't agree with me. I LOVE debates, and that is why I occasionally post. I enjoy learning, and I enjoy reading people's point of view on certain issues, especially religious. It's when the personal attacks that become persecution. In neither of my comments did I say, or suggest, that EVERYONE here is persecuting us (Christians) because that's just not true. Most people on this forum are not persecuting at all. They are rather doing just the opposite. For example, Jihadist is a very nice and gentle lady (please correct me if I am wrong that you are a woman) who comments with love and respect for other's points of view, and I try my hardest to do the same. She loves debating, and debates in a very compassionate manner.

Being angry doesn't mean being hateful. I know that. I apologize if I made it seem as though everyone who disagrees with me, or Angela, or Mark hates us. That's not what I was implying. I was simply trying to encourage a brother and sister in Christ. No harm, no foul.

Look, I am not here to make anyone feel sorry for me. I am not here to to pull out the "persecution" card in hopes of a pat on the back. I'm also not here to change anyone's opinions. I've read comments on this website for almost a year, and not once have I seen someone actually come out and say they have changed due to reading a comment someone posted. It just ain't gunna happen. I post to encourage fellow Christians, and to deliver both sides of the story so that others who read these forums get a balanced diet of "truth." Jeff, I too read these essays and comments to learn from others. People FASCINATE me! It is amazing to read about people's ideas, opinions, bias, how people think, and I read every comment with an open mind. I even share a few of them with the people in my church, and I get a few laughs from them. You should study the psychology behind thoughts, or thinking, if you haven't already. It truly is fascinating.

This has nothing to do with the topic, but since you (Jeff) and I are both all about learning, here's something to think about. Imagine a person who was born and raised in a white room with 1 chair and white clothes on. Put a psychologist in that room and perform and ink test. How much can that person really know? A person cannot possibly have a thought that has not been revealed to them already. That person can not possibly think up the color blue until that has been revealed to him. All of his/her dreams would consist of a chair, the colors white, black, gray, and whatever skin tone he/she happens to be, and other objects that are manifestations of what he has seen. One cannot think of something that has not been manifested or that does not, or could not exist. Well, aliens don't exist. Ya, but they have characteristics that do exist. They have dinosaur-like skin, insect-like eyes and antenna, and human extremities.

The human brain, why people think what they do, people's opinions and ideas fascinate me, and that's why I'm here.

Daniel In The Lion's Den:

You call yourself a Christian, and thats great. I have read MANY of your posts, and even debated with you on occasion, but I am still wondering where you stand. Could you tell me exactly what you beleive? What makes you a Christian? I've been trying to figure out exactly where you're at, but have failed. I have heard many different terms to describe who and what you are, but they are very relative terms, and I'd rather hear it from you. Thanks.

Two points. The only intelligent comment so far was to the effect that the constitution doesn't legislate on any of the issues being debated because it is not substantive, but rather procedural. Substantive laws were for the respective legislatures, subject to certain checks and balances spelled out.

Two: I suppose all fertility clinics would have to either close, or promise to keep the fertilized embryos forever, because they could never dispose of them.

That just goes to show that plagarism is as old as a stone tablet!

Lepi -

I think John is kidding.

I think Anonymous was too, they're both too stereotypical to be true.

So to John and Anon, I say - Please stop it - it's not nice to make fun of evangelicals that way. It makes atheists or liberal Christian (or whatever you are)look bad. We don't need your help.

And if by chance you are actually Christians, please do a grammar and spell check on your posts before sending -- It will help your image just a little.

john,
An older myth then the noah's flood in the bible.

~~~~
In 1853, the archaeologist Austen Henry Layard and his team were excavating the palace library of the ancient Assyrian capital Nineveh. Among their finds were a series of 12 tablets of a great epic. The tablets dated from about 650 BC, but the poem was much older. The hero, Gilgamesh, according to the Sumerian King List,3 was a king of the first dynasty of Uruk who reigned for 126 years.4

However, in the legend, Gilgamesh is 2/3 divine and 1/3 mortal. He has enormous intelligence and strength, but oppresses his people. The people call upon the gods, and the sky-god Anu, the chief god of the city, makes a wild man called Enkidu with enough strength to match Gilgamesh. Eventually the two fight, but neither can win. Their enmity becomes mutual respect then devoted friendship.

The two new friends set off on adventures together, but eventually the gods kill Enkidu. Gilgamesh grievously mourns his friend, and realises that he too must eventually die. However, he learns of one who became immortal—Utnapishtim, the survivor of a global Flood. Gilgamesh travels across the sea to find Utnapishtim, who tells of his remarkable life.

The Gilgamesh Flood
In reality, it was Utnapishtim’s flood, told in the 11th tablet. The council of the gods decided to flood the whole earth to destroy mankind. But Ea, the god who made man, warned Utnapishtim, from Shuruppak, a city on the banks of the Euphrates, and told him to build an enormous boat:

‘O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.’5

Utnapishtim obeyed:

‘One (whole) acre was her floor space, (660’ X 660’)
Ten dozen cubits the height of each of her walls,
Ten dozen cubits each edge of the square deck.
I laid out the shape of her sides and joined her together.
I provided her with six decks,
Dividing her (thus) into seven parts.’ …6

Utnapishtim sealed his ark with pitch,7 took all the kinds of vertebrate animals, and his family members, plus some other humans. Shamash the sun god showered down loaves of bread and rained down wheat. Then the flood came, so fierce that:

‘The gods were frightened by the flood,
and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.
The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.
Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,
the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:
“The olden days have alas turned to clay,
because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!
How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,
ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!!
No sooner have I given birth to my dear people
than they fill the sea like so many fish!”
The gods—those of the Anunnaki—were weeping with her,
the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?),
their lips burning, parched with thirst.’5

However, the flood was relatively short:

‘Six days and seven nights
came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.
When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,
the flood was a war—struggling with itself like a woman
writhing (in labor).’5

Then the ark lodged on Mt Nisir (or Nimush), almost 500 km (300 miles) from Mt Ararat. Utnapishtim sent out a dove then a swallow, but neither could find land, so returned. Then he sent out a raven, which didn’t return. So he released the animals and sacrificed a sheep. This was not too soon, because the poor gods were starving:

‘The gods smelled the savor,
the gods smelled the sweet savor,
and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice.’

Then Enlil saw the ark and was enraged that some humans had survived. But Ea sternly rebuked Enlil for overkill in bringing the flood. Whereupon Enlil granted immortality to Utnapishtim and his wife, and sent them to live far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers. (IRAQ)

Here is where Gilgamesh found him, and heard the remarkable story. First Utnapishtim tested Gilgamesh’s worthiness for immortality by challenging him to stay awake for 7 nights. But Gilgamesh was too exhausted and quickly fell asleep. Utnapishtim asked his wife to bake a loaf of bread and place it by Gilgamesh every day he slept. When Gilgamesh awoke, he thought he had just been asleep for a moment. But Utnapishtim showed Gilgamesh the loaves at different stages of aging, showing that he had been asleep for days.

Gilgamesh once more lamented about his inevitable death, and Utnapishtim took pity on him. So he revealed where he could find a plant of immortality. This was a thorny plant in the domain of Apsu, the god of the subterranean sweet water. Gilgamesh opened a conduit to the Apsu, tied heavy stones to his ankle, sunk deep down, and grabbed the plant. Although the plant pricked him, he cut off the stones, and rose.

Unfortunately, on the return journey, Gilgamesh stopped at a cool spring to bathe, and a snake carried off the plant. Gilgamesh wept bitterly, because he could not return to the underground waters~~~~~

terra

!!!

Hello Moonman,

Thanks. I'm over the moon about that.
So, when do we relocate to the moon?

"J"

Angela, Angela, Angela,

As with all religionists, you suffer from the Three B's i.e. you were Bred, Born and Brainwashed in your religion.

Some things to think about:

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

“Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist, in his book, Who is Jesus??

Angela

I know you are trying to engage me in a discussion of the differences in our beliefs, but to be frank, you are too much of a mess, for me to even begin to discuss anything with serioiusly. Go back to Evangelical Central, and report that back to them, when you get your next set of marching orders.

Hile!

Angela B:

How does that personal relationship you have with god work out. Does HE come over for coffee or tea to discuss world events. Maybe stop in for a beer to watch ESPN? Or, you never know maybe he stops by late at night to whisper sweet nothings in your ear?

Please, do tell!

Lepi,

John-
"BTW your dead wrong about Jonah.You should read your bible more,then we'll talk about it.
Bless you my Son."

~~~~~~~~
Can you hear the giggles? ; )

terra

Mark,

“I know that there had to be a Creator. This is the God that I worship, the God of the Bible.”

I too believe there is an intelligent force which created the universe. However, IT is decidely not the god of the bible, nor did IT sire the man Jesus, not does IT want a personal relationship with me.

John,

Believe whatever you like but please don't claim it's logical when it makes no rational sense at all.

If faith is all it takes for you, you're better off just leaving it there. (-Mr Mark, 2:2)

MOONMAN has no prayers!!!

MOONMAN has no sects!!!

MOONMAN has no church!!!

Jihadist, you are the first MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

Mr Mark, you said:
For my part, I'm simply looking for the religious to 1) use the same definitions for words as the rest of us, 2) make a case for your beliefs outside of "because I said so."

We don't agree all the time, but I am in full agreement with you on this one. Even though I am Christian, I sometimes think the fundamentalists speak a different dialect.

Arminius

Christianity is in the eye of the beholder!

Angela

You have said many things, which are not true.

LEPIDOPTERYX
you say;
My parents tried to teach me to believe that whatever seemed impossible or illogical in the Bible was explainable by "God works in mysterious ways" and "We'll understand when we get to heaven."
Neither of those "explanations" cuts the mustard.

I reply;This is easy.The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to preform. Of course because God is on another level to us.we are not supposed to understand.If we understood everything we wouldn't need to have faith in stuff would we??It wouldn't be the same.It would in fact be,well,different.
Look at it this way,if He wanted us to understand we would understand.Do you understand?Thats why we dont understand. And,logically,it follows that,in the end,naturally,we will undersatnd.
but only when we get to the Other Side,when all will became clear.And we cant come back and spoil it for everyone else,so thats why dead people dont come back.That is where the saying 'dead men tell no tails'originates.
BTW your dead wrong about Jonah.You should read your bible more,then we'll talk about it.
Bless you my Son.

Yes Moonman,

Is that a prayer of Moonmanism?

Or the tenets of Moonmanism?

Is Moonmanism a sect of of Moonieism?

Is the first Moonman Neil Armstrong?

Where is the "church" headquarters of Moonmanism?

Is there is clergy and hierachy of Moonmanism?

Are the sacred songs of Moonmanism, "Fly Me to the Moon", "Moon River", et al?

Is "mooning" regarded as a spiritual act?

How does one reconcile of the dogma of becoming a moon and man in Moonmanism?

Terra writes:

" I applaud your stand for your faith. But sweety...no one is trying to take it away from you."

Well spoken.

For my part, I'm simply looking for the religious to 1) use the same definitions for words as the rest of us, 2) make a case for your beliefs outside of "because I said so."

To point 1, I'd ask the religious to not use the word "know" as a synonym for "believe." It isn't. I'd ask them to know the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion." I'd like for them to acknowledge the difference between history and legend/myth.

To point 2, I'd ask them to make their case logically if possible. If not logically, then I'm fine if they make their case based on pure faith, just don't try to tell me that such faith has even a sliver of logic about it, and for sure as hell don't tell me that your irrationality has equal standing with reason. It doesn't.

I guess that pretty much puts an end to any chance at a conversation. ;)

Daniel: Do I hear pride, anger, self-centeredness; I've just beeen posting just like everyone else. Also, you never answered my questions: have I said anything that wasn't true or should I just speak of the non-threatning loving things and not speak the entire gospel. Please I'd really like to know your thoughts?

Angela

Now, you are passive / aggressive; so was David T. I am afraid that you are going to prove that you are not the same person as David T. Until you can prove it, I believe it is so.

No.

Shelley: “That's why a fence sitter like me has let go of god and accepted the likelihood that it is after all just a myth. A nice one,in a way,but still just a myth.”

Brava! Welcome to the fold – or the unfold, whatever. Yeah – it’s nice to imagine that we’ll live forever, but better to fully appreciate the one life we have while we still have it.

Still waiting for any of the Xians to take a stab at answering my 4 questions above.

Looks like it will be left up to the Jews on the blog. At least they've got experience answering the 4 Questions...

;)

Speak of the MOON!!!

Speak of the MOON!!!

Jesus hears not!!!

Jesus is dead!!!

Jesus is gone!!!

MOONMAN is here!!!

MOONMAN is now!!!

MOONMAN is life!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

Daniel, I'm not here to argue w/you nor am I trying to make you angry but what have I said that was not true about what we claim we believe? FYI: I never heard of David T nor am I he but he must have offended some folks. Not sure who he is but rest assured, it's not him speaking here. Also, what some of you claim to believe, you've made a mockery of what we who all read the same bible claim to believe. I am allegedly your Sister in Christ! Is that correct?

Mark-
"Look at the history of Christianity, study what its all about (not just from secular sources), examine the differences between it and other so called religions, and then come back and lets talk. I will share with you from my own experience that once one truly gets to know the God of the Bible, you will forever be changed! "

Mark, do you think we were cloned or came from Mars? I and all the Pagans I know were from Christian Households. I was...I even have two bibles I use for research.

We know about Christianity...why do you think that us knowing all about it would send us away from the Gods we hold with reverence? You think you have some secret? See Mark, that is the kind of thing that really tiffs me off. The down right disrespect that those of you pushing your religion show for others. Like our faith or non faith is less then your faith. You see us as lessor people..our Gods are not up to par so we will just see the error of our way and turn from them to your's. I truly respect your right to believe as you see fit. What ever fulfills your soul and feeds your spirit. I applaud your stand for your faith. But sweety...no one is trying to take it away from you.

Why not come and we will talk and I will share with you my experiences of the God and Goddess and Their amazing world? I know once you know Them you will forever be changed.

terra

Angela B

You are most assuredly David T; you use the exact same phrases and sentence structure. What a deceiver you are.

Lep,

Great reply to anon! I was about to give the b*****d a full broadside, but you did it better. I wonder if he has a clue what LMAF means?

Arminius

Angela

You should not give me Christian instruction, but I would give it to you.

Someone,

Nobody here (except for a few gratuitous meanies) hates Angela B., Mark, or anyone else. They just disagree with their religious opinions. Sometimes people get heated but that doesn't equal hate.

Someone who is insecure about their ideas or Someone who is not accustomed to having their opinions scrutinized and questioned, often mistakes criticism of their opinions for a personal attack. It is not.

Just because I disagree with your opinion, call your opinion illogical or irrational doesn't mean I hate you. Please understand the difference.

Angela, Mark, and Someone:

"The day you stop talking about how good Christianity is and start living it, everyone will want to become a Christian."
Mohandas K. Gandhi

Daniel ITLD tries to live it, not shout it on the street corners, with hellfire and damnation attached. I also try to live it, and not push it.

Arminius

Daniel in the Lions Den: Let me ask you a question, do you witness to your friends, family members, co-workers or are you ashamed of the Gospel. Jesus said to someone named "Nicodemus" who was Israel's teacher; someone who kept probably every commandment; probably read everything religious, probably did alot of good works too: Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven. I am not God nor can I speaking the truth, keep people from coming to Christ; all we are to do is plant the seed. I'm not the potter and He the clay. Good works don't get you into Heaven. What was the first thing Jesus said when He came on the scene: Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at HAND. Also, was not His words to the religious people of HIS day offensive to them. So is my words to you. Why...Am I not telling the truth of what you state you believe. We are commanded to spread the entire gospel not just the tickling ears. People don't want truth they want flattery and I believe that's what you want me to do! I'm not hurting anyone here, I'm doing what I'm commanded to do! What unloving about that!

Moonman, is that true Moonmanism?

Dear Angela

What you have are childish and silly beliefs. What you need to do is grow up. You are not spreading anything here but dissension and ill-will. The conversation is all about you. Can't we talk about something else, besides you?

Mark, come to MOONMAN!!!

You shall become full MOON!!!

You shall become full MAN!!!

Give not your MOON to lying Jesus!!!

Jesus died in darkness!!!

Jesus knew not MOONLIGHT!!!

Jesus burned all with his lies of Hell!!!

MOONMAN burns not his children!!!

MOONMAN shines healing light!!!

MOONMAN knows no dark night!!!

MOONMAN heals!!!

MOONMAN cares!!!

MOONMAN loves!!!

Jesus loves not!!!

Jesus cares not!!!

Jesus heals not!!!

Jesus is lord of wounds!!!

Jesus is lord of pain!!!

Mark, seek not Jesus!!!

Mark, seek MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

Mostly, the people who insult me and mock my beliefs in these threads are other Christians, and not atheists. Just wait for Angela's reply to me, to prove my point.

In conservative Christians, there is a certain paranoia that reads hostility in people when there is none there. I think it is hypocritical for them to talk about "love" with a harsh tone, and a hard heart, and a scowling face; the mere passing of the air over the vocal chords to form the word "love" does not mean anything, if it is insincerely and hypocritically spoken.

It is as simple as that.

Mark writes: "here's another sad truth for some of you who commented just now....
just because one grows up in a Christian home or went to chruch as a boy/girl does not mean they knew anything about true christianity! truly searching God and the truth requires one's own faith, you can never truly know God with your parent's faith! I'm sorry that some of you were practicing Christians for a while and have changed your minds since. Sadly there is a lot of fake christianity out there!"

Oh boy. Why do you insist on bombarding us with logical fallacy (No True Scotsman in this case)?

You do realize that every one of the HUNDREDS of sects of Christianity all would have us believe that they each possess and practice 'true Christianity' right?

Accept the simple fact that some people have given Christianity their all and have rejected it for a variety of reasons. True, as you say some have rejected it because they were wronged by the people they came in contact with. You must also understand that some, such as myself, have rejected it because it's a fundamentally rotten belief system.

SOMEONE: Thank you for your inspiration. Each day, this is what I'm supposed to be doing; evangelizing the "Jesus of the Bible" not a different Jesus. I understand that most people want facts and proof like doubting Thomas but when we as followers of Christ preach and speak to others, we are to tell the entire gospel in the spirit not in the flesh; in the spirit of love and a longing for all of creation to know the love, joy, peace and contenment that we have knowing that we're not living on death row with a nice blue sky. A soft gospel and not the entire gospel doesn't save souls. It makes them feel good but it doesn't save. What's more loving, to tell someone the truth or to flatter them. WHAT GOOD IS A MAN TO GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD AND THEN LOSE HIS OWN SOUL.

Angela B

Think about this:

You think you are spreading the Gospel, but what you are really doing is turning people away from Christ. That is what you are doing.

Don't you think that you should stop doing that?

Anon:

LMAO!
No, I can't PROVE my Pagan beliefs, any more than Huck or Mark can prove theirs. But then, I'm not on a mission to rewrite the Constitution to bring it more in line with the word of the Goddess.

So God has this big control panel in the sky and just pushes the appropriate buttons eh? Kind of like Jim Carey answering prayers by email in "Bruce Almighty?"

And that's MS. Smarty, thank you very much.

I DON'T think Jonah lived in a whale - a whale's throat isn't big enough to swallow a grown man whole, and even if it were, the digestive fluids in the whale's stomach (not to mention peristalsis) would have killed him.

My parents tried to teach me to believe that whatever seemed impossible or illogical in the Bible was explainable by "God works in mysterious ways" and "We'll understand when we get to heaven."
Neither of those "explanations" cuts the mustard.

Angela

Number 1, I am not going to argue and debate you about relgious doctrine. It is pointless and futile. People believe according to their inner will, which you cannot control; and most people have access to a Bible and can read, so it is not necessary to quote it to them, nor is it necessary to explain what each verse means, since that is your interpretation as a human being, not as God or God's spokesman.

Number 2, You do not speak in love, you are what I would call a very hard and bitter person. The Christianity that you practice does not seem to be doing very much for you.

Numbe 3, I am not obsessed with Jesus, but have what I would consider a normal and reasonable interest, as a Christian.

LEPIDOPTERYX
You are going to HELL buddy and I wont be praying for you.

Daniel -

Agreed. No need to spend time dwelling on Nero. It is interesting how much myth and legend we all readily accept as being received wisdom, isn't it?

Someone:

please spare us regarding the prophetically empowering "persecuted Christian" stuff.

From where I'm standing, there are three visible church steeples (all brilliantly lit up,) five SUVs with Jesus Fish posted on the back bumper (2 of which are next to the American Flag and "support the troops" stickers, one of them is an H2 Hummer,) four receivable FM radio stations playing Christian music, my son's school (within one mile from here) where they pledge allegience to the Flag of the US of America, "under God," and to the Texas pledge "under God," (compliments of a unanimous vote by the Texas Legislature,) and only one remaining home with a decorated Jesus-in-the-stable scene from Christmas.

Disagreement isn't persecution. "Hate you..?" Give me a break.

You're in an unending logic-prophecy-scripture-belief loop that won't change minds here. Trust me on this, we've been there. I suspect (and would be willing to wager) that I've done more reading of CS Lewis, Martin Luther, Marcus Borg, the KJV, NRSV, NIV, and Parallel Bibles than you have. I'd even be willing to wager I've given financially MUCH more to the Church over my life than you have. I expect I've spent as much or more time serving the poor, working at food shelters, building Habitat houses, working with Interfaith Hospitality networks, and caring for refugees as have you.

And I'm a total atheist/agnostic. Where I see good in people, I don't believe it's in spite of their "sinful nature" anymore. There are good folks here on this site, try to learn from them!

I don't count my religious past-life as loss, but it was part of a life-experience that's gone for myself and many others here.

If you feel persecuted, why bother to post? There are many excellent blogs that would nurture your beliefs, and you'd be surrounded by like-minded folks.

Most of us are here to learn from one another, not to persecute. Please spare us the persecuted Christian themes.

I'll assume you (Angela) are talking to me, so you're welcome!

I am a man who loves learning, who loves researching and coming up with my own conclusions, but I also love talking to people. I love hearing other's points of view, and their reasons behind it. It is knowledge that brought me to where I am today. People say "Dude, read a science book!" And you know what I say back? "Dude, YOU read a science book!" (I just added this in for no good reason other than comic relief)

People, as you have noticed, are controlled by their own bias, and have labeled you "stupid" before you even open your mouth, JUST BECAUSE you are a Christian, which proves they can't control themselves. No one knows anything about you. They don't know who you are, what you have done, or the contributions you have made to this world, but since you are a Christian, you're an idiot. I guess that is just one more prophecy come true. Jesus said that His disciples would be persecuted, but sister, you'll have a bunch of jewels in your crown to cast at Jesus' feet one day in Glory!

Mr. Mark

After reading your comment, I looked up Nero in Wikipedia, for a quick refresher. So after reading it, perhaps, my comments, may have been, not necesarily, as accurate or correct as they could have been. (But let's don't dwell on it).

Daniel (in the Lions Den).

Let me ask you a question: Do you tell people about Jesus and what do you say to them: God has a wonderful plan for your life? Most people feel their life is already wonderful. When you look at Jesus' life, those relgious folks who stood by the law but broke the letter of the Law hated Jesus because HE spoke to truth. Do you really believe just because I'm speaking the truth in love that those who hear the "whole counsel of God" and not just God Loves You, do you believe they'll like it. It's very easy to preach a soft gospel with no power. Take a look on television and what do you hear "a soft gospel". "a different gospel". Do you believe if Jesus (God in the flesh, LOVE in the true Form); came here and preached what HE preached and taught in the New Testament, Do you believe the would love His message; They hated His message and killed Him because of it and who was it: the religious people of His day along with cowardly Pontius Pilate. I have not said anything in bitterness nor in fear. I speak with boldness and without fear or hatefulness which we all who consider ourselves followers of Christ are commanded to do. Which as the BIBLE states "the gospel is offensive to those who are perishing". I am not ashamed of the GOSPEL "The Whole Counsel".

LEPIDOPTERYX
yeah you cant prove ut though can you?
god could easily press a button and put all the animals on pause for a few weeks to help noah, so there wouldnt be any eating or defecating until the tide went down.Didn't think of that did you mr.smarty? That PROVES God can do anything.
How do you think Jonah was able to actually live in a whale? God thats how. You just gotta believe!
Didnt your parants teech you nothing??

Mr Mark.
I chuckled with pleasure at your Christian humility
to deny credit for an interesting observation,and at the same time express disappointment that nobody was smart enough to have said it first. I get it and I'm still chuckling.
Funny thing is I don't see that kind of humility from Christians (or Muslims)here too often,if ever.
Isn't that odd?
And on the whole i find non-believers comments not only more interesting than what believers have to say,but expressed better,and make much more sense.
That's why a fence sitter like me has let go of god and accepted the likelihood that it is after all just a myth. A nice one,in a way,but still just a myth.

OK Mark, let's look at your Genesis story. God created two intelligent, curious people, put a tree with lovely fruit in front of them, and told them not to eat it. Surely he knew that they would be curious about it.
I don't want my dog to eat the contents of the cats' litter boxes. So I put the litter boxes out of his reach. I don't bring him to the litter boxes and tell him "Don't eat that." then send him off to the pound when he does.
When my daughter was little, I didn't want her to eat the cleaning products. So I put themout of her reach. I didn't place a can of Drano in her crib and say "Don't eat that."
Surely if God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat his special fruit, he could have placed it where they couldn't reach it, no?

Let's look at the flood. God puts two of every species in one big boat along with one man and his family, and sets them afloat for a month and a half. How would Noah have carried enough fresh water for his family and all these animals? How would Noah have had room for fodder for all the herbivores? How many extra herbivores would he have had to take on to feed the carnivores? How did he keep the carnivores from eating the herbivores that were reserved for repopulating purposes? How did he keep the carnivores from eating him and his family? Who cleaned up behind all these animals and what did they do with the manure? If the entire world was flooded, then salt water bodies and fresh water bodies would have merged, killing numerous species in both. How did God keep freshwater species from being killed by intruding salt water?
How did an olive tree survive 40 days of complete submersion?
If Noah and his family were the only human beings left to repopulate the plaet, how did we get such a wide spectrum of racial diversity?

Why is a man who raped his wife's servant until she became pregnant, left said servant and her son to die in the wilderness, and was willing to kill his own child because he heard a voice that told him to venerated? David Berkowitz heard a voice that told him to kill too.

Why is a man who tricked his blind father into giving him the birthright that belonged to his brother venerated?

Why is a man who rubbed his brothers' noses in the fact that he was Daddy's favorite until they became so sick of him that they sold him to a passing caravan and told Daddy he died venerated?

Why would a loving God impregnate a virgin without even checking to see if she wanted to participate, and bring a child into the world for the specific purpose of having him tortured to death for sins he didn't commit?

If Jesus knew that he was only going to be dead for three days, then his death wasn't really a sacrifice. It's not a sacrifice if you temporarily give up something knowing that you're going to get it all back. According to your scriptures, Jesus didn't spend his life, he just pawned it.

Mark

You are assuming that all of the commenters here are atheists, but you are very mistaken; there are a few Christians, as well.

Many of the conservative Christians who comment here do so with a mean spirit and a bitter heart. That is how they are when they come here, and they are not made that way by what is posted here. I, for one, am a little ashamed to have my beliefs or religion associated with people like them.

Even though you seem more reasonable, people react to your opinions with the very, very bitter taste of Angela B and David T still in their mouths. You should try and remember that, that we are all human beings, and being the object of insult and abuse makes people angry. As a Christian, I would say that you seem a little sheltered and cloistered in the nature of your beliefs.

E Fav writes:

"...if God sent Jesus to bring love, where has it gone? 2,000 years later and people are still fighting brutishly with each other."

That raises other questions:

1. DNA evidence dates homo sapiens back to Africa about 200,000 years. Does it make sense that god waited quietly through 198,000 years of human existence, until he suddenly said, "really, now, that's quite enough of that behavior. You've simply gone too far, my children. I'm sending you a savior."

Since then, more absolute quiet from god.

2. Why does Jesus the resurrected messiah bear no resemblance to the messiah described in the OT, while bearing striking resemblance to any number of pagan resurrected gods who were popular at the time? Did god suddenly decide around 4BC that he was chucking the messiah model he described in the OT because he had decided that the pagan resurrected god model was the "in thing?"

3. If god sent Jesus to bring love, then how does one square that with Jesus' saying, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."? (Mark 14:26)

4. In the OT, god promises that the arrival of the messiah on earth will immediately usher in an era of justice and peace. Not after a crucifixion. Not after a resurrection. Not after a second coming, but upon his first and only arrival on earth. If Jesus was the messiah, where's the era of justice and peace? Are god's promises worth the paper they're written on?

Comments?

Mark,
You say that our founders wanted only Christians of different stripes to be able to worship as they see fit. Lets see what some of the founders had to say:
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat

We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth "that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

I have ever regarded the freedom of religious opinions and worship as equally belonging to every sect.
-- James Madison, letter to Mordecai Noah, May 15, 1818, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.
-- James Madison,

Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect ... Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth.
-- James Madison, letter to Dr. De La Motta, August 1820 (Madison, 1865, III, pages 178-179), quoted from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

terra

You're absolutely right. Thank you.

Dear Mark and Angela

You guys are awesome. It takes a lot of guts, courage, strength, and time to be posting your beliefs to a crowd who hates you, but even worse, hates what's in you. At times it can be very discouraging, so I am praying for you. People say that Angela deserves what shes getting, but when it comes down to it, the second you call yourself a Christian, people begin to pounce. It doesn't matter how nice you try to be, people will still hate you, and call you illogical, irrational, insane, whatever (as if their beliefs are not?). I would help you guys out, but my time is very limited. I rarely get an opportunity to post a comment on these forums, let alone argue with a bunch or people who hate me for no good reason...LOL. Good luck and spread the faith!

God bless!!!

p.s. Here are a few uplifting verses and a quote yal may like.

Deu 31:6 Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

Isa 41:10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

As we grow up, we learn that even the one person that was not supposed to ever let you down probably will. You will have your heart broken probably more than once and it's harder every time. You will break hearts too, so remember how it felt when yours was broken. You will fight with your best friend. You will blame a new love for things an old one did. You will cry because time is passing too fast, and you will eventually lose someone you love. So take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you have never been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of happiness you will never get back.

...Author Unknown

(Susan, I hope you read this quote. You seem to need some happiness in your life. I hope this encourages you too.)

I think I understood most of what I read in the Book of Genesis, I just didn't believe it. Understanding doesn't mean believing. I read The English Patient and I understood it quite well (it is by far my favorite book), but I know it isn't true. I don't know if the Bible is true or not, but I don't believe it to be true. I don't know how you make yourself believe, but I cannot.

Mark writes:
"For me, I know and believe that this world didn't just come from a big bang or was brought here by UFO's or however you want to believe. I know that there had to be a Creator. This is the God that I worship, the God of the Bible."

By using the terms interchangably, you have confused knowledge with belief. You certainly have a right to your own opinions (beliefs) but you don't have a right to your own facts (knowledge).

You may believe "that there had to be a Creator" but you don't know that for a fact. There is absolutely no evidence to support any claim of a supernatural creator. It's quite possible that the universe has always existed. We just don't know.

Mark - you seem sincere in your efforts to explain and defend the bible, but think about it, if God sent Jesus to bring love, where has it gone? 2,000 years later and people are still fighting brutishly with each other. This time, without the direct intervention of God, the father and the son, who haven’t been seen since the bible was completed.

It is interesting seeing how you think – using that circular sin-and-forgiveness formula that explains everything for you, but really, I’ve heard it all before and have made better sense of it that your explanations ever could. And here’s my conclusion: it doesn’t make any sense, except as a myth.

Angela B,

Your "Peter and the Rock" story is not holding up under historical scrutiny by many contemporary NT exegetes:

73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/073_Who_is_Jesus%3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

I was hoping the comparison btw Canyon and a concrete wall would get me up to 6%... still, that is 13% combined.

If we break 15%... watch out world.

;) regards

Again, thanks for your comments. I feel like I am answering the same thing over and over again, though. If you really had read your bible, and understood what you were reading, you would not feel the way you do. (I will say again that I am not an expert by any means). Read the book of Genesis, did God create us and leave us to ourselves? No, he created us perfect and his desire was a continual relationship with us for eternity. But we ruined it. We sinned. God in his perfect love gave us free will to either chose him or choose our own selfish desires and we failed!
Why do we see in the Old Testament God commanding his people of Israel to conquer and destroy certain nations? Why, because sin has to be punished! God in his perfect holiness hates sin and requires a punishment for those who do sin and disobey him. This is why we see alot of this in the Old Testament. But this is why in the New Testament we see that God in his love sent a perfect sacrifice, his son to die and pay for our sins and enable us to restore the relationship that was lost. This is the message of the bible, a message of Love!
I hope this helps just a little bit!

Dear Ghostbuster -

Thanks for the mention. Glad to see you agree with 8% of what I say, up 33% from your former 6%.

Confidentially, I only agree with about 5% of what I say...;)

Thanks for the comments all, again this comment isn't all encompassing...

A couple weeks ago I tried chatting with Canyon. I think a couple of you were there. Honestly, I was ready to smack my head through a concrete wall too! hahaha!

If the viewpoint composition on this board was say... 85% fundamentalist, bible thumpers would it be OK for them to run off some of you? I say NO! It's funny though, I can almost hear myself reasoning with them now (because I've done it)... here would be some of the responses "but, they're calling me names", "but, they don't back up their points with bible verses", "but this is a christian website", "but they are idiots", but, but, but..."

Sound familiar? ;)

So we have what... 3 christian fundamentalist regulars who visit an “on faith” board? Sorry, 2 since David T and Angela B are one in the same. If it is the same David I'm thinking of, they certainly are not one in the same. I like the David I met. It doesn't mean I endorse everything he says but I respect his right to speak. I like Mr. Mark too, but I only agree with maybe 8% of what he says (that is up from 6%). Does that mean I have to hate the other 92% of what he says and try to shut down his point of view all day and all night?

It does if I am insecure.

Just something to think about.

All: Please excuse the extra “singing” above – bad editing

Mark: “I know that there had to be a Creator. This is the God that I worship, the God of the Bible.”

Have you ever wondered why God created the world and then waited so long to help the people he created? And why the “God of the Bible” in the Old Testament was so mean and awful, sending scourges and encouraging his chosen people to rape and pillage other tribes? And then much later sent his son with a message of peace, but only to a small group of people in the middle east? and 2,000 years later the word still isn’t completely out to all the people who could be saved by his love?

Please, when you’re thinking about your religion. Think about these things.

Dear Luke -

Re: "The skeptic/atheist ponders whether the text is true, and the believer ponders how the text is true."

Thanks for the complement, but I'm sure that I must have picked it up from somewhere else. I can't believe that I could have come up with something that people find profound.

If the saying is original to me, then allow me to express my profound disappointment that somebody smarter than me didn't say it first. ;)

Mark: “Here is my conclusion, that one should not speak about a subject unless they truly know and have studied that subject!”

Great minds think alike! I agree completely with that statement. Here’s how I’d adapt the rest your thoughts, my changes in CAPS:

“The majority of you out there that have repeatedly bashed ATHEISM, obviously have never looked into studying anything about it. You are basically vomiting back what you heard from a RELIGIOUS source. I challenge you to actually look into some of the facts about it before you just falsely claim to know what you are talking about. Look at the history of Christianity, study what its all about (not just from RELIGIOUS sources), examine the differences between it and other so called religions, and then come back and lets talk. I will share with you from my own experience that once one truly gets to know the God of the Bible, you will forever be changed.”

Mark – I was a going to church and singing in the choir-singing until last June. I knew the basics of my religion (including the immaculate conception) from Sunday school and church attendance, but I never learned so much as when I started to look into Christianity and the bible on my own – and it led me straight to atheism.

That's fine, you are all welcome to criticize me and my posts. Honestly, I am just thankful that each and every one of you are on here discussing such topics, it means that you are curious!
I apologize to any of you who have found many holes in my statements. I don't pretend to be a scholar by any means nor one affluent with words, I just hope that you see my heart and my passion for my Savior.
You all make very good points, and I applaud you. I just ask that you consider things beyond those that you can touch or feel or reason. Reasoning has never gotten us much farther than a big headache! :)
For me, I know and believe that this world didn't just come from a big bang or was brought here by UFO's or however you want to believe. I know that there had to be a Creator. This is the God that I worship, the God of the Bible. Call him what you want, but one day, the bible says, all creation will bow before him and declare that He is God.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss with me.

Mr. Mark. I commend you. That was truly profound "The skeptic/atheist ponders whether the text is true, and the believer ponders how the text is true." This makes perfect sense. The believer makes their worldview fit the Bible, while the skeptic looks at how the Bible doesn't fit their worldview. It seems very clear now.

Dear Mark (mein dopplegänger?) -

Judging from the content and context of who posts what here, I'd say that the atheists/non-believers/ex-Xians have a much better understanding of the history, doctrines and myths that surround Christianity than does the average Xian, including you.

Here's the difference, Mark (ie: not me): the skeptic/atheist looks at the Bible and ponders WHETHER the text is true. The believer looks at the Bible and ponders HOW the text is true.

That's a big difference, wouldn't you say?

There's little in this life that we as humans take on faith. We tend to question most everything, rightly or wrongly. Yet when it comes to religion, the brain and the skeptic are to be checked at the door, even though our rational sense is screaming at us in no uncertain terms that what religion is telling us is a load of self-serving, unprovable BS. Indeed, our very skepticism is labeled by religion as a major fault of being human in the first place! And not only at fault, but created by god in a state of being at fault.

On this hang all the law and the prophets.

I'm not trying to say that at all! I don't know all the answers by any means. To say so would be ignorant! I was just giving an opinion, which we all are doing, about the comments that people seem to be making!

here's another sad truth for some of you who commented just now....
just because one grows up in a Christian home or went to chruch as a boy/girl does not mean they knew anything about true christianity! truly searching God and the truth requires one's own faith, you can never truly know God with your parent's faith! I'm sorry that some of you were practicing Christians for a while and have changed your minds since. Sadly there is a lot of fake christianity out there! Alot of people are hurt by churches and pastors. why? because they are human and run by humans. We must instead put out trust and faith in the Heavenly Father and His unfailing love for us.

Mark,

Let me take the liberty of amending a portion of your post above - see parentheses:

"I will share with you from my own experience that once one truly gets to know the God of the Bible [or His Representatives], you will forever be changed, [as were the Cathars, that noble people tortured and exterminated by the Roman Pope and his minion, the King of France]."

Mark,

You say "Look at the history of Christianity, study what its all about (not just from secular sources), examine the differences between it and other so called religions, and then come back..."

Assuming that you practice what you preach, you have studied all other religions in the same way and to the same degree that you recommend we study Christianity. Of all the religions I am aware of, the only one that has any reasonableness to it is Buddhism, the austere, non-superstitious forms like Zen most of all. Tell me, what is it about Zen Buddhism that reveals it to be false?

Actually Mark, I have found that although most Christian sources on the origins of Christianity are quite beautiful, they are also patently false.

Actually, Jesus was mortal until the Nicene Creed was agreed upon: http://www.armenianchurch.net/worship/creed.html. Here, they emphasize the newly written story of Jesus Christ...300 years after his birth! Strangely, reading it I am reminded of Osiris the first Pharoh.

Henry (and CNCL), I won't even start in on Bloody Mary, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades begun by Pope Urban II, the Christian wars, or the Salem witch trials. Many of these are examples of God's law enacted on a public. The crusades are still going, an off and on 1000 year war--- i think thats the longest yet! We may fight differently from the Muslim, but as a christian nation we certainly hold up the standard of bloody tyrant!

But that's all beside the point, even though I am enjoying all the history i'm learning here very much!

Thank you, Daniel in the Lion's Den for bringing us back to the soul of the argument. You're right, no one who understands the constitution would care to amend it. Leave that bit alone, and creating a blue law society would still be okay (omitting the 1st ammendment in the bill of rights about freedom of/from religion)

Dear Daniel -

Hello, friend.

I think you're giving Nero a bad rap. Nero was spoken of quite well by contemporary historians. He often made rulings that favored the lower classes. He built lots of artistic and cultural institutions. The upper classes came to dislike Nero while the lower classes liked him. Guess who got to write the histories?

Sure, Nero had his share of power moves that included murdering rivals, but that was Rome. And, no, he didn't fiddle while Rome burned. He wasn't even in the city at the time, and large fires were commonplace in Rome. According to Tacitus, Nero returned immediately to Rome after the fire and paid for relief efforts out of his own funds. He opened his palaces to those made homeless. When the populace blamed Nero, he blamed the Xians, and the blood bath ensued.

Yes, Nero used Xians as human torches, but not because they were Xians. It was because they were seen as rebellious. Crucifixion and immolation weren't invented by Rome to deal with Xians. They were punishments that were sitting around for centuries to be used on anyone who challenged Rome's authority.

BTW - that's what's wrong with this blog. Guys like me end up defending guys like Nero.

Mark

I think you are wrong on that. Almost everyone in America is raised in a Christian setting; so most atheistic and agnostic people evolved their beliefs from their original Christian heritage.

It does not help your argument to say that no one knows what they are talking about, but only you do.

Mark,
Many of us, myself included, were brought up Christian and were even Christian for a while as adults.
I know exactly what it is that I left approximately two decades ago.

Here is my conclusion, that one should not speak about a subject unless they truly know and have studied that subject! The majority of you out there that have repeatedly bashed religion (Christianity), obviously have never looked into studying anything about it. You are basically vomiting back what you heard from a secular source. I challenge you to actually look into some of the facts about it before you just falsely claim to know what you are talking about. Look at the history of Christianity, study what its all about (not just from secular sources), examine the differences between it and other so called religions, and then come back and lets talk. I will share with you from my own experience that once one truly gets to know the God of the Bible, you will forever be changed!

Chip - simple -- "conceived by God"

Mark:

What if there's only one True God and it's actually E-la'fre-ra?
How do you know YOU aren't the one committing blasphemy?

The Roman's did not believe that the Emperor-Caesar was God, nor a god. Caesar Ausustus knew he was not a God, and objected to that title and to temples being built in his honor. It was all a political idea, to consolidate the Empire in the East, where king-worship was more traditional.

Acknowledging Caesar as God was really more of a statement of political alliegience. Perhaps early Christians took this statement more literally than it was intended. As a rule, Christians were not persecuted under the Empire, except under the rule of Nero, who was a pretty mixed-up guy, who never sought to be Emperor in the first place, did not know how to rule, and used the Christians as convenient scape-goats, to blame for everything. Does this sound a little familiar, like conservative Christian homophobia, for example? And, once Christianity became the state relgion of Rome, more people were killed in the Colliseum under the Christian Emperors than under the Pagan ones.

The Romans believed in numena, spirit-like representations of abstract ideas, like the numen of fertility, or the numen of prosperity, and they paid respect to these numena in succession, as there was a need in their lives, and then forgot about them, as the need disappeared. So when a young couple wanted to have a baby, they prayed to the numen of fertility, but when they were done having children, then they would not say those prayers anymore. The Romans also envied and idealized Greek culture, and sought to mimic their Gods in a superficial way. (I am no expert; this is from my limited reading).

I think the argument will always be...

Believers: I know the truth.

Non-believers: How do you know?

Believers: I know the Bible is true and I feel it.

Non-believers: I don't feel it and it doesn't add up - it is not true.

Believers: You just don't get it because you are an evil, sadistic heathen not capable of morality who kills babies and worships Satan and you will burn in eternal hellfire for it.

Non-believers: Wow that's heavy.

Believers: Jesus loves you and so do we!

Chip asks:

"Is there a specific term used for the conception of Jesus?"

Yes. Myth. ;)

Adverting to earlier posts in this thread:

******************************************

[1] Angela's beliefs are ashes.

[Didn't that get some kind of award?]

******************************************

[2] Who/what was Q?:

Q -
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Q is a fictional character in the James Bond novels and films. Q (standing for Quartermaster), like M, is a job title rather than a name. He is the head of Q Branch (or later Q Division), the fictional research and development division of the British Secret Service. The character actually appears only fleetingly in Ian Fleming's novels, but comes into his own in the successful Bond film series; he is also mentioned in the continuation novels of John Gardner and Raymond Benson. The character of Q (although not always identified as such) has appeared in every 007 film apart from Live and Let Die and Casino Royale; it has not yet been announced whether the character will return in Quantum of Solace, however Quantum of Solace Screenwriter Paul Haggis confirmed that 'Q' is not included in the script. Casino Royale showcases a number of gadgets and sophisticated tools used by Bond, however the film does not indicate whether a Q Branch per se exists in the revised Bond universe.

Ian Fleming based the character of Q on Charles Fraser Smith, a real life engineer of gadgets for escaping servicemen during the Second World War.

Mr. Mark, thanks for the clarification. Is there a specific term used for the conception of Jesus?

Shelley, you can't blame Christians for 9/11 remember; they're radical muslims who follow a man called "Mohammad". I really don't know who David T is: maybe I should look him up as someone who understands truth. Remember: And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (Hell) will not overcome it; not ateists, not agnostics; not false converts; not unbelievers. It will never go away.

Angela (aka David T,etc) is a first class example of how religion makes a person irrational to the point of absurdity. Religion does this to people on purpose,and is the reason religion scares me,and why I wish it would go away.
Keep commenting Angel(a).You are making the atheists'
point for them; religion makes people irrational,in thought and in deed...just like 9/11 also demonstrated.

Dear Chip -

FYI, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not refer to Mary becoming impregnated by god and the virgin birth of Jesus. It concerns the idea of Mary herself being conceived immaculately, ie: without the stain of original sin:

"The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain of original sin, in her mother's womb: the dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin. Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by normal sexual intercourse (Christian tradition identifies her parents as Sts. Joachim and Anne), should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_conception

No big deal. Just thought I'd clarify that. Most of the Catholics I know make the same error.

For those interested in actual history, here's a report from Pliny the Younger in 112CE that offers a counter to the oft-stated belief that all of the early Xians were willing to go to death for their beliefs. In fact, it looks like many early Xians had no problem renouncing Christ when their lives were on the line:

"Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

"Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition." - Letter to Trajan; Pliny the Younger, 112

Angela writes "Either Jesus Christ is who HE claims to be or HE would be a complete liar right?"

If you were raised by a mother who claimed she was impregnated by god in an immaculate conception (likely to avoid being stoned to death for promiscuity) there's a high probability that you'd develop a messiah complex. It's certainly a possibility. He might have been a liar, or he might simply have been delusional. Either possibility is far more likely than the chance that any of his claims were true. Of course the most likely possibility of all is that Jesus never existed and his tale is simply a rehashing of many earlier myths intended to lend authority and weight to a revolutionary political movement.

I figured I'd not allow you or some on this Post that need to do a self examination of their faith instead of knocking mine. Also, you can speak for what you believe what I have or will do as mission work; you don't know where I've been or what I've done. And John (above) have you ever heard: if they Hate me, they'll hate you: Also, John, maybe you should read and meditate on 2 Cornithians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test. What you've just done is not a good thing...

I do think that Angela was "piled" on, but she did sort of walk into the discussion waving a red flag and screaming hit me. The problem [as I see it] is that Fundamentalists of any stripe engage in extended circular reasoning. The book validates the belief that validates the book that validates the ... well you get the idea. Unless you can break into this vicious cycle, there is no possibility of any meaningful dialog. It is a perfect armor against the intrusion of ideas that do not conform to the this circuit of truth. The way truth is used by Fundamentalists is also flawed. In most other areas of discourse, truth relates to some fact which is verifiable in some objective sense. Faith then relates to verifiable "truth." This is the ordinary sense of these words - used by people every day. Only in religious discourse do we place the verification beyond investigation by the same methods that we use in our daily life. Truth is truth only to the extent that I [or anyone else] can verify it. Using an authoritative source [a divinely written / inspired book] to provide this verification is a violation of the way we normally validate truth. If one can use a holy book to provide verification of truth without the necessity of some objective method of validation - there is no way of choosing which holy book to use. They all fail. They all contain material which would be quickly rejected if submitted to our ordinary truth validation methods. It all comes down to - I believe what I believe - because I choose to - the problem with most Fundamentalists is that they not only make this choice for themselves, but want to make it for everyone else. Huckabee's statements forever should preclude him from occupying any political office in the US.

ANGELA writes:
"Call me a Jesus Freak; I would die for my beliefs just like the martyrs all around the world!"

An easy and EMPTY claim to make when you know to an extremely high degree of certainty that you will never be put in a position where you would literally be forced or asked to "die for your beliefs."

Empty claims like yours are a penny a dozen. If you want to put some teeth into your claim, then get thyself off to some anti-Christian country as a missionary where the fear of death is something more than an arm-chair bromide.

Here's one of my empty claims: if I win $10-million in the lottery, I'll give you half. Does that make you feel better? Are you looking forward with hope to the day that a check for $5MM shows up at your home? Does my statement cause anyone to think, "wow, Mr Mark really is a great guy who would share $10MM with a complete stranger. Now THAT'S having the conviction of one's beliefs!"

Didn't think so.

Die for one's beliefs. Ha! I'd rather you LIVED to LEARN SOMETHING outside of the Biblical claptrap you spout on this blog.

BTW - I thought you announced yesterday that you were quitting this blog forever. What happened? If that's your version of eternity, then I'd say you're looking forward to spending roughly 2 hours in heaven. ;)

Drew;

As usual I totally agree with your point of view.
Short and to the point.
Take care

Angela

You give religion a bad name.
You give evangelicals a bad name.
As a Christian you embarrass me.
People will think we are all as ridiculous as you.
For God sake stop it,and get a life.

Henry

You got it all wrong.You should read more.
Besides,2000 years of christianity has been 2000 years of wars.Most of them to do with my god's better than yours.

My comment about my beliefs was addressed to Moonman; if you read the New Testament; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Timothy, Stephen were all killed because they wouldn't deny their beliefs even though it cost them their lives; even the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus' tomb and also those Roman soldiers who were guarding Paul didn't feel that man's word was so important they did realize that they were experiencing something more important than their physical death. Luke to answer your question, yes GOD has the power to allow or stop anything HE chooses and in the larger scheme of things you can only see what's behind you not what's in front to you. We are all concerned about pleasure and what we can physcially see. Also, being a Christian is not just about going to church: yes, I attend church regularly and am a member of an evanglical church with other followers. Church is an opportunity to worship together with the other members of the Body of Christ, in addition to recognizing that day as my SABATH REST... Being a Christian is not having blind faith: just believing intellectually, it's experiencing each day a LIVING GOD who is as real as this computer I'm typing on. Most people can't understand that as they've never experienced God in that way so it's sounds crazy. It's only ONE way to find out how to love, believe and experience true fellowship with the LIVING God who wants to have a personal relationship with all of HIS creation.

Mark

Why be one country under God when there's probably no God to be under?
I mean just because our ancestors figured there was a God,is no reason for us to believe they got it right. They also figured that the earth was flat.
Today we are so much more enlightened than our poor mixed up ancestors,and it makes no sense to use their supernatural ideas as a guide to life in the 21st century.
Why do you think the Twin Towers became an inferno on September 11 2001?
You got it.Because of really dumb religious ideas.

For the love of oblivion, do I have to state this again? 9/11 was attack for God - it's purpose was to please Allah. Hitler (it's debatable whether or not he was Catholic), Pol Pot, Stalin, didn't kill in the name of atheism. They killed for control. It was all done in the name of the state. Not believing in God is one less reason to kill someone, that's all.

Nothing interesting going on here then...

Angela, are you David T? Tell us about TAG.

If God was all-powerful, he could stop it, but he didn't. That's not love, that is apathy. So I break God's law before I even know what it is? Garbage. He is the one who designed me, right? So he designed me flawed and thinks I am am filthy with sin when he made me that way? What a sick individual - condemning his own design for it's flaws - it's like a building designer breaking a contract for a flaw in a building HE DESIGNED. It just doesn't make sense. Do I care how much good I've done? Why do you care? Why help people who your loving God is going to allow to suffer eternally? What does it matter? For me, it is innate. I don't loathe the human race as you do, so I think that morality is innate and not something with which only Christians are blessed. How does believing in someone dying for your sins take them away? Even if I don't believe it, I should still get the free ride, or does Jesus need to be noticed? Mighty, indeed.

But Angela, no one is trying to kill you. Disagreement among anonymous people is a far cry from religious persecution.

Do you ever attend church?

Call me a Jesus Freak; I would die for my beliefs just like the martyrs all around the world!

Jesus is a lie!!!

MOONMAN is truth!!!

Angela B, come to MOONMAN!!!

Mark, see MOONMAN light!!!

Cast away false Jesus!!!

Set down the Jesus lie!!!

Rejoice in MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

MOONMAN!!!

FYI, all the horrific acts that occur around us every day, including 9/11, were not caused by religion, but buy bigots and zealots. There is a difference! The world could use more religion. Religion's main goal is to make people better individuals, but some take it way too far, and sometimes personally, and they use the ticket "religion" as an excuse to do something horrific. It is not religion's fault, it's the bigot's (Susan) and zealot's in this society. Might I remind people that the most destructive and inhumane genocides/wars/acts started or were caused by ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS like Susan! Its the people who believe we are better off w/o religion that killed millions of Jews for no reason. God help us if this world is run by a bunch of nut jobs like them. There's a reason America has a hard time electing an Atheist as president. Maybe were not stupid after all.

drew: I have already answered that question, look at above posts!

Hi Mark,Hi Luke,anyone seen John around anywhere?

Guys, I really like what I'm hearing; this is wonderful! We may not agree but we are all God's creation and I love you all!

About the Constitution:

I would bet that most people have never read the Constitution and do not know much about it. It is actually quite brief, and very easy to understand.

The most complicated part defines the electoral college for choosing the President, which defines the President as the winner and the Vice President as the first runner-up.

(This setup assured that the President and Vice-President would be political enemies and was almost immediately changed in the twelfth amendment, after the Bill of Rights was added. So much for our brilliant Founding Fathers, who were, after all, just men).

Recently, the proposed European Union Constitution was blocked by electoral defeats in several European countries. I have heard that this document was extremely complex, being several hundred pages long. It was nothing like our Constitution. The proposed European Union Constitution was an attempt to codify all of the many patchwork of treaties that form the basis for the European Union, and so, under such a scheme, it must be complex.

But the American Consitution is a brief and succinct document. All it does is provide the framework and mechanisms for implementing the three branches of government. The Supreme Court has assumed its authority to rule on the Constitutionality of various matters, when it is asked to do so, and it has become traditional to respect this implied authority.

That is all the Constitution is.

The Consitution is mute and neutral on religious, moral, and ethical matters. The Consitution does not ban murder, nor define marriage customs, nor speculate on God. When one of the amendments banned alcohol, it proved so unworkable and impractical that it was repealed. If a Consitutional amendment would ever pass that defines marriage, that, too, would surely be repealed, eventually. So why go through all the effort?

One of the reasons that we have been able to maintain the Constitution for so long is because it says so little. An eighteenth century document works in the twenty-first century because there are practically no references to contemporary fasions, fads, and customs of the eighteenth century, but instead, references to government, in general, that should be understandable to all people, in all epochs, slavery, being, of course the sad exception.

Most people who want to amend the Constitution for every little thing have not read it and do not understand its concept.

Luke,
Love you buddy! I know you mean well, but I will give you credit for this, at least you are trying to understand and you are searching! It may seem easy to attack someone like me who is a Christian, especially on posts like this. You keep trying to poke holes in my statements, and thats fine! Unfortunately I am unable to communicate as effectively on here as well as I could in a different format. Oh well. My main point of anything I am trying to say is that God's love covers all of us. He loves you, he loves me and he gave his life so that we might be saved. The greatest love story of all time! It's incredible to think of the creator of the universe humbling himself to come to earth in the form of a man to die for us, but he did it. And then he rose from the grave and now reigns in heaven anxiously awaiting any precious soul that would be willing to accept his gracious gift!Anyway, enough preaching as I am sure you will call it :), keep searching and take care.

How do we know that God is above us? What if lives in the ground?

Luke, let me ask you something: first you are someone who is sitting on the judgment seat of the Creator of this entire Universe; Also, loving, HE's very loving. Let me try to explain it the only way I know how; We broke God's law and we stood/stand under the judgment/wrath of God and by no means through our "so called" good works could we be found innocent when we stood/stand in HIS SIGHT because HE loves us so much; He allowed HIS only son to die for the sins of the whole world and for those who would believe, turn from their evil (sin), and put their faith in HIM and HIM alone and live the life that HE reveals in HIS word to all mankind. Again, which religion can forgive the sins of the entire world, how much is good; How do you know you've done enough good. Which one of them can turn someone away from sin and give them the power to love those who persecute, mock and hate you. Only GOD can do that. Also, God didn't create what's going on in this world; WE did. We are the ones who brought evil in this world; NOT GOD. He's so so merciful that even those who speak against HIM, he's patient WITH because HE doesn't want to see anyone perish. Also, if someone killed someone you loved or maybe you killed them and you had to stand before a criminal court judge and even though you only did the crime once, you say you're sorry and you're a good person; YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CRIME RIGHT; DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE SORRY OR NOT; JUSTICE HAS TO BE SERVED RIGHT; BUT SAY IF THE PERSON YOU KILLED WAS THE JUDGE'S SON. AND IN FACT, THE JUDGED DECIDED TO PAY THE FINE FOR YOU IN FULL; THAT'S WHAT JESUS DID!

Mark

Why be one country under God when there's probably no God to be under?
I mean just because our ancestors figured there was a God,is no reason for us to believe they got it right. They also figured that the earth was flat.
Today we are so much more enlightened than our poor mixed up ancestors,and it makes no sense to use their supernatural ideas as a guide to life in the 21st century.
Why do you think the Twin Towers became an inferno on September 11 2001?
You got it.Because of really dumb religious ideas.

Um, hey Mark, don't know if you picked this up...but there are people who don't know about Jesus. You have the convenience of knowing about him, but there are plenty of people who do not. Your God-consciousness you speak of...what about children with birth defects? Autistic people, do they have it too? How do you know? Can you prove it? So how can one believe in Jesus if they had never heard of him? They simply just believe in God and God is cool with them? What if they identify God with the Sun? What if they think he is a white, bearded man, or a woman? So are you saying that all people will go to heaven if they believe in God, but if they hear of Jesus they have to believe in him because they...graduate?

Angela, you can say your God is absolutely moral, but if he commits the same crimes humans do, how is he better? Destroying cities and killing children (remember the Pharoah's son)? By what standard is he merciful - his own? If it is his standard, does it apply to me? Can I destroy a city and still be just? I would never allow a human being to fall into Hell, not matter how much I hated him, but your God loves those he casts into it. Sounds loving.

Again, I think it is important that we all remember to keep our posts relevant and not personally attacking!
I may be wrong at some things, I may not even have all my facts straight about our founding fathers or how one should run this country, but one thing I am not wrong about is that fact there is only one True God. I pray that any of you who do not believe this to be true would come to realize this one day!

and no, luke, no man or woman can give an excuse for not believing in Him. We are lucky and fortunate in our country that we have access to a bible and are not persecuted for doing so. In some foreign countries, there are no missionaries, but that does not mean they are destined to hell. God's word talks about how in every man, he placed a God-consciousness. So even if one never hears of God's word, one can still believe in the One True God. His creation testifies to Him as well.
and whether or not muslims or atheists have universal truth or not we could probably discuss until we are blue in the face, but one thing that separates Christianity from any other religion, is the man Christ Jesus. His love for the whole world and his dying for our sins so that we may have eternal life is the difference, but it is of uttermost importance!

To CB: First, let me ask you something: Do you know anything about the beliefs of Hindus, JW, Mormons, and the like; let me ask you: How many of them claim to forgive sin? None...Also, how many of them have the power over sin? We all can outwardly like alcholics overcome different what I would call "habitual sins" but who has ever been able to master the inner soul and heart? Either Jesus Christ is who HE claims to be or HE would be a complete liar right? Well, go back and research the history of all the different religions and come back to me with your answer in search of truth. Also, these conversations will never get anywhere unless we first understand and research "CREATION". We MAN/WOMAN are born in sin; no matter what we believe; that's what the bible says from the Old Testment to the New Testament. Also, most believe, if their honest with themselves believe their good people but they equivalate their goodness by the standards of others i.e., maybe I'm not as moral as this person but I'm better than that one. Well the standard is not other's morality; IT'S GOD's standards which is found in HIS 10 commandments; not to inherit HEAVEN but to show us HOW WE RELLY ARE. Look deep into your soul or what you may say is your heart and your intellectual mind; you know good and well, you're not good; you lie, you steal, you dishonor your parents but every wicked thing you do (in secret) or allow other's who believe the same standard as you do to rationalize your actions. I know, been there done that! Let's all welcome honesty and truth. Also, yes, yesterday, I was really offended as I would never criticize someone as being a "HOLY FOOL", or any other horrific thing that was stated on this Post; I choose just to back up and try to make sense of the hatred of people who follow Christ. You hate people who follow Christ as know one wants to be told that they must up their standards to a HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, MERCIFUL, JUST GOD. YOU'RE NOT MAD/ANGRY WITH ME; YOU HATE GOD...ADMIT IT. NO ONE LIKES ANYONE TELLING THEM HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE. BE HAPPY, AND BE THANKFUL AND WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AROUND, NOTICE, HE allows even what we would consider the lowest, wicked people on the face of this earth to experience what is called "COMMON GRACE". In closing, what I originally meant to state is yes, I believe the Constition and the Declaration serves it's purpose but when we talk about amending the Constitution, who's really trying to amend it; Let's all be honest!

Dear Moderate -

Your statement about the Q document exhibits a cursory and dismissive knowledge on the subject. Terming it a "scholarly myth" is an opinion not shared by any number of Biblical scholars.

As far as your statement that, "No hard evidence for Q exists," that is true, but one must remember that there is also no hard evidence for the 4 Gospels in the purest sense of the word. We have no originals of the 4 Gospels, and the copies of copies of copies that we do have date from centuries after the fact. Numerous reconstructions of the Q document were composed in the early 20th century. Were we still living in Biblical communication standard times, those documents might well be thought of being as authentic as the 4 Gospels.

Even Wikipedia has a decent article on the Q that does a good job presenting both sides of the did-it-exist argument. I'd suggest those wishing to learn more about the Q Document start their reading there, including Mr Moderate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

On the other hand, your belief that the Gospels were written by Jesus' so-named disciples displays total ignorance of Biblical scholarship. Where do you get such ideas?

So, Mark, we shouldn't change the constitution to fit the Bible, but we shouldn't be afraid to change the constitution to fit the Bible? For the love of God himself, don't vote.

I agree with Waldo, that Angela B and David T have posted comments that seem very similar, with specific words and phrases that are a little uncommon. Maybe they are the same person, or maybe they just get ideas from each other.

I was impressed that Angela B seemed like a bitter, sad, pitiful person. I know from my own experience that there is not much point in arguing with such a person. If I would ever encounter such a person in real life, I would listen patiently, nodding agreement (that is called humoring her) and then I would try to get the conversation on to other things, and if that didn't work, I would just figure out some way to get away from her presence.

I once had a friend like Angela, who used to call me his "dearest friend in the world." I could not understand why he would think that, since I did not know him well, nor even like him much. All I did was have lunch with him from time to time, and let him rant. I suspect that Angela doesn't have many friends.

As far as Christianity goes, there is no authority that tells us what it is. The Catholic Church is a top-down organization with a complicated cannon law, and a Pope that has various degrees of authority and responsibilty in defining and enforcing doctrine. But overall, even the Catholic Church does not have a unified program or system of belief. This is even more so for all of the many and various Protestant churches.

Christianity depends upon tradition and custom to carry on as it does, and of course, those things are ever-changing. So Angela B and David T are wrong, to assert that they have an eternal and immutable truth, that they must spread to others. They have only their own traditions, which they heighten and accentuate with their many personal imbellishments, which could have little meaning for me.

I was going to keep going and say what I think makes a liberal Christian, but I am a little tired, so I will put that off till later.

Ghostbuster: (excellent name by the way..)

I echo the sentiments of Pam, E-Favorite and Terra.

I believe Angela B chooses to read the most controversial of the host posts (in her view, the atheistic/agnostic post) with the hope of an opportunity to carry out the "Great Commission."

I honestly believe she thinks most of us here just need to "see the light," and takes it upon herself to do the "work of the Lord." I've heard her exclaim so many times her status as "True Christian" that it's laughable.

What she doesn't understand (or won't acknowlege) is that a huge number of us have been exactly where she currently is spiritually, and can learn nothing from her presentations and attacks upon the secular heathen.

It's unproductive dialogue and can only hurt feelings, and my suggestion would be for her to dialogue among similarly-minded folks on another post, or another site altogether.

One can't expect to make categorical, "certain" statements on a post like this and not be challenged--and where logic is flawed or facts are erroneous--taken to task.

So, if you aren't going to read the diatribe, why are you posting on it. Cal Thomas could use some more comments.

Yes, Mark, but you are wrong.

That, my friend, is the truth.

andrea,
I'm not sure what you are responding to! My posts are regarding the fact that we are or at least should be one nation founded upon God! I didn't say that we should change our constitution in any way to add Christianity or Catholic or anything to it. But I am saying that being a nation founded under God, we should not be afraid to have laws that are according to His word such as one man and one woman in marriage! Maybe you missed my point, but this is what I am trying to say.

So Mark, do you now see why people ridicule you? So Jesus didn't want the Chinese to hear his message? Jesus didn't teach to everyone. His message was obviously only meant for a select group of people until his own people starting spreading his word by the sword (even now, there are people who have no access to missionaries, so I guess they are just doomed to hellfire?). Your "universal truth" that you are arrogant enough to believe is true simply because you believe it (which, fancy that, is exactly the same way Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and atheists feel) is not known by everyone, so how is it universal? It doesn't apply to every culture unless you replace the objects and rules within it. Obviously, you know what the Founding Fathers wanted, what Jesus wanted, and what God wanted, so why don't you run for President? If it is true, then prove it? It should be easy!

I'm not even going to bother with reading this diatribe as the title is offensive and childish. Such articles are not worthy to even be posted and should be removed.
If you have disagreements with Christianity that is one matter and we can discuss that but name calling is not civil discourse and should not be considered a legitimate journalistic endeavor.

Additionally,
Some of you have continued to state that my comments on blasphemy are irrelevant due to the fact that, "one must believe in the One True God in order for it to be blasphemy."
Again, I say this is false. Let me put it another way.
Suppose many of you who have bought into the postmodern mindset that whatever is true for me doesn't have to be true for another person, are wrong! What then? What if there is universal truth? What if there is only One True God?
That's my point. I dont believe something to be true and that makes it truth, I know that there is truth, therefore I believe in it! See the difference?
I am not trying to be argumentative or trying to sway people to my point of view, merely to get others to think about other things. Do you really want to die one day and find out that you were wrong and wished someone had try to share with you the turth?
Again, knowing that there is only one True God, I state that comments such as this author's are blasphemy, whether or not she believes in Him or not! Truth is truth, whether or not I believe it to be so!

DeeTee,

We are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years. The problem now is that we feel and can hear and smell the sounds and stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” religions are all hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade and the danger especially from koranic, brainwashed "rednecks" who want to convert our world to the Dark Ages of an illiterate, lust and greed driven, warmongering, long-dead Arab!!!!

Mark,

So it goes something like this, eh?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof so long as everyone is Christian"?

A. thorn, lep, whoever else...
Although this may be obvious, it seems like the issue we are dealing with here revolves around the separation of church and state. Many of you are arguing, at least arguing to me, that there should be a separation, therefore my comments on God's word influencing our government seem controversial. Some of you are saying that our founders did not want this, which is not true. Look at some of the things they did include in the constitution! Meanwhile, when are founders included that there should be a freedom of religion, they were not saying that any religion should be acceptable. Look at what they were coming from. The countries they left were Roman Catholic and made everyone believe the same. When our founders wanted religious "freedom", they were talking about the freedom to worship God, by any means (baptist, methodist, lutheran, catholic, etc.)! They were not advocating religions that went against the God of the Bible.

Idealist,

Aritcle 1, Section 10 was written to keep the State of Georgia, for example, from entering into a pact with France and pulling the other states with it. That is explicitly noted so the Federal government is the only piece which can handle foreign alliances and relations. It does not say "no state may leave this union." Yes, they joined a Confederacy, but at that point they were no longer states.
And if there was a foreign fort in your territory, which refused to remove its military, you'd fire on it too. Thats how Lincoln pulled us into the war: he consciously refused to remove US soldiers from what became Confederate territory when South Carolina seceded.

CNCL,
I misjudged your comments earlier-- i thought you were attacking the Qu'ran, which is unfair. You attack all religions, and then say that for religious peace, the religious must not only discard everything they've been taught but change the very basis of it. Or we could just accept it and leave each other alone.

_____________________________________
=D DeeTee

DeeTee,
I read your post about Lincoln. I'm not an authority on Constitutional law, but it doesn't take much reading of the U.S. Constitution to find in Article I Section 10 that "No state shall enter into treaty, alliance, or confederation;" which the Confederacy obviously violated. Furthermore, the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter which was a U.S. federal military post, thus starting what was soon to become the Civil War. I assume your final quote was from Lincoln. 'Just goes to show that the Constitution was "smarter" in its brilliantly laid out balance of powers than even Lincoln with his individual brilliance.

Well said DeeTee. Lincoln is the worst president that we've ever had.

DeeTee,

You must be new here. The complete synopsis (the way to "deflaw" it all) as repeated many times:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Apply the Five F rule of "Deflawing": "First Find the Flaws, then Fix the Foundations". And finally there will be religious peace in the world!!!!!

On a different note-- Susan, how can you oppose Huckabee's candidacy for president on the basis that he is no fit defender of the constitution and then in the same breath applaud Lincoln as the greatest president we ever had?!

One of his great achievements was restoring the southern states to the union after southern states, in an economic pickle with the higher tariffs insisted upon by the north, found that the Constitution didn't work for them. They seceded, and it was completely within their rights to do so. Not only did the Constitution fail to explicitly state that the, well, States were bound in a forced contract: Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York refused to ratify the constitution unless they had an out, which in turn extended the right to secede to all of the equal states.

So when Lincoln took us into the Civil War, he redefined the Constitution and in essence removed the very concept on which the United States was formed-- States rights.

Lincoln is a great man, and in essence did abolish slavery (not what he set out to do, but that discussion is for another day), he was not an exemplary upholder of the Constitution. Either Lincoln is a great president and let's see how much Huckabee can change things, or Huckabee doesn't know what president-ing is about, and Lincoln is a nothern tyrant.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." Guess Who

_________________________________
=D DeeTee

CNCL,

Are you suggesting Jihadist look to the Qu'ran in much the same way your predecessors may have 'deflawed' the original idea of Lord of Gods (yes, thats plural) to a lonely Lord God and his angels (Asimov, 'Asimov's Guide to the Bible')?

Your cite accuses the Qu'ran of casting into local traditions for stories--- but what did the Bible do? The flood is found in both Greek mythology and its predecessor Gilgamesh of Babylonian fame. The council of Nicea altered the entire religion to compete with Roman legends, including borrowing symbols from the older gods; for the longest time I couldn't figure out why Apollo was depicted with a cirle of light behind his head as I had seen on Jesus in churches! We give gifts at Christmas time because there had to be a holiday to compete with Saturnalia, which in turn had been derived from an even more ancient Egyptian celebration.
And talk about the uncertainty of oral tradition-- the Bible tells stories from around the time writing was invented, although out first we could do little but count and keep records. Very few stories were recorded, and those that were would be of Babylonian tales, like Gilgamesh. The stories depicted in the Old Testament would have had to been passed orally for centuries or made up entirely.

""In conclusion, while we can concede that the [Bible] is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the [Christians] simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the [Bible] carries numerous inconsistencies* with the former scriptures,
while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by [Christians] are simply not adequate as a proof for the [Bible's]
authenticity.""
Sorry to copy/paste ;)

*many,but not nearly all, of these have been discussed previously in relation to Angela B.

And to all:

While I was reading Asimov's Guide to the Bible when I found a genesis quote-- 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat..." God's request of Adam in watching the garden (why he put the damn tree there in the first place...?). Yet as Angela B. points out in many of her posts, without religion to guide us the world is a moral-less place. We can also look at the shame cultures of East Asia where 'evil' is a foreign import (benedict, 'The Crysanthemum and the Sword'). Without religion, there would be no good or evil, so what was God really saying....?
_____________________________________
=D DeeTee

Soya John,

If only all the warmongering Sunnis, Shiites, al-Qaeda, Taliban and Assassins would start practicing The "Obfusing" Now Just "Jist" rule of reforming Islam by ignoring Suras that are not practical in contemporary practice !!!!!!!

"Jist" hopefully will rapidly promulgate her reformed Islam so the "practical" bloodshedding will stop.

ghostbuster,
Thank you for aiding the Pagan. I am sure she apreciated it, even if she did not acknowledge it.

Angela came on with the view we were in need to be put in our place by having the Constitution read like Her view of Her god. Which may be Huck's view of God. She did not even like the liberal Christians or those not of her own persuasion in faith.

It's true this is On Faith...not just Certain People's Christian Faith. You know there are dissagreements on forums, and when there are debates and contreversies about faith, it is apt to get heated. But this forum is a walk in the park compaired to a political forum. Now that gets heated. Anyone that can not take this heat, better stay off of the boards. lol.

We are pretty ok with people's opinions here...until they start getting pushy and bigoted. I think we all are rather good natured and I like these folks...even those who give Pagans a hard time.
terra

Hi Ghostbuster,
Yes, it was a bit lopsided with Angela B. today - more so than on most threads; but then she chose to post on a thread written by an atheist, so knew what she was in for (or should have). It's not her first time on such a thread.

As for what happened to dialogue, most of us have learned in the year+ that On Faith has been around that there is no possible real dialogue with fundamentalists.

I have tried, really hard, on some threads to be calm and reasonable and to just present the facts, but their response is the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"

They will ask questions, but not respond to the answers, and they refuse to answer, or even acknowledge, the questions that we ask them.

So yes, occasionally we savage them en masse. They do the same to us, and worse, whenever they get the chance. Reference nearly anything posted by Spiderman2 or Canyon Shearer.

You won't find the same thing with those who hold more mainstream religious views, I don't think. Mostly the conversations with them are just friendly debate - hopefully an enjoyable exercise for both sides. I've learned things from them - I hope they have from me.

With the YECs and other fundamentalists, it's not really anger, more like frustration - and, to be quite honest, some disdain. It's hard for me to imagine that level of gullibility - to the point where your mind is so closed that you won't even allow yourself to be exposed to the ideas of the other side, let alone consider them. But there it is.

Hi, Ghostbuster - speaking for myself, I'm interested in knowing more about how someone like Angela B thinks.

Also, please consider, this whole enterprise is voluntary. Anyone can come and go as they like. It was Angela's choice to be such an active participant in the conversation.

Moderate - yes, Q is speculative. It's a hypothesis, not a myth. What is not speculative is that the gospels were not written by guys named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Biblical scholars have determined that the gospel writers are anonymous and are not contemporaries of Jesus.

The Moderate,
I read some where that the early church fathers named the four books..that they really did not know who wrote them. That when they were going through the books to put together for the Bible, that though lost of books were not added, they had to name those that were.

terra

Hi Jihadist from Malaysia!

Reforming Islam by ignoring Suras that is not practical in contemporary practice is absolutely BRILLIANT! I think you should cut and paste that comment as often, if not oftener than CCNL!

Best wishes
Soja from Sydney, Australia

Oh Obfuscating Jihadist or is it now just "Jist"?,

And you are Sunni or Shiite? Never do answer that one!!!! Or a member of one of the other cults, like the "Wannabees", Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or the infamous Assassins??

Hmmm, and you noted: "We are taking a simpler approach. Ignore Suras that are impractical in "contemporary life" i.e. you are skipping all the Suras plagiarized by Mo's scribes and all the militaristic ones and those borrowed from the "Prude Paul"????? If you did this only the front page would be left in your personal koran in a contemporay "Jist" grouping.

And indeed the Christians in the free world are being Crossanized. Islamics like yourself could also be "Crossanized/historically "deflawed" in a similar vein but hey with nothing left in your book, there is now no need in your case.

And don't forget to watch John Fogerty and his Creedence Clearwater band "live in concert" on the HD Channel. Way beyond the magic of iPods!!!! Hmmm, now the imams would not block Creedence Clearwater would they????

Dear Mr. Mark:

No hard evidence for Q exists. It is a scholarly myth, though perhaps an intellectually interesting one.

It may be that Mark and Matthew agree because they traveled together during the life of Jesus their Rabbi, and communicated thereafter.

Luke himself tells us that he interviewed the eye witnesses among others, possibly including Mark and Matthew, to set down an orderly account. Luke also traveled with Paul who worked with corresponded with, and knew the others.

No surprise that all these people talking together, and probably exchanging correspondence, wrote broadly similar though significantly different accounts.

This post is not all inclusive, but if the shoe fits... :)

If you all keep banging all your pots... you won't have any pots left.

All these rational folk including some who call themselves "christians" can't handle a fundamentalist posting her point of view? Why? So what? Is one person, who certainly isn't a scholar by any means, posting her opinion that much of a threat? What is the motto here? If you can't beat her, attack with 10 different people from all sides until she leaves the site? The thing I don't get is that most of you can beat Angela B. but instead you choose to humiliate and demean her... Oh yea here comes the excuse, "she said such and such to me, so that makes my response OK".

This is "on faith", right? Not "on insecurity". What happened to dialogue?

I got hooked on forum boards about 5 years ago. There were a bunch of jerk "christians" lighting up a pagan lady from all sides kinda like you all were doing above. I stuck around to defend her and her friends and ended up staying on the boards. You know, she didn't say one nice word about my faith for about a year but I didn't bother correcting her or verbally smacking her around with the "truth" (as too many do) until she saw things my way. That was her paradigm. She still doesn't see things as I do despite me doing some stuff for her that none of you would even believe, and that's OK. One can believe what one wants to believe or not believe. Anyways, here I am 5 years later watching the same futility, week after week... Life is too short to carry around so much anger folks.

Maybe this will sink in with somebody. One can only try.

-the ghost in the darkness.

Mr. Mark and Arminius,

Thanks for the elaboration on the Q thing.

Now I understand the Angela B thing in relation to the Q thing.

And yes, Jimi Hendrix's cover of Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" is one even Dylan like. A cover that's better than the original.

Got to get off now and go market by market, zone by zone.

Thanks and regards
"J"

Athena: "Look, I'm doing an impersonation of CCNL and copying-and-pasting from one of my posts in another section!"

It's all right, as long as what you post is accurate.

Pam;

I'm pretty sure that Angela B is the David T you spent some time talking with yesterday.(On Susan's previous blog)
The way he monopolized the discussion as Angela B,is
the same way he monopolized the previous discussion as David T.
Just thought I'd mention it.

Look, I'm doing an impersonation of CCNL and copying-and-pasting from one of my posts in another section!

Stripped of the theological arguments, the question of a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion is this:

1. Does the Federal or State government have a vested interest in making sure that every blastocyst that is conceived becomes a healthy, full-term infant?

2. If the answer is yes, the Government then has an obligation to ensure a positive outcome - a healthy, full-term infant. This means:
- mandated pre-natal care for all pregnant women, regardless of economic status;
- monitoring of women so that they do not attempt to solicit an illegal abortion or try an herbal abortifacient;
- monitoring of all pregnant women to ensure that they do not smoke, drink, have too much caffeine, and take their pre-natal vitamins;
- government investigation of any miscarriage for signs of an illegal abortion;
- prosecution of any woman suspected of receiving or soliciting an illegal abortion;
- felony prosecution of doctors performing abortions, including the death penalty where applicable;
- expanded foster care for infants that were brought to term, but later abandoned;
- expanded health care, Medicaid, and SCHIP to ensure the continued health of the former fetus;
- expansion of services for profoundly mental and physically handicapped children and their caregivers;
- special dispensation for women who have ectopic pregnancies (one would hope).

Is this consistent with the "pro-life" position?

Mr. Mark,

Oops.. but thanks for putting it out there anyway. :)

Mr Mark,

You said, "Even more strangely, we park our cars in our driveways and drive our cars on the parkway. ;)"

Er, um.... just did what you mean? Your sarcasm escapes me, alas.

I noticed Angela mentioned the 'magnificent eye'.. and I have to go with Julia Sweeney on this one. She heard that too and did some research. Turns out that the eye is designed like a video camera is.. with all the cables piled directly on top of the lens.

I have to agree. If my eyes were so darned magnificent I wouldn't have needed glasses almost as soon as I exited the womb.

The thing that people often say about the idea of the creator is basically 'isn't it a miracle how we're so perfectly designed and how all the systems fit together?'

I take the opposite tack and basically say the 'miracle' lies in our being alive, conscious and able to do the things we do and live as long as we do in SPITE of our design.

I heard a show on the radio this week about 'tiktaalik roseae' (not sure of spelling). Really neat fossils that are the one of the first finds of a critter that's somewhere between fish and land animals. Discovered in 04, i think, in the Arctic circle. It's really awesome stuff. Google 'Dr. Neil Shubin' and see what you find.

Dear Priver -

Thanks for the comment, but the quote that you cited from my post wasn't by me, but came from a new book by John Allen Paulos.

Arminius writes:

"in America, steam locomotives are 'she'. Diesel locomotives are all 'it'. "

Even more strangely, we park our cars in our driveways and drive our cars on the parkway. ;)

Hi, Jihadist,

Yes, the 'Q' source is the theorized Sayings of Jesus, which appears primarily in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

As for CCR - Yeah, they rock! 'Susie Q' was one of the most glorious covers of all time. Ranks (almost!) up there with Hendrix's cover of Dillon's 'All Along the Watchtower'. Even Dillon admitted that it was better than his version.

As we say here in the South, 'YEE-HAH!'

Arminius

I missed this great thread. Darn that work schedule..

Mr. Mark, I really liked this when you said:

"The uncaused first cause needn’t have any traditional God-like qualities. It’s simply first, and as we know from other realms, being first doesn’t mean being best. No one brags about still using the first personal computers to come on the market. Even if the first cause existed, it might simply be a brute fact — or even worse, an actual brute."

I got this really odd double image.. one of a child being reprimanded for playing with matches..

and images of the first giant room sized computer with alarms going off at every turn and people-like dieties running around panicked everywhere and some Uberdeity coming in and saying 'WHAT DID YOU DO?'

.. thanks for the chuckle. :)

MMA Terra, Arminius, all..

Terra when you said 'Does god have DNA?' it reminded me of the old Dana Carvey standup thing where his kid, really young at the time, came up to him and asked 'Does God have feet?' and he didn't know what to say and told him 'yes.. and they're really really big. ' :P

Dear Jihadist -

Unless you have an understanding of Biblical sources and the derivation of the 4 Gospels, my post didn't make much sense.

The "Q" document is a lost document that may have served as the primary source for the writing of at least two of the Gospels. The Q comes from the German word, "Quelle," which means, "source."

Mark was the first gospel written. It is clearly an allegorical fiction (a popular form of religious writing at the time) that was not meant to be taken as the biography of a living being. In today's world, we'd called it a historic fiction or novel, like Gone With the Wind.

Matthew and Luke were for the large part (and quite obviously) based on Mark. These Gospels attempt to turn the imaginary allegorical god of Mark into a living, breathing person. They do this by referencing a second source that is common to both Matthew and Luke, and that second source (in addition to Mark) is called the Q Document. The Q document is long lost, but its influence on the writing of Matthew and Luke is still seen clearly.

These three gospels together are called the Synoptic Gospels as they purport to tell the life story of Jesus. Even though Matthew & Luke are based on Mark, they can't seem to agree on major details in the life of the godman, including the year of his birth. Mark doesn't even present a birth story for Jesus. The idea may have come from the Q.

John is an attempt to retro fit OT prophecies to support the story of Jesus told in Matthew and Luke - not very successfully and seldom by quoting actual OT prophecies.

Hope that helps explain where I was going with the Q references.

Arminius

Thanks for clarifying on the Q thing. I have no idea what Mr. Mark was talking about.

Creedence Clearwater Revival? Ah yes. The fellows who wrote and sang "Bad Moon Rising", "Fortunate Son" and "Proud Mary" etc. Great band, classic songs, and sound timeless. I'll have to dig out their greatest hits album. "Susie Q" is one of their rare cover versions no?

--------------------------------------------------

Yo! Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

How are you pussycat?

Don't forget the 24/7 sectarian conflict in Iraq is said to be a war between "good and evil", between "oil and no oil", between the "death throes" or "birth pangs" of a New Middle East to "secure the realm" for the "homeland."

"Deflaw" the Qur'an? Nahh....we don't want to confuse people with hundreds of versions of the Qur'an. We are taking a simpler approach. Ignore Suras that are impractical in "contemporary life".

How many are going for the Five Steps Programme of the Crossanization of America?

Jihadist,

Well, I'm not convinced that we have been too hard on Angela. Yes, she has speaks the truth as she sees it, and that is good. But she speaks from somewhere that is very opposed to what I believe. I claim to be Christian, so does she, and neither one of us can approach the other's position. And here you are, Moslem, teaching us compassion. I think that both Angela and I should pay very strict attention. Thank you.

As to God as He or She or whatever. Yes, ships are named 'she'. Interestingly enough, in America, steam locomotives are 'she'. Diesel locomotives are all 'it'. Humanity has created two things which are pretty much alive. One is the ship, especially the sailing ship. The other is the steam locomotive. Ever stood beside an operating steamer? It BREATHES, it has a HEARTBEAT. To drive one is an art form, more that a skill.

Oh, well. Forgive an old man who is... nostalgic?

Arminius

Jihadist asks:
"Are we not "ragging" Angela B a bit far on her use of "his" and "HE" to refer to God? "

No, I don't think so. She began emphasizing it after one poster asked her a question, putting a question mark in parentheses after every gender specific mention of God. She clearly meant to let us know that because he's a "he" in the babble, that's what she believes to be true (or TRUTH). So, I think my question is a fair one.

Wiccan, dear Lady!

Hey, I am with you and your friends. And the Celtic Fury is not far below the surface. If anyone goes against me and my family and friends, then out it comes. Works against me sometimes....

Oh, Lord, I have not duked it out with Canyon for some time. Got to look up that benighted dude, I guess. Where's he at?

With respect and God's love,

Arminius

Pam,

Are we not "ragging" Angela B a bit far on her use of "his" and "HE" to refer to God?

We call ships and planes "she". As far as I know, ships and planes have no vaginas.

It is your English language. Your mother tongue. And we are not even going into French yet on gender specific references to things.

Angela B. Come back!
Please forgive us.
We are being petty and small-minded.

Seattle: "I'm curious what beliefs liberal Christians would have that are inconsistent with Christianity"

Could you be more clear? Liberal Christians are part of "Christianity."

Many liberal Christians don't necessarily subscribe to all the stuff in the creed that they stand up and say they believe (e.g. virgin birth, resurrection, ascension) but it's no big deal. They don't really have to. No one demands it and it's not something that's talked about much. Some people stay quiet through the creed. Others mumble over stuff they don't believe.

I was welcomed, even urged, to stay in the church when I said I no longer believed.

CCNL,

So touching to realize that you still have the hots for Jihadist.

Arminius, dear Arminius! (hugs) Thanks for watching our backs. It's hard to hold back when that Celtic sense of rightness is outraged, isn't it? ;-)

Canyon is on at least two other threads, pushing people away from Jesus, just as Luke (I think it was Luke) said. How people who count on you roasting in flames for eternity can call others mean-spirited is beyond me. I have a burn scar on my right forearm that I got when I was eight. The damn thing still hurts. I couldn't put that hurt on anything else.

Thankfully, Ole Huck shot his campaign in the foot when he made that statement. But you have Romney who failed the religion test, McCain, who kissed the fundies' butts, Hillary, who is too polarizing, and Obama, who has great potential but is still wet behind the ears. God(dess) Bless America!

Jihadist,

Watch out about 'Q'. You want to hear the truth about 'Susie Q'? Listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival's version. They truly made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I'm listening to it right now. A musical triumph.

As to 'Q', the source. A non-provable source of the Gospels, accepted because it makes sense.

Keep 'em coming, Lady.

Arminius

Hello there "Obfusing" Jihadist,

Who needs the fictional Freddy Krueger or Jack Nicholson's fictional characters to scare us and our kids when we have the real 24/7 blood feud between the Sunnis and the Shiites with their suicide bombings, maimings, beheadings, stonings, and mass executions????????? Throw in Islam's favorite hero, OBL, and you have an unrivaled Islamic, koranic-driven fear and scare machine!!!!!

And how goes the "Deflawing"?? You apparently know how to "deflaw" "Preacher Huck's" recent comments and Christianity and democracy and capitalism, considering your last 100 postings but still you have no time to "deflaw" severely flawed Islam????

And again your commentary on the following review and conclusions about the koran?

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/quran9tc.htm by Joseph Smith (apparently not related to the "Mormon-con")

"In conclusion, while we can concede that the Qur'an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the Qur'an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur'an's authenticity.

When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur'an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.

It stands to reason that those whose responsibility it was to compile a "holy book" which could compete with the existing scriptures, would naturally turn to the myths and legends of the surrounding civilizations and borrow many of their stories. Due to the predominance of oral tradition in the 7th-9th centuries one can understand how many of the stories became embellished and distorted over time. It is these corrupted stories that we find all through the Qur'an, many of which were adapted from 2nd century Talmudic literature, which was popular amongst the Jews of that area. Consequently it is the glaring similarities which we find between the Qur'an and these errant sources which nullifies the claim that the Qur'an could hope to be the true Word of God. "

That looks a lot like:

Mohammed was an illiterate, lusting, greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "pretty and ugly thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

I often wondered how Jesus got the neccessary chomosome. Does god have DNA?

terra

Pam,

:~)

I'm afraid that Angela B. has left the building. Too bad. I really wanted to ask her why she twice emphasized that god was a "he", as in this quote:

"First, I believe the bible to be God's word written by his prophets and HE'S not a Christian God; He's the Holy, Sovreign Lord (GOD ALMIGHTY).."

Does God have sex organs? What does he use them for?

"As far as the Q monikers..."

Q as in the michievous imp in Star Trek the Next Generation teasing and taunting Captain Picard with his superpower?

Q as in Susie Q that old rock song?

Q as in Maggie Q that actress in Die Hard 4.0?

Q as in quo vadis, where are you going with Q monikers?

.....and, anyone here can say I am blasphemous, hate-filled and sin-loving.

Blaspheming, hate-filled, sin-loving people have more vile.

crewsin,

Well...lol. ok...I want MY scripture made the law of the land. Mine.
So why is your's special? because you have a book? How about the Jews? they may want their laws to be the law of the land...or how about the Mormons? Or the Buddhists? they are Citizens also.

I think slavery is more like being forced to give birth...just like the white owners would force a black man and women to have a child for the gain of their master. Being given choice is anti slavery.Personal liberty, which is what the Lady in the harbor represents, is only good when it is personal liberty YOU agree with. No, personal decisions should not be a national debate..it should be personal, for I do not walk in that persons shoes and do not know her life.

And I betya you don't holler about capital punishment being murder.

A drunk hetrosexual can marry another drunk hetrosexual and wake up to call a lawyer to make it go away...and that is fine. BUt two men can be together for 50 years and that is wrong? Nonsence. If the chuch does not want to give that union their blessing, that is up to the chuch...but there are those churches that will consecrate the bond..and it is none of your business.
terra

Regarding liberal or conservative xtianity and politics...

"Liberal" xtians have realized that G-d is neither a democrat nor republican and have decided to start living their faith out instead of just stumping about it. This means going out into the streets, loving our neighbors, doing something about poverty and the oppressed, and remembering that there is no "us" and "them" because the historical Jesus we rediscovered lived and loved all, not just the elite country club that now meets once a week. We need to live NOW instead of for the hereafter -- that is what the Kingdom of G-d is about, what Christ taught of, not some fru-fru golden streeted paradise in the clouds. (And he wasn't white or protestant... remember this, Angela.)

We don't fit in with our liberal friends because we are too conservative -- we still have faith in an unbelievable Being and are outspoken about it -- and we are too radical for our conservative friends -- we have quit tailoring the Bible to fit narrow viewpoints and are accepting of others despite what may be considered "failings". And we never quit learning and uncovering new facets of life.

Conversion by concussion doesn't work. Angela. Huckabee.

Theocracy only brings ruin and despair and death and ignorance. We've seen it before. Are we [xtians] trying to convince ourselves that G-d is on OUR side, or that we are on G-D'S side?

This is why the Founding Fathers wrote that no law should dictate a universal religion and I am all for that. Even if I have faith or a difference of opinion. I don't want to see loss of human life or rights over what someone else sees as right -- someone else trying to play god. Human life and freedoms are sacred.

Shalom.

To CB:(from Angela)

Their God doesn't exist: it's just a figment of their imagination.

Is this statement not supreme arrogance? To dismiss the beliefs of a huge percentage of the population by saying their belief in Buddha, Yahweh, Allah, etc is a figment of their imagination can be seen in no other way than as a dangerous self-conceit.

You did not answer my questions Angela. Your answer SCREAMED what can only be considered the arrogance of I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!! MINE IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE GOD AND DAMN ALL OTHERS AND THEIR BELIEVERS TO THE FIERY GATES OF HELL.

No Angela you did not answer my question, you only regurgitated the same old pablum of your original posts. You quote the O.T. when it suits you, as in an earlier post when you talked about plucking the eye of one who covets another spouse, or when you justify your bigotry towards gays, but you disavow it when it no longer suits your purpose. A very convenient tact, but transparent. You harp on abortion and gay marriage but not once in this thread do you condemn the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in an unjust war by a president with a hot-line to the almighty. I haven't heard your thoughts on the 5 million dead in the Congo. I'd like to hear about how you would deal with millions upon millions of children who would be born if the draconian edicts against birth control were followed. How you would deal with the misery of the children born into the world unwanted and uncared for. Maybe they can starve like hundreds of thousands that already are because they can't be cared for or who's parents don't want to care for them.

How do you justify support for a man who when asked if he was soft on crime reveled in the fact that his administration oversaw the largest number of executions of any other administration in Arkansas history. That was something to be very proud of wasn't it.

No Angela you have not answered.

CB

Crewsin - Because amending the Constitution is very difficult to do. It requires three quarters of the States, plus a supermajority of Congress, to do it. Considering that the Equal Rights Amendment failed, I seriously doubt that you and your ilk will pull together the needed supermajorities to change the Constitution. That is, unless Ayatollah Huckabee decides to declare us a theocratic dictatorship once he gets into office.

This is what happens when we stop teaching American Government in schools.

Actually Mr. Hucklebee has a valid point. Why not amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion (murder) in all the states. He equates this issue to slavery as a moral injustice requiring a national response. If he can muster support to pass an amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman--go for it. All these issues are rooted in Scripture. To bring the laws of the land into conformity with God's laws certainly is praiseworthy. The trouble with liberals is they cannot believe that Scripture is God's word and one might add--the last word on issues of human conduct.

Oh Arminius, I just have had the experience of being on forum that was filled with neo con, far right &^**('s. LOL> )I learned the hard way to stay cool and know that they were just wrong. lol.

Seriously. I was there trying to answer every barb that was thrown and getting angry and frustrated. I became an angry hateful old biotch. Really. It's hard to constantly be giving your reasons for your political beliefs and not understanding why they just were not getting it.

I left that site and visit it in a blue moon. The last time I was called some pretty vile things so I do not go back.

We are not like that at all. But if you are not used to forums this might seem pretty hard. I am not all that compassionate..I just remember my experiences.
terra

E Favorite -

I'm curious what beliefs liberal Christians would have that are inconsistent with Christianity?

Seattle

Jihadist,
You are in fine form. Kudos!

Terra,
Your compassion humbles me.

Arminius

Angela,

You say "Blashpemous, Hate-Filled, Sin Loving People.." and I've been following this thread off and on all day. Here's my chance to say my piece:

I'm not hate-filled, nor am I blasphemous, but hearing someone I don't even know assume to know me and, in fact, condemn me does make me very, very angry. And, to do so based merely on my lack of belief....

Unfortunately, this is all too common and is MY main beef with believers.

If you want to discuss theology - fine. Discuss theology. I'll listen. I'm even open to believing some of what you believe, as well as hearing and perhaps believing what other on the thread believe.

While I would never be able to see the World in such black and white terms as you do, there is a place in human understanding for belief in a "God". Its the un-endless intolerance of many of the believers that makes me want to RUN to the agnostic camp.

CB: To answer your questions: Yes, the Holy Bible is the infalliable word of God written for HIS people to know who He is and it doesn't change because we change. We as earthly beings, want to change God's word but all through scripture, it states: I CHANGE NOT: Also, all of what you speak about in your 2nd paragraph was in the Old Testament Moses was setting up God standards of how the nation of Israel would live and because as I stated we're all sinful from birth, we were separated from God. we are evil,wicked creations in God's sight (not me saying; that's what the BIBLE STATES). We are born sinful. Ever tell a child, don't touch that; what do they do; they touch it! Sinful at birth...We lie, steal, covet, dishonor our parents. This world doesn't want to believe these things because we would all be accountable to the Creator which if you believe it or not, WE ARE ALL ACCOUNTABLE. We want to dum down God's law instead raise our human and surrender and up our standards to God standards. Each year, the priests would sacrific lambs as atonement for all the sins of the people. When Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins, He became the lamb once and for all. For those who would put their faith and trust in Him, repent from their sinfulness and they would be cleared of their punishment which is the same for someone who's committed a crime and has to pay for the crime with either jail time or a fine; WELL, HE (JESUS AND ONLY HE) PAID THE PRICE IN FULL FOR THOSE WHO WOULD BELIEVE. SO THERE'S NO STONING WOMEN ANYMORE (READ ABOUT THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN IN ANY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT) AND NO SACRIFICIING CHILDREN, OR ANY OF THE THINGS YOU DESCRIBED IN PARAGRARPH AS WE before we come to Christ I am far from arrogant; each day I have to humble myself and submit to God when His word says; love your enemies, bless those who curse you; turn the other cheek. It not my Word: it's The Sovereign Lord; DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

opps..
I guess Angela left. It's a shame that she left...We really are not mean and cruel. I think even the ones that test our patience..(no names mentioned)are wonderful for the thinking we have to do. It is no fun to have all the same opinions. I like the back and forth, I like pulling reason and faith up and useing both for an argument.

Angela, I know you were frustrated with us...there are alot of us and only one of you. I have been there before and I know the feeling of being surrounded. I am sorry.

I had to learn to not take it personal..and certainly not against my gods.They can take it.

I think it was Eleanor Roosevelt said:
You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do.

So if you read this come back and fight for your faith but see in our words our truths also.

Blessed be,
terra

Russell D :)

You blasphemous twit, you! You've sinned! Repent! Atone! Or be damned and burn in hell for all eternity!

You : Use the Bible as a leg for broken couch.

Moi : Now you are giving me ideas. Should I use Dawkin's, or Dennett's, or Hitchen's or Harris' books as a leg for a broken couch (appropriate ones according to thickness), as coasters for my iced tea, as weapons to swat coachroaches, flies, mosquitos etc?

You : Read the Bible as a collection of ghost stories to scare the kids.

Moi : My dear fellow! Surely the kids are more scared of Jack Nicoloson in "The Shining" and Freddie Krueger in "Nightmare on Elm Street" series and Jason in "Halloween" series. You are missing all that sex and violence! All those delicious, tittilating, scintillating and instructive stories related to the Seven Deadly Sins in the Bible! Afraid of sex, violence and sins, eh? What to do.

You : And lastly, get stoned before reading the Good Book, it makes more sense.

Moi : What! Non-believers have no imagination and have to get stoned to get it? It will take a ton of coke and seven tons of the weed, whichever the personal preference is, to get high and going and gone.

I'm having manna here. Stop munching those popcorns. Want some of these manna? They really are heavenly.

Regards
"J"

Thanks you A. Thorn. Angela, still waiting for that answer.

"I'm curious why liberal Christianity doesn't have a stronger voice in politics?"

Other possibilities: they’re embarrassed by the fundie’s shenanigans and just want to distance themselves and hope it all goes away. Also, if they thought about it too much, they’d be forced to examine some of their own beliefs, which they’d rather not do, lest they get confused and be forced to consider that they don’t make so much sense. They prefer the pleasant feeling they get going to church and hanging with all their lovely, open-minded liberal Christian friends. I say this as a former liberal Christian.

Arminus also has a point: “We [liberal Christians] might march in gay rights demonstrations, or help the homeless, or the addicted, or help recent immigrants (regardless of legal status) to survive.”

Just another example of how much liberal Christians have in common with atheists!

Angela B- Thanks – you did answer my question.

Russell B – I’ve missed you.

Dear Meg -

I am the first Mark to have appeared at On Faith. All other Mark monikers are based on me. In fact, all of the Matthew, Luke and John monikers are also based on me.

As far as the Q monikers...

Arminus:

Sorry about probably overreacting myself. Just didn't want you attacking Angela for something she didn't say, just as much as I would do the same for anyone here. I know your intention was honorable, I just didn't want people attributing something to Angela that she didn't say.

After all, I have enough complaints about what Angela says to start complaining about stuff she didn't.

-A Thorn.

MARK:
**lep,
Actually, that is not true. Considering there is only one God, the God of the bible, what she is doing is blasphemy! She is mocking and ridiculing the God of the universe, therefore it doesn't matter whether she believes in Him or not.**

It's blasphemy to you because you believe that your deity is the One-and-Only God-of-the-Universe. It isn't blasphemy to me because I don't believe that your deity is the OAOGOTU. In fact, I don't believe that my deities are the only ones. My path is one valid path among many valid paths, even though it is the only path that works for me.

MARK again:
**And your right, I would be upset if an atheist was trying to change the constitution to fit his/her beliefs! We are a nation that should be founded upon God, the God of the Bible! Anything else would go against His word and what he has for us.**

This is not a nation founded on any deity, m'ijo. We have a secular government, not a religious one.

Terra,

Yes, no matter what the name of God, we stand together.

Arminius

Angela:

"If you're a Christian; they're no grey; the Bible is black and white; not relative or pragmatic; "

Then again, answer CB's questions. If the Bible is black and white, then how come you can pick certain parts and agree with them, and pick others to disagree with or say that we've moved beyond.

Daniel R. Sharp,

I'm sorry; that wasn't intended for you but if you claim to believe something then believe; there are some who profess to be Christians but as quoted: by their frutit you shall know them; they have one foot in Christ and one foot in the world; which is the definition of a false convert. If you're a Christian; they're no grey; the Bible is black and white; not relative or pragmatic; Those on this post know who they are; What am I accomplishing speaking on this website; people cannot dialog without getting abusive and cruel; I'm a Christian and I believe what I believe and I always expect to be mocked for it but how can you speak with someone or dialogue when it becomes personal. I'd rather not...

Arminius,
I am so flattered that you would stand up for me and my co religionists. We are your friends truly.
May the God of love and peace (no matter what the name) bless you...

And as a Celtic/Turkish/Roman/Brit...thank you.
terra

Angela B

I am not mean and cruel; I am not a false convert; I am not a hypocrite; I am not blasehemous; I am not hate-filled; I am not sin-loving.

Why would you say all those mean things, I wonder?

Angela,

Once again I must ask. Is the bible an infallible record written by a Christian god, open to no interpretation other than the literal and subject to no deviation?

If so, and you have every right to believe this, then you must advocate the smiting and death of adulterers, homosexuals, tax-collectors, etc. You certainly must agree with with cutting of the hand of thieves or plucking out the eyes of those who would covet anothers wife or husband. You must certainly believe in capital punishment (look at Gomorrah) for the god of the bible is a vengeful god.

If you can justify some deviation in the edicts of the bible due to an evolving culture, but presume to a rigid interpretation of others, you can only be exposed for your own prejudices and biases hiding behind the veil of religiosity. You can not be so arrogant as to believe it is only you who know what can and should be changed in the bible, what is and is not infallible in the teachings of the bible. Are you really so supreme in your knowledge and conviction as to believe you and other fundamentalists are the true arbitragers of the writings of the bible?

Angela- Also, Tommy O; thank you but you nor scientists haven't proved the "Big Bang" Theory; REMEMBER: IT'S A THEORY. HAVE A GREAT EVENING AND AS ALWAYS THIS EXCHANGE HAS BEEN INTERESTING!

Angela, in science the word Theory is defined as- a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge.

Hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested.
And the Big Bang Theory has been tested. The only thing they have not been able to know is what caused the big bang or what was before it.

In Greek Myth it says that before the Meeting of Gaea=form and Chaos=Space there was nothing...when Gaea and Chaos met Chronus was born..Chaos=time. So in this myth it says there was nothing before Time. But then it is just a myth.
terra

Mr Mark

For one weird moment I thought that was you writing as plain Mark,I read it my eyebrows on top of my head,then realized it was someone else,a different Mark.
Phew! I thought we'd lost you there for a moment.

Mark:

"And your right, I would be upset if an atheist was trying to change the constitution to fit his/her beliefs! We are a nation that should be founded upon God, the God of the Bible! Anything else would go against His word and what he has for us."

NO, NO, NO! That is exactly what this country is NOT, and NEVER SHOULD BE! There is a very exact reason why this country ISN'T founded upon the God of the Bible. The founders didn't want that. That is what people in this thread, and in others, have been trying to show people like you.

If you want to believe in God, that's fine. But it should NEVER be written into law as such.

a. thorn,
No, I agree with you that it is made into a bigger deal because he is in the spotlight! I was merely just trying to point out the popularity that is found today in ridculing religious people, particular evangelicals! I just felt like she could be using her artistic freedom to do something other than use her space to write blasphemy!
And your right, I would be upset if an atheist was trying to change the constitution to fit his/her beliefs! We are a nation that should be founded upon God, the God of the Bible! Anything else would go against His word and what he has for us.

Angela and others,

If I overly reacted to the comment about 'the Church of Satan', I apologize. But I took it to be a slam on a friend.

Arminius

Uh oh......I think somebody made Angela mad.

Bad posters, BAD!

One thing I learned today is that you guys are mean and cruel and for those who call yourselves Liberal Christians; you are false converts,hippocrites! This will be the last time you see me on this website; May God Have Mercy on Your Souls. Blashpemous, Hate-Filled, Sin Loving People...

Mark:

"Just wanted to let you know that this was the most idiotic article I have ever written. That's great, let's make fun of a man's faith! I mean everyone else is doing, so why not you, the author? Or you could have some integrity as an author and write something intelligent! Instead, you added to all the abuse that is being piled upon religious people. I am actually sad for you, because in fact, there is a God, and what you have done is called blasphemy!"

If this man wasn't running for leadership of this country, it probably would have been passed over with a small article ten pages in.

However, when this person is asking for people to vote him into a position where he is supposed to uphold the Constitution, then I think it is right that we are allowed to comment on it.

Or, let me put it another way: If there was a Pagan candidate that said that he/she wanted to change the Constitution to further follow his/her beliefs, would you say that they have a right to their beliefs, or would you be just as critical as some of us are being of that statement?

lep,
Actually, that is not true. Considering there is only one God, the God of the bible, what she is doing is blasphemy! She is mocking and ridiculing the God of the universe, therefore it doesn't matter whether she believes in Him or not.

Meg;
You say;
"I hate to break it too you but there's a million of them,they're everywhere.They say the same thing in the same way over and over and over.They only seem like the same guy with a different name.But it's probably a completely different person who just sounds so robotically similar to the other guy that your suspicions are immediately aroused.
Relax.It's just another one off the assembly line."

I say,Meg you are hilarious! I fell off my chair laughing hysterically.
I'm still giggling.Thanks

Angela B.

3 strikes, you're out!

Three failures to provide an answer to a simple question. I guess the answer to why god is not universally known is the same to why god does not heal amputees: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Keep our Constitution Free of "Foreign Aid"!!!
~~~
Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

Mark:

It's only blasphemy if it's your own god.

Just wanted to let you know that this was the most idiotic article I have ever written. That's great, let's make fun of a man's faith! I mean everyone else is doing, so why not you, the author? Or you could have some integrity as an author and write something intelligent! Instead, you added to all the abuse that is being piled upon religious people. I am actually sad for you, because in fact, there is a God, and what you have done is called blasphemy!

Arminius: What are you talking about; I never said anything to Terra pertaining to her being in the "Church of Satan". He who has eyes but cannot see; He who has ears and doesn't hear. Wow; read before you speak!

Arminus:

Wow, buddy, calm down a bit. She was NOT calling Terra and some of the rest of us the Church of Satan. There really is a Church of Satan out there. They are an actual religion quite separate from Wicca or other pagan religions.

Even Terra, I think, brings them up to make a point.

Mr Mark,

Wow, thanks for the belly laugh! Manna from heaven, I don't think so. I'm gonna cook it! I'm still laughing!

In my thinking, there are two paths to the truth, whatever it is. I embrace both - science/logic/whatever, and the spiritual/religious.

Arminius
(The Madman....)

Angela B,

OK, you have really pissed me off.

Please do NOT insult my dear friend Terra, or her compatriots. Church of Satan? What the HELL gives you the right to say that?!? You cannot, cannot say that you abide by our Lord's teaching if you call them that. You cannot. You, you are the hypocrite, you are the one who denies His teaching.

Terra and her friends are good and gentle people, accepting all, working for the good of God's creation.

You are blind and deaf. God help you.

Arminius
(with all his Celtic fury in full swing.)

Dear Arminius -

Thanks for the comment.

I have no problem with believers like yourself (and Jon Meacham, for that matter) who freely and openly embrace the irrationality of their religious belief. My problem is with those who put stock in arguments that have long been totally refuted.

That said, my acceptance of your irrationality doesn't provide the firmest of foundations for discussion, does it? You have me at a disadvantage, for I can't argue logic with those who covet illogic, nor can I argue facts with those for whom facts are not always a necessary evil. Are you insane? I don't believe so. That is, unless you're counting on manna from heaven to supply tonight's dinner entrée!

;)

Angela:

"Tommy O; thank you but you nor scientists haven't proved the "Big Bang" Theory; REMEMBER: IT'S A THEORY. HAVE A GREAT EVENING AND AS ALWAYS THIS EXCHANGE HAS BEEN INTERESTING!"

Yes, it is a scientific theory, but then again, so is gravity. Yet, I don't see you arguing that one.

Arminius:

Indeed, the Constitution makes no mention of 'all men being created equal'. The Declaration of Independence famously does, of course.

oops...my bad...of course you are right. lol.
Lets say the Constitution implies it..

You know people like Angela are of the opinion that the rest of us are just merely uninformed, that with the good news we would just fall in line and be clones of themselves.

Ahh well...we will fight on and little by little the pendulum will swing the opposite direction. Right now the Unintelligent Designers have the loudest voices...it's now hip to be religious and loud...but the nuanced and reasoned will gain in the end. This I believe...(King and I)
terra

Angela:

Bringing the Constitution into line with your book would have much deeper consequences than simply making homosexual marriage and abortion federal crimes. And for the record, I believe that any consenting adults who wish to be legally married should be able to do so, and that the decision of whether or not to have an abortion is difficult enough as it stands. Nobody I know who has ever had an abortion (including myself) did so on a whim.

Your book has some very harsh things to say about those who practice my religion. It does not recognize the individual's right to practice the religion of his/her choice or to practice no relgionat all. In fact, it calls for the death of those who practice my religion. Would bringing the Constitution into line with the "word of (Huck's and your) God" mean that non-Christian churches and temples would be razed? Would my possession of Goddess statuary and Tarot cards become a federal offense? Would I be subject to arrest for giving Light in public? What about those who practice no religion? Would they be subject to penalty for breaking the commandment to keep the Sabbath?
As it is, there is too much of Christianity (or certain strains of it) in secular law. In the parish adjacent to mine, it's illegal to earn aliving giving Tarot readings, but perfectly legal to make a living as a Christian counselor. Why should only one religion's means of discernment be legal as a basis for spiritual advice?
Until a decade or so ago, it was illegal to purchase any alcoholic beverage on a Sunday. Now you can purchase beer, but not wine or liquor. If I want tequila on a Sunday, why shouldn't I be able to buy it? Restaurants can serve any alcoholic beverage on Sunday, but bars are required to close. It is the enforcement of one religions Sabbath on everyone, regardless of whether or not they practice that religion, and it's unconstitutional. And Huck wants to put MORE Christianity into secular law? Not on my watch.

ANGELA B. writes:
"There no fear in my posts; Love casts out fear!"

Your every post puts the lie to your statement above.

Fear of the world. Fear of knowledge. Fear of secularism. Fear of scientific wisdom. Fear the secularists might be right. Fear that you might be wrong. Fear that accompanies the tremendous guilt you feel every time you truly question your world view. Fear of anything that sits outside of your narrow and ill-informed world view.

Angela's world is a ceaseless, relentless cacophony of fear of the known...and an even greater fear of the unknown. Indeed, based on her posts in this forum, I dare say her faith is itself almost entirely a product of fear.

I hate to break it to you, but the "love" you've hitched your wagon to is being eaten alive by the fear that is stalking every aspect of your being.

Let loose the shackles of tawdry religion! You'll find that your fears were illusory all along.

There's plenty of time to live, freely and fearlessly. Cast off your god of fear and embrace your own humanity!

Angela:

"We are all going to believe what we believe and that's just how it is"

So why do you feel that your beliefs should be codified into law, when they go against someone else's beliefs?

Now, I think that everyone here will agree that there are crimes which should be against the law. Murder, Theft, Rape, etc. are all crimes that have been agreed upon throughout the centuries. These have come from pretty much every culture on earth, even those that have never even heard of God. They all involve damage to another person, and, as such, I think they should be against the law.

However, if someone is doing no harm to another through what they are doing, why should what they do be against the law. I have a few gay friends. I have seen nothing in them that precludes them from being loving husbands to one another than what I see in my straight, married friends. So, what harm would it do to you, or me, to allow them to marry each other? In cases such as this, the only thing that really gets in the way of allowing this, is belief. A religion, such as Christianity, says that it is forbidden, without giving reason.

Now, I know that there would be no harm to me if my homosexual friends were to get married. However, them not being able to get married does cause them harm. They don't have the same rights that straight married couples get. And that can cause them severe problems throughout life. So where, pray tell, do we get the right, based on our Constitution, to deny them these rights?

If the Constitution does not deny them this right, then they should be allowed to get married (at least from a Federal Standpoint, as State Constitutions are all different). And adding in a Constitutional Bias against them seems to go against the spirit of the document itself, and certainly some other amendments. For instance, if you were born 200 years ago, you wouldn't have been able to vote, because you were considered unequal in the eyes of the law. It took an amendment to the Constitution to ensure that you got a vote. It is the same with African Americans. Certainly then, the Constitution has been showing a trend towards inclusion, not exclusion. By saying that Women are the equals of Men, and African Americans are the equals of Whites, but that Gay people aren't equal to straight people, it seems odd that we would be bigoted towards one section of the American Public. Oh, and if you think that marriage isn't the same as voting, remember that there used to be laws preventing slaves from marrying, yet these don't exist anymore.

Mr Mark,

Yes, indeed, the First Cause argument has been totally refuted. As have all the classical 'proofs' of God. (Thomas Aquinas, or Augustine? Someone fill me in...)

Does that matter to a believer? No. Does it matter to this believer, that I believe that God created the Universe? No. The belief comes from outside, and the words written down are only imperfect support. Call me insane, no problem. It is a good and gentle madness.

Arminius

Terra Gazelle,

I'm really not up on all the "Church of Satan" has to say but your definition of them being selfish and self-centered sounds like most of the world and of course, they're alll sorts of folks that are self-seeking, self-glorifying including some "professing" Christians. My belief is also love thy neighbor as thyself, I DO love most of mankind but it doesn't mean I like some of their ways and I'm quite sure you can say that about some people you love unconditionally ALSO. When I hear people say you can't know the will of God: It's called "listening to God's voice" and obeying HIS word and then you'll know HIS will (spiritual discernment). Also, Tommy O; thank you but you nor scientists haven't proved the "Big Bang" Theory; REMEMBER: IT'S A THEORY. HAVE A GREAT EVENING AND AS ALWAYS THIS EXCHANGE HAS BEEN INTERESTING!

Still waiting Angela.

Waldo

I also noticed that Angela B uses some of the exact same phrases as David T. Something they both say is, "...don't rip pages out of the Bible..." That is a pretty striking similarity. And the first name and initial is also along a similar pattern. David T was extremely rude to me, in another thread, so, that is why I had an attitude whenever replying to him. Then he stopped posting and Angela B appeared. I am starting to think "Sybil."

The reason why moderate or liberal Christians do not have a political movement is because we do not have an obsession with Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, morning, noon, and night, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, eat, drink, and sleep Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

Angela B.,

From my simple question as to why your God is not universally known, you have incorrectly deduced that I possess "so much" knowledge about how the world came into existence. Perhaps someone else of your faith can offer an explanation to me.

As a gesture of friendship, I refer you to the following regarding the Big Bang Theory - http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

It appears that faith is belief without, or against reason.

There no fear in my posts; Love casts out fear! Most people believe that Christians walk around in fear of damnation; nope; I live my life the way I do out of Love for my Heavenly Father and for love for HIS creation. I believe what you hear in my words is grief. Grief for lost souls. We are all going to believe what we believe and that's just how it is...Call me what you like!

Angela..there is more to that motto of the satanists..Do what ye wilt will be the whole of the Law. Nothing they use is original...all has been taken from others.

I agree that the Satanists are not my cuppa tea either..they are selfish and totally self centered. But they do not sacrifice little furry critters or young virgins...But in their self centeredness they remind me of many Christians.

And if your Will is to submit to your God's Will...how do you know what that is?

I am always amazed at the people that seem to know the mind of god. I guess I just see a different face of god, and hear a voice that is softer. Mine has more a look of a Grandmother...who says.."We are bond by the law, and the law is love". Momma has unconditional love, no if's, but's or if's.
Thank you for the blessing..
And Goddess Bless you Angela...
terra

AB asks:

"Let me ask you: where do you believe the sun, stars, moon, earth, rivers, rainbows, etc. come from;"

It all comes down to whether or not you believe in a first cause, doesn't it? As mathematician John Allen Paulos writes in his new book, "IRRELIGION - A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up":

“Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t. The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn’t have a cause, it may as well be the physical world.

"The uncaused first cause needn’t have any traditional God-like qualities. It’s simply first, and as we know from other realms, being first doesn’t mean being best. No one brags about still using the first personal computers to come on the market. Even if the first cause existed, it might simply be a brute fact — or even worse, an actual brute.

Of course, these are the kind of arguments that are readily available to anyone free of the fears that religion imposes on its followers

Fears runs rampant through every one of Angela's posts. I wonder if she has ever pondered why that is so.

Anon:

"You are unable to answer my question concerning universal knowledge of your God. As an example, during Captain James Cook's voyages across the South Pacific in the 1700s, wouldn't you expect that he would have encountered a people that shared your faith?"

While not Angela, I would like to address this in a different way. In his voyages, how many monotheistic cultures did he come across. I mean, if there really is only one true God, shouldn't he have revealed himself to at least a few of these cultures?

Seems odd that God only seems to have revealed himself in a very limited geographic area. And then, of course, let people use his 'existence' to maim, enslave, and decimate other cultures.

Still waiting for an answer Angela.

To Tommy O; since you know so much about how the world came into existence; explain the Big Bang theory to me and also explain to me why maybe none of your friends or family are still not apes or have they all evolved. People call "Creation" a farce; believing in evolution is really way out there. Remember hearts and souls have to change before men change! (whether they're scientists, people who are in courtrooms or in Congress)!

Angela B,

You are unable to answer my question concerning universal knowledge of your God. As an example, during Captain James Cook's voyages across the South Pacific in the 1700s, wouldn't you expect that he would have encountered a people that shared your faith?

Waldo;

I hate to break it too you but there's a million of them,they're everywhere.They say the same thing in the same way over and over and over.They only seem like the same guy with a different name.But it's probably a completely different person who just sounds so robotically similar to the other guy that your suspicions are immediately aroused.
Relax.It's just another one off the assembly line.

Angela B,

I think your confusing "will" and "whim" (and I believe it was Terra who clarified this point many topics ago).

Hi, Terra, well met,

Indeed, the Constitution makes no mention of 'all men being created equal'. The Declaration of Independence famously does, of course. But it is not the law of the land. Not to say that it does not still hold - the amendments do that, for sure.

Yes, Angela and her compatriots will stone me, a liberal Christian, for being a heretic.

I commend your stand, and I am with you.

Arminius

Angela:

"To Tommy O; He's my God and yours and everyone elses;"

I'd like you to please back this statement up with something besides 'because I said so.' Your argument is many that Christians use as a last resort method. It's a statement that can't be proven one way or the other, and therefore can't be argued. But, then again, it can't be used as proof for anything either.

"I read some of Einstein's teachings/writings, and have read some writings of such pragmatists as John Dewey and I don't negate scientific information but you also need to know that several of the highly esteemed scientists now call "evolution": INTELLECTUAL DESIGN. Intersting don't you think..."

Not really, especially when it's called 'Intelligent Design,' and has already been thrown out in court for basically being creationism with a twist, and no facts behind it. And, in fact, you do throw out scientific evidence when you used the eye example. As has been shown in this forum before, the eye can have developed through evolution, and there are creatures out there in nature now showing all stages of eye development, right up to our complex system.

"Let me ask you: where do you believe the sun, stars, moon, earth, rivers, rainbows, etc. come from;"

The Big Bang. It needed no God to happened, and Creationists have not proved that a creationer needed to have had a hand in it. Also, those stars and moons and planets are a lot older than your Bible says they are. How do you explain that.

Basically, what people are worried about is someone like you, with no facts behind them other than belief, changing a document which governs their daily lives, based on their own personal feelings. It is not a good way to govern a country, and should not be how we operate. If we are to change the Constitution, it should be a change based on helping everyone, not just one particular group of people. And it certainly shouldn't be changing the Constitution based on one specific religion.

Terra Gazelle,
Just as I have the right to believe and to dialogue with others without hating or being nasty; agreeing to disagree. I really don't get upset but I believe that we all need to see ourselves clearly; morally and the way we treat others. Just to clarify: what I said was the world has a Do As Thou Wilt mentality; i.e., whatever feels good do it! Robbing a bank may feel good to a bank robber but it's against the law; a pedifile may believe it's ok to molest little children but of course, that's not ok either; I believe "Do As Thou Wilt" is the slogan for the "Church of Satan" and there really is a church under that name. In closing, My will is to submit to my Heavenly Father's Will. God Bless You....

Angela,
Down through history marriage has been used for many different things...to bring power into one family, to know who the daddy is, to know who to tax and how much...but marriage never was solely religious, in fact it is rather new that marriage was preformed because of love..it was always political.

I, as Wiccan clergy can marry folks in a Pagan Handfasting...and it is legal. I may not be able to marry gays and lesbians legally in this state(Louisiana) but I can give them a ceremony that celebrates their love and bond with their friends and family. Love is love and trying to make human beings that love abominations is evil.You don't like it.. tough

And you are right, homosexuality is not a race. It is all races, colors, sizes and genders, it is part of nature.
I want to know where in the Constitution it says that All People are created equal...BUT. And I really don't care about your Book (which is what bible means) it is not my book. But the Constitution belongs to all Americans. People have used your Book for hate from it's conception. During the civil rights movement, good White Christians held it up in Congress before they walked out rather to vote for voting rights for blacks.
Your bible has said that the earth is flat and bats were fox with wings...oh and of course the infamous "suffer not a witch to live", as well as maybe hundreds of mistranslations and down right misconceptions. Are you going to kill me...? if Huck gets his way who will throw the first stone?

Will my friends who are Christian be stoned for not thinking like you or the Shyster Huck? Will my daughter who is Christian have to turn me in for honoring the Lady instead of your Lord?

Angela, I under stand that you love your God..I respect that completely..I understand you have beliefs you hold strongly. You have the right to believe Gays are an abomination ...I do not have to respect those beliefgs, I don't..but I do respect your right to believe them. All I ask is the right to be respected for my right to my own faith and my own beliefs. And your religious beliefs have no more right to be the laws of the land as my beliefs do.Less. Your beliefs would take more rights away from American citizens.

At the end of your statement you said Do what you wilt...a misstatement of the Wiccan Rede. An harm none do what ye will. I will give you a wicca 101 on the Rede. First off, what is the Will? It is your inner purpose. And the rede says you can not use your purpose to harm any thing. That if you are doing your true will...that is connected to the Creator, you can not harm anyone.
terra

To Tommy O; He's my God and yours and everyone elses; He allows all to drink freely in the gift of eternal salvation. Let me ask you: where do you believe the sun, stars, moon, earth, rivers, rainbows, etc. come from; do you believe that your eyes that were so magnificently made: were an accident; there's so many ways to search for truth but cynics don't want to know the truth; I wasn't always a Christian; I was raised in the catholic faith, was christened, made my communion and confirmation and didn't know anything really about the Power of God. It's been 4 going on 5 years and each day, by searching arcahooogically, and the study of the Bible's 600 prophecies, I believe without a doubt that the Bible is true. Also, Meg, you don't know me and you obviously don't know my educational background to say that I'm dumb, which is definitely not the case. I read some of Einstein's teachings/writings, and have read some writings of such pragmatists as John Dewey and I don't negate scientific information but you also need to know that several of the highly esteemed scientists now call "evolution": INTELLECTUAL DESIGN. Intersting don't you think...

Angela B wrote:
"Their God doesn't exist: it's just a figment of their imagination."

Well put! And right back at ya!

Why do I have this niggling feeling that
Angela today was David T yesterday and the Moderate
and many other AKA's from time to time.
Maybe its the Cop in me. But jees...its uncanny.

To Angela B,

Just curious:
If your God is "Creator of this Entire World", why are there not documented cases of humankind having independent knowledge of the "Creator” – that is without the benefit(?) of being proselytized?

Angela

I'll give you one good reason to read books by atheists and freethinkers etc...to learn;to seek the truth. What is more important than the truth?
Nothing,in my view,but you may feel otherwise.
Some Christians go on about the TRUTH without ever actually searching for it anywhere but the bible,which is the dumbest place to look,if it's truth you want.
Read widely.Read scientists like Matt Ridley,and Steven Pinker,who will try to explain how we became who we are from a scientific point of view.You don't have to read books by atheists on atheism.
Read Carl Sagan,read Einstein.Read.Learn.Be happy.

For your entertainment:
Here is a YouTube archive of Huckabee on CNN being asked a few questions including what he said about amending the Constitution to God's specifications. Oh my, this will be getting a lot of play.

Click on the link then the YouTube play button:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/18/video-huckabee-says-the-constitution-is-a-living-breathing-document/

What I have been seeing on conservatives blogs so far is also total rejection of amending the constitution since this is seen by conservatives as a way for "liberal" to take their guns, etc. Wow, Huckabee might actually bring American liberals and conservatives together in order to protect our Constitution. Now whodathought?

Gaby:

LOL - I have a feeling that Huck was about as likely a candidate for your vote as he was for mine even before this gaffe (-273 C).

Russell,

You said, "It's been forever since I have had a decent Cuban cigar! Talk about heaven......yea baby!"

All I can say is: AMEN TO THAT!

Arminius

"I'm curious why liberal Christianity doesn't have a stronger voice in politics?"

Because liberal christians created America and its Constitution, and knew the dangers of people who want to impose religious belief and edicts on others and so separated church and state understanding that such separation was required for the survival of both church and state. So liberal Christians are happy with America and its Constitution, so not much noise. Its those that hate the Constitution and hate America that are making the noise.

One has to wonder how Huckabee, who says he does not agree with the Constitution and wishes it to be amended, could place his hand on a bible and swear an oath to uphold and defend it.

Well, at least now I know for sure whom NOT to vote for.

Arminius:

I am all for lifting the embargo on Cuba.

It's been forever since I have had a decent Cuban cigar! Talk about heaven......yea baby!

What about wrestling? An Olympic soap opera for males who love banana-hammocks.

Anonymous:

To answer your questions: First, I believe the bible to be God's word written by his prophets and HE'S not a Christian God; He's the Holy, Sovreign Lord (GOD ALMIGHTY)..one God, not the Christian God; 2) Scripture quotes adultery as follows: 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell 3) Also, an eye for an eye means justice; if you take something that belongs to someone else than you shall pay back the equal sum of what you've stolen. COVETING means desiring or wanting something that someone else has: haven't we all at one time or another done that but it's still as sin. None of us are as good as we think we are; Most people are self-deceived. Ask yourself: some of the things that no one else knows or some of the horrific things you've done in secret....Let's All Be Real...Also, if someone kills someone you love and the liar,thief or murderer gets off scott free because the judge showed mercy because you say you only killed once; wouldn't that judge be a corrupt judge. That's the kind of mercy this world looks upon when they think of the words in the Bible. Again, don't rip one sentence out of context: read the entire book; case in point Romans: 1:18-32.

Mr. Mark:

Want some examples of "Biblical wisdom"?

Here are some:

Use the Bible as a leg for broken couch.

Read the Bible as a collection of ghost stories to scare the kids.

And lastly, get stoned before reading the Good Book, it makes more sense.

Hi, Russell D,

This is a digression from the subject.

Actually, MLB is international, if only to a small degree: Toronto. It could spread, but it would take some doing. Japan, a country in which baseball is a major, major sport, is out because of the distance. But how about Cuba? Drop the stupid embargo, embrace Cuba with open arms, and get an MLB franchise in Havana. And another one in the Dominican Republic - after all, their greatest export is MLB players. What a scenario!

Yes, of course, Soccer is the only true international sport. And a good one.

Arminius

Something like that, but what I had in mind was more of a forced thing - to insure that you are constantly preggers.

Angela B

Have you ever heard of the "alcoholics anonymous prayer?" (You don't have to be an alcoholic to say it). Maybe it will help:

"Lord, give me the strength to change the things that I can change, the courage to accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference."

I'm still waiting for someone to point out an example of "Biblical wisdom."

Any takers?

Luke -

LOL - Classic! Maybe I should cut work, call my husband and get busy...?

Hmm...maybe I can be converted after all.

Arminius:

Yea, I don't like it called a "World Series", when the teams aren't even international. THAT is heresy.

World Cup, yes, World Series? Naw......Bunch of overpaid druggies.

Well, isn't it true that if women aren't constantly having babies that they are inhibiting life? Women should be placed into farms where they are "provided sperm" by men who will help keep life coming. After all, if you aren't pregnant, a chance at life is disappearing.

NBA playoffs? Anyone? Anyone?

*sigh

didn't think so.

Angela,

Once again I must ask. Is the bible an infallible record written by a Christian god, open to no interpretation other than the literal and subject to no deviation?

If so, and you have every right to believe this, then you must advocate the smiting and death of adulterers, homosexuals, tax-collectors, etc. You certainly must agree with with cutting of the hand of thieves or plucking out the eyes of those who would covet anothers wife or husband. You must certainly believe in capital punishment (look at Gomorrah) for the god of the bible is a vengeful god.

If you can justify some deviation in the edicts of the bible due to an evolving culture, but presume to a rigid interpretation of others, you can only be exposed for your own prejudices and biases hiding behind the veil of religiosity. You can not be so arrogant as to believe it is only you who know what can and should be changed in the bible, what is and is not infallible in the teachings of the bible. Are you really so supreme in your knowledge and conviction as to believe you and other fundamentalists are the true arbitragers of the writings of the bible?

Russell D,

Oh, boy, are you ever wrong! NOT the Superbowl, oh, no, what rampant heresy! The WORLD SERIES, dude!

LOL!

Arminius

Yes,love the Lord, thy God with all your mind, soul and stregnth and love thy neighbor as thyself. And may I might add "The Great Commission" "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Even if Huck had been speaking only of amending the Constitution regarding (his) God's view of homosexual marriage and abortion, the proposition would still reek.

Angela, you seem to believe that your diety invented marriage. Legal marriage is an invention of the state, not any deity. legal marriage confers certain rights upon couples by virtue of signing that little piece of paper (with or without any sort of ceremony or exchanging of vows) that they didn't have before signing it. It is a completely different animal from religious marriage. After all, a rabbi can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a Jew and a Gentile. The clerk of court cannot refuse to issue a marriage license based on the fact that the couple in question practice different religions. In fact, I don't recall the clerk even asking me or my husband what religion we practiced. A Catholic priest can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for a divorcee. A clerk of court cannot refuse to issue a license to a person with a finalized divorce. Churches are free to solemnize or not solemnize relationships as they see fit - but for the government to deny people the right to form legal partnerships based on the fact that they have similar genitalia is wrong.

As for abortion, there are differing religious views as to when the transformation from zygote to person is complete. Some claim that it's as soon as the sperm gets within sniffing distance of the egg, others not until the baby draws its first breath. Again, which religion gets to decide?

Arminius:

Here are the two great commandments:

Though shalt buy a plasma HD for the SuperBowl.

Wives shall not nag during Said SuperBowl.

Andrea and Arminius -

I saw an interesting opinion piece yesterday (not immediately sure where, but can look if anyone is interested) that pointed out the relatively small percentage of people who believe the Constitution ought to be ammended. It's a pretty drastic step afterall, and even many Christians are not ready to make that step.

The fact that Huckabee feels the need (or desire) to pander to such a small (but, vocal) community intrigues me.

Why can't political and religious discourse be more even handed? Do the reality of sound-bites in the news make this impossible?

Fate,

I live in Georgia. Rest assured that I will vote against such a despicable measure.

Arminius

Angela,

I did not describe myself as a literal Christian, but a liberal Christian. Did I make a typo? My bad, if I did.

I try to live our Lord's teachings, not anything else. Refer to the Two Great Commandments.

Arminius

The evangelicals and right-to-lifers are preparing the "Human Life Amendment" to be put on the ballot in GA and Co and some are pushing for it to amend the US Constitution. It says that all life begins at fertilization and embryos have "personhood", so killing an embryo would be murder. Huckabee was talking to this amendment and its supporters. Sorry all of you who have miscarriages, or God forbid, end up with a life threatening pregnancy. No law allows for killing a person to save another person. If you become pregnant and you need to end it to save your life, well, the amended Constitution will reflect God's law as interpreted by a minority of Americans, not your right to life.

You can read about the amendment from the horses mouth here:
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2008/01/georgia_constit.php

Among the things it says:
"The 2008 legislative session of the Georgia State Legislature will be given the opportunity to establish, in law, the personhood of the unborn. Georgia Right to Life and the pro-life movement in Georgia are working to pass a Human Life Amendment, which would give full legal protection to every human at every state of his development."

Here is the text of the "Human Life Amendment", which Huckabee says he supports and in my opinion completely explains his comments:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/search/hr536.htm

E Favorite: Of course I would go to a doctor that isn't a christian (but when choosing a doctor, I have to admit, I do look for someone who is a christian); Also, I read some books by secular authors (not very many), science is important and understanding what going on in the world is of course, important, but when it comes to someones moral values being in opposition with my beliefs, or their so-called "worldly" philosophy, no I do not, nor do I read self-help books. I don't walk around with my head in the sand but I don't believe most of what I consider "secular" views; I listen and hear but normally, it's in disagreement to my views. Does that answer your question.

Urrrg - Frustrating posting problems.

Perhaps Angela can get God to help me to stop the multiple postings...

Seattle,

I know your last post wasn't addressed to me, but I've been reading this thread all day and couldn't choose a good opportunity to join in as all my thoughts on the original topic have been stated. But in regards to your question about liberal Christians; I suppose the reasons they are not as vocal as the two opposing views are the same as what keeps moderate Muslims from speaking out, to name one religion to compare. Fear of being told they are not Christians at all (ahem...see above posts from Angela B.) or fear of being seen as weak for not choosing a side.

The most interesting aspect of the Huckatollah's comments is that the POTUS has virtually no role in the amendment process. Even though there are two potential paths to amendment, both are vested exclusively in the Congress and/or State legislatures. BTW, in the current climate, I do not believe that it is possible to get 38 states to ratify anything.

Arminius -

I'm curious why liberal Christianity doesn't have a stronger voice in politics?

From the sidelines it often looks like the only two religious viewpoints are evangelical "literalists" or strident atheists. I know this isn't a true spectrum of religious belief in our country...so, why the polar viewpoints?

Just curious,
Seattle

Seattle,

Damned good question. Liberal Christians can be activists - I know some. But it is more a grass-roots thing, and not directly political We might march in gay rights demonstrations, or help the homeless, or the addicted, or help recent immigrants (regardless of legal status) to survive. We are not a political force, and I don't think we want to be one. We try to do Christ's work on the streets, but not by preaching on the street corners, but by trying to help.

Arminius

Arminius:

Ok; I misjudged your description of you being a literal Christian. Also, the bible is not easy to understand unless we have the "spirit of God" indwelling in us. Also, what has helped me is the purchase of a concordance, lexicon and reading sermons by Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, A.W. Pink and just asking the Lord to show me what He wants me to know the way He wants me to know it; notwithstanding: sin in my life, idols in my heart, living and speaking in truth and love. And just to clarify, I'm grieved by what I see. If you see one of your friends who is ill (physically, spritually ill) but they can't see the signs; wouldn't you be grieved and try to explain to them they need to seek medical attention; that's the same way I see people who live their life in spiritual and moral darkness as sin has darkened their conscience and they are so blinded by it that they can't see it. I live my life each day experiencing the joy of knowing that my life has been called to serve those around me (in wisdom and discernment), helping the needy (morally, spiritually, in anyway I can), not walking in deceit, loving my neighbor as myself; which can be tough sometimes as we all know, not walking around condemed for sin (lawlessness) in my life and being able to sleep at night with a clear conscience not a guilt-ridden or worse, a seared conscience mentality.

Arminius -

I'm curious why liberal Christianity doesn't have a stronger voice in politics?

From the sidelines it often looks like the only two religious viewpoints are evangelical "literalists" or strident atheists. I know this isn't a true spectrum of religious belief in our country...so, why the polar viewpoints?

Just curious,
Seattle

Arminius -

I'm curious why liberal Christianity doesn't have a stronger voice in politics?

From the sidelines it often looks like the only two religious viewpoints are evangelical "literalists" or strident atheists. I know this isn't a true spectrum of religious belief in our country...so, why the polar viewpoints?

Just curious,
Seattle

Angela B - at risk of piling on, let me ask - if you wouldn't read a book written by an atheist, would you use a computer made by an atheist? Accept medical treatments developed by atheists (i.e. a majority of scientists)?

Would it help you to know the religious beliefs of the researchers and inventers and public servants (one of my new atheist friends is a fire fighter) who are ready to assist you, so you could determine which life-enhancing or life-saving products and services to avoid?

It won't matter, anyway. Huck doesn't stand a chance. I'm obviously more advanced than religious folks because I don't need eternal damnation to have morality. Fancy that.

To Anonymous:

Here lies the For Jesus and Paul, the master-servant (= slave) relationship was both a fact of life (not dissimilar to employer-employee, father-son) and a sign of all our client relationships with God. Jesus uses this relationship in the parable of the faithful steward (Luke 12:43-48):

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing [acting faithfully].
Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

Here the Christian becomes the vilicus, or houshold steward (still a slave; think of Joseph in Potiphar’s house); Christ is the absent paterfamilias who will return to reward or punish him according to his faithfulness.

For Jesus and Paul then, because we all live in a client relationship (God-Man; or better, Christ-Christian), extending that relationship to human interactions is not morally problematic. As such, slavery requires no condemnation for we are all slaves. All that remains is for slaves to “fear” their masters; and for masters (who are not the real masters, only the stewards), to not beat their slaves and otherwise act like delinquents. Moral? Even Jesus’ words in the New Testament are wedded to their time.

Seattle,

Indeed, yes, raise a toast! I am doing so right now - it is at least after noon here!

We are on the same team.

Arminius

Angela B,

A good question. 'Literal Christian'. What I meant, and did not state clearly, is that a 'literalist' is a fundamentalist, who believes there are no contradictions in the Bible, or that nothing has changed.

As for me, I came back to the Christian faith after a profound spiritual experience. This was after 3+ decades of being agnostic/atheist. I had the good sense to start with the Gospels. It took four readings before I was convinced, and I still have doubts about parts of John. My belief is rooted in the teachings of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels. It is NOT easy, and anyone who says it is easy has not really read them. And all other parts of the Bible are either commentary or prologue. The heart of Christianity is about Christ, and what he taught. The Bible is NOT the end-all-of-all-end-alls, no, it is a doorway to a difficult road to the truth. No, I am not there yet.

We cannot know the mind of God. I do not think He is through with His message.

Arminius

Angela B.

You don't seem very good-hearted or happy. Why? To listen to you, one would think America is just about the worst country that there ever was. I don't see it that way, at all. Cheer up! Try to get your mind on some happier things. It can't be all that bad.

Joet said it very well. Angela, I fully support your right to believe what you believe and to live your life accordingly. The problem with someone like Huckabee and those who seek to amend the Constitution is that they would take away those rights from others. I don't for a moment believe that homosexuality is a choice, but even if I did I would still strongly support their right to believe what they believe and to live their lives accordingly, with the same rights and protections under the law, and the same dignity as anyone else.

"no where in the New Testament or the Old does it say slavery is ok"

Uh, Angela...

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

And the OT:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Arminius -

Let's raise a toast (even though it's not even 10am here on the Coast) to common ground between the liberal Christians and Freethinkers!

That's a team I would gladly get behind. :)

Seattle

Arminius: Tell me what's a literal Christian? Please I'd like to know where you get that term from. Is abortion ok? is gay marriage ok? In the spirit of love, I'd like to undertand.

Seattle,

Not only are you agnostics/atheists/freethinkers getting damned nervous, but we liberal Christians are getting worried too. Interesting how Angela does not consider me Christian. Not that I'll lose any sleep over it.

Arminius

Angela: since adultery is a sin, as you note, are you in favor of bringing back all the laws we once had making it a felony? is everything that you believe to be a sin the proper subject of legislation making it punishable by imprisonment or fine? no one is asking you to go along with all the abominable values society is heading for. we are just asking you to not to attempt to legislate your morals on the rest of us. just live them yourselves and leave me alone. is that too much to ask?

Let me just be clear here! No, I don't believe a president should try to change the constitution but I am appalled that folks believe that states should allow gay marriage. Where did the first rule of marriage come from and it does say man and woman; not man and man and not woman and woman. Also, when is life a life, in the fetus stage, after the baby is born. It nothing less than murder. Again, I would never vote for someone who believes in gay marriage and abortion. I believe we as a nation need to heed where we're going in this world: cloning animals and the like. And yes, I do believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle not a race; be serious. We all have the right to choose our moral beliefs and I have the right to believe what I believe but look at this country as we speak; what a "state" it's in. Everyone's talking about global warming; look at the young folks in this country; disrespectful, have no respect for authority; Where do you believe this comes from...Nothing is off base; do what thou wilt. It's abominable and extremely scary....

ANGELA B. writes:

"Why would I read a book by someone who considers themselves an atheist/agnostic?"

Er, for the same reason that you seem to have no problem reading a column written by "someone who considers themselves an atheist/agnostic??"

I don't know. You tell me, Angela B.

Okay Angela - In the spirit of kindly debate: I help my fellow man every day in my job, my volunteer work, and through my family life.

I do it in some part (the part that's relevant to this discussion) because I do not believe there is an afterlife and we do not get a second chance at making the world a better place.

This life is it. We can live it with as much love or hate as we choose. But, no God-like figure is going to "save" us. It's up to us.

Angie baby - you can always justify reading Susan's book as "opposition research". Try it. It might just open your eyes, if not your mind.

Okay, Angela. You don't like the black comparison since you believe the nonsense that homosexuality is a choice. How about a Constitutional amendment that forbids Christians from marrying?

Excellent Article!

Angela, I suspect, is too far gone in her belief to understand the underlying dilemma here. There are two parallel ideas: the political structure we have (the Constitution, "Cesear's" as one poster put it) and the religious (that which Angela believes and Huck is pandering to).

Angela - It's when the two meet that us agnostics/atheists/freethinkers start to get nervous. We don't care if Huck was speaking to evangelists or atheists...it's because he was talking about changing our political structure to suit his beliefs. That's why there's a problem.

Excellent Article!

Angela, I suspect, is too far gone in her belief to understand the underlying dilemma here. There are two parallel ideas: the political structure we have (the Constitution, "Cesear's" as one poster put it) and the religious (that which Angela believes and Huck is pandering to).

Angela - It's when the two meet that us agnostics/atheists/freethinkers start to get nervous. We don't care if Huck was speaking to evangelists or atheists...it's because he was talking about changing our political structure to suit his beliefs. That's why there's a problem.

Why would I read a book by someone who considers themselves an atheist/agnostic; not sure which one she is: an atheist claims they believe there's no God and an agnostic claims they're not sure; which one. Also, tell me what it can possibly teach me; to think like her: no Thank you. Also, gay marriage and being black is not the same; distortion again....be serious....xianist I'm not; an "authentic Christian": that I am....Also, there's no such thing as a liberal Christian; instead of calling yourself a "liberal Christian" call yourself a "false convert". Lastly, I do believe that this world's view of what's right and wrong is frightening...All I can do is speak the truth in love, and let the chips fall where they may. Let me hear from some of you what you do to help your fellow man, without motives behind it; show me your faith and I'll show you my faith and my deeds working together and also, I'll always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that I have, no matter who's on the other side throwing darts at my belief. It doesn't matter to me but again, it will matter for you....

Susan -

Another wonderful column. What more can one add?

Angela B -

I would desperately recommend that you hie to your nearest bookstore or library and secure a copy of Susan's book, "Freethinkers." You have much to learn about American history and the principles upon which this country was founded. Susan offers a few tantalizing bits in today's column, but you really need to read her entire book to get a full appreciation for the wisdom of our Founders.

Reading "Freethinkers," you may well find yourself disagreeing with our Founders. You may well find yourself mourning the fact that the factions who wanted the USA to be called a Christian nation, and who wished to enshrine those beliefs in our founding documents LOST that argument (and soundly!), but it behooves you as an American to know the facts, and to disabuse yourself of the fantasies you regurgitate in these threads concerning the foundation of our democracy.

Closing thought - I'm surprised by your rather timid public analysis of what Hick actually meant in his ludicrous statement. Knowing your past posts, I have a sneaking suspicion that in private, you were overjoyed to hear such blatant Xian dominionist prattle being aired publicly, and by a presidential candidate, to boot. It's only in the light of the overwhelming public challenge and outrage at Hick's remark that the apologists feel the need to parse a statement that couldn't be any clearer if it up and smacked one in the face.

You need to embrace the horror of Hick, Angela. Take him at his word. I certainly do. That's what makes him so scary...and what makes me wonder what they're putting in the drinking water out in Iowa these days.

Angela B writes "I for one, would never vote for anyone who believes abortion or gay marriage is something that is right."

Angela, I don't agree with the anti-abortion stance, but I can at least understand and empathize with where people are coming from with that, but being against gay marriage is, to me, simply abominable. It's nothing but the worst kind of bigotry. Here's a little test. Say the same thing again but substitute the word "gay" with the word "black." "I for one, would never vote for anyone who believes that black marriage is something that is right." Would you still feel righteous for saying that? The substance is exactly the same - denying equal rights to a group of people based on the bigoted notion that they're inferior and undeserving of the same rights enjoyed by others. How anyone could support a Constitutional amendment to deny a group of people equal rights and not feel deeply ashamed of themselves is simply beyond my powers of comprehension. I'm sure in most respects you're a kind and decent person, but to hear people proclaim their bigotry with such self-righteous pride simply makes my skin crawl. It's appalling.

Angela B,

You said, "no where in the New Testament or the Old does it say slavery is ok".

Horse poop. The Old Testament takes slavery for granted, and I pointed out two examples from scriptures. There are more. Interesting how you twist your 'literalist' views to fit the situation.

Arminius

Angela,

"Their God doesn't exist: it's just a figment of their imagination."

Now you have transcended arrogance and jumped all the way into "scary". To have the supreme knowledge of who's god exists is pure unadulterated zealotry and the cause of millions of deaths over the centuries. It is you and zealots like you the the Constitution was written to protect against.

god help us.

Well, dear, One think about you...you'd know something about fools.

The far right religious wing is irritating, but it's at least straight forward. No hiding. Can, should be, and will be tolerated. Same for the
far left wing.

But Your constant "Is it good for the Jews" spoken and sneaky,and your Christian bashing is a problem.

Yeah I too thought the discussions on the 7 deadly sins post were excellent.I didn't contribute much,but enjoyed the comments enormously,and the Einstein quotes and arguments.
Some wonderful deep thinkers kept me reading into the wee small hours,more than once.
Glad you feel the same way Susan.

To CB:
Their God doesn't exist: it's just a figment of their imagination. Also, read Matthew and yes, adultery is a sin and no where in the New Testament or the Old does it say slavery is ok: Myths that what you believe. Don't speak on what someone told you or what you heard; a half-truth is a lie. And yes, I do believe the bible literally. Call me a fundamentalist. It doesn't matter what you believe. I find more hate on this website and in the context of disagreements which doesn't surprise me in the least. It's ok to agree to disagree but know this: every action has a consequence good or bad! Not a myth: truth...

Whow,what a great article Susan.Couldn't agree more.
These religious do-gooders would change the country into a theocracy if they could,and send us back to the dark ages...that's why your voice is so important.(And I can't wait for your new book.)

America is a great country.It would be an even greater country if it was less religious.
America should be leading the world intellectually.
So it's ironic that among the great nations of the world,America is the most religious.
What a tragedy.

Angela,

Somehow I think if the huckster was Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Wiccan, Scientologist, Hari Krishna or any of the other myriad of religious persuasions you would not be so gung-ho about changing the constitution to suit their god's standards.

As to selective reading of the bible I believe it is the fundamentalists who are the most guilty. If you are inclined towards a literal interpretation of the bible you have every right. It must be then an all or nothing approach. If you would like to condemn gay marriage because of a few passages in the bible, and would like huck to amend the constitution to that ends, please feel free. However, I believe it only fair to then read the hundreds of passage against adultery (including that pesky commandment) and amend the constitution to outlaw adultery and divorce. We of course should also bring back slavery, subjugate our women (including you of course) and take away the woman's right to participate in political discourse. Stone those who would have the audacity to eat meat and drink milk at the same meal and as Yul Brynner famously said "etc,etc, etc".

And please do not justify your ability to accept changes in the literal interpretation in the bible regarding topics such as slavery by saying that we are in a different and more enlightened time thus we can see an institution such as slavery as evil and accept that the bible was flawed. That idea is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance. You can either accept a literal interpretation of the bible, and follow all its tenets religiously, or you can accept it, in its totality, as a noble but flawed book, written in the historical context of the day. A book with the aim of guiding people towards a better life, but one that can and must be amended as a society becomes more enlightened. To presume that you can pick and choose what parts of the bible can and should be changed is arrogance and only betrays your own prejudices and biases.

Regards,

CB

Mike Huckabee is just a harmless kindly Christian gentleman who knows what best for us.

Shame on you heathens for treating him and his inspirational ideas with such contempt.

The US Constitution and its Bill of Rights already are the Standards of the Singularity and Humankind. And these Standards provide a shining beacon for backward, Dark Age, Islamic theocracies to someday follow.

And comments like those of "Preacher Huck" will also be discarded in the future by the enveloping knowledge concerning the errors in the foundations of all religions.

Susan Jacoby,
What a marvelous essay! If I had a say in such things, I'd suggest this essay be "required reading" for every high school English student and every American history student in the U.S. It sparkles with wit and wisdom, and the concrete examples from history are so specifically relevant. I hope all of the presidential candidates read this essay and learn from it. Thanks.

Arminius: Read the New Testament: Starting with Romans 1:18-32 and right after read the entire book of John and may your spiritual eyes and ears be opened.

Dear Angela B,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not
Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Arminius

(NOTE to rational readers: this is a cut-and-paste job from something sent to me years ago. I thought it appropriate.)

To Anonymous; I don't have the right, sovreignty or authority to determine what this entire country believes or not believes but I am a citizen of these "United States" and do have a voice just like you do. Also, no the Holy God who is in authority over all of HIS creation is definitely not small-minded but he does care about people distorting and changing the values of this world to feed into the insatiable desire to create their own abonimable laws and codes on what all Americans should believe is right and wrong. And as far as global warming; ask those who drive 2 and 3 cars and their houses are filled with poisons that pollute their air; The people who live on this earth have created what those want to call "global warning". We can make this world a lot worse in our selfish desires to have more and not care about what we're doing to this world and to our children. Also, ask yourself why people are starving, even in this country; do you blame God or do you blame the greedy, selfish, covetousness people in this country or around the world who just need more and more. In closing, I love all creation, black, white, brown, red or purple, atheists, agnostics, hindus, mormons, heterosexuals, homosexuals: all people on the face of this earth but it doesn't mean that I buy into what people are trying to turn this world into. Also, we can sit and say that we are destroying this world; we're creating an environment which we can barely breathe but the only one who can and will completely destroy this world is the Holy, Sovereign, Creator of this Entire World.

Hi, Wiccan, well met!

Full moon? Rats, I missed it, too much cloud cover. I normally go out and howl at it, a tradition that I started at my daughter's rhythmic gymnastics gym when she was about 12 or so. The girls all caught on, and it is still a tradition there. Anyway, whatever you ladies are doing for me may - just may - be paying off. I think I see light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not a train coming. Thanks!

By the way, I also have a vested interest in keeping our Constitution in order. If the Dominionists get in power, they will also come after me, a liberal Christian.

Arminius

Daniel ITLD: " I also notice that there is a little cast of characters here, that I feel that I know, and whose pet interests and motivations I am coming to understand, and some of whom I like quite alot."

Ditto, Nice, isn't it?

Susan,

"We're Electing a President, Not A Holy Fool"

We already have an Unholy Fool as President.

A Holy Fool might be an improvement.

Angela B.: Than you for volunteering to be the person that decides for our country 'Which God we should amend the constitution to' and which scriptures of a schizophrenic bible we should adhere to and which parts of that same book we should ignore. (are some holy words in the bible holier than others? and who gets to decide?...you of course!)
Surely you are more godlier than I and have a first hand knowledge as to what is gods true intent.
By your response I can see that gay marriage seems to be Gods first order of business and preventing ten year olds from marrying is not that far behind in gods great and vast agenda for us all.

Surely your God is not that trivial and small minded as to limit himself(?) to such things as gay marriage, especially considering that this world is suffering from much greater ails such as genocide and starvation.
When you have the the chance could you please ask your god where does he stand on global warming and "Creation Care"....Or does he(?) not care?

I have no more understanding of the bible than you or any other person who professes to be a person of faith but yet preaches that we should somehow treat our children because they choose to love someone like themselves as second class citizens...What next?...Internment camps for those who stray from "Gods order"? How about public stonings to replace football or baseball as our national sport?

Isn't there enough hate in the world already?

I just regret that Huck didn't save his gaffe until he'd gotten the nomination.

Alas, I think Romney and McCain are both too smart to choose Huck for VP

Angela B – Huck’s remarks were at a campaign event in a hotel room in Warren, Michigan. But it wouldn’t matter if it were in a church surrounding by devout believers. He was advocating changing our founding government document to conform to Christian ideals. This is a no-no.

Certainly Huck has the right to say it – freedom of speech, as in the Constitution. But he does not have the right to DO it – freedom of religion – also as in the Constitution.

If you don’t know this, I suggest you spend more time reading the constitution and less time reading the bible.

Regarding your comments in your "Addendum: The Seven Deadly Sins"

I agree that the level of comments went higher and higher on this one. Just a couple of weeks ago, I thought this whole "On Forum" idea was a big fiasco, but now, I have changed my mind. I am sorry that I get a little snippy sometimes with particular individuals, and will try to stop doing that. I also notice that there is a little cast of characters here, that I feel that I know, and whose pet interests and motivations I am coming to understand, and some of whom I like quite alot. You would never have been able to convince me that such a thing would be possible, merely by posting on a blog, but, it is. There were many interesting comments, and I gained a few new insights into things. Reading and posting here can be addictive, so I will try to keep quiet for awhile, and take care of all of my real-world chores and obligations.

if einstein was still alive and chose to comment his views might surpise many and actually help steanthen society since he delt with absoute truths wihis iz the only kind of truth there is in reality. eye wood think when i truely knew the man was a genius is when i found out he successfully manage having a wife and how many mistrisses, he along with ben franklin had a deep affection for the affections of woman. he manged to combine his interest of speading peice... so to speak while still having tyme to do his research which i suspect he never truely shared with the world because of the deastructive use of technology instead of it use to inhance humanity and mans being more concerned with sexual morals than violance in society. i am not say his choices are right 4 all but which is the greater sin sex or killing millions with nuclear weapons and war.i my self can't condem him. didn't God himself say david was a man after his own heart ...after the bathsheba incedent and did he not punish david more severly 4 lieing and putting her husband to death to hide his parenthood? if you re3ad peters writng on marriage and sex one way it could be saying he only advised that people who had problems with sex get married what does that actually mean that the other people were not having sexual relations or that i caused them no problem in thier normal and spiritual life.. i don't know the answer. it is not specifically spelled out in the bible but the man who turned water into wine and was know to have a little fun himself may have actually enjoyed womens company as a single man...or not..maybe the true reason the devil could not temp him was he had the knowledge that the world was his so to speak anyway... i don't know the answer but the societal norms were faily relaxed back then when you compare history and the time period... the neccessity of a virgin birth for him had less 2 dew with prudish morals but to show that Jesus was truely the son of God naught joeseph. under that context and.... our... interpritation of Gods law wood that then make God or the holy spirit guilty of adulty along with Mary? i don't think so... eye dont have the correct answers butt eye sum-tymes cumm up with pretty good questions 4 aan artist... the truth iz true all the tyme or it iz not the truth you are calling something else by its incorrect name.

Angela,

Note that Governor Huckabee says that he's for states' rights and letting the states decide all sorts of things for themselves without being restricted by the Constitution or the courts.

Yet his proposed federal constitutional amendments would prohibit the states (including my State of Vermont) from permitting civil unions or allowing abortions.

His "New States Rights Constitution" would presumably also allow South Carolina and other states to reestablish segregation and Jim Crow.

Merry Meet all!

Angela B-

Was Huckabee's speech not meant for Pagans, or Muslims, or Hindus? Was it just for the Dominionist Christians? Were we not meant to hear it? I, for one, have a vested interest in making sure our Constitution does not reflect the will of the Old Testament God. There are a lot of things worse than abortion and gay marriage, and having our Constitution yoked to the will of any one god is high on that list.

Susan, I agree that the comments thread on the seven deadly sins was wonderful! Reading those posts was some of the best intellectual fun I've had since watching Bill Moyer's "The Power of Myth" with Joseph Campbell.

Arminius, it was a full moon last night. Hopefully things will be heating up soon. Blessed Be!

Angela,

You wrote:

"Susan,...Take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of someone elses and search for truth instead of speaking like the majority of the secular world."

Angela, lumber prices are way up. Go to your nearest sawmill and blink. Then you can treat yourself to one of those huge new HD TV's.

Regards.

To Anonymous:

First, did you hear or read Huckabee's comments. First I'd like to say, I haven't agreed with some of Huckabee's comments but this is what I read about his comments: "[Some of my opponents]do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I agree whole-heartedly with what he stated. He stated he would like to amend marriage between man and woman and no matter what you people believe, how about let 10 year olds get married; gay or straight; someone in this vast array of secularism would probably agree; as long as they're in love. Secondly, read the entire bible and not just select or rip one part out of of context. If you're referring to the Abraham and Isaac story, read the entire book. Also, where's the moral fabric in this country. The world is worse that Sodom and Gomorrah and we know what happened to them.

Mike Huckabee suggested that we "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

To which God will we amend the constitution to?
The old testament god that is vengeful and full of hate and would have us sacrifice our children in his holy name or the god of the new testament that commands us to turn the other cheek and to treat our enemies as we would like to be treated ourselves?

Someone once said " When fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in the American flag and carrying a cross"

A few yrs. back the religous right were up in arms because someone referred to them as "The American Taliban".........Prophetic indeed!

As another American once said "It's not dark yet...But it's getting there"

Susan, I've read Huckabee's statements and what I would like to address is the media misquoting or maligning Christians, in general and I for one, want to know #1; was he talking to a christian audience. The media is usually defensive and mean to anyone who takes a stand against abortion or gay marriage. I for one, would never vote for anyone who believes abortion or gay marriage is something that is right. On another note: I don't believe anyone should amend the constitution but I'm not sure if that's fully what he really meant and Susan pick one are you an atheist or an agnostic or just a heathen who believes what most of the secular media believes and reports. And lastly, you have no right to call anyone a fool. Take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of someone elses and search for truth instead of speaking like the majority of the secular world.

Susan,

Another great essay, thanks. Any rational American, whether religious or not, must agree.

Yes, we will miss a lot of entertainment if the Huckster is knocked out of the race. I can just picture him in a debate, getting the crap verbally beaten out of him. And rightly so, pun intended. However, he might be chosen for the veep slot, so there is hope this could happen.

What would Jesus say? Perhaps this: "Why do you want to force the standards of Leviticus on your fellow citizens, instead of offering what I said during my ministry? The key word here is 'offering' - as I said, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and keep religion separate. Don't legislate it, live it."

With respect,

Arminius
p.s. I enjoyed, and learned from, the Einstein discussion.

Ah so!

We have a few comedians as elected officials too. We did not know they should be in Comedy Central until they are already the Central Comedians on Public Pronouncements and Public Policy.

So Mr. Huckabee said : "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Ah well. That sentence is something I would come up with grammatically and substantively, except, what I think of as God's standard is different from what Mr. Huckabee has in mind. And what are, which of God's standards do Mr. Huckabee has in mind anyway?

Jacoby : And which God's standards should be used?

Moi : The ones that suits our political ends the best of course.

Jacoby : Do we want the standards of a god of war or a god of peace written into our Constitution?

Moi : Well, we believers want to put "just war" in, as long as it is just to us and we will find reasons for its justness.

Jacoby : Should God be referred to with a masculine pronoun?

Moi : I am not sure about Christians and Jews, but even though Muslims believe that God has no gender, or we know Its form, Muslims use He, Him for convenience, although It is more correct. A consensus to attained on how to address God properly?

Jacoby : Surely not if President Hillary Clinton presides over the debate.

Moi : Well, if President Hillary Clinto presides over the debate, we'll have to change mankind to humankind and find something gender neutral to call God. There were attempts to do away with he or she and come out with "jhe" before. Didn't take like Ms.

Jacoby : Where does God stand on taxes? Does God prefer Huckabee's proposed 23 percent national sales tax to the income tax?

Moi : Where God stand on taxes is where His/Her/It's/Jhe's Vice-Governor, Mr. Huckabee say it will stand. Mr. Huckabee's world will be infallible for he will be speaking for God.

Jacoby : What would Jesus do?

Moi : Jesus will think long and hard over what believers think and said he would do.

Jacoby : Is it good for the Jews?

Moi : Hey! What about Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Bahais, Hindus, Pagans, Unitarians, Scientologists, Moonies....and the list goes on.

Jacoby : I would so love to hear politicians devote the next few months to arguing about which theological propositions to include in the Constitution instead of questioning baseball players about steroid use.

Moi : So would I to see who is a "more" Deputy Governor of God, and who is lesser Deputy Governor of God here on earth.

Jacoby : The devil must have made him say it.

Moi : Come now! The devil only tempts one. We have free will! It is Mr. Huckabee himself who has delusions to act as Deputy Governor of God here on earth. People elect him. Not God. Unless God register Itself/Himself/Herself/Jheself as a voter with 300 million specially accorded voting rights.

We are on the way from the Axis of Evil to the Axis of Theocratic States - Iran? Saudi Arabia? United States????

Thank you and best regards

"J"