Brit Hume and the right to stupid speech

... or better yet,

A lie is when you make a statement of fact which is untrue, with the intention of deception.

But the ninth commandment, "thou shalt not bear false witness againt thy neighbor ... " says nothing about telling lies or telling the truth. It does not even involve the language of lying. It says "bear false witness against" which means sayiing a lie, or silently letting a lie stand, against another person.

Therefore TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1's lies about the government banning the ten commandments does not even violate the nineth commandment, since it is not directed against any particular person. But it is still a lie, designed to promote deception; I think it is unethical, and at a minimum, it earns its bearer a reputation as an unethical liar.

Almost forgot to post on this one ~

Hume said nothing offensive to Buddhists. I know a bunch of 'em ~ and they saw nothing there that would be a problem, so I think I'll take their word over that of the various non-Buddhists who've commented on the matter.

Going a bit further, Christian theology is quite diverse. In the 6th grade I had my first encounter with a real snake-handler from the Appalachian mountains. He said "Unless'n ye tek up ye' serpants, ye' goin' to Hell".

So there.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, you said,

"...You cannot have the Ten Commandments on Public Property unless it is severely emasculated from it Religious overtones...."

that's a very good thing. personally, i would like for any place that displays the commandments be required to display the PENALTY (death) for those top-10 sins.

but seriously, as i mentioned earlier, thank god the u.s. constitution PREVENTS the 10 commandments from being law - that's what makes america great! we can have whatever gods, whatever idols and whatever holy-days, and it's none of the gubmint's bidness...

the thing is, 10-commandment-display promoters are always thinking of the SECULAR commandments (honor parents, murder, lie, steal, adulter, covet). those are mostly fine thoughts - and just about every country came up with those laws, regardless of which god(s) they attribute them to. it's the religious commandments that are awful, small-minded, and constitutionally prohibited (as laws - you're welcome to observe the yourself, but don't impose them on me!).

A lie is when you make a statement of fact which is untrue.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
TEN COMMANDMENTS

IRT:
You have not said anything that changes the fact that you lied.

ANS:
Define what a “lie” is. Better yet, look it up or you’ll probably get it wrong.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#

#2467

There only seems to be three things that crosses a left-wing iconoclast’s “thought-processes” when their understand starts unraveling. Either the statement is "stupid," or they believe the "the messenger is a liar", and, "it’s hatred that makes the messenger lie."

STONE v. GRAHAM 1980:
Yes, you can hang the “Ten Commandments” on public property if you emasculate it to a point that they loses their integrity, its meaning and its purpose. Moreover, the Ten Commandments cannot be hung independently, without all the Court’s garbage hanging on them. Namely, if they impose a any sense of religion, they are proscribed from the Pubic Square.

“This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like.

"Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 225. Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function.

If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have "ANY" effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause. “
CONSEQUENTLY IT COULD CORRUPT LITTLE CHILDREN’S MINDS BY HAVING GOD ON THEM.

"With no support beyond its own ipse dixit, the Court concludes that the Kentucky statute involved in this case "has no secular legislative purpose," ante, at 41 (emphasis supplied), and that "[t]he pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. ibid."

Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent said the Court wants to separate the secular innovation from the religious. He concluded it was not proable if even possible.

Justice William Rehnquist dissenting said the Commandments "simply reflects the role in the development of our legal system. [It is]...part of the city's celebration of its cultural and historical roots, not a promotion of religious faith."

The majority decided different. You cannot have the Ten Commandments on Public Property unless it is severely emasculated from it Religious overtones. That is like displaying a person without its soul, the life of its body.

Farnaz

JMR is selling a product, Christianity. He is an expert salesman, and he is an expert on his product. He knows everything about it, good and bad. But he is only going to tell you about the good part because he wants you to buy it. He is not going to tell you anything bad about his product, at all. That would make him a pretty bad salesman, wouldn't it?

If you bring up anything negative or bad about his product that you may have heard, he will breeze over your concern; he may not even acknowledge it at all, but will change the subject quickly to some other great quality of Christianity. He has loads of good things to say about how great it is, and will admit no problem or flaw with his product, just like a Toyota salesman. He is an expert on his product and how to sell it, but I am not impressed.

"Notice how peaceful it is here now that CCNL has been banned. Also note the sanity without Daniel12 and Spideymean."

Yes indeed, and I'm sure we are all thankful. Both are present in other places here in On Faith. Spidey is still good for a laugh, and CCNL is even worse than usual, if that is possible.

Farnaz,

Very nice post on JMR, and I agree with most of it. I have grown to respect, even like him, although I hasten to add that I don't agree with him all that much. He is certainly moral and ethical. One thing I really admire about him - he doesn't hesitate to wade right into the melee and politely debate with posters right there on his blog.

The Vatican is a pretend country. It is an antique. The Italian nations treasures it like an old woman would treasure a valubable old necklace that she wears proudly around her neck.

It does not compare in any real sense to a real country or a real nation state. It managed to make it past World War II intact, a remnant of a former time. Then the Italian nation realized what a valuable old thing they had in their midst, and decided to keep it.

I am sure there is some sort of subtle legal finesse, that allows a pretend foreign state also to be a church.

Farnaz

I do not think that JMR is all that formidable. He has read alot of books. So what? Do you know how many books there are in the world? I cannot guess, probably millions. Does reading alot of books give a person any advantage at all in knowledge and sophistication? No, no, no defintitely NOT ! ! !

It is not how many books you have read that matters; it is what books you have read.

Reading all of the wrong books and having quick access to them for citations is not impressive to me.

I am impressed with all of the umimportant and wrong information that JMR has filled his head with, but I am not impressed at all with his arguments and his points of view.

I seldom encounter anyone as wrong as he is. I judge him more harshly than an ignorant person, because he has intelligence and the opportunity to know what is right, and to know what is wrong, and he just throws it all up in the air and squanders it.

Farnaz:

" I wonder how if the VATICAN is a FOREIGN NATION, the RCC can benefit from NONPROFIT status in this country."

This is an interesting question. Wonder how to get it answered authoritatively?

Farnaz:

Notice how peaceful it is here now that CCNL has been banned. Also note the sanity without Daniel12 and Spideymean.

Perhaps there is a god.

Timmy2 and Persiflage:

Thank you for the links. They have been very instructive. I've saved them to go back and read again.

I agree with you, Timmy! Being spiritual and being religious are two entirely different things, and being spiritual does not, for atheists, require religious belief or involvement.

As you know, the buddha was not establishing a religion, plainly stated that he was not to be worshiped, and when asked about life after death, declined to comment. I find Zen very satisfying.

Schaum,

JMR replied to the moral argument, evasively, I thought, better than times change, blah, blah, and, of course, blah. (He had no answer to my question, though, and I'm afraid I pissed him off.) I responded, posted on Moldava. Hesitated, but it happened. Just like John Winthrop burned the Pequot Indians to death, and William Bradford watched while reading the Bible.

I guess the founders of Massachusetts Bay Colony and Plymouth Rock were not "true Christians." (They weren't Scotsmen, either, and that's a fact.)

Schaum,

I read your post, excellent, as were they all. The difficulty here is that JMR is an expert, as, I believe Onofrio is, and, frankly, I cannot accept that the latter is not a traditional scholar.

JMR can tote out texts at a moment's notice that I cannot. He can then with considerable ease weave them into sophisticated arguments, his blog here notwithstanding. How do I know. I looked through a couple of his books in Barnes and Noble.

The level of specialization that an all out battle with JMR, which, I believe, he would enjoy, is one that I think would suit the much missed Onofrio. Frankly, yours truly would have considerable difficulty following it. I'd probably bookmark it to save it for a later date.

A moral argument is easier. Since I've ruled out No true scotsman, he will have to go somewhere else (I've got several hunches where), if he decides to deal with my question.
-------------------
I've held back on some things, e.g., Molavo's recent anti-semitic incident, largely out of some sort of generosity. For several years, twelve Orthodox Christian priests struggled mightily to have antisemitic elements removed from the liturgy. Non be praised. The offending words were removed.

He, himself, is no bigot. I had, at one point, reached 28 on the Richter Scale of disgust at synagogues' requiring police protection, metal detectors in New YOrk. Along with many other American Jews, I could not and cannot see why, if threats exist, and we are assured they do, suspects are not apprehended and charged. This goes on year after year, and I asked JMR if he could imagine what would have happened by now if it were American churches that were so threatened.

Quite honestly, he was compassionate, disgusted, and more outraged than I.

He is complex. I cannot understand him. He has said things that would place him slightly to the right of Franco. I've had it out with him, at one point, attacking his writing. I actually referred him to an essay of Susan's!! What chutzpah!

He read it and remarked, "Gee, I wish I could write like that! But she's a professional..."

Thoroughly chastised, self-disgusted, guilt-ridden, mortified, ashamed, I apologized.
And believe me an apology was due. (I'd also taken aim at Biola, which, I've since learned, doesn't have a bad reputation.)

He replied with amazing grace, assuring me that I owed him no apology. (I did.)

After that, I stayed away from his thread for awhile, and his blog writing improved.

People, I think, only have so many hours, etc., as you know. HIs books evidence a mature prose style.

Then there was the night I was up grading papers until the wee hours of the morning, went to his blog, posted, and we commiserated.

All things considered though, I do realize that he may be expecting the Js at Jerusalem come the end of time. :}

Schaum,

Here is the link to Jon O'Brien's essay in which he takes issue with "the bishops" interference with health care and the more egregious paragraphs of Mary Ann Walsh's OnFaith essay.

My post near the top. I confess I was not in a writing mood. I've developed a mounting disgust with the hitherto respected Catholic E.J. Dionne and his disingenuous championing of Sen. Ben Nelson.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/01/catholic_bishops_too_powerful.html
--------------------------------------
Posted briefly on JMR's thread, cutting to the moral chase, as it were.
--------------------------------------
As for the Egyptian origins of Christianity, there may be someting useful in "Mystery Religions" (1920). Still a classic, I'm told, but can't find my copy.,

Regards,
Farnaz

I would love to read Onofrio's posting! I miss him, and wonder where he is. I hope he's ok.

Have you seen "Precious"? Good movie. Trust you are having a good new year.
------------------------------------
Hi Schaum,

I sure wish I had Onofrio's posting to send along to JMR! I also wish he'd reply to my posting on that thread and deal, as he did not, with the Brit Hume business. I'm not going to raise the issue I did, frankly, because despite my trying to ward off the No True Scotsman Fallacy, either it will come up or something akin to it. As in, we still must try, or, worse, times have changed, blah, blah, and blah. I'll re-paste my post if I can find it so you know what I mean.

Also, to tell the truth I am mightily weary of believers vs. Non. My only desire is that Religionists be kept out of Congress, a point I have raised repeatedly here on various threads. Dunno if you saw my comments on Jon O'Brien's essay. Thank NonGod for liberal Catholics.

Separate Church and State, once and for all. This will take leadership, real leadership and organization. The "fourth estate" is a joke, and essays won't do it. Perhaps, a book like "Against Our Will," but that sort of thing happens two or three times in a century.
------------------------------------------
No, I haven't seen "Precious," but having read the reviews, I'm afraid I may not. I read Sapphire's "Push" when it first came out, was astounded, had never seen anything like it. I heard her read from the text, and had the opportunity to speak with her twice, for which I'm still grateful. I've also taught "Push" several times.

It does not have a "happy ending." It is ugly as sin, redemptive, and hopeful. But all does not end well. How could it?

Onward, I am to your next post.

Farnaz

Arminius, Part two

You said: "If you are truly spiritual, then you know that there is something Greater Than Yourself"

This is key to our difference here. Being spiritual is not about "knowing" anything. It's about the open minded speculation about what MIGHT lie beyond our current perception of reality. This is where I see the line between religion and spirituality. Spirituality is imaginative open minded speculation about the unknown and religion is pretending to "know" the unknown.

You said: "Do you simply praise an ideal, a philosophical platitude, or is there really something beyond what we normally perceive?"

Again, I don't pretend to be able to answer that question. That's what religious people do. It is an unknown.

Our other difference it seems is that I do not "praise" such " philosophical platitudes" as ideals. There is nothing praise worthy about being spiritual. It is not virtuous in any way. Such praise is an invention of religions to make faith somehow virtuous. And it all comes from the idea of worshiping and praising a celestial dictator who should supposedly be praised for being so great and wonderful as to make us, and worshiping him for this is praise worthy itself. That stuff is all nonsense to me. A strange form of Stockholm syndrome.

Anyway, I promise you, there is no contradiction to being an atheist and being spiritual in the secular manner. Again, our key difference is that you thing being spiritual means you "know" that there is something greater than yourself. It doesn't mean that to me, nor does it mean that by the definition of the word.

Arminius, Part 1

You said: "I will say for starters only this: I know that God IS. From that, all else flows."

You have to understand, Arminius that these kind of statements raise so many questions. Such as:

How do you "know" this?
Do you know what God is?

I'm sure that your answers to these questions are all very abstract and that's fine I guess. But I don't think that people's answers to things they claim to "know" should be abstract. At least one would get that from reading the definition of the word "know".

"Do I believe in God? Yes. Can I prove it? No. Does this bother me? No"

People don't need to prove the existence of things that they believe. I can not prove that evolution exists. But I believe that it exists because of all of the evidence that it exists. Not because I really want it to exist or because it gives me comfort to believe that it exists. There is reason to believe that it exists and that reason is physical evidence, combined with logical deduction .

You said: "There are contradictions in you also. How can you claim to be both an atheist and spiritual?

An atheist is defined as someone who does not believe in God or gods. I do not believe in God or gods, so that makes me an atheist. There is nothing in the definition of atheist that says anything about not being spiritual, nor is there anything in the definition of spiritual that says anything about needing to believe in God. There is no contradiction in being a spiritual atheist. Also I think I have made it clear that my spirituality is secular and scientific in nature.

Timmy,

What I said to you was the beginnings of my journey. I gave few details, but you saw fit to fill them in. Actually, no bad thing.

Faith is not a destination, it is a journey, it is lifelong, and it is not easy. I will say for starters only this: I know that God IS. From that, all else flows.

You see contradictions in me, and you are right to do so. Do I believe in God? Yes. Can I prove it? No. Does this bother me? No.

There are contradictions in you also. How can you claim to be both an atheist and spiritual? Some New Age BS? If you are truly spiritual, then you know that there is something Greater Than Yourself. Do you simply praise an ideal, a philosophical platitude, or is there really something beyond what we normally perceive?

Daniel ITLD,

I have delivered some very pointed questions to TTYwhatever, and I was not polite. He apparently does not answer questions. Sounds like CCNL to me, except worse. Maybe. CCNL recently tried to invoke the spirit of MLK to defend his own putrid hatred of Islam. I nearly vomited.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

Your original declaration was that the Supreme Court had banned the ten commandments from the public square.

I said that was a lie.

You have not said anything that changes the fact that you lied.

Arminius,

When taken as myth, the teachings of the mythical character of "Jesus" can be quite profound. Well... many of them at least. Certainly not all of them. He is the inventor of Hell after all.

Arminius, do you believe that he is the son of God?
If not then I'm not sure what makes you a Christian?

I am also inspired by the good teachings of the mythical character of Jesus, but not the bad teachings of the mythical character of Jesus. So that makes me not a Christian because I don't take the whole biblical Jesus. I'm a Jesus cherry picker. And an atheist.

So my answer to your question is that no, there is nothing wrong with being spiritually inspired by the mythical teachings of Jesus, or even to think that such a man may actually have existed and that he was a particularly enlightened human being. But this doesn't make one a Christian. To be a Christian you need to believe that he was the son of God. And that's where you lose me.

I'm certainly open to further exploration of your progressive Christianity if I am way off the mark.

Peace

"there are no nouns, just very slow moving verbs."

Perhaps there are no verbs, just speedy nouns. After all, Google became a verb.

Thanks for the links Persiflage. Great reading!

I like Bohm's "there are no nouns, just very slow moving verbs.

Timmy,

If a profound spiritual experience led me to the teachings of a dude name of Jesus, is that so bad? Consider this, that I came into the bible searching for any truth and beauty that might be there, proceeding with skepticism, knowing full well that a lot of it, perhaps most, was myth or simply BS. I found beautiful truths in the teachings of a certain carpenter's son.

schaum,

"it is precisely this that binds me to buddhism, but as a philosophy, not a religion."

There are many developing secularized versions of Buddhism. A very popular one is called "Mindfullness". Great book on it by John Kabat-Zinn. It's simply called "mindfullness". It's basically secular and even scientific system of meditation.

Buddha himself was not a Buddhist. Based on his teachings he was more of an early mind scientist than a religious leader.

Arminius

"This concept, I think, is spiritual much more than religion"

Precisely.

Personally I fail to see the need for religion if one has spirituality. They seem to serve the same purpose but one is less delusional. Religion seems to me to be nothing more than a way of turning individual open minded spirituality into a cult.

In my view, David Bohm epitomizes a top ranked theoretical physicist that believed in the immanent connectedness of everything in the phenomenal universe - based on what he interpreted to be clear evidence. His thinking is expressed in great detail in Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

As a result of being caught up in the insanity of the McCarthy era, he spent most of his academic career in England as an American ex-patriot.

Like Wolfgang Pauli, his intellect and penchent for original thinking was something to be reckoned with. His views are generally thought of as imbued with an a definite overlay of spirituality.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#BOHM%27S%20LEGACY

Timmy and Schaum,

"I find the notion that we are all connected is such a deep way as 'entanglement' to be a very peaceful and harmonious way of looking at our existence."

This idea of the connection of all life, perhaps all the universe, is central to today's Paganism, and also occurs in more progressive forms of Christianity, such as I follow. This concept, I think, is spiritual much more than religious.

Timmy2:

"I find the notion that we are all connected is such a deep way as "entanglement" to be a very peaceful and harmonious way of looking at our existence."

Thank you for responding. It is precisely this that binds me to buddhism, but as a philosophy, not a religion.

Hello Schaum,

I've actually not read any physicists connecting quantum physics to spirituality or mysticism. I'm going to check our Persiflage's links right now. I made my own personal connection when I did my own initial quantum research for dummies. The movie, "What The Bleep Do We Know" does a great job of explaining the far out world of quantum theory for the layman. Even more so "What The Bleep - Down The Rabbit Hole".

Essentially the idea that inspires me spiritually is the notion of entanglement. This means that molecules that are in you are in me at the same time. Not identical separate molecules, but actually the same molecules. The idea is that the entire universe is entangled in such a way.

As an atheist who still sees the nature of our existence as a mystery, my "spirituality" for lack of a better word is really about my unquenchable drive to be contemplative about this mysterious circumstance we find ourselves in. What the hell is it all about? Can we achieve true happiness and peace of mind? Is there something deeper that we do not understand yet but might one day, blah blah blah?...

I find the notion that we are all connected is such a deep way as "entanglement" to be a very peaceful and harmonious way of looking at our existence. I'm so glad that if science is ever going to validate any mystical or spiritual ideas, that it seems like it will be the vedantic ideas of monism as oppose to the horrid celestial dictator ideas of monotheism.

As for connecting science to spirituality, I highly recommend watching this short video from the TED Conference of a brain scientist who literally has a "stroke" of insight.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Check it out.

"Bible verses on rifle scopes. Why am I suddenly thinking of Dick Cheney."

Not to mention Rumsfeld, Rove, the Shrub himself, and countless Religious Right Dingbats such as Robber$son. A list that personifies those who would destroy what this country stands for.

Arminius:

Bible verses on rifle scopes.

Why am I suddenly thinking of Dick Cheney.

Persiflage:

Thanks for the sites, which I will check out shortly.

Timmy2:

My apologies. For some reason I thought your post about quantum physics was Persiflage's.

I will ask you the same question: can you recommend some reading in, or sites about, quantum physics and spirituality?

arminius, you said,
"He certainly tossed out the Egyptian pantheon, really pissing off the priesthood in the process (surprise, surprise...). But the edges may have been a bit blurred, with the sun god being the head honcho, but maybe a bunch of leftover deities who were the bad guys."

well, i've often made the case that the israelite "invention" of monotheism was really more of a corporate restructuring: yahweh consolidates power and other gods are reduced to angels and demons...

Lengthy treatments of consciousness and quantum mechanics below:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

http://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/Conc&QM.html

Schaum:

'Can you recommend some "quantum theory for dummies"-type reading? I would like to know more.'

Actually, that was Timmy2 remarking on the link between quantum physics and spirituality for the rational mind.

You will find that this particular physicist is not sympathetic to any alleged link between mysticism and quantum mechanics, as he proceeds to discuss this very issue in following pages.....

In my experience the physicists that have popularized the connnection eventually make the case for consciousness being tied to quantum processes.

This thinking is admittedly more speculative, and goes beyond the established neurobiology and chemistry that link up executive cognitive functions, memory, dreaming, etc.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/qm17.htm

The Religious Right strikes again: 'Jesus Rifles'. Not kidding.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&hpid=moreheadlines

The company that supplies many of the scopes used on rifles in the military have subtly inscribed the scopes with NT references at the end of their serial numbers. This is unconstitutional, and can only increase the belief that the US is engaged in a crusade to eliminate Islam. Jesus wept.

Persiflage:

"quantum theory is a monumental scientific breakthrough for the rational mind that seeks spirituality"

Can you recommend some "quantum theory for dummies"-type reading? I would like to know more.

Pamsm:

Thank you very much. Nice to see you again.

And you are right about "magic arguments". It seems to me that much of JMR's thinking is magical.

quantum theory is a monumental scientific breakthrough for the rational mind that seeks spirituality. Those longing to find a "higher" meaning for their existence can, without setting reason and logic aside, imagine an interconnectedness that does not defy science and the laws of physics. It is a spirituality that lends itself to a peaceful coexistence between all things. No bowing down and worshiping, no doctrine to follow, no punishment for being wrong, no pretending to know things we do not know. An open minded spirituality that has no conflict with science and reason. A logical and scientifically backed reason to follow the golden rule. No divine intervention necessary.

Schaum,
"These are not good things. This is why science and the Scientific Method work, and religion doesn’t. I’ll stick with science."

That was an excellent post.

Before the ID movement, it wasn't possible to argue with religious people at all - they would trump you with magic every time. Now they're a little wary of how loony that makes them seem, and are trying to put religion on a scientifically sound footing.

Since this is, of course, impossible, they make up a story about a vast (left wing?) conspiracy among scientists to protect a failed idea (evolution) because they have too much invested in it (as though that ever meant anything to scientists). It's really almost sad...

Schaum,

I'm no expert on Akhenaten, and apparently what he did try is still not clearly known. He certainly tossed out the Egyptian pantheon, really pissing off the priesthood in the process (surprise, surprise...). But the edges may have been a bit blurred, with the sun god being the head honcho, but maybe a bunch of leftover deities who were the bad guys. As I say, I don't really know, but it is pretty interesting stuff. If a guy named Moses really did exist, and had been in Egypt then, well, that would get even more interesting.

Arminius:

I was under the impression that the cult of Ra, the Sun God, developed into uncompromising monotheism under Akhenaten. No?

"However, ancient Egypt actually did have a monotheistic conception of God, if I'm not mistaken"

Akhenaten, the cult of Aten, 16th dynasty. It was very close to monotheism, but not quite there.

Persiflage,

I really never intended to imply that Bohr was in any way religious, but that he had a great sense of humor.

Apparently there is a lot of 'New Age' blathering about quantum mechanics and religion. I personally agree with you, that few people in this field would be religious in the usual sense - but the very fuzziness there has got to make one wonder, at least occasionally.

Arminius:

"Albert, stop telling God what to do!"
- Nils Bohr

Yes, Bohr said that during a metaphorically playful exchange with Einstein, but in context you can see that the reply was simply an 'in kind' tit for tat remark, rather than expressing a belief in deity.

The discussion was in regard to 'uncertainty' but take a look at the Heisenberg link below - regarding Heisenberg's affiliation with the Lutheran church.

It's true that a number of the early quantum physicists had a 'spiritual' side, as documented in Ken Wilber's Quantum Questions .

Wolfgang Pauli, considered by some to be at the top of the intellectual heap of that rarified gang of thinkers, was a great believer in a conjunction between the human psyche and the quantum world - and conspired with Carl Jung in his work on synchronicity during a period when he also underwent extensive dream analysis.

In his exchange with Heisenberg below, it's evident that he was not, however, religious in a conventional sense.

I would hazard a guess that quantum thinkers today are singularly non-religious, although recognizing that we may never get to the bottom of many of the 'cosmic' mysteries that keep smart people awake at night!

http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Werner_Heisenberg.html

regards, Persiflage

Farnaz:

I changed my mind and made one last post on JMR's thread:

Nowhere have I said the christer myths are untrue. I have said they cannot be proven. That is the nature of myths; the christer myths are essentially the same as the earlier Pagan myths. The point is there is no consistent, reasoned analysis of the evidence that can pick out the christer religion as fundamentally different from other ancient Pagan religions. The christer religion is an ancient Pagan religion. It cannot be proven to be more than that. John Mark Reynolds is unable to give a rational, cause and effect, actually-possible explanation of the facts that preserves the truth of the christer myths. His solution: explain the “facts” with god-magic.

I have no idea whether JMR is correct or not. Magical solutions like his can not be analyzed rationally. "God is omnipotent." God can do anything. God's magic can overcome any set of contrary facts.

Justin Martyr, in the second century AD. saw the deep similarities between christers and other pagans, and he clearly saw that rational analysis demanded the conclusion that the christer religion borrowed from others. Justin and other early fathers found their way around that inevitable conclusion by dreaming up a magical solution, in their case "demonic imitation."

christers cling to the assertions that the gospels are history, and the magic stories in them are true. Yet none can offer any evidence, or facts, or analysis in support of that claim. If you read “Life Of Jesus Critically Examined” (Strauss, 1835) you will see that any possible rational defense of the gospels as history has been demolished. Conservative believers are unable to refute Strauss' analysis (even though they love to say it is “outdated” – though certainly not as outdated as the bible! – and shriek about “primary sources” which NOBODY has), but they are able to ignore it. And they do. Conservative scholarship begins with the claim that the bible stories are true, and "reasons" from there. The result is:
a) Conservative believers are unaware of the most basic facts and reasons supporting the conclusions of critical scholarship. It's not that they don't believe the reasoning; it's that they don't even know what it is.
b) Conservative "scholarship" fails to address critical facts and reasons, making conservative "scholarship" an in-house exercise, persuasive only to the already persuaded.
c) Conservative apologetics often boils down simply to pep-rally boosterism, repeating what you believe, over and over, as if really really REALLY meaning what you say will make it true.

These are not good things. This is why science and the Scientific Method work, and religion doesn’t. I’ll stick with science.

Farnaz:

Thanks. I'm finished with that thread. St. Peter Huff's arrogance, narcissism and megalomania -- to say nothing of the fact that his "arguments" are circular, old and repetitive -- frankly bore me.

I would love to read Onofrio's posting! I miss him, and wonder where he is. I hope he's ok.

Have you seen "Precious"? Good movie. Trust you are having a good new year.

Schaum,

You are doing brilliantly on JMR's thread. In the past, Onofrio cited and quoted from certain ancient Near Eastern texts. On one particular thread he posted a lengthy analysis, which I could probably locate had I world enough and time.

The business about stoicism and monotheism is, I think, complex. A case could surely be made for S's and Platonism's sense of the unified deity revealing himself in aspects. Clearly, there are links between the two and the later monotheistic religions.

However, ancient Egypt actually did have a monotheistic conception of God, if I'm not mistaken.

Arminius:

Oh.

"YOUR LINKS WILL BE POSTED ON THE UNIVERSAL FORUM AND NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
What is this raving idiot yammering about?"

Hi, Schaum,

I delivered a very bitter polemic aimed at this bigoted bastard, challenging him to produce his sources, links included. I am pretty much at war with this hellspawn (can't think of a better handle for the bastard). I'm still waiting for his reply. I'm not quite sure what the 'universal forum' is.

Timmy2:

"Lets not deny the bias. Lets own it and be proud of it. The media is also biased against Ponzi schemes and society damaging scams of all sorts. That's the way it should be"

SUPER well-said!

Arminius:

"YOUR LINKS WILL BE POSTED ON THE UNIVERSAL FORUM AND NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE."

What is this raving idiot yammering about?

Denial of the media bias against Christianity is as delusional as the belief that Jesus is the son of God.Of course there is a media bias against Christianity. The media is comprised primarily of intellectuals, and intellectuals tend to be atheist/agnostics. You know where else there is a bias against Christianity? In the science community. The overwhelming majority of scientists are atheist or agnostic or both like me.

But why then, Christianity, more so than other religions? Well media people are also generally liberal minded and hyper politically correct. Criticizing Islam is often labeled as racist and criticizing Judaism is often labeled as antisemetic. Christianity is seen as a western world religion (whitey) and therefore fair game. Meaning, it's damn near impossible to cry racism when Christianity is criticized. Criticism of Christianity is clearly aimed at the religion itself, the doctrine, and the ideas and beliefs, not the racial profile of it's most visible adherents.

As for Buddhism and Hinduism, they are not criticized as much because they are not nearly as delusional and dangerous as the main three monotheistic religions. Buddhism barely qualifies as a religion at all.

Lets not deny the bias. Lets own it and be proud of it. The media is also biased against Ponzi schemes and society damaging scams of all sorts. That's the way it should be.

Persiflage,

Old Albert, not religious at all, did indeed utter "God does not play dice with the universe", since he could not put his mind, even as great as it was, around quantum mechanics.

But......

"Albert, stop telling God what to do!"
- Nils Bohr

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ARMINIUS3142
JANUARY 16, 2010 12:47 PM
“CLUELESS"

ANS
YOUR LINKS WILL BE POSTED ON THE UNIVERSAL FORUM AND NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.

Farnaz:

"John Mark Reynolds is disputing the "paganism" of the NT since bloggers have not quoted from primary sources"

As I explained on his blog, it is impossible to quote from primary sources, since the christers carefully destroyed the materials and writings of and about the other pagan religions from which they stole.

I also suggest that he is not able to quote from any primary sources that prove the existence of god, or the existence of jesus. Quoting the bible doesn't work, because using scripture to "prove" scripture proves nothing at all. Persiflage has also made some excellent postings there.

OMG!

you guys and your 10 commandments talk....

the u.s. constitution BANS the 10 commandments as being the source of our laws.

the first ammendment PROHIBITS enforcement of the fist commandment. in american, you can have whatever gods, however many in number. in america, in further contradiction with the 10 commandments ideal, you may have molten or graven or wooden or pipe-cleaner idols. you may pray (or not) as often as you like on any day of the week, and you may take the lord's name in vain.

so, yes, i suppose you can say that the 10 commandments were in the minds of the founders: they created a country where RELIGIOUS LAWS like the 10 commandments ARE NOT the source of our laws... that's the beauty part of the united states... don't you get it?

'In the words of Einstein, "God doesn't play dice." Namely, all things are ordered according to the Natural Law, and not according to man.'
______________

Not that Einstein was religious, but he believed in order and was wrong in this particular case. Nature is in fact filled with uncertainty at it's most fundamental level.....the orderly Newtonian universe is a fiction, which is exactly what upset Einstein, even though he himself had debunked Newton with general and special relativity.

He never could buy into the discoveries of quantum mechanics, believing it was an imcomplete theory - although he lent great credence to this new field of physics with the (unexpected) results of his own EPR experments.

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

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ARMINIUS3142
JANUARY 16, 2010 3:31 PM
“TRUTH”

IRT:
Anyway, yes, I agree that TTYspewerofcrap endlessly searches for targets in an always failed attempt, leading to slaughter and death, to escape his/her/its sad inadequacy.

ANS:
The object is the truth in an ambience of untruths. Pilate asked Jesus, “Why are you here.” Jesus answered, “I came to be a witness of Truth.” Truth said Pilate, “What is truth?” Pilate was looking at Truth and knew it not even though it was before him. The Jewish hierarchy crucified the Truth because they perceived it was a danger to them.

That seems to be the problem for many who mock the truth on this forum. Because they are staid in their prejudices, predispositions and beliefs, they have a serious problem in discerning the truth and in many cases they mock the truth and substitute their misconceptions for the truth. They, flounder unfortunately in their fallacies and delight in their deceptions, They witlessly become victims of their own folly that flows from their undisciplined and paranoid imaginations.

Moreover, they have little or no perception of the moral foundation that the Founding Fathers relied on and that sustains our nations integrity.. Hence, the unwittingly deny the existence of God and consequently their inalienable rights, resulting in mothers having their unborn murdered, and the institution of the oxymoron Gay Marriage, the antithesis of the Family.

In the words of Einstein, "God doesn't play dice." Namely, all things are ordered according to the Natural Law, and not according to man.

\
IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHE LIONSDEN
“SUPREME COURT DECISIONS”

IRT:
[ ... banned are the “Ten Commandments,” the basis of all moral laws, from the public square.]

“That is not true. The placement of the Ten Commandments in government owned space is qualified, according to the form, purpose and manner of display and according to the locality. It is not banned.”

ANS:
It is true that the Commandments can be posted under a stringent and narrow set of conditions, but those conditions are an attempt to emasculate it from its meaning. Hence, in “Stone v. Graham“, the Ten Commandments hanging by themselves in every classroom of Ky. Public Schools, even with an explanation are banned.

http://www.au.org/resources/court-decisions/archives/stone-v-graham.html
STONE V. GRAHAM transcript and conclusion.

A copy of the Ten Commandments, measuring 16 inches wide by 20 inches high, posted in each public elementary and secondary school classroom in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The posters bore a small disclaimer at the bottom that read: "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."

Purpose: “The Court held that the statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms reflected a religious purpose because the Ten Commandments are a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths and do not confine themselves to secular matters, but also concern the religious duties of believers.”

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatedecisions/a/StoneGraham.htm

“In a 5-4 Court Decision with a rare unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court ruled the Kentucky law unconstitutional.
The Court used the Lemon test to analyze the constitutionality of the Kentucky law, finding that it violated the first prong — it did not have a secular legislative purpose.

“The assertion by Kentucky at the bottom of the posters that its law had a secular purpose (to show students the influence of the Ten Commandments on the legal structure of Western society) did not necessarily make it so.”

Consequently, the demeanor of the Commandments must be stripped apart form it religious meaning and only the secular meaning can be emphasized, namely, no religious connotations or overtones can be made that overtone the secular purpose of Law separated from God. Thus, the Court's irrational ruling unwittingly obscures the Commandments integrity. Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent said this separation is ridiculous and impossible.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

You are the one who mispoke when you referred to the "Institute of marriage." I was just making a little fun of that, since you had previously berated my limited vocabulary.

It's called humor; look it up.

Don't worry about it; I forgive you.

ONOFRIO:

PLEASE post. John Mark Reynolds is disputing the "paganism" of the NT since bloggers have not quoted from primary sources. I also think he's having difficulty knowing how specialized he can be on a blog of this nature. Understandable, but I think most of us would be able to follow a sophisticated discussion. Unlike most of us, you have this material at your fingertips.

I for one like to read smart people having at it.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/01/ignorance_allows_certainty_but_punishes_with_narrowness.html

Arminius:

"Of course. Is that not the path of so many, to find a target, an enemy, to blame for their own failings?"

I am rapidly coming to realize that, yes.

Schaum,

"My impression is that s/he is someone who has pretty much failed at life, has never been able to make hir life work the say s/he wanted, and having failed is looking for scapegoats."

Of course. Is that not the path of so many, to find a target, an enemy, to blame for their own failings? So many historical (and present) examples of targets: The Jews, the Commies, the Liberals, the Islamists, oh God, list is endless.

Anyway, yes, I agree that TTYspewerofcrap endlessly searches for targets in an always failed attempt, leading to slaughter and death, to escape his/her/its sad inadequacy.

Arminius:

My impression is that s/he is someone who has pretty much failed at life, has never been able to make hir life work the say s/he wanted, and having failed is looking for scapegoats.

Hi, Schaum,

I caught that about the universities, and a good reply it was. I also commend you on your extended replies on the divorce rates.

Of COURSE, that bastard has no replies. There are none. He is imprisoned in titanium bars bred of his own bigotry.

Arminius:

"You don't have sources for your accusations"

A few days ago the pagan christer made the claim that the majority of universities were catholic. I pointed out that there are some 9,000 universities in the world, and asked him to cite authorities that prove how many were catholic.

To date, no response. I was SO surprised.

Well, TTYkillacommieforchrist, and a demented Good Day to you too.

You vomited:
"Thus, all thoughts are relationally conditioned by the delusional. Now if I am wrong prove it. Show your source, name the clinic, and cite its purpose, or see your local psychiatrist."

I have severe problems even imagining that you had the unspeakable hubris to spew forth such a gob of puke.

Just tell us where the bloody hell are YOUR sources about your accusations of our president, your excremental blather about liberals, your verification about coummunism, socialism, and fascism? Huh! Where the F*** are they?!? You don't even have the faintest idea what these terms mean, you only puke them in your feeble defense of your own profound insecurity, which is the mark of the demented fanatic, of whatever breed: find an enemy to blame instead of looking in the mirror to find the true enemy. You never heard the profound statement, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." If you ever did, your self-induced hatred prevented you from understanding it.

You don't have sources for your accusations, no, you don't. They do not exist, except in the nightmares of your pathetic excuse for a mind.

I would ask you to read the Holy Gospels, but you won't, I'm sure you think it is a commie/socialist/liberal plot. Help the needy? Only weaklings do that, right? Heal the sick? You would say go to a doc, and if you can't afford it, tough s***, right? Clothe the naked? You would lament giving up one of your 23 suits in your closet, right?

Don't bother replying - no one with a rational mind can possibly understand anything you spatter on this blog.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
“Are you referring to the clinic in Rome, where the world famous Dr. Ratzinger is doing research on how to compel men to have sex with women, even if they don't want to?”

ANS:
I see you can’t kick the habit of fantasizing. It’s a habit one has a hard time to kick when they are so staid in the alternate world too long and rely on rumors instead of fact. Thus, all thoughts are relationally conditioned by the delusional. Now if I am wrong prove it. Show your source, name the clinic, and cite its purpose, or see your local psychiatrist.

IRT:
“I don't know about that. I've heard some rumors about that place”

ANS:
You expose yourself to your fantasizing and don’t even know it. Again, you make derisive and ridiculous remarks that you don’t know are true but act as if they are true.

Hence, you have proven me correct, viz. that you know little of what you criticize. It's amazing that you've criticized my knowledge of Christianity when you know less about it than a Hindu.

Do you realize that you’ve just admitted to acting on rumors. That’s what G.K. Chesterton noted about people with lazy brains who always get things wrong. They take things they want to hear as fact and their brains are so fainéant they never look them up.

Daniel ITLD,

Look on the bright side - yes, there is one. Both TTYkillacommieforchrist and Spidey are doing a truly epic job in discrediting the ultra-right-wing 'Christians'. TTYyermommieisacommie actually believes it, which almost leads me (but not quite!) to believe in demonic possession. As for Spidey - he may not be what he seems, it is at least possible that he is doing this to destroy knee-jerk right wing religious beliefs.

DanielITLD:

"I feel sorry for him, like I feel sorry for Spideymean."

I agree. I feel sorry for TTY and Spidermean and Peter Huff. No one asks for, or deserves, mental illness.

I also feel very sorry for persons with HIV..no one asks for or deserves that either. Nevertheless, I do not want to share their illnesses.

For the pagan christers who suffer from the Pagan Christer Persecution complex, I'll persecute you some more by elaborating on an earlier DITLD post with a little eye-opener for those pagan christers who claim gay-marriage would undermine the institution of marriage:

In each state that has approved gay marriage, the divorce rate among straight people has gone down.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

"Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more common in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have NOT passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period."

I've always said that Britney Spears' weekend marriage does far more damage to the sanctity of marriage than two gay people getting married. If marriage is really a) sacred and b) all about the ability to procreate, then only fertile couples who intend to have children should be allowed to marry, and divorce should be banned... and, for whatever reason, I don't see anyone calling for that to happen.

This clearly debunks the GOP/pagan christers talking point that gay marriage is somehow a threat to heterosexual marriage. The most important thing it illustrates, I think, is not that legalizing gay marriage decreases the heterosexual divorce rate – it is neither the responsibility nor goal of gay marriage rights to destroy the sanctity of heterosexual divorce -- but that it does not increase it in any perceptible way.

I feel sorry for him, like I feel sorry for Spideymean.

They DO need some kind of help. But it is the nature of the illness from which these two suffer, that they would resist efforts to help them.

Mental illness is a tragedy, isn't it? I can see how people in former times believe in demonic posession because that is how mentally ill people sometimes seem.

... and also, he is heavily into transmorgrification.

(Don't you go blind if you do that too much?)

Schaum

"Why do you use it to argue with someone who is clearly non compos mentis, and virtually incapable of logical argument?"

I dunno. I was home and I didn't have anything else to do.

And don't forget; he is dubitable; he is one of the most dubitablist people I have ever seen. If you're looking for dubitability, he is your man. I'm talkin' DUBITABLE.

(But let's don't dwell on it).

Daniel ITLD,

Schaum has it right - TTspewerofmadness is seriously deranged. You might as well go argue with a brick wall - at least the wall would not insult your intelligence.

DanielITLD:

Consider this latest of TTY's delusions: ""The Court and its protégé, the ACLU ... "

Obviously this is a seriously disturbed person. You have an excellent mind. Why do you use it to argue with someone who is clearly non compos mentis, and virtually incapable of logical argument?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

The Institute of Marriage?

Are you referring to the clinic in Rome, where the world famous Dr. Ratzinger is doing research on how to compel men to have sex with women, even if they don't want to?

I don't know about that. I've heard some rumors about that place.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

" ... banned are the “Ten Commandments,” the basis of all moral laws, from the public square."

That is not true.

The placement of the ten commandments in government owned space is qualified, according to the form, purpose and manner of display and according to the locality. It is not banned.

"The Court ludicrously declared these moral laws could corrupt the minds of little children."

The court has never ruled that the 10 commandments could corrupt the minds of children.

" ... this nation has been declared by the Court to no longer be under the auspices of God."

The court has not ruled that this nation is no longer under the auspices of God.

“ 'God Bless America, and the lyrics of “America” have become anathema to the Public Square."

That is not true. People are allowed to sing "God Bless America" and "America the Beautiful" where ever they want.

" ... the assault on Christmas is indubitable."

That is not true; it is dubitable.

"The Creech is banned from the Public Square though Christmas is a naional celebration ... "

That is not true; the appearance of the Creesch on government property is qualified by the manner of the display, its purpose, its placement, and the authority of the local government involved.

"Merry Christmas has been transmogrified into a meaningless 'Happy Holidays.'

That is not true. People say whatever they want, and the greeting "Happy Holidays" is very old.

"The Bible, the source of our inalienable rights, has been banned from the Public Square."

That is not true. The Bible does not list our civil rights; the Constitution does. Barak Obama took the oath of office on the Bible, although it was not a "public square" but before the Capital, witnessed by a vast and joyous crowd.

"... what has the Court not upheld that is anti-Christian."

That is not true; the court does not uphold what is anti-Christian; the court seeks to uphold the rule of law as outlined and specified in the Constitution, which frames the entire legal system of the United States.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

"The Founding Fathers (FF) based the Bill of Rights on our Judeo Christian Heritage."

No they didn't.

The idea for the Bill of Rights arose from the carnage of religious warfare, that the colonists had left behind in Europe, where kings claimed a divine right to rule and where torture was routinely used to persuade belief in religious truth.

"The Court and its protégé, the ACLU ... "?

That is not true.

The ACLU is not a protege of the Supreme Court.

" ... the Court has undermined the institute of Marriage by ridiculously elevating gay sex to the dignity of conjugal love and States are outrageously recognizing the preposterous oxymoron Gay Marriage and consequently are undermining and corrupting the traditional family."

No the court hasn't.

The court has not ruled on gay sex.

The court has not ruled on conjugal love.

Gay marriage is not preposterous.

Gay marriage is not an oxymoron.

Gay marriage does not corrupt families.

Gay marriage does not undermine families.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

I know what an elephant is and I don't mock blind people. Thankyou for inviting me to convert to Catholicism, but no thanks.

I am not Catholic and I am not planning on converting.

Perhaps you should think about converting to Mormonism for example; they have a top-down system of thought much like the Catholic Church, although the theological details are vastly different; or perhaps you might become Baptist; they would undo the damage of your infant Baptism by dunking you in a lake. Or perhaps become a Methodist; they might ask you to write a paper and then give a talk on it, presenting it as your personal opinion.

Anyway, the choices are endless; why don't you look into them? Your brain needs a good airing out.

IN REPLY TO (IRT):
SUSAN JACOBY
“VICTIMIZED"

IRT:
"The idea that Christians are victimized by members of other religions or by committed secularists and atheists in this country is simply ludicrous."

ANS:
Maybe if you live in the alternate world it is true, but we are in the real world. What is ludicrous is for the religiously blind to deny such victimization exists.

The Founding Fathers (FF) based the Bill of Rights on our Judeo Christian Heritage. The God that our inalienable rights are derived from is not a Hindu god, a Muslim god, a Pagan or a Shinto god, or a Buddhist god. Our rights are based on a Christian God.

The Court and its protégé, the ACLU, don’t figure it that way. God no longer has any part of government, though all authority comes from God, as Jesus told Pilate. The Church is the guardian of the moral law, but the Court, in “Lawrence v. Texas” ruled that the moral law serves not legitimate purpose to the State, and cannot be a basis for Civil Law.

Moreover, the Court has undermined the institute of Marriage by ridiculously elevating gay sex to the dignity of conjugal love and States are outrageously recognizing the preposterous oxymoron Gay Marriage and consequently are undermining and corrupting the traditional family. In addition, banned are the “Ten Commandments,” the basis of all moral laws, from the public square. The Court ludicrously declared these moral laws could corrupt the minds of little children.

Incomprehensibly, this nation has been declared by the Court to no longer be under the auspices of God. Consequently, “God Bless America,” and the lyrics of “America” have become anathema to the Public Square. Notwithstanding, the assault on Christmas is indubitable. The Creech is banned from the Public Square though Christmas is a naional celebration; Merry Christmas has been transmogrified into a meaningless “Happy Holidays.” The Bible, the source of our inalienable rights, has been banned from the Public Square. What has ever been banned by the Court that atheists have believed? More to the point, what has the Court not upheld that is anti-Christian.

Peter Huff

Arminius is merely stating the obvious; he is acknowledging how the world has been designed and put together. Do you think God made a mistake when he made the world to be as it is? Do you think you know better than God? Arminius is accepting the mystery of our existence; in reply,you seek a clarity that is beyond the capacity of mere man.

Peter Huff

Toleration of other peoples's beliefs and points of view does not therefore mean that you are obligated to teach your children things that you believe are wrong. You are being deliberately obtuse; no one would teach there children what they think is wrong.

Your steadfast intolerance in collision with others as intolerant as you can lead to only one outcome: conflict, and there is no messier conflict than religious conflict which more often than not leads to violence. This blog is proof of the fruits of intolerance.

Either you can seek with sincerety to live in peace with your fellow man, as the instrucdtions of Jesus obligate you, or you can add, with your intolerance of others, to the conflict and dissension of the world.

IN REPLY TO (RT):
SCHAUM | JANUARY 15, 2010 5:29 PM
“ANTS”

IRT:
DanielITLD:
"Because he has said in plain English that God is a Catholic and the no one can be Christian who is not a Catholic."

ANS:
You and DITL are the convoluted and reminiscent of the five blind men feeling an elephant. One claimed the elephant was a hose feeling its trunk, another a building, felling its belly, another a rope, felling its tail, and another a tree trunk feeling its leg.

Jesus is the invisible head of the Catholic Church, Since He is the Vine and we are the branches, God is Catholic. Yes, to enter into the Kingdom of God, all men must be baptized. Baptism was instituted through the Catholic Church for all men, and only through the Church. It’s the only Church God instituted. Now that may blow your mind because you are walking around with blindfolds on. If you are not afraid of the truth, you will check this link that explains it.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p2.htm#II

“Jesus associated His disciples with His own life,,, and gave them a share in HIS mission, joy, and sufferings. Jesus spoke of a still more intimate communion between HIM and those who would follow HIM: "Abide in Me, and I in you, I am the Vine, you are the branches." And HE proclaimed a mysterious and real communion between HIs own body and ours: "He who eats MY flesh and drinks MY blood abides in ME, and I in him."

“Jesus promised to remain with them until the end of time; HE sent them HIS Spirit. As a result communion with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense: "By communicating HIS Spirit, Christ mystically constitutes as HIS body those brothers of HISwho are called together from every nation.

Watching you both is comical; it is like Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum with sacks over your heads in the middle of New York City’s Time Square at high noon trying to figure out the truth. G.K. Chesterton said Catholicism has been found to be wanting by those who have never tried it.

Hi Wiccan,

ME: "Tell me, how can all paths lead to the same place when they all claim exclusivity in some way, when they all recognize their particular blend as the most current, the most logical, the most politically correct view on the market?"

WICCAN: "Not all paths claim exclusivity. I make no claims that my path is the only path. It is the path that works best for me. Your mileage may vary."

Basically all you are saying is believe what you want to. It doesn't matter what you believe. But as soon as a fanatic flies a plane into a building it matters.

It does matter what you believe if you are a moral being created in the image and likeness of God. If you are just a blob of biological matter ultimately nothing matters.

ME: "How can two opposing paths both be true, since they contradict each other?"

WICCAN: "I think you're asking how am I going to get to Heaven when I don't follow your path, the only true path. Think of it this way. Depending on where you start, you can get to Richmond, Virginia by going north on I-95, or by going south on I-95. You can use I-64 east or I-64 west. You could even try the Powhite Parkway. You don't all start in the same place, the routes aren't identical, but they all get you to Richmond. We're all going to Richmond, Peter. It's the journey, not the path.
I did my best to make this rational and logical enough for you."

You are assuming too many things. You assume that all roads lead to Richmond. You assume that each traveler is taking the road that leads to Richmond. You assume that there are no forks in the road in which you either go to Richmond or hell. You are assuming that you have the right road map in which to find the correct destination. You are assuming that your inner compass points to God without following a reliable road map or navigating in the right direction. You are assuming that Richmond is the only destination. Is that enough assumption?

Hi Wiccan,

ME: "What kind of revelation do you have that what you believe is true? Has someone disclosed this to you, or is it just a feeling like the dawning of Age of Aquarius?"

WICCAN: "I had an experience where my Lord and Lady revealed Themselves to me. It was awe-inspiring, it was magickal, it was funny (I was the comedy relief). They are my loving Parents, whose fondest hope is that I'll grow up to be a responsible adult. I'm trying."

Anyone can claim to have an experience. The nut houses are full of them. What proofs do you have that there is such a "Lord and Lady?" Have they revealed themselves by any written revelation? When is their earliest revelation and how many copies are preserved from it? Do the earliest copies predate the biblical revelation. What are your proof of this?

If all you have to go by is your own experience, that is all very well and good, but there are a lot of delusional people out there with all kinds of experieinces. What separates you from them?

ME: "Do you reject materialism like some New Agers do?"

WICCAN: "I can be materialistic where it harms none. You should see my yarn stash. More than I'll ever be able to crochet."

How do you know it harms none? Do you see the results of each of your interactions with others? If your belief is wrong then it can be very harmful to others, whether that be about material things or spiritual things.

ME: "What kind of consensus is there to what the truth is?"

WICCAN: "What is truth? I don't understand your question."

Truth is what is real, what conforms to what is real. How do you know what you believe is true other than by your feelings, for that is basically all you have revealed about your belief so far?

Hi Wiccan,

WICCAN: "I couldn't be separated from the Divine if I wanted to."

PETER: "Yes, I understand that."

Let me clarify what I meant there. I did not mean to agree with what you are saying, just that I understand the position you are coming from, that you believe that you cannot be separated from the Divine, whatever you imagine that to be.

PETER: "But that means one of three things, 1) that you are self created which is an impossibility for how can something create itself before it exists or how can it have awareness of itself before it exists? 2) that the universe is eternal which goes against everything that seems evident to us. 3) It is all an illusion, but in that case you are my illusion, I'm not yours and I'm just having an illusionary conversation with myself. Nothing is real."

WICCAN: "It means none of those things. You're making this harder than it is. Think mathematically, think set theory."

In your world view how did we originate? Let's not make humans into mathematical equations.

WICCAN: "God is Set A, wiccan is Set B. Set A contains part of Set B; Set B contains part of Set A. It's called an intersection. That intersection is where God is a part of me, and I am a part of God. Simple."

First of all, you assume that God is part of you and not distinct from you, that He is not a separate entity that created you, but that since you come from or are made by God you must be God. Faulty thinking. I can take some clay and make a jar. That clay was not part of me. All I did was use it to make something.

We can make an equation to suit whatever we want it to. For instance,

A cannot equal both A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship. Or A is A. A cannot be A and not A. A is not B. Or A is either A or it is not A.

So here is my equation. God is God (A = A). God is not you (A is not B).

Arminius 2,

God has also said that we will know Him. So please think before you make these statements. Don't treat God's word as just another of many revelations from God. It is His only written revelation to man. God is the divine Author who led and guided the human authors. As such we need to understand the intent of what the original Author is telling us. If we don't we do not worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

Do you not think that the all wise, all knowing God is not capable of communicating to us in language that we can understand? Do you think He is going to reveal Himself one way to someone and then in a contrary way to another? That would make Him a god of confusion, which He is not. He is perfectly capable of saying what He means.

As for truth, it is narrow, it is exclusive. 2 + 2 = 4 is narrow. 1 + 3 = 4 is narrow. 1 + 5, or 6, or 7, or 8 does not equal four. In the same way God would not confuse us by the illogical or impossible, such as a square circle. His word is truth (John 17:17).

And the thing about tolerance is that I can tolerate a person with a wrong opinion, but I don't go to the opposite extreme of teaching that it is right. That would like be saying wrong equals right. That is just plain contradictory. It doesn't make sense.

Teaching your children to be respectful of all individuals and treat them with dignity and their right to hold they own opinions is admirable, but teaching them that any opinion is right is plain ludicrous.

Hi Arminius ( January 15, 2010 9:30 PM ),

I appreciate that your trust is in the Lord Jesus, but sometimes you do the gospel a disservice by your lack of faith in God's word.

For instance,

ARMINIUS: "Are these paths just different, or are they 'opposing' simply because each side claims the 'truth'? We cannot know the mind of God, for we see through a glass darkly. I am extremely suspicious of any belief that thinks it has all the right answers, and raised my kids to be tolerant but watch out for any group claiming the whole truth."

Your view of Scripture is that it is just one of a smörgåsbord of truths to taste from, that God has revealed Himself to us in many different ways, through many different religions, and that your PREFERENCE just happens to be Christianity.

You state a partial truth in that we cannot "know the mind of God" but you need to add "in its infinity, for no finite creature can know infinitely."

But we can know Him in as much as God has revealed Himself to us in nature, by His word, through His Spirit and through the experience of relationship with Him. The Scriptures plainly tell us this.

And since God has spoken to us through the Bible, which claims to be His authentic, only written revelation to us we see light because God is light. "In Him there is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)

Consider these Scriptures,

"You are my lamp, O LORD; the LORD turns my darkness into light." (2 Samual 22:29)

"In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." (John 1:4-5)

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men love darkness instead of light because their deeds are evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done by God." (John 3:19-21)

"For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light." (Ephesians 5:8)

Jesus Himself said that He was the light of the world and that anyone who walks in Him will never walk in darkness, but have the light of life. (John 8:12)

Now its all clear: Pat Robertson is possessed by a demon!

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2010/01/televangelist-robertson-likely.html

Oh, PLEASE!

I have conclusively proven that CCNL1 is a thief and a plagiarist.

He can't express fresh new thoughts, until he lifts one from the internet.

CCNL, it is your turn to chime in with a fresh new thought about yucky gay sex being mutual masturbation. So? go ahead, say it again; we're all waiting.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

HIV and AIDS is a disease caused by a virus. The people who have it do not want to have it and they do not spread it intentionally, any more than people spread cold viruses or influenza virusses intentionally.

Once it was discovered how AIDS was transmitted, this information should have been immediatley available to all, with suggested ways to avoid getting it. But this did not happen because of people like you, who persecute gay people and make them ashamed to admit that they are gay. If you would like to know what Jesus would have thought of people with AIDS, just substitue the Biblical references to leprosy with the AIDS.

Instead of caring for people who are sick, you seek to shame them into keeping it secret, and therefore missing treatment. Should people injured in car wrecks be denied medical care and condemned and made to feel ashamed because they did not wear their seatbelts?

Should fat people with diabetes and heart disease be made to feel ashamed because they eat too much?

In fact almost every horrible and terrible thing that people like you say about gay people can just as easily said about fat people. They know they are eating too much, but they keep doing it. Their body is a temple, and they are abusing it. It is by the lust of their senses that they become fat. It is by overeating that their knees giveout, their arteries clog up, their hearts malfunction, their insulin goes haywire.

Why don't we tell them it is all their fault, that God made a mistake when he made them, that they should be outcast, reviled and rejected? that we should make fun of them for being fat, call them names, push them around, even beat them, even kill them, because they eat too much? and make them ashamed to seek medical care for their fat related ailments? and that we should even try to withhold funds for research on diabetes, heart disease, and strokes, because those are mostly fat people diseases?

It is absurd, isn't it? just as it is absurd to regard gay people as you do, and just as it is to regard AIDS as you do, that it is something that gay people invented by conscious malevolence and then set upon the world.

These are all your lies.

Schaum,

Excellent going on JMR's thread. I've had a few go-rounds with him and have come to the following conclusions: He has an excellent sense of humor. He is not an idiot. He appears to be further right than human eyes can see, even with the aid of a telescope.

At all events, I'm looking forward to this discussion.

ONOFRIO and PERSIFLAGE:

Our own Schaum is taking on John Mark Reynolds. Perhaps, of interest to you guys, et al.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/01/ignorance_allows_certainty_but_punishes_with_narrowness.html

"I have a fairly extensive collection of dvds relating to nazis" [sic]

Ah, yes... so your Zyclon SSchaum sock puppet was a bit more than an act? You study the Nazis. You dream of them. You wish you had that kind of power? Yes... that explains a lot.

Great post, Susan. It should have more exposure. Why don't we see posts like this one in the first pages of the newspapers or on TV?

DanielITLD:

"I do not have the citation, but I suppose a person could google it. In each state that has approved gay marriage, the divorce rate for straight people has gone down."

The citation you need is at:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

"Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period."

"How can two opposing paths both be true, since they contradict each other?"

Are these paths just different, or are they 'opposing' simply because each side claims the 'truth'? We cannot know the mind of God, for we see through a glass darkly. I am extremely suspicious of any belief that thinks it has all the right answers, and raised my kids to be tolerant but watch out for any group claiming the while truth.

The declining divorce rate in states that have approved gay marriage probably has nothing to do with gay marriage. However, it DOES disprove the argument that gay marriage is somehow a threat to traditional marriage.

Conservatives see the movement for gay marriage as a gay conspiracy to destroy traditional marriage. For what purpose, they do not say.

Yet this movement for gay marriage is in reality propelled by individuals and gay couples, each who wish to be married individually to another person whom they love, and has nothing to do with a conspiracy to destroy anything. It is a multitude of separate people who all want the same thing, their own pursuit of happiness, which everybody else claims as a right, but for gay people, is denied.

"How can two opposing paths both be true, since they contradict each other?"

All religions that claim primacy over all the others cannot all be true.

The primacy of truth, which many religions claim, is trivial to God. I know that what is of earth-shaking importance to little man MUST be also important to God; but what if it is not?

People are born into a setting, and part of what defines this setting is their heritage of religious belief, which is acknowledged to be true, not by any proven truth in itself, but by the fact of traditional inheritance. For the transmission of religious belief is cultural just as is language, clothing, and patterns of work and life. All these things are similar from culture to culture, but are also variable.

If God created the cosmos and all that is in it, and if God created our galaxy and all of the stars in it, and if God created the solar system and the planets, and if God created all of humanity, along with our physical bodies and our capacity for senstion, and if God also created all that is available for us to sense, how could one suppose that God could worry or care about the variations in human culture from one spot on the earth to the next, much less even be aware that there are any differences at all? How could God even be aware of the differnces between Protestant and Catholics, or between Christians and Moslems? All of these differences are man made, not God made.

From the vantage point of each person, the world appears flat, maybe a little lumpy, but still essentially flat. But it is not flat. It is something that you could not guess or imagine, if you just had your own vantage point, and no other information or knowledge of others, that has demonstrated in a broader setting, that the world is round.

That is how it is also with religion. I find that Christianity and Islam are weirdly reflective of each other. Yet, without any knowledge of the other, each thinks it is distinct and different. I do not make this statement from ignorance of all the minute differences, but from stepping back a little and looking at them both in a single vision.

"I do not have the citation, but I suppose a person could google it. In each state that has approved gay marriage, the divorce rate for straight people has gone down."

Very interesting, but not too surprising. For something rather connected to this, some years back I read that business for prostitutes and strip clubs is at its absolute best when there is a republican or conservative religious convention in town. Also that internet porn subscriptions are more frequent in red states.

Schaum

I do not have the citation, but I suppose a person could google it. In each state that has approved gay marriage, the divorce rate for straight people has gone down.

Also, the conservative red states have a higher divorce rate than the liberal blue states. Apologists red state depravity say that it is because people get married younger in red states.

I say, it still counts!

WICCAN: "I couldn't be separated from the Divine if I wanted to."
PETER: "Yes, I understand that. But that means one of three things, 1) that you are self created which is an impossibility for how can something create itself before it exists or how can it have awareness of itself before it exists? 2) that the universe is eternal which goes against everything that seems evident to us. 3) It is all an illusion, but in that case you are my illusion, I'm not yours and I'm just having an illusionary conversation with myself. Nothing is real."
It means none of those things. You're making this harder than it is. Think mathematically, think set theory. God is Set A, wiccan is Set B. Set A contains part of Set B; Set B contains part of Set A. It's called an intersection. That intersection is where God is a part of me, and I am a part of God. Simple.

PETER: "What kind of revelation do you have that what you believe is true? Has someone disclosed this to you, or is it just a feeling like the dawning of Age of Aquarius?"
I had an experience where my Lord and Lady revealed Themselves to me. It was awe-inspiring, it was magickal, it was funny (I was the comedy relief). They are my loving Parents, whose fondest hope is that I'll grow up to be a responsible adult. I'm trying.
"Do you reject materialism like some New Agers do?"
I can be materialistic where it harms none. You should see my yarn stash. More than I'll ever be able to crochet.
"What kind of consensus is there to what the truth is?"
What is truth? I don't understand your question.

PETER: "PS. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I don't buy your mythical gods and goddesses."
WICCAN: "You don't have to. I make no claims that my path is the only path. That is your conceit."
"Well, it would be conceited if it was false to claim something that is true."
I was using "conceit" in this fashion: "a fancy, whim; fanciful notion".

PETER: "Tell me, how can all paths lead to the same place when they all claim exclusivity in some way, when they all recognize their particular blend as the most current, the most logical, the most politically correct view on the market?"
Not all paths claim exclusivity. I make no claims that my path is the only path. It is the path that works best for me. Your mileage may vary.

PETER: "How can two opposing paths both be true, since they contradict each other?"
I think you're asking how am I going to get to Heaven when I don't follow your path, the only true path. Think of it this way. Depending on where you start, you can get to Richmond, Virginia by going north on I-95, or by going south on I-95. You can use I-64 east or I-64 west. You could even try the Powhite Parkway. You don't all start in the same place, the routes aren't identical, but they all get you to Richmond. We're all going to Richmond, Peter. It's the journey, not the path.

I did my best to make this rational and logical enough for you.

ChristopherGraves wrote:

"Of course, if atheism is true, then all religions are false as far as their understanding of metaphysics and the hope of salvation. If Christianity is true, then all other religions must be false. If Islam is true, then all other religions must be false, and so on. Non-monotheistic religions accept a metaphysics that is at odds with monotheistic religions (incidentally, some forms of Buddhism such as Pure Land Buddhism are monotheistic).
Even if an all-embracing religion such as Bahai is true, then each other religion as their adherents understand their respective religions is false. There is some truth, whatever it is, and we had better figure it out before we die in order to live more effectively here on earth and to prepare for eternity.

Free speech for all and the willingness to exercise it is essential to try to come to a deeper and more accurate understanding of what is the ultimate reality as we openly discuss and reflect on our different understandings of these matters. Concerns for equality and inclusiveness, what people feel comfortable with, social harmony, etc. should not compromise our liberty and a search for the truth."

I post it again because it is well worth reading for anyone who may have missed it the first time.

Once realized, this sentiment is obvious. People raised in a cloistered religious setting can sometimes come to this realization by a mental process called metanoia. Christians attribute to this Greek word the meaning "repent." But a broader meaning is "sudden restructuring of thought."

By metanoia, people raised under the influence of a single religion can come to realize that their religion among many is no more likely to be exclusively true than any of the others. Once this realizaition is established, then how does one proceed?

That is a more worthwhile question than "which one is true?"

Here's one for the pagan christian religion's adherents who say that gay marriage will undermine the "institution" of marriage:

“IN MAY 2004, gay couples joyously smashed a legal barrier, celebrating the country's first same-sex marriages. Less than two years later, some of those couples find themselves on the edge of a less joyous legal frontier: They're divorcing.

“More than 7,300 gay and lesbian couples have married in Massachusetts according to the Department of Public Health, and somewhere between 35 and 45 of those couples have since filed for divorce (according to an informal survey-the state's probate courts don't officially track gay divorces). [Nowhere NEAR the 50% divorce rate among heterosexual first marriages!]

“Gay divorces were of course not unexpected. Twenty percent of heterosexual couples either separated or divorced within the first five years of marriage, according to a 1998 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And in Vermont, which began allowing civil unions in 2000, 91 of the state's 7,828 unions have since been dissolved.”

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/01/29/the_gay_divorcees/

DanielITLD:

"But they went to mass on Christmas Eve, I am sure."

But I bet they did most of their shopping at FAO Schwartz.

Schaum

I guess that Mary and God decided to raise the kids Jewish. But they went to mass on Christmas Eve, I am sure.

(It's called compromise).

I have to say that I am a little disappointed in what TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 has finally turned out to be. I have had this feeling several times before on this blog.

At first, I was impressed with him, and the threat that his arguments seem to pose. I felt called upon to respond intelligently, to knock down his arguments.

But as the dialogue progressed, my respect for him as someone worthy or argument has gradually diminished. He turns out to be an unsophistifcated and uninformed person, ignorant of the most basic facts of modern life, quoting Catholic Law to prove the Catholic Church is right, and quoting verses from the Bible to prove the Bible is right, and expecting all to acknowledge the primacy of his religion, all to prove he is right and I am wrong, going around and around in this circular logic, and in addition to all that, a pretty mean guy.

How in the heck in the world can I argue with someone like that? There is no there there. He did not really pose a threat after all; I was merely impressed by a superficial glibness, which now all gone.

Farnaz:

Link to a good online flick about the mass escape from Sobibor.

http://retrovision.tv/freevideo/escape-from-sobibor-1987/

"I think that Christianity is, above all else, personal. I do not really think that Christian principles are relevant to economic theories or the interplay of international power politics or things like that. And I do not think they were ever intended to be."

Thanks, Daniel ITLD, I was pretty sure you felt that way. Pity more people don't, regardless of religion or lack of it.

DanielITLD:

"Because he has said in plain English that God is a Catholic and the no one can be Christian who is not a Catholic."

Fascinating. Jesus is supposedly god incarnate. But he was supposedly born as a Jew. A catholic born as a Jew? The pagan christer myth becomes ever more convoluted.

Arminius

I think that Christianity is, above all else, personal. I do not really think that Christian principles are relevant to economic theories or the interplay of international power politics or things like that. And I do not think they were ever intended to be.

It has just turned out that way when the Catholic Church, way back when, became the dominating political power in Europe. TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 is all wrapped in those olden days of Medeival Europe, when the politics of his religion reigned supreme. Even the real Catholic Church does not takes things as far as TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 does. That is the number one strike against TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 in his false claims to be a Christian. Because he has said in plain English that God is a Catholic and the no one can be Christian who is not a Catholic. And he has implied and inferred that a no one can be a Catholic if they are not also a Republican, and he has also implied that a Democrat cannot be a Christian.

So, I am aware that are alot of Christians who we will never hear from, because they do not make it God's business to take sides in the political struggle and warfare of mankind.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

So gay people have a high suicide rate?

Gee whiz! I wonder why?

I am absolutely flaborgasted that you do not comprehend that it is people like you, and you, yourself, who KIL gay people, who drive them to suicide, with your constant persecution, starting from childhood, and intensifying throughout the teenage years.

I, myself, have a cousin, who committed suicide, out of the blue and unexpectedly. I believe that she may have been a lesbian, and she killed herself because she believed all of the terrible things that people like you say about gay people. Of course, I did not tell my suspicions to her parents; even though they superficially agree with your anti-gay claptrap, I know that they would give anything to have her back, and they never meant for any of their mean-spirited attitude against gay people to apply to her. But then it was her secret that she did not discuss with them, and how could she have known that?

People like you kill gay people by driving the to suicide, just the same as if you would take a gun to their heads and pull the trigger. You are guilty, guilty, guilty of murder, and not of unborn fetusses, but of fully formed, adult human beings.

And then you rant and rave about the liberal culture of death. I do not accuse you of any such "sophistry" as a culture of death; I just say in plain English that you are a ruthless and cold blooded murderer, who kills ruthlessly, in the name of Jesus Christ.

I do not know of any greater vain in which to regard the Lord's name than that.

Is this sophistry, or are you just plain too dumb to get it?

Daniel ITLD,

Actually, if you think about it, TTignoranceinaction is not a liar. The truth about him is much worse: he is spewing conspiracy theories, so he believes every word of them. This is worse than lying, because a liar can be exposed. Ever argue with a victim of a conspiracy theory? Nothing will dissuade them. I argued once with a guy who bought into all the 9/11 conspiracy theories totally. I came up with a lot of solid, scientific, metallurgical, and demolition facts and figures, complete with references. No go, he was as stubborn as a flat-earther. Same with TTwhatever.

"Once again, I fail to see how a Christian can square a mean and spiteful nature with the teachings of Jesus Christ."

It can't be done, Daniel ITLD, and TThatespewer is not a Christian. Sadly, too many people judge Christianity by his/her/its sad example, and few Christians share in his bigotry and ignorance, no more than Pagans are devil worshipers. The tendency of people to generalize, to lump a large, diverse group into a single category, is not an accurate assessment of what is really there.

That is a horse.
It is black.
Therefore, all horses are black.

That is TTwhatever, a Christian.
He is full of ignorance and hate.
Therefore, all Christians are full of ignorance and hate.

Actually, I think that TTwhatever needs therapy, and I do not say that lightly.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 is a liar:

Lie number 1
TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 says Mao is one of Obama’s favorite philosophers. Mao is not one of Obama’s favorite philosophers, he is not even a philosopher; he was a despotic ego-maniac a la Hitler and Stalin, who is now even discredited in China.

Lie number 2
Clinton’s White House Christmas tree was decorated with “homosexuals having gay sex” ornaments. That is not true. The Clintons did not have Christmas tree ornaments with images of gay sex.

Lie number 3
Obama consults on how to destroy American democracy. Obama won the Presidential election fairly, and is in fact conducting his Presidency in a fairly conventional style, in fact, more conservatively than many people had expected.

Lie number 4
Soros is pulling Obama’s strings. In fact, Soros is not pulling Obama’s strings.

Lie number 5
The way to put down the President is to expose his Communist ideology and to vote Democrats out of office. Neither Obama, in particular, nor Democrats in general are Communists.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 says fascism is my game not his. But that is not true.

I do not have a fascination with guns, the military, or war. I do not have a mystical sense of my nation’s glory. I do not need a father-figure strong man to rule me. I believe in personal freedom from government control, and in a list of civil rights equally applied to all people, and I believe in an independent court system, not to provide perfect justice all of the time, but as a counter balance to the power of the President and the Congress, and to control the rule of the mob, who might seek to persecute unpopular minorities, like Jews or black people, or gay people. How does that make me fascist? I think that there is more of an argument that it is TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 who is fascist, not I.

Likewise, I am not a Communist. I have never even thought of being a Communist. I cannot imagine how TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 has gotten the idea that I am a Communist. I think that this is probably just a negative word to insult me, like calling me fat, or calling me ugly. So much for that; and so much for the love of Christ.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 further says I consort with Communists and support the advocacy of terrorism. But, honestly, I do not even know anyone who is a Communist. Isn’t that really and old and defunct economic and political theory? And as for terrorism, I am a frequent flyer and I worry about it a lot, not that I want planes to be blown up, but that there must be some way to stop it. So, I cannot imagine where TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 gets these impressions of me, unless he is just trying to be spitefully mean and insulting. Once again, I fail to see how a Christian can square a mean and spiteful nature with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Farnaz:

"A bad cinematic experience, I presume. :("

An appalling waste of time and money. I have a fairly extensive collection of dvds relating to nazis; this is one I won't be adding to it. Nothing but bizarre fantasy.

TTWYSetc.:

Since you are ignorant of the form of government of the United States, and since you recommend googling, I have done that, and provide below a couple of sites you might visit and educate yourself. I hope the reading will not over-tax your lips.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=is+the+usa+a+democracy+or+a+republic&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

I particularly do not like this fellow, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 because he often makes obnoxiously rude personal comments about me, in reply to my comments. Our remarks to each other have gradually become increasingly nasty, even though, he is supposed to be a Christian.

He says that I make things up, but I mostly express my opinions. Is that making things up? Maybe. So what?

He says I am bordering on schizophrenic paranoia. I do not think that is true. I have a regular job, maintain my own finances, get along well with my co-workers, neighbors, friends and family, go to plays, movies, and concerts, take an interest in the news, read the papers, and do not cause any real problems for the police or authorities, and I think I am reasonably happy. So? That does not sound like a schizophrenic paranoid person to me. Sometimes, I get a little depressed, though, and I am a little too shy in social situations.

He says I am a radical left-wing liberal, but I do not think of myself that way. I have no political associations and am not a political person, although I do have opinions which I express and I do vote. A lot of people do not vote because they think their vote is so insignificant that it would not count, but I think of it as a civic responsibility that helps make the system work.

He says that I have a very limited vocabulary, but I do not think that is true. I think my vocabulary is probably bigger than average. I may not be familiar with Catholic lingo, but I’m not Catholic, and I do not feel left out because I have never studied this highly specialized jargon.

I do not think that I engage in sophistry and I do not think that I conjure up machinations; I think my arguments are straight forward and clear, usually based on my own personal experience, usually more philosophical in nature than political; I cannot help it if TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 doesn’t get it. He says I am stupefied, but really, what does that mean? I do not feel stupefied. He calls me a censor, but I do not know when I have ever censored anything or anybody.
He says that I have defended a person’s right to engage in lustful sex, and such licentious and perverse acts of debauchery. But that is not true either. It is TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 who persists in discussing the detailed logistics of sexual positions. My defense is for the right of gay people to live free without persecution. I think of being gay as a complex of personality traits and I do not automatically think of gay sex, nor refer to it, when I think a person is gay. On this matter, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 is sadly and tragically uninformed.

TTWSYetc:

"Sorry but I don’t write dictionaries."

That is obvious. Try reading the Federalist Papers. For that matter, try reading the Constitution.

You are right, suicide has always been a problem in the gay community. When you persecute people, as the pagan christian religion has persecuted gays, they tend to learn to think very badly of themselves. Forcing people to think they are vermin, diseased, unloved, unlovable, useless, a drain on society, etc., leads people to think very self-destructive thoughts. As proof of this:

It is estimated that the suicide rate among the inmate population of the nazi death camps was most likely 25,000 per 100,000 per year or higher and, therefore, enormous. The suicide rate among musicians was higher than that of most other camp workers except the death details. Many musicians had been forced to watch helplessly as their friends and families were destroyed. Auschwitz had six orchestras, one of which contained 100-120 musicians.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a714492430~db=all

http://fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/arts/musVicti.htm

There is really very little difference in the tactics used by the nazis, and those used by the pagan christer religion to demean, defile, and dispose of people who do not meet their personal specifications as fully human.

crucialruddy:

"Susan,
This really shows ignorance:
"but many religions--particularly non-monotheistic religions--do not claim the absolute monopoly on truth that Hume's form of Christianity does."
The VAST majority of adherents to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam ALL lay truth claims that are absolute.

My dear, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are monotheistic religions, which is exactly what Susan said. Non-monotheistic religions, such as Wicca, usually do not claim that their religion is the only true religion.

Arminius:

"TTetcadinfinitumnauseumque"

Brilliant! Brilliant! ROFLMAO!

TTect has all the warmth and personality of a telephone auto attendent. Reading his posts makes me want to scream, "Get me a human!"

TTetcadinfinitumnauseumque:

"So now you’re complaining about references. On this forum there’s on space for 400 or less words. What references do you want? Don’t you have a Google? That’s how I get them."

Utter horse poop. You routinely post huge amounts. By deleting 50% of your spewed hatred and ignorance, you could put in a LOT of links and facts. But you don't, because you don't have them - all you have is your very sick alternate reality and conspiracy theories.

Susan,

This really shows ignorance:

"but many religions--particularly non-monotheistic religions--do not claim the absolute monopoly on truth that Hume's form of Christianity does."

The VAST majority of adherents to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam ALL lay truth claims that are absolute.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SCHAUM | JANUARY 15, 2010 1:16 PM
“REFERENCES”

ANS:
So now you’re complaining about references. On this forum there’s on space for 400 or less words. What references do you want? Don’t you have a Google? That’s how I get them.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SCHAUM | JANUARY 15, 2010 1:16 PM
“DEMOCRACY”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/DEMOCRACY

ANS:
DEMOCRACY:
“government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”

Unless the dictionary is wrong, we are a government by the people whose supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them, or BY THEIR ELECTED AGENTS UNDER THE FREE ELECTORIAL SYSTEM.”

Sorry but I don’t write dictionaries. Maybe you do. You might try complaining to the link. Of course I don’t expect that to the Radical Left dictionaries mean much. The last time a produced a dictionary to prove a point it was ignored. It’s simply a benchmark for the discombobulated Left to deny the truth. Apparently they abuse the truth so often that they have developed an adversity to truth.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SCHAUM | JANUARY 15, 2010 12:00 PM
STATS AND FACTS

As usual, TTWSYetc makes up broad and sweeping statements with no factual backing to support his paranoid beliefs in the pagan religion of christianity...his most recent being a rant about suicides.

ANS:
You just proven my point, if “it appears that about one in three suicides is by a gay or lesbian” is true. It then follows that twice as many non-gays commit suicide.”

Consequently, since only two percent of the population are homosexuals, then their tendency to suicide is enormous.

IRT:
“Followers of religions that strongly prohibit suicide, like Christianity and Islam, HAVE A HIGHER SUICIDE RATE than those religions which have NO strong prohibition (e.g. Buddhism and Hinduism.)”

://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

In 2002, the American Journal of Epidemiology published a study by Dr. Sterling C. Hilton showing that active Latter-day Saints are 7 times less likely to commit suicide than their surrounding peer population. (See: "High Religious Commitment Linked to Less Suicide", describing the study from American Journal of Epidemiology).

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention.

TTWSYetc:

"or are apparently blind to his destruction of America‘s democracy,"

Not only do you make claims about Obama and others without offering even one shread of true proof, now you are rewriting history. America is NOT a democracy. The founding fathers went out of their way to avoid setting up a democracy. America is a republic. Hence, the pledge of allegiance is to a republic, not a democracy.

You should learn the meanings of the words you use, before you use them. You might appear less of an idiot.

Then again, probably not.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHE LIONSDEN
“RELYING ON FANTASY WILL ON CAUSE YOU TO LEAD A LIFE OF MASS CONFUSION”

IRT:
"TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 seems to advocate for the violent overthrow of the President and the government, to be superced by a fascist Christianist state."

ANS:
I see your imagination is running away with your sanity. Fascism is your game not mine; you are the one defending a Social Communist and are the victim of his mendacious sophistry.

Take the blinders from your eyes and you may see what is going on before you. Your mental blindness to the truth is compellingly unbelievable. Christianity is the anti-thesis of Fascism. Before you use either term, you should know what they mean. Look them up.

Obama is an enthusiast for Mao Zedong. Social Communist surrounds him. He consults an eminent Socialist for his contumely advice on destroying America democracy. His Climate Czar, Carol Browner, belonged to Socialist International. One of his self-avowed Communists, after being exposed, was sent back to Obama’s puppeteer Soros who is pulling Obama’s strings.

In the alternate world of Al Gore, up is down and down is up. Good is evil and evil is Good. You cannot live in the alternate world and live in reality at the same time. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

The way to put down the President is to expose his Communist ideology and to vote Democrats out of office. That has your eyes crossed and your eyes twitching. Overthrowing the President is the way of your advocates. Overthrowing governments are the ways of Social Communists.

It may be your liking to consort and defend Social Communists, but unwittingly you are also patronizing Obama's advocacy for the terrorists. Either you are his advocate, or are apparently blind to his destruction of America‘s democracy, or are so gullible you think he’s your savior.

As usual, TTWSYetc makes up broad and sweeping statements with no factual backing to support his paranoid beliefs in the pagan religion of christianity...his most recent being a rant about suicides.

But these are the FACTS:

It appears that about one in three suicides is by a gay or lesbian. It then follows that twice as many non-gays commit suicide.

Among the most common faith groups in the U.S., PROTESTANTS HAVE THE HIGHEST SUICIDE RATE; Roman Catholics are next; Jews have the lowest rate.

Followers of religions that strongly prohibit suicide, like Christianity and Islam, HAVE A HIGHER SUICIDE RATE than those religions which have NO strong prohibition (e.g. Buddhism and Hinduism.)

A person has a higher risk of suicide if his parent, close relative or close friend has taken his own life.

References:

"Suicide in the U.S.: Statistics and Prevention," National Institute of Mental Health, at: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/

"Suicide: Facts at a Glance," Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009-Summer, at: http://www.cdc.gov

TTWSYetc makes similarly absurd, and unproven, comments about the christmas tree decorations of present and past administrations. Yet, there is no evidence or fact to prove his assertions.

IRT:
"TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1's hatred of President Obama is all out of proportion to any political disagreement."

ANS:
You have a problem of making things up and believing them to be reality. Consequently, your fantasies are bordering on schizophrenic paranoia.

When a radical left-wing liberal cannot understand something, they claim either it is crazy, or it is hatred. They have a very limited vocabulary when it comes to defending their ignorance of that which they cannot understand. Moreover, they imagine and assume all kinds of things to defend their ignorance of the subject.

Consequently, the sophists conjure up all these machinations to protect themselves from appearing stupefied. Obama surrounds himself with a myriad of Social Communists who cite Mao as one of their favorite philosophers when they are seeking advice.

Thus, to the censors, it’s called a form of hatred for telling the truth about a Social Communist who decorates his Christmas tree with ornaments showing Mao Zedong's face on them.

A similar analogy of consternation can be made in respect to the Clinton’s White House Christmas tree that was decorated with “homosexuals having gay sex” ornaments. By describing the blasphemy of the Clintons, the detractors claimed the expose was a form of hatred against homosexuals.

In addition, for the reviler, it constitutes a form of hatred to inform people of the deadly consequences of gay sex. Namely, for the maligner, to note that worldwide, over 26 million have died of AIDS, that 35 million have HIV, becomes a form of bigotry against gays. To even mentioning that gays have an inordinate high rate of suicides is a form of hatred to the vilifier.

To the contrary, it is an obvious form of reckless disregard for the lives of AID and HIV victims by the defenders of gay sex. It is hypocritical to claim compassion for homosexuals and defend their right to engage in lustful sex. To these suffered mentally blind and insecure fretters, it is a form of hatred to warn of the dangers to those who are engaging in such licentious and perverse acts of debauchery.

On the contrary, it is a form of depraved recklessness not to warn those engaging in gay sex that they are playing Russian Roulette not only with their lives but also with the lives of others.

Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshiped person (DF) is exactly the same as Scientology suppressed person (SP)

Scientologists declare their outcasts "suppressive persons."
Another Scientology policy - called "disconnection" - forbids Scientologists from interacting with a suppressive person. No calls, no letters, no contact.

An SP is a pariah. Anyone who communicates with an SP risks being branded an SP himself.
Jehovah's Witnesses are EXACTLY the same.
* * * * *

Shunning in cults
http://www.xjw.com/shunning.html

DITLD:

Thanks for the post. I saw your suggestions, those of Schaum, Justilthen, et al. I posted those below, but, they, too, don't seem to fit. (At one point, I thought TTWSY = To The What Say You). Spent quite a bit of time on the acronym since TTWSY started blogging here. When s/he posts in his/her own voice, on issues, I find I'm not much in agreement with him/her. A lot of what s/he's posted is pasted from a Catholic web site, though.

For whatever reasons, I find TTWSY an interesting blogger. Perverse, of me, maybe--don't know.

I wish some of the old bloggers would come back. Mr. Mark, for instance. He was an atheist, of course, but he sure knew his NT.

GAH

Gaudeamus hodie = Let us rejoice today.

Gahanna?

God already here?

Farnaz:

Regarding the very strange name: TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1:

I remembered sometime back, someone posted that they had figured out that TTWSYF stands for "the truth will set you free."

I am sure that is right. It fits perfectly with the letters and the it seems about right for the maniac that we are dealing with.

I figured out the next four letters by accident. I am not sure why I selected just the next four letters, but I did, and I ran them trough google and came up with "Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam." Then I ran that through google and came up with alot of very weird right-wing Catholic websites, which, again, fit perfectly with the maniac we are dealing with.

Therefore, I am certain that the letters TTWSYFAMDG stand for "the truth will set you free ad majorem dei gloriam."

I also recall that someone said JMJ stands for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. I googled JMJ and that reference did come up, but I am not sure that it is right because it is not weird enough.

I also googled gah and the only religious reference that came up was Gloria, Angelic Hymn, but I am also not sure if that is right. These last too references just do not seem weird enough.

If anyone else is interested, I, also, am curious to solve the remaining letters, GAHJMJ, of the puzzle. Of course TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 could just tell us, but then he wouldn't be weird anymore if he did that, would he? (Or, she, as the case may be; just think, if he is a she, it would be like Hitler in high heels ... and a clerical collar).

I hope I have not gone over the line here. If I have, you can just give me a little slap on the hand.

Schaum,

A bad cinematic experience, I presume. :(

What would make me happy right now is getting back the $10 I just spent to watch "Inglorious Basterds".

Two things would make me happy right now: first restoring Susan's icon to the main page,
second discovering the meaning of TTWSY's moniker.

Of course, if atheism is true, then all religions are false as far as their understanding of metaphysics and the hope of salvation. If Christianity is true, then all other religions must be false. If Islam is true, then all other religions must be false, and so on. Non-monotheistic religions accept a metaphysics that is at odds with monotheistic religions (incidentally, some forms of Buddhism such as Pure Land Buddhism are monotheistic). Even if an all-embracing religion such as Bahai is true, then each other religion as their adherents understand their respective religions is false. There is some truth, whatever it is, and we had better figure it out before we die in order to live more effectively here on earth and to prepare for eternity.

Free speech for all and the willingness to exercise it is essential to try to come to a deeper and more accurate understanding of what is the ultimate reality as we openly discuss and reflect on our different understandings of these matters. Concerns for equality and inclusiveness, what people feel comfortable with, social harmony, etc. should not compromise our liberty and a search for the truth.

Arminius

See what Andrew Sullivan has to say about Sarah Palin:

" ... the fusion of Fox (News)Barbie-doll beauty, marinated in evangelical Christianity, mouthing every cliche that survives from the Reagan era until it has no relation at all to reality, propelled by what former Christianist Frank Shaeffer has called "the deepening inferiority complex suffered by the evangelical / fundamentalist community." ... "

If you try to sound out TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1's name to say it, it comes out like this:

Twasy-famd-gazha-muszhe

Gee, that's weird; isn't he the President of Iran?

(Oops! I violated one of TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1's rules: NO LAUGHING!)

Brit Hume is just your typical run-of-the-mill white supremacist, who says what he thinks and believes in accordance with the global system of white supremacy, set up to control and dominate non-white people in all areas of human activity (Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War).

All of my later un-referenced references were targetted at TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 not Pat Robertson; my apologies.

However, I perceive this person, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1, as more than just an annoying commenter.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1's hatred of President Obama is all out of proportion to any political disagreement. TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 seems to advocate for the violent overthrow of the President and the goverment, to be superced by a fascist Christianist state. TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 seems to think that that America has committed a sin against God by electing Obama as President, and that it is America, collectively, that should be punished.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 throws that phrase around causually, "culture of death" when referring to liberals; but it is TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 who promotes a culture of death in seeking the violent over-turniing of society, in favor of his Christo-fascist fantasies, a la Adolph Hitler. Along with this is a seething hatred for gay people, whose very presence and acceptance in America is perhaps the main reason why TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 hates America so much, and seeks its destruction.

For these reasons, and also because of TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1's rediculously symbolic name, I am a little worried about what TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 may really be up to, when not commenting here.

2.

When Mithra is born on the 25th of December, of a virgin, and promised to bring salvation and eternal life to his followers, died and was resurrected and ascended into the sky, we understand that as a myth.

When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman , we call that a myth.

When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we call that a myth.

When Scipio Africanus (Scipio Africanus, for Christ's sake) is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we call that a myth.

So how is it that, when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy, turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so his believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to hell—for the bad folks... that's not seen as a myth?

And how is it, in a culture with all those Sons of God, where miracles were science, where Heaven and Hell and God and eternal life and salvation were in the temples, in the philosophies, in the books, were dancing and howling in street festivals, how come we imagine Jesus and the stories about him developed all on their own, all by themselves, without stealing up any of their stuff from the culture they sprang from, the culture full of the same sort of stuff?

The answers to these questions is found examining what ancient people wrote about ancient religion. What the ancient evidence shows is that ancient western culture had conventional ideas about Gods and “Sons” of Gods, and their powers and place in the universe. Christianity stole those ideas.

Ancient Pagans believed in various levels of divinity, with miraculous powers, coming down and going up to its home in the sky. Divine beings cared about people, listened to and answered their prayers, giving them the power to prophesy, and offering them a better deal in the eternal life that comes after death.

Christianity is a product of it's time and place.

Christianity is an ancient Pagan religion

1.

By what criteria can we decide which ancient godman stories were new and original, and which ancient godman stories were myths built up from the religious ideas of their day?

When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we call that a myth.

When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we call that as a myth.

When ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we call these writings myth.

When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we call that a myth.

When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we call that a myth. >>

When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, call that a myth.

When Dionysus turned water into wine, we call that a myth. When Dionysus’s believers are filled with the Spirit of God, we call that a myth.

When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we call that a myth.

"Or maybe he is a gay man trapped in a lesbian's body."

At the end of the day, Robertson is nothing more, nor less, than a very good businessman who knows, has thoroughly researched, and services the deep-seated emotional needs of his clientele. He is a hyperarchright christian conservative, and appeals to a sizeable number of people who think as he does. His outrageous, hate-filled pronouncements feed the emotional needs of his christian followers. He is not even close to being done. He is a master salesman and business tycoon. And he is carefully training his son "in the way he should go so that, when he is old, he will not depart from it."

I think all of you, including Ms. Jacoby, are missing the question behind the question.

You are starting with an assumption that any bias against public Christian conversation is because they proselytize in any venue whether people want to hear it or not.

I call BS. Americans ignored these intrusions of insanity until things changed about three years ago when most Americans realized that Fundamentalist Christians and their handlers had used them to push a war criminal and world class swindler down our throats as President. Americans no longer want to willing to listen to their babble because they have proven themselves hypocrits and misguided tools of the Bush Cabal Axis of Evil.

And even the question still ignores the fact that they have 10,000 times the media presence as Secular Humanist because that same cabal uses War Profits to buy that time for them.

The new and still overstated bias against them is due to them showing their true colors.

I think Pat Roberton is done.

An earthquake has just killed possibly tens of thousands of people, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of people, and left their bereaved survivors, the poorest people on earth, even more destitute.

And he just blows it off casually, and belittles their misfortune in a light-hearted and dismissive way.

I cannot imagine even the hardest hearted Christian would not be moved to reject him now as a man who is empty inside, with nothing at all to offer in the way or religious instruction, or anything else.

Or maybe he is a gay man trapped in a lesbian's body.

Ole Pat Robertson's not done, not by a long shot. Read and weep, or take a different approach.

Haiti, the devil and Pat Robertson

By David Waters

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/01/haiti_the_devil_and_pat_roberton.html?hpid=talkbox1

DanielITLD:

"One way or another, there is a problem of sex with this person."

Yeah...like not getting any.

Poor dumb Pat Robertson. I hope he is done now, career-wise, that is.

I think he has sucked up enough money for one lifetime.

Yes, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 may be a woman. Once when I referred to him as a man, he made a lot of rude remarks about how stupid I am because I assumed he was a man, but maybe he wasn't a man. But since he did not say, then I am continuing to assume he is a man until he says otherwise. If it is his secret, and he won't tell us, then there is no way we can know. But that does not mean I am stupid because I cannot guess his secret, and it is not my problem, it is is his.

One way or another, there is a problem of sex with this person.

Farnaz:

"I think TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 may be a woman."

I think you are right.

I think TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 may be a woman.

GAH

Gaudeamus hodie = Let us rejoice today.

Keeping in mind the deity's native language--still, doesn't fit the pattern.

Pardon me for side-tracking on this guy, TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1. There is something about him that is a little creepy. He apparently is a quack Priest who gets a little charge out of gay people, about imagining what they do, and in thinking about all the ways that God will punish them; he is just a little too into it, if you ask me. So I can't help but wonder what does this freak acronym really mean.

My Navaho associates who specialize in cracking codes of this type have found "Gloria, Angelic Hymn" but I am skeptical that this is really what GAH means, since it does not fit the pattern of the previous two.

I believe this is what the Heavenly Hosts sang as they announced the birth of Jesus to the Shepherds, "Glory to God on High and on Earth, Peace, good will to men."

But of course this is just a translation. With the progress of science, we now know that the Angels sang in Latin, not English. How do we know? Because Latin is God's native language, and how could he be expected to understand them, if they didn't sing in Latin? See? that is just plain logic and common sense.

Ah, yes, Pat Robertson. His usual screed of total hatred, while he sits back to watch the money roll in from the bleating flock.

Meanwhile, former President Clinton, a favorite whipping boy of the rightwingnuts, is now in the forefront of the relief efforts. Anybody seen Bush lately? And what is that bastard Robertson doing to obey the teachings of Jesus to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, heal the sick? Nothing, of course not, he's just admiring his bank account and preparing his next hate-filled message.

Jesus wept.

GAH

Gahanna?

God already here?

Wiccan:

"What part of "love thy neighbor" doesn't Mr. Robertson get?"

Christians tend to soft-pedal the "love thy neighbor" thing...it doesn't bring in much money.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WICCAN
THE COMMANDMENTS
POSTED JANUARY 13, 2010 12:54 PM

IRT:
“Commandments (which style, Catholic or Protestant?) are the bane of Pagans.’

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/command.htm

Exodus 20 2-17
Deuteronomy 5:6-21
A Traditional Catechetical Formula
Take your choice, they are basically no different.

IRT:
As if the first three commandments are there to promote the primacy of the Abrahamic god, the rest are the usual civilised rules against impertinence.

ANS:
The Commandments are civilized because they are based on the human nature. However, God makes them emphatic, and God’s Church teaches their meaning and their necessity.

Yes, the people in Exodus were primitive. God didn’t want to take the time for the Jews to figure the Moral Laws out, though they eventually would come to them through trial and error over time. God gave the Commandments to Moses to instruct the people how to be in harmony with Creation of which he gave man dominion over.

Obedience to God was a command that God warned if violated would have severe penalties. Unfortunately, man didn't listen. God had to send His Son. Consequently He left a Church so there would be no excuses for screwing up.

Hence,“God not only promise a kingdom, but also threaten hell. And in this way the prophet puts the good first, saying, "If you be willing and will obey me, you shall eat the good of the land: but if you be not willing and will not to obey me, the sword shall devour you."

Carlin can mock God and the Commandments, but his privileges ends at death, the clowning stops and reality takes its toll. God isn’t a joke, a figment of one’s imagination and then and now, violations of His Commandments have dire consequences. For God is the same God that existed during Genesis and Exodus; He does not exist in time.

The Congo, Sudan's Darfur genocide, Saddam’s rape of Iraq, China and N. Korea's suppression, of humanity, death and suffering follow the violations of God's Divine Commands. The opprobrium of America’s ridicule and derisiveness, Her mockery of human life by Abortion and Her scandalizing of Marriage and the Family in legalizing gay sex and Gay Marriage do not go unnoticed by God.

“Hence there arose among men the corruption of their nature, so that it was necessary that a law should be established, by which vices might be prohibited, and the duties of virtue be enjoined. Since, therefore, there are good and evil things in the affairs of men, the nature of which I have set forth, it must be that God is moved to both sides, both to favour when He sees that just things are done, and to anger when He perceives unjust things.

What does GAH mean?

Gentlemen, your guesses are much kinder than mine. Speaking of twits, have you heard the latest bit of fundamentalist "Christian" wisdom from Pat Robertson on Haiti? Haiti brought the earthquake on itself by "making a pact with the devil". Meanwhile, people of every description and persuasion from all over the world are busting their butts to send help because these people are hurting. What part of "love thy neighbor" doesn't Mr. Robertson get?

What does GAH mean?

Girls are holy?
Girls are horny?
Guys and Hooters?
Gumbo and Heineken?
Gorillas and Heffalumps?
Grunts and Hiccups?

-or-

'GAH' as an explanation of disgust and dismay, usually rendered as 'GAAAAAAH'

DanielintheLionsDen,

God Almighty Halleluja?

What does GAH mean"

God Awful Homosexuals?

Girls Against Humanity?

Guns and Hooters?

Gory Ardvarrk Hunt?

Gloria and Halleluia?

Gills are horrible?

What can it mean?

DanielITLD:

"I am not arguing. I see what is."

Yes. You see that PH obfuscates, and twists anything that is said or quoted, if it does not Agree With PH.

His obfuscations, illogic and irrationality are why I don't bother with him.

Arminius:

"The guy that designed and built it has my utmost respect."

You are right; I have been fortunate to have had a number of enriching experiences in my life.

The guy, Lawrence Phelps, was almost single-handedly responsible for the revival of classical organbuilding in the United States. The crisp sound that obviously tickled your ears was, in those years, an entirely new experience both for organists and listeners who had never traveled to Europe to hear their instruments, some of which are hundreds of years old. Because it was a "new" sound for so many, Phelps was ridiculed, often with very open hostility, for "ruining" the sound of the American organ! In the end he prevailed. His greatest instrument turned out to be the one built for the chapel at Oral Roberts University. It was larger and much more tonally balanced than University of the South. He had learned a lot in the intervening years. Unfortunately, the ORU organ was ruined in a flood that occurred in the chapel because ORU was running out of money and neglected to keep the roof in good repair. By that time, Phelps was dead and buried, so ORU hired a local hack to "repair" the instrument. Instead, he essentially rebuilt it and revoiced all the pipework. The result is a ghastly disaster.

Anybody care to guess what the GAH stands ro in:

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1?

TTWSYF: The Truth Will Set You Free

AMDG: Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (for the greater glory of God)*

GAH: ?

JMJ: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

1

* also known by the abbreviation AMDG, is the motto of the Society of Jesus, commonly referred to as "the Jesuits."

This phrase is the motto of many Jesuit educational institutions. In Georgetown University's Gaston Hall, the phrase is followed by "inque hominum salutem," making the full phrase state "for the greater glory of God and the salvation of humanity."

It’s mirror motto in Islam is “Peace be upon him” meaning God or Allah.

Peter Huff said:

"What are you arguing from? Perhaps a postmodern, relative position where you determine truth? Not everything modern is good. Maybe you have not come to that realization yet."

I am not arguing. I see what is. I do not have postmodern position. When I say "modern," I mean "now" and "today" as opposed to your views which have never extended beyond Medeival times, and are stuck in the past.

I never said that anything modern is good, much less that all things modern are good. I merely said that I was born in the 20th century and now live in the 21st century, periods of time which are important to me, since this is my period of time to exist.

I merely sought to clarify why your posts seems so unintelliglbe, because centuries have passed you right by, and there you are, still arguing over things long sense forgotten.

Schaum,

You are one lucky bastard to have had experiences like that. My memories of that organ are still very much with me. One of my friends was an organist. I would come to the chapel at night, and listen to him practice. The acoustics were much, much superior when the church was empty. The purity of that instrument was not to believed until heard, and when my friend pulled out a bunch of stops and really hit it, the tsunami of sound was a physical sensation and damned close to a religious experience. The guy that designed and built it has my utmost respect.

Peter Huff,

My apologies, but I am at work and if I don't finish some tasks...

Look for me to answer after 6:00 pm.

But consider this, the path isn't what is important, it's the destination.

Arminius:

The organ at University of the South was built by Casavant Freres, in St. Hyacinthe, Quebec. It was designed and tonally finished by Lawrence Phelps. ( I later worked for Phelps when he opened his own company in Erie, PA.) The man I trained with in Knoxville was the Casavant representative at the time, and he was responsible for the physical installation of the instrument. I worked on it one summer, and have tuned it many times. I've participated in public recitals on it. It was the first neo-classical pipe organ in the South, and at the time was Phelps masterpiece.

"How can two opposing paths both be true, since they contradict each other? "

Are they opposing? Do they contradict? Are the followers of a particular path correct in claiming that their path is the only true path? Do we know the mind of God? No, we do not, we see through a glass darkly. Any any 'holy book' was written by men, and, no matter how inspired, they saw through a glass darkly, and they were not taking dictation.

The path of the Spiritual, the Transcendent, is separate from the path of Reason. But both are equally valid, and further, they are concurrent. I walk them both.

Sorry, I'm done for the day. Won't be back for many a day since I'm working until the weekend.

Hi DITLD,

DITLD: "Peter Huff argues from a Medeival point of view, with assumptions and suppositions about existence which were current hundreds and hundreds of years ago; centuries have passed him right by; therefore, he commincates ideas in an unintelligble idiom for people who live in the modern world, and dwell in the current day."

What are you arguing from? Perhaps a postmodern, relative position where you determine truth? Not everything modern is good. Maybe you have not come to that realization yet.

DITLD: "His thinking is not even really ancient; it is stuck somewhere in the middle, at the time that the Catholic Church had reached its greatest glory in the wealth and power of Europe; betting everything on a glorious but ignorant past is no basis for belief of anything."

If you are talking the RC church you are wrong. I'm from the Reformed faith. That is closest to biblical teaching. As such I oppose much that is RC doctrine.

Hi Shawn,

SHAWN: "Being obsessed with one's own salvation rather than one's fellow people and community always seems like the ultimate selfishness, but that's just me..."

In in a feisty mood today. I'm not obsessed with it. I'm answering questions about it as posed earlier on the forum.

Can you establish why humanity on the whole is such a selfish lot? Genesis explains the problem very well. We want to determine by our own limited puny brains what is good by ignoring what God has said and deciding for ourselves.

It is man's pride that came with the Fall. He decided he was going to know the difference between good and evil. That was realized when he disobeyed God. Since then, man has been his own authority, each to his own devises, each choosing for himself what he will call good.

The problem comes when your good opposes my good, when what you decide as good is not in agreement of what I decide as good. What is war, what is greed, what is coveting, what is hatred? Do they not all stem from man, in his wisdom, choosing his own god, himself as the final reference point, the measure of all things, the ultimate source of truth?

Schaum,

Don't know how old you are, but did you have anything to do with the pipe organ at the University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee? That would have been in 1962-3, and I was there, and it was done by a Canadian company.

Hi Wiccan,

WICCAN: "Peter, you see the Divine as transcendent, separated from this plane of existence. Wiccans see the Divine as immanent, or present and part of this existence. God is a part of me, I am a part of God. The same goes for you, too. I couldn't be separated from the Divine if I wanted to."

Yes, I understand that. But that means one of three things, 1) that you are self created which is an impossibility for how can something create itself before it exists or how can it have awareness of itself before it exists? 2) that the universe is eternal which goes against everything that seems evident to us. 3) It is all an illusion, but in that case you are my illusion, I'm not yours and I'm just having an illusionary conversation with myself. Nothing is real.

Or the Christian view, as you say, that Someone who is transcendent, eternal and unchanging created us! It explains that personality comes from Person, life from the living, reason and logic from a rational Being, love and emotion from Someone who loves.

What kind of revelation do you have that what you believe is true? Has someone disclosed this to you, or is it just a feeling like the dawning of Age of Aquarius? Do you reject materialism like some New Agers do? What kind of consensus is there to what the truth is?

ME: "PS. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I don't buy your mythical gods and goddesses."

WICCAN: "You don't have to. I make no claims that my path is the only path. That is your conceit."

Well, it would be conceited if it was false to claim something that is true.

Tell me, how can all paths lead to the same place when they all claim exclusivity in some way, when they all recognize their particular blend as the most current, the most logical, the most politically correct view on the market?

How can two opposing paths both be true, since they contradict each other?

Since you are making the stab at rationality and using logic to form your thoughts I must assume that two things cannot both be true and false at the same time and in the same way can they?

If you agree with that last statement will you admit that one of us is wrong? If you won't then you have opened up a whole new kettle of fish. Please reply.

Arminius:

" But organs and harpsichords? That is a quantum jump."

Actually, no. When I was a teenager, I worked weekends and summers for a pipe-organ builder who had moved to Tennessee from Canada. I pursued it for years as an avocation. Outside of teaching computer science, its the only work I am fit for.

I'm quite happy that christers exist. I've made a lot of money building instruments for their "churches", and by being organist-choirmaster in several. Fortunately, I can do this without incorporating their superstitions in my life.

"I build pipe organs and harpsichords. Used to teach computer science. Got really tired of the politics in university life."

Well, Shaum, I am honestly impressed. I cannot even begin to imagine that. Computers, sure, I was a programmer in major companies for 25 years. But organs and harpsichords? That is a quantum jump.

Hi Schaum,

SCHAUM: "I am content to let you have your delusions, and god-jesus phobias. Like all phobias, they arise from fear."

The question is whom is the deluded? Are you sure that anger has not blinded your vision?

SCHAUM: "I have given you repeated calls to present proof of the existence of god, and that there was a "jesus"...and to date you have offered no proof at all. You merely reiterate the same tired biblical references, and since you can only offer the self-referencing "proof" of scriptures, that proof is no proof at all."

Scripture is not 'self-referencing', it is God referencing. It does not come out of self.

First show me how you can know anything as a certainty. Until we get through this hurdle what point is there in giving proof? You will twist it to your own means. It is more comfortable for you that way.

The biggest hurdle is pride, admitting you are wrong. You are the Master of your universe!

SCHAUM: "I am tired of your self-important pontificating buffoonery, and circular arguments. Until you can offer proof for your "beliefs", I will continue to regard them as no more, or less, sensible than belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the tooth-fairy. As I said, I do not begrudge you the right to believe whatever superstitions appeal to you. Just do not expect rational people to be persuaded by your drivel."

Oh to be so rational! Where does rationality come from in a mindless, purposeless universe? How can molecules produce rationality? How can random electro-chemical impulses and reactions produce the rational?

I'm sure I would be waiting a long time for your answers, just like all the other questions I've asked you. You are not willing for this to be a two-way dialog. I've answered your questions, you choose to dismiss mine. I'll let the reader decide how well you have brushed off almost everything I have asked you.

Peter Huff:

"What better news to share than that our relationship with almighty God can be restored and that we can be created anew, with our sins and wrongful actions having been taken care of by the Savior and put behind us!
If you think you are going to change for the better without God look around you at man's inhumanity to man. Think of the times people have lied, cheated, stolen, killed and misaligned someone, but most of all what they have said and thought about the Sovereign Lord."

Peter, you see the Divine as transcendent, separated from this plane of existence. Wiccans see the Divine as immanent, or present and part of this existence. God is a part of me, I am a part of God. The same goes for you, too. I couldn't be separated from the Divine if I wanted to.

"PS. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I don't buy your mythical gods and goddesses."

You don't have to. I make no claims that my path is the only path. That is your conceit.

Being obsessed with one's own salvation rather than one's fellow people and community always seems like the ultimate selfishness, but that's just me...

Shawn Cromett

Peter Huff argues from a Medeival point of view, with assumptions and suppositions about existence which were current hundreds and hundreds of years ago; centuries have passed him right by; therefore, he commincates ideas in an unintelligble idiom for people who live in the modern world, and dwell in the current day.

His thinking is not even really ancient; it is stuck somewhere in the middle, at the time that the Catholic Church had reached its greatest glory in the wealth and power of Europe; betting everything on a glorious but ignorant past is no basis for belief of anything.

WICCAN:

I build pipe organs and harpsichords. Used to teach computer science. Got really tired of the politics in university life.

Hi Schaum,

SCHAUM: "Really? For whom? Not me. I live without the fantasy of god, and my life is far from ugly. In fact, it works exactly the way I want it to."

It sounds like you are in control of all things!

SCHAUM: "Perhaps you are dissatisfied with your life, but I am not with mine. But possibly that is why you are so dissatisfied..."

Dissatisfied with injustice and falsehood and the evil in the world, but how can I be dissatisfied with the Savior? He has rescued me from a life without true purpose.

Peter Huff:

I am content to let you have your delusions, and god-jesus phobias. Like all phobias, they arise from fear.

I have given you repeated calls to present proof of the existence of god, and that there was a "jesus"...and to date you have offfered no proof at all. You merely reiterate the same tired biblical references, and since you can only offer the self-referencing "proof" of scriptures, that proof is no proof at all.

I am tired of your self-important pontificating buffoonery, and circular arguments. Until you can offer proof for your "beliefs", I will continue to regard them as no more, or less, sensible than belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the tooth-fairy. As I said, I do not begrudge you the right to believe whatever superstitions appeal to you. Just do not expect rational people to be persuaded by your drivel.

ME: "No, it is because you do recognize the evil and injustice in life that you are here."

SCHAUM: "No, Peter....that is the reason YOU need for me to be here. There are no answers to be found in the irrational belief in an unverifiable sky-god and his "son". What will it take to shake you out of your fantasy?"

Thanks for your opinion. Is that an absolute, objective statement you're making there Schaum? Please verify it as so. If not, why is your opinion of such worth? Truth has to be absolute, objective and unchanging.

ME: "Why are you arguing with me about ultimate meaning and purpose? "

SCHAUM: "Arguing with you? Again, the ever-present christer persecution complex. You asked a question, and I answered it. If you don't like my answer, tough."

Actually my goal is to show the futility of your world view and by the grace of God point anyone who is searching for true meaning to the only One who can supply it. What you are saying serves the purpose.

Peter!

The damned instructions did not go through! I'll try again.....

Here is the order....
double quote
left arrow (shift comma)
i
right arrow (shift period)
your text
left arrow (shift comma)
forward slash (left of enter button)
i
right arrow (shift period)
double quote

Arminius:

No, we were talking about Mr. Carlin's third commandment. God knows what YOU are talking about...

Peter Huff:

"it shows the ugly reality of life lived separated from God (Romans 1:18-25 for example)"

Really? For whom? Not me. I live without the fantasy of god, and my life is far from ugly. In fact, it works exactly the way I want it to. Perhaps you are dissatisfied with your life, but I am not with mine. But possibly that is why you are so dissatisfied...

SCHAUM: "Absurd! We could never have had Inquisitions, and witch-hunts and burnings, and ignorance and superstition, and slavery, and holocausts, and suppression of women, and pedophilic clergy,.......if people kept their religion to themselves! WhatEVER are you thinking of?"

There are many things done "in the name of."

But take a look at the very WRONGS you are so angry about in secular societies and regimes that discount the revelation of God. Over a hundred million murdered in the last century alone. Daily inhumanity in every sector of the globe. Greed, focus on self, sexual immorality, theft, murders - the very things that God has forbidden us to do because they are not in our best interests.

You still have to establish where good comes from in a meaningless and purposeless world. I don't let your talk deceive me. You are without explanation.

Dig deeper. Find out how you can explain right and wrong without an objective, absolute, universal, ultimate authority and source- the Christian God - that is all comprehending, all wise, without change.

Hi, Peter,

To put text into italics, and the [ and ] are NOT to be typed:

"[] ... text ... []"

You can substitute 'b' for 'i' and get boldface. Hope this comes thru and helps.

Furthermore Schaum,

If life is just electro-chemical impulses and reactions to stimulus that are a defense mechanism for survival, if the brain is nothing more than that, then preservation of self does become very important. The focus is selfish, self-centered, self, self, self. 'Care' is finding what benefit you can give to get from others by looking after their 'best' interests. It furthers your own chance of survival. But why, if when you are dead nothing matters? .

That is not the higher ground of Christianity. To do without looking for something in return, that is a different matter. Its higher ground is to deny yourself and put the wellbeing of others before yours, even to the point of losing your life. It is investing your life in others that you may truly find what is meaningful and fulfilling in life. Sometimes that involves striping away the false illusions that blind us to the truth. God does that through His word.

And that same Word reaches out to others who are in desperate need of the only One who can provide the ultimate meaning and purpose in life.

It reaches out in two ways that I can think of off the top of my head; it shows the ugly reality of life lived separated from God (Romans 1:18-25 for example) and it provides comfort for those who, in repentance turn to the Lord for true life (revelation 22:14, 17; Matthew 11:28-30).

"Absurd! We could never have had Inquisitions, and witch-hunts and burnings...."

Get a grip, Schaum. We are talking about the core teachings of Jesus (see the Jeffersonian Bible), NOT the horror show that the organized church made out of it. The ability of humans to take a perfectly good thing and pervert it to their own wishes of wealth and power (see conservative religion) totally dismays me.

Schaum,

What wonderful news! Brightest Blessings to you and Christian!

Working on an organ? Do you build or restore, or both? It sounds like hard work and good fun.

As for TTW..., he needs a pooka. "Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P. Dowd

Peter Huff:

"No, it is because you do recognize the evil and injustice in life that you are here."

No, Peter....that is the reason YOU need for me to be here. There are no answers to be found in the irrational belief in an unverifiable sky-god and his "son". What will it take to shake you out of your fantasy?

Peter Huff:

"Why are you arguing with me about ultimate meaning and purpose? "

Arguing with you? Again, the ever-present christer persecution complex. You asked a question, and I answered it. If you don't like my answer, tough.

WICCAN:

"Jesus was admirably concise. Had He only added Mr. Carlin's Third Commandment, "Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself", what a wonderful world this would be."

Absurd! We could never have had Inquisitions, and witch-hunts and burnings, and ignorance and superstition, and slavery, and holocausts, and suppression of women, and pedophilic clergy, and Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker, and the prophecies of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (overlook the fact that none of them ever happened!), and prohibition, and the murders of physicians, ad infinitum, if people kept their religion to themselves! WhatEVER are you thinking of?

Hi Schaum,

SCHAUM: "You make a presupposition (again!) in assuming I agree that life has "ultimate meaning and purpose". That is another fiction that exists as truth only in your head."

Sure it does. Because you deny it to suit your own purposes, so be it. What is the point of anything then? Why are you arguing with me about ultimate meaning and purpose? If all you can see life as is to eat drink and be merry, to be happy, why are you spending so much time on these forums?

No, it is because you do recognize the evil and injustice in life that you are here. You are trying to answer it out of a futile framework of atheism. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE ANSWERS.

I apologize by being so blunt, but what is going to shake you out of your slumber?

WICCAN:

"Still working on "GAH",..."

How about "Gays Are Horrible"?

Hi Wiccan,

WICCAN: "Jesus was admirably concise. Had He only added Mr. Carlin's Third Commandment, "Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself", what a wonderful world this would be."

What better news to share than that our relationship with almighty God can be restored and that we can be created anew, with our sins and wrongful actions having been taken care of by the Savior and put behind us!

If you think you are going to change for the better without God look around you at man's inhumanity to man. Think of the times people have lied, cheated, stolen, killed and misaligned someone, but most of all what they have said and thought about the Sovereign Lord.

PS. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I don't buy your mythical gods and goddesses.

Peter Huff:

You make a presupposition (again!) in assuming I agree that life has "ultimate meaning and purpose". That is another fiction that exists as truth only in your head.

WICCAN!

Greetings! How is your new year going? Mine is going very well. Now that there is gay marriage in Austria, we can live there (which is Christian's home) rather than relocate to Germany. I LOVE the Alps, and the Austrians. I lived with him there, illegally, for four years. Now we can do it legally. Planning on making the move in August: I have an organ to complete before I can go.

Yes, TTWYetc is definitely another misguided christer fanatic. His blathering doesn't interest me at all. But I think it is clear that he has won his fight against mental health.

Hey Arminius,

How do you emphasize text? Do you have to bring it from a word document or is there something that can be downloaded to do this?

Hi, Peter Huff!

Jesus was admirably concise. Had He only added Mr. Carlin's Third Commandment, "Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself", what a wonderful world this would be.

Arminius:

In my opinion, they are both living proof that Brit Hume is not alone in exercising his right to stupid speech.

Schaum, please see my reply to your almost exact same post on,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sharon_brous/2010/01/raising_little_blasphemers.html

Again, I invite you to answer the harder questions of ultimate meaning and purpose. Atheism is most fitting of the Beatles song, Nowhere Man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQWh2XTYZfg

"Even better, Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments and all the 613 Mosaic laws with two, love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40)."

And here, Peter, we are in total agreement! What many do not notice is that Jesus took a vast amount of negative stuff and compressed it all into a very positive and proactive statement.

Daniel ITLD,

Your suppositions about what TTW...'s acronym means are more reasonable, and much politer, than my own. Still working on "GAH", huh?

Schaum,

You might take a moment and contrast Peter Huff with our resident rightwingnut, Mr Alphabet, aka TTWSetc. The latter can have no rightful claim either to being a decent human or a true Christian. He should be on Comedy Central - all he has to do is deliver his insane blather straight up, and he'll bring the house down. Peter Huff, by way of contrast, is polite and decent - and, in the view of this Christian, badly misled. I think Peter would make a very comfortable neighbor. But if I lived next door to TTWSetc, I would purchase an arsenal and get guard dogs.

Hi Wiccan,

WICCAN: "...you can see how the Ten Commandments can be reduced to the Three Commandments, to much better effect:"

Even better, Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments and all the 613 Mosaic laws with two, love God and love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40).

"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commands." (vs. 40)

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

I had written a big long thing to you. But now I delete it all, and put this in its place.

You are a sad case; you are misanthropic and maladjusted; you hate America, you hate the President, you hate the very times in which we live.

You are bitter and alienated from everything, except your memories of old Catholicism, crumbled and faded with antiquity.

What have you really got at all, except this pitiful little forum, to blow off your steam?

Well, be my guest, go ahead, blow even harder, if that is what makes you feel better.

Schaum & Arminius! Merry Meet, my dears. Very interesting info you've been posting. I wondered why the Roman Catholic rituals seemed so familiar.

Alphabet Soup Boy has plucked my last nerve with his pompousness and intolerance. "Loves" America but hates the Constitution. Been having fun trying to figure out what on earth his name is an acronym for.

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Peter Huff:

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

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

Not only are you unable to prove the existence of your sky-god, neither can you prove that his “son” ever existed. The fantastic jesus myths are that and nothing more. All stolen from other religions.

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

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

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

Arminius:

"Doesn't shake me up at all..."

Nor was that my intention.

"the parallels are striking."

Indeed, but very predictable. At the time of the establishment of the christian religion, christianity was a newcomer, seeking adherents in societies in which older, more established religions were its competition. In order to attract new adherents to a new religion, the new religion (christianity) would have to offer to any potential adherents AT LEAST as much as the existing religions.

"I wonder if they got a bit of this from the Isis-Horus-Set mythology of ancient Egypt."

That would be my guess.

What does this stand for:

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

I have my Navaho Indian associates working on it, and so far, this is what we have come up with:

TTWSYF = the truth will set you free

AMDG = Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (for the greater glory of God)

GAH = as yet, unknown

JMJ = Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

The parallels are no more than superficial between Jesus and Mithra.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/copycat.html

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

From the last link:

"What has been the point of this diversion? The point is to give the reader a warning, to be on the lookout any time a critic makes some claim about Mithraism somehow being a parallel to Christianity. Check their sources carefully. If they cite source material from the Cumont or pre-Cumont era, then chances are excellent that they are using material that is either greatly outdated, or else does not rely on sound scholarship (i.e., prior to Cumont; works by the likes of King, Lajard, and Robertson).

Furthermore, if they have asserted anything at all definitive about Mithraic belief, they are probably wrong about it, and certainly basing it on the conjectures of someone who is either not a Mithraic specialist or else is badly outdated."

End of quote.

Hi Csintala79,

CSINTALA: "Can man save himself by merit, i.e., good works and behavior, or is his salvation subject to the capricious bestowal of Grace by an omnipotent god?

By the grace of God alone, through Christ alone, in faith alone. (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 6:44)

CSINTALA: "Is baptism by sprinkling efficacious or is full emersion required?

Baptism does not have the power to save, only Jesus does.

CSINTALA: "Must a believer confess his sins to a mediator, i.e., priest, or can one appeal directly to God for forgiveness?"

To God through the One Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Timothy 2:5)

CSINTALA: "Is communion a sacrament required for salvation or just a remembrance that is optional?"

Only the merit of Christ is required for salvation. (John 14:6) Through Him we receive a new nature that loves God and seeks His ways.

CSINTALA: "Is scripture all that is necessary to establish dogma and doctrine or does tradition have a place?"

Scripture alone, through the leading of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:14-16; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16).

CSINTALA: "Is ordination necessary for ministers of the Word?"

Ordination by who? God has given the commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

CSINTALA: "If Christianity is to be the authority, which persuasion is it to be?"

The persuasion of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Word of God.

Schaum,

I assume your source for this is 'Jesus as a Reincarnation of Mithra', at
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

Interesting site, to be sure. Doesn't shake me up at all, but I find it quite fascinating - the parallels are striking. I wonder if they got a bit of this from the Isis-Horus-Set mythology of ancient Egypt.

Also:

Sadly there's a lot we don't know about this faith that comforted million of souls. Early Christians established the dominance of their religion by exterminating Mithras' faithful, razing His temples, burning His sacred texts.

We do know
He was buried in a tomb from which He rose again from the dead—an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing.

Every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, the Son of God was born one more, putting an end to darkness. Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother.

He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God."

His followers kept the Sabbath holy, eating sacramental meals in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

Baptism in the blood of the bull (taurobolium)—early
Baptism "washed in the blood of the Lamb"—late
Baptism by water [recorded by the Christian author Tertullian]

Mithraic rituals brought about the transformation and Salvation of His adherents—an ascent of the soul of the adherent into the realm of the divine. From the wall of a Mithraic temple in Rome: "And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood."

The great Mithraic festivals celebrated His birth (at the winter solstice) and His death and resurrection (at the spring solstice)

http://www.pocm.info/pagan_christs_mithras.html

Part Three:

(10)
McClintock and Strong wrote: "In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism" (Art. "Mithra").

(11)
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day." The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

(12)
The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: "Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras ... His residence is in the sun" (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

"I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths." - Mithraic saying

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." - Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

Part Two:

(5)
Chambers Encyclopedia says: "The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed -- against all evidence -- as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries -- symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) -- were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts."

(6)
Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: "The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians', purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord's supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December.... They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe" (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

(7)
Reverend Charles Biggs stated: "The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

(8)
In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

(9)
He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

Arminius:

Check item #9.

Part One

(1)
Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: "Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven's own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator" (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

(2)
He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

(3)
Mithra was called "the good shepherd,� "the way, the truth and the light,� �redeemer,� �savior,� �Messiah." He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

(4)
The International Encyclopedia states: "Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world ... The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part."

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1:

"Ted Turner once offered $500,000 to write a new Ten Commandments, the bane of the Secularist and Pagans, an indictment of God, and a belief man is god."

Say what??!! I assume you mean that the Christian Ten Commandments (which style, Catholic or Protestant?) are the bane of Pagans. As if. The first three commandments are there to promote the primacy of the Abrahamic god, the rest are the usual civilised rules against impertinence.

Watch this video and you can see how the Ten Commandments can be reduced to the Three Commandments, to much better effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“EVIL BEGETS EVIL”

IRT
“Hume said what he said because Christianity, despite America's growing religious pluralism (including an increase in the number of Americans who reject all religion), still occupies a privileged position in the United States. He said what he said because he could get away with it, at least on FOX.”

ANS:
Am I to assume that Hume could not get away with it on any other station? That suggestthat only one major media outlet supports Christian principles. Consequently that would be saying, that Christianity is the bane of most national media outlets. Of course it is true, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CBS, and NBC, CNN, and MSNBC in general scoff at Christianity and its precepts against Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Gay Sex. Ted Turner once offered $500,000 to write a new Ten Commandments, the bane of the Secularist and Pagans, an indictment of God, and a belief man is god. Turner wanted the Secular family values of Abortion and Gay Marriage written as a part of them.

Only those who are intellectually blind as a bat can’t see the prejudice carping left wing Secularist and Atheists vilifying Fox News, Fox’s Glenn Beck, Hannity, and ORielly.

Fox galls the Dems because it exposes the Dems for the two-face lying hypocrites their leaders are. Consequently, the Dems vilify all conservative talk shows and their host. Ironically, the Left-wing profligate radicals, who are the prevaricators of sophistry and demagoguery are calling the advocates of truth liars.

These cacophonic troglodytes, barbarians, and philistines are without substance, filled with derisive shallow rhetoric and are personified by character assassinations.

Palin’s announcement to be a Fox News analyst was met with disdain and derisive piggery across the liberal media’s spectrum, characterizing her as dumb, laughable, and stupid idiot.

Consequently, liberal radio or TV has little or nothing to offer but scandal mongering, and a blind or myopic vision that assails the sanctity of life, ridicules the sanctity of marriage, and elevates the preposterousness of gay marriage.

Hence, liberal radio and TV programs are either bankrupt or going bankrupt. Thus, they are calling for the government to bail them out, curtail conservative talk shows, and seek equal time with the Fairness Doctrine because few if any wants to hear their invective sarcasm and caustic scandal mongering.

Yes, unfortunately for Americans. America is going secular and we have elected a Social Communist as President. The Enlightenment movement has brought us the Culture of Death, the legal murder of over 52 million unborn in America alone and 43 million unborn murdered by Abortion per year and subsequently, the undermining of the basic foundation of our moral integrity. Were Secularist abide, death persues and that is followed by the presage of social suicide.

Schaum,

Cyrus the Great is the first that I know of to use King of Kings. It would seem to be a logical title to have been used in Babylon and Assyria. My brief search for earlier use of it went nowhere.

Schaum,

I spent some time looking at this Mithra character in regards to Jesus, and it appears that Mithra went through an ascension rather than death and resurrection.

Arminius:

" King of Kings, IIRC, was first used by Cyrus the Great,..."

I did not know he was first to make this claim, but I do know it has been used by a number of rulers.

Schaum,

I don't know about Lord of Lords, but King of Kings, IIRC, was first used by Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian empire. Since he was pretty popular with the Israelites, it is no mystery that he was the source.

COUNTERWW:

"The resurrection of Christ is real. It is truth, and it is substantive."

Really? Prove it. (hint: the bible proves nothing, any more than any other work of fiction)

"Borrowed? nothing of the kind. It's just an excuse in your mind for you not to accept the Lord of Lords."

You are correct, it was not borrowed. It was stolen. "Lord of Lords"? Surely you jest. Unless, of course, you can show some proof (see 'hint' above).

Susan Jacoby makes a cogent argument. There are indeed some things to commend this piece, in particular the claim by practitioners of one religious tradition to superiority over other religious traditions.

I've got to say however, as a male, Jacoby's apparent (or overt) sexism is offensive.

Her statement, "many religions--particularly non-monotheistic religions .... certainly do not claim to be more effective at persuading men to keep their pants zipped," is illustrative of my point.

Had a male author written, "many religions--particularly non-monotheistic religions .... certainly do not claim to be more effective at persuading women to keep their legs together (or their panties on)," female readers would be equally offended.

Had Jacoby included both sexes in her observation, I do not believe it would have been offensive.

"Still doubting the resurrection, and on the same topic as the holidays.

The resurrection of Christ is real. It is truth, and it is substantive.

Borrowed? nothing of the kind. It's just an excuse in your mind for you not to accept the Lord of Lords."

This comment was not directed at me in particular, but I wonder why you would tell anyone that he needs an "excuse" not to accept your version of Christianity. If this poster, or anyone else, wants to understand why so many people--Christians and non-Christians alike--are bothered by Brit Hume's remark and, more generally, by a certain kind of aggressive Christian proselytizing, I believe you would do well to reflect on this claim. Yes, as a Christian you are convinced of the absolute truth of your beliefs. But try to imagine the situation from the point of view of someone who is not so convinced. Yes, the New Testament insists on the truth of its own utterances. But I have to tell you that there are lots and lots of books, both religious and non-religious, which insist on the truth of their own utterances. That is not unusual. But ordinarily, we would expect those books to give us some REASON why someone else should believe their claims; the onus would not be on the reader to explain why he would not immediately accept them (to find some "excuse"). Why would you make such an assumption when it comes to the religious views you accept?

I am not saying that one cannot find such reasons in the New Testament. What I am saying is that if you are really trying to be kind and spread what you see as the good news, the onus is on you, the Christian believer, to present some of those reasons. The onus is on you, moreover, to make the Christian faith look attractive to someone who is not already committed to it. I read presumably Christian posters here (and on other sites dealing with this issue) disparaging non-believers, calling them "idiots," mentally deficient, and so forth. This does not seem to be a very effective recruiting tactic, but more than that it would seem to be an expression of deep anger. Is this seen as a positive quality by Christians? Can I expect to become this way myself if I convert? Or are there rules in Christianity about proper speech? If so, I would like to hear about them. Far more important, I would like to see them being put into practice.

You as Christian believers will inspire others--or fail to inspire--by your example. And if you are not trying to inspire, what exactly are you trying to accomplish through your "defense" of your religion? Are you trying to persuade others or simply asserting the rightness of your own position? If it is the latter, that is certainly understandable. But I don't think it should be confused with any genuine religious sentiment.

I've written a book that deals with child abuse in the Catholic Church. The kind of hostility exhibited here by DJMCFLY is symptomatic of that abuse. He or she should seek help.

Southern California SNAP Regional Office

Contact: Joelle Casteix, Southern California Director
Phone: 949-322-7434
Email: jcasteix@gmail.com

TTWSY sez:

'The assault on Christianity is ubiquitous through out the auspices of the government, and is supportive of all that is anti-Christian and atheistic. All Christian traditions have been either assaulted or banned from the Public Square, by the Court through the vanguard of atheism, the ACLU. Even the Crucifix and Religious memorials of our fallen heroes are under assault by the Atheists and have the favor of an atheistic majority on the Court.'
___________________

Textbook paranoid delusional projections - questioning the validity of the supernatural basis for Christianity is only a problem for believers in the supernatural. In fact, the religous not only have greater protections in the USA than elsewhere, religion is more in evidence everywhere in America, compared to most of Western and Northern Europe.

This unfortunately includes the political arena, where conservative religionists have their own proxies and lobbyists working vigorously to legislatively convolute the fundamental intention of the Constitution and it's framers - a document devised to help guarantee the greatest amount of individual freedom ever known to man.

The concept of a free society is actually obstructed far more by religionists, as opposed to those living without the burden of religious beliefs - and there's no shortage of historical evidence supporting this contention, from political campaigns rife with religion, to well-intentioned legislation designed to provide national healthcare to all citizens living in the USA.

Conservative reactionary religionists and their republican minions continuously work against the common weil, and define their behavior as 'morally superior'. In the mean time, they reek of hubris and butter wouldn't melt in their collective pieholes.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1:

"The Atheists Court assaults Christmas, banned the Crèche, supports Evolution, the denial of man‘s spirituality, and Euthanasia, the murder of the defenseless (Terri Schiavo)."

Oh, what utter rot. Check out the religious affliations of the Supreme Court:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html

(By the way, if you're going to write, "IN REPLY TO", there is no need to abbreviate it, "(IRT)". Pick one.)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES”

IRT:
“Prejudice against Atheists is much stronger than against members of any religious group.”

ANS:
To the contrary, atheism has the reign of the Court and the Civil Laws that repeatedly contradicted the precepts and moral dictates of our Constitution, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that are unequivocally based on the God of Christianity.

The Court ruled that all men are not created equal, viz. the unborn, and that there is no right to Life, Abortion in Roe v. Wade.” The Court ruled that traditional morality served no purpose to the State, and could not be a standard or basis for Civil Law in “Lawrence v. Texas” The Fifth Circuit Court upheld that conclusion against Texas in a case outlawing pornographic toys.

Consequently, the Court elevated the words of the Court over the words of God, banning the Bible from the Public Square, claiming the Ten Commandments could corrupt the minds of little children/ Moreover, the Court concluded that gay sex is equal to conjugal love. Gay Marriage, an oxymoron, and its protégé Civil Unions have been forced down the American, though denounced by an overwhelming consensus against this abomination. The Enlightenment movement assaults the institute of Marriage and subsequently it unwittingly denounces the foundation of all societies, the traditional Family.

The assault on Christianity is ubiquitous through out the auspices of the government, and is supportive of all that is anti-Christian and atheistic. All Christian traditions have been either assaulted or banned from the Public Square, by the Court through the vanguard of atheism, the ACLU. Even the Crucifix and Religious memorials of our fallen heroes are under assault by the Atheists and have the favor of an atheistic majority on the Court.

I have seen no atheists beliefs assaulted, that are without question obstreperous unequivocal contradictions of the Natural Law, the Moral Law, and the Constitution on which our Bill of Rights are based. On the contrary, the beliefs of atheists are blatantly supported and defended by the Courts. The Atheists Court assaults Christmas, banned the Crèche, supports Evolution, the denial of man‘s spirituality, and Euthanasia, the murder of the defenseless (Terri Schiavo). Even the invalid, the unborn, and the comatose have no refuge in the Court in protection of their lives.

Counterweight sez:

'The resurrection of Christ is real. It is truth, and it is substantive.
Borrowed? nothing of the kind. It's just an excuse in your mind for you not to accept the Lord of Lords.'
___________________

My point was that historically speaking, the idea of bodily resurrection is not unique with Christianity, nor did it occur first with Christianity (the early Catholic Church to be more exact). BTW, Martin Luther did not invent Christianity.....

As to this phenomenon ever actually having happened, many early Christians and probably not a few modern Christians (including notable theologians) would maintain that the resurrection is purely symbolic, and like transubstantiation, does not actually occur 'in the flesh'.
Much has been written in this regard.

Those that subscribe to a belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus are simply defying all logic and reason in deference to the supernatural. However, if such a thing occurred once, then it's guaranteed to have happened both before and since.....that's just the way things work in the material world.

There really are no singular events i.e. the solitary resurrection of a single individual. Believing to the contrary places such a believer literally in the Dark Ages - Middle Ages at best, given that Aquinas lived in the 13th century.

What Luther contributed (as a defrocked Dominican priest/heretic) was a defiant attitude toward the absolute power and authority of the Vatican, and the idea that the word of the bible was a more important source of truth than arbitrary doctrines/dogma. Of course he didn't dispute a number of these, including the resurrection, the Trinity, etc.

Many people 'absolutely know' such and such to be true - and are later proven wrong. If we could witness just one well documented bodily resurrection (several would be better) this would give much more credence to Jesus rolling away the stone - although that may have actually been an angel.

regards, Persiflage

Jehovah's Witnesses CULT

Jehovah's Witnesses are noted for their chief doctrine that Jesus had his second coming in 1914 and going door to door with Watchtower magazines,google * Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower * for facts on this group.

The whole door to door thing is risky now-days and less effective in the Internet age,I google everything first. Jehovah's Witnesses are schooled in 'finding common ground',if you like pink elephants they will become experts on pink elephants.

That's the beauty of religion and superstition, it has no limits.Religion is the most profitable legal business because religions can misquote, misrepresent, and use unethical practices without fear of punishment. It's the absolute best way to scam people I have yet seen.

--

Education http://www.freeminds.org

###

Persiflage-

Still doubting the resurrection, and on the same topic as the holidays.

The resurrection of Christ is real. It is truth, and it is substantive.

Borrowed? nothing of the kind. It's just an excuse in your mind for you not to accept the Lord of Lords.

I certainly wish there was widespread media bias against Christianity and all other ridiculous superstitions, but sadly the opposite is the case. One of the things that I always find interesting with religious people in general is that often times those with strong belief have no problem criticizing others of differing beliefs and/or no religious beliefs, but the moment someone criticizes their beliefs they cry and whine.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://lnk.ms/3tx74

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

I've written a book that deals with child abuse in the Catholic Church. The kind of hostility exhibited here by djmcfly is symptomatic of that abuse. He or she should seek help.

Southern California SNAP Regional Office

Contact: Joelle Casteix, Southern California Director
Phone: 949-322-7434
Email: jcasteix@gmail.com

A faith is a belief system that helps many people to make sense of the world and to be reassured when appropriate reassurance is not forthcoming from elsewhere. It is a crutch that is, for some people, indispensable. Life without faith, for those people, is unthinkable. By extension, people who don't adopt the same faith are missing something essential. Taken to its extreme, people of a different faith, or no faith at all, are living lives unworthy of life. They should be killed. Hence, jihad. Hence, The Crusades. "We're gonna make good Christians out of those Heathens or kill them." Right wingers have it all figured out. If you adopt the received standard faith, get born to the right parents, follow the right set of rules, live in the right places, meet the right people, and take advantage of every privilege that is afforded to you, you'll succeed. Failure is thus a simple matter of choosing to fail. There's something wrong with their logic, but they don't accept that fact. Heck. Tiger is probably the most talented golfer on Earth at the present time. He's got a huge hole in his interpersonal relationship skills. He has grievously hurt his wife and his family. But, since it is all about him, they don't matter much to him. He could use a little Christian salvation after he comes to realize what he has lost on account of his behavior. That would salve his wounded ego. Talk therapy might work, too.

So.... you where wrong, you made a mistake hmmmm? Boy, the person who put an eraser on the end of a pencil sure knew what he was doing. What if your wrong about eternity? What if your making the biggest mistake of your life ?

Posted by: US-conscience
------------------------------------------
Interesting question. What if you are?

So.... you where wrong, you made a mistake hmmmm? Boy, the person who put an eraser on the end of a pencil sure knew what he was doing. What if your wrong about eternity? What if your making the biggest mistake of your life ?

Meant to write, SUSAN JACOBY is not Jewish, never was.

Btw., CherieOK, is not Jewish, never was.

If William Kristol, for example, had decided to argue the strengths of Judaism, would some commentators be rallying to support him?

CherieOK |
--------------------------------------------
I would happily scrape together as much money as I could to see on nationwide television a Jewish commentator argue the superiority of Judaism over Christianity. My reasons, btw., have nothing to do with a view that one religion is superior to the other.

However, having heard the opposite, from Christians in the media, who, of course, are ignorant of Judiasm, ad nauseum, I think an expression of the opposing view would be highly salutary from any number of perspectives. Would love to see it.

Any takers out there? If so, media folk, let us know, and I'll start socking away the dough right now.

I will, as Ms. Jacoby writes, defend to the death Bret Hume's right to make the suggestion he did. I, as a Christian, would also defend to the death the right of any Buddhist, Jew, or Muslim who chose to argue the strengths of their faith.

One thing that troubles me about this is that Mr. Hume made his comments during a news discussion show, with other newscasters who had to decide very quickly whether and how to respond. If William Kristol, for example, had decided to argue the strengths of Judaism, would some commentators be rallying to support him?

lcarter0311:
"Malachi 2
. 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it"

Nonsense for nonsense.

Matthew 7

Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye

What typical liberal claptrap from a typical liberal, secular and ignorant viewpoint.

Hume didn't recite the Westminster catechism now did he? He simply suggested in very general, generic terms--and in just a few seconds of time, that a certain person consider the forgiveness offered in Christianity. Wow, you would have thought he'd become the next Billy Graham having an alter call and leading viewers in the sinner's prayer.

The Left (the Wash. Post, Susan Jacoby et al.) demonstrate over and over how far from God our culture is, and how ignorant the supposed Washington elite punditry are when they cannot handle just normal discourse--and normal discourse includes talk of people and their problems and of sins and failures--and ways to overcome them. Heaven forbid Hume give just a tidbit of honest reflection from his heart about a subject.

The outcry against Hume is complex. First of all, he was way out of line. Imagine if Woods were an Evangelical Christian and a Buddhist interviewer told him that Buddhism were the superior path. 'nuf said.

The particular upset, however, has less to do with Hume and Evangelical Christianity in general and more to do with Christianism, in specific.

What secularists, Christian and Other, object to in the strongest terms is the interference of Christianists in American legislation. Health care and marriage rights come to mind. What they object to is Christianism in foreign policy. George Bush's War against Iraq comes to mind. That would be the George Bush who told Chirac that the war was essential to ward of "gog and magog." (The Deity had so informed him.)

The advice of Hume to Woods is redolent of a far greater, far more serious problem: Far Right Christianism's power in the United States.

Again, I'm referring to ChristianISM, not Christianity.
--------------------------
A second issue is the national obsession with the sexual lives of celebrities. Tiger Woods is a brilliant athlete, justly celebrated for his skill on the golf course.
He has never been nor did he ever seek to be a role model for fidelity.

This voyeurism, this lust for details on the sexual conduct of famous people is, frankly, revolting in and of itself. It is also injurious to those who are its victims.

I wonder why Hume, the Christian (as opposed to the Christianist), did not take up those, far more important matters.

Homophobia is about to bring down the government of Northern Ireland. I think that is news. Even if it is not geting headline attention in the United States, I think it may, in the coming days.

It's a text book hoax of clowns like Hume and Palin to dismiss criticism as religious persecution. Religion is as varied as politics, but most religious people are not so arrogant as to present themselves as official representatives of a deity. Since they defend the wealthiest, the insurance companies, 'free-market' looters, theocrats, and environment destroyers, they need a deceptive tactic to appear as allies of the people. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

djmcfly

Wow, I feel the love of Jesus Christ.

The superiority of Christianity in this modern world is a glaring deficit and false.
Look at the bible, it is based on lies, contradictions, man-made stories from ancient time.
How can then fairy tales believers, such as Brit, have any decent personal behavior to lecture others or to try to impose moral values when they are the ones indulged in untruthful base?

Great essay, Susan! Simply put, Humes' statement is logically and empirically bankrupt. In no sense can Christianity be a guide to morality. That educated Christians know this was made evident when the question was visited by OnFaith.

Every single Christian commentator, Protestant and Catholic, replied in precisely the same way. No. Religion is not a guide to morality.

The same statement was made by spokespersons for all the religions on this blog.

Obviously, some elements of morality are to be found in all religions, eg., the proscription regarding murder. However, that is hardly the same as suggesting that religion, let alone, Christianity guides moral behavior.

I shan't bore anyone with a reprise of all the hideous acts that have been committed in the name of Christ.

If Christ existed (and exists), I can imagine him wincing at Hume's fatuous, facile, self-serving "advice."

Jesus commanded His people to preach the Gospel to all people.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (Matthew 24:14).

45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:45-49).

Jesus claimed to be the "only way."

"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

All true Christians are commanded to preach the Gospel. They also believe Jesus is the only way because they believe His words. The non believer can reject the message but they will face God on judgment day.

Wow - I'm surprised by the complete lack of tolerance by many here towards people who believe in God. It seems rather hypocritical - "Everyone should be respectful of each other's personal philosophies, I don't think Christians believe that, so let's beat 'em up!" Great.

Before Christianity claims to be the authority for religious belief, it needs to get its house in order. Can man save himself by merit, i.e., good works and behavior, or is his salvation subject to the capricious bestowal of Grace by an omnipotent god? Is baptism by sprinkling efficacious or is full emersion required? Is infant baptism efficacious or does it require the recipient to be an adult at the age of reason? Must a believer confess his sins to a mediator, i.e., priest, or can one appeal directly to God for forgiveness? Is communion a sacrament required for salvation or just a remembrance that is optional? Is scripture all that is necessary to establish dogma and doctrine or does tradition have a place? Is ordination necessary for ministers of the Word? Does the agent of ordination need to be in apostolic succession? These are only a few of the differences in practice among the different sects. While seemingly trivial, wars have been fought over these differences, and there are those today who wuld fight rather than compromise. If Christianity is to be the authority, which persuasion is it to be? This is why the Founding Fathers did not establish a Christian state.

Fate1,

Hume has the right to claim exclusive truth and propagate his belief that only Jesus can change a person's life in a way that glorifies God. The hearer also has the right to reject Hume's proclamation. If the hearer rejects the message that does not mean Hume is wrong. Tolerance does not mean that people have to see all view points as equally valid. It just means they tolerate and hopefully care for the person they disagree with. I believe Brit Hume genuinely cares for Tiger Woods and wants him to experience forgiveness and redemption. Do you want that for Tiger Woods? I know I do. Jesus transformed my life. In the past I was guilty of adultery and many other sins. Jesus changed my life and made me a faith husband and father. That is what Brit Hume wants for Tiger. He is free to proclaim it under the 1st Amendment and Woods has the right to reject his advice.

The point we seem to be missing here is that for most of us, our religious and spirituasl beliefs are intensely personal. We owe no one an explanation as to our beliefs and quite naturally resent someone else tellinjg us what/who to believe. It has nothing to do with ideology.

The televangelist preachers, to me, are the best proof against the existence of god.

If I am "good" (according to the judgment of the religious bigot authorities), I will be rewarded heaven, maybe even in an elevated position next to, for instance, Pat Robertson.

How would eternal life feel, after, let's say, the first 100.000 years with him and his likes as my neighbors? So who needs hell?

But seriously: Who is "I"? Who was "I" before my parents conceived me? Am "I" today, at an advanced age, the same "I" as that silly little "I" who believed all the religious (and political) trash he was taught and brainwashed with as a child? Or is "I" a person with the mental, well "spiritual" strength to liberate himself from superstition, enabling "I" to regard all religions as what they are: man-made, and rather helpless, history-generated fill-outs of the vacuum of our knowledge?

Why should this undefinable "I" resurrect literally (every single atom, including the billions of bacteria enabling us to live)?

Religion desperately tries to fill that gap with its ominous concept of "truth", in reality it just substitutes "faith" (believe in fantastic mental fairy products of our ancestors, faulting our "god-given" (lol!) senses and the noble access to reason) - for ignorance. My ethics: Honestly accepting the limits of the human mind, in its present stage of evolution, and trying to reduce them, using the "god-given" power for clear thinking.

Yonkers, New York
12 January 2010

Not with the least twinge of embarrassment, Brit Hume said in effect that he was at liberty to say what he said publicly--referring to his urging Tiger Woods to convert from Buddhism to Christianity!--because he knew he could get away with it on Fox News, his employer.

The inference logically to be drawn from this statement is that he would not be free to say what he said to Tiger Woods on another television channel.

That gives you a good idea of the kind of "journalists" who are on Fox News's payroll. They can all be described as "right-wingers," this category exemplified by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Soon they will yet be joined by Sarah Palin who has no problem telling the whole world that John McCain's decision to pick her his presidential running mate was "an act of God."

The latest "act of God" as far as Sarah Palin is concerned must be Roger Aisles's decision to put her on Fox News's payroll.

Mariano Patalinjug

Schaum,

I'm calm, and I think we've beat this topic to a bloody stump. No problem here. Let's move on to some more pleasant subject, if we can find one.

Robster1:

"What typical liberal claptrap from a typical liberal, secular and ignorant viewpoint.

"Hume didn't recite the Westminster catechism now did he?"...

Here's a clue: repeating your mistaken comments does not correct them.

Many A great thinker, would consider anyone who dismisses a force greater
then himself, as a fool. among them,
einstien, thoreau, gandi, ok, everyone,
except bill maher,
and the media left. watch the backlash.

What typical liberal claptrap from a typical liberal, secular and ignorant viewpoint.

Hume didn't recite the Westminster catechism now did he? He simply suggested in very general, generic terms--and in just a few seconds of time, that a certain person consider the forgiveness offered in Christianity. Wow, you would have thought he'd become the next Billy Graham having an alter call and leading viewers in the sinner's prayer.

The Left (the Wash. Post, Susan Jacoby et al.) demonstrate over and over how far from God our culture is, and how ignorant the supposed Washington elite punditry are when they cannot handle just normal discourse--and normal discourse includes talk of people and their problems and of sins and failures--and ways to overcome them. Heaven forbid Hume give just a tidbit of honest reflection from his heart about a subject.

DanielintheLionsDen:

YES, That Is Why So-Called Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder. YOU Lefties Are More Concerned With "Rights" Of Terrorists Then The Consequences.......That Is Why The Scum Released From Gitmo Are Back Killing Americans.....Take Note, Idiots!

Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder......Read These Posts For PROOF...

says the mentally disordered.

djmcfly

Yeah, right, the homosexuals just LOVE Islam; the relgion that beheads gay people.

So, shutup, why don't you?

When reading:

Therefore they will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. So they seek to destroy all enemies by demonizing them any way they can.",

I first had the impression that it was a sharp opinion attacking the religionists very precisely.

Arminius:

"Do you presume to tell me what to believe based on the dogma of others? Do you think I give a damn about most say they follow, when they really do not have a clue what it means? As I have said, my journey is personal..."

I presume to tell you nothing about what you can or should believe. I don't give a f**k what you believe. My statement stands, whether you like it or not: the core of christian belief is expressed in the Nicean creed. If your "journey" is so bloody personal, why do you go to such extremes to make it public?

Have another drink, Arminius.

DanielITLD:

Read the links. Somehow, it all seems so familiar! As one responder to the first article said:

"It is a pity this grasping, greedy, dishonest, lecherous so called Christian can't practise what she preaches. The bible says 'let those of you who is without sin cast the first stone'. How come that all these Christians with deeply held beliefs take a pick and mix attitude to the bible and just take to suit their own predjudice, and not if it doesn't suit them ?"

- Marie, Lancs, 08/1/2010 17:15

Sarah Palin and Brit Hume' s worldview are consistent with the view of our founders and Susan Jacoby and the rest of the God haters ...

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

YOU lost me..!!

Whaich god are you talking about?

Fei Hu

"Then learn this: the core of christian belief is expressed in the Nicean Creed, whether you are an ordinary christian or not."

So what else is new, Shaum? You think I don't know this? Do you presume to tell me what to believe based on the dogma of others? Do you think I give a damn about most say they follow, when they really do not have a clue what it means? As I have said, my journey is personal, and it has to do with God first and foremost. Christianity is actually secondary - it is beautiful, and intensely meaningful - but secondary. Because I came back into Christianity from the outside, I came in with an overabundance of skepticism, and thus I am free to find in Christianity that which I find to be true and meaningful. The added dogma is curious, but no more than that.

Matt52:

"You even said that they celebrated on Sunday. So was it the 25th or the closest Sunday? but now I'm quibbling."

I think you misunderstood: I said that they worshipped (Mithra) on Sunday, the same day the christers worship christ.

Consider that it was Mithra who was, 1400 years before christ, born on Dec.25, of a virgin, and whose birth was intended to bring deliverance from evil to mankind; that Mithra was dead, buried, and immediately resurrected; that he promised resurrection to his followers; that he ascended from the earth...etc. Do you think all this was "accidentally appropriated" by christianity? If the winter solstice was important to christianity, don't you think they would have paid attention to dates?

sonofliberty09 wrote: "The liberal elite of this country includes at least 80% of our current press corp. They have become propagandists for the radical God hating progressives. That is why Fox News is number 1. They do not ridicule and belittle Christians the way the so-called educated elite media does."

Yet the vast majority of this country remains christian, no churches are turning into mosques, no protesters are outside churches demanding they be closed. But, we do have people like Hume questioning the beliefs of other people. That is unAmerican. And when he procedes to tell other people what religion they SHOULD believe in because theirs is inadequate, that again is unAmerican. Hume is getting the trouncing he deserves, not because he is upholding religious freedom but because he is trying to limit it.

Why doesn't Susan have a regular column in the Post? She is such a breath of sanity amidst all the Bible-thumping neo-Cons.

Schaum, Arminius

Check out these links, for a change of pace. This lady has got Brit Hume beat by a mile. Remember, the reason why this is such big news in N. Ireland is because she is an anti-gay arch-Conservative.

"But advocating one's religious views in public is quite a different thing from pointing a finger at a particular person and saying that he ought to convert to another religion for his own moral benefit. I daresay Gerson would be quite offended if I were to tell him, on national television, that he ought to become an atheist because atheists are more virtuous than religious believers."

That's the whole problem with what Hume did. But I disagree with Jacoby that Hume's particular religion was relevant. What Hume did was wrong no matter what religion he was urging on Woods, and this would be true even if Hume was urging Woods to become an atheist.

These stories about Mrs. Robinson's sex scandal in Northern Ireland are of interest because she has been prominently outspoken in Irish politics as an opponent of gay rights and targets gay people as an "abomination" and now here she is having an affair with a 19 year old boy ... AND ... his father! (I couldn't make this stuff up, if I were paid to). Apparently, there is no end to the depravity of the homophobic crowd.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241545/MP-Iris-Robinson-60-affair-19-year-old-toyboy.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-robinson-sex-scandal12-2010jan12,0,7706815.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/world/europe/10ulster.html?hp

Arminius:

Then learn this: the core of christian belief is expressed in the Nicean Creed, whether you are an ordinary christian or not.

Schaum,

The core of Christianity is in the Gospels. The Nicene Creed has all the cake-decoration add-ons discussed earlier. I am not yer average Christian.

If I were unwilling to hear viewpoints differing from mine, then what the hell am I doing here? Answer: I am here to learn, not to fight.

More on Mrs. Robinson in Northern Ireland:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-robinson-sex-scandal12-2010jan12,0,7706815.story

Sarah Palin and Brit Hume' s worldview are consistent with the view of our founders and Susan Jacoby and the rest of the God haters in both parties are not (mainly the progressive left). Thomas Jefferson wrote in our founding document the Declaration of Independence,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

This means that all the people who are fighting to remove any reference to God from the public square have a view that is conflict with those of the founders. Their view of Separation of Church and State was that the state couldn’t establish religion. That does not mean that elected officials, teachers, etc. cannot mention God.

The big problem is not that people in public life refer to God but to the contrary that people have abandoned the foundation on which our nation was built. That foundation was the Judeo Christian worldview rooted in the protestant reformation in Western Europe.

Western Europe has now left that foundation and has been taken over by humanistic socialism. Now Islam is seeking to fill the vacuum left by the radical left's hatred and abandonment of faith in the Christian God. Sadly, we usually follow Europe's lead and sure enough it seems we are following that treacherous path now.

The liberal elites always think they know best. In the name of tolerance and equality they sneak in and take over. In the end they set up a new set of rules (political correctness) in place of God's rules. They place government in the place of individual freedom and accountability to God. In other words they place themselves in the place of God and loathe anyone who suggests that there is a higher standard (God's standard) to which they must bow. Therefore they will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. So they seek to destroy all enemies by demonizing them any way they can.

The liberal elite of this country includes at least 80% of our current press corp. They have become propagandists for the radical God hating progressives. That is why Fox News is number 1. They do not ridicule and belittle Christians the way the so-called educated elite media does.

Arminius:

"nothing to do with the core message of Christianity as is in the Gospels. Now before you start composing a suitable fiery reply, I am not going to discuss this."

You have already discussed it; you are undesirous of viewpoints which conflict with yours.

The core "message" of christianity is expressed in the Nicean creed...90% of which, including virgin birth, was taken from other religions.

Sorry for the inconvenience of pesky facts.

In N. Ireland: anti-gay politician embroiled in sex-scandal; SHOCKER!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/world/europe/10ulster.html?hp

What Hume really did in his claim of moral superiority for Christianity is to undermine the one of the true cornerstones of the faith: humility.

djmcfly wrote: "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder......Read These Posts For PROOF."

Hmmm, which is more a mental disorder, the belief that helping our fellow man is good for all (liberalism) or believing in an unseen god with no proof of his/her existence? Now, to be fair, I don't consider belief in Santa to be a mental disorder so I don't consider those who believe in spirits to have a mental disorder, but it does make me question the source when a believer in spirits tells others they have a mental disorder.

"Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder......Read These Posts For PROOF."

Oh, yeah? If you would bother to read the Gospels - remember them? There's a guy named Jesus there, who has some pretty good things to say. So give them a try, and you will find that:
Jesus is a Liberal!
Read and rejoice!

Schaum,

"There is nothing original in christianity. It is all stolen from competing religions."

True. They've just perfected the art of hypocracy.

"Wiccans did, and do, have a winter solstice, but it is celebrated on the shortest day and longest night of the year, which is not Christmas."

In upstate NY there is probably not much more than a minute's difference in daylight from dec 21 to dec 25. As one gets closer to the equator the difference is even smaller. At the equator it's zero. My ignorant guess is that the Mithrists (sp?) were also recognizing the solstice. Even if they could descern the subtle difference in length of daylight, though I doubt it, between those 4 days I bet the calendars shifted over the eons. You even said that they celebrated on Sunday. So was it the 25th or the closest Sunday? but now I'm quibbling.

Your point is taken.

"Nothing was original with the christers...not the date of his birth, not his mother's virginity, not the subsequent exchanging of gifts, not the worship on Sunday. It was all taken from other religions."

Schaum, that is all decoration on the cake, the frills and fluff, etc. It has nothing to do with the core message of Christianity as is in the Gospels. Now before you start composing a suitable fiery reply, I am not going to discuss this. We're getting along pretty well these days, and I'd rather not screw that up. My journey is a personal one.

Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder......Read These Posts For PROOF.

Great article Susan.

Now they have the head victim, the most victimized woman in America, the poor little princess, in Palin, who can continue the utter fabrication of christian victimization on Fox, the home of angry white people.

St. Augustine, one of the seminal thinkers of early Catholicism, was taken with Mithraism prior to his conversion. It does seem to be a natural fit.....

Thomas Aquinas was considered the equal of Augustine as a doctrinal authority in the Middle Ages - bodily resurrection and the idea of the Trinity were included in his Apologia.

Bodily resurrection hardly originated with the early Catholic Church and appears to be Zoroastrian - and could have even earlier origins. The divinity of Jesus was not universally accepted in the early Church, as the Gnostics disagreed with this view...and still do. They were later persecuted as heretics for their defiant views.

Early doctrinal/theological development begins with the bodily resurrection of Jesus and builds on itself over the centuries, culminating with the Assumption of Mary bodily into heaven, and finally - the Infallibility of the Pope in doctrinal matters.

Protestants disagree with much that is Catholic, but as to the bodily resurrection, all of Christianity is built around believing literally in this event - an idea clearly borrowed from earlier traditions.

http://mscourses.homestead.com/files/ReligiousViewsofSurvival_1_.htm

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/mysteries.html

Thanks for the excellent piece, Susan. The idea that Christians are persecuted in this country is indeed laughable.

Some people seem to feel that they're being persecuted anytime they don't get their way, or anytime someone criticizes them, disagrees with them, or calls their "facts" into question.

That's not persecution. That's life.

globalone wrote: "Resurrection does not mean going to heaven or escaping death or having a glorious postmortem existence. But rather, in the Christian sense, coming to a bodily life again AFTER bodily death. A transformed body whose material, created from the old, with have new properties."

Have you read the ancient egyptian "book of the dead"? You may get a shiver when you realize the common concepts of gods, death, ressurrection, judgement, heaven/paradise. Similar religions were all over Europe/MiddleEast with similar concepts and similar gods. Christianity appeared in the midst of all of these religions.

But my favorite question to christians is about the astrologers who predicted, successfully it seems, the birth of Christ and the appearence of the star to guide the wise men to Christ. But no astrology in today's christianity, no mention of it, its considered bunk. Maybe what Tiger needs is to see an astrologer, to guide him as astrologers once successfully guided the wise men to Christ. I mean, the bible says it works!

Arminius:

Early Christians did not celebrate Christ's birthday at all....
the Christmas tree has obvious Pagan roots (no pun intended), as does the yule log."

Exactly. Nothing was original with the christers...not the date of his birth, not his mother's virginity, not the subsequent exchanging of gifts, not the worship on Sunday. It was all taken from other religions.

Schaum,

A great influence on the Christian Christmas was the Roman Saturnalia, held at the winter solstice, and celebrated with much merrymaking and giving of gifts. Early Christians did not celebrate Christ's birthday at all, or anybody's birthday, for that matter. But it became obvious that by creating a Christian holiday similar to the Saturnalia, more converts were obtained.

Also, the Christmas tree has obvious Pagan roots (no pun intended), as does the yule log.

GlobAlone:

"You are incorrectly using the word resurrection as a virtual synonym for life after death in the popular sense."

Your interpretation of my use of the word 'resurrection' is incorrect.

DanielintheLionsDen missed it: The Tundra Trash Lady actually DOES have clothes, courtesy of the RNC.

Brit Hume is and always will be a pompous boob. His 'faith' or whatever it is, ought to be only his business. The notion of proselytising is a Christian one which others need not and should not have to deal with. Like prayer in school and all the other righty claptrap, Hume is interested in converting all of us to his brand of illogical theology. Woods will learn nothing from Christianity because it has little to teach, in actual practice. That said, the old testament (which is part of their scope of belief) will tell him all about biblicals consorting with harlots without showing any serious consequence for either party.

So where did this condemnation come from? Well, it might have something to do with all them white ladies who are all being linked with this, uh, other kind of guy. Offended yet? Well, you ought to be. It really is none of our business, anyway.

Matt52:

"The Wiccans had a winter Solstice celebration that the Catholics turned into Christmas."

Wiccans did, and do, have a winter solstice, but it is celebrated on the shortest day and longest night of the year, which is not Christmas.

christers stole the date of December 25, and again from Mithras, who was born, some 1400 years before christ, of a virgin, in a cave, on December 25. He was worshipped on Sunday.

Mithraism, like christianity, offers salvation to its adherents. Mithras was born into the world to save humanity from evil. After his death and resurrection, he ascended in human form, as it would be claimed that christ did 1400 years later.

There is nothing original in christianity. It is all stolen from competing religions.

Schaum,

"Even the early Egyptian religions espoused in resurrection and eternal life"

But these are not one in the same. You are incorrectly using the word resurrection as a virtual synonym for life after death in the popular sense.

Resurrection does not mean going to heaven or escaping death or having a glorious postmortem existence. But rather, in the Christian sense, coming to a bodily life again AFTER bodily death. A transformed body whose material, created from the old, with have new properties.

Athena4 wrote: "Yes, that's why we have Islamic characters as heroes. Oh, wait... there's only one that I can think of, and Sayid from "Lost" is kind of an apostate."

Yea, but he's also working for Ben, the personification of evil/deception/nastiness on Lost. So America's one true Muslim hero is a bad dude. I hope he turns good in the end, of course that won't excuse all the murders he committed in Lost, not to mention the torture he committed before being lost.

Maybe Hume should suggest Sayid turn to christianity. And considering how convoluted the story in Lost has become, that ain't such a hard thing to imagine.

Maybe one of the teletubbies is Muslim. That ought to get the christians frothing (again).

Never stand between a Christian and his sense of persecution.

"If someone on CNN had recommended that he try taking a trip to visit the Dalai Lama and spend some time praying with the monks, no one would have said a word against that. Such hypocrisy."

Yes, Anna. If.

But they didn't. Only Christians do that. Which is on of the main reasons I ain't one of you.

"LEFTIES, Like this Jacoby hag, despise any belief that is agaisnt her lesbian/homosexual lifestyle. Notice how Hollywierd & the Media are in Love with ISLAM?"

Yes, that's why we have Islamic characters as heroes. Oh, wait... there's only one that I can think of, and Sayid from "Lost" is kind of an apostate.

Go back to listening to Beck and Limbaugh.

I'm intrigued by Schaum's comment. I read somewhere once upon a time that Mary became prominant in the Catholic religion when they tried to subplant the Wiccans in Europe. The Wiccans had a winter Solstice celebration that the Catholics turned into Christmas. This source sadi that early Catholicism was more male dominated than it is today. The Wiccans had aspects of masculine and feminine as well as animal and plant symbology in their practice. In order to get some in road the Catholics had to elevate Mary to a more prominant position.

SharonSJ1:

"Schaum, you forgot to mention the Persian sun god Mithras."

Yes, I did neglect to mention the Indo-Iranian god, Mithras, and the cult around him from which christers have stolen so much. You may already know this: the Vatican is built on ground which had been dedicated to the worship of Mithras 600 years before christ.

US-Conscience:

"Catholicism is NOT christianity"

I think you will find that the majority of the professed christers in the world are, indeed, catholics. That you disagree with them may be important to you, but to few others I suspect.

Arminius:

"Hume had the right to have his say, and we have our right to stick it to him."

Indeed he does, and we do.

Where, except in America, would a group that comprises nearly 90% of the population seriously propose the idea that it is "persecuted".

"When was the last time you heard a Jewish network commentator exhorting an adulterous Christian politician to convert to Judaism--and claiming that Judaism is the morally superior religion?"

That is NOT what Brit Hume did. He said that forgiveness and redemption are not part of the Buddhist religion, but they ARE an integral part of Christianity, and forgiveness and redemption are what Tiger Woods needs most right now. He was not speaking against Buddhism, he was simply recommending Christianity because it offers something Woods needs.

This was a panel discussion, and he was asked what advice he would offer Tiger Woods. Others have advised him to get into rehab for sex addiction, to come out publicly and apologize, to beg forgiveness from his wife and pay her millions, etc. Just because Brit Hume's advice involved Christianity doesn't make his advice any less valid or any more offensive than any other.

If someone on CNN had recommended that he try taking a trip to visit the Dalai Lama and spend some time praying with the monks, no one would have said a word against that. Such hypocrisy.

GLOB ALONE:

"From what religion, or otherwise, did Christianity steal the idea that Jesus would die and, in three days, arise again in human flesh? (Thus signaling the only belief system, religious or otherwise, that has an answer for evil)"

Even the early Egyptian religions espoused in resurrection and eternal life. You must know this. That Jesus is "said" to have claimed he could do it in three days is irrelevant to the concept of resurrection and eternal life.

Where do you get the bizarre notion that christers are the only ones who have an "answer" for evil?

Nice post, Cthulhu1. I am a progressive Christian, but Susan always makes good sense, even when I don't agree. Yes, the core of the issue here is free speech. Hume had the right to have his say, and we have our right to stick it to him.

BTW, great blog name! I wonder how many here get the reference.

Schaum, you forgot to mention the Persian sun god Mithras. His story is identical to Jesus's, particularly dying, spending three days in darkness, and then being resurrected. Mithras, and the Emperor Constantine, are the reasons why Christians celebrate December 25th and go to church on Sunday.

Susan, thank you, thank you, thank you! Finally a breath of reality and common sense is injected into this debate. Where are the Christians who are offended by Hume cheapening their religion in such a crass and stupid manner, by peddling it like toothpaste? And why are idiots like Michael Gerson etc. so stupid as to claim that Hume is being persecuted and prevented from speaking. Free speech does not mean everyone else has to agree with you!

Brit Hume exercised his right to free speech when he made his oafish and ham-fisted attempt to shove his religion down Tiger Woods' throat. Now other people are exercising THEIR right to free speech by responding with the derision and ridicule Hume has brought on himself. And the whiny extreme-right born-agains are predictably complaining once again that they are a marginalized and persecuted group, when in reality they are by far the dominant group in this country, with a near monopoly on political, judicial and media power. I'm always amazed at their ignorance, hypocrisy, obnoxiousness, cluelessness and boorishness.

Hume made an ass of himself and people are laughing at him. Suck it up, born-agains! It's NOT the same thing as being thrown to the lions.

There is no right to not be offended by idiocy, or in some cases the discovery of your own.

Schaum,

From what religion, or otherwise, did Christianity steal the idea that Jesus would die and, in three days, arise again in human flesh? (Thus signaling the only belief system, religious or otherwise, that has an answer for evil)

"The thought of that airhead in the Oval Office literally makes my blood run cold"

Couldn't get worse than that I suppose. Oh, wait a minute. It already is.

Shaum - Catholicism is NOT christianity. It goes against so many teachings central to the Bible it is crying sad. Catholicism is a false religion, with a false gospel. Try not to confuse the two.

Not only was it correct and proper (and true ) for Brit Hume to make the comments he made, he was also correct in saying there is a bias against public figures saying anything positive about Jesus Christ. There is a bias against everyone who names the name of Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

If Richard Gere had gotten up there and said he thinks Tiger would do well to follow Hinduism, it would never have made it to page 10 of the backstreet times. People would have nodded their head and said, oh Richard is so.o.o caring.

But say he should follow Christ and earthquakes happen, people get enraged, stomp their feet and call their congressman yelling " THIS HAS TO STOP"

However, it should not be a surprise as Jesus warned us that they hated him and if we follow him, they will hate us. Jesus never lied.

The christers are delusional and live in a world of fantasy, in which they can prove neither the existence of their god, nor the existence of their christ.

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

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

Much later, in Egypt, the Egyptian priests developed the ritual known as “transubstantiation”, by which they pulled their sun-god out of the sky and placed him in a wafer. The Egyptians would then eat their god for “spiritual nourishment”. Sound familiar?
The roman catholic corporation today worships Mary as the “Queen of Heaven”, although few if any realize that they are actually praying to Semaris, the Babylonian queen of heaven. And Rome has perverted the Tammuz into jesus. Papal worship is nothing more than the worship of Nimrod and his wife/mother.

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

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

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

Only Norin Woods has the right to forgive Tiger. What Brett said is twisted logic.
PS. Susan, I like your article.

Robster1 wrote: "What typical liberal claptrap from a typical liberal, secular and ignorant viewpoint."

Right, gotta attack and dehumanize before explaining your point, just in case people think it might be wrong.

Robster1 wrote: "Hume didn't recite the Westminster catechism now did he?"

Irrelevant claptrap.

Robster1 wrote: "He simply suggested in very general, generic terms--and in just a few seconds of time, that a certain person consider the forgiveness offered in Christianity."

What Hume did was perfectly executed circular logic:
A) Christianity provides forgiveness of sin.
B) Tiger committed a sin under Christianity.
C) Tiger can be forgiven his sin under Christianity ONLY by converting to Christianity.

Robster1 wrote: "Wow, you would have thought he'd become the next Billy Graham having an alter call and leading viewers in the sinner's prayer."

It was as ignorant a statement as if I said you would not see paradise unless you converted to Islam because Islam says only those who follow Islam see paradise so converting to Islam is a no-brainer.

Robster1 wrote: "The Left (the Wash. Post, Susan Jacoby et al.) demonstrate over and over how far from God our culture is, and how ignorant the supposed Washington elite punditry are when they cannot handle just normal discourse--and normal discourse includes talk of people and their problems and of sins and failures--and ways to overcome them. Heaven forbid Hume give just a tidbit of honest reflection from his heart about a subject."

If Hume had thought about it a little he might have suggested some spiritual counciling for Tiger and how that helped him in the past during difficult times. But to denegrate buddism as offering Tiger nothing (not true) and offer up an alien religion to Tiger, christianity, as his solution, makes as much sense had the shoe been on the other foot. How would Hume have felt had Tiger told Hume, after Hume's son died, that Buddism offers more solice and comfort than Christianity after the death of a loved one, so Hume should become buddist? I think Hume would be a little upset at such an insensitive statement.

If Hume decides to change his tune and embrace Buddha, don't count on any cameo appearances for him on FOXNEWS.

"To be a Christian means following the teaching of Jesus Christ presented in the Gospel. I surely don't see any Christian behavior or love in the so-called conservative Christians on Fox including S. Palin."

Yes, builder701, exactly. Thanks.

Doesn't anybody remember? Levi Johnston, Sarah Palin's ex-future-son-in-law, spilled the beans on her, and I believe him because he is too dumb to lie.

He said that she knows nothing about guns and has never been hunting; it is all just a front. Her husband is away from home at a far distant job for months at a time, and that is their secret to a happy marriage, which I don't doubt and don't dispute, maybe more people should try it; but they are not a "Leave-it-to-Beaver" family, as they pretend to be. Her image is all made up to fool the silly conservatives into thinking that she is something that she is not. They only like her because she is pretty. What is to become of her legacy when her looks go, and she becomes the Betty Davis of the Right Wing?

What she mainly does is sit in the easy chair, watch TV, and order up food from Taco-Bell by way of her kids. Also, who am I to judge? that kind of life-style is ok with me, if she can swing it; alot of people would like to live like that.

I am sure she would be a very colorful and interesting person to have in the neighborhood, but I don't want her for Vice President; is that so wrong of me to think like that? Does that make me a Godless agent of Satan, simply because Sarah Palin is not my cup of tea?

Arminius

I won't say LOL.

I won't say HAHAHAHAHAHA.

I will just say that I laughed and lauged at our comment.

To be a Christian means following the teaching of Jesus Christ presented in the Gospel. I surely don't see any Christian behavior or love in the so-called conservative Christians on Fox including S. Palin.

Jehovah's Witnesses themselves are among the world's most virulent censors of free speech among their own. No member is allowed the privilege of loyal opposition in questions of faith, morals, privacy or self-expression upon pain of disfellowshipping. Disfellowshipping is tantamount to a death sentence in the hereafter.

Every aspect of private life is carefully scrutinized for heresy (JW's term it Apostasy). Members are urged to report other members for any slip of the tongue or suspicious behavior.

Tens of thousands of ex-members of Jehovah's Witnesses (including a former Governing Body member!) are shunned and not even allowed to speak or associate with family members upon pain of that family member's excommunication. Soooooo,MUCH LIKE SCIENTOLOGY CULT it's SCARY

http://www.jwfiles.com

###

Christians complaining about persecution in the U.S. always remind me of Dennis the Communist Peasant from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." "Help, help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

"...Sarah Palin as "Caribou Barbie." I have also heard her referred to as "Franken-Barbie.""

Also:
St Sarah the Moose Slayer
The Trailer Trash of the Tundra
The Neanderthal of the North

And further:
Palin is proof that evolution is real and sometimes works in reverse, for she is the first example of a new emerging hominid species: Bimbo Borealis.

The thought of that airhead in the Oval Office literally makes my blood run cold.

So, let me get this straight:

It is perfectly acceptable for Brit Hume to prostelytize about Tiger Woods and how the root of his woes is that he is the "wrong faith"-- implying that good Christians never had problems or make mistakes, but if you push back, you're a bigot.

Talk about hypocrisy!

No one is trying to silence these people. They are still out there, preaching on TV. So why are they whining when someone criticizes them? If they can't take the heat, they need to stay out of the kitchen.

THIS comes to mind, whenever I hear these Christians brining over how how they are so "oppressed" by "Secular America":

http://www.squarestate.net/diary/3793/

What IS being railed against is the hateful speech, the anger, and the totalitarianism practiced by an unyielding "conservative" viewpoint. Its nothing more, nothing less. Don't make it into a diatribe; the Ultraothodoxy Christian branding has been on a steady rise since Reagan was in office. They step into thier own excrement, every day, every hour and every minute they open thier mouths on the airwaves.

"Its NOT the media, stupid", its themselves hurling the threats and hate.

I see media bias regarding Christianity, in that Christianity holds a favored status in this country. However, when right-wing nuts hold forth with half-baked rhetoric and facts regarding well-documented events, they will receive some additional scrutiny. For Brett Hume to offer counsel to Tiger Woods is like a drunk offering counsel to a tobacco addict. Brett Hume showed no Christian charity to Bill Clinton, yet he is all over himself offering Jesus to Tiger. Brett needs to check his own ego. Is it that Brett was infatuated with Tiger Woods? It is really sad to see the idols of the religious right come tumbling down.

Any scrutiny that Hume, Palin, and others who seek the limelight is rightly deserved. It dces seem that those who can pass our the barbs cannot seem to take them.

Lepidopteryx

You referred to Sarah Palin as "Caribou Barbie." I have also heard her referred to as "Franken-Barbie."

I think that it is a good thing that she has gotten a contract for FOX news because it will show at long last that the Empress has no clothes.

I am sure that the people at FOX news work very hard to produce their right-wing news presentations. Now, they will get the Sarah experience, of having to spoon-feed her like an infant everytime she makes an appearance, and I am sure that will get old very fast, even for her closest right-wing co-workers and associates.

News commentary doesn't just happen off the top of ones head; there must be at least some mimimal effort of preparation, which I believe is beyond Sarah's capacity.

Brit Hume was gossiping in public about Tiger Woods. And then, he used Tiger Woods as a prop to promote his brand of Christianity. He spoke of it in glowing terms about how being a Christian can light up your life, all the while, glaring glumly into the camera, without an ounce of joy or opitmism in his demeanor.

Wow! What piety! What religion.

I am sure thousands jumped up from their FOX television viewing to go right out and join up, so they could be just like gloomy old, sad-sack Brit.

What he really is, is a wind-bag kook. I really cannot see how this can be interpreted any other way.

Let's not tell the religious, "You should convert to Athiesm or Secular Humanism as it offers the best all-around view of the Human condition so that you can have a fuller and more meaningful life"?

I think they would be offended.

Bent, it's not as though anyone takes Faux News seriosly. And with Caribou Barbie as a commentator, there's even less reason to do so.

What typical liberal claptrap from a typical liberal, secular and ignorant viewpoint.

Hume didn't recite the Westminster catechism now did he? He simply suggested in very general, generic terms--and in just a few seconds of time, that a certain person consider the forgiveness offered in Christianity. Wow, you would have thought he'd become the next Billy Graham having an alter call and leading viewers in the sinner's prayer.

The Left (the Wash. Post, Susan Jacoby et al.) demonstrate over and over how far from God our culture is, and how ignorant the supposed Washington elite punditry are when they cannot handle just normal discourse--and normal discourse includes talk of people and their problems and of sins and failures--and ways to overcome them. Heaven forbid Hume give just a tidbit of honest reflection from his heart about a subject.

"But we will certainly defend to the death the right of someone like Hume to say the stupid thing he said about Christianity"

Prepare to extend your willlingness to defend: We have been informed that Sarah Palin has been engaged to contribute to Fox News broadcasts, thus moving Fox even farther to the right, a thing which hardly seemed possible to Us.