Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFor religion-watchers, the decision by several northern Virginia parishes to split with the Episcopal Church and join Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola's crusade against Anglican liberalism came as no surprise. Akinola, the most powerful figure in the Anglican Communion, directly leads at least 17 million Christians and has been fomenting this schism since at least the consecration of openly-gay Bishop Gene Robinson in 2003. It became inevitable, however, once Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church earlier this year. Schori, a supporter of Robinson and same-sex unions, is the first woman to lead a division of the Anglican Church.
For the most part, the mainstream press has done a decent job of reporting the nuts and bolts of the split. The Washington Post noted Akinola's support for legislation in Nigeria that would make it a crime for gays and lesbians to dine together in restaurants and identified him as "an advocate for jailing gays." In a subsequent op-ed, Harold Meyerson dubbed the breakaway faction "Episcopalians Against Equality," and linked them to other orthodox fundamentalists of Catholic and Jewish persuasions who've made anti-gay politics a focal point of their scriptural literalism.
Akinola's supporters quickly denied these allegations. In a post on the website of Truro Church (Fairfax, Virginia), Marytn Minns, a leader of the schism and a friend of Akinola's since their days at the Virginia Theological Seminary in the early '80s, said "That is not true. Archbishop Akinola believes that all people -- whatever their manner of life or sexual orientation -- are made in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect." Subsequently, the Post and other outlets repeated Minns' claim, cryptically writing, "His advocates say he is trying to navigate an explosive cultural situation in Nigeria and appease Muslim leaders."
While it's certainly true that parts of northern Nigeria submit to Sharia law, under which homosexual sex is punishable by death by stoning, holding Muslim leaders solely responsible for the bill doesn't quite wash with an examination of Akinola's published declarations. The legislation under question is known as the "Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act." Under the guise of banning gay marriage, the bill would prohibit almost any association of gays and lesbians, restrict their freedom of speech and movement. Section 7 prohibits any "publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationships through the electronic or print media" (for example, a screening of Brokeback Mountain). It would also imprison for five years anyone "involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public showing of same sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly in public and in private" (for example, any lesbians or gays meeting in a restaurant or even in their own homes).
This bill was introduced by Nigeria's Minister of Justice, Bayo Ojo, on January 19, 2006. In a "message to the nation" issued in February, Akinola endorsed the legislation saying, "The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality." In another declaration made in September, Akinola said, "The Church affirms our commitment to the total rejection of the evil of homosexuality which is a perversion of human dignity and encourages the National Assembly to ratify the Bill prohibiting the legality of homosexuality since it is incongruent with the teachings of the Bible, Quran and the basic African traditional values."
Given these statements, the attempts by Akinola's supporters to distance themselves (and him) from his previous support of this draconian legislation ring false. Is this crusade what the parishioners of Truro Church and Falls Church in Virginia, who according to World magazine include "leaders of government agencies, members of Congress, Washington journalists, and think-tank presidents," meant to endorse by siding with Akinola?
In the next few days, I'll report more on the Anglican schism, including posts on their right-wing US backers (Scaife, Olin, Coors), their interpretation of scripture and their narrative of reverse imperialism (Africa to the US), so stay tuned.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
And again...
this, a day after George W. Bush (according to LVLIB) shows his "Godless values" by saying that Mary Cheney will be a "good mother"!
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 10:34am
Oh no...Dubya has fallen from Grace? Say it ain't so! Wonder how many of the godless he'll have to kill to be "saved" (Say 3 Hail Marys and kill 25 homos my son...)
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/21/2006 @ 10:54am
gays all over the planet should stage mass sodomy in downtown lagos, just to get in their face.
Posted by darladoon at 12/21/2006 @ 11:31am
I wonder were is the outrage over Muslim theoretical dictates in Islamic countries.
I guess only when it is Christian nutbags that the Nation wants to spotlight them.
Anti-Christian??????? of course, the Nation is hardocre liberals, Muslims ban women from driving, no problem, they enact Taliban like laws...sure they are silent, they imprison Christian missionaries....no article....but Christian does something against gays....ohh the oturage.
I love the liberal hypocrisey...how can anyone take the nation seriously.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 11:37am
I love hypocrisey...how can anyone take me seriously.
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 11:37am | ignore this person
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 11:45am
Johanne
I love the liberal hypocrisey...how can anyone take the nation seriously.
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 11:37am | ignore this person
Please refrain from outright misrepresentation, you are smarter than that.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 11:51am
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 11:51am
Cap'n [derisive snerk] Kick Butt
'Tis you who misrepresent.
Speaking broadly, liberals have no great love for those of whatever stripe who suppress the rights of women, minorities, the economically disadvantaged.
To try to drive a wedge in to say that progressives only call the Christian Taliban on it (as opposed to the Jewish Taliban, or the, well, Taliban, Taliban) just makes you look like a fool.
You might want to spend a little time reflecting on why you end up looking that way so often.
Posted by skeletonman at 12/21/2006 @ 12:01pm
Uh, CPT....All posted on "The Nation"--
article | posted October 4, 2001 (web only) Kabul's Patriarchy With Guns Fred Halliday
comment | posted October 4, 2001 (October 22, 2001 issue) Press Watch Michael Massing
comment | posted October 4, 2001 (November 24, 1997 issue) Kabul's Health Apartheid Max Block
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 12:01pm
MASK
5 years ago....sure there have been no outrages against Christians since or outrages in islamic theocracies since...right?
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 12:05pm
SKELOTON
It fact makes you look hypocritical, dishonest, and disingeinous.
I simply point it out....all this feigned outrage is in fact one-sided...even the articles that MASK posted...care to contrast that with anti-Christian articles?
Look your shit stinks too.....hardcore liberals tend to think that it doesnt.
You ought to spend more time reflecting on that as well.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 12:10pm
CPT, ah, the don't look here but look over there gambit, followed by the accusation of hypocrisey(sic). how quaint.
Please refrain from outright misrepresentation, you are not smarter than that.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 12:12pm
JOHANNE
Now you are just lying...that dont look here but there gambit...what are you talking about? I know you are older so you might want to take your medication
Look you are what you are....your outraged by religous intolerance..only sometimes.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 12:16pm
CPT is clearly, for lack of a better word, moronic. he states that magazines like the nation that fail to cover examples of islamic human rights abuses are hypocritical, and they only focus on christian human rights abuses.
but, yet.........what are we reading in this article?
Posted by darladoon at 12/21/2006 @ 12:17pm
in fact, mr. kim has written numerous articles about homophobia all over the world.
Posted by darladoon at 12/21/2006 @ 12:17pm
DARLADOON
gays all over the planet should stage mass sodomy in downtown lagos, just to get in their face.
Posted by DARLADOON 12/21/2006 @ 11:31am | ignore this person
Moron????? Re-read your statement, carefully...hey pot...you are the blackest of us all.
No offense
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 12:19pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 12:10am
I giggle at your feeble rejoinder.
Even your buddy Mask is around to pummelling you, dude.
BTW, you STILL haven't answered his question of about 10 days ago - what would GWB have to do in your mind to deserve impeachment and conviction?
Posted by skeletonman at 12/21/2006 @ 12:19pm
SKELOTON
Dude? like dude...i giggle at your feeble rejoinder??? who talks like that?
Take another hit dude..and get back to some serious reflection
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 12:24pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 12:05am
Well, CPT, you may remember that about FOUR years ago...we supposedly overthrew the Taliban.
Of course that's looking pretty dicey right now too.
I hate ANY hypocrisy, smug liberal or smug Christian conservative.
But pretty sure "The Nation" hasn't been "soft" on the Taliban, or Saudi Arabia, or even China.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 12:27pm
Posted by SKELETONMAN 12/21/2006 @ 12:19am
SKELETON...why am I "CPT's buddy"...and not yours? Seems you and I are in agreement here?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 12:28pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 12:18am
LL, I just did...
Posted by MASK 12/21/2006 @ 12:01am
Speaking of "things un-said", care to explain to the class why George W Bush showed he has "Godless values" yesterday at his press conference?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 12:30pm
"3. Many would contract STDS and AIDS and help reduce the level of moral perversion in the world."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 12:30am
"If they would rather die ... they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."----Ebeneezer Scrooge, "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 12:36pm
MASK
So only the Taliban has enacted intolerant laws in the Muslim world? no outrages or atrocities anywhere else?
I mean in this case with this article, we are talking Nigeria here...pretty obscure but they "found" this article.
Yet in the Far east in Malaysia, i think, were Chrisitians were and are being killed for being, well, Christians...and that is recently....that is not worthy to print..?
Look the Nation is what it is...thats their choice...they are outraged by religous intolerance...but only sometimes.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 12:36pm
SKELOTON
Yeah why am i MASKs buddy?
MASK did you know we were buddies when did this happen. Since we are buddies i want an the new NIKE IPOD, designed for runners for Christmas
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 12:44pm
the best reason i can think of for developing alternative energy is so that we can disengage our nation from as many muslim nations to as great an extent as possible.
the tenets of fundamentalist islam (which seems to be far and away the dominat strain, these days and in the past) are simply untenable in a free, secular, society. islam demands theocratic government, forbids free speech when it comes to their religion, sanctions barbaric acts against those who do not accept the islamic way of life...in short represents a complete anathema to all the freedoms and rights the west has struggled to attain for the last four centuries or so. verily it is a menace to humanity as well as human dignity, freedom, rationalism, and progress.
perhaps one day the islamic world will awaken from its medievalist oppression and violent, chauvinistic intolerance, but not in my nor in any other poster's here lifetime. in fact the best way to bring this about as quickly as possible would be, like i said, to...
disengage from those areas of the world as much as possible, so as to give those muslims searching for excuses to use violence and scapegoat the heathan west for their own failures as few scapegoats and opportunities to violently expand their religion, or use violence against outsiders as a way of consolidating power amongst their own angry, barbaric, co-religionists. then, hopefully, the inexorable steamroller of progress and enlightenment will bring about the sort of bloody and tragic intrafaith struggle (thereby giving the non-muslim world a respite) that christiandom experianced in the 17th century, which finally awakened enough europeans to the absurdities of their own faith and led to the enlightement and an end to such hypocritical and wicked holy slaughter and oppresion amongst christians.
how's that CPT?
but let me add this. if you think for one minute that christianity holds no threat nor possibility to reactionary oppresion...read history. i'm sure you do anyway, but try not to filter out that which disagrees with your points.
any faith which claims a monopoly on the truth AND calls upon its followers to spread its message AND postulates an absurdly dire consequence (hell forever and ever) not for misbehavior, but for refusal to enter into a private spiritual contract with god or something, (an absurdly dire consequence for a supposedly compassionate god, that is), is an inherent menace to all who do not share its tenets.
since the enlightenment, many truly compassionate and tolerant christian sects have arisen and many who were once exclusionary, intolerant and prone to bloody violence, have morphed ito something far more in line with the idea of a truly omnicompassionate and omniscient god...
others would be happily imprisoning and executing folks such as myself and most of the posters her as well as half the country who dare endanger their insecure, irrational belief system...which is so absurd and illogical that the existance of those who will readily point this out is a threat to the faith whic must be removed.
look at history. there are TWO faiths which have been guilty of this type of wickedness, from whose hands drip the blood of millions and from whose hypocritical, evil, fanatical followers untold oppresion and suffering has been unleashed upon the world. they are christianity and islam. sure there has been some hindu violence against muslims, but considering what muslims have subjected hindus to throughout the centuries, i find it suprising as well as a credit to their faith, that more hindus do NOT wish violence upon their muslim neighbors.
thus the big lie that ignorant western liberals often promulgate, based entirely upon a semi-concious ethnocentrism, that ALL religions result in violence...no just two result in consistant, verifiable, violence, oppresion, and widespread ignorant wickedness, christianity and islam.
get it right...
see things as they are, not as you wish them to be.
ah, and there's the rub...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 12:53pm
Yeah why am i MASKs buddy?
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 12:44am
"CPT, what an ugly thing to say. I abhor ugliness... does this mean we're not friends anymore? You know, CPT, if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.
(sets his guns on the table) There. Now we can be friends again."
--(Sorry, HAD to quote a little "Tombstone", Val Kilmer as "Doc")
As I said, liberal or conservative (see below) hypocrisy, I abhor it. But The Nation made no bones about opposing the Taliban (you mentioned them)..and they certainly don't like the Saudis...and they don't like the Chinese regime either.
Their rationale may be different from yours...they have a problem with their economics (China) or lack of democracy (China AND Saudis)...but they're not SUPPORTING those countries doing those awful things to Christians.
Now...an awful lot of "outraged Christian conservatives"...like yourself...seem to have no problem buying OIL from Saudi (Chavez is a nut, but he's not persecuting Christians...want to buy from him?)....or dealing with China (You often defend Wal-mart on Liza Featherstone posts for buying from China...without seeming so troubled by their treatment of Christians).
Hmmm?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 12:56pm
To all of you, the parishners of the Episcopal church are within their rights to leave and not follow those teachings that are against the tenets of their faith. They are free to support that which is closest to their beliefs. They are supported by scripture. It is not for any of us to judge their position or the position of the African Episcopal Church in Nigeria.
You may not think it's right or just, but it's their choice. They fully understand Bishop Ainkola(?) views.
Now, if you want to debate about the laws the Nigerian Congress has enacted regarding homosexuality, then that's a horse of a different color.
Posted by ACook at 12/21/2006 @ 12:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 12:45am
Yeah, we're fighting on two different threads....I'll keep it here if you like, with what I posted over there on Ms Featherstone's.
Namely....
you give Bush a PASS on "not judging" Mary Cheney and claim he's still not "Godless" in his values. Attack ME for not judging Mary Cheney as "lack of moral standards"...
okay...so what are YOU, who DO judge Mary Cheney by claiming that anybody who says it's okay and she'd make a good mother (like me, not Bush of course) is showing "Godless values"?
Or do you have some other definition of "judging" (see Bush excuse)?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 12:59pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/21/2006 @ 12:53am |
and i believe thomas jefferson and many more of our founding followers, products of the enlightenment, removed from the bloody insanity of christian intrafaith conflict by barely a century, contrary to our own fundyvangelist cromwellians, would agree with my analysis 100%.
they would be unelectable...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 1:23pm
MASK, CPT, DARLADOON, SKELETONMAN, LEFTOFCENTER, ACOOK, JOHN MAASCH
We should quit wasting our time on discussing the issue of bashing people's sexual orientation, their race, their religious preference, gender, etc. Why do I say quit talking about it? Because in this world, especially in the United States, racism of all kinds will never go away. It will not go away because in this world, and especially THE AMERICAN ENGINE(s) ARE POWERED BY RACISM AND PREJUDICE. You don't have to take my word for it. Just check out the world's economic and foriegn policies. The Western powers hate the Middle East so much that they just figure tell a few lies about mushroom clouds and terrorism and it totally justifies their racist policies of "KILL THEM ALL"............
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/21/2006 @ 1:26pm
.that dont look here but there gambit...what are you talking about?
I am talking about your rhetorical technique. see above. incidentally I am NOT old. 60 is the new 45.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 1:30pm
Posted by POSEIDON 12/21/2006 @ 1:26pm
And here goes the OTHER extreme....America-bashing, "we're all evil ('cept me-the writer of course)", blah, blah, blah.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 1:37pm
and ever does history resemble itself...
early christianity, prior to the muslim abomination, once adopted by the roman empire as its state religion, already evinced its hypocritically intolerant bloody nature. waves of violent persecution and forced or coerced conversion swept over the roman empire in this period resulting in destructio of "pagan" temples and the slaughter not only of pagans but of varient christian sects. nonetheless, the faith had precious little opportunity to settle down and develop into a more truly compassionate and rational belief system, as suddenly, in the 7th and 8th centuries, hordes of violent, islamic fanatics burst upon the world, desirous of forcing all others to adopt their own hateful, intolerant religion. thus was christianity further radicalized, and fought fire with fire, resulting in some four centuries of bloody conflict between the fanatical or just ignorant and duped followers of both these inherently flawed belief systems.
and today, guess what? wacked out islamic fanatic are pissing off wacked out fundyvangelist fantics, who are returning the favor, resulting in an ever escalating idiocy which rapturists on both sides fervently hope will result in a bloody conflict which will end the world...
stupidity and evil hiding behind beautiful words and easy answer religion...
nothing new there either...except that we now posess the capability to make our mass suicidal fantasy a self fulfilling prophesy...
WAKE UP!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 1:39pm
For the most part, the mainstream press has done a decent job of reporting the nuts and bolts of the split.
Nuts and bolts? Is Richard Kim implying a straight bias in the MSM? Such imagery in this the season of virgin births!
As for CPT and his rant o' the day, he's absolutely right. The Nation has unequivocally supported Islamic repressiveness for as long as I can remember. You know the old liberal adage: if people have to suffer, pray at least that they are Muslims. Or Christians. Or Jews. Or...
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 1:41pm
And LL,
If non-Christians still have to face your God for final judgment, then it is only fair that Christians have to face an afterlife as fertilizer. You will be judged by the quality of plant life that bounds from your remains.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 1:45pm
LVL attempts to hijack another thread with his religious rantings.
What's wrong LVL not enough wayward kids for you to "save"?
Posted by freedomplease at 12/21/2006 @ 1:46pm
IBBEL
Anything else? just kidding
Ok as far as Christian oppression rasiing its head....well the history you cite is correct.
But the fact is that is why it is history...the crusades are done and gone..600yrs since the last one....Christian persecution of Jews in Europe...i believe..what is 350 yrs ago. The inquistion ended about 300yrs ago.
To compare the two is daunting...but again, not within the last 100 yrs and you could go back several hundred years have Christian leaders called for holy wars...as Islam does....or that mass violence by done in its name against non-believers. or even that hateful messages are preached by mass numbers of Christian preachers, oh you can cite ones or twos, but they are outside the mainstream. Not so in Islam.
I think people who use past transgressions, especially those Christians have committed in past to use as justification for being biased toward Christian beliefs display or reinforce a manner of thinking by religion which was the cause of the injustices.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 1:49pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/21/2006 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person
Dishonest rant...i cant help if thats who you are or representitive of your beliefs.
Again you are of course outraged by religous intolerance...only sometimes..right?
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 1:51pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/21/2006 @ 12:59am | ignore this person
Kudos for a great post.....Excellent insight.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 1:55pm
Beth Adams, who writes a lot on the Episcopal Church/gender and sexuality had a very good post on this same topic Posted by Richardnash at 12/21/2006 @ 2:00pm
Again you are of course outraged by religous intolerance...only sometimes..right?
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 1:51pm
You've got to be kidding! Essentially I am outraged any time religion is uttered within a political discussion. As for intolerance, it is the foundation of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim belief system when incorporated into political thought.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 2:01pm
Beth Adams, who writes a lot on the Episcopal Church/gender and sexuality had a very good post on this same topic http://cassandrapages.typepad.com/ URL too long to paste the URL of the exact post, but it's the top of her blog...
Posted by Richardnash at 12/21/2006 @ 2:02pm
As for intolerance, it is the foundation of the jewish/Christian/Muslim belief system when incorporated into political thought.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/21/2006 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person
Sorry incorrect statement...intolernce is not the "foundation" of any of these religons....the foundation for all is the love of God.
You percieve this as a result of how other men have interperted there religions.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 2:07pm
Christian persecution of Jews in Europe...i believe..what is 350 yrs ago.
not even close.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 2:08pm
Johanne
Enlighten me then? 300?
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 2:09pm
i truly hate that i must say the kind of things i have said, but i would hate even more to offer pleasant, mollifying lies. certainly there are times and places where pleasant, mollifying lies are preferable to ugly truths which, if stated openly, will result in hurt sensibilities, rage and hatred. but not here, not now.
as evinced by their actions in the recent danish cartoon incident, most muslims appear to have neither respect for, nor even understanding of, free speech nor free societies, and many of our own cromwellian fundyvangelists are no better, but at least are once again becoming an ever more marginalized fringe element in our great experiment.
i would much prefer to maintain my silence in this regard...it would be safer and less insulting to many decent if misguided followers of these two faths, but the undeniable truth, if one takes an honest peek at the world, isthat to not stand up and tell it like it is is to encourage and enable these fanatics as surely as peace loving, rational germans enabled the worse of nihilistic anti-religionists to achieve power in the 30's, by NOT actively opposing, nor taking such insanity seriously. true lovers of liberty and reason and progress of the human spirit must cease their somnambulance and rise to actively oppose tyranny both islamic and christian.
and step number one...develop and implement alternative, renewable energy sources soooo....
step #2...we can permanently withdraw our forces from the islamic world,thereby isolating them so that...
step #3...they will go ahead and get their slaughter on with each other so that...
step #4...one day they might see the real source of their misery which is that which they currently see as their salvation...
and if we disengage and the islamic world insists on violently spreading their faith in some kind of drea of world caliphate conquest, then...
we kill as many of them as we can and keep out nukes aimed directly at them...and by "we" i do not mean "we christians", but we the brotherhood of the rational and truly compassionate.
i dont think it will come to that, but the the current course of action and policy will bring such nightmarish potentialities about more quickly and surely...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 2:09pm
Sorry, LVLIB....notice the pronouns...
Just curious...what would you say about somebody (me or somebody else) who says that in general, or in a specific case, a lesbian would be a "good mother" and would have no problem with one and her partner becoming parents?
Posted by MASK 12/20/2006 @ 3:58pm
Mask,
After all this time, you ask? You know that I would say that you are merely reflecting your Godless values. That you are endorsing a lifestyle that is immoral and reflects bringing a child up in a way that is not the normative that God has planned for mankind.
For anyone to suggest that a child receives the same level of nurture and development from other than a traditional family consisting of parents that are a man and a woman is denying a truth of nature, much less God's plan.
To a final point of your question, in the book of Romans it clearly says that those who condone the sins of homosexuality are just as guilty before God as those who engage in the behavior.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/20/2006 @ 4:17pm
"you"...yep, that'd be ME. But "anyone" and "who condones"...that'd be me...or George W Bush yesterday.
Yet..."Bush is in the position of speaking publicly as the President of the United States and not first and foremost as a Christian. His first obligation is to respect the civil rights of all Americans. He does not have a similar obligation faithwise in his public office (he would have been railed by you and others for doing so, thus making your comments hypocritical)."
---So Bush MUST "deny a truth of nature, much less God's plan" because he's President????? If so, then he's no more (in your view) a "good Christian" than, say, Bill Clinton, right?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 2:12pm
Again you are of course outraged by religous intolerance...only sometimes..right?
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 1:51pm
CPT, you've fired off your letter or e-mail to Rep. Goode....right? Can I get a copy of what you said?
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press--WASHINGTON
A Republican congressman has told constituents that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims" will be elected and follow the lead of a recently elected lawmaker who plans to use the Quran at his ceremonial swearing-in.
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., made the comments in a letter sent earlier this month to hundreds of constituents who had written to him about Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat and the first Muslim elected to Congress. Goode's letter triggered angry responses from a New Jersey congressman and an Islamic civil rights group.
In the letter, Goode wrote, "The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."
Goode said the U.S. needs to stop illegal immigration "totally" and reduce legal immigration.
Goode added: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."
Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college. He did not return telephone messages left Wednesday.
Meanwhile, Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., wrote to Goode on Wednesday saying that he was "greatly disappointed and in fact startled" by Goode's letter.
"I take your remarks as personally offensive to the large community of Muslim-Americans I represent in the Eighth District of New Jersey," Pascrell wrote.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on Goode to apologize.
"Representative Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," CAIR's national legislative director, Corey Saylor, said Tuesday night. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."
Goode spokesman Linwood Duncan said Wednesday that no apology was forthcoming.
"The only statement the congressman has is that he stands by the letter," Duncan said.
The letter was made public by John Cruickshank, the chairman of the Piedmont group of the Sierra Club in central Virginia, who had received it after writing to Goode about environmental issues. Duncan said that Goode's office had sent the letter to Cruickshank by mistake.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 2:15pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 2:07pm
We come back to your reading (or lack of reading) ability that I discussed months and months ago. There are courses that can assist you.
So you're saying that when incorporated into political thought, the foundation of those religions is an expression of love? Please, cite examples of governments who are expressing their love of God by their decisions. Apparently your God is still pretty pleased by the idea of sacrificial lambs.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 2:16pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 2:07pm
that is what you want to believe, but read your bible again and try to do so in a detached way...
we want and believe in our hearts such, but an honest, critical reading of the bible (as well as the koran) reveals that amid all the beautiful sentiments are spread poison seeds of intolerance and hatred...
if you, a consumate baker, were to bake me a cake with all the most delicious and costly ingredients, but right before you throw it in the oven sprinkeld a little bit of deadly poison, i would still not eat it regardless of how hungry i was, nor how delicious it smelled..nor could i pick through such a cake and remove the poison...
although as i have said, many christian sects have indeed picked out the poisonous seeds in the bible and cast them aside...more power to them...thank god for them...
but unfortunately those evil seeds sowed in such a lovely pasture will ever ripen in the hearts of the most insecure, fearful, ignorant and hateful aongst us, threatening the freedom and well being of those who reject this poison, something our wise founding fathers knew well and tried to guard against in or constitution by separating all religion from the state...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 2:21pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 1:49pm
oh hey CPT...lol...missed your response there in my sermonizing...heehee...
how u doin?
like some others have pointed out there have been some examples of christian persecution of non christians within the last 300 years, though not so much as before, admittedly. like russian pogroms...and i do not consider the holocaust as an example of christian oppression despite the fact that many bigotted christians were gleefully co-opted by the nihilist monstrosities that were the nazis...
but when i listen to some of the fundyvangelist retoric and i see the angry responses of the same to fanatical islamic provocation, and when our own president professes to follow such fundyvangelist doctrine...yes indeed, i fear some kind of modern crusade/jihad that with the posession of nuklear weapons...we as a species might not survive...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 2:34pm
nuklear...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 2:36pm
I'm just taking a stab here, but I wonder if the moniker MASK is a metaphor for the mask said poster uses to conceal his true sexuality. I also wonder if CPT does in fact stand for Captain Penis Tickler. You guys might be able to resolve your differences outside of this page - say with a Cleveland Steamer or an Upside Down Trombone. I don't know, just trying to help. Maybe you're just two boring heterosexuals, I truly don't know, but if you are straight then at least LLs god may still save you from a trip down the river Styx...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2006 @ 2:40pm
LVLIB, the more convuluted MY argument becomes?!?!?!...hehe
LL---quote--"For anyone to suggest that a child receives the same level of nurture and development from other than a traditional family consisting of parents that are a man and a woman is denying a truth of nature, much less God's plan."
and then....
"Bush is in the position of speaking publicly as the President of the United States and not first and foremost as a Christian. His first obligation is to respect the civil rights of all Americans."
Okay, so is "respecting the civil rights of all Americans"..."denying a truth of nature, much less God's plan."
or not?!??!!??!?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 2:42pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 2:40pm
"Donnie, you're out of your element"...or in this case, "CHIMI, you're out of your element!" ("Big Lebowski" fans out there will get it)
CHIMI....so only a homosexual would defend gay rights?!?!?!?
Fundamentalists to the Right of me....Latino posers to the Left of me...Adzooks!
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 2:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 2:35pm
Another honesty quiz for LL.....so you'd support a TOTAL shut-down of the immigration of Muslims or would you let a FEW of them in?
(BTW, Goode was referring to Keith Ellison, a far lefty, but someone who was BORN in the US and converted to Islam)
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 2:46pm
MASK
What is hateful in Goode's letter...is he advocating violence against Islam?
Given what has occurred in Europe, why is he not allowed to express concern? Too close minded? not enlightened enough to see the injustice of his words?..
"Tighter immigration"
"preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."
This is what passes for hate in your book?
I do not interpert these remarks as hateful or intolerant, probably a little more practical than you would like to hear.
But then again MASK, it is probably just bluster, he is not politically "suicidal" right?
Again you are outraged by intolerance and are prepared to see the seeds of hatred formenting behind words....but only sometimes..right?
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 2:52pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 2:40pm
leave it to chimi to say something so wickedly offensive and ad hominum that i find mysef (only) temporarily at a loss for words and unable to type as a result of my uncontrlable snickering...
Posted by MASK 12/21/2006 @ 2:44pm
i think chimi pissed on your rug, dude...
what a classic movie...i just wish the cohen boys would make a sequal...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 2:52pm
TJB
Sorry, i did miss that word...no course required.
But just because our leaders espouse religous beliefs...doesnt mean that it should or would translate into foriegn policy actions.
The USA or govenment thereof does not possess a soul to save..therfore i think in conducting policy certain immoral policy moves are required to serve its best interests...no country acts morally 100% of the time, they all act to further their interests....no country would survive if it acted morally 100% of the time in conducting its foreign policy.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 2:59pm
Ibbebl
My last post to TJB is also to a lesser extent for you also..i trust you will be able to tell which applys to you and which does not
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 3:02pm
the comment about mass sodomy was simple: safety in numbers. it's the same thing with the human chains done by anti-war protesters.
if the govt of nigeria arrested, imprisoned and stoned to death scores of thousands of gays, on live television, then it would be a sad, sad day for the nigerian govt in terms of their isolation from the world body.
Posted by darladoon at 12/21/2006 @ 3:04pm
also, clearly in a mass sodomy protest, men would wear CONDOMS!
Posted by darladoon at 12/21/2006 @ 3:06pm
Darla
not to mention a sad sad sad day for those gays who would be killed..
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 3:06pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 2:59pm
it would be a miracle indeed if a political entity so vast and powerful as our own, was as pure as virgen snow. and i am supreely pleased to see that our system does indeed lend itself to moderation of the plicies of WHOEVER occupies the white house, or the legislature, for that matter.
wisdom and compassion - a delicate balance...too much of one, too little of another results in more misery and suffering than this ole world already churns out without our help...
like the compassionate yet foolis peasant who, upon seeing a big fish fall out of a fishcart, and noticing it is still alive, flings it into the nearest little pond he sees, and goes about his business feeling good about his little act of compassion. what he does not notice, however, is that the pond is too small, and the big fish devours all the little fish in short order, starves to death imself, and the peasants no longer have a fish pond. too much compassion, too little wisdom.
the opposite is also possible, of course.
this is why it is nice to have a system where compassionate progressives are held in check by wise realists, and compassionate progressives function as the concious of those whose wisdom too far exceeds their compassion...
that said there are hard hearted realists on the left and compassionate idealists on the right to complicate the whole thing...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 3:15pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 2:59pm
Sorry for my snarkiness in the last post. But it's my birthday so all of my transgressions are forgiven--I read that in The Bible, I think. In any case, I plan to drink lots of wine tonight and will be sincerely (almost prayerfully) grateful for beginning yet another wonderful year of life on Earth.
Anyway, when you find bad things happening when Islam is used to rule or even influence a country, you are correct in pointing fingers at the inevitably sad results. Same for other combos of religious and political power, whether subtle or overt. I don't know where your beliefs are (i.e. in line with LL's or not) in terms of morality outside of religion, but, trust me, it exists. And it exists without all the inside/outside clique battles that ensue when a higher being is invoked as evidence of correctness on an issue. The problem is that few truly religious people are unable to extract their viewpoint as a human from their adherence to a particular story of divinity, stories which fail almost entirely to address contemporary socio-political issues. While I agree with ACOOK's earlier post about not messing with religious issues, when they start messing with political issues, it gets really messy and I don't know nothing that can clean up slop like that.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 3:17pm
Posted by DARLADOON 12/21/2006 @ 3:04pm
mass protest also offers the opportunity for mass murder...something i'm not so sure is below the authoritarian and corrupt government of nigeria, a state which is not a nation, much like iraq.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 3:17pm
For anyone to suggest that a child receives the same level of nurture and development from other than a traditional family consisting of parents that are a man and a woman is denying a truth of nature, much less God's plan...
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/20/2006 @ 4:17pm
HaHaHa!!! Another LoveLiberty classic!!! It's God's plan to have children raised by a Mommy & Daddy -- Except when it's God's plan to have Mommy &/or Daddy killed in LIBBY's lovely little wars. And God said unto him, "Ya see, Johnny, it's my plan for you: better you are raised an orphan, than raised by a pair of queers."
Posted by nathanhale at 12/21/2006 @ 3:22pm
"Tighter immigration"
"preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 2:52pm
Well, CPT, why not control ASIAN immigration?
I mean, THOSE people make up a MUCH larger percentage (400,000 immigrants from Asia, versus 84,000 from Africa/MidEast)?
and most of THEM aren't good God-fearing Christians, but things like Hindus and Buddhists!!! How does letting in FIVE TIMES the number of them into our country not "destroy our values and beliefs traditional"!?!??!
(case you want to check [dhs.gov])
Or is there something SPECIFIC about Muslims that you and Rep. Goode have a problem with....after all Keith Ellison was BORN here, converted to Islam, so "tighter immigration" wouldn't even have effected him.
Do you distrust EVERYBODY who is Muslim?...maybe dislike them?....maybe....another word?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 3:25pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/21/2006 @ 2:52pm
"Nobody f***s with the CHIMI!"....then he bowls a 7-10 split.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 3:31pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/21/2006 @ 12:59am
yes and no...
you are absolutely correct that it is a people's right to believe what they wish, but when these beliefs prompt their government to enact abominable policies, and such is a recuring pattern and theme in this world of ours, to not discuss the religious beliefs motivating these activities is to sort of talk all around the real root of the problem, to address the symptoms of the affliction while ignoring the root pathology...
i understand your discomfort with addressing the cause of the problem - such is fraught with danger of all sorts, but our world approaches a reckoning and not addressing the real base problem, theological/ideological intransigence and violent intolerance is to de facto condone and abet the same.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 3:31pm
or anyone to suggest that a child receives the same level of nurture and development from other than a traditional family consisting of parents that are a man and a woman is denying a truth of nature, much less God's plan...
it is impossible to argue with someone who believes (not knows, but believes) that god not only exists, but actually has a "plan". anyone who isn't amenable to debate is authoritarian, just like god.
Posted by darladoon at 12/21/2006 @ 3:31pm
the point is that the government of nigeria would never massacre scores of thousands of gays in public. never.
Posted by darladoon at 12/21/2006 @ 3:32pm
Posted by MASK 12/21/2006 @ 3:31pm
"how can you go back to kansas after you've seen karl hungus..."
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 3:32pm
Posted by DARLADOON 12/21/2006 @ 3:32pm |
not so sure about that, darla, but even if you are right, i think a gigantic gay orgy in the streets of lagos, given the apparant sentiment of most non-gay nigerians,might result in an unfortunate massacre which the government of nigeria would be hard pressed to prevent...if it wanted to.
it was a funny image, though i am converting it in my own head into a massive lesbian orgy in the streets of lagos...there...thats not so bad...although a massive lesbian orgy in berkely with hot lesbians of all colors and nationalities would be even better...
ok, enough of that.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 3:38pm
Posted by MASK 12/21/2006 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person
I have nothing against anyone so long as they're not lazy. Of course, this doesn't mean I agree with the way everyone thinks, but I respect and accept even those I am most opposed to when it comes to their thoughts and opinions, even MASK or LL. (Besides, ignoring them would preclude too much diversion.) Whether or not someone is gay is the least of my concerns, for I have my own battles to worry about, though I offer my support when and where I can...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2006 @ 3:41pm
by the way, darla, if you were to organize a gigantic lesbian protest street orgy in berkely i would make the trip to offer my solidarity. no doubt at all...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 3:43pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 3:44pm
Then it's NOT about immigration, is it, LL?
You spend ONE line on "total immigration", then paragraphs on MUSLIM immigrants.
State what you feel honestly....is it "All Muslim immigrants should be viewed with distrust and their increase in our country will be detrimental to it".
If you disagree with that statement, tell us why and why your view is so radically different from it?
If you agree....show some courage of your conviction and...say it.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 3:55pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 3:41pm
CHIMI, our other "battles" aside, don't start sounding like your "macho" amigos and start throwing around "He's gay" as an epithet....it puts you in the same camp with LVLIBERTY and CPT, despite your trying to link them with me!
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 3:58pm
Posted by MASK 12/21/2006 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person
I'm sure most realize I was being fecetious, perhaps in a somewhat distasteful way. Oh well. I personally despise the machismo in this region of the world, whether it's attempting to outdrink your amigos instead of enjoy a few beers, cheat on your lady with as many women as possible or refer to any man who knows how to cook, wash his own clothes or sweep a floor as a marica. Sad thing here is, a man without a wife, girlfriend or sister is in serious trouble since he's capable of nothing without one...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2006 @ 4:04pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 4:08pm
Take a baby away from its mother? Is there an agenda somewhere that is promoting baby theft so that lesbians can enjoy motherhood?
Here's a slur for you: mindnumbing doofus.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 4:10pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 4:04pm
Okay, okay...was going to say something about one region having perhaps atleast SOME moral authority over another on that suit, but will let it go til another thread.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 4:11pm
You know I will never adopt either because I don't believe that people who don't want children should have them. Since, like Gabbana, I don't want them, then it is good to be childless. But to insinuate personal desires for parenthood as a statement on behalf of gaydom is a little nutty, LL.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 4:12pm
Gabbana insists taking a child away from its mother is "cruel" and that he will never adopt, although a female friend recently agreed to become the surrogate mother of his child through artificial insemination.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 4:08pm
Well,no LL...he's sounds CONTRADICTORY right there...sort of like you and how ME saying "Mary Cheney would be a good mother" is "Godless values" and terrible...but BUSH saying "Mary Cheney would be a good mother" is "respecting the civil rights of all Americans" and okay in your book.
(still standing by on your "Muslim immigrant" statement, BTW)
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 4:14pm
MASK
Now wait just a minute...i have never thrown gay eptithets at anyone....nor do I belong to that camp.....not being in agreement with a certain viewpoint does NOT equate to hatred or bigotry despite your attempts to link the two.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 4:15pm
More monotheists spreading their hatred and anger. What else is new?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/21/2006 @ 4:17pm
I actually have a grip with overbearing mothers, especially in the US. Now, I'm no psychologist, despite posturing as one from time to time here, but there seems to be a belief that over-affection and excessive attention from a mother towards her son greatly increase the chance that that boy will grow up to be somewhat effeminate, if not homosexual. Though this may sound absurd to some, I only mention it because I have actually seen a few cases of it and am currently witnessing what I believe to be others at present. Carlin comes to mind again, this time in his rant about parents in the US being so overprotective they are not only taking the fun out of adolescence, but rearing a generation of "soft kids". Any thoughts on this? I truly think people in the US are indeed very much divorced from nature and somewhat "soft" so-to-speak. Not that there aren't any original "cowboys" left up there, though there are indeed a growing number with all hat no cow, if I've got the saying right. Any thoughts on the mother's influence on her son's tendencies/sexuality?
Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2006 @ 4:19pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 4:17pm
that was supremely reasonable, LL. i apologize if i have offended earlier, though at least i have been honest about my beliefs. as have you. blessings to you and merry christmas.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 4:23pm
BTW,
I'm not claiming mothers need to stop this (if in fact there is any shred of truth to this theory) so as to decrease the number of gays in the world, just wondering if anyone else has heard about this or have an opinion on any possible correlation.
Again, I'm not bashing gays or their moms, my gripe was meant for parents in general for this "softness" overall. Sorry for licking that post off without explaining more...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2006 @ 4:24pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 4:21pm
Me? Drinking already? Was I the one who sought the opinion of a fashion designer on the topic of gay parenting?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 4:25pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 4:15pm
I'm sorry, CPT....what IS your view on homosexuals and their civil rights in this country?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 4:31pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 4:24pm
Regarding your soft parenting, just what is the relationship between your local He-Men and their mamas? Do they have the same kind of mother-as-goddess fetish that seems to percolate within the toughest of the tough boys? If you want to study a mother-son relationship pattern, there's one for research.
"You talking about my mother? MY mother?..."
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 4:31pm
it is impossible to argue with someone who believes (not knows, but believes) that god not only exists, but actually has a "plan".
Posted by DARLADOON 12/21/2006 @ 3:31pm
God has a plan? Hmmm, let us follow this idea to a conclusion:
1. Our assumption: "God is omnipresent".
2. From the assumption stated in 1, we know that god is in outerspace (by definition of "omnipresent").
3. LVLIBERTY asserts that god has a plan.
4. From 2 & 3, we can conclude that god's plan is from outerspace!
Does this plan have a number??? Is it plan number 9???
The world wonders...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/21/2006 @ 4:32pm
TJB, Happy Birthday!!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/21/2006 @ 4:32pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 4:24pm |
i dont know, chimi, i suppose environmental factors should not be ignored, but having worked my way through college in restaurants and having been married to a "fag hag", the vast majority of homosexuals i have been acquainted with seem to have been just...born that way...
my personal theory is that everyone is born with an inherent biological propensity toward either hetero or homosexual orientation, which is then influenced by environment.
lets say its like a scale...1 being very homosexual, 10 being very heterosexual. i dont think anyone is born a 1 or a 10, the extreme range of possibilities, but that individual circumstances and societal pressures account for a one to three point or so variation either way. furthermore, such influences are present throughout one's life, so that an individual who is say around a 7 at one point of life may become a 5 or a 9 later, for instance. in general societal pressures push the number up, while more individual factors such as a doimnerring mother may drop the rating down the scale...
i, of course am a solid 11...lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 4:35pm
"2. The obvious reasoning for screening Muslims is that we don't have any evidence or experience with a terror threat from Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Ba'hai, Taoist, Christian, Animists, or any other religious group except Muslims. That does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. It means that profiling is justifiable in this case and that Muslims who pass the screening process should be welcomed into this country."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 4:17pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 4:17pm
What "screening process" do you recommend, LL? "Do you plan to blow up our building, Hassan?"...."Nope"..."Come on in"....or do we check and see if Hassan's cousin once attended an anti-Israel rally in Gaza? (Heck that could keep out FROMREDBIRD!)
What if they answer honestly and say, for instance, "I plan on coming to the USA and protesting at the funerals of fallen GIs from Iraq and yelling that they are going to Hell for the war they fought!"....would you keep them out?
Would you say that might be indictative of their religious backgrounds? What if some Taoist or Ba'hai said such a thing? "Screenings" for them? or just the Muslims?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 4:36pm
TJB
Congrats...and Happy Birthday....have a good one....
Yes too many people mix religion and politics then find themselves in a quandry when the two concepts conflicts.
I find it best to divorce the two...though one tries in a general way of finding a political party that comes close to the overall principles of ones faith.
I tenant of Christian faith we(Christians) should adhere more to is "God's ways are not mans ways" said by Jesus and john the baptists.
This helps to traverse the complex world of human politics, it also allows for some leeway in dealing with mans society and personal religous beliefs. But at its heart is Christianity is tolerance and allows to let God judge...judging meaning in this sense the condemning to hell...I dont think LL is condemning anyone to hell...i read it that he is saying that if A then B or if you are doing this then that path leads to hell....but all minisiters do that and that is certainly different then saying you are assurred of hell.
In the pure Christian sense and 10 yrs of Catholic school classes...God will ultimately judge...if your gut or reason tells one that there is no way a loving Christian God would condmen a just, good, and faithful person to hell for being gay...then well we know what the Bible says...but ultimately it is for God to decide and my faith tells my that that is enough for me.
By the same token i certainly do not believe that God would tell those who have taken the teachings of the Bible literally and who MAY have applied them wrongly and condemn them either..provided they are just and good and faithful.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 4:38pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/21/2006 @ 4:32pm
does this mean, that like ed wood, LL likes to wear womens underwear????
sorry, LL, could not resist...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 4:38pm
I actually have a grip with overbearing mothers, especially in the US. ====Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 4:19pm
Oh, good grief...isn't it ALWAYS "especially in the US"?!?!?
and this?
"Now, I'm no psychologist, despite posturing as one from time to time here, but there seems to be a belief that over-affection and excessive attention from a mother towards her son greatly increase the chance that that boy will grow up to be somewhat effeminate, if not homosexual."----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 4:19pm
Okay, just so I don't make any "rash" relationships....CPT?...LVLIB?....agree with this idea or not?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 4:39pm
wow - this thread is growing like kudzu in the deep south...
nothing like religion and gay sex to get folks talking...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 4:42pm
By the same token i certainly do not believe that God would tell those who have taken the teachings of the Bible literally and who MAY have applied them wrongly and condemn them either..provided they are just and good and faithful.
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 4:38pm
Curious...what DON'T you take literally from the teachings of the Bible?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 4:43pm
nothing like religion and gay sex to get folks talking...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/21/2006 @ 4:42pm
Later, we'll be screening Seka and Veronica Hart in "Naughty Nuns-VII", just to mix the two subjects.
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 4:44pm
What if they answer honestly and say, for instance, "I plan on coming to the USA and protesting at the funerals of fallen GIs from Iraq and yelling that they are going to Hell for the war they fought!"....would you keep them out?
Posted by MASK 12/21/2006 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person
I say let them...the FREEDOM RIDERS(look them up)...will kick the shit of them or anyone for that matter. Patriots they go to every funeral...God Bless those guys. Their love of country is unbeatable
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 4:44pm
LVLiberty,
Go read some of the "Conversations with God" series written by Neale Donald Walsch. There are thousands of more compelling resions to be "a Christian" in those books than in any single word that I have read from you.
I am, of course, assuming that you write in these posts to change some minds, and that you believe it's your duty to spread "the Word of God".
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/21/2006 @ 4:45pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/21/2006 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person
First of all ¡Feliz Cumpleaños! Regarding your post, you make a very good point, and the truth is there is a very large homosexual population in most Latin countries, the more open ones I've seen being Costa Rica and México, but they can be found in large numbers in all countries, they just have to conceal the fact more so in the less openminded places (a few Central American countries come to mind).
You are also correct in the close relationship between males and their mothers here, due to things such as single moms (they're everywhere thanks to the trend to "plant the yucca" with as many women as you can, the fact that most men and women live at home until married, which can be as late as 30 years old in some cases, ect. There is a term here, "madrazo" or "madreada" which means insult of one's mother, and you better be ready to put up your dukes if you say it to the wrong person or use it too strongly.
Anyway, I love my mom and didn't mean to offend with my post, but while I agree with IBBLE very much, I've also observed some correlations between the mother-son bond. Maybe it's just a coincidence...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/21/2006 @ 4:47pm
MASK
I am not saying that i do not take it literally...maybe i did not word that correctly...it has more to do with interpertation...but in either case...we would be here all night.
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 4:49pm
Posted by MASK 12/21/2006 @ 4:44pm
i'm still wrestling with the image of hot berkely lesbians having a street orgy protest...
aw crap - here comes LL with a fire hose! damn...
hate go here, but strangely enough...i got to do something...
that does not involve images of hot lesbian street protest in berkely...by the way...seriously...
(psst...MASK...got any good links to reccomend? wink wink, nudge nudge...)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 4:50pm
Posted by MASK 12/21/2006 @ 4:44pm
The breadth of your knowledge is breathtaking sometimes. Wow. What a reference. Takes me back.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 4:51pm
RIO Bravo
Good point
Posted by CPT at 12/21/2006 @ 5:08pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/21/2006 @ 12:59am
yes and no...
you are absolutely correct that it is a people's right to believe what they wish, but when these beliefs prompt their government to enact abominable policies, and such is a recuring pattern and theme in this world of ours, to not discuss the religious beliefs motivating these activities is to sort of talk all around the real root of the problem, to address the symptoms of the affliction while ignoring the root pathology...
i understand your discomfort with addressing the cause of the problem - such is fraught with danger of all sorts, but our world approaches a reckoning and not addressing the real base problem, theological/ideological intransigence and violent intolerance is to de facto condone and abet the same.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/21/2006 @ 3:31pm
IBBLE, one does not have to be "religious" or "intolorant" to enact abominable policies.
As for me, I am not uncomfortable discussing homosexuality. I am bound by my faith and personal relationship with God to adhere to those commandments that he has written upon my heart. We have gay men and women at the hospital where I work and they know where I stand. I do not turn them away nor do they turn from me because of my views.
But I must make this clear, those who use "religion" as a means to harm others is not of God.
Posted by ACook at 12/21/2006 @ 5:09pm
I actually have a grip with overbearing mothers, especially in the US. Now, I'm no psychologist, despite posturing as one from time to time here, but there seems to be a belief that over-affection and excessive attention from a mother towards her son greatly increase the chance that that boy will grow up to be somewhat effeminate, if not homosexual. Though this may sound absurd to some, I only mention it because I have actually seen a few cases of it and am currently witnessing what I believe to be others at present. Carlin comes to mind again, this time in his rant about parents in the US being so overprotective they are not only taking the fun out of adolescence, but rearing a generation of "soft kids". Any thoughts on this? I truly think people in the US are indeed very much divorced from nature and somewhat "soft" so-to-speak. Not that there aren't any original "cowboys" left up there, though there are indeed a growing number with all hat no cow, if I've got the saying right. Any thoughts on the mother's influence on her son's tendencies/sexuality?
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/21/2006 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person
this is mostly nonsense, sorry amigo.
being "effeminate", even that is almost impossible to define, is not related to homosexuality.
I can say that every homosexual has a mother. everything after that is up in the air, and depends on the individual circumstance.
your construct breaks down immediately when we speak of homosexuals of both sexes. A lesbian also effiminate because of her mother? or masculine because of her father? there is no one size fits all.
Trust me, god wants every child to have a happy home, or even a home. two gay parents? no prob for god as he can see into a person's soul, and see the good intentions, and the good works.
you goddamn hetero christians, with half of all marriages failing, you have the nerve to speak out against gay marriages.
there is only ONE law according to that Jesus fellow, love thy neighbor as you love yourself. love one another.that's it. period. all there is to it. gay, straight, bi, anything, love them.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 5:49pm
CPT, there were progroms in Russia and Poland, among others, all throughout the 19th century.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 6:30pm
early christianity, prior to the muslim abomination,
is this from you Ibble?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 6:32pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/21/2006 @ 5:09pm
i dont personally believe that the parts of the bible i find objectionable have much to do with god. He told me that a lot got changed and added and left out when we silly shaved apes got together a couple of centuries after christ's time and tried to sort it all out, but thats ok...its all part of his plan. He wants to see if we ridiculous little shaved apes of His will use our His given mental faculties to figure that out, you know, think for ourselves, do the right thing even when it requires discernment and critical thinking...
actually, since He's God, he knows how things will turn out, regardless, but claims to be able to turn the omniscience thing off, that its more fun that way...but sometimes He does lie, for His own inscrutable purpose, but not often...i dont think...
He usually appears to me as george burns (duh?) and no, He is not satan masquerading as God, although old scratch did appear to me as george burns a couple of times and had me going there for a bit...you know, babbling things like "greed is good" and "the power of pride" and stuff like that. usually old scratch appears to me as rupert murdoch or anne coulter, the latter form generally manifesting itself on fox news...
got it? He says you're a good guy and asks you not to be offended by ibble's tirades because...
1. if you read them closely you will see that they are true...
2. and ibbleblibble is His current representative on earth, so whatever ibble says goes...
got it?
makes sense to me
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 6:38pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/21/2006 @ 6:32pm
yes - read the whole thing - i did not fail to rip on christianity either, JR. i have recently been in contact with you know who (see above) and we all know how thunderous and preachy He can be...especially when we, his beloved shaved apes, act so abominably and refuse to use the magnificent brains he had us evolve, to...think...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 6:42pm
"Tighter immigration"
"preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."
This is what passes for hate in your book?
yes CPT, that is called Xenophobia, and it has been the excuse for anti immigrant violence for a long time in this country. all that has changed is the identity of the victims, Irish and Italians then, muslims and latinos now.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 6:43pm
Ibble, I don't think muslim and abomination belong in the same sentence. I am deeply troubled by this kind of rhetoric.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 6:46pm
actually, He has just informed me to mollify my earlier blistering indictment of islam...urrrrr!
in its time, islam was the most socially progressive of all the major faiths. the status of islamic women was actually a vast improvement for most societies they conquered and most conversions were actually voluntary, in that if one was a "person of the book" (christian or jew) one was simply heavily taxed until one converted to islam. they were kinda brainslapped by the zoroastrians, since most of the old and new testement's cosmology was ripped off from them, so they persecuted them up to a point and allowed a few to remain. hindoos, boodists, pagans and such? now muslims could slaughter them in droves, but since good muslims have always existed despite their satanic verses...
(OK, OK, say something good...i know...)
and still do...despite those aspects of their faith that encourage many to be an omnipresent menace to those who believe differently than they...
damn this is hard! good things...good things...constructive speech, ibble....
and you know, if they didnt have all that "spread the faith to the ends of the earth, convert or die, we're going to heaven you're not", bullshit, there is a lovely simplicity to the faith, an admirable commitment to justice, including social justice, and...lots and lots of other good stuff too...
there...thats done...whew!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 7:04pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/21/2006 @ 6:46pm
it was hyperbole, but if one considers an abomination that which divides people and brings about or abets massive suffering, or that enslaves the intellect and destroys other faiths...well...you know...
nonetheless it was hyperbolic and meant to be.
sometimes i say things for effect, JR, because i believe very strongly in free speech and flow of ideas, even offensive ones. and lets face it, people get offended at all sorts of things...too many things, i think...got to "get over it" if they want to really be free...
regardless if i have offended you or anyone else i apologize...really...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 7:11pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/21/2006 @ 6:46pm
and quite honestly if there is something worth fighting, killing and dying for, it is REAL (as apposed to bullshit busco) FREEDOM.
if the islamic world expects the west to adhere to its standards of speech, custom, etc., then perhaps its time to fight...because i REFUSE to bend to that bullshit.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/21/2006 @ 7:19pm
"and you know, if they didnt have all that "spread the faith to the ends of the earth, convert or die, we're going to heaven you're not", bullshit, there is a lovely simplicity to the faith, an admirable commitment to justice, including social justice, and...lots and lots of other good stuff too...
there...thats done...whew!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/21/2006 @ 7:04pm
IBBLE, faith is not that simplistic. If that were true, then it would be much easier for us to walk away from many temptations.
"..since most of the old and new testement's cosmology was ripped off from them,..
Who are you referring to? The Jews and Christians ripping off Islam or Islam ripping off the Jews and Christians?
Posted by ACook at 12/21/2006 @ 7:24pm
there is only ONE law according to that Jesus fellow, love thy neighbor as you love yourself. love one another.that's it. period. all there is to it. gay, straight, bi, anything, love them.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/21/2006 @ 5:49pm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aye, but there's the rub! There are sooooooo many self-loathing people that the dictum from the Man Who Speaks in Red allows these folk to actively hate others. For example, there is much evidence that homophobes are probably struggling with their own sexuality and are in denial.
Those who are absolutely comfortable with their own sexuality could care less about the practice of others. Who cares? Oh yes, the "religious" do, but more of that anon. For the true heterosexual, the homosexual simply removes some competition. Again, why should they care?
I have no objection to the religious following the tenents of their faith, as long as they do not insist those who do not share their beliefs should in any way be affected. What I do find completely unethical about these religionists is how they cherry-pick what to believe is "the word of God." The quote condemning homosexuality in Leviticus is surrounded by other deadly proscriptions. But these are ignored. Why? If God tells you gays are an abomination, then too you must abominate the child who defies the parent, the adulterer, those who mix three different fabrics, ... the list goes on for pages as anyone who has looked knows.
Ah, forget the Old Testament you say? Well, then one reads what Paul teaches, for it is his teaching against homosexuality, not The Man Who Speaks in Red, that is the New Testament proscription. But how many follow all the other teachings of Paul? The whole "argument" is so redolent of the stink of hypocrisy that it cannot be missed.
So why are these proscriptions the only ones given nearly fanatical attention? The plausible answer is that it is driven by some deep psychological problem or ... just plan bigotry. History is replete with "holy" writings used to excuse any inhuman behavior in the name of "God".
It is of interest to note, as well exemplified by certain postings in this thread, that the "proscriptive" religionists rarely focus on the positive teachings of their religions but rather emphasize those aspects that condemn or judge or define "the other." They rarely, if ever, look to the compassionate and encompassing teachings of their holy books for primary motivations of their religious practice. This bespeaks of psychological problems and not religious "understanding."
It has been stated in this thread that Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the only religions that are dangerous. I would say it is only a matter of degree and the large number of their followers that make them more dangerous for I contend that religion is, in general, bad. However, I agree that monotheistic religions are most dangerous because the logical conclusion has to be that the particular deity of such a religion, being the one and only true God, must, by definition, mean the others are false gods and their believers must be deluded and converted to the true belief or....die. And, of course, the same must obtain for anyone who does not believe in the one, true "God." There is no way out of reaching such a conclusion if the faith is adopted. The punishment of the unbeliever may take a more gentle form, such as being condemned to the fires of Hell, but the ultimate result is some form of personal destruction, in this world or the hereafter, of those not adhering to the true faith.
The problem is that once a belief is adopted, it is no longer possible to have a dialog for the initial premises are not agreed except for like believers. And the believers, fully convinced of the veracity of their faith, have no difficulty dismissing any arguments that contradict their beliefs. The statement that something is a belief immediately prevents any meaningful, reasonable dialog ... it is fruitless and pointless for belief does not admit of doubt or reason.
So it seems to me that the discussion of the Nigerian prelate's opposition to homosexuality is not worth the words. Those who find homosexuality an abomination and those who find condemning it an abomination can only agree to disagree. And it is senseless, in my estimation, to discuss the issue between the two camps. Those who have no problem with homosexuality should discuss the poltical issues, etc. but not be drawn into the hopeless discussions about the "religious" take, arguably immoral once the superstition is ignored , on the issue.
My argument is with all religions for they rob manunkind of realizing its maximum potential. One does not require a deity to behave ethically, reasonably and humanely. It seems to me that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto the one you love the most" is the only guiding principle required ... that, and using the most distinguishing, but so ill-exercised and infrequently used, characteristic of our species, reason.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/21/2006 @ 7:56pm
we kill as many of them as we can and keep out nukes aimed directly at them...and by "we" i do not mean "we christians", but we the brotherhood of the rational and truly compassionate.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/21/2006 @ 2:09pm
IBB,
So underneath it all you yanks are intolerant violence freaks. Tolerance surely means being tolerant with those whose views we abhor. You have outed yourself as being made of the same stuff as the "Bush warmongers etc". Just need enough stress to push you over the line. It has been claimed that if the teutons had had a sense of humour, there would have been no Third Reich. Also heard someone say after an interview with an atypical American; "who said Americans don't have a sense of humour?" Maybe that is your problem.
Think you will have to arm yourself or develop tolerance because it is doctrinaire, atheistic secularism that is going to be increasingly under attack from growing "moderate" Islam as well as Christianity generally.
If you listen to people like Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation) you will realise that it is not the uneducated and ignorant that you should fear but the highly educated religionists who are carrying the day.
Heard him make this point, rather despairingly; "If you as a highly educated person were to recite words over your breakfast cereal and then claim that it had become the body and blood of Christ, you would rightly be declared insane. When however highly educated people do this together the charge of insanity would itself be thought insane".
He also said the Islamist pilots of 9/11 were highly intelligent, highly educated people who suffered from religious psychosis but so does every moderate Muslim; he said.
He raised the question about humans being programmed, by evolution, to be incorrigibly religious. Another point he made is that the liberal Christians are the real problem for atheists and secularism, because though most of them, for all intents and purposes, are atheists they give cover to the true believers (evangelicals catholics and fundamentalists), by making religion respectable. Believers at least, he said, are logically consistent in their position but the liberals are really frauds.
He said the same charge needs to be brought against moderate Muslims for giving cover to the extremists.
The American Anglicans are in the same boat they are not ignorant fundamentalists but many are in the top rank of other-than-religious, intellectual life (I suspect their stand is not particularly an evangelical one but is more based on tradition and its new association, has more to do with preserving church property, than being ideologically beholden to a Nigerian bishop.
Good luck Ibb with your anti-religion nuclear weapons program. You're gunna need it.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/21/2006 @ 8:11pm
Posted by LRJONES4 12/21/2006 @ 8:11pm
So there is no escape from ignorance? We are either dumbshits who are too provincial to understand the complex world around us or we are so smart and worldly that we learn to hate and plot against those who are unlike us? Either way we strike first and ask questions only when we're uncertain of what tool of destruction is most efficient.
This just doesn't seem to explain the world as I have encountered it. Education comes in so many forms, hence the development of the word "re-education" when some have determined that education has gone sour.
I don't understand liberal religionists, but I have not found that they are particularly bloodthirsty.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 8:38pm
Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 4:44pm
CPT, do the FREEDOM RIDERS....beat up the Fred Phelps' gangs?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 8:49pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 5:40pm
Sorry, LL....had to eat and work out.
Obviously I revealed the 'trick" above to CPT.
Under NO screening process we have Fred Phelps and his church doing EXACTLY that at GI funerals. We've had "Christians" (as Christian as the terrorists are Muslim) who've killed abortion providers and blown up Federal buildings...maybe we need to screen Christians immigrants, no?
No...of course not...your answer- "Those weren't 'real' Christians"...but of course ALL Muslims must be suspect, right?
BTW, what if a LEBANESE Maronite Christian applies? Screened or no screen? What about the Falash Mura, the Ethiopian Jews? Check or not check? I mean these guys are not Muslims, but come from the Middle East and Africa....Hmmm?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2006 @ 9:01pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/21/2006 @ 7:56pm...........AMEN.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/21/2006 @ 9:01pm
if the islamic world expects the west to adhere to its standards of speech, custom, etc., then perhaps its time to fight...because i REFUSE to bend to that bullshit.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/21/2006 @ 7:19pm | ignore this person
I think you are mistaken by tarring all muslims with the same broad brush. there are moderate muslims and moderate muslim countries. I also think that the eruptions we are now seeing are the bonds of freedom chafing against the bonds of religious totalitarianism. I think we need to stay within reason in our stance here. we can support the moderates and censure the radicals.
in this country too. the xenophobes are the radicals, and their time is gone. that nonsense with a muslim congressman, the height of absurdity and shameless hate mongering. to compare the Koran to Mein Kampf, how gross and disgusting is that?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 9:02pm
But I think most businesses worry about how "gay marriage" will impact overall costs of labor. This is the root of the anti gay marriage debate. The argument on both sides is veiled in morals, yet rooted in money.
Posted by FREIHEIT 12/21/2006 @ 8:54pm | ignore this person
Oh please.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 9:03pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 12/21/2006 @ 9:10pm
How much immoral can you be to decide on the basis of sleeping partner DNA who gets and who does not get health insurance?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 9:12pm
the gay marriage controversy, as far as there is one, is a matter of discrimination. it is a matter of fear on the part of the haters. it is an issue of civil rights for everyone else.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 9:13pm
Run the numbers on what american businesses pay to insure legal spouses...
Posted by FREIHEIT 12/21/2006 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person
it is not the american business community that is fighting gay marriage. it is rather the fundamentalist religious community.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2006 @ 9:15pm
Bad analogy, but didn't we hear economic arguments in defense of slavery? That doesn't mean that it is at its heart a failure of morality.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/21/2006 @ 9:18pm
Both Jones and Tiresias say some very interesting things about religion (and I found Tiresias' critique particularly ironic, given the religious nature of the character from whom his name came).
First, Tiresias.
What I do find completely unethical about these religionists is how they cherry-pick what to believe is "the word of God." The quote condemning homosexuality in Leviticus is surrounded by other deadly proscriptions. But these are ignored. Why? If God tells you gays are an abomination, then too you must abominate the child who defies the parent, the adulterer, those who mix three different fabrics, ... the list goes on for pages as anyone who has looked knows.
Hear hear (though I'm not sure abominate is a verb...). I think there's a real problem when people lift verses out of the Old or New Testament without any consideration of the textual or historical context in which they are found. I think that context is really important, but I don't think that someone who believes in Christianity is automatically obligated to accept every word of the Old and New Testaments as absolute, unchanging truth. For example, I tend to think that evolutionary theory is perfectly compatible with Christianity, meaning that the first couple chapters of Genesis need not be taken literally as many do.
History is replete with "holy" writings used to excuse any inhuman behavior in the name of "God".
Also true. However, it doesn't follow from this that no writing can be considered holy in any way, or that no mandate that is considered divine could possibly be authentic.
I contend that religion is, in general, bad. However, I agree that monotheistic religions are most dangerous because the logical conclusion has to be that the particular deity of such a religion, being the one and only true God, must, by definition, mean the others are false gods and their believers must be deluded and converted to the true belief or....die.
Why? Why does this necessarily follow from any monotheistic system? I think it's probably true that just about any monotheistic system will contend that belief in God is better than a lack of such belief, but I don't think this means that someone who doesn't believe in God is automatically dying or going to hell.
The problem is that once a belief is adopted, it is no longer possible to have a dialog for the initial premises are not agreed except for like believers.
What about the belief that people have some kind of inherent worth, or that agency ought to be respected? It seems like you can only go so far to justify it, and must then accept it on faith. Is that a problem?
My argument is with all religions for they rob manunkind of realizing its maximum potential. One does not require a deity to behave ethically, reasonably and humanely. It seems to me that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto the one you love the most" is the only guiding principle required ... that, and using the most distinguishing, but so ill-exercised and infrequently used, characteristic of our species, reason.
First of all, I think this point rests on a confusion. There's a difference between believing that you can't be a moral person if you don't believe in God, and believing that if no God exists, there are no objective moral truths. Though the first proposition is plainly absurd, the second is not. It's not enough to say that "reason" can solve this problem, since in many cases it is more rational to act in ways that we understand to be immoral, especially if no one else will know.
Second, a large part of religious belief is a set of claims about truth rather than utility. In other words, many people believe in God not because they think this belief creates the maximum utility, but because they think that their belief is true, that it corresponds to the way things really are. At that point, your objection doesn't even matter. Moreover, this set of claims about truth often provides support for the use of reason, as I think Ibble or Rolf suggested earlier.
Jones
"If you as a highly educated person were to recite words over your breakfast cereal and then claim that it had become the body and blood of Christ, you would rightly be declared insane. When however highly educated people do this together the charge of insanity would itself be thought insane".
Strawman alert! The idea of communion isn't just that educated people get together and just randomly decide to say some things, it's that based on an evaluation of historical events, and the underlying significance that they have reason to believe those events embody, they carry out a particular "ritual" that represents that meaning. In other words, it isn't arbitrary in the sense that your example is, hence the strawman.
Another point he made is that the liberal Christians are the real problem for atheists and secularism, because though most of them, for all intents and purposes, are atheists they give cover to the true believers (evangelicals catholics and fundamentalists), by making religion respectable. Believers at least, he said, are logically consistent in their position but the liberals are really frauds.
Why? Why is liberal religion fraudulent? There are certainly parts of it that I agree with, but I'm not sure how you justify your claim that liberal religionists are somehow "closet atheists."
Look, I'm not sure what your grounds for critiquing religion ultimately are. Religious claims are ultimately based on understandings of the way reality is, understandings that often have legitimate foundations and, when understood reasonably, often act to improve the world. Why is this bad?
Posted by Thrawn at 12/21/2006 @ 9:23pm
One correction that needs to be made. The Episcopal Church is not a division of the Anglican Church. It is a province in the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is not a church, but a fellowship of churches. Here is the classic statement defining the communion from the Lambeth Conference of 1930:
_____________________________________________
Resolution 49
The Anglican Communion
The Conference approves the following statement of nature and status of the Anglican Communion, as that term is used in its Resolutions:
The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, which have the following characteristics in common:
1.they uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as authorised in their several Churches;
2. they are particular or national Churches, and, as such, promote within each of their territories a national expression of Christian faith, life and worship; and
3.they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference.
The Conference makes this statement praying for and eagerly awaiting the time when the Churches of the present Anglican Communion will enter into communion with other parts of the Catholic Church not definable as Anglican in the above sense, as a step towards the ultimate reunion of all Christendom in one visibly united fellowship.*
______________________________________
There is an Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of England, The Scottish Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Australia, the Church of Bangladesh, etc. but THERE IS NO ANGLICAN CHURCH.
Posted by jrgunder at 12/21/2006 @ 11:13pm
Right, but here's the problem. The whole point is that all of the commandments, everything that had been written up to that point, could be summarized in those two commandments. What that means is that those other hundreds of commandments only had value insofar as they could be expressed in terms of one of those two. That, in turn, means that the only commandments any Christian is obligated to are to love God and love one's neighbor.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/22/2006 @ 12:24am
Posted by ACOOK 12/21/2006 @ 7:24pm
man, i stirred up a hornets nest. good.
JR...i acknowledge that there are millions and millions of good muslims out there. but their religion, as written, is almost as anathemous to modern western civilization as...christianity taken as written...
please give me a list of crusade/jihads, inquisition/talibans in faiths other than christianity and islam? and i grant, except for some recently politicized (historically speaking) fundyvangelists, christianity as a practiced religion has really gotten its act together...it is more tolerant, those passages in the bible which cause the most difficulty for non-christians are widely overlooked, the vast majority of western christians believe in religious tolerance and separeation of state/church...i.e. other than some scary fundyvangelists who are currently soewhat cowed and confused by all the gay sex in their midst, todays christianity is a HELL of a lot better than it once was.
but islam...cutting heads off in public and killing your daughter cause she got raped and making your women run around dressed like that and blowing up other faiths holy sites and encouraging poor depressed mother effers to blow themselves up for god...and...why the hell is this country involved in that civilization's internal affairs?!?!
at this point in history modern liberal democracy is untenable in most of the islamic world...as a direct result of islam itself...
and our continued presence amongst them, demeaning and humiliating them on a constant basis only makes their rage worse...
have you read the koran?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 01:16am
Posted by ACOOK 12/21/2006 @ 7:24pm
oh sorry - got mixed up
no - zoroastrianism - the ancient religion of persia.
it appears that many ideas of zoroastrianism were infused into judaism after the liberation of the jews from babylon. anciant zoroastrian persia was remarkably avanced socially and there was uch intercourse between judaism and zoroastrianism, much of it presaging christianity. the 3 magi were zoroastrian. ideas of satan, hell, the apocalypse, lots else may have originated in zoroastrianism. later forms of the religion became watered down and corrupted, but the original product of zoroaster is one of the shortist, simplest, most common sense, tolerant, lovliest written religious works i have seen...google it...modern zoroastrians are trying to revive the faith worldwide...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 01:25am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/21/2006 @ 8:11pm
damn! now i'm a bushie...
i dont think you read all i have vomited forth on these pages, leroy...
i want the united states as out of the middle east and muslim world as we can be, unless we are truly wanted. i think my country's leadership and those among us who have continued to make excuses for and support them, have done a morally reprehensible thing that now results in the deaths of many times more innocent muslims than us...and it was mostly avoidable. it was stupid and foolish, and we will suffer in many ways for this sickening mistake.
but i dont want some fucking religious fanatic of any stripe telling me in my own country what to say, how to say it, or more importantly what NOT to say...
its called freedo of speech and to me it is a sacred right and an imperitive when one struggles to cut through bullshit of any kind...
where have you been?
regardless of our chimpy obverse democratic fascist godly fucking leader's attempts to scare us shitless, these religious fanatics have actually attacked not only the us, but many other places in the west...
and in europe...when a danish newspaper excercises its right to free speech in its own country, when the pope's speech is taken out of context LOTS of muslims go crazy, kill people, and threaten..
oh - and it aint all the fault of the usa...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 01:48am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/21/2006 @ 8:11pm
wait - are you that randian murdoch wannabe aussie turd?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 01:56am
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/21/2006 @ 7:56pm
that was extremely reasonable. except i don't entirely agree with your last paragraph. even within islam, various currents, such as sufism are more positive oriented, less proscriptive.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 02:08am
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/21/2006 @ 8:38pm
TJ,
"So there is no escape from ignorance?"
Not unless one is omniscient but I don't think you meant that.
Sam Harris thinks that theistic religion is a psychosis and along with scientists like Stephen Hawking, sees it as his duty to purge it from the world, starting in that hotbed of fundamentalism; the USA.
When I heard him on the radio, a few days ago, he must have been having a bit of a downer. The education he had in mind would have embraced philosophy (logic), mathematics and science and he was expressing frustration that the thinking processes that those disciplines required were not enough to purge "magic" from the worldview of dogmatic yet highly educated religionists.
Not quite sure what you had in mind. Was it compulsory "civics" classes and "morals embedding"?
Probably wouldn't work for the reasons that Harris discovered with the three Rs and beyond approach. One may be inclined to think of human perversity but it probably gets down to their basic presuppositions, which means they feel that no by-passing of their reasoning faculties is necessary to hang onto their religious belief.
Some critics suggest that Sam and Stephen are unconscionable reductionists.
"I don't understand liberal religionists, but I have not found that they are particularly bloodthirsty".
Harris's strategy is to get the liberal Christians to pay out on the true believers (fundos etc) which he, by employing his own brand of magic, thinks will cause the collapse of the inimical to civic society religionists. One can only guess that after these troublemakers have been purged or reformed, we shall all live happily ever after.
Liberal Christians? Think Bishop Spong. No one familiar with his ideas could in fairness accuse him of being a Christian. What Sam Harris says is pretty obvious to most of us. He says, you guys and gals think the bible is a lot of old fables from a pre-scientific age. You don't even believe that a transcendent being has spoken at all, let alone in a book or that he even exists. Now we atheists and agnostics appreciate your scholarship and honesty but it is your reasonableness that rubs off onto the bad for peace and a civic society, religionists. Tell the public it is all nonsense because until you do the extremists are hiding behind the "Aura of your reasonableness".
Sam Harris then says, though you are intellectually honest about the book you are really very cynical and fraudulent because you pose as theists when in fact you know you are not. So Sam is appealing to their decency to further his own strategy and thus to save the world.
TJ ever thought of a bit of torture to supplement those re-education classes? As long as it is done in the right spirit surely one's idealism would not be compromised.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/22/2006 @ 02:56am
wait - are you that randian murdoch wannabe aussie turd?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/22/2006 @ 01:56am
Randy? Who me? Who've you been talking to?
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/22/2006 @ 03:26am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/22/2006 @ 03:26am
leroy, i gotta say...
your damn near as incomprehensible as i am...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 03:31am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/22/2006 @ 03:26am
at one point in college i was rooming with a limey and a french canadien who were on the tennis team. there was also a fellow from zimbabwe and a lovely white girl also from zimbabwe (neither went back). i have lived in costa rica, travelled in the philipines, spoken with gullah in south carolina, but...
i have never had more trouble understanding what a fellow english speaker was saying as when that australian guy moved in next to us in college...he came from the real outback...i couldn't understand hardly anything that guy said.
but i did eat his vegemyte...or however you spell it...right tasty with crackers, spread sparingly...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 03:37am
Posted by THRAWN 12/21/2006 @ 9:23pm
Thrawn,
They were not my "arguments" but illustrations used by Sam Harris an American academic who was recently involved in one of those perennial "science and faith" free for alls, at the Salk institute.
His books "End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" mark him as an important leader in the fight against religion in political life. I noticed in one of the publicity blurbs he was touted as this generation's Tom Paine.
He mentioned that there were atheists he knew who were too afraid to argue their position because they would be subjected to ridicule, find it hard to get employment or not get promotion. He blamed the pervasiveness of dogmatic religion in the US for that state of affairs. So he is a no holds barred "all dogmatic religions are bad" warrior.
His illustration, for "religion is a psychosis", makes use of a transubstantiationalist view of Christian communion to make a point by asking in the boldest terms why a declaration should be viewed as an indication of psychosis in an otherwise sane and highly educated man making this declaration when he is alone but thought to be non-psychotic when the same declaration is made in another context. He wants a scientific answer so that is a challenge for the apologists.
It is the content of the declaration that leads Harris to ask that question. Now I'm pretty sure that the arguments for the real presence such as the distinction between "substance" and "accidents" wouldn't impress Harris nor that the "magic" change, to use Harris's word, requires a special context.
He could just have easily chosen something like the "bodily resurrection of Christ" and ridiculed it on different grounds. His point is that religion gets its acceptability from mass psychosis and that, I would suggest, was his only point in that illustration.
Tried to fill out his beef about liberal Christians being part of the problem in a previous post to TJ.
Incidentally I don't share his views and I think dogmatic religion is on the rise as a worldwide phenomena, so think he will have his work cut out to make much impact.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/22/2006 @ 05:12am
We'll just agree to disagree.
Posted by FREIHEIT 12/21/2006 @ 9:16pm | ignore this person
not until you address my point. that it is not the business community which is the opponent of gay marriage. think about it. a gay couple is far less likely to have children, so the economic impact is pretty much a wash, what they pay out here, they save there.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 09:19am
MASK
Only when they touch them....
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 09:26am
Ibble, check out Turkey. a muslim country that is a secular society. full disclosure, I have read very, very little of the Koran. I do however know that Islam embraces both books of the christian faith. look, we are going to have to live with muslims, they are the most populous religion on the planet. It has been shown that the US cannot rule the world, with willy nilly regime change. we will have to come to an accommodation with them. the irony here is that we attacked and smashed the one arab country that was secular. it will never be so again, most likely.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 09:28am
This is not necessarily directed at LVLIBERTY, but also to any "logic majors" we have out there....is there a flaw in my syllogisim?
A question asked of LL on what he thinks of those who would say that Mary Cheney would be a "good mother" "despite" being gay.
LL answered-
1. For anyone (my bold) to suggest that a child receives the same level of nurture and development from other than a traditional family consisting of parents that are a man and a woman is denying a truth of nature, much less God's plan. (my bold again) ----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/20/2006 @ 4:17pm
And then to my revelation that George W. Bush said that, he said-
2. His (Bush's) first obligation is to respect the civil rights of all Americans. (my bold) ---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/21/2006 @ 1:36pm
If A=C, B=C, shouldn't the A=B conclusion be:
"Denying a truth of nature, much less God's plan" is "respecting the civil rights of all Americans"
or the B=A conclusion: "Respecting the civil rights of all Americans" is "denying a truth of nature, much less God's plan"?
I realize the relationships are not perfect, but is the syllogism totally flawed?
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 09:30am
when the pope's speech is taken out of context LOTS of muslims go crazy,
the pope is a dope. to dredge up that hateful statements from centuries ago. what an idiot. a blunderer in diplomatic terms.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 09:30am
Posted by CPT 12/22/2006 @ 09:26am
I assume this is in response to my question as to whether the FREEDOM RIDERS beat up the Fred Phelps protestors.
Hadn't heard of any "violent" confrontations....got a link to a story of them "duking it out"?
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 09:31am
I realize the relationships are not perfect, but is the syllogism totally flawed? Posted by MASK 12/22/2006 @ 09:30am
I think it absolutely works. The idea is that God has specific rules for us (we'll have to ignore the overwhelming flaws in this belief for our discussion). In order to realize "His Plan" on this planet, His followers actively work to change our government and to isolate/persecute those that go against His laws.
They support the abandonment of certain rights because they go against "God's will". Therefore, God's will is contradictory to civil rights.
So what keeps this anti-American and unpatriotic point of view from being completely dismissed?
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 10:46am
I believe our republic is under greater threat from within, than without. the intolerance of our own fundy christoids being a conspicuous example.the constitution has it right, no religious tests for public office.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 11:14am
While I contributed my own two pesos to this topic, the now 178 posts prove what a successful distraction this topic has become, along with its sidekick the threat of illegal lawnmowers and dishwashers. Hey, you're approaching 500 billion dollars burned on a lost cause in the Middle East yet somehow homosexuality brings about more anger.
Posted by chimichenga at 12/22/2006 @ 11:26am
MASK
No i havent heard any either, but have no doubt that they would or would not have a problem doing so....fabulous people though....
They have a biker look long beards torn up jeans and leather jackets...but they hold that Flag high and go to every funeral...it is quite a sight.
To see those guys holding that flag high and in line...they stand at the outer edge when the internment is held because as one of their leaders told me...its not about us...its about them.
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 11:37am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/22/2006 @ 09:30am | ignore this person
And yet you have no problem making insulting comments about those of the Christian faith...interesting
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 11:39am
Posted by CPT 12/22/2006 @ 11:39am | ignore this person
And you take offense to this because your religion is represented by unerring supermen, right? Both sides have plenty of abuses and atrocities under their belts...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/22/2006 @ 11:44am
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/22/2006 @ 10:46am | ignore this person
Why dont you reasoned intellectuals give it up...you will never understand people of faith...you take the worst of them and sterotype the whole. Interesting that you dont have a problem doing this unless it is Christians that are sterotyped...any other group and its intolerant hatred and bigotry....wow what an hypocrisey.
Tie yourself up in your words...its funny to see...and you claim "simple minded" Christians see things in black and white...yet you do not see this paradox. hehe
Oh and middleway please explain to me if you can what civil rights are in conlfict with God's will????????
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 11:47am
CHIMI
I take no real offense to anything said here.
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 11:49am
Hey, you're approaching 500 billion dollars burned on a lost cause in the Middle East yet somehow homosexuality brings about more anger.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/22/2006 @ 11:26am
CHIMI,
I think that these two topics are completely intertwined. It's the same people and mentality that are at fault; it's the same lack of respect for civil liberties and international law and disregard for other people's beliefs or rights; it's the same "I get whatever I want because I believe it is due to me" kind of attitude that is responsible for both problems.
Doctor heal thyself. Only when we smash the religious fanatics here will we be a worthy example for the rest of the world.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 11:49am
MIDDLEWAY
I dont think you have a good understanding of what a REAL religous fanatic is...certainly few if any in this country fit that bill.
And if you think otherwise...then you are not dealing in reality
Few if any Christian fundies here are going to slice your head for merely being of another faith...nor do they advocate holy war against non-believers...the most they do is what??? Say you are going to hell??? why is that a big deal for you?
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 11:54am
CPT
You assume that I have no faith? You are wrong. I have had faith enough to ask tough questions of myself and my religion. I have faith to let others find their own way to God. I have reflected and wrestled enough to with this faith to know that following God means respect for all people and respect for all people's choices.
What I do need more work on is respect and compassion for those that preach hate and intolerance in the name of my God. My faith is not strong enough that I can stand by and watch supposedly Christian people wage war on their fellow man.
It just so happens that everyday I hear the "Christian version of fanatasism", so I comment the most on this.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 12:00pm
MIDDLEWAY
I have heard no Christian ministers..preach "hate" or intolerance for others.
What hate messages are you referring to?
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 12:05pm
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/22/2006 @ 11:49am | ignore this person
You're right in that the same protagonists are fueling these pointless fires, whether at home or overseas. The US is imperfect like every other nation under God, though I think the citizens of the US have a belief that they are somehow better and wiser, thus justified in doing whatever necessary (even flat-out lying) to get what they want as you say and bring the nether regions a bit closer to God, ie, more reflective of the American Way...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/22/2006 @ 12:07pm
It's all relative CPT. I would like to stop the hate cycle before it becomes violence. Oh wait, what about doctors getting shot for performing abortions?
As to what civil rights are forbidden by God's will; that's just the problem. Any group of people can decide what God's will is and work to destroy the Constitutional gauranteed rights of us all. I will speak out against offenses to the Constitution because they are offenses to us all. It just so happens that, in this country, the only attacks on the constitution are from the far right Christians.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 12:07pm
Middleway
Suppossedly Christian people wageing war on their fellow man?
The last Crusade was over 600yrs ago...there hasnt been one since or for that matter the thirty years war was more than 300 yrs ago.
So what war in the name of Christianity is being waged that you are referring to?
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 12:08pm
MIDDLEWAY
Ok abortion doctors getting shot is of course wrong...but those are isolated instances.
It seems to me that the attacks on the Constitution are from solely the LEFTs side of the house...thru judicial fiat.
Proposed gay marriage ammendments??? well that is perfectly legal to do so...you want an amendment to change the law....fine...submit one...this is the legally proscribed way to change the Consititution.
So yes righties are at least trying the legal way...not thru activist judges who act counter to the consitution
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 12:13pm
Middleway
Also abortion, emminent domian and gay marriage...all have been rammed thru by judicial fiat...not thru legislative enactments. It seems the LEFTs tactic is to do this since popular support for this agenda cannot make it thru the regular democratic process.
So who is REALLY usurping constitutional rights...it is the LEFT.
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 12:18pm
LVLIBERTY
i agree
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 12:20pm
Hogwash of the day:
President Bush has faith in anything but himself and his small band of outlaws. I've no doubt that words like "nuts" and "quacks" are heard in the White House when discussing Christian leaders in the US, but I'm sure both sides realize they are both wily and corrupt, willing to inflect the Bible however necessary and smear anyone who doesn't go along as anti-American, pro-terrorist, Islamofascist, morally confused, ect. As the world moves forward? it is clear the use of religion as a tool to dumb the masses and advance the schemes of a few, many of whom are seriously depraved, is evermore clear...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/22/2006 @ 12:27pm
you will never understand people of faith...you take the worst of them and sterotype the whole.
Posted by CPT 12/22/2006 @ 11:47am
Do YOU apply that standard to .....Muslims?
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 12:30pm
CHIMI
Imagine theres no country.....no religion tooo...nothing to kill or die for...
Imagine all the people.......living life in peace..whooo hooo yeah..
You may say i am dreamer.......but i am not the only one.......
Clearly not the only one.
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 12:32pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/22/2006 @ 12:16am
So Bush's "real" (i.e. personal) position if spoken as President would violate the First Amendment??!?!? (separation of Church & State I assume you mean, not free speech)
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 12:32pm
MASK
Of course...you kidding...put my life in "muslims" hands(literally) during a joint night patrol...
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 12:34pm
CPT---off topic but the "Oil Law" thread dried up
Inside Politics By Gregory Pierce - December 22, 2006
"And on Iraq, he (Bush) said things were tough, and were going to continue to be tough; that he had said we were winning earlier in the fall but now recognized we weren't winning -- and asked for patience as he consulted with his advisers and Democrats about a new way forward there.
"So in a few months, the president has gone from taking the position that the public needed to hear him speak optimistically about Iraq to speaking in quite dour terms about Iraq without offering anything but a hope that in a few weeks, he'll come up with a new strategy.
"It really would have been better had he not come forward to face the press at all -- because he did nothing except underline and echo a powerful sense of uncertainty throughout his own government about how to achieve victory."
BTW...this is the Washington TIMES, not the Post.
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 12:54pm
Few if any Christian fundies here are going to slice your head for merely being of another faith...nor do they advocate holy war against non-believers...the most they do is what??? Say you are going to hell??? why is that a big deal for you?
Posted by CPT 12/22/2006 @ 11:54am | ignore this person
name one beheading imposed for being a christian.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 12:57pm
So Bush took the safe way out in my opinion. I understand his political need and the official need to demonstrate objectivity in this manner in accordance with the laws of the land. How he reconciles that between himself and the Lord is his business.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/22/2006 @ 12:47am
That's the closest to a CRITICISM of Bush that I've seen from you, LL in this whole discussion.
"He took the safe way"...okay. Then the guy is just another politician. Although it's interesting that you set up WHY he had to take the "safe way" as because he be "lambasted by the left and the MSM."
Now, why is George Bush so worried about the Left and MSM lambasting him....exactly?
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 12:57pm
Little confusing, CPT
First there is Virgil Goode's letter, which has "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."
to which YOU replied..."What is hateful in Goode's letter"---Posted by CPT 12/21/2006 @ 2:52pm
and today you post- "you will never understand people of faith...you take the worst of them and sterotype the whole."---Posted by CPT 12/22/2006 @ 11:47am
So is Goode "taking the worst of them and stereotyping the whole"...or not?
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 1:02pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/22/2006 @ 09:30am |
well, as i remember it, the entire quote also included a comment about some of early christian abuses. it was entirely FACTUAL, practically a history lesson, an offered olive branch that was apparantly diplomatically questionable...because one cannot SPEAK TRULY AND FREELY about the islamic world, even in a scholarly manner, even in one's own country...WITHOUT THOUSANDS OF FANATICAL MUSLIM BARBARIANS TAKING TO THE STREETS, THREATENING YOU WITH DEATH, AND KILLING ANY POOR NON MUSLIM THEY FIND...
yeah, turkey is a shining example that most of the muslim world is not ready to enulate, unfortunately...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 1:43pm
CPT,
I don't personally see the assaults by "lefties" on our constitution. The examples you mention, if true, I would also be strongly against. You see, you have assumed that I am; first, not a person of faith, and second, a liberal. Both of which are wrong.
You assume that, since I have pointed out some things that I don't like about some of those who call themselves Christians, I must be against Christianity. This is also wrong.
It is sad and depressing to me that the only messages we are seeing from "Christians" these days are hateful and destructive. I'm sure that people of Muslim faith feel the same way (about their religion and our religion).
It's also sad and depressing to see how those, who speak out so stronly agiainst Muslim fanatics (terrorists), want to take our country along that same path.
Our enemy are not Muslims, or Christians, or Liberals, or Conservatives; our enemies are those who would weaken our Constitution.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 1:46pm
"Few if any Christian fundies here are going to slice your head for merely being of another faith...nor do they advocate holy war against non-believers...the most they do is what??? Say you are going to hell??? why is that a big deal for you?"
Posted by CPT 12/22/2006 @ 11:54am | ignore this person
"name one beheading imposed for being a christian."
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/22/2006 @ 12:57am
JR, you forgot about the Taliban didn't you?
There were several cases in Malaysia last year. A group of muslim men abducted 3 Christian girls on their way to school and beheaded them. This was in retaliation for the Prophet Mohammed cartoons. The pictures were horrific...how does one justify killing an 8 yo, 10 yo and 11yo??
I also know they will behead you in Saudi Arabia for carrying a bible (to them your spreading Christianity, which is illegal.)
Of course, they'll kill you in Sudan, Somilia, and Northern Nigeria. Several of these countries are close to outlawing "christianity" and "Judism"(?)
Posted by ACook at 12/22/2006 @ 2:05pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/22/2006 @ 2:05pm
Curious ACOOK, as to the source of these news items?
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 2:14pm
All terrible examples of how religious extremism, if unchecked, promotes violence.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 3:26pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/22/2006 @ 3:22pm
LL, mind telling me what "abpnews" stands for?
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 3:40pm
So how could we "check" religious extremism? How about laws that gaurantee rights to everyone, regardless of their beliefs and religion?
But this is difficult. In order for this to work, all of us would have to learn tolerance. Tolerance because there will always be someone doing something that you don't like. Those that see the big picture know that fighting for someone else's rights (even though you disagree with their actions or words) protects their own rights.
They know that at no point in their lives have they ever had all the right answers. If fact, many people "find religion" only after a tragedy that occurs from making mistakes in their lives.
I read somewhere that Bush found religion after his struggle with alcoholism. Does this mean that we should promote drinking as a means to find God? How can we ban drinking as immoral if it is a path to God?
Say a man spends all of his life "living in sin". Then, after 70 years of this life, he sees the error of his ways and finds God; is this man "saved"? Could we condemn every one of his previous actions as "bad" or "against God's Will" if each one was necessary for this man to finally find religion?
Yet how could we ever accept acts such as murder, rape and child molestation and still call ourselves Godly? The only possible answer is similar to the system we have set up in the US. We recognize that everyone has rights, yet no one person's rights should impede the other's.
Morality is built on respect and tolerance for others.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 4:02pm
Associated Baptist Press
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/22/2006 @ 3:50pm
Ahhhh....thanks.
Posted by Mask at 12/22/2006 @ 4:06pm
What if I am a physician taking care of someone with COPD who refuses to stop smoking. Is it my duty to make this man stop smoking at all costs? What if I explain how it will kill him, and he nods and tells me that understands but will continue to smoke?
What is the correct course of action?
Should I force smoking cessation on this man because I have a "special understanding" of what is right? He obviously doesn't get it, or why would he choose to continue smoking?
Maybe I should tell him that I can no longer treat him, and he should find someone else to see. He will still smoke, but as long as I don't see it, that is fine with me.
The only correct choice, in my humble opinion, is to respect his decision and continue to care for him. I will be there for him no matter what. If he deteriorates further, I will be there to do what I can.
This is the role that religion should take in our lives. Care for the person, and not the sin.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 4:21pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/22/2006 @ 3:2
BING BING BING!!!!!!
and start throwing in all the barbarities perpetrated against women, hindus, buddhists, gays, and anyone else...
thank GOD i do not live there...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 4:21pm
wahabism - google it
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/22/2006 @ 4:22pm
This is the role that religion should take in our lives. Care for the person, and not the sin.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/22/2006 @ 4:21pm
Hear hear.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/22/2006 @ 4:55pm
MASK
You mean conservatives have differing opinions?!?!?!? say it aint so joe!!! say it aint so?!?!?!?
As far as Goode letter...gee i guess you will have to look at what has happened it Europe to fully understand the context of his letter...i know you would rather go on perceptions...they are rather simple.
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 4:57pm
So how could we "check" religious extremism? How about laws that gaurantee rights to everyone, regardless of their beliefs and religion?
we actually have those laws on the books now.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 5:05pm
Middleway
I don't personally see the assaults by "lefties" on our constitution. The examples you mention, if true, I would also be strongly against. You see, you have assumed that I am; first, not a person of faith, and second, a liberal. Both of which are wrong.
Roe v Wade...Kelo...Lemon v Kurtzman...gay marriage and others were all judidical enactments that bypassed the legislature...Why? because those who favored these positions couldnt win in legislatures
You assume that, since I have pointed out some things that I don't like about some of those who call themselves Christians, I must be against Christianity. This is also wrong.
No i just think you are overstating.
It is sad and depressing to me that the only messages we are seeing from "Christians" these days are hateful and destructive. I'm sure that people of Muslim faith feel the same way (about their religion and our religion).
Which ones are those...because i dont see ANY of those....again you are overstating.
It's also sad and depressing to see how those, who speak out so stronly agiainst Muslim fanatics (terrorists), want to take our country along that same path.
Again...wrong..there is no comparasion...Muslim fanatics want strict Sharia/Taliban like laws....NO Christian group in America is advocating making adultery a capital offense or anything remotely like what you are talking about.
Our enemy are not Muslims, or Christians, or Liberals, or Conservatives; our enemies are those who would weaken our Constitution.
If a group is trying to change the laws of this land thru introducing amendments..that is PREFECTLY Constitutional...that is the essence of Constitutionality....pushing your agenda via judicial order..by judges who are appointed and life tenured is not.....check it out.
Posted by CPT at 12/22/2006 @ 5:21pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/22/2006 @ 5:05pm
Oh yeah, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Maybe we all should dust off those documents and read them again (especially the media and the Congress).
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 5:25pm
CPT,
YOU: "Roe v Wade...Kelo...Lemon v Kurtzman...gay marriage and others were all judidical enactments that bypassed the legislature...Why? because those who favored these positions couldnt win in legislatures"
ME: Those "judicial enactments" happen to fit perfectly within our Bill of Rights. I seem to remember a judge ruling that schools could no longer keep people out simply because of the color of their skin. I happen to think they were right. No matter what I think of abortion (against it) and homosexuality (against it), I fully support the right of someone to decide for themselves (since these things don't affect any of my rights).
ME: "It is sad and depressing to me that the only messages we are seeing from "Christians" these days are hateful and destructive.
YOU: Which ones are those...because i dont see ANY of those....again you are overstating."
ME: Let's see, how about......same-sex marriage, faith-based government programs, no sex until your 30 as the only way to halt the spread of disease, no sex education in the classroom, banning the teaching of evolution, intolerance for other faiths (Goode et. al), and the continuous trashing of the wall between religion and government.
ME: It's also sad and depressing to see how those, who speak out so stronly agiainst Muslim fanatics (terrorists), want to take our country along that same path.
YOU: Again...wrong..there is no comparasion...Muslim fanatics want strict Sharia/Taliban like laws....NO Christian group in America is advocating making adultery a capital offense or anything remotely like what you are talking about.
ME: Not yet (although I think there may be one or two). What you speak of is much further down the road; but that journey must begin with the first few steps. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I prefer it be much further from openly advocating violence against those that don't agree. I prefer it be drawn as far as possible from that sort of scenario, don't you?
ME: Our enemy are not Muslims, or Christians, or Liberals, or Conservatives; our enemies are those who would weaken our Constitution.
YOU: If a group is trying to change the laws of this land thru introducing amendments..that is PREFECTLY Constitutional...that is the essence of Constitutionality....pushing your agenda via judicial order..by judges who are appointed and life tenured is not.....check it out.
ME: I agree......IF. As far as judges go, I think they are vulnerable to the types of abuses you speak of. It is wrong, but the answer is not "well if they do it, then I will too" as has been taken up by "the right". I don't think a judge should have any political affiliation, and should certainly not run as a Democrat or Republican. I thought their job was to interpret the meaning of the law, not to inject their beliefs into it. They do though, have a responsibility to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as interpreted through the years by the supreme court.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 5:53pm
The sustenance clause would target the entire productive side of the Nigerian economy from farmers to educators to health care providers. How does a Christian justify this genocide?
Posted by Sander Fred at 12/22/2006 @ 5:54pm
Posted by THRAWN 12/21/2006 @ 9:23pm
I found Tiresias' critique particularly ironic, given the religious nature of the character from whom his name came
As any close observer of the priestly class will note, being a priest, even one of Zeus, does not imply any particular religious fervor. In fact, one of Tireseas' transgressions was impiety. He was a priest of both a god and a goddess thus showing no particular religious affiliation or dedication.
(though I'm not sure abominate is a verb...)
Rest assured, it is in the OED.
I think that context is really important, but I don't think that someone who believes in Christianity is automatically obligated to accept every word of the Old and New Testaments as absolute, unchanging truth.
First, my context was apparently not clear. I was referring to those who want to foist their beliefs onto others. I suspect this does not include you. But the context argument goes more deep. I look at the Bible in the context of what it is shown to be by scholarship, a collection of writings from different times, selected by a group of rabbis and determined by the political dominance of certain early churches. There is nothing "holy" about it other than the claim that it is so. It is a book of semi-historical mythology(most has some historical basis), no more nor less valid than any other mythology (and as you may divine, I much prefer classical mythology). My context for reading it is completely devoid of anything sacred or supernatural. Of course, one is free to choose whatever belief they wish, but even Albert Schweitzer recognized the impossibility of viewing it as truly "divine." Relevant here are also the points LRJONES makes regarding Harris' works.
Also true. However, it doesn't follow from this that no writing can be considered holy in any way, or that no mandate that is considered divine could possibly be authentic.
Something can only be "holy" if one believes in the divine. If one can see no logical, objective argument for a deity, then the question is moot and "holiness" is only relevant to believers.
just about any monotheistic system will contend that belief in God is better than a lack of such belief, but I don't think this means that someone who doesn't believe in God is automatically dying or going to hell.
Here we again have the problem of those who interpret their scripture and those who read it. I do not have available either the Bible or the Qu'uran. However, I am certain I could produce direct quotes that say that those who do not believe in Yahweh are going to be punished, and somewhere in the New Testament The Man Who Speaks in Red states the only way to everlasting life is through him. Is it not punishment to be denied everlasting life? And the Qu'uran is clear on the fate of those who reject Islam.
That you choose not to interpret such statements as punishment is, of course, your right. But I contend that, in general, those who would impose their beliefs on others firmly believe the unbeliever's are destined for some form of obliteration. Of course, in such discussions, there will always be exceptions, but I assert that the mainstream of monotheistic believers do have this view.
This is one of the problems. People interpret the scriptures in many ways. Some say God tells them what the truth is. Some read their texts in a "spiritual" or "poetic" way. All fine and good. But then it becomes one person's opinion or interpretation and has no universality and certainly is not compelling for anyone skeptical of the whole situation.
Just as an aside, it seems that the admonition to beware false teachers and prophets is roundly ignored as is the charge that it is the duty of the true Christian to denounce them. It is the remarkable silence of the "established" churches to denounce the Robertson's and Falwell's and those of their ilk that is damning. I suspect the mainline churches are actually in large agreement with the fundies but haven't the courage to proclaim it themselves; the fundies are simply their shock troops. And the occasion of this thread shows it. Here we have the most establishment of churches, the church most associated with the old school elites, the church that is among the more "liberal", a church with significant congregations that are vehemently homophobic. They are essentially in league with the Rev. Phelps, but are just more "refined" about it.
What about the belief that people have some kind of inherent worth, or that agency ought to be respected? It seems like you can only go so far to justify it, and must then accept it on faith. Is that a problem?
No, belief, itself, is not necessarily a problem. It is what is believed that can be so. Any ethical system must have some kind of premise, a belief, as you note. But yes, context is important. And the context of my post was religious belief, not belief in the efficacy of mathematics or that human beings deserve respect or in the ability of science to understand nature. But belief becomes a problem when it distorts reality, when it requires denial of fact and reason, or when it forces others to comply with its system.
It's not enough to say that "reason" can solve this problem, since in many cases it is more rational to act in ways that we understand to be immoral, especially if no one else will know.
Please peruse what I wrote: "It seems to me that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto the one you love the most" is the only guiding principle required ... that, and using the most distinguishing, but so ill-exercised and infrequently used, characteristic of our species, reason." There is clearly an ethical premise stated upon which the exercise of reason is to be based. It clearly would negate acting as you suggest. And your example is further flawed because the reasoning would have to based on an unethical premise that you can be evil if nobody knows. Reason is a tool. You get what you get based upon the premises and that is why I was careful to state the "Golden Rule" in the way I did.
many people believe in God not because they think this belief creates the maximum utility, but because they think that their belief is true, that it corresponds to the way things really are. At that point, your objection doesn't even matter.
I fail to fathom the intent of this statement. It seems, in fact, to establish my contention that when people believe something and that they believe it corresponds to the way things really are, but, when things are not in accord with belief, then I argue these people are deluded or mad. After all, the psychotic believes in a reality that just is not so. In fact I assume that one reason people belief in Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Voodoo or whatever is because it is consistent with their reality. If they want to believe the universe is the 6,010 or so years of Bishop Usher, then so be it. But that belief is not objectively defensible without belief. But you cannot argue with it either, as you point out. Believers will cling to it regardless of any other evidence. This is consistent with Harris' observation of the paranoia of belief. So, if anything, I contend your last observation supports my argument that it is pointless to argue with a believer.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/22/2006 @ 5:57pm
Posted by CPT 12/22/2006 @ 5:21pm | ignore this person
no matter what the congress legislates, the supremes get to decide if that law is constitutional. they have the final word. they exercised that final word in Roe as well as many other cases. the only way to trump the supremes is through a constitutional amendment. you should not need this remedial education on our political system.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 6:06pm
It's also sad and depressing to see how those, who speak out so stronly agiainst Muslim fanatics (terrorists), want to take our country along that same path.
Again...wrong..there is no comparasion...Muslim fanatics want strict Sharia/Taliban like laws....NO Christian group in America is advocating making adultery a capital offense or anything remotely like what you are talking about.
wrong. christian groups have advocated the murder of doctors who provide abortion services to their patients.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 6:10pm
Religion as a means to end all mankinds suffering will only be realized when we have enough faith to let go of our mythology. As the Buddhists say, the teaching is like a raft that gets you to the other side of the river; it must then be let go as you continue on land or it will only serve to hinder you.
Real faith is letting go.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 6:13pm
CPT,
There is no way of "overstating" any threat when it comes to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as far as I'm concerned.
The destruction of our freedom will not come all at once, at the hands of some foreign power; it will come from within, drop..... by drop...... by drop.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 6:20pm
The destruction of our freedom will not come all at once, at the hands of some foreign power; it will come from within, drop..... by drop...... by drop.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/22/2006 @ 6:20pm __________________________________________________________
Alas, over the last six years the drips have turned it into a stream.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/22/2006 @ 6:25pm
"Say a man spends all of his life "living in sin". Then, after 70 years of this life, he sees the error of his ways and finds God; is this man "saved"? Could we condemn every one of his previous actions as "bad" or "against God's Will" if each one was necessary for this man to finally find religion?
Ephesians 1:7 - Redemption Romans 6 - Baptism (Whole Chapter) John 3:8 - Salvation
Yet how could we ever accept acts such as murder, rape and child molestation and still call ourselves Godly? The only possible answer is similar to the system we have set up in the US. We recognize that everyone has rights, yet no one person's rights should impede the other's.
Morality is built on respect and tolerance for others."
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/22/2006 @ 4:02pm
MIDDLE if you have a bible laying around somewhere go to these passages and it will be made clear to you.
Morality doesn't build respect or tolerance, only LOVE can do that.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." AMEN...
Peace be with you and your family this Christmas Season...
Posted by ACook at 12/22/2006 @ 6:30pm
his is the role that religion should take in our lives. Care for the person, and not the sin.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/22/2006 @ 4:21pm
Hear hear.
Posted by THRAWN 12/22/2006 @ 4:55pm
----------------------------------------------------------
But why on earth do you need religion in order to do this? Ahhh .. of course ... the sin! And how do we decide if the person is sinning. Well, we must make a judgment. How do we do that? Well, we go to our religious beliefs, our beliefs that decide this person, say a gay one, is sinning. It's the old love the sinner, but hate the sin routine. Double-think and duplicity!
Posted by Tiresias at 12/22/2006 @ 6:43pm
Morality doesn't build respect or tolerance, only LOVE can do that.
(followed by a biblical quote)
Posted by ACOOK 12/22/2006 @ 6:30pm
-------------------------------------------------------------
There was a Robert Mitchum movie many years ago where a preacher pursued two urchins so he could murder them. On the fingers of one hand was tattooed LOVE and on the fingers of the other HATE. Frankly, I prefer tolerance to the kind of "love" most Christians practice.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/22/2006 @ 6:52pm
TIRESIAS, may this season bring you many things and may it bring you much joy, happiness, peace and prosperity and above all, may it bring you love from your family and friends.
Merry Christmas!!!
Posted by ACook at 12/22/2006 @ 7:07pm
But why on earth do you need religion in order to do this?
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/22/2006 @ 6:43pm
Good point. As a religious person, I am completely comfortable saying that we absolutely don't. A more accurate statement would be that I believe in a much broader definition of religion that encompasses all efforts at improving oneself. Of course, this is open to all kind of interpretations, but by improving oneself, I mean something like education, helping others etc.
As far as love the sinner and hate the sin; I would rather love the sinner and acknowledge the "sin" as something that keeps away peace, love and joy. Not good or bad, but an action that brings certain consequences. The consequences are themselves not good or bad, they just are. Yet we all choose, religious or not, a certain outcome for our lives (mine are peace, love and joy). Some actions will help bring about this outcome and some will not.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 7:09pm
god sucks, religion sucks. piety is not the same as righteousness.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/22/2006 @ 7:20pm
"John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." AMEN..."
I have always found this to be one of the oddest and most unfathomable statements, found in the bible.
Can anyone here, who found any meaning in this book, explain it to me?
The standard rationalization, for anything that makes no sense, is that you are not capable of understanding god's reasoning. But, why the hell does god, have to kill his son, so he can forgive you? Who was he appeasing, with this sacrafice? Himself?
I am known to be anti-theistic, but I really am not trying to snipe here, just curious... I don't believe the bible is true, so any inconsistancies merely amuse me... But if I did believe it was true, I don't think I could help but wondering, what if god is crazy...omnipotent, and I have no choice but to appease, but not sane?
I have heard it said many times, when I mentioned biblical stories that seemed to demonstrate gods cruelty, that one cannot judge god, using human standards of ethics. But, does that automatically make god more ethical than you, or is the question moot, because you have to obey the ruler of the universe, regardless?
Just wondering...
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/22/2006 @ 7:35pm
As far as love the sinner and hate the sin; I would rather love the sinner and acknowledge the "sin" as something that keeps away peace, love and joy.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/22/2006 @ 7:09pm
-------------------------------------------------------------
But whose peace, love and joy does it affect? Does it affect those attributes for the gay person I cite? You bet! How? Well, initially that individual would already be at peace, basking in the affection of the beloved and the joy of living according to their merits and inclinations - minding hir own business and going along with life. But along comes the religious person in whose "moral universe" the perfectly acceptable objective actions of the gay person are a "sin," and it is the peace, love and joy of the religious one that is upset! And the reaction to this perception of sin that has created this discomfort? Well, to persecute (er, love, excuse me) the poor gay that was just trying to live a life of peace, love and joy.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/22/2006 @ 7:44pm
"John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." AMEN..."
I have always found this to be one of the oddest and most unfathomable statements, found in the bible.
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/22/2006 @ 7:35pm
--------------------------------------------------------------
This post brought a wry smile of remembrance for it was this very verse that eventually lead to my rejection of Christianity. When taking catechism class in my youth, I posed the same question. The logic... well... there isn't any as you note... the entire concept is just plain weird. Or to pursue it: if JC is a manifestation of God (the trinity concept)then what what is the big deal for God to sacrifice a manifestation of himself? How does that particular death represent any sacrifice at all considering that JC is a manifestation of God who is immortal, omnipotent, etc.? Then it is argued JC became a normal human for a while, but even then he would have to have known he was God because, well, God is omniscient. If that is not so, then how could JC be in the Trinity? It makes no sense for God to make God forget he is God. And even if you buy all of this, it still begs the question of how a part(?) or manifestation(?) of God (who cannot die) became human (and dies for three days) expiates all the sins of all mankind forever. And how does this show great love for mankind anyway? To me getting rid of disease, or not allowing tsunamis, or a plethora of other things would be much more of a manifestation of love than "sacrificing" a part of one's immortal self in a tiny insignificant backwater of the Roman Empire. But then, after all, it is Christian "love." It made my head swim then .. it makes it swim now!
It seems any explanation must be so convoluted that it defies reason, specifically Occam's Razor. And thus, one is thrown back to belief ... and the cycle is complete.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/22/2006 @ 8:19pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/22/2006 @ 7:44pm
Yes. And this is one example of how we need to go further into our religion. Would it ever be possible to get every little variable in the exact place at the exact time in order that we may find peace? I think not. For example, what about all those people needlessly suffering in another country, or a tornado that may hit next year, or our inevitable death etc.
The answer is to find the peace, love, and joy within us (or that which IS us, as we are ourselves God). We need to look no further than ourselves for love (or for fear/hate). So even as we are persecuted by others, will could still have peace, joy and love; and even in paradise we could feel fear and pain.
The catch is to define Love, which is synonymous with God. God is only a word that defines something and is subject to all the failings of written language (as you stated before about the Bible). It is not merely something that makes you feel good, because it may make you feel good to hurt someone else or yourself.
I have felt brief glimpses of this type of love, yet find myself at a loss to describe it. The only way to describe it would be to say it's like the love you feel for your children and your spouse (at it's best, all the time). Unconditional. With no conditions. Religion is therefore a vehicle (not the only one by any means) to further our understanding.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 8:31pm
To me getting rid of disease, or not allowing tsunamis, or a plethora of other things would be much more of a manifestation of love than "sacrificing" a part of one's immortal self in a tiny insignificant backwater of the Roman Empire.
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/22/2006 @ 8:19pm
Read Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations with God. I completely rejected Christianity after being forced for 18 years to go to church with my family. After reading this book, it has become much more clear to me. I would not say that I am now a Christian, since I believe there are many paths "to God". But I do see now how it all makes sense (not a small accomplishment).
Another great series is "The Power of Now". Both books allow a deeper understanding of religion without making you abandon any of your own beliefs.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/22/2006 @ 8:40pm
"John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." AMEN..."
"I have always found this to be one of the oddest and most unfathomable statements, found in the bible. Can anyone here, who found any meaning in this book, explain it to me?"
When Adam and Eve sinned before God in the garden of Eden, that sin (being disobediance) created a gulf between man and God. This made God regret creating man and he considered destroying all of mankind. However, his son offered a solution to save man by offering himself as a sacrifice to "cleanse" the world of their sins for, he is pure and holy. The sacrifice of Christ for the sake of mankind has allowed us to live under God's grace and mercy.
"The standard rationalization, for anything that makes no sense, is that you are not capable of understanding god's reasoning. But, why the hell does god, have to kill his son, so he can forgive you? Who was he appeasing, with this sacrafice? Himself?"
Had Christ not offered himself, neither you or I would be here. God was not appeasing himself. For sin is filthly to him. When we sin, we are unclean before him. This is why spilling the blood of Christ was the only way to wash our sins away and give us a fresh start.
"I am known to be anti-theistic, but I really am not trying to snipe here, just curious... I don't believe the bible is true, so any inconsistancies merely amuse me... But if I did believe it was true, I don't think I could help but wondering, what if god is crazy...omnipotent, and I have no choice but to appease, but not sane?"
I'll put it another way, our thoughts are not his thoughts and our ways are not his ways. But, by all means ask as many questions as you please, for Christ said "ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.."
"I have heard it said many times, when I mentioned biblical stories that seemed to demonstrate gods cruelty, that one cannot judge god, using human standards of ethics. But, does that automatically make god more ethical than you, or is the question moot, because you have to obey the ruler of the universe, regardless?"
God does not work that way. He has given us free will. It is up to us to choose what path we will take.
Just wondering...
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/22/2006 @ 7:35pm
MAL, I hope I was able to explain a few things to you. Otherwise LVLIBERTY (who is a pastor can answer your questions further..)
Posted by ACook at 12/22/2006 @ 10:00pm
Acook,
Thanks for the response. Wasn't really expecting one, so I'm not complaining, although you don't appear to even see the point I queried you on.
Again, no offense, but does this;
"Had Christ not offered himself, neither you or I would be here. God was not appeasing himself. For sin is filthly to him. When we sin, we are unclean before him. This is why spilling the blood of Christ was the only way to wash our sins away and give us a fresh start."
...actually make rational sense to you, when you think about it? Or have you always just reiterated it w/o giving it any thought? (Personally, I would get a cramp in my hand, pointing out all the logical inconsistancies and seeming irrationality of it).
Thanks anyway.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/22/2006 @ 11:40pm
i have never had more trouble understanding what a fellow english speaker was saying as when that australian guy moved in next to us in college...he came from the real outback...i couldn't understand hardly anything that guy said.
but i did eat his vegemyte...or however you spell it...right tasty with crackers, spread sparingly...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/22/2006 @ 03:37am
Well what can you expect when teams of kangaroos pull the buses in our capital cities. The outback eh? Sounds like more Aussie bullshit or maybe he came from New Guinea, if he couldn't handle the Queen's English. That's real outback but it ain't ours. In that case his dad might well have been an Aussie.
Don't think my older brother was from New Guinea but he had a similar problem over there. He got a research scholarship to Berkley and had all sorts of trouble getting his (supposed to be regularly paid) salary. He used to front up to the money shop and ask for his pay. The culturally insensitive, with the purse, kept sending him down to the pie shop. Said he struggled by for a month or so, on charity, until he could afford a bit of paper and a pen.
The old Vegemite. Looks like black grease and tastes like shit? Noticed you are a bit brighter than most here. Put it down to the veggie. Nearly got kicked out of your country some years ago when I tried to introduce it to fellow students at Penn State. Thought I was trying to poison them. They didn't know about spreadin' thin and I wasn't going to tell ‘em.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/23/2006 @ 03:11am
i have never had more trouble understanding what a fellow english speaker was saying as when that australian guy moved in next to us in college...he came from the real outback...i couldn't understand hardly anything that guy said.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/22/2006 @ 03:37am
-------------------------------------------------------------
This brought a chuckle. I too ran into the same situation with a charming older couple from Oz (that wonderful name for the land down under first learned on this occasion) who shared a train compartment with me in a long trip from Vienna to Venice. It was nigh impossible to have a conversation with the husband, although he understood me perfectly. The problem was not the dialect, for when one converses with a Geordie or some Jamaicans one is dealing with a significantly different form of English, but rather was the vocabulary. Many aboriginal words and rather Oz-specific slang comprised about 70% of this gentleman's dialog and I was left clueless. His wife wound up serving as interpreter and bipedal dictionary. These people, too, were from deep in the outback.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 04:16am
"Had Christ not offered himself, neither you or I would be here. God was not appeasing himself. For sin is filthly to him. When we sin, we are unclean before him. This is why spilling the blood of Christ was the only way to wash our sins away and give us a fresh start."
...actually make rational sense to you, when you think about it? Or have you always just reiterated it w/o giving it any thought? (Personally, I would get a cramp in my hand, pointing out all the logical inconsistancies and seeming irrationality of it).
Thanks anyway.
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/22/2006 @ 11:40pm
------------------------------------------------------------
I too appreciate the attempt, but also remain in the same boat with Eric on this. The Chaplain of King's College in Cambridge, no mean theologian, had tried to address my points when I was a member of the high table a time ago, but finally wound up saying it was ultimately "a matter of faith" - that cop-out for any religious debate. However, we did reach a contingent agreement that it could be a matter of psychology and some might be able to accept the concept whilst others may not be wired for it. Not too good a conclusion, but we were both exhausted by the time we agreed it.
Enjoy your holy-day, ACOOK and MIDDLEWAY.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 04:29am
He used to front up to the money shop and ask for his pay. The culturally insensitive, with the purse, kept sending him down to the pie shop. Said he struggled by for a month or so, on charity, until he could afford a bit of paper and a pen.
Posted by LRJONES4 12/23/2006 @ 03:11am
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a very faint glimmer of the experiences of IBBLEBLIBBLE and me - perhaps even an intentional example. Of course, it is completely comprehensible, but it does require just a wee bit of translation for those from places with less colorful "accepted" English. But there is a certain Oz-style to it that, when extrapolated to the extreme, can make understanding a challenge. Great fun!
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 05:00am
Yes. And this is one example of how we need to go further into our religion. Would it ever be possible to get every little variable in the exact place at the exact time in order that we may find peace?
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/22/2006 @ 8:31pm
------------------------------------------------------------
Well and good, and I know that you and those who think like you are, at least not directly, not the problem faced by our example gay. But the fact is that while there is unarguably a "need to go further in our religion," people, such as this gay, must suffer due to all the discrimination and indignities heaped on hir whilst more aggressive believers are going further. It may be a "little variable" to you on how the gay is viewed or treated, but I suspect it is not so inconsequential to hir. Why should the homosexual have no peace because the religious persons' beliefs disturb their own peace?
Were the religious of all stripes to recognize the evolutionary nature of their belief that you accept (although some are clearly frozen in their's, as we see in this forum) and to keep their religion private and be respectful of the life-styles, personal (non-criminal) choices or natural characteristics/behaviors of others, then this discussion would be unnecessary.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 05:44am
Why should the homosexual have no peace because the religious persons' beliefs disturb their own peace?
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/23/2006 @ 05:44am
I completely agree. Any "religious person" that persecutes others is not religious in my view. What does it take for someone to claim to be a Christian, or Buddhist, or Muslim, etc? They just need say it (or, if more strict they follow some sort of ritual and (poof) they are now religous).
What do you call the part of you, or the "reason" that makes it possible to see the suffering of others (such as homosexuals) and want to speak out against it? I would call it your religion. It is your beliefs manifested so that you no longer just say you are tolerant, you actually ARE tolerant. Many "faithful" call themselves loving, tolerant, kind, or Godly; but unless they put those thoughts into practice, they are not.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/23/2006 @ 08:09am
Many "faithful" call themselves loving, tolerant, kind, or Godly; but unless they put those thoughts into practice, they are not.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/23/2006 @ 08:09am
--------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't agree with you more!
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 09:23am
What do you call the part of you, or the "reason" that makes it possible to see the suffering of others (such as homosexuals) and want to speak out against it? I would call it your religion.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/23/2006 @ 08:09am
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I am kind of old-fashioned about language and do not like to give words meanings that are not commonly accepted. Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship. My concern for the suffering of others only involves my belief in the rightness of my version of the "Golden Rule" and the subsequent application of reason...no deities involved.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 09:42am
too bad this thread focused on the "holy" rather than the homophobia. god jive? yawn.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 09:44am
I covered the homophobic aspects of this Episcopalian schism on Monday, December 19th, at Talk To Action [talk2action.org] in a piece entitled:
"Schismatic VA Episcopalians OK With Anti-Gay Laws Worse Than Pre-WW2 Nazi's ? [talk2action.org]"
Excerpt:
"Yesterday, seven Virginia Episcopal churches including two of the largest and wealthiest in the American Episcopal Communion voted to break away and, as a New York Times story [nytimes.com] written prior to the vote put it, "report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant." Jim Naughton, former Washington Post and NYT reporter and author of a study on how covert right wing agencies [talk2action.org] are undermining the Episcopal Church, noted "this no longer seems to be a debate about the proper role of gay and lesbians Christians in the Church, but about the moral legitimacy of rolling back human rights for minorities [blog.edow.org]" ; in fact, the Virginia Episcopal Churches had voted to put themselves under an Archbishop, Peter Akinola, who supports Nigerian anti-gay legislation even more extreme than the pre-WW2 anti-gay laws of Hitler's Nazi Party, including the notorious 1935 revisions to Paragraph 175 [en.wikipedia.org], that preceded the Gay Holocaust [sodomylaws.org] ( see Nazi Persecution Of Homosexuals 1933 To 1945 [ushmm.org] from the US Holocaust Museum. )...."
Posted by Bruce Wilson at 12/23/2006 @ 10:13am
too bad this thread focused on the "holy" rather than the homophobia. god jive? yawn.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/23/2006 @ 09:44am
-------------------------------------------------------------
To what then, do you attribute the source of most homophobia?
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 10:52am
To what then, do you attribute the source of most homophobia?
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/23/2006 @ 10:52am | ignore this person
latent homosexuality, or fear thereof.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 11:44am
religion often inspires a kind of self loathing, what with sin and all that rot. that self loathing then is directed outward, against gays, immigrants, women, children, anyone in any way different.
the moralizing acook mentioned three girls killed in the name of whatever in some country. well here many little girls are killed by their stepfather, by their mother, their father etc.
we hear about how terribly women are treated , what with honor killings. in our country many, many women are killed by their spouses, prostitutes are killed with impunity by mass murderers. we need to think long and hard before we set ourselves up as judges of others.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 11:50am
Why is it when someone doesn't agree with the aggressive gay agenda in this country their immediately labeled "homophobic" (as if that's a real word anyway)? Last time I checked freedom of religion was included in the Bill of Rights...or has Bush made a signing statement against that too? What if heterosexuals started labeling gays heterophobes (fear of having sex with the opposite sex), would that make everyone feel better? There are plenty of churches that except gays, leave the ones that don't to their own devices or vices (if you will) and move on. Frankly, the bible spells it out quite clear that homosexual behavior is unacceptable so maybe Christianity isn't the right religion for gays to pursue. Hell, why not make one up? Then you can jump around on couches like Tom Cruise and exclaim how excited you are about life.
Posted by TrakerJon at 12/23/2006 @ 12:13pm
Posted by TRAKERJON 12/23/2006 @ 12:13am | ignore this person
just as I said, self loathing and fear of latent homosexual tendencies. you may shove your hateful bible up your keister.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 1:39pm
the bible is not the law of the land. if your posts had been more civil, so would my reply.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 1:52pm
god does not exist for me. I have met very few christians, none here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 2:32pm
liberty, for instance is not a christian in my book, but rather an intolerant bigot.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 2:37pm
"Methinks Johannesrolf has a latent fear of God. How else to explain this vehemence against God and Christians?"
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/23/2006 @ 2:22pm
Somewhat rhetorical, I realise...But, isn't "fear of god" the domain of the religionist?
BTW, it is the maifestation of this fear, and the behavior it inspires in "believers", that is the very cause strong distaste for such rhetoric in non-believers (Most of whom would have a 'live and let live' approach, if the believers would stop trying to institutionalize, what appears as blatent insanity, to the rest of us).
I realise it is impossible for you to see this world, from any viewpoint but your own, but some of us would reject your gods, so called morality, even if we did believe he exsisted. Might doesn't always make right. (But now I understand where you get such notions).
" piety is not the same as righteousness"
Do you really object to this quote? Are you claiming it does?
Also, while both sides of just about any debate, could be described as "vehement", traditionally, it is the religionist who proclaims his "vehemence". Perhaps you should consult a dictionary, as I don't think that's what you actually meant.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/23/2006 @ 4:33pm
Posted by TRAKERJON 12/23/2006 @ 12:13am
Not the point. Try re-reading for comprehension, this time.
While secular types are facinated/mystified by the machinations of various churches and have opinions on such, we would probably be devoid of interest, if you just kept your irrational beliefs private.
BTW, I would imagine a homosexual, would have a phobia of hetro sex, just the inverse of you or I. How is/would this be relevant to the discussion?
Rant on.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/23/2006 @ 4:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/23/2006 @ 2:22pm
Hehe...."I've got nothing against God, just the 'aggressive God agenda'. God trying to ram his way and beliefs down my throat. Why is it that everybody who disagrees, is labelled a theo-phobe? Can't you simply be against God's un-natural lifestyle and not be accused of 'hating God'"?
Hmmm....does it work BOTH ways?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 12/23/2006 @ 5:38pm
Posted by MASK 12/23/2006 @ 5:38pm
I think you've got your wingnuts confused.
Not to worry, they do all tend to sound the same, after awhile. Probably from filtering their varied life experiences through the same little book of inanities.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/23/2006 @ 6:15pm
I didn't write the Bible, I and millions of other Christians just try and follow it."
OK. Fair enough...
Jesus also said that "unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
So who decides whether I, a product of much more education and a 21st century working knowledge of the world, am more "righteous" than some 3rd century rabbis and their secretaries? Besides, using the word "righteous" makes for a circular argument, wherein the word defines any action attached to it. Even if I am right, I can never be "righteous".
Lastly, Jesus said that "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"
Interesting that you bolded the text, which I would emphasise, if I quoted you. (Which I did).
Which chapter of the bible was actually written by god or even dictated for him? Or am I confusing paul's book with the qur'an, which according to those people you hate, actually was? OR is it all just a bunch of mythology?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/23/2006 @ 7:54pm
Jesus Approved(tm)
Posted by Malcontent at 12/23/2006 @ 7:55pm
(1)Why is it when someone doesn't agree with the aggressive gay agenda in this country their immediately labeled "homophobic" (as if that's a real word anyway)?
and then:
(2)There are plenty of churches that except gays
and more:
(3) the bible spells it out quite clear that homosexual behavior is unacceptable so maybe Christianity isn't the right religion for gays to pursue. Hell, why not make one up?
Posted by TRAKERJON 12/23/2006 @ 12:13am
______________________________________________________________
There is no better demonstration of the ignorance and thoughtlessness of homophobes (a word found in any respectable dictionary but creatures such as this are not bothered by facts - it's easier to wallow in ignorance) than the condemnation of their own words. The robotic cant exemplified in (1) is risible and, pathetically, gives credence to JOHANNESROLF's response.
Of course, statement (2) is true of plenty of Christian churches since but a few actually accept gays. Most, indeed, take exception to them.
And that happens because of(3)which demonstrates the hypocrisy and thoughtlessness of most of organized Christianity and its adherents. There are 611 Mosaic laws, almost all of which are ignored, save this one. And the use of any of those proscriptions by so-called Christians is even more thoughtless within the context of their own scripture.
For example, David and Jonathan had "a love that exceedeth that for a woman." Now what on earth could that mean? Even those in the Bible who came at later times ignored the Mosaic laws. David committed adultery but wasn't killed as Leviticus 20:10 would require. Why didn't Nathan demand the death penalty for David and Bathsheba when he brought God's word? Then, of course, there is Job. Job's interlocutors quote simplistic biblical chapter and verse (like um who?) to him that are nothing more than restatements of Mosaic proscriptions. And what happens in that case? God himself tells them they are simpletons and wrong. So the Bible spells things out clearLY does it?
The Bible is infinitely malleable and one can use it to make an argument for anything. It is just like the I Ching in that you can use it to any purpose. Thus to use it as any kind of authority for interfering in the private lives of others, especially to deny them rights that others enjoy, is so despicable as to be immoral.
And it is correct, the kind of "Christianity" the poster practices "isn't the right religion for gays to pursue," nor is it for any other thinking, ethical person, for that matter. That "Christianity" is, in the main, for thoughtless, troubled, frightened, self-loathing homophobes. Luckily, gays do not have to make up a religion for that crutch is not needed by anyone, but for those who may be so inclined, they can indeed be part of those very few congregations that are truly Christian and not have to practice this poster's made-up and corrupt version of "Christianity."
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 8:55pm
Hmmm....does it work BOTH ways?!?!??!
Posted by MASK 12/23/2006 @ 5:38pm
-------------------------------------------------------
Excellent!
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 9:07pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/23/2006 @ 6:53pm
LVL
Notice these rebels and hardened sinners are not responding well to "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life".
As Founding Fathers are all the go with progressives, how about a look back to your most important and original philosophical theologian Jonathan Edwards and to the title of that famous sermon he preached (Read in fact with candle in one hand to illuminate the page) in Enfield CT in 1741. "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". By all accounts it was very effective in "getting the fear of God" into his hearers.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/23/2006 @ 9:29pm
In a suggestion to LL:
Sinners in the hands of an angry God". By all accounts it was very effective in "getting the fear of God" into his hearers.
Posted by LRJONES4 12/23/2006 @ 9:29pm
----------------------------------------------------------
Or try something from one even more reactionary and fire and brimstone, like Cotton Mather. It shows how little conservatives change over the centuries: ... instill the fear ... burn the witch ... pillory the queer... but keep up the fear.
It's pretty difficult to fear something that most probably does not exist ... but old Cotton did worry about spectres too.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/23/2006 @ 9:53pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/23/2006 @ 6:15pm
No,no...figured LL and TRAKERJON would be compadres on the "aggressive gay agenda". Is that an agressive "gay agenda" or the agenda of "agressive gays"?!??!
Posted by Mask at 12/23/2006 @ 9:57pm
TIRESIAS, may I ask when was the last time you put one foot inside any Christian church? You seem to know a little about scripture.
Posted by ACook at 12/23/2006 @ 9:59pm
TIRESIAS, you mentioned the old Mosaic laws, but most who are in the Christian church today are gentiles. For us the old Mosaic laws are a point of reference and history.
Posted by ACook at 12/23/2006 @ 10:06pm
"It's pretty difficult to fear something that most probably does not exist ... but old Cotton did worry about spectres too."
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/23/2006 @ 9:53pm
Please explain your reasoning...if I may boldly ask...
Posted by ACook at 12/23/2006 @ 10:08pm
I didn't write the Bible
Jesus also said that "unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."
Lastly, Jesus said that "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/23/2006 @ 6:53pm
Point on these three things.
1st...Jesus...never said anything that we know of, since he didn't WRITE any of the New Test. He was QUOTED as saying things by his friends.
2nd...If you DID write the Bible and you are a "sinful, imperfect Man" as the Bible says all Men are...you could have made a mistake, right? Pride or even simple human error (as a Son of Fallen Adam)...could harm your memory or even allow you to INSERT or even IMAGINE somethings and claim them "True" and "Real".....right?
That is...unless people CENTURIES FROM NOW claim you are "divinely inspired" and that your human frailty wasn't in effect during the time of your dictation....in direct contradiction to what the Bible (your own writing) says about Men and their ability to achieve perfection in this mortal life.
It's a sweet deal. Human, but capable of divine penmanship, just so people don't have to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty and can live their lives by a BOOK...written by their fellow, imperfect MEN.
Posted by Mask at 12/23/2006 @ 10:09pm
You know it's funny that we Christians are called all kinds of ugly names when we don't comply (or adhere) to the demands of the secular world, and yet when non-believers and their loved ones becomes ill or near death, they want us to pray for them.
I get all kinds of requests for prayer. And, I have yet to hear a non-believer say they have enough faith in science to make them well.
Posted by ACook at 12/23/2006 @ 10:29pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/23/2006 @ 8:55pmca.
T,
It is very interesting that this debate and the resulting schisms have arisen in churches of the Anglican (Episcopalian) tradition. Because of its reputation as a broad church many observers thought that this would be the last place where an issue like this would intrude.
The largest Anglican diocese in Australia is evangelical and on that interpretation of scripture is opposed to ordaining women and practicing homosexuals. There are many large evangelical congregations in that diocese and in that respect it is "envied" by other Anglican congregations around the country.
The Sydney Bishop, Peter Jensen is very active in forming new international conservative alliances around these issues. Some Anglican churches in Britain are looking to associate with the Sydney diocese, if the women's and gay ordination agenda gather pace in the UK.
Notice in NYT today that the Churches in Virginia are also looking at an association with like minded conservative churches in Bolivia and other parts of Africa. That stirring from the third world areas; Asia , Africa and South America is likely to further stymie any advancement of gay rights in some countries within those regions. (read recently that it is estimated there are now up to 100 million evangelical Christians in China. That is likely to have significance for these and other issues such as China/ Israel policy in the future, if that semi overt growth is allowed to continue. (Maybe not too long before Chinese Christian missionaries arrive on your shores. Missionary activity in "pagan" Europe, thanks to African evangelicals is aon thrir radar).
One interesting development is that the Anglo-Catholic (high church) faction is identifying with the evangelical wing, whose soteriologies are poles apart. With the Anglo-Catholics the issue of course is not primarily the present directives of scripture but church tradition. Also that faction would ultimately like to see a union with Rome and those two issues present another hindrance to that objective. So there is a little bit more involved that just a human rights issue.
As a disinterested but absorbed observer I think what happens in the Anglican community will set the benchmark for other denominations that are experiencing similar pressures.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/23/2006 @ 11:25pm
I have yet to hear a non-believer say they have enough faith in science to make them well.
Posted by ACOOK 12/23/2006 @ 10:29pm | ignore this person
you have now.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 11:37pm
just the 'aggressive God agenda'.
this is cute, Mask. religion should be and remain a private, personal matter.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 11:38pm
So, JR, it seems that you are demanding that in order to receive your respect, Christians must deny the commandments of Jesus.
this is pure fantasy on your part, lib. just don't vomit your religion all over me.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 11:41pm
yet when non-believers and their loved ones becomes ill or near death, they want us to pray for them.
bull bleep.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/23/2006 @ 11:42pm
Posted by ACOOK 12/23/2006 @ 10:29pm
" when non-believers and their loved ones becomes ill or near death, they want us to pray for them."
That is illogical. Somewhat unbelievable actually. If true then they ceased to be "non-believers" when they asked you to pray.
I have a feeling, this is something you believe, again, because you want to and don't think too hard about it, than due to your personal experience. One hears the "no atheists in foxholes" alot too, but never from said atheist, just "some athiest" the believer used to know.
" For us the old Mosaic laws are a point of reference and history."
Except all that stuff about those sinful, abominations to god, the lowly hoe-moe-sects-you-alls. ( Below the mason-dixon line, it's hoe-moe-sects-y'alls, of course).
"You know it's funny that we Christians are called all kinds of ugly names when we don't comply (or adhere) to the demands of the secular world."
Demands of the secular world? (Is asking you to think, actually a problem?) What demands?
Do we demand that the constitution be ammended to exclude christians from marriage, or any of the legal benefits?
Do we demand to intervene in personal reproductive decisions, between you and your physician?
Do we demand proclomations in stone, that all must abide by a secular point of view, in front of courthouses?
Seems to me, religious people, who feel persecuted by secular thinking, are just projecting their discomfort at being a minority point of view, in most circles where they used to dominate in centuries past. As if ones refusal to believe, is not a personal decision, but a direct afront to the believers world.
As for "ugly names", unthinking and irrational are not hurled as invectives, but offered as a simple observation. (Except to LL. I enjoy calling him names).
Move on. Let the old mythologys die. Ironic how you probably see no connection, between the way you think and the way our so called enemies think.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/24/2006 @ 01:35am
"... just don't vomit your religion all over me."
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/23/2006 @ 11:41pm
Ewwww.
(Hands JR a towel).
Posted by Malcontent at 12/24/2006 @ 01:37am
Posted by ACOOK 12/23/2006 @ 10:08pm
Ms Cook,
I am an "intellectual believer" if you please and I know that doesn't count at all but I was not mocking your apparently genuine faith; just giving a gentle reminder that NT Christianity has rough edges, in that it offers salvation to men and women on its terms and not ours.
That's why it is possible to shortchange the hearers when we forget to mention the bad news first. However much Jonathan Edwards went overboard and went beyond what the NT states at least he put the good news in the only context the NT knows. Even 2000 years ago this message was regarded as foolishness by the intellectuals of the day so that is no new or unexpected charge.
T is having a bit of fun but his wisest advice is to back off when it comes to a matter of faith. I'm sure he knows or knows of John Polkinghorne and others who are top scientists as well as theists.
Richard Dawkins a top British evolutionary biologist and atheist, secularist and most trenchant critic of theism, is nonplussed that such top intellectuals and scientists can be Christian theists. Listen to what he says:
"Of "good scientists who are sincerely religious" he mentions Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne, and Francis Collins, but says "I remain baffled . . . by their belief in the details of the Christian religion"
(As T knows JP is the genuine article: John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS, PhD, ScD, MA, (born October 16, 1930 in Weston-super-Mare, England) is a British particle physicist and theologian).
And this from a friend and fellow scientist:
The biologist Steven Rose considers that: "Richard's (Dawkins) view about belief is too simplistic, and so hostile that as a committed secularist myself I am uneasy about it. We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is – assumptions that he and I of course share".
You will find that these theists are generally evolutionists as is your Francis Collins (HGP leader) who says that though he once was an atheist, he now is an evangelical Christian.
Which all means that though "not many, mighty, not many noble are called..." the problem is not an intellectual one, or at least need not be. It is more likely to be a presuppositional or moral one. So don't let the intellectuals intimidate you.
It's not quite the same with the historicity and authenticity of the NT documents, because here there is just too much manuscript evidence to not accept the general accuracy of the NT as we have it. That doesn't mean that there are not theories, ancient and modern, that seek to show that it is a seriously flawed document but most lack competent enough scholarship in terms of the languages and manuscripts to be taken too seriously. The late FF Bruce was an expert in the NT and is worth a read on this topic by the doubters.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/24/2006 @ 01:46am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/24/2006 @ 01:46am
"... We need to recognise that our own science also depends on certain assumptions about the way the world is – assumptions that he and I of course share".
I know the post did not address me. Just had to point out that, while science does rely on "certain assumptions about the way the world is", it is inaccurate to define science, by it's current fields of inquiry.
The scientific method itself, is ammendable to all possible contingencies, in our future understanding of the world. It is not a dogmatic belief, but a system to help understand. Even if that understanding is that, previously, you were wrong.
Not the point of your post, but an important distinction, just the same.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/24/2006 @ 02:07am
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/24/2006 @ 02:07a
Mal, (dogmatically, it suits your posting style better than Eric but that probably has to do with my assumptions)
Wonder if it is not something more basic like epistemology and say what is permissible evidentially. If you like formal logic you can have a lot of fun playing with the various ideas that have, in most cases, a very long history.
I think it is the case with Francis Collins that it was a contemplation of some of the things that A Cook mentioned that were instrumental in his conversion. But obviously none of them as genuine intellectuals (perhaps not Collins? but at least a good scientist) who are also theists see any tension between faith and reason, nor should we mere mortals, which was the thrust of my post.
Carols are a big thing with secular Aussies and am just watching about 100,000 singing their lungs out at the Sydney Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne thus making their annual acquaintance with religion on this Christmas Eve.
Footy finals, England v Aussie cricket and carols usually draw about 100,000 in Melbourne.
A happy Christmas to you and yours and a prosperous New Year.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/24/2006 @ 04:03am
Contrary to TIRESIAS or JOHANNESROLF I don't hate myself nor do I have any repressed desires to be with the same sex (which seem to be the mantra of gays these days that feel intimidated by those that don't agree with their very aggressive attitudes towards social change in their favor). That would be similar to someone claiming lesbians have penis envy or gay men claiming to have grown up with a woman's mind in a man's body. What you seem to be objecting to the most is "tyranny of the masses", unfortunately for you most people aren't willing to submit to "tyranny of the minority" either (might I point out that over two thirds of the states in the US have passed laws to that effect). I for one don't condone the hedonistic self-centered behavior that flamboyant gays flaunt with reckless abandon but then I digress. Maybe the answer for homosexuals is seeking protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act since well noted gay physiologist and physician Simon LeVay conveys that an abnormal hypothalamus is the source of "gay behavior" or the "gay brain". Based on those assumptions maybe acceptance would be more plausible for the average American and gays would get their desired results thereof or if not be able to sue based on pre-established constitutional protections.
Posted by TrakerJon at 12/24/2006 @ 04:20am
TIRESIAS, may I ask when was the last time you put one foot inside any Christian church? You seem to know a little about scripture.
Posted by ACOOK 12/23/2006 @ 9:59pm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I was in Saint Mary in the Sands about three days ago. And tonight, Christmas Eve, I shall be in the Cathedral (no, I was never in the Roman Church tradition). But the first visit was occasioned by interest in architecture and the second will be because, as noted by LRJONES, Christianity is part of my heritage and culture, so I can still appreciate it's more positive aspects, e.g. as noted by LR, it's amazingly beautiful music. I just do not have to believe what some quite ignorant medieval folks did to enjoy it. But I can marvel at the wonderful works of genius that were inspired by Christianity, just as I can stand in awe of those spurred by belief in the Greek pantheon. I need believe neither source of inspiration to appreciate their fruits.
But I recognize your question was not about literally being in a church. As I mentioned in another post, I attended a year of catechism class and, being a compulsive learner, I studied the teachings closely and, alas for the minister, critically. It was that class, that, in fact, created my doubts and skepticism. But one should not reject lightly anything that has millenia of tradition and that has or had so much influence on our culture and for many thoughtful people has had sway. After all, if you want to appreciate a huge amount of Western art, you must know your Biblical myths, just as you need to know the Greek ones.
The irritating thing is that the preponderant number of "Christians" never peruse their scripture, much less think critically about it. And then they have the gall to spout off and make decisions about what others' lives should be. I would not be surprised that I know more of the scripture and teachings of Christianity, have read the works of more Christian apologists and theologians than most "Christians." It is so easy to believe when you do not accompany it by knowledge and thought. That is why I refer to "Christians", in general, as purblind.
But note, I place "Christians" in quotes for these are the LL and TRAKER "Christians," not the ones who sincerely try to live by the spirit of The Man Who Speaks in Red. Frankly, the number of true Christians must be incredibly small, I wager no more than in the tens of thousands. Aside from the question of faith and God/not God, just living by the teachings is nigh impossible, at least for the likes of me. One must be truly otherworldly, and this was recognized early which is why there were Anchorites in the early history. As the faith became organized this tradition morphed into the monastic one. The logic drives one inevitably to be a Carthusian or some kind of ascetic. The basic teachings of The Man Who Speaks in Red are very clear, and very, very difficult to even approximate. Belief in God or no, IF the people of the world lived according to the teachings and spirit of those red words, the planet would be a paradise.
Instead, we have those who prefer the easier out of following the ill-disguised misanthropy of Paul and so they adopt the path of intolerance, hate and self-loathing. It is because of the Pauline writings and tradition embodied in the NT that I refer to the writing in red. For, except for a few bouts of megalomania, what those words say about the way human beings should live are very difficult to dispute - but such thoughts and ideas are not unique to Christianity. In fact, I try to do so, but I just see them as an extension of the Golden Rule and ignore the religious persiflage about divinity, God and resurrection. One does not have to be religious to appreciate the truth of some of the teachings. The sad thing is, those "Christians" follow the false teachers and prophets about whom the Man Who Speaks in Read clearly warned, are headed directly away from their God as surely as the stars will shine tomorrow.
Thus, I have no problem with true Christians, but only those who pretend to be "Christians" for the true ones also follow the biblical admonition to keep their religion in their homes.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/24/2006 @ 06:11am
TIRESIAS, you mentioned the old Mosaic laws, but most who are in the Christian church today are gentiles. For us the old Mosaic laws are a point of reference and history.
Posted by ACOOK 12/23/2006 @ 10:06pm
----------------------------------------------------
I remind you of the topic of this thread. Of course the true Christian understands that the two great commandments supersede the OT laws. But we are debating what most "Christians" believe and practice and most prefer the easy, and quite selectively picked (how many follow the mikvah rules re marriage?), laws of the OT completely out of the context of the demands of The Man Who Speaks in Red.
[There is a fun test of these "Christians": rephrase the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and elicit their response. You will find it similar to a large number of "democratic" American's response to supporting the Bill of Rights (when they are not told it is the Bill), they are against most of it.]
It suits their bigotry, psychosis or whatever ill afflicts their warped minds. As I mention in a previous post, these are the "Christians" about which the discussion centers. The true Christians are at such low dilution in the world population and so non-problematic if they follow the teachings in red, that they are not the focus of the debate. I doubt if even the most rabid atheist really has any great problem with, say, the Quakers.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/24/2006 @ 06:25am
"It's pretty difficult to fear something that most probably does not exist ... but old Cotton did worry about spectres too."
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/23/2006 @ 9:53pm
Please explain your reasoning...if I may boldly ask...
Posted by ACOOK 12/23/2006 @ 10:08pm
----------------------------------------------------------
A well-known sermon of Jonathan Edwards (there is an eponymous Yale college by the way) had been suggested to LL by LRJONES as a source to instill the "fear of God" into unbelievers. I offered Cotton Mather as an even better fire-breathing, hell-fire and brimstone preacher. My last observation was that Cotton believed in spectres (he urged use of their evidence in the Salem witch trials) but those of us who do not believe in any such otherworldly apparitions, be they ghosts, goblins or god(s), are not likely to be stampeded to fear by such sermons but, rather, mildly amused.
Note that fear in this particular manifestation of "Christianity" is complementary to and has great appeal for reactionaries whose use of fear is paralled in the political arena.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/24/2006 @ 06:43am
I get all kinds of requests for prayer. And, I have yet to hear a non-believer say they have enough faith in science to make them well.
Posted by ACOOK 12/23/2006 @ 10:29pm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitals are filled with both believers and non-believers who are there because they do expect science to make them well. When people turn to prayer it is because at that point science has told them it cannot help or that their time has come. Of course they do not expect science to make them well, since they have been told it cannot. And science does recognize that death is a high probability event in the course of existence of living matter. Science cannot cure everything, but it does a helluva lot better job of it than any other approach. And it is not without reason that some scientists believe that life could be extended indefinitely; immortality is not impossible. If manunkind is still functioning in a few more millenia (I doubt it), it could be as a race of immortals. I think there is a better chance of immortality by that route than by praying.
Even in health care (to keep some relation to the theme of the thread) we have the situation of the "Christians" (not you ACOOK) interfering with the private lives of non-"Christians". I refer to stem-cell research. I have absolutely NO objection to those "Christians" eschewing any benefit that may come from research on stem cells. That is their right. But they bloody well do not have the right to tell me, or those I love, or anyone else, that because of "Christian" belief, a belief I and many do not share, others cannot avail themselves of the good coming from that research. It is the same as with the homosexual question ... live your own beliefs but do not impose them in any way on others.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/24/2006 @ 07:02am
T is having a bit of fun but his wisest advice is to back off when it comes to a matter of faith. I'm sure he knows or knows of John Polkinghorne and others who are top scientists as well as theists.
Posted by LRJONES4 12/24/2006 @ 01:46am
-----------------------------------------------------------
There are scientists who are theists and quite a number who are Christian. The great quantum chemist, C. A. Coulson, was actually a Methodist bishop and he and I had several discussions on Christianity and science. But his was a Christianity few "Christians" would accept. However a study on the issue (no, MASK, I cannot produce the reference but I am certain if you dig on the net you will find it) showed that the top echelon of scientists, those recognized as being at the top of their fields, were overwhelmingly agnostics, perhaps even atheists. And even then, the number is large enough to give a distribution so, of course, there will be believers. The technical level scientists, those who do it more as a trade than a profession, i.e. are not engaged in basic research, were found to be more likely to have religious convictions.
However, being a theist is quite different from being a Christian, Muslim or the like. A time ago I mentioned in a post the problem of where God came from; scientific theists can no more address that than anyone else. Most scientific theists take a view that is far, far from what most folk would consider a religion or faith. They have no great body of teachings, they have no dogmas, they have no traditions. This kind of theism is so different in kind that I argue it has little to do with religion.
My experience with scientists who are theists is that the preponderant number are in the biological sciences or cosmology, both frontier fields fraught with insanely difficult questions, and that they have a mentality that requires some kind of closure or explanation of the why. Science doesn't answer why questions, so in that arena, the scientist who insists on asking such questions differs not a jot from others plagued by the same problem.
This is not to say that scientists do not wonder about the why. Every day when I look out at the street I marvel at the weirdness of it all. These strange creatures with their funny machines, this beautiful evergreen, why, why, why? BUT, as with most of my bent, I recognize certain questions are unanswerable and that there are plenty that can be addressed, so I go on to think about things I can think about. It does not bother me in the least to have problems that cannot yet be addressed. Some day some will be and perhaps some will never be.
ANY exercise of reason requires premises. Just because science and religion must do this does not mean the assumptions are in the same category. The assumptions of science are validated because they lead to reliable prediction and explanation of how things work. Further, they are testable in a "court" over which the scientist has no control, Nature. When a scientific assumption fails the test of experiment, the assumption is rejected. With religion, when the assumption fails the experiment, the experiment is rejected. Science advances by willful attempts at destruction of its premises by continual testing, religion grows through defense of immutable and unchallengeable belief. They could not be more different, but nothing prevents people, even scientists of brilliant ken, from being beguiled by the seductive lure of the security of belief.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/24/2006 @ 07:44am
Posted by TRAKERJON 12/24/2006 @ 04:20am
Contrary to TIRESIAS or JOHANNESROLF I don't hate myself nor do I have any repressed desires to be with the same sex
You really should learn to read, and read to understand. Neither JR nor I were talking about ourselves. Further, if you had any knowledge of psychology, you would recognize that denial is an important characteristic of most mental/emotional problems. The psychotic certainly does not think there is any unreality to their "beliefs." Freud early observed that the characteristics that most upset people are exactly those they either wish to practice or, in fact, do themselves. The operant word is "denial." As any truly heterosexual person knows, they don't give a damn about others sexual preference.
What you seem to be objecting to the most is "tyranny of the masses", unfortunately for you most people aren't willing to submit to "tyranny of the minority" either (might I point out that over two thirds of the states in the US have passed laws to that effect).
It is not unsurprising that you have no grasp of constitutional law either. One purpose of a constitution is to protect the rights of minorities. As early as the Greek philosophers, Plato in particular, it was recognized that the majority could be every bit as tyrannical as a dictator and, in every way, just as evil. You seem unable to appreciate even this simple concept. Or, more likely, you are inherently prone to authoritarianism.
I for one don't condone the hedonistic self-centered behavior that flamboyant gays flaunt with reckless abandon but then I digress.
One wonders if you know any gays at all or whether your only experience is watching a gay pride parade or your favorite right wing propaganda source. I have met very few gays who behave any differently than anyone else; their behavior extremes are no different from those displayed by the heterosexual population. In fact, the most "stereotypical gay" I know is a rabid woman chaser who finds that persona very appealing to many women. Further, if you want to see flamboyant displays of sexuality, just walk down the street, sit in a tram or go to a straight singles bar. Remove the blinders.
(might I point out that over two thirds of the states in the US have passed laws to that effect).
Yes, and are you aware of how many states enacted laws in support of slavery? I thought not. You seem to think the electorate has some kind of infallibility or right to persecute just because it is agreed by a majority. So you would support Nazi-style concentration camps were it voted by 51%? My, you certainly do hold the moral high ground, don't you?
gay physiologist and physician Simon LeVay conveys that an abnormal hypothalamus is the source of "gay behavior" or the "gay brain".
He conveys nothing. He presents studies of a very small number of hypothalmi of gays and straights of both sexes. He does not say gay ones are abnormal but intermediate in size between straight men and women. Further, there is additional evidence that there are complexes of genes that influence sexual preference. The strongest evidence that the cause is natural is that the chemistry of the womb differs in the first trimester for the fetus that turns out to be gay. The current scientific thought is that the orientation occurs through no choice but that it may have a cultural component that is not, however, dominant. There are over 400 animal species that present active and "willful" homosexual behavior, and its prevalence becomes more pronounced the higher the species. Thus, there is every reason to accept it as a natural although not average behavior. But one has to dig to get all the information and approach it with an open mind rather than look, as with Mosaic laws, for only that evidence that supports one's ignorance and bigotry.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/24/2006 @ 08:28am
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/24/2006 @ 07:44am
TIRES, since this has degenerated into a religious thread, I suppose I'll make my "beliefs" clear.
I don't think the Bible is CLOSE to literally true. It's Hebrew mythic history (the Old Test) and the "exaggerated" tales of the followers of Jesus (plus Paul who never even MET Jesus). The "odd" coincidences between Greco-Roman myths of the "wine god, who resurrects himself" or "gods of love born of a virgin" (that all predate Jesus by centuries) seems a bit too odd.
"God" if he exists, is unknowable, by his very nature. Mortimer Adler in "How To Think About God" makes a logical case for a "supreme, creative, intelligent force", but no one and nothing can prove anything like a "personal God"...therefore belief in Yahweh/Jehovah/Trinity has no more foundation than a belief in Odin, Zeus, or Kulkulan.
Therefore, I'm an agnostic. Denying the existance of God vehemently (the fundamentalist ATHEIST) position is of no more validity than vehement support of his existance, or the even more IDOLATROUS of believing that a BOOK is "divine" (which IS the literalist/fundamentalist Christian view if you analyze it).
Posted by Mask at 12/24/2006 @ 11:05am
Sorry Mask but your atheist bent has one major flaw, there has to be a creator otherwise none of us would be here. Seriously, explain to me just how you create something from nothing without some sort of miracle.
Posted by TrakerJon at 12/24/2006 @ 12:15pm
It seems to me that the only thing that prevents us from actually getting closer to understanding this "miracle" of our creation (Big Bang or Genesis), is ignorance.
I have no trouble believing in both (partly because I cannot prove either). As was pointed out earlier, I take great liberty with the meanings of words when it comes to the major religions. It is a deliberate attempt to loosen the strict, literal interpretation of the words BY the major religions.
Every Sunday, many people go to church and eat "the body of Christ". Many will accept that this really IS the BODY of Christ for no other reason than because someone told them it was. All the power of their faith is represented by the BELIEFE that it really IS the body of Christ. To say that it IS NOT, would be a rejection of all they believe, not to mention be lacking of faith.
Yet those that did not (for many reasons) come to be involved in this particular religion, it seems rather silly to believe that a dry wafer of bread is the actual body of Christ. To say to a Christian that this is not the body of Christ is an attack on their most sacred beliefs, and to say to a non Christian that it IS Christ, is an attack on their intelligence (generally speaking). So we get stuck exactly where we are now.
But I would challenge those "with faith" to not accept anything in the Bible, or that your religious leaders tell you without looking into the matter. This should not be seen as lack of faith, but rather as love and devotion to your beliefs. Then you could explain that you believe everything is God. Jesus was his son, or a part of God as everything else. Jesus was no closer to God than all of us, except that he actually realized who he was (as opposed to all of us). Eating of the body of Christ is just a ritual that is used to REMIND some that they ARE Christ.
So it becomes a lot more easy to explain to a "non-believer" that people do this to remind themselves that they actually ARE God, and that their purpose on Earth is to KNOW this. The discussion is then free to go beyond the nonsense to more meaningful places.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/24/2006 @ 1:04pm
Posted by TRAKERJON 12/24/2006 @ 12:15am
TRAKER, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
First, I noted I was an agnostic, not an atheist.
Second, I noted that Mortimer Adler made a case FOR a "supreme, creative intelligence" (and tacitly endorsed such an idea).
But that doesn't mean "God" (the way you or ANYBODY on this planet) understand "him" to be.
Posted by Mask at 12/24/2006 @ 3:39pm
"...there has to be a creator otherwise none of us would be here. Seriously, explain to me just how you create something from nothing without some sort of miracle."
Posted by TRAKERJON 12/24/2006 @ 12:15am
Your presumptions about first cause are telling. Who says you were "created"? Who says life has any meaning beyond the meanings you attach to it? Beyond the surface, that sentence says to me, that you've not given much actual thought to your existence.
It has been pointed out, that there are many mosaic laws, yet christians seem to only cleave to the ones that allow them to project hate.
While I think the bible is some of the less believable mythology out there, I don't thing the NT concept of christianity is as abbohrent as it seems to manifest itself in people. In other words, the bible didn't project these negative ideas, to the forefront of it's ideals. You sought out the parts that supported your pre-exsisting fears and prejudices.
Also, while you take references to your suppressed urges, to be an insult, (and, undoubtedly, some of them were), you really need to work on not coming off as a textbook example of this phenomenon.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/24/2006 @ 4:06pm
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/24/2006 @ 1:04pm
Interesting post. (As most of your posts are). Even though my beliefs are more in line with, say ILP or mask, I like your non-combative style. You would make a good moderator, if only everyone else here wasn't so immoderate. (like me, f'rinstance).
I found the last part interesting; "...that people do this to remind themselves that they actually ARE God, and that their purpose on Earth is to KNOW this. The discussion is then free to go beyond the nonsense to more meaningful places."
Not too far from the concept that man invented god, to suit his purposes. Perhaps, religion was just a step in human evolution. A way to build concencus as to where we wanted humanity to evolve to then. (As opposed to what it has morphed into, the last few centuries). Something that we now need to discard, embrace the underlying reason for it's creation and move forward with that knowledge.
Who says evolution is confined to genetic mutations? You or I are way more advanced than an infant. We are rewired in our thought patterns and ultimately have control over what humanity as a whole can achieve.
All this, of course requires embracing the concept that we did evolve and can continue to do so. And the concept that only we control the future of humanity.
Sadly, the old ways, that actually did move us forward, at some point in human history, have been holding us back. They now embrace the very ideas that could destroy the planet and humanity forever. Killing, not the 6000yr. old creation of a bored and lonely omnipotent diety, with serious attachment issues. But, billions of years of evolution, which will probably only be approached, in it's equal again, by the actions of it's ultimate descendants (us), if we can manage to get our shit together.
Random ramblings on an idle afternoon...
Off topic and somewhat incoherent? Well, it is one of my posts, so...
Happy, what ever makes your heart soar. Peace.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/24/2006 @ 4:40pm
Mask,
I couldn't let a post, where I say I agree with you (see above), slip by without being argumentative with you.
In your 11:05am post, you said, "Denying the existance of God vehemently (the fundamentalist ATHEIST) position is of no more validity than vehement support of his existance."
I think this staement, is more a reflection of you refusal to take a position, where you might have to say you were wrong, later, than a staement of rational thought.
Sure, I cannot prove there is no god. But, if god is a construct, of the very ideas which I reject, why do I have to disprove it.
I cannot prove the universe doesn't rest on a giant tortoise, yet my worldview is completely devoid of such images. While a god would be more complex than a tortoise and seems to have a self-fufilling reason to exsist, the logic evades me; How does explaining the unexplainable, by the invocation of a concept, even more unbelievable, provide any support for the laters existence?
In basic terms, who created god? And who created 'he who created god' etc.
At some point, there either would cease to be a need for said creator, or there would cease to be a begining to anything, thereby negating the need for anyone to create anything.
OK. I feel I've been sufficiently argumentative with you. Couldn't bear the thought of leaving you feeling agreed with on such an important day. Your welcome.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/24/2006 @ 4:57pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/24/2006 @ 4:40pm
Thanks. I try not to confuse "combativeness" with passion. There is a lot of passion here for sure.
MALCONTENT: Perhaps, religion was just a step in human evolution. A way to build concencus as to where we wanted humanity to evolve to then. (As opposed to what it has morphed into, the last few centuries). Something that we now need to discard, embrace the underlying reason for it's creation and move forward with that knowledge.
I agree with this idea, except I would personally define religion as (among other things) the process of understanding. Like science, religion is the process by which we try to understand our world and ourselves. I believe these two processes are complimentory and just may end up finding the same answer. Have you ever tried to wrap your head around quantum physics? I can't think of anything that reenforces my "religious" beliefs more than when I read these theories and observations. It's absolutely amazing.
The process of science has mirrored that of religion. There were times when science was at a standstill, or even went backwards. This was as much the fault of "scientists" as it was of non-scientists. Religion too has been subject to these starts and stops. Unfortunately, this process of evolution has been much to slow.
Peace.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/24/2006 @ 5:02pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/24/2006 @ 4:57pm
Eric, the "fundamentalist" atheist argue that DEFINITIVELY "God does not exist". This is just as blind to other possibilities as the fundamentalist Christian who thinks "The Bible is all truth" and thinks that everything will go to plan like in "Left Behind."
YOU say "God is a construct", and this may be true. But such a being CAN exist, and if it CAN exist, no one can positively denit its existance.
Try reading Adler's book ("How To Think About God")...he makes a logical case, with NO faith or "sacred theology" needed. And of course he could be wrong.
But I can't say DEFINITIVELY there is no life in the Tau Ceti star system...or there is....so like "God", I'm agnostic about it until further proof one way or the other is found.
Posted by Mask at 12/24/2006 @ 5:27pm
Therefore, I'm an agnostic. Denying the existance of God vehemently (the fundamentalist ATHEIST) position is of no more validity than vehement support of his existance, or the even more IDOLATROUS of believing that a BOOK is "divine" (which IS the literalist/fundamentalist Christian view if you analyze it).
Posted by MASK 12/24/2006 @ 11:05am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is hard to see how this thread has degenerated to one about religion since "Holy" is in the title of the piece to which this thread is attached. It started out that way. The other part of the title is about homophobia and in that I disagree with the contention that homophobia is due to people having difficulties with their own orientation. I assert the major cause is religion, and if it were neutral about homosexuality, then so would be most people. Thus, in my estimation, religion is key to addressing the issue of homophobia.
In an earlier post, I stated the only logical stance re the God issue was that of the agnostic. But I would argue that the atheist is much less dangerous to others' civil rights than is the fundamentalist religious person. Because of that I worry much less about the atheist than his mirror image on the other side.
I am agnostic but with atheist leaning. I divide agnostics into two groups, the Pascalians and the non-Pascalians. Pascal, scientist and mathematician, observed that while there may be no God, one should live as if there were one. I reject this as insincere and hypocritical, although in reading what Pascal said, one could understand it as saying that one should still live one's life in a moral fashion. My command of French is not great enough to sort it out. But it holds little concern for me either way.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/24/2006 @ 6:39pm
A interesting take on "The Religion of Peace"
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Posted by justthefacts at 12/24/2006 @ 6:55pm
" But such a being CAN exist, and if it CAN exist, no one can positively denit its existance."
"CAN exist"? On the basis that you cannot disprove it, maybe. Does any pysical property of the universe, imply it's existence? Can I say teenage mutant ninja turtles CAN exist? Or do I have to discard all I know about the universe, to accept that? Does the knowledge, that I don't understand everything, make everything possible, but only beyond the realm of my understanding?
In an extremely basic and simplistic way; Yes.
In an intellectually honest way? I say no. Are you arguing the opposite?
I connot positively deny UFOs or any alleged paranormal abilties, but they have no place in my worldview either. Even though I consider UFOs to be possible, if highly improbable and the rest to me more plausible (if actually not real), than the idea of an omnipotent...well, was gonna say diety, but really an omnipotent anything.
"Try reading Adler's book ("How To Think About God")...he makes a logical case, with NO faith or "sacred theology" needed. And of course he could be wrong."
I will check this book out, next time I get to the library. Not sure how it takes "NO faith" to believe, but I'll give it a read before I critique it.
"But I can't say DEFINITIVELY there is no life in the Tau Ceti star system...or there is....so like "God", I'm agnostic about it until further proof one way or the other is found."
You use agnostic in it's purest form here, not socially prevailing use. Technically, you sir, are correct. But most who claim to be agnostic, in my experience, are more non-religious, than disbelievers in god...more of a weak agnostic. Where you seem to be advocating for strong agnosticism, where in nothing is actully provable.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/24/2006 @ 7:00pm
So it becomes a lot more easy to explain to a "non-believer" that people do this to remind themselves that they actually ARE God, and that their purpose on Earth is to KNOW this. The discussion is then free to go beyond the nonsense to more meaningful places.
I would personally define religion as (among other things) the process of understanding.
The process of science has mirrored that of religion. There were times when science was at a standstill, or even went backwards. This was as much the fault of "scientists" as it was of non-scientists. Religion too has been subject to these starts and stops. Unfortunately, this process of evolution has been much to slow.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/24/2006 @ 1:04pm
-----------------------------------------------------------
The last time I looked into it, pantheism is rejected by the mainstream Christian churches who still cling to Augustine's argument against it. So while it may be your view, many Christians will not be willing to advance the argument because of its heresy.
I do not agree that religion leads to understanding. As long as there is dogma, I think understanding is either impossible or sufficiently circumscribed to be useless. If, however, one wants to equate religion with being spiritual, then there is more wiggle room, but not much. However, the discipline, other than science, that seeks understanding in the deepest sense, and which completely complements science, is philosophy. But philosophy should not be confused with religion.
Will you please explain your observation about science advancing, in stasis and retreating? Perhaps you and I have different understandings of what science is. I and many others claim it is a modern construct, not really identifiable as an intellectual pursuit until the 16th Century. If you want to date from Roger Bacon, then your assertions would be arguable, but few would date science from Bacon.
If the 16th Century is taken as the period where science is "born" then I cannot think of any subsequent period where it did not advance and certainly never retreated. I would like to be apprised of these occasions where there was no advancement or retreat. Who were the scientists that you mention who were responsible for the lack of progress or retrograde movement? For certain specific areas of study at certain times, the assertion may be defensible but of little concern since it cannot be expected that everything will move at the same pace. But I take issue with the assertion that there are periods where all of science is moving backwards or remaining at a standstill.
If, on the other hand, you choose to date science from Classical times then there is a problem for then it was not an experimental activity and the scientific method had not been constructed. Thus, what was known then was technology and anything scientific was largely an outcome of geometry. While the ancients, particularly the Greeks, did some remarkable things, it is a stretch to say they were really doing science as we understand it.
In an earlier post in this thread I pointed out that science and religion are essentially negatives of each other. I see no way in which religion can complement science whereas philosophy has and does.
The kind of "religion" that you describe poses no threat, as far as I can see, to the rights of homosexuals or any other group. Thus, I suggest that what this thread should be addressing is the decidedly vicious and inhumane persecution of gays by the mainstreams of monotheistic faiths and what can be done to combat it.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/24/2006 @ 7:51pm
TIRESIAS aside from your sanctimonious comments about my lack of "knowledge" (as you see it), quite often those truly psychotic attempt to put upon or transfer their own inadequacies to others when they don't get their way or are on the losing end of arguments they initiate. In case you didn't complete your education on Freud he covered that topic quite well in his later works. It also follows that many gays typically want to blame everyone else for their acceptance issues when they in fact don't accept themselves for who they are or think they should be.
In light of your claim to vast knowledge in psychology, physiology and constitutional law it's obvious that you're a legend in your own mind so debating the fact that most of our laws are based on Christian ethics and morals or the basic concept that the majority rules with qualified reservations would be fruitless.
Now as for your off hand comments about LeVey, it's more than apparent that you haven't read anything of his findings or at the very least any of his opinions posted on the internet (how typical of those that claim to know and prove otherwise with ridiculous comments).
Implying that I would be in favor of Nazi style tactics is the motive of a weak minded individual in search of a way to deflect the message or discredit the messenger. Your feeble attempts to compare homosexuality and slavery are laughable at best as well.
Pseudo intellectuals are so boring, I'm done with you. Maybe Ken Mehlman will explain to you the benefits of being gay and supporting the right-wing agenda, I for one am a liberal Democrat that doesn't buy into the gay agenda. Bother someone else with your useless diatribes I for one see right through you and those like you.
Posted by TrakerJon at 12/24/2006 @ 11:11pm
"God" if he exists, is unknowable, by his very nature. Mortimer Adler in "How To Think About God" makes a logical case for a "supreme, creative, intelligent force", but no one and nothing can prove anything like a "personal God"...therefore belief in Yahweh/Jehovah/Trinity has no more foundation than a belief in Odin, Zeus, or Kulkulan.
Mask I was surprised when I read this for I seemed to remember that Adler "saw the light" before he kicked the bucket. I had taken an interest in the Thomism revival after reading a paper by Norman Geisler. The following is from Wikipedia. It is interesting to note that Adler's problem was not intellectual but moral. Would be interesting to track that one down:
Adler took a long time in his own life to make up his mind about theological issues. He considered himself a pagan when he wrote "How to Think About God" in 1980. In Volume 51 of the Mars Hill Audio "Journal" (2001), Ken Meyer includes his 1980 interview with Adler, conducted after "How to Think About God" was published. Meyer reminisces, "During that interview, I asked him why he had never embraced the Christian faith himself. He explained that while he had been profoundly influenced by a number of Christian thinkers during his life, ...there were moral--not intellectual--obstacles to his conversion. He didn't explain any further."
Meyer goes on to point out that Adler finally "surrendered to the hound of heaven" and "made a confession of faith and was baptized" only a few years after that interview. Offering insight into Adler's conversion, Meyer quotes Adler from a subsequent 1990 article in "Christianity" magazine: "My chief reason for choosing Christianity was because the mysteries were incomprehensible. What's the point of revelation if we could figure it out ourselves? If it were wholly comprehensible, then it would just be another philosophy." In 2000, Adler became a Roman Catholic. He can be considered a Catholic philosopher due to his lifelong participation in the Neo-Thomism movement, despite not being a Catholic for most of this time.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2006 @ 01:40am
Posted by TRAKERJON 12/24/2006 @ 11:11pm
TIRESIAS aside from your sanctimonious comments about my lack of "knowledge" (as you see it), quite often those truly psychotic attempt to put upon or transfer their own inadequacies to others when they don't get their way or are on the losing end of arguments they initiate.
Ah, struck a nerve, did we? Good! But your delusions, ignorance and misconceptions still require a lot of work. Let's just take them point by point. This first, ad hominem rant, is not worthy of note but is proof of your having no viable reasonable response.
In case you didn't complete your education on Freud he covered that topic quite well in his later works. It also follows that many gays typically want to blame everyone else for their acceptance issues when they in fact don't accept themselves for who they are or think they should be.
Perhaps you need to just be educated since you reveal you have no idea what Freud's later work was on homosexuality. As a matter of fact, Freud said that he found nothing about homosexuality that indicated any form of mental or emotional problem. In "Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood" he rejects his "weak father" hypothesis. And his latest work indeed claims homosexuality is a form of narcissism but implicit in the argument is that heterosexuality is a form of incest. In his letter to a gay man he expressly states there is no psychological abnormality in being gay. Freud's latest thought was that, at least males, were inherently bisexual. In fact, as late as 1930 he was endorsing repeal of anti-homosexual legislation. Do you really believe that you can get by with implying that the well-known position of Freud could in any way support the homophobia so clearly exhibited in your concluding sentence?"
In light of your claim to vast knowledge in psychology, physiology and constitutional law it's obvious that you're a legend in your own mind so debating the fact that most of our laws are based on Christian ethics and morals or the basic concept that the majority rules with qualified reservations would be fruitless.
Oh really? This statement, too, is evidence of your cherry-picking of facts and lack of real understanding of, apparently, any topic you address. Saying the early settlers of America were Christians is like saying they were of European extraction. True but meaningless, since there really was not a viable cultural choice at the time. The important thing is what these people thought about the constitutions (state and federal) they were framing. Jefferson HIMSELF clearly narrates in his autobiography on how the Virginia representatives roundly defeated attempts to insert "Jesus Christ" in their state's constitution. He states: "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
And the issue never formally came up in the framing of the federal Constitution. So as Christian as the majority may have been, they had no intention of forcing their beliefs on others nor in codifying them in the Constitution. It is undoubtedly hard for you to understand, but there are people capable of respecting the dignity of others and not enforcing their personal beliefs on the body politic. The nation was fortunate in being founded during the height of the Enlightenment and the framers of the Constitution were not only culturally Christian, they were also committed sons of the Enlightenment.
Oh, and by the by, where did I make the claims you assert I made? And perhaps you can explain how you know how I view myself in my own mind? Ah, of course, it's your reality.
Now as for your off hand comments about LeVey, it's more than apparent that you haven't read anything of his findings or at the very least any of his opinions posted on the internet (how typical of those that claim to know and prove otherwise with ridiculous comments).
Again hoisted on your own petard. Your willingness to exhibit your lack of comprehension is admirable but hardly lends weight to your arguments. That LeVey found male homosexuals INAH-3 structures closer to the size of women is of interest, but not abnormal in the span of sizes of humans. The finding is, as I implied, not necessarily of import because of the small size of the sample. A point, as among many, you failed to grasp. Even then, as LeVey argues, if his finding is substantiated (so far, it has not been reliably reproduced), it can only argue for the inherent nature of homosexuality, i.e. it is NOT a choice. Thus, by your implied acceptance of LeVey's results you should, were you not bigoted, be supporting the civil rights of gays who have no control over their INAH-3 structures. I do not follow LeVey's website (in fact I cannot find it; perhaps you can provide the URL) since he is making a lot out of a small, unreproduced study.
More telling is the work of Gunter Dorner on the chemical environment in the womb in the first trimester, particularly the influence of testosterone levels. When joined with the work of Bailey and Pillard on presentation of homosexuality of identical and fraternal twins, the evidence becomes compelling that sexual orientation is not a choice. In the behavioral/biological realm especially, reliance on one finding, such as LeVey's, is silly. But I expect you to stick with your cherry-picking of information, just as you cherry-pick those Mosaic laws that suit you.
Implying that I would be in favor of Nazi style tactics is the motive of a weak minded individual in search of a way to deflect the message or discredit the messenger. Your feeble attempts to compare homosexuality and slavery are laughable at best as well.
You also seem incapable of understanding the simplest argument by analogy. The proposition was presented to show the absurdity of your argument that the majority is always right. I had hoped you could comprehend that, but apparently I overestimated you.
It is revealing that you fail to see the import of the slavery law argument, posed to contradict your implication that majority rule was always morally defensible, which was that majorities in many states supported obviously immoral law and thus a majority choice is not necessarily morally defensible. That you cannot see this intent and instead think comparison is being made to slavery and gay persecution shows, not only how deeply disturbed you are by things gay, but that you cannot understand that slavery and gay persecution are both civil rights issues. This belies your claim to be liberal.
Pseudo intellectuals are so boring, I'm done with you. Maybe Ken Mehlman will explain to you the benefits of being gay and supporting the right-wing agenda, I for one am a liberal Democrat that doesn't buy into the gay agenda. Bother someone else with your useless diatribes I for one see right through you and those like you.
Ah, full circle now and back the the ad hominem. From what you have exhibited in your postings, I would wager you would not be able to identify an intellectual even if you attended a meeting of the American Philosophical Society. I should think that any form of intellectual activity, pseudo or otherwise, would bore you since you cannot comprehend the simplest argument. Nor do you know how to frame one, as evidenced by your vague reference to Ken Mehlman who was forced to step down from Chair of the RNC because of bigots that infest the GOP. How does that makes any kind of argument? If you also think you are a liberal Democrat, then you are perhaps the most deluded person I have run across in this forum, and that says a lot.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/25/2006 @ 07:07am
Meyer quotes Adler from a subsequent 1990 article in "Christianity" magazine: "My chief reason for choosing Christianity was because the mysteries were incomprehensible. What's the point of revelation if we could figure it out ourselves? If it were wholly comprehensible, then it would just be another philosophy."
Posted by LRJONES4 12/25/2006 @ 01:40am
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, a conversion probably less driven by the nips of "the hound of heaven" than by being mowed to the field of oblivion by the "scythe of death." These late age "conversions", especially when supported by such a bizarre reason, have little that convinces. After all, there are Buddhist and Hindu sects that are every bit as "incomprehensible" as Christianity. The quote clearly indicates that Adler had made the choice to abandon reason (philosophy) in favor of faith (religion). Of course, that cannot be criticised; it was clearly his right, but it offers nothing to those who choose to adhere to reason.
I can attest that it takes a certain amount of courage to forego the comforts of religion upon nearing one's end and possible oblivion. My "sainted" mother, who, up to about her 83rd year, was a practicing Christian, amazingly developed doubts in her last years and died an agnostic. It was hard for her to let go of the solaces of her previous faith, but her life's experience and her complete honesty allowed her no other conclusion. I would argue this was a much more difficult and meaningful "conversion" than Adler's for it offered no psychological benefit.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/25/2006 @ 07:30am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/25/2006 @ 01:40am
I referenced Adler and "HTTAG" simply because it is a good start for a LOGICAL case for "natural theology" (as Adler referred to it). It makes a deist case, but a case nonetheless for a "supreme creative intelligence"....something denied by the fundamentalist atheist.
His later life is his own, and I'm sure that nowhere does he claim that his return to Christianity is based "on logic", as none of "sacred theology" could be.
Ultimately, aside from observable Nature making something of a case for a "Supreme Being", all that anybody "knows" about "God" is....what other frail, imperfect Men have told them or writeen.
Therefore there's no point in taking it as "gospel" (hehe) since these same writers also state quite clearly that all Men are frail and imperfect. (A point always lost on the literalist Christian, since even the application of "divine inspiration" (during the writing process) would violate the tenet that all Men are sinners and NO force can make them perfect, even God, without violating free will.
Posted by Mask at 12/25/2006 @ 08:44am
It makes a deist case, but a case nonetheless for a "supreme creative intelligence"....something denied by the fundamentalist atheist.
Posted by MASK 12/25/2006 @ 08:44am
-------------------------------------------------------------
In my estimation, if an answer cannot be given to the the question "Where did the 'supreme creative intelligence' come from?" then 'supreme creative intelligence' is simply a non-religious way of naming God and still faces the problem of the endless regression question of origin. We cannot give a rational answer, and belief is unsatisfactory, so the best thing to do, I contend, is not waste time on it.
To the atheists' credit, at least the conclusion they reach has evidential support and is devoid of formulating myths. Some atheists argue that the evidence against a deity is great enough that the agnostic position that God may exist is not reasonable. In my view, that is a much more reasonable, defensible and respectable position than that of the religious fundamentalist. From that aspect, I think your smearing of atheists with the "fundamentalist" brush is inappropriate.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/25/2006 @ 10:24am
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/25/2006 @ 10:24am
TIRES, no "smear" was intended, hence my use of "fundamentalist atheists" and not just "atheists".
I'm referring to those who say DEFINITIVELY "There is NO such thing as a 'God'"...which as I noted is just as dogmatic as saying there is.
Abject atheism faces problems, as does abject theism, notably the "First Cause Question".
Someone can BELIEVE there is no God, and I have no problem. Somebody telling me there IS no God, with the same sense of certainty, I have trouble with.
Posted by Mask at 12/25/2006 @ 12:18pm
"Someone can BELIEVE there is no God, and I have no problem. Somebody telling me there IS no God, with the same sense of certainty, I have trouble with."
Posted by MASK 12/25/2006 @ 12:18am
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles do not exsist!!
Do you have a problem with that statement? If not why? If so, what about in 2000 yrs. when people produce artifacts and idols of them?
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are devine and unknowable!
If i belive that, do you "have no problem"? Or do you think I am unthinking or delusional?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/25/2006 @ 12:53pm
"Someone can BELIEVE there is no God, and I have no problem. Somebody telling me there IS no God, with the same sense of certainty, I have trouble with."
Posted by MASK 12/25/2006 @ 12:18am
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles do not exsist!!
Do you have a problem with that statement? If not why? If so, what about in 2000 yrs. when people produce artifacts and idols of them?
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/25/2006 @ 12:53am
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's just it. You cannot prove a positive. The only thing one may do is come up with that single, ugly fact that disproves. But the preponderance of evidence can be such that the hypothesis is virtually irrefutable, such as the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, there is a possibility that ugly fact could appear to demolish thermodynamics, but I would not give it more than a 1 in google chance of occurring.
That is why I wrote in my previous post: To the atheists' credit, at least the conclusion they reach has evidential support and is devoid of formulating myths. Some atheists argue that the evidence against a deity is great enough that the agnostic position that God may exist is not reasonable. In my view, that is a much more reasonable, defensible and respectable position than that of the religious fundamentalist.
Insofar as it is not possible to definitively disprove the existence of God or Mutant Ninja Turtles, one turns to other evidence and reasonable use of it. And as Eric demonstrates, such evidence can be massively compelling, although short of being irrefutable proof. This is why I am a near atheist but stay on the agnostic side since, alas, were the deity an entity of amoral to evil intention, then the evidence would more strongly support its existence.
So I contend that atheists have more going for them than belief. They have thousands of years of history that demonstrates a rather consistent absence of deities.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/25/2006 @ 3:11pm
Deism is not theism by another name.
Adler may have been in his dotage but his given reason for embracing (Christian) theism seems rational. Viz the "unknowable" God can only be known if he chooses to reveal himself.
The position that God has two books of revelation, nature eg "the heavens are telling the glory of God" and scripture seems to be grounded in the latter book. That deals with the objective side of things but how about that dimension to which Mask, I think, alludes viz (sightless) sinners.
It is a recurring theme in both Old and New Testaments and is summarised by Jesus in Luke 10:22, which sort of encapsulates the malady and its cure:
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is pleased to reveal him".
On this basis one can immediately see why Deism wont do the trick wrt to getting to know the otherwise unknowable.
It has occurred to me that having been left "blind" Ats and Ags have sort of been denied their rights by a deity who limits the choosing of mere mortals to himself. Maybe, for those passed over, gene therapy is the way to go.
Mask you do seem to have an almost obsessive pre-disposition to agnosticism. Some unkind observers would call it by its common name; fence sitting and that is what set me on the missing gene path. I'm open to convincing (sort of a pre-agnostic state) that it is all determined by the absence of, or presence of certain genes. Could we design some experiments to rigorously test this earth-shattering hypothesis.
Ps. The Kalam (Muslim) argument which, from memory does not overly rely on necessary and contingent categories, has thought of the infinite regress problem by stating the argument not as "all that exists" having a cause but in the form; "all that begins to exist has a cause" so that things may exist that have not been caused because they always did exist. (Russell thought the universe was in that category as I think Aristotle also allowed for. Maybe Aquinas allowed for that also in his cosmological argument?)
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2006 @ 3:14pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/25/2006 @ 3:11pm
TIRES, I think most atheist argue against the STANDARD definition of "God"...omnipresent, omnipotent "father figure who knows and cares about each individual"....theodicy and simple paradoxes prevent this.
There is NO "evidential support" for SOME kind of Supreme Being NOT existing.
First you have to define "God"...then prove "He" does or does not exist. Most atheists take the theist, even Christian definition and work against that. That's a false choice. Then you simply get "Answer 'A' is wrong" from the theists and "No, Answer 'B' is wrong" from the atheists...while both ignore Answers "C", "D", or "Z-Z-8849"
Posted by Mask at 12/25/2006 @ 4:26pm
There is NO "evidential support" for SOME kind of Supreme Being NOT existing.
Posted by MASK 12/25/2006 @ 4:26pm
-------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree, but with qualification. As I stated before, from the strictly logical viewpoint, you are correct. However, from daily observation and from history I believe there is a lot of evidence for the lack of existence of a Supreme Being. What is the evidence? That there is nothing to show any possible need, action, presence or sign of such a Being. The assertion of such an existence leads to complications and vagaries that, in my estimation, are not as logical, Occam's Razor if you will, as the simpler assertion there is no such being or it "died". You have not responded to Eric's Ninja Mutant Turtle assertion, and while amusing, it is a serious response and, in it's own way, gets the the heart of the matter.
Regardless of our opinions on atheism or agnosticism, the point has been reached where none of these issues are pertinent to the prevalence of homophobia in America. The problem arises from the "Big 3" monotheist religions, any other religious or spiritual activity has little or no effect on homophobia and need not be considered.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/25/2006 @ 6:47pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/25/2006 @ 6:47pm
TIRES, define "need" for "God to exist"?
As far as the Ninja Turtles go...not likely. But that's a localized phenomena of "intelligent amphibs 5'5 tall". Not a good analogy.
Posted by Mask at 12/25/2006 @ 11:34pm
I believe there is a lot of evidence for the lack of existence of a Supreme Being. What is the evidence? That there is nothing to show any possible need, action, presence or sign of such a Being.
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/25/2006 @ 6:47pm
I think it was stated before, but the proof that there was a "creating force" is you.
I don't understand how anyone could be witness to the complexity and beauty of the universe and not feel the tiniest bit of awe. Try to wrap your head around the relationship between time and space; matter and energy; light and energy/matter. Think about how there is infinitely more space between the solid matter in our bodies than there is actually anything solid in our bodies. How can we even begin to contemplate the vastness of the universe, or the power of the sun? Think about the implications of the fact that we cannot witness/measure ANYTHING without having an effect on that something.
Who am I if everything that now constitutes my body has changed 3 or 4 times already? What is the constant that makes me....me?
With so many questions, and with answers so incredible, it seems infinitively naive to deny any order, or unifying power, or binding energy that we now choose to call God.
The proof is all around us. We just choose not to see.
As far as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they do exist. They were created by someone from imagination, which in turn came from the sum of experiences of that someone. I can picture them in my mind right now.
By what criteria do you say something exists, or does not exist?
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/25/2006 @ 11:42pm
"As far as the Ninja Turtles go...not likely. But that's a localized phenomena of "intelligent amphibs 5'5 tall". Not a good analogy."
Posted by MASK 12/25/2006 @ 11:34pm
Not those Ninja turtles. The ones in the Tau Ceti star system.
Not a good analogy? Too many long words?
Or the only come back you have, is to reiterate how you cannot prove a negative? We both know this is true. And we both also know, that because of this fact, you do not believe everything. Only that which is remotely plausible. (I hope, anyway. I've always assumed you were annoying on purpose, not because you're insane).
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/26/2006 @ 12:40am
I don't understand how anyone could be witness to the complexity and beauty of the universe and not feel the tiniest bit of awe.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/25/2006 @ 11:42pm
A reason I became a scientist was to try to understand the naive "awe" one experiences by looking at the spiral arrangement of the seeds in the sunflower or the apparent movement of the vast cosmos one sees each night. The true awe comes when one understands how that enormous complexity arises from some relatively simple concepts and structures of physics. THAT is where the true amazement lies. The whole of Nature is so much more elegant and beautiful than just the mere superficial observation of it.
Nevertheless, as one delves more deeply the simplicity actually increases, the unifying concepts are remarkably "simple" and this leads one to understand how Newton thought that only a "prime mover" was needed and from then on the universe would run itself. There is still much to be said for such an argument but, even then, the necessity of such a "power" is debatable.
One of the great joys of being a scientist is to be able to see worlds that are hidden to most. One can read "about" quantum mechanics, for example, but that is never equivalent to working at it and understanding it at the fundamental level. A poor, but indicative, analogy is the difference between being able to play a Bach fugue and to only listen to it. Yes, all one need to is listen to know it is great music, and one can increase one's amazement by reading about it's structure, but nothing compares to being able to play it and analyze it note by note. That is where the experience becomes ineffable.
So it is with science. People can read and learn about DNA or how enzymes work at some level - all well and good. But to really see how the primary, secondary and tertiary structures interact, how they conform and exploit the basic molecular chemistry, and how their collective nature creates specific activities is something that can only be appreciated after very extensive study and training. Do not misunderstand, this is not an argument for elitism. I am simply trying to convey how infinitely more beautiful and awesome the natural world really is.
From my viewpoint, it is very unfortunate that most of my fellow humans are not able to "see" this true grandeur of Nature. What it does impress upon me is how pathetic the human mind is at generating constructs that are as awesome, coherent and universal in application as what Nature teaches. The things that are known, the laws that we have uncovered to date, and the things that Nature has generated are so much beyond the ken of Man and his feeble imagination that any myth or fantasy is like a child's tale compared to Shakespeare. For me, nothing outside of what Nature shows can even approach the magnificence of the structure, the incredible logic of the "system" and the myriad of possibilities it presents. It is this, perhaps more than anything, that convinces me that we are incapable of answering certain questions, for it is evident how hard we must work at even addressing the most simple ones. But it is also this that leads me to the conclusion that, whatever the reality of the "why" is, it is far beyond the imagination of contemporary Man.
I suppose one may call the "reality" Brahma, God or whatever. For some, that lumping together or all we do not know or understand is satisfactory. But for me, delving deeply into the way Nature operates and understanding what little we do, prevents me gleaning any satisfaction with such naive and unimaginative solutions.
For me, there is only one "holy" work and that is Nature. IF there is some kind of Supreme Being, then I would expect its message would be written in the stars and the very stuff of matter and not in some little Roman-occupied backwater on that insignificant speck, Earth.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/26/2006 @ 05:50am
Sorry...I inadvertently clicked SUBMIT before I was finished:
It seems to me it is Man's megalomania that prevents acceptance of being a "freak of Nature" as much as, say, a Komodo dragon is. It is easy to forget that we are just another mammalian species that Nature has produced. [Yes, I put Nature in caps but only as a way of denoting the entity ranging from quarks to galaxies; it has no theistic connotation.]
I do not address the moral universe since I assert that is the concern of Man and not a Supreme Being. Thinking people admit that moral behavior does not necessitate such an entity.
Man has evolved, but just because homo sapiens is, at present, the most intelligent species on this little outlier of the galaxy, does not mean that Man has evolved sufficiently to completely grasp the world in which he lives. Undoubtedly, australopithicus afarensis was once the most intelligent being on the planet. Would we expect that creature to understand the calculus or Goedel's theorem? Just because we are where we are in evolution does not mean that we are sufficiently evolved to address the "God question".
Sure, such a species can make up all the fairy tales it desires to explain that which it is does not understand. It has a demonstrable history of doing so. If it makes happiness, then there is some good in it. There is no good in it, in my opinion, if it generates misery in even one healthy, gay person, or any other.
For me, I would rather go with the surety of what I do know rather than believe in constructs that are absurd or for which there is little evidence. I find no emotional nor intellectual satisfaction in them. I accept my inability to be able to address this question. I do know that what I do, however, does permit me to obtain insights and appreciation of the "real" world that is not available to most. For that I am most grateful.
I do understand there are other ways of experiencing the world and trying to understand it. In fact, I love reading poetry, listening to music and delving into philosophy, among other things. When addressing certain things, say description of a feeling, they provide me the best avenue for understanding and appreciation.
True appreciation of the incredible magnificence and, yes, terror of Nature and what we lightly call "reality", only comes to me through detailed knowledge of the science. Beside this, all else, having awe of the night sky, a mountain range or the hatching of an egg, pales as a kind of naive sentimentalism and an inability to "see" the really awesome and almost indescribably (ah, but for that wonderment of wonderments, mathematics) beautiful processes that give rise to these phenomena. If you protest that, of course, you know that when you look into the night sky that you are not only observing what is contemporary for you but you are also looking back into Time, then I would point out that truly astounding and beautiful insight did not come from your belief in some Supreme Being, but from science, the only effective tool, I assert, Man has for understanding the world - for understanding what we call "reality."
But the complexity and awe that I feel is not enhanced in any way for me by a construction that is as unimaginative and inadequate as a deity. In comparison to the insight science provides, the "scriptures" of any faith detract from the glory of what I do know and understand and would likely interfere with trying to address the true answer to the "why" question. Were I capable of ... divining it, of course.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/26/2006 @ 07:28am
Or the only come back you have, is to reiterate how you cannot prove a negative? We both know this is true. And we both also know, that because of this fact, you do not believe everything. Only that which is remotely plausible. (I hope, anyway. I've always assumed you were annoying on purpose, not because you're insane).
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/26/2006 @ 12:40am
---------------------------------------------------------
You're a good man Eric! I'm proud to be on your side.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/26/2006 @ 07:30am
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/26/2006 @ 07:28am
Well said. Do you think that all of the things you spoke, that is all of the universe, could ever be thought of as ONE THING? One thing of which you are only a small, but important part. Would not this "one thing" fit the definition of "God"? If so, science would be the greatest religion we now have.
I would disagree slightly on one point though. While I would tend to agree with you that knowledge of the details makes things even more amazing, I don't think it's required at all.
No thoughts are necessary for me to feel, or to know that I am in the presence, or a witness to something wonderful. In fact, thought actually gets in the way of taking in the whole sometimes.
When I took my daughter to the ocean for the first time, she walked up to the shore and stared out. She was only 4 but by the look on her face, I knew that she felt its power. More so than I had in a long time.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/26/2006 @ 08:22am
Do you think that all of the things you spoke, that is all of the universe, could ever be thought of as ONE THING? One thing of which you are only a small, but important part. Would not this "one thing" fit the definition of "God"? If so, science would be the greatest religion we now have.
While I would tend to agree with you that knowledge of the details makes things even more amazing, I don't think it's required at all.
Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/26/2006 @ 08:22am
----------------------------------------------------------------
I would defend your right to think about God any way you please. However, if we take the ideas of some quantum cosmologists, then a question is, "Which particular universe are you talking about?" I suppose one may construct anything one wishes and call it God. Nobody could say you are absolutely wrong. All I can say is that it is a construct that I do not need nor require. That does not mean it will not work for others or that they do not need it.
I think I am no more important to the particular universe that I inhabit than is a water molecule to the planet Earth. I know I am important to those I love and who love me and perhaps to some others with whom I share similar interests (and, of course, the taxman), but to the universe, to the planet, to anything else? No.
It is this need for importance that brought me to talk about the megalomania of Man. I laugh when people talk about damaging the planet. That is absurd. What is meant is that we will create an environment where Man may not survive. That is different than damaging the planet. At present, there is no way we can do harm to the planet. We may affect the way things evolve on it for a few hundred thousand years until the half-lives of most radioactive elements return radiation levels to present values, but Earth will not care a jot. Earth will not even notice. What's a few hundred thousand years, after all? The planet will continue in its trajectories, the chemistry will not change, biology and geology will operate just as well as ever. And Man? poof! Earth will remain serenely violent as it always has been. And Earth's completely inconsequential status in this universe of billions of galaxies illuminates how truly unimportant Man is. As part of that many-billion component entity called mankind, I am even less so.
Heaven forfend, science is not, nor ever should be, a religion. The idea of immutable belief is inimical to science which thrives on what has been called "creative self-destruction." It's sole purpose is to ferret out an understanding of what is and was; how things work. It will not, in fact can not (at least in its present form), address those pesky "why" questions. Of course, what it can do is provide evidence that may have some bearing on them. But the minute it becomes a religion, it is no longer science.
I do not deny that looking out into the vastness of the night sky is adequate to inspire awe. And that, itself, has proven sufficient over the ages. What I was trying to address was how the detailed understanding, the "how" of it, is even more transforming and produces a truly qualitative difference in the character of the awe that is experienced, and that difference moves the mind into directions that, say, the observation of a stunning sunset would never take it. To push the example dangerously, the sunset will certainly remain a beautiful phenomenon, but when the physics of refraction, scattering, and planetary motion, the physiology of the eye, the chemistry of perception and neural activity are factored in with all their gory and glorious detail, the sunset surely retains its visual beauty but is then augmented with a richness and exquisiteness that the sheer fact of observation of the sunset itself cannot approach.
I reiterate I am not trying to be an elitist or advocating that everyone be a scientist. I am just saying that when you become sensitized to the intricacies but basic elegant simplicity that unites all the phenomena, then your sense of awe is transformed. If I would call anything "divine" it would be not any "thing" but rather those laws that we are still discovering that dictate the physics from which everything else in this universe arises. If you want a deity, look to them, for they are true commandments.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/26/2006 @ 1:39pm
TIRESIAS, ERIC, MASK, etc.
Just finished scrolling through this thread and have much enjoyed the discussion. I find myself mostly in MASK's camp, more as a means of feeling a separation from a religious view of the world than one of conceiving the world on my own, to shrug off the question of the origin of the world and the presence of a Thing. I have to say, I am feeling most naive right now, having not only failed to consider that an agnostic point of view has little to do with how I live my life (I live as an atheist but have not been able to commit to these beliefs), but also having failed to come to terms with a worldview separate from my sense of humanity, which itself still has ties to my Christian upbringing. But recognizing such things is going to do a whammy on my ethical structure. What is environmentalism beyond the worship of the superficial world that Tiresias correctly believes most of us are limited to understanding? On what basis are we to act if we, like all other beings, simply follow our instincts--isn't this where we are going? If so, then we can see all laws--religious and civic--create both peace and war, safety and repression, irrelevant power grabs and vast suffering...in effect nothing much different from what we might achieve in pure anarchy.
Anyway, thanks for potentially destroying my worldview on Kwanzaa.
Weird times. Got people flipping out because I scheduled a big event for Good Friday '07 even though my business cannot have any connection to religion. Visited New Orleans over the weekend, got pleasantly plastered one night then visited St. Louis Cathedral for Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve (talk about great music), where I listened to the archbishop decry, among many things, "lewd behavior". This in the middle of the flippin' French Quarter in a cathedral half-full of tourists who are there precisely to enjoy lewd behavior. Full disclosure: I gawked at the windows, but did not fully enjoy all that Bourbon St. has to offer. More sobering disclosure: New Orleans is a remarkable place...even now. The destruction is horrific; the population is suffering; but the people and the city are still magical.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/26/2006 @ 2:36pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/26/2006 @ 07:28am
AMEN!
I am not a scientist. (In fact I am the black sheep of my family...the only one w/o any advanced degree. Both my sister and my father are chemists and my other sister is a doctor). But I do love to read and learn, until I hit the limits of my ability to understand, what it is I am reading. Having said that, I do feel I understand where you are coming from, talking about the simplicity of basic structures and their inherent beauty.
There are many fine books for the novice, which give insight to these ideas and give you a taste of the elegant simplicity of seemingly complex structures.
While I cannot profess any expertise, I think of these things when people talk about complexity and the need for a god, and wish I could convey these thoughts to them. Your posts have an eloquence, that I cannot convey as well. Much appreciated. (Of course, you are missing out on the joy of using small words and hurling invectives...but to each his own).
----------------------------------
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/26/2006 @ 07:30am
Likewise. I don't care what anybody says, you're still a "dickhead" to me. ;o)
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/26/2006 @ 7:10pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/26/2006 @ 7:10pm
I would echo these sentiments.
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/26/2006 @ 1:39pm
"I would defend your right to think about God any way you please."
And I, yours.
"I suppose one may construct anything one wishes and call it God. All I can say is that it is a construct that I do not need not require."
Again, a great deal depends on how you choose to think about God and what we think is His purpose (or OUR OWN purpose/duty to ourselves and for others). The religion I most closely associate myself with is Buddhism. Part of my beliefs involve practicing nonjudgment. Something need not be this or that, it just IS. To hold fast to something (whether it be a physical object or our belief in holy scripture) is a form of madness since nothing is absolute except for change. Far from being nihilistic, this frees me to see the real value of things (since I know them to be temporary).
Do I feel as though I need to believe in a divine purpose or creator; absolutely not. But SOMETHING inspires me. Some thing too great to describe with words. Therefore, if I engage in a conversation with a Christian and the subject of God comes up, I think of everything that inspires me and brings more joy and peace in my life. We are then free to find common ground. If they speak of Heaven, I can quiet my mind and feel such a place exists.
All there is to get in the way are strict definitions and preconceived biases about these words. This is what I mean when I say science can be a religion. Perhaps a better choice of words would be that science can be a "way to God" as much as any religion.
"I think I am no more important to the particular universe that I inhabit than is a water molecule to the planet Earth. I know I am important to those I love and who love me and perhaps to some others with whom I share similar interests (and, of course, the taxman), but to the universe, to the planet, to anything else? No."
As science tells us, you ARE a water molecule on Earth. You are, literally, made up of planets and stars long gone. Everything is literally one. You are no more or LESS important than any other part of it.
Posted by MiddleWay at 12/26/2006 @ 8:41pm
Quantum mechanics rules...so perhaps "God" is a "Schroedinger's Cat"....he "exists and doesn't exist" simultaneously, until you "open the box"?
Posted by Mask at 12/26/2006 @ 10:34pm
Quantum mechanics rules...so perhaps "God" is a "Schroedinger's Cat"....he "exists and doesn't exist" simultaneously, until you "open the box"?
Posted by MASK 12/26/2006 @ 10:34pm
foolish boy. God isn't a sub-atomic partical
Posted by Will C. at 12/26/2006 @ 10:51pm
Posted by MASK 12/26/2006 @ 10:34pm
Somebody forgot to put the cat out.
Oh wait. He is out, too.
I knew yours was a tiny world, but I had no idea it was small enough to be ruled by quantum mechanics.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/27/2006 @ 12:13am
"Anyway, thanks for potentially destroying my worldview on Kwanzaa."
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/26/2006 @ 2:36pm
You're welcome.
JR,
You can come out now. I think everyone has stopped talking about god.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/27/2006 @ 08:15am
"You know it's funny that we Christians are called all kinds of ugly names when we force our religious demands on the secular world."
allow me to add a few more.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2006 @ 5:58pm
"All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is pleased to reveal him".
Who's on first.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/27/2006 @ 6:15pm