Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOn July 16, I attended Christians United for Israel's annual Washington-Israel Summit. Founded by San Antonio-based megachurch pastor John Hagee, CUFI has added the grassroots muscle of the Christian right to the already potent Israel lobby. Hagee and his minions have forged close ties with the Bush White House and members of Congress from Sen. Joseph Lieberman to Sen. John McCain. In its call for a unilateral military attack on Iran and the expansion of Israeli territory, CUFI has found unwavering encouragement from traditional pro-Israel groups like AIPAC and elements of the Israeli government.
But CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. - must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation. Over a dozen CUFI members eagerly revealed to me their excitement at the prospect of Armageddon occurring tomorrow. Among the rapture ready was Republican Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. None of this seemed to matter to Lieberman, who delivered a long sermon hailing Hagee as nothing less than a modern-day Moses. Lieberman went on to describe Hagee's flock as "even greater than the multitude Moses led out of Egypt."
Throughout CUFI's Israel Summit, videographer Thomas Shomaker and I were hounded by PR agents seeking to prevent us from interviewing attendees about the End Times. The conference, we were told, was about "one message" - evangelical Christians supporting Israel. We were instructed to only interview CUFI leaders capable of sticking to the talking point that their support for Israel has, as Hagee declared, "nothing to do with the End Times." But I was forbidden from asking Hagee about statements he made in his book, "Jerusalem Countdown," that appeared to blame Jews for their own persecution. After doing just that during a press conference, I was removed from the conference by off-duty DC cops summoned by members of Hagee's family.
I have covered the Christian right intensely for over four years. During this time, I attended dozens of Christian right conferences, regularly monitored movement publications and radio shows, and interviewed scores of its key leaders. I have never witnessed any spectacle as politically extreme, outrageous, or bizarre as the one Christians United for Israel produced last week in Washington. See it for yourself.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- 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
RSS
Want a great object lesson in the ILLOGIC of the "Anti-christ" prophecy fundamentalist mind....try this-
Ask them "Is Satan intelligent?"
"Does he have free will or is he controlled by God?"
Typically the answers are "yes" and "yes, he has free will". Otherwise, it makes him a "robot" or merely acting upon God's will, which means God is engaging in evil (by proxy of course).
If they answer yes, then ask this...
"Does Satan know the Bible and its prophecies...does he know his 'eventual outcome' if he FOLLOWS said prophecies....Mark of the Beast, invading Israel, etc.?"
If yes, then why will he do it? "Ego"? Not sufficient. ALL he has to do is NOT do any one of the "prophetic" things he is supposed to do as "Anti-christ" and...
he proves God wrong (Or atleast proves the Bible wrong).
Seems THAT would be much more of a "rebellious" act, than following to-the-letter the Tim LaHaye or Hal Lindsey predictions and thinking "Oh, but I'll still win, because I am monumentally stupid though super-humanly intelligent".
Eventually they (the fundies) stumble into either "Satan is stupid" or "Satan is a robot"...either of which disprove their earlier statements because to assign BOTH a 100% predictive nature and free will and/or intelligence is metaphysically impossible
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2007 @ 7:38pm
Thanks Max,
Priceless indeed.
Sobering as well.
Add CUFI to the list of acronyms that includes SNAFU and FUBAR.
That's the kind of footage that should make anyone start to question where we are headed as a human society. Truly penetrating.
I am reminded of one of the most powerful books I've read, "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. Its central thesis is the incredibly difficult passage we must negotiate in order to avoid our self-annihilation.
The CUFI conference brings that message home.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/27/2007 @ 7:44pm
Maskot,
Or you can simply ask any believer in God, "Is God both omnipotent and benevolent?".
When they inevitably answer "yes", the next question is now impossible to answer coherently:
"How does evil then exist?"
That is just one reason I consider myself an atheist, a philosopher, and a humanist.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/27/2007 @ 7:53pm
I can't wait to read the Luvv machine's defense of this one. I might even make microwave popcorn.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/27/2007 @ 7:56pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 07/27/2007 @ 7:53pm
That's a more generic "free will" argument, B_KOOL. One that pretty good philosophers have wrestled with for years, and come up with unique "explanations".
Mine is more targetted to this child-like "Left Behind" mythos that so many of them accept. Which postulates that Satan as the "Antichrist" is "well aware of the prophecies of Revelations, etc. but will follow them to the letter out of vanity, to his own doom"...
which is like saying that if Hitler had a comprehensive guide to the history of World War-II (written after 1945) dropped in his lap in 1933...that he would make the SAME mistakes, even to the point of doing things that were UN-necessary to his war plan, just "out of spite".
Seriously, soon as the Anti-christ comes, I'm offering my services as a Personal Counsel...."Hey, boss. Let's skip that Mark of the Beast thing....no need and it'll prove You-Know-Who's ghost-writers from 2000 years ago were full of crap!"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2007 @ 8:16pm
Posted by SKELETONMAN 07/27/2007 @ 7:56pm
He claims he's not THIS type of fundie, I believe. No "Left Behindism", per se.
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2007 @ 8:17pm
Mask:
Satan follows the prophecies because it is his nature. See the fable "the Scorpion and the Frog."
Not that I'm a theologian (?), but that's how I'd respond.
Posted by usc1 at 07/27/2007 @ 8:42pm
He claims he's not THIS type of fundie, I believe. No "Left Behindism", per se.
Posted by MASK 07/27/2007 @ 8:17pm
He talks the eschatology talk, though, from what I have seen.
Of course, Luvvy is already Undead, so perhaps he has no use for the Rapture.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/27/2007 @ 9:06pm
Posted by USC1 07/27/2007 @ 8:42pm
Animals have "natures", USC, by which they cannot exercise free will. More intelligent animals can, as a matter of fact.
If Satan has a "nature" by which he CANNOT choose a different action (such as "marking those Left Behind with the Mark of the Beast"...a UPC code is the common myth)...then he is essentially a "robot", with no free will. Or monumentally stupid. Either way would NEGATE his "Biblical biography" as a "archangel of demonic genius"...and create a cartoon villain, drawn and animated by God (and raising the problem that B_KOOL raised....if God is "good", how can he DIRECT a being to do evil).
However, if Satan DOES have free will and intelligence, then he should be able to avoid such "End Times" pitfalls for his Antichrist avatar....but that means negating the prophecies of "God's word".
It's a paradox...like the grandfather paradox of time travel.
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2007 @ 10:18pm
Posted by SKELETONMAN 07/27/2007 @ 9:06pm
Smarter than most, I think even LVLIB figured out the inherent logical problems of the "Left Behinders" and has carefully avoided MOST of them.
Of course, this is a man who believes that we should have vaporized 10-20 million Chinese during the Korean War "to spare them" Mao-tse Tung killing 20-30 million of them. (I always see Geo. C. Scott, in the War Room with Peter Sellers when I think of LL's logic on that, talking about "getting our hair mussed".)
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2007 @ 10:20pm
Wow.
Part I: Determinism What is frightening is how they have the history of Jewish persecution so well tied to rejection of Jesus and Satan's presence behind the Muslim faith.
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here our revolutionists.
Part II: The Big Lie
The only way to get to heaven is through Christ.
Satan is behind the Islamic faith.
Everyone else is sinful: I guess they have never heard of the Blood Libel, the Crusades, the Inquisition? But then again, that was the Catholics not this new sect of true believers.
Part III: The War of Liberation
It is the year zero. Everyone is guilty and damned except for those who believe. You have to wash the minds of the non-believers clean (read bourgeoisie). All of history serves this coming revolution and they themselves are absolved from every misdeed that has been done in Christ's name.
I will hate to see the look on their faces if Iran is nuked and no Saviour appears.
Then again, will any of us be around to see that or will we be burned up in a nuclear inferno?
Posted by hhemwm at 07/27/2007 @ 10:22pm
Of course, if you believe that you will get to heaven when you die, might make the world perishing in fire and the ensuing nuclear winter a "consolation prize" in lieu of seeing Jesus walk once more on this Earth.
If you can't see him here you might as well see him in Heaven.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/27/2007 @ 10:24pm
Just to get things straight--Armageddon will take place after the Rapture not before as the author implies. Born again Christians will not have to through the time of tribulations. Also Armageddon is not the end of the world---there will be a 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ before the Devil is unbound and the final victory is complete. Now, why does the Devil stick with the plan layed out in Revelations-----because he doesn't believe in Bible phrophecy and thinks his plan will still work---Vanity. By doing nothing he doesn't achieve his goal of denying Christ. He must take direct action, as phrophicized, and prove the phrophecy wrong. Also my guess is that the author of this blog would find almost any demonstration of religious faith bizarre.
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/27/2007 @ 10:24pm
Also my guess is that the author of this blog would find almost any demonstration of religious faith bizarre.
Len,
That is rather insulting. You are saying that people who find this display offensive cannot understand displays of religious faith.
Why? Why would someone who is Jewish take comfort in this at all? Why would someone who does not believe in any deity take comfort in this? They are advocating the death of all those who do not believe as they do and are using the Bible to justify it. That's extremism. It isn't knew and it is nothing less than intolerance. We've seen this before.
Your point is illogical. You conflate the horror of extremism with religious intolerance or intolerance of religion entirely. You have no basis for that and what is worse, it suggests that you too have fallen into the trap of believing that citing the Bible (or any religious text for that matter) absolves people from being held accountable for preaching hatred.
And this is hatred even if it is dressed up in the language of agape.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/27/2007 @ 10:29pm
Bible......free in most any hotel nightstand. Babtism....free in any house of worship. Church.....five dollars in the collection plate.
Listening to Bush and his idiodic base talk about the end times.......PRICELESS. There are some things money cant buy, for everything else there is the lord jesus christ our savior and the republican base....oh (and Lieberman).
Posted by jpolston at 07/27/2007 @ 10:31pm
Hagee as Moses. . . now that's priceless.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/27/2007 @ 10:32pm
And this is hatred even if it is dressed up in the language of agape.
The New Testament does not preach hatred. If the group in question was calling for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran then they were wrong to do so and were not following the teachings of the Bible. However, if they were calling for Israel to defend herself on the day that they are attacked by Iran and if they are calling for U.S. aid in this defense--then they are following the teachings of the Bible. Yes, you are correct in saying that only those born again can reach the kingdom of heaven---but that does not mean that Christians are to hate others---in fact they are told to love them and judge not lest ye be judged. The judgement that will eventually befall non Christians is not one brought on by Christians it is the judgement of God. God commands that all be given a chance to hear his word. It is the job of Christians to make sure people have the opportunity to be saved. If you choose not to--that is your decision and I shall not hate you for it---however, the outcome of your salvation is in your hands not mine.
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/27/2007 @ 10:44pm
Yes, you are correct in saying that only those born again can reach the kingdom of heaven
Tell me, where in the bible does Jesus say this ?????
Posted by skeletonman at 07/27/2007 @ 10:55pm
Len,
That is not the point I am making.
This group is justifying their call for a preemptive attack on Iran by citing the Bible. They are calling for war, violence and death.
Spiritual salvation is not the matter we are addressing here, least of all my own. I pointed out to you that your comment that Blumenthal would be uncomfortable with demonstrations of religious faith is an insulting one that conflates discomfort with religious extremism and discomfort with religious faith.
You can't make that argument.
I also pointed out that using the Bible as justification for one's hatred, violence and aggression is wrong and extremist regardless of whether it is done in a tone of love (agape) or not. I think you missed my point as you wrote;
"Yes, you are correct in saying that only those born again can reach the kingdom of heaven---but that does not mean that Christians are to hate others---in fact they are told to love them and judge not lest ye be judged."
That is the point I was making. I am not saying Christians are the only ones who are saved because I certainly do not believe that to be true. I am pointing out that using this interpretation (this argument that is taken on faith and NOT reason) to justify murder is wrong.
Anyone, whether a believer or not, can be uncomfortable with what this group is professing.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/28/2007 @ 12:21am
Saying that Islam is inspired by Satan is hateful. Nowhere is there justification for this at all. Even if you believe in Satan and use the Bible as the basis for your arguments there is no evidence whatsoever for this position. Islam is never mentioned. It could not have been because it did not yet exist.
Even so, the people Blumenthal interviewed were and are prepared to condone mass murder on account of their faith in something. Something that, even if it happens to be the Bible, is not even in the Bible.
That is not only ignorant it is dangerous. When someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for the destruction of Israel it is wrong because he is Muslim. When an evangelical Christian does it that is fine because it can be justified on the basis of his belief in his own salvation. A belief, mind you. Not a fact.
That is hateful either way one looks at it.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/28/2007 @ 12:27am
good Lord, my man, I'm a "leftist" and a Jesus believer and what the heck has you so breathless, wide-eyed and holier-than-thou? (nice touch with the "good stuff" comment. what are you? 12?) what do you think these guys believe? where have you been? you've been following the movement for 4 years and all of a sudden you're stunned by some conference? you don't know all religions have eschatologies? you don't realize what game these guys are playing yet?
where have you been? this started with Reagan and long before. you ask some rediculous question at a conference, think you're smarter than the sun and think it's cool you got thrown out? you and everyone else at the Nation better grow up before you help do us all in...
Posted by Taboo at 07/28/2007 @ 12:40am
It's high time that we take our government back from rabidly pro-Israel Fundies and Jews. The rest of the world is shocked and disgusted that the majority of Americans let these crazed, selfish groups determine so much of our policy. It's so transparently bad for America and for the world.
Posted by feinfein at 07/28/2007 @ 01:04am
Yes, you are correct in saying that only those born again can reach the kingdom of heaven
Tell me, where in the bible does Jesus say this ?????
Posted by SKELETONMAN 07/27/2007 @ 10:55pm
That's the easiest question,asked here, to answer. Here's the relevant quote in its context:
John 3
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
The New Birth or being "born again" is alluded to in the OT as being given "a new heart" or having the "heart of stone" replaced with "a heart of flesh". Or again in the NT as becoming a "partaker" of a new nature called "the divine nature". It's not a wonder you fellas, with your crappy old, at birth issue hearts of stone are having a bit of trouble with the God category. Looks like you got no free will after all; for choosing God anyway. Which sort of brings us back to the basic premise of Luther's "On The Bondage Of The Will" (versus Erasmus "On Free Will").
By the way Mask you don't have go into all that detail about Old Nick. If the God of the bible (Old and New Testament) is the one who knows the "end from the beginning" and indeed on the plainest reading of the text, ordains all that comes to pass, ie."works all things after the counsel of his own will", why even worry about introducing free will because even for Christians who believe in the former only (semi-pelagians and arminians), the problem is not answered by claiming that God is a "god" who is helpless in the face of evil because of the free will of his creatures. Why? well plainly because he, in his omniscience, knew every outcome and still created such a universe. Free will won't get any one off the hook with respect to the problem of evil and an omnipotent, omniscient God.
There is an interesting NT perspective which indicates that God is not a humanist nor is he bound by the American Constitution and most certainly he is not a democrat:
Romans 9
10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.
11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand:
12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15 For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/28/2007 @ 01:16am
It's really a shame that the human mind can at best only place into context that which exists in a single lifetime.
christians have been predicting the second coming for two thousand years and for two thousand years he has been right under their noses all the time.
But even he doesn't get to remember who he was. He like the rest of us gets to be born again. He like the rest of us is a recipient of eternal life.
but what's really funny is that he isn't always born again a he...
or even a christian for that matter
Posted by Will C. at 07/28/2007 @ 02:27am
Now, why does the Devil stick with the plan layed out in Revelations-----because he doesn't believe in Bible phrophecy and thinks his plan will still work---Vanity. By doing nothing he doesn't achieve his goal of denying Christ. He must take direct action, as phrophicized, and prove the phrophecy wrong. ---Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/27/2007 @ 10:24pm
See, this is where logic collapses. To "prove the prophecy wrong" (such as the prophecy that the Antichrist will mark the unsaved with the Mark of the Beast)...Satan could simply NOT do it.
If he didn't, then the prophecy would be proven wrong...period.
But if he CAN'T do that, then it's not "vanity", he's a robot, pre-programmed from the beginning of Time by God and therefore God is "coordinating" evil, in contradiction to the supposed "all good" nature of God.
Again, LEN, (since I'm sure according to you), I'll be "Left Behind"...first thing I'll do is head over to Rome (right?) and the headquarters of the "Global Directorate" and tell Nicholas Carpathia "Hey, big guy. Want to PROVE the Bigger Guy's dictation was wrong?...don't do the Mark thing. Try to control your incredibly stupid ego. You can do everything else, if you like...but skip this ONE THING...and the prophecy is wrong....and that means God was wrong (or atleast his prophets)...and that means you've won already!"
(Of course, according to Kevin Smith's "Dogma", if God WAS proven wrong, then He wouldn't be infallible and therefore not God...and the entire Universe would collapse and we'd need Severus Snape to save us from My Name Is Earl....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2007 @ 08:30am
lunatics.
American Taliban.
Sheep.
and you nutjobs mock "the far left". What jokes you, and those in the film, are.
what's the term? "useful idiots"?
I ask again, come the Rapture, LEN, can I have your car? What with all the colored flying horseys, you won't be needing one anymore.
Shouldn't these nuts have signs reading "the end is near"?
these same folks would throw Jesus in a gulag if he did reappear and began preaching universal love. Habeas Corpus would not apply to Him.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 10:41am
The Jehovah's Witnesses were SURE that the end times would come in 1914.
Oops.
After a re-do on the prophetic math they now say it "is nearing".
but I am sure Hagee is correct. I bet Haggard reaffirmed it.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 10:44am
Christs little lambs cannot even agree who is a "real" Christian and who isn't.
the Pope says all these nuts do not belong to real churches. And he is infallible.
but the protestants say the Pope is a whore.
Religion, best scam ever. Wish I had thought of it.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 10:51am
Again, shouldn't the LA diocese have paid $666 million for covering up their pedophiles?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 10:52am
Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions. Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.
Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!
People of the United States, why is everyone yelling at you??? Whatever happened to ... you know, everything? Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea? Sister Immaculate Dagger of Peace notes for the record that we mean no disrespect to Jews, Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Referred back to the committee of the whole for further discussion.
We are Unitarian Jihad. We are everywhere. We have not been born again, nor have we sworn a blood oath. We do not think that God cares what we read, what we eat or whom we sleep with. Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity notes for the record that he does not have a moral code but is nevertheless a good person, and Unexalted Leader Garrote of Forgiveness stipulates that Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity is a good person, and this is to be reflected in the minutes. Beware! Unless you people shut up and begin acting like grown-ups with brains enough to understand the difference between political belief and personal faith, the Unitarian Jihad will begin a series of terrorist-like actions. We will take over television studios, kidnap so-called commentators and broadcast calm, well-reasoned discussions of the issues of the day. We will not try for "balance" by hiring fruitcakes; we will try for balance by hiring non-ideologues who have carefully thought through the issues.
We are Unitarian Jihad. We will appear in public places and require people to shake hands with each other. (Sister Hand Grenade of Love suggested that we institute a terror regime of mandatory hugging, but her motion was not formally introduced because of lack of a quorum.) We will require all lobbyists, spokesmen and campaign managers to dress like trout in public. Televangelists will be forced to take jobs as Xerox repair specialists. Demagogues of all stripes will be required to read Proust out loud in prisons.
We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone. Brother Gatling Gun of Patience notes that he's pretty sure the world is out to get him because everyone laughs when he says he is a Unitarian. There were murmurs of assent around the room, and someone suggested that we buy some Congress members and really stick it to the Baptists. But this was deemed against Revolutionary Principles, and Brother Gatling Gun of Patience was remanded to the Sunday Flowers and Banners committee.
People of the United States! We are Unitarian Jihad! We can strike without warning. Pockets of reasonableness and harmony will appear as if from nowhere! Nice people will run the government again! There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution.
Reprinted for your edification by:
Sibling Main Gauche of Peace (aka, Crabwalk)
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 10:59am
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
Again, this is a matter of interpretation.
Just what does it mean to be born again? The born again experience can be had by anyone of any faith at any time and it does not mean accepting Jesus as one's saviour.
The evangelical version is only one type of experience.
It is dangerous to be so literal.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/28/2007 @ 11:06am
Shouldn't MAASCH be at this event handing out his monogrammed beanies?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 11:11am
No one knows what the born again experience is except he or she who experiences it.
You cannot objectively define what transpires inside a person's heart. Surely Jesus understood this for he reprimanded the pharisees for being too legalistic.
Besides, who says we have to give the Bible any creedence at all? We live in a world of many many traditions. We are not hidebound by any one of them. This a sect of people who have one specific interpretation of the Bible. We could get into an endless discussion about the merits of that interpretation but what we are left with is the same issue. It is destructive to sow the seeds of global destruction on account of your own narrow interpretation of a document. Besides, does it not trouble anyone how these folks have an answer for everything? All of human history can somehow be explained by Satan and the failure to accept Jesus? Think about that; those in the world who suffer do so because they are not true believers. Darfur, the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Congo . . . the list goes on and on. It all has perfect meaning: it is Satan's handiwork aganst the non-believers. That is fanaticism.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/28/2007 @ 11:16am
Who would Jesus burn alive forever?
(answer: all non-Christians, all Christians of the wrong denomination, many friends and relatives of real Christians, many good people you know, Dick Cheney's daughter and daughter in law, anyone who isnt destitute because they didn't give away all their money to lazy homeless people, lazy homeless people, anyone who doesnt cut off limbs that offend Him...)
Posted by conshame at 07/28/2007 @ 12:02pm
CON, that's after the stonings.
there is no "in-law" for Mr. Cheneys homosexual daughter. The Taliban have seen to that.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 12:29pm
Posted by HHEMWM 07/28/2007 @ 11:16am
Stop making sense. You seem to have made it a habit.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 12:34pm
Max, thanks for a look inside.
Mask, interesting logical comeback to the "theory" of the Rapture.
But this all makes as much sense to me as debating where the Easter Bunny goes after Easter, or where the Tooth Fairy lives.
There is an old game played in grammar school in the first and second grades where the kids are lined up and the teacher whispers into the first student ear a phrase or sentence and says to past it along. The phrase or sentence at the end of the line generally has nothing in common with the initial phrase or sentence the teacher selected. The same is true with the "Word of God" that has been passed down through the hands of many to interpret and rewrite. To me, it is all just bunch of fables written and re-written a number of times tweaked each time to support at that time. All this rewriting of the "Word of God" has to come with the belief that the original was really the "Word of God" at all. If it wasn't really the "Word of God" then it is just a collection of interesting fables and debating it is just an interesting exercise in intellectual gymnastics.
As a non-believer I find this all very amusing. I was raised as a Catholic and at an early age realized that I could not come to grips with the concept of "worshiping" a "lord" that no one has ever seen based strictly on the indoctrination I received from the church attended by my family.
To me, as a kid growing up listening to the radio evangelist and watching the TV evangelist, I found a common thread. That thread was "send money". They were all selling Jesus and salvation if only you would "send money". They all seemed to me to be the modern day "Snake Oil" salesmen. Offering to sell you something they could not deliver.
Now, they have moved from selling salvation and Jesus into global political warmongering. How Christ-like. Nuke Iran to bring around the Rapture. Sick.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi
Too bad Gandhi has to rot in hell, he was a good man.
icf itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 07/28/2007 @ 12:41pm
Rapture Index 156
Net Change -1
Updated Jul 23, 2007
20 Tribulation Temple
The lack of activity has downgraded this category.
29 Liberalism
Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy wins in France
33 Beast Government
To help get the integration process moving again, EU members are working on the principle for a streamlined version of their constitution.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 12:47pm
Gandhi was some one worth listening to.
I shall enjoy meeting him.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 12:49pm
Randall Price: Israel, at present, fits the description given to Ezekiel 38 of "living securely… without walls, and having no bars or gates" (verse 11). Only the old city of Jerusalem is walled, but the majority of Jerusalemites live in the new city outside of these walls
oops. so much for that interpretation.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 12:59pm
I think the only legitimate question that merits any consideration to ask Hagee is what background music God will be picking for the rapture? I am hoping for the Blondie/Doors mashup, Rapture Riders, myself.
But then again, Jim Morrison is buried in France. Mmm...that might cause a problem in Hagee's social circles.
Posted by phnord at 07/28/2007 @ 2:44pm
Stop making sense. You seem to have made it a habit.
Posted by CRABWALK
Thanks. :-)
Posted by hhemwm at 07/28/2007 @ 2:49pm
It's high time that we take our government back from rabidly pro-Israel Fundies and Jews.
Feinfein,
That's entirely uncalled for. What do all Jews have to do with it?
Be specific. You don't like the AIPAC crowd and their supporters. Leave Jews as a people out of it.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/28/2007 @ 2:50pm
As a believer I can only say how can these guys view themselves as Christians and feel so comfortable about war and killing millions of people? Christ never endorsed that path, Christ said 'love even thy enemy', therefore they are not Christians, period.
About prophecies I say that all the prophecies announced the Messiah and when He actually was incarnated to a man, nobody did recognized him. The ways of God are inescrutable, and everybody that takes the Scriptures literally, or even further appeals to "understand and predict" prophecies yet to be fulfilled is ignorant and pompous to pretend to interpret God's mind. The Bible is history of God's revelation to man and the author of every one of the books should always be seen in its historical and social context, not literally.
As someone said there, thanks Max for letting us see the abysmal point we are reaching as a society. Politically, I am wary these and similar tendencies will end up creating sort of a Nazi Religious Party that would make the former (Nazis) pale and look wimpy.
How can for example the people of Connecticut be happy with Mr. Liebermann when it is way too clear that he's agenda is what Israel's interests dictate? A fair and balanced solution to Middle East problems comes by addressing every side's concerns to a 'middle of the way' solution. How we will we know we have reached this? When most of the people - excluding extremists in both sides of the aisle- are happy. Don't we see that points of view like those of these groups are just the same as Al-Qaeda (AQ), but in the opposite side? And if they are as AQ, they should be equally prosecutable as AQ is.
I also read Mask's thinkings about the devil and his logic is quite solid. My personal take on this ( I remark totally personal conjectures) is the devil is not a robot, he is proud and super intelligent. And the proudness makes him stupid. Yes, he knows he will loose in the end, yet he is not God he doesn't know how will the end really be. He is not interested in showing God is wrong about a prophecy, he is interested to show God's wrong about us. The price at stake is billions of human salvations or damnations, he wants as big a piece of the cake as he can get. He wants to "show" the Almighty that evil has appeal for human beings, and he is making his point. And what evil is all about in the bottom line? Only selfishness, that is what the devil is and what he is trying to show. There is no middle way, either we live for ourselves, to fulfill only ourselves, be our one and only King in a one-man population (thereby excluding God from our lives as Satan did) or we live for God and thereby for others as well as us.
There is also this comment of MADLIB as religion being a joke. Listen, both of us are liberals so please respect my religion as I respect your anti-religion. It is because of religion that I am a Liberal and think that we should serve other people. And it is for that same reason I can't help but criticize the self-righteous political right.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/28/2007 @ 3:53pm
Does anyone know why Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, is at this gathering?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/28/2007 @ 4:42pm
Does anyone know why Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats, is at this gathering?
Posted by METTEYYA 07/28/2007 @ 4:42pm
Money, some of Hagee's flock will support Lieberman with $$$$$.
"morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose." - Nietzsche
icf itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 07/28/2007 @ 5:15pm
Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 07/28/2007 @ 5:15pm
In circles frequented by some right-wingers preachers, that is known as a "reach-around".
Posted by crabwalk at 07/28/2007 @ 5:29pm
Mr. Blumenthal's visit to the Christians United for Israel conference provided much fodder for those who would like to dismiss the Christian faith. But here's the good news: following Christ does not entail joining CUFI, advocating a unilateral attack of Iran, or being a Republican. Those who can avoid the temptation to throw out the baby with the bathwater will discover that while Christians of all stripes are full of all sorts of foibles, Jesus himself is peerless and worthy of our lives. For only he can deliver on the promise to give people "life in all its fullness" (John 10:10). And he can deliver on this promise without his followers exhibiting some of the unfortunate views expressed at the conference.
Posted by munciehusker at 07/28/2007 @ 9:15pm
Mr. Blumenthal's visit to the Christians United for Israel conference provided much fodder for those who would like to dismiss the Christian faith.
Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER
Maybe some people used this to dismiss Christianity but the majority of concerned opinions here are over the intolerance of this particular band of believers, not over the Christian faith.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/28/2007 @ 10:21pm
For only he can deliver on the promise to give people "life in all its fullness" (John 10:10).
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree there.
He is not the only way to experience life in all of its fullness. Just ask Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sufis, animists, Zoroastrians, pagans, wickens and anyone else I have left out.
This exclusivity is a problem. If you want to believe Jesus is the only way to experience life in its fullness, that is fine. But don't criticize people for their intolerance and then turn around and proselytize.
The very point of Blumenthal's movie is to show how belief in religious exceptionalism IS the problem.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/28/2007 @ 10:24pm
Other paths may claim to offer life in all its fullness, but only Jesus has claimed to be God and backed his claim by returning from the grave three days after his death. This leaves a person with only two live options: acceptance or rejection. The exclusivity of Jesus' claim to offer life in all its fullness is mainly a problem for those who chafe at the thought of submitting to his rule in their lives, wonderful as it is. Many of the people in Blumenthal's piece stumble not over the fact of Jesus' exclusive claims but in their application of those claims.
Posted by munciehusker at 07/28/2007 @ 11:06pm
but only Jesus has claimed to be God and backed his claim by returning from the grave three days after his death. ---Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER 07/28/2007 @ 11:06pm
Actually you forgot a step in the process....Jesus...claimed nothing.
His FRIENDS claimed that. And all of that is based on FAITH in the MEN who wrote that.
Posted by Mask at 07/28/2007 @ 11:18pm
Actually you forgot a step in the process....Jesus...claimed nothing. His FRIENDS claimed that. And all of that is based on FAITH in the MEN who wrote that.
It would be easy to dismiss Jesus' claims if they were merely constructions of his followers. But the credibility of the gospel writers and the tight correspondence between what Jesus said and what they recorded make skepticism much more of a leap of faith than simply acknowledging Jesus' claims upon us all and deciding how we are to respond to them.
Posted by munciehusker at 07/28/2007 @ 11:28pm
Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER
Well, there you have it. You seek to interpret the Gospels literally and many other people do not. If you believe your faith is exceptional, that is fine. And even better if you believe that but are peaceful about it as Jesus was.
But you cannot prove what you believe about Jesus to be true simply by referring to the Bible. The Bible is a recounting but it is not proof. The Gospels themselves are disputed as they do contradict one another. But really that is not what is important here. What matters is the depth of your faith and your conviction. I certainly don't scoff at that nor do I chafe about internalizing the word of Jesus. You can internalize Jesus' message in many ways and it does not require you to accept him as God or as your personal saviour.
That said, I respect your faith. I just do not accept it.
The point I have tried to make here is that faith is not a matter of the rightness or wrongness of your beliefs versus those of others. What matters is what you choose to do with those beliefs. I think that a person (or persons) advocating nuclear war because they believe it will bring the rapture is not only wreckless, it is advocating murder.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2007 @ 12:43am
And hiding behind the Bible can not and will never justify it.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2007 @ 12:43am
But the credibility of the gospel writers and the tight correspondence between what Jesus said and what they recorded make skepticism much more of a leap of faith than simply acknowledging Jesus' claims upon us all and deciding how we are to respond to them.
Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER
I should add that there are many historians and theologians who would disagree with you there.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2007 @ 12:45am
Posted by HHEMWM 07/28/2007 @ 11:06am
Interesting H but you must have missed the context. Nicodemus was the crass literalist as he thought Jesus was suggesting the desirability of grown men getting back into their mother's womb. I notice your embarrassing predicament, however there is a difference between believing in what Jesus said and understanding what he is talking about. The latter has nothing to do with literalism but rather some familiarity with the OT and using commonsense to follow what he is saying. He scolds Nicodemus in this context a little further on by saying are you a teacher in Israel and don't know these things (concerning the new birth).
The only bible Jesus and his disciples had was the Jewish scriptures (OT). The NT including the gospels is essentially an interpretation of the OT centering in the person of Jesus. The writers of the NT are quite obviously steeped in that text.
Jesus says (as you quote) without the new birth no person can see (perceive) the Kingdom of God. But then he goes on to say a man cannot enter it without the NB. One doesn't have to be a literalist or particularly enlightened to grasp that he is saying men by nature have an impediment. The problem is with their eyes. They can't see. So you'd have to be a Nicodemus to think it had to do with something like a women's womb. Surely those not intellectually challenged or a literalist like Nicodemus, would most likely assume that Jesus was talking about an inward change in disposition that enabled one to understand and embrace the Kingdom of God. Now I don't think it would requires a mathematician's grasp of logic to see that it might be impossible to enter the Kingdom of God if you couldn't even understand (see) its principles.
The joke really is on you who seem to imagine that you are pan religionists as you know virtually nothing about the religion that undergirds much of the culture and philosophy of the Western World's history and is numerically the world's largest religion. One could be pretty sure you are just as ignorant of other world religions both major and minor. The word that describes such pretenders is ignoramus.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/29/2007 @ 12:58am
Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER 07/28/2007 @ 11:28pm
M, the problem is that most of the sceptics get their knowledge of the NT from religious gurus who have about the same academic credibility, on this subject, as those nutters do who believe this administration brought down the Twin Towers through well placed explosive devices.
The authenticity and reliability of the NT rests upon the massive number of manuscripts and fragments (over 5,000), their fundamental agreement and the relatively short time interval between the events and the composition of those documents. This is not a matter of faith in the reliability of the NT documents but rather that these documents when subjected to the same tests which are applied to secular histories of similar vintage have superior credibility. One merely needs to look at the number of "in existence documents" and their age, sometimes a handful and 1000 or more years after the time of the historical characters and events, that pass those literary tests and which events and characters none dispute.
This rejection of the validity of the NT source documents is perhaps just another sign of the retreat from rationalism that passes for intellectual debate these days.
It is an uniformed approach. Whether one has faith (belief) in the substance of the bible or its divine origin is where rational controversy has existed from the 1st century until today.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/29/2007 @ 05:32am
Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER 07/28/2007 @ 11:28pm
MUNCIE...what is that supposed to mean?
There's no corroboration of Jesus' miracles or resurrection, except among those who were his followers, and had a vested interest in fostering those "events".
Step One before you have faith in the deity of Jesus or even what he said, is...having faith that the MEN (sinful, error-prone, even prideful humans) are relating the Truth.
Always surprised at people who say "Well, Jesus said...." and don't seem to realize what they are REALLY saying is "Well, LUKE said that Jesus said..." or "Matthew said that Jesus said...."
Then of course, there's Paul...who never even met Jesus in person, but who is also quoted as somehow "receiving dictation" from Jesus.
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 07:24am
The joke really is on you who seem to imagine that you are pan religionists as you know virtually nothing about the religion that undergirds much of the culture and philosophy of the Western World's history and is numerically the world's largest religion. One could be pretty sure you are just as ignorant of other world religions both major and minor. The word that describes such pretenders is ignoramus.
Posted by LRJONES4
I suppose "one can be pretty sure" of a lot of things, can't one? That seems to be the point of these posts in the first place.
You assume a lot about me and are responding to some point I made, though what point that is, you are never clear. I appreciate being called an ignoramus, that was kind and certainly a friendly invitation to have a discussion with you.
My point has been very simple all along. You can claim religious exceptionalism all you like but you can offer no rational proof for it. Citing the Bible as justification for Christian exceptionalism is tautological. Those of us who do not agree are not going to be persuaded by arguments about how "it's in the bible." The exceptionalims of which these people are speaking starts in their hearts. For billions of people on this planet, we do not share that feeling. But I know, since we do not believe as you do we are wrong. I've heard it all before. I've heard it all of my life.
I didn't know I was a "pan religionist" as you put it but if you do think it makes a person ignorant to acknowledge the faith of others, that is a shame. But if you are an exceptionalist, this would make sense. The tenets of religious faith have little meaning if they are not accepted in one's heart as being true. Therefore, you can make all of the rational arguments you want that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven after being three days in the ground. That is an article of faith not a historical fact.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2007 @ 11:50am
When you Christians get to an agreement amongst yourselves, let the rest us know. Then we can debate the truth or fiction of texts written by mud hut dwellers using worked over mythos.
Still no answer about getting some autos after the Rapture. No faith?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/29/2007 @ 1:37pm
Hey MADLIB better get rid of your LIB side (which is to high a condecoration for you to wear) to leave only what you have really on your inside. You are not liberal if you don't have respect for other's ideas. Better join some kind of Atheist NeoCon (that as the actual Neocons might attack everyone that does not have their believes), that group will fit you. About delusions, what do you know about delusions? Hold a degree in Psychology? Only MADS do have delusions...ooops, I am not sorry.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/29/2007 @ 4:30pm
One can go round and round about whether appealing to the Bible is tautological (it isn't because it's appealing to something that's ultimate) and whether the Bible is reliable (it is in spite of its theological and historical detractors). But Jesus as revealed in the Bible's pages is beautiful and peerless. That truth is self-authenticating. The biggest question at the end of the day is how one will respond to his gracious invitation to experience the quality and duration of life that he alone can give.
Posted by munciehusker at 07/29/2007 @ 5:50pm
One can go round and round about whether appealing to the Bible is tautological (it isn't because it's appealing to something that's ultimate) and whether the Bible is reliable (it is in spite of its theological and historical detractors).
Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER
You just made my point for me.
This is all your opinion.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2007 @ 6:15pm
But Jesus as revealed in the Bible's pages is beautiful and peerless. That truth is self-authenticating.
Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER
Yes. IF you believe.
Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2007 @ 6:17pm
whether appealing to the Bible is tautological (it isn't because it's appealing to something that's ultimate) and whether the Bible is reliable (it is in spite of its theological and historical detractors). ----Posted by MUNCIEHUSKER 07/29/2007 @ 5:50pm
If the Bible is perfect....can God say or do something in opposition to it?
Not "will He", but CAN He? If He can, then it's not perfect and infallible, since it CAN be altered by somebody....and therefore cannot be called Ultimate Truth.
If He can't, then God isn't omnipotent....the Bible is.
(heheh...always a favorite of mine)
Posted by Mask at 07/29/2007 @ 7:15pm
Mask,
It would be odd to think that God would be bound by the Bible, wouldn't it?
Personally, I prefer the view that good and bad exist together and not separately. You can do something that has both positive and negative attributes and outcomes.
It seems to me that if we worry whether God can do something in violation of the legalism of the Bible, when they are stuck with trying to justify all of the terrible things that have happened (and continue to happen). Are good things God's will and bad things Satan's? Why would God let Satan's will have any reign at all?
What about things that are good for some and poor for others. Example: colonialism. Clearly the expansion of markets was good for some such as British and Dutch mercantilists, capitalists and explorers. But was that so good for the colonized peoples?
Or how about the Aztecs. Did they deserve to die because they engaged in human sacrifices? Or was it because Cortes had the Spanish Crown and the Catholic Church supporting him? Was Cortez righteous because Church and Crown said so? Or was it because God said that men who murder for the faith are really righteous men?
Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2007 @ 7:52pm
when they are stuck
I meant to say, "we are then stuck"
Posted by hhemwm at 07/29/2007 @ 7:53pm
37.
37 angels can fit on a pin. Except on Tuesdays. Then it is 42.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/30/2007 @ 09:47am
Jesus said it best and most appropriately.
"Do not cast your pearls before swine"
Truth presented to those who hate the truth is wasted words.
John 14:6 Jesus declared "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father except by Me."
No amount of cynicism, unbelief, or sarcasm will alter each person's final judgment.
I have learned with the anti-Christians on this site that except when asked, follow the words of Jesus and don't waste what is precious on those who despise it..
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/30/2007 @ 5:28pm
Each religious believer is always so quick to jump to the conclusion that their belief is and always was. Face it, Zeus, Odin, Thor, Ra and every other God from humanity's past has the same chance as being "true" as today's current religions. They are just as probable as Jesus, Paul and the rest of the lot. The difference is, is that Zeus, Ra, etc, came about at a much earlier phase of humanity and had time to evolve into different religions ( or be phased out ). The same thing will happen to Christianity, Islam and the rest. It's only a matter of time. 2000 years from now Christianity, especially in the form that we see it today, will have been long gone or morphed into something else. Hopefully not replaced by Scientology! Or maybe Zeus will make a come back? You never know.
The reason why non-believers get so upset at religious yahoos is that we don't want to see our planet and civilizations wiped from the Earth because one group believes their prophet can kick the other prophet's ass ( by the way, all you Christians, Jews and Muslims, you guys believe in the same freakin' God! Get a grip on yourselves. ) and cause all this violence, trouble and mass destruction. It was fine when your wars and fighting were limited to small areas on this planet, but now with today's modern warfare, things are a little more upsetting and worrisome.
If all the religions were tolerant of one another and didn't act up, we would not be having any of these discussions. For all anyone would care, you can go off worshiping a rock. Problem is, your fanaticism in something so completely off the charts is ruining it for the rest of us.
That's why we get upset.
Posted by phnord at 07/30/2007 @ 9:25pm
You see, virtually ALL of Bush's plans are actually working perfectly. To really see what's going on you have to understand that these lunatic-fringe Fascimentalist KKKristians actually intend to bring about the most widespread destruction possible because they think that will cause God to send Jesus back to the world, at which point He will sprinkle His divine pixie-dust into the radioactive wind and all will be just duckie. Except for the 99.9% non-fascist majority who of course will be DARNED for all eternity. BTW ever consider that the millions who will die in famines and pandemics will be for the most part non-white? As I said - it's all going to plan. The real plan for Iraq has always been to destabalize, and it's working perfectly.
Posted by Harlock at 07/31/2007 @ 2:04pm
it's sad what churches in general and the "moral majority right wing jesus movement" (much of it political) have done to people's general perception of the ol' jeshua. turned people against him, and who can blame them really? what with all the things done allegedly in his name. just another strange phenomenon in indeed a strange world.
o well. jesus takes none of it personally, it's all good with him, though as for the things 'done in his name' he will indeed have to take that on personally i imagine as he cares about his name as much as anyone else, if not more.
as far as Jesus and all the other religions, Jesus IS all the religions, he's far bigger than "Christianity" or however you define it, and i believe would and will welcome all peoples of whatever faith, at any time in whatever manner into his fold...or that of the world's. that's just the type of guy he is, everyone should know that.
it's funny how someone can quote ghandi - something to the effect of, "Christ is great, it's Christians i can't figure out", and then turn around and throw Crhist right out with the quote. something highly illogical about all that. you really want to throw the Christ out with the bathwater just 'cause "Christians" are such a mess? better to make your own decision on the matter, i figure, rather than let a bunch of stupid Christians scare you away.
anyway, you don't need Paul or anything else, the gospels do just fine. one of the great post-modern novellas ever written...and based on the events of the life of a man! it is indeed post-modern before there was such a thing as post-modern, i.e., way ahead of its time. so post-modern in fact most people can't for the life of them figure it all out, yet the intrigue remains. so it goes.
anyway, good luck to all of ya, christians, non-christians and all walks of life inbetween. and "goodbye"...or as the word implies..."god be with" ya as you go on about all your business...
thanx.
Posted by Scrub at 07/31/2007 @ 4:16pm
I'm not a liberal because I think belief in supernatural beings and totally abstract concepts which hold no basis in this or any other reality, is delusional?
Would you care to explain that?
Just because it is an idea doesn't mean it deserves anything resembling respect
Here we go again maddy boy, First commandment: everybody pertaining to human kind deserves respect. Even the most abominable criminal deserves a trial and is fed until his last day. You can not be selective in your respect, if you do so, you are one of them, the intolerants that we are fighting in this society. For you it is religious people, for them it is Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Abortionists, and you name it.
It is what I am trying to tell you, for liberals first and all is about human dignity, no exceptions. You have ideas, I have ideas, everybody has ideas and all deserve respect. By the way, ideas are abstract concepts and therefore abstract concepts are - or should be - taken in the highest regard and not how you take them. If any one's ideas don't affect the rights of other human beings or intrude in their honest beliefs, let them be. This is the main pillar of civilization, mutual acceptance. Now, I can not prove to you that God exists, neither you can prove to me scientifically that He does not. In the end it is all about who ignited the Big Bang, period.
Delusion or delusional is defined in the dictionary especifically as someone that has departed with reality and is very much related to psychiatric endeavors: "an erroneous belief that is held in all evidence of the contrary". This is the most specific definition and as that shrinks are the ones that define delusional people which are most of the time the psychotic type. Because we believe in God we have not lost contact with reality by any means, on the contrary, we appreciate much more mankind and everything in nature because we know where do they come from. In fact, I am science trained and do not see in it any contradiction to my beliefs.
As I said, there is absolutely no evidence negating the existence of God. Conversely, I would say that the order of the Universe points to someone up there. The probabilities that everything was done by chance are so absdurdly low that that might in fact be a delusion: that a nuclear soup in a star might evolve into a human being by pure chance.
I don't suscribe either the religious neo cons with their creation in 7 days, and that the world has only 8,000 years...that is bull...nonsense, because it does not support scientific evidence. As I said in other message, literal interpretation of the Bible is not advisable at all, it is the subjacent message there what the Bible is all about.
I agree with you on that one, I don't share absolutely the ideas of the Nazis and I wish the cat lady down the street would open herself to another human beings. But, alas, I see you are very similar to Nazis in your hatred.
Finally, you have called me "crazy". I think that is all your pathetic little mind is able to think about since you only criticize, but don't expose your ideas in turn. Show me your positive ideas, not your bile, or just maybe are you afraid of showing them?
Posted by Frank42 at 08/02/2007 @ 01:36am