Ace of Spades HQ

August 21, 2010

Theology on YouTube
— Ace

He's a vegetarian. He demands people not judge him on his various sins (and, first off the bat, there must be something in the Bible about a Foot Locker employee wearing so much mascara).

But then he judges "animal murderers" for their, um, murder.

He makes a simple claim. As he explains in his text introduction:

An often misinterpreted bible quote - it means to only judge others for what they are doing, so long as you are not doing the same thing yourself.

So, according to his reading of the Bible, Jesus' injunction "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" only applies to those sins which you yourself are committing. On the rest, he contends, judge away!

Is he right? Certainly it's a very useful position, a convenient one for him; its an interpretation of Jesus' command which permits him a whole lot of judgment, which he seems to enjoy.

So is he right? Is his theology sound?

Or is engaging in sophistry and twisting the words of Jesus to give himself a pass on doing that which he so clearly enjoys doing?

Because It's Not Fair... I will say: Be careful in answering. This is designed as a set-up, a trick question.

It's a trap.

I had actually been looking for the Simpsons clip from a Treehouse of Horror episode; in that episode, taking place in 1700s Salem, Marge is accused on scanty evidence of being a witch. So the mob (which includes, of course, Homer, who is just caught up in the excitement) brings Marge to a cliff-side, intending to throw her off, to test if she's a witch; if she's not a witch, then God will call her home by means of gravity; if she is a witch, she'll fly away. Either way, they'll have their answer.

As Wiggums calls Marge a no-good witch (or words to that effect), Lisa asks, "Does the Bible not say, Judge not lest ye be judged yourself?"

Wiggums answers: "The Bible says a lot of things, kid. Push her off!"

The point of this, the trick question, the trap, is that I read an awful lot of people defending an open hostility to gays -- not their agenda, but gays as gays, as people -- on the basis of Scriptural command; and it seemed to me they were dwelling on a particular while ignoring the basics of the plot, as it were, the overriding message, the take-away, the black letter.

Injuctions to love thy enemy and judge not lest ye be judged yourself seem to be hand-waved away, as Wiggums did, as minor and inconsequential in favor of other commands, it is implicitly asserted, take precedence.

I'm not a theologian but that seems to be doing a certain amount of picking and choosing, as Paul Anka said, based on one's personal desires, and not upon any defensible theology.

I didn't find that clip, alas. But I found this guy, who seemed to be making the same point for me; by making it so plain he was interpreting the Bible not according to any principled guidance of theology, but according to what justified his beliefs, he offered an unattractive, obviously-wrong illustration of the point.

Sorry for the set-up, the trap. I felt it was an important point though.

This Christian blogger had written to me about his own post, and I had been thinking about it, and it was large in my mind.

Corrected: I called out a commenter at Hot Air for engaging in hyperbolic language. But I attributed to him a position he says he does not espouse, and, looking back, I can't find evidence he's wrong.

So I take him at his word, and have deleted that part of this post, with apologies.

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (1413)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Hmmmm.

I have no interest in watching the video but the short answer is:

This guy is totally wrong.

Posted by: memomachine at August 21, 2010 11:04 AM (MwCol)

2 I'm a Catholic so I'm used to getting spiritual advice from people who wear funny hats but I have to draw the line somewhere.

Posted by: vivi at August 21, 2010 11:04 AM (84HQT)

3 Life is too short to give anyone who calls meat-eaters "animal murderers" one minute and forty-four seconds of my time.

Posted by: Y-not at August 21, 2010 11:05 AM (osFsP)

4 I got 30 seconds in and judged him to be a self-absorded emo.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 11:05 AM (VuLos)

5 Wait he's using Jesus - who fed a whole bunch of people with *fish* (but for some reason vegetarians/vegans always think fish are vegetables...) to support his eating animals is murder argument?

Posted by: Rodney C. Johnson at August 21, 2010 11:06 AM (XRIh6)

6 Ah. Christian bait. I'd bite, but I'm on a deadline at work.

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 11:06 AM (nqV+7)

He's got a ref shirt on. So I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on issues of theology.

What's his stand on transubstantiation?

Posted by: Cicero at August 21, 2010 11:06 AM (0pBLV)

8 Sounds like a common bullshit excuse you'll hear a lot from the left that hypocrisy is the greatest sin. So, like NAMBLA is cool because they're open and aboveboard about their preferences. Like, a kid is much more likely to be molested by a family member or by a public school system employee then by a priest, but all liberals want to talk about is pervert priests. Because of the "hypocrisy". Or something. Leftist moral reasoning makes about as much sense as leftist economic reasoning.

Posted by: Britt at August 21, 2010 11:07 AM (Im/mD)

9 Judge not?

I am the Law!

Posted by: Judge Dredd at August 21, 2010 11:07 AM (Hj0nA)

10 I'm not a theologian by any means, but that quote seems to me to be all encompasing.... Judge NOT,, lest you be judged.

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at August 21, 2010 11:07 AM (yxA6+)

11 Douchesmuggeramerung.

Posted by: Cincinnatus, Keeper of Ancient Memes at August 21, 2010 11:08 AM (TGmQa)

Hypocrite? Yes.

Pretentious douchebag? Most definitely.

Posted by: gebrauchshund at August 21, 2010 11:10 AM (ADeN1)

13 Jesus did have a qualification to that "judge not lest ye be judged" thing but my printer's typography didn't allow for footnotes.

Posted by: St. Jerome at August 21, 2010 11:11 AM (0pBLV)

14 We should ask President Barry Hallelujah Obama, Christian, for his thoughts on the subject.

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 11:11 AM (pRbtk)

15 From Acts 10

⁹About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. ¹⁰He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. ¹¹He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. ¹²It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. ¹³Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

¹⁴"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

¹⁵The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Meat is there for us to eat.
Vegan FAIL.

Posted by: Methos at August 21, 2010 11:11 AM (0eabR)

16 I love reading the leftists comments on blogs like: "I hate all those haters on the Right. I wish they'd all get cancer and die!"

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:12 AM (DPuFa)

17 Or is engaging in sophistry and twisting the words of Jesus to give himself a pass on doing that which he so clearly enjoys doing?

Hahahaha, you are asking if a veg-moonbat is honest? Clearly you jest.

But I can't judge him least I be judged.

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 11:12 AM (/jbAw)

18 Matthew 7 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. I don't think he's entirely right. The verses have always read more as a warning against being overly harsh in your judgments of others as you yourself will one day be judged by the same standard if you are. That said, I don't think that all of Christianity's concept of right and wrong, sin and good, can be summed up in those two verses, particularly when the rest of the parable reads: 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6 Â¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. In other words, pots shouldn't call kettles black and rag on 'em for it. But, once a person has improved himself/herself, he should then help others with similar improvement. Mating the first two verses of this scripture with the leftist "nothing is wrong except for calling other stuff wrong" ideology has been horribly destructive to society and this man.

Posted by: Guy in Utah at August 21, 2010 11:13 AM (AaQ2F)

19 Doesn't this guy look like the Scarecrow's (from Nolan's reboot) special-needs d-bag brother?

Posted by: nightwitch at August 21, 2010 11:13 AM (SbaLN)

20 If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

Posted by: ManeiNeko at August 21, 2010 11:13 AM (TiE76)

21 I hope Christoph is still banned ...

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 11:13 AM (pRbtk)

22 One doesn't need absolute moral authority to judge. But if you have a cock in your mouth you can't run around calling everyone else a cocksucker. Does that help?

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:14 AM (DPuFa)

23 Life is too short to give anyone who calls meat-eaters "animal murderers" one minute and forty-four seconds of my time.

This.

Like, a kid is much more likely to be molested by a family member or by a public school system employee then by a priest, but all liberals want to talk about is pervert priests. Because of the "hypocrisy".

Don't schools have "mission statements" or "core philosophies" (gotta justify those 8 layers of administration and their six-figure salaries somehow, right?) full of happy feel-good shit about improving the world and/or kids' lives? School employees molesting students would be counter to this, no?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 21, 2010 11:14 AM (9PzaA)

Re: my above statement....

fuck that:

my judgement is, he's a fuckstick of the highest order and if he's not a practitioner of goatse he's a chicken sucker of the sort that..... sucks chickens!

fin

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at August 21, 2010 11:14 AM (yxA6+)

I'm prohibited from judging. Otherwise I would say he is a nob gobbling shithead. But I can't.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at August 21, 2010 11:14 AM (bhcQe)

26 True story -

About ten years ago my wife, son and I were going out to visit one of my wife's college friends, who was a hippie, and have lunch. We met out at a restaurant.

The hippie friend asks my son if he knows where the hamburger meat comes from - not in a mean-spirited PETA way, but sort of a dumbass hippie way in anticipation of touting veggies or giving a lecture. My 5yo said - "yeah, from cows. Some cows we kill and they get cut up and we eat their meat, and some cows we keep for milk and some cows get to be pets."

She said "oh" and started talking to my wife.

~ sniff ~ I was so proud.

The rest of the meal passed uneventfully and cordially.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 21, 2010 11:14 AM (Hj0nA)

27 I think Jesus meant, "Don't be such a fucking douche bag all the time and maybe you'll have a few friends" The original Greek translates to that almost word for word.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:15 AM (Nw/hR)

Don't judge me just because I hate all you haters!

Posted by: a hater who hates all haters at August 21, 2010 11:15 AM (YVZlY)

29 The problem with quoting Matthew 7:1 (or any single verse of scripture) is that people tend to take things out of context.

In order to understand that pronouncement, you have to read it in context with the rest of the passage it's a part of. Jesus is forbidding self righteous preening and hypocrisy, and quite certainly wasn't giving people a license to judge in the way that footlocker guy thinks.

Essentially, the message was to clean up your own act first, then try to help your brethren clean up theirs. Just don't forget that you're a sinner too.

Posted by: Sen_AlvinGreene at August 21, 2010 11:15 AM (elJA3)

30 School employees molesting students would be counter to this, no?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 21, 2010 03:14 PM (9PzaA)

"Molest" is such a judgmental word. If done properly, adult sex with kids can be an enriching experience for both participants.

Posted by: Roman Polanski at August 21, 2010 11:16 AM (0pBLV)

31 Here's a pretty good interpretation of the entire passage, not just the first segment. It came from a campus ministry web site.

Mat 7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged [do not judge others if you do not want to be judged by others; everyone will be judged by God]. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again [if you judge others, they will judge you by the same measures]. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye [how can you judge someone when you are guilty of the sin yourself]? Thou hypocrite [this is the audience in the context; a hypocrite is one who is not living what he is preaching], first cast out the beam out of thine own eye [FIRST judge yourself and get your own life cleaned up]; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye [THEN after you get your life straight, you will be able to discern clearly and you are commanded to help clean your brotherÂ’s eye!].

Posted by: The Hammer at August 21, 2010 11:16 AM (32ubA)

32 Bears, even POLAR bears, eat people. Sharks eat people. Alligators eat people. Bears, sharks, and alligators all go to hell.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 11:16 AM (AUo3q)

33 What if carrots scream in agony and we just can't hear them?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:16 AM (Nw/hR)

34 23
One doesn't need absolute moral authority to judge. But if you have a cock in your mouth you can't run around calling everyone else a cocksucker.

Does that help?

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 03:14 PM (DPuFa)

*removes cock from mouth*

Wait, wha???

Posted by: a guy with a cock in his mouth at August 21, 2010 11:17 AM (YVZlY)

35 As my pastor said one time, "If all our sins were known to each other, the only shocking thing would be our lack of originality." And let's go to the rest of the verses in the passage he uses to justify his hatred of the people he doesn't like: 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back." He's in for a shock when he meets his eternal reward.

Posted by: ExurbanKevin at August 21, 2010 11:18 AM (toqoX)

36 Just looking at the screenshot tells me he's not to be taken seriously. I'd like to tell him that I have 450 pounds of beef in my freezers at the moment, though, just to watch his head explode. [Seriously, WTF are cows FOR if not for meat and milk? and leather.]

Posted by: AngelEm at August 21, 2010 11:18 AM (I2Yog)

37 Anyway. If God didn't want us to eat cows, he'd have made them taste like carrots, and vice versa.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 21, 2010 11:18 AM (9PzaA)

38 I'm pretty sure for the first 2000 years of Christianity the verse was interpreted differently, but what did Peter know anyway.

Posted by: Mac Gootbone at August 21, 2010 11:19 AM (XCSw/)

39 One doesn't need absolute moral authority to judge. But if you have a cock in your mouth you can't run around calling everyone else a cocksucker. Does that help? Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 03:14 PM (DPuFa) Unless you're in the "it takes one to know one" club.

Posted by: AngelEm at August 21, 2010 11:20 AM (I2Yog)

40 33
What if carrots scream in agony and we just can't hear them?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (Nw/hR)

What?????

Posted by: a guy eating carrots who can't hear them screaming at August 21, 2010 11:20 AM (YVZlY)

41 I don't think a single "meat is murder" vegetarian can reasonably explain to me why it is indeed murder.

Saw a bumper sticker on a car once that said, "Pro-life? Go vegan!"

Posted by: wherestherum at August 21, 2010 11:21 AM (gofDd)

42 Having lived in a relativistic, nothing-is-really-wrong world his entire life, I do find it more than a little funny to see him now take such a bold, absolutist stance and use the New TestamentÂ—which certainly does not prohibit eating meat, nor does it call killing animals "murder"Â—as his moral foundation. Of course, what he's primarily trying to do is avoid others "judging" him. And by judging, I mean drawing a common sense conclusion that he's not really ready for polite, mature society and has yet to mentally mature past the point of a 13 year old.

Posted by: Guy in Utah at August 21, 2010 11:21 AM (AaQ2F)

43 #29 got it right. I also think it has to do with using the same standard to judge your own actions. Unfortunately for others I'm my own worst critic, so they're all screwed.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at August 21, 2010 11:21 AM (C6OjH)

44 Heh: http://twitpic.com/2gw1ol

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 11:21 AM (pRbtk)

45 Gosh, now how would anyone get the idea that vegetarianism is just a club for bossy little ninnies who want to feel superior.

Posted by: lauraw at August 21, 2010 11:21 AM (DbybK)

46 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

Posted by: Grandpa Moses at August 21, 2010 11:21 AM (e9Z8E)

47 If this guy sucks my cock and I cum in his mouth, would he then be forced to spit it out?

Posted by: erg at August 21, 2010 11:22 AM (f7A+e)

48 That one cow that was killed and butchered will feed my family for a very long time. ONE cow. How many carrots would it take? More than one, right? See, vegetarians are just inefficient.

Posted by: AngelEm at August 21, 2010 11:22 AM (I2Yog)

49 We have the teeth and digestive system of omnivores. You want to think you are a superior creature because you don't eat me? Fine with me. All the vegetarian homonids are extinct.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:22 AM (Nw/hR)

50 You know, hypothetically speaking.

Posted by: erg at August 21, 2010 11:22 AM (f7A+e)

51 Does anybody else get the sense that ace first found this particular video in his eHarmony inbox rather than YouTube?

Not judging. No siree.

It's just that ace posts this video on a Saturday afternoon.
Which means he's awake.

and he's basically asking us for conversation-starters, discussion points ... which is key to having a socialable, friendly encounter. Well played, ace, well played.

I'd set the over/under for areas of compatibility of this guy with ace at 19.5.

Any takers?

.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 21, 2010 11:22 AM (Hj0nA)

52 as the good book says..."kill and eat".

Posted by: sTevo at August 21, 2010 11:23 AM (VMcEw)

53 What if carrots scream in agony and we just can't hear them?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (Nw/hR)

Carrots only whimper but that broccoli...oy...what a bunch of drama queens. And don't get me started on the bitching that comes from asparagus.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 11:23 AM (VuLos)

54 The reason these sophomoric left wing regressive pull this "judgment is wrong" bullshit is blur the lines between right & wrong. They teach that shit in college. It helps to advance their culture-destroying social progressive agenda.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:23 AM (DPuFa)

55 Which is this guy -- Beavis or Butthead?

Making a YooToob video may not make him a murderer -- at least in the legal sense; he murdered the 30 seconds of my life spent reaching for the mouse to click him off -- but it doesn't not make him a mindless, self-absorbed twit.

Thanks to Jenjis's ONT, I have a new source for my theological needs:

http://bit.ly/jtVp

The Ceiling Kitteh is so gonna smite this video dood....

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 21, 2010 11:24 AM (Ulu3i)

"They came first for the Vegetarians, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Vegetarian.

Posted by: a guy who isn't a vegetarian at August 21, 2010 11:25 AM (YVZlY)

57 YouTube troll.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at August 21, 2010 11:25 AM (TU+di)

58
Grandpa, I went staight to the end, posted and worked back several comments, and there you were. Covering the same old ground.

Posted by: sTevo at August 21, 2010 11:25 AM (VMcEw)

59 How can you judge others for eating meat when you are a godless sodomite cocksucker? First spit the cock out of thine own mouth before you judge others for having a ham sandwich.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 11:25 AM (i6UsH)

60
What a whiny, sniveling emo git femme fatale.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at August 21, 2010 11:27 AM (554T5)

61 I recently saw a bumper sticker that read "There's always room for God's creatures...right next to the peas and mashed potatos". I laughed for a couple days thinking about that.

Posted by: Polliwog at August 21, 2010 11:28 AM (HjVGJ)

62 You ever hear one of these neurotics say "I don't eat anything with a face?" They're like children. Stupid children. They allow themselves to believe that creatures with eyes and a nose and a mouth must have feeling just like people because people have eyes, a nose, and a mouth.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:28 AM (DPuFa)

63 ah Ace - he set a trap for us.

well, played ace.

well played. _{for an ewok.}

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 21, 2010 11:28 AM (Hj0nA)

64 I updated... the question was intended as a trap from the get-go, and I'm sorry to have engaged in that deception. All I can say is that it seemed to me to be a point worth making.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:29 AM (QbA6l)

65 I'm going to burn steaks on the hibachi, just to spite the hermaphroditic shoe salescreep.

Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Pro Debate Team, Bacon Raconteur at August 21, 2010 11:29 AM (eCAn3)

66 "They came first for the Vegetarians, and I didn't speak up because I was in total agreement with them being sent off to the gulag and what not."

FIFY

Posted by: Sen_AlvinGreene at August 21, 2010 11:29 AM (elJA3)

67 Well, see... he's not getting off being judged, is he.   Because here we all are, judging him.

That's all that passage really means.   As far as God is concerned, God judges and all of us have fallen short, all have sinned, and God is the one who provides forgiveness and salvation.

The direction not to judge because others will judge you is practical advice.   We're more likely to experience grace from each other if we are gracious to others. It's not telling us not to pay attention or to go ahead and get involved with someone who is not trustworthy because we're not allowed to "judge" them... it's just simple, practical advice.

It's essentially the New Testament version of the very real process that is also known as "what goes around, comes around" or else karma.

If you're a judgmental shit, people will feel free to point out that you're a judgmental shit and will feel free to examine your shortcomings and generally examine and judge you. It's not about answering to God, because you're going to do that anyway, it's God giving you advice on how to relate to other people.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 11:29 AM (P0X9Q)

68 Someone should issue a fatwa against FootLocker.

Posted by: Imam Bloomberg at August 21, 2010 11:30 AM (i6UsH)

69 BumperStickerist, Thanks for not being mad... I think some will be mad, but I'm glad that at least one isn't.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:31 AM (QbA6l)

70 "Vegetarian" comes from the ancient Sanskrit, where it translates loosely to "lousy hunter."

Posted by: cthulhu at August 21, 2010 11:31 AM (/0IOT)

71 I try not to eat anything that does have a face or blood.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 11:32 AM (i6UsH)

72 The high intelligence animals, almost without exception, are carnivores or omnivores. It is simple really; gorging on meat from a kill is much more efficient than grazing and leaves the animal time to THINK.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at August 21, 2010 11:32 AM (bhcQe)

73 I try not to eat anything that does "not" have a face or blood. Typing should be compulsory in grade school.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 11:34 AM (i6UsH)

74 yeah, I was gonna say what are you, a homo, or something?

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:34 AM (DPuFa)

75 I'd like to read eddiebears' response to this effete...thing.

Posted by: Corona at August 21, 2010 11:35 AM (woZIc)

76 Thomas Aquinas?

Lightweight!

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at August 21, 2010 11:35 AM (TU+di)

77 Vegetables are very inefficient.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 11:35 AM (i6UsH)

78 There's an odd similarity between Renaissance Christian theology and the "never eat anything with a face" crowd, and I'm trying to remember what it is...

Oh, yeah.

Posted by: cthulhu at August 21, 2010 11:35 AM (/0IOT)

79 "Among the qualifications for membership in my party is the requirement: Don't be a fucking asshole all the time."

Racist!

Posted by: Fucking Asshole at August 21, 2010 11:35 AM (swuwV)

80 All I can say is that it seemed to me to be a point worth making.

What was the point, again?

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at August 21, 2010 11:36 AM (554T5)

So is he right? Is his theology sound?

I read this far and decided to answer your question. (I'll get to the rest.)

No, he is not right and his theology is not sound. Let the one without sin cast the first stone -- not the one without the specific sin of committing having sex for money.

(Anyway ... )

Posted by: FireHorse at August 21, 2010 11:36 AM (sWynj)

82
Trap me once, shame on me, trap me twice and...
you will just have to blow me.

Posted by: Mel at August 21, 2010 11:36 AM (VMcEw)

83 Ace is dead-on about the dangers of Â“combattingÂ” sins one isnÂ’t tempted to do. Because the biggest and baddest of the universal temptations is pride. Since X is a sin, and you are impervious to XÂ…you are better than those who are not!

Sounds like the Center for Science[sic] in the Public Interest[sic], or No Impact[sic] Man, or any number of lefty scrunts who think we should all live as painfully and joylessly as they do, and it's the role of the government to impose their lifestyle upon us.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 21, 2010 11:36 AM (9PzaA)

84 The Simpsons "borrowed" the witch scene from Monty Python:
I don't know who they stole it from.

As for that whole judgment thing being discussed: Imagine what life would be like if no one was judgmental or dare I say it, discriminatory (and I mean in every decision you make every day).

Posted by: SaintGeorgeGentile at August 21, 2010 11:37 AM (Hz5bo)

85 First they came for the fur activists and I told them to try the landfill.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 11:37 AM (i6UsH)

I don't even have to watch the video -- this is one of those stupid little peons who thinks they can poke at Christians by playing a holier than thou card themselves? Right?

I'm betting: very shallow, self-serving, and incorrect interpretation of "judge not": I believe that particular statement goes to the idea of not being stupidly self-righteous when one judges another person; lest you be guilty of the sin of taking over God's role. It has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the act of judging; it advises that one temper one's judgements with wisdom, and that wisdom has a lot to do with knowledge that you yourself are a sinner and could easily be guilty of the same sin(s) you judge someone else by (so don't get on your high horse with your judgements, and don't rub your hands in glee when judgement is passed down on somebody else).

Which kind of ties into the whole gay thing a bit: homosexuality is not my cup of tea (being a straight person), but in a different life I could very well be the homosexual person...and I would wish that people would temper their judgement of me. That does not mean they don't have a right to judge (one has the right to accept or reject a thing as part of free will -- forcing them to "like you" is just as much of a sin in that regard), but that they should temper their judgement with wisdom and restraint, and not play at things that are God's gig.

At least that's what I took from what I learned about religion.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 11:37 AM (5/yRG)

87 I dunno, Ace. I think this game of moral-equivalence-hypocrite-gotcha! is beneath you.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:37 AM (DPuFa)

88 oh, and I meant to mention that in yesterday's post

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:38 AM (DPuFa)

89 Basically what that passage in the bible means is "don't get cocky" before the election.

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 11:38 AM (/jbAw)

90 Does this mean we have to stop pouncing on vegetarians?

Posted by: lauraw at August 21, 2010 11:38 AM (DbybK)

Look, I'm a self professed Christian. A really bad one. I know this. To my shame.

But...

I judge people, myself included, ALL the time. And I don't think there is anything automatically wrong with this. When it is appropriate, judge people. When it is not, don't.

I mean, did Jesus really mean that the act of being a municipal, state or federal judge was prohibited? Really? I don't think so.

Is this really so hard? Jesus meant don't be such a ... er... jerk about this judgement thing.

Look, when your grandfather catches you messing up, and calls you on it, do you scream "don't judge me man!"? No, you say "yes sir, I won't do it again, I'm sorry."

When somebody who is a lifetime junky catches you getting ready to sniff some crank at the age of 14, and he says, "little buddy, you don't want to do that....", do you rage against his hypocrisy? No. The dudes got some hard earned wisdom, even if he can't follow it himself.

When some lying, cheating piece of shit catches you in a small lie, and does their best to destroy you in the eyes of others because of their venal, malicious ways, yeah, then hell yeah, it's appropriate. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Posted by: ed at August 21, 2010 11:38 AM (Zsqn4)

92 I always thought that once you got the beam out of your own eye, and were free to help your brother with the mote in his eye... that you'd know better.

I mean... isn't that the most likely thing? As long as you're *concerned* with the motes of your brothers, you're probably in denial about some beams of your own. If you're working on your beams and figure them out, then what you'll actually *do* is move on not to your brother's motes, but to your *own* motes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None are righteous, no not one.

So... The time when you take care of your beam, and your motes, and are free to move on to your brother's motes.... isn't going to happen. It's just not.

And of course, it's not like you're not supposed to care about your fellow persons and try to help them all of the time, no matter what your own shortcomings... it's about your attitude. Are you helping, or are you judging?

The whole thing , the whole "do it later" thing about judging the motes in your brother's eye is that there is no "later".

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 11:39 AM (P0X9Q)

93 I mean Nancy Pelosi tries to pull this shit all the time. She did it with health care and she did it with Cap & Trade.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:39 AM (DPuFa)

94 Can we bash gay vegetarians?

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 11:40 AM (VuLos)

95 I think this game of moral-equivalence-hypocrite-gotcha! is beneath you.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 03:37 PM (DPuFa)

Are you saying that Ace is punching down?

Posted by: cthulhu at August 21, 2010 11:40 AM (/0IOT)

96 When they came for the cows, I said nothing, because I wasn't a cow. When they came for Rosie O'Donnell, I said nothing, because basically we were still in the category of cows.

Posted by: Farmer Niemoller at August 21, 2010 11:40 AM (0pBLV)

97 he seems, basically, to be an irredeemable asshole

You already said he was a HotAir commenter.

As for judging animal murderers, the Book of Morgenholz states: "Verily, judge not lest ye be found dismembered, braised, and topped by a tasty sauce."

Thus spaketh the Morgenholz.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 11:40 AM (rbfTh)

Are you saying that Ace is punching down?

Posted by: cthulhu at August 21, 2010 03:40 PM (/0IOT)

Cow punching?

Posted by: cthulhu at August 21, 2010 11:41 AM (/0IOT)

99 Can we bash gay vegetarians?

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 03:40 PM (VuLos)

Wondered when we'd get busted free.

Posted by: The zucchini jokes at August 21, 2010 11:42 AM (rbfTh)

100 Hitler was a vegetarian.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 11:42 AM (i6UsH)

101 And another one: How can you Christians be against abortion and be for Bush's wars and for the death penalty??? They say it so smugly, too, like they just outsmarted every single Christian with that damning conundrum who lived for the last 2000 years.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:42 AM (DPuFa)

102 Chief Wiggums for Mayor!

Posted by: Joe Farah at August 21, 2010 11:44 AM (swuwV)

103

Hitler was a fascist

Hitler was a vegetarian

Most vegetarians are Leftards

Most Leftards are fascists

Liberal fascism established with geometric logic.

Posted by: Capt. Queeg at August 21, 2010 11:44 AM (0pBLV)

104 I'm not religious, nor overly familiar with the Bible but I thought the whole "judge not lest ye be judge" stuff wasn't simply a warning that if you do you'll come off as a douchetool (I'm paraphrasing there) but that there's one judge, God and He'll handle that, thank you very much.

The rest of us just tend to our own gardens, stay in our own damn lanes and leave the judging to Him.

In short, not judging others isn't just a good idea...it's a rule.

I could be wrong.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 21, 2010 11:44 AM (X/Lqh)

105 102... So turn it around... How can they be against Bush's wars and against the death penalty, but favor abortion?

And be sure to say it smugly.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 11:44 AM (P0X9Q)

106 They say it so smugly, too, like they just outsmarted every single Christian with that damning conundrum who lived for the last 2000 years.

Want to outsmart a hippy? Grow his weed with colchicine.

Posted by: Quincy, M.D. at August 21, 2010 11:44 AM (rbfTh)

107 >>>I think this game of moral-equivalence-hypocrite-gotcha! is beneath you. First of all, Zoot, you must be new here: Very little is beneath me. But second of all: If it's a fair point, if you agreed with me on the basic take on this guy as putting his private personal interest in judging above the actual text of the Bible he purports to be guided by, is that not a worthy thing to point out? I couldn't help but post this guy because a mistake becomes obvious and glaring when an enemy is making it. When we ourselves make it, it's only human that we take far less notice of it, right? I don't think this is really about moral equivalence per se. I wouldn't call it that at all. I think it's about leaning very heavily on one injunction in Leviticus while sort of... blowing off stuff that's in the New Testament. And I think that is being done not because of sound theology, but because people already have a hardness in their heart over gays, and it's always good to have outside authority to justify one's position. But is the outside authority here really justifying one's position? Or is it being misread, as this obvious mutant is doing, to comfort oneself?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:45 AM (QbA6l)

108
Bush lied, vegetarian emos died.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at August 21, 2010 11:45 AM (554T5)

109 You've got it right Drew.

It really is that simple. Don't be a douchetool.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 11:45 AM (P0X9Q)

110 60 How can you judge others for eating meat when you are a godless sodomite cocksucker? First spit the cock out of thine own mouth before you judge others for having a ham sandwich.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:25 PM (i6UsH)

Dude, flavius, if you can bring that sort of funny on demand, you need to be a co-blogger.

Seriously, I read your comment and I'm frickin' dying with laughter.

Posted by: ed at August 21, 2010 11:46 AM (Zsqn4)

111

Hitler was a fascist

Hitler was a vegetarian

Most vegetarians are Leftards

Most Leftards are fascists

Turnips is Totalitarianism! Slaw is Slavery!

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 11:46 AM (rbfTh)

112 You're not supposed to judge souls, that is who is going to hell and who is going to be saved. God is okay with you judging behavior, though.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:46 AM (DPuFa)

113 The guy is as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey.

Posted by: SurferDoc at August 21, 2010 11:46 AM (VSgv4)

114 There is an enormous difference between judging an action as a sin and judging a PERSON, which I really think was the point Jesus was making. Only God can judge the person. After all, Jesus's message was one of redemption and being made new.

There is also a difference between judgment and condemnation vs. forgiveness and mercy. Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." He didn't tell the Woman at the Well that just because He wasn't tempted to the same sin as she committed he couldn't judge her; He gave her implied forgiveness and the exhortation to clean up her life.

Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at August 21, 2010 11:47 AM (62atQ)

115 >>>I mean... isn't that the most likely thing? As long as you're *concerned* with the motes of your brothers, you're probably in denial about some beams of your own. If you're working on your beams and figure them out, then what you'll actually *do* is move on not to your brother's motes, but to your *own* motes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. None are righteous, no not one. >>>So... The time when you take care of your beam, and your motes, and are free to move on to your brother's motes.... isn't going to happen. It's just not. Yes true that, but I think worme's point (linked at the end) is important. He points out that judging is okay, assuming it is done with love and you are truly endeavoring to HELP someone come out of darkness; the Bible, after all, is anti-sin, and there's no cute interpretation around that. But he goes on to note that if you're not calling out sin with an actual, genuine desire to help, but calling out sin because you think it's nasty or base or perverted, then you're not really doing God's work there, but only your own, and you should leave God out of it.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:48 AM (QbA6l)

116 And I care about this dipshit why?

Posted by: Iblis at August 21, 2010 11:48 AM (nvuQz)

117 You're not supposed to judge souls, that is who is going to hell and who is going to be saved.
God is okay with you judging behavior, though.

You are so full of shit your ears wobble. Where the fuck do you get that? It flies absolutely and unequivocally in the face of 2000 years of theology.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 11:49 AM (rbfTh)

118 The Biblical footnote to the "judge not" verse reads: "Worry about your own fucking sins. They're quite enough to occupy your time."

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 11:49 AM (Im/xu)

119

"Who are you to judge?"

--- Dictator's Daughter

"Who do I have to be?"

--- Captain Kirk

(Star Trek episode : 'The Conscience of the King.')

Posted by: effinayright at August 21, 2010 11:50 AM (IgnKq)

120 Obligatory: Carrot Juice is Murder http:////tinyurl.com/chtfj7

Posted by: Enas Yorl at August 21, 2010 11:50 AM (TWB//)

121 And Zoot, I was hoping I would catch you in an inconsistency, in a hypocrisy; but I failed. You were unambiguously and full-throatedly on board with the judging from the start. So no inconsistency there from you.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:50 AM (QbA6l)

122 Herr, you have kids, right? Do you judge their behavior?

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:51 AM (DPuFa)

123 But he goes on to note that if you're not calling out sin with an actual, genuine desire to help, but calling out sin because you think it's nasty or base or perverted,are a Pharisaical douchenozzle with a Messiah Complex then you're not really doing God's work there, but only your own, and you should leave God out of it.

Just to make it theologically correct.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 11:51 AM (rbfTh)

124

102 and they are completely wrong in their assumptions, having misunderstood the thing entirely: the death penalty and wars are about combatting a perceived danger in the interests of self-preservation and in the interests of justice in the earthly realm BUT they are not to be undertaken with self-righteous glee nor for love of blood lust (that is why you pray for guidance when you commit to those acts; that God may have mercy upon you, a sinner, for what you are about to do)...kinda like killing animals to eat: you do it because they keep you fed, not "oh boy! I get to kill something!!"

This also leads to them missing the mark on abortion -- it isn't supposed to be an act in which one engages all ladidah. It is a sad thing which one should engage in out of extreme necessity of choice (I am pro choice from the consideration of the mother's life, or in cases of rape and incest -- I definitely cannot place my own judgements of what is necessary or not upon the person in that situation; as for abortions of necessity -- I hope they choose wisely and were counseled to do so, and that they are willing to live with their decisions, which includes being judged for the same).

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 11:52 AM (5/yRG)

125 >>>Herr, you have kids, right? Do you judge their behavior? Read the link at the end of the post. He addresses that point specifically. I would also note: These aren't your kids, dude. You ain't they daddy so why you actin' like you are?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:52 AM (QbA6l)

126 The cabs here in S'pore have little TV screens on the back of the passenger seat and much of the time it is showing all the islands that will be flooded by global warming, forest fires, little starving kids, mahogany trees being cut to clear land for ranches in the Amazon, cyclones whipping the Bangladesh coast, etc. Narrated by that UN dipshit climate "scientist" whose name I have, thankfully, repressed. The message is go vegan and save the world. The website to go to is www(dot)supreme master(dot)com so you can donate. What museum grade dipshit calls himself "Supreme Master" anyway? I have dismayed many cabbies who thought they must have picked up a madman when I loudly berate the back of the passenger seat. There are so many lies packed into about three minutes of video and yet weak people apparently buy into that mentality.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at August 21, 2010 11:52 AM (bhcQe)

127 Herr, you have kids, right? Do you judge their behavior?

Cute. Conflating Fatherhood with the judgment of the sins of others.

Strawman #1: Burnt to the ground. NEXT!

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 11:52 AM (rbfTh)

128 Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 03:49 PM (Im/xu)

Heh.

That's exactly what I think whenever these threads come up and people start bashing gays qua gays.

I mean their lives (and those of all their immediate family and friends who should have first call on their help) are so perfect that they now can focus with laser like precision on gays? Really? There's no need for them to do anything else to get their own shit in order that they have all this free time to straiten (heh) people out they've never met?

Must be nice. Must be damn nice.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 21, 2010 11:54 AM (X/Lqh)

129 I'm not Christian, but my impression of "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is general in scope, while the specific action-for-action rule is encapsulated in the Golden rule (and its contra-positive in Judaism; Hillel's explanation of the Torah, while standing on one leg).

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 11:54 AM (Qp4DT)

130

Of course we need to make judgements. You don't just pull someone off the street to babysit your kid.

Show me someone who's completely non-judgemental and I'll show you someone that's not all that bright.

But I don't think that's what that verse is talking about at all.

Ummm... so never mind.

Posted by: eleven at August 21, 2010 11:54 AM (/amiW)

131 118 Herr Morgenholz

I disagree. Christians ARE called to judge actions--"by their fruits you shall know them." The Epistles also give directions for members to approach another member of the congregation who is behaving badly to urge that person to repent.

Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at August 21, 2010 11:54 AM (62atQ)

132 This post is making me hungry. For a steak, medium rare, a little blood running onto the plate as I cut through. I thank God for cows. and beer.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 11:55 AM (664Zx)

133 You didn't burn shit. We all judge each other. Every day. We sit here every day and judge the Democrats for their behavior. Are we hypocrites? Have we no right to judge Democrats because we, in our daily lives, do bad things, too?

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 11:55 AM (DPuFa)

134 My favorite bumper sticker of all time:

If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

The logic was just so twisted as to be beautiful.

As for the Foot Locker dude, I would blame it on youth but there are plenty of stupid, judgmental old folks walking around too, so no pass. As for the near-violent rhetoric aimed at gay people, as a Christian, I have always struggled to understand 1. the hate and 2. the hypocrisy. About 16 years ago I was in a semi-argument with a guy at work. He was openly criticizing gays to which I queried "Have you ever considered that their sins could very well be a test of your own sins and character?"

The dude lost it. "God does not create confusion!"

Oh, really now? God has never created confusion?

God: Don't eat that fruit!   Eve: Really?
God: Build an ark!   Noah: Really?
God: Sacrifice your son!   Abraham: Really?

Why hast thou forsaken me?

It's not that I believe that God created homosexuality to test the rest of us. That belief would be asinine. What I was trying to say to him was that through their burdens, he had chosen to multiply his own.

We all have enough sin and burden in our own life and could make a full-time job of contending with those. Anyone who seeks a cleansing through bathing the other guy in mud is a fool.

If you are a Christian, then you know that we are not perfect. Not one of us. So, you beg forgiveness for your own sins, and let others beg forgiveness for theirs and, in the end, God will sort it all out.

Fred Phelps?

I mean, really?

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 11:55 AM (tovHz)

135 ~ tap tap tap tap tap ~

Is this microphone on?

it is? Yes? like the Donkey Kong?

Good, and so ...

many people have asked Hadji to eat only of vegetables and not of meat. I do not know why this is because Hadji thinks that cows are cows and chickens are chickens and that goats are goats, unless they have the bedroom eyes and a good manner to them, in which case they are good for companisonship on Saturday night.

So there is no problem with the killing and the eating of the animals so long as they are done in a way that Islam requires - using the sharpened bones of infidels to slit the throat of the beast.

I kid.

The sharpened bones of the infidels we Muslim use to pick the gristle from out teetth after the feast.

I kid again. I am like a baby goat I kid so much.

But I am not having bedroom eyes and my manner is not pleasant, so do not direct unpure thoughts my way.

I do not know why people choose to only eat vegetables and other plants. That is of their choosing.

I do know that the flesh of the cattle and the flesh of the chicken is a gift from Allah, as is the couscous and the lemon zest, and the corriander with just a drizzle of balsamic and some figs ... but I am digressing ...

and that the flesh of the goat is also a gift from Allah, and sometimes from your cousin Badeeb whom you performed a charity gig. But also that the flesh of the melon is a gift from Allah for when your wife is not around

I am told.

We of Islam have a saying "Treat Others Like You as You Would Like Others Like You to Treat You".

It works for us.

For you, maybe not so much.

thank you thank you thank you

Tip your waitresses and remember -
Meat is only murder if the animal has passed a test for citizenship.

-

Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at August 21, 2010 11:55 AM (Hj0nA)

136

So, according to his reading of the Bible, Jesus' injunction "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" only applies to those sins which you yourself are committing. On the rest, he contends, judge away!

Is he right?

Ace always brings the red meat.

Posted by: AOSHQ Monster at August 21, 2010 11:56 AM (Im/xu)

137 I'm not Christian, but my impression of "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is general in scope

It's perfectly summed up by an old saying of the monks of my Church. During Great Lent, especially, the Fast consists of only a vegan diet for all of us, but it is especially strict among the monastics.

Their saying? "Keep your eyes on your own plate."

And that's amongst one another.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 11:56 AM (rbfTh)

138 All this talk about cows has made me hungry. I think I'll go fix me some early supper with MEAT in it.

Pick it up at 8:27

http://tinyurl.com/34pwgsq

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 11:57 AM (/jbAw)

139 "Judge not, lest ye be an asshole."

Posted by: Jesus' Holier Brother, Bill at August 21, 2010 11:57 AM (Im/xu)

140 You didn't burn shit. We all judge each other. Every day.

We discern. To judge is to discern and act punitively on that discernment.

While I discern that your Daddy didn't love you enough, that doesn't mean I'm going to give you the ass kicking he should have.

Discernment.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 11:58 AM (rbfTh)

141 I thank God for cows. and beer.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes

Sounds like you are ok with beers steers and queers then???

Posted by: sTevo at August 21, 2010 11:58 AM (VMcEw)

142 Jesus said all kinds of stuff that contradicted other stuff he said. This isn't exactly news.

Posted by: Damn Skippy at August 21, 2010 11:58 AM (f7A+e)

143 First of all, Zoot, you must be new here: Very little is beneath me.

Understatement of the day. That's what that is.

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 11:59 AM (pRbtk)

144

I know this is not a religious blog but I have read for the last two days misconceptions, falsehoods and a wide range of so-called biblical views towards judging that need to be clarified....I hope you let this stand in your blog Ace - I believe it has merit. I wrote this in response to a men's ministry discussion on this very subject.

Is it right to Judge?

In this current societal atmosphere that is swift to label individuals intolerant or hateful if they vocally object to so-called progressive attitudes or progressive issues embraced by the liberal media elite and the emerging liberal religious community, it is imperative that Biblical exegesis (critical explanation or interpretation) is not compromised. Let us keep three scriptures in the forefront when identifying themes Â– Acts 17:11; 2Peter 3:16 (Chapter Â– Day of the Lord warning Â– unlearned or ignorant people and unstable or vacillating people that wrest or pervert or distort scripture); 2Timothy 3:16 (Chapter Last Days Â– description of people in the Last days Â– Paul tells Timothy how to cope with these times Â– Key word here is All in the 16^th verse Â– doctrine (learning and teaching as from an instructor), reproof (conviction and evidence), correction (rectification), and instruction (disciplinary correction, chastening, or chastisement). Growth oriented churches such as Rick WarrenÂ’s Saddleback church disregard this verse. Their message as directed by Warren is to only provide a positive message that overlooks the warnings and criticisms (judgments) throughout scripture. Saving souls is not about a methodology that provides comfort and entertainment that results in church growth; rather it is one that provides education of the entire Word of God that equips us for the Great Commission and maintains the purity of ChristÂ’s church. When we presume that our ideas for a healthy church are better than GodÂ’s plan and directives for ChristÂ’s church we are attempting to elevate or equate ourselves with God just as Satan did in the Garden of Eden. Sometimes it is not what someone says but what he does not say that should raise red flags. A verse must be interpreted or understood in the context of the chapter and in the totality of scripture. The Jehovah Witnesses are the frontrunners in twisting scripture by taking verses out of context to support an organizational position. A quick example: Â“The Father is greater than IÂ” (John 14:2 Â– This statement by Christ is used to support the Jehovah Witness OrganizationÂ’s position that the Trinity is a misrepresented and erroneous doctrinal position. By itself it does cause one to ponder but within the entire context of scripture it poses no quandary. Thus, with a basis established for scripture examination, let us determine if a theme exists in scripture that directs us not to judge.

First, let us review the Greek word most often translated Â“judgeÂ” or Â“judgmentÂ” Â– krino. On the one hand, it means to distinguish, to decide, to determine, to conclude, to try, to think, and to call in question. This is the path that God wants His followers to follow and embrace. With this concept of judgment acknowledged, we can then determine compliance to Biblical truth. However, on the other hand, it also means to condemn, to sentence and to punish. We recognize that these are GodÂ’s prerogatives and not ours (Romans 12 Â– Vengeance is mine).

What does scripture declare concerning judging? Jesus commanded, Â“Judge righteous judgmentÂ” (John 7:24). Jesus said, Â“Thou hast rightly judgedÂ” (Luke 7:43). The apostle Paul said, Â“I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I sayÂ” (1 Cor. 10:15). Paul said, Â“He that is spiritual judgeth all thingsÂ” (1 Cor. 2:15).

Jesus said, Â“Beware of false prophetsÂ…. you will know them by their fruitsÂ” (Matthew 7:15,16). This is a warning and command from our Lord. How could we Â“bewareÂ” and how could we know that they are Â“false prophetsÂ” if we did not judge? The apostle Paul admonished believers, Â“Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK THEM which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simpleÂ” (Romans 16:17,1 . This apostolic command could not be obeyed were it not right to judge. God wants us to know His Word and then test all teachers and teaching by it (remember the Bereans). The apostle John wrote, Â“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try (test, judge) the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the worldÂ” (1 John 4:1). We must judge by GodÂ’s Word, not by what appeals to human reasoning as many things seem good to human judgment but are false to the Word of God.

One of the most frequently quoted scriptures regarding judgment (and misapplied) is Matthew 7:1; Â“Judge not, that ye be not judgedÂ”. LetÂ’s read the entire passage Â– verse 1 through 5. Notice that it is addressed to a hypocrite and not to those who sincerely want to discern whether a teacher or teaching is true or false to GodÂ’s Word. It is not a prohibition against honest judgment but rather a solemn warning against hypocritical judgment. In fact, the last statement in verse 5 commands sincere judgment Â– Â“Then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother eyeÂ”. If we take a verse or part of verse out of its setting, we can make the Word of God appear to teach the very opposite of what it really does teach (remember 2Peter). Many who piously quote, Â“Judge notÂ” out of context in order to defend that which is false to GodÂ’s Word Â– do not see their own inconsistency in thus judging those who would obey GodÂ’s Word about judging that which is untrue to the Bible. It is tragic that so much that is anti-Scriptural has found undeserved shelter behind a misuse of this Scripture. The reason Christendom today is becoming paralyzed by Modernism frankly is because Christians have not obeyed the command of GodÂ’s Word to judge and separate from false teachers and false teaching. Physical health is maintained by separation from disease and germs. Spiritual health is maintained by separation from germs of false doctrine. The greatest peril of our day is not too much judging, but too little judging of spiritual falsehood.

Scripture does identify limitations of human judgment. Romans 14 tells us not to judge oneÂ’s eating habits (vegetarianism) as does 1 Cor. 10:23-33 (see also Col. 2:16,17). In 1 Cor. 4:1-5 we are told not to judge someoneÂ’s motives. Only God can peer into oneÂ’s heart and identify the motives that underlie their actions. And we are also not to judge who is saved. Â“The Lord knows those who are HisÂ” (2Tim 2:19). Again, only our Lord can see oneÂ’s true inner commitment.

Posted by: Bereans43 at August 21, 2010 12:00 PM (ASjv/)

145 May I recommend:

2 Tim 2:23
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

1 Cor 14:38
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

God really has the high ground when it comes to thinning out the gene pool, so there is no point in arguing with people with an agenda.

Posted by: AE at August 21, 2010 12:00 PM (kSfPT)

146 Posted by: Bereans43 at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM (ASjv/)

May I be the first to say: Jesus Christ that's HUGE!

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:01 PM (rbfTh)

147 okay, thanks for admitting I won the debate. Now, Herr, you will blow me.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 12:01 PM (DPuFa)

148 God really has the high ground when it comes to thinning out the gene pool

I'm catching up!

Posted by: Chrystal Meth at August 21, 2010 12:02 PM (rbfTh)

149 "Let he who is without sin cast the first aspersion."

Posted by: Jesus' Holier Brother, Bill of Nazereth at August 21, 2010 12:03 PM (Im/xu)

150

DA BEARS TO WIN IT ALL!!!!! WOOHOOOOOO

that is all

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 12:04 PM (gg4j2)

151 Posted by: Bereans43 at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM (ASjv/)

Are there Cliffsnotes?

Posted by: Elaine Benes at August 21, 2010 12:04 PM (VuLos)

152 MT 22:36-40. Being a Christian is pretty simple, yet incredibly difficult at times. I rely on ROM 8:28. Once saved always saved doesn't mean I attend orgies and snort cocaine in the morning and take quaaludes at night. Loving One Another can get confusing to the single or unmarried carnal mind, but it sure simplifies the stealing, screwing around with married chicks, murder and, you know, all the crap that (if it never happened) that would make life a bit closer to unicorns and rainbows if people just didn't do them to each other. I have prayed for years for an epiphany re: Jesus' Greatest Commandments in regards to his also stating that he didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. I feel the answer lies somewhere in an examination of the context of the when he said the law, which brings me to either MT 22:36, where he directly answered his disciples when asked what is the most important commandment (law, I guess?) or the original law - "do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil". It seems like they are connected, for if we act with love, evil shit ain't gonna happen. Right? Now shoving one's opinions down another's fucking throat ain't so lovey dovey sometimes, now is it? Consider Jesus saving the whore from execution. Their opinions of her behavior (which they knew in their hearts they engaged in as well) became so pious that in the name of what they thought was good, they were about to do something I think we can all agree would have been evil (torture her to death by stoning). BTW, I can't stand it when someone removes all context of what Jesus did and compares voicing an opinion (making a judgement) to "throwing stones" The "throwing stones" was a lot more fucking harsh than simply voicing a fucking opinion. Context? Throwing stones in context there is KILLING SOMEONE, not just voicing an opinion, er, passing judgement.. He saved a woman from being stoned to death for either simply earning a living or having fun (or just being a woman, whatever, he prevented the stoning). It opens the door for people who have probably never read the Bible to regurgitatate the false axiom that if a Christian voices an opinion it is always hypocrisy. The law at that time DEMANDED she be stoned to death. He didn't allow it. So there was a paradigm shift... shit, sorry. I better stop now.

It is my life's work in progress, and that written above pretty much sums it up in a quick nutshell. Pretty pathetic, eh? Perhaps that is part of why I get false gratification and bliss from beer and pussy so frequently!

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 12:04 PM (Epj2t)

153 Now, Herr, you will blow me.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 04:01 PM (DPuFa)

You were done when you thought that, weren't you?

And "discernment" is a specific term of art in Christian thinking, stretching back to the Desert Fathers.

You're a dolt.

Posted by: Chrystal Meth at August 21, 2010 12:04 PM (rbfTh)

154 die sock

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 12:04 PM (VuLos)

155 speaking of Berean,

Is Bernard Berean a good pickup for Fantasy Football? If so , what rond?

_{we change topics on a dime around here.}

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 21, 2010 12:04 PM (Hj0nA)

156 Foot Locker douchebag should have read further:
12 So alwaiz treet othrz liek u want dem to treet u. Kthnxbai.

I see people on both sides of the gay/Christian thing failing that one.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 21, 2010 12:04 PM (9PzaA)

157 149...

lol

This thread needed that.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 12:04 PM (tovHz)

158 I think cows are stupid. But don't judge me.

Which brings me to another, which is the better animal. Cows with their tasty tasty meat and potential for leather coats not to mention those host stompy boots.

Or the chicken, it can be eaten either before or after birth. The eggs go so well with that other animal, the pig, for breakfast, but also it hard to have any really good dessert without eggs. And the chicken can be made into so many different dishes from the whole roast to the fiery chicken wing.

Its a tough call, although I like steak better overall, I give the utility to the chicken, because even without a brain, its smarter than a cow.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 12:05 PM (664Zx)

159 And you've been bested by a drug made with Drano

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:05 PM (rbfTh)

160

Posted by: Bereans43 at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM

Would you like a BLT?

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 12:05 PM (AUo3q)

161 Let he who is without life cast the first Democratic vote.

Posted by: St. Daley of Chicago at August 21, 2010 12:05 PM (0pBLV)

162 Let he who is without life brains cast the first Democratic vote.

FTFY.

Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at August 21, 2010 12:06 PM (62atQ)

163 147 Posted by: Bereans43 at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM (ASjv/)

May I be the first to say: Jesus Christ that's HUGE!

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 04:01 PM (rbfTh)

May I be the first to say: That's what she said!

Posted by: Michael Scott at August 21, 2010 12:06 PM (YVZlY)

164

The rest of us just tend to our own gardens, stay in our own damn lanes and leave the judging to Him.

In short, not judging others isn't just a good idea...it's a rule.

I could be wrong.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 21, 2010 03:44 PM (X/Lqh)

DrewM., I don't think that's right. I mean, as I mentioned above, if we can't judge, what does that make state or federal judges? Sinners? Morally wrong? I don't think so.

Posted by: ed at August 21, 2010 12:06 PM (Zsqn4)

165 Is Bernard Berean a good pickup for Fantasy Football? If so , what rond?

No. In my non-judgmental judgment he's a piece of crap. Maybe two decent games a season, tops.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at August 21, 2010 12:07 PM (554T5)

166 I mean, as I mentioned above, if we can't judge, what does that make state or federal judges?

Fucking Golden!

Posted by: Rod Blagojevich at August 21, 2010 12:07 PM (rbfTh)

167 I'm only a Catholic for the free alcohol and bread-sticks.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at August 21, 2010 12:07 PM (TU+di)

168 >>>We all judge each other. Every day. >>>We sit here every day and judge the Democrats for their behavior. Are we hypocrites? Have we no right to judge Democrats because we, in our daily lives, do bad things, too? Yes, well, *I* am, but apparently you are not. This is the thing, this is the big thing: We all of us sin, and we all of us have character flaws. Inhibiting many of us about these sins and flaws, however, is a sense of shame about them; shame doesn't stop us from sinning, but it does reduce the number of sins and their severity. Because we know we're doing wrong, even as we're doing it; we feel bad about it, and usually that means we either make amends or at least are a little less likely to make the same moral error again. But what I am detecting here from people like Zoot is that he reads the Bible to strip away all sense of shame about this, to say "Go forward and judge, judge, judge to ye heart's content!" And so what would usually be the two pieces present here -- the desire to judge, sure, but limited by the sense of shame that comes with it (and, I would say, is SUPPOSED to come with it), is lacking. There is only one piece. Whereas one impulse would be the accelerator and another would be the brake, there is only accelerator here; there is no brake. because there is no shame. The command "judge not" is simply, pretty, much, ignored, or defined away through semantic contortions. I will not argue with a single conservative about the point that liberals have sapped this society by convincing the majority they cannot judge, and that NOTHING is really wrong because nothing is really right. I agree with that -- wholeheartedly. But I also think that people have to be on guard about animus towards minority groups. And gays really are a terribly small minority (even if a loud one). And judgement is good and right, and yes, we must make political decisions; but we must also bear in mind that sometimes we are not judging so much as giving license to our antipathy, and justifying it -- reading out the shame of it-- by recourse to a glib interpretation of an outside authority which really says a hell of a lot more about love and forgiveness than judgment and condemnation. It's not that i disagree with people like Zoot on the broad, legitimate poltiical questions about homosexuality. No, there shouldn't be gay marriage, especially not judge-created gay marriage, which is repellently democratic. No, I don't want kids learning about homosexuality in school. Etc. But judging on these points really should not lead to taking a delight in judging other's souls. And I do think there's some delight here -- these people are bad and in darkness, and it is good to judge them. Yes, the Bible speaks of judging, but it also speaks of not judging. It speaks of both. There is accelerator and brake; there must be a brake too.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:07 PM (QbA6l)

169 Its a tough call, although I like steak better overall, I give the utility to the chicken, because even without a brain, its smarter than a cow.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 04:05 PM (664Zx)

That's just bullshit!

Posted by: a chicken who insists it has a brain at August 21, 2010 12:09 PM (YVZlY)

170

Gayness doesn't fire me up at all. I'd rather live with a thousand cool gay guys than 1 pious Christian prick.

Plus, I'm a bear. Straight bear, but who can turn down a bj??

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 12:09 PM (aOKEC)

171 Dennis Prager said that line is mis-translated from the original Hebrew, which said "judge and prepare to be judged" or something to that effect. I don't know if he's right or not, but he knows a lot about that stuff.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at August 21, 2010 12:09 PM (Fg/7E)

172 Posted by: ed at August 21, 2010 04:06 PM (Zsqn4)

I think we are talking about morality and the state of one's soul.

The whole court judge thing falls under the Â“Render unto Caesar what is CaesarÂ’s and unto God what is GodÂ’s,Â” thing.

They are different areas entirely.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 21, 2010 12:10 PM (X/Lqh)

173 Tami@53,

Heh.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 21, 2010 12:10 PM (swuwV)

174 Its a tough call, although I like steak better overall, I give the utility to the chicken, because even without a brain, its smarter than a cow.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 04:05 PM (664Zx)

But piggy is the best of all. Sorry Jews, I love ya, but am so glad I'm not one -- swine is just too damn tasty to say no to.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 12:10 PM (5/yRG)

175

ace: Corrected: I called out a commenter at Hot Air for engaging in hyperbolic language. But I attributed to him a position he says he does not espouse, and, looking back, I can't find evidence he's wrong.

So I take him at his word, and have deleted that part of this post, with apologies.

Dude, ace, what the heck? This post of yours has been updated three times now. I'm not even sure what we're debating now.

Can we have a do-over?

And for the record, any of my comemnts on this post? If they were in any way confusing, or illogical, that's because of all these edits and deletions in ace's post.

Let's just say my comments, based on the original post were devestatingly effective and should be held as being above reproach and leave it at that.

Posted by: ed at August 21, 2010 12:11 PM (Zsqn4)

176 Dennis Prager said that line is mis-translated from the original Hebrew

Dennis Prager obviously believes Mt. 7:1 was written in Hebrew. Greek looks nothing like Hebrew.

Posted by: Rod Blagojevich at August 21, 2010 12:11 PM (rbfTh)

177 Should we judge others? The Bible is fairly clear, and Christ's own words that no we should not judge others. HOWEVER, people deceive themselves all the time about what this really means. And so if you ever point out foolishness or error or poor choices they say "DON'T JUDGE ME11!!!!!" As though that's an argument. It isn't. Here's the thing. Talking to people about God's law and the Bible they will frequently say "don't judge me," my response goes like this... "Let's say we were in a store and I saw you take a candy bar and put it in your pocket, and I said to you man that's not a good idea, you could go to jail that's stealing and it's wrong. Have I judged you? Or just given you wisdom." This is truth, that is not judging. It is pointing out the standard of the law, telling the other person to measure themselves up against and letting that person judge themselves by that standard (what we are supposed to do.) The same thing is true with the Bible, if I point out to someone that lying is breaking God's law, that stealing is, that looking upon a woman with lust is, that using God's name in vain is, have I done ANY judging? No, I have asked that person to judge himself. I Corinthians 5 tells us that God judges those outside the church, and we (the members of the church) are to judge within the church. Our role is not to judge, our role is to share the gospel, starting with the law so that there is a recognition of sin. Of course none of this deals with the realm of human judgment and government, which we are required to be a part of in our civil government and the measure we use (the law) must be measured to all equally and to ourselves. Seeking special treatment as a Christian would be wrong.

Posted by: Gov98 at August 21, 2010 12:12 PM (ozC2f)

178

The whole court judge thing falls under the Â“Render unto Caesar what is CaesarÂ’s and unto God what is GodÂ’s,Â” thing.

Yeah, pay your taxes, serfs.

Posted by: King James at August 21, 2010 12:12 PM (aOKEC)

179
Who's fooling whom, here? There's not a single, solitary moron or moronette here who doesn't indulge in the judgment of others on a daily basis. I'm sure I often lead the pack. If you doubt me, go back through your own posting history. To thine own self, be true.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at August 21, 2010 12:12 PM (554T5)

180 The whole court judge thing falls under the Â“Render unto Caesar what is CaesarÂ’s and unto God what is GodÂ’s,Â” thing.

They are different areas entirely.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 21, 2010 04:10 PM (X/Lqh)

Not if I consider myself to be both...

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama - God & Caesar of the USSA at August 21, 2010 12:13 PM (YVZlY)

181 Who's fooling whom, here? There's not a single, solitary moron or moronette here who doesn't indulge in the judgment of others on a daily basis. I'm sure I often lead the pack. If you doubt me, go back through your own posting history. To thine own self, be true.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at August 21, 2010 04:12 PM (554T5)

That's stupid!

Oh. Wait.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:14 PM (rbfTh)

182 I love reading the leftists comments on blogs like:

"I hate all those haters on the Right. I wish they'd all get cancer and die!"

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 03:12 PM (DPuFa)

I've always wondered how many "likes" one could get by going to HuffPost and spew hate-filled lefty talking points...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 12:14 PM (fM0nd)

183 Those of us who intend to be Christians judge, and are called to judge. Those who are not, and refuse to believe any of the Christian claims about Christ also judge. WHENEVER you think someone is wrong about something, or some act is wrong, etc., you judge. Whenever you choose one belief over another, you judge. All of humanity judges constantly.

And there's nothing wrong with that.What is wrong is when we *condemn* through that judgment. We have no right to judge the individual, as a human being, but we very much can judge the action/belief/position. Again, everyone does it every single day of their lives. Even if one just sat in a room meditating, or whatever, for the entire day - the choice to undertake such action involves judgment regarding taking the action.

The most important aspect of Matthew 7:1 is that we are not to put ourselves in the place of God (which, of course, humanism in all its forms, especially during the so-called Enlightenment, specifically aims to do). However, without *the proper form of judgment*, which most Fathers call discernment, is a key component to being a Christian.

the sinner,

Patrick

Posted by: Patrick at August 21, 2010 12:15 PM (Mfc9p)

184 As on old Noo Yawk relative used to say, ace is one fart smeller!

Religion-themed posts are nearly as good as comment- and hit-generators as Allahpander's Palin posts over at That Other Place.

Everyone has something to say, and every one of them is right! Just ask them....

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 21, 2010 12:15 PM (Ulu3i)

185

well shit, I step away for a few minutes and I find out it was a trap/test

did I pass the mf'er?

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at August 21, 2010 12:15 PM (yxA6+)

186

I'm pretty sure his mascara makes Jesus cry.

*trivia-did you know that Maybelline sells one of their standard pink/green tubes of mascara every 1.6 seconds? That's a shitload of mascara.

Posted by: di butler, maker of bad decisions at August 21, 2010 12:15 PM (8TRAy)

187 I thought post #733 on this thread was a good post: "Posted by: Entropy at August 20, 2010 07:21 PM (eL+YD)"
It makes you think.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 12:16 PM (p302b)

188 well shit, I step away for a few minutes and I find out it was a trap/test

At least there was no math.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at August 21, 2010 12:17 PM (554T5)

189 Okay, methinks there is a bit of conscious confusion about judgment and judgment.

One is, as was stated above, discernment that comes from questioning. Only a fool would fail to exercise this type of judgment: It's what tells you that getting in the car with that stranger might not be such a good idea. It's the judgment that guides you to make better decisions about your own life or about the well-being of those around you. It is the one that permits us to cast judgment that says that a murderous bastard should be locked away.

The other one is not so pretty. It is the one that leads so-called-Christians to proclaim that the other guy is going to hell, i.e., God has forgiven me, but that guy is going to hell. It's the one that presumes to know that the other guys sins are unforgivable.

There is a clear distinction to be made.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 12:17 PM (tovHz)

190 At least there was no math.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at August 21, 2010 04:17 PM (554T5)

Don't tell AmishDude....we'll never hear the end of it.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 12:17 PM (VuLos)

191 Greek looks nothing like Hebrew.

Posted by: Rod Blagojevich at August 21, 2010 04:11 PM (rbfTh)

Well ... my understanding is that the Greeks took their alphabet from Hebrew, though they screwed up, luckily, and mistook the odder consonants for vowels, leading to the modern Western concept of vowels as letters - one of the most concepts in written language. There was also the luck that the Greeks were building a written language, as opposed to an etched one, getting right handers in front on the writing, as opposed to etching from right-to-left being the natural right-handed way, but the natural left-handed form of writing.

I just always found those neat little tidbits that I gratuitously inject anytime someone mentions Greek and Hebrew together.

Carry on.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 12:18 PM (Qp4DT)

192 Religion-themed posts are nearly as good as comment- and hit-generators as Allahpander's Palin posts over at That Other Place.

And they are much safer than racism posts.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at August 21, 2010 12:18 PM (TU+di)

193

175 My advice would be to just stay out of it: that's their family. If one of them comes to you with the knowledge of this (which may not happen anyway), then be kind and supportive.

I personally don't understand all the brouhaha over homosexuality in the first place -- the thing in and of itself is a personal matter imho.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 12:18 PM (5/yRG)

194 The other one is not so pretty. It is the one that leads so-called-Christians to proclaim that the other guy is going to hell, i.e., God has forgiven me, but that guy is going to hell. It's the one that presumes to know that the other guys sins are unforgivable.

That was an awful lot of words to use to say "Baptist".

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:18 PM (rbfTh)

195

Because It's Not Fair... I will say: Be careful in answering. This is designed as a set-up, a trick question.

It's a trap.

I know. I tried to warn them....

Posted by: Admiral Akbar at August 21, 2010 12:18 PM (X/Lqh)

196

This is the problem we Christians run into....judging the action, not the action-er, if you will.

It doesn't really bode well for Sunday school attendance to say, "We love the fag, but hate his faggoty behavior." Telling someone they're doing it wrong doesn't make them want to be like you.

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 12:19 PM (aOKEC)

197 Ace you do this every time. You jump to extreme conclusions and make sweeping generalizations and mis-characterizations of people's positions. But here we are at an impasse. We agree on everything except you think gayness should not be judged. (oh, and for the record, I'm not judging gays because that'd be wrong. I'm judging the behavior of people and homosexual acts are indeed a sin.)

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 12:19 PM (DPuFa)

198 God has forgiven me, but that guy is going to hell. It's the one that presumes to know that the other guys sins are unforgivable.

Err...ahh...they may have a point.

Posted by: Ted Kennedy Says It's Hot Down Here at August 21, 2010 12:20 PM (554T5)

199 Judge not lest ye be judged isn't about condemning sin, its about presuming you're better. Elsewhere the Bible tells us to condemn sin and help others escape it; even in the same passage Jesus says that. Just don't assume you're any better - we all stand equally condemned to hell for sin before a righteous God, saved only by the doing and dying of Jesus Christ put to our account by the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 12:20 PM (PQY7w)

200 One things liberal do is focus exclusively on "judge not." I get that -- they're wrong. On the other hand, it is equally wrong to disregard that entirely and only focus on the parts about sin and judging, right? I mean-- the Bible says both, right? It talks of sin; and it talks of calling sin what it is; and it calls us to lead lives outside of sin (to the extent we can); but it also, too, contains the "judge not" and "beam in the eye" parts, too right? They are hard to reconcile. Worme suggested one reconciliation: Judge someone's sin IF your heart is full of love for that person and you truly want to lead them to sin. Others, like Drew, suggest a different reconciliation: Don't go overboard with it, tend to your own garden first. I don't really have a good idea of what the reconciliation is, but I know the proper reconciliation cannot simply be ignoring the "judge not" part as inconvenient.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:21 PM (QbA6l)

201 Oh, hell, why not: Where two are gathered, right? Consider this with me. MT 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Seems like an ivitation or perhaps a clue that we will have the power to set boundaries for acceptable behavior. I dunno 'bout you, but I wanna fuck and drink and have fun in heaven. I'd say we can easily agree to bind rape, torture, murder and shit like that. Gay sex? I don't fucking care, really. One other bizarre thing to lay out there - consider that the parable of the prodigal son is also about satan. He says to forgive 70 x 7 times (do I have that right?), whatever number that might come to (6 days is fifteen billion years, right), maybe the depth of His forgiveness represents 70 x 7 big bangs and big crunches? Anyway, in some future heaven googol x googol x googol years in the future, I won't be surprised or pissed if satan shows up and God throws a party. Falwell and Phelps, now they might get a little pissy, but I doubt Mother Theresa would freak out!

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 12:21 PM (Epj2t)

202 So I think we're kind of reaching a consensus that it's okay to judge but not to judge-judge.

Thus ends this reading from the Book Of Whoopi.

Posted by: DrewM. at August 21, 2010 12:21 PM (X/Lqh)

203 I just always found those neat little tidbits that I gratuitously inject anytime someone mentions Greek and Hebrew together.

Pretty much all alphabets spring from the Phoenician, in one way or another, so there are going to be similarities. The languages themselves though have nothing in common as I understand it.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:22 PM (rbfTh)

204

It doesn't really bode well for Sunday school attendance to say, "We love the fag, but hate his faggoty behavior." Telling someone they're doing it wrong doesn't make them want to be like you.

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 04:19 PM (aOKEC)

My understanding is that one becomes a Christian through Christ ... not their Sunday school teacher.

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 12:22 PM (fM0nd)

205

"We all of us sin, and we all of us have character flaws." - Ace.

Oh, I dunno, Ace, I don't think that being pretentious and too wordy are character flaws. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Posted by: Atrollpasinthru at August 21, 2010 12:22 PM (sYrWB)

206 ~ tap tap tap tap tap ~

This is still on? Good.

Peoples. Peoples. Peoples.

All this bickering and back and forth. It is like I am standing in the suq of RetardTown during a Full Moon. Enough. There is an solution for you.

Islam.

We have an introductory offer for you.

Join now ... or else.

Plus for every five people that Hadji gets to join, I get one extra virgin in Paradise. Plus a better location for my prayer rug at the Mosque. And I get a locker for the racquetball also located at the Mosque.

Which is really a community center.

Mostly for our community.

So - who is ready to join and help a Hadji out?

.

Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at August 21, 2010 12:23 PM (Hj0nA)

207 I haven't committed murder and have no desire to do so, but I will judge those who do. I don't think Jesus was telling us not to judge people for any crime, even those we would never commit ourselves. That just seems silly.

Posted by: Pervy Grin at August 21, 2010 12:23 PM (VfvZG)

208 Zoot, well I didn't intend to misread you, but I do so all the time. That is a big failing. In the interests of clarity, can you tell me what you do intend to say on this issue, with special emphasis on Coulter's speaking at HomoCon? I promise I will read your statement carefully and not assume and jump to conclusions.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:23 PM (QbA6l)

209 Let me throw a sticky into the wicket here, but some of the most unreasonable judgements I have seen have come from gays. Now maybe this is a reaction to treatment they have received prior, but I seem to see a fair amount of the same reaction from them that I see in that guy in the video. "Your judging me because I'm gay" where I say "Dude, I didn't know you were gay, now get your hand off my ass."

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 12:25 PM (664Zx)

210 >>>, I don't think that being pretentious pretentious? Really? It's funny, I've been meaning to ban you forever but kept forgetting to. Thanks for the reminder. (By the way, in case you're worried I'm just banning him because he insulted me: No. His monicker is quite accurate: he is a habitual troll constantly insulting everybody.)

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:25 PM (QbA6l)

211

181 Well, that's why it's always a good idea (imho) to just come clean and say you're a sinner.

There are a few people I've met that truly were good people -- I'm not one of them. I'm betting at better than even odds that I'll be vacationing at the lake of fire after I shuffle off this mortal coil...if such a thing exists.

However, one can make the judgement that such judgementalism is not a good thing (or at least delighting in it or being self satisfied in it).

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 12:25 PM (5/yRG)

212 -->Pretty much all alphabets spring from the Phoenician, in one way or another, so there are going to be similarities.

Of course. But I was addressing what I have understood was the more detailed connection.

-->The languages themselves though have nothing in common as I understand it.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 04:22 PM (rbfTh)

Well, they have a little in common, but not very much and nothing in actual grammar or usage that I have ever heard of. I was just riffing off of the comment about Prager's obvious mistake.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 12:27 PM (Qp4DT)

213 oh, one more thing. I really don't think I'm getting into Heaven. So I'm not some sanctimonious Christian.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 12:27 PM (DPuFa)

214 Uh, Herr, raised Baptist here.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 12:27 PM (tovHz)

215 ace - They are hard to reconcile. Worme suggested one reconciliation: Judge someone's sin IF your heart is full of love for that person and you truly want to lead them to sin.

$50, ace.

Same as in town.

-

Unless that's a Freudian slip on a Paulian subject.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 21, 2010 12:27 PM (Hj0nA)

216 Philosophy is hard! Let's go shopping!

Posted by: Philosopher Barbie at August 21, 2010 12:27 PM (Pm5H8)

217 215...

I hope your are wrong.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 12:28 PM (tovHz)

218

My understanding is that one becomes a Christian through Christ ... not their Sunday school teacher.

Agreed. Wasn't my point, but you are proving mine. Some Christians drive people away from the church because they seem so mean-spirited. They think they are doing God's work by telling others they are going to hell for their behavior. They aren't. Can a gay guy not be saved through Christ if he continues to do what teh gays do?

Unlike the dems, it really is a message problem here.

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 12:28 PM (aOKEC)

219 Uh, Herr, raised Baptist here.

I knew that. Damn you take a long time to take bait. Just fuckin' witcha.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:28 PM (rbfTh)

220 Carrot Juice is Murder: http://tinyurl.com/yuulfd

Posted by: Snakey at August 21, 2010 12:29 PM (8uDC8)

221 Be a Catholic, we got the waiting room!

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at August 21, 2010 12:29 PM (TU+di)

222
Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

That's the sound of the ban hammer closing the lid on the casket of the insulting troll.

Posted by: Fish at August 21, 2010 12:29 PM (v1gw3)

223 >>>Let me throw a sticky into the wicket here, but some of the most unreasonable judgements I have seen have come from gays. This is sort of a they-do-it-too argument. I can only say: Dude, you are COMPLETELY right, lefty gays, or professional homosexuals like Andrew Sullivan, are about the most insufferable creatures on God's earth, but... ...the relevance of that is pretty dubious, especially when that hostility to that kind of angry, entitled, screaming bitch extends to gays who are, well, pretty reasonable and pretty decent, overall. I mean, even just directed at that one subgroup, you're not supposed to fall into the same error (although I admit it's pretty damn understandable!). I mean -- Good God All Mighty. Look how I have attacked Andrew Hissyfit Sullivan. Not Christian of me at all. (All I can say is that I'm not really a Christian, I'm just an agnostic who prays when something bad is going on and so who can't discount the existence of God and who WOULD BE a Christian if he had a religious impulse, but who really doesn't. Plus he's a dick, and if calling a dick a dick is wrong, well then that's MY kind of wrong.)

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:29 PM (QbA6l)

224 I suggest lest Jesus and more Mark Twain:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 12:30 PM (Pm5H8)

225 Ace, as far as Homocon goes, the name of it alone bothers me. As a conservative I don't like singling out groups. I like to think of us as the American party. I'm against Homocon as much as I'd be against AsianCon or RetardCon.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 12:30 PM (DPuFa)

226 er, less Jesus

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 12:30 PM (Pm5H8)

227 You know Catholics used to have to not eat meat on Fridays. Then, just like that, they changed the rule and you could eat meat on Fridays but not during Lent and on certain holydays. I remember my friend telling me he got detention for asking the brother teaching his all boys Catholic School religion class this question. '"Brother, my mom's mom used to say to my uncle, you ate meat, you're going to hell'...so now that they changed the rule, are all those people still in hell?"

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 12:30 PM (p302b)

228 Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 04:22 PM (rbfTh)

It is more like the way that Turkey Latinized their alphabet, even though there was no change in the underlying language. It was merely a matter of adopting a different method and tools for writing the same words and sounds. But, just the method of writing the phonemes is of serious importance, though it has little connection to the underlying language.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 12:30 PM (Qp4DT)

229
"Love Texas steaks, hate broccoli."

-George H W Bush

Posted by: Fish at August 21, 2010 12:31 PM (v1gw3)

230 I just can't get behind the "don't judge" bit. When you're dealing with people at work, in your personal life, or when you go into the voting booth, you are sizing people up 24/7. You have to. You're judging them personally, by their character.

For that matter, so did Jesus when he chased the money-changers out of the temple and criticized them and the authorities as manipulating widows and the poor. Now, as far as not delighting in it (as you mentioned in your follow-up), okay, yeah.

The "don't judge" argument, however, usually seems to come from people who want me to excuse them from doing something horrible by implicitly admitting I've done stuff just as bad. This is okay sometimes, except in a lot of cases, I haven't done stuff equally bad. Hence, my gut reaction is often "bite me" whenever that argument comes up.

When it comes to homosexuality, I will say along the lines of what you're saying, Ace, that if you want to rail against gays from your religious beliefs as a Christian, based the New Testament, you're drawing from St. Paul as your source. If you want to do that, I'm willing to bet you aren't holding hard and fast to a lot of other stuff that comes solely from St. Paul in the New Testament (how women should act, slaves, etc.).

Of the course . . . there's also the possibility you vote conservative and don't practice Christianity or aren't religious period, in which case I appreciate Coulter (as opposed to World Net Daily) letting people know they aren't purged from the party.

Posted by: AD at August 21, 2010 12:31 PM (pIb7g)

231 >>So I take him at his word, and have deleted that part of this post, with apologies.

Apologizing is for the meek, and you know what the meek are going to inherit? A boot in the ass from Pat Caddell, that's fucking what.

Posted by: Pat Caddell at August 21, 2010 12:31 PM (xO+6C)

232 221...

I knew you were baiting somebody!

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 12:32 PM (tovHz)

233 143 Jesus said all kinds of stuff that contradicted other stuff he said. This isn't exactly news.

Posted by: Damn Skippy at August 21, 2010 03:58 PM (f7A+e)

Examples? I'm always on the lookout for a good Bible teacher.

172 Dennis Prager said that line is mis-translated from the original Hebrew, which said "judge and prepare to be judged" or something to that effect. I don't know if he's right or not, but he knows a lot about that stuff.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at August 21, 2010 04:09 PM (Fg/7E)

Then JC must have been "quoting" one of the Old Testament prophets, because the New Testament original lingo is Koine (Common) Greek.

Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 12:32 PM (vBppj)

234 Ya know, Jesus was a cool guy and all, but I sure wish he would have given a more thorough explanation of the whole "don't judge" bit.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 12:33 PM (Pm5H8)

235 Can a gay guy not be saved through Christ if he continues to do what teh gays do?

Unlike the dems, it really is a message problem here.

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 04:28 PM (aOKEC)

That's between teh ghey guy and his Redeemer...At the end of the day, if one is up at the Pearly Gates saying "Let me in! It's the fault of those haters that I didn't become a Christian!!!" well, you get the point.

Christians should show God's love ... that doesn't mean acceptance of sin. Those Christians that don't show God's love aren't being very good Christians, now are they?

They should be fine if they stick with the Message instead of worrying about how their messaging is played in TV...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 12:33 PM (fM0nd)

236 Dennis Prager obviously believes Mt. 7:1 was written in Hebrew. Greek looks nothing like Hebrew.

Posted by: Rod Blagojevich at August 21, 2010 04:11 PM (rbfTh)

I'd pause before I'd go against Prager about what's in either the Old Testament or even the New.

Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 12:34 PM (vBppj)

237 >>>As a conservative I don't like singling out groups. I like to think of us as the American party. I'm against Homocon as much as I'd be against AsianCon or RetardCon. Abject nonsense! I keep hearing this bullshit. Really? You're against conservatives dividing themselves into groups based on shared interest? Then tell me your opinion of the TEA PARTY. How about Club for Growth? How about Jewish Conservatives? How about black conservatives? You know, you may or may not actually have this aversion to making smaller groupings, but I do know that it is only since HomoCon that people have actually bothered EXPRESSING their dislike of such things. Which makes me think gays are being, yeah, singled out. Maybe you don't like sub-grouping -- but I know for a fact no one's had enough of a problem with it to say anything about it in the past. Or sure, I'm sure there's a stray mention of it here and there over the years, but all of a sudden it's HomoCon and it's this apparently BIG general-principle thing with people they just forgot to mention in the past.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:34 PM (QbA6l)

238 It is more like the way that Turkey Latinized their alphabet, even though there was no change in the underlying language.

I don't know enough to know if that applies to the Greek alphabet or not. There's some ancient assed Greek that's recognizable, very much so, as Greek. I'm not arguing one way or the other.

On a related note, try to figure out how the hell Slavic went from using glagolitic to cyrillic. Glagolitic looks like a math puzzle in the back of a science magazine.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:34 PM (rbfTh)

239 The "Judge not lest you be judged," has become a favorite scripture of anyone that wants to continue in sin. Basically Christ was warning you that if you have something all personal and angry in yourself about someone else's sin, then beware you are yourself harboring sin and that is the source of your projected anger, possibly even the same sin, maybe not in deed, but in thought.

However it no wise excuses anyone for sin. Christ would heal someone and tell them to go about their life and quit sinning. Also judgment is a two-edged sword, you can be tolerant to the level of letting the murderer go free...that is also a judgment. Basically morality is outlined in the Bible, you can point out the demands of Biblical morality to yourself and others, however the day YOU become the enforcer of morality for others, you have taken the place of God.

Christ said not even He executes judgment on humans, He said that the Word He spoke is what everyone will be measured by, and you can watch it unfold in real time, you have all sides, left and right fundamentalists and atheists twist the word of God to suit themselves, to excuse their favorite sins, but we all know down inside when we are cheating...we know.

Posted by: Jehu at August 21, 2010 12:34 PM (YkTMO)

240 All I [ace] can say is that I'm not really a Christian, I'm just an agnostic who prays when something bad is going on.

It's true. ace prayed to me once.

I figured it was a wrong number.

Posted by: Ganeesha at August 21, 2010 12:35 PM (Hj0nA)

241 I think people over think this stuff waaay too much.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 12:36 PM (5/yRG)

242 Yes, I am guilty, big time. This post has waken me up. I have been way too judgmental of Democrats, mostly out of hate and frustration. I'm guilty of not keeping my judgment strictly to their behavior; I've been judging their souls and damning them as if I was Him.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 12:37 PM (DPuFa)

243

The real trap is making absolute claims about anything, isn't it? I'm not gay, never once wanted to do anything gay. I've never wanted to smear crap on a wall, either. But some people do. They go into a place and take a crap and pick it up and put it all over the walls and stuff. A guy did that in the dining area of a restaurant near where I live. (Sorry to be so graphic, but people do this.)

Again, I have never been tempted to commit the sin of wiping feces on walls. Can I condemn this as a sin? Yeah, I am. Is this judgmental? Again, yes. Is it inappropriately judgmental? I don't think it is.

(And no, I'm not comparing gay people to these people. I really can't say much about being gay or people who are gay. But wiping crap all over stuff is messed up.)

Posted by: FireHorse at August 21, 2010 12:37 PM (sWynj)

244 How about Jewish Conservatives?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:34 PM (QbA6l)

We don't have a group - not that I've ever heard of - and I prefer it that way.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 12:37 PM (Qp4DT)

245 >>>I just can't get behind the "don't judge" bit. When you're dealing with people at work, in your personal life, or when you go into the voting booth, you are sizing people up 24/7. You have to. You're judging them personally, by their character. ... >>>The "don't judge" argument, however, usually seems to come from people who want me to excuse them from doing something horrible by implicitly admitting I've done stuff just as bad. This is okay sometimes, except in a lot of cases, I haven't done stuff equally bad. Hence, my gut reaction is often "bite me" whenever that argument comes up. I am saying judging is in there, yeah, and you're right about the "don't judge me" thing (very convenient for a chronic jerkoff to claim "don't judge me") but I'm saying they are BOTH in there, and one cannot rely on only one and read the other out of existence. Liberals surely are all about "judge not." They're wrong. But conservatives cannot (or should not) make the equal and opposite error and act is if judge not doesn't exist at all. As I said, I don't know how to reconcile the two, but the reconciliation must be more involved than simply ignoring one as if it was never said at all.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:37 PM (QbA6l)

246 I'd pause before I'd go against Prager about what's in either the Old Testament or even the New.

True. But his statement would basically mean that Christ mistranslated the Hebrew if he was quoting or paraphrasing one of the OT prophets. Unlikely.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:38 PM (rbfTh)

247 This whole thread just reminds me of how difficult and time-consuming it is to read the Bible. Not because of the language, but because every tiny verse can be so complex that you can speak of it endlessly.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 12:38 PM (tovHz)

248 >>>We don't have a group - not that I've ever heard of - and I prefer it that way. Well there is at least one in NYC.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:38 PM (QbA6l)

249 I have a few friend that are gay, like 2, but its their friends that drive me batty. I judge them as individuals. Collectivism usually isn't good in any form.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 12:38 PM (664Zx)

250
"Do not point lest others point back"
Zen Nudist.

Posted by: Baba Ram Da Ass at August 21, 2010 12:39 PM (x+k6q)

251

246 But is it the same level of messed up if a toddler does it? A mentally handicapped person? an otherwise ordinary adult does it? (the poo smearing that is)

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 12:39 PM (5/yRG)

252 The guy's totally wrong. He's just a lily-livered coward with skin so thin he'd probably kill himself if he was ever called a hypocrite.

When it comes to sin, I'd much rather be accused of not practicing what I preach, than being accused of preaching what I practice.

Posted by: Dusty at August 21, 2010 12:39 PM (3WVdK)

253

I don't have any problem at all with Coulter talking to gays or gays being conservative or whatever else they want to do.

I don't have any gay freinds that I know of though. I guess the reason for that is that PDA among gay men gives me an adverse pysical reaction just like seeing a hot woman gives me a positive pysical reaction.

I don't see that changing for me. It isn't because what I think they are doing is a sin, it's just because seeing it makes me feel bad like a number of things you see do.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 12:40 PM (fwSHf)

254 60 Flavius

60 How can you judge others for eating meat when you are a godless sodomite cocksucker? First spit the cock out of thine own mouth before you judge others for having a ham sandwich.

This should be enshrined...somewhere, beyond funny.

Posted by: Jehu at August 21, 2010 12:40 PM (YkTMO)

255

We are taught that we must be good Christians, follow the rules, love thy neighbor, and lead a holy life. Then, some mass murderer kills ninety people, ends up on death row, gets Jesus, and like me, he's supposedly going to be 'saved'. It's hard not to JUDGE that.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 12:40 PM (hG3dU)

256 254 Thus my point about absolute claims. (Fell into my own trap, didn't I?)

Posted by: FireHorse at August 21, 2010 12:41 PM (sWynj)

257

They should be fine if they stick with the Message instead of worrying about how their messaging is played in TV...

Agree completely. Don't care how it plays on TV, but I do care about how it plays in the mind of people who are looking for the love and hope and faith that Christianity provides, but don't see it in the "Christian" people.

We hurt the church by not accepting everyone (not their behavior). Everyone should be welcome in church, but there are plenty of "Christians" who don't believe this. We can judge that their behavior is sinful, but we can't put them in hell for it. Not our job.

Again, agree totally. I just hate to see someone turned away from Christ because of the actions of those who purport to serve him.

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 12:41 PM (aOKEC)

258 259 xoxo

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 12:41 PM (5/yRG)

259 All I can say is the single most consistantly Anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, VIRULANTLY anti-socialist person I know is a powerbottom. I couldn't give a microbial-sized shit about his homosexuality, when I have a government that is threatening my ABILITY to even succeed and have a fruitful, productive life. I have a government that has MANDATED I buy something, that guts medicare to fund obamacare when none of it is fundable, that tells me which way I need to shit, taxes the paper and water I use to shit, and penalizes me if my shit smells slightly worse than the Hendersons' down the block. And I am supposed to quiver in fear over what two guys want to to to each others assholes? I have a feeling what a homosexual does with his mouth and mouth is far, far less threatening or relevant to ANY of your lives than what Obomb has done with his tongue and pen. If you disagree, may I suggest you pull that top out of your pocket and give it a spin.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 12:42 PM (Gr1V1)

260 This should be enshrined...somewhere, beyond funny.

Posted by: Jehu at August 21, 2010 04:40 PM (YkTMO)

OH MY! How did I miss that!?!

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 12:42 PM (fM0nd)

261 Well there is at least one in NYC.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:38 PM (QbA6l)

I'm sure that there are groups of Jewish conservatives, but I was speaking in terms of large, public groups that hold big conventions and such. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't recall ever hearing of some big Jewish conservative get-together.

I have no problem with groupings along lines of common interests, but I don't like groupings along lines of common traits. You know what I mean? I don't find them to be terrible, or anything, but just not my cup of tea.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 12:42 PM (Qp4DT)

262 236 Ya know, Jesus was a cool guy and all, but I sure wish he would have given a more thorough explanation of the whole "don't judge" bit.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 04:33 PM (Pm5H

Strong's Concordance is your friend.

Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 12:43 PM (vBppj)

263 Don't judge me, bro! It's art!

Posted by: Guy who smears poo at August 21, 2010 12:43 PM (Pm5H8)

264 How many universes are there? If you really really really don't wanna fuck and drink in heaven, something tells me a loving God can make that happen. Maybe that's what's taking so long for Him to come back! You know, waiting for a couple of pious dorks to come along that want to join you in that dimension!

Once saved always saved.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 12:43 PM (Epj2t)

265 One things liberal do is focus exclusively on "judge not."

Uh....they're all about judging people for made-up sins (driving SUVs, voting Republican, owning a gun, eating cheeseburgers); they only embrace "judge not" when it's a real sin (murder, theft, covetousness) or they're the ones being judged.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 21, 2010 12:44 PM (9PzaA)

266 If God didn't want us to eat animals He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Posted by: t-bird at August 21, 2010 12:44 PM (FcR7P)

267 This whole thread just reminds me of how difficult and time-consuming it is to read the Bible. Not because of the language, but because every tiny verse can be so complex that you can speak of it endlessly.

See, I don't believe that. I think it says what it says. There is a fair amount of referencing and sub-referencing to the OT, and there is a lot of cultural context to it. (Do not seeth a kid in it's mother's milk = No corned beef and swiss. Why? Because baby goat boiled in milk was the favored pagan feast entree at that time. It was to differentiate.)

Too much interpretation and you lose the plot. Especially the NT, more contemporary and which was recorded by flawed men, should be read as a chronicle of events and statements, in my opinion.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:44 PM (rbfTh)

268 258 Ok, let's take Jeffery Dahmer as an example: did horrid things (judgement call on my part), deserved to be punished for them (judgement call on my part), not sorry he's dead (judgement call -- me). Where in that list did I go wrong as a Christian? Because on one of them I did indeed go up to that line and salute it.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 12:45 PM (5/yRG)

269

Again, agree totally. I just hate to see someone turned away from Christ because of the actions of those who purport to serve him.

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 04:41 PM (aOKEC)

I don't know. I think you're lumping all Christians into the same group... I really don't like Big Religion, but I'm not going to judge all Christians based on the actions of some I've seen at churches. You don't like the lack of love. I don't. What can we do? I'll tell you what. We can show love to all. We can pray. Some things might be beyond our control.

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 12:45 PM (fM0nd)

270 Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:34 PM (QbA6l)

Is division based on actual political issues the same as division based on irrelevant crap like race or religion though?

Anyway, I have a problem with it in principle but not in practice. People like being pandered to based on race and religion and the type of hole they stuff they stuff because they're shallow assholes. But I want their votes anyway, so I'll tolerate these groups as long as they don't actually start pushing liberal issues. I'm fine with conservative women's groups, just don't push abortion like the liberals do. I'm fine with black groups, just don't push fake victimhood like the liberals do. I'm fine with with gay groups, just don't push government subsidy of gay marriage against the will of the population like the liberals do. AFAIK, goproud does exactly that, so I'm rather wary of them as a result. I'm not saying I want these people to give up on their non-conservative beliefs. Just to comprehend that they are in the minority and should suppress them for the good of the party. If enforced acceptance/murdering children/abusing your race's social status is more important to you than small taxes or national security or whatever makes you want to join the republican party, then you do not really belong in the republican party and i do not think we should suppress our own ideology to get them in.

Posted by: Johnny at August 21, 2010 12:45 PM (aB5St)

271 Well, I am a theologian and teach classes to adults. It's useless to even try to have a conversation about theology with people who have an agenda.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 12:46 PM (ERrad)

272 Poop smearing is a delicate art. You have to make sure the Virgin's face has a fecalstache and pootee. Trust me on this...

Posted by: Chris Olfini at August 21, 2010 12:46 PM (Gr1V1)

273 The Great Satan's Ghost: "well shit, I step away for a few minutes and I find out it was a trap/test

did I pass the mf'er?"

Yes. You're ghey with pronounced straight tendencies.

Posted by: BBC's Online Sex I.D.er at August 21, 2010 12:46 PM (swuwV)

274 Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 04:43 PM (vBppj)

AFAIK, strong's is rather dated. It's just used often because it's free. I would recommend a better one but I haven't been in the loop for quite some time.

Posted by: Johnny at August 21, 2010 12:46 PM (aB5St)

275 Also, translation is not necessarily the issue. I recommend that people read social studies books that focus on the ANE to get a perfect picture. The bible was not written for 21st century westerners and 21st century westerners will inevitably miss or misrepresent things even with the best of translations available.

Posted by: Johnny at August 21, 2010 12:47 PM (aB5St)

276 Judge not lest you be judges is more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. Wthout judging you couldn't live in a civil society.

Posted by: Not at the table Carlos at August 21, 2010 12:47 PM (xO+6C)

277 okay well this is one of the commentaries on Matthew 7:1 from Strong's (source)

II. IN WHAT WAYS ARE WE FORBIDDEN TO JUDGE?A. Should not judge presumptuously.1. Treat rumors as facts.2. Judging motives of others.a. Satan concerning Job.B. Hypocritically.1. Finding minor flaws in others while ignoring major flaws in ourselves.2. Romans 2:1, "Thou art inexcusable..."3. David judging Nathan's man.C. Hastily or rashly.1. Best to first attain all the facts.2. John 7:24, "Judge not according to appearance."3. Many have been destroyed through this type of judgment.D. Unwarrantably.1. In some things the scriptures are silent.2. Romans, Paul speaks about judging in meat or drink.3. Man has established certain rules that prohibit what God has not prohibited.E. Judge not unfairly.1. This often happens from prejudice.a. I do not consider all the facts.2. I have already formed by conclusions, thus ignore certain evidence or pass it off.F. Judge not unmercifully.

Posted by: Guy who smears poo at August 21, 2010 12:49 PM (Pm5H8)

278 258...

I was raised Baptist but have attended church with various Christian denominations. There's a lot about Catholicism that I'm not drawn to, but one particular element of Catholicism makes so much sense that it's difficult for me to ignore, and that's purgatory.

I love my daughter, and when she was a misbehaving child, I loved her still. And, I forgave her when she hurt my feelings. That does not mean that she wasn't punished for the transgression in some way, but when the punishment was complete, I always hugged her and told her that she was loved.

Purgatory just seems right to me.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 12:49 PM (tovHz)

279 oops sock off

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 12:49 PM (Pm5H8)

280 I don't see that having some hierarchy of sins, with homosexuality at the top, is necessarily biblical. I also don't see why a person facing homosexual temptations should get a pass. (Or other sexual temptations. In our current culture, we seem to think the biggest sexual sin is not indulging every impulse. Even Roman Polanski has his apologists.) I was born self-centered. May I be excused from trying to not behave in a self-centered manner?

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 12:50 PM (nqV+7)

281 Judge not lest you be judges is more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. Wthout judging you couldn't live in a civil society.

Posted by: Not at the table Carlos at August 21, 2010 04:47 PM (xO+6C)

Yeah but too much judging and you live in tyranny

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 12:50 PM (fwSHf)

282 Death row groupies are always lecturing me on this passage. I just tell them they are full of shit and they should fuck off.

Posted by: Moi at August 21, 2010 12:50 PM (Ez4Ql)

283 Adultery. Libs are all "judge not!" about Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Jim McGreevy, JFK and his asswipe brother, etc etc, and major Pharisees over Newt Gingrinch, David Vitter, Larry Craig...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 21, 2010 12:50 PM (9PzaA)

284 Ok, let's take Jeffery Dahmer as an example: did horrid things (judgement call on my part), deserved to be punished for them (judgement call on my part), not sorry he's dead (judgement call -- me).

Yeah he score 22 out of 25 on the evil scale I linked to this morning:

On The Scale Of Evil, Where Do Murderers Rate?

http://tinyurl.com/2a93dbm

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 12:51 PM (/jbAw)

285 oops sock off

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 04:49 PM (Pm5H

Good. The source was hurting the argument, I hate to admit.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:52 PM (rbfTh)

286 Fish are vegetables because they don't scream when they die.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 12:52 PM (hsBue)

287 I was born self-centered. May I be excused from trying to not behave in a self-centered manner?

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 04:50 PM (nqV+7)

Sure you can. Do you want a law passed against your self-centerdness?

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 12:52 PM (fwSHf)

288 It is essentially do not let something get into your spirit (soul to some) on such a personal level you get all hostile and unloving and Fred Phelps like. Nobody sees the nature of Christ in either a Fred Phelps, or a Rosy McDonald. Now of course we all do this, let stuff get to us, real personal, like what O-bung-hole is doing (see, as a "Christian, I should just pray for O-hole, but at this point in my spiritual development that is a no starter).

But most here hate O-hole not out of anything personal, or what the Left-A-Holes "must pray, must pray," say that we are bigots, making that famous judgment because they are actually BIGOTS and racists. But because we LOVE America and this godless fuckwit is destroying this nation which means he is essentially destroying the future of humanity. However as a spiritual being I will have to grow out of that and learn to bless even these enemies of freedom. But nobody could do that all at once but Christ, the rest of us have to grow into that, because the more I let hatred of the Left and O-hole, or Clinton, or whoever grow in me as a personal thing, no matter how lofty the reasons, the more I have allowed THEIR darkness to dictate who I am. Nobody said this would be easy.

Posted by: Jehu at August 21, 2010 12:52 PM (YkTMO)

289

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 04:45 PM (5/yRG)

Can you imagine how Dahmer's VICTIMS judged him?

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 12:53 PM (hG3dU)

290 Fish are vegetables because they don't scream when they die.

Neither do hobos if ya stab them in the kidneys. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 12:56 PM (rbfTh)

291

We can show love to all. We can pray. Some things might be beyond our control.

Yep, God is love, patient, and kind. Not lumping all Christians in the hypocrite snowball, just saying there are those who claim the mantle of Christianity and hurt its cause.

God loves all his chil'ren...even His super-gay ones.

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 12:56 PM (aOKEC)

292 So the bottom line is, if I admit that I don't really like Val-U-Rite, you're not going to judge me?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 12:56 PM (Pm5H8)

293 Yesterday was poking around and found this blog. I thought it was a pretty interesting blog.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 12:56 PM (p302b)

294 robtr, you mean more laws against self-centeredness? I already can't just take other people's stuff even if I really, really want it. And I can't ignore right-of-way when driving. And I can't eliminate people when they inconvenience me. Etc.

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 12:56 PM (nqV+7)

295 271...

Herr, I've spent multiple mornings in church listening to sermons on the same tiny piece of scripture. I love the complexity and the wisdom that is conveyed through so few words. It is not the various misinterpretations or slaughtering of the verse to which I was referring.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 12:56 PM (tovHz)

296 Ok, let's take Jeffery Dahmer as an example

Serial homicide with dismemberment and attempted zombification was an expression of his sexuality. You conservatives are all hateful prudes.

/

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 21, 2010 12:56 PM (9PzaA)

297

Religion-themed posts are nearly as good as comment- and hit-generators as Allahpander's Palin posts over at That Other Place.

Everyone has something to say, and every one of them is right! Just ask them....

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 21, 2010 04:15 PM (Ulu3i)

I was just gonna point that out so thanks for doing it for me.

AllahP likes to use an image of raw meat for Palin threads. Can we come up with some sort of equivalent -- a "gay meat" image -- for homosexual discussions here?

Posted by: Ed Anger at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (7+pP9)

298 Well, I am a theologian and teach classes to adults. It's useless to even try to have a conversation about theology with people who have an agenda.

Well yeah, they aren't interested in a discussion just scoring points and looking good. I tend to just leave that kind of thing be with a warning that really amateur theologians generally end up looking foolish so they're better off not trying.

So I think we're kind of reaching a consensus that it's okay to judge but not to judge-judge.

I guess if you didn't read what people posted on the topic you could come to that conclusion.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (PQY7w)

299 282 Purgatory is a cleansing. Popular culture depicts it as a type of hell which it is not. For the very good, it's like being "detailed" for the very bad it's like a complete rebuild but the suffering of the soul out of the sight of God perfects the soul. Just like a "time-out" works for a small child, so purgatory works for a soul seeking paradise. So, you are right in knowing that God's mercy is infinite as long as you don't completely reject that love.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (ERrad)

300 I don't know if you guys read the comments over at Hot Air on this issue. I know sometimes people say the commenters suck over there. I cannot believe the shit that's being said. Did you know Ann Coulter is right now being purged from conservatism and insufficiently pure and committed? I would blaspheme right now and take the Lord's name in vain but since this is a religion oriented thread I will abstain. Ann Coulter. Not conservative enough. Some party some people want to have... just thirty awful losers sitting in basement high-fiving each other about how untainted they are by any impact on the dirty, irredeemable world.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (QbA6l)

301 I didn't take the time to read all of the comments, so someone might have covered this. But, I am a pastor and this is stuff that I study a lot.

Here is the short answer:

When you understand the original language that the Bible was written in, it means that you should not say someone is going to Hell, because nobody can make that determination except God. So, basically he is saying be careful not to write someone off as lost, lest you be written off by God himself.

It does NOT mean that you shouldn't look at someone's actions and say that they are wrong. The Bible tells Christians to do that for each other in many places in Scripture. A simple Google search will bring up these scriptures if you are interested.

This guy's claim that you should only say someone is doing something wrong if you yourself are not doing it is a totally wrong interpretation of what Jesus said and you won't find it anywhere in the Bible.

Jesus was dealing with religious hypocrites who wanted to condemn others for breaking God's commandments, but Jesus' point was that their own hearts were far from Him. So, in essence, they were just as guilty.

If I were dealing with this guy directly, I would say to him, "Yes, you are correct, we should not say that you are going to Hell because of what you've done. But, we should tell you that God is the ultimate judge and He will judge all sin wherever it is found. And to ignore your own sin is to be in danger of being judged by God himself, who will one day judge us all according to what we have done. (Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31;Romans 2:16;1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; 1 Peter 4:5, just to name a few)

Posted by: Phil at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (80qfF)

302 >>Yeah but too much judging and you live in tyranny

There clear implication of 'judge not lest you be judge' is not that you shouldn't judge, but that when you do judge remember, you will be judged yourself as to your judging. Example : You judge pedophilia to be wrong. Is that a judgment you can live with? Or, when you're at the Pearly Gates, will judging pedophilia as a wrong be a hindrance to getting into Heaven?

Posted by: Not at the table Carlos at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (xO+6C)

303 Outside of all the biblical exortiations, I have determined the "judge not" phrase to be Jesus telling us to look inward first, telling us as a third person/spirit, not a phrase to excuse oneself from their own shame.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm trying not to judge myself.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (664Zx)

304 I already can't just take other people's stuff even if I really, really want it.

We can.

Posted by: Congress at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (9PzaA)

305 Guy in Utah, wish you were in Iowa so you could join our Bible study. This passage gives people such headaches.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 12:57 PM (hsBue)

306 >>>"You're against conservatives dividing themselves into groups based on shared interest?" I'm against identity politics. Club for Growth is entirely different as ANY person can be a member. AsianCon, for example, would only have Asian members.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 12:58 PM (L0wbB)

307 Separating people on the basis of race or religion (or sexual preference) is wrong, no matter who does it.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 12:58 PM (L0wbB)

308

As was pointed out there are different types of judging and judgment. There is but one true and righteous Judge. (...shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? -Genesis 18:25)

Engaging in judgment of men in there eternal state is forbidding. To do so is to usurp God's role.

It is appointed unto man once to die then comes judgment -Hebrews 9:27

Eternal judgment does not come from men, it comes from God, in this way we are not to judge. But it is not judging to tell men of the truth, to warn of the coming judgment, to tell them that now is the acceptable time of repentence.

We are continually called to judge one single person...ourselves. If we judged ourselves rightly we would not be judged. - I Corinthians 11:31

The other place Christians are to judge is among themselves that call themselves Christians..."Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges."

For the record, I don't care what Ann does with her time, and who she speaks to, it's not something for me to care about. I wouldn't want my pastor speaking there, because I don't believe my pastor should associate with such an organization, but otherwise, no issue.

Judgment is God's. Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. It is our responsibility to speak the truth about what God's standard is and how he has promised to judge, but ultimately it's his job.

Posted by: Gov98 at August 21, 2010 12:59 PM (ozC2f)

309 I don't know enough to know if that applies to the Greek alphabet or not. There's some ancient assed Greek that's recognizable, very much so, as Greek. I'm not arguing one way or the other.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 04:34 PM (rbfTh)

It's all Greek to me!

Posted by: Linear A at August 21, 2010 12:59 PM (/0IOT)

310 Okay, I wish you could all come to our Bible study.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 01:00 PM (hsBue)

311 Oh that's not fair -- a lot of the commenters are good. But there are some awful ones. The ones writing off Ann Coulter as too damn liberal to be part of the conservative movement. My stars. My stars.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:01 PM (QbA6l)

312 297...

Okay. I may be hooked. But, might I say, he's a bit judgy for a priest isn't he?

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 01:02 PM (tovHz)

313

288 Yes, I would judge him as evil -- but if I took delight in his death for the sake of it of itself, then in a sense I'm taking delight in his life because it led to the thing I wanted. Rather, I would be a better and less vindictively judgemental person if I would be sorry that he lived and died the way he did -- his death should not give me joy or satisfaction, just as his life did not.

Passing judgement isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we're not supposed to delight in it or become overly self righteous in the process -- where but for the grace of God go I.

As for where gays fit into this -- again, I think that is a personal issue (and a far cry from such things as murder, etc.), and I think there are more worthy things to be concerning oneself with. It isn't my cup of tea, but as long as no one is trying to make me delight in it against my free will, then I should return the favor.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 01:02 PM (5/yRG)

314 Is it still okay to hate gays for non-religious reasons?

Posted by: the peanut gallery at August 21, 2010 01:02 PM (mg/vv)

315 more from Strong's on the verse

a. Judge not, that you be not judged: This is the Bible verse that seems to be most popular in our present day. But most the people who quote this verse donÂ’t understand what Jesus said. They seem to think Jesus commanded a universal acceptance of any lifestyle or teaching.

i. If we see what Jesus said in Matthew 7:15-16, He commands us to know people by the fruit of their life, and some sort of assessment is necessary for that.

ii. The Christian is called to unconditionally love. But the Christian is not called to unconditional approval. We really can love people who do things that should not be approved of.

b. Instead, Jesus is speaking against being judgmental, that is, judging motives and the inner man, which only God can know. We can judge the fruit of a man, but we can rarely judge their motives with accuracy.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:02 PM (Pm5H8)

316 robtr, you mean more laws against self-centeredness? I already can't just take other people's stuff even if I really, really want it. And I can't ignore right-of-way when driving. And I can't eliminate people when they inconvenience me.

Etc.

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 04:56 PM (nqV+7)

Heh, well that's a stretch but these kind of arguments always get twisted into something they're not.

If you believe crimminals are crimminals because they are self centered I suppose you could make that argument, although that doesn't seem to be the prevailing explanation for crimes.

Things turn into crimes when they start hurting someone else, regardless of your motives.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 01:02 PM (fwSHf)

317 Some party some people want to have... just thirty awful losers sitting in basement high-fiving each other about how untainted they are by any impact on the dirty, irredeemable world.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:57 PM

Some of us abandoned ship with the ongoing crapfest that was being held over there, well, that and the computer STDs being passed around.

*note to self. be nicer, people actually have FEELINGS over here.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 01:02 PM (hG3dU)

318 I was just gonna point that out so thanks for doing it for me.

AllahP likes to use an image of raw meat for Palin threads. Can we come up with some sort of equivalent -- a "gay meat" image -- for homosexual discussions here?

Posted by: Ed Anger at August 21, 2010 04:57 PM (7+pP9)

It must be a piece of gay raw meat that winks!

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:03 PM (fM0nd)

319 It's true. ace prayed to me once.

I figured it was a wrong number.

Posted by: Ganeesha at August 21, 2010 04:35 PM

Me too, dude.

Posted by: The Porcelain Altar at August 21, 2010 01:03 PM (Ulu3i)

320 >>>Separating people on the basis of race or religion (or sexual preference) is wrong, no matter who does it. Silly. There's barely a person here who upon seeing an obviously gay guy remarks (either aloud or internally) that he is gay, but it's WRONG for them to so classify themselves. We can call them queers; those queers, however, had better not indulge in defining themselves by subgroup. Silly. Silly silly silly nonsense, getting sillier by the moment. When you're reduced to grasping at thin reeds such as this it really is a wake-up call to maybe move out of the marsh and on to firmer ground.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:03 PM (QbA6l)

321

The ones writing off Ann Coulter as too damn liberal to be part of the conservative movement.

Those are only the people who think that political conservative equals conservative Christian.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 01:04 PM (hsBue)

322 Wake me when the stonings start.

Posted by: Purity Republican at August 21, 2010 01:04 PM (xO+6C)

323

Posted by: Phil at August 21, 2010 04:57 PM (80qfF)

He said it will.

Posted by: Gov98 at August 21, 2010 01:04 PM (ozC2f)

324 Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:01 PM (QbA6l)

Isn't that the same kind of thinking that brought you John McCain? The republicans/conservatives so picked apart their own that there was nothing left but the bones for the MSM to go after.

Maybe I'm coming at it from another view point but I always thought of Ann Coulter as "too conservative" and lately I've noticed she appears to be moving towards the regular folks, all of us here in the middle. So I guess I'm dumb but I thought that was a good thing. I think being on red eye so much has done her a lot of good.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 01:04 PM (p302b)

325 Why would we, on the Right, write off any votes from gay dudes that are seeing the light?
Do you really hate gayness that much? Ann Coulter is written off because she simply talks to a gay audience? WTF?

Posted by: gator at August 21, 2010 01:04 PM (aOKEC)

326 The ones writing off Ann Coulter as too damn liberal to be part of the conservative movement.

My stars. My stars.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:01 PM (QbA6l)

I'd like to hear their definition of "conservative" ... or at least American Conservatism.

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:04 PM (fM0nd)

327 Did you know Ann Coulter is right now being purged from conservatism and insufficiently pure and committed?

By whom?

30 losers who'd hang out in a basement or spend Saturday night at the Gas-n-Sip?

Ann Coulter. Not conservative enough.

ace, you've gots a case of the Tunnel Vision or are suffering from the Fresnel Lens Effect.

The Permanently Disaffected tend to not affect very much in the wider world.

Posted by: Ganeesha at August 21, 2010 01:04 PM (Hj0nA)

328 Ganeesha, obviously I know she's not actually being evicted from the movement -- but don't you find it remarkable that there is a coterie of people who don't find it absurd to suggest she ought to be?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:06 PM (QbA6l)

329 33
What if carrots scream in agony and we just can't hear them?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (Nw/hR)

If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?

We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.

Posted by: Jack Handey at August 21, 2010 01:06 PM (xIqdI)

330 When Jesus comes back the first thing He will do is go to Ruth Chris.

Posted by: Jehu at August 21, 2010 01:06 PM (YkTMO)

331 I have been a vegetarian for 25 years. I eat no meat.. no fish, or chicken either.

But, I cook it for my family. I just dont like it.

Posted by: Kristi at August 21, 2010 01:07 PM (ph9vn)

332 Jehu, that's assuming the food here is better than the food in heaven.

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 01:07 PM (nqV+7)

333 Neither do hobos if ya stab them in the kidneys. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 04:56 PM (rbfTh)

Wait a second -- whenever I do that, they wail like bloody banshees. Am I doing it wrong? It's come to using a garrote all the time these days, and it's freaking boring.

Posted by: Linear A at August 21, 2010 01:07 PM (/0IOT)

334 "Silly. There's barely a person here who upon seeing an obviously gay guy remarks (either aloud or internally) that he is gay, but it's WRONG for them to so classify themselves."

Dude, what? People notice a lot of things. That doesn't make them all unobjectionable bases for political conglomeration.

Whose issues are we talking about here?

Posted by: someone at August 21, 2010 01:08 PM (DfAwB)

335 You know Catholics used to have to not eat meat on Fridays. Then, just like that, they changed the rule and you could eat meat on Fridays but not during Lent and on certain holydays. I remember my friend telling me he got detention for asking the brother teaching his all boys Catholic School religion class this question. '"Brother, my mom's mom used to say to my uncle, you ate meat, you're going to hell'...so now that they changed the rule, are all those people still in hell?"

curious, I know you're just Catholic-bashing, but this is really weak. The Church stills says that an act of penitance is required on Fridays, but that can take the form of abstaining from meat, or some other form. The rule (remember Christ's sacrifice) has stayed the same, but the method of observance (abstain from meat OR some other act of penitance) has expanded.

In my family, we just don't eat meat on Fridays.

Posted by: VKI at August 21, 2010 01:08 PM (LZK9H)

336 335 When Jesus comes back the first thing He will do is go to Ruth Chris.

Nahh he'll go to Red Lobster. He'll say "dude these fishes and loaves are WAY better than what I had back in the day!"

Or maybe he'll just go to a buffet.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:08 PM (Pm5H8)

337 Is that Perez Hilton's less talented, less stylish, equally gay and much skinnier twin brother?

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 01:08 PM (EvTkC)

338

Ahh, more "dont judge me!" bullshit.

I'll just post a link to my rant the other night.

http://tinyurl.com/2er4zpc

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 01:09 PM (eL+YD)

339 >>> Maybe I'm coming at it from another view point but I always thought of Ann Coulter as "too conservative" and lately I've noticed she appears to be moving towards the regular folks, all of us here in the middle. Ann has always had some moderate-ish impulses; it was always her TONE that was unfailingly strident. Position-wise, she is hardcore on some things, strongly conservative on others, and moderately conservative on others. She has never ever been the leftwing parody of the ferocious ultra-conservative. It's just her tone that is so unapologetic (and "extreme," though it's not, but that is the thing that makes her "extreme"). For example, Ann frequently boosted Rudy Giuliani in 2008 and then Mitt Romney. She did not endorse per se, but she had a lot of nice things to say, esp. about Romney. So she has never really been the ultra-conservative the left paints her as. When she is ultraconservative on something, though, she says so, unapologetically.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:09 PM (QbA6l)

340 Wait a second -- whenever I do that, they wail like bloody banshees. Am I doing it wrong? It's come to using a garrote all the time these days, and it's freaking boring.

You have to crush the larynx first.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:09 PM (Pm5H8)

341 You know when I think of Jesus I think to myself that he came into this world a carpenter, probably middle class, a regular guy. He was going to die for our sins anyway so he could have chosen the easy path and come in as an uber elite kewl guy and no one would have said a word. But, instead, he chose to be born in a stable and to work with wood and to have fisherman and prostitutes and all around fringe folk for his buds. If he had chosen the other route he could have had a charmed life, been rich, maybe famous at the time, if he were here today, maybe his own book tour and reality tv show. Instead he came as a regular hard working person. And all he was about really when you boil it down was love.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 01:10 PM (p302b)

342 I don't find it absurd that the internets allow what would otherwise be local claques to join together to form a group the size of a coterie.

I don't think, however, that the coterie will grow to the size of a contingent.

Posted by: Ganeesha at August 21, 2010 01:10 PM (Hj0nA)

343 someone, so you're saying that we almost all immediately take notice of a gay guy's sexuality and therefore that he is different in that way, but it's wrong for those gay guys -- all of whom have been noticed as different in an important way- to form a political club together in which they also take note of the fact they're different?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:10 PM (QbA6l)

344 336

But, I cook it for my family. I just dont like it.

Posted by: Kristi at August 21, 2010 05:07 PM

Ok, I misread this and almost fell out of my chair, key word IT. I'm like you, I am not fond of meat, but I'm less fond making two dinners.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 01:11 PM (hG3dU)

345 Yeah, ace, it's silly to say Ann Coulter is "not conservative enough". She's plenty conservative for anyone that matters. Anyone who is turned off by Ann Coulter's supposed ideological apostasy isn't going to be likely to vote for a far less pure GOP politician anyway.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:11 PM (Pm5H8)

346 what about me? where do I fit in?

Posted by: the gay black Jewish Republican apologist for palestine at August 21, 2010 01:12 PM (Gr1V1)

347 >>>The Permanently Disaffected tend to not affect very much in the wider world. I know I already responded, but I'm just like surprised at the lack of self-awareness and the almost gleeful dismissiveness of reality; just the sort of "purge, purge, purge" absurdity. Ann Coulter-- TOO LIBERAL. What a world, what a world.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:12 PM (QbA6l)

348 robtr, actually my argument was not in the legal realm. It's just that, in general, we expect ourselves and others to strive to rise above our impulses. So why are we in sexual matters supposed to indulge our impulses?

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 01:13 PM (nqV+7)

349 352 what about me?
where do I fit in?

Posted by: the gay black Jewish Republican apologist for palestine at August 21, 2010 05:12 PM (Gr1V1)

Are you an illegal immigrant? If so, come right in!

Posted by: Lindsey Graham at August 21, 2010 01:13 PM (Pm5H8)

350 I don't know if you guys read the comments over at Hot Air on this issue.

I know sometimes people say the commenters suck over there.

I cannot believe the shit that's being said.

I can. I haven't even read them and I'm pretty sure I can.

The commenters at Hot Air are often just embarrassing for side--I don't mean as in being too conservative, but in being just plain vapid and getting beaten in debates by lefty trolls who they should be wiping the floor with. I remember one debate over Obama's academic record when a troll had to explain to them what "magna cum laude" was. If one of their trolls wandered over here, he'd get swatted down immediately, but instead they (often enough) make the other posters over their look like fools. That isn't to mention the entertaining of conspiracy theories in the threads the last time I paid attention to them in '08.

I know it gets a lot of traffic, but the comment threads at Hot Air are a complete waste of time.

Posted by: AD at August 21, 2010 01:13 PM (pIb7g)

351 ahhh, "over there"--typo

Posted by: AD at August 21, 2010 01:14 PM (pIb7g)

352 American Conservative Definition (Just mine)

Believes in limited role of Government

Believes Private Sector should be the innovator and Economic Engine

Believes in a strong national defense

Believes in a fair and strong foreign policy

Believes in fair trade

Believes States have far more authority than now expressed

Believes in all the amendments in the widest possible interpretation

Believes in Strict Construction-ism in the Judicial

Believes there should be limited social safety nets with strict conditions and demand for growth of those drawing welfare

Believes education is a local matter only!

Believes in moral suasion in society, and specifically a Christian based morality.

Believes we need some standards for national office, like Must have operated a business, or served in the military, no more lawyers or freeloaders.

Believes it is immoral to run a deficit unless in time of declared war.

Believes the tax code should be changed so it is not a government tool to socially engineer.

Posted by: Jehu at August 21, 2010 01:14 PM (YkTMO)

353 Red Queen Conservatives.

How's that for a tidy way to describe these people?

Posted by: Ganeesha at August 21, 2010 01:14 PM (Hj0nA)

354 I don't care who votes for our team, as long as they vote for our team.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 01:15 PM (664Zx)

355 Ann Coulter-- TOO LIBERAL.

What a world, what a world.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:12 PM (QbA6l)

Kind of like when people claim Ron Paul is Leftwing... for being anti-war. Speaking of which, I believe AllahP claims Ann was demanding a withdrawal of troops from the ME... I guess she is too liberal1!!! /s

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:15 PM (fM0nd)

356 The reason liberals believe Coulter in an ultraconservative is because she destroys their "arguments" and exposes their idiocy. She loves to stick it liberals and they can't deal with it.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 21, 2010 01:16 PM (xO+6C)

357 and by "Red Queen" I'm referring to the fictional character.

Not a Communist Homosexual.

-

Posted by: Ganeesha at August 21, 2010 01:16 PM (Hj0nA)

358 359 Red Queen Conservatives.

How's that for a tidy way to describe these people?

BIGOT!!!!!

Posted by: communist tranny Republican at August 21, 2010 01:16 PM (Pm5H8)

359 BLASPHEMERS ALL OF YOU! AND FUCK KIRK! HEEEEEES TOO LIBERAL! FUCK ANGLE! SHES TOO CRAZY! I WANT MY PERFECT CANDIDATES EVERYWHERE! I ALSO WANT TO WHINE WHEN I DON'T VOTE BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE REASONS AND THE DEMOCRATS WALK ALL OVER ME! NO WAY WE WIN BTW IN NOVEMBER WE ARE ALL DOOMED LOOK AT ALL THE BAD NEWS OMGZHERFLAGGLMAOH-NOES! MY CAPSLOCK IS STUCK!

Posted by: average Hot Air commentator at August 21, 2010 01:16 PM (Gr1V1)

360 but don't you find it remarkable that there is a coterie of people who don't find it absurd to suggest she ought to be?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:06 PM (QbA6l)

Pffft. There's a coterie of people who suggest all sort of stupid stuff. Hardly a grassroots movement.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 01:16 PM (VuLos)

361 >>>"Silly." I'm talking about politics and government, not in our daily lives. Although I do like to ignore the superficial in people and only acknowledge their personalities and characters. Unless they have big boobies, of course. Look, identity politics are un-American and unconstitutional. We don't need to enable that stuff in our political party.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 01:16 PM (L0wbB)

362 Separating people on the basis of race or religion (or sexual preference) is wrong, no matter who does it.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 04:58 PM (L0wbB)

I have no problem with informal political groups forming within certain identity groups (i.e. having a conservative group at my synagogue, or, say, local groups of black conservatives - as this is all natural) but I don't like identity groups to be officially formed within political groups.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 01:17 PM (Qp4DT)

363

I know I already responded, but I'm just like surprised at the lack of self-awareness and the almost gleeful dismissiveness of reality; just the sort of "purge, purge, purge" absurdity.

Ann Coulter-- TOO LIBERAL.

What a world, what a world.

But doesn't this buy into a little too much, anecdotal evidence. Fred Phelps is the loudest, but how many of him are there...really. If People want to be stupid let them be. Stupidity is always loud.

Coulter is not Too Liberal

But there will always be someone to whine about anything, there's 300 million of us after all, at least 2 % of us or so have to be 3 deviations from the mean. Including on stupidity, that's 6 million people.

Posted by: Gov98 at August 21, 2010 01:17 PM (ozC2f)

364

Are you an illegal immigrant? If so, come right in!

Posted by: Lindsey Graham at August 21, 2010 05:13 PM (Pm5H

Tiddie? Is that you? You and I have a date tonight! We're going to Uncle Fatimah's

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:17 PM (fM0nd)

365 Posted by: VKI at August 21, 2010 05:08 PM (LZK9H)

ugh I hate it when I fail to make my point...

catholic bashing....really....

next time I pray to padre pio I'll include you on my prayer list

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 01:17 PM (p302b)

366 #367 well hello then

Posted by: Christina Hendricks at August 21, 2010 01:18 PM (Gr1V1)

367 I hate Hot Air.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 01:18 PM (ERrad)

368 I WANT MY PERFECT CANDIDATES EVERYWHERE!

NO WAY WE WIN BTW IN NOVEMBER WE ARE ALL DOOMED LOOK AT ALL THE BAD NEWS OMGZHERFLAGGLMAOH-NOES!

Posted by: average Hot Air commentator at August 21, 2010 05:16 PM (Gr1V1)

+1 hehe

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:19 PM (fM0nd)

369 "so you're saying that we almost all immediately take notice of a gay guy's sexuality and therefore that he is different in that way, but it's wrong for those gay guys -- all of whom have been noticed as different in an important way- to form a political club together in which they also take note of the fact they're different?"

Yes, although this sort of thing is probably inevitable. I also think ethnic political associations are a bad thing -- and any differentiation not based on issues & ideas (like Crunchy Con -- are you defending this now?).

The thing is, I don't think noticing that a guy is gay necessarily means he's going to be oppressed by this. It depends on the time and place. I'm not sure why you seem to be suggesting otherwise.

My main beef with GOProud isn't this (it was another person's argument) -- it's the issue. But this is another problem with identity lobby groups: it encourages the idea that the only proper gay/ethnic/whatever way to think is to go along with their non-conservative positions on all sorts of crap.

Posted by: someone at August 21, 2010 01:19 PM (DfAwB)

370 The problem is not identity groups, it's granting them special legal status.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 21, 2010 01:19 PM (xO+6C)

371 What I commented yesterday,
Jesus said it was set up as the whole law or nothing and since no one could live up to those standards he would destroy the law by allowing a sinless man to be executed by the law.
Furthermore, he gave one overarching charge to his followers, Love one another.
There wasn't anything in there about kicking those who displeased you to the curb.
But of course, that's exactly what started to happen as soon as he was out of pocket.
The only people he mentioned would be kicked out of the Kingdom were the preachers who prophesied in his name falsely, those who showed no mercy to the poor and those who ignored the downtrodden.
Judgmental people would be held to whatever standard they metered others with and if found lacking would be convicted and tossed out.
In other words, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
That means any sin.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 01:19 PM (H+LJc)

372 robtr, actually my argument was not in the legal realm. It's just that, in general, we expect ourselves and others to strive to rise above our impulses. So why are we in sexual matters supposed to indulge our impulses?

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 05:13 PM (nqV+7)

If you're talking about gays again, I really don't know any that well at least that I know of.

I guess the question would be is a gay relationship just an impulse then as opposed to a hetro relationship which is something else?

I don't know that answer to that.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 01:19 PM (fwSHf)

373 374 I hate Hot Air.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 05:18 PM (ERrad)

HATER!!!!!

Posted by: guy who hates the haters at August 21, 2010 01:19 PM (Pm5H8)

374 I could care less about the gay debate. Simply not an issue with me. If two guys wanna tie the knotski and want to play hide the the sausage in the confines of their own own home I could care fucking less. That ain't taking my freedoms away from me and enlarging the Federal government.

Posted by: Blazer at August 21, 2010 05:18 PM (7SJnG)

Our immigration policy is family-based, however, so radically altering the idea of marriage has far reaching implications for everyone in America and the very structure of our nation.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 01:20 PM (Qp4DT)

375

354 Does this mean everyone should attempt a completely chaste life? Should it mean we should only engage in heterosexual, vaginal coitus? Only coitus that could produce a child? Only with specific partners (and how should this be determined)? Only the missionary position?

Impulse is a pretty wide realm. And who would be the ultimate authority on the rules of impulse restraint engagement?

I ask because there is a fine line between living in a decent, civilized society and living in either anarchy or totalitarian cesspits.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 01:20 PM (5/yRG)

376 Posted by: VKI at August 21, 2010 05:08 PM (LZK9H)

btw, I have noticed that Catholicism is different in other parts of the country. I went to church in the south and was shocked, felt like I wasn't in a Catholic Cathedral but I was.

So the way things are interpreted varies by area I think too....

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 01:20 PM (p302b)

377 Hot Air has become where our trolls go to find acceptance and affirmation.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 01:20 PM (rbfTh)

378 288...

Thankfully, that is only a 22 point scale. I was trying to imagine how Dahmer could get 22 of 25 and who would make up the other 3 positions. It wasn't a pleasant thought.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 01:20 PM (tovHz)

379 384 Amen

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 01:21 PM (H+LJc)

380 It's worth pointing out that when the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, Satan used quotes from the Bible in order to do so. Jesus defended Himself by pointing out what Satan was leaving out.

What he's leaving out is the Bible's emphasis on loving the sinner and hating the sin. This is true whether the sin being criticized is gluttony, greed, or lust (to name just a few sins).

The Bible makes it clear that the only appropriate action for a Christian to take when someone refuses to abandon their sin is to refuse to associate with that person. (Of course, this doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't act in self-defense. The disciples carried swords for a reason! But the point is that morality is not something that can be forced on anyone.)

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 01:21 PM (xjy39)

381 Here is my judgement of people: Are you voting for Barack Obama in November, or the Republican? Barack is a man of many names this year. His aliases include Alexi Giannolias, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Charlie Crist, Patty Murray, etc. But they are all the same entity- unbridled liberalism. If you are literally having gay buttsex in the voting booth, but both of you are voting for Fiorina, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO. If you are pounding it out and pulling for Kirk, I DONT CARE WHAT YOU DO. I have far, far more tolerance for the most hedonistic homosexual than the most God-fearing OBAMA voter.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 01:22 PM (Gr1V1)

382 MY CAPSLOCK IS STUCK!

Posted by: average Hot Air commentator at August 21, 2010 05:16 PM

Obligatory. Yeah, if we are going to purge anyone, please let it be the Maine bangers or Lindsey Graham. That way, John McCain has less 'help' reaching for meat. Ann is commentary, she's commenting to homocons. Sheesh.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 01:22 PM (hG3dU)

383 meh - identity groups aren't the problem. We are all a part of separate identity groups in our lives - we live, work, play around people with similar interests. The problem with certain identity groups is when they start playing the victim card and demanding people feel pity for them because they are oh so oppressed.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:23 PM (Pm5H8)

384

Our immigration policy is family-based, however, so radically altering the idea of marriage has far reaching implications for everyone in America and the very structure of our nation.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:20 PM (Qp4DT)

There must be alot more gay mexicans wanting to get married and move to the US than I thought.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 01:23 PM (fwSHf)

385

358 in other words, what used to be called "normal". Stole that from the guy who draws Day by Day.

If we're not supposed to eat cows, why are they made of steak?

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson Airplane at August 21, 2010 01:23 PM (kcqZS)

386

Lindsey Graham

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 05:22 PM (hG3dU)

Didn't you know Tiddie is a homoconthuglican?

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:24 PM (fM0nd)

387 yeah, someone, and it encourages the politicians to be panderers. Politicians are sleazy enough and we need to get them out of the habit of bribing certain constituencies with govt perks and benefits.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 01:24 PM (DTy7x)

388 "If we're not supposed to eat cows, why are they made of steak?"

Hah. Great.

Posted by: someone at August 21, 2010 01:25 PM (DfAwB)

389 If you are literally having gay buttsex in the voting booth, but both of you are voting for Fiorina, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO.

Hey, now that could be a great GOTV campaign for us. "Vote for the Republican - our voting booths have glory holes!"

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:25 PM (Pm5H8)

390 I said yesterday that i'm pretty tired of Christians and gays when it comes to this subject, as far as i'm concerned they deserve each other because they're equally as guilty. And that's an important point, i see a lot of people wagging their fingers at Christians (at least some of them) because of their attitudes towards gays but no one ever points out that gays hate Christians just as much. Now, i'm sure some will say Christians started it and so they deserve the hate from gays. To that i say meh, the you started it gambit didn't work when i was seven years old, why should it work now. Like i said the other day, a pox on both their houses.

Posted by: Martha Stewart's Left Nipple at August 21, 2010 01:25 PM (Hx1qz)

391
388 I have far, far more tolerance for the most hedonistic homosexual
than the most God-fearing OBAMA voter.

You mean they fear Obama?

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 01:25 PM (H+LJc)

392 >>>(like Crunchy Con -- are you defending this now?) Yeah, I am -- it wasn't (for me) that they formed a group, but that it was a stupid group, and furthermore one destined to go precisely where we all knew it would go (to full on liberalism). It was backdooring liberalism, which we said, and they said it wasn't, but Rod Dreher is a liberal now. Always was -- he was crunchy, and con only because he didn't know any better. As for the group messaging of group thinking into group compliance, yeah, I take your point, and yeah, there's something in that; but as I keep asking, and no one will answer me, Then what is your position on the TEA PARTY? What about Club For Growth? Yes, you have like a deuce of a point in that, but it's not a face card of a point, not even close. And it is, as you say inevitable -- and it is inevitable because people with shared interests like finding other people with shared interests where they can share their interests with people who share their interests. Why do Morons meet-up? I mean, why? It's not just to meet people you know online (in many cases, you don't meet the people you really know, because they're in different cities; you meet other morons you don't know). So why do that? Because Morons are united by being Moronic, and liking Moronic topics, and generally doing Moron shit. This "rule" you're suggesting is so barely a rule and so subject to such obvious contradictions and limitations I cannot fathom why you are pressing it so.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:26 PM (QbA6l)

393 Seeing Blazer post here again is like a sexual healing has taken place.

Posted by: sTevo at August 21, 2010 01:26 PM (VMcEw)

394 Hey, now that could be a great GOTV campaign for us. "Vote for the Republican - our voting booths have glory holes!"

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 05:25 PM (Pm5H

"Vote for the Republican -' n Harry sucks!"

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:26 PM (fM0nd)

395 #382 Alex Knepper, formerly of Rightosphere and a writer at Frum Forum, is an openly gay conservative who had it out with this puritanical asshat at CPAC. He walked right up to him after this jackass was preaching about evil homosexuals, and asked him "has your girlfriend given you a blowjob?" He had NO RIGHT to be offended by it, especially if its true- ALL of that is "deviant" sex. So, if you wish to rant about gays...no more bjs. no more anal. no more anything that doesn't result in turning your household into 19 kids and counting. No more tittyfucking, footjobs, elbowbanging, any of that. In fact, no more cunnilingus either. I am SURE your wife or girlfriend would appreciate your strict, strict, strict sexuality. Or, you know, you can just get over your judgement of two gay cowboys eating pudding. Those are the rules kids.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 01:26 PM (Gr1V1)

396 Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 05:22 PM (Gr1V1)

Amen! And Hallelujah! (since this is a theology thread)

Posted by: cthulhu at August 21, 2010 01:27 PM (/0IOT)

397 >>>The Bible makes it clear that the only appropriate action for a Christian to take when someone refuses to abandon their sin is to refuse to associate with that person. What are you talking about? Every single person you know "refuses to abandon their sin." Unless you live among sinless people, which the Bible says you do not. You of course cannot possibly mean you do not associate with anyone.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:27 PM (QbA6l)

398 Immigratiion policy has nothing to do with being gay.

Well, it shouldn't. But all subgroups that can be separated and given preference or discrimination will occur in all policies of a dem/socialist/progressive agenda. All policies will be "politically corrected". All.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 01:28 PM (664Zx)

399 Seeing Blazer post here again is like a sexual healing has taken place.

Posted by: sTevo at August 21, 2010 05:26 PM (VMcEw)

Obviously, ace, these guys need their own thread. One without the "yech".

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 01:28 PM (rbfTh)

400 #402 Vote red, get head. Very succinct.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 01:29 PM (Gr1V1)

401 >>>But doesn't this buy into a little too much, anecdotal evidence. Yes, as I said earlier when someone said something similar -- I am not taking this to be the opinion of the conservative movement; I am taking it as what it is, the excited utterances of some online echo-chamber ninnies. And yet I'm still surprised that anyone, let alone five or six people in a single thread, would reduce themselves to such ineffable ninnydom.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:30 PM (QbA6l)

402 The Bible makes it clear that the only appropriate action for a Christian to take when someone refuses to abandon their sin is to refuse to associate with that person.

Oh that's not true - you are referring to the "pearls before swine" bit? That refers to those who are hardened against faith, not those who are still living in denial.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:30 PM (Pm5H8)

403 The Tea Party is an eclectic group who share the same common ground on ideological issues. Completely different than a MoronCon.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 01:30 PM (L0wbB)

404

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 05:23 PM

And, here lies the problem with conservatives. Libs fall into line, they are monolithic, because they are sheep. They don't 'think'. Cons, not so much.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 01:30 PM (hG3dU)

405

Immigratiion policy has nothing to do with being gay.

Posted by: Blazer at August 21, 2010 05:23 PM (7SJnG)

It doesn't, now. But, if gay marriage becomes recognized then it will have a huge effect on immigration. Polygamy wouldn't be far behind and that would have a serious effect, too.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 01:31 PM (Qp4DT)

406 Thankfully, that is only a 22 point scale. I was trying to imagine how Dahmer could get 22 of 25 and who would make up the other 3 positions. It wasn't a pleasant thought.

Oops, you're right. I mis-remembered the 25.

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 01:31 PM (/jbAw)

407 blazer isn't supposed to be posting here. Blazer libeled me and did so out of conspiratorial malice. He wrote to me later to apologize but that was a pretty nasty thing, not just an insult, but one with potentially legal consequences. Blazer should respect the ban until I've decided it's off.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:31 PM (QbA6l)

408 Seeing Blazer post here again is like a sexual healing has taken place.

Posted by: sTevo at August 21, 2010 05:26 PM (VMcEw)

Sounds like someone has a bromance thang going on.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 01:31 PM (EvTkC)

409 408 #402
Vote red, get head.
Very succinct.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 05:29 PM (Gr1V1)

Can you imagine all the people lining up outside of Harry Reid's house on Nov 3 after voting in Sharron Angle? I hope they aren't stinky negro-hispanic-touristy Muslims...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:31 PM (fM0nd)

410 and blazer didn't merely engage in nasty speculation, he made shit up and asserted he knew it to be true knowing the whole time it was a lie of his invention. He really should go now.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:32 PM (QbA6l)

411

Didn't you know Tiddie is a homoconthuglican?

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:24 PM

Homoraza, Peggy.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 01:33 PM (hG3dU)

412 blazer is Floyd Landis?

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson Airplane at August 21, 2010 01:34 PM (kcqZS)

413 ">(like Crunchy Con -- are you defending this now?)

Yeah, I am -- it wasn't (for me) that they formed a group, but that it was a stupid group, and furthermore one destined to go precisely where we all knew it would go (to full on liberalism)."

But every identity-based group is like that. That's the point. Ethnic and subgroup identity balkanization is the basis of the left's worldview, and strengthening the reach of these forces is undermining conservatism per se.

"Then what is your position on the TEA PARTY?

What about Club For Growth?"

Those are about issues, not identity. This is, honestly, the most obvious thing in the world. I mean, look, what's the left's attack on these things? Trying to *turn them into* identity splinters, with the all-white/racist/militia smears on the Tea Parties!

Moron meetups are great. But the day we shoot for a moron lobby, I'm out.

Posted by: someone at August 21, 2010 01:34 PM (DfAwB)

414

Homoraza, Peggy.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 05:33 PM (hG3dU)

Oh, yeah... my bad! /saysthechickthatlovesLaRaza

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:34 PM (fM0nd)

415 In fact, no more cunnilingus either.

Those are the rules kids.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 05:26 PM (Gr1V1)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

^{_{*oh sorry - fans self*}}

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 01:34 PM (VuLos)

416
405 ......Unless you live among sinless people, which the Bible says you do not. You of course cannot possibly mean you do not associate with anyone.

I think he was referring to what Paul wrote about people doing things that would drag you down spiritually and to avoid them.
I'm dubious about anything Paulian.
Jesus never said anything about segregating yourself. In fact, one of the charges against him was that he would drink and eat with the sinners.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 01:34 PM (H+LJc)

417 And, here lies the problem with conservatives. Libs fall into line, they are monolithic, because they are sheep. They don't 'think'. Cons, not so much. .............................I read a lot of liberal sites because i like to know what the other side is thinking, you'd be surprised at how much overlap there is with either side on their assumptions of the other. What you just said is one of them.

Posted by: Martha Stewart's Left Nipple at August 21, 2010 01:35 PM (Hx1qz)

418

403 I'm not the one ranting: merely pointing out the dangers of imposing one's judgements upon others; just as there are dangers to moral relativism. Go too far in either direction in you wind up with a very unpleasant society to live in.

I personally could care less whether a person chooses same sex or different sex partners; it isn't my business.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 01:35 PM (5/yRG)

419 Completely different than a MoronCon.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 05:30 PM (L0wbB)

Zoot, what if there were a bunch of veterans who liked to hang out together and talk about politics and who they wanted to support in the next election. What if they even thought it would be cool to have Ann Coulter come and speek.

What do you think about that?

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 01:35 PM (fwSHf)

420 Jane, those judgements of Dahmer are on his actions and we must judge on them. I believe Christ is telling us not to judge his soul. He may have repented and atoned before his death, but we as mortals can not see into the soul, so we do not have the capability to judge. God is warning us to not do His job, worry about our own soul's condition. I have always felt that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but on that Last Day, I will be busy enough pleading for my own ass to worry about someone elses.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 01:36 PM (cX9pO)

421 So, if you wish to rant about gays...no more bjs. no more anal. no more anything that doesn't result in turning your household into 19 kids and counting.

I know you are passionate about this, but no they are not the same. People can have an aversion to gays just like a gay guy can have an aversion to women. Its a societal "judgment" in general on what is deviant.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 01:36 PM (664Zx)

422 I read a lot of liberal sites because i like to know what the other side is thinking, you'd be surprised at how much overlap there is with either side on their assumptions of the other. What you just said is one of them.

Posted by: Martha Stewart's Left Nipple at August 21, 2010 05:35 PM (Hx1qz)

As someone that is surrounded by libs all day, I can assure you that a lot (if not most) of them don't think... they only feel and act on emotion.

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:37 PM (fM0nd)

423 He is demonstrating a far greater sin and one that is all to common in today's world. Not only does he take it upon himself to interpret scripture as if he were a progressive supreme court justice interpreting a living constitution, he also makes his own commandments, thou shall not eat met. The sin is that he is putting man above God. Man is telling God what the rules are, not the other way around. I think they call that pride. Or hubris.

Who was it, Howard Dean I think, who broke with his church because of a bike path issue. Our Father, who art in Washington, Howard be thy name practices bike path Christianity. If Jesus had been all that and a bag of chips, he would have addressed the bike path issue but he didn't so Howard had to clean up Jesus's mess.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 01:37 PM (cf4iO)

424 #423 oh, and no beads or "back massagers" either.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 01:37 PM (Gr1V1)

425

Posted by: Martha Stewart's Left Nipple at August 21, 2010 05:35 PM

I figure they think we are all homophobic, religious fanatic, racist robots, but in reality, it's like herding cats over here. But, we all seem to like our guns. That's true.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 01:40 PM (hG3dU)

426 So, if you wish to rant about gays...no more bjs.

Uh .... why jump to that. No more kissing would be the first thing. But, I guess that's why people jump to bjs.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 01:40 PM (Qp4DT)

427 >>>People can have an aversion to gays just like a gay guy can have an aversion to women. Its a societal "judgment" in general on what is deviant. Yes but I think the point is to not use the Bible to reinforce an antipathy you already have, and thus add a spiritual/intellectual justification to a gut feeling you ALREADY have. This is really my biggest point. I get your belief that this is deviant -- I thought so too (half-think so too). The only reason I don't COMPLETELY think it's deviant is that something kicks in and I say, "Eh, maybe I've got a problem with homos; maybe I should tamp down on that and not let it run rampant." But I think there's a real problem with excess when you've already got a gut aversion and then amplify that with spiritual/intellectual justification. As I was saying, then instead of an accelerator and a brake you've just got two accelerators. I think it's just good to generally be on-patrol for one's own personal antipathies and be wary of giving them too much leash.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:41 PM (QbA6l)

428 Teach me to speculate on sexual healings. Sorry to hear all the shite. Jesus would say to turn you cheek, even allow a second blow. There is no clause for humility on the third hit, however.

Posted by: sTevo at August 21, 2010 01:41 PM (VMcEw)

429 But every identity-based group is like that. That's the point. Ethnic and subgroup identity balkanization is the basis of the left's worldview, and strengthening the reach of these forces is undermining conservatism per se.

Oh that's not true. Look, I'm a chemist, and I belong to a professional chemistry society. We have all have similar chemistry interests. How is this association of chemists undermining conservatism? Besides, isn't it part of our basic worldview that problems in our society can best be solved when individuals freely associate with each other and devise solutions rather than have them imposed by the state?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:41 PM (Pm5H8)

430 re: Veterans I don't like exclusive groups. The test is simple: Can anyone join? If the answer is no, the club is wrong. Anyone be a tea partier. Anyone can be a member of the Club for Growth. But not everyone can join the VeteranCon political group. Let the Democrats do that stuff. Our party is about common ground, not divisive groups.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 01:41 PM (L0wbB)

431 346 You know when I think of Jesus I think to myself that he came into this world a carpenter, probably middle class, a regular guy. He was going to die for our sins anyway so he could have chosen the easy path and come in as an uber elite kewl guy and no one would have said a word. But, instead, he chose to be born in a stable and to work with wood and to have fisherman and prostitutes and all around fringe folk for his buds. If he had chosen the other route he could have had a charmed life, been rich, maybe famous at the time, if he were here today, maybe his own book tour and reality tv show. Instead he came as a regular hard working person. And all he was about really when you boil it down was love.

Perfect. Timely. goog

realemotionalfreedom

Posted by: President Green Shoots at August 21, 2010 01:42 PM (GOG1H)

432 You little drunken nasty cunt. No, Blazer, you are gone, and you are gone forever, you fucking little drunkard shit.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:42 PM (QbA6l)

433 Again, I'm not talking about the private sector where everyone is free to join whatever club they want. I'm talking about political groups that want to be factions of a major political party.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 01:42 PM (DTy7x)

434 In fact, no more cunnilingus either.

Heard.

Posted by: Andi at August 21, 2010 01:42 PM (jhGq+)

435 Go mix yourself another vodka and vodka.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:43 PM (QbA6l)

436 I figure they think we are all homophobic, religious fanatic, racist robots

You got it. They think we are all stupid idiots who do nothing but listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News, all day, every day. It leads to some interesting conclusions on their part. For instance: whenever any conservative makes an argument that they can't immediately rebut, they instantly declare it false because "we all know" conservatives get all their news from Fox, and "we all know" Fox is full of lies, therefore, any idea emanating from any conservative is a lie.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:43 PM (Pm5H8)

437

The Bible makes it clear that the only appropriate action for a Christian to take when someone refuses to abandon their sin is to refuse to associate with that person.

What are you talking about? Every single person you know "refuses to abandon their sin."

Unless you live among sinless people, which the Bible says you do not.

You of course cannot possibly mean you do not associate with anyone.

It's funny because the Bible says something different...It says:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and idolater, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually I wrote not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person.

That is associations with people in the world are not problematic but they should not be influencing us, Christians should be influencing those around us.

However if someone says "I am a Christian" and he is behaving in a manner inconsistent with a genuine profession, he may and should be removed from the church.

The issue is not however did such a person sin. For all struggle, the issue is if someone says, yes X is a sin, yes I know God doesn't approve, but I'm going to do it anyway. That's a BIG problem.

Posted by: Gov98 at August 21, 2010 01:44 PM (ozC2f)

438

428 That's what I was getting at: I don't consider myself wrong in judging that such a person is a menace and needs to be stopped (even to the point of killing them myself), but being happy about it is probably very wrong. Judging such a thing is ok, taking delight in the judging/prosecution of judgement is not.

Back to the gay thing: there are all sorts of opinions on the sinfulness or lack thereof; I don't profess to know or even care that much. Personally, I fail to see why gay people should not be allowed to be conservative because of some "Christian" thinking. Separation of church and state????

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 01:44 PM (5/yRG)

439 oh, and no beads or "back massagers" either.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 05:37 PM (Gr1V1)

From my cold dead vibrating hands.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 01:44 PM (VuLos)

440 "Oh that's not true. Look, I'm a chemist, and I belong to a professional chemistry society."

Uh, and?

I meant in politics, obviously.

If there's a professional chemists' lobby, I'd be stunned if it weren't totally overrun by moonbats the way the AMA et al. are.

Posted by: someone at August 21, 2010 01:44 PM (DfAwB)

441 442 In fact, no more cunnilingus either.

Whoa. Even the catholics don't think that's a sin as long as it's male female.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 01:45 PM (ERrad)

442 Good lord, people. 1st Corinthians, chapter 5:9-13

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 01:45 PM (xjy39)

443 Are you sure that's Blazer? It's not even his hash that he's had for, like, ever.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 01:45 PM (DTy7x)

444 What if God was on of us?

Posted by: Dr. Evil at August 21, 2010 01:45 PM (YVZlY)

445 They think we are all stupid idiots who do nothing but listen to Rush Limbaugh andwatch Fox News, AoSHQ all day, every day.

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson Airplane at August 21, 2010 01:46 PM (kcqZS)

446 447 oh, and no beads or "back massagers" either.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 05:37 PM (Gr1V1)

From my cold dead vibrating hands.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 05:44 PM

Where can we find this CAC?

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 01:46 PM (hG3dU)

447
444 They think we are all stupid idiots who do nothing but listen to Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh does nothing but rip off blogs now.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 01:46 PM (H+LJc)

448 #446 for "conservatives" who are that nutty,its not a matter of seperation of church and state. Its a matter of seperation of spinal cord and brain.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 01:47 PM (Gr1V1)

449 Rush Limbaugh does nothing but rip off blogs now.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:46 PM (H+LJc)

But he does it in a great way! I mean, talk about entertaining...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 01:47 PM (fM0nd)

450 Gov98 beat me to it, but at least I provided a citation!

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 01:47 PM (xjy39)

451 >>>Are you sure that's Blazer? It's not even his hash that he's had for, like, ever. He was never unbanned from his previous IP, so of course his hash is different today.

Posted by: Ian S. at August 21, 2010 01:47 PM (imD7p)

452 >>>Are you sure that's Blazer? It's not even his hash that he's had for, like, ever. Well that hash was banned. He's got a different IP. Yeah it's him. Whining about the same shit, drunkenly. Fucking loser getting drunk and going online to vent his loser frustration at the world.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 01:48 PM (QbA6l)

453 450
Are you sure that's Blazer? It's not even his hash that he's had for, like, ever.

Probably because he may be using a proxy to evade the ban.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:49 PM (Pm5H8)

454 371 ugh I hate it when I fail to make my point...

383 btw, I have noticed that Catholicism is different in other parts of the country. I went to church in the south and was shocked, felt like I wasn't in a Catholic Cathedral but I was.

And of course, I live in Atlanta. God love you, curious, this is getting worse and worse. LOL! Let's just shake hands, and I'll take you up on your offer to include me in your next intercessory chat with Padre Pio. I will remember you to St. Monica (I have three sons, and her feast day is my birthday.)

Posted by: VKI at August 21, 2010 01:49 PM (LZK9H)

455 This is really my biggest point. I get your belief that this is deviant -- I thought so too (half-think so too).

Actually, I don't know that I think it is deviant or not, although yeah I have an aversion to it. My point was to say, although the gay conservative that was described didn't like the guy preaching against gays, I don't think comparing a hetro bj to a homo bj is the same. They are not, and society doesn't look at it that way.
The preachy guy may have been being an a-hole, but I think the gay guy was too.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 01:49 PM (664Zx)

456

Wait a frackin' minute:

You mean I can judge Barak's political judgments, but I can't judge Barak personally for being a fracked-up, immoral and evil frackwit for having them???

I can't do that, even though he will end my freedom and condemn my children to crushing debt??

FRACK THAT.

Posted by: effinayright at August 21, 2010 01:50 PM (IgnKq)

457 Actually, judge not lest ye be judged is about how you can be held to your own standards even if they aren't derived from the bible.

The vegan, for instance, could be condemned if he violated his own principles while judging people based on them.

Posted by: Ben at August 21, 2010 01:50 PM (JhJB9)

458

There's a bar in Schenectady, N.Y., where Packers fans get together. Why? Because those people are different -- that part of New York is Giants country with a lot of Jets fans, Bills fans and Patriots fans -- and they like each other's company. They have something in common, and anyone with such loyalties can find kindered people in an area safe from the razzing they might ordinarily get from Beras fans. They've created a little community.

Were they born Packers fans? Probably not, but I don't know. (I grew up in that general area and wound up a Broncos fan; I honestly have no idea how.) As to whether cheeing on the Green Bay Packers is right or wrong, I can't answer that, though I'll bet if I looked really hard in the Bible, I could find something about keeping allegiances local, or something. I have, once, wished something bad on these people, but it was limited to the disappointment I hoped they would feel at the outcome of Super Bowl XXXII.

Someday, I hope to break away from work to attend a Tea Party gathering. If I ever do, and should I happen upon a fellow attendee wearing the green and gold of the Green Bay Packers, I would definitely consider him to be one of my kind, and I'd think of myself as one of his kind. I'm sure that would be true if they were all Packers fans.

That's all hypothetical, of course. But even if the almighty triumverate of Barrel Man, John Elway and Thunder the Horse were to tell me it was wrong to associate with people so openly loyal to the Packers, I'd respond by saying this isn't about Packers or Broncos. It's about the future of our Republic. And I'm certain that one of the three would join me.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 21, 2010 01:50 PM (sWynj)

459 #446 Oh, and about those hands... can't come within six inches of your "nether regions", if we are going by "19 kids and counting" zealot lunacy. // Thankfully, I subscribe to the belief that God made my body enjoy sex because IT IS TO BE ENJOYED. I don't trip over my own self-righteousness, so our dresser drawer would be set ablaze in 1600s Salem (or on the TBN)...

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 01:50 PM (Gr1V1)

460 To restate: political differences should be based on political differences -- you know, issues, tactics, ideas.

To let -- or encourage -- the movement/party be split into identity-based splinters, that's the road of the Wise Latina.

And yes, obviously this means I think excluding people because they're gay is stupid too. (Being absolutist on gay "marriage"? Another story.)

Posted by: someone at August 21, 2010 01:50 PM (DfAwB)

461 Uh, and?

I meant in politics, obviously.

But how is the concept different when used in a political context?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:50 PM (Pm5H8)

462 449 Good lord, people. 1st Corinthians, chapter 5:9-13

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

That's what I was getting at earlier, though. You're relying on St. Paul. You're relying, in the New Testament, solely on St. Paul. If you want to do that, there are a lot more quotes, besides homosexuals and how you treat them, that I don't think you're going to believe in or be very eager to follow--for starters, when it comes to his discussions of the role of women and slaves.

Posted by: AD at August 21, 2010 01:51 PM (pIb7g)

463 Maybe. That's just my interpretation.

Posted by: Ben at August 21, 2010 01:51 PM (JhJB9)

464 There's not a single, solitary moron or moronette here who doesn't indulge in the judgment of others on a daily basis.

I have a one to ten scale.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 01:51 PM (cf4iO)

465 468 To restate: political differences should be based on political differences -- you know, issues, tactics, ideas.

To let -- or encourage -- the movement/party be split into identity-based splinters, that's the road of the Wise Latina.

I don't think anyone is saying that there should be a Jewish Conservative moment that is fundamentally different than a Christian Conservative movement. But what is the harm in all of us calling ourselves conservatives, but the Jews preferring to hang out with other Jews, or the Christians preferring to hang out with other Christians?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 01:52 PM (Pm5H8)

466 wow and I figured Malamutt would be the first to implode.

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 01:53 PM (L0wbB)

467 I could go with everybody shutting the hell up and not talking about their sex lives. I'm sure every couple has certain arrangements in what they like. Why do we have to hear about it. I don't make out with my husband in front of people and I don't see why others have to make out in public. I don't care if you're gay if I don't have to see it or hear about it, just like I don't want to know what grandma has to do to grandpa for him to get it up.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 01:54 PM (ERrad)

468 @AD Ah, so you're relying on some new form of Christianity that derives from non-Biblical sources. Good to know.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 01:54 PM (xjy39)

469 472 There's not a single, solitary moron or moronette here who doesn't indulge in the judgment of others on a daily basis.

I have a one to ten scale.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 05:51 PM

Like the Evil Scale, I think you might need to upgrade to a one to twenty-five scale.

*Pops a bag and watches as Ace puts his shark in the water.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 01:55 PM (hG3dU)

470 Actually, judge not lest ye be judged is about how you can be held to your own standards even if they aren't derived from the bible.

Incorrect. Jesus was talking about Jewish Law and it's implacable nature.
Any sin at all was a violation of the entire rule book.
Jewish Law was to him and his followers all the law and set of standards. Period.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 01:55 PM (H+LJc)

471

Thankfully, I subscribe to the belief that God made my body enjoy sex because IT IS TO BE ENJOYED.

Exactly. The only thing better than SEX, is more SEX.

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at August 21, 2010 01:55 PM (YVZlY)

472 >>>"but the Jews preferring to hang out with other Jews, or the Christians preferring to hang out with other Christians?" dude, I have a dream, perhaps you heard about it?

Posted by: Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr at August 21, 2010 01:57 PM (DTy7x)

473 #479 Or Barbara Boxer's tears on NBC4, November 2nd. During her concession speech. That, that would be better. Marginally, but better.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 01:57 PM (Gr1V1)

474

It's not even his hash that he's had for, like, ever.

FYI, Ace, I've had the same hash for a long time but got a new one earlier this week. Same computer, same Internet connection. Just noticed it yesterday.

I hope this info helps in your troll hunting, bashing, banning.

Posted by: FireHorse at August 21, 2010 01:57 PM (sWynj)

475 I think I'm going to go and clean my horses' stalls out; thanks for the chat and all.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 01:58 PM (5/yRG)

476
470

So right, one of the sins Jesus was crucified for was eating and drinking with the sinners.
Christianity was subverted by Paul.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 01:58 PM (H+LJc)

477 Exactly. The only thing better than SEX, is more SEX.

I AGREE!!!!!!!

Posted by: Terri Hunter at August 21, 2010 01:58 PM (Pm5H8)

478 ....and here I was worrying that Ace might be going all Charles Johnson-y on us with swinging the banhammer around....

Hit him again, Ace, he's still twitching.

Posted by: cthulhu at August 21, 2010 01:58 PM (/0IOT)

479 Rush Limbaugh does nothing but rip off blogs now.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:46 PM (H+LJc)

I've been listening to Rush since '93 or so and he has become really tiresome lately. I think the cash money finally got his head.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 01:58 PM (EvTkC)

480

Posted by: someone at August 21, 2010 05:50 PM (DfAwB)

Hey! Are we releated?

Posted by: somebody at August 21, 2010 01:58 PM (YVZlY)

481

got his head.

Er, got to his head.

Y'know.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 01:59 PM (EvTkC)

482 This thread lacks three things. 1) Sacred Honor 2) Humor 3) Sockpuppets 4) Will Folks

Posted by: Will Folks at August 21, 2010 02:00 PM (L0wbB)

483 486 ....and here I was worrying that Ace might be going all Charles Johnson-y on us with swinging the banhammer around....

Hit him again, Ace, he's still twitching.

Posted by: cthulhu at August 21, 2010 05:58 PM (/0IOT)

Double-tap is your friend!

Posted by: Woody Harrelson at August 21, 2010 02:00 PM (YVZlY)

484 I don't see how people can post while drinking. I can't type for shit when I'm drunk. (or sober)

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 02:00 PM (/jbAw)

485 oh and LOL @ Blazer thinking Ace reads his emails. He doesn't even read his own blog!

Posted by: Zoot at August 21, 2010 02:01 PM (L0wbB)

486 439 You little drunken nasty cunt.

No, Blazer, you are gone, and you are gone forever, you fucking little drunkard shit.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:42 PM (QbA6l)

-------------------------------------

Ahhhh!!! I love the sulfurous smell and fearsome clang of the banhammer on a Saturday afternoon!!!

Posted by: effinayright at August 21, 2010 02:02 PM (IgnKq)

487 I was just about to go to AoS to tell everyone about all the bannings in Religious/Racial threads at ...AoS.

So I didn't.

Posted by: Lincolntf at August 21, 2010 02:02 PM (IKf7L)

488 Christianity was subverted by Paul.

Jesus didn't think so.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 02:03 PM (PQY7w)

489 My take on this whole flap of mixing religion with conservatism is that religion really has nothing to do with conservatism.

You can be very religious and be a big government tax and spend liberal and vice-versa.

And as I said early this morning, anybody who says Ann Coulter is a liberal has some serious mental problems.

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 02:03 PM (/jbAw)

490 Just so everyone knows why Blazer is banned: Blazer was pulling yet another one of his grievance-mongering, "You think you're better than me?" bullshit sessions, where all he does is whine that he's being "disrespected" or whatever. Grow up, Sally, I disagree with you, that doens't make me a RINO or you a victim. I called him a dirty word, like retard or something. Or called him out for his inability to think in any terms except casting EVERY. SINGLE. DISAGREEMENT. into his personal moron comfort zone of "RINOs" against "True conservative Heroes" like himself. Every single dispute is reduced to that. Every one. So reductivist, so easy, so convenient, so self-satisfying, so *thoughtless.* He doesn't have to do any thinking; just categorize one position as "RINO" and another as "True Conservative Hero" and he's good to go, and then to greivance-monger about the "elites" like me (poor white trash kid now making barely any money at all on the internet). So I called him on this, and how stultifyingly stupid his go-to paradigm was. In response, he begins MAKING UP LIBEL about me, claiming that I have a "secret site" I go to to "rag on commenters behind their backs" with other "elites." This site, by the way, is not secret -- it's "H2," where some old-timers went off to a while ago. Further, I don't comment there-- ever. I have four comments in total there. Once, someone asked me to say hello; I did. Another time, someone I knew experienced a grievous personal tragedy and I went over to express condolences. Most recently, I thanked Laura nd Scott for the Connectictu moron-meetup. There was a fourth time which was I think just anotehr request for a hello. But I forget. So four total comments -- I don't even email any of these guys, except for Laura, and she's a coblogger here -- and he's making up a story, because he's drunk and angry and wants some vengeance, to make readers think that I have a "secret site" where I bad-mouth them to other elites. Just made it up. Out of whole cloth. Didn't even say he was speculating about this -- he claimed this to be a fact he knew. And he thinks he can comment here? Oh and in his apology -- let me reveal this becuase he's such an asshole -- he mentioned he has had a problem with this, that he gets drunk and angry and starts causing shit becuase... well who knows, I didn't read the rest. So that's why he's banned -- he deliberately and knowingly libeled me in an effort to cause damage to my business, occupation, and reputation, because he was being a stupid whiny shit and I told him so.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:03 PM (QbA6l)

491 492
I spent five months in the hospital in 2001-2002 because a doctor(spit) fucked up.
The best thing to come out of it was not being able to drink anymore.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:03 PM (H+LJc)

492 This thread lacks three things.

1) Sacred Honor
2) Humor
3) Sockpuppets
4) Will Folks

Posted by: Will Folks at August 21, 2010 06:00 PM (L0wbB)

And Bob Dole. Don't forget about Bob Dole.

Posted by: Bob Dole at August 21, 2010 02:04 PM (AhvAe)

493 Ah, so you're relying on some new form of Christianity that derives from non-Biblical sources.

Nah, actually, I'm not very religious period. This gets to what Ace was talking about, though. I appreciate your religious views and your adherence to scripture if you also follow the following teachings that came solely from St. Paul in the New Testament:

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But womena will be saved through childbearingÂ—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that GodÂ’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

. . . with as strict adherence as you follow St. Paul's teachings on homosexuality.

If you don't, and I'm willing to bet you don't, then it's cherry-picking; then it's looking for an excuse more than being an effort to follow Biblical sources.

Posted by: AD at August 21, 2010 02:04 PM (pIb7g)

494 He had NO RIGHT to be offended by it, especially if its true- ALL of that is "deviant" sex. So, if you wish to rant about gays...no more bjs. no more anal. no more anything that doesn't result in turning your household into 19 kids and counting.

No more tittyfucking, footjobs, elbowbanging, any of that. In fact, no more cunnilingus either. I am SURE your wife or girlfriend would appreciate your strict, strict, strict sexuality. Or, you know, you can just get over your judgement of two gay cowboys eating pudding.

Those are the rules kids.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 05:26 PM (Gr1V1)

How do you get "no oral sex" from "no gay sex"? This sounds like arbitrary BS because you're butthurt. Hell, there's allusions to oral sex in the bible, and not as a bad thing.

Posted by: Johnny at August 21, 2010 02:04 PM (aB5St)

495 Jesus didn't think so.

That's only according to Paul.
He was never anything but a cheap hit man during Jesus lifetime.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:05 PM (H+LJc)

496 Even though theology was in the title, I think at the end of the day, this thread is exactly what the repubs have been fighting for a long time. 99.9% of the party is fiscally conservative (that .1% include almost all of congress), but its how socially conservative does the party want to be that I think will remain the internal battle for a while.

The good news/silver lining in the group of socialists we have now is driving people to say, screw the social differences, we have to stop these bastards.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 02:06 PM (664Zx)

497 No, Dave and Laura emailed me to say that they forgave you for the libels you heaped on ThEM. Which were separate libels-- you claimed Laura, for example, raised money from people to throw a secret party. That's got nothin' to do with my own capacity to forgive, Ginny McBeefeater.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:07 PM (QbA6l)

498 99.9% of the party is fiscally conservative

Just like me! I'm the bestest fiscal conservative EVAH!

Posted by: Mike Huckabee at August 21, 2010 02:07 PM (Pm5H8)

499

There's not a single, solitary moron or moronette here who doesn't indulge in the judgment of others on a daily basis.

I do. But I consider it a human weakness. I don't consider it my right. I try every day to be a Bible-practicing Christian. That includes the "love everybody" part.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 02:08 PM (hsBue)

500 99.9%

Wow. That's a very liberal estimate.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:09 PM (H+LJc)

501

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:03 PM

Postmortem on ass beating/banning...see you just don't get this at HA.

Another reason.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 02:10 PM (hG3dU)

502 By the way, Blazer, since this is the only question you care about, the only thing that animates you in what you call "politics," which isn't politics at all, but a rationalization for your grasping need for reassurance for your insecure ego-- to answer the question "You think you're better than me or somethin'?" which is always implicit in your whines -- I don't think it, Blazer. I know it to a moral certainty. Now that we've got that unresolved business out of the way, you are free to depart and start working on your next 8 oz glass of bargain-basement tequila.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:10 PM (QbA6l)

503 >>I try every day to be a Bible-practicing Christian. That includes the "love everybody" part.

Preach is sister.

Posted by: Shawn Kemp at August 21, 2010 02:10 PM (xO+6C)

504 Johnny, ask the puritanical nutcases from 19kids and counting- strict vaginal intercourse (based on THEIR direct interpretation of the bible). I simply went off their rules, which few Christians believe or follow (because they are bullshit). Butthurt is a funny potshot, but I favor breasts and vagina a bit too much to start singing showtunes and listening to Coldplay. the Bible, btw, pays an awful lot of time talking about women's breasts. God wouldn't have invented DD's if he didn't like them.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 02:11 PM (Gr1V1)

505 ...as ace exhibits that capacity for forgiveness and shame about anger that he was just carrying on about... (i know you're all thinking it so I'll just get it out of the way for you...)

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:11 PM (QbA6l)

506 Death row groupies are always lecturing me on this passage. I just tell them they are full of shit and they should fuck off.

Is that from the Sermon on the Mount?

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 02:12 PM (cf4iO)

507 This reminds me, does anyone here know anyone "in charge" at Blogmocracy 2.0? I've been unable to log on for like six months, and I know I wasn't banned or anything like that. I was Lincolntf there, too.

Posted by: Lincolntf at August 21, 2010 02:14 PM (IKf7L)

508 Blazer am I to understand the part of the email in which you confess blame for "smearing" people when you get drunk and angry is no longer operative?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:14 PM (QbA6l)

509 I don't think 'judge not lest you be judged' applies to the internet.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 21, 2010 02:14 PM (xO+6C)

510 #516 Damned are the shit-filled death row groupies. They shall fuck off. Matthew 23:10-12. Its right before the part about whoever shalt invent 'NuBacon' shall inherit the earth.

Posted by: CAC at August 21, 2010 02:15 PM (Gr1V1)

511 Ok, maybe 99.9% was a little high, but most republicans are fiscally conservative or really whats the point of being a republican without that foundation. They do lose that in Congress though, it must be the personality type that runs for politcal office.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 02:15 PM (664Zx)

512 take the ban, dude. Or I'll post your email, jerkoff. I don't have to allow you here. So don't whine to me about confidentiality. You are posting in express violation of my will. You are not invited. Go away. You are three drinks from your next alcohol-n-insecurity-fueled libelous meltdown. In fact you're already making up new slanders to go with the last smears.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:15 PM (QbA6l)

513

I do. But I consider it a human weakness. I don't consider it my right. I try every day to be a Bible-practicing Christian. That includes the "love everybody" part.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 06:08 PM (hsBue)

--------------------------

Wow. I'd sure like you to expatiate on Jesus whipping the moneychangers out of the Temple.

Posted by: effinayright at August 21, 2010 02:16 PM (IgnKq)

514 God wouldn't have invented DD's if he didn't like them.

God is good 1 Tim 4:4

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:16 PM (H+LJc)

515 People, people, people, have we all forgotten Aqua Buddha so quickly?

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 02:17 PM (cf4iO)

516 Politics is like marriage. Our biggest fights are about money and sex.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 02:18 PM (cf4iO)

517 Tell me you don't judge Paul Anka for this blasphemy:

Paul usurps grunge

Posted by: YouTuber at August 21, 2010 02:20 PM (gbCNS)

518 If I may chime in on the "identity groups vs. interest groups" discussion, I think it was one of Larry Auster's maxims that (paraphrased) "any organization that is not explicitly conservative will eventually become a liberal advocacy organization." That rings true to me, and I think that's a major distinction between identity groups and interest groups. The NRA will never become anti-gun, but there's a pretty good chance given the general drift of our political climate that a group like "gay Republicans" will eventually become a liberal advocacy group even if they stay nominally within the Republican party. A group with explicit, specific goals is much more able to resist liberal hijacking than a group based on non-ideological factors whose agenda is subject to the whims of the current membership and (more importantly) leadership.

Posted by: the peanut gallery at August 21, 2010 02:20 PM (mg/vv)

519 This site, by the way, is not secret -- it's "H2," where some old-timers went off to a while ago.

Ace so *does not go there* that he can't even include a link.

*scowls menacingly*

*Heads back to H2 for Blazer-watch*

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 02:21 PM (pRbtk)

520

Anyone looked-up the verse & its context yet?

¹ Â“Judge not, that you be not judged. ² For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. ³ And why do you look at the speck in your brotherÂ’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? ⁴ Or how can you say to your brother, Â‘Let me remove the speck from your eyeÂ’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? ⁵ Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brotherÂ’s eye.

Now, Jesus endorses judgment in Romans, James, Matthew, & John, but his primary point is that you may onlt do so (1) righteously & (2) without a hypocritical spirit. Judging righteously means that one cannot make a decision until one has all the facts, as well as not immediately condemning due to a person's position in life. Doing so without hypocrisy means you cannot be committing the same sin, that you must be right with God, & that you must be careful.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 02:21 PM (Yq+qN)

521

Wow. I'd sure like you to expatiate on Jesus whipping the moneychangers out of the Temple.

Jesus had little tolerance tor religious hypocrites. Love does not mean "mushy-gushy-let-them-get-away-with-their-sin".

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 02:21 PM (hsBue)

522 You can be very religious and be a big government tax and spend liberal and vice-versa.

Especially when totalitarian government is your religion.

Posted by: Congress at August 21, 2010 02:22 PM (9PzaA)

523 Fine, I will: ace, you are totally justified in that decision. I've had a lot of anger built up in me for a good while over both personal and political events and coupled with alcohol it all seems to come to an ugly head on the ONT. It's not like I wasn't warned before so I don't blame you in the least. Still this isn't about me, it's not any ones fault but mine. It's about the goodwill I've destroyed between good people I've come to consider as friends and confidantes over the last few years and am deeply ashamed for letting them down and sullying and smearing lauraw, you and the others at the same time, that's what's eating at me the most, not so much the ban. The lauraw part is the worst, there isn't much more of a sweeter person out there than her. ... I've contacted lauraw, DiT and some of the others I could and apologized. With this opportunity I apologize to you also and am deeply sorry for what I've done. I'll take my banishment like a man, I totally deserved it and will respect it. ... 1. Gee, a few drinks on and that part about accepting the ban and respecting it is shit out the window isn't it? 2. Spin some more stories about LauraW asking people for money for the site which she then diverted into a secret party slush fund.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:23 PM (QbA6l)

524
501 AD Nah, actually, I'm not very religious period.

That certainly explains why you don't know what you're talking about. See my earlier point on Satan trying to tempt Jesus in the wilderness by quoting parts of the Bible out of context. That's a great trick that never gets old, I guess.

The first passage you quote was Paul's admonishment to a specific church which was having issues with particular women who were being disruptive. Your second quote is simply admonishing Christians to abstain from rebellion. There's nothing wrong with that.

I don't know why people who admit that they don't have a clue are always the ones who are the most arrogant and self-righteous. There's certainly a correlation there, but which is the cause and which is the effect? Does ignorance cause arrogant self-righteousness, or vice-versa? I'll leave that to the experts, I guess.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 02:23 PM (xjy39)

525 OT? Scroll down to the Smithsonian letter. http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 02:25 PM (Nw/hR)

526 Ace always tries to comment at H2, but we delete them for not being funneh.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 02:25 PM (X0Ona)

527 This isn't about politics for guys like Blazer -- it's about nursing his sense of loser-dom. For him "poltiics" is nothing except revenge on those in better situations than himself, which is why his idea of politics is relentlessly conspiratorial about "secret elites" plotting to not invite "good common Conservative Heroes" like himself to swanky soirees. Drunken psychotic. I wouldn't associate with trash like you in real life -- what's the percentage in doing so online?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:27 PM (QbA6l)

528 People gotta put their dicks somewheres. That's just the fucking way it is!

Now, get those queers some frilly shirts and STFU.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 02:27 PM (Do528)

529 249 I'd pause before I'd go against Prager about what's in either the Old Testament or even the New.

True. But his statement would basically mean that Christ mistranslated the Hebrew if he was quoting or paraphrasing one of the OT prophets. Unlikely.

Actually it would mean that the various translators of the Bible from the Hebrew (Septuagint, KJV, etc.) made the mistake.

Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 02:28 PM (vBppj)

530 eman yeah that's an oldie but goodie
heh

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 02:28 PM (Pm5H8)

531 For him "poltiics" is nothing except revenge on those in better situations than himself

Secret Democrat.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 02:29 PM (cf4iO)

532 That certainly explains why you don't know what you're talking about.

Feel the love.

See my earlier point on Satan trying to tempt Jesus in the wilderness by quoting parts of the Bible out of context. That's a great trick that never gets old, I guess.

Okay, so why should I give any credence to your quotes?

Two can play at this game.

The first passage you quote was Paul's admonishment to a specific church which was having issues with particular women who were being disruptive.

So why shouldn't it apply to other churches?

Your second quote is simply admonishing Christians to abstain from rebellion. There's nothing wrong with that.

Really, so you're against the founding of the United States? You're against slaves that didn't respect their masters in the deep South?

I don't know why people who admit that they don't have a clue are always the ones who are the most arrogant and self-righteous.

I was raised Christian, dude. I went to Sunday school just like you did. And if you want, you know I can quote far worse than that.

Anger doesn't help here and as a Christian more than anybody you should know that.

Posted by: AD at August 21, 2010 02:30 PM (pIb7g)

533 drunken sot went online and invented one lie after another. I didn't even ban him at first -- Maet had to kick him off for being a psycho. Then Dave and Laura saw the absolute lies he was telling about him and screamed at him good. He backed down. Fine, he backed down. Admitted he made it up. I need someone like that? Some drunken loser who gets angry at the world and starts spreading vicious lies online?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:30 PM (QbA6l)

534

I've been listening to Rush since '93 or so and he has become really tiresome lately. I think the cash money finally got his head.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 05:58 PM

Ditto (oops!) for me, too. I first heard Rush even earlier when he was doing his show in Sacramento. Damn, he was funny in those days.

But then he turned into Rash Fatblob, High Priest of the First Church of Limbaugh.

I'm sure all that gelt corrupted him. In fact I'd like to run an experiment: send me a cool $100 million or so and see if I turn into a pompous, bloviating narcissist. I've been doing it for free all these years, and would love to try it in comfort.

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 21, 2010 02:30 PM (Ulu3i)

535

"secret elites" plotting to not invite "good common Conservative Heroes" like himself to swanky soirees.

Burns my ass every time.

Posted by: Alex Jones at August 21, 2010 02:31 PM (AhvAe)

536 Firehorse, you realize that Vince Lombardi was Jesus's little brother, don't you? Just ask anyone here in Wis. Well, except for a few Vikings fans. There's a special place in Hell reserved for those heretics.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 02:33 PM (cX9pO)

537 535, Oh, I see. Disruptive women in a specific place. That makes it all better.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 02:33 PM (Nw/hR)

538 278 Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 04:43 PM (vBppj)

AFAIK, strong's is rather dated. It's just used often because it's free. I would recommend a better one but I haven't been in the loop for quite some time.

Posted by: Johnny at August 21, 2010 04:46 PM (aB5St)

That's why God created subsequent editions. My dead tree one was not free.

Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 02:33 PM (vBppj)

539 I love the internet. How does some rube (yes, I am judging) on a video turn into 500+ comment section with cows, pigs, chickens, gays, Jesus and St. Paul, Ann Coulter etc, etc, and a Re-Ban. And some say the internet isn't addicting.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 02:35 PM (664Zx)

540 you told me too, genius.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:35 PM (QbA6l)

541 I need someone like that? Some drunken loser who gets angry at the world and starts spreading vicious lies online?

I don't hear anybody arguing with you, Ace.

Posted by: AmishDude at August 21, 2010 02:35 PM (T0NGe)

542

Yeah so I read all the comments.

And I've now finished judging you all based on what you wrote.

You failed.

Please kill yourself.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 02:35 PM (eL+YD)

543 "487 Rush Limbaugh does nothing but rip off blogs now.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:46 PM (H+LJc)

I've been listening to Rush since '93 or so and he has become really tiresome lately. I think the cash money finally got his head.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 05:58 PM (EvTkC)"

wow, I thought it was just me cause I don't listen to him that often and usually in the car. I think the money got to him but the blond too.

Sometimes I say to myself "ace posted on that" and "drew posted on that" and then I play a game and try to predict the next post and his next topic of conversation. Usually it's from gabe's headline comments.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 02:36 PM (p302b)

544 Blazer's Youtube channel.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 02:36 PM (Im/xu)

545 On The Scale Of Evil, Where Do Murderers Rate?

http://tinyurl.com/2a93dbm

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 04:51 PM (/jbAw)

Moses, David and Paul were all murderers.

Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 02:36 PM (vBppj)

546 Let me quote you, genius: "Fine, go ahead and publish it" are you too drunk to remember saying that?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:36 PM (QbA6l)

547

Except for LauraW. She's cool.

The rest all fail.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 02:37 PM (eL+YD)

548 "553 I need someone like that? Some drunken loser who gets angry at the world and starts spreading vicious lies online?

I don't hear anybody arguing with you, Ace.

Posted by: AmishDude at August 21, 2010 06:35 PM (T0NGe)"

ace has a huge problem, he tries to hide it but he can't, deep down inside he's a real sweet guy, real sweet ....and when you are such a nice guy, you tend to really think about people....

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 02:38 PM (p302b)

549 I need someone like that? Some drunken loser who gets angry at the world and starts spreading vicious lies online?

I don't hear anybody arguing with you, Ace.

Posted by: AmishDude at August 21, 2010 06:35 PM (T0NGe)

Regardless, it's Ace's site and he can do what he wants. That's property rights and that's part of conservatism, too.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 02:38 PM (cf4iO)

550 Oh here's my apology to you, Blazer: I am sorry your life sucks so much that you have nothing but liquor, anger, and online socializing. I am sorry you... well, obviously, obviously, you're divorced. Who could live with you? I am sorry you are so limited in intellect that every argument to you is a simple categorization of RINO and True Conservative Hero and that, for you, ends all discussion. I am sorry you drink so much. I am sorry you offer apologizes and promises to accept bannings and then get your drink on and retract. I am sorry you are not much of a man.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:39 PM (QbA6l)

551 559

Except for LauraW. She's cool.

The rest all fail.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:37 PM (eL+YD)

Nahh, LauraW's got a hump. Fail.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 02:39 PM (Pm5H8)

552 ....and when you are such a nice guy, you tend to really think about people....

Yeah...I can't relate, sorry.

Posted by: AmishDude at August 21, 2010 02:39 PM (T0NGe)

553 Actually it would mean that the various translators of the Bible from the Hebrew (Septuagint, KJV, etc.) made the mistake.

The myth about the rigorous standards every copy of the Torah and Talmud was held to is just that, myth. It was done by primarily verbal memory until a couple of centuries before Christ and those oldest known are very similar but in no way exactly the same.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:39 PM (H+LJc)

554 Wow bed bugs in the Empire State Building....? I guess it isn't just hotels and movie theaters any more.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 02:41 PM (p302b)

555 537 Ace always tries to comment at H2, but we delete them for not being funneh.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 06:25 PM (X0Ona)

Now that's funneh!

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at August 21, 2010 02:41 PM (YVZlY)

556 Oh, and-- I am sorry that you are as impotent as a seventh-grade-girl, and that your method of "gettin' payback" is make up vicious rumors and begin peddling them about the "cool kids" who won't invite you to do things. Oh, and I'm so, so sorry that the Connecticut meet-up couldn't be more widely publicized, but, as Laura told you, I have a STALKER, and therefore I try to keep my location a secret. I'm so, so sorry that my STALKER PROBLEM interfered with your attendance at a party you certainly wouldn't have come to anyway.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:41 PM (QbA6l)

557

....and when you are such a nice guy, you tend to really think about people....

Yeah...I can't relate, sorry.

Yeah... I scored a 3 on the empathy part of the sex test.

I'm just too much man to feel even my own pain, let alone yours, which, after judging you, I find you all to deserve entirely.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 02:41 PM (eL+YD)

558

Yeah so I read all the comments.

And I've now finished judging you all based on what you wrote.

You failed.

Please kill yourself.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:35 PM (eL+YD)

I was hoping to merely be denied fruit cup before dinner.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 02:42 PM (cf4iO)

559 I won't even comment on the idiot in the video and I think a few others have already pointed out the correct interpretation of this bit of scripture and no it is not an injunction against all judging.

Trap my ass. This I will comment on because it's an obvious attempt to suggest judging GOProud isn't theological sound. It is sound. They seek to normalize and institutionalize homosexual behavior, using the government, which is a sin and an abomination. Nothing is being waved away and no one is ignoring their own sins by pointing this out. An abomination doesn't stop being one just because all those invloved consent to it.

I'm not a theologian but that seems to be doing a certain amount of picking and choosing, as Paul Anka said, based on one's personal desires, and not upon any defensible theology.

Pointing out homosexuality as an abomination is a completely defensible theology and it requires no picking or choosing. It's straight out of the bible, both testaments. If you had bothered to read a bit on it you would know. But then you would have also known what a lame attempt you were making in trying to use the whole "judge not" bit too so obviously you didn't.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 02:42 PM (xXyXP)

560 The Savior's words are not a prohibition on judgment, so much as a warning that you'll be judged as sternly or as charitably as you judge others. Do you want the benefit of the doubt when you stand before God and give account of your life? Then you should tender to those around you a commensurate benefit of the doubt. Since this vegetarian dude is so judgmental, he's likely going to find himself in deep kim chee at the great white throne judgment.

Posted by: Steve Poling at August 21, 2010 02:42 PM (db5YN)

561 I am sorry that you are as impotent as a seventh-grade-girl

Wait, what?

Posted by: Scott Ritter nibbling on a Whopper (heh) Jr. at August 21, 2010 02:43 PM (T0NGe)

562 Ace always tries to comment at H2, but we delete them for not being funneh.

I thought we agreed not to tell him? Fragile ego and all.

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 02:44 PM (pRbtk)

563 Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:41 PM (QbA6l)

I remember a post, probably when the idea of the gathering first entered her head and she started planning it, from Laura W, inviting everyone. I remember it well cause I thought to myself "that woman is brave inviting a whole blog to her house for a party"

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 02:44 PM (p302b)

564 Where do you live, Blazer?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:44 PM (QbA6l)

565 One wonders if people who post threats of violence are aware that it is now a violation of federal law to do that.

Yes, they passed a law after that episode with the professor from AZ who shall remain nameless.

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 02:44 PM (/jbAw)

566 Who was following Jesus around and jotting all this stuff down?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 02:45 PM (Nw/hR)

567 543 AD Anger doesn't help here and as a Christian more than anybody you should know that.

Dude, you don't have what it takes to get me angry.

Okay, so why should I give any credence to your quotes?

Don't. Enjoy the feeling of moral superiority you have over people too stupid to not agree with everything you say. Enjoy it while it lasts.

So why shouldn't it apply to other churches?

Seriously? Do you want to go line-by-line through the Bible? I thought you were someone who knows everything there is to know about the Bible. What could I possibly teach you?

Really, so you're against the founding of the United States? You're against slaves that didn't respect their masters in the deep South?

That would be a reducto ad absurdum if it weren't a red herring. In point of fact, though, the Bible does teach us to be kind to those who do us wrong. However, that does not mean that Christians should not defend themselves.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 02:45 PM (xjy39)

568 I've been listening to Rush since '93 or so and he has become really tiresome lately.

I don't know, although I don't get to listen often anymore, but I wouldn't doubt it, things are gettin serious, and that might be part of it. I'm alot more serious since Odipstick took office, I'll say that. I'm glad Rush is on our side, he's damn good.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 02:46 PM (664Zx)

569
579
It was the guy with the only set of glasses.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:46 PM (H+LJc)

570 I'm sure all that gelt corrupted him. In fact I'd like to run an experiment: send me a cool $100 million or so and see if I turn into a pompous, bloviating narcissist. I've been doing it for free all these years, and would love to try it in comfort.

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 21, 2010 06:30 PM (Ulu3i)

A Gulfstream 5 at my beck and call would automatically turn me into an asshole. Fuck all that.

I'd like to say that I'm satisfied being poor but that wouldn't be true either. It's the old-fashioned pursuit of happiness that keeps me going.

Limbaugh might want to rethink the "regular guy" mantra.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 02:47 PM (AhvAe)

571 The Bible was not written to force enlighten on those who do not want to be enlightened. Anyone who wants to misunderstand it can do so.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 02:48 PM (xjy39)

572 ...yet

Posted by: Boner McSteele at August 21, 2010 02:49 PM (AvO0L)

573 Well, that escalated quickly...

Posted by: Ron Burgundy at August 21, 2010 02:49 PM (IKf7L)

574 "579
Who was following Jesus around and jotting all this stuff down?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 06:45 PM (Nw/hR)"

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for starters. But I kinda think their new testament writings are sort of like their memoirs with a guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 02:49 PM (p302b)

575 Blazer, you are really pushing it up to the line. I have told you to stop posting here. That is final. Go. The Fuck. Away.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:50 PM (QbA6l)

576 Nahh, LauraW's got a hump. Fail.

Fuck you. Humps are cool.

Posted by: Quasimodo at August 21, 2010 02:50 PM (6Z05k)

577 295 Fish are vegetables because they don't scream when they die.

Neither do hobos if ya stab them in the kidneys. Just sayin'.

Best laugh I've had for a long while. Please forgive me. And please don't judge me for it, people. I'm just tryin to figure out if I can drink, fuck & play golf in heaven. I sometimes hope that physics thing where matter and energy can never be destroyed is true. I mean, what kind of subatomic particle or energy is my soul or spirt or consciousness, anyway? Will Jesus shepherd me out of the next black hole singularity something something? I hope so. And, how old is satan? He ain't dead yet. Will god really destroy a spirit? Will he really torture it? What is hell? Hoping it is a black hole. At least that leaves hope for continuing to exist and explains the use of the word eternity. The number of years in that state has got to be a tough word to 'spain to nomads and fisherman. What's that, Carl? Billions and billions and billions... whaaaat? Don't get me started on hitler. I guess I might be pissed (uh, no, probably HORRIFIED) if we are within 4 dimensions of each other in the afterlife immediately following this life on earth. I just have to assume that God is a forgiving God, but I bet he might let us decide whether or not dahmer and gacy and citizen x and those fucking nazis are allowed in our neighborhood or not. But wow, he forgave that murderer on the cross right next to him, didn't he? Confusing. Sometimes it seems like the current geopolitical events whizzing by represent another spot on Prophecy's rubik's cube being clicked into place, which will show all creatures that God is and always has been and somehow spoke it to people well enough for the message to not get too jumbled up. My head hurts...Hey, you Christians out here! Please do me a favor? Pray for me. Thanks.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 02:50 PM (Epj2t)

578 Usually it's from gabe's headline comments.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 06:36 PM (p302b)

It seems like a lag time of 5-10 minutes between the posts here and the mention on-air. I'm sure it's not just this place but Rush has obviously become lazy.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 02:51 PM (AhvAe)

579 Nahh, LauraW's got a hump. Fail.

Fuck you. Humps are cool.

Depends on their location and size.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 02:51 PM (xjy39)

580 590 Nahh, LauraW's got a hump. Fail.

Fuck you. Humps are cool.

Posted by: Quasimodo at August 21, 2010 06:50 PM (6Z05k)

Damn right humps are cool!

Posted by: achmed's camel at August 21, 2010 02:51 PM (YVZlY)

581 Yes, Blazer, you can write me your address via email. Now get off the site.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:52 PM (QbA6l)

582 need to take meds to read this thread.

Posted by: willow at August 21, 2010 02:52 PM (SbsTp)

583 Dude, you don't have what it takes to get me angry.

You sure?

Don't. Enjoy the feeling of moral superiority you have over people too stupid to not agree with everything you say. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Again, you sure about part one?

Do you want to go line-by-line through the Bible? I thought you were someone who knows everything there is to know about the Bible. What could I possibly teach you?

When did I say so?

Also, you do seem to be getting a bit perturbed.

That would be a reducto ad absurdum if it weren't a red herring. In point of fact, though, the Bible does teach us to be kind to those who do us wrong. However, that does not mean that Christians should not defend themselves.

I could reply here with something, but I wont.

Seriously, John, chill. This is debating on the internet. Flustered is for the trolls.

Posted by: AD at August 21, 2010 02:53 PM (pIb7g)

584 Damn right humps are cool!

Axelrod's a hump and he ain't cool

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:53 PM (H+LJc)

585

yo all

583 true all that

i used to judge my happiness by my 'list of things to do before i die'

alas, i finished my list!!! but lucky me, i had a little girl and now i can add on 'beat the living shit out of first boy who hits on my girl' to the list

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 02:54 PM (gg4j2)

586

Apologize for insulting your readers and posters and then we have a deal. What do you say, certainly an apology is in order?

Posted by: Blazer at August 21, 2010 06:53 PM (7SJnG)

Oh, for Christ's sake.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 02:54 PM (cf4iO)

587

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for starters. But I kinda think their new testament writings are sort of like their memoirs with a guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 06:49 PM (p302b)

Might be hard to do considering the earliest of those were written 30 years or longer after Jesus's death. John is the "newest" of the 4. Each was written for certain groups, with John being for new converts to Christianity if memory serves.

And I believe that Matthew and Mark are written from the same original source book that has been lost to time.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 02:55 PM (oVQFe)

588 This has been a very, very "lively" thread...

Posted by: a guy who always understates things at August 21, 2010 02:55 PM (YVZlY)

589

579 Who was following Jesus around and jotting all this stuff down?

Well, there were these disciple guys...

_{/On a more serious note, a majorirty of them had previous professions in which writing was a requirement, & they also would have learned that from school.}

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 02:55 PM (Yq+qN)

590 One wonders if people who post threats of violence are aware that it is now a violation of federal law to do that.
Yes, they passed a law after that episode with the professor from AZ who shall remain nameless.
Posted by: Vic
---------------
True.. but to press charges, Ace would have to reveal to the cops the ultra-secret location of the Ewok fortress of solitude.. and probably have to clean up some hobo bones.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 02:55 PM (Do528)

591
597
Well it is the Twenty First Century.
Brave New World and all that.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:55 PM (H+LJc)

592 Postmortem on ass beating/banning...see you just don't get this at HA. Another reason. Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 06:10 PM (hG3dU) That does make things pretty entertaining.

Posted by: Johnny Alamo at August 21, 2010 02:56 PM (FZQAX)

593 Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 06:51 PM (AhvAe)

What I have been noticing is something is put forth here and then a couple of days later one of the so called "big guys/gals" writes about the subject and uses the ideas developed here and it's all "oh wow this is great, everywhere else". In the meantime, it was discussed here, in detail days before. It must be maddening for the bloggers.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 02:56 PM (p302b)

594 Question, since this thread is about theology, if we hit 666 will the universe implode?

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 02:56 PM (cX9pO)

595

What's with all of this SoCon navel gazing right now?

When we're trying to take back both houses of Congress it's at least a major distraction and at most fatally divisive.

I'd rather watch 'tard true tv than spin my wheels on several recent topics.

Later.

Posted by: Ed Anger at August 21, 2010 02:56 PM (7+pP9)

596 Nahh, LauraW's got a hump. Fail.

Fuck you. Humps are cool.

Depends on their location and size.

This is what a dipnoid I am sometimes. When I first started coming to this site, I thought people were talking about her female hump. For like a year. I thought why are people talking about her vayjay.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 02:56 PM (664Zx)

597

606 the ultra-secret location of the Ewok fortress of solitude

a new york strip bar......oooooh, big secret there

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 02:57 PM (gg4j2)

598 Question, since this thread is about theology, if we hit 666 will the universe implode?

Let's find out!

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 02:57 PM (xjy39)

599 Geez!

I am so frikkin confused.

Is the 7S hash Blazer or not? Ace, who are you talking to?

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 02:57 PM (tovHz)

600 They have strip bars in NYC?

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 02:58 PM (/jbAw)

601 Blazer, how about this: How about you just leave as you promised when you were sober? How about that, asshole? [Edited away a threat I'm not happy about.]

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 02:58 PM (QbA6l)

602 Why do Morons meet-up? I mean, why? It's not just to meet people you know online (in many cases, you don't meet the people you really know, because they're in different cities; you meet other morons you don't know). So why do that?

Because Morons are united by being Moronic, and liking Moronic topics, and generally doing Moron shit.

OK, there's that. But it's also pretty easy to stick Dave with the tab when he's drunk.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 02:58 PM (JtKsy)

603 Jesus, Blazer, just go away. Ace doesn't owe anyone an apology. You, however, consistently ignore the first rule of holes. And I'm sorry to say, every apology I've seen from you has always been self serving, not sincere.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 02:58 PM (X0Ona)

604 ace, if Blazer is banned why can he still respond?

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 02:58 PM (VuLos)

605 They have strip bars in NYC?

No, they have Gentleman's Clubs

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 02:59 PM (H+LJc)

606

616 i'm not sure to be honest, i've only been there once, april of last year

i was with my sisters and wife and girl

"hey, lets check out tittie bars!!!!' would have been a bad move

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:00 PM (gg4j2)

607 620 ace, if Blazer is banned why can he still respond?

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 06:58 PM (VuLos)

Ace hasn't banned his new IP. He's giving him the opportunity to walk out the door on his own rather than being kicked out.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:00 PM (oVQFe)

608 No, it's that it takes a while -- I have to write to pixy, which i did, but pixy may be busy or asleep.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:01 PM (QbA6l)

609 I've been listening to Rush since '93 or so and he has become really tiresome lately.

Disagree. He was a little too ONT about his personal life after the wedding if you know what I mean, but I think someone talked to him because he's toned it down and is back to being funny and entertaining. "Hamasque" was a brilliant coinage, and I didn't see it on any blogs first.

Posted by: Ian S. at August 21, 2010 03:01 PM (imD7p)

610

i used to judge my happiness by my 'list of things to do before i die'

alas, i finished my list!!!

Still working on mine. Haven't bseen 'Nessie yet.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:01 PM (hsBue)

611

I have no idea what he's trying to communicate.

If he's sayin there is no hierachy of bad things to God, yes.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at August 21, 2010 03:01 PM (Wh0W+)

612 615 Geez! I am so frikkin confused. Is the 7S hash Blazer or not? Ace, who are you talking to? Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 06:57 PM (tovHz) I suspect the Council of Elders are doing a little editing for clarity of Blazer's comments.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 03:01 PM (X0Ona)

613

I don't think Azer's boss will worry about what his jizz mopper does between shows. Just saying.

666 orbust.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 03:01 PM (hG3dU)

614 It must be maddening for the bloggers.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 06:56 PM (p302b)

Very true. I've wondered if the fact checkers are cowards or just plain suck. Nowadays the scoop is the business and it's puzzling that it takes them so long to pull the trigger.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 03:01 PM (AhvAe)

615 well i certainly feel better for having read this thread.

Posted by: willow at August 21, 2010 03:02 PM (SbsTp)

616 ace, if Blazer is banned why can he still respond?

Worm holes.

Posted by: Carl Sagan at August 21, 2010 03:02 PM (664Zx)

617

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:01 PM (QbA6l)

or there's that.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:02 PM (oVQFe)

618

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 03:03 PM (eL+YD)

619 Brang It! I encourage all comers.

Ace, remember that vid someone posted recently (2-3 weeks ago, maybe a month) with some gamer kid threatening to kick some ass because he (she?) was trolled on some online game or something?

Ya, this reminds me of that. Great scene.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 03:03 PM (xjy39)

620 Back before i was married, my then girlfriend now wife felt that my spiritual life was lacking and hounded me until I agreed to go to church with her. She went to some Universal Unitarian church. So one Sunday I gave in and went with her. The sermon was about how the flying saucers are all part of God's plan. She was very embarrassed and I never had to go back.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 03:03 PM (cf4iO)

621 627 watching the cubbies win the world series was on the list but come on, lets be realistic here for a second......

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:03 PM (gg4j2)

622 Blazer , I've always like you. i know youfeel angry but better to just leave site.

Posted by: willow at August 21, 2010 03:04 PM (SbsTp)

623 609...

I've noticed that too, but I liken it to the fact that I (and others) often post links in the comments that suddenly become posts a day or two later. Meaning, wherever the first guy got the information, eventually, so will the second. The bloggers simply don't have the time or inclination to scour every thread looking for leads and the big guys on talk radio don't have time to scour the internet looking for ideas to pilfer. And, the big guys have a whole lot more skin in the game as they have to be somewhat certain about their sources and the accuracy of the information lest risk a lawsuit. So, sometimes it takes longer.

It could be intentional, but I don't think so.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 03:04 PM (tovHz)

624

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 03:04 PM (eL+YD)

625 Looks like the Hammonds are going to get a lot of new company

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 03:05 PM (H+LJc)

626

Virginia is no longer for lovers.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 03:05 PM (hG3dU)

627

637 HA, the fat gamer chick with the "now some ninja moves"

classic

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:05 PM (gg4j2)

628
I am sorry your life sucks so much that you have nothing but liquor, anger, and online socializing.

Ouch.

But seriously that should be included as a disclaimer/warning in every ONT post.

Posted by: Boner McSteele at August 21, 2010 03:05 PM (2O5Hd)

629 I've already posted my fucking address. How about this/?Time and a place and I'll beat your fucking face into a batter?

Posted by: Blazer at August 21, 2010 07:02 PM (7SJnG)

That flying saucer sermon is looking pretty good in comparison.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 21, 2010 03:06 PM (cf4iO)

630 Entropy, please stuff it. I know you want to show off how much you know about the internet but you're not hepling.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:06 PM (QbA6l)

631
638
You should have played the lottery that day

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 03:06 PM (H+LJc)

632 588, Who jotted down the stuff Pilate said? Biggus Dickus?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 03:07 PM (Nw/hR)

633

Because if he knows how to get a new IP that means he knows how to get another one.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 07:04 PM (eL+YD)

Eh, sometimes its just from a random change by your ISP provider. Even a "static IP" can occasionally change.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:07 PM (oVQFe)

634 Flying saucers. LOL.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:07 PM (hsBue)

635 I am sorry your life sucks so much that you have nothing but liquor, anger, and online socializing. Uh, that's pretty much my life, and I say, "LIFE IS GOOD!!"

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 03:07 PM (X0Ona)

636 I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone here to attend church with me tomorrow morning.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:09 PM (hsBue)

637 Who jotted down the stuff Pilate said?

Biggus Dickus? Posted by: eman
-------------
Didn't Jesus have a publicist? I think it says so somewhere in Revelation..

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 03:09 PM (Do528)

638 Now that we've got that unresolved business out of the way, you are free to depart and start working on your next 8 oz glass of bargain-basement tequila.

C'mon, Ace, that's a cheap shot. You have no reason to think that he is not drinking Patron.

This thread is hilarious.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 03:09 PM (JtKsy)

639 I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone here to attend church with me tomorrow morning. Posted by: katya
----------

Oh now THAT would be interesting!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 03:10 PM (Do528)

640
ace, if Blazer is banned why can he still respond?

hahahaha, reminds me of when Malisha poked her little head in the bathroom and said, "Did you plug the hole, yet, daddy?"

Posted by: Boner McSteele at August 21, 2010 03:10 PM (2O5Hd)

641

I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone here to attend church with me tomorrow morning.

Bad idea.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 03:10 PM (eL+YD)

642

Oh now THAT would be interesting!

I agree.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:10 PM (hsBue)

643 guess i'll go spend time with grandbaby

Posted by: willow at August 21, 2010 03:11 PM (SbsTp)

644 I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone here to attend church with me tomorrow morning. Posted by: katya
----------

Oh now THAT would be interesting!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 07:10 PM (Do52

With this group we'd fight over where we wanted to sit in the pew.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 03:11 PM (VuLos)

645 C'mon, Ace, that's a cheap shot. You have no reason to think that he is not drinking Patron.

This thread is hilarious.
-----------------

Cheap shot? more like a tumbler!

Don't mind me.. I'm just trying for 666

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 03:11 PM (Do528)

646 Uh, that's pretty much my life, and I say, "LIFE IS GOOD!!"

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 07:07 PM (X0Ona)

http://tinyurl.com/324287c

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 03:11 PM (/jbAw)

647

One more.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 03:11 PM (hG3dU)

648

We don't even dress up much. Most people wear blue jeans and t-shirts.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:11 PM (hsBue)

649 658 I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone here to attend church with me tomorrow morning. Posted by: katya --------------------------- Does your church usually sponsor bar fights?

Posted by: Johnny Alamo at August 21, 2010 03:12 PM (FZQAX)

650

657 You have no reason to think that he is not drinking Patron.

excuse me but patron is made exclusively for my consumption, well, sometimes my wife if i think she'll give it up

please retract your heresy

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:12 PM (gg4j2)

651 ace, you are totally justified in that decision. I've had a lot of anger built up in me for a good while over both personal and political events and coupled with alcohol it all seems to come to an ugly head on the ONT. It's not like I wasn't warned before so I don't blame you in the least. Still this isn't about me, it's not any ones fault but mine. It's about the goodwill I've destroyed between good people I've come to consider as friends and confidantes over the last few years and am deeply ashamed for letting them down and sullying and smearing lauraw, you and the others at the same time, that's what's eating at me the most, not so much the ban. The lauraw part is the worst, there isn't much more of a sweeter person out there than her.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:12 PM (QbA6l)

652

With this group we'd fight over where we wanted to sit in the pew.

We have round tables at the back so you can drink your coffee if you'd rather.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:12 PM (hsBue)

653 I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone here to attend church with me tomorrow morning.

Would that turn out like that kid who posted on her Facebook page that her parents were out of town for the weekend and she wanted to throw a party?

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 03:12 PM (H+LJc)

654 What denomination, katya?

Lord, I ain't been to a real church service in like decades!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 03:12 PM (Do528)

655

"Please allow to introduce myself

I'm a man of wealth and taste.

Been around for a long, long time

Stole many a man's soul from grace"

Just practicin', in case.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 03:13 PM (cX9pO)

656 Does Blazer have a boat?

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 21, 2010 03:13 PM (xO+6C)

657 He lies about people, he slanders them, he concocts meaningless self-serving empty apologies, and then he cops attitude about it and demands "apologies." Not for him, you understand -- for the readers. See, he's selfless like that. Looking out for others.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:13 PM (QbA6l)

658 I'll leave when ace finally apologizes for insulting his readers. When he does, I'll disapper from the interwebs forever.

Blazer, you don't represent me or anyone else here. If I need an apology from Ace, I will give him a wedgie until he submits.

Also, you are too drunk to spell "disappear."

In short -- go away.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 03:14 PM (JtKsy)

659 That guy only lives about 15 miles from me. I never got to that part of town though.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:14 PM (i6UsH)

660

I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone here to attend church with me tomorrow morning.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 07:09 PM (hsBue)

Do you really want shouts of "That's what she said" and "How you doin'?" to happen during the sermon?

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:14 PM (oVQFe)

661

We don't even dress up much. Most people wear blue jeans and t-shirts.

Can I wear my "Mercenaries never die; They just go to hell to regroup" t-shirt with the flaming skull on it?

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 03:14 PM (eL+YD)

662

Hey,

I just woke up to find my site innudated with morons! Thanks for the link, Ace. Now I just have these...er, 666 posts to read.

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 03:15 PM (xg1eR)

663 See, he's selfless like that. Looking out for others.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:13 PM (QbA6l)

Wait...Blazer is Bill O'Reilly?!

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 03:15 PM (VuLos)

664 667

We don't even dress up much. Most people wear blue jeans and t-shirts.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 07:11 PM (hsBue)

Now that's my kind of church...if I went to church

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at August 21, 2010 03:15 PM (YVZlY)

665 Wait...Blazer is Bill O'Reilly?!

You can't deny he's DOIN' IT LIVE!

Posted by: Ian S. at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (imD7p)

666

Can I wear my "Mercenaries never die; They just go to hell to regroup" t-shirt with the flaming skull on it?

does it have the blago hair?

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (gg4j2)

667 Does Blazer have a boat?

Not in the satellite photos.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (H+LJc)

668 Ace - it's a cycle that drunks go thru.. over and over and over.. it's like a bad Twilight Zone episode.. just try to ignore him.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (Do528)

669 655 I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone here to attend church with me tomorrow morning.

Actually, I've been thinking about going back to church lately. I haven't been in a church except for weddings and funerals for about 15 years now. What type of church do you attend?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (Pm5H8)

670

What denomination, katya?

Independent. Rivers Edge Christian Church, 1257 Cedar Bend St. Waterloo, Iowa. Worship begins at 10:30 a.m. so there's time for a decent sleep-in.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (hsBue)

671 Does Blazer have a boat?

Not in the satellite photos.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 07:16 PM (H+LJc)

But he does in street view, IF that is his real address.

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 03:16 PM (/jbAw)

672

JohnJ:

Blazer busting a move.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 03:17 PM (Im/xu)

673 675 Does Blazer have a boat?

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 21, 2010 07:13 PM (xO+6C)

He did...

Posted by: a guy who just saw it on google earth and stole it at August 21, 2010 03:17 PM (YVZlY)

674

Can I wear my "Mercenaries never die; They just go to hell to regroup" t-shirt with the flaming skull on it?

Yes. A few people may look at you funny, but nobody will say anything and they'll still shake your hand. BTW, my future son-in-law has that shirt.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:18 PM (hsBue)

675 663 With this group we'd fight over where we wanted to sit in the pew. ...& fight with the pastor during the sermon.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 03:18 PM (Yq+qN)

676 This is what change looks like.

Posted by: Scottw at August 21, 2010 03:19 PM (1Pjzt)

677

Afternoon Moe Rons.

Racin' at Bristol in 30 minutes!

Posted by: CDR M at August 21, 2010 07:16 PM (5I8G0)

Isn't that track like only half a mile yet seats 100k or something like that?

I'll be watching some exciting Bronco preseason football tonight. Woopie.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at August 21, 2010 03:19 PM (IRwVS)

678 Dang that is a boat. Are there any predators in the area?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:19 PM (i6UsH)

679 There's a boat on street view.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 21, 2010 03:19 PM (xO+6C)

680

689 katya, you know i love ya like a sister but iowa?

i could lure these morons with free beer and my wife in a bikini top in waikiki!!

oh, i forgot to mention she was in a bikini....ooops, my bad

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:19 PM (gg4j2)

681

Heh, his comments are getting the troll editing treatment now. Can't say its unjustified.

I've been diametrically opposed to ace on things before in comments where he's gotten ticked off at the opinions and views of most commenters here, and I've never felt that an apology was needed. Why should someone apologize for having a different opinion and saying it?

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:19 PM (oVQFe)

682 katya.. that's 4 1/2 hours from Chicago! maybe next week!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 03:20 PM (Do528)

683 Something I'll never understand is people who know virtually nothing about a faith trying to lecture long-time believers about what they insist that person must believe. Look, I know you're trying to be clever, and I'll even be charitable enough to say you mean well, but you sound like a 6 year old telling dad how to fix the car because he learned how to use a hammer the other day. Stick to what you know ok?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 03:20 PM (PQY7w)

684 700 make that 'couldn't'

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:20 PM (gg4j2)

685 You know when I think of Jesus I think to myself that he came into this world a carpenter, probably middle class, a regular guy. He was going to die for our sins anyway so he could have chosen the easy path and come in as an uber elite kewl guy and no one would have said a word. But, instead, he chose to be born in a stable and to work with wood and to have fisherman and prostitutes and all around fringe folk for his buds. If he had chosen the other route he could have had a charmed life, been rich, maybe famous at the time, if he were here today, maybe his own book tour and reality tv show. Instead he came as a regular hard working person. And all he was about really when you boil it down was love of God.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 05:10 PM (p302b)

Fixed it for you. you can love the whole world, every person in it, truly and with your whole heart but Jesus himself said "It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin." No amount of love is getting you out of that, except maybe for God.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 03:21 PM (xXyXP)

686 Katya, that's a nice invite! I was actually thinking of going to church tomorrow. I haven't been since Easter. Now I have definitely decided to go. I'm in Phoenix though, but if I was near you I would check out your church. I haven't really found one here that I love yet. I've only been twice in the year that I've lived here. Different churches each time.

Posted by: Lilikoi at August 21, 2010 03:21 PM (fjnET)

687

But he does in street view, IF that is his real address.

Posted by: Vic at August 21, 2010 07:16 PM (/jbAw)

That street view has to be two years old. I'm looking at a recent sat view.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 03:21 PM (H+LJc)

688 I'm sick of rain.

Just felt like sharing that.

Posted by: toby928 at August 21, 2010 07:19 PM (S5YRY)

I'd kill for rain. I am so friggin' tired of moving sprinklers around. And can't one of you engineer type morons invent a remote control sprinkler?

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 03:21 PM (VuLos)

689 Isn't this about the 435th time Blazer has offered to "disappear forever" or some such?

Dude, we accept. Really.

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 03:21 PM (pRbtk)

690 679 Do you really want shouts of "That's what she said" and "How you doin'?" to happen during the sermon? I'm trying not to laugh, but the mental image is just too funny.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 03:21 PM (Yq+qN)

691

Nah he's wearing a berret and only half his face is a skull.

http://tinyurl.com/2f3pwpx

I got it at Flying Tiger II Army/Navy surplus when I was about 16. Got a "A coward dies a thousand times but the valient taste of death but once; Soldier of Fortune" shirt too.

And of course my Slayer 'God Hates the World Tour' tour t-shirt.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 03:22 PM (eL+YD)

692

702 Why should someone apologize for having a different opinion and saying it?

buzzion, you aren't married i see

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:22 PM (gg4j2)

693 katya, hmm, that's about 5 hrs away from me

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:22 PM (Pm5H8)

694 If you want to do that, there are a lot more quotes, besides homosexuals and how you treat them, that I don't think you're going to believe in or be very eager to follow--for starters, when it comes to his discussions of the role of women and slaves. --AD

Paul had no problem with women; he did have a problem with the wives of the Corinthian churchmen. /context

Posted by: baldilocks at August 21, 2010 03:22 PM (vBppj)

695
Absolutely fascinating thread--learned stuff I was totally unaware of tonite. Don't have any scintillating insights to offer, just a thanks for entertainment and education.

Ace, you're doin just fine, please don't stop. Blog is an absolute treat to read.

Posted by: irongrampa at August 21, 2010 03:22 PM (ud5dN)

696 You know why people used to dress up for church (and still do in some areas, particularly black churches)? It had nothing to do with feeling superior or dress codes or looking down on anyone. It is the same reason you dress up for special occasions, to meet someone very important, or to commemorate an event. Because it shows respect and dignity and an understanding that what you're doing is something different from the rest of your life.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 03:23 PM (PQY7w)

697

katya, you know i love ya like a sister but iowa?

Can't help it. That's where God said to go.

Seriously, if you guys ever come to my church, make sure you ask where the preacher's wife is and introduce yourselves to me. It would make my year.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:23 PM (hsBue)

698 Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:27 PM (QbA6l)

Excellent point sir. That is Christianity. We cannot behave our way into Heaven. It is a gift we accept. Guilt and all. Far as I know every other religion makes believe that people can and must earn their way. No one but no one falls short, even after 9 spine tingling altar call baptisms. You sure have a good understanding of it for not being a Christian. Better than a lot of these fred phelps wannabe's giving us a bad name. I've heard from some deep readers that those that do follow the rules better get the good digs in Heaven. But who cares? So I get a room the size of a broom closet. Simple solution, I'll just go knock on Mother Theresa's door. Her place will probably be the size of Jupiter. What's she gonna do, turn me away? She better not, cuz I'll tell on her. Right to God, I will. He might say something like "Chill, Theresa, you've got plenty of room. Don't harsh his mellow. Say ten hail Marys and clean his golf clubs. He's playing with My Boy in a two man scramble tomorrow against Nicklaus & Woods."

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 03:24 PM (Epj2t)

699 Probably 2 seats per Bristolite.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:24 PM (i6UsH)

700 ~ tap tap tap tap tap ~

sigh.

Hadji is not in the comic mood. The one day I accidentally leave my IED vest at the motel had to be today. I've never wanted to explode myself up more than right now.

-

Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at August 21, 2010 03:25 PM (Hj0nA)

701

You know why people used to dress up for church (and still do in some areas, particularly black churches)? It had nothing to do with feeling superior or dress codes or looking down on anyone. It is the same reason you dress up for special occasions, to meet someone very important, or to commemorate an event. Because it shows respect and dignity and an understanding that what you're doing is something different from the rest of your life.

I know and really agree. But that has always kept many people from coming to church. So many churches have adopted a casual dress attitude in the spirit of accepting everybody in.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:25 PM (hsBue)

702 719 Jeff Gordon needs a win.cock.

Posted by: toby928 at August 21, 2010 07:22 PM

FIFY.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 03:25 PM (hG3dU)

703 Network race?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:25 PM (i6UsH)

704 679...

Not to mention the shout outs of but first you will blow me!

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 03:26 PM (tovHz)

705 Kinda sorta how you like to mention folks in CT who have a problem with the current morons and break their trust .

There is actually a Texas moron meet-up in the works, hosted by me. The cabal is larger than you think, Blazer.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 03:26 PM (JtKsy)

706 Fuck Blazer. That self absorbed cocksucker couldn't come up with a clever line on his own if his life depended on it.

Posted by: ErikW at August 21, 2010 03:26 PM (AhvAe)

707 692

JohnJ:

Blazer busting a move.

Posted by: rdbrewer

Thanks!

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 03:26 PM (xjy39)

708 715

702 Why should someone apologize for having a different opinion and saying it?

buzzion, you aren't married i see

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 07:22 PM (gg4j2)

Haha, no I'm not. That's a different rule than internet arguments though.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:26 PM (oVQFe)

709 Any interpretation of a Biblical passage that is not consistent with the central theme of the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ and the message of Christ to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself is a pernicious interpretation. Satan can quote scripture for his own purposes, and the world is full of false prophets who are so full of pride they think they can pick and choose among Biblical passages to feed their own egos. Those people are not Christians.

Posted by: gail at August 21, 2010 03:26 PM (f46PC)

710 Looked it up. 160,000 seats at the track NOT including the infield.

Posted by: CDR M at August 21, 2010 07:23 PM (5I8G0)

Oh wow. I guess they keep expanding the seating.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at August 21, 2010 03:27 PM (IRwVS)

711 >>>I've been diametrically opposed to ace on things before in comments where he's gotten ticked off at the opinions and views of most commenters here, and I've never felt that an apology was needed. I have to tell you, most times I disagree amicably. But there are guys who rub me the wrong way. I don't like people like Blazer who come to the internet only to start shit with their fellow posters, find a disagreement, personalize it, begin with the empty "RINO" taunting, etc. That's not conversation. That is a troll. That is an anger-junkie troll who isn't interested in argument, but in abuse. And that's what this guy is alway doing. Not disagreeing, always starting shit up in personalized ways, never disagreeing with a statement but leaping right to branding the other party as deficient, etc. I'll tell you something else -- for the longest time I sort of wanted to ban him. I didn't -- because I thought, wait, he's a good guy, usually. He must just be having a rough night. You know what? I was wrong. I kept confusing blazer with blaSTer. So I gave this guy actually more slack than I wanted because I kept mistaking him for blaSTer. And I thought, Oh, blaster/blazer just must have had some bad news today. I was crediting him for good posts he never wrote. Everything with this guy is hostility against the world, fellow commenters, fellow posters, everyone... it is NOT POLITICS. It is his seethingly angry personality disorder finding some borderline-socially-acceptable outlet. He calls it politics, but it's not -- it's his way of tearing into people because his life sucks so much and he's a fundamentally miserable person in both senses of "miserable." Every goddman post -- no polite disagreement, no "I see what your'e saying but..." No, it's always a direct launch into an attack on the person. Because that's all he is, a drunken, loser anger-junkie rage-monkey. He's not here to talk, or to read, or to joke around, or to even argue. It's all about one thing to him, gettin' back at a world that done him wrong.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:27 PM (QbA6l)

712 Anyone here have the sneaking suspicion that this is not Blazer?

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 03:28 PM (H+LJc)

713 This just keeps getting better. See, I told you cons like their guns.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 03:28 PM (hG3dU)

714

Do you really want shouts of "That's what she said" and "How you doin'?" to happen during the sermon? I'm trying not to laugh, but the mental image is just too funny.

Go ahead and laugh. I did.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:28 PM (hsBue)

715 Redskins are on ABC.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:29 PM (i6UsH)

716 gail - you talking only New Testament here?

cuz.. I got one or two problems with the Old Testament..

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at August 21, 2010 03:29 PM (Do528)

717

722 that's a sweet offer but really can't, we are die-hard papists

we'll meet up in the much promised moronapoloza

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:29 PM (gg4j2)

718 Because it shows respect and dignity and an understanding that what you're doing is something different from the rest of your life.

Waaaay back when in the Catholic church, the women used to have some sort of cover on their head during church. My mom used to bobby pin a Kleenex on my head if I forgot my beanie or veil.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 03:29 PM (VuLos)

719

Who wants to bet this abusive motherfucker isn't going to feel remorse tomorrow of the "god, I've fucked up my whole life" variety?

Get some help, dummy.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 03:30 PM (Im/xu)

720 The guy is as full of shit as a Christmas Turkey the waters off Martha's Vineyard..

Posted by: gail at August 21, 2010 03:30 PM (f46PC)

721

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 07:28 PM

This one and arguing with the pastor....

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 03:30 PM (hG3dU)

722 I just want to say the Sinner Extraordinaire has extraordinarily good theology.

I suspect he has read his Bible.

He may even be a Lutheran.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 03:30 PM (JtKsy)

723 Blazer: Get help.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:31 PM (Pm5H8)

724

726 I know and really agree. But that has always kept many people from coming to church. So many churches have adopted a casual dress attitude in the spirit of accepting everybody in.

I agree, & would add [that] we should focus on people actually going to church before we start thinking too much about what they're wearing. We can emphasize the various aspects of showing respect for God's house later.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 03:31 PM (Yq+qN)

725 >>> Anyone here have the sneaking suspicion that this is not Blazer? Oh it so is.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:31 PM (QbA6l)

726 the "pearls before swine" bit?

I think about that sometimes. Have you ever fed a pig? They'll shit and piss on donuts before they eat them. I picture them doing that to pearls and wonder if that is something He was conveying as well.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 03:32 PM (Epj2t)

727 Katya, sounds like a nice church. If I'm ever in Iowa on Sunday, I'll just have to drop in. I used to travel with my husband's band a lot, and we were always on the lookout for a good church if we had to stay through Sunday.

Posted by: Mindy at August 21, 2010 03:32 PM (nqV+7)

728 Isn't that Blazer's old hash?

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 03:32 PM (H+LJc)

729 I always wonder why churches think they have to accommodate everyone to be friendly and open. Every other group and club on earth has a barrier to entry: you feel like an outsider because you don't know the inside jokes, the handshakes, the clothing, the jargon. Even sports are like that; but churches figure they have to make sure they sound and feel exactly like the rest of the world so everyone is as comfortable as possible.

Hey, you know what? If a church really feels unique and like you are doing something really special when you enter, then maybe it will mean more. Maybe we should focus more on church being something truly special and set apart and centered on what God wants rather than really comfortable for everyone? What God wants is for us to be joyous, loving, friendly, and respectful, to be reverent and even fear him. That means if someone comes in who's weird or looks different, you treat them well and with kindness, but also help them understand why things are done the way they are.

I mean... if I have a choice between watching a show and a rock band at home or going to church and doing it, you cannot make it welcoming enough at that building to make me want to attend.

Just a side tangent, and I don't meant to imply that's what you guys are doing, I just get so tired of so many churches deciding what has been done before must be wrong and offensive without even spending a moment to think about why it was that way.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 03:32 PM (PQY7w)

730

741 this is why i could invite everyone on my church, imagine communion

'the body of christ"

"but first you will blow me"

yeah, not good

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:33 PM (gg4j2)

731

I don't like people like Blazer who come to the internet only to start shit with their fellow posters, find a disagreement, personalize it...

This. Personalization. His reaction to news of that party? Personalization. His MO during disagreements? Personalization. He's got some sick coping mechanisms. Sick people do that. Sick people who need both professional treatment and AA.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 03:34 PM (Im/xu)

732 738 There's seats in the infield?

Posted by: toby928 at August 21, 2010 07:27 PM (S5YRY)

No that's where people park their RV, raise the flag of their favorite driver and sit on the roof drinking beer while the watch the race. Not sure how many do this at Bristol because it is compacted and you have the garage area in field too.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:34 PM (oVQFe)

733

Katya, sounds like a nice church. If I'm ever in Iowa on Sunday, I'll just have to drop in.

I used to travel with my husband's band a lot, and we were always on the lookout for a good church if we had to stay through Sunday.

We're next door to George Wyth State Park. We're the ones with the gigantic white cross that you can see from practically miles away.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:35 PM (hsBue)

734 739...

Several of us wondered the same. I was really confused until someone put me some knowledge that the disjointed conversation between Blazer and Ace was attributable to creative editing of Blazer's comments. For the last little while, however, Ace has been letting the comments fly unedited.

It doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 03:35 PM (tovHz)

735 katya, your church looks really delightful. I hope to come up there at some point and join you for services!

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:35 PM (Pm5H8)

736

759 Whoever it is, is deranged, off their meds, etc.

a submariner? ^{_{(woohoo, first cheap shot of the day!!)}}

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:36 PM (gg4j2)

737 I am editing most of them, but I preserved that threat to start shooting at people.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:36 PM (QbA6l)

738 I had a stalker ex who confronted me at my job and screamed if I would apologize she would move on.
I apologized. She didn't move on until the police came and she kicked the cop.
She did six months for that shit.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 03:36 PM (H+LJc)

739

741 this is why i could invite everyone on my church, imagine communion

'the body of christ"

"but first you will blow me"

yeah, not good

Someone's asking for a good smiting.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:37 PM (Pm5H8)

740 AoSHQ
You'll Come for the Witty Banter
You'll Stay for the Inevitable Hostility
-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 21, 2010 03:37 PM (Hj0nA)

741 I am changing his posts to stuff about being gay, having a whore wife, etc. That's just me. That's not him. His posts were just threats to beat me up and insisting I apologize. I don't apologize to trash.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:37 PM (QbA6l)

742

Matthew, Mark and Luke were not apostles. They were sorta apostles of the apostles. Each of these three books were written for different audiences, Matthew and Luke are considered to be the most codependent. They are called the Synoptic Gospels because they do have pretty much the same stories; they are general outlines of Jesus' earthly life. The apostles told the stories and they were written down as they traveled and attempted to spread the Word and grow the Church. Matthew is widely believed to be a disciple of St. Peter. The Acts of the apostles is a description of the post resurrection acts of the apostles and the letters are actual letters written by the apostles and st. Paul to various Churches.

John is not a synoptic gospel and is very different from the other 3. John was the only apostle to live to a very old age and the only one not to by martyred. He was a disciple and is the one Jesus referred to as the "most beloved." He was at the foot of the cross. Late in life he also wrote revelation. The death of the last disciple ended all revelation.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 03:37 PM (ERrad)

743 Nah nah na nah Ace is a Christian. Whether he likes it or not. Since you you are used to getting free unsolicited advice all you have to do is pray when things are good.

Posted by: td at August 21, 2010 03:37 PM (w7TI0)

744 He will never find me. I am wearing a burkha and hiding down at the mosque.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:38 PM (i6UsH)

745 >>>I apologized. She didn't move on until the police came and she kicked the cop. She did six months for that shit. Yeah, I hear that. The "apology" thing is the pretext for continued contact by a deranged obsessive, which... yes, Blazer is.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 03:38 PM (QbA6l)

746 katya, is your church an evangelical church?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:38 PM (Pm5H8)

747

LOFL.

"Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and accept his forgiveness for your sins?"

Yah sure, but first, you will blow me.

So blasphemous.

"And so God loved the world that gave his only begotten..."

"HEY, get the fuck out of my seat you prick!"

"Umm, his only begotten..."

"Move your ass!"

"Excuse me, is there a problem?"

"I got up to take a piss and this douchebag stole my seat!"

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 03:38 PM (eL+YD)

748

Jeff Gordon sucks.

_{That is all.}

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 03:39 PM (580hG)

749 742 Redskins are on ABC.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 07:29 PM (i6UsH)

If you're in the Richmond VA area, the race is on the CW affiliate.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:39 PM (oVQFe)

750

760 Hey, you know what? If a church really feels unique and like you are doing something really special when you enter, then maybe it will mean more. Maybe we should focus more on church being something truly special and set apart and centered on what God wants rather than really comfortable for everyone? What God wants is for us to be joyous, loving, friendly, and respectful, to be reverent and even fear him. That means if someone comes in who's weird or looks different, you treat them well and with kindness, but also help them understand why things are done the way they are.

That would be best, I agree. We have made too many compromises with the world, only to have it thrown back in our face. But we have deserved some of the criticism, since we have placed adapting over showing true Christian love.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 03:39 PM (Yq+qN)

751

771 shit!! i meant 'couldn't'

this blazer "i have a small dick'vmeltdown is distracting me from using my chicago english skills

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:39 PM (gg4j2)

752 Blazer, I have to admit to being happy when I first saw you pop up on the thread here today. I had hoped that you and Ace had put aside the previous conflicts and were moving on.

You are so angry and saying things that you are going to regret later. My suspicion is that, when it's over, you are going to kick the crap out of yourself for doing it, just like before.

Even if you no longer care for Ace, don't do it to yourself.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 03:40 PM (tovHz)

753 Well, speaking from the non-church-going POV, I think it helps to have a 'relaxed' dress code, it might make the decision to start going a little less intimidating.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:41 PM (Pm5H8)

754 Racin' at Bristol in 30 minutes!
Posted by: CDR M at August 21, 2010 07:16 PM

I'll be watchin'.

That's one helluva track...takes some skill and Dangling Courage Units to win there.

Only thing is, I wish Dale Sr. was there to show some of these new boys how it's done....

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 21, 2010 03:41 PM (Ulu3i)

755

What's been done wrong before is excluding people based on their appearance. If someone is dressed immodestly, someone may take it upon themselves to point this out to that person, but we won't let it be an issue to keep them from joining us in worship.

We've tried to have our church based on the Bible, not on past customs and traditions.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:41 PM (hsBue)

756 chemjeff is with joan? I thought rdbrew scared her away.

Posted by: Boner McSteele at August 21, 2010 03:41 PM (2O5Hd)

757

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 07:34 PM

I don't think they have infield at Bristol. It's outside the track if I remember correctly.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 03:41 PM (hG3dU)

758

The man is ignorant....God gave animals to makind as food after the flood.......besides, the first "killer" of animals was.....GOD! After the fall in the gaden, God gave Adam & Eve skins to wear,,,,Where do you suppose THEY came from, hmmmm?

The poor deluded soul obviously valuyes animals over, you know, actual POEPLE....poor man!

Posted by: tuck1956 at August 21, 2010 03:42 PM (/1Ijg)

759

689 I'd take you up on it, but you are too far away. And there's my heretical nature too...

I'm also up for the Cubs winning the series -- which is probably as likely as my reawakening to religion.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 03:43 PM (5/yRG)

760 "Now flock, as you know, my wife has invited a few friends to fellowship with us this morning. As soon as the SWAT team finishes its work we will continue the sevice". Rev, Mr. Katya

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 03:43 PM (cX9pO)

761

katya, is your church an evangelical church?

Yes. And even we have people who voted for Obama. Funny, huh?

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:43 PM (hsBue)

762 no, I'm not with joan - but I wouldn't mind meeting her someday

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:44 PM (Pm5H8)

763 I can't possibly catch up...

But how about this...    I've listened, too often, to opinions about sinful sexual behavior at church (including homosexual behavior) coming from people who entirely ignore other sorts of sinful sexual behavior.   Gays are horrible. And so are teenagers who get pregnant.   But the divorced woman and her kids didn't ask for that and talking about how it's wrong to get divorced would make her feel bad... so we avoid talking about that.   And the teenager might get a lecture about chastity but adults who everyone know are carrying on don't get a lecture about how they are sinning and ought to cut it out.

Part of the motivation for "hey, look at what these other horrible people are doing" is so that no one has to examine their own lives. I actually spoke to a visiting speaker when I was home once, long ago, who's whole sermon was about horrible San Francisco. I lived in San Pablo at the time.   So I actually rebuked him afterward. (Though nicely.) Our regular pastor was back the next week from his vacation and apologized to the congregation.

It's not all that complicated.   It doesn't matter what some other people some place else are doing... it matters what challenges and problems and temptations are relevant to one's self, or if you're in a position to teach, relevant to those you teach.   All that absent boogy-men are good for is getting your mind off your own failings.

The same misdirection was going on with a pastor I had once who was found to be having secret homosexual affairs...   he *never* talked about personal morality in church. He was all End Times, all the time. Every Sunday we heard about Israel importing red cows or something.   And when one of his many adult children hired a PI who tailed him and the family confronted him and his wife kicked him out... it was like a light went on.   Wow, so *that's* why he was all End of the World all the time.

The message should be about how you or the people in front of you should examine their own lives to better love God and grow in Christ.     And if someone (or you find yourself) spending too much time looking elsewhere it should be a hint.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 03:44 PM (P0X9Q)

764

"Now flock, as you know, my wife has invited a few friends to fellowship with us this morning. As soon as the SWAT team finishes its work we will continue the sevice". Rev, Mr. Katya

Made my day.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:44 PM (hsBue)

765 katya, do you have any tips on how to find a good church?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:44 PM (Pm5H8)

766 He may even be a Lutheran.

Oh here we go. Imma pull up a chair.

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 03:45 PM (pRbtk)

767 You're right it is on cw.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:45 PM (i6UsH)

768 I am editing most of them, but I preserved that threat to start shooting at people.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:36 PM (QbA6l)

God, I hope no Jehovah's Witnesses decide to visit Blazer's house tonight.

Oh wait maybe......

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 03:46 PM (VuLos)

769 and this thread is... dead.

Posted by: Boner McSteele at August 21, 2010 03:46 PM (AvO0L)

770

I'm also up for the Cubs winning the series

ohoh, now you did it.....don't you know there are haters out here? ^{_{straights and atc, i'm looking at you!}}

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:46 PM (gg4j2)

771 Morons,

I think I've stumbled upon the perfect moron tv show. G4 is showing International Sexy Ladies Show. It's supposedly sexy videos from around the world with comics making fun of them, MST3K style.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 03:46 PM (tovHz)

772

The message should be about how you or the people in front of you should examine their own lives to better love God and grow in Christ. And if someone (or you find yourself) spending too much time looking elsewhere it should be a hint.

Hubby actually preached on that a few weeks ago.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:46 PM (hsBue)

773 I'm also up for the Cubs winning the series

ugh. don't talk to me about baseball. my Cards have been stinking it up lately, if they don't turn it around pretty soon they are going to be out of contention for the postseason

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 03:47 PM (Pm5H8)

774 802 He may even be a Lutheran.

Oh here we go. Imma pull up a chair.

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2010 07:45 PM

Depends on the Lutheran. There's Missouri Synod and then there's freaks.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 03:47 PM (hG3dU)

775

788 Well, speaking from the non-church-going POV, I think it helps to have a 'relaxed' dress code, it might make the decision to start going a little less intimidating.

I understand where you're coming from on that. Being raised in the Reformed branch of the Presbyterian Church, I didn't think of dressing-up for church as something really special. But I can understand why that might be intimidating. My family's current church is dressy but casual. (Slacks & dress shirts, but they don't insist on ties & suit jackets for everyone.) Though some people have worn a nice pair of jeans instead of slacks, & most people don't have a problem with that.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 03:48 PM (Yq+qN)

776 gail - you talking only New Testament here?

cuz.. I got one or two problems with the Old Testament..

I was thinking about all the problematic stuff in the OT as well as any "good stuff" from either testament that people can take out of context and use for egotistical purposes. For both Christians and Jews (the shema, the deliverance from Egypt, etc.) the overall message is what should color the interpretation of any individual part of the document. Being nice to people you find beaten half to death along the side of the road is consistent with the overall message, whereas collecting foreskins and killing witches isn't. Given the overall message, we can assume that we are called to help our neighbor rather than collect his foreskin or kill his weird old granny who talks to black cats. The foreskin collecting, witch killing stuff is history, anthropology, folklore, whatever -- not a guide to modern social relations.

Posted by: gail at August 21, 2010 03:49 PM (f46PC)

777 807 Morons,

I think I've stumbled upon the perfect moron tv show. G4 is showing International Sexy Ladies Show. It's supposedly sexy videos from around the world with comics making fun of them, MST3K style.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 07:46 PM (tovHz)

I watch G4 for XPlay, Attack of the Show (which is hilarious) and Ninja Warrior.

Their constant showing of Cops and Cheaters is annoying as shit though. The Sexy Ladies Show for me is kinda "meh." If I want to see hot foreign women, there's the internet, and they lack clothing there.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 03:49 PM (oVQFe)

778

I'm also up for the Cubs winning the series

All I can say is, I do not understand your lifestyle but I will tolerate it, so long as you don't push it on children.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 03:49 PM (eL+YD)

779

katya, do you have any tips on how to find a good church?

Look for one that preaches the Bible. Other than that, I think it's a matter of personality and personal preference. I'm afraid you'll probably have to shop around. (If they think rock music is from Satan, I'd stay away from them)

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:50 PM (hsBue)

780 I'm OK with churches watering down the dress code. The theology? Not so much.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 03:50 PM (X0Ona)

781 -
The Rapture Just Happened
if you can read this,
it's your own God Damn fault.

-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 21, 2010 03:50 PM (Hj0nA)

782 see jane, let me reference 814

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:51 PM (gg4j2)

783 Sounds like El Senor Douche Del Footlocker is saying "Hate the Sinner, Love the Sin, as Long as They Don't Match."

Which is, you know, evidence of prolonged use of psychoactive substances.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 21, 2010 03:52 PM (bxiXv)

784

Which was the main theme Jesus was getting at in this particular section of the Sermon on the Mount.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 03:52 PM (Yq+qN)

785 Waaaay back when in the Catholic church, the women used to have some sort of cover on their head during church.

It's called a mantilla and some extremely conservative women/parishes still have them. I have noticed that older Philipino women tend to have them too.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 03:52 PM (ERrad)

786

I'm OK with churches watering down the dress code.

The theology? Not so much.

Which is why we strive to stick with the teachings of the Bible and not human "wisdom".

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 03:53 PM (hsBue)

787

The infield at Bristol is way too small to have anything other than some haulers, etc. That is the neatest track in all of Nascar to watch a race. The engine noise vibrates through your body for the entire race, and you can actually feel the vortex made by the cars. Amazing to be a part of, even if you think it's not something you would enjoy.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 03:54 PM (580hG)

788 It's called a mantilla and some extremely conservative women/parishes still have them.

Sometimes, if you forgot your mantilla, you'd just put a kleenex on your head. Srsly.

Posted by: gail at August 21, 2010 03:55 PM (f46PC)

789 813...
They aren't sexy, but someone, somewhere must think they are, which is crazy. Qtips? Sitting on food? Really?

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 03:55 PM (tovHz)

790 katya, but you aren't Presbyterian, so you're doomed. Doomed I say!!

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 03:56 PM (X0Ona)

791 Infieldels. Nascar Jihad.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 03:56 PM (i6UsH)

792

824 this is for all the nascar fans, please hit me with some knowledge

what is the big deal? they drive in a circle!!! wheeeeeeeeeee

now motogp, they have twisties and are on bikes, crashes are better, fans are better

watching nascar is like watching bass fishing

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 03:57 PM (gg4j2)

793 Oh here we go. Imma pull up a chair.

Hey, just ask me a question about Pure Lutheran Theology™.

I can help you out.

I can even explain Blazer. It's about the Doctrine of Original Sin.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 03:58 PM (JtKsy)

794

827 katya, but you aren't Presbyterian, so you're doomed.

Doomed I say!!

Wait, what?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 03:58 PM (Yq+qN)

795 827 I know you're kidding, but I hope I didn't come-off as saying that.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM (Yq+qN)

796 Jesus was a Baptist.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM (i6UsH)

797 827 katya, but you aren't Presbyterian, so you're doomed.

Doomed I say!!

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 07:56 PM (X0Ona)

Hehe, that reminds me The Heretic Joke

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM (oVQFe)

798

830 I can even explain Blazer. It's about the Doctrine of Original Sin. 12pack of Miller Genuine Draft

FIFY

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM (gg4j2)

799 I think we can stipulate that god/odin/zeus aren't stupid and the easiest way for them to have made it so animals weren't eaten by people would be to make them untasty.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 21, 2010 04:01 PM (JPtf7)

800

806 Yes I did go there, and yes I force it on the kiddies (but with minimal success -- only one is a Cubs fan, no matter how many times I threaten the rest with banishment from the house and the car; no matter how often I pass judgement on their love of the Sox or the Cards).

I'm also a Yankees fan....Hate away and ahoy! You don't know who I am or where I live suckas!

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 04:02 PM (5/yRG)

801 Isn't Presbyterianism kinda like vanilla Christianity?
Or is that Unitarian?
I get that mixed up

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 04:02 PM (Pm5H8)

802

watching nascar is like watching bass fishing

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 07:57 PM (gg4j2)

Yeah, if Bass fishing was done at 150 mph with boats all side by side.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:02 PM (oVQFe)

803 Jesus was a Baptist.

That is a lie.

His real name is Martin Jesus Luther Christ.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:03 PM (JtKsy)

804

Which is why we strive to stick with the teachings of the Bible and not human "wisdom".

Where did the bible come from and how is it in the form it is in today--i.e. which books are included, what translation, etc.?

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 04:03 PM (ERrad)

805 and I ain't a skeered either -- I'm a relapsed Catholic living with a Missouri Synod Schismatic (aka. Lutheran, aka. pass the lime jello).

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 04:04 PM (5/yRG)

806

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 07:57 PM (gg4j2)

Yeah, they drive in circles. The built up heat in those cars can reach 120 degrees or more. They do it for 3 1/2 to 4 hours pretty much without stopping with no more than inches between 43 freakin' cars. While you're driving you have to remain hyper vigilant to every sound, vibration, and nuance of your car. In a race like Bristol, your spotter is constantly in your ear letting you know who's outside, inside, etc.

It is an extreme mental and physical challenge.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 04:04 PM (580hG)

807

837 no matter how often I pass judgement on their love of the Sox or the Cards).

sox? wow

as much as i love my little girl, i'd have to call the adoption home if she said she was a sox fan

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 04:05 PM (gg4j2)

808 844 The husband is a Sox fan too...I'm a tolerant person...loving too.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 04:06 PM (5/yRG)

809 Actually, His real name is Yeshua.

It is an embarrassment to the church that we keep pronouncing this wrong.

In Hebrew Yeshua means both "Salvation," and the concatenated form of Yahoshua, is "Lord who is Salvation." The name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:07 PM (JtKsy)

810

838 Isn't Presbyterianism kinda like vanilla Christianity?
Or is that Unitarian?
I get that mixed up

Unitarianism is the one more freely associated with liberal theology & being outside the mainstream.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 04:07 PM (Yq+qN)

811 Blazer used to play first base for the Red Sox.

Posted by: Scottw at August 21, 2010 04:07 PM (1Pjzt)

812

Serious question. Say you were gonna start a metal band.

http://tinyurl.com/2xp9fo

Where the hell do you go to find hurdy gurdy players?

Bagpipes, clarinet, flute, violin, sure.

But a hurdy gurdy?

How do you even think to look for that?

And then where do you find one?

Post a flyer up at the door to Guitar Center: "Proficient Hurdy Gurdy player needed for new band project, call 555-3725"

WTF?

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 04:07 PM (eL+YD)

813 How can a baseball fan call Nascar boring? Baseball will knock you out faster then golf.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:07 PM (i6UsH)

814

843 sorry but i just don't see it

again to motogp, the bikes do over 200, same mental awareness, but that one little mistake and a tire leaves the road and there is only one left and you hit the ground hard

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 04:07 PM (gg4j2)

815 Presbyterianism is where you are theologically sound. The important thing, though, is to be very dull and dour.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 04:08 PM (X0Ona)

816 O/T: Hey, did you notice? On the day that Iran goes nuclear, they just happened to test a new rocket. Coincidence?

(courtesy Drudge)

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 04:08 PM (Pm5H8)

817 136
[snip]
Posted by: Hadji the Muslim Comic at August 21, 2010 03:55 PM (Hj0nA)

Mr. Hadji: You ios teh funny. Srsly.

Posted by: The inexplicable Dr. Julius Strangepork at August 21, 2010 04:08 PM (tjUrW)

818

851 and a die-hard soccer fan

as a conservative-democrat, i may be all screwed up

but at least i still hate the fucking cowboys!!

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 04:09 PM (gg4j2)

819

849 Whoa, whoa there pilgrim -- I was talking White Sox, not Red. There are limits.

As for this Blazer thing -- I'm staying out of that.

Posted by: unknown jane at August 21, 2010 04:09 PM (5/yRG)

820

Isn't Presbyterianism kinda like vanilla Christianity?
Or is that Unitarian?

Don't know about Presbyterianism, but that sounds like Unitarian.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 04:10 PM (hsBue)

821 850 there is some serious confusion there

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 04:12 PM (gg4j2)

822 How many people here believe Noah's Flood truly happened?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:13 PM (Nw/hR)

823 857 oh whew

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 04:13 PM (gg4j2)

824

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 08:07 PM (gg4j2)

Never been to a race, have you? I've known many people who say the same thing until they go to one race. Changes your entire perpsective.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 04:13 PM (580hG)

825

Where did the bible come from and how is it in the form it is in today--i.e. which books are included, what translation, etc.?

We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I base all my beliefs on that. It's very simple for me. If that makes me a mental lightweight, so be it.

BTW, I love science.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 04:13 PM (hsBue)

826 145
[snip]
Posted by: Bereans43 at August 21, 2010 04:00 PM (ASjv/)

Dood, I judge that the first line of your post annoyed me, and therefore I will not read it but scroll down past it. I can do no other.

God help me. Amen.

Posted by: The inexplicable Dr. Julius Strangepork at August 21, 2010 04:13 PM (tjUrW)

827 860...

Here!

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 04:14 PM (tovHz)

828 Presbyterianism is where you are theologically sound.

Presbyterians are just Christians who don't like sex.

I read that on the internet, so it's probably true.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:14 PM (JtKsy)

829

Presbyterianism used to be the "frozen chosen" (old Calvinist elect theo) but now they're "liberalized".

The Unitarians aren't actually christians because they reject the trinity or are at least too high to remember it.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 04:14 PM (Eyau5)

830 860
How many people here believe Noah's Flood truly happened?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:13 PM (Nw/hR)

A flooding of the whole world? Or that there was a massive flooding event that occured in the cradle of civilization that was the origin of the many flood stories?

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:14 PM (oVQFe)

831

834 827 Hehe, that reminds me The Heretic Joke

Ouch. Though I was rather expecting her to ask about to which London Confession of Faith does he adhere.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 04:15 PM (Yq+qN)

832

862 never been to a nascar race

but been to many motogp events, they are awesome

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 04:15 PM (gg4j2)

833 My ex-wife and her family belonged the Unitarian Universalist Church. I called it the Church of the Holy Convenience. It isn't a religion. It is a fake church for people who want to say they belong to a church.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:15 PM (Nw/hR)

834

How many people here believe Noah's Flood truly happened?

I do. Obviously.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 04:17 PM (hsBue)

835 How many people here believe Noah's Flood truly happened?

*raises hand*

There are sedimentary rock strata all over the globe that happened at the same time.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:17 PM (JtKsy)

836 How many people here believe Noah's Flood truly happened?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:13 PM (Nw/hR)

I believe it is fact-based - some massive flood occured. It's not only Judaism that talks about a great flood.

You know, the Old Testament was the only recording of the Hittite Empire for over a thousand years. Finally, archaeological evidence of that was found (in the 19th century, IIRC).

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:17 PM (Qp4DT)

837

866 Presbyterians are just Christians who don't like sex.

I read that on the internet, so it's probably true.

However I respond to that one, it's going to sound wrong.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 04:17 PM (Yq+qN)

838

850 there is some serious confusion there

Confusion about what?

You're as confused by this as I am?

Or you think I'm 'confused' and that's not a fricken hurdy gurdy/wheel fiddle in that metal band?

How many people even know what a hurdy gurdy is?

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 04:17 PM (eL+YD)

839 I meant "for over two thousand years".

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:18 PM (Qp4DT)

840 This Paul thing in the thread is fascinating and I'm inclined to pick a fight. Let's see, how spiritually tuned in was he to be murdering Christians in the first place? Couldn't the point of the Road be that Jesus loved him so much that he basically zapped him like Marlin Perkins from a helicopter in order to get his attention? Maybe it should have been an awesome tale of a miracle in Acts and nothing more, a look! knock and it will be answered! kind of thing? Not so sure Jesus' intention was for him to write some sort of fred phelps' fucking guidebook the way so many people seem to throw out. Jesus is the reason for the Bible, not Paul, anyway. Loop-holer? If you say so, but I'll see you on the other side anyway. Once saved always saved. Even Paul. Even me. Even that damned murderer lucky enough to be crucified right next to Jesus. Let me know what denomination you are are I can save your people the horror of a piece of shit like me ever defiling "their" church, ok? By the way, Me and Jesus are gonna kick your fucking ass in the two man scramble. I got dibs on him as a partner. Let's make is a 50 talent gold slab Nassau, ok?

"There are those who say that the doctrine of eternal security is a license to sin. The fact is that man doesnÂ’t need a license to sin. Sin is what man does."
- Jack Kinsella

Oh, and when I knock on your mansion's door, you better let me in and give me a nice room, or I'll tell God on you!

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 04:18 PM (Epj2t)

841 868, The World Flood as written in the Bible. Not a mythologized version of an actual flood. No metaphors.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:19 PM (Nw/hR)

842 I sense the presence of a practitioner of the world's gheyest religion, an athiest.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:20 PM (i6UsH)

843

863 I think the bible is the inspired word of God too. I also know that the Church decided on the books in the bible (the canon of the bible) because it was inspired by God to choose the correct books and reject the apocryphal. Do you know that the Calvinists removed books from the bible that had been in the canon for about 1500 years because they conflicted with the reformation theology?

I'm not being argumentative. I respect all Christians but I didn't know the history of the canon until I researched it. I guess I thought that the bible just sorta came into existance in two parts.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 04:20 PM (2QYBW)

844 I think one thing all Christian denominations can agree on is that the thermal process of Hell is exothermic.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:20 PM (oVQFe)

845 Evolutionism is the creation myth for the atheist religion.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:21 PM (i6UsH)

846 Ace, you sound a bit nuts tonight.

Posted by: Charles Johnson at August 21, 2010 04:21 PM (E5Ntq)

847 874, Sedimentary rocks are always forming.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:21 PM (Nw/hR)

848 So we passed 666, Blazer is a sock for Lucifer, Ace is a proud elitist and RINO or has been lied about and libeled of same.

This is more confusing than a helicopter view of a rampaging wrong way highway getaway.

Posted by: ontherocks at August 21, 2010 04:21 PM (HBqDo)

849

The World Flood as written in the Bible. Not a mythologized version of an actual flood. No metaphors.

Yes, that one.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 04:21 PM (hsBue)

850 >>>The World Flood as written in the Bible. Not a mythologized version of an actual flood. No metaphors. Look, I always wonder about this. Not to bait you but... well to bait you: Did Noah have tanks for freshwater fish that would perish in the saltwater world flood? Did he have zebras and kangaroos? If so, how did he get these animals?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:22 PM (QbA6l)

851 Paul was the UberJew. He was the Jew's Jew. And for a man as highly Jewish as him to say, look, Jesus is the way, that had real weight.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 04:22 PM (X0Ona)

852 885, How is it a myth?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:23 PM (Nw/hR)

853

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 08:17 PM (eL+YD)

I think you've flipped your cause/effect for this. Its not that you have a metal band looking for a hurdy gurdy player, its that there is a hurdy gurdy player looking for a metal band to give them a chance to play with them.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:24 PM (oVQFe)

854 By the way, Me and Jesus are gonna kick your fucking ass in the two man scramble. I got dibs on him as a partner. Let's make is a 50 talent gold slab Nassau, ok?

If I get David, we will kick your asses.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:25 PM (JtKsy)

855

853 Presbyterianism is where you are theologically sound. The important thing, though, is to be very dull and dour.

Hehe. My Presbyterian pastor once gave a lecture during communion because he said we all looked "too traditionally Presbyterian". What's funny, though, is that Presbyterians who believe in Christian liberty usually have the most fun. I remember going to a Christian camp one summer in which the pastors all smoked cigars during the trip.

_{/You had to be there.}

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 04:25 PM (Yq+qN)

856 The human genome project refuted cabin boy Darwin's daydream. It defies logic.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:25 PM (i6UsH)

857

Read Noah's Flood by Pittman and Ryan, a couple of geologists. I'm convinced. Noah's flood occurred in the Black Sea basin about 5500 years ago when the Mediterranian sea overtopped the strait where the Bosphorus is now, creating the Bosphorus and flooding that giant basin and its freshwater lake.

The NatGeo guy, Ballard, went out there and found evidence of structures buried in an anoxic, freshwater layer of the Back Sea, so things are well-preserved.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 04:26 PM (Im/xu)

858 880 868, The World Flood as written in the Bible. Not a mythologized version of an actual flood. No metaphors. Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:19 PM (Nw/hR) Well, one of the challenges there is that so much of what is in the Bible IS metaphorical. What is metaphor, what is not? Was there a great flood? Sure. Did it cover every inch of the world's surface? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Look, reading the Bible is easy. Discerning the Bible is a cast iron bitch.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 04:26 PM (X0Ona)

859 FlaviusJulius, I assume you mean me. I am not an Atheist. An Atheist has an affirmative belief that there is no God. I am a Skeptic. I believe that no person ever has had any contact with any supernatural being, ever.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:27 PM (Nw/hR)

860

I think one thing all Christian denominations can agree on is that the thermal process of Hell is exothermic.

Nope.

I prefer endothermic hell ala Dante.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 04:27 PM (eL+YD)

861 880...

Again, here!

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 04:28 PM (tovHz)

862 638,

So, the flying saucers aren't part of God's plan? Oh, they are satan's explanation for the rapture and part of his plan? But God already knows this and it's gonna be okay anyway, right? Someone please hold me. I'm frightened and need a hug. This DMT shit is for the birds. I guess drugs are sorcery afterall. Ha, you call that an anal probe? Go away, raamtha! Not again- please, no!

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 04:29 PM (Epj2t)

863

Scripture is written in several different interpretal layers just as Jesus' parables were intended to be. You can interpret things literally or symbolically around the Pascal mysteries, or metaphoically, or in numerous ways. There are hundreds of scholarly papers written on the different ways in which, and the different levels at which biblical events and meanings occur. There is geological evidence for Noah's ark but you can also see the story as a foretelling of Jesus/baptism/resurrection/death/mercy, etc. The complex, public, and personal levels the bible is written in is vastly complex.

It's really interesting to read good bible studies because there are so many details in many passages that you would never notice or see.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 04:29 PM (+cPro)

864 No stick with the scientific theory. Two rocks screwed and created all life.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:30 PM (i6UsH)

865 The antediluvian world was one full of pyramids that 21st century man cannot produce. The Chuck Missler stuff is fascinating, Ace, if you care to watch.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 04:31 PM (Epj2t)

866 I have always doubted skeptic religious doctrine.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:31 PM (i6UsH)

867 I get so confused about who is saying stuff and who is just quoting someone else sayin' stuff.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:31 PM (QbA6l)

868

It's really interesting to read good bible studies because there are so many details in many passages that you would never notice or see.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 08:29 PM (+cPro)

Maybe so, but Noah still blames Bush's slow response to this very day.

Posted by: ontherocks at August 21, 2010 04:31 PM (HBqDo)

869

Posted by: navycopjoe at August 21, 2010 08:15 PM (gg4j2)

Never been to a motogp. Love motorcycles, though, and have been to motocross races.

I guess I just have a thing for fast, muscle cars. That's pretty much what Nascar is, and once you understand all the car changes that have to be made in the middle of races, what they mean, and how slight some of them actually are that make such huge changes in how the cars take the corners, the track bar, camber, castor, tire management, etc. well, it's just fascinating to me.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 04:32 PM (580hG)

870

Nope.

I prefer endothermic hell ala Dante.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 08:27 PM (eL+YD)

Picky Picky, just read the joke and have a laugh, spoil sport. Besides I think Dante's Inferno worked more like a freezer where the exothermic out areas were used to cool the final circle of hell.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:32 PM (oVQFe)

871 896, How so? XBradTC, try a book by Donald Prothero called "Evolution: What the Fossils Mean and Why It Matters". It is an uncomfortable read for some, but to anyone with an open mind it can be most helpful when they say something like "Was there a great flood? Sure. Did it cover every inch of the world's surface? Perhaps. Perhaps not. " I for one had to ignore his Bush-bashing.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:32 PM (Nw/hR)

872

LOFL.

So the band is playing, and the chick with the hurdy gurdy is like "Can I play with you guys?"

And they're thinking: "She's kinda hot". So they say: 'Uhh.... yeah fuck it whatever.'

And then it turns out to be kind of cool. I think you're on to something with this theory.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 04:32 PM (eL+YD)

873 Did Noah have tanks for freshwater fish that would perish in the saltwater world flood?
Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:22 PM (QbA6l)

Some believe Zheng He did...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 04:33 PM (fM0nd)

874 Did Noah have tanks for freshwater fish that would perish in the saltwater world flood?

Just a technical note -- The Flood was not saltwater. According to the Bible, it rained, and the "fountains of the deep" poured forth. Meaning, groundwater, which is where most of the Earth's water resides.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:34 PM (JtKsy)

875 907 I get so confused about who is saying stuff and who is just quoting someone else sayin' stuff.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:31 PM (QbA6l)

That's why I like italicizing and including commenter name at the end. Differentiates the quote from the original.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:34 PM (oVQFe)

876 877
[snip]
How many people even know what a hurdy gurdy is?
Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 08:17 PM (eL+YD)

Hey, don't sell us short, Entropy. I knew what a hurdy gurdy is. Also a rackett and a flageolet.

Posted by: The inexplicable Dr. Julius Strangepork at August 21, 2010 04:35 PM (tjUrW)

877 Michael, how can that be? Did the water not mix when it came in contact with the far larger ocean?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:35 PM (QbA6l)

878

Yeah, you guys would be a scream at Bible study.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 04:36 PM (hsBue)

879 Really? You're against conservatives dividing themselves into groups based on shared interest?

Then tell me your opinion of the TEA PARTY.

How about Club for Growth? How about Jewish Conservatives? How about black conservatives?

You know, you may or may not actually have this aversion to making smaller groupings, but I do know that it is only since HomoCon that people have actually bothered EXPRESSING their dislike of such things.

Which makes me think gays are being, yeah, singled out.

Maybe you don't like sub-grouping -- but I know for a fact no one's had enough of a problem with it to say anything about it in the past.

Or sure, I'm sure there's a stray mention of it here and there over the years, but all of a sudden it's HomoCon and it's this apparently BIG general-principle thing with people they just forgot to mention in the past.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:34 PM (QbA6l)

I have no problem with sub groups. I do have a problem with sub groups who have a liberal agenda such as GOProud. Black Conservatives? No problem. Black Conservatives for reparations and affirmative action? Big problem. Jewish Conservatives? No problem. Jewish Conservatives for mandatory circumcision? Big problem. A gay conservative group? No problem. A gay conservative group who's almost entire Federal Legislative Priorities are related to gays and how the government should be used to advance those gay priorities? Big problem.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 04:36 PM (ivAmM)

880 Hey, Michael. Represent!

Posted by: Barb the Evil Genius at August 21, 2010 04:36 PM (5aVkt)

881 okay, I guess I'll stop asking. I know I asked Michael one time how he could believe in Biblical creational literalism, and he said something like, "God has given me the ultimate gift, and if he asks in return I believe a few things, I'll do as he asks." I guess that's a pretty good reason, but... ... I just don't see how the skeptical mind can be shut off and just accept this, even as a tribute back to God.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:37 PM (QbA6l)

882 904, Abiogenesis and Evolution are two separate subjects. Sounds like you like South Park.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:37 PM (Nw/hR)

883 Atheist theologians hate to see their religion discredited.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:38 PM (i6UsH)

884

That's why I like italicizing and including commenter name at the end. Differentiates the quote from the original.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 08:34 PM (oVQFe)

Except that this text entry doesn't always spit out what shows up in the textbox. Many times a long comment, well-italicized for the appropriate parts, shows up as nothing but normal paragraph after normal paragraph.

I always include the commenter tag too, but sometimes it only serves to show the intent to write a readable comment.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:38 PM (Qp4DT)

885 Is this where we start arguing about the canopy theory?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 04:39 PM (Yq+qN)

886 Sounds like you do most of your scientific research in the handicapped stall down at the bath house.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:39 PM (i6UsH)

887 922 904,

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two separate subjects.

Sounds like you like South Park.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:37 PM (Nw/hR)

I saw no reference to mutated fish frogs in his statement.

Science damn you otters!

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:39 PM (oVQFe)

888 I'm just taking a swing here, Ace, but I'm guessing that God somehow managed to work out the salt water/fresh water dilemna for the fish. However, if scientists do eventually uncover the ark, they should be careful to look for bits of shattered glass and plastic tubing. Then, we'll know for sure.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 04:39 PM (tovHz)

889 BTW, I had italizcized buzzion's comment in my response, above. Seriously.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:39 PM (Qp4DT)

890 Michael, how can that be? Did the water not mix when it came in contact with the far larger ocean?

The oceans are not far larger. Most water is subsurface and atmospheric.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:39 PM (JtKsy)

891

Maybe so, but Noah still blames Bush's slow response to this very day.

I guess that's why Noah became such a drunk.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 04:40 PM (DTRUp)

892 I bet you have a lisp.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:40 PM (i6UsH)

893

That's why I like italicizing and including commenter name at the end. Differentiates the quote from the original.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 08:34 PM (oVQFe)

I hate it when people only give the number of the post they're responding too, especially in a thread this long.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 04:40 PM (VuLos)

894 If a swarm of dozens of modest meteorites about the size of the one that dug out meteor crater in AZ were to come inbound about the same time, it wouldn't be too hard to get a lot of tidal waves and generalized flooding with only minimal trace evidence remaining of their impacts. It wouldn't have been a planet killer event, but it would have been something people would have remembered and talked about for a LONG time.

In fact, meteor crater's age of ~15K years ago is probably about the outside boundary of what might have been reliably passed down by word of mouth over the millennia. Early language and painted recording of events had started to appear around then.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 21, 2010 04:41 PM (JPtf7)

895

I always include the commenter tag too, but sometimes it only serves to show the intent to write a readable comment.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 08:38 PM (Qp4DT)

You know in all my comments here I have never had this problem. What I type in here is exactly what has come out. All fuckups included.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:41 PM (oVQFe)

896 Okay, let me try it this way (I lied, another question): Parts of the Bible are plainly metaphorical. Say, the Psalms. Bunch of psalms talking about threshing and reaping wheat and stuff, and like everyone rushes to ask, "What does this mean?" And the conclusion is, of course, the Bible isn't talking about wheat, really. It's talking about the lives of man, etc. And everyone says, "yeah, makes perfect sense, of course this isn't about wheat, this is about men's lives cut down by the scythe in death!" Right? Right? Now we have several extraordinarily implausible stories about the creation of the world and the animals and a word-wide flood which is not even close to as unbelievable as this Ark which supposedly was so fast as to contain two of every animal on the face of the earth (including... kangaroos???) and... and I don't know, everyone's like, "Oh yeah, THAT part is literal!!!" Wait -- what about the wheat? No one for one second thought that wheat was really being discussed; everyone knew wheat meant the lives of man. So in Biblical literalism, how do you decide what's metaphor and what's literal? You don't mean it's all literal, because no one takes psalms about reaping wheat as how-to tips for agriculture.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:41 PM (QbA6l)

897 Most water is subsurface and atmospheric.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 08:39 PM (JtKsy)

That's not water. That's a greenhouse gas that's going to kill us all!!!

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:42 PM (Qp4DT)

898 Bigfoot begat Adam. That is so scientific.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:42 PM (i6UsH)

899 >>>The oceans are not far larger. Most water is subsurface and atmospheric. I don't really believe that, but since I have no cite and am not going to look it up I'll just concede it.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:42 PM (QbA6l)

900 Not to trivialize an important subject, but, well was I on that ark?

Posted by: Delta Smelt at August 21, 2010 04:42 PM (IRwVS)

901 Also, you have to consider that the salinity of the oceans in the misty depths of time that The Flood addresses, may not have been the same as the brine we observe today.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:43 PM (JtKsy)

902 so vast, not so fast, I meant.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:43 PM (QbA6l)

903 What are modest meteorites? Do they wear loin cloths?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:43 PM (i6UsH)

904 Sometimes I have punch the "View/Edit Source" button and fine tune the HTML or the italians screw up.

Posted by: Public Service Message at August 21, 2010 08:41 PM (IhHdM)

I do that when there's a section the text box refuses to un-italicize (which happens pretty often). Even so, the comment is not guaranteed to be true to the HTML source, either. That's why, when I have long, involved responses, I throw in the "-->", just in case.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:44 PM (Qp4DT)

905

Maybe so, but Noah still blames Bush's slow response to this very day.

I guess that's why Noah became such a drunk.

Posted by: dagny at August 21, 2010 08:40 PM (DTRUp)

Prog, I italicized Dagny's comment at 908 and it came out as normal as well.

And Dagny, clearly I had underestimated Noah's skillset, thanks for the knowledge.

Posted by: ontherocks at August 21, 2010 04:45 PM (HBqDo)

906 939 Bigfoot begat Adam. That is so scientific.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 08:42 PM

The begatting gets me every time. Two books in, I'm done.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 04:45 PM (hG3dU)

907 Do they wear loin cloths?

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 08:43 PM (i6UsH)

And we've come full circle.

Posted by: Tami at August 21, 2010 04:45 PM (VuLos)

908 dagny at August 21, 2010 08:29 PM

Not that the Bible needs any particular endorsement, but Sir Isaac Newton sure found it worth while to study. I have read that he devoted more time ti studying the Bible than he did math and science, and that his devotion to math and science was his wholehearted life's commitment to glorifying God, the creator of Man and the Universe.

Fascinating, and wow, what a thread. I sincerely appreciate the tolerance of some of you more cultured and classy folk, especially the more disciplined Christians. Course, you can quickly scroll down anytime you see my name or number anyway. Thanks for not outwardly judging my course language and edgy comments.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 04:45 PM (Epj2t)

909 but, well was I on that ark?

No, you were subsequently genetically engineered by the grays from lichen.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 21, 2010 04:45 PM (JPtf7)

910 So in Biblical literalism, how do you decide what's metaphor and what's literal? You don't mean it's all literal, because no one takes psalms about reaping wheat as how-to tips for agriculture.

Posted by: ace

I think one question we have to ask is "Does it matter if it's literal or metaphorical?" As in,"How does it impact my life if the story of Noah is literal or metaphorical? Am I going to act differently based on this information?"

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 04:45 PM (xjy39)

911

XBradTC, try a book by Donald Prothero called "Evolution: What the Fossils Mean and Why It Matters".

Meh. Haven't read it.

But honest people will I think tell you the fossil record isn't complete enough to support pretty much any theory about anything.

Some say the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.

The truth is, they use evolutionary theory as a means of interpreting the fossil record.

Evolution isn't built on the fosil record - the other way around - the fossil record is built around the theory of evolution.

There just isn't enough information in the fossils to put together into anything without following some external guide.

Then some will turn around and try to use said record to bolster said theory - but that's entirely circular.

I believe, tentatively, in evolution. I've no better theory. I am not religious. I am a skeptic as well. If there isn't solid evidence for something I don't just believe it, I say 'maybe'. That goes for scientific theories as well.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 04:46 PM (eL+YD)

912 So in Biblical literalism, how do you decide what's metaphor and what's literal? You don't mean it's all literal, because no one takes psalms about reaping wheat as how-to tips for agriculture.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:41 PM (QbA6l)

Perhaps most of the historical stuff isn't metaphorical?

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 04:46 PM (fM0nd)

913 949 Fascinating, and wow, what a thread. I sincerely appreciate the tolerance of some of you more cultured and classy folk, especially the more disciplined Christians. Course, you can quickly scroll...

That was all I read, really.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 04:47 PM (xjy39)

914 HornetSting at August 21, 2010 08:45 PM (hG3dU)

I saw you were #666

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 04:47 PM (fM0nd)

915 So in Biblical literalism, how do you decide what's metaphor and what's literal? You don't mean it's all literal, because no one takes psalms about reaping wheat as how-to tips for agriculture.

The answer is -- you don't know for sure, and it doesn't really matter.

What matters is whether you trust in Jesus for your salvation.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:47 PM (JtKsy)

916 Well, just to play a thought experiment here...

First, we are assuming that the oceans of Noah's time are just as salty as they are today. That may not be the case.

Second, imagine that the fresh water erupts from multiple groundwater vents with very high pressure, like a fire hydrant. If the pressure is high enough and sustained enough, the fresh water will come to the top and not have time to come to equilibrium with the salt water.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 04:48 PM (Pm5H8)

917 as this Ark which supposedly was so fast as to contain two of every animal on the face of the earth (including... kangaroos???) and...

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:41 PM (QbA6l)

Actually, that was only the unclean animals. I think there were 14 (seven males and seven females) of the important ones.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:48 PM (Qp4DT)

918 "There are sedimentary rock strata all over the globe that happened at the same time." There IS Michael, but most of what you see is 200 million years old or older.

Posted by: Scottw at August 21, 2010 04:49 PM (1Pjzt)

919 953 HornetSting at August 21, 2010 08:45 PM (hG3dU)

I saw you were #666

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 08:47 PM

Got the mark to prove it.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 04:49 PM (hG3dU)

920

The part about animals & the ark is not so implausible when you consider there was only one continent:

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons; the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Many Christian believe this means the continents weren't separated at this time. God also works in & through science (yet transcends it), so perhaps He had another way. The fact remains that there are some things we can't explain, & perhaps won't this side of Heaven.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 04:50 PM (Yq+qN)

921 Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 21, 2010 08:41 PM (JPtf7)

If you get a big comet close enough it will pull continental shelves around like a pile playing cards

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 04:50 PM (H+LJc)

922

Got the mark to prove it.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 08:49 PM (hG3dU)

What? A hickey from one of the trolls?

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 04:51 PM (fM0nd)

923 929 BTW, I had italizcized buzzion's comment in my response, above. Seriously.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 08:39 PM (Qp4DT)

You italicized the line with my name, and likely missed the rest. I'm a firm believer of most issues people want to blame on a website or the computer are actually occuring between the keyboard and the chair. My own included.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 04:51 PM (oVQFe)

924 Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't specifically say Adam and Eve were the first or only. It does tell the long and complicatedly miraculous story of how a promise of a direct lineage to Jesus Christ our Savior to Adam and Eve via the Jews, and that he created that pair of human beings in a place called the Garden of Eden.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 04:52 PM (Epj2t)

925 FlaviusJulius, As Dr. McCoy once said, "What the Klingon says is not important". Have a cheezewhizzy day.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:52 PM (Nw/hR)

926 >>>the fresh water will come to the top and not have time to come to equilibrium with the salt water. I imagined someone would suggest this. But in that case the saltwater oceans are covered by freshwater and all the species that live in saltwater but must reach the surface die.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:53 PM (QbA6l)

927 Entropy, You have some readin' to do.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:53 PM (Nw/hR)

928 The fossil record can't support evolution since the DNA is long gone and there's no way to determine what the chain of mutations leading from one to the next is. Bone morphology is insufficient to tell how genetically related critters are. It would be very easy to have to creatures looking generally similar, but having radically different DNA, mating characteristics, etc.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 21, 2010 04:53 PM (JPtf7)

929

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 08:49 PM (hG3dU)

What? A hickey from one of the trolls?
Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 08:51

Shhh. Or everyone will want one.

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 04:54 PM (hG3dU)

930 But in that case the saltwater oceans are covered by freshwater and all the species that live in saltwater but must reach the surface die.

Only in that area where the fresh water and the salt water are not in equilibrium.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 04:55 PM (Pm5H8)

931

I saw a scientific theory on the History Channel regarding the great flood. The theory backed up by some evidence that there was a great flood. It just wasn't a great great flood.

In other words Noah's flat world next to the ocean flooded but countries with higher elevations didn't flood all the way.

Kind of like Al Gores global warming map. So no, Noah despite trying didn't have 2 of everything but he didn't need to because just his little part of the world flooded along with other parts at that elevation.

You have to remember that as far as man was concerned the world was really small at that time.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 04:55 PM (fwSHf)

932

-->You italicized the line with my name, and likely missed the rest.

Trust me, I italicized it all. The text entry box is very browser-sensitive, it seems. I'm using Firefox. When I use explorer (which I don't anymore) there are no dotted lines in my responses, unless I specifically put in those sorts of SPANs.

-->I'm a firm believer of most issues people want to blame on a website or the computer are actually occuring between the keyboard and the chair. My own included.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 08:51 PM (oVQFe)

That's usually true ... but not with respect to this text entry. I think there's a democrat somewhere who has decided that ace's text entry was impinging on interstate commerce and likes to tweak some comments before submission, for commerce reasons, of course.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:56 PM (Qp4DT)

933 So in Biblical literalism, how do you decide what's metaphor and what's literal? You don't mean it's all literal, because no one takes psalms about reaping wheat as how-to tips for agriculture.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:41 PM (QbA6l)

All of it is literally true. If it wasn't literally true how could you derive a truthful metaphor from it? You don't get truth from lies.What you mean is what parts are historical and which aren't. Well the text itself is often clear on that and if it isn't there is always the context within the writings themselves.

Why is the flood seen as historical? Because the writer is pretty clearly putting down a history at this point. As too the waters all the flood is considered to be fresh and to cover every mountain on earth that would clearly be more than the existing salt water oceans. Mixture also doesn't preclude localized differences in salinity. The about of water on one side of the Pacific ocean is not always the same as every other.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 04:56 PM (ivAmM)

934

Look I know that none of you on here know me. I am related to Blazer and just wanted to apologize for his the way that he was talking to people on here. Why do I feel the need to apologize for something that someone else said? It was my computer that he was on and I didnt know that he had been banned from this site previously. So I am sorry and I will not let him get on my computer anymore to visit this site if this is the way that he is going to treat people.

Thanks.

Posted by: NotBlazer at August 21, 2010 04:56 PM (7SJnG)

935 >>>I think one question we have to ask is "Does it matter if it's literal or metaphorical?" As in,"How does it impact my life if the story of Noah is literal or metaphorical? Am I going to act differently based on this information?" Well but clearly it does in the case of the creation story, since there are a lot of political fights about it. If God meant he created the world in seven days - but because his will is perfect, when he *conceives* of something it is created, for this is no question of its ultimate appearance -- so that "created" means "conceived of" and the actual manifestation of his will occurred via evolution and planetary formation and etc. over 6 billion years -- and that's a wink of the eye to him -- how do you know he didn't intend you to get THAT message from Genesis?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:57 PM (QbA6l)

936 Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 08:51 PM (oVQFe)

And you won't believe me, but all of your quotes were italicized above (and showed up in italics in the text box).

That's why I put the "-->" in when I am interweaving responses. Just in case.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 04:57 PM (Qp4DT)

937 If a neer do well cabin boy who graduated from a bible college says it it is science, no matter how illogical or asinine it is. Atheism is a religion created for the Bawney Fwank crowd.

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at August 21, 2010 04:57 PM (i6UsH)

938

You have to remember that as far as man was concerned the world was really small at that time.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 08:55 PM (fwSHf)

That's interesting. Many theories (both secular and religious) believe this...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 04:58 PM (fM0nd)

939
970

I saw a scientific theory on the History Channel regarding the great flood. The theory backed up by some evidence that there was a great flood. It just wasn't a great great flood. .....

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 08:55 PM (fwSHf)

There are many myths of great flood events on a biblical scale from every corner of the globe.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 04:58 PM (H+LJc)

940

I saw a scientific theory on the History Channel regarding the great flood. The theory backed up by some evidence that there was a great flood. It just wasn't a great great flood.

The History Channel? The same channel that has the History of UFO's?

I consider the History Channel to be as reliable as Wikipedia.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 04:58 PM (hsBue)

941

You have to remember that as far as man was concerned the world was really small at that time.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 08:55 PM (fwSHf)

Yeah, this. Noah's world was flooded. That doesn't mean the entire globe was flooded. And he probably only took 2 of every animal in his world.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 04:58 PM (580hG)

942 Wow, you guys are setting science back centuries. The Flood has no support in geological evidence, In fact, geology completely discredits the flood. One continent only a few thousand years ago? Utterly false. Get thee to a library.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 04:59 PM (Nw/hR)

943 thanks NotBlazer...

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 04:59 PM (QbA6l)

944 But in that case the saltwater oceans are covered by freshwater and all the species that live in saltwater but must reach the surface die.

We know that there have been mass die-offs of species in the past. It always leads to increasing special diversity after wards.

The concept of Noah's Ark is not that God preserved every living thing. He preserved the genetic material to repopulate the earth.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 04:59 PM (JtKsy)

945 The Nephilim did not make it to the Ark.

Posted by: George Noory at August 21, 2010 04:59 PM (i6UsH)

946

Picky Picky, just read the joke and have a laugh, spoil sport. Besides I think Dante's Inferno worked more like a freezer where the exothermic out areas were used to cool the final circle of hell.

That's fucking idiotic nonsense you candy-ass RINO!

Something like that would require massive amounts of tubing!

Did Dante mention any tubing? NO.

Wouldn't Virgil have seen fit to explain that huge structural element at some point in the tour?

No, no there was no such thing. That is dumb and clearly wrong.

And you're going to find out how wrong when you die cuz your going to go to hell if you keep up with believing nonsense like that.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 05:00 PM (eL+YD)

947 973 Unicorns didn't make it to the ark. Ditto Griffins.

Posted by: toby928 at August 21, 2010 08:56 PM (S5YRY)

Yeah... because they had to make room for Pelosi and her companion Joy the Behar.

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:00 PM (fM0nd)

948 >>>Yeah, this. Noah's world was flooded. That doesn't mean the entire globe was flooded. And he probably only took 2 of every animal in his world. that is fine, but then, that is what I am contending for; a more reasonable interpretation of the words. But literalists say, no, it was literally the world, the whole world, and he literally had two of every animal, including kangaroos, which he must have, or they would have died in the world flood.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:00 PM (QbA6l)

949 So in Biblical literalism, how do you decide what's metaphor and what's literal? You don't mean it's all literal, because no one takes psalms about reaping wheat as how-to tips for agriculture.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:41 PM (QbA6l)

You have history, metaphor, & some passages are both. The Bible also uses something that would be known to people of a certain time (such as reaping) & uses that to make a point. We still do that in our society. As for the parts that are history, we can prove something like the Syro-Ephraimitic War as referenced in Isaiah, as it is backed by archaeology.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 05:00 PM (Yq+qN)

950 And he probably only took 2 of every animal in his world.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 08:58 PM (580hG)

14 of each of the clean ones.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:01 PM (Qp4DT)

951 976 Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 08:51 PM (oVQFe)

And you won't believe me, but all of your quotes were italicized above (and showed up in italics in the text box).

That's why I put the "-->" in when I am interweaving responses. Just in case.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 08:57 PM (Qp4DT)

Browser issue perhaps? What do you use?

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 05:01 PM (oVQFe)

952 >>>The concept of Noah's Ark is not that God preserved every living thing. He preserved the genetic material to repopulate the earth. but right there you are moving from literalism to a a less than literal meaning, which is good (in my eyes), but if you can fudge it there why not someplace else?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:01 PM (QbA6l)

953 as far as man was concerned the world was really small at that time.

Indeed. Europe wasn't on the map, nor was the bulk of sub-Sahara Africa, the far East, and obviously N/S America weren't there either.

The "known world" of Biblical times would probably ALL fit within a 1,000 mile radius of present day Israel.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 21, 2010 05:02 PM (JPtf7)

954 Scott Adams was once asked how people could tell whether or not he was kidding about things he wrote in his more serious books. He said, "If what I said made you want to sue me, I was just kidding."

One could say, "if it doesn't make sense to take some parts of the Bible literally, those parts must have been metaphorical."

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:03 PM (xjy39)

955

Wikipedia has a good rundown of the Pittman and Ryan theory. You guys should read the book. Great example of hypothesis and experiement working out and dovetailing with oral and written tradition and modern understanding. The science in the book is incontrovertible.

They date the deluge. They compare other flooding "myths," like the story of Gilgamesh. You can plug in your own knowledge of things like the diaspora which would really make sense if the first Jewish civilization were by the fertile shores of a great freshwater lake that got flooded out.

Lots of cool facts, like this one that have an elegant fit with the Biblical story: The amound of water going through the Bosphorus was so great, it would have created its own weather--storms, lightning, the whole bit. This would have gone on for a long time.

Indeed, it would have seemed like the whole world was flooding.

Here's an idea: Noah built the ark because at some point he traveled to the strait where mouth of the Bosphorus would eventually be and noticed that the Mediterranean was just about to start to trickling over the top. And he wasn't stupid man. Unproveable, but an interesting thought.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 05:03 PM (Im/xu)

956 993 >>>The concept of Noah's Ark is not that God preserved every living thing. He preserved the genetic material to repopulate the earth.

>>but right there you are moving from literalism to a a less than literal meaning, which is good (in my eyes), but if you can fudge it there why not someplace else?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:01 PM (QbA6l)

How so? I've heard these theories before ... from literalists

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:03 PM (fM0nd)

957 What if teh two animals they took on the ark were gay and didn't want to have sex, even for procreation.?

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 05:03 PM (hG3dU)

958
<i>If God meant he created the world in seven days - but because his will is perfect, when he *conceives* of something it is created, for this is no question of its ultimate appearance -- so that "created" means "conceived of" and the actual manifestation of his will occurred via evolution and planetary formation and etc. over 6 billion years -- and that's a wink of the eye to him -- how do you know he didn't intend you to get THAT message from Genesis?</i>

I don't.

The important thing is to trust in Jesus for my salvation.

That means, the factual account of the resurrection of Jesus is real.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 05:04 PM (JtKsy)

959 How do you know that God didn't tell Moses a story with two different interpretations, and two different interpretations INTENDED from the start -- first, a simple story about tangible stuff that earlier men could understand -- God creating animals and stars by hand. second, a metaphoric meaning encoded within that simple story, which he knew Man would understand when he had progressed enough in the understanding of the world, that yes, he had created the world and animals, but he had done so by setting in motion forces that he saw, with his unerring predictive vision, would give rise to the earth and all the animals and birds and man? How do you KNOW? If you know some things are metaphor-- how are you so insistent on knowing which things are literal? And if anything's going to be literal -- why the most unbelievable parts?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:04 PM (QbA6l)

960 999 What if teh two animals they took on the ark were gay and didn't want to have sex, even for procreation.?

Posted by: HornetSting at August 21, 2010 09:03 PM (hG3dU)

I guess teh ghey gene would die off then

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:05 PM (fM0nd)

961 Oh, Michael, I thought you said you did, long ago.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:05 PM (QbA6l)

962 You don't mean it's all literal, because no one takes psalms about reaping wheat as how-to tips for agriculture.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:41 PM (QbA6l)

The Bible discussed crop rotation and letting fields lay fallow every so often to regenerate - seven years being the period (as seven shows up very often in Biblical periodicity).

The Bible also talked of flat taxes.

A day of rest was another Biblical note of genius - one which mohammed tossed aside, BTW.

The Old Testament tells pretty much all anyone needs to know to generate and maintain a growing, civilized society based on individualistic notions.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:05 PM (Qp4DT)

963 But literalists say, no, it was literally the world, the whole world, and he literally had two of every animal, including kangaroos, which he must have, or they would have died in the world flood.

Don't forget, also the super-duper dangerous snakes & spiders & whatnot. It's amazing he didn't get bit not even one time.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 05:06 PM (Pm5H8)

964 The name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever.

Neither does Yeshua; it has meaning in Hebrew, which the Bible wasn't actually written in anyway. Actually I'd argue that Jesus is one of the few names in English that actually does have a meaning.

Incidentally historians and sociologists have actually found that oral tradition is rather incredibly more reliable than they'd thought. The "telephone game" is not an accurate representation of how people passed down wisdom.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 05:06 PM (PQY7w)

965 How about this? The Bible is a collection of folklore and historical record, and it has this much sway over us because we made it so. To me, explaining the Flood is like explaining Goldilocks and the Three Bears. "You see, back then bears had opposable thumbs and used furniture."

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 05:06 PM (Nw/hR)

966 >>>How so? I've heard these theories before ... from literalists Well then they are not what I would call absolutist-literalists, and if they're not, why the rigidity in saying the creation story is fully literal?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:07 PM (QbA6l)

967 But literalists say, no, it was literally the world, the whole world, and he literally had two of every animal, including kangaroos, which he must have, or they would have died in the world flood.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:00 PM (QbA6l)

What is the deal with kangaroos here? Because they are in Australia? God could bring anything he wanted to him and cause them to get back when he was done. Is God limited by mileage or something?

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 05:07 PM (ivAmM)

968 Naamah: Noah! Noah! Wake up!
Noah: Wha..Murpfh..buhgh..cough....Wha..
Japheth: You put mushrooms into the mead again,didn't you Ham!!!

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:07 PM (H+LJc)

969

Browser issue perhaps? What do you use?

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 09:01 PM (oVQFe)

Firefox.

I use Midori sometimes, but for that I put all the tags in the text entry by hand (not through the source button, as no buttons show up in Midori) and those comments always come out exactly as they should.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:08 PM (Qp4DT)

970 982 Well, there's also debate about the long-day & short- day theory, as well as whether there is a pause in Genesis. I have someone in my family who is a geologist, & he believes that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. How do you rectify this with the Bible, you ask? Well, the concept of time is rather dependent on the creation of the sun & moon, & we also don't know what happened for certain spans in Genesis, especially the time-frame concerning Adam's descendents. So you can still support the old-earth theory & be a Christian.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 05:08 PM (Yq+qN)

971 Oh, Michael, I thought you said you did, long ago.

I got my ass kicked by evolutionary biologists long ago.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 05:08 PM (JtKsy)

972 Regarding the flood and the Ark; are people really arguing whether or not a supremely powerful, omnipotent, all-knowing being could figure out how to maintain the species diversity and complexity? What part of the words "all powerful" and "all knowing" eludes you here?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 05:09 PM (PQY7w)

973 If God meant he created the world in seven days - but because his will is perfect, when he *conceives* of something it is created, for this is no question of its ultimate appearance -- so that "created" means "conceived of" and the actual manifestation of his will occurred via evolution and planetary formation and etc. over 6 billion years -- and that's a wink of the eye to him -- how do you know he didn't intend you to get THAT message from Genesis? Posted by: ace

Because He said the the most important thing He wanted to teach us was to love Him above all else. And the second most important thing was for us to love our brothers as much as we love ourselves. So the only relevance this story would have would be to respect His power, which is true whether the story is literal or metaphorical.

Just because people fight about it doesn't mean it's really relevant. Have you seen some of the stupid things people fight about? In fact, Paul warned us not to be divided by things that aren't important, but to focus on those things which are important. Clearly, Christians were fighting about stupid things even back then.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:09 PM (xjy39)

974 well, if God can manipulate space, he can manipulate time.

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 05:11 PM (Pm5H8)

975 To me, explaining the Flood is like explaining Goldilocks and the Three Bears. "You see, back then bears had opposable thumbs and used furniture."

OK, but does that make it false? I can see where you would argue "it would take an extraordinary level of proof to convince me its true" but that doesn't mean its false, does it?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 05:11 PM (PQY7w)

976 notblazer, try to get him some help. That much anger isn't good and I think all of us who have enjoyed his company previously would be saddened if he hurt himself or, God forbid, someone else.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 05:11 PM (cX9pO)

977 Well then they are not what I would call absolutist-literalists, and if they're not, why the rigidity in saying the creation story is fully literal?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:07 PM (QbA6l)

Why would they not be literalists? Surely it is all together plausible that there were several types of canidae (canine or dogs) ... but only a few were on the ark. That's the example I've heard the literalists talk about. It's also possible that there just weren't that many genetic variations at the time. Thus less to collect...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:12 PM (fM0nd)

978 I am a Skeptic. I believe that no person ever has had any contact with any supernatural being, ever.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:27 PM (Nw/hR)

Did no one else find this hilarious? Skeptic = absolute belief in something you can't possibly have conclusive direct or objective knowledge of.

People have a pathological aversion to the phrase "I don't know." It TERRIFIES them, like sharks, or clowns. Or sharks dressed as clowns.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 21, 2010 05:12 PM (bxiXv)

979 Every time the Indra dreams a new age is born.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:12 PM (H+LJc)

980 How do you know that God didn't tell Moses a story with two different interpretations, and two different interpretations INTENDED from the start --

first, a simple story about tangible stuff that earlier men could understand -- God creating animals and stars by hand.

second, a metaphoric meaning encoded within that simple story, which he knew Man would understand when he had progressed enough in the understanding of the world, that yes, he had created the world and animals, but he had done so by setting in motion forces that he saw, with his unerring predictive vision, would give rise to the earth and all the animals and birds and man?

How do you KNOW? If you know some things are metaphor-- how are you so insistent on knowing which things are literal?

And if anything's going to be literal -- why the most unbelievable parts?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:04 PM (QbA6l)

Are any of these interpretations mutually exclusive? If they are then one is false and not of God. What kind of God is it that makes up simple stories, lies in other words, and why the hell should I pay attention to the metaphor if that's true?

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 05:13 PM (ivAmM)

981 so did Noah collect up all the super-dangerous snakes too, the ones where one bite means sudden death?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 05:13 PM (Pm5H8)

982 Ithhhsss scthience I tsay.

Posted by: Practitioner of the Atheist Religion at August 21, 2010 05:13 PM (i6UsH)

983 Look at how many flood stories there are.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 05:13 PM (Epj2t)

984 Also, Ace, it's important to recognize that God created the universe. He can do whatever He wants. If He wants a flood, He gets a flood. If He wants to disguise the flood as something else, such as a meteor striking the earth or something, then that's what He gets.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:13 PM (xjy39)

985

Firefox.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 09:08 PM (Qp4DT)

Then I'm going to bet its an issue between firefox the browser and your method of posting. I always start typing before pasting the quote stuff and italicizing. That way I get to make sure I don't accidentally italicize everything or end up with everything being underlined with dashes.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 05:14 PM (oVQFe)

986

1008 Well then they are not what I would call absolutist-literalists, and if they're not, why the rigidity in saying the creation story is fully literal?

It largely depends on the individual's beliefs about Geneis & when & how God created & what happened next. Some insist on short-day, others hold to a kind of evolution which was overseen by God (theistic evolution), & some think God created but there was more time involved (long-day). If you want an absolute answer about why some deny the possibility of long-earth, I think thery're afraid of yielding ground to the evolutionists. However, that's not necessarily the case.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at August 21, 2010 05:15 PM (Yq+qN)

987 1024 so did Noah collect up all the super-dangerous snakes too, the ones where one bite means sudden death?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 09:13 PM (Pm5H

Who knows if they even existed at the time...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:15 PM (fM0nd)

988 If God used supernatural powers to bring kangaroos to the Ark and then used supernatural powers to return them to Australia, why didn't He just give them scuba gear in the first place and save Noah some trouble?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 05:15 PM (Nw/hR)

989 Why not just put 2 rocks on the Ark? They can repopulate the earth the scientific way.

Posted by: Practitioner of the Atheist Religion at August 21, 2010 05:15 PM (i6UsH)

990

What is the deal with kangaroos here? Because they are in Australia? God could bring anything he wanted to him and cause them to get back when he was done. Is God limited by mileage or something?

Uhm, it doesn't say "God materialized 2 of every animal on the arc Noah built" it says Noah gathered the animals. For that matter, do you think GOD cannot build a boat? But he did not - he had Noah do it, apparently. As well as gather the animals.

Now... Do you know how long it would take to sail around the world and gather up 2 of every animal in a sail boat?

Do you know how LARGE a boat would have to be to accomodate 2 of every creature as well as enough food for them to live off for 2 months?

With 2000BC neolithic (aka STONE AGE) technology???

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 05:15 PM (eL+YD)

991 1021 People have a pathological aversion to the phrase "I don't know." It TERRIFIES them, like sharks, or clowns. Or sharks dressed as clowns.
Posted by: Merovign

I have absolute, 100% faith this is true.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:16 PM (xjy39)

992 1018, Yes. It means it is false.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 05:16 PM (Nw/hR)

993 You can always use the edit source button on the comment tool bar and HTML to your hearts content.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:16 PM (H+LJc)

994 >>>Just because people fight about it doesn't mean it's really relevant. Have you seen some of the stupid things people fight about? Well, I sort of agree that this is rather a very minor issue compared to the main one -- Christ's sacrifice and the redemption of man and so on -- but honestly there is so much invested in the creation story by many Christians you'd think THAT was the main thing. It gets to the level of people saying that evolution is a lie told by Satan to lead men astray, and that evolution is a False Religion designed to tempt people into pride and darkness, and etc., etc. Many insist you are not a Christian unless you believe in the absolute-literal creation story. And they sort of blow off the believing in Christ's salvation of man part. I don't know if 'many" is a tendentious term but I've seen it here; I saw one poster talk about believing in Christ, but not the full creation myth, and someone else pounced on him and told him then he wasn't a Christian. It seems to me to be a really inordinate amount of emphasis given to a part of the Bible which, as you say, actually has very little to do with the main point made in the NT.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:17 PM (QbA6l)

995

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2010 09:06 PM (PQY7w)

The "telephone game" is an artifact of modern ways of thinking. We forget that there are still people who carry on oral traditions and take them seriously. Not to say that they never mix it up, but there are still people who spend years memorizing holy books in exact detail, and can recite them precisely.

MOST purely oral traditions are no longer purely oral, 'cause everywhere we go we write 'em down. Unfortunately if it's purely oral you don't really know how reliable it is.

We moderns don't have the time to memorize hundreds of pages in exact detail, we just don't *do* that so it doesn't seem real to us.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 21, 2010 05:18 PM (bxiXv)

996

Ooh, ooh, so we're muddying the waters of science/religion? Cannonball!

Carbon-14 dating is predicated on the assumption that the rate of its production in the upper atmosphere has been a constant. Suppose that atmospheric conditions were different around...oh, I dunno, the time of the Flood?

If C-14 was produced in vastly less amounts then than now, what would we think when analyzing pre-Diluvian materials?

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 05:18 PM (xg1eR)

997 so did Noah collect up all the super-dangerous snakes too, the ones where one bite means sudden death?

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 09:13 PM (Pm5H

Noah didn't, he let the ones he knew weren't getting on the boat anyway do it.

Noah was like that.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 05:18 PM (fwSHf)

998

-->Then I'm going to bet its an issue between firefox the browser and your method of posting.

You're blaming me for the problems of the text entry system? How about blaming the programmer?

-->I always start typing before pasting the quote stuff and italicizing. That way I get to make sure I don't accidentally italicize everything or end up with everything being underlined with dashes.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 09:14 PM (oVQFe)

I will not be bullied into some specific order of pasting and typing, dammit! I'm used to WYSIWYG and I generally expect it. Don't you agree?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:20 PM (Qp4DT)

999 Because He said the the most important thing He wanted to teach us was to love Him above all else. And the second most important thing was for us to love our brothers as much as we love ourselves. So the only relevance this story would have would be to respect His power, which is true whether the story is literal or metaphorical.

Very well stated.

Posted by: gail at August 21, 2010 05:20 PM (f46PC)

1000 The myth about Noah and the flood, Tower of Babel etc were oral traditions until a couple of centuries before Christ and those oldest known script are very similar but not exactly the same.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:20 PM (H+LJc)

1001 Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 09:15 PM (eL+YD)

Was it God that caused Noah to gathered these animals? Does it state god didn't put them where Noah could gather them? You are asking me to prove this happened without the intervention of God when the Bible clearly tells me it was God who intervened to make this happen. The criteria here isn't scientific or historical, it's God's. The all powerful, Alpha Omega I can do whatever I wish, and leave or not leave evidence if I so choose, guy.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 05:20 PM (ivAmM)

1002 Rocks, I keep finding your answers to be "I know because I know" and "it's true because it's true." I suggest to you there may be another interpretation -- as with the wheat, which no one takes to be talking primarily about wheat -- and you tell me "I know that's not true because that would be a lie," or words to that effect. In other words, you're really not answering except to reassert your answer. I ask for why, or why couldn't it be this way, and you just say it can't, because it's true, it's literal, you know it, period. You can say that if you want but it's not really exactly a useful conversation to me, because I really don't think you're answering my "why's" just reasserting your conclusions.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:21 PM (QbA6l)

1003 Okay, now the thread has moved from a legitimate and sometimes humorous discussion of the Bible and of God to one of mocking.

See ya.

Posted by: jmflynny at August 21, 2010 05:21 PM (tovHz)

1004

It gets to the level of people saying that evolution is a lie told by Satan to lead men astray, and that evolution is a False Religion designed to tempt people into pride and darkness, and etc., etc.

Kind of like the guy here saying that if you don't believe in creationism you believe two rock screwing created life.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 05:21 PM (oVQFe)

1005

I will not be bullied into some specific order of pasting and typing, dammit! I'm used to WYSIWYG and I generally expect it. Don't you agree?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 09:20 PM (Qp4DT)

I'll tell you who doesn't agree with that. Pixy, that's who.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 21, 2010 05:22 PM (bxiXv)

1006 1021, That made no sense. Show me some evidence that human beings have had contact with supernatural creatures. Not anecdote, not stories, not Scripture - evidence.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 05:22 PM (Nw/hR)

1007 The myth about Noah and the flood, Tower of Babel etc were oral traditions until a couple of centuries before Christ and those oldest known script are very similar but not exactly the same.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 09:20 PM (H+LJc)

Even the most liberal theologian on the planet doesn't put the old testament as newer then 400 BC and the Flood is not one of the newer writings in it.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 05:23 PM (ivAmM)

1008 One keg, Noah!

Yeah, I'm old.

Posted by: Retread at August 21, 2010 05:24 PM (AtlzK)

1009

I'll tell you who doesn't agree with that. Pixy, that's who.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 21, 2010 09:22 PM (bxiXv)

Ain't that the truth.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:25 PM (Qp4DT)

1010 But literalists say, no, it was literally the world, the whole world, and he literally had two of every animal, including kangaroos, which he must have, or they would have died in the world flood.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:00 PM (QbA6l)

Here is how I look at some things written in the Bible. They are written by men. Some things are just man's interpretation over many years, as told to them by God, Jesus, Disciples, Apostles.

I have read many parts of the Bible at different times and discerned different meanings that I may have missed or realized that I just didn't catch, at the time.

Everyone, I think, that has read the Bible interprets different parts different ways.

Me, I just believe. Always have. Can't look at this world around me, and not.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 05:25 PM (580hG)

1011 >>>The all powerful, Alpha Omega I can do whatever I wish Why couldn't he choose to create the world and man by an elaborate and elegant mathematical/physical code of his making and set that code into motion and watch worlds spin into being and animals arise from other animals precisely as his divine will and perfect perception had foreseen?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:26 PM (QbA6l)

1012 Are any of these interpretations mutually exclusive? If they are then one is false and not of God. What kind of God is it that makes up simple stories, lies in other words, and why the hell should I pay attention to the metaphor if that's true? Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 09:13 PM (ivAmM) When your 3 year old daughter asks why the sky is blue, do you give a full blown presentation on the refraction and absorption of light?

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 05:26 PM (X0Ona)

1013

1031 If God used supernatural powers to bring kangaroos to the Ark and then used supernatural powers to return them to Australia, why didn't He just give them scuba gear in the first place and save Noah some trouble?

God's reason for sending the flood was the great overwhelming wickedness of the world. He gave mankind another chance to repent, but they didn't; so He sent the flood:

⁵ The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. ⁶ The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. ⁷ So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthÂ—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airÂ—for I am grieved that I have made them." ⁸ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD....¹¹ Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. ¹² God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. ¹³ So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

God made a covenant with Noah because he was faithful, & God protected Noah & his family from the flood. Anyone else who would have repented from their evil also would've been on the ark.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 05:26 PM (Yq+qN)

1014 >>>Me, I just believe. Always have. Can't look at this world around me, and not. Steph, I think though that ultimately I am not really speaking to you, because it sounds like you have a sort of modesty of interpretation (that is, do not have a perfect confidence in your current version of interpretation) which is the take that seems (to me) to make sense. In other words, I don't think I have an argument with you.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:27 PM (QbA6l)

1015 Well, I sort of agree that this is rather a very minor issue compared to the main one -- Christ's sacrifice and the redemption of man and so on -- but honestly there is so much invested in the creation story by many Christians you'd think THAT was the main thing.

It gets to the level of people saying that evolution is a lie told by Satan to lead men astray, and that evolution is a False Religion designed to tempt people into pride and darkness, and etc., etc.

Posted by ace

Well, but then they're arguing that it is, in fact, relevant. Are you asking why some people think evolution is relevant? I can explain that rather quickly. Some people believe that a special creation for humanity defeats the logic that people are no better than any other animal that often results from belief in evolution. Many evolutionists argue that such a belief is not inherent in the idea of evolution (though some evolutionists do, in fact, argue that it is). Many creationists argue otherwise, in much the same way that many critics of Islam believe that it cannot be a peaceful religion.

However, nothing will stop people from seeking a way to proclaim themselves morally superior to others. People will always, always, always use whatever tools they have at hand to "prove" their moral superiority. It's human nature. Everyone does it. Not just Christians.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:28 PM (xjy39)

1016 " If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

LINK and LINK

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 05:29 PM (p302b)

1017 My argument is more with the people who know (or say they know) precisely how a very old religious text is intended by God to be interpreted, in all (or most) particulars.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:29 PM (QbA6l)

1018 These literalistic traditions are a modern construct. It was never so dogmatic until after the fourth century and the Jesuits still don't see it as such.
The Westernization of Christianity really took off during the nineteenth century and is fractured into dozens of sectarian absolutes.
I asked two co-workers who were arguing about the bible what they would do if they died and it wasn't what they expected. Would they get mad and leave?
They never argued about it again.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:29 PM (H+LJc)

1019 Why couldn't he choose to create the world and man by an elaborate and elegant mathematical/physical code of his making and set that code into motion and watch worlds spin into being and animals arise from other animals precisely as his divine will and perfect perception had foreseen?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:26 PM (QbA6l)

Ehh... this is kind of getting meta, but if there were a God, he'd probably have a more elegant way of going about things. Physics (and science for that matter) are at best a decent approximation of things. Mathematics, is a self-contained thought process, still dependent on axioms. Essentially a language. Where do the axioms come from???

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:29 PM (fM0nd)

1020

As far as evolution goes I believe in evolution. I don't believe we evolved from different species or from a single cell animal.

It's easier to prove that's false than it is to prove it's true. If someone proves it's true than I will change my mind.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 05:29 PM (fwSHf)

1021 >>>. Some people believe that a special creation for humanity defeats the logic that people are no better than any other animal that often results from belief in evolution. Many evolutionists argue that such a belief is not inherent in the idea of evolution Well yes I know but I don't know why people would think that; the Bible says God made Man in his image, not monkeys, and he sent Christ to redeem man, not chimps.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:30 PM (QbA6l)

1022

True, but it's also very predictable, IMO, that this response would get riled up.

The same thing happens in reverse as well (and in reverse, it is still THE SAME THING).

Read up on the history of Darwin and evolution.

Now - I'm a proponent. I believe in evolution. I do not have any religious faith.

BUT - evolution does not disprove god. It is not mutually exclusive with god. In fact, it doesn't even suggest a damn thing contrary to god.

In fact, evolution was forseen by many religous folks before Darwin got there. They speculated that there was a 'natural mechanism' by which creatures were created after 'spontaneous generation' turned out to be bust. They guessed pretty closely along the lines of evolution. Darwin was NOT the first person to think of the concept! Just to put it together cogently with evidence.

Even Darwin's own grandfather had written on the topic years before Darwin did. And this was seen entirely as being in accordance with the rational theology of the time that speculated natural causes behind everything.

But a lot of people immediately siezed on Darwin's work, which had come out at the same time as Marxism (Marx and Engels were contemporaries of Darwin and were HUGE on Darwin's theory and it's political and social ramifications). They'd started immediately declaring that it was all material and there was no god. This is a total non-sequitar conclusion.

It's like if I do a study on whether alka-seltzer kills geese. And find it does. Then conclude: Alka-seltzer kills geese, therefor, we've reached 'peak oil' production.

WHAT? WTF do geese have to do with peak oil? Nothing.

And from that point foward, the issue of abiogensis was politicized (LYSENKOIZED). You've got philosophers and political theorists jumping into the debate because they see certain outcomes as being preferential. You've got hack scientists desperate to prove it true falsifying their data and expiriments, hoaxes abound, like Pilt-down man and Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny" forgeries.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 05:31 PM (eL+YD)

1023 >>>Seriously, the Christian faith requires significant amounts of Belief and Trust like most other religions. But my question is why is there such an insistence on a style of interpretation that requires such large amounts of Belief and Trust -- and disregard of really quite convincing scientific evidence? In other words, why not any openness to an interpretation that didn't so rend at known facts so that the Belief and Trust part could be focused on that which is most important (the salvation)?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:32 PM (QbA6l)

1024 Why couldn't he choose to create the world and man by an elaborate and elegant mathematical/physical code of his making and set that code into motion and watch worlds spin into being and animals arise from other animals precisely as his divine will and perfect perception had foreseen? Posted by: ace

In point of fact, He could have. I think the question is whether or not He lied about it.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:32 PM (xjy39)

1025

1060 My argument is more with the people who know (or say they know) precisely how a very old religious text is intended by God to be interpreted, in all (or most) particulars.

If we knew 100% about everything, there wouldn't be so many denominations & arguments over text. I will just say that the best measurement I learnt from my pastor when I was younger is that Scripture interprets other Scripture.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 05:33 PM (Yq+qN)

1026

>>>. Some people believe that a special creation for humanity defeats the logic that people are no better than any other animal that often results from belief in evolution. Many evolutionists argue that such a belief is not inherent in the idea of evolution

Well yes I know but I don't know why people would think that; the Bible says God made Man in his image, not monkeys, and he sent Christ to redeem man, not chimps.

Like I was just saying.

As surely as some refute the science not out of any good reasoning, but because they percieve a threat in it, others put forward threats not out of any good reasoning but because they have an agenda.

Lots of those guys, especially back when eugenics was becoming all the rage and the technocratic, centralized scientific perfectability of man and society, were very hot to trot on the idea that man is just an animal.

And they used stuff like the theory of evolution to claim support and conclusive proof for this belief, even though the theory doesn't demand or even suggest it.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 05:35 PM (eL+YD)

1027 I have to tell you, as an agnostic/skeptic, I have relatively little problem at all with the Resurrection story. After all, that is supposed to be when God directly intervenes to save man; one can expect a bit of supernatural magic there. And of course you can't PROVE it didn't happen, right? The stuff that seems so kooky and really off-the-rails to me is this creation business and stuff about Noah's ark... Just saying, if your intent is actually to be Fishers of Men, it seems to me the focus should be on the more important (and more believable too) part about Christ's death and resurrection, and less about God making birds and fish by hand.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:35 PM (QbA6l)

1028 Why couldn't he choose to create the world and man by an elaborate and elegant mathematical/physical code of his making and set that code into motion and watch worlds spin into being and animals arise from other animals precisely as his divine will and perfect perception had foreseen?
Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:26 PM (QbA6l)

That is what every scrap of physical evidence points to.
As an engineer, I cannot see how it was not engineered.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 05:35 PM (H+LJc)

1029 The foreknowledge of a coming flood is something to consider, isn't it? People have stunned and amazed those with no knowledge of eclipses. I submit that God knew a flood was coming and used it to say, in a big way, "I am real." Whether the nephilim stuff (what a fascinating part of Genesis) is something to consider as far as UFOs today becoming more and more prevalent is another tangent to the Flood. Wow, how amazing is it that this thread has a tangent leaning toward apocalyptic thinking. There are a lot of pieces in what many claim to be a prophetic puzzle written by people thousands of years ago clicking in place these days. Not saying " the end is near ". mind you, but if these are indeed "birth pangs", remember that a birth, after all the woman goes through, is a beautiful miracle and something positive and fantastic. So much so, that even women that suffered terribly during child birth get pregnant again almost forgetting about how bad it was, simply because of the sheer joy a new miracle of life brings.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 05:36 PM (Epj2t)

1030 But my question is why is there such an insistence on a style of interpretation that requires such large amounts of Belief and Trust -- and disregard of really quite convincing scientific evidence?

In other words, why not any openness to an interpretation that didn't so rend at known facts so that the Belief and Trust part could be focused on that which is most important (the salvation)?

posted by ace

I think the answers here have more to do with human nature. Most people in the world are not Christians, and yet they display these same traits. Heck, even some Atheists try to out-shine each other when it comes to adhering to doctrine.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:36 PM (xjy39)

1031 Physics (and science for that matter) are at best a decent approximation of things. Mathematics, is a self-contained thought process, still dependent on axioms. Essentially a language. Where do the axioms come from???

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 09:29 PM (fM0nd)

Mathematics is language of perfection. Mathematics deals with nothing but perfect objects and flawless processes, which we never see in nature. As such, mathematical models for nature (though the most accurate we have ever seen) can never be true representations of reality - at least not as we have seen things develop, thus far. As you said, math, at best, provides a decent approximation of reality.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:37 PM (Qp4DT)

1032 Like, I just have never had any problem with the Resurrection story. It's supposed to be about magic; so, it's about magic. You accept that premise or you don't; I never found it to be terribly far-fetched at all, as far as religious stories go. I think, in terms of its unbelievability quotient, it's pretty modest. It doesn't require much denial of reason in the intellect, so most energy can be spent on the more critical part of belief (that Christ died specifically to redeem one's sins and that by believing in him one is redeemed). All this focus on the creation story and "Young Earths" and the earth being made before the stars and Noah's ark... it's almost like people are TRYING to erect entry barriers to salvation. I KNOW KNOW KNOW that is not the actual intent -- this is just what you believe. I get that. I'm just saying it almost seems that way, that the intellectual buy-in -- what it is required you believe for salvation -- has been made unreasonably high to the extent that many people just say "Too far-fetched, no thank you."

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:39 PM (QbA6l)

1033 the Bible says God made Man in his image,

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:30 PM (QbA6l)

That was the start of individualism.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:39 PM (Qp4DT)

1034

But my question is why is there such an insistence on a style of interpretation that requires such large amounts of Belief and Trust -- and disregard of really quite convincing scientific evidence?

In other words, why not any openness to an interpretation that didn't so rend at known facts so that the Belief and Trust part could be focused on that which is most important (the salvation)?

I honestly believe that the mainstream theology of a few hundred years ago was much further developed and thought out, and more rational than what's left of it today. It has been assaulted and weakened.

I think part of that reason is like I said - there have been concerted efforts (successful ones) to paint these two things as incompatible.

The thinking was if they were shown as incompatible, people would have to then abandon their religous beliefs to accept the rationality. Problem is, many people chose the other way.

And to this day (in a very dangerous way) you have people putting forward scientific evidence, that is fine and dandy and is no threat to religous views, but putting it foward as if it WAS exclusive with traditional views and demanding they exist in opposition.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 05:40 PM (eL+YD)

1035 You would think that you guys would be trying to understand the trinity first before you try to understand the creation.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 05:40 PM (p302b)

1036 >>> I think the question is whether or not He lied about it. He lied? Or he spoke in metaphor that people could understand? The Bible says nothing about electrons or photons, does it?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:41 PM (QbA6l)

1037 robtr - that Noah - smart dude

Posted by: chemjeff at August 21, 2010 05:41 PM (Pm5H8)

1038

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 09:37 PM (Qp4DT)

Heh, yeah... they are perfect objects. There are the "pure" people that don't do anything but talk about things that only exist in their minds. Then there are the applied people... they can't even figure out what's going on with 100+ year old models ... that's why it's so fun. But, what would I know. I'm just Peggy West - Progressive Geographer.

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:41 PM (fM0nd)

1039 >>>You would think that you guys would be trying to understand the trinity first before you try to understand the creation. But it does seem to me the creation is often put first, way first... people argue about it and conjure theories and etc. incessantly.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:41 PM (QbA6l)

1040

As scientifically advance as we are now if Darwinism is correct then scientists pushing this theory should be able to go down to the ocean and use all of their scientific equipment (which wasnÂ’t around then) and collect all the stuff they need to make life and then make it for us.

They can use all of their controlled labs, the right amount of electricity, light whatever and crank out some future humans.

The only thing they canÂ’t use is something that is already living.

When they do that they will have my attention.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 05:42 PM (fwSHf)

1041 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 Dear brothers and sisters, when I was with you I couldnÂ’t talk to you as I would to spiritual people. I had to talk as though you belonged to this world or as though you were infants in the Christian life. I had to feed you with milk, not with solid food, because you werenÂ’t ready for anything stronger. And you still arenÂ’t ready, for you are still controlled by your sinful nature. You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. DoesnÂ’t that prove you are controlled by your sinful nature? ArenÂ’t you living like people of the world?

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:42 PM (xjy39)

1042 1077 But has it been said that the creation story is more important than the story of redemption? As aforementioned, I believe that people can differ about the creation story & still be Christians. It still matters, but it's not the over-arching theme.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 05:45 PM (Yq+qN)

1043 God cannot lie. We mere humans, on the other hand, have a hard time understanding the truth when we are told it.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 05:45 PM (X0Ona)

1044 Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:41 PM (QbA6l)

I think if you understand the trinity then the rest just falls into place. In many ways the best part of the bible is that people are still discussing and debating its contents. This may sound simplistic but you can interpret things for yourself in accordance with your own thoughts and abilities and still, in the end, you get the right message.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 05:45 PM (p302b)

1045 1087 1077 Or I should say that it's part of the story, but there are more important ones to consider. The subject is certainly interesting, but no one is going to go to Hell because they deviate from complete literalism on that point.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 05:48 PM (Yq+qN)

1046 There are the "pure" people that don't do anything but talk about things that only exist in their minds.

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 09:41 PM (fM0nd)

"Mathematics is the Queen of the Sciences, and Number Theory is the Queen of Mathematics." -- Gauss (who knew pretty much everything worth knowing)

Pure mathematics is the closest thing to G-d that we find in our daily lives on Earth. Nothing else deals in perfection and describes it in detail.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 05:48 PM (Qp4DT)

1047

All this focus on the creation story and "Young Earths" and the earth being made before the stars and Noah's ark... it's almost like people are TRYING to erect entry barriers to salvation.

I KNOW KNOW KNOW that is not the actual intent -- this is just what you believe. I get that. I'm just saying it almost seems that way, that the intellectual buy-in -- what it is required you believe for salvation -- has been made unreasonably high to the extent that many people just say "Too far-fetched, no thank you."

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:39 PM (QbA6l)

Ace I think its a bit of "pushback." Like the people that are attacking Christianity and religious beliefs use these portions of the faith as the spear of their attack because they see it as weakest. The religious see it not as a criticism of a few stories but an attack on their faith as a whole, because well quite often that is exactly what it is.

So its not really that the religious have made these things the focus, its that they are defending what is being attacked. I mean let's face it if the south side of your castle is under attack, then the entire castle is under attack, not merely the south side.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 05:48 PM (oVQFe)

1048 >>> I think the question is whether or not He lied about it.

He lied? Or he spoke in metaphor that people could understand?

The Bible says nothing about electrons or photons, does it?

Posted by: ace

Honestly, we see a lot of similar argumentation when it comes to Constitutional law. Some people want a more metaphorical interpretation. And some want a more literal interpretation. And the literalists believe that a metaphorical interpretation would remove all meaning from it.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:48 PM (xjy39)

1049 There's a reason people hold up signs that say John 3:16, and not so many hold up Genesis 1:1.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 05:49 PM (X0Ona)

1050 Well I just jumped the shark in getting incredibly unforgivably presumptuous in suggesting how actual practicing Christians should practice Christianity. I will take a lesson from that and stop posting for the night, because I guess I am not really exercising much judgment.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:49 PM (QbA6l)

1051

Posted by: buzzion

Oh, ya. That's a good point too.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:50 PM (xjy39)

1052 *"What matters is whether you trust in Jesus for your salvation." Here here.

*"He preserved the genetic material to repopulate the earth."
I'd like to add - and produce the promised messiah from Eve's (seed of the woman prophecy) genetic line (the "pure" part og Gen 6:9, some say, is a direct reference to Messiah's genetic line, not Noah's classiness or holy piety).

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 05:52 PM (Epj2t)

1053 I wish I had more time to hang out in the comment threads here. Ace is uber-cool for spending so much time talking to everyone.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:52 PM (xjy39)

1054 Ace, you've been polite enough to us Xtians. Nothing wrong with seeking. Indeed, you must seek before you shall find.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 05:52 PM (X0Ona)

1055

I know you guys are talking about something else, but here's something cool about that Black Sea theory: You know what the flow rate of water through the Bosphorus would have been? G'head, take a guess. Ten cubic miles of water a day. Ten cubic miles! Jeezus. That's two hundred times the flow of Niagra Falls.

That would have been intresting to see.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 21, 2010 05:52 PM (Im/xu)

1056 Meh,I too just believe.I have faith,and I often question it,my answers tend to reinforce my faith.I don't believe(can't)that the creation of all matter and all lufe were simply an accident.

Posted by: steevy at August 21, 2010 05:53 PM (gvevw)

1057 It's always interesting to hear the argument that something is not a big deal, so other people should stop being divisive and just agree with me. Where have I heard that argument before?

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:55 PM (xjy39)

1058 Do I believe the Bible is the true word of God? Yes. Do I understand it all? Oh hell no. Half the time I can't understand my kids. But to me, the whole of it is that Christ died for my sins because there is no way I could make it right. I am not the only creation of God, He loves all the rest of them too. The Bible, the commandments tell me to treat God's other creations with the same love he does. It's not easy but I try. The OT is a record of Christ's ancestry back to Eve, because to be the Promised One he had to descend from Eve. All else is fun to speculate about and to study, but nobody's going to Hell because Moab smote Nahum three times with the jawbone of an ass and if you think it was 4 you're doomed for eternity.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 05:55 PM (cX9pO)

1059 "Mathematics is the Queen of the Sciences, and Number Theory is the Queen of Mathematics." -- Gauss (who knew pretty much everything worth knowing)

I'm not even sure how much Mathematics is part of Science anymore... at least modern Science. Their methods are different. The reasoning is different.

Pure mathematics is the closest thing to G-d that we find in our daily lives on Earth. Nothing else deals in perfection and describes it in detail.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 09:48 PM (Qp4DT)

Perhaps, though the deductions are dependent on a collection of human axioms.

Plus, in modern day academics, there is so much citation of things that the author(s) haven't even checked to be true/valid...

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 05:55 PM (fM0nd)

1060

They can use all of their controlled labs, the right amount of electricity, light whatever and crank out some future humans.

The only thing they canÂ’t use is something that is already living.

When they do that they will have my attention.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 09:42 PM (fwSHf)

I thought that they had conducted experiments using electricity and theoretical primodial goop, and experiments did cause the stuff to begin forming some of the basic protein chains which are the theorized source for life.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 05:56 PM (oVQFe)

1061 >>>Like the people that are attacking Christianity and religious beliefs use these portions of the faith as the spear of their attack because they see it as weakest. The religious see it not as a criticism of a few stories but an attack on their faith as a whole, because well quite often that is exactly what it is. Well, yes, that is true, and understandable, but... I mean, the weakest stuff is attacked partly because it's the weakest or hardest to believe. Like I said, it never occurred to me that the Resurrection story was hard to swallow. Even the Virgin birth. (Slightly there, actually, but not sure why; maybe all those snickering grade-school jokes about Mary saying "I swear it must have been the Lord.") This other stuff is to me... preposterous isn't the right word: False. I know, to a perfect certainty, it is false. Ergo, in looking at the religion, if I see A which is dubious but plausible (Christ's resurrection) and B which I know, as certain as I know I am alive and typing on a computer, is False, and I'm told "take them both, they are equally true," well, in that case, they must be equally false, for I know one is false. It just seems... I don't know, it just seems wrong to me that the parts of the Bible which are so emphasized and in turn so utterly rejected by so many are in the end so inconsequential; and then the consequential bits are rejected as well, as fruit of the false tree. Okay, I lied, I did mean to stop posting but this guy made a point and I wanted to answer.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:56 PM (QbA6l)

1062 For people who "just believe", I'd like to recommend Paul Little's "Know Why You Believe" and Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" Good books.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 05:56 PM (xjy39)

1063 ace, to actually be a Christian is the hardest thing in the world because we are just human, not divine. And even then, though he made it look easy, Jesus in the end showed his humanity "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me;"

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 05:57 PM (p302b)

1064

1105 ...All else is fun to speculate about and to study, but nobody's going to Hell because Moab smote Nahum three times with the jawbone of an ass and if you think it was 4 you're doomed for eternity.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 05:58 PM (Yq+qN)

1065 >>>It's always interesting to hear the argument that something is not a big deal, so other people should stop being divisive and just agree with me. I don't think I said that at all. I think I asked instead why are you so drawn to argue over that the part of the Bible which is inconsequential to salvation and simultaneously the most difficult to believe?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 05:58 PM (QbA6l)

1066

The OT is a record of Christ's ancestry back to Eve, because to be the Promised One he had to descend from Eve.

I'm pretty sure you got that wrong.

It goes back to Abraham, I think (or somebody like that).

Ostensibly everybody is descendant from Eve. You don't have to show that, you'd have to show otherwise. In which case you wouldn't be human.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 05:58 PM (eL+YD)

1067 1060 My argument is more with the people who know (or say they know) precisely how a very old religious text is intended by God to be interpreted, in all (or most) particulars.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:29 PM (QbA6l)

That's my problem with organized religion. It's too much. My basic common sense tells me that no one person actually knows.

Me? I just pray God knows my heart. I think that's what he's truly all about, anyway.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 05:59 PM (580hG)

1068 >>>Ace, for every single piece of "Scientific Evidence" out there, there are opposing, well-thought-out scientifically-based replies. You just have to seek them out. I did. But you need to seek out the replies to your replies, and not just take those first rebuttals at face value.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:00 PM (QbA6l)

1069 True Peer Review has been dead for forever, giving us folks like Al Gore telling us the Science Is Settled.

Peer review is not dead. Al Gore is not a scientist. What's happening is that politicians and others with agendas are given a loudspeaker to spout their nonsense about scientific issues they don't understand. It can be some actress whose kid has a medical condition or a politician live Algore or a corporation with an eye on its profits. That's the problem.

As much as Algore and his ilk infuriate me for the damage they've done, I feel just as pissed at regular folks who know nothing about science declaring the death of the scientific process and peer review. Frankly, it's extremely irresponsible.

Posted by: Y-not at August 21, 2010 06:00 PM (osFsP)

1070
1113,
Actually he had to be a descendant of King David and his mother was.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 06:00 PM (H+LJc)

1071

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 09:56 PM (oVQFe)

I read about that, I also read it turned out to be a dead end. In other words they were unable to produce life.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 06:00 PM (fwSHf)

1072 1113

The OT is a record of Christ's ancestry back to Eve, because to be the Promised One he had to descend from Eve.

I'm pretty sure you got that wrong.

It goes back to Abraham, I think (or somebody like that).

Ostensibly everybody is descendant from Eve. You don't have to show that, you'd have to show otherwise. In which case you wouldn't be human.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 09:58 PM (eL+YD)

I believe its only to David. Part of the stuff of punishing David for his little act of adultery but promising the Messiah would be a descendant of his.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 06:01 PM (oVQFe)

1073 Ace, you've been polite enough to us Xtians. Nothing wrong with seeking.

Indeed, you must seek before you shall find. Posted by: XBradTC
---

Which brings us back to 'judge not, lest ye be judged' doesn't it?

Posted by: Retread at August 21, 2010 06:01 PM (AtlzK)

1074

1113 I think he's referring to this (after Satan was condemned):

¹⁵ And I will put enmity
      Between you and the woman,
      And between your seed and her Seed;
      He shall bruise your head,
      And you shall bruise His heel.Â”

Genesis 3: 15

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 06:02 PM (Yq+qN)

1075

But we may be guilty of limiting God here! We are trapped in our dimensions, while God is clearly free to work outside our understanding. Posted by: TXMarko at August 21, 2010 10:00 PM (QvtDZ)

An old Brujo told me when I was a kid to never try and build a fence around God.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 06:02 PM (H+LJc)

1076

For people who "just believe",

Because nobody teaches Aristotle's metaphysics anymore.

These days 'metaphysics' means ghosts and UFO's, and 'epistemology' is an incantation that summons blank stares.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:03 PM (eL+YD)

1077 I think I asked instead why are you so drawn to argue over that the part of the Bible which is inconsequential to salvation and simultaneously the most difficult to believe?

Ace, I think the reason people argue over parts of the Bible is because they do not see those parts as inconsequential. Not every Christian argues over those same parts, of course.

But if you accept the idea of an all-powerful God, I don't know why it would be difficult to accept a God who could command the sun to stay still or who could flood the Earth. I mean, why couldn't He?

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 06:04 PM (xjy39)

1078 'epistemology' is an incantation that summons blank stares.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 10:03 PM (eL+YD)

Wait till you try to explain Saṃsāra

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 06:06 PM (H+LJc)

1079

Because nobody teaches Aristotle's metaphysics anymore.

Posted by: Entropy

Sad, but true.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 06:06 PM (xjy39)

1080 This thread is waaaaay too long.

I just pray and hope He hears me.

Posted by: mpfs at August 21, 2010 06:06 PM (QuP9W)

1081

They did, but that is not what it was hyped to be. I can give you the specifics ... the comment box is going really slow and sucking CPU on me though.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:07 PM (eL+YD)

1082 However, he is correct in stating that Matthew 1 traces back to Abraham (paternal side). Since Matthew was writing to the Jews, he chose to focus on Jesus's Jewish heritage.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 06:07 PM (Yq+qN)

1083

Because nobody teaches Aristotle's metaphysics anymore.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 10:03 PM (eL+YD)

We need to give teachers more money!!!111!!

Posted by: Peggy West at August 21, 2010 06:07 PM (fM0nd)

1084 entropy, yes, if adam and eve were the only created by God. The Bible says they were the first, the prototype maybe. Also where did cain and able's wives come from. If Eve was just the first woman, not the only, then Christ would have to descend from her, because that was God's promise to her after the Fall. That's why I said it was fun to study and discuss, but as far as Salvation, I' rather trust Grace through Christ's redemption alone. All the rest gets to be too much to remember.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 06:13 PM (cX9pO)

1085 It's the Spammers! They've found us!

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 06:13 PM (H+LJc)

1086 1115 >>>Ace, for every single piece of "Scientific Evidence" out there, there are opposing, well-thought-out scientifically-based replies. You just have to seek them out.

They don't carry equal weight. Just like in a court of law, you have to weigh the evidence presented.

Case in point. The theory of how skeletal muscle contraction has been worked on for over half a century. We know lots about it, to the point of being able to do some pretty good simulations of it. We know about the major components, what they look like, what their genes are, what regulates them, etc. But you will still find an article published now and then that presents data that contradicts the accepted theory. Does that mean we should throw up our hands? Nope, it usually means that there is something about how the data was collected or how the sample was prepared or how the data was interpreted that was amiss. It's possible *gasp* for reviewers to overlook these things and accept a flawed study. Occasionally it means that some aspect of the model does need tweaking.

I happen to know a very prominent Princeton scientist who for quite a while quite vocally disagreed with a really fundamental aspect of how muscle contraction is thought to work. Big shot, smart biophysicist. Dead wrong, but he got a lot of traction because of the nature of his counter-theory made it difficult to do the definitive experiment that would prove he was wrong. I stumbled across a phenomenon related to a muscle protein that was totally unexpected and went against the major dogma. It also was something that could possibly have provided evidence to support this Princeton guy's theory. Turned out it didn't support it... it came closer to contradicting it... but this guy is still out there believing that there is some set of circumstances under which what he thinks happens happens. Basically he's looking for Bigfoot on the molecular scale.

The problem with laypeople wading into the scientific literature - or even for non-specialists from other fields of science doing so (I can tell you some funny stories about what happens when physicists meddle in biology) - is that they are not equipped to apply the proper weights to the articles that are out there.

If someone wants to disprove the essential components of evolutionary biology, they should get an education and do the research. Sitting on the sidelines sniping at scientists and saying the system is broken is really a waste of everyone's time. Using scandals in "global warming" to somehow prove that evolution is bunk is sloppy and lazy and unconvincing.

When a major accounting scandal happens I don't throw up my hands and declare the field of accounting dead. I don't assume that somehow I would know better, absent training in accounting, and stop listening to accountants.

Posted by: Y-not at August 21, 2010 06:13 PM (osFsP)

1087 Peer Review in many, many circles is a joke, especially in regard to Climate Science. Posted by: TXMarko

That's why I always liken them to Al Capone and his gang. He had a scientific method too and his peers found his methods to be sound and his theories solid.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 06:18 PM (H+LJc)

1088

If Eve was just the first woman, not the only, then Christ would have to descend from her, because that was God's promise to her after the Fall.

Huh?

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:18 PM (eL+YD)

1089 Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:35 PM (QbA6l)

I have to tell you, as an agnostic/skeptic, I have relatively little problem at all with the Resurrection story

Hal Lindsey makes an excellent argument regarding the validity of it versus the absurdity of some conspiracy because of the absolute .. damn, what is the word... superiority? (they didn't rule the whole fucking world for so long because their discipline was prone to break down) of Roman army discipline. He explains how the guards were ordered to secure the tomb. There are versions of this though, sorry, I just can find one I can link without getting the string message. There is also a video on his website, sorry can't find it right now either, it might post. Hal spells it out so well, please take the time to search for his. Search " roman guard jesus tomb " for a few hits.

Man, what a thread! Got lots of reading here. I must admit, I'll read it all before of reading all the red letters in one of my Bibles again. Fascinating, educating & thanks!

By the way, I think God created birds and fish via evolution. Which is crazy amazing when I consider he got all that just exactly tight in the nano-nano-nano seconds necessary to do so during the big bang from whence we came. Our creation? well, see some Gerald Schroeder for that!

There is some awesome stuff out there if about how would God explain to Moses and Moses explain to nomads shit as awsome as big bang and evolution. Enjoy!

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 06:18 PM (Epj2t)

1090 >>>I choose to believe in God over man. What if God's second-greatest aspiration for man (after salvation, of course) is being a Scientist so man can appreciate God's creation -- and not according to a book written for scientific illiterates, but according to the testimony of his own eyes and his own reason? Why is there insistence on claiming man's second-greatest faculty -- reason (i'd say first greatest, but fine, you'd say second-greatest, after faith) -- is some kind of dirty abomination to be denied and denigrated rather than exalted and enjoyed? What if you're wrong: What if God was smart enough to design Faith and Reason to not be at odds but to be mutually reinforcing?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:19 PM (QbA6l)

1091 Posted by: TXMarko at August 21, 2010 10:14 PM

If peer review were as dead as you say and so much junk science were being published, there should be evidence of that in the pace of new drugs discovered/approved/marketed, materials science discoveries, computer engineering, etc. Companies don't work in a vacuum. They are part of the same scientific community as the scientists you mistrust. Seems to me science continues to deliver dramatic improvements to our lives at a rapid pace.

Posted by: Y-not at August 21, 2010 06:19 PM (osFsP)

1092 This thread will go down in the anals.

That's all I've got.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 06:19 PM (WUpAX)

1093

They did, but that is not what it was hyped to be. I can give you the specifics ... the comment box is going really slow and sucking CPU on me though.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 10:07 PM (eL+YD)

Considering that their have been plenty of natural evolutionary dead ends, one caused in the lab isn't really shocking. Especially considering the amount of time available on the earth compared to time spent on a study in a lab.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 06:21 PM (oVQFe)

1094 The OT is a record of Christ's ancestry back to Eve, because to be the Promised One he had to descend from Eve.

The Old Testament is the story of the Jews, from the beginning of the universe to the conquest, establishment, and rule of Israel. Of course, the Five Books of Moses only described things until Moses' death, with G-d telling Moses that he can see the land promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but will never get there. Joshua takes it from there. The Jews, themselves, don't appear in the Torah until Abraham - Noah, for instance, wasn't a Jew. It also contains the laws and rules that would govern the Jewish nation and apply in the land that G-d gave to the Jews (though Abraham actually bought Hebron and held a "deed" to it).

The other canonical writings of the Old Testament (Judges, Kings, Prophets, ...) are from later times, but they were all long done before Jesus.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 06:21 PM (Qp4DT)

1095 >>>But if you accept the idea of an all-powerful God, I don't know why it would be difficult to accept a God who could command the sun to stay still or who could flood the Earth. I mean, why couldn't He? It's not why couldn't he -- it's why would he. If he is as vast in power and intellect and foresight as all acknowledge, why would he have to so frequently intervene in his creation like an incompetent plumber forever adjusting the pipes?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:21 PM (QbA6l)

1096 M80B, yes. and of course Christ was decended from David. and I am descended from my grandfather, and from his, too. The Savior was promised to David, and to Abraham, and to Eve, too. It's one of those things that, as Pelosi says, we're just going to have to die to find out what's in it.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 06:22 PM (cX9pO)

1097 Rocks, I keep finding your answers to be "I know because I know" and "it's true because it's true."

I suggest to you there may be another interpretation -- as with the wheat, which no one takes to be talking primarily about wheat -- and you tell me "I know that's not true because that would be a lie," or words to that effect.

In other words, you're really not answering except to reassert your answer. I ask for why, or why couldn't it be this way, and you just say it can't, because it's true, it's literal, you know it, period.

You can say that if you want but it's not really exactly a useful conversation to me, because I really don't think you're answering my "why's" just reasserting your conclusions.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:21 PM (QbA6l)

Ace you are confusing historical with literal. Are the things about the wheat untrue concerning wheat? No.What you mean is did this actually happen? The chief way to discern this is through Christ himself. Telling parables wasn't just a hobby you know. When you are reading the Old testament does it sound like a parable? Most of it, no. Most of it is written as what it claims to be, a history. Does anyone think that King David's story is intended solely as a metaphor? There are metaphorical ways to take this history but it doesn't make the history untrue or not historical.

As far as "I know because I know" in a lot of ways that is true. I'm a Christian first. I believe Christ is who he claimed to be based on what he said so I have to accept the truth of what he said about everything else. One of the things he made clear is the old testament was true. And I don't buy the idea that God would speak to people thousand of years ago in a way that could mean an entirely different thing now. That is just plain lying either to them or to us.. In Christ's parables is it impossible for the story he relates to have happened? No, but he's clear it's just a story. Why would Christ appear to Peter and say eat what you wish if Leviticus was just a metaphor or situational? So now I have evolution and I have the 7 days. Which is true? First I would have to ask does it seems like a parable. Kind of but did Moses say it was or present it in such a manner? No. Second why does it matter that it is other than 7 days? Other than intellectual curiosity. And I did ask myself that and the answer was, it doesn't. But Christ does to me, so I'll accept his answer.

What is the metaphor of the Flood story? Nothing really. Are we suppose to prepare our spiritual arks and fill these with our metaphorical animals? Does an elaborate tale like the Flood make sense simply to remind us not to sin? God does this continually both before and after the Flood so it's a little pointless as metaphor. he even says flat out he won't ever do it again so we don't have to worry about it. Again does Moses present it as a parable? No. So why think it is? Just because both history and parables teach a lesson doesn't make them the same.

If your belief in the Bible is predicated solely on the idea it not refute scientific, that is man's, evidence then I would suggest you put your faith in man as that isn't God's criteria and he has never claimed it was. It's not whether God refutes science but whether science truly refutes God. If you accept the idea that there is an all powerful God then I don't really understand how you can ever accept science could ever refute him.

The funny thing is whenever the Flood or Eden is brought up as potentially untrue or simply metaphor what is the sole purpose? To refute another part of the Bible which is clearly not metaphorically and historically no one ever took it as that. Does anyone really think Leviticus or Paul are trying to be metaphorical about homosexuality? It's an argument but nobody buys it. It's a legal dodge. No, what they mean is you know Eden and the Flood seem kind of silly so we don't really have to pay attention to this you know. Sorry, but that isn't really true. Mostly because you haven't proved Eden and the Flood are untrue even if they sound silly. And there isn't any way really to prove it.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 06:22 PM (ivAmM)

1098

1141 What if you're wrong: What if God was smart enough to design Faith and Reason to not be at odds but to be mutually reinforcing?

The Christian community has been arguing about the relationship of faith & reason for centuries. I think God created the two to be mutually reinforcing (as did Sir Isasac Newton), but some people place more emphasis on faith.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 06:23 PM (Yq+qN)

1099

What if you're wrong: What if God was smart enough to design Faith and Reason to not be at odds but to be mutually reinforcing?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 10:19 PM (QbA6l)

then you might want to look into Catholicism

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 06:24 PM (oVQFe)

1100

Just saying, if your intent is actually to be Fishers of Men, it seems to me the focus should be on the more important (and more believable too) part about Christ's death and resurrection, and less about God making birds and fish by hand.

It is. But the creation and flood are parts of the Bible. So it's important. Not as important as the salvation stuff, but still important.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 06:25 PM (hsBue)

1101 If he is as vast in power and intellect and foresight as all acknowledge, why would he have to so frequently intervene in his creation like an incompetent plumber forever adjusting the pipes?

Posted by: ace

Why would God create a universe and then not have anything to do with it? That seems to me to be a bit like getting married because you're about to leave the country and never see your wife again. God's involvement is not due to incompetent planning. It's because He loves us.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 06:26 PM (xjy39)

1102 It's not why couldn't he -- it's why would he.

If he is as vast in power and intellect and foresight as all acknowledge, why would he have to so frequently intervene in his creation like an incompetent plumber forever adjusting the pipes?

Why would one presume to know His design?

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 06:27 PM (664Zx)

1103

If he is as vast in power and intellect and foresight as all acknowledge, why would he have to so frequently intervene in his creation like an incompetent plumber forever adjusting the pipes?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 10:21 PM (QbA6l)

Well to be fair he's not adjusting them anymore it seems. So not really that incompetent.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 06:29 PM (oVQFe)

1104

1147 M80B, yes. and of course Christ was decended from David. and I am descended from my grandfather, and from his, too. The Savior was promised to David, and to Abraham, and to Eve, too....

Each promoise to each individal was a covenant, with differing promises & meanings but also promising a Messiah. So, for example, Abraham was promised a nation despite the fact his wife was barren, & God literally promised on His honour (Genesis 15). He also foretold the coming of Jesus, that He would be among Abraham's lineage.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 06:31 PM (Yq+qN)

1105 When your 3 year old daughter asks why the sky is blue, do you give a full blown presentation on the refraction and absorption of light?

Posted by: XBradTC at August 21, 2010 09:26 PM (X0Ona)

No, but wouldn't make up a story about little guys painting it blue either and when she told me that was bs I wouldn't attempt to say but metaphorically it's true because the sky is still blue. Get over yourself. Moses wasn't a child and we have no more brain power or capacity to understand know then they did. An air conditioner and a car and some aspirin don't make us smarter than people 2 thousand years ago, just more comfortable. There is nothing we know know the ancient Greeks would fail to grasp. They were wrong, not stupid.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 06:31 PM (ivAmM)

1106 Ace, to be intellectually complete in this discussion, you should acknowledge that science is also based on articles of faith - the most important being that the universe is a rational place that has a well-defined set of rules governing its behavior. There is no reason to actually believe this (as a few thousand years of observation is nothing in the life of the universe) but we all do, because nothing would "make sense" otherwise.

I understand that it just seems like the universe HAS to be rational, and that we've observed it being so for all that we know, but there is no reason to assume that any of this is permanent, or more than the mere chance of the time we are living in.

This idea of the rational perfection of the universe was sort of the point where Einstein couldn't stand quantum theory. Einstein believed in a perfect and rational universe. Quantum theory described a universe in which ther are no direct physical laws, but things happen with a probabilitiy distribution that gives the appearance of well-defined physical laws. That was the meaning of his "G-d doesn't play dice with the universe" quote. Einstein was a scientific romantic.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 06:33 PM (Qp4DT)

1107 >>>Why would one presume to know His design? Let's say that I think maybe we're both guilty of doing some presuming -- my presuming he'd prefer an elegant solution, you saying he'd prefer hands-on frequent interventions. So that out of the way, since we're both presuming -- which presumption is more in line with an Omnipotent, Omniscient God, and which is more in line with scientific evidence? (And the answer to both I think is the same.) >>>Well to be fair he's not adjusting them anymore it seems. So not really that incompetent. Not anymore, right, but quit a bit at the beginning, and it's this aspect of it -- that he was intervening like crazy in periods of time from which we have no evidence, but in the modern age, where we could SEE him intervening, he oddly chooses not to do so... doesn't this suggest maybe if he's not intervening directly now he kept his interventions fairly infrequent? I am speaking about creation, again. I mean: Look at Christ, right? What did God do? I sent a single man into the world, to live, to die, to redeem. He left the majority of his plan for salvation UP TO THE LOGICAL FULFILLMENT OF THE STARTING CONDITIONS HE HAD CREATED, right? That is to say, he intervened once and powerfully, and then let his plan unfold, pretty much, right? Yes, the Holy Spirit always presnet, and an occasional miracle; but by and large he set a great plan into motion and let the energy of it work upon the world, right? Like a virus, or a bomb, or... an elegant machine. So if this is a sign of how he designs and how he operates, why should I not suspect it would probably be his manner of handling creation, too?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:35 PM (QbA6l)

1108 Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 10:33 PM (Qp4DT)

Eugene Wigner addressed this interesting and perplexing problem in his essay "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 06:36 PM (Qp4DT)

1109 entropy, sorry. I mean if adam and eve were the first and only humans God placed on earth, then all would be descended from them. If they were just the first of many, then they would only be the ancestors of part of humanity. And then Christ would have to be descended from them to fufill the promise given to Eve.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 06:36 PM (cX9pO)

1110

What's your point?

I'm not saying the theory is wrong.

I can repeat it: I believe this theory is the most sensible and likely of any I've heard or can think of, so I believe it.

-----

What I did say though, is the fact of the matter - that was grossly overhyped. We have not done quite as much as has been claimed. Again, I could give you details if you like of what was accomplished and under what conditions. But we have not crated life, not even close.

That's just simple fact. I'm a rationalist. That's important to me. What we actually KNOW and can demonstrate vs. what we think we KNOW.

Also I must say I don't see what the hell this expiriment or it's failure has to do with "evolutionary dead ends". This was absolutely nothing of the sort. They did not reach an 'evolutionary dead end'. Life evolves. They created no living organism or anything close. They did not produce an 'evolutionary dead end'. If they had that would be WORLDS different from what they did and a MUCH bigger deal.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:37 PM (eL+YD)

1111 >>>Moses wasn't a child and we have no more brain power or capacity to understand know then they did. Moses would understand the stars had been in existence for billions of years before the earth formed from an accretion disc of of matter revolving around the sun? Would he understand a "billion" years? Would he have a word for it? No, there would be no word for it. The closest that could come would be "aeon."

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:37 PM (QbA6l)

1112

All I know is...I don't want to think about what happens if/when He gets tired of the bullshit.

Posted by: Steph at August 21, 2010 06:37 PM (580hG)

1113 Oh questions, questions; Yes young man
Be glad you've come to me
Who've wandered in the stinging rain
And crossed the angry seas

Who has account and access to
The wisdom of the sages
Gathered like the morning dew
Throughout the passing ages

So sit ye here and bend an ear
Then open up your mind
It is not very often boy
You come across my kind

Patience now, you are so keen
To fit it all forthwith
Inside a box so neat and trim
And overlook the gift

So here it is, all in a phrase
For simple ones to know
You're only here a little time
No guarantees to show

The secret then is looking up
And for that moment raised
Have joy the moment's there at all
Eternal God be Praised

And every moment after that
Seek to exude your love
For it is how you tarry here
As how you're judged above

So be you on your way young prat
And keep your eyes aÂ’tweak
Watch, more than judge, the wounded world
And listen more than speak

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 06:37 PM (H+LJc)

1114 And I mean, I'm sorry-- The earth was not created before the stars as in the literal meaning of "formed physically before." Period, end of debate. It did not. It is... breathtaking to hear someone contend otherwise, quite frankly.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:39 PM (QbA6l)

1115 Oh man major typo: HE sent a single man into the world, not "I." I guess I am getting too full of myself lately, as alleged.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:40 PM (QbA6l)

1116 Jesus was the leader of a personality cult. He got himself in hot water and was executed by the Authorities. Instead of dying with its leader the personality cult transformed into a resurrection cult, and then later into a religion. Long after his death, stories of his life and works was put into writing and integrated with Jewish Lore. 2000 years later we have a collection of sects, some small some large, and a very fascinating history. Something similar happened just 150 years ago: The Church of Latter Day Saints.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 06:41 PM (Nw/hR)

1117 Would he understand a "billion" years? Would he have a word for it?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 10:37 PM (QbA6l)

He certainly understood the concept. G-d told Abraham that his children would be "as numerous as the sands". Interestingly, it was exactly this sort of one-to-one correspondence of sets to determine size that Georg Cantor took as his new definition of "size" and used in his mathematics, which opened up the world of the infinities (different size infinities) to mathematical manipulation.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 06:41 PM (Qp4DT)

1118 he spoke in metaphor that people could understand?-- ace

Jesus taught in parables.

Posted by: maverick muse at August 21, 2010 06:41 PM (H+LJc)

1119 I'm one of those people who says that I don't know how much is literal and how much is metaphorical. Clearly some things are metaphorical. However, I'm perfectly capable of accepting that God could make those outrageous things happen if He wanted to.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 06:42 PM (xjy39)

1120 >>>Why would God create a universe and then not have anything to do with it? Why would he create man and then wait 100,000 years to introduce the Redeemer?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:42 PM (QbA6l)

1121

And if you don't like that, then you can suck on a hurdy gurdy.

http://tinyurl.com/dezoef

Seriously that is fucking awesome. I am so blown away by this band, I think it's my new favorite. It's just poetry. Gorgeous. And it rocks. I am so awed by the creativity of this.

HELVETTII!

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:42 PM (eL+YD)

1122 Well, it could be said that He knocked on the pipes years and years and years ago. Some of us hear the echoes when we read the Bible because we ask to be able to hear. We hear the echoes when we see prophecy being fulfilled (some say 1948-Israel & the end of the diaspora is pretty big and hard to refute). Some people swear bullets disappeared and somehow didn't harm them. He intervenes. But, I haven't won the Powerball and Megamillions together. You know, I haven't won just one of them instead of both. He could do that, if it were something that he thought my family needed. Somehow, even with lots of pressure and potential fear cuz of the current economy, the direction the news seems to indicate our country is headed, and wifey-poo's current employment status, I am not bitter or afraid. You know, not answering my prayers to win the lottery should (and does) build my confidence that everything is gonna be okay. When I look for patterns indicating Providence's presence, I find them. Realize, I choose to look and I find. Kindly knock. I'm pretty sure we'd all (those that are the praying type) agree in praying that His promise of answering those that earnestly seek Him be kept for ya, Ace.

proselytize off/beerpound on

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 06:43 PM (Epj2t)

1123 >>>However, I'm perfectly capable of accepting that God could make those outrageous things happen if He wanted to. I think the thing is, JohnJ., I can see with my own eyes he doesn't do that NOW, so if he doesn't do that now, what changed in the plan? Or was it always this way? I'm inclined to think it was always this way. If he was such a big intervener in the movemetns of planets and armies, why'd he stop?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:44 PM (QbA6l)

1124 Would he understand a "billion" years? Would he have a word for it?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 10:37 PM (QbA6l)

On the other hand, we have a word for billions, but it is impossible to actually conceive of what it means, other than "really really numerous". Could you tell the difference between a million things in front of you or a billion?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 06:44 PM (Qp4DT)

1125 My argument is more with the people who know (or say they know) precisely how a very old religious text is intended by God to be interpreted, in all (or most) particulars.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:29 PM (QbA6l)

And what does age have to do with it? My first question on any interpretation is it different from the way it's always been interpreted? Old and consistent lends truth to it. You seem to suggest it's some sort of hindrance. You argument is with people that's for sure but what you fail to grasp is it's an old argument and there are a lot of answers already. If you want them find them. Why is it this generations job to reprove everything as if past proves no longer exist?

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 06:44 PM (ivAmM)

1126 Ace, thanks for this post and hanging around with us. Sometimes it's fun just to discuss things we can't answer. A good way to pass an afternoon too hot and humid to do anything else.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 06:47 PM (cX9pO)

1127

Bigred - that is the part that's puzzling me.

WTF promise to Eve?

Well that's half my confusion.

The other part is your assertion that Able and Cain married anyone other than their sisters. The bible speaks of creating no 'other people' and that's kind of a big thing.

That's rather... not gonna say, 'heretical' but it's definetly not 'main line'.

The only theology I'm aware of that suggests anything of the sort is some apocrypha and occult sources that claim Eve was the 2nd woman (Lillith).

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:47 PM (eL+YD)

1128 I think the thing is, JohnJ., I can see with my own eyes he doesn't do that NOW, so if he doesn't do that now, what changed in the plan?

Or was it always this way?

I'm inclined to think it was always this way.

If he was such a big intervener in the movemetns of planets and armies, why'd he stop?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 10:44 PM (QbA6l)

Ace one of the clear teachings of the New testament is that Jesus was the last prophet. The last high priest. The last sacrifice. The last direct intervention ever to take place. Miracles may still occur but we are not going to have explanations or know for sure. If we can't accept God himself as man then basically that's it. Jesus literally is your last shot. His interventions prior were clearly with the intent that we should know that when it happened.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 06:49 PM (ivAmM)

1129

1141 Not anymore, right, but quit a bit at the beginning, and it's this aspect of it -- that he was intervening like crazy in periods of time from which we have no evidence, but in the modern age, where we could SEE him intervening, he oddly chooses not to do so... doesn't this suggest maybe if he's not intervening directly now he kept his interventions fairly infrequent?

The reason God doesn't intervene as much is due to (1) the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ & (2) the closing of the canon in 70AD. Best way to explain the last part is that God sent His Spirit (3rd member of the Trinity) to be here for us. The Father & Son are still present, but they play somewhat difference roles than the OT. It's not that they've changed, but rather fulfillment of prophecy. Then there is also the issue of God's covenant with the Jews, in which He more directly intervened due to the law, His promises to Israel, & other issues.

Really no good way to explain it without opening 50 new cans of worms.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 06:49 PM (Yq+qN)

1130 >>>Ace, to be intellectually complete in this discussion, you should acknowledge that science is also based on articles of faith - the most important being that the universe is a rational place that has a well-defined set of rules governing its behavior. There is no reason to actually believe this (as a few thousand years of observation is nothing in the life of the universe) but we all do, because nothing would "make sense" otherwise. Nonsense, that is not an article of faith, it is an observed phenomenon -- there universe DOES, as far as we can tell, and as far as we can test it (and in the last 500 years we've run quite a few tests), seem to run according to rules. It's just anti-scientific balderdash to claim this is "merely" an article of faith, like gravity is an "article of faith." No, it's not... absent supernatural intervention of the kind I guess you mean -- none of which has been seen for 2000 years -- the universe does run according to rules, or, at least, this observed tendency of the universe has never been seen to be contradicted. Now, is it an ABSOLUTE RULE or just a very strongly observed tendency? Well, it could be either; perhaps sometimes, once in a while, it does go all kookoobanas. But this is hardly on the level of an "article of faith." This is the sort of sophistry-- sorry -- that gets branded, properly, as anti-science. To claim that it's merely an 'article of faith" that the universe is observed to follow orderly rules... it's not. You're attempting a crank equivalency between Noah's Ark and gravity, and they'e just not equivalent in terms of scientific proof or scientific "faith."

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:49 PM (QbA6l)

1131 Are some of folks out there saying the proof of what you believe is the fact that you believe it?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 06:49 PM (Nw/hR)

1132 To believe that all the things randomly happened that Darwinism claims you have to believe in god a hell of lot more that you do regarding a flood.

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 06:51 PM (fwSHf)

1133 >>>Ace, thanks for this post and hanging around with us. Sometimes it's fun just to discuss things we can't answer. A good way to pass an afternoon too hot and humid to do anything else. And you too and everyone else as well! It is good to discuss something that often causes great fights with relative peacefulness.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:51 PM (QbA6l)

1134 >>>My first question on any interpretation is it different from the way it's always been interpreted? Old and consistent lends truth to it. You seem to suggest it's some sort of hindrance. Well I know the Bible says the earth was created and then the stars and I know that is 100% false so if that is the old and consistent manner of interpretation, old and consistent does not lend to truth but to falsity.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:52 PM (QbA6l)

1135

That's just simple fact. I'm a rationalist. That's important to me. What we actually KNOW and can demonstrate vs. what we think we KNOW.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 10:37 PM (eL+YD)

Well I was just sort of kidding around. I mean really the demand that if evolutionary theory is correct then scientists should be able to cause it to happen in a lab is a little bit laughable to me. Demanding scientists cause something to happen that at the shortest possible observable results can still be thousands of years is a bit ridiculous.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 06:53 PM (oVQFe)

1136 Why would he create man and then wait 100,000 years to introduce the Redeemer?

Because 100,000 years is no more than a day to Him.

If he was such a big intervener in the movements of planets and armies, why'd he stop?

Actually, the Bible makes it clear that God wants people to be able to choose to not believe in Him. There are several passages that say that only those people who choose to believe in Him will be able to find Him. I think that's why He has made it so that His existence can be neither proved nor disproved (except for a small minority of lucky witnesses). The vast majority of people will have to accept that He does or does not exist on faith. And either way you choose, it's still a matter of faith.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 06:53 PM (xjy39)

1137 M80s, Well... fair enough, but... I see that again as evidence he was a Big Plan Guy who liked to set the marble rolling down the track and let it knock over dominoes, not moving each domino himself.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:54 PM (QbA6l)

1138 I know there is a God because I needed another electric guitar after trading my Clapton Strat for what may be the finest Guild D50 ever constructed.
I wound up with a seriously customized Les Paul today for $90
Ninety. Freakin. Dollars.
This guitar has had the tuners replaced with Grovers,
An amazing fret job with the nicest edge treatment possible,
Custom wired humbuckers with DiMarzio pots
And a custom paint job to die for.
Ninety. Freakin. Dollars.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 06:54 PM (H+LJc)

1139

Jesus was the leader of a personality cult.

He got himself in hot water and was executed by the Authorities.

That's a rational explanation and the most likely one.

I don't see what the flying fuck you think you gain or accomplish by saying that apart from poking people and kicking sand in their eyes.

It's not even a persuasive argument - it's just an assertion. So you're not even trying to persuade anyone. Might as well have said "Nyah nyah xtianists".

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:55 PM (eL+YD)

1140 He lied? Or he spoke in metaphor that people could understand?

The Bible says nothing about electrons or photons, does it?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:41 PM (QbA6l)

What evidence do you have to suggest the people he spoke to were incapable of understanding? There are many stories from other traditions which claim we sprang from the earth or other animals. They got evolution almost right and required no Biology textbook.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 06:56 PM (ivAmM)

1141 Ace, stick to shit you understand, however poorly.

Posted by: Phil Jones at August 21, 2010 06:56 PM (o5itX)

1142

"When your 3 year old daughter asks why the sky is blue, do you give a full blown presentation on the refraction and absorption of light?"

The sky is blue due to scattering, not refraction.

Heretic.

Posted by: gebrauchshund at August 21, 2010 06:57 PM (ADeN1)

1143

God's promise to Eve was that the very one (Satan)who had helped them fall would be defeated by one of her offspring (Jesus Christ):

¹³ And the LORD God said to the woman, Â“What is this you have done?Â”
The woman said, Â“The serpent deceived me, and I ate.Â”
¹⁴ So the LORD God said to the serpent:
      Â“ Because you have done this,
      You are cursed more than all cattle,
      And more than every beast of the field;
      On your belly you shall go,
      And you shall eat dust
      All the days of your life.

¹⁵ And I will put enmity
      Between you and the woman,
      And between your seed and her Seed;
      He shall bruise your head,
      And you shall bruise His heel.Â”

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 06:57 PM (Yq+qN)

1144

Ninety. Freakin. Dollars.

WHERE?

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:57 PM (eL+YD)

1145 absent supernatural intervention of the kind I guess you mean -- none of which has been seen for 2000 years

Uh, yeah.

Posted by: Mike Mann at August 21, 2010 06:58 PM (WUpAX)

1146 And you too and everyone else as well! It is good to discuss something that often causes great fights with relative peacefulness.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 10:51 PM (QbA6l)

I'm at peace after reading all of this...confused, yes, but at peace

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent after emptying my stomach at August 21, 2010 06:58 PM (YVZlY)

1147 >>>Because 100,000 years is no more than a day to Him. It is to all those people who didn't have Christ's forgiveness! But I mean, the point of my question was -- you said why would he create the universe then sit back and watch it run. I said why would he create Man and then let him live and die for 100,000 before the redemeer and his perfection was introduced. You said "because a 100,000 years is but a day to him." So? So is a billion. So why shouldn't he create and let his creation work as he planned, rather than having to reach in and play with the guts of it all the time? If evolution CAN exist -- now stay with me; not if it DOES but if it CAN -- if it CAN exist, why would God not want to take advantage of this wonderous property of life? I think when it comes down to it I just find it ridiculous and implausible to physically imagine God making a bird. But it's elegant and pretty to think of him designing the mathematics of creation and setting it all in motion.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 06:59 PM (QbA6l)

1148 Ace, stick to shit you understand, however poorly.

Posted by: Phil Jones at August 21, 2010 10:56 PM (o5itX)

Persuasive. Can you be more specific?

Posted by: Mike Mann at August 21, 2010 06:59 PM (WUpAX)

1149 I've got an American Fender Strat (3 single coil) and a BC Rich Platinum Warlock (dual humbuckers) and a cheapo Mitchel MD100 acoustic.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 06:59 PM (eL+YD)

1150 I'd love to get my hands on something with a floyd rose bridge and active EMG pickups.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 07:00 PM (eL+YD)

1151 Guy lost it to a Pawn Broker buddy who sold it to me for what he had into it.
Owed me a favor or two but what value that?

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 07:01 PM (H+LJc)

1152 entropy, true the Bible doesn't speak of creating others. And it doesn't specifically say He didn't. That's why it's so much fun to discus. I'm not saying I know the answers, but I enjoy hearing your's and other's opinions. The promise to Eve? Enmity between satan and Eve. Just my reading of it. But does it change Christ's sacrifice. No, maybe just the preception of how and why, but not the promise to us of salvation. And Ace, maybe He knew it would take mankind 100,00 years to find it.

Posted by: bigred at August 21, 2010 07:01 PM (cX9pO)

1153 Entropy at August 21, 2010 10:47 PM (eL+YD)*The bible speaks of creating no 'other people' and that's kind of a big thing.

Hi Entropy.
Where? I've never thought that. Don't recall reading it. For as long as I have earnestly read the Bible, I have assumed there were more. Nowadays I don't assume they were even the first. Just the line of Adam and Eve and therefore the door for the miraculous story of Christ.

*But, then again, I just read my first Cussler novel and thought that the dude's name was Dark Pitt well into, like the fifth chapter, and because of that, was pretty turned off and couldn't just enjoy a damned adventure/escape paperback! Well, not until someone mentioned, "Oh, is that a Dirk Pitt novel? Those are fun, dialogue corny, but they're fun."

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 07:02 PM (Epj2t)

1154 -->Nonsense, that is not an article of faith, it is an observed phenomenon -- there universe DOES, as far as we can tell, and as far as we can test it (and in the last 500 years we've run quite a few tests), seem to run according to rules.

It most certainly IS an article of faith. Show me the REASON why the universe should be a rational place. Not some temporary empirical evidence, but WHY.

-->It's just anti-scientific balderdash to claim this is "merely" an article of faith, like gravity is an "article of faith."

That's not true. I happen to take that article of faith, myself, as I believe in the ultimat emathematicization of the workings of the universe, but I understand it for what it is.

And the appropriate analogy would be that the laws of gravity are articles of faith. They are. That's why they're not really "laws" and why gravity still doesn't seem to fit into any models of the universe very well. It stands by itself, for some unknown reason.

-->No, it's not... absent supernatural intervention of the kind I guess you mean -- none of which has been seen for 2000 years -- the universe does run according to rules, or, at least, this observed tendency of the universe has never been seen to be contradicted.

We've never had any set of rules that accurately described anything in the universe. We have approximations. You want to hang your hat on approximations?

-->Now, is it an ABSOLUTE RULE or just a very strongly observed tendency? Well, it could be either; perhaps sometimes, once in a while, it does go all kookoobanas. But this is hardly on the level of an "article of faith."

-->This is the sort of sophistry-- sorry -- that gets branded, properly, as anti-science. To claim that it's merely an 'article of faith" that the universe is observed to follow orderly rules... it's not. You're attempting a crank equivalency between Noah's Ark and gravity, and they'e just not equivalent in terms of scientific proof or scientific "faith."

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 10:49 PM (QbA6l)

Sorry ace, but if you want to maintain that there is any real reason for you to believe that the universe is a rational place, then you are guilty of confusing faith with knowledge.

I'm not anti-science. I'm very much pro-science. I just approach it knowing what I am assuming and remembering that they are merely assumptions.

But, you don't trust me (even though my logic is quite clear, here) do let me put a little Wigner to you:

The preceding discussion is intended to remind us, first, that it is not at all natural that "laws of nature" exist, much less that man is able to discover them.

Wigner was one of the greatest phsicists of the 20th century (one of the amazing group to come out of Hungary). Perhaps you'll take his words and think about them, instead of assuming that he was trying to be anti-science, or something.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 07:03 PM (Qp4DT)

1155

Not anymore, right, but quit a bit at the beginning, and it's this aspect of it -- that he was intervening like crazy in periods of time from which we have no evidence, but in the modern age, where we could SEE him intervening, he oddly chooses not to do so... doesn't this suggest maybe if he's not intervening directly now he kept his interventions fairly infrequent?

I am speaking about creation, again.

To be fair not all Christians take Genesis to be an accurate historical account of the creation of the world and the universe. Catholics are not told that belief in evolution runs contrary to belief in God.

As for why would God intervene a lot at the beginning and less so now? Well I don't know the extent of your employment history beyond Grand Lord Ewok of the Moron Horde but if you've ever participated in a plant startup, you know there is a bunch of unforseen stuff that can happen once you turn everything on. But hopefully after a day or a few days you don't need to have all the engineers in the plant present to make sure everything is running smoothly on the new stuff.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 07:03 PM (oVQFe)

1156 The main point in all of this is...
You're here, or aren't you so
What are you going to do about it?
or not

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 07:07 PM (H+LJc)

1157

God's promise to Eve was that the very one (Satan)who had helped them fall would be defeated by one of her offspring (Jesus Christ):

Huh.

I thought it was more literal - IE lots of people (especially women) hate snakes.

He was talking to the SNAKE, not Satan. Satan does not crawl on his belly, eat dust, have offspring, bite people in the heel or get his head crushed. Satan is not a beast in the field.

I always thought it was kinda bogus he should go and punish all the snakes just because Satan used their form as a disguise.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 07:07 PM (eL+YD)

1158 But I mean, the point of my question was -- you said why would he create the universe then sit back and watch it run. I said why would he create Man and then let him live and die for 100,000 before the redemeer and his perfection was introduced.

posted by ace

This is just a misunderstanding of the Bible. Under the Old Covenant, people made sacrifices to God to declare their allegiance to Him, and in return He allowed their sins and the sins of others for whom they made sacrifices to be put, essentially, on a credit plan until the Redeemer came. When the Redeemer made the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the Redeemer then made a New Covenant with all people.

It's also worth pointing out that several studies have shown that far, far more people were born after Christ than before Him.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:07 PM (xjy39)

1159 >>>Ace, where do you get the idea the Earth was created before the Heavens? From the Bible. Pay attention to the order and the days, and when water is created, and on what day the stars and lights of the sky are created: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningÂ—the first day. 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morningÂ—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningÂ—the third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsÂ—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningÂ—the fourth day.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:09 PM (QbA6l)

1160 1175, Not quite. It is a reasonable alternative story. Christianity doesn't have to be true just because lots of people believe it. I put that out to counter the utter certainty that some folks have regarding their Faith and the smug attitude that too often is at its side. I think Christians should learn that people can be good and worthy without being Christians, and they should see that what they believe is not so rock solid that you would have to be evil or a fool to discount it.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 07:09 PM (Nw/hR)

1161 Of course the stars and planets formed at different times, arguably from a singular energy-mass conversion long before. (That's getting some challenge now, but not as yet a persuavive one.) To say otherwise is like arguing "No. It really is turtles all the way down."

The OT is oral history, handed down for God, literally, only knows how long. That's what I find interesting in comparing it to the NT, which is relatively contemporary. 2000 years ago there really was functioning civilization, advanced and with relatively modern governance and culture. The content of the NT doesn't emerge from some timeless fog like the OT. However, the culture of the time is a result of the OT, and so informs the NT.

Anyhoo, the "six day" Creation is clearly myth. Other, later parts of the oral tradition, like the Flood, have sound evidence.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 07:10 PM (WUpAX)

1162 Didn't happen that way. At some point you are either required to accept a little metaphor in that or simply reject everything that science and common sense tells you about planetary formation.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:10 PM (QbA6l)

1163 If evolution CAN exist -- now stay with me; not if it DOES but if it CAN -- if it CAN exist, why would God not want to take advantage of this wonderous property of life?

I think when it comes down to it I just find it ridiculous and implausible to physically imagine God making a bird. But it's elegant and pretty to think of him designing the mathematics of creation and setting it all in motion.

posted by ace

If that's your basis for choosing your beliefs, well, whatever floats your boat, dude. But you probably shouldn't call it science, and you probably shouldn't be so critical of other people's beliefs.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:11 PM (xjy39)

1164 Ace, where do you get the idea the Earth was created before the Heavens?

From the Bible. Pay attention to the order and the days,

Well....
Nobody's perfect.

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 07:12 PM (H+LJc)

1165 Well... fair enough, but... I see that again as evidence he was a Big Plan Guy who liked to set the marble rolling down the track and let it knock over dominoes, not moving each domino himself.

It's an extremely complicated issue, & I admit a ready & easy answer is not available (unless I step on some serious toes here). Let's just say that there was a plan, people were given multiple chances to fulfill that plan, they didn't, & salvation was more readily offered to both peoples. God also is still among His people, 1st by sending His Son, now through His Spirit, & when He later sends His Son at the end.

God also intervenes in our lives, I have examples, & I anticipate the next question will be the problem of evil. I know the answers to that, it's something even Christians struggle with, & I'd be a hypocrite if I said I always understood. Sometimes people are disciplined for doing the wrong thing, or the battle between Satan & God causes pain, or we experience the effects of original sin. We have a story in John about a young man blind from birth, & the Pharisees assumed it was his sin:

¹As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. ²His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" ³"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed....

(Also see Romans 8:2

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 07:12 PM (Yq+qN)

1166 >>>. But you probably shouldn't call it science, Oh for crying out loud. Fine. It's not science to say the earth formed from an accretion disc a billion years after the sun and billions of years after the formation of "the lights in the sky." We're on equal footing, scientifically speaking, your faith as good as my "faith."

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:13 PM (QbA6l)

1167 Damn. It's not online, but back in the early 90s or so the Jewish Publication Society did a retranslate of the original Hebrew which begins Genesis with "When God began to create....."

I have a copy and the whole comparison between the various Christian translations and the original is fascinating. I'll probably start a shitstorm by saying so, but the KJV is by far the worst, and others which sprung from it are little better.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 07:14 PM (WUpAX)

1168 ace at August 21, 2010 10:52 PM (QbA6l)

"Well I know the Bible says the earth was created and then the stars and I know that is 100% false so if that is the old and consistent manner of interpretation, old and consistent does not lend to truth but to falsity."

Ace, please watch Gerald Schroeder present his views on creation.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 07:14 PM (Epj2t)

1169 Now that's not fair. That comment was wholly directed at a totally different statement you made. I most certainly did not say that every statement you've made could not be called science.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:15 PM (xjy39)

1170 Sorry, I got snippy there at the end... as happens. Apologies. I guess it's just that that frustrates me -- at the end of the day what we know (or approximate, per progressoverpease) scientifically is just always tossed out as "just another kind of (inferior) faith." There is no claim that science is as good at faith as faith; why is there eternal insistence that faith is every bit as good at science as science?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:15 PM (QbA6l)

1171 John, well, I do have back-up for that -- like, I know, land animals came before birds, but Genesis says the opposite. I know dinosaurs begat birds, for example.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:17 PM (QbA6l)

1172 I love this site because we are allowed to discuss and disagree with each other and if people are hateful and abusive, then Ace smacks 'em upside the head with a two by four.

Posted by: katya, the designated driver at August 21, 2010 07:18 PM (hsBue)

1173

I mean really the demand that if evolutionary theory is correct then scientists should be able to cause it to happen in a lab is a little bit laughable to me. Demanding scientists cause something to happen that at the shortest possible observable results can still be thousands of years is a bit ridiculous.

To play devils advocate here....

It does not strike me as so laughable at all.

If the theory of evolution is correct, we SHOULD be able to reproduce it in a lab environment. It's simple enough.

And for taking "thousands of years" to happen, it may have take "thousands of years" for it to occur as a product of random chance, but when it occured, it possibly occured quickly. Maybe even instantaneously.

It would be huge to recreate the instance of non-life to life, and to do that would only take an instant. One second there is no life in the jar, the next there is. It is only the last second we'd have to reproduce, not the thousand years before it.

But yeah - by no means read me as saying because they haven't done it YET, they never will, or because they can't do it RIGHT NOW, it must not be what happened.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 07:19 PM (eL+YD)

1174 Everyone believes that their beliefs are the most reasonable ones. Just as everyone looks for an excuse to belittle other people's beliefs, and often they want to force other people to convert. It's human nature.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:19 PM (xjy39)

1175 And I mean, I'm sorry-- The earth was not created before the stars as in the literal meaning of "formed physically before."

Period, end of debate.

It did not. It is... breathtaking to hear someone contend otherwise, quite frankly.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 10:39 PM (QbA6l)

Ace you have an idea of God an you expect the God's interaction to conform to it. God as the great watch maker. It's clear the Bible doesn't support that. But you want to keep the parts that don't agree with it and declare the rest metaphor except for Jesus who pretty much flat out refutes such an idea.

The only reason it's breathtaking to you is for some reason it's important to you that the stars were formed first. To most people it's a small matter. Believing either is never going to impact their lives in any significant way.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 07:20 PM (ivAmM)

1176

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:09 PM (QbA6l)

You know rather than focusing on the question of why is the earth being formed before the sky, you should be focusing on the bigger question those first pages of Genesis cause. "Who in the world was God talking to?"

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 07:20 PM (oVQFe)

1177 So be you on your way young prat
And keep your eyes aÂ’tweak
Watch, more than judge, the wounded world
And listen more than speak
Posted by Beto
--

I liked this enough to search to see who wrote it and if there is more...and found Sweatin' It Out. Thank you.

Posted by: Retread at August 21, 2010 07:20 PM (AtlzK)

1178 Rocks, okay, fine, but then just understand you are no longer even remotely interested in science and really shouldn't contend otherwise.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:20 PM (QbA6l)

1179 There is no claim that science is as good at faith as faith; why is there eternal insistence that faith is every bit as good at science as science?

Because some people can't think beyond their noses. The Greeks were certain that Typhon was raging under Mt. Etna instead of it being a magma bubble. If you told them it was a pressure and temperature thing, they'd probably crucify you for blasphemy. "But we're modern. We don't think that way." Really? What the hell is so special about humanity as compared to a little while ago?

And I'm a Christian, the only religion ever extant which contains a null hypothesis.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 07:21 PM (WUpAX)

1180 It doesn't take "thousands of years". It takes thousands of generations. There are many lifeforms that can be evaluated in a lab that go through thousands of generations rather quickly.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:22 PM (xjy39)

1181 -->I guess it's just that that frustrates me -- at the end of the day what we know (or approximate, per progressoverpease) scientifically is just always tossed out as "just another kind of (inferior) faith."

I wasn't trying to put any value judgements on the sort of faith for religion versus underlying assumptions of physics. We take the idea that the universe is rational, and will always be, because we have to. We don't really have any other options. We are rational beings who cannot truly "comprehend" anything that isn't rational. I was in no way trying to denigrate a view of the universe that I adopt and even cling to, myself.

-->There is no claim that science is as good at faith as faith; why is there eternal insistence that faith is every bit as good at science as science?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:15 PM (QbA6l)

I'm not sure who claims that faith is good at science. I would reject that notion, but that would be on faith, of course.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 07:22 PM (Qp4DT)

1182 If you study the Universe from the largest scale to the smallest scale, across billions of years, you find that the stories in the Bible do not fit well with what you learn. In fact, as an open-minded sentient creature you must dismiss them as myth and nonsense. The hard truth is this Universe shows no evidence of caring for us. There is no evidence at all that some Being is interested in us, loves us, and has had dealings with us. We are the product of natural forces that change living things. Most folks can not or will not live their lives unless there is something more out there. Maybe there is, but there is no evidence of it.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 07:22 PM (Nw/hR)

1183 >>>Ace you have an idea of God an you expect the God's interaction to conform to it. God as the great watch maker. It's clear the Bible doesn't support that. It's not clear at all to me. It's clear to you because you've accepted a special additional clause that is never uttered in the Bible: "And all of this shall be interpreted in the most literal way possible, no matter how it seems contradicted by anything you might discover in the ages ahead." That clause is not in the Bible, Rocks. You just keep asserting you know it's supposed to be the controlling principle, and yet nowhere is it ever said.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 07:22 PM (QbA6l)

1184 There is no claim that science is as good at faith as faith; why is there eternal insistence that faith is every bit as good at science as science?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:15 PM (QbA6l)

I agree with you. Both Darwinism and Christianity are complete leaps of faith.

You can believe there were millions of random events each with odds of a 1 followed by 350 zeros all needing special environmental conditions and energy conditions and explain Darwinism.

You can believe in some of that happening but also believe that God started it off and gave it a pretty good head start and explain Christianity.

Both require at least an equal amount of faith. One is in a God that promises a life after death and one is in a scientific theory that promises when you die your dead.

Which is easier?

Posted by: robtr at August 21, 2010 07:23 PM (fwSHf)

1185

The hippie friend asks my son if he knows where the hamburger meat comes from - not in a mean-spirited PETA way, but sort of a dumbass hippie way in anticipation of touting veggies or giving a lecture. My 5yo said - "yeah, from cows. Some cows we kill and they get cut up and we eat their meat, and some cows we keep for milk and some cows get to be pets."
She said "oh" and started talking to my wife.
~ sniff ~ I was so proud.
The rest of the meal passed uneventfully and cordially.

~ BumperStickerist

A good reciprocal question to your hippie friend would have been, "Do you know where the money for the "free" government programs you enjoy come from?"

The answer would have been similar to your son's, only substituting American citizens for the word "cows" and guess who the "pet" American citzens would be instead of the ones who give meat and milk?

Posted by: Speller at August 21, 2010 07:24 PM (qaOKJ)

1186 1194 ...He was talking to the SNAKE, not Satan. Satan does not crawl on his belly, eat dust, have offspring, bite people in the heel or get his head crushed. Satan is not a beast in the field.

I always thought it was kinda bogus he should go and punish all the snakes just because Satan used their form as a disguise.

Well, again, that depends on how you take it. If you believe Satan didn't inhabit the body of a snake, then yes, the story becomes rather meaningless. However, this was not just an ordinary snake. It was also used in Romans 16:20, Galatians 3:16, Colossians 2, John 7-10 as a ref. to Jesus.

http://tinyurl.com/2ep93yg

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 07:24 PM (Yq+qN)

1187 "Who in the world was God talking to?"

Who in the world were "they" talking to?

"Then God said, Â“Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky...."

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 07:24 PM (WUpAX)

1188 Let's say that I think maybe we're both guilty of doing some presuming -- my presuming he'd prefer an elegant solution, you saying he'd prefer hands-on frequent interventions.

No, lets not. I don't presume to know the mind of God. I will say I am not outright literalistic on the Bible, this very thread is a good indication of why. His elegant solution may have been to intervene, to give clues, to discover, but still asking for the step of faith. Who knows? He does.

Maybe if he created us in His image, than he wanted us to discover the stars, see the creation of galaxy, discover DNA to discover the building blocks of Life and that can be created, to see Him in these things. But all of that takes an act of faith, some people believe God, some in science, some in both, like me.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 07:25 PM (664Zx)

1189 I can remember believing things twenty years ago that just seem crazy to me now. Well, not crazy-crazy, but certainly unreasonable.And I really wanted to make other people believe them too. I guess being able to recognize that I've made so many mistakes has helped me become more tolerant. I do wonder if I'll look back twenty years from now and think "How did I ever believe that?" I try to keep my claims of certainty to a minimum for that reason.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:25 PM (xjy39)

1190

I know dinosaurs begat birds, for example.

No you don't.

You think you do.

But you don't KNOW that.

That's a guess. A theory. A rational one... perhaps the best we can come up with so we go with it. But we do not KNOW that.

And the proof is if scientists (evolutionary biologists) turn around tommorow with some groundbreaking new study that says "Woops, actually it looks like birds evolved out of FISH, not dinosaurs!" you will change your mind.

Just like we use to know that dinosaurs were sluggish and dour-colored, but now we know they were very active and brightly colored. Which is it?

So did you "know" that? How can you "know" something that isn't true?

The Relativity of Wrong. But everything is still WRONG. This is why Socrates said "If I am the wisest man, it because I know that I know nothing." He KNEW that what he thought he knew was only what he THOUGHT, given the facts HE HAD, and was open to knowing different when he found out more.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 07:25 PM (eL+YD)

1191 John, well, I do have back-up for that -- like, I know, land animals came before birds, but Genesis says the opposite.

I know dinosaurs begat birds, for example.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:17 PM (QbA6l)

Really? Tell me how you know this. Because I've read just about everything Stephen Jay Gould wrote and a lot more besides and I can assure you. I don't know it. Not to an absolute certainty. And Genesis doesn't say the opposite. It says God created each individually. What you know is they are similar and assume that means dinosaurs begat birds because that is the only explanation you can come up with that doesn't require a God. How do you know birds didn't evolve from any entirely different ancestor that just evolved similar to dinosaurs but for whom no evidence has been found?

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 07:26 PM (ivAmM)

1192 I don't know if anyone else reads Science News Weekly, but there's not an issue that goes by that doesn't have some article on how some new discovery will redefine our understanding of evolution.

I find it difficult to say that I "know" some fact that is constantly undergoing major revisions.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:30 PM (xjy39)

1193

Actually, Geneis 1:1 says that the Heavens were created before the Earth.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now, as for the rest, we're told the Earth was "formless & void" until God put things here, & that there was no need for certain things until He created life here.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 07:30 PM (Yq+qN)

1194

1 CORINTHIANS Chapter 6

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints*?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

*according to the Bible "saints" are any true believers.

All believers are saints forget what the Catholic Church says, the Bible says different.

Posted by: Speller at August 21, 2010 07:33 PM (qaOKJ)

1195 Ace,
the earth being formless precedes light. if the earth was formless, it was not quite earth yet.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Not sure if we can even find words for the matter that was the earth before it became earth today. I submit that verse 2 does a pretty damned good job of it. As to why its formless void would be included in the timeline of creation where it was? maybe to show how correct it is. let me try to explore:

So, what in the hell was that thing (named earth, I concede) before it had form and became full? Well, it had a name (earth) but it wasn't tecnically earth as we know it today, was it? formless and empty... darkness... surface of the deep.." Think about the descriptions that follow "Now (what moment in time of creation is that?) the earth was..." Also consider how fast this mother fucking glob of goo flying out of the biggest explosion we can't possibly imagine anyway? And at what miniscule nanosecond moment in time during the incredible thing that was most recent the big bang (from our perspective, at least) did the stuff that became the earth end up forever destined to eventually glob together and become the miraculous place it is? I submit that the passage shows just how incredibly miraculous and special the earth is, knowing that in the nanoseconds that were the big bang, God already had this comparatively tiny ass portion of the universe's matter and energy designated as "earth" (according to the scripture in English).

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 07:33 PM (Epj2t)

1196

http://tinyurl.com/2ep93yg

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 11:24 PM (Yq+qN)

I think another part of the usage of a snake/serpent is that many of the other religions in the area had a serpent god. So here you have the God of the Hebrews laying the smackdown on all these other places gods.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 07:34 PM (oVQFe)

1197

1225 "Who in the world was God talking to?"

Who in the world were "they" talking to?

"Then God said, Â“Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky...."

...& we've arrived at the concept of the Trinity, which even pastors with multiple advanced degrees from the best seminaries can't completely explain. But if they could, then we'd be like God.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 07:35 PM (Yq+qN)

1198 It gets to the level of people saying that evolution is a lie told by Satan to lead men astray, and that evolution is a False Religion designed to tempt people into pride and darkness, and etc., etc.

Many insist you are not a Christian unless you believe in the absolute-literal creation story. And they sort of blow off the believing in Christ's salvation of man part.

You could be a Lutheran if you put just a little effort into it.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 07:37 PM (JtKsy)

1199

1234 I think another part of the usage of a snake/serpent is that many of the other religions in the area had a serpent god. So here you have the God of the Hebrews laying the smackdown on all these other places gods.

I agree that's another aspect, yes. Many OT & NT writers refer to such aspects of other cultures. But I tend to believe that, in this particlar case, it's a secondary aspect.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 07:38 PM (Yq+qN)

1200 I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm totally convinced about Louis Vuitton. That's the most persuasive argument I've heard in this thread.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:38 PM (xjy39)

1201 ...on the chronology of Genesis and Old Testament writings, here's an interesting account, though the lawyer's name in question wasn't provided.

The Columbia History of the World (Harper & Row publishers), chapter on Classical Antiquity: Jews and Greeks, subsection The Century of the Minor Powers, on page 161:

All over the Near East "nationalistic" reactions against the Assyrians had been associated with the cults of "national" gods: Nebuchadnezzar II's enormous expenditure for the temple of Marduk in Babylon is a conspicuous example. So in Judea nationism saw a revival of the cult of Yahweh. Since Yahweh was now protector of the poor, this revival was associated with demands for legal reform. Sometime about 630, when Assyria was losing her grip, a lawyer in Jerusalem produced a new code as a program for future reforms, including the prohibition of the worship of gods other than Yahweh, and relief of the poor. He drew on older "Yahweh-alone" traditions, common usage, and ancient taboos, but his work was organized by his own thought, replete with his own invention, and cast in his own style. He represented it as "the law of Yahweh" and--probably--as the work of Moses, and he arranged to have it "found" by the high priest in the Jerusalem temple in 621. It was taken to King Josiah, authenticated by a prophetess, and accepted. Most of it is now preserved, with minor interpolations, in chapters 12-26 and 28 of Deuteronomy. King Josiah tried to enforce it, but he also tried at Megiddo to stop Necho II's invasion of Syria and so met his end in 609. His defeat seems to have been taken as proof of the error of his ways; the later prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekial show polytheism back in practice.

page 163
Not all the Judean exiles in Babylonia, however, were followers of the Deuteronomist ["Yahweh-alone" party]. The prophet Ezekiel had a different style and vocabulary, and different legal opinions. Akin to him in these matters was a group of priestly collectors, editors, and inventors of ancient traditions, particularly of legal material to whom we owe compositions so divers as Leviticus and the superb creation story in Genesis I. [The exile ended in 538 BCE with the fall of Babylon to the Persian king, Cyrus the Great, who gave the Jews permission to return to Yehud province and rebuild the Temple.]

btw, Greeks (Phoenician's) didn't begin to develop their alphabet until 780BC. It's a long way from a rudimentary alphabet to documenting history in volumes of books. And when writing actually occurred, the point was to write down all of the oral traditions to document them. The same thing happened when Bela Bartok traveled through Hungary and Romania, etc. out in the sticks between WWI and WWII writing down and recording all of the old folk tunes being sung by peasants during farming, laundry, work before that entire culture was destroyed. What he did with them is another matter you can hear in his music. Beware the axis of symmetry.

Posted by: maverick muse at August 21, 2010 07:39 PM (H+LJc)

1202 All I got to say is I'm with you fellas.

_{sorry, watching O'Brother.}

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 07:40 PM (664Zx)

1203 Something else to ponder, Ace, He knew your name too, bud. In the nanoseconds that were the big bang. And how many hairs you'd have on your head. And which carbon atoms (out of ho many) would be in every single one of them (or whatthefuckever is in a fucking hair)!

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 07:42 PM (Epj2t)

1204

Both require at least an equal amount of faith. One is in a God that promises a life after death and one is in a scientific theory that promises when you die your dead.

Which is easier?

For me, it's actually easier to believe in a God that has already kept every promise (so far), and executed upon every curse, that He ever made.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 07:43 PM (JtKsy)

1205 See, my point is that the Christian God has a record of fulfilling prophecies that so-called linguistic scholars cannot explain away.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 07:49 PM (JtKsy)

1206 It's not clear at all to me. It's clear to you because you've accepted a special additional clause that is never uttered in the Bible: "And all of this shall be interpreted in the most literal way possible, no matter how it seems contradicted by anything you might discover in the ages ahead."

That clause is not in the Bible, Rocks. You just keep asserting you know it's supposed to be the controlling principle, and yet nowhere is it ever said.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:22 PM (QbA6l)

Well let's see.

Matthew 5:17-18 (New King James Version)

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Hmm The Law or the Prophets. those guys who talked to God and were present during all those interactions which God never did as a watch maker. The laws which, let's face it, are your real problem. Not Eden and the Flood. Ace to buy your argument you have to chuck out or make the entire Old testament a metaphor. Jesus clearly says it wasn't. Laws aren't metaphors. Not when God gave them. Not to the prophets, Not to Christ and not now. Do I think a belief in a literal interpretation of the entirety of the Bible is required to get to heaven? No. Only an acceptance of God and Christ, which include his laws and his prophets. Heaven and earth haven't passed away .

Tell me Ace wouldn't you agree that interpreting a passage to the point it clearly can no longer be true as it was given mean it has passed away? Didn't Jesus, the one interaction you seem willing to at least give a passing credence to, specifically say that wasn't going to happen?

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 07:49 PM (ivAmM)

1207 I step out to fix an A/C unit and miss all the theology discussion.

Posted by: sTevo at August 21, 2010 07:50 PM (VMcEw)

1208 Evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory. Look up the work done by Richard Lenski at Michigan State University. (Remember Creationists say Evolution means a scientist should make a cat turn into a moose and a frog transform into a clam. Biologists make no such foolish claims.) Evolution is also seen in the field. We have observed animals changing within human lifetimes. Look up the results regarding lizard populations on two islands of the coast of Croatia, Pod Kopiste and Pod Mrcrau. We have excellent series of transitional fossils in the evolution of whales, tetrapods, mammals, birds (avian dinosaurs), etc. How many of you know the inner ear bones of mammals were once jaw bones in their ancestors? Also, Evolution is easily demonstrated in the structure of living things, the DNA and other molecules found in living things, and in the fossil record. We have photomicrographs of living organisms in rocks that are 3 billion years old. We know the rocks are that old because we know about radioactive decay. Our instruments that measure the abundance of radioactive elements in a rock sample are based on the Theory of Electromagnetism, the same theory that says a cell phone can be built and should work. We have DNA from viruses that are stuck in our genes. They are easily seen for what they are and they are located in particular places in our genes. These add-ons are quite numerous. Guess what other animal has the same add-ons in the same places? Chimpanzees. How did that happen? Chimps and humans shared a common ancestor millions of years ago. Those creatures carried the genetic scars of viral infection from previous times. When the chimp line and the human line diverged the scars went along for the ride. Human beings are just intelligent animals. Our frontal lobes are a blessing and a curse. A blessing because they help us survive and prosper, a curse because they make us aware of our mortality, and in doing so spur us to create religions.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 07:51 PM (Nw/hR)

1209 Through Isaiah, he foretold to the Jews in Babylon the name of there eventual liberator, Cyrus of Persia.

Turns out, that actually happened.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 07:53 PM (JtKsy)

1210

A merely 6,000-year-old Earth isn't actually demanded by Scripture.

First verse--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Second verse--"And the earth was without form, and void."

What tha? God made the earth without form, and void? Does that really sound like Him?

Try this, "God made the earth--then a whole lot of pre-human and non-divine crap happened, Lucifer rebelled, yada yada---which resulted in the earth being without form and void."

So what's the time frame between verses one and two? Not necessary to know, since it wasn't included.

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 07:55 PM (xg1eR)

1211 Human beings are just intelligent animals.

This is why some Christians make such a fuss about evolution.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 07:55 PM (xjy39)

1212

Tsk.

Eman you're not even responding to anything anymore now.

Just look to be venting at this point.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 07:57 PM (eL+YD)

1213

Matthew 5:17-18 (New King James Version)

Erm, Rocks, every jot and tittle of the Law passed away with the sacrifice of Christ. Check out the Book of Hebrews. It is a short read.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 07:58 PM (JtKsy)

1214 1248 Through Isaiah, he foretold to the Jews in Babylon the name of there eventual liberator, Cyrus of Persia.

Turns out, that actually happened.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 11:53 PM (JtKsy)

Of course how do we know that Cyrus of Persia isn't the Mesopotamian version of John of St. Louis?

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 07:58 PM (oVQFe)

1215 Rocks, okay, fine, but then just understand you are no longer even remotely interested in science and really shouldn't contend otherwise.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:20 PM (QbA6l)

I'm plenty interested in science. I always have been. But that interest is either curiosity or practical. No practical science disproves anything in the bible. Practical in the sense it has a day to day bearing on people's lives. The rest is angel's dancing on the heads of pins stuff and will without doubt change over time to something with just as little practical impact. You can rest assured there were people in the past who didn't believe in God at all that were just as scientifically sure of their evidence as you are and you would think their evidence as silly as the Flood or Eden now. What makes you so sure you won't be one of them? I have come to think Jesus has a practical impact on my life. So I will accept what he says despite or even because of my curiosity. I don't remember him ever saying I can't go on being curious.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 07:59 PM (ivAmM)

1216 Something else to ponder, Ace, He knew your name too, bud. In the nanoseconds that were the big bang. And how many hairs you'd have on your head. And which carbon atoms (out of ho many) would be in every single one of them (or whatthefuckever is in a fucking hair)!

But were you really Ace then? No, but the matter and energy necessary to make Ace was already numbered and ready to go. Formless, etc...

Since I have been a known entity in God's mind since time began, how old am I? Can I tap into that shit so I can see all of next weeks lottery numbers? I mean ALL of em, dammit. Pick threes, pick fours mega stuff and everything.

Come on, God, if you just me some winning dynasty starting kind of lottery numbers, it'd make a believer out of Ace (it would, wouldn't it?)!

My motives are "good", right? Or can I at least invoke Romans 8:28 here knowing something good will come out of it, however jacked up I'd get with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend? Come on, already! Sorry, you're right. Of course. Prayer is not a debate.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 08:00 PM (Epj2t)

1217 You know rather than focusing on the question of why is the earth being formed before the sky, you should be focusing on the bigger question those first pages of Genesis cause. "Who in the world was God talking to?"

Clearly schizophrenic behavior.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 21, 2010 08:05 PM (gbCNS)

1218 Things are what they are without getting pedantic.

What's the point to getting literal over an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew writing that contains no vowels?

If someone wants to get literal, they'd have to know the original language and all of its historical CONSTRUCTIONIST meaning.

I remember reading "God created man in his own image" to mean image as in imagination.

Literal meaning? Why insist on a literal meaning when you've limited what the meaning you will accept, even before learning what the original language text was and what that meant? When you're inspired by an original experience, is the sensation literally literal, being printed on ink and paper as you have your meditative epiphany? Or is it sensational, something overwhelming. Paul wrote that faith in believing in what you can't prove. So is faith literal, just a word on paper with a definition and rules for application? Perhaps LITERAL ain't all it's cracked up to be when it comes to intuition and feelings. There's a beauty to metaphysical transcendence in thought respecting the source of life's creation.

Posted by: maverick muse at August 21, 2010 08:06 PM (H+LJc)

1219 Scientists claim that birds are dinosaurs. The evidence is strong. Very strong. Strong enough to replace claim with know.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:07 PM (Nw/hR)

1220 Of course how do we know that Cyrus of Persia isn't the Mesopotamian version of John of St. Louis?

"Cyrus" could also be a metaphor for Barack of the District of Columbia.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 08:07 PM (JtKsy)

1221 "You can believe there were millions of random events each with odds of a 1 followed by 350 zeros all needing special environmental conditions and energy conditions and explain Darwinism." False. No such requirement exists.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:09 PM (Nw/hR)

1222

eman @1247,

You actually pinpoint the very thing that made me believe in God when you say "Human beings are just intelligent animals."

If chance evolution is true, you are absolutely correct. We are just animals...thus the concept of "right and wrong" are as meaningless to us as to a beetle.

Well, "right" and "wrong" do have an obvious provinance. They are lies developed by beta and sub-beta humans in opposition to alphas getting their way. It IS obvious, right? Evolutionarily, there's nothing wrong with me taking you mate or killing you in trying to prevent it.

Yes, evolutionists cook up complex ideas to explain and justify human morality without resorting to a higher authority. That's because they're beta or lower. but they're too prideful and cowardly to face the truth. So when alphas do what they want, the teeming betas call it "bad".

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 08:09 PM (xg1eR)

1223 1256, Another false notion. We are moral creatures, if we choose to be. We don't need any order from above.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:10 PM (Nw/hR)

1224 Ace,

If humans can clone and re-create life out of dna samples, Jesus can resurrect.

/Fly a man to the moon?

Posted by: maverick muse at August 21, 2010 08:11 PM (H+LJc)

1225 What's the point to getting literal over an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew writing that contains no vowels?

It got messed up by Latin in there somewhere.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 08:11 PM (JtKsy)

1226 1251, Specify, please.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:12 PM (Nw/hR)

1227 >>> No practical science disproves anything in the bible. Practical in the sense it has a day to day bearing on people's lives. Please. Let me quote: "The only reason it's breathtaking to you is for some reason it's important to you that the stars were formed first. To most people it's a small matter. Believing either is never going to impact their lives in any significant way." You don't care, Rocks. Own it: You've got the Bible and that's all you need. Stop pretending your interests extend beyond that -- they don't. Further, all you guys saying "Oh who cares about this, who cares about that" don't seem to realize that when you jettison conclusions of science, that's not it -- you also have to jettison all the evidence and all the theories and all the tools that led up that. You have no idea how much science you're flushing down the toilet with your thoghtless "who cares." Is Carbon-14 dating causing us problems? Out it goes! Is plate tectonics incompatibe with a young earth theory? Out it goes! Does the Bible say the sun formed AFTER the earth! Out goes everything we know about planetary formation! You're just sitting here tearing huge sections out of science texts and throwing them into the fire with harumphs and "who cares!," and then you sit there and tell me, "Oh, no Ace, I'm JUST AS INTERESTED in science as you." Fine Rocks - I'm just as interested in Christ and Christianity, and just as qualified to expound upon it, as you. Despite my not being a Christian and despite not really being sold on God. You know why i say that? Because apparently you think -- the person who says "who cares when the stars formed anyway" -- is juussst as interested in science as the guy who thinks yeah, that kinda matters.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:13 PM (QbA6l)

1228 Didn't happen that way.

At some point you are either required to accept a little metaphor in that or simply reject everything that science and common sense tells you about planetary formation.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 11:10 PM (QbA6l)

And 100 or 1000 years from now when science and common sense tells me something different what then? Do I get to go back and do it over again? You offer a life time of being reasonable, and call it reason. God offers me eternity and sent his son to explain in a very reasonable manner why he's able to deliver it. Which one to choose? You're problem is you think you don't have to choose, more you can't except a god that would make you choose. It's pretty clear god made us with a specific purpose. Not just to love him but as beings who would CHOOSE to love him.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 08:13 PM (ivAmM)

1229 <i>We don't need any order from above.</i>

Yes, you do. C.S. Lewis pretty much proved this point. If you are moral, you are getting your marching orders from something external to yourself.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 08:14 PM (JtKsy)

1230 The more you know, the more you're wrong.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 08:14 PM (eL+YD)

1231 By the way, on Genesis, nice try, but on the fourth day -- after the creation of the seas and dry earth -- God creates a light to govern the day (the Sun, of course) and a light to govern the night (the moon, duh). And you're just ignoring that --reading it metaphorically -- but then sitting here and telling me "no, it's all completely literal, except that part about the Sun and Moon being created after the earth, which I'm going to punt on and then go back to saying it's all literal."

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:14 PM (QbA6l)

1232 1257 You know rather than focusing on the question of why is the earth being formed before the sky, you should be focusing on the bigger question those first pages of Genesis cause. "Who in the world was God talking to?"

Wana clue?

Clearly schizophrenic behavior.

No, no, no.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 22, 2010 12:05 AM (gbCNS)

I often get confused with him.

Posted by: Barack Obama at August 21, 2010 08:15 PM (x+k6q)

1233 Rocks, I don't have any further interest in talking to you. All right? I don't find you reasonable in the least. I have never known someone so... confident about what he/she "knows," and how unashamedly dismissive of what he or she doesn't know.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:16 PM (QbA6l)

1234 1265 What's the point to getting literal over an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew writing that contains no vowels?

It got messed up by Latin in there somewhere.

Posted by: Michael

Except that the Romans didn't convert until after the Greeks converted from Paul's missionary work there.

Funny, though, the Greeks refused to read any other language's text that wasn't already translated into Greek.

Posted by: maverick muse at August 21, 2010 08:16 PM (H+LJc)

1235 Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:51 PM (Nw/hR)

"Human beings are just intelligent animals." That's pretty deep.
That line takes us down the road of subatomic particles being brilliant engineers. I mean, really, bottom line down that path is that they either always existed with the ability to think and plan or they simply decided to think one day ~ 15 billion years ago. Honestly, the no God is too damned scary for me. So yeah, call me a pussy. But I have explored it over and over and over and over and over. Dunno if it is so much fear or if it is just the mind boggling craziness. Both are crazy insane impossible. No God? We created our damned selve, basically, from the ground up. Amazing how reproduction was engineered somehow knowing that if it wasn't, proposed life form would simply die and that would be it. That gets crazy, like time travel and foreknowledge, doesn't it? I mean, where would the data concerning result of failure (death) to generate DNA for duplication be stored?

Something I remember
Chance meeting
Butterfly death
Silent presence
Peering, nonetheless

Overture waiting
Splashing purification

Elements decided to think?
Molecules learned to communicate?
Quarks engineered and genetically produced
sight, touch, hearing, smell and taste?

Perhaps.

Without God?

I hope not.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 08:17 PM (Epj2t)

1236 1266, I do not. 1262, Where do you get these ideas? "Yes, evolutionists cook up complex ideas to explain and justify human morality without resorting to a higher authority. That's because they're beta or lower. but they're too prideful and cowardly to face the truth. So when alphas do what they want, the teeming betas call it "bad"."

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:17 PM (Nw/hR)

1237 I have never known someone so... confident about what he/she "knows," and how unashamedly dismissive of what he or she doesn't know.

Taliban?

Posted by: maverick muse at August 21, 2010 08:18 PM (H+LJc)

1238 Apes in caves
Stepping on figs

Posted by: Beto at August 21, 2010 08:19 PM (H+LJc)

1239

So when alphas do what they want, the teeming betas call it "bad".

Nietzche's 'slave morality'.

The passive aggressive psychological assault of the perpetually weak.

Posted by: Entropy at August 21, 2010 08:19 PM (eL+YD)

1240 The more you know, the more you're wrong. Posted by: Entropy

Ecclesiastes?

Posted by: maverick muse at August 21, 2010 08:20 PM (H+LJc)

1241 >>>You can believe there were millions of random events each with odds of a 1 followed by 350 zeros all needing special environmental conditions and energy conditions and explain Darwinism. I don't know why this is any more implausible to you than 1 in a million sperm found an egg to make you, or that millions of air molecules should "randomly" assemble to form a tornado. You seem to understand in every day life that occurrences are great congruences of chance, and sometimes chance is strange; but when it comes to evolution, you tut-tut and say, "Oh, how implausible that with billions of trials there should be thousands of successes." I don't find that implausible in the least. Look at the Bikini Atoll. Forty years ago a radioactive sheet of glass. Now, teeming with life. How did it get there? God didn't put it there, robrt. Not directly; we would have seen. It got there because that's what life does, it breeds, it fills, it runs wild.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:21 PM (QbA6l)

1242 night

Posted by: maverick muse at August 21, 2010 08:22 PM (H+LJc)

1243 Oh, by the way? That "special energy conditions"? That's 30 year old bunkum that was rubbished the moment they said it but they keep selling the same lies and unfortunately many keep on believing.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:23 PM (QbA6l)

1244 And yes, I have had incredibly personal spiritual moments. You could counter that it was because I wanted to and the DMT kicked in. I cannot prove anygodamnedthing one way or the other. But, if you're willing, I simply suggest you choose to believe. Or at least try to. That's a good place to start I like it better and, there is something to it. Something beyond the absurdity of a life form spontaneously generating that already knew it had to code its shit for replication.

Believe me, considering that God is real and that He has always existed and knows everyfuckingthing times a googol is fucked up insane, too. But, you know what? He says He loves me. That works for me. That side has less doubt and fear, believe it or not. So I roll with it.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 08:24 PM (Epj2t)

1245 1276, Where to start? Let's see. The idea that humans are merely intelligent animals forces you to conclude that that means atomic elements must be sentient. Evolution using only natural forces can mold the simple into the complex. It takes time, lots of time. But, when we look at the world around us and study it down to fine detail we see it is so. Don't like the idea that you are descended from creatures that were not human? Don't like the idea that we are a species that arose on this world just like all the others, by natural means? Ok, fine. It is still true.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:24 PM (Nw/hR)

1246 >>Taliban? In person, I meant. Well this isn't in person but you know what I mean.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:24 PM (QbA6l)

1247 There is nothing new "under the sun."

Including Ace.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 08:25 PM (JtKsy)

1248 I'm new-ish, I'm 28.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:27 PM (QbA6l)

1249 this was a long thread.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:28 PM (QbA6l)

1250 It's pretty clear god made us with a specific purpose. Not just to love him but as beings who would CHOOSE to love him.

And if you don't you can go to hell! Clearly a borderline personality trait.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 21, 2010 08:29 PM (gbCNS)

1251 just want to give a special shout out to whoever it was who posted during the fight with Blazer-- "That escalated fast... that jumped up a notch" -- Ron Burgundy That was funny.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:29 PM (QbA6l)

1252 Don't like the idea that you are descended from creatures that were not human?

That puts me in a damn awkward position vis a vis my progeny.

Posted by: O'Brother at August 21, 2010 08:29 PM (664Zx)

1253 OK, I should explain that. "Under the sun" is a precise theological term in Ecclesiastes (attributed to Solomon), which sorta refers to the everyday drudgery of life on this planet without God.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 08:29 PM (JtKsy)

1254 The probability that an event that has already occurred will occur is one. Also, molecules do not interact at random. Gases at low pressure interact at random. Where do people get the idea that Evolution means a bunch of randomly associating molecules come together and make a cow? Evolution via Natural Selection tinkers with systems that can change and pass on any sort of advantage.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:33 PM (Nw/hR)

1255 >>>Honestly, the no God is too damned scary for me. So yeah, call me a pussy. But I have explored it over and over and over and over and over. Dunno if it is so much fear or if it is just the mind boggling craziness. Both are crazy insane impossible. I honestly have no idea why people are scared of this or it bothers them. But I guess some people are inborn with more of a need for spiritual purpose. I've never had that. Just never did. I have so little of it I don't even have to do what so many others do -- become atheist. Because, like, even when they don't believe in God, they still have to KNOW what's going on, spiritually; they still need that riddle solved. I never did. My whole life, ask me if there's a God, I shrug, say, "Maybe." Just never really occupied me. Never thought I had any ability or opportunity to know (until, of course: THAT opportunity we all fear). Figure I'll know when I know or I won't know when I know nothing.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:33 PM (QbA6l)

1256 Show me some evidence that human beings have had contact with supernatural creatures.

Not anecdote, not stories, not Scripture - evidence.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:22 PM (Nw/hR)

Why ask me? I simply stated what you won't or can't: I don't know.

A skeptic looks for evidence and doesn't automatically believe something if there's a lack of evidence.

You've made a series of absolute statements, including some interestingly ahistorical ones, based on a lack of evidence. That's not skepticism, that's just another set of assumptions.

"They" assume yes, you assume no, I don't claim to know.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 21, 2010 08:35 PM (bxiXv)

1257 Further, all you guys saying "Oh who cares about this, who cares about that" don't seem to realize that when you jettison conclusions of science, that's not it -- you also have to jettison all the evidence and all the theories and all the tools that led up that.

You have no idea how much science you're flushing down the toilet with your thoghtless "who cares." Is Carbon-14 dating causing us problems? Out it goes! Is plate tectonics incompatibe with a young earth theory? Out it goes! Does the Bible say the sun formed AFTER the earth! Out goes everything we know about planetary formation!

You're just sitting here tearing huge sections out of science texts and throwing them into the fire with harumphs and "who cares!," and then you sit there and tell me, "Oh, no Ace, I'm JUST AS INTERESTED in science as you."

posted by ace

Why do you insist that the most outrageous claims be accepted? Why do you adhere to such rigidity in the most unbelieveable aspects? Why do you insist that people are anti-science just for disagreeing with you about the merits of one particular scientific theory?

It seems to me to be a really inordinate amount of emphasis given to a part of science which, as you say, actually has very little to do with the main point.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 08:35 PM (xjy39)

1258

Ace @1268,

Um, I'm not "throwing out" C-14 dating. My point is that people make lots more assumptions than they realize, even in science.

I'm a radiation tech at a Oak Ridge research facility. I deal with Carbon-14. The half-life is definitely ~5730 years. But, since shortly after the Curies, it's been assumed that radioactive decay is random for any given nuclei.

How did they prove that?!

They didn't. They couldn't. How do you test for random? No one has any idea how to predict individual decay. So everyone waves their hands and says "it's random!"

It may be random, but an humble scientist would say, "it's indeterminate". We don't see something and so we state, "there's nothing there."

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 08:38 PM (xg1eR)

1259 1290 "'this was a long thread' another awesome thread. You're welcome!"

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 12:28 AM (QbA6l)

FIFY (is that how the clever one's do that)?

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 08:38 PM (Epj2t)

1260 You have no idea how much science you're flushing down the toilet with your thoghtless "who cares." Is Carbon-14 dating causing us problems? Out it goes! Is plate tectonics incompatibe with a young earth theory? Out it goes! Does the Bible say the sun formed AFTER the earth! Out goes everything we know about planetary formation!

You're just sitting here tearing huge sections out of science texts and throwing them into the fire with harumphs and "who cares!," and then you sit there and tell me, "Oh, no Ace, I'm JUST AS INTERESTED in science as you."

Fine Rocks - I'm just as interested in Christ and Christianity, and just as qualified to expound upon it, as you.

Despite my not being a Christian and despite not really being sold on God.

You know why i say that? Because apparently you think -- the person who says "who cares when the stars formed anyway" -- is juussst as interested in science as the guy who thinks yeah, that kinda matters.

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 12:13 AM (QbA6l)

Wow! So it's the whole ball of wax or nothing is that it? There's no difference between caring about something an being interested in it? It's amazing all those Christians came up with most of those facts you take for granted. Who suggested you weren't interested in Christianity or that a belief in it was required before you can expound on it? I have met many atheists who have forgotten more about the Bible and religious history then I'll ever know. I don't live that far from Yale after all. I'm not suggesting you know nothing or that you have no interest Ace. I'm suggesting you're wrong.

I don't want anything thrown out or torn up. I just don't want the bible to be either.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 08:38 PM (ivAmM)

1261 I think Ace is actually a closet Lutheran.

He just doesn't want to come out, because then he might have to go to church and put something in the offering plate.

Look, Ace, don't worry about that. The etiquette in a Lutheran church is that nobody looks directly at you when the offering plate goes by. No problem. Sheesh, you can palm a $20 and nobody will notice. Trust me about this.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 08:40 PM (JtKsy)

1262 1298, I am open to evidence. I also don't know if angels or elves or God exist or not. Show me some evidence is all I ask. Folks here have cited stories from a book as proof that God exists. I am a skeptic because that is not enough for me.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:41 PM (Nw/hR)

1263 associating molecules come together and make a cow?

And we have now come full circle. Did I mention how stupid cows are?

Posted by: O'Brother at August 21, 2010 08:43 PM (664Zx)

1264 >>Why do you insist that the most outrageous claims be accepted? Why do you adhere to such rigidity in the most unbelieveable aspects? Why do you insist that people are anti-science just for disagreeing with you about the merits of one particular scientific theory? It's not one, it's many -- Carbon dating, doppler shifting, plate tectonics, expansion of the universe and estimates of star's ages, etc. It's not one scientific theory, JohnJ. It's anything found to conflict with your reading of the Bible-- out it goes! Did dinosaurs exist John? I ask this, you know, because there really are people who say that dinosaurs didn't exist, or they were the "Giants in the Earth" referred to in the Bible existing maybe a couple of centuries before King David. It's just this... I don't know how else to say it. It's anti-science. You say it's just limited to the parts that disagree with the Bible and it's not so bad, but it is, because in order to satisfy your desire that science not contradict the Bible a LOT needs to go, and not just "Darwinism" (which, by the way, hasn't been the prevailing theory of evolution for some time), but a hundred things, a hundred things you don't know about. I mean, right away? Radiocarbon dating, of course. I mentioned that, I know. In order to keep science compliant with the Bible (and what a strange way to be begin a sentence) we have to pretend this is an unreliable science and stop using to to date historical relics. Because, like, we're supposed to act as if it's false, because the literal creation story now requires it to be false. That also, in turn, means our measured estimate of the decay of the carbon-14 isotope must ALSO be in error, or, who knows, perhaps our entire model of how unstable isotopes decay, period...

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:44 PM (QbA6l)

1265

It may be random, but an humble scientist would say, "it's indeterminate". We don't see something and so we state, "there's nothing there."

Posted by: wormme at August 22, 2010 12:38 AM (xg1eR)

Wow, if you find one of those, let me know.

'Sall I was saying earlier, be willing to say "I don't know." There are a TON of "facts" that people "know," but the data's inconclusive at best, one assumption just snowballed and it became "common knowledge."

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 21, 2010 08:45 PM (bxiXv)

1266 As I was just saying, worme. As I was just saying. A lot needs to go to make science Bible-compliant.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:46 PM (QbA6l)

1267 Ya, apparently if you disagree even a little bit with the official determination of what constitutes Science, you're a heretic. Good to know!

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 08:46 PM (xjy39)

1268 The half-life is definitely ~5730 years. But, since shortly after the Curies, it's been assumed that radioactive decay is random for any given nuclei. How did they prove that?! They didn't. They couldn't. How do you test for random? No one has any idea how to predict individual decay. So everyone waves their hands and says "it's random!" You measure the decay and demonstrate that the pattern is random.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:47 PM (Nw/hR)

1269 >>>Look, Ace, don't worry about that. The etiquette in a Lutheran church is that nobody looks directly at you when the offering plate goes by. No problem. Sheesh, you can palm a $20 and nobody will notice. Trust me about this. I never know what you guys are talking about with your inter-faith religious jokes

You're all nuts to me.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:47 PM (QbA6l)

1270 John, you are NOT disagreeing with a part of science because you have SCIENTIFICALLY cast doubt on it; you are dismissing science when the BIBLE tells you to. How can even argue that that is a scientific view of science?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:48 PM (QbA6l)

1271 Did dinosaurs exist John?

Apparently triceratops didn't. That was kind of a bummer, like finding out the tooth fairy didn't exist.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 08:49 PM (664Zx)

1272 I am open to evidence. I also don't know if angels or elves or God exist or not. Show me some evidence is all I ask.

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 12:41 AM (Nw/hR)

If you had started there instead of absolute statements, I wouldn't have even commented on it. But you didn't, so we go 'round and 'round.

This is my exit anyway.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 21, 2010 08:49 PM (bxiXv)

1273 A Geology textbook won't promise you Heaven if you believe it and won't threaten you with Hell if you don't.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:51 PM (Nw/hR)

1274 No big deal, Ace. I believe that the consious mind, or soul, or whatever it is that is the core of what we are that exists, will, even after the body and mind are dead, (for a time at least) will have a voice and the ability to sense something. I don't doubt you'll recognize a voice and reply "oh, hey, wow, thanks!" when nothingness approaches and our Savior, the Good Shepherd finds that thing that is your existence and says, "Hey, Ace, I have prepared a place for you." Just be prepared for a knock on your door. Tee time with Hagen is, if I'm not mistaken, 555554729847(x/45). You might have to wake his ass up, though, and I hear he's a bit grumpy before his morning sip.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 08:52 PM (Epj2t)

1275 This is part of the thing where every body wants to be the best in everything. I used to knock liberals for this -- you'd have on a secular guy in a fight over mores and he would claim "Hey, I'm JUST AS SPIRITUAL as you" or whatever, and someone would say, "What church?" and he'd say "I don't need a church!" And I knocked them -- because they were PLAINLY not as "spiritual" or in tune with God as the person they were arguing with; but they were determined to be Number-One A-Plus at EVERYTHING, so if a friggin' pastor is there telling them about his beliefs about sin, these cheesedick Hollywood assholes have to say, "Look, I believe in God JUST AS MUCH as you..." Well, that's a lie. It's not true. It's PLAINLY true. We can't all be Number One Double A-Plus at everything. And in these argumetns, there are people PLAINLY scrapping science in favor of religious dogma, which is their right, I guess, but then they claim to me, "Hey, I'm JUST AS SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED as you!" Really? Are you SURE you are? Because someone who wants to toss way scientific theories not based on any scientific evidence but because a 3000 year old religious text says it's false sure doesn't sound AS SCIENTIFIC as I am. Can I get a little admission from the religious here that maybe they're a little more interested in FAITH than I am, and maybe I'm a little more interested in SCIENCE as they are? Because If I told you I was JUST AS STRONG IN FAITH as you, I think you'd be skeptical, wouldn't you? You'd sort of want some evidence of that apart from my assertion about it.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:53 PM (QbA6l)

1276 It's not one, it's many -- Carbon dating, doppler shifting, plate tectonics, expansion of the universe and estimates of star's ages, etc.

It's not one scientific theory, JohnJ. It's anything found to conflict with your reading of the Bible-- out it goes!

You really shouldn't lump everyone who disagrees with you together. There are plenty of people who find that most of those things do not conflict with the Bible. It's very important to recognize that just because there are lunatics who disagree with you, that doesn't make you right. There are also plenty of lunatics who agree with you.

For every lunatic Bible-thumper, there's at least one lunatic Bible-burner. Follow the evidence. God gave us reason for a reason.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 08:54 PM (xjy39)

1277 1315, I though I had been clear. Guess not. My regrets. Adios.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 08:55 PM (Nw/hR)

1278 Because, like, we're supposed to act as if it's false, because the literal creation story now requires it to be false.

That is not actually true. You can believe in a literal creation story where God made a 5,000-year-old planet, which was mature, complete with fossil fuels and rock strata that are many millenniums old according to radiocarbon tests.

I don't believe that. Just sayin'. A god who is omnipotent and outside of time could pull that off.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 08:56 PM (JtKsy)

1279

Apparently triceratops didn't. That was kind of a bummer, like finding out the tooth fairy didn't exist.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 22, 2010 12:49 AM (664Zx)

Niether is the Brontosaurus. I think if they take away Tyrannosaurus there will be an uprising against paleontologists.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 08:58 PM (oVQFe)

1280 How many of you would be willing to appear in an ExtenZe commercial?

As many as they paid me for. Money makes my shlong grow.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 08:58 PM (664Zx)

1281 This would be like me, childless by intent, coming into a child-rearing discussion saying, "Hey, I'm every bit the parent you guys are...!" No, I'm not. I shouldn't say that. My desire to add authority to my statements should not compel me to say things that are false.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 08:59 PM (QbA6l)

1282 Rocks, I don't have any further interest in talking to you.

All right? I don't find you reasonable in the least.

I have never known someone so... confident about what he/she "knows," and how unashamedly dismissive of what he or she doesn't know.

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 12:16 AM (QbA6l)

I'm dismissive? Where? Of what? Because I suggest there are some things scientific that aren't the be all and end all?

I'm unreasonable? But you are reasonable when you suggest God is some sort of watch maker that might have sent his son and resurrected him but that's probably all of his involvement? Even though that son said that wasn't all of his involvement? That's reasonable? Or reducing the bible veracity to it's ability to in no way shape or form conflict with our current understanding of science? That's reasonable?

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 09:01 PM (ivAmM)

1283 This would be like me, childless by intent, coming into a child-rearing discussion saying, "Hey, I'm every bit the parent you guys are...!"

Especially with your belief in the great scourge of cereal commercials.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 21, 2010 09:01 PM (664Zx)

1284

eman @ 1277,

What? The idea that apparently all atheists try to believe in both chance evolution (meaning no qualitative difference between us and animals) and moral dimensions of right and wrong (which do not apply to animals).

My philosophy accounts for a qualitative difference between man and animal. Chance evolution does not. I know of no atheists able, or willing, to admit that I can no more do "wrong" than can a wolf. That my killing you to take your food and your mate is just evolution in action.

Hey, if you're an atheist who acknowledges that morality is a sucker's game, you'll be the first I've met. And the first I have some intellectual respect for.

You follow? Either account for a qualitative difference between me and a tiger (as Christianity does) or don't whine about "right and wrong" when someone does something you don't like. Fight or flee, but don't whine.

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 09:01 PM (xg1eR)

1285 1321, Yes, that idea was proposed in the 19th Century in an effort to bridge the gap between Scripture and the scientific evidence. It was roundly rejected by all because it effectively called God a liar.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:01 PM (Nw/hR)

1286 >>>I don't believe that. Just sayin'. A god who is omnipotent and outside of time could pull that off. Yeah but Michael you build in a fudge-factor with the "out of time" thing, which is fine, but what you're doing is, basically, trying to reconcile science and faith without either having to give much up, or as little as possible, which is... what I am suggesting people really should try to do. I am specifically arguing with people who insist the Bible is literally true (no fudge-factor of God zipping in and out of chronological continuity so that Genesis is "sort of right" in that business about the Sun being formed after the earth) and also say "But hey, I'm a believer in science." Such a person is not, or is only a believer in science to the extent it is in compliance with the Bible, and at the moment it does depart from the Bible, it is to be abandoned. That person isn't trying to reconcile science and religion with each giving up as little as possible; that person is saying science loses absolutely in any conflict with the Bible. Which I just think is so wrong, obviously. The sun did not form after the earth. It just didn't.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:03 PM (QbA6l)

1287 What I am saying, is that it'll surely scare you one day. The end is scary. Due to nightmarish fantasy or having been in the tunnel for real, I have even worried about the fate of the souls of the scummiest miotherfuckers ever. Someone above said it isn't their part to judge eternal souls (wow, kinda back OT, imagine that). Ain't mine either, and I put a lot of hope into those rounds of golf with Helen of Troy, Ozzy and Goliath (don't ask). The coward dies a thousand deaths. I admire your ability to seemingly simply face it once, bud. I'm confidently saying you'll be fine either way. You'll see. We all will. If it comes down to saying "Hi. I accept you as my Lord and Savior!", I submit an official please that the sinner's prayer can can be done post mortem. Read Jesus discussion w/ Nicodemus. Been nice chatting with you tonight.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 09:04 PM (Epj2t)

1288 1328, Consider the idea that wolves and other such creatures are mostly creatures of instinct. We are not. We are sentient and self-aware. We can choose to be good or evil, kind or unkind. How do you figure only a divine origin can explain human behavior?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:06 PM (Nw/hR)

1289 Ace, your argument seems to be that the Bible should be distrusted because it is religious. The Bible, like any other historical text, should be evaluated based on the best evidence of its accuracy. I've done more than a small amount of research and it seems to me to be that the Bible is pretty accurate in those places it can best be verified.

It also seems to me to be true that many scientists, like most people, are driven by an agenda. Part of this agenda is trying to discredit the Bible. I simply do not have the faith in their intentions that you seem to have. I'm skeptical of them. Believe you me, though, I read plenty. And what I read indicates to me that the foundation for many claims of so-called scientists does not exist. Global warming is but one prominent example of this.

So I weigh the evidence of a source of information that has so far been very accurate against the competing evidence of a source that has been, well, not quite as accurate. And quite often our understanding of science, especially in the area of evolution, is still... well, evolving.

But I weigh the evidence. And while I don't think it gives me the confidence to say that "I know" this or that, I do know you shouldn't have the confidence you appear to have in some of those claims.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 09:07 PM (xjy39)

1290 I think the creation story is, finally, beyond our imagination.

God has told us what we need to know.

(1) He did it.

(2) He is in charge of how it works out for you.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 09:07 PM (JtKsy)

1291 >>>I'm dismissive? Where? Of what? Because I suggest there are some things scientific that aren't the be all and end all? Who cares when the stars formed, what difference does it make. Well, Rocks, it makes a difference to me, so there's your answer. I care as much about the formation of the Stars as you seem to care about the order god created the animals. So yeah, there's one guy; I'm sure I'm not alone. And that is a dismissive attitude. You are (in your last post) calling me dismissive of what the Bible says about this and that. here's the thing: I ADMIT I *am* dismissive about what the bible says about the creation of animals. But you continue tossing out whole realms of science and saying "who cares when the stars formed, doesn't matter to a sensible person anyhow" but yet insist you're not dismissive of science. See? I do admit: I am dismissive of what the Bible says in its particulars of creation. I think it's a fairy tale, at least as written, on its surface. But you claim science is a fairy tale -- what does it matter when the stars formed, anyway? Huh! won't make a difference to me tomorrow when I'm doing my taxes! -- and you clam you're not being dismissive at all, but rather are something of a student of science. No, you're not. You can't be Number One Double A-Plus Good at everything, Rocks. And you are certainly not that in science.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:08 PM (QbA6l)

1292 >>Ace, your argument seems to be that the Bible should be distrusted because it is religious. No, I never said that. I said religious dogma is quite obviously not science, and if it seems to to you that it is... well, I think we cannot have a rational discussion any longer because it's not. I said that you can't treat a religious text as being coequal to or trumping actual science and claim to be scientific. >>>The Bible, like any other historical text Well... >>> should be evaluated based on the best evidence of its accuracy. I've done more than a small amount of research and it seems to me to be that the Bible is pretty accurate in those places it can best be verified. Where it can be verified? When, the time around Christ? One little fragment? Plus some stuff about Jewish kings, most of which can't be verified except to say Yes, it's correct, there were kings named david and solomon in this order? And from that you get that of course the Bible must have things right about the earth being formed and then the Sun? Do you not have any idea that that is -- well, who knows what it is but that's not science? How can step one of science be, "First, let us check our age old religious texts to see if our Prophets have supplied us an answer..." ? How can that be? How can you continue arguing that that's science?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:12 PM (QbA6l)

1293 >>>God has told us what we need to know. (1) He did it. (2) He is in charge of how it works out for you. ... Did he say (2)? Isn't that sort of the opposite of what he said?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:13 PM (QbA6l)

1294 okay I am getting too frustrated and too personal... I need to call it a night, please accept my apologies for the increasing stridency of my tone at the end.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:14 PM (QbA6l)

1295 I predict when science and technology extend human lifetimes into millennia people will forget all about the Bible.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:16 PM (Nw/hR)

1296 Yeah but Michael you build in a fudge-factor with the "out of time" thing,

That ain't a "fudge factor" Ace. That is a fundamental aspect of God. He explicitly claims the ability to retroactively change reality. That's why the Bible tells me I am pure, holy and righteous in His eyes, even though I personally know that I am a piece of shit.

Paul's letters were good on this subject. Especially his letter to the Romans.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 09:16 PM (JtKsy)

1297

It also seems to me to be true that many scientists, like most people, are driven by an agenda. Part of this agenda is trying to discredit the Bible. I simply do not have the faith in their intentions that you seem to have. I'm skeptical of them.

Actually I think most scientists have an agenda of figuring out How Why Where did it come from, and attempting to use their knowledge to get the answers. That said there are plenty of people who want to use science to discredit the Bible and attack religion.

I've read it once before and I think its very true and I'm paraphrasing. If you want to find the atheists on a college campus look in the philosophy and sociology departments not in the science labs.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 09:17 PM (oVQFe)

1298

eman @ 1311

You can't prove a pattern is random! They're opposites, that's the point.

I can pinpoint the half-life of any isotope with precision, given sufficient numbers of nuclei. That half-life isn't random; it's a reproducible consistent result that differs for every isotope.

But when looking at a nucleus...one single atom of that particular isotope...we can't say when it will pop. We can establish statistical confidences...which will sometimes still be wrong.

No one knows how to determine the life expectancy of a nucleus. But instead of saying, "we don't know if they have a specific life expectancy"...which is demonstrably true...we say, "it's random" which is not even theoretically demonstrable using the Scientific Method.

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 09:18 PM (xg1eR)

1299 How can that be? How can you continue arguing that that's science?

I'm not arguing that the Bible is science. I'm saying that much of what scientists do is not science. I'm skeptical of scientific claims which attack the Bible because I've seen too often scientists who say that their goal is to discredit the Bible. I've seen scientists commit fraud in order to attack the Bible. We test the Bible's historical accuracy the same way we check the accuracy of other histories. We compare them to each other. The Bible has a way of bringing out the worst in some people. I simply take claims against it with a grain of salt.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 09:21 PM (xjy39)

1300 Did he say (2)? Isn't that sort of the opposite of what he said?

No.

What Jesus said was, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

(John 14:16)

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 09:22 PM (JtKsy)

1301 And in these argumetns, there are people PLAINLY scrapping science in favor of religious dogma, which is their right, I guess, but then they claim to me, "Hey, I'm JUST AS SCIENTIFICALLY MINDED as you!"

Really? Are you SURE you are? Because someone who wants to toss way scientific theories not based on any scientific evidence but because a 3000 year old religious text says it's false sure doesn't sound AS SCIENTIFIC as I am.

I don't give some theories less credence, personally, because of what the text says. I give it less credence because I believe Jesus was the son of God and he told be to accept what that text says. Do I think science should be operating under that principle? No. Do I have a problem with the fact science gives no bearing to that 3000 year old text? No, why should it? I accept science as the explanations of things without the intervention of God or faith. But that doesn't make people born gay.

Can I get a little admission from the religious here that maybe they're a little more interested in FAITH than I am, and maybe I'm a little more interested in SCIENCE as they are?

Why? You don't seem particularly scientific in what I have read from you over that past couple years and you seem very interested in faith, at least tonight.

Because If I told you I was JUST AS STRONG IN FAITH as you, I think you'd be skeptical, wouldn't you? You'd sort of want some evidence of that apart from my assertion about it.

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 12:53 AM (QbA6l)

Faith in what? Yous seem to have a lot of faith in things to me Ace. Or is faith confined to religion now?

How's this for an admission? Compared to the average scientist I know squat as far as most stuff and the same would apply to theology and a priest or pastor. But that doesn't mean I know little or nothing of either and it certainly doesn't preclude me from suggesting, or even proving, you are wrong.

Christopher Hitchins is a very prominent atheist. Are you suggesting he isn't allowed to talk about religion? I'm not criticizing your positions on the bible because you lack faith Ace or have no real interest in religion. I'm criticizing them because the arguments you have are old and have been shown to be illogical time and time again.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 09:23 PM (ivAmM)

1302 >>>'m saying that much of what scientists do is not science. Okay well then the process is not to build the Bible up as scientifically sound but instead dismiss and tear down science so they meet in the middle and "who can say what is right and what is false." Same basic outcome. >>>I've seen too often scientists who say that their goal is to discredit the Bible. Yeah, who? >>>I've seen scientists commit fraud in order to attack the Bible. When? How many times? You think people working in evolutionary biology are doing that to bring your religion down? You think associated fields of biochemistry and cell biology are working to disprove your Bible? You think astrophysicists determined that the Sun arose first, and then, being massive, collected debris and gas in accretion discs around it to form planets, just to screw with your religion? Does it occur to you that there is a much simpler reason to explain why science departs from the Bible having nothing to do with conspiracies to disprove God's majesty?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:25 PM (QbA6l)

1303 >>>What Jesus said was, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:16) I thought though the point is now that the gift is offered it is up to everyone in their free will to accept it or decline it.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:26 PM (QbA6l)

1304 1342, No one knows how to determine the life expectancy of a nucleus. But instead of saying, "we don't know if they have a specific life expectancy"...which is demonstrably true...we say, "it's random" which is not even theoretically demonstrable using the Scientific Method. Posted by: wormme That is what they mean when they say random. It's impossible to predict when any particular nucleus will decay. One might argue that there is a way to predict it, but we just don't know it. One might also argue that it can't be predicted because the ultimate causes are themselves random in nature.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:27 PM (Nw/hR)

1305 Hell of a coincidence 1331 was. One of my absolute favorites is Mark 13:31. While you're at it, check out all of Mark 13 if you are so inclined.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 09:27 PM (Epj2t)

1306

>>>I've seen scientists commit fraud in order to attack the Bible.

When? How many times?

I do recall that some of the claimed "Missing Link" discoveries were actually frauds.

Of course that does work both ways. Since some of them have been frauds, there are the creationist that want to declare all fossilized Homo Sapien ancestors as frauds as well.

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 09:30 PM (oVQFe)

1307 JohnJ, if the Bible is to be taken as some kind of authoritative scientific source, why did God not see fit to include as single statement of science that would be recognized by later generations as impossible for primitive man to know and which must therefore be the inspiration of God? Why is there no mention of an electron? I mean this seriously: If God wanted you to take the unprovable parts of Biblical science as true, why did he not include a statement about someting provable? He could have said, "And the stars were far from earth, separated by aeons of time, so far that their light took tens of thousands of years to reach the earth." BANG! ACCURATE! No way that primitive men could have known that! Proof the Bible is trying to communciate actual science! Why not a single statement like that? God knew all this; he could have told Moses in language Moses would comprehend (even if he couldn't fathom the distances God was talking about). If the Bible is meant as science, where is there any mention of practical science that could help the generations receiving it or, if out of their comprehension, could be recognized as God's divine inspiration to later generation? You say a "historic text must be judged on the veracity of claims made about events which can be verified." Okay, same thing for a scientific text. Where is a claim made by the Bible about science (and no, not stuff like agriculture that the peoples then knew of at the time) which can now be verified? if this is absent, what rational on planet earth is there for treating it as scientific text?

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:33 PM (QbA6l)

1308 >>>I do recall that some of the claimed "Missing Link" discoveries were actually frauds. That wasn't "to undermine the Bible." Those were charlatans and frauds. And detected, too.

Posted by: ace at August 21, 2010 09:34 PM (QbA6l)

1309 I am specifically arguing with people who insist the Bible is literally true (no fudge-factor of God zipping in and out of chronological continuity so that Genesis is "sort of right" in that business about the Sun being formed after the earth) and also say "But hey, I'm a believer in science."

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 01:03 AM (QbA6l)

Ace, nobody but nobody suggests God doesn't get a fudge factor. In fact that's one of the things that make him God. he made the rules. he can bend them, break them and put them right back without a grain of sand out of place if he chooses too.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 09:34 PM (ivAmM)

1310 1352, These fakes were revealed and disproved by scientists.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:38 PM (Nw/hR)

1311 Search " Science and the book of Job " I have read that it is the oldest continuously scribed book of the Bible <?>.

Posted by: Sinner Extraordinaire at August 21, 2010 09:43 PM (Epj2t)

1312 I thought though the point is now that the gift is offered it is up to everyone in their free will to accept it or decline it.

Nope. No free will, no "leap of faith."

Ace, you are headed towards the Doctrine of Election. God calls His chosen. Let's not got there. It's a debate that makes my head hurt.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 09:44 PM (JtKsy)

1313 In fact that's one of the things that make him God. he made the rules. he can bend them, break them and put them right back without a grain of sand out of place if he chooses too. Posted by: Rocks So if God decides to yank you out of Heaven and throw you into Hell, that's all cool? He can break a promise you know. There is no law that binds His Will. Once you invoke the supernatural you are outside the boundaries of Science. Science has no obligation to explain stories, folklore, or even beloved religious tales.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:44 PM (Nw/hR)

1314 Okay well then the process is not to build the Bible up as scientifically sound but instead dismiss and tear down science so they meet in the middle and "who can say what is right and what is false."

Same basic outcome.

The Bible is a book. Science is testing under controlled conditions and publishing the results for peer-review. Books are books. Books are not science.

>>>I've seen too often scientists who say that their goal is to discredit the Bible.

Yeah, who?

Seriously? Darwin comes to mind.

>>>I've seen scientists commit fraud in order to attack the Bible.

When? How many times?

Seriously? Haeckel's embryos. Peppered moths. Off the top of my head.

Do you think people who go to church are doing that to bring your science down? You think deacons and pastors are working to disprove your science? You think preachers preach about the creation of the world just because they hate science?

Does it occur to you that there is a much simpler reason to explain why the Bible departs from our current understanding of science having nothing to do with conspiracies to make you believe in God? Maybe people don't like the idea of putting their faith in those who have demonstrated a contempt for their values. Maybe trust has to be earned.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 09:48 PM (xjy39)

1315 The story of Job is cool. God and Satan are at a cocktail party and God says, "Check out my man Job. Totally into Me." Satan replies, "Sure, cuz you you gave him all that cool shit he has. Take it away and see what happens." God say, "You're on, Bitch"

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:48 PM (Nw/hR)

1316

eman @ 1332,

Yep, again we're seeing the same thing and drawing different conclusions.

We are qualitatively different from wolves and other beasts. My belief addresses this, chance evolution does not. Either you must say we're no different (which you don't) or it's your turn to account for that difference.

Which is what I meant about evolutionists theorizing about morality. They won't admit we're just morality-free animals deceiving ourselves (which, given chance evolution, is a better Occam's Razor solution). Nor can they consider that perhaps we have consciences because we were given them. So, they ponder and toss out ideas.

But they don't address why, in a Godless universe, I should care about any ideas that get in the way of what I want. All that "right" means is I'm doing something you like, and "wrong" means it's something you don't. But in a Darwinian universe, "might makes right"...it's just no one has the guts to admit it.

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 09:53 PM (xg1eR)

1317 Darwin didn't write "On the Origin of Species" to explain the origin of species? His true motive was to upend the Bible?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 09:53 PM (Nw/hR)

1318

God and Satan are at a cocktail party and God says,
"Check out my man Job. Totally into Me."

Satan replies, "Sure, cuz you you gave him all that cool shit he has. Take it away and see what happens."

God say, "You're on, Bitch"

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 01:48 AM (Nw/hR)

Of course that requires you to actually understand the meanings of the words at the time rather than what we have turned them into. Satan now means Lucifer/The Morning Star/The Fallen Angel that rules over hell. In Job its referring to a challenger or opposition of sorts. There's a line in the New Testament where Jesus calls Peter Satan. Do you believe he's calling Peter the Lord of Darkness?

Posted by: buzzion at August 21, 2010 09:56 PM (oVQFe)

1319 JohnJ, if the Bible is to be taken as some kind of authoritative scientific source, why did God not see fit to include as single statement of science that would be recognized by later generations as impossible for primitive man to know and which must therefore be the inspiration of God?

Why is there no mention of an electron? I mean this seriously: If God wanted you to take the unprovable parts of Biblical science as true, why did he not include a statement about something provable?

I've conceded that parts of the Bible are metaphorical and designed to communicate certain truths to people without burdening them with undue complexities. I've simply been saying that I don't know whether God was literal about certain things or metaphorical. I simply do not have enough faith in scientists to just take their word for some things. That means that I don't know some things that you claim to know as an absolute certainty.

The Bible does contain lots of statements about things that are provable, though. I don't know what you mean by that.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 09:56 PM (xjy39)

1320 1249 A merely 6,000-year-old Earth isn't actually demanded by Scripture.

First verse--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Second verse--"And the earth was without form, and void."

....So what's the time frame between verses one and two? Not necessary to know, since it wasn't included.

I think we can't exactly know what it means, though we can guess. But I agree about the possible split between time frames. God never ruled-out the long-day theory, & I myself think it's quite plausible.

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 09:57 PM (Yq+qN)

1321
Well, Rocks, it makes a difference to me, so there's your answer.

I care as much about the formation of the Stars as you seem to care about the order god created the animals.

So yeah, there's one guy; I'm sure I'm not alone.

And that is a dismissive attitude. You are (in your last post) calling me dismissive of what the Bible says about this and that.

I don't care a whit about the order the animals were created in but I do find evolution interesting. I like to think there could be an explanation to everything but that doesn't mean there is one. And no it doesn't have much to do with my daily life any more than I think planet formation has to do with yours. I am also interested in theology but forgive me if I seem dismissive of ideas which are very old and very well discussed already.

here's the thing: I ADMIT I *am* dismissive about what the bible says about the creation of animals.

But you continue tossing out whole realms of science and saying "who cares when the stars formed, doesn't matter to a sensible person anyhow" but yet insist you're not dismissive of science.

See? I do admit: I am dismissive of what the Bible says in its particulars of creation. I think it's a fairy tale, at least as written, on its surface.

But you claim science is a fairy tale -- what does it matter when the stars formed, anyway? Huh! won't make a difference to me tomorrow when I'm doing my taxes! -- and you clam you're not being dismissive at all, but rather are something of a student of science.

No, you're not.

You can't be Number One Double A-Plus Good at everything, Rocks. And you are certainly not that in science.

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 01:08 AM (QbA6l)

I don't claim science is a fairy tale Ace. I just don't claim the Bible is either and I don't think science is capable of proving it is. I may choose my faith over existing science in some very limited instances but I don't suggest science is bad because of it. I just believe. And for most people and for most practical purposes that works just fine. I don't even need to have any faith to disagree with certain theories. I don't disagree with the idea of macro-evolution based on my faith that's for sure. You have this idea that these things are tied together to the point where one most go and I don't think either has much bearing on the other at all.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 09:58 PM (ivAmM)

1322 I'm fini. Peace.

Posted by: JohnJ at August 21, 2010 09:58 PM (xjy39)

1323

eman @ 1348

You're absolutely correct that "random" is the accepted term. My problem is that it isn't right to use it in a scientific sense. Even though apparently everyone does.

The Scientific Method demands reproducibility of phenomenon, right? Which means a detectable, provable relationship. A pattern. Which is the exact opposite of random. The very concept of randomness is unscientific. Even if true.

But again, you're totally right that that's the way it's perceived.

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 10:02 PM (xg1eR)

1324 So if God decides to yank you out of Heaven and throw you into Hell, that's all cool?

Cool? No it isn't cool with me but I don't get to tell God what to do. He's made a promise and I trust he will abide by it.

He can break a promise you know. There is no law that binds His Will.

Yeah, I know, but he did give me his Word so that's something right?

Once you invoke the supernatural you are outside the boundaries of Science. Science has no obligation to explain stories, folklore, or even beloved religious tales.

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 01:44 AM (Nw/hR)

No, it doesn't have any obligation.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 10:03 PM (ivAmM)

1325 Look, Darwin was gay. He had a big gay beard.

Let's just leave him out of the conversation.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 10:04 PM (JtKsy)

1326 1360, As I said the qualitative difference is we are more than creatures of instinct. We are self-aware. We can choose. The fact that we came to be by Evolution does not mean we are bound to be savages, that we can't reach beyond primitive behavior. Perhaps you think only divine creation makes us sufficiently different from our fellow creatures such that we should find ourselves worthy? In a Darwinian Universe it isn't might makes right at all. If kindness and empathy and love help a species to survive then Natural Selection will will favor them just as much as it might favor brutality. "But they don't address why, in a Godless universe, I should care about any ideas that get in the way of what I want." Why should you bother to be good? Because you are good.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:06 PM (Nw/hR)

1327 if this is absent, what rational on planet earth is there for treating it as scientific text?

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 01:33 AM (QbA6l)

Who is suggesting you treat the bible as a scientific text? Or are you suggesting scientific and historical are the same things?

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 10:06 PM (ivAmM)

1328 "The Scientific Method demands reproducibility of phenomenon, right?" No, it does not. It demands reproducibility of results. If you measure decay of an isotope and it turns out random, then I should measure decay of that same isotope and also get random results. It does not mean the random pattern I measure should be the same as the pattern you measure. It just means they are both random.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:12 PM (Nw/hR)

1329

But they don't address why, in a Godless universe, I should care about any ideas that get in the way of what I want. All that "right" means is I'm doing something you like, and "wrong" means it's something you don't. But in a Darwinian universe, "might makes right"...it's just no one has the guts to admit it.

Posted by: wormme at August 22, 2010 01:53 AM (xg1eR)

Exactly. There is really no morality of any real sort possible without the concept of G-d, or without some meta-physical purpose to the universe and existence. This can't be more clear. Some atheists like to pull a mohammed and steal little bits from the Bible - they love the Golden Rule as their alleged all-purpose morality measure - but the Golden Rule is only as reasonable as those implementing it, and the big point is (as you say) they can't give any concrete reason as to WHY anyone should follow their rules when it doesn't interest him. Because there is no possible reason without some existant meta-physics. There is just the here and now, and then it's over, and that's it. It is, by their assessment, senseless - as it must be, since sense would require something from outside, or an afterlife or something.

The really funny part is that people are more likely to believe in backward time travel, where you could see a copy of yourself, meaning that a point in time (like right now) could exist forever (essentially - since a million years from now someone could travel backward to precisely now) but the idea of an after-life they claim to be such an odd idea.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 10:12 PM (Qp4DT)

1330 In a Darwinian Universe it isn't might makes right at all. If kindness and empathy and love help a species to survive then Natural Selection will will favor them just as much as it might favor brutality.

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 02:06 AM (Nw/hR)

But that doesn't answer the question of why I shouldn't do whatever I want to do, now. I'll get arrested? So, I kill myself (if I truly believed there was nothing but physical existence). After all, our lives are finite. What's the big difference between 30 years and 70 years? Why would anyone want to build anything for the future? They have no future, but an eventual death and then they NO LONGER EXIST in any way shape or form. Why would they care what happens to this world after they are gone?

These are all questions that cannot admit of any actual answers in the absence of some sort of meta-physical structure.

I think that most people have the idea of an afterlife built into our actual neurophysiology, very deeply. Many people assume it, even as they theorize that it is a fantasy.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 10:18 PM (Qp4DT)

1331

ace @ 1351

That's a good, but old, question. "Why didn't God make it impossible to deny Him?"

Short answer: "He wanted children, not robots."

Think of the most outlandish beliefs some people hold. Or the most blatantly obvious ideas that others won't accept. What's the limit of human self-deception?

Now imagine God overriding that. Proving something over our objections. Just how much of a person do you think would remain?

In the entire Bible, look for one example of God overriding a person's will. Oh, willful behavior has consequences. That's sort of the point. But God forcing himself on us?

Since we have free will, that's exactly what it would be.

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 10:19 PM (xg1eR)

1332

I would also add that that the Bible doesn't dismiss science, as proven by Job 37-40. God asks Job to explain time, space, Earth science, zoology, astronomy, psychology (behavior), meterology, etc. Note this verse:

³¹ "Can you [Job] bind the beautiful Pleiades?
Can you loose the cords of Orion?

Clearly an example iof astronomy in the Bible. This & other parts of these passages seem to indicate that God is no enemy of science, which means we should be, either. * Exploring the world around us ought to be encouraged. I would also add two quotes from John Calvin:

There is not one little blade of grass, there is no color in this world that is not intended to make men rejoice.

It is no small honour that God for our sake has so magnificently adorned the world, in order that we may not only be spectators of this beauteous theatre, but also enjoy the multiplied abundance and variety of good things which are presented to us in it.

_{*Job received the tongue-lashing for challenging God & speaking "words without knowledge".}

Posted by: M80sB at August 21, 2010 10:21 PM (Yq+qN)

1333 1373, The only thing stopping you from raping and pillaging is the promise of Heaven and the Threat of Hell? The only reason you don't rob banks is you don't want to go to jail? You are such a low and vile creature that only the restraint of the Bible holds you back from committing terrible crimes? Please. We are not monsters who have to be kept on a leash.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:22 PM (Nw/hR)

1334 I can tell you one way you can give your life meaning without worrying about the afterlife. Make the world a little better place before your flame goes out. Raise your children well, teach them to be good people. Add a little bit to the progress of our species. That's enough for me. I don't need more reward than that. And if I find out an asteroid the size of the Moon is going to strike earth next week I won't go out and rape and steal and murder.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:29 PM (Nw/hR)

1335 I try to keep in mind two things: very smart, well educated people have been very, very wrong about science. Very smart, well educated and zealous people have been very, very wrong about scripture.

As the theism vs atheism based on a long-ages evolutionary worldview, I think that any system within whose parameters carbon will eventually assemble itself into an intellect (albeit via a series of interconnected emergent properties of overlapping sub-systems) is pretty suspect. I guess my point is that the universe looks intelligent, to me personally. At that point, I want to know why.

Admittedly some people are totally incurious as to why, and to others the potential answers all lie outside of their acceptable boundaries, since they are not testable matters of material science.

As an aside, however, a great deal of life and the entirety of the human experience, lie in "untestable" ground. Self-knowledge is entirely unscientific in that regard. A rigid adherence to rules of testable science is self-defeating and usually constitutes self-deception: broadly, there is no exhaustive test for any theory or fact. ( For example:

http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/ravens.html )

but more particularly we do not personally rely of tested hypotheses, we rely on authority almost exclusively, and totally exclusively outside our own circle of expertise. And further, those decisions are all ultimately emotional, not logical. Even the choice to place weight on logic is emotionally driven, and the logic post-hoc justifications for emotional decisions.

Posted by: wreckage at August 21, 2010 10:30 PM (ciQUK)

1336 I mean, right away? Radiocarbon dating, of course. I mentioned that, I know. In order to keep science compliant with the Bible (and what a strange way to be begin a sentence) we have to pretend this is an unreliable science and stop using to to date historical relics. Because, like, we're supposed to act as if it's false, because the literal creation story now requires it to be false.

That also, in turn, means our measured estimate of the decay of the carbon-14 isotope must ALSO be in error, or, who knows, perhaps our entire model of how unstable isotopes decay, period...

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 12:44 AM (QbA6l)

Ace carbon dating, where accurate, is only accurate to at most 60,000 years.

This may be inconsistent with the idea of "young earth" theology as it's espoused but it is not inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Just because some 19th century theologian decides he's found the date of creation based on his addition doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 10:32 PM (ivAmM)

1337 -->The only thing stopping you from raping and pillaging is the promise of Heaven and the Threat of Hell?

I'm Jewish. We don't have a Hell, really. Judaism is pretty mum on the afterlife, outside a very general description.

I do believe there is a purpose. I think that purpose can be found in mathematical descriptions, myself. If not, then I clueless, but I do believe that there is some purpose. I'm not really religious, but I think there is something that Judaism identifies. To me, the path the Jews took and their continued existence and impact on Man is proof of something unusual.

And to be totally secular, the basic mechanics that control my actions (on the bad side) is guilt, as with most Judeo-Christian cultures. But the guilt only works one side of the equation. The idea that there is a purpose is the other.

-->The only reason you don't rob banks is you don't want to go to jail?

We're not talking about me, really. We're talkng about someone explaining to me why I shouldn't think that way, if they see no purpose to life or other meta-physical structure.
-
->You are such a low and vile creature that only the restraint of the Bible holds you back from committing terrible crimes?

-->Please.

If there's no G-d and no purpose, what do you judge "loa and vile" by?

-->We are not monsters who have to be kept on a leash.

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 02:22 AM (Nw/hR)

The question was just YOUR explanation to them of why not to be monsters, not why they might become monsters. Not to call them names, but to explain to them why they are being called names by you.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 10:33 PM (Qp4DT)

1338 Make the world a little better place before your flame goes out. Raise your children well, teach them to be good people. Add a little bit to the progress of our species.

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 02:29 AM (Nw/hR)

I addressed that exact sentiment, and the problem with explaining WHY to anyone, in my earlier comment. You only care about doing anything for the future because you retain some idea of "looking down" on an Earth after your gone. If you really believed in nothing but the physical, then you cannot tell me what interest you might possibly have in anything that happens when you're gone.

It's okay to say that you feel there is some purpose to life.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 10:36 PM (Qp4DT)

1339

13771373,

The only thing stopping you from raping and pillaging is the promise of Heaven and the Threat of Hell?

The only reason you don't rob banks is you don't want to go to jail?

You are such a low and vile creature that only the restraint of the Bible holds you back from committing terrible crimes?

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 02:22 AM (Nw/hR)

Yeah. Pretty much so. I've definitely got the physical strength to do that. Been there, done that.

I'm not snarking you eman. I'm just answering your question. (addressed to someone else.)

Posted by: ed at August 21, 2010 10:37 PM (Zsqn4)

1340 1381, I argue that God is not needed for people to be good. Many folks disagree. We will find out when we die. Why not behave like a monster? Because you are not one.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:38 PM (Nw/hR)

1341 Ah, but being *good* is not the goal. Salvation is the goal.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 10:40 PM (P0X9Q)

1342

eman @ 1372

...wait, what?

Either we have static in our comm link, or one of us (at least!) is misunderstanding some terminology.

Do you agree that science and statistics are not synomenous...synnom...are not exactly the same?

We figured out half-lives using statistics. And no one's saying that isotopic half-lives are random; they're very precisely defined values. For sufficiently large groups of nuclei.

The problem is that since statistical analysis can't address individuals, we can't see an answer. Maybe there isn't one. But maybe there is. Maybe every rad isotope has a definite life expectancy established at its making. Maybe someday a grand unified field theory will demonstrate that.

My point is, folks say "random" because we're too proud to say, "eff if I know." "Randomness" isn't a scientific concept, it's a statistical one. Heck, it's not even that. It's a statement of blind faith, a pure axiom for any finite mind.

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 10:42 PM (xg1eR)

1343 "You only care about doing anything for the future because you retain some idea of "looking down" on an Earth after your gone." Not so. I care to do what is right and do not need to view the results after I die. I will not exist anymore.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:43 PM (Nw/hR)

1344 JohnJ, if the Bible is to be taken as some kind of authoritative scientific source, why did God not see fit to include as single statement of science that would be recognized by later generations as impossible for primitive man to know and which must therefore be the inspiration of God?

To what purpose? So you don't have to believe?

Why is there no mention of an electron? I mean this seriously: If God wanted you to take the unprovable parts of Biblical science as true, why did he not include a statement about someting provable?

What does an electron have to do with your soul and loving God?

He could have said, "And the stars were far from earth, separated by aeons of time, so far that their light took tens of thousands of years to reach the earth."

BANG! ACCURATE! No way that primitive men could have known that! Proof the Bible is trying to communciate actual science!

Because what he did say is inaccurate?

Why not a single statement like that?

Why would you expect there to be one?

God knew all this; he could have told Moses in language Moses would comprehend (even if he couldn't fathom the distances God was talking about).

And God was incapable of making Moses comprehend whatever he wished him too? Do you think God was limited in what he said to someone based on their experience or intelligence? Why not just hand Moses the the theory of relativity while he was at it? Later generations would get it right?

Posted by: Rocks at August 21, 2010 10:45 PM (ivAmM)

1345 1386, Yeah, I guess I don't quite get what you mean. Are you looking for scientists to use a more accurate term because random is too dismissive of their lack of knowledge? Are you talking about knowing the mechanisms behind decay, and why they should be deterministic, but generate a random outcome?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:47 PM (Nw/hR)

1346 Why not behave like a monster?

Because you are not one.

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 02:38 AM (Nw/hR)

The question is, what is the behavior of monster and why is it classified as such?

I can answer that because I believe there is a purpose to life. I believe there IS a reason to want Man to progress; something that we are supposed to be working for or encouraging. Something bigger than this universe.

Like I said, I'm not really religious, but I subscribe to this general idea.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 10:48 PM (Qp4DT)

1347 You only care about doing anything for the future because you retain some idea of "looking down" on an Earth after your gone. If you really believed in nothing but the physical, then you cannot tell me what interest you might possibly have in anything that happens when you're gone.

Or you could call it our innate "survival of the species" instinct.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 21, 2010 10:49 PM (gbCNS)

1348 Okay then.... why not rape and steal?   Well, if you lived in a culture where that was rewarded, then you would do it.   Certainly it was a virtue for a viking to go pillage something, rape the women, take some home, and steal everything he could get his grubby Scandi hands on.    It wasn't until Christianity took over that there was any concept that one should *not* go rape and pillage and murder, if you could murder. Claim you had a berserker episode, kill a guy, and take his wife and cows and land and it didn't make you a bad person. And this in an amazingly democratic and egalitarian culture for that time or any time.

It's not some innate virtue that allows us to be compassionate without God, it's WEALTH.   There is no virtue to doing something as entirely effortless as failing to rape and murder people or steal their stuff when you are comfortable.

Note also, that this is the standard we hold people to.   If virtue isn't effortless, then we don't expect virtue.   We don't expect anyone to endure hardship without resorting to bad behavior and are ready to make excuses for it when it happens.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 10:51 PM (P0X9Q)

1349 "The question is, what is the behavior of monster and why is it classified as such?" I do not know. My guess is human are social animals and behavior that goes outside some unwritten boundary is to be rejected and curtailed.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:53 PM (Nw/hR)

1350 Not so. I care to do what is right and do not need to view the results after I die. I will not exist anymore.

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 02:43 AM (Nw/hR)

So ... if you don't exist in, say, 2250, then you really couldn't care less about what is going on then. But you want to build something that lasts to 2250, and beyond? I don't get it. It seems like you care what happens in 2250, even though you will be totally snuffed out of existence. Why?

Do you not feel the contradiction, here? You're claiming to care, now, about something in the future that you could never possibly care about - by your own claims.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 10:54 PM (Qp4DT)

1351 My guess is human are social animals and behavior that goes outside some unwritten boundary is to be rejected and curtailed.

Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 02:53 AM (Nw/hR)

That's your morality lesson? That's kind of cold, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 10:57 PM (Qp4DT)

1352 1392, But that doesn't prove Christ was Divine, it only proves he's was revolutionary. Also, Christianity did not necessarily bring only good results to those it met. Even that revolution of thought and in what is acceptable behavior is still evolving.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 10:59 PM (Nw/hR)

1353 So ... if you don't exist in, say, 2250, then you really couldn't care less about what is going on then. But you want to build something that lasts to 2250, and beyond? I don't get it. It seems like you care what happens in 2250, even though you will be totally snuffed out of existence. Why?

Possibly for the same reason we reproduce: immortality beyond mortality.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 21, 2010 11:00 PM (gbCNS)

1354 We don't expect someone who wants to have sex to stop him or herself from doing it, just because he or she is married or dating someone else. No resisting temptation necessary or expected. We just define it down to "not wrong" and call it all good.

But certainly there are still things which gets a person disapproval from the community and we're programmed to attempt to conform on account of we are social creatures.   Watch a five year old... it's innate and remarkable and we don't really grow out of it.

If our culture said something was okay, then we'd do it more often than not. Our moral code is not innate like our proclivity toward conforming is innate. If becoming a "man" means a raid and killing another person from another tribe, then we do that. We murder. We steal.   We haul the spoils of war home with us and get them pregnant.

Just because it's not God saying something is wrong, doesn't mean that there is not an outside source informing your notions of right and wrong and what you need to do to be a good person.   The idea that your morality springs fully formed from your own personal nobility is hubris of the highest order.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 11:00 PM (P0X9Q)

1355 1394, Yes, would you prefer that I care to do good and hope it made the world a better place only because it could benefit me somehow?

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:02 PM (Nw/hR)

1356 I argue that our morality comes from ourselves, individually and collectively.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:05 PM (Nw/hR)

1357 Possibly for the same reason we reproduce: immortality beyond mortality.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 22, 2010 03:00 AM (gbCNS)

Exactly. An attempt at immortality.

Of course, any scientist runs into the problem that the universe and its life (capable of supporting some sort of our life) is, so far as we can tell, quite finite. It's all a question of total mass. So the atheist cannot really fantasize about immortality of any sort. For them, the concept doesn't mean anything ... so they claim.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 11:06 PM (Qp4DT)

1358 Wow, it's late. This has been most rewarding. Soon it will be time to retire.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:07 PM (Nw/hR)

1359

@ 1388 & Co.,

My Dad became convinced that God did give conclusive proof after studying a book called None of These Diseases. The proof for him wasn't astronomical data, or sub-atomic data, but something given to the Israelites that was of actual use to a nomadic tribe: health and hygiene tips.

The Israelites, without the scientific method or research funding, all of a sudden began segregating the sick and exposed, separating latrines far from abodes, and many other like changes. This, at a time when animal dung was an advanced medical drug.

How did simple tribesmen suddenly acquire such knowledge? They claimed it was from God. But maybe they invented and utilitzed the Scientific Method, made their discoveries, then destroyed every last trace of how they did it. Because...

...well, that's the hazy part. Any theories?

Posted by: wormme at August 21, 2010 11:10 PM (xg1eR)

1360 Let's say you get to Heaven. How do you know you had been there forever? If you are there for a billion years or a microsecond and then God destroys you, how would you tell the difference? You won't exist anymore to say "Hey that was just a microsecond?" or "That was a a long time, but it sure wasn't no Eternity?" Worrying about Eternity is the height of silliness to me.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:14 PM (Nw/hR)

1361 Making the world a better place seems a very strange and self-conscious creation of religion. I think that it seems so because it focuses so far outward. It focuses far enough outward that it can't involve personal desires at all. It's sort of the same thing as defining goodness as altruism, but disallowing goodness to include helping anyone you care about because that becomes just another sort of selfish behavior.

But defining selfish behavior as bad is no more an obvious conclusion than anything else is obvious. Even Christ criticized those who didn't take care of their family first. We work to improve our own lives and that of our children and grandchildren. We work to feed ourselves and meet some level of comfort and security, and then to afford luxury. If we deal fairly, it's because we believe that being trustworthy increases our profit... and it does. We recognize that people will generally reciprocate in a like manner whatever we give out, good for good and bad for bad. We enter into social contracts to ensure that others don't steal what we've earned or murder us for it, or at least to punish them after the fact, by promising not to steal or murder or do any of the bad things ourselves.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 11:16 PM (P0X9Q)

1362 So the atheist cannot really fantasize about immortality of any sort. For them, the concept doesn't mean anything ... so they claim.

Immortality in the sense that my DNA will survive as long as my progeny does.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 21, 2010 11:16 PM (gbCNS)

1363 Posted by: eman at August 22, 2010 03:07 AM (Nw/hR)

Interesting discussion. Some day you'll really have to explain to me how you can find a reason to do anything other than exactly what you want to do, in a purposeless world, and how one could be concerned with the future of such a world. But, we've done enough tonight.

Nite folks.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 11:17 PM (Qp4DT)

1364 1403, Advanced behavior like that can pop up. All it would take is some simple observations and a culture willing to carry them out and use the results. There are cases where societies were on the edge of scientific advancement but turned away from it because their culture said "No" or "Meh".

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:19 PM (Nw/hR)

1365 "Yes, would you prefer that I care to do good and hope it made the world a better place only because it could benefit me somehow?"

My preferences are not involved. But I'd at least believe you then.

Posted by: Synova at August 21, 2010 11:19 PM (P0X9Q)

1366 Immortality in the sense that my DNA will survive as long as my progeny does.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 22, 2010 03:16 AM (gbCNS)

Of course, but if the universe's life (in terms of being able to support your DNA, in some fashion) is finite, then you cannot even achieve any sort of immortality through that. Sure, it appears to be billions of years into the future, but all finite amounts are just as far away from any infinity.

Okay. Now, I'm done. Really.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 21, 2010 11:20 PM (Qp4DT)

1367 Good night, all.

Posted by: eman at August 21, 2010 11:20 PM (Nw/hR)

1368 Good night...

Posted by: ed at August 21, 2010 11:39 PM (Zsqn4)

1369 It's really interesting to come back here and read through. The questions are fascinating. I think as we evolved God wasn't going to interact with us in the same way he interacted with those in the Old testament. Instead we see small miracles every day. Instead he speaks to us through other people.

It's interesting that a lot of the answers just boil down to the gift of faith.

Posted by: curious at August 21, 2010 11:39 PM (p302b)

1370

Well,

This is the first time I've been snarled in an epic thread like this. Holy crap.

No wonder the moronsphere is the most feared community in all the digital realms.

Good ni...good morning, all.

Posted by: wormme at August 22, 2010 01:34 AM (xg1eR)

1371 Is the Universe ordered and meaningful, or is it random and purposeless? If any part of it is meaningful then it is all meaningful, including the division of humanity into men and women. It is an easy thing to grasp, but hard to keep in mind and harder still to apply.

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at August 22, 2010 04:03 AM (wb/re)

1372 I think that what it likely means is that our own measures will be inverted on ourselves in the end. Just like thinks are different when you're drunk or simpler when you cut off blood to the brain. That is all you cannot do anything about that. GO ahead - try to forget.

#1151 imo, He knew full well what He was doing. the sacrifice to end all sacifices. And the everlasting Echo it would have throughout history. true immortality.

Posted by: one true name at August 22, 2010 04:13 AM (vQoSF)

1373 Having been involved in many similar threads in the past combined with a visit from some Watchtower Society people (Hey, buddy you knocked on MY door, remember? Why you looking at your watch? Fun times.) A lot of people spend a lot of time arguing whether the Bible is true or not. Complete waste of time. The point isn't whether the bible is true or not. the point is whether you BELIEVE the bible is true or not. Conversely a lot of what people expound science fact is not their personal knowledge but that of what they may have heard or read and they certainly don't KNOW-- not to say they don't have a good reason to accept demonstrable and repeatable information, but things get sticky when we get into theories: namely cosmological origin models (and speciation, too) In some respects, it takes as much faith to not believe in God as it does to believe in God. About the video: I have no clue that that guy is talking about. Maybe he's trying to say: I don't have to have sex with men to know having sex with men is wrong.. . . but I do it anyway.

Posted by: David at August 22, 2010 04:25 AM (gOiEK)

1374 Is the Universe ordered and meaningful, or is it random and purposeless? If any part of it is meaningful then it is all meaningful, including the division of humanity into men and women.

It is an easy thing to grasp, but hard to keep in mind and harder still to apply.

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at August 22, 2010 08:03 AM (wb/re)

Nanking

How I weep for thee
Who broken by the tyrants gore
Align the road in shuffled step
With heads bowed low before

Though you are God Incarnate too
And I a part of that Great Whole
We cannot turn the hearts of stone
Who feed upon the blood of souls

Still, that Great Whole is beauty pure
And those molesters, part as well
Engaged in ever winnowing
Dividing into heaven and hell

All ages from the Indra flow
Soon, our fair age will pass away
Then in the fire of all remaking
We'll rise again another day

I pray that each concurrent flesh
Will in the grace of ages climb
Our acme of the soul attained
And we will all nirvana find

So in that day we use our hearts
To balance wind and wave and sun
Like Camelot in dappled green
No more Nanking for anyone

Posted by: maverick muse at August 22, 2010 04:57 AM (H+LJc)

1375 Nothing like an AoS homestyle Scopes Trial. Missed again.

Posted by: sTevo at August 22, 2010 05:25 AM (VMcEw)

1376 Here is my take on judging: First, make sure you agree on the definition of judge. If you can't agree on the definition of is, then arguing/discussing is pointless.

We have to judge people and their actions everyday. Believing the Bible, it tells me much of what is good and what is bad. What I should do and what I should not. I can judge peoples actions as good or bad, but I should not judge the status of their soul, that is for God alone to do.

Mind you, we should not judge either way, and we should pray for the souls of all mankind.

Posted by: LogDogSmith at August 22, 2010 06:11 AM (8wlLy)

1377 Show me some evidence that human beings have had contact with supernatural creatures.

Not anecdote, not stories, not Scripture - evidence.

The basic flaw with this sort of demand isn't its request but the presumption behind it. You want naturalist proofs for supernatural events. That's like demanding to know what flavor the color blue is or what the total is when you add love and hate together.

Different things require different types of proof. No one can prove that you will love your baby unconditionally until you have one, they can only suggest and say its true, and show you people whose lives have changed. You can reject that as biological protection and DNA and evolutionary systems of procreation but when you have that baby... it all changes.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 22, 2010 06:30 AM (PQY7w)

1378 The point isn't whether the bible is true or not. the point is whether you BELIEVE the bible is true or not.

No, the point is whether its true or not. Because if it is true... everything changes, for everyone.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 22, 2010 06:32 AM (PQY7w)

1379
1422

The argument here equating belief in the Bible with belief in God was misguided.
One of the wisest men I have ever known answered my questions about religion with a simple statement,"Never try to build a fence around God."
A persons walk with spirituality is their own alone and shaped by whatever experiences they encounter and how they perceive and react emotionally to them.
People either have the curiosity of things esoteric and outside themselves or they do not. Like the statement attributed to Jesus, Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. Once you begin to have that curiosity and begin to make connections and suspect the workings of a greater power in things it never ends. It may ebb and flow but it never ends. It only grows larger in your life.
It is so powerful that there are people who feed off of it and rob those individuals of that original spark, dragging them into a servitude of sorts by warping their perception of the God.
Western civilization is far removed from the original observations and eastern philosophies that fueled the earliest experiences of Christianity.

Posted by: Beto at August 22, 2010 07:03 AM (H+LJc)

1380

Erm, Rocks, every jot and tittle of the Law passed away with the sacrifice of Christ. Check out the Book of Hebrews. It is a short read.

Posted by: Michael at August 21, 2010 11:58 PM (JtKsy)

Sorry but this was a short comment and I missed it earlier. I have read it. I've also read Romans. Hebrews establishes Christ's supremacy over the Law and how he is capable of changing parts of it as he so chooses. The same writer also wrote Romans and it's pretty clear all of the Law hasn't passed away. This makes sense considering all of Creation itself is part of the law. Hebrews itself also uses Creation and the Flood as examples so I don't think it's meant to suggest they never happened.

Posted by: Rocks at August 22, 2010 08:16 AM (ivAmM)

1381 Does an elaborate tale like the Flood make sense simply to remind us not to sin?

Nah, I always took it that, Noah's story was proof that God can appear to be petty, punishing, and irrational.

Posted by: Deety at August 22, 2010 08:37 AM (aVzyR)

1382 A lot needs to go to make science Bible-compliant.

Posted by: ace at August 22, 2010 12:46 AM (QbA6l)

Science doesn't need to be Bible compliant and the Bible doesn't need to be science compliant either. Maybe I am wrong but you seem to suggest you could accept the idea that God could heal some one, a miracle. Take a person with riddled with cancer and literally a nanosecond later have it be gone without any intervention but God's. There is nothing scientific about that. In fact science says it can't happen and if it did there must be some natural, scientific, explanation which we simply haven't found yet. Look at this evidence a thousand years later and it will all say it didn't happen. But it doesn't mean that person is not now cancer free. That it wasn't a literal, or historical event. How is that different from creating the universe in 7 days?

Posted by: Rocks at August 22, 2010 09:16 AM (ivAmM)

1383 He knew full well what He was doing. the sacrifice to end all sacifices.

I see no sacrifice when the outcome for God is having his son by his side for all eternity or Jesus' sitting next to God for eternity. The sacrifice to end all sacrifices would be no immortal outcome for death.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 22, 2010 10:23 AM (gbCNS)

1384 I'll probably start a shitstorm by saying so, but the KJV is by far the worst, and others which sprung from it are little better.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 21, 2010 11:14 PM (WUpAX)

My pastor uses the KJV rather than the newer versions because all of the KJV errors are documented.

Posted by: baldilocks at August 22, 2010 11:36 AM (vBppj)

1385

Hi baldilocks!

I've run across your blog many times. Never shared digital space with you til now.

As fas as the KJV goes, if it's been drilled into your head since before birth it's hard to abandon. And can anyone honestly claim that the KJV of I Cor. 13 isn't, by far, the best? It's one of the most poetic passages in all English.

Posted by: wormme at August 22, 2010 03:03 PM (xg1eR)

1386 Nah, I always took it that, Noah's story was proof that God can appear to be petty, punishing, and irrational.

Posted by: Deety at August 22, 2010 12:37 PM (aVzyR)

Check out Chuck Missler's youtube videos for a less human-centered viewpoint.

Posted by: baldilocks at August 22, 2010 03:13 PM (vBppj)

1387 nd can anyone honestly claim that the KJV of I Cor. 13 isn't, by far, the best? It's one of the most poetic passages in all English.

Posted by: wormme at August 22, 2010 07:03 PM (xg1eR)

And even that one is a bad translation. The word is Love (Agape) not charity.

Wasn't this a great thread?

Posted by: baldilocks at August 22, 2010 03:15 PM (vBppj)

1388 I see no sacrifice when the outcome for God is having his son by his side for all eternity or Jesus' sitting next to God for eternity. The sacrifice to end all sacrifices would be no immortal outcome for death.

That's because you think death is the worst thing that can happen to someone.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 22, 2010 04:24 PM (PQY7w)

1389 last

Posted by: sig at August 22, 2010 05:52 PM (2i+Vz)

1390 My position is that, sub-topic of Biblical principles or not, you are free to judged if you are ready to be judged yourself.

http://alturl.com/m22qq

Posted by: Scott at August 23, 2010 01:15 AM (PXGSj)

1391

That's because you think death is the worst thing that can happen to someone.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 22, 2010 08:24 PM (PQY7w)

I'm curious what other single human event ranks number one, by far, in mankind's fears, even if one believes in everlasting immortal life.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 07:48 AM (gbCNS)

1392

I'm curious what other single human event ranks number one, by far, in mankind's fears, even if one believes in everlasting immortal life.

Less common ones that you may or may not fear yourself individually.

Death is not the worst, not even close - it's rather banal and inevitable. It's simply the one we all share universally.

I can think of a dozen things I fear more than death. Whether or not any would scare you, I can't say.

Stab in the dark: Being ass-raped repeatedly. Perhaps you'd rather simply die?

Being tortured in a Vietnamese (or WWII Japanese) POW camp until you wished you were dead?

Having your individuality and sense of self systematically deconstructed ala the psychological and physical torture of Winston in 1984?

Being forced or feeling compelled to do something for which you'd never be able to forgive yourself, and could never again respect or like yourself?

How bout watching others, people you love, being harmed and killed? Would it be only 'over your dead body', would you rush to your futile death to avoid watching that? Or would you sit because there's 'nothing you can do' and hope to move on?

I can think of situations I wouldn't fear death at all. To paraphrase Locke, a man who has nothing he fears for more than death, and nothing he values more than his life, is a miserable coward who'll never fully appreciate his life.

Posted by: Entropy at August 23, 2010 08:03 AM (IsLT6)

1393 How bout watching others, people you love, being harmed and killed?

Been there. My own death is nothing to fear as a result.

What other event is mankind's single greatest fear, not breaking it down to personal fears? The whole everlasting life meme of the Bible addresses this single fear.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 08:21 AM (gbCNS)

1394

6 Â¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and *turn again and rend you.

*could that include tearing you apart with the same words you use your God given liberty to make a judement call in your own life? The only other time I recall from the top of my head pigs being mentioned in the Gospels was when Jesus exorcised a legion of demons from a man and sent them in to habitate a herd of pigs. For some reason, that reminds me of the MFM. Pearls = truth & wisdom. Trampled under foot = pissing and shitting all over truth and wisdom and then attacking you with no regard to the pearls being given to them from you in the first place. Look at how they claim and use a supposed lack of tolerance and brotherly love (therefore hypocrisy) exists deep within their political opponents to further any liberal agenda they can.

Â“DonÂ’t tell me that words donÂ’t matter. Â‘I have a dream.Â’ Just words. Â‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.Â’ Just words. Â‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.Â’ Just words. Just speeches. ItÂ’s true that speeches donÂ’t solve all problems, but what is also true is that if we canÂ’t inspire the country to believe again, then it doesnÂ’t matter how many plans and policies we have.Â” Then quit telling me what the words I use to guide my life really mean. After all, that is above your pay grade.

Posted by: Apocalyptic Stress Syndrome at August 23, 2010 08:28 AM (nBE5A)

1395 Facing and surviving mankind's single worst fear gives one the latitude to focus more exclusively on all the personal sub fears, like burning in Hell, oblivion, spiders, etc.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 08:45 AM (gbCNS)

1396

Death is covered well in the discussion with Nicodemus (John 3:1-1 . I submit that death = being "born again". Jesus was encouraging us not to be afraid of death. Then he went on to explain why. Because is is the Messiah and He loves us.

^"14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, ¹⁵that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

Recall the context here. Simply looking at the serpent in the desert saved the life of those who did so (Numbers 21:8-9). I submit that simply believing in Jesus as Messiah will enable a person to be "born again" when they die.

Once saved, always saved.

Posted by: Apocalyptic Stress Syndrome at August 23, 2010 08:55 AM (nBE5A)

1397 What is Hell?

Posted by: Apocalyptic Stress Syndrome at August 23, 2010 08:59 AM (nBE5A)

1398 Hell would be something to fear if you believe in everlasting life. Raise your hands if you wouldn't mind everlasting torture, for yourself or someone you love.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 09:07 AM (gbCNS)

1399

Not interested in watching a preachy douche's video nor am I interested in the theology lessons / debates.

I just know that I as long as there are yummy critters roaming the earth, I'll be eating them without remorse, guilt or any other BS.

Posted by: Kuhnzoo at August 23, 2010 09:12 AM (CgiLU)

1400 Interesting that the Bible seeks to erase the fear of death --- and succeeds by the promise of everlasting life. However, that promise has the caveat of eternal damnation if you don't believe, which is like never ending death, even if you live life as a good person in absence of feeling threatened to do so.

So, if you can't believe in all honesty (and it would be comforting), even if you try every mental trick in the book, it appears that being honest with yourself about true belief is no less of a sin than being a mass child rapist and murderer.

Fine and dandy if all works for you.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 11:23 AM (gbCNS)

1401 I'm curious what other single human event ranks number one, by far, in mankind's fears, even if one believes in everlasting immortal life.

I'm curious why you think a poll of public opinion defines reality.

So, if you can't believe in all honesty (and it would be comforting), even if you try every mental trick in the book, it appears that being honest with yourself about true belief is no less of a sin than being a mass child rapist and murderer.

Again, you're a bit off the mark because you've not considered other categories than the ones you presume.

Salvation isn't due to our best efforts or good feelings, it isn't due to our nice deeds or a life offered up which seems more than 50% good. Its due to the doing and dying of Jesus Christ put to our account. Faith is a gift, and belief is a response, not the cause of salvation.

See, what you're presuming is what all human religions presume: we get to paradise by our efforts. We don't. The only thing we bring to our salvation is sin. The only hope we have is Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 23, 2010 12:59 PM (PQY7w)

1402 Incidentally, in an objective sense, all sin is equally horrible: any one sin is sufficient to damn me to hell, because God demands absolute perfection in thought, word, and deed, without omission. That's why Jesus Christ is our only hope: only by His perfection put to my account can I possibly be saved.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 23, 2010 01:03 PM (PQY7w)

1403 Faith is a gift, and belief is a response, not the cause of salvation.

Yeah, I'm not a whiner about being passed by with the presents. I'm happy for game-show winners on TV, too.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 01:19 PM (gbCNS)

1404 Dueling arguments are so confusing, btw:

See, what you're presuming is what all human religions presume: we get to paradise by our efforts. We don't. The only thing we bring to our salvation is sin.

Incidentally, in an objective sense, all sin is equally horrible: any one sin is sufficient to damn me to hell, because God demands absolute perfection in thought, word, and deed, without omission.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 01:38 PM (gbCNS)

1405 BTW, I am not being argumentative for the sake of it. My interest in after-life shit has been on overload for a long time now, what with my witnessing the violent death of my small child (love of my life, way more important than my own life). My greatest wish is to be reunited with him.

I take every opportunity for anyone, anyone, to give me a reason to actually believe I will. If I'm never able to honestly believe it, well, I've had worse things in my life.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 02:10 PM (gbCNS)

1406 You're asking the right questions.

God does demand perfect obedience without the slightest possible failure. We must present God with a life of absolute perfection and righteousness or be lost. All I can bring to him is sin, my life is one of failure to trust and obey and rebellion against God's perfect, righteous authority.

How then can anyone be saved? That's the right question to ask. Its the question that drove the protestant reformation and changed the world.

Only through the perfection of another who lives that life we cannot, and died the death we deserved in our place, paying the complete price for all our sin and our natural tendency to sin from the fall in its totality for us, in our place. A representative who God accepts, a substitute who can achieve what we cannot.

That's the essence of Christianity. I am a helpless, lost sinner saved by the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, which I need every single day.

I understand your loss - even if I cannot possibly share it or feel its totality. I've lost loved ones, but never a child. As I understand it, that's the worst possible spiritual pain on earth. So you have my deepest sympathies. All I can offer you is the cross, because ultimately that's the only answer we have. Nothing matters without it, and nothing else matters with it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 23, 2010 03:12 PM (PQY7w)

1407 Christopher Taylor at August 23, 2010 07:12 PM (PQY7w)

Thank you. I'm not trying to get sympathy, especially on the internet (just vaguely explaining where I'm coming from), but that was very kind of you.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at August 23, 2010 06:38 PM (gbCNS)

1408 Blessed are the children, for from the Lord they came, and to Him they shall return.

Posted by: the ocean at August 23, 2010 09:48 PM (vQoSF)

1409 If you want a beautiful, strong and authentically designed pair of shoes, choosing the Timberland is the right option to accomplish your desire for shoes and boots.

Posted by: Timberland boots at August 24, 2010 01:06 AM (vtZf+)

1410

solar panelThe main products we manufacture and export as below:

　　Monocrystalline silicon solar panel, polycrystalline silicon solar panel, solar power system.

　　solar street light, wind solar hybrid street light, solar garden light, solar sensor light, solar lawn light.

LED lamp for solar garden light, solar brick light, solar street lightsolar post cap, solar road stud, other solar lights and accessories

Posted by: vh4rb at March 06, 2011 05:24 PM (+e92r)

1411

Online Radii Shoes• Buy Radii Shoes on www.radiishoe.com. Fashion and free shipping in radii footwear, radii straight jacket, radii 420 top.

Posted by: radii shoes at June 27, 2011 05:28 PM (We9m7)

1412

Our online store supply asics running shoes with big discount and fast free shipping to worldwide!