(Advertisement)

We Should Show Compassion In All Things

LET’S TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT: APPLY THE VALUES OF JESUS TO OUR SOCIAL, POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Posted: October 23, 2011 at 5:30 a.m.

I have an interest in applying the values of Jesus to our social and political discourse. And I’m troubled by many Christians who advocate policies that seem contrary to Jesus’ values or who focus on things that are not central to what we know of his priorities.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 13 on 10/23/2011

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Monsters Do Walk Among Us

The monster came through the window. Read »

Next Story »

Baseball, Politics Have A Lot In Common

Think of it this way: We will have another entire baseball season ahead of us before the November 2012 presidential election. Read »

Another outstanding Christian column.

Posted by: cdawg

October 23, 2011 at 4:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Another example of Lowell completely missing the message of the Bible, a swing and a miss. Jesus was NOT essentially a compassionate person. Jesus WAS essentially the completion of God's redemptive plan. The entire Bible centers around the simple theme that man is fallen, man is seperated, God is gracious, Jesus is sufficient. The Bible is not a political play book Lowell, that is shameful.
Lowell, you pull the classic blunder that the Jews of that time pulled. They were looking for a political king while God was concerned with a spiritual king. They killed Jesus when they realized that he was there to save them from eternal seperation from God, now Lowell is killing the message of the Bible so he can sell more social programs. Shameful.
Jesus came to be punished, to experience God's wrath so that we don't have to, that is why he endured the cross, not to make some politcal statement about the death penalty or resistance. Shameful.
I am sorry Lowell, but when your entire starting point for the Bible is wrong, then you end up at the wrong conclusions everytime.

Posted by: GregJ

October 23, 2011 at 6:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm no Bible scholar, but I can differentiate between Reverend Grisham's message of love/compassion and GregJ's message of hate/exclusion. Shameful.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

October 23, 2011 at 7:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, I have hate and I want to exclude Lowells shameful and self-promoting view of the Bible. Other than that, show me where I have said anything hateful?

Posted by: GregJ

October 23, 2011 at 7:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here is what Jesus said about homosexuality. Nothing. WRONG LOWELL, that is a blatant lie. God wrote the entire Bible, Jesus is God, Jesus condenmed it.
Here is what Jesus said about abortion. Nothing. WRONG LOWELL. Jesus said thou shalt not murder.
I hate lies. Yes Frank, I want lies excluded from the conversation.

Posted by: GregJ

October 23, 2011 at 7:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GREG: "Another example of Lowell completely missing the message of the Bible...">>

Interesting. Here I see Lowell giving many specific examples of what Jesus was constantly going on about, and his examples are completely supported by the Bible and very well known to anyone familiar with the Bible. Yet Greg dismisses all of this with a wave of the hand and claims Lowell is "killing the message of the Bible." Yet, Greg shows no familiarity with what Jesus spent most, if not *all* of his time focusing on! How can modern day fundamentalists be so breathtakingly misinformed about their favorite book? Are they getting their Bible scholarship from the FOX News Business channel? It would appear so.

GREG: "Jesus condenmed(sic) it [homosexuality].">>

Excellent. Then do tell us Greg, chapter and verse where *Jesus* condemned homosexuality. You said Jesus did this, now let's see if you can support it while being honest with language. And by that I mean, when in the Bible Paul says something, we say: "Paul said this." When Moses says something, we say: "Moses said this." Etc. So if you want to say Jesus *said* something, then you need to get your red letter Bible out and find where in the New Testament Jesus *said* what you are are claiming *Jesus* said. Good luck with that.

GREG: "Jesus said thou shalt not murder.">>

Okay, give us chapter and verse, where Jesus said: "thou shalt not murder." (and if you want to be walked through the Hebrew of what the Ten Commandments actually say about this, we can do that).

"Murder" is, by definition wrong. The word means "wrongful killing." So it's rather redundant to say you shouldn't murder, it's like say it's wrong to do something wrong. To try and apply this commandment (not from Jesus), to abortion, just begs the question of whether a fetus is a person. When we look to the Bible for it's opinion on this question, the answer is clear. The Bible does not consider a fetus a person, so "murder" wouldn't even apply. This is carefully explained here: "Does the Bible consider the fetus a person?" http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fet...

GREG: "I hate lies.">>

Excellent, me too. So we are going to get along great (as soon as you stop lying about what the Bible says).

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 23, 2011 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Its is funny how I have to give specific examples but Lowell doesn't. Is that free thought? Lowell give NO specific citations and thus one is forced to accept Lowell rendition. Again, my premise is that Jesus was not here for social justice which is the Lowells premise. Jesus healed, yes, but he didn't come to earth to heal, if healing was all he wanted to do he could have done it from heaven. And the same goes for his feeding people. Jesus specifically said WHY he came to earth, Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." That IS the reason, every other miracles was a bonus, every other act was extra, Jesus came to find spiritually lost sheep and to save them. That was the essential Jesus.

As far as the rest of you commentary I can only say that all scripture is God breathed, God inspired and thus my conclusion that the entire Bible is and was written by God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is pretty clear.

I am sorry that you are an atheist, but being as that is the case I am afraid you do not have the right or priveledge to use the Bible to make your case as you are clearly not qualified to fully grasp the depth of it. At least you can say you have chosen that position freely, hence your very appropriate name.

PS, that little Fox new jab was pretty lame, and very embarrassing for a free thinker as yourself. You see a true free thinker would never make an assuption based on what little information you have about me.

Posted by: GregJ

October 23, 2011 at 10:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GR: "funny how I have to give specific examples but Lowell doesn't.">

Lowell gave very specific examples. I'll number them for you. If you need chapter and verse for each, just ask:
1) singular commandment was “Love.”
2) Love God;
3) love neighbor as self.
4) Love one another
5) fed and healed those who weren’t from his own country or religion.
6) made a Samaritan heretic the hero of his story
7) allowed Mary... to learn as a male disciple might.
8) befriended prostitutes and rescued an adulteress.
9) told us to judge not, lest you be judged.
10) He blessed the poor and challenged the wealthy.

That's just in the first half of his article, you can see the rest yourself. These are very specific examples.

You claimed: "Jesus condenmed [homosexuality]" and say Lowell was wrong to say he didn't. Back up your claim.
You claimed: "Jesus said thou shalt not murder."
Where is your example?

GREG: "Lowell give NO specific citations">>

In the first half of his article he referred to 10 specific examples that are so well know, any child with a Sunday school understanding of the Bible would know them. Your complaint that he doesn't fill his article with citations for these well known verses, is ridiculous. You don't provide citation for you claims, even after being challenged on them, because you cannot.

GR: "one is forced to accept Lowell rendition.">>

See the ten examples I pulled from his article. His examples are straight forward and hardly controversial. I would think a child could understand that a camel won't fit through the eye of a needle. Was Jesus not specific enough for you here?

GR: "Jesus was not here for social justice which is the Lowells premise.">>

No, that's your spin of his premise. Read his first two sentences. We are told to:
a) follow Jesus' example
b) follow what Jesus said to do

This is simply what Rev. Lowell refers to, and then backs it up with about two dozen specific examples. Your dismissal of all of this with a hand wave and unsupported assertions is not persuasive in the least.

GR: "Jesus... didn't come to earth to heal,">>

And no one said he did. You completely misunderstand Lowell's claims.

GR: "the same goes for his feeding people.">>

Right, no one claimed he came to earth to feed people. You are profoundly misreading his article.

GR: "my conclusion that the entire Bible is and was written by God,">>

Okay. And as I've shown, that God, in his Bible, does not give a fetus the status of personhood. And I base this, as I do all of my claims about the Bible, upon standard mainstream Christian Bible scholarship.

GR: "you do not have the right or priveledge to use the Bible to make your case">>

I'll use whatever I want to make my case, thank you very much.

GR: "you are clearly not qualified to fully grasp the depth of it.">>

Then you shouldn't have any trouble showing this while backing up your claims and walking me through the "depth of it."

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 24, 2011 at 12:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lowell, thank you once again for your faithful exegesis on the patterning of Christianity.

I was listening to a conversation recently that was enlightening to me...it went something like this -- in order to seek direction as to "What would Jesus do?" we need to first look at what Jesus did.

In looking at what he did we should get a fairly good idea as to what he would do in a similar situation today.

That, then, should be the pattern of Christianity -- see what Jesus did, and then do likewise in our own setting and society.

Please keep up the commentary. You are providing historical Biblical insights that evidently haven't been available in the theological development of some Christians.

Posted by: Jim_Huffman

October 24, 2011 at 12:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Regarding the depth of it, I'd say GregJ is piling it deeper with every post; and he's clearly out of his depth arguing with fayfreethinker.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

October 24, 2011 at 12:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GregJ--

RE "I can only say that all scripture is God breathed, God inspired and thus my conclusion that the entire Bible is and was written by God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is pretty clear."
Surely you realize, then, that that Jesus participated in the legalization of abortion. Or did you not read the God-given (and therefore, per your conclusion, Jesus-given) instructions for performing an abortion in the Book of Daniel?

RE "You see a true free thinker would never make an assumption based on what little information you have about me."
And if you read his comment again, you will see that fft didn't make an assumption about you. He asked a rhetorical question about all Christian fundamentalists who have such an ignorant perception of the Bible. And his question is justified, as Faux News viewers become more ignorant. See "STUDY: Watching FOX News Makes You Stupid" at http://tinyurl.com/4xcqqya and the follow-up at http://tinyurl.com/2d7qtce Both stories link to the study.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 24, 2011 at 12:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

fayfreethinker--

You once asked GregJ if he consistently dismisses all of the experts in other scientific fields in favor of his own biases and uninformed opinion, or if he only does this in climatology.

Although he never answered your question directly, I think this new topic of discussion offers a hint as to the answer.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 24, 2011 at 3:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,
The Bible is a book of context, not a book of excerpts. What I am saying here is a very easy to understand. Lowell is using excerpts from the Bible under the premise that “Jesus was essentially a compassionate person” “And I’m troubled by many Christians who advocate policies that seem contrary to Jesus’ values or who focus on things that are not central to what we know of his priorities.” Now Lowell gives anecdotal examples that suit his agenda and conveniently gives no citation. Now, an astute reader would easily see the flaw in his presentation, but a casual reader could very easily be swayed (by deception) to think Jesus was just as Lowell says. Lowell is concerned with temporal comforts, Jesus came to save the spiritually dead. Lowell wants to give people a drink of water, Jesus wants to give living water.
Take Lowell’s rendition of the story of the woman at the well. God ordained that meeting between Jesus and the woman NOT to make a public statement about women or race but to show that his message was about eternal thirst, the need for spiritual healing. It was not some socioeconomic message.
The Bible is clear about sin and thus the Bible and Jesus are very clear about homosexuality and murder. All of you arguments regarding the fetus are a nice effort to fit God into your desired mold but they ignore one simple fact. God is God, the creator, sustainer, owner of all. Man is fallen, and to require our lives at any time IS justice and the fact that God does NOT require all of our lives is testament to his grace and mercy.
I have never contended that Christians shouldn’t love their neighbors, I am simply saying that Lowell’s premise is wrong. But true love has the other person’s best interest in mind. Sometimes that means a sandwich, sometimes that means NO sandwich. Sometimes tough love must be the message. Jesus gave the woman at the well tough love, she needed salvation and she needed to called to the mat for her sin and Jesus gave her that essential message.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Frank, I am not arguing with freethinker. Free thinker is not a freethinker anyway, he is a snapshop thinker. He knows nothing of context as illustrated by his Bible argument as well as his views on Lowell. I have been reading and following lowell for years and anyone who has done the same would clearly see that Lowell IS a social Christian first and foremost. In fact, I have never heard Lowell talk about salvation and why? Lowell doesn't believe people need saving in the real sense.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 10:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GR: "Lowell gives anecdotal examples that suit his agenda...">

When someone makes a case for the Bible, or Jesus, promoting a certain position (in this case the admittedly *radical* notion that Jesus was compassionate and cared for the down trodden, disenfranchised and poor), and they back it up with about 20 scriptural examples, it's not an effective rebuttal for you to dismiss this as "anecdotal," and then provide no counter examples except for two which you can't back up because they don't happen to exist.

GR: "and conveniently gives no citation.">>

As soon as you provide scriptural citation for your claim that Jesus condemned homosexuality and abortion, I'll go through and pop in the verses for each of Lowell's scriptural references. It would take me two minutes. Are you really this unfamiliar with the Bible that you aren't aware of each these? Would you like a free, home, freethinker Bible study?

GR: "an astute reader would easily see the flaw in his presentation,">>

Then you shouldn't have any trouble demonstrating this flaw. First off you would need to understand and refer to what he is saying, rather than your clear misreading (see his last sentence where he says he is referring to "political focus). Again, he is suggesting we should:

a) follow Jesus' example
b) follow what Jesus said to do

And then he gives about 20 specific well known examples. You give two, but they're both wrong and unscriptural, hence your continued failure to support them.

GR: "Take Lowell’s rendition of the story of the woman at the well.">>

Okay, it was one sentence:
"He spoke publicly with a Samaritan woman and offered her living water despite her scandalous past."

Anything incorrect with this? Nope.

GR: "the Bible and Jesus are very clear about homosexuality and murder.">>

Excellent. Then with this third request, you shouldn't have any trouble backing up your assertion with very specific examples of Jesus being "very clear" about both homosexuality and abortion.

Oh, and do (again) avoid this most basic fallacy of question begging (whether abortion is "murder," is in fact the question). That's a logical fallacy and error in reasoning so blatant it was understood in 350 BC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_...

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 24, 2011 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

This is NOT for the supposed freethinker because the freethinker is anything but free. He is trapped in flawed thinking.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Jesus did not come primarily to heal, feed, befriend any specific people, he came to save their eternal souls.

Jesus said to "love your neighbor as yourself". Would you, assuming you are an eternal being, prefer a creature comfort today or eternal salvation? Yes, context matters. Jesus told us to "go and make disciples", that is our job first and foremost, NOT temporal needs first. So follow Jesus example, yes, and what was that example, seek and save the LOST, and what did he say to do? go and make disciples.

As far as homosexuality and abortion, I am going to let that go. I have shown Biblically that the whole Bible is from God, the entire thing was written by men through God's inspiration and thus every word in the Bible is directly from God (if you disagree that is fine but it is for another time). God clearly lays out the fact that lust is a sin, sex outside marriage is a sin, lying is a sin, etc. Jesus didn't say anything specifically about homosexuality? wrong, he specifically said it is a sin to even consider sex with anyone except your spouse.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 11:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And your ad hominem attack on me disqualifies you from bringing up logical fallacies, sorry, but you can't make up the rules as you go.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 11:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GregJ--

Let me see if I understand your thinking here:
If Jesus took time out from writing the Bible to come to Earth in order to save souls, and if He did so through metaphor, parable and symbol, and if we are to emulate His ministry in order to continue to save souls-- that is, if we are supposed to engage in the same metaphorical, symbolic behavior in order to illustrate salvation-- then shouldn't we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take in the outcast, love our enemies, chase the money-changers from the temples, and get off of our high horses?

Sounds like you still have some work to do. Metaphor, symbol and parable are not excuses to sweep the works of Jesus under the rug-- they are reasons to act like Jesus.

This could be your theme song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbvrRc...

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 24, 2011 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I hate repeating myself but I guess I have no choice again. I didn't say anything to insinuate what we shouldn't do as Christians. I simply said that fulfilling temporal needs is no excuse for the real message of Jesus. Pretty simple. My problem with Lowell here is that he is talking to Christians and yet neglects our TRUE call and attempting to switch our mission to fit his social agenda. Again, pretty simple.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 11:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GregJ--

But you're also saying that Jesus' ministry is an essential element of saving souls. It follows that it is an essential that we follow it, if we are to save souls.

Rev. Grisham, then, is not lying. He is reminding the more fundamentalist among soul-savers that they're not doing the complete job.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 24, 2011 at 12:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GR: "Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.">>

A most excellent example Greg, now let's consider the context:
"Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much.” 9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Luke 19:8-10

Jesus declares salvation has come to this house, right after Zaccheus puts love in action by saying he will give 1/2 of his possessions to the poor. This one needs to go on the pile of examples the good Reverend already provided.

GR: "Jesus told us to "go and make disciples", that is our job first and foremost,...">>

Where did Jesus ever say that was "our job, first and foremost?" Chapter and verse please.

GR: "follow Jesus example, yes, and what was that example,...">>

Here are a few:
1) singular commandment was “Love.”
2) Love God;
3) love neighbor as self.
4) Love one another
5) fed and healed those who weren’t from his own country or religion.
6) made a Samaritan heretic the hero of his story
7) allowed Mary... to learn as a male disciple might.
8) befriended prostitutes and rescued an adulteress.
9) told us to judge not, lest you be judged.
10) blessed the poor and challenged the wealthy.

GR: "As far as homosexuality and abortion, I am going to let that go.">>

Of course you are. And if you were honest about it you would admit you were wrong when you chided the good Reverend and said he was wrong. He was exactly right.

GR: "I have shown Biblically that the whole Bible is from God,">>

No, actually you just asserted it. You've shown nothing. There are two main problems with your claim, (even if it were true that the Bible is x, because the Bible says it is x):
a) It's textbook circular reasoning
b) There is no verse in the Bible that addresses the Bible as a whole (it was compiled centuries later).

So your claim fails on all counts.

GR: "Jesus didn't say anything specifically about homosexuality? wrong,">>

I thought you were going to let that one go? It didn't go well for you. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 24, 2011 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GR: "[Jesus] specifically said it is a sin to even consider sex with anyone except your spouse.">>

Actually, he said it was a sin to even think about it (Matt 5:27). Fortunately, we've solved that problem now with gay marriage. Coming to a state near you (he never said anything about gay marriage either).

GR: "your ad hominem attack on me disqualifies you from bringing up logical fallacies,...">>

What ad hominem attack? When you make such a charge, you need to support your claim with an example. Once you do this, I'll explain how you are mistaken. While you have consistently tried to distract with attacks on my person (based upon my screen name I guess), I haven't once in this thread substituted argumentation with personal attack (which is when the ad hominem fallacy applies).

If you want to talk about the abortion issue (which Jesus never mentioned), then before you begin you need to learn how to do it without blatantly begging the question by labeling it as "murder." Begging the question is when you assume beforehand what you are supposed to be showing. Don't do that.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 24, 2011 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Father Grisham - While I appreciate the spirit of your writing, I disagree with a few of your conclusions.

1. Jesus commanded the church to take care of the poor, sick and widowed; not the government. I would much rather give my income to my church than to the government asn I believe they would use it to take care of others. I don't think paying taxes to fund social welfare programs is what Jesus had in mind.
2. You talked about Jesus being a great host to strangers, even those that weren't reputable. I also believe this to be important. However, if you extrapolate this to immigration, I am certainly glad to extend hospitality to those who are here as our guests. For those who enter the country illegaly, I find little difference between them and someone who breaks into my home. I don't intend to to spread the table for a thief.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Posted by: superdave10

October 24, 2011 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

go back and read Lowell's first paragraph again and I think you can see where he and I part ways.
"And I’m troubled by many Christians who advocate policies that seem contrary to Jesus’ values or who focus on things that are not central to what we know of his priorities." Clearly lowell said "not central . . . of his priorities". I will say it again. Lowell is confused as to what WAS central to Christ, and we KNOW what that was, the eternal state of the human soul. I can only say that if we take Lowell's veiw of Christ priorities then we will focus on people's physical needs.
Make disciples first, aid with physical needs second. That is all I am saying.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Free?thinker

I appreciate you making my point with Zacheous, salvation came, followed by works. Salvation is ALWAYS the most important.

We invented gay marriage so that makes the Bible wrong, lol. there is some sound logic my friend. And while we are at it, "consider" means "to think about" that IS the definition, so when I said Jesus said it is a sin to consider sex outside marriage, that is actually correct, I am glad we agree.

You don't know me, so it is clearly an ad hominem attack to clearly say that I am getting my facts from the Fox new and not Bible. Clearly an attack on my character, and clearly ad hominem. In your circle it is clearly an attack, you know, you and Rach madow, and eddie schultz and tingly leg matthews. lol

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 2:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GregJ--
RE "Make disciples first, aid with physical needs second. That is all I am saying."

No, you've said a lot more than that. You also said:

"Here is what Jesus said about homosexuality. Nothing. WRONG LOWELL, that is a blatant lie. God wrote the entire Bible, Jesus is God, Jesus condenmed it."
A claim that there is a specific prohibition of homosexuality can exist only if you take parts of the Law out of context, which you apparently don't want anybody else to do.

"Here is what Jesus said about abortion. Nothing. WRONG LOWELL. Jesus said thou shalt not murder."
But in the Book of Daniel, God (and therefore Jesus) commanded the priests of the temple to perform abortions.

"I have shown Biblically that the whole Bible is from God"
Saying something is not showing. Good thing, too, as your apparent lack of respect for what the Bible actually says might otherwise be taken as disrespect for God.

RE "I have been reading and following lowell for years and anyone who has done the same would clearly see that Lowell IS a social Christian first and foremost. In fact, I have never heard Lowell talk about salvation and why? Lowell doesn't believe people need saving in the real sense."
Have you ever attended one of his services? Maybe that's where he talks about salvation. Every good clergyman works with the world in the world in a way that opens the world to salvation. Jesus is one example; Rev. Grisham might well be another. Feeding the hungry takes their mind off of their hunger and gives them a more favorable disposition toward salvation. I know you think that salvation should be by way of unpleasantness, but Jesus didn't think so.

RE "Make disciples first, aid with physical needs second."
The account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand rather flies in the face of that statement.

Since none of us is Jesus, we have to spread the word third-hand. Rev. Grisham does a very good job of that.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 24, 2011 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is clear we have differing opinions, you and me, me and Lowell. So here we are and here I will depart because I am NOT here to argue, I am here to offer and alternative view to Lowell and apparently you as well.
I have made my point and if anyone is willing to accept the idea that they are eternal being that will either be with God or apart from him then hopefully they can accept the idea that where they end up in eternity is infinitely more important than what is in the belly tonight. Jesus DIED on a cross, an innocent man, to secure that future for those who will believe. If Jesus was here only to fill a belly or endorse homosexuals then He could have flown home when he was done, instead he suffered an horrific physical death as well as a metaphysical suffering like noone has every seen. For you. His love transcended our temporal comfort. And I for one choose that same message as essential as foundational.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 2:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As far as the other point, yes they are worthy of consideration but that was my mistake to bring up as I knew that would be a cross for many to die on. Regrettably I wish I would have addressed the two topics seperately.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I also wonder if Peter had "easy access" to the sword he had. I mean seriously, Jesus didn't say anything about how easy it was for peter to walk around with a weapon. And since he didn't say anything against easy access then, like homosexuality, he MUST have been all for it. right.

Posted by: GregJ

October 24, 2011 at 2:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GR: "Lowell is confused as to what WAS central to Christ,">>

You have asserted this but didn't remotely show this. Lowell gave about twenty examples backing up his position. I think you quoted the one verse about making disciples, something no one would disagree with and quite inline with what Lowell has said many times. You said:
"Jesus told us to "go and make disciples", that is our job first and foremost,..."
I asked: Where did Jesus ever say that was "our job, first and foremost?" As usual, you didn't respond (and for the same reason you gave up on those other two issues).

GR: "I appreciate you making my point with Zacheous,">>

Actually, the part you left out, and I included, regarding giving half of his possessions to the poor, was quite in line with Lowell's position and quite contrary to yours.

GR: "salvation came, followed by works.">>

That's backwards to the verses in question, but close enough I guess.

GR: "Salvation is ALWAYS the most important.">>

Not to me it isn't. And Jesus spent far more time talking about the poor and how to act anyway. Thousands of Christian sects can't agree on what "salvation" is or what should be done to attain it. If that's so important, perhaps the book should have been clear on that point.

GR: "We invented gay marriage so that makes the Bible wrong,[?]">>

No, but it does away with your excuse that gays are committing an infraction because religious bigotry won't allow them to marry.

GR: "clearly an ad hominem attack to clearly say that I am getting my facts from the Fox new and not Bible.">>

Here is what I actually said:
"How can modern day fundamentalists be so breathtakingly misinformed about their favorite book? Are they getting their Bible scholarship from the FOX News Business channel? It would appear so."

I think this bothers you because you know it's true. On the one hand we have the good Reverend, arguing that people should follow Jesus' example, his actions *and* his words, which he understands to mean: charity, love, love of God, love of neighbor, care for the poor, widows, downtrodden etc. Then we have the modern day religious conservative greedheads driven by a love of hyper capitalism, love of money, near worship of free markets, focus on greed, collection and protection of wealth, greed, etc.,. It's pretty clear which position couldn't be further or more opposite to what Jesus actually talked about and condemned, constantly. I think this is Lowell's point, and it's mine too.

D.
------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith, economist and author

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 24, 2011 at 10:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FF?T "You have asserted this but didn't remotely show this"

Sorry I asserted AND I showed. in fact I showed Jesus EXACT words. Lowell has created a new priority, literally overruling thepriority Jesus HAD and the priority Jesus gave.

FF?T "Actually, the part you left out, and I included, regarding giving half of his possessions to the poor, was quite in line with Lowell's position and quite contrary to yours."

LOL, totally wrong. I specifically said "salvation . . followed by works" Giving is works, so again, you have failed to read for comprehension if that is even possible with you.

FF?T "Not to me it isn't"

I am so sorry but I really don't care what is important to you. I know what SHOULD be important to you and that is learning HOW to think.

FF?T "No, but it does away with your excuse that gays are committing an infraction because religious bigotry won't allow them to marry."

Sorry, but every consenting adult in the entire country has the exact same right pertaining to marry. Here is your opportunity to be truly free thinker so please take the chance. The current definition of marriage is applied equally to everyone. When I got married I was NOT asked if I loved my wife, I was asked if I was willing. It is a very simple thing to comprehend for most, I doubt you will have the same success judging by your track record. When the gay community changes the definition of marriage to include love or attraction then, AND ONLY THEN, will they be able to say the law is applied unfairly.

P.S. I like that little quote you thru in there, despite its rather obvious overgeneralization, I quite agree that it is true for a majority of people.

Posted by: GregJ

October 25, 2011 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

GR: "every consenting adult in the entire country has the exact same right pertaining to marry.">>

No, that's not true. Many states still allow bigotry, mostly based upon your religion, to restrict certain human individuals the right to marry other individuals (regardless of whether they love them or not). But this will soon change and the backward conservative religious bigots will lose again, as they always have in the past. Contrary to the efforts of the religious conservatives, the slaves had to go, blacks can go to the same school, women can vote, and even wear pants too. Interracial marriage was also allowed (Obama's mum could have been arrested had she been in the wrong state) and yet the earth kept on turning. Support for equality and gay marriage proceeds nicely at the rate of about 1.5% per state, per year. Observe:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

The old bigotry will die, and the young people consider it about as offensive as being left handed. Which it is.

GR: "Here is your opportunity to be truly free thinker..."

Perhaps I could take your council seriously if you were at least aware enough to know that this is one word, not two. Learn the basics, then get back to me. Begin with the dictionary:

free-think-er n.
A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief

GR: "The current definition of marriage is applied equally to everyone.">>

Spare us the elementary semantic word games. Not every person has the right to marry the person they wish. That's not equal. They will soon.

GR: "...the gay community changes the definition of marriage to include love or attraction">>

There is no need to do this. Every human being should have the equal, intrinsic and basic human right to marry another human being. No exceptions. Soon they will and the bigots who attempt to stifle this basic human equal right will look like the moral dinosaurs who thought slavery was fine and certain people should drink from different fountains or ride on the back of the bus.

Here's a mirror for you:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

D.
--------------
(Is that commonsense or MrD at the mic? Can't quite tell)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 25, 2011 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

If calling me a bigot helps you sleep at night, go for it. If telling what will happen in the future will let you sleep, go for it. And If being pro-marriage makes me bigotted, then it will only die when I die

FF?T "Spare us the elementary semantic word games. Not every person has the right to marry the person they wish. That's not equal. They will soon."
My friend, it is really quite embarrassing that you fail to read, and you truly fail to think. I didn't say every person could marry who they wish, never said it, never will. And WHY, I will think for you here since you are not demonstrating thought. The current definition of marriage says literally NOTHING about "want" or "wish", It simply says consent and opposite sex. This may not make sense to that rather dimwitted, but tell me where in the current definition of marriage is says what you just claimed? Seriously, where does it say anything about people get to marry ANYONE they wish? come on, I will be waiting, and waiting because is says no such thing.

FF?T " Every human being should have the equal, intrinsic and basic human right to marry another human being. No exceptions"
Really? NO exceptions? are you really sure about that?

Let me show you where you are still so wrong. Your statement changes nothing. Even in that simple statement you simply said it must be a human being which is certainly already the case. No one can NOW marry a cow. If you really want to redefine marriage to include attraction and "love" then I think you would not be my choice for writing the new law as you have just failed in your job.

Posted by: GregJ

October 25, 2011 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GR: "I didn't say every person could marry who they wish,">>

I didn't say you said that. Read more carefully.

GR: "where does it say anything about people get to marry ANYONE they wish?">>

Read for comprehension. I said: "Every human being should have the equal, intrinsic and basic human right to marry another human being. No exceptions."

Note the word "should."

GR: "Really? NO exceptions? are you really sure about that?">>

Yes. If you have a reason why some human beings should be discriminated against and not allowed the equal right to marry another human being, let's hear your argument.

GR: "No one can NOW marry a cow.">>

Cows aren't human beings. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

GR: "If you really want to redefine marriage to include attraction and "love">>

Nope. I specifically do not want to do that. I want marriage to include one human being deciding to marry another human being.

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 25, 2011 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Do you want to redefine marriage?

FF?T "Nope. I specifically do not want to do that."

Then don't, lets just keep the definition as it is. One man, one woman, consenting.

I agree, you are very wise to specificall not wat to do that.

Posted by: GregJ

October 25, 2011 at 1:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GregJ--

You have redefined marriage. Why can't the rest of us redefine marriage?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 25, 2011 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I redefine? lol When was that, I have been pretty busy lately.

Posted by: GregJ

October 25, 2011 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Superdave says "Jesus commanded the church to take care of the poor, sick and widowed."
Which church?
There was no Christian church until many years after Jesus died.

Posted by: Coralie

October 25, 2011 at 2:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There was no Christian church until many years after Jesus died

Carolie, False

Posted by: P5harri

October 25, 2011 at 2:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

According to Wikipedia:
Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.
In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognised by custom or law."
....
Edmund Leach ...suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"
Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.
Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition [and] proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access

Posted by: Coralie

October 25, 2011 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GregJ--

RE "I redefine? lol When was that, I have been pretty busy lately."

You said, "[L]ets just keep the definition as it is. One man, one woman, consenting."
I take it that like most conservatives, you define marriage according to what the Old Testament says. You know, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and all that. If Jesus had ever defined marriage, the Old Testament would have been His basis as well.

Here is a chart that quickly and clearly summarizes the Old Testament definition of marriage:
http://www.tinyurl.com/3bmbmyh
You have left out seven of eight legitimate Old Testament forms of marriage. That is quite a redefinition.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 25, 2011 at 5:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Greg now inserts an answer I gave to a different question:

***
GR: Do you want to redefine marriage?
FF?T "Nope. I specifically do not want to do that.">>
***

But I didn't give that answer to that question. As anyone can see, the exchange went as follows:

***
GR: "If you really want to redefine marriage to include attraction and "love">>

Nope. I specifically do not want to do that. I want marriage to include one human being deciding to marry another human being.
***

Marriage is a societal invention and the definition has changed greatly over time (for instance Yahweh used to be quite fond of polygamy). I am aware of no definition that has hinged upon the subjective human abstraction of "love and attraction."

GR: "If telling what will happen in the future will let you sleep, go for it.">>

That's all over except for the hand wringing. Gay marriage is a done deal and is in the process of going down as just another issue on the pile in which the regressive conservatives were wrong. Have they ever been right on anything?

GR: "If being pro-marriage makes me bigotted, then it will only die when I die.">>

I'm even more pro-marriage than you. I want it to include everyone. The anti-gay marriage position has already died. You're riding a dead pony but just haven't become aware of it yet.

D.
---------
The "Presidential Prayer Team" in its August 15, 2003 newsletter requested that we pray for a suitable definition of marriage to be codified into law. They urge Americans to:

"Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

Here, in support of the Prayer Team's goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage on timeless, God ordained biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

B. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

C. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

D. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 25, 2011 at 7:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie: "There was no Christian church until many years after Jesus died.">>
P5: responds: "False">>

Coralie makes an excellent point and is exactly right. As one friend once put it:

"According to the Gospels, Jesus raised the dead, fed 5,000, walked on water, preached for 3 years, there were earthquakes, eclipses and saints being raised when he died, and there were 120 believers by the time of Acts 1:15. Not very effective, was he Peter makes one speech and 3,000 came to be baptized (Acts 2:40). Quite a speech! Are we supposed to believe that people could ignore all those miraculous signs of Jesus and be persuaded by a few words from Peter?" --Carr

The notion that Jesus wanted to establish a church is all made up long after the fact (not coincidentally, by "the church"). Jesus thought "the end" was very near (like Paul and the others) and didn't really have long term plans. He, like the others, was wrong about that, and a few other things. He wrote nothing and there is no report of him telling anyone to write anything. Most Christians aren't aware that nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who met or knew Jesus personally (dreams don't count). Contrary to what evangelicals are often told in their churches, this is standard mainstream Christian scholarship.

D.
------------
”The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”
--C.S. Lewis, "The World's Last Night" (1960)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 25, 2011 at 8:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT.
Your saying that the New Testament was not written by those who met or saw Jesus is quite frankly foolish.
The church was established as a body of believers in Acts just weeks after Jesus death.

For the record I won't debate you on the subject either.

I have faith, you have nothing.

Posted by: P5harri

October 25, 2011 at 8:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The biggest delusion is those who read so-called experts and decide they are more authoritative then scripture.
Standard mainstream Christian scholarship does not infer that they were not eyewitness accounts.
Unless you consider liberal theologians mainstream.

Posted by: P5harri

October 25, 2011 at 9:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "saying that the New Testament was not written by those who met or saw Jesus is quite frankly foolish.">>

Then you won't have any trouble at all providing an example of someone who wrote a portion of the NT, that met and knew Jesus. Have you read the gospels? The anonymous authors of those books admitted forthrightly that they were passing along stories they heard from someone else. Paul is the only NT author who is known and he never met Jesus, except in a dream, and dreams don't count.

P5: "For the record I won't debate you on the subject either.">>

Probably for the best. It's never good to argue when you have such a broad consensus of Christian scholarship against you. As I said, standard mainstream Bible scholarship has long acknowledged that the gospels are anonymous. When the church in the second century sought to lend authority to the Gospels, it assigned each of them to an apostle or an associate of an apostle. The "Oxford Companion to the Bible" (standard Christian reference) gives a good summary of the scholarly consensus:

***
Matthew, The Gospel According to.
It is commonly held that Matthew was written in about 85, or 90 CE by an unknown Christian...the apostle Matthew...is unlikely...the story's author. On the contrary, the author exhibits a theological outlook, command of Greek, and rabbinic training that suggests he was a Jewish Christian of the second rather than the first generation...(of Antioch). (p502)

Mark, The Gospel According to.
The ascription of the gospel of Mark goes back to at least Papias...who in about 130 CE reported that he had been told that it was written by Mark "the interpreter of Peter"... (p493)

Luke, The Gospel According to.
...the third gospel is anonymous, as are the other gospels. Ancient church tradition attributed...(it)...to Luke who appears in Philemon 24 as Paul's "fellow worker" and is called the "beloved physician" in Colossians 4:14....Most modern commentators on the Lucan gospel, however, are skeptical about the validity of this traditional attribution. (p470)

John, The Gospel According to.
...the work may be regarded as apostolic in character, even though it did not in the end come (as some would argue) from the hand of John the apostle himself....written at the very latest by the beginning of the second century CE... (p375)

As biblical scholar Bruce Metzger puts it:
"The text itself of each Gospel is anonymous and its title represents what later tradition had to say about the identity of the author." (The New Testament, 96)

Etc.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 25, 2011 at 9:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "delusion is those who read so-called experts and decide they are more authoritative then scripture.">>

Question begging and circular reasoning. We know the gospels are anonymous because we have early church fathers who a century after Jesus had these works in front of them and they didn't know wrote them. The names (which do not occur in the text) were added later, much later, for convenience and prestige.

P5: "Standard mainstream Christian scholarship does not infer that they were not eyewitness accounts.">>

It absolutely does. But you could also try reading the texts themselves which *do not claim to be eyewitness accounts* but rather reports of eyewitness accounts (which means hearsay).

P5: "Unless you consider liberal theologians mainstream.">>

I don't refer to "theologians" but rather those with the training and expertise to publish peer reviewed Bible scholarship at the highest levels. Dr. Friedman gives a good explanation:

"There are many persons who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archaeology, and literary and historical skills to work on the problem [of authorship], and who meet, discuss, and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through scholarly journals, conferences, etc."
--Richard Elliott Friedman. Professor at the University of Calif., San Diego; Ph.D Harvard; Fellowship from the Am. Council of Learned Societies; Visiting scholar at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew Studies, etc., From note 2, p.261 of his book "Who Wrote the Bible?" (Summit Books, 1987).

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 25, 2011 at 9:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

(2 Peter 1:16-19) For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty
Eyewitness.
(1 John 1:1-4) What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life-- {2} and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- {3} what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
Eyewitness
(John 20:26-31) And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came^, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you." {27} Then He said^ to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing
Eyewitness

Now I'm sure you will find a mainstream theologian to say these are not written factual accounts.
However, scripture is clear. They were there.

Posted by: P5harri

October 25, 2011 at 9:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "(2 Peter 1:16-19)... Eyewitness.">>

Nope, not an eyewitness. As a good friend of mine (scholar) summarized:
"Second Peter was written in the second century to make an excuse for the non-arrival of Jesus. In the notes to it in the New Jerusalem Bible, an excellent translation by British Catholic scholars, it is called "a forgery."
The notes to 2 Peter (New Jerusalem Bible) point out that the epistle refers to events that are clearly later than could have been known by Peter, the vocabulary is notably different from that of 1 Peter, the whole of ch. 2 is obviously a free repetition of Jude, and there is no assurance that the letter was accepted at all until the 3rd cent., and some, according to Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, refused to accept it.
First and Second Peter, are recognized forgeries. Bible scholar Burton L. Mack (*Who Wrote the New Testament*, pages 207-213) notes both epistles bear the unmistakable marks of second century authorship. Mack points out that scholars have traditionally assigned them a date of between 124 CE and 150 CE. Peter is believed to have died about 67 CE."

P5: "(1 John 1:1-4)... eyewitness.">>

Nope. As my New Oxford Annotated RSV notes:
"The author of 1 John does not mention his name; in 2 and 3 John he calls himself "the elder." The close kinship between these letters and the 4th Gospel in vocabulary, literary style, and theological ideas indicates that they came from the same pen.
...most scholars believe that it was written toward the end of the first Christian century." (p. 1484)

Rather than an "eyewitness" you have an anonymous person writing 60-70 years after Jesus died.

P5: "(John 20:26-31)... eyewitness">>

Nope.
"John, The Gospel According to. ...the work may be regarded as apostolic in character, even though it did not in the end come (as some would argue) from the hand of John the apostle himself....written at the very latest by the beginning of the second century CE... (page 375)" --"Oxford Companion to the Bible"

P5: "I'm sure you will find a mainstream theologian to say...">>

Knowledge is specialized. I don't get my Bible scholarship from "theologians" but rather look to the best and most established Bible scholarship which recognizes that the only NT author that can be confirmed, is Paul. And Paul, never met Jesus.

Paul says: "The gospel you heard me preach is no human invention, I did not take it over from any man; no man taught it to me; I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12).
"So the only "eyewitness" record we have of Jesus comes from a man who did not see him in the flesh, but only in visions after he was dead. And Paul doesn't tell us a single detail about the life of Jesus, only that he was crucified, buried, and "risen again" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Paul disappears from history around the year 62."

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 9:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Knowledge is specialized. I don't get my Bible scholarship from "theologians" but rather look to the best and most established Bible scholarship which recognizes that the only NT author that can be confirmed, is Paul. And Paul, never met Jesus."

Let's to be clear. You pick those scholars which closely follow your line of thinking.

I've read books on biblical archaeology and ancient history and biblical authorship.
What you detail is not mainstream.

I will leave this discussion with this:

So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. (1 Corinthians 1:20 NLT)

Posted by: P5harri

October 26, 2011 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Bible, God's Word, stands on its own. It has stood as such for over 2,000 years. There have always been, and always will be, those who don't believe it or choose to live by it, and Lowell Grisham, fayfreethinker, alpha_cat, cdawg and FrankLloydLeft have made their choices to do that. Jesus came to die, that we might live. That was his overriding mission and purpose. Those listed previously also have the choice to make, as to whether they trust Him with their lives. If they do, He will save them from eternal separation from God. Sorry to have taken so long to step up in support GregJ. Lots of us here with you brother.

Posted by: kingsdtr

October 26, 2011 at 11:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

p5harri--

Glad to know that you are an expert in Bible scholarship as well as business. Now you profess to know more than a group of scholars whose work is published by the Oxford University Press-- which is world-renowned for the quality of the reference works it publishes. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post a list of your books and articles so we can appreciate the full breadth of your knowledge.

In the meantime, please refer us to some mainstream Biblical scholars of the last fifty years or so whose work supports your contentions.
_________________________

"Wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her." Proverbs 8

"Those who are wise store up knowledge, but the mouth of a stubborn fool invites ruin." --Proverbs 10:14

"For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." --Romans 10:2

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 26, 2011 at 12:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "You pick those scholars which closely follow your line of thinking.">>

Not true. I refer to the entire field of biblical scholarship. Set the fundies like Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Ray Comfort, W.L. Craig, Liberty University and Zondervan publishing house stuff aside. That faith based material was written "so that you might believe" and has nothing whatsoever to do with scholarship. Go to the library and look at standard scholarly Bible reference works such as:

a) Harper's Bible Commentary,
b) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
c) the prefaces to the gospels in annotated Bibles like The Harper Collins Study Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, Oxford Annotated, Cambridge Companion
d) A Dictionary of the Bible / W.R.F. Browning (Oxford University Press)
e) Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Eerdmans, c2000).
f) the large 6-vol. Anchor Bible Dictionary (which was put out by a conglomerate of Christian and Jewish scholars).

And so forth. They all support my position and claims here.

P5: "I've read books on biblical archaeology and ancient history and biblical authorship.">>

That's nice. You don't cite them. If you think the names of the fellows on the gospels wrote those gospels, you are referring to fundamentalist faith based material that has no basis whatsoever in Bible scholarship.

P5: "What you detail is not mainstream.">>

It most certainly is, and the material I reference and the claims I am making are taught in every major theological seminary in the country and around the world that is not under the financial pressure of fundamentalists and enforced with doctrinal loyalty oaths (which means it's not scholarship).

P5: "God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. (1 Corinthians 1:20 NLT)">>

If that was his goal, then he should have picked better representatives, because it's far too easy to make the fundamentalist and evangelical camp look foolish. All you have to do is teach them proper peer-reviewed mainstream Christian scholarship that was figured out about 150 years ago.

D.
------------
"Not for much longer will the world put up with the lies, distortions and superstitions about Jesus and the Bible."
--Minister of the famed City Temple of London, Leslie Weatherhead

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 6:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT

Just so I'm clear.

If what someone believes is faith based and not based on the scholarly references you have listed then they are wrong?
Only in believing these peer reviewed references that are less then 200 years old is someone correct in their beliefs?

If you believe that the gospels were written by the authors named in the book, then you are trusting fundamentalist faith based material?

Is that correct?

Posted by: P5harri

October 26, 2011 at 9:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFt: "Are you really this unfamiliar with the Bible that you aren't aware of each these? Would you like a free, home, freethinker Bible study?"

What an Condesending ASS you are. This poster is trying to make his argument and you bash him over the head and offer a 'freethinker Bible study".......

You go by Fayetteville Free Thinker, but you have a recto-cranial-inversion. You THINK you know so much, and yet you support an idiot for a president who has increased unemployment, spent more in deficit spending than all the previous Presidents combined, and driven racial and social divides to an extent that is at the boiling point.

You have a small group of socialist followers who have bought into your spin. After that, you have nothing. Readers can clearly see your attitude and disrespect for those who do not share your viewpoint. You are over-the-top with your rhetoric and demeaning attitude. I don't know about the rest of the readers, but this last posting has me at a boiling point. You couldn't run a hot-dog stand, and yet you present yourself as some scholar who has all the answers and is better than any other poster. Well guess what....You have just proven with this comment that you are an ASS. Thanks for showing the readers your true colors.....

Posted by: commonsense96

October 26, 2011 at 10:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Three good questions.

P5: "If what someone believes is faith based and not based on the scholarly references you have listed then they are wrong?">>

No, they could by accident be right, it just isn't very likely. In this case we have very good evidence based reasons to believe the faith based claims are wrong. If this wasn't about religion you wouldn't have any trouble seeing this. Faith is not a reason to believe in something. It's only called upon when there aren't good reasons to believe. That's what the word means:

faith n.
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc.
3 a religion or a system of religious beliefs
4 anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance. --on faith through trust; without proof or evidence.
-- Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition

Thus, faith is, by definition, believing in something without requiring good reasons. If you have a reason for why it would ever be better to believe things based upon faith *rather than* good evidence/reasons, then let's hear it. (Oops, I just appealed to reason)

P5: "Only in believing these peer reviewed references that are less then 200 years old is someone correct in their beliefs?">>

No, it's just vastly more likely that claims sifted through decades of peer reviewed expert scholarship, and based upon evidence, are more likely to be true than faith based claims that go against that evidence.

P5: "If you believe that the gospels were written by the authors named in the book, then you are trusting fundamentalist faith based material?">>

Precisely. We have very good reasons for knowing the names were added much later. See the references I have provided. The notion that those names are correct is antique and known with a rather high degree of certainty, to be wrong.

See also the Martin Luther quotes below.

D.
-----------
"But what, after all, is faith? It is a state of mind that leads people to believe something - it doesn't matter what - in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway." [Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene]

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 11:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Christianity used to be more forthright about its disdain for reason (the obvious usefulness of the enlightenment put a bit of a damper on it I think). Here is Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, not putting any sugar on it:

"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." --Martin Luther

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God." --Martin Luther quoted in Walter Kaufmann's Critique of Religion and Philosophy

"Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason." --Martin Luther (First Psalm Lectures, Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p.285)

"Whoever wants to be a Christian must be intent on silencing the voice of reason." --Martin Luther (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Luther's Works, V.23, p. 99)

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word...." --Martin Luther

"The damned whore Reason..." --Martin Luther

"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." --From Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 11:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Com" is little grumpy and needs a time out in the corner.

COM: "you bash him over the head and offer a 'freethinker Bible study"...">>

My offer is sincere. Sorry you can't see that. We just had our fourth annual "Freethinker Bible Study" at the U of A a few weeks ago. About 75 attended for the two lectures and Q & A. I invited everyone here. It's actually quite normal to look to skeptics for accurate information on such things. Note:

"Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, [Pew] survey says
Report says nonbelievers know more, on average, about religion than most faithful."
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/...

COM: "You go by Fayetteville Free Thinker,">>

No, never have. Do try to learn that "Freethinker" is one word. It's just a screen name, no big deal. I chose it because I co-founded the Fayetteville Freethinkers. If I had known it would be used so often as a lame excuse to distract, I probably would have chosen something different. Maybe not. Do try to get over it.

COM: "[Obama] spent more in deficit spending than all the previous Presidents combined,">>

How do you find it useful to destroy your reputation by being so consistently dishonest? It makes no sense. You voluntarily make yourself irrelevant. No one can trust what you say. That statement, like so many you traffic in, is completely, utterly false and indefensible. There are lots of ways to knock it down but, try this chart:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographic...

You have a political belief system that is based upon mountains, piles, of bits of misinformation and lies. It's really an astonishing mess. Breathtaking. You are frustrated because the record on this forum shows this has been very to demonstrate by anyone familiar with accurate information on your issues.

COM: "this last posting has me at a boiling point.">>

Good. Perhaps it will instigate, stimulate, you to think. Whatever you are doing now, it isn't working, at all.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 11:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "This poster is trying to make his argument..."
No, he isn't. He refuses to support his claims with evidence. Hardly trying, and hardly an argument.

RE "...and you bash him over the head and offer a 'freethinker Bible study"......."
Which he apparently needs. Didn't Jesus tell us to minister to the needs of others?

RE "You THINK you know so much, and yet you support an idiot for a president..."
But he doesn't think he knows so much-- he knows where to find out what he needs to know. You, on the other hand,...

RE "a president who has... driven racial and social divides to an extent that is at the boiling point."
Indeed. How dare he be black? It drives conservatives mad. What a divider.

RE "You have a small group of socialist followers..."
Have you wost your widdle temper so hard that you have to call everybody names?

RE "Readers can clearly see your attitude and disrespect for those who do not share your viewpoint."
Calling people who disagree with you and can cite facts that refute your claims "socialists" is so respectful. Are you taking lessons from MrD? If so, he'll teach you how to use lots of exclamation points.

RE "You are over-the-top with your rhetoric and demeaning attitude."
Waaah! No wonder you never learn anything. You'd rather be insulted.

RE "You couldn't run a hot-dog stand..."
How do you know that? You don't appear to know anything else. Talk about specialization.

RE "...yet you present yourself as some scholar who has all the answers..."
Actually, he cites sources, which in turn provide all the answers. You should try it. Unlike conservatives, socialists read references.

RE "...and is better than any other poster."
Maybe he's an "elite". Or maybe you're just waging class warfare.

RE "Well guess what....You have just proven with this comment that you are an ASS."
Actually, he's shown that you have a temper, which makes you look like an ass.

RE "Thanks for showing the readers your true colors....."
Most readers probably already knew his true colors, but then you have always shown yourself to be slow on the uptake.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 27, 2011 at 1:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am brokenhearted over the darkness that FFT and alpha_cat are under. In 46 years as a Christian, I have seen this same interchange hundreds of times. It doesn't work because we're on different planes. I know the living Jesus personally. I spoke with Him this morning. There is only one question that matters, and that is "Who is Jesus to you?" The answer to that question is the one that decides where you'll spend eternity. God created us. Sin separates us from Him. He provided a solution to that problem -- Jesus died to pay your debt. Are you so sure there is no hell that you would say no to Him? Yes, it's really that simple. It's between you and God. Leave all that other stuff aside and just reach out to Him yourself. He loves you and is holding His hand out to you now. Just reach up and take it! And if you do, get ready for the ride of your life! I'm approaching 50 years in this RELATIONSHIP (not religion) and I only wish you could know the peace, hope and power I have through Him. It keeps getting better and better, how many things can you say that about?

Posted by: kingsdtr

October 27, 2011 at 9:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I left Mr. Grisham off the list in my previous note. For a 'minister' to have the platform he has, and not use it to tell people the truth about who Jesus is and that He died so they might live, is tragic evidence that Mr. Grisham does not know the living Jesus. God will hold him accountable.

Posted by: kingsdtr

October 27, 2011 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"If this wasn't about religion you wouldn't have any trouble seeing this. Faith is not a reason to believe in something. It's only called upon when there aren't good reasons to believe."

Great answers, however, doesn't the very nature of Christianity require that many things we believe be taken at faith.
It may happen, but I'm fairly certainly that logic and reason will never cause anyone to place their faith in Christ.
My work responsibilites as an analyst require me to be very logical, methodical, and reason through data every day, yet that doesn't affect my day to day faith in God.

Posted by: P5harri

October 27, 2011 at 10:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "doesn't the very nature of Christianity require that many things we believe be taken at faith.">>

I suppose it does. But that doesn't speak to whether it is better, if truth be the goal, to believe things in spite of evidence.
Also, Christianity comes in a lot of flavors and there is an evolutionary tendency away from the more extraordinary faith based claims. As Episcopal John Spong put it:

"The best way to lose all is to cling with desperation to that which cannot possibly be sustained literally. Literalistic Christians will learn that a God or a faith system that has to be defended daily is finally no god or faith system at all. They will learn that any god who can be killed ought to be killed. Ultimately they will discover that all their claims to represent the historical, traditional, or biblical truth of Christianity cannot stop the advance of knowledge that will render every historic claim for a literal religious system questionable at best, null and void at worst..."
"...A literal view of the resurrection narratives of the New Testament is not sustainable... The exposure has come from Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars alike who, by engaging the source of our faith story, have revealed the literal inadequacy of those sources to carry the weight Christians have generally assigned to those texts."
—Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong. Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, HarperSanFrancisco, (1994), (pg. 22) (pg. 105-106)

He also wrote a book about how "Christianity must change or die." The old literalism is dying out, I think Lowell's understanding represents the future of Christianity. The truths he points to from Jesus are timeless and self-evidently true (so much so that it doesn't really matter if Jesus said them).

P5: "I'm fairly certain that logic and reason will never cause anyone to place their faith in Christ.">>

Well then perhaps they shouldn't. It seems as if you are reasoning from the conclusion you want to reach.

P5: "work... as an analyst require me to be very logical, methodical, and reason... doesn't affect my day to day faith in God.">>

You have been persuaded to make a special exception for religion. You know reason and logic work best at getting to the truth but religion asks us to set that aside and give it special rules, to compartmentalize. I don't agree with that.

See also the "Appeals to Faith" below.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 1:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

APPEALS TO FAITH

"By appealing to faith, the Christian wishes to claim the status of knowledge for beliefs that have not fulfilled the minimum requirements of knowledge. Indeed, this is the only context in which the appeal to faith makes sense. But to label as "knowledge" that which has not been rationally demonstrated is a contradiction, because reason demands that nothing be designated as knowledge except that which can fulfill its fundamental requirements.

This is the essence of faith: to consider an idea as true even though it cannot meet the test of truth, to consider an idea as having a referent in reality while rejecting the process by which man knows reality. Regardless of the particular manner in which the Christian characterizes his version of faith, he cannot escape its irrational bias. His only chance of escape, to claim that articles of faith can also meet the requirements of reason, is a dead end, because it renders the concept of faith inapplicable. Faith is possible only in the case of beliefs that lack rational demonstration.

Since faith must entail belief in the absence of rational demonstration, all propositions of faith--regardless of their specific content--are irrational. To believe on faith is to believe in defiance of rational guidelines, and this is the essence of irrationalism. Because of this inherent irrationalism, faith can never rescue the concept of God or the truth of Christian dogmas. Faith is required only for those beliefs that cannot be defended. Only if one's beliefs are indefensible--and only if one wishes to retain these beliefs in spite of their indefensibility--is the appeal to faith necessary. If the Christian wishes to argue for the rationality of his convictions, he should stick with presenting evidence and arguments, and he should never appeal to faith in the first place. The Christian who calls upon faith has already admitted the irrationality of his belief; he has already conceded that his beliefs cannot be defended through reason.

If we cannot understand the concept of God, we do not come closer to understanding it through faith. If the doctrines of Christianity are absurd, they do not lose their absurdity through faith. If there are no reasons to believe in Christianity, we do not gain reasons through faith. Faith does not erase contradictions and absurdities; it merely allows one to believe in spite of contradictions and absurdities.

The appeal to faith solves nothing and explains nothing; it merely diverts attention away from the crucial issue of truth. In the final analysis, not only is the concept of faith irreconcilably opposed to reason, but it is evasive and quite useless as well." --George H. Smith

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 1:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, you have quoted a LOT of other people...but what about YOU? What will you say when you stand before God after you die and He asks you on what basis you should be allowed into heaven? Some of the people you have quoted would be the first ones to tell you (from the other side now, if they could) that what the Bible says is true, that you must step out on faith and take Jesus at His word, as they will eternally wish they had. It won't do any good to quote them then. The ONLY thing that will matter at that point is, did YOU make the decision in this life to take Jesus at His word and trust Him to pay YOUR sin debt? That's what so many people can't get past, is that it really is THAT simple.

Posted by: kingsdtr

October 27, 2011 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Put these jokers in a combat zone and they'll be begging for God.

Posted by: anotherbrickinthewall

October 27, 2011 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

anotherbrickinthewall--

RE "Put these jokers in a combat zone and they'll be begging for God."
Only if taking a god's name in vain constitutes "begging". Why would I beg for a god who was rude enough to cause me to go into combat? Rather, put me in a combat zone and I'll ask if some chicken-hawk President sabotaged military funding by lowering taxes, started a war in the wrong country based on misinformation and a family grudge, and put me in harm's way without necessary and proper equipment.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 27, 2011 at 3:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KING: "What will you say when you stand before God after you die and...">>

This is a notion I am incapable of taking seriously. I have a dictionary of God's. It has over 1,500 of them and is very incomplete. Your God is listed, as it should be, along with Abaasy, Azi, Calliope, Daikoku, gyges, Kishimo-jin, Pereplut, Pinga Qaholom, Wakan-Tanka, Baal, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Osiris, Krishna and all the rest. Here is the blurb for yours:

"YAHWEH--Semite
Storm god. By all accounts, he is an extremely jealous god who cannot tolerate the presence of other divinities. This is a source of great puzzlement to many of them as, when Yahweh was a member of the Grand Council of the Gods presided over by El of Ugarit, relations between Yahweh and the rest of the council members were always most cordial." --Comprehensive Dictionary of Gods, p. 195

Are you afraid of meeting those other gods? Probably not. Some of them are even pretty scaring and have really hot hells waiting for unbelievers. When you understand why you aren't afraid of those other gods, you will have a clue as to why I am not afraid of yours.

KING: "He asks you on what basis you should be allowed into heaven?">>

There is no evidence of an afterlife or a heaven. As Ingersoll once put it:
“I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders.” --Ingersoll

KING: "you must step out on faith and take Jesus at His word,">>

What word? Jesus wrote nothing. The stories written about him came decades later by people who never met him. If he came with a message so important that the whole world hangs on it, he should have bothered to provide a drop of evidence with something written by his own hand.

KING: "did YOU make the decision... and trust Him to pay YOUR sin debt?">>

I don't believe in sin. The none of sacrificial atonement theories make sense. It is a reworking of the Hebrew scapegoat tradition. If I were to commit a "sin," I have six goats and can simply go in my back yard and put my "sins" on a goat. Old school redemption style. We have a nice tract I wrote about this: "How many sins can a scapegoat hold?"
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/sca...

The goat in that picture is "Sinbad," my first scapegoat. Over the years many people come forward and put their sins on him. After some time he became so full of sin that many demons entered him! This caused him to go under my house and break a water pipe. One day these demons were so furious they caused him to get on the roof of my house (me chasing him in sock feet) and jump on my hottub lid causing it to sag quite a bit. Realizing he had reached maximum sin load we decided to take him to "town." So it seems that in the end, like Jesus, Sinbad paid the ultimate price for sin.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Anotherbrick: "Put [them] in a combat zone and they'll be begging for God.">>

This is that old chestnut about "no atheists in foxholes." It's flatly refuted by the reality of, big surprise... atheists in foxholes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists...

Scroll down to "Notable Counterexamples."

Since the military actually has a slightly *higher* percentage of unbelievers, your claim isn't only wrong, it's backwards too. See:
"21% of U.S. Military atheist or non-religious, Source: "America's Military Population." by David R. Segal and Mady Wech Segal. Population Reference Bureau, 2004" -ibid

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "There are lots of ways to knock it down but, try this chart:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographic.. "

You are such an idiot. Quoting differences based on 'projections' is a classic liberal tactic. You brow-beat posters for not providing facts to back their claims, and then you post this garbage. This is not the first time you have pulled this trick. If you would actually take time to look at the actual data ( not the propaganda based on "projections") you would find this:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbo...

Without any projections or smoke-and-mirrors. Bottom-line is your hero has spent trillions and still has no clue. Obviously you don't either. Good luck with that hot-dog stand.

Posted by: commonsense96

October 28, 2011 at 1:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

Ever been in a foxhole? I have, quite a few of them. When sirens are ringing and scuds are coming in, all the good guys are praying the patriot missiles are going to do their job finding beileve in anything they may. That is just one scenario. I find it interesting that some atheists defend Christian posters here when it meets their political ends but call Jesus a "Jewish Zombie love child" on their blasphemous websites.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 28, 2011 at 2:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


RE "You are such an idiot."
You shouldn't type your posts while looking into a mirror. See second item.

RE "Quoting differences based on 'projections' is a classic liberal tactic."
You said earlier that Obama has "spent more in deficit spending than all the previous Presidents combined." Although the chart fft linked to shows projections, the relevant information on the chart is that while Obama has spent $1.4 trillion, Bush spent $7 trillion-- five times as much. And-- rounding up, of course-- he was only one president. Go ahead and remove the projected $2.3 trillion dollars. Bush still spent five times as much as Obama.

In other words, the projections have nothing to do with it. See the first item.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 28, 2011 at 2:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

I just now googled "Jewish Zombie love child" (with quotation marks) and there were no hits. It would seem that no atheists have called Jesus a "Jewish Zombie love child" on their blogs.

Congratulations! Thanks to you, this page will be the first on the Internet to contain the phrase "Jewish Zombie love child".

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 28, 2011 at 3:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

one example,

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 28, 2011 at 3:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

Unless you are blind, you have seen similar comments and/or citations on this blog. If somebody wants to be an aetheist, why shouldn't they have some integrity about it if they really disbelieve.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 28, 2011 at 3:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And for a moment there, we had some nice serious adult conversation going on. Then come Mutt & Jeff. One with zombie talk and poor Com is so lost he resorts to hijacking this thread about "compassion" with more political stupidity he heard on the Fox box. Oy.

TNK: "[in foxholes] all the good guys are praying...">>

No they aren't, because lots of those good guys also know that prayer doesn't work. About 21% of them. If you didn't know there was a military group called "atheists in foxholes" now you do.

TNK: "[you] "call Jesus a "Jewish Zombie love child">>

Never did. Now you're just lying. Don't do that.

When Tank can't deal with information here, he goes looking for something somewhere else to throw. Good. Just be accurate while you're at it. And maybe try to deal with what's on your plate here. You rarely respond directly to questions so communication with you is difficult.

TNK: "on their blasphemous websites.">>

With few exceptions, our website doesn't censor for content, so it can get a little rowdy (but never does). If you can't handle that kind of freedom with words, participation is voluntary.

TNK: "similar comments and/or citations on this blog.">>

Do you know what a "zombie" is Tank?
Happy Halloween.

D.
--------------
zom·bie

2. a supernatural spirit that reanimates a dead body
3. a corpse brought to life in this manner
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...

Matthew 27:52-53

Boo!

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2011 at 9:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "one example"
Note that in this example the phrase "Jewish zombie" (but not "love child") is quoted from elsewhere. Why is is that you dismiss important facts because they are quoted on a "liberal" web site, but you cling to some trivial argument because you found a quote supporting it at a "liberal"-- or in this case, "blasphemous"-- web site?

Does this mean that you are actually going to start paying attention to factual material, even if it is found on "liberal" web sites?

Probably not.

RE "Unless you are blind, you have seen similar comments and/or citations on this blog."
For the record, I have made similar comments here, viz.:
"If there is a Heaven, it is surely true that your bipolar sky monster and his zombie love child are not the only gatekeepers."
It comes up second in a Google search for "bipolar sky monster" (with quotation marks). It was sort of kind of you to sort of remember the comment.

If you believe the Bible, how can you not find that an elegant description of the Father and the Son? If you like, I'll expand it to include the Holy Spirit as well, though I can't promise that the result will be as elegant.

RE "If somebody wants to be an aetheist, why shouldn't they have some integrity about it if they really disbelieve."
And how might they best go about that in order to please you?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 28, 2011 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>If somebody wants to be an aetheist, why shouldn't they have some integrity about it if they really disbelieve.<<
.
The 11th and 12th grades of school were not very good to you, were they.
.
What is belief, to you?
.

Posted by: cdawg

October 28, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TANK says: "I find it interesting that some atheists defend Christian posters here...">>

This seems to presume that one has to be a theist to be a Christian. That's a common assumption, but it's not true. Christianity is tending away from this notion. As someone pointed out on a discussion list I was on about 15 years ago:

***
"Just after a Church of England diocese fired the Rev. Anthony Freeman of West Sussex in July because he had admitted in a recent book that he does not believe in God, 65 of Freeman's colleagues signed a letter protesting their superiors' 'intolerance.' "

-there are at least 100 Church of England priests who do not believe in a supernatural God.

-some of them are members of something called the "Sea of Faith" network, which has 600 members including 30 active and 20 retired Anglican priests and 30 nonconformist ministers. Their statement
of intent is "to explore and promote religious faith as a human creation." This movement also includes some Catholics.

-Freeman wrote a book called "God in Us," in which he said that, "there is nothing out there -- or if there is, we can have no knowledge of it." He defines "God" as the sum of the finest human values, such as love, justice, joy and peace. Prayer is not
about talking to an invisible supernatural being. "It is about stillness and recollection, and aligning one's will and one's actions with one's highest values." In a BBC interview, he said, "A substantial number share my views." He added: "A lot of priests would like to be able to say things that they're a bit
afraid of -- and what's happened to me is not going to encourage them."

-200 people, including 22 current priests..., wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury to protest Freeman's firing. One signer, Rev. Graham Shaw, rector in Kent, southern England, said his congregation had trebled in seven years to more than 300 although he had published his disbelief in an objective God."
--Eileen M.
***

When Episcopal Bishop John Spong spoke in Fayetteville at St. Paul's about 8 years ago, some of his lectures were entitled (as I recall): "Beyond Theism." So a more expansive, inclusive, nontheistic notion of religiosity is taking shape within Christianity. And this is a good thing.

D.
-------------
See Bishop Spong quote below.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2011 at 1:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Excerpt from “Why Christianity Must Change or Die” by Bishop John Shelby Spong (1998)

"[A]s theism begins to crack and die, we can see ever more clearly the process of "God creation" that we human beings have always pursued. The attributes we have claimed for God are nothing but human qualities expanded beyond human limits. Human life is mortal. God, we said, was not mortal. Stating it positively, we claimed God was immortal. Human life is finite. God, we said, is not finite. When we stated it positively, God became infinite. Human life is limited in power. God is not limited. Omnipotent then became our positive word. Human life does not know all things. God is not bound by that limitation. Omniscient then became our positive word.
Human life is bound to a particular space or by immutable natural laws. God is conceived of as being not so bound. Omnipresent and supernatural then became our God words.

When we unravel the theological tomes of the ages, the makeup of God becomes quite clear. God is a human being without human limitations who is read into the heavens. We disguised this process by suggesting that the reason God was so much like a human being was that the human beings were in fact created in God's image. However, we now recognize that it was the other way around. The God of theism came into being as a human creation. As such, this God, too, was mortal and is now dying.

[big snip...]

It was when I reached this conclusion but still could not dismiss what seemed to me to be an experience of something other, transcendent, and beyond all of my limits that I knew I had to find another God language. Theism was no more."
--Bishop John Shelby Spong, excerpt from his 1998 book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2011 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg,

It was a typo. Thanks.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 28, 2011 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: Be grateful. When atheists resort to ridiculing your spelling and grammar it means you are really getting to them. Good job!

Posted by: patrioteer

October 28, 2011 at 3:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now we know why Ghandi was said to have spoken:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Posted by: P5harri

October 28, 2011 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer--

cdawg was probably referring to the sophomoric nature of the post, not the typo.

When two conservatives in a row fail to understand a post, you know you're writing at a fifth-grade level.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 28, 2011 at 5:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

PAT: "When atheists resort to ridiculing your spelling and grammar...">>

When did the person you are referring to say they were an atheist? Making things up again are we Patrioteer? Tsk tsk.

We all make spelling and grammar mistakes from time to time, but for some, it is chronic. This sloppiness and lack of attention to detail (and laziness considering spell check is built in) just happens to also show up, continuously, in their arguments. Not by coincidence.

D.
--------------
"Some people have a way with words, and others got no way." --Steve Martin

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2011 at 5:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

To whom it may concern that continue to argue with fayfreethinker. Stop. There is no use.

I feel compassion for him, just like Lowell says to do. I know what his organization is all about. Yeah....there are millions of people doing ok without God...right? He doen't need him? He is doing fine without him? Man, he doesn't know what he's missing. And for that, I have compassion for him. We should all, as Christians, have compassion for him.

I think the saddest times in his life have to be those times like where the 18 wheeler missed him or he just saw that train in time. Who does he thank? What an empty feeling that must be. I can sit here and type that I've seen God's miracles. I've seen the power of prayer, and it does exist. It is very real, and so is my God. And I have compassion for him that he has a hardened heart and can't experience God's love. He can't experience his grace. He can't expereince God's mercy. I have experienced it. I experience it every day. And what a joy it is to be able to stop and thank him. Thank him in the trials. Thank him in celebrations.

Of course there is no proof of heaven. It's called....faith. And I have compassion for him because he doesn't have it. There is a heaven. It is a very real place, and I have compassion for him, because if he doesn't allow his heart to be unhardened, he will never experience all the things God has in store for his children.

The message of Christianity isn't one of God wanting to better this life for humanity. It is one of warning of a terrible fate in store for those who continue on the road of sin. We are told by God's Word that there are two deaths on the highway to Hell. The first death is when we leave the storms of this life and pass into timeless eternity. The second death is the chasm of eternal damnation. It is the terrifying justice of a holy God.

I have compassion for him because he doesn't believe this.

I will pray for him. Because I believe in the power of prayer. Join with me and pray for him with me. Because I do know without a doubt that that is what Jesus wants us to do. Pray for his salvation and pray that he would let his guard down and allow his heart to be softened so he can allow the love of God to overcome him and leave no doubt in his mind that Jesus is the only way.

God bless each of you. And God bless you fayfreethinker.

Posted by: fayettevilletruthseeker

October 28, 2011 at 6:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FAYTS gives us a very sincere appeal to accept their argument from personal experience. But curiously, he/she doesn't accept any of the several billion other people having personal religious experiences that contradict their own. This means, Fayts, doesn't really accept the merits of the argument from personal religious experience. If they don't, why are they recommending this method to others?

FAY: "Pray for his salvation and pray that he would let his guard down and allow his heart to be softened so he can allow...">>

Tell you what, I will even take off my lead lined, double walled, extra strength, prayer proof helmet for this evening. Maybe that has been what is stopping all of those Christian prayer particles emanating from the heads of all of those Christians that have been praying for me over the decades. Or perhaps it is that the almighty doesn't look for their advice?

As with anything else, if you want to know the truth about whether something works, or not, you test it. Intercessory prayer has been extremely well tested, even by believers. It fails every test.
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/healing...

FAY: "those times like where the 18 wheeler missed him or he just saw that train in time. Who does he thank?">>

Actually, a friend and I were on our way back from a Michael Jackson concert in Vancouver Canada in 1983 or so, and he fell asleep at the wheel in the oncoming lane. He woke up just in the nick of time to avoid a big semi. Another two seconds and there would be no Fayfreethinker here to help folks out. Who do I thank? The truck driver who blew his horn in time, my friend for waking up, blind fortune. As the good book says:

"I returned, and saw under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Ecc 9:11 (ASV)

The cemeteries are of course filled people who had a different experience. And cemeteries are also brimming with testaments to failed prayer. This is exactly what we would expect if these outcomes were driven by blind, uncaring, chance.

The good book also says this, but everyone, including you, know it is not true:

"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." Matt 21:22

Pray hard tonight! We'll know if that verse is true by the morning.

D.
----------------
"Emo Phillips says that he is among those few people who really understand how God operates. When he was a boy, he often prayed for a bike. He prayed and prayed, but nothing happened. Then one day he went out and stole one. Then he prayed for forgiveness. It worked." --Emo Phillips

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2011 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

fayettevilletruthseeker:

I agree that it does no good to debate FFT, alpha, et all.. The problem is there are many people "on the fence" about Christianity and whenever we see the vile "information" these people spew, it needs to be confronted.

Remember how Christ threw the moneychangers out of the temple? He didn't just go outside and pray for them. He confronted them.

These people know the truth and choose to deny Christ. We can't let them be the only voice some people might hear.

Posted by: patrioteer

October 29, 2011 at 12:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha:

The only way you could know what cdawg meant is if you are cdawg.

Did I stumble upon something?

Hmmm.....alphacat - cdawg. Very interesting.

So, this is how you guys gang up on us.

Posted by: patrioteer

October 29, 2011 at 1:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer--

RE "I agree that it does no good to debate FFT, alpha, et all."
Yet you keep trying. Maybe it would do more good if you did better at it.

RE "Did I stumble upon something?"
As many times as you have stumbled, finding that cdawg and I are one person is not one of your missteps.

Since cdawg mentioned the lack of efficacy of Tankersley101's 11th and 12th grades-- that is, his junior and senior years-- he implied that Tankersley101's 10th grade-- that is, his sophomore year-- was his last serviceable one. Easy enough to glean-- unless you are a conservative, apparently.

Even if I were cdawg, the fact that the joke had to be explained to you stands.

Of course, cdawg might have been making fun of the typo. I've never noticed that he has a propensity for writing at such a low level, though. Taking such a cheap shot and writing so that even you can easily understand him is not really his style. Perhaps he will clarify the matter for us.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 29, 2011 at 1:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TruthSeeker -- I had prayed for FFT just before reading your post. It's the best we can do. In the next life, he will be proclaiming the truth fervently, regardless of where he ends up. As will Mr Grisham. Mr Grisham, isn't it great to know the atheists agree with you?

Posted by: kingsdtr

October 29, 2011 at 8:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kingston
Ivem been a Christian as long as you have, and I'm also no great defender of the Rev. Lowell. However, he is exactly correct, if more Christians took the time to practice the principles Jesus put in place we wouldn't have to defend ourselves and our faith.

There is a huge difference between religion and a relationship.

Posted by: P5harri

October 29, 2011 at 9:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

p5harri,
you and Lowell are correct, "if more Christians took the time to practice the principles" . . . However, and here is the problem, they have to be Christians FIRST. That was the whole premise of my comments. That truth is conspicuously missing from ALL of Lowell's commentaries. When I say all, I mean literally ALL.

Posted by: GregJ

October 29, 2011 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GREG: "...here is the problem, they have to be Christians FIRST... That truth is conspicuously missing from ALL of Lowell's commentaries.">>

If only Lowell knew how to be a True Christian(TM), like you!

D.
---------------
"Inerrantist Christian: One whose faith leads him to the certainty that his interpretations of the Bible are correct, as opposed to those of that other Christian inerrantist in the church down the street."

"The Encyclopedia of Christianity gives the number of Christian denominations as 20,870 in 1994. In view of this, I find anyone claiming to be a "true" Christian to be particularly amusing." --Lloyd Kumley

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 29, 2011 at 5:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GregJ--

RE "However, and here is the problem, they have to be Christians FIRST."
Maybe Reverend Grisham is a good enough Christian that "being a Christian FIRST" goes without saying. Maybe it's only pretender Christians who have to blather about being a Christian before performing Christian acts-- who otherwise will never be taken for Christians.

In other words, it's not "the" problem-- it's YOUR problem.

Never minding your selfish notion of personal salvation for a moment: how does Christianity do more for the world (and "God so loved the world", after all) and so dispose people to both Christianity and salvation-- by being a bunch of Republicans, Teabaggers and neocons who claim to be saved but want to destroy society, or by emulating Jesus' works? Which wins more converts? Which better fulfills the evangelical charge to "make disciples of all nations"?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 29, 2011 at 6:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT, I really get a kick out of the fact that defend Lowell's version of christianity and he won't. Ironic or absurd?

Alpha. Maybe you are right. Or, maybe It is the Biblical version versus Lowells "gospel". I presented actual Bible verses with actual context for my position. Lowell told some stories with NO context.

As far as the rest of your blather, get a life, don't put words in my mouth. I defended NO person except Jesus.

Posted by: GregJ

October 29, 2011 at 11:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GregJ--

You really aren't very good at this. You misquote others; you misrepresent others; at best you don't read the thread carefully. You answer no questions; you provide no real argument. You don't even remember what you have said. One might wonder why you post at all.

RE "I really get a kick out of the fact that [you?] defend Lowell's version of christianity and he won't. Ironic or absurd?"
Reverend Grisham is probably too busy actually helping people to bother with your asininity. And he's probably too charitable to explain to you how wrong you are. You should consider this another aspect of his Christian ministry.

RE "I presented actual Bible verses with actual context for my position."
BZZZZZZZT! No, you have presented one lone Bible verse: "Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." As a single verse, it has no context. As for your position, a couple of points: fft showed that the context works against your position. Second, the verse doesn't exclude good works as part of saving the lost, nor does it explain how the seeking and saving would be accomplished. In fact, ministering to the poor, the hungry, the outcast, the prisoner is clearly an integral part of the job, and Jesus offered his ministrations first in many cases. For example, I mentioned the Feeding of the Five Thousand earlier, in which Jesus fed five thousand people whom He hadn't met-- before He preached to them. That seems like the seeking and the feeding were the same act. He turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11) without saving anybody at all (though it served as a convincer for the disciples). He healed a madman without saving him (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37). And so on. It is clear that ministrations are an essential element of Christianity, and the faith of those who perform them-- even if their faith doesn't match yours-- is adequate reason to perform them. Salvation and ministry go together.

RE "I defended NO person except Jesus."
Well, no, you didn't. Indeed, you rather make him look like a schmuck.

If I pulled somebody out of a burning car and kept him from bleeding to death, and he "saw the light" and became a Christian because I had ministered to him, would it matter whether I am a Christian? And again, from above: which better fulfills the evangelical charge-- active ministry or telling others what a fine Christian you are?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 30, 2011 at 12:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha, point of correction if I may...I taught the lesson on Jesus feeding the 5,000 just yesterday...the people had stood, listening to Jesus all morning, before He fed them. They hungered for His words that much!

I do everything I can to feed the hungry, we have a LOT of them in this area! I have collected a car load of food to go to Samaritan House this week. And I have donated a boatload of stuff to Samaritan Shop, all the money from the stuff they sell goes to feed the hungry.

So let's stop with the writing and get on with the feeding! I would love for you all to outdo me in that regard. Let me know what you've got going on?

Posted by: kingsdtr

October 31, 2011 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

kingsdtr--

According to the New International Version of the Bible, preaching did not precede ministering:

"13 When Jesus heard what had happened [beheading of John the Baptist], he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

"15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

"16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

"17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

"18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children."

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 31, 2011 at 4:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

kingsdtr--

That quotation is from the Book of Matthew. It is interesting to note that women and children weren't counted.

Apparently Load and Fish Helper has been shoved under the rug just like the 150 mpg carburetor and the 100-year light bulb.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 31, 2011 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha: " Go ahead and remove the projected $2.3 trillion dollars. Bush still spent five times as much as Obama."

Your data is incorrect.......

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.c...

"So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush."

And you twist this to be a Bush problem? WOW... having your head stuck so far in the sand must make it painful to keep breathing.......Only 13 months to go....How's that "Hope and Change" thing working out for America? Just 13 months before Change.......

Maybe we should guarantee some more loans for green energy. That program seems to be working out really well. Especially when the terms are doctored to protect the Liberal investors over the American taxpayer in the event of default. We are at $600 million between Solyndra and Beacon, with more to come.

Or let's sue all the states that try to protect their citizenship by passing illegal alien laws to try and do the work of the feds in their absence.

Or, maybe we can spend $12.8 million of taxpayer money on bonuses to 10 executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and have the white house say...

".... the president took a lead on cleaning up excessive compensation on Wall Street with the Dodd-Frank bill, but those provisions do not apply to Fannie and Freddie. "The White House was not involved and nor should it be,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday.

Fannie and Freddie are Gov't sponsored and bailed-out entities, and yet the white house "was not involved and nor should it be"? Typical Obama...."they work for me, but i am not responsible for their behavior".....Now i must go play golf..

And so we have liberals chastising those evil corporations who pay exorbitant salaries and bonuses, and yet the American taxpayer is paying an average of $1 Million per executive running government bailed-out and government-run institutions. Where is the outcry lib's? Time for you to call-out the double standard.......

Posted by: commonsense96

November 1, 2011 at 11:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Your data is incorrect......."
You said earlier that Obama has "spent more in deficit spending than all the previous Presidents combined." In a direct response to that, I cited a chart showing that your statement was incorrect, which is exactly what I set out to do.

Now you are changing what you originally said, which had nothing to do with annual spending. Not only that, but in order for your new statement to have any meaning, Obama will have to spend at the same rate past the end of his first term, which means that you are relying on PROJECTIONS. Didn't you just say a few days ago that "[q]uoting differences based on 'projections' is a classic liberal tactic"? You're going to have to brain up quite a bit before you can pass for a liberal.

In addition to not being able to keep up with what anybody else says, you can't even keep track of what you said.

It would probably minimize the deleterious effects of your wandering attention if you would stay on topic in these threads. Then you won't be quite so distracted by the pretty shiny words.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 2, 2011 at 12:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Maybe we should guarantee some more loans for green energy. That program seems to be working out really well."
The Energy Policy Act was written under GOP control of Congress and signed into law in 2005. The Solyndra loan application started in late 2006, and a certain administration tried to rush its approval. Who was the President then?
http://tinyurl.com/63f3at9

RE "Especially when the terms are doctored to protect the Liberal investors over the American taxpayer in the event of default."
From the above, since you don't read: "Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser -- a man who donated money to the Obama campaign -- the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don't mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Walmart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years." The loan terms were restructured in order to attract more investors and avoid certain default.

"We are at $600 million between Solyndra and Beacon, with more to come."
From the above: "The [Solyndra] loan comprises just 1.3 percent of the Department of Energy's (DOE) overall loan portfolio. To date [Sep 13, 2011], Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled." The Beacon loan represents about 0.26% of the portfolio, so we're at about 1.56% of the portfolio. I wish my portfolio were doing that well. By the way-- when you say "more to come", you rely on PROJECTIONS.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 2, 2011 at 1:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

No debate - just scripture.

Abortion: Biblical - simply the killing of a baby inside a mother’s womb - Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Exodus 21:22-25 (ASV)
Job 3:11-16 (NKJV)
Job 10:19 (NKJV)
Jeremiah 20:17 (NKJV)
Psalm 139:13-14 (NKJV)
Ecclesiastes 11:5 (NKJV)
Exodus 1:16 (ASV)
Matthew 2:16 (ASV)
Acts 7:19 (ASV)
2 Kings 21:6 (ASV)
Ezekiel 20:31 (ASV)
2 Chronicles 28:3 (ASV)
Psalm 137:9 (ASV)
Isaiah 13:18 (ASV)
Lamentations 2:20 (ASV)
Psalm 139:13-15 (ASV)
Ecclesiastes 11:5 (ASV)
Isaiah 44:2 (ASV)

Do you realize 53-million abortions have occurred since 1973 in America, alone? Do any of you believe this is okay? This is the genocide of God’s creation. Hitler’s 12-million deaths pales by comparison.

Homosexuality

Genesis 19:5 (ASV)
Leviticus 18:22-23 (ASV)
Leviticus 20:13 (ASV)
Deuteronomy 23:17 (ASV)
Judges 19:22-24 (ASV)
1 Kings 15:12 (ASV)
1 Kings 14:24 (ASV)
Romans 1:24-27 (ASV)
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ASV)
1 Timothy 1:10 (ASV)
Revelation 17:5 (ASV)
Leviticus 20:13 (ASV)
Romans 1:26-27 (ASV)

Posted by: hbcark

November 4, 2011 at 11:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

HB: "No debate - just scripture. Abortion: Biblical -...">>

HB should have stopped there. Of course abortion is biblical. Several examples showing how/why provided here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fet...

HB: "...simply the killing of a baby inside a mother’s womb - Thou Shalt Not Kill.">>

The Bible provides loads of examples of God sanctioned killing of babies inside mother's wombs. Surely HB is aware of them (examples upon request).

The phrase "Thou Shalt Not Kill" has a nice moral ring to it but what does it *really* mean (if anything) in the context of the following approximately one hundred and fifty-five referenced examples of God sanctioned "Thou Shalt In Fact Kill?"
http://fayfreethinkers.com/bibleeduca...

HB: "[bunch of abortions occurred] since 1973 in America,... Do any of you believe this is okay?">>

As one pro-choice catholic group used to advertise: "No one wants to have an abortion." An abortion always represents a failure of some kind. A failure of contraception, a failure of education or just awareness. If HB's goal is to lower the number of abortions, and one would think that would be his goal, then he should work for the things that have been shown to consistently work, such as, proper science based sex education (as opposed to lying to the kids with abstinence only ed).

HB: "This is the genocide of God’s creation.">>

If HB thinks a *person* exists at conception (and he probably does), then the female reproduction system, designed by [You Know Who], causes vastly more aborted zygotes/fetuses than humankind ever has or possibly could. This would make [you know who], the biggest abortionist in the history of the world. By a long shot.

D.
------------
"Science tells us that only 10% to 15% of fertilized eggs develop into human beings. A large percentage of fertilized eggs never attach to a woman's uterine wall, and many others detach in the first several weeks or simply stop developing. Thus, the vast majority of fertilized eggs simply wash away.
It seems a stretch to conclude that ending a pregnancy is somehow against the will of God when the body rejects more than half of what the Vatican considers a "pregnancy."
-- By: J.M. LAWSON Jr., pastor emeritus of the Holman United Methodist Church

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 4, 2011 at 3:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha - after you get head recto-cranial inversion reversed, see this:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/p...

Includes your liberal 'projections', but clearly shows as anyone whose heart is still pumping understands. Your savior Obama has spent the hell out of money with negative results. Keep riding that horse cowboy.... It is going to buck you off in 13 months!

Hopee changee....

Posted by: commonsense96

November 7, 2011 at 12:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my continuing apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "after you get head recto-cranial inversion reversed, see this:"
Again, you said earlier that Obama has "spent more in deficit spending than all the previous Presidents combined." Not only did I say that you were wrong, but the chart you linked to (and the newer one linked from that page-- did you even look at it?) proves that you were wrong. I have never said that Obama's spending hasn't created a deficit, or wouldn't do so in the future. Your recto-cranial inversion must keep it too dark for you to read.

RE [link]
You once dismissed the Heritage Foundation as a "liberal" source. Apparently that was because they use projections, and, as you said, "[q]uoting differences based on 'projections' is a classic liberal tactic" Now you refer to a Heritage Foundation article that relies heavily on projections. Still trying to pretend that you are a liberal? It would be an improvement, but nobody will fall for it until you stop making those boneheaded mistakes you seem to favor.

RE "Your savior Obama has spent the hell out of money with negative results"
Obama's positive achievements have been discussed on these forums several times, with links provided. Your continued insistence that he has had only negative results is a result of either willful ignorance or out-and-out lying. Under the circumstances, neither option makes you look good.

If you had any shame, your face would be red when you pull your head out. I have no doubt that it will be brown rather than red.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 7, 2011 at 1:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )