The Democratic bill regarding the War just hurts our troops by putting them in the enemies' crosshairs today --
"Let's see --how can we get the Americans out of there! Just kill more of their kids! Blow up some vehicles! We and the democrats want them out of this war --and deaths are their rationale--so let's give them more deaths to hurry them home!"
That's the reality --the democrats don't want us to succeed in Iraq because they need our failure there to ensure a democratic pres. in the white house --they think.
Nothing will hurt our image and prestige more abroad than to let them say, "We told you so!" That's what the dems seem to want. Astonishing to me that they don't want to DETERMINE to get Iraq on its feet before we leave. Why do they expect instant success like instant everything else in America? --We've got centuries of history behind these people under the yoke of oppression and sectarian rivalries. But they voted! they cheered Sadam's demise! We need to stay there and behave while we are there --and be there in such numbers that we are a successful peace-keeping force. In time, they'll be grateful--as most of them were in the beginning.
Dems haven't really calculated the potential clout of the evangelical, pro-life third of the nation who have yet to find a candidate to back. When they do, the dems don't have a prayer--(I hope.) It won't be a democratic candidate for sure, because Ann Coulter was right --they are "godless" in their ACLU and NEA agendas for porn access, GLSEN (gay sex ed) in schools, rights of criminals, gay marriage and abortion on demand for convenience. (And I've not read her book.)
I also find our stance on the Iraqi's failure to help themselves a little strange --in light of our expressed guilt for going in there in the first place. Doesn't seem to be the right sort of rhetoric coming from those who think we should have been more "diplomatic" in conversation with Iran and No. Korea. Both sides of the aisle have blamed Iraqis for not really getting with the program of rebuilding their nation and providing its defense. Do we want to say that in insulting terms? Even if it's true. And I did hear one of our soldiers say (via his grandmother) that he and his buddies would stay fully dressed and sleep with their guns enroute to a mission with the iraqi army --while the Iraqis got comfortable. I'm thinking that says they trust us more than we trust them --in the middle of the night --with guns.
Friday, March 30, 2007
NEW ADDITIONS --ACTIVE THREAD sequence of responses to a Blade letter on homosexuality and the military & other immoral bedroom plans --the letter is
on my blog titled General Pace, Stick to Your Guns
"Local Toledo Homophome Blasted By Blade Readers"
- from PoliticsinMudville.blogspot.com
"Some people like Gen. Peter Pace and ____________, a March 22 letter writer, would like to dismiss homosexual behavior as merely a moral weakness and liken it to adultery, lying, or stealing. What their intolerance is, however, is blatant bigotry and ignorance."
Another says:
"I would like to thank letter writer _________for helping me define my morality. Does she live under a rock? Each person decides his or her own morality. It cannot be customized. It is a choice. Numerous medical researchers and magazines tell us that most homosexuality is genetic; it is not a choice but a physical reality. Therefore it is not immoral. I have multiple sclerosis. It was not a choice. It is a physical reality. Therefore, I am not immoral because of it. And every sexual act performed by a gay couple is also enjoyed by straight couples, if they choose."
A third letter:
___________'s March 22 letter regarding Gen. Peter Pace's comment on gays in the military is myopic and without substantiated, verifiable truth in regard to her casual dismissal of genetics being a basis for homosexuality.
She failed to mention her clinical and scholarly credentials that would render her comments helpful. They wouldn't come from misinterpreted biblical writings, would they? If so, I am confident that she strictly adheres to all admonishments found in her studies of the Bible."
It seems that _________'sletter raised some eyebrows here in the Toledo area. Apparently more than one person thinks Ms. ______ bible-based morality doesn't fit with reality. But then, as she has shown us on this blog, she's right and the world is wrong.
posted by liberal_dem at 8:26 AM on Mar 29, 2007
microdot said...
Krikey, you're gonna get scolded for that one! Yikes!
12:27 PM EDT
Chris said...
Wow, this person is going to be in a world of hurt when she goes to Hell for being a bigot.
12:44 PM EDT
Barb said...
"Homophobe" is the word I believe, LD --or is homophome some new noun I haven't heard of? --I doubt Ms._____ is afraid of homosexuals --should she be?
Chris, bigot is somebody who hates. I didn't see where she said she hated homosexuals or expressed anything hateful about them.
If I recall, she said people who are potentially tempted or attracted by somebody to whom they are not married, should not be put into intimate quarters --i.e. bathrooms, bedrooms and barracks--with such people. Girls shouldn't room with boys in the dorms and barracks --and homosexuals, likewise, shouldn't room with the people to whom they are potentially sexually attracted--because the straight people should be as bothered by that as girls should be if a boy is put in their room or bathroom. It's not proper --not moral.
Granted, a segment in society doesn't care about morals --but those who do, should not be subjected to sleeping or showering with or dressing in front of, people of opposite sex or same sex orientation.
If homosexuals have great self- control and don't burn in lust lying on the barrack bunk, and want to serve in the military like any other male or female, obeying the rules in moral college's dorm rooms and army barracks--rules against intimacy with people to whom they are not married, they shouldn't be advertising their orientation. Don't tell --is appropriate --or otherwise, don't serve.
Traditionally, sexual attraction is acted upon within the bonds of hetero marriage. That's what is moral.
Who can say what is moral? Yes, the Creator --see Leviticus 18 to see where all sex outside hetero marriage is sin for which the land was ruined and vomited out its inhabitants. Nothing too ancient or obsolete to understand clearly.
The bigotry is toward the sin --not the sinner.
5:39 PM EDT
Barb said...
Letter writers Nicholas Feldt, Barbara Rochelle, and Linda Garrison assert that homosexuality is most surely genetically caused and that Ms.______, not being a scientist, must be wrong to say otherwise.
Dr. Francis S. Collins, is the head of the Human Genome Project. He concluded that while "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits…for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive."
He wrote: “An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
I agree with him that homosexuality is not hard wired but I don’t think it’s proof of genetic influence –to observe that a gay twin has a gay brother 20% of the time –BECAUSE SINCE THEIR GENES ARE IDENTICAL, he should have a gay brother 100 per cent of the time. I suspect it is more something environmental about being a twin that is an influence on homosexuality --something about the parental or sibling relationship. Also, I would ask, how large is our study sample, of gay male twins in australia where this work was done??
Dr. A Dean Byrd, writing about Collins' work, notes: “ The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism. Dr. Collins noted that environment--particularly childhood experiences--as well as the role of free will and choice affect us all in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate the issues, not provide support to ideologues."
Byrd: “Citing such dangers, Dr. Collins referred to the book written by gay activist Dean Hamer, who declared the discovery of the "God gene" (this same author also is associated with earlier disproven claims that he had discovered “the gay gene"). Dr. Collins noted that the "evidence" in Hamer's book "grabbed headlines," but was "wildly overstated" --just as his announcements of finding a gay gene marker --for which research irregularities and announcement of a gay gene, the National Cancer Institute called him on the carpet.
all the studies purporting to find a genetic role in homosexuality, have been debunked or flimsy at best.
Even Newsweek writers came to that conclusion not long ago.
The gay gene is a media myth that the mass audience believes --including you guys.
5:52 PM EDT
Barb said...
Ask yourselves --have they found a gene that all gays share? No, they have not --they are more likely to share a gene for poor eyesight or artistic talents or frail body type --nothing that is exclusive to homosexuals.
Is it possible that something occurs in the womb with the mother's hormones that causes sexual ambiguity? Perhaps, but it will show up in their bodies --not just in their heads.
6:10 PM EDT
microdot said...
Barb, for once I will agree with you. I never stated or do I believe that homosexuality is strictly genetic behaviour. I do believe there are some genetic causes of homosexuality, but much of it is caused by the formation of an individuals personality and the factors which affect them. Because we are all different and completely unique human beings, the same set of circumstances do not affect any two humans in the same way. I for one think that continually going on about the genetic causes is not the issue here.
I think the issue is that you choose to condemn a huge portion of the human race for the parts of their personalities you don't approve of.
Most gay people live pretty quiet lives and you aren't aware of their existance. Most people live private lives that don't attract your attention.Because a lot of gay people are obviously different to you, you notice them and become the object of your scorn.
"Straight" people commit murders and sex crimes. It's not even worth trying to make some sort of percentage comparison.
When ever anyone brings up the persecution of gay people or a hate crime against a gay person, you are quick to trot out some aberrative atrocity in your gay crime files to prove to the world that gay people commit crimes too.
Only you never just stop there, if you read your posts, and maybe you aren't capable of being self critical or aware, but the anger starts to flow and the language gets more harsh.
I have said it before, you don't think you are capable of physically harming a homosexual and I certainly believe you, but your obsessive condemnation and religious justification for your statements are the very things that inspire hate crimes. The attitudes towards blacks in America that kept segregation and racial hate institutialized for years was caused by the rationalization that let "moral" men keep slaves. They convinced themselves and believed that they were sub human and not like "us". They could quote from the bible and go to sleep at night believing that slavery was gods will and to change it would be to usurp the natural order.
As far as I am concerned, you are applying the same moral rationalizations to gay people.
As far as I can see, the idea of genetics and gayness entered this discussion when we mentioned the President of the Southern Baptisit University who thought that it would be okay to genetically modify fetuses if it would prevent them from becoming homosexual.
6:39 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
I've always seen it as a fetish that some people have. As for being genetic, it seems that regardless of the topic nowadays, you can find a scientist who will say whatever you want him to say. As for what goes on in other people's bedrooms, I'll start caring when it becomes my business. I'm thinking...never is pretty close to the correct answer for that.
8:31 AM EDT
Anonymous said...
I note with laughter that barb calls the woman Ms. ___________.
9:39 AM EDT
Barb said...
Correction, Dean Hamer was (is?) with The National Institute for Health--NIH --not the Cancer Institute.
Microdot: I agreed with the Baptist minister that if homosexual orientation WERE found to be genetically influenced and caused, and IF scientists COULD
"correct" homosexuality in the fetus or genes, most parents would want to do so. And evangelicals don't oppose any surgeries or genetic remedies that prevent or correct abnormal, undesirable conditions --like a mindset that does not match one's body --as in gender identity confusion often contributing to homosexual orientation. However, we don't believe that such mindsets come from our genes.
Find something hateful I've said about homosexuals. Just because I say homosexual activities are immoral --doesn't mean I hate anyone who does them. It means that what they do with their own sex should not be entered into --should not be started, primarily because the Bible says it is immoral (He did not design us for it)--i.e. forbidden by our Creator who said the land would and did vomit out the people who did any child sacrifice and any sexual behaviors (listed: same sex, with animals, and close relatives) other than hetero marriage.
As for the Blade writer who said many hetero married couples enjoy the same activities as gay couples --no woman in her right mind would enjoy anal sex --according to my friend whose doped up, thereafter divorced husband forced that experience on her --and I doubt that giving oral sex frequently (if at all) is high on a woman's list of sexual pleasures. Taste buds and noses are given for good reason.
Anal sex can cause anal incontinence --who needs it? Most of us have enough trouble expelling things with that body orifice but certainly don't want to leak instead. I can't think of anything I would want my kids to avoid any more than anal(or oral) or adulterous sex --unless it's drugs. I don't want anyone around my kids who would PROMOTE anal or oral sex experimentation --which is what is happening with the GLSEN (?) activities in public schools --with questionnaires asking kids if they have ever considered trying gay sex to see if they might, in fact, be homosexual.
An excellent and thorough article by a PhD priest, Father Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, Ph.D. is found HERE --from Reprint/Synopsis Series --The Myth of the Gay Gene at NARTH website.
He also notes that gays in countries that are gay tolerant have a high rate of mental illness among their gays --just as in a Bible belt community --maybe more.
He wrote,"...the observed differences in mental health status between homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as great in the Netherlands and in New Zealand, two societies which are relatively more tolerant of homosexuality, as they are in the United States, a society which is relatively not as tolerant. [24] If social ostracism is indeed a significant factor in influencing the mental health status of homosexual persons, then one would expect to see differences among societies with varying tolerances to homosexuality."
What you DO see is LESS homosexuallity in cultures/families/religions which subtly teach against it and protect their kids from early sexual influence; by chaperoning and repressing even the normal adolescent hetero interest, they DO promote normal hetero marriage. Christian kids raised to delay sexual gratification, admittedly, can hardly wait "to have and to hold," and can hardly believe such joyous pleasure of intimacy is LEGAL with God -Hallelujah!
In U.S. we are trying to make gays feel happier about gayness by approving the condition --but it cannot be done --even with our approval. Our approval only encourages more young, sexually inexperienced people to walk through the door of gay ideation --consider it, experiment --and find out, voila! orgasm! Overcome all inhibitive barriers and a person can wallow in sexual experience any number of ways with any number of people--ways that aren't good for the physical and emotional health --nor spiritual health.
Young people DO have same sex attractions --that are not sexual --but admiration and enjoyment of one's personality --GLSEN would like to convince people that sexual experimentation, called "exploring one's sexuality," will open doorways to them that are good --when those may be trap doors to a self-image problem, promiscuity and sexual addiction --disease and misery --for many.
I don't hate homosexuals --I feel deeply sorry for them --even when they don't. But I also have hope for them --even when they don't. They can change --but the best thing when it comes to sexual addictions (any addiction) is to never get started --because scientists do see brain structure changes with addictions. That's why "fleeing temptation" is the best course --whether we are talking about hard drugs, alcohol, nicotine, MJ , porn or abnormal sex.
We need to know what the traps are to avoid them --and homosex is a trap. the orientation is a disorder to prevent and correct --not to act upon.
It's not the same thing as race, Micro. It's a temptation and chosen behavior --but the gay self-image is partially shaped by environment/other people--and there are studies to show this.
As for the percentage comparison of straight or gay sex crime --there have been studies done --and while heteros do more of the sex and other crime, gays do more sex crime proportionate to their numbers in the population, --even if you adjust the law (as has been done) to de-criminalize sodomy. Many of those gay crimes might not be countable if you lowered the age of consent to 12 as has been done in some European countries --which says there is a lot of pederasty among gay men --e.g. Tom Foley --who would wait until they were 18, but 16 and 17 attracted him. Foley is not primarily a pedophile --he is a homosexual --and he likes 'em young -just like the guys on "to catch a predator." Men who are attracted to teens are not necessarily or primarily pedophiles --they are hetero or homo --sexuals. They often also have sex with people their age, but there is an attractiveness to the young and inexperienced --and indulging that attraction when you are an older, full adult, has to do with immorality --more than abnormalcy.
Sin is our normal condition. That's why God provided a Savior --When we respond to God's Grace with willful rejection of our sinful thoughts, the Holy Spirit enables us to be moral people. It does help to be raised to choose morality before you get into deep trouble of any sort. But anyone's kids can get into sin in a culture that is allowing sinners to reach out and tempt via media and education as this one is.
I feel sorry for everyone of those predators, gay or straight, caught on that tv show, "To Catch a Predator." Even the host says he believes many of them would have led more conventional lives if it were not for the temptation of the internet.
10:08 AM EDT
liberal_dem said...
So, 'barb,' I open the door for comments and you go right back to your usual righteous pap paragraph after long paragraph after....
Don't you ever learn?
Surely you aren't stupid.
Why don't you get it? The 3 Blade writers are surely but the tip of the proverbial iceberg of the 'normal' folks who think you are nuts.
The people who comment here already know that.
Your pomposity and verbiage can't cover for your unwillingness to learn.
Face it: you are stuck and don't know how to get out of your present situation. To me you have all of the classic symptoms of OCD.
A good therapist and some medicine could help you get over your homophobia and help you return to a normal life, so that you don't keep embarrassing yourself and your family with your homophobic blather.
Get some help. You'll have a much brighter life.
10:19 AM EDT
Barb said...
When you detect anger in me, Microdot --it's because of the misstatements and deliberate misinterpretations i get concerning me and others who believe as I do on the social issues--and when I am censored and not allowed to defend myself.
I realize I am often too lengthy to hold interest --and not always organized in my posts, but you don't have to read me --but you might expand your mind if you did because I do explain where I'm coming from and I don't think I deserve persecution.
But then neither did St. Paul or Jesus or the Christians killed around the world today. Two were just murdered by Muslims in an african nation yesterday --heard it on the radio. JEsus said we are blessed who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. So, go ahead! Persecute me for believing and quoting the Bible!
I am irritated when people call the Religious Right Nazis, bigots, racists --etc. when that is not the case. I don't think you can find any examples of bigotry in what I say --where i am hating someone and scorning them because they are sinning in their lifestyles --I am not condemning them or wishing Hell upon them. E.g. I do feel sad for the guys on To Catch a Predator.
And we are going to feel sorry for a lot more of us on judgment Day when all our sinful thoughts are revealed --unless we put them under the Blood of Christ and repent before it's too late. That was Jesus' first sermon --in fact --to Repent --for the Kingdom of Heaven is Here! It starts NOW.
Jesus told the woman caught in adultery that he did not condemn her, got the others to realize their own sins so that they wouldn't stone her --but then he said, "Go and sin no more." He didn't change the definitions of morality --he just said we couldn't hide --we are all sinners even the proud pharisees among us --and I dare say most of us are wrongfully proud about something.
Yes, Anonymous, I am somewhat acquainted with the Blade letter writer, Ms. what's her name. Glad I could give you a chuckle.
____________
Chris said...
Barb, you can be a bigot simply by showing intolerance of another group. As for what is moral and what is not--this is a relative question. No one should impose their morals on others. I'd hate to teach my children the "morality" of intolerance.
11:16 AM EDT
microdot said...
Oh la la la la...please tell me which European countries have lowered the age of consent to 12? Please, I've done an extensive search but I can't find them.Not even Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, San Mariano, Andorra and Vatican City...they're pretty small countries, but I looked...and then there is S.M.O.M.S, which is medieval protectorate which encompasses a courtyard in Rome....
In Russia, homosexuality was always publicly condemned and the Orthodox church has always been strict. In The Soviet Union, homosexuality was stricly punished and persecuted, but that didn't stop the pervasivness of homosexulaity in Russian Society. Where do you think most gay pornography comes from?
You cherry pick your statistics and information to fit your prejudice, but it has no effect on reality.
There is a lot to be said for tolerance and acceptance of individuals. The reality is that if you make something an obsessive taboo, it takes on an aura that makes it more attractive to those susceptible. It's like drugs...If we treated drugs in a more rational fashion and educated kids about them in a sane way way instead of hysterically hyping reality, you might persualde a lot more kids to make up their own minds armed with real facts instead of hysteria.
I would like to say that you have made this issue the same as race. I'm sure you can find verses in the bible to back up what ever belief you want to promote. That was my point.
I have to stop this here or I will find myself addressing your friends bad anal sex experience...Did you really have to take us there?
12:21 PM EDT
Barb said...
LD --My son says you sound "like the angry old man who yells at the kids to get off his lawn."
Chris --what is tolerance? Isn't it the ability to co-exist peacebly --even in a friendly manner --with people with whom you disagree about anything --including the definition of morals, religious beliefs, lifestyle issues?
I am tolerant ---believe me --I AM TOLERANT!
I am the friendliest, most forgiving, cheek-turning person vilified on this forum yet.
To you, tolerance seems to mean approval of others' views and lifestyles, beliefs and morals --or at least indifference.
BUT tolerance does NOT mean approval--or condoning. It means allowing free speech, willingness to let others be heard in adult forums, being cordial, even friendly, in spite of disapproval and disagreement.
Tolerance does NOT mean agreement.
So who is intolerant? those who stifle the opinions and free speech of others --those who hate and scorn and ridicule people with whom they disagree. Those who go off topic with mean-spirited ad hominem attack. Even what my son said about LD --is not "mean spirited." It's an apt visual image, however. A gentle jibe.
St. Paul noted in his letter to the Christians in Rome--that to even APPROVE sin is to sin. So tolerance must not come to mean approval or agreement --or the Church and its God-given liberties will be endangered and the violence you decry will be turned toward the believers --as in other countries now. And you'll be biting the hand of a force for good if you take on the universal Church of all who believe the Bible.
The intolerant do not want to hear any disagreement --they do not want to discuss unless they are sure to prevail. They are bankrupt in rebuttal and so give in to their hateful impulses.
12:28 PM EDT
Barb said...
About the bad experience, the blade letter writer responding to the General pace letter -- went there without naming the act saying heteros do the same acts as homos. That's why I brought it up. I'm saying, "not commonly."
And not healthfully.
I thought it was Holland where the homosexuals lobbied and succeeded in lowering the age of consent to 12. Appreciate your research. I didn't make it up.
There was a Scandanavian country that jailed --or at least tried--a minister for preaching the Bible on the subject of homosexuality. I'd call that intolerant of differences and denying freedom of religion and speech, wouldn't you? As they do in Canada regarding religious broadcasts on the topic. We are working toward criminalizing the Bible on h.s. as "hate speech."
In Germany they recently took two families' children away for home schooling.
That's a spirit of intolerance growing here --toward Christians who don't line up with the politically correct view on homosexuality.
I know only of some tolerance for slavery, not racism, in the Bible --though some tried to interpret the Mark of Cain as a racial difference. The Bible in its entirety condemns slavery --and racism --because we are told that Christ died for ALL. The Bible strongly supports the idea that we are all equal at the foot of the cross. You can't find defense for homosexual acts at all in the book.
I heed the teaching that says I have no license to hate sinners or think I am better than they. But I also heed the teaching that says we are not to approve homosexual conduct --and not to do it. And that we are to tell people the GOOD NEWS that Christ died on Good Friday for our sins --and that we must repent of our sins to avail ourselves of this great sacrifice for eternal life --which means resurrection from the dead for all of us. GOOD NEWS! But if we call evil good, and don't know that we are sinning, how shall we repent and be saved?
Sepp said he didn't care about this issue; it isn't his business --but the children are everybody's business --and the influences on culture that could lead them into addictive traps --are everybody's business. If homosexuality is NOT hard-wired genetic condition or a health condition like MS, then it is preventable, fixable, etc. And we SHOULD care about that. Instead of letting society encourage people to try homosexuality and see if they like it --as encouraged by media and gay sex education --GLSEN.
When it comes to sex, we need to choose not to wallow in the first sexual thought that comes to us in childhood or adolescence --and not assume that a thought is a determinant --anymore than a perceived, possible genetic influence on human behavior could be a "determinant."
1:03 PM EDT
liberal_dem said...
...and on and on and on...
Get some help, barb, before you become anti-social and need to be institutionalized.
2:08 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
"Get some help, barb, before you become anti-social and need to be institutionalized"
Thats a bit harsh don't you think? Gays just aren't Barb's cup of tea, so what? She isn't harrassing them, she just doesent agree that what goes on behind closed doors should be jammed down everyone's throat and repackaged as a "lifestyle" for public consumption. Her being repulsed by what they do is no less natural than them doing it...right?
Institutionalizing Barb because she doesent agree with your views?
Thats been done before...the Nazis did that to everyone who didn't agree with the social engineering under nazism. So if someone dosent buy into this "lifestyle" they are branded intollerant and somehow lower citizens?
Just because she doesnt agree with what those folks do does not mean she's "intollerant".
3:13 PM EDT
Chris said...
Barb, perhaps I should have used the word "discrimination" instead of intolerance. Although I think these terms can be intermingled at times. I do feel however that someone can be bigoted by practicing discrimination.
To me tolerance means giving everyone the same opportunities (marriage, serving in the military, etc). Is this too much to ask for?
3:51 PM EDT
Chris said...
Not agreeing with someone's views or lifestyle is no problem, obviously. But when you make special rules or laws, to prevent these same individuals from having equal opportunities....well isn't that what the Nazis did?
3:53 PM EDT
microdot said...
Sepp, my only comment on what you have just posted is that, yes, you are correct, Barb has a thing about gays, she is really obsessed with them and she misses no chance to portray them as subnormal abberrants who need to be controlled in one way or another. She uses her biblical rants in a way that could be used by a more easily inluenced person as a provocation and justification for violence and persecution.
4:28 PM EDT
Barb said...
microdot --my findings say 16 is netherlands age of consent --12 in canada under some circumstances --and phillipines also --and 13 in Japan --and a few others have a very young age of consent. And some countries have different ages for hetero or homosex relations, different ages for boys vs. girls and different views concerning age differences when the couple are both quite young. Perhaps the article I read was for the push to lower age of consent somewhere in Europe.
6:22 PM EDT
Barb said...
Microdot wrote: "She uses her biblical rants in a way that could be used by a more easily inluenced person as a provocation and justification for violence and persecution."
I've told you this before, Micro et al, that those who are inclined to violence toward homosexuals are NOT influenced by people like me or the Bible. You think they are going to quote, "Thou shalt not kill" while they murder? The gay bashers are the same as the race bashers, more likely the mean and drunk guys coming out of the bar --people who are intolerant of any differences in people --but especially intolerant when they are drunk like Mel G. was --intolerant of all the rights of others to the point of violence. Only the insane would use God for a justification, since God says we are not to do these sorts of killings or any. HE is the judge and He will impose justice or forgiveness according to our repentance or lack of it.
You'd be more on target if you blamed most hate crime on alcohol.
Chris --all people DO and SHOULD have equal rights --to marry a person of the opposite sex and have children if they wish. That's what marriage is --a union of man and woman with possibility or making a family by natural or adoption means --if they choose.
Every man has a right to find a woman who will marry him --and vice versa. Equal rights to EVERY man and woman.
You are suggesting some NEW right --heretofore not recognized on the planet --a right for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman. That's been on a list of taboos in every generation since the dawn of man --along with a man marrying his horse --or his sister -or his mother --or his father --or his child --or any child -or anyone younger than what we think of as an age of consent. It has also been considered immoral to break up a marriage to marry another, though the law no longer punishes adultery and does allow for divorce just as God did --he said he allowed for divorce for the hardness of our hearts.
Rather than saying discrimination leads to bigotry, I would say bigotry leads to discrimination. But marriage laws are not currently about discrimination --nor about bigotry. They have more to do with age-old understanding about what is natural and what is best for children --the traditional family unit provides for optimal financial support, emotional support, sexual image formation, structure and chaperonage for children and teens, protection of women and children from all sorts of wolves at the doors and in our computer screens. God designed and planned the family for our optimal benefit.
We need a welfare state now, because the family is in disarray. Homosexual families are going to fare even worse on average in stability and chaperonage for kids. Will they tell kids to "wait for marriage" --or "explore your sexuality"?
Remember that Rosie O Donnel's boy said he wanted a daddy and she told him he couldn't have one because she was the kind of mommy who wanted another mommy. "So get a stiff upper lip, boy! It's a woman's world." If he's not gay, it will be a wonder.
Human Sexuality magazine for Physicians once had an article wherein the doctors observed that children raised without affirming fathers in their lives tended to be promiscuous with men --both the girls and the boys.
We need to grow up, take on our bio-responsitilibies and do right by our families according to God's plan --and try to raise kids who can do likewise. We'll need God's help to get us out of the moral messes we've been making ever since the 60's at least.
7:09 PM EDT
In other words, Mel Gibson was only intolerant of Jews because he was drunk? When he isn't drunk, he loves them? Come on, Liquor may be the lubricant, but it only unlocks the gates of what is already there.
7:22 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
Discrimination? Against gays? How about the special rights they have obtained? Detroit Edison will grant health insurance and life insurance benefits to gay couples...as does the city of Toledo and, all they have to do is put their "partner's" name on the form! The same benefit isn't extended to hetrosexuals...discrimination? You bet! And, homosexuals who are the largest risk group for aids / hiv infection don't have to pay an extra surcharge for their "at risk behavior" ...but a smoker does! once again, discrimination? Damn right it is! When you measure the costs of treating lung cancer which after diagnosis, treatment is pretty much pain management for a few months as opposed to insurance paying for HIV treatment and AIDS medications the cost difference is staggering!
Drunk drivers, speeders, smokers, drug addicts, and, people who just happen to live in an area that is considered "high crime" all have to pay for their insurance risks via higher premiums while gays have become a protected class who pay nothing extra for their choice of behavior. We can pass laws to stop people from smoking...it's a lifestyle too...and use the excuse of insurance burden or, second hand smoke but, gays get a free pass? Second hand smoke has a possibility of making you sick but, second hand AIDS will kill you for certain. So, the discrimination arguement is pretty much moot at that.
8:14 PM EDT
liberal_dem said...
We can pass laws to stop people from smoking...it's a lifestyle too...and use the excuse of insurance burden or, second hand smoke but, gays get a free pass? Second hand smoke has a possibility of making you sick but, second hand AIDS will kill you for certain. So, the discrimination arguement is pretty much moot at that.
Sorry, sepp, but we depart. The gays are not bothering society and especially not your personal life nor your taxes.
Drunks, alcoholics, druggies and smokers, on the other hand, cause problems for society and are therefore a rick to others.
Please don't throw in gays as some sort of 'risk' to society. That is baseless intolerance and bigotry.
9:16 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
Oh really? AIDS has nothing to do with the tax burden? "On the fence" gays and bisexual men are the main cause for Aids / HIV spreading all over the planet. Thats not Al Gore "science" it's a proven fact. Any idea how many tax dollars go into this disease as opposed to the others?
Total tax dollars thrown at AIDS /HIV reasearch and prevention is $1,862,282,000 annually!
Skin cancer..$1,647,000
Arthritis...$13,808,000
Breast and cervical cancer $191,965,000
Diabetes...$61,683,000
Hep C...$21,930,000
Prostate cancer...$14,062,000
Notice any difference? One disease is completely preventable and garners nearly 2 billion dollars for reasearch while the diseases that aren't completely preventable get considerably less!
Sure drunks and druggies ARE a risk to others but are you going to sit there and type that the spread of HIV has no risk to others?
You MAY get killed by a drunk driver...
You MAY get robbed by a druggie...
You MAY get cancer from second hand smoke...
You WILL DIE if you're infected with HIV /AIDS!
See just a little bit of difference there LD? "Will" and "MAYBE" are pretty damned defining and only one is a 100% certainty.
It isn't bigotry, it isn't homophobia, it isn't discrimination...it's simply the naked truth like it or, not. Just because a certain demographic poses a high risk for certain dangers to others, political correctness does nothing to diminish the risk...it's simply a liberal way to ignore it by pretending it's not true in order to somehow diminish the danger which is pure bunk. After you get it, try pretending you don't have it. You'll still end up dead.
9:56 PM EDT
Barb said...
Why do facts not phase you, LD?
Homosexuals are a great cost to health care system and we all pay --they usually do have the alcohol and nicotine addiction with their lifestyle as well.
AIDS was brought here by the homosexuals because of their vacation activities in Haiti --where Haitians got it from Africa. That's documented fact --the wild party life with indiscriminate sexual coupling was brought back to the bath houses of NYC and San Francisco and other major urban areas --and we started to see GRID --Gay related immunity disease. One air line worker in Canada infected hundreds who infected others. It was rampant in the gay community and went from gays to the blood supply, the wives, the prostitutes, the drug users, the babies.
Everybody knows the disease could have been halted in America if gays had stopped their promiscuous activities --but they didn't --and we didn't tell them to do any more than put a leaky condom on it.
Not so long ago, newsweek reported the young gays, a new generation, were heedless of the dangers and just as risky in behavior as the first wave of AIDS victims.
I'm sorry enough for them and care enough about them --to tell them that it's the lifestyle! instead of tippytoeing around the facts in the name of PC tolerance.
There has been enormous cost to seeking a cure and finding a way to prolong their lives so they can pass it to more people --I want their lives to go on in good quality --but not so they can promote this lifestyle and induct new victims.
What are we thinking of, promoting this with gay pride parades, etc.? IT'S NOT GENETIC!!!!! THEY CAN STOP bringing in our youth.
As for Mel-- yes, he wasn't violent and out to kill anyone --but drink did bring out the worst in him of his prejudices. His father taught him some extreme views --not just basic Bible --but prejudice against Jews that the Bible doesn't justify when you study it and realize it is all about Jews --good ones and bad ones --Jesus and Paul were Jews. I am a Jew-follower as a Christian. I claim their patriarchs as my own --Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I think their history is the history of the human race --and it's the heritage of the Gentiles, too, because jesus has ingrafted us into their family tree. Shalom!
10:06 PM EDT
Chris said...
Sepp, as far as the health insurance "partner" point you made----isn't same sex marriage in Ohio and Michigan against the law? So how else would they be able to get the same benefits as other married couples? So really the Detroit Edison and city of Toledo insurance rules would not be needed if same sex marriage wasn't discriminated against, right?
Also Sepp, you're facts regarding aids are a little fuzzy. Only about half of aids cases in the US are due to homosexual behavior. Worldwide, two-thirds of aids cases come from Sub-Sahara Africa. Most of these cases are not due to homosexual behavior.
Barb, it's sad that you have to twist the meaning of words around so that they suit your discriminant ways. Your "marriage" wordplay was impressive, but wrong. Why do you think the law should define marriage as man-woman?
1:18 AM EDT
Barb said...
oops --I think the word should have been "faze."
2:13 AM EDT
Barb said...
The law should define a married couple as a man and a woman because it has ALWAYS BEEN SO BY DEFINITION. Suddenly we know more than the wise of all the centuries past?
Because only the man and wife are bio-designed for procreation and survival of the human race.
Because male and female created He them --in the image of God.
The other arrangements are unnatural --and immoral --since the only sanctioned relationship in either history OR the Bible is husband and wife, male with female.
The hetero couple with a nuclear family unit --at its best is a national mental health center --providing male and female role models and normalcy for kids --providing stability.
Because the gay life is at risk for disease by nature of the promiscuous lifestyle and the sex acts themselves.
Because gay activity is a sex addiction --unlike normal marital sex which is rightly engaged in whenever the urge moves the couple but has none of the downside characteristics of sex addiction. Children are one upside result.
As for 1/2 the U.S. AIDS cases not being from gay sex --you got it wrong. Homosexuals are 100 percent responsible for U.S. AIDS --because they brought it here from Haiti and spread it like wildfire, into the straight population from them. Remember, i told you they called it Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Because they were the ones first afflicted in droves because of their activities.
Ever see the Mapplethorpe art photos? gay men urinating into each other's mouths? Ever hear of "fisting?"
We're trying to sanitize something that isn't sanitary --or normal --or healthy --or inevitable --or genetic --or congenital. We need to figure out how to parent for heterosexuality --for normalcy --because it probably can be done.
On the one hand, gays have said they would never choose this lifestyle --so why is GLSEN pushing it onto our children instead of asking straight america for compassion AND a solution --and recommending safeguards so that our children won't get into this.
Also, God's word does tell us in both testaments that the only approved use of sex is within hetero-marriage. It explicitly describes and prohibits gay behavior --Leviticus 18 and Romans 1. It also describes it in one passage as a sin turned away from, by new believers.
3:44 AM EDT
liberal_dem said...
You MAY get killed by a drunk driver...
You MAY get robbed by a druggie...
You MAY get cancer from second hand smoke...
You WILL DIE if you're infected with HIV /AIDS!
Sorry again, sepp, but your post is off-target.
Drunk driving is a menace to society as is second-hand smoke. There is no doubt about either one. Men, women and children are affected each day by thousands of instances of 'exposure' to both of these societal menacings.
You cannot just "throw in" AIDS with these two because you are personally against gays
This is a specious debate tactic and you know it: I expected more from you than this
9:47 AM EDT
liberal_dem said...
Tell me BARB: do you think that [the author of the Blade letter] is a homophobe?
9:49 AM EDT
Chris said...
Barb, wise old men thought slavery was ok too. Marriage was only defined as man-woman by people who wanted to discriminate. If the sole intent of marriage is procreation, should we annul all marriages with no children?
And anytime someone should spouting off bible verses or explanations to argue what should or should not be law, they lose the argument. Law is and must be secular in nature.
10:28 AM EDT
noah's ark said...
I'll tell you what, gimme some of that old-tyme Bible days law.
First off, any man is worth twice any woman. Says so right here:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)
Also, the Old Testament teaches us how to treat women of nations we defeat in battle. Some good pointers for our boys in uniform:
""And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:13-16).
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies . . . And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house . . . thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife" (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).
Tell me you're not gonna run right to the recruiter's office after reading that!!
Also, in Bible-tymes, a man could marry a girl in her early teens. Heck, a man could have multiple wives back then!! You guys wanna tell me that three fifteen year-old wives doesn't sound fantastic? A guy can keep slaves a-plenty, too. Y'all enjoy mowing your own lawn, cleaning gutters, etc.? I sure don't. Slaves. Think about it, eh?
And, if you marry some girl and it turns out she's not a virgin, you can stone her to death on her parent's doorstep!!
You guys with me? Come on...Leviticus rocks when you're a man!!
11:26 AM EDT
Barb said...
Having some acquaintance with her, I'm sure, LD, that Ms. _____ is not a homophobe --not fearful of homosexuals --and not a bigot (hater) either. She is constitutionally quite jolly actually, easy going, loving to all --the milk of human kindness runs in her veins, I believe we could say. She loves chocolate like most of the rest of the world and thus can be rather sweet herself! : )
If you had similar character traits, you would probably like her inspite of your differences. Because that's the ultimate in tolerance --liking people with whom we differ.
1:52 PM EDT
Barb said...
I expect you to say quite self-righteously that you can't like people who hold slaves, who are cruel to children, racists --or homophobic bigots as you mis-label her the latter.
You have previously suggested that I myself should be institutionalized for constitutional craziness --or at least censored.
I wish you could for once surprise me and show more tolerance than I expect for the likes of Ms. R. and myself.
It IS nice you are letting this dialogue go on until we've all had our say and discussed every aspect of the topic, inside and out. You get some points for that.
Maybe we could get her to participate in this forum....
2:00 PM EDT
Barb said...
LD -your comment on Sepp's comparison of elective risks of the smokers, drinkers, and homosexuals, doesn't make sense to me.
Isn't he saying we spend far more on AIDS --and protect the behavior that primarily caused it --than on any other preventable, risky behavior-induced addiction or disease? That's probably true, isn't it? Whether it is or not, we don't have pride parades for smokers --I guess we do have the St. Pat's parades for drinkers?--but that's supposed to be about Patrick and not booze --
In any case, the prime cause of AIDS in the U.S. is promiscuous gay sex which brought it to the straight community as well --and there is liklihood that it started with anal sex in Africa if, in fact, they have used anal sex as a means of birth control as is suspected--or if anal sex is a secret ritual among African men as it is in the "straight" Afr. Am. Community here who admit that many of them are "on the down low" --i.e. commiting homosexual acts without identifying as gay --making the afr. am. women at highest risk for AIDS in the U.S. today --if I recall correctly.
Eventually, we ought to be recognizing that there is something essentially unnatural, disordered and addictive and dangerous to a majority of gay behavior --and figure out how to prevent the experiences and the orientation in our children.
I do believe with all my heart that childhood and pubescent gay activity when kids are first "sexually awakened," --as with the hypothetical molesting priest and altar boy, male coach and jr. high wrestler, uncle and nephew, molesting older kids--any such experience, especially in a fatherless youth culture, can cause a gay self-image --and create possibility of sex addiction, oriented toward one's own sex. We need to speak truth to problems.
There are many roads to Rome (i.e. homosexual orientation and first sexual experience) --and it is in society's best interests, for health and economy, to discourage those who would lure kids into this lifestyle by telling them it's OK to experiment with their sexuality -like GLSEN and the corporate-sponsored gay pride parades and tv programming.
This is not a good FAD or TREND --for youth to "explore their sexuality" --because it will lead to more youthful sex activity and all the negative results of that.
The Gay activist agenda gives youth license to get in serious trouble.
2:33 PM EDT
Barb said...
The New International Version --reads more understandably than your version, Noah's Ark (Don?)
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD by giving equivalent values, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels [a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel [b] ; 4 and if it is a female, set her value at thirty shekels. [c] 5 If it is a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels [d] and of a female at ten shekels. [e] 6 If it is a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels [f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels [g] of silver. 7 If it is a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels [h] and of a female at ten shekels.
Sounds to me like the idea isn't that a man is worth more --but that he is to be assessed more --because he is the man, after all --and has to give more as a dedication of himself to the Lord with money.
Yes, they did give more to the Lord for the males to be dedicated --Adam was created first ---He is the Head of his home. But he has the earning power --and it's like an assessment --God told Moses to assess more for men (remember,the man is paying it all with his earnings for his family)-(who would bring more money on the slave block, too, because of the nature of the work he can do--physically more difficult work --Men are stronger when it comes to hauling around pyramids, after all)
The New Testament says that "In Christ, there is no male or female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile --but all are one in Him."
That's where we get our idea of equality before God -not from Moses.
If Moses' revelation of God was complete, Jesus would not have said He was the light of the world. Moses' revelation would have been as much light from God as needed. But there was more to come --in the revelation of God Incarnate, Jesus.
2:51 PM EDT
Barb said...
To summarize previous ramblings --the assessment had to do with your WORK value --babies the least, senior citizens less than people in their prime, women less than men. The man of the house, the breadwinner, is being assessed for anyone he wants to dedicate to the Lord --it's like a tax for his family --according to their physical work value.
2:54 PM EDT
Barb said...
About the battle passages --the whole world was going to Hell in a hand basket back then --sacrificing children to Molech, visiting temple prostitute/priestesses, believing in gods made with their hands, incest with daughters to ensure a harvest, war toward Abraham's (moses') people with captivity and enslavement--
The jews may have been bloody in conquest after their liberation from Egypt --and taking women captive --but they were told to not kill the women and children in most cases --and to take them in, (without their idols) because otherwise they couldn't support themselves without their men. God had His celestial Hands full trying to bring order out of chaos in our fallen, wicked world. he had to start somewhere --and He had to establish His people who were to be the light to the Gentiles, to the world eventually through Christ --who were to be people of laws, standards, moral behavior --instead of like the lawless and immoral and cruel pagans around them.
Civilization has been a slow process --and sometimes Hitlers and Sadams and their supporters have to be killed so that people can breathe free and know their God.
3:04 PM EDT
microdot said...
I'm not touching that one with a 20 foot pole. I think it's time for an intervention. The word-o-meter has clocked a new worlds record...we are estimating by the inch, 15,560 words by Barb.
She has told us about 12 year olds being forced into unholy scandinavian marriages, bad anal sex experiences had by her friend (I'd sue!), secret afro american anal sex rituals, her opinion of the work of Robert Maplethorpe,(did she burn the unholy images after burning or are they in a folder under the bed?) Practices in the back rooms of gay leather bars, I glad she spared us Richard Gere and his gerbil....
This has been a very interesting trip into someones obsession, a land not quite lit, not quite dark, where things are not as they seem to be, do not try to adjust your computer, we have entered THE BARB ZONE! cue the theme music.......
5:20 PM EDT
Chris said...
noah's ark....I thought I recognized your foul stench!
6:12 PM EDT
noah's ark said...
"The New International Version --reads more understandably than your version..."
I don't need some "new" version, tainted by human meddlings. I'll read the Bible as God intended, thank you very much!! I read my version as saying that women are worth half as much as men. Your new-fangled liberalized version may say otherwise, but I say "fiddlesticks"!!
What's more, why aren't the "battle" passages of Leviticus equally applicable today? Is the word of God as set out to Moses not good enough for you? God's wisdom was good enough then, but not good enough now? Sure, the gay-bashing stuff is fun, but we can't throw away the Leviticus baby with the Deuteronomy bathwater. Either the whole of Old Testament law remains valid, or none of it does. We can't cherry-pick God's laws as we see fit, Barb.
You often cite Ann Coulter as being "right" about everything, with the disclaimer that you haven't read any of her books. You should actually read Ann Coulter...she really understands how to apply Leviticus to the War on Terror. For example, Ann wrote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
You see, Ann Coulter understands that those passages from Leviticus hold the solution to Iraq and the problem of terrorism. You get rid of terrorism by getting rid of the Islamofascists. What we should be doing in Iraq is killing the men, and our soldiers can take on Iraqi women as wives, and adopt the rug-rats. Of course, there are way more Iraqi women than U.S. troops in Iraq. But once again, looking to the Old Testament reveals the solution – polygamy!! Also, allowing our soldiers to take Muslim women as the spoils of war (as God clearly advocates in Leviticus) will also solve the recruitment problem.
You’re getting soft on me, Barb, with your liberal modified Bible, and your selective cherry-picking of which of God’s laws we ought to follow. Did you get your husband’s permission before getting on the internet? Probably not. I’ll bet your head isn’t even covered right now!!
Conservative Christian my foot...you wish you were this conservative!!
6:45 PM EDT
noah's ark said...
"noah's ark....I thought I recognized your foul stench!"
Charming to the last, Chris...
Now, where is the hidden Rebel base??
7:16 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
LD, where did I ever say I was "personnaly against gays"? All I mentioned was that they shouldn't bitch about discrimination on one hand but, get special rights on the other. Is they're "lifestyle" my cup of tea? No but, it doesen't mean I have a problem with them. They do their thing...I do mine. I just think that it's bullshit that they can add anyone they wish to their insurance without even submitting proof of some kind of cohabitation. Which opens up an already expensive system to abuse IE, selling "companion" coverage to anyone they choose. If they're going to extend this coverage to those who cannot marry, at least make them prove some kind of relationship exists.
8:01 PM EDT
Barb said...
ROFL! Even I have a sense of humor, micro-D --and no mapplethorpe photos under the bed --just plus size catalogues for ladies.
about Anne coulter --I brought her up once on this thread --You guys bring her up more than I do --you accused me of reading her stuff and getting it from her --which ain't true --like most things you guys think and say.
About the Law, Noah's ARk, WE ARE NOT UNDER THE COVENANT OF OLD TESTAMENT LAW ANYMORE --BUT UNDER GRACE AND THE NEW COVENANT OF THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB. (caps not for screaming but for emphasis.)
Many of the laws of the old testament had their purpose for that time and place --a wild and lawless world. bUT THE law in its entirety was burdensome legalism--much of it giving the Jews discipline in a lawless world, cohesion and identity as a people --but Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."
And instead of the harsh justice of the O.T., Jesus says, "I give you a new commandment --that you return good for evil, love your enemies, pray for those who despitefully use you, turn the other cheek" etc.
But the New Testament upholds the basics of moral law regarding sexuality --and for all kinds of good reasons for our own good observeable in culture today.
Let's not forget the disease risk and high cost of a lifestyle and question why we would celebrate or promote it --when, in fact, it is not inevitable or genetic. Even one of the newspaper critics of the letter on Gen. Pace and gays in the military said that researchers think there is an environmnetal trigger that brings about gay orientation in someone who may have a genetic predisposition to it. Even if they could prove the genetic predisposition (which they haven't) she suggested surgery might be done to prevent the orientation --just as she would like a cure for her MS.
FACT IS, homosexual orientation is more likely caused by the "environmental triggers" than by any predisposition. We should want to eliminate the triggers and protect our youth from this difficult, non-procreative, generally unhappy condition. We need to cultivate minds that sync with our bio-assignment as male or female. We don't do that with GLSEN school promotion of "exploring one's sexuality" in the name of tolerance.
10:51 PM EDT
"Local Toledo Homophome Blasted By Blade Readers"
- from PoliticsinMudville.blogspot.com
"Some people like Gen. Peter Pace and ____________, a March 22 letter writer, would like to dismiss homosexual behavior as merely a moral weakness and liken it to adultery, lying, or stealing. What their intolerance is, however, is blatant bigotry and ignorance."
Another says:
"I would like to thank letter writer _________for helping me define my morality. Does she live under a rock? Each person decides his or her own morality. It cannot be customized. It is a choice. Numerous medical researchers and magazines tell us that most homosexuality is genetic; it is not a choice but a physical reality. Therefore it is not immoral. I have multiple sclerosis. It was not a choice. It is a physical reality. Therefore, I am not immoral because of it. And every sexual act performed by a gay couple is also enjoyed by straight couples, if they choose."
A third letter:
___________'s March 22 letter regarding Gen. Peter Pace's comment on gays in the military is myopic and without substantiated, verifiable truth in regard to her casual dismissal of genetics being a basis for homosexuality.
She failed to mention her clinical and scholarly credentials that would render her comments helpful. They wouldn't come from misinterpreted biblical writings, would they? If so, I am confident that she strictly adheres to all admonishments found in her studies of the Bible."
It seems that _________'sletter raised some eyebrows here in the Toledo area. Apparently more than one person thinks Ms. ______ bible-based morality doesn't fit with reality. But then, as she has shown us on this blog, she's right and the world is wrong.
posted by liberal_dem at 8:26 AM on Mar 29, 2007
microdot said...
Krikey, you're gonna get scolded for that one! Yikes!
12:27 PM EDT
Chris said...
Wow, this person is going to be in a world of hurt when she goes to Hell for being a bigot.
12:44 PM EDT
Barb said...
"Homophobe" is the word I believe, LD --or is homophome some new noun I haven't heard of? --I doubt Ms._____ is afraid of homosexuals --should she be?
Chris, bigot is somebody who hates. I didn't see where she said she hated homosexuals or expressed anything hateful about them.
If I recall, she said people who are potentially tempted or attracted by somebody to whom they are not married, should not be put into intimate quarters --i.e. bathrooms, bedrooms and barracks--with such people. Girls shouldn't room with boys in the dorms and barracks --and homosexuals, likewise, shouldn't room with the people to whom they are potentially sexually attracted--because the straight people should be as bothered by that as girls should be if a boy is put in their room or bathroom. It's not proper --not moral.
Granted, a segment in society doesn't care about morals --but those who do, should not be subjected to sleeping or showering with or dressing in front of, people of opposite sex or same sex orientation.
If homosexuals have great self- control and don't burn in lust lying on the barrack bunk, and want to serve in the military like any other male or female, obeying the rules in moral college's dorm rooms and army barracks--rules against intimacy with people to whom they are not married, they shouldn't be advertising their orientation. Don't tell --is appropriate --or otherwise, don't serve.
Traditionally, sexual attraction is acted upon within the bonds of hetero marriage. That's what is moral.
Who can say what is moral? Yes, the Creator --see Leviticus 18 to see where all sex outside hetero marriage is sin for which the land was ruined and vomited out its inhabitants. Nothing too ancient or obsolete to understand clearly.
The bigotry is toward the sin --not the sinner.
5:39 PM EDT
Barb said...
Letter writers Nicholas Feldt, Barbara Rochelle, and Linda Garrison assert that homosexuality is most surely genetically caused and that Ms.______, not being a scientist, must be wrong to say otherwise.
Dr. Francis S. Collins, is the head of the Human Genome Project. He concluded that while "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits…for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive."
He wrote: “An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
I agree with him that homosexuality is not hard wired but I don’t think it’s proof of genetic influence –to observe that a gay twin has a gay brother 20% of the time –BECAUSE SINCE THEIR GENES ARE IDENTICAL, he should have a gay brother 100 per cent of the time. I suspect it is more something environmental about being a twin that is an influence on homosexuality --something about the parental or sibling relationship. Also, I would ask, how large is our study sample, of gay male twins in australia where this work was done??
Dr. A Dean Byrd, writing about Collins' work, notes: “ The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism. Dr. Collins noted that environment--particularly childhood experiences--as well as the role of free will and choice affect us all in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate the issues, not provide support to ideologues."
Byrd: “Citing such dangers, Dr. Collins referred to the book written by gay activist Dean Hamer, who declared the discovery of the "God gene" (this same author also is associated with earlier disproven claims that he had discovered “the gay gene"). Dr. Collins noted that the "evidence" in Hamer's book "grabbed headlines," but was "wildly overstated" --just as his announcements of finding a gay gene marker --for which research irregularities and announcement of a gay gene, the National Cancer Institute called him on the carpet.
all the studies purporting to find a genetic role in homosexuality, have been debunked or flimsy at best.
Even Newsweek writers came to that conclusion not long ago.
The gay gene is a media myth that the mass audience believes --including you guys.
5:52 PM EDT
Barb said...
Ask yourselves --have they found a gene that all gays share? No, they have not --they are more likely to share a gene for poor eyesight or artistic talents or frail body type --nothing that is exclusive to homosexuals.
Is it possible that something occurs in the womb with the mother's hormones that causes sexual ambiguity? Perhaps, but it will show up in their bodies --not just in their heads.
6:10 PM EDT
microdot said...
Barb, for once I will agree with you. I never stated or do I believe that homosexuality is strictly genetic behaviour. I do believe there are some genetic causes of homosexuality, but much of it is caused by the formation of an individuals personality and the factors which affect them. Because we are all different and completely unique human beings, the same set of circumstances do not affect any two humans in the same way. I for one think that continually going on about the genetic causes is not the issue here.
I think the issue is that you choose to condemn a huge portion of the human race for the parts of their personalities you don't approve of.
Most gay people live pretty quiet lives and you aren't aware of their existance. Most people live private lives that don't attract your attention.Because a lot of gay people are obviously different to you, you notice them and become the object of your scorn.
"Straight" people commit murders and sex crimes. It's not even worth trying to make some sort of percentage comparison.
When ever anyone brings up the persecution of gay people or a hate crime against a gay person, you are quick to trot out some aberrative atrocity in your gay crime files to prove to the world that gay people commit crimes too.
Only you never just stop there, if you read your posts, and maybe you aren't capable of being self critical or aware, but the anger starts to flow and the language gets more harsh.
I have said it before, you don't think you are capable of physically harming a homosexual and I certainly believe you, but your obsessive condemnation and religious justification for your statements are the very things that inspire hate crimes. The attitudes towards blacks in America that kept segregation and racial hate institutialized for years was caused by the rationalization that let "moral" men keep slaves. They convinced themselves and believed that they were sub human and not like "us". They could quote from the bible and go to sleep at night believing that slavery was gods will and to change it would be to usurp the natural order.
As far as I am concerned, you are applying the same moral rationalizations to gay people.
As far as I can see, the idea of genetics and gayness entered this discussion when we mentioned the President of the Southern Baptisit University who thought that it would be okay to genetically modify fetuses if it would prevent them from becoming homosexual.
6:39 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
I've always seen it as a fetish that some people have. As for being genetic, it seems that regardless of the topic nowadays, you can find a scientist who will say whatever you want him to say. As for what goes on in other people's bedrooms, I'll start caring when it becomes my business. I'm thinking...never is pretty close to the correct answer for that.
8:31 AM EDT
Anonymous said...
I note with laughter that barb calls the woman Ms. ___________.
9:39 AM EDT
Barb said...
Correction, Dean Hamer was (is?) with The National Institute for Health--NIH --not the Cancer Institute.
Microdot: I agreed with the Baptist minister that if homosexual orientation WERE found to be genetically influenced and caused, and IF scientists COULD
"correct" homosexuality in the fetus or genes, most parents would want to do so. And evangelicals don't oppose any surgeries or genetic remedies that prevent or correct abnormal, undesirable conditions --like a mindset that does not match one's body --as in gender identity confusion often contributing to homosexual orientation. However, we don't believe that such mindsets come from our genes.
Find something hateful I've said about homosexuals. Just because I say homosexual activities are immoral --doesn't mean I hate anyone who does them. It means that what they do with their own sex should not be entered into --should not be started, primarily because the Bible says it is immoral (He did not design us for it)--i.e. forbidden by our Creator who said the land would and did vomit out the people who did any child sacrifice and any sexual behaviors (listed: same sex, with animals, and close relatives) other than hetero marriage.
As for the Blade writer who said many hetero married couples enjoy the same activities as gay couples --no woman in her right mind would enjoy anal sex --according to my friend whose doped up, thereafter divorced husband forced that experience on her --and I doubt that giving oral sex frequently (if at all) is high on a woman's list of sexual pleasures. Taste buds and noses are given for good reason.
Anal sex can cause anal incontinence --who needs it? Most of us have enough trouble expelling things with that body orifice but certainly don't want to leak instead. I can't think of anything I would want my kids to avoid any more than anal(or oral) or adulterous sex --unless it's drugs. I don't want anyone around my kids who would PROMOTE anal or oral sex experimentation --which is what is happening with the GLSEN (?) activities in public schools --with questionnaires asking kids if they have ever considered trying gay sex to see if they might, in fact, be homosexual.
An excellent and thorough article by a PhD priest, Father Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, Ph.D. is found HERE --from Reprint/Synopsis Series --The Myth of the Gay Gene at NARTH website.
He also notes that gays in countries that are gay tolerant have a high rate of mental illness among their gays --just as in a Bible belt community --maybe more.
He wrote,"...the observed differences in mental health status between homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as great in the Netherlands and in New Zealand, two societies which are relatively more tolerant of homosexuality, as they are in the United States, a society which is relatively not as tolerant. [24] If social ostracism is indeed a significant factor in influencing the mental health status of homosexual persons, then one would expect to see differences among societies with varying tolerances to homosexuality."
What you DO see is LESS homosexuallity in cultures/families/religions which subtly teach against it and protect their kids from early sexual influence; by chaperoning and repressing even the normal adolescent hetero interest, they DO promote normal hetero marriage. Christian kids raised to delay sexual gratification, admittedly, can hardly wait "to have and to hold," and can hardly believe such joyous pleasure of intimacy is LEGAL with God -Hallelujah!
In U.S. we are trying to make gays feel happier about gayness by approving the condition --but it cannot be done --even with our approval. Our approval only encourages more young, sexually inexperienced people to walk through the door of gay ideation --consider it, experiment --and find out, voila! orgasm! Overcome all inhibitive barriers and a person can wallow in sexual experience any number of ways with any number of people--ways that aren't good for the physical and emotional health --nor spiritual health.
Young people DO have same sex attractions --that are not sexual --but admiration and enjoyment of one's personality --GLSEN would like to convince people that sexual experimentation, called "exploring one's sexuality," will open doorways to them that are good --when those may be trap doors to a self-image problem, promiscuity and sexual addiction --disease and misery --for many.
I don't hate homosexuals --I feel deeply sorry for them --even when they don't. But I also have hope for them --even when they don't. They can change --but the best thing when it comes to sexual addictions (any addiction) is to never get started --because scientists do see brain structure changes with addictions. That's why "fleeing temptation" is the best course --whether we are talking about hard drugs, alcohol, nicotine, MJ , porn or abnormal sex.
We need to know what the traps are to avoid them --and homosex is a trap. the orientation is a disorder to prevent and correct --not to act upon.
It's not the same thing as race, Micro. It's a temptation and chosen behavior --but the gay self-image is partially shaped by environment/other people--and there are studies to show this.
As for the percentage comparison of straight or gay sex crime --there have been studies done --and while heteros do more of the sex and other crime, gays do more sex crime proportionate to their numbers in the population, --even if you adjust the law (as has been done) to de-criminalize sodomy. Many of those gay crimes might not be countable if you lowered the age of consent to 12 as has been done in some European countries --which says there is a lot of pederasty among gay men --e.g. Tom Foley --who would wait until they were 18, but 16 and 17 attracted him. Foley is not primarily a pedophile --he is a homosexual --and he likes 'em young -just like the guys on "to catch a predator." Men who are attracted to teens are not necessarily or primarily pedophiles --they are hetero or homo --sexuals. They often also have sex with people their age, but there is an attractiveness to the young and inexperienced --and indulging that attraction when you are an older, full adult, has to do with immorality --more than abnormalcy.
Sin is our normal condition. That's why God provided a Savior --When we respond to God's Grace with willful rejection of our sinful thoughts, the Holy Spirit enables us to be moral people. It does help to be raised to choose morality before you get into deep trouble of any sort. But anyone's kids can get into sin in a culture that is allowing sinners to reach out and tempt via media and education as this one is.
I feel sorry for everyone of those predators, gay or straight, caught on that tv show, "To Catch a Predator." Even the host says he believes many of them would have led more conventional lives if it were not for the temptation of the internet.
10:08 AM EDT
liberal_dem said...
So, 'barb,' I open the door for comments and you go right back to your usual righteous pap paragraph after long paragraph after....
Don't you ever learn?
Surely you aren't stupid.
Why don't you get it? The 3 Blade writers are surely but the tip of the proverbial iceberg of the 'normal' folks who think you are nuts.
The people who comment here already know that.
Your pomposity and verbiage can't cover for your unwillingness to learn.
Face it: you are stuck and don't know how to get out of your present situation. To me you have all of the classic symptoms of OCD.
A good therapist and some medicine could help you get over your homophobia and help you return to a normal life, so that you don't keep embarrassing yourself and your family with your homophobic blather.
Get some help. You'll have a much brighter life.
10:19 AM EDT
Barb said...
When you detect anger in me, Microdot --it's because of the misstatements and deliberate misinterpretations i get concerning me and others who believe as I do on the social issues--and when I am censored and not allowed to defend myself.
I realize I am often too lengthy to hold interest --and not always organized in my posts, but you don't have to read me --but you might expand your mind if you did because I do explain where I'm coming from and I don't think I deserve persecution.
But then neither did St. Paul or Jesus or the Christians killed around the world today. Two were just murdered by Muslims in an african nation yesterday --heard it on the radio. JEsus said we are blessed who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. So, go ahead! Persecute me for believing and quoting the Bible!
I am irritated when people call the Religious Right Nazis, bigots, racists --etc. when that is not the case. I don't think you can find any examples of bigotry in what I say --where i am hating someone and scorning them because they are sinning in their lifestyles --I am not condemning them or wishing Hell upon them. E.g. I do feel sad for the guys on To Catch a Predator.
And we are going to feel sorry for a lot more of us on judgment Day when all our sinful thoughts are revealed --unless we put them under the Blood of Christ and repent before it's too late. That was Jesus' first sermon --in fact --to Repent --for the Kingdom of Heaven is Here! It starts NOW.
Jesus told the woman caught in adultery that he did not condemn her, got the others to realize their own sins so that they wouldn't stone her --but then he said, "Go and sin no more." He didn't change the definitions of morality --he just said we couldn't hide --we are all sinners even the proud pharisees among us --and I dare say most of us are wrongfully proud about something.
Yes, Anonymous, I am somewhat acquainted with the Blade letter writer, Ms. what's her name. Glad I could give you a chuckle.
____________
Chris said...
Barb, you can be a bigot simply by showing intolerance of another group. As for what is moral and what is not--this is a relative question. No one should impose their morals on others. I'd hate to teach my children the "morality" of intolerance.
11:16 AM EDT
microdot said...
Oh la la la la...please tell me which European countries have lowered the age of consent to 12? Please, I've done an extensive search but I can't find them.Not even Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, San Mariano, Andorra and Vatican City...they're pretty small countries, but I looked...and then there is S.M.O.M.S, which is medieval protectorate which encompasses a courtyard in Rome....
In Russia, homosexuality was always publicly condemned and the Orthodox church has always been strict. In The Soviet Union, homosexuality was stricly punished and persecuted, but that didn't stop the pervasivness of homosexulaity in Russian Society. Where do you think most gay pornography comes from?
You cherry pick your statistics and information to fit your prejudice, but it has no effect on reality.
There is a lot to be said for tolerance and acceptance of individuals. The reality is that if you make something an obsessive taboo, it takes on an aura that makes it more attractive to those susceptible. It's like drugs...If we treated drugs in a more rational fashion and educated kids about them in a sane way way instead of hysterically hyping reality, you might persualde a lot more kids to make up their own minds armed with real facts instead of hysteria.
I would like to say that you have made this issue the same as race. I'm sure you can find verses in the bible to back up what ever belief you want to promote. That was my point.
I have to stop this here or I will find myself addressing your friends bad anal sex experience...Did you really have to take us there?
12:21 PM EDT
Barb said...
LD --My son says you sound "like the angry old man who yells at the kids to get off his lawn."
Chris --what is tolerance? Isn't it the ability to co-exist peacebly --even in a friendly manner --with people with whom you disagree about anything --including the definition of morals, religious beliefs, lifestyle issues?
I am tolerant ---believe me --I AM TOLERANT!
I am the friendliest, most forgiving, cheek-turning person vilified on this forum yet.
To you, tolerance seems to mean approval of others' views and lifestyles, beliefs and morals --or at least indifference.
BUT tolerance does NOT mean approval--or condoning. It means allowing free speech, willingness to let others be heard in adult forums, being cordial, even friendly, in spite of disapproval and disagreement.
Tolerance does NOT mean agreement.
So who is intolerant? those who stifle the opinions and free speech of others --those who hate and scorn and ridicule people with whom they disagree. Those who go off topic with mean-spirited ad hominem attack. Even what my son said about LD --is not "mean spirited." It's an apt visual image, however. A gentle jibe.
St. Paul noted in his letter to the Christians in Rome--that to even APPROVE sin is to sin. So tolerance must not come to mean approval or agreement --or the Church and its God-given liberties will be endangered and the violence you decry will be turned toward the believers --as in other countries now. And you'll be biting the hand of a force for good if you take on the universal Church of all who believe the Bible.
The intolerant do not want to hear any disagreement --they do not want to discuss unless they are sure to prevail. They are bankrupt in rebuttal and so give in to their hateful impulses.
12:28 PM EDT
Barb said...
About the bad experience, the blade letter writer responding to the General pace letter -- went there without naming the act saying heteros do the same acts as homos. That's why I brought it up. I'm saying, "not commonly."
And not healthfully.
I thought it was Holland where the homosexuals lobbied and succeeded in lowering the age of consent to 12. Appreciate your research. I didn't make it up.
There was a Scandanavian country that jailed --or at least tried--a minister for preaching the Bible on the subject of homosexuality. I'd call that intolerant of differences and denying freedom of religion and speech, wouldn't you? As they do in Canada regarding religious broadcasts on the topic. We are working toward criminalizing the Bible on h.s. as "hate speech."
In Germany they recently took two families' children away for home schooling.
That's a spirit of intolerance growing here --toward Christians who don't line up with the politically correct view on homosexuality.
I know only of some tolerance for slavery, not racism, in the Bible --though some tried to interpret the Mark of Cain as a racial difference. The Bible in its entirety condemns slavery --and racism --because we are told that Christ died for ALL. The Bible strongly supports the idea that we are all equal at the foot of the cross. You can't find defense for homosexual acts at all in the book.
I heed the teaching that says I have no license to hate sinners or think I am better than they. But I also heed the teaching that says we are not to approve homosexual conduct --and not to do it. And that we are to tell people the GOOD NEWS that Christ died on Good Friday for our sins --and that we must repent of our sins to avail ourselves of this great sacrifice for eternal life --which means resurrection from the dead for all of us. GOOD NEWS! But if we call evil good, and don't know that we are sinning, how shall we repent and be saved?
Sepp said he didn't care about this issue; it isn't his business --but the children are everybody's business --and the influences on culture that could lead them into addictive traps --are everybody's business. If homosexuality is NOT hard-wired genetic condition or a health condition like MS, then it is preventable, fixable, etc. And we SHOULD care about that. Instead of letting society encourage people to try homosexuality and see if they like it --as encouraged by media and gay sex education --GLSEN.
When it comes to sex, we need to choose not to wallow in the first sexual thought that comes to us in childhood or adolescence --and not assume that a thought is a determinant --anymore than a perceived, possible genetic influence on human behavior could be a "determinant."
1:03 PM EDT
liberal_dem said...
...and on and on and on...
Get some help, barb, before you become anti-social and need to be institutionalized.
2:08 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
"Get some help, barb, before you become anti-social and need to be institutionalized"
Thats a bit harsh don't you think? Gays just aren't Barb's cup of tea, so what? She isn't harrassing them, she just doesent agree that what goes on behind closed doors should be jammed down everyone's throat and repackaged as a "lifestyle" for public consumption. Her being repulsed by what they do is no less natural than them doing it...right?
Institutionalizing Barb because she doesent agree with your views?
Thats been done before...the Nazis did that to everyone who didn't agree with the social engineering under nazism. So if someone dosent buy into this "lifestyle" they are branded intollerant and somehow lower citizens?
Just because she doesnt agree with what those folks do does not mean she's "intollerant".
3:13 PM EDT
Chris said...
Barb, perhaps I should have used the word "discrimination" instead of intolerance. Although I think these terms can be intermingled at times. I do feel however that someone can be bigoted by practicing discrimination.
To me tolerance means giving everyone the same opportunities (marriage, serving in the military, etc). Is this too much to ask for?
3:51 PM EDT
Chris said...
Not agreeing with someone's views or lifestyle is no problem, obviously. But when you make special rules or laws, to prevent these same individuals from having equal opportunities....well isn't that what the Nazis did?
3:53 PM EDT
microdot said...
Sepp, my only comment on what you have just posted is that, yes, you are correct, Barb has a thing about gays, she is really obsessed with them and she misses no chance to portray them as subnormal abberrants who need to be controlled in one way or another. She uses her biblical rants in a way that could be used by a more easily inluenced person as a provocation and justification for violence and persecution.
4:28 PM EDT
Barb said...
microdot --my findings say 16 is netherlands age of consent --12 in canada under some circumstances --and phillipines also --and 13 in Japan --and a few others have a very young age of consent. And some countries have different ages for hetero or homosex relations, different ages for boys vs. girls and different views concerning age differences when the couple are both quite young. Perhaps the article I read was for the push to lower age of consent somewhere in Europe.
6:22 PM EDT
Barb said...
Microdot wrote: "She uses her biblical rants in a way that could be used by a more easily inluenced person as a provocation and justification for violence and persecution."
I've told you this before, Micro et al, that those who are inclined to violence toward homosexuals are NOT influenced by people like me or the Bible. You think they are going to quote, "Thou shalt not kill" while they murder? The gay bashers are the same as the race bashers, more likely the mean and drunk guys coming out of the bar --people who are intolerant of any differences in people --but especially intolerant when they are drunk like Mel G. was --intolerant of all the rights of others to the point of violence. Only the insane would use God for a justification, since God says we are not to do these sorts of killings or any. HE is the judge and He will impose justice or forgiveness according to our repentance or lack of it.
You'd be more on target if you blamed most hate crime on alcohol.
Chris --all people DO and SHOULD have equal rights --to marry a person of the opposite sex and have children if they wish. That's what marriage is --a union of man and woman with possibility or making a family by natural or adoption means --if they choose.
Every man has a right to find a woman who will marry him --and vice versa. Equal rights to EVERY man and woman.
You are suggesting some NEW right --heretofore not recognized on the planet --a right for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman. That's been on a list of taboos in every generation since the dawn of man --along with a man marrying his horse --or his sister -or his mother --or his father --or his child --or any child -or anyone younger than what we think of as an age of consent. It has also been considered immoral to break up a marriage to marry another, though the law no longer punishes adultery and does allow for divorce just as God did --he said he allowed for divorce for the hardness of our hearts.
Rather than saying discrimination leads to bigotry, I would say bigotry leads to discrimination. But marriage laws are not currently about discrimination --nor about bigotry. They have more to do with age-old understanding about what is natural and what is best for children --the traditional family unit provides for optimal financial support, emotional support, sexual image formation, structure and chaperonage for children and teens, protection of women and children from all sorts of wolves at the doors and in our computer screens. God designed and planned the family for our optimal benefit.
We need a welfare state now, because the family is in disarray. Homosexual families are going to fare even worse on average in stability and chaperonage for kids. Will they tell kids to "wait for marriage" --or "explore your sexuality"?
Remember that Rosie O Donnel's boy said he wanted a daddy and she told him he couldn't have one because she was the kind of mommy who wanted another mommy. "So get a stiff upper lip, boy! It's a woman's world." If he's not gay, it will be a wonder.
Human Sexuality magazine for Physicians once had an article wherein the doctors observed that children raised without affirming fathers in their lives tended to be promiscuous with men --both the girls and the boys.
We need to grow up, take on our bio-responsitilibies and do right by our families according to God's plan --and try to raise kids who can do likewise. We'll need God's help to get us out of the moral messes we've been making ever since the 60's at least.
7:09 PM EDT
In other words, Mel Gibson was only intolerant of Jews because he was drunk? When he isn't drunk, he loves them? Come on, Liquor may be the lubricant, but it only unlocks the gates of what is already there.
7:22 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
Discrimination? Against gays? How about the special rights they have obtained? Detroit Edison will grant health insurance and life insurance benefits to gay couples...as does the city of Toledo and, all they have to do is put their "partner's" name on the form! The same benefit isn't extended to hetrosexuals...discrimination? You bet! And, homosexuals who are the largest risk group for aids / hiv infection don't have to pay an extra surcharge for their "at risk behavior" ...but a smoker does! once again, discrimination? Damn right it is! When you measure the costs of treating lung cancer which after diagnosis, treatment is pretty much pain management for a few months as opposed to insurance paying for HIV treatment and AIDS medications the cost difference is staggering!
Drunk drivers, speeders, smokers, drug addicts, and, people who just happen to live in an area that is considered "high crime" all have to pay for their insurance risks via higher premiums while gays have become a protected class who pay nothing extra for their choice of behavior. We can pass laws to stop people from smoking...it's a lifestyle too...and use the excuse of insurance burden or, second hand smoke but, gays get a free pass? Second hand smoke has a possibility of making you sick but, second hand AIDS will kill you for certain. So, the discrimination arguement is pretty much moot at that.
8:14 PM EDT
liberal_dem said...
We can pass laws to stop people from smoking...it's a lifestyle too...and use the excuse of insurance burden or, second hand smoke but, gays get a free pass? Second hand smoke has a possibility of making you sick but, second hand AIDS will kill you for certain. So, the discrimination arguement is pretty much moot at that.
Sorry, sepp, but we depart. The gays are not bothering society and especially not your personal life nor your taxes.
Drunks, alcoholics, druggies and smokers, on the other hand, cause problems for society and are therefore a rick to others.
Please don't throw in gays as some sort of 'risk' to society. That is baseless intolerance and bigotry.
9:16 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
Oh really? AIDS has nothing to do with the tax burden? "On the fence" gays and bisexual men are the main cause for Aids / HIV spreading all over the planet. Thats not Al Gore "science" it's a proven fact. Any idea how many tax dollars go into this disease as opposed to the others?
Total tax dollars thrown at AIDS /HIV reasearch and prevention is $1,862,282,000 annually!
Skin cancer..$1,647,000
Arthritis...$13,808,000
Breast and cervical cancer $191,965,000
Diabetes...$61,683,000
Hep C...$21,930,000
Prostate cancer...$14,062,000
Notice any difference? One disease is completely preventable and garners nearly 2 billion dollars for reasearch while the diseases that aren't completely preventable get considerably less!
Sure drunks and druggies ARE a risk to others but are you going to sit there and type that the spread of HIV has no risk to others?
You MAY get killed by a drunk driver...
You MAY get robbed by a druggie...
You MAY get cancer from second hand smoke...
You WILL DIE if you're infected with HIV /AIDS!
See just a little bit of difference there LD? "Will" and "MAYBE" are pretty damned defining and only one is a 100% certainty.
It isn't bigotry, it isn't homophobia, it isn't discrimination...it's simply the naked truth like it or, not. Just because a certain demographic poses a high risk for certain dangers to others, political correctness does nothing to diminish the risk...it's simply a liberal way to ignore it by pretending it's not true in order to somehow diminish the danger which is pure bunk. After you get it, try pretending you don't have it. You'll still end up dead.
9:56 PM EDT
Barb said...
Why do facts not phase you, LD?
Homosexuals are a great cost to health care system and we all pay --they usually do have the alcohol and nicotine addiction with their lifestyle as well.
AIDS was brought here by the homosexuals because of their vacation activities in Haiti --where Haitians got it from Africa. That's documented fact --the wild party life with indiscriminate sexual coupling was brought back to the bath houses of NYC and San Francisco and other major urban areas --and we started to see GRID --Gay related immunity disease. One air line worker in Canada infected hundreds who infected others. It was rampant in the gay community and went from gays to the blood supply, the wives, the prostitutes, the drug users, the babies.
Everybody knows the disease could have been halted in America if gays had stopped their promiscuous activities --but they didn't --and we didn't tell them to do any more than put a leaky condom on it.
Not so long ago, newsweek reported the young gays, a new generation, were heedless of the dangers and just as risky in behavior as the first wave of AIDS victims.
I'm sorry enough for them and care enough about them --to tell them that it's the lifestyle! instead of tippytoeing around the facts in the name of PC tolerance.
There has been enormous cost to seeking a cure and finding a way to prolong their lives so they can pass it to more people --I want their lives to go on in good quality --but not so they can promote this lifestyle and induct new victims.
What are we thinking of, promoting this with gay pride parades, etc.? IT'S NOT GENETIC!!!!! THEY CAN STOP bringing in our youth.
As for Mel-- yes, he wasn't violent and out to kill anyone --but drink did bring out the worst in him of his prejudices. His father taught him some extreme views --not just basic Bible --but prejudice against Jews that the Bible doesn't justify when you study it and realize it is all about Jews --good ones and bad ones --Jesus and Paul were Jews. I am a Jew-follower as a Christian. I claim their patriarchs as my own --Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I think their history is the history of the human race --and it's the heritage of the Gentiles, too, because jesus has ingrafted us into their family tree. Shalom!
10:06 PM EDT
Chris said...
Sepp, as far as the health insurance "partner" point you made----isn't same sex marriage in Ohio and Michigan against the law? So how else would they be able to get the same benefits as other married couples? So really the Detroit Edison and city of Toledo insurance rules would not be needed if same sex marriage wasn't discriminated against, right?
Also Sepp, you're facts regarding aids are a little fuzzy. Only about half of aids cases in the US are due to homosexual behavior. Worldwide, two-thirds of aids cases come from Sub-Sahara Africa. Most of these cases are not due to homosexual behavior.
Barb, it's sad that you have to twist the meaning of words around so that they suit your discriminant ways. Your "marriage" wordplay was impressive, but wrong. Why do you think the law should define marriage as man-woman?
1:18 AM EDT
Barb said...
oops --I think the word should have been "faze."
2:13 AM EDT
Barb said...
The law should define a married couple as a man and a woman because it has ALWAYS BEEN SO BY DEFINITION. Suddenly we know more than the wise of all the centuries past?
Because only the man and wife are bio-designed for procreation and survival of the human race.
Because male and female created He them --in the image of God.
The other arrangements are unnatural --and immoral --since the only sanctioned relationship in either history OR the Bible is husband and wife, male with female.
The hetero couple with a nuclear family unit --at its best is a national mental health center --providing male and female role models and normalcy for kids --providing stability.
Because the gay life is at risk for disease by nature of the promiscuous lifestyle and the sex acts themselves.
Because gay activity is a sex addiction --unlike normal marital sex which is rightly engaged in whenever the urge moves the couple but has none of the downside characteristics of sex addiction. Children are one upside result.
As for 1/2 the U.S. AIDS cases not being from gay sex --you got it wrong. Homosexuals are 100 percent responsible for U.S. AIDS --because they brought it here from Haiti and spread it like wildfire, into the straight population from them. Remember, i told you they called it Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Because they were the ones first afflicted in droves because of their activities.
Ever see the Mapplethorpe art photos? gay men urinating into each other's mouths? Ever hear of "fisting?"
We're trying to sanitize something that isn't sanitary --or normal --or healthy --or inevitable --or genetic --or congenital. We need to figure out how to parent for heterosexuality --for normalcy --because it probably can be done.
On the one hand, gays have said they would never choose this lifestyle --so why is GLSEN pushing it onto our children instead of asking straight america for compassion AND a solution --and recommending safeguards so that our children won't get into this.
Also, God's word does tell us in both testaments that the only approved use of sex is within hetero-marriage. It explicitly describes and prohibits gay behavior --Leviticus 18 and Romans 1. It also describes it in one passage as a sin turned away from, by new believers.
3:44 AM EDT
liberal_dem said...
You MAY get killed by a drunk driver...
You MAY get robbed by a druggie...
You MAY get cancer from second hand smoke...
You WILL DIE if you're infected with HIV /AIDS!
Sorry again, sepp, but your post is off-target.
Drunk driving is a menace to society as is second-hand smoke. There is no doubt about either one. Men, women and children are affected each day by thousands of instances of 'exposure' to both of these societal menacings.
You cannot just "throw in" AIDS with these two because you are personally against gays
This is a specious debate tactic and you know it: I expected more from you than this
9:47 AM EDT
liberal_dem said...
Tell me BARB: do you think that [the author of the Blade letter] is a homophobe?
9:49 AM EDT
Chris said...
Barb, wise old men thought slavery was ok too. Marriage was only defined as man-woman by people who wanted to discriminate. If the sole intent of marriage is procreation, should we annul all marriages with no children?
And anytime someone should spouting off bible verses or explanations to argue what should or should not be law, they lose the argument. Law is and must be secular in nature.
10:28 AM EDT
noah's ark said...
I'll tell you what, gimme some of that old-tyme Bible days law.
First off, any man is worth twice any woman. Says so right here:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)
Also, the Old Testament teaches us how to treat women of nations we defeat in battle. Some good pointers for our boys in uniform:
""And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:13-16).
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies . . . And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house . . . thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife" (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).
Tell me you're not gonna run right to the recruiter's office after reading that!!
Also, in Bible-tymes, a man could marry a girl in her early teens. Heck, a man could have multiple wives back then!! You guys wanna tell me that three fifteen year-old wives doesn't sound fantastic? A guy can keep slaves a-plenty, too. Y'all enjoy mowing your own lawn, cleaning gutters, etc.? I sure don't. Slaves. Think about it, eh?
And, if you marry some girl and it turns out she's not a virgin, you can stone her to death on her parent's doorstep!!
You guys with me? Come on...Leviticus rocks when you're a man!!
11:26 AM EDT
Barb said...
Having some acquaintance with her, I'm sure, LD, that Ms. _____ is not a homophobe --not fearful of homosexuals --and not a bigot (hater) either. She is constitutionally quite jolly actually, easy going, loving to all --the milk of human kindness runs in her veins, I believe we could say. She loves chocolate like most of the rest of the world and thus can be rather sweet herself! : )
If you had similar character traits, you would probably like her inspite of your differences. Because that's the ultimate in tolerance --liking people with whom we differ.
1:52 PM EDT
Barb said...
I expect you to say quite self-righteously that you can't like people who hold slaves, who are cruel to children, racists --or homophobic bigots as you mis-label her the latter.
You have previously suggested that I myself should be institutionalized for constitutional craziness --or at least censored.
I wish you could for once surprise me and show more tolerance than I expect for the likes of Ms. R. and myself.
It IS nice you are letting this dialogue go on until we've all had our say and discussed every aspect of the topic, inside and out. You get some points for that.
Maybe we could get her to participate in this forum....
2:00 PM EDT
Barb said...
LD -your comment on Sepp's comparison of elective risks of the smokers, drinkers, and homosexuals, doesn't make sense to me.
Isn't he saying we spend far more on AIDS --and protect the behavior that primarily caused it --than on any other preventable, risky behavior-induced addiction or disease? That's probably true, isn't it? Whether it is or not, we don't have pride parades for smokers --I guess we do have the St. Pat's parades for drinkers?--but that's supposed to be about Patrick and not booze --
In any case, the prime cause of AIDS in the U.S. is promiscuous gay sex which brought it to the straight community as well --and there is liklihood that it started with anal sex in Africa if, in fact, they have used anal sex as a means of birth control as is suspected--or if anal sex is a secret ritual among African men as it is in the "straight" Afr. Am. Community here who admit that many of them are "on the down low" --i.e. commiting homosexual acts without identifying as gay --making the afr. am. women at highest risk for AIDS in the U.S. today --if I recall correctly.
Eventually, we ought to be recognizing that there is something essentially unnatural, disordered and addictive and dangerous to a majority of gay behavior --and figure out how to prevent the experiences and the orientation in our children.
I do believe with all my heart that childhood and pubescent gay activity when kids are first "sexually awakened," --as with the hypothetical molesting priest and altar boy, male coach and jr. high wrestler, uncle and nephew, molesting older kids--any such experience, especially in a fatherless youth culture, can cause a gay self-image --and create possibility of sex addiction, oriented toward one's own sex. We need to speak truth to problems.
There are many roads to Rome (i.e. homosexual orientation and first sexual experience) --and it is in society's best interests, for health and economy, to discourage those who would lure kids into this lifestyle by telling them it's OK to experiment with their sexuality -like GLSEN and the corporate-sponsored gay pride parades and tv programming.
This is not a good FAD or TREND --for youth to "explore their sexuality" --because it will lead to more youthful sex activity and all the negative results of that.
The Gay activist agenda gives youth license to get in serious trouble.
2:33 PM EDT
Barb said...
The New International Version --reads more understandably than your version, Noah's Ark (Don?)
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD by giving equivalent values, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels [a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel [b] ; 4 and if it is a female, set her value at thirty shekels. [c] 5 If it is a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels [d] and of a female at ten shekels. [e] 6 If it is a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels [f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels [g] of silver. 7 If it is a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels [h] and of a female at ten shekels.
Sounds to me like the idea isn't that a man is worth more --but that he is to be assessed more --because he is the man, after all --and has to give more as a dedication of himself to the Lord with money.
Yes, they did give more to the Lord for the males to be dedicated --Adam was created first ---He is the Head of his home. But he has the earning power --and it's like an assessment --God told Moses to assess more for men (remember,the man is paying it all with his earnings for his family)-(who would bring more money on the slave block, too, because of the nature of the work he can do--physically more difficult work --Men are stronger when it comes to hauling around pyramids, after all)
The New Testament says that "In Christ, there is no male or female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile --but all are one in Him."
That's where we get our idea of equality before God -not from Moses.
If Moses' revelation of God was complete, Jesus would not have said He was the light of the world. Moses' revelation would have been as much light from God as needed. But there was more to come --in the revelation of God Incarnate, Jesus.
2:51 PM EDT
Barb said...
To summarize previous ramblings --the assessment had to do with your WORK value --babies the least, senior citizens less than people in their prime, women less than men. The man of the house, the breadwinner, is being assessed for anyone he wants to dedicate to the Lord --it's like a tax for his family --according to their physical work value.
2:54 PM EDT
Barb said...
About the battle passages --the whole world was going to Hell in a hand basket back then --sacrificing children to Molech, visiting temple prostitute/priestesses, believing in gods made with their hands, incest with daughters to ensure a harvest, war toward Abraham's (moses') people with captivity and enslavement--
The jews may have been bloody in conquest after their liberation from Egypt --and taking women captive --but they were told to not kill the women and children in most cases --and to take them in, (without their idols) because otherwise they couldn't support themselves without their men. God had His celestial Hands full trying to bring order out of chaos in our fallen, wicked world. he had to start somewhere --and He had to establish His people who were to be the light to the Gentiles, to the world eventually through Christ --who were to be people of laws, standards, moral behavior --instead of like the lawless and immoral and cruel pagans around them.
Civilization has been a slow process --and sometimes Hitlers and Sadams and their supporters have to be killed so that people can breathe free and know their God.
3:04 PM EDT
microdot said...
I'm not touching that one with a 20 foot pole. I think it's time for an intervention. The word-o-meter has clocked a new worlds record...we are estimating by the inch, 15,560 words by Barb.
She has told us about 12 year olds being forced into unholy scandinavian marriages, bad anal sex experiences had by her friend (I'd sue!), secret afro american anal sex rituals, her opinion of the work of Robert Maplethorpe,(did she burn the unholy images after burning or are they in a folder under the bed?) Practices in the back rooms of gay leather bars, I glad she spared us Richard Gere and his gerbil....
This has been a very interesting trip into someones obsession, a land not quite lit, not quite dark, where things are not as they seem to be, do not try to adjust your computer, we have entered THE BARB ZONE! cue the theme music.......
5:20 PM EDT
Chris said...
noah's ark....I thought I recognized your foul stench!
6:12 PM EDT
noah's ark said...
"The New International Version --reads more understandably than your version..."
I don't need some "new" version, tainted by human meddlings. I'll read the Bible as God intended, thank you very much!! I read my version as saying that women are worth half as much as men. Your new-fangled liberalized version may say otherwise, but I say "fiddlesticks"!!
What's more, why aren't the "battle" passages of Leviticus equally applicable today? Is the word of God as set out to Moses not good enough for you? God's wisdom was good enough then, but not good enough now? Sure, the gay-bashing stuff is fun, but we can't throw away the Leviticus baby with the Deuteronomy bathwater. Either the whole of Old Testament law remains valid, or none of it does. We can't cherry-pick God's laws as we see fit, Barb.
You often cite Ann Coulter as being "right" about everything, with the disclaimer that you haven't read any of her books. You should actually read Ann Coulter...she really understands how to apply Leviticus to the War on Terror. For example, Ann wrote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
You see, Ann Coulter understands that those passages from Leviticus hold the solution to Iraq and the problem of terrorism. You get rid of terrorism by getting rid of the Islamofascists. What we should be doing in Iraq is killing the men, and our soldiers can take on Iraqi women as wives, and adopt the rug-rats. Of course, there are way more Iraqi women than U.S. troops in Iraq. But once again, looking to the Old Testament reveals the solution – polygamy!! Also, allowing our soldiers to take Muslim women as the spoils of war (as God clearly advocates in Leviticus) will also solve the recruitment problem.
You’re getting soft on me, Barb, with your liberal modified Bible, and your selective cherry-picking of which of God’s laws we ought to follow. Did you get your husband’s permission before getting on the internet? Probably not. I’ll bet your head isn’t even covered right now!!
Conservative Christian my foot...you wish you were this conservative!!
6:45 PM EDT
noah's ark said...
"noah's ark....I thought I recognized your foul stench!"
Charming to the last, Chris...
Now, where is the hidden Rebel base??
7:16 PM EDT
-Sepp said...
LD, where did I ever say I was "personnaly against gays"? All I mentioned was that they shouldn't bitch about discrimination on one hand but, get special rights on the other. Is they're "lifestyle" my cup of tea? No but, it doesen't mean I have a problem with them. They do their thing...I do mine. I just think that it's bullshit that they can add anyone they wish to their insurance without even submitting proof of some kind of cohabitation. Which opens up an already expensive system to abuse IE, selling "companion" coverage to anyone they choose. If they're going to extend this coverage to those who cannot marry, at least make them prove some kind of relationship exists.
8:01 PM EDT
Barb said...
ROFL! Even I have a sense of humor, micro-D --and no mapplethorpe photos under the bed --just plus size catalogues for ladies.
about Anne coulter --I brought her up once on this thread --You guys bring her up more than I do --you accused me of reading her stuff and getting it from her --which ain't true --like most things you guys think and say.
About the Law, Noah's ARk, WE ARE NOT UNDER THE COVENANT OF OLD TESTAMENT LAW ANYMORE --BUT UNDER GRACE AND THE NEW COVENANT OF THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB. (caps not for screaming but for emphasis.)
Many of the laws of the old testament had their purpose for that time and place --a wild and lawless world. bUT THE law in its entirety was burdensome legalism--much of it giving the Jews discipline in a lawless world, cohesion and identity as a people --but Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."
And instead of the harsh justice of the O.T., Jesus says, "I give you a new commandment --that you return good for evil, love your enemies, pray for those who despitefully use you, turn the other cheek" etc.
But the New Testament upholds the basics of moral law regarding sexuality --and for all kinds of good reasons for our own good observeable in culture today.
Let's not forget the disease risk and high cost of a lifestyle and question why we would celebrate or promote it --when, in fact, it is not inevitable or genetic. Even one of the newspaper critics of the letter on Gen. Pace and gays in the military said that researchers think there is an environmnetal trigger that brings about gay orientation in someone who may have a genetic predisposition to it. Even if they could prove the genetic predisposition (which they haven't) she suggested surgery might be done to prevent the orientation --just as she would like a cure for her MS.
FACT IS, homosexual orientation is more likely caused by the "environmental triggers" than by any predisposition. We should want to eliminate the triggers and protect our youth from this difficult, non-procreative, generally unhappy condition. We need to cultivate minds that sync with our bio-assignment as male or female. We don't do that with GLSEN school promotion of "exploring one's sexuality" in the name of tolerance.
10:51 PM EDT
Thursday, March 29, 2007
A Gay Gene?
Ask yourselves --have they found a gene that all gays share? No, they have not --they are more likely to share a gene for poor eyesight or artistic talents or frail body type --nothing that is exclusive to homosexuals.
Is it possible that something occurs in the womb with the mother's hormones that causes sexual ambiguity? Perhaps, but it will show up in their bodies --not just in their heads. So far, homosexuals generally are absolutely like heteros in their hormone levels and physical features.
Is it possible that something occurs in the womb with the mother's hormones that causes sexual ambiguity? Perhaps, but it will show up in their bodies --not just in their heads. So far, homosexuals generally are absolutely like heteros in their hormone levels and physical features.
Blade Writers Blast a Barb on Defense of Gen. Pace about Gays in Military
If I recall, a Bible-believing woman wrote the Blade, published on March 22,2007 and printed here recently, a letter which said people who are potentially tempted or attracted by somebody to whom they are not married, should not be put into intimate quarters --i.e. bathrooms, dorm bedrooms and barracks--with such people. In other words, young ladies shouldn't room with young men in the dorms and barracks --and homosexuals, likewise, shouldn't room with the people to whom they are potentially sexually attracted--because the straight people should be as bothered by that as girls should be if a boy is put in their room or bathroom. It's not proper --not moral.
Granted, a segment in society doesn't care about morals --but those who do, should not be subjected to sleeping or showering with or dressing in front of, people of opposite sex or same sex orientation.
If homosexuals have great self- control and don't burn in lust lying on the barrack bunk, and want to serve in the military like any other male or female, obeying the rules in moral college's dorm rooms and army barracks--rules against intimacy with people to whom they are not married, they shouldn't be advertising their orientation. Don't tell --is appropriate --or otherwise, don't serve.
Traditionally, sexual attraction is acted upon within the bonds of hetero marriage. That's what is moral.
Who can say what is moral? Yes, the Creator --see Leviticus 18 to see where all sex outside hetero marriage is sin for which the land was ruined and vomited out its inhabitants. Nothing too ancient or obsolete to understand clearly.
The bigotry is toward the sin --not the sinner.
FURTHERMORE...
Letter writers Nicholas Feldt, Barbara Rochelle, and Linda Garrison assert that homosexuality is most surely genetically caused and that the Blade letter writer, not being a scientist, must be wrong to say otherwise.
Dr. Francis S. Collins, is the head of the Human Genome Project. He concluded that while "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits…for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive."
He wrote: “An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
I agree with him that homosexuality is not hard wired but I don’t think it’s proof of genetic influence –to observe that a gay twin has a gay brother 20% of the time –BECAUSE SINCE THEIR GENES ARE IDENTICAL, he should have a gay brother 100 per cent of the time. I suspect it is more something environmental about being a twin that is an influence on homosexuality --something about the parental or sibling relationship. Also, I would ask, how large is our study sample, of gay male twins in australia where this work was done??
Dr. A Dean Byrd, writing about Collins' work, notes: “ The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism. Dr. Collins noted that environment--particularly childhood experiences--as well as the role of free will and choice affect us all in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate the issues, not provide support to ideologues."
Byrd: “Citing such dangers, Dr. Collins referred to the book written by gay activist Dean Hamer, who declared the discovery of the "God gene" (this same author also is associated with earlier disproven claims that he had discovered “the gay gene"). Dr. Collins noted that the "evidence" in Hamer's book "grabbed headlines," but was "wildly overstated" --just as his announcements of finding a gay gene marker --for which research irregularities and announcement of a gay gene, the National Cancer Institute called him on the carpet.
all the studies purporting to find a genetic role in homosexuality, have been debunked or flimsy at best.
Even Newsweek writers came to that conclusion not long ago.
The gay gene is a media myth that the mass audience believes --including you guys.
Granted, a segment in society doesn't care about morals --but those who do, should not be subjected to sleeping or showering with or dressing in front of, people of opposite sex or same sex orientation.
If homosexuals have great self- control and don't burn in lust lying on the barrack bunk, and want to serve in the military like any other male or female, obeying the rules in moral college's dorm rooms and army barracks--rules against intimacy with people to whom they are not married, they shouldn't be advertising their orientation. Don't tell --is appropriate --or otherwise, don't serve.
Traditionally, sexual attraction is acted upon within the bonds of hetero marriage. That's what is moral.
Who can say what is moral? Yes, the Creator --see Leviticus 18 to see where all sex outside hetero marriage is sin for which the land was ruined and vomited out its inhabitants. Nothing too ancient or obsolete to understand clearly.
The bigotry is toward the sin --not the sinner.
FURTHERMORE...
Letter writers Nicholas Feldt, Barbara Rochelle, and Linda Garrison assert that homosexuality is most surely genetically caused and that the Blade letter writer, not being a scientist, must be wrong to say otherwise.
Dr. Francis S. Collins, is the head of the Human Genome Project. He concluded that while "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits…for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive."
He wrote: “An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
I agree with him that homosexuality is not hard wired but I don’t think it’s proof of genetic influence –to observe that a gay twin has a gay brother 20% of the time –BECAUSE SINCE THEIR GENES ARE IDENTICAL, he should have a gay brother 100 per cent of the time. I suspect it is more something environmental about being a twin that is an influence on homosexuality --something about the parental or sibling relationship. Also, I would ask, how large is our study sample, of gay male twins in australia where this work was done??
Dr. A Dean Byrd, writing about Collins' work, notes: “ The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism. Dr. Collins noted that environment--particularly childhood experiences--as well as the role of free will and choice affect us all in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate the issues, not provide support to ideologues."
Byrd: “Citing such dangers, Dr. Collins referred to the book written by gay activist Dean Hamer, who declared the discovery of the "God gene" (this same author also is associated with earlier disproven claims that he had discovered “the gay gene"). Dr. Collins noted that the "evidence" in Hamer's book "grabbed headlines," but was "wildly overstated" --just as his announcements of finding a gay gene marker --for which research irregularities and announcement of a gay gene, the National Cancer Institute called him on the carpet.
all the studies purporting to find a genetic role in homosexuality, have been debunked or flimsy at best.
Even Newsweek writers came to that conclusion not long ago.
The gay gene is a media myth that the mass audience believes --including you guys.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Time Magazine Says TEACH THE BIBLE!
I was thrilled to read the cover article in this week's Time magazine. The Religion editor said all educated people need to know the Bible, that it is, in fact, the most influential book behind Western culture. He recommends it be taught in public schools --which is legal. He admitted there are challenges in trying to teach without either proselytizing --or seeming to sanction protestant Christianity over other faiths. I'm not sure why he thought The Book favored protestants --although much of Catholic tradition does go beyond the protestant version. Perhaps he was referring to a text book on the subject that favored a protestant view of scripture. I also think there is a possibiity that unbelieving teachers will teach their unbelief and skepticism in such a study.
Nevertheless, I have been saying for years that every educated person should know and appreciate The Golden Rule --and know and appreciate Jesus for having stated it. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Likewise with the Ten Commandments and Moses. Likewise with SO MANY of the persons, parables, historical accounts (or stories) --in the Book. Educated people should know the Christmas and Easter stories --instead of looking dumb on Leno's JayWalk. They should know and appreciate the Love chapter written for Christians in Corinth and attributed to St. Paul. "If I have not love, I am a noisy gong...." And the 23rd Psalm, "The Lord is my shepherd..." --and if I were teaching, I admit, I could not resist pointing out after David's 23rd Psalm, that Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep." John 10:11.
The author suggested that even Genesis 1 and 2 should be taught so people would know what it is that "creationists" are purportedly defending in the science wars.
Actually, today's creationists focus a lot on the fact that the theory of Darwinian evolution just doesn't make sense in light of today's knowledge of DNA.
We have so much to lose if we continue to bury The Book to favor every other ism, ology and religion --as in California where students spend more time studying Yoga and Islam than Judeo-Christianity.
Today's secular humanists, post modern folks, are biting the hand that fed the noblest ideas of western civilization, in their hostitility toward The Book, Christianity and Christians, in general.
Nevertheless, I have been saying for years that every educated person should know and appreciate The Golden Rule --and know and appreciate Jesus for having stated it. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Likewise with the Ten Commandments and Moses. Likewise with SO MANY of the persons, parables, historical accounts (or stories) --in the Book. Educated people should know the Christmas and Easter stories --instead of looking dumb on Leno's JayWalk. They should know and appreciate the Love chapter written for Christians in Corinth and attributed to St. Paul. "If I have not love, I am a noisy gong...." And the 23rd Psalm, "The Lord is my shepherd..." --and if I were teaching, I admit, I could not resist pointing out after David's 23rd Psalm, that Jesus said, "I am the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep." John 10:11.
The author suggested that even Genesis 1 and 2 should be taught so people would know what it is that "creationists" are purportedly defending in the science wars.
Actually, today's creationists focus a lot on the fact that the theory of Darwinian evolution just doesn't make sense in light of today's knowledge of DNA.
We have so much to lose if we continue to bury The Book to favor every other ism, ology and religion --as in California where students spend more time studying Yoga and Islam than Judeo-Christianity.
Today's secular humanists, post modern folks, are biting the hand that fed the noblest ideas of western civilization, in their hostitility toward The Book, Christianity and Christians, in general.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Democratic Party Issues
What are the Democratic Party issues for which they want to re-gain the presidency?
They want Judicial, Legistlative and Administrative power
A. to keep abortion legal
B. to gain legal marriage for homosexuals
C. to protect access to porn and sex establishments (as happened here in Toledo with Judge Skow)
D. to promote ACLU, liberal, atheistic values and enforce their view of church-state separation (a naked public square, term from The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America, a book by Richard John Neuhaus)
E. to promote Planned Parenthood values (liberal, atheistic) in sex education of public schools, and access to and funding for abortions
F. to promote censorship of the Right, especially the Religious Right by casting them as bigots and their Biblical views as hate speech
G. to stifle the grass roots conservative groups (churches) by "campaign finance reform"
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THEY WILL EMPHASIZE TO REGAIN THE WHITE HOUSE?
A. the war in Iraq --all the dead and wounded there are reason to come home instead of establishing that struggling democracy which millions of Iraqis voted for
and for which they celebrated the downfall of Sadam
B. the myth of the Bush lie (re: WMD in Iraq) --Most EVERYONE believed it, including George, so it was not HIS lie. My understanding is that Sadam did have nuclear aspirations --and did have SOME evidence of WMD in the country, if not as much as expected. He certainly was a kindred soul with bin Ladin in his vindictive intentions toward the U.S. We could expect him to harbor, aid and abet terrorists.
C. their Robin Hood philosophy of steal from the rich to give to the poor via tax schemes that actually hurt the economy through business DISincentives. If you tax people too high, they can't/won't invest, hire or buy.
D. their view of national health insurance for all when we already have more access for citizens' care than any other country in the world. Canada has rationing and Europe has a two tiered system, public and private --because the private-pay care is so much better. If you need EXPENSIVE, HIGH TECH remedies, you are more apt to get it covered here than in Canada or Europe. (Granted we are taking out of plan elective remedies (like plastic surgery) to other countries where they are cheaper.)
E. More money for failing schools instead of vouchers to go to successful schools
HOW WILL THEY TRY TO CO-OPT THE CHRISTIANS?
A. they will use religious language to try to deceive believers into thinking that democrat candidates really do have religious faith --they will focus on the compassion and pacifistic teachings of Christ. They will parade out every Christian liberal they can find and every Gospel choir --and "God Bless America" soloists at their convention.
B. I believe they will downplay the issues of homosex and abortion --but defend them when asked, in compassion terminology of equal rights to all --and women's rights focused on abortion for victims of incest, rape, and life of mother.
They want Judicial, Legistlative and Administrative power
A. to keep abortion legal
B. to gain legal marriage for homosexuals
C. to protect access to porn and sex establishments (as happened here in Toledo with Judge Skow)
D. to promote ACLU, liberal, atheistic values and enforce their view of church-state separation (a naked public square, term from The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America, a book by Richard John Neuhaus)
E. to promote Planned Parenthood values (liberal, atheistic) in sex education of public schools, and access to and funding for abortions
F. to promote censorship of the Right, especially the Religious Right by casting them as bigots and their Biblical views as hate speech
G. to stifle the grass roots conservative groups (churches) by "campaign finance reform"
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THEY WILL EMPHASIZE TO REGAIN THE WHITE HOUSE?
A. the war in Iraq --all the dead and wounded there are reason to come home instead of establishing that struggling democracy which millions of Iraqis voted for
and for which they celebrated the downfall of Sadam
B. the myth of the Bush lie (re: WMD in Iraq) --Most EVERYONE believed it, including George, so it was not HIS lie. My understanding is that Sadam did have nuclear aspirations --and did have SOME evidence of WMD in the country, if not as much as expected. He certainly was a kindred soul with bin Ladin in his vindictive intentions toward the U.S. We could expect him to harbor, aid and abet terrorists.
C. their Robin Hood philosophy of steal from the rich to give to the poor via tax schemes that actually hurt the economy through business DISincentives. If you tax people too high, they can't/won't invest, hire or buy.
D. their view of national health insurance for all when we already have more access for citizens' care than any other country in the world. Canada has rationing and Europe has a two tiered system, public and private --because the private-pay care is so much better. If you need EXPENSIVE, HIGH TECH remedies, you are more apt to get it covered here than in Canada or Europe. (Granted we are taking out of plan elective remedies (like plastic surgery) to other countries where they are cheaper.)
E. More money for failing schools instead of vouchers to go to successful schools
HOW WILL THEY TRY TO CO-OPT THE CHRISTIANS?
A. they will use religious language to try to deceive believers into thinking that democrat candidates really do have religious faith --they will focus on the compassion and pacifistic teachings of Christ. They will parade out every Christian liberal they can find and every Gospel choir --and "God Bless America" soloists at their convention.
B. I believe they will downplay the issues of homosex and abortion --but defend them when asked, in compassion terminology of equal rights to all --and women's rights focused on abortion for victims of incest, rape, and life of mother.
REiteration --America IS Behaving Badly About This War
People are being short-sighted, lacking wisdom, if they think they are protecting the troops by calling them home.
Terrorists will especially target our boys and girls in uniform, knowing Americans have no stomach for it --and knowing that's what makes our democrats want to pull them home. Remember the leader of the Viet Cong--he said they were just hanging on by a thread --but knew if they could just hang on a little longer, the Americans would quit, judging by the success of the anti-war movement in our country. Americans would and did win the war for the Viet Cong by giving up. We wasted the lives of our war dead by not winning!
It is our ability to identify with troops and their parents, our Judeo-Christian compassion and empathy for the families of the fallen soldiers --and for war-torn nations-- that makes us want to end all wars --a righteous desire --but these troops went into the military knowing there was a risk, knowing that freedom for any nation would not be free. Unlike the drafted soldiers of the Viet Nam conflict, these troops have had surprisingly great attitudes despite their injuries and fallen comrades, wanting to get back to their units as soon as their wounds heal.
I'd want my kid out of there, also --but I'd prefer that America looked like such a united and formidable foe that the terrorists would lay low in Iraq --go home --and that the Iraqi insurgents who stepped up the terror to MAKE us cut and run --would see it was futile.
Instead, the Pelosis of Congress are making our troops more vulnerable than they already are --and more vulnerable than necessary. The cross hairs are on our boys JUST because THAT's what makes us want to pull them home.
Terrorists will especially target our boys and girls in uniform, knowing Americans have no stomach for it --and knowing that's what makes our democrats want to pull them home. Remember the leader of the Viet Cong--he said they were just hanging on by a thread --but knew if they could just hang on a little longer, the Americans would quit, judging by the success of the anti-war movement in our country. Americans would and did win the war for the Viet Cong by giving up. We wasted the lives of our war dead by not winning!
It is our ability to identify with troops and their parents, our Judeo-Christian compassion and empathy for the families of the fallen soldiers --and for war-torn nations-- that makes us want to end all wars --a righteous desire --but these troops went into the military knowing there was a risk, knowing that freedom for any nation would not be free. Unlike the drafted soldiers of the Viet Nam conflict, these troops have had surprisingly great attitudes despite their injuries and fallen comrades, wanting to get back to their units as soon as their wounds heal.
I'd want my kid out of there, also --but I'd prefer that America looked like such a united and formidable foe that the terrorists would lay low in Iraq --go home --and that the Iraqi insurgents who stepped up the terror to MAKE us cut and run --would see it was futile.
Instead, the Pelosis of Congress are making our troops more vulnerable than they already are --and more vulnerable than necessary. The cross hairs are on our boys JUST because THAT's what makes us want to pull them home.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
War Mythology
Myths --
that we just went to Iraq for their oil.
that we just went there because Sadam threatened to kill Bush's father.
that the pres. lied when he said we were going because they had WMD (everybody thought they did! They gave us no reason to think otherwise by their behaviors re: inspections --and toward the Kurds earlier.)
Personally, I don't mind if we go to war to keep the middle east oil available to us, because I'm not sure how we could defend ourselves in the short run against terrorism without the oil. Our lives would be very different if we suddenly had only our own oil sources, I bet. We had better be rectifying our dependence on foreign oil.
Doesn't the Constitution of the U.S. say the primary responsibility of fed. gov't is national security? Opening the Middle East to the West is part of that strategy.
I'll bet they are being opened up to Christianity and the Bible also --and Christians can thank Geo. Bush for that. Christianity is the light of western civilization --the difference between the bararian hoardes and the civilized folks.
Any body who thinks we don't have a long road ahead of us re; the middle east--IS believing in mythology.
that we just went to Iraq for their oil.
that we just went there because Sadam threatened to kill Bush's father.
that the pres. lied when he said we were going because they had WMD (everybody thought they did! They gave us no reason to think otherwise by their behaviors re: inspections --and toward the Kurds earlier.)
Personally, I don't mind if we go to war to keep the middle east oil available to us, because I'm not sure how we could defend ourselves in the short run against terrorism without the oil. Our lives would be very different if we suddenly had only our own oil sources, I bet. We had better be rectifying our dependence on foreign oil.
Doesn't the Constitution of the U.S. say the primary responsibility of fed. gov't is national security? Opening the Middle East to the West is part of that strategy.
I'll bet they are being opened up to Christianity and the Bible also --and Christians can thank Geo. Bush for that. Christianity is the light of western civilization --the difference between the bararian hoardes and the civilized folks.
Any body who thinks we don't have a long road ahead of us re; the middle east--IS believing in mythology.
An example of Hate Speech which Incites
A local Toledo blog rightly objected to a Kansas church that pickets military funerals to make a political statement --a statement that
God is punishing america for her homosexuality by allowing our troops to die.
Then he said:
"There have been many posts on this blog by such a skewed-thinking evangelical. Folks like that are dangerous to our society as well as to our democracy. They are in the same category as the Taliban of Afghanistan or the 'religious' authorities in Iran."
This really is "hate speech" that would incite violence toward evangelicals like me --far more dangerous than anything I have ever said.
People can disagree and say, "NO, you're wrong!" or "I disagree and here's why, " on any topic --without it being "hate speech." But when you call Geo. Bush a Nazi, and call evangelicals the Taliban or Iranian religious authorities, you are suggesting, however subtly, that it's ok to hate them, wage war against them, in fact, to do away with them because they would kill you first and deprive you of your liberty --(like the Nazis, Taliban or Iranian leadership.)
Just because people disagree about what is right or wrong, doesn't give us license to hate either side.
American politics needs to get back on a high road of cordiality and respect for differing views.
God is punishing america for her homosexuality by allowing our troops to die.
Then he said:
"There have been many posts on this blog by such a skewed-thinking evangelical. Folks like that are dangerous to our society as well as to our democracy. They are in the same category as the Taliban of Afghanistan or the 'religious' authorities in Iran."
This really is "hate speech" that would incite violence toward evangelicals like me --far more dangerous than anything I have ever said.
People can disagree and say, "NO, you're wrong!" or "I disagree and here's why, " on any topic --without it being "hate speech." But when you call Geo. Bush a Nazi, and call evangelicals the Taliban or Iranian religious authorities, you are suggesting, however subtly, that it's ok to hate them, wage war against them, in fact, to do away with them because they would kill you first and deprive you of your liberty --(like the Nazis, Taliban or Iranian leadership.)
Just because people disagree about what is right or wrong, doesn't give us license to hate either side.
American politics needs to get back on a high road of cordiality and respect for differing views.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
HOW THE DEMS ARE HURTING THE TROOPS
Democrats are IN EFFECT telling the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq that the best way to get the U.S. out of Iraq is to kill our troops.
Doesn't it stand to reason that enemy combatants will do all they can to scare us out of Iraq --to make our country FEAR what they can do to our troops --so we will pull out? They know that if we wanted to wipe Iraq off the map we could. They know if we increase troop strength and protection for our troops, we can probably prevail and establish a peaceful situation --long enough to let the Iraqi people taste peace and establish democracy.
Democrats, instead, are being VERY foolish, telling the enemy that "If you kill more of our boys, we will get scared and leave! We don't have the stomach for a protracted effort, so just give it all you got and we'll go home sooner, not later! And we'll apologize on the way out!"
HOW DUMB CAN WE BE????!!!!!
Doesn't it stand to reason that enemy combatants will do all they can to scare us out of Iraq --to make our country FEAR what they can do to our troops --so we will pull out? They know that if we wanted to wipe Iraq off the map we could. They know if we increase troop strength and protection for our troops, we can probably prevail and establish a peaceful situation --long enough to let the Iraqi people taste peace and establish democracy.
Democrats, instead, are being VERY foolish, telling the enemy that "If you kill more of our boys, we will get scared and leave! We don't have the stomach for a protracted effort, so just give it all you got and we'll go home sooner, not later! And we'll apologize on the way out!"
HOW DUMB CAN WE BE????!!!!!
More Reporting by Gay Couples --or More Gay Couples???
By KARAMAGI RUJUMBA
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Not only are Ohioans increasingly identifying their same-sex relationship status, but so are gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples in the Midwest and other parts of the country, according to a study by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles' school of law.
The study says Ohio had a 62 percent growth in the number of people who said they were in same-sex relationships between 2000 and 2005, from 18,937 couples in the 2000 census to 30,669 couples in last year's American Community Survey. Michigan had a 48 percent increase from 15,368 in 2000 to 22,701 in 2005.
And the number of the nation's same-sex couples grew by more than 30 percent from nearly 600,000 couples in 2000 to almost 777,000 in 2005, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the institute. His study, "Same Sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey," is based on an analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey and the 2000 population census.
But unlike an official Census count, its community survey is based on a sampling of households and does not count people in "group quarters" - college students, inmates, and patients in long-term care facilities.____________________________________________
The article goes on to say that couples are "coming out" because of a reduction of stigma --but also as a means of rebutting the ban on gay marriage --(which would seem to be MORE stigma, not less.)
Are more people "coming out" as the article asserts --or are more participating in homosexual co-habitation? I suspect it's both. The article doesn't mention if the report tells the ages of the individuals or how long these couples have been together. That would be interesting.
Even the first gay couple who "married" in Mass. stated they didn't think marriage meant monogamy in their case. So what's it all about? Family Research Institute finds that gay couples are usually not stable. Not that hetero relationships are doing so well. However, heteros don't tend to stay together if infidelity occurs; gay relationships may actually have more tolerance for promiscuity --since that's the nature of the culture for the men, especially. Not that the high profile lesbians are doing any better than their hetero counterparts in Hollywood. If Rosie O Donnel, the "queen of mean," gets any more nasty or manly, one wonders if her "wife" will stay around much longer.
I find the stats alarming, but not surprising. We are repeating the sins of Sodom and Gommorrah. The Bible is clear. God has spoken. He said he vomited the pagans out of the land because of their sexual sins and forbade the Jews, His people, to commit such sins. God created female for male, in HIS image --to become one flesh. Jesus said a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife. And St. Paul was very clear that homosexuality was displeasing to God (Romans 1:18-32).
There is also a bible verse that says some Christians were "once homosexuals" --and others did other sins --but are doing so no more --suggesting that people can stop being homosexuals.
I'll have to pull up the Bible references --later.
BLADE STAFF WRITER
Not only are Ohioans increasingly identifying their same-sex relationship status, but so are gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples in the Midwest and other parts of the country, according to a study by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles' school of law.
The study says Ohio had a 62 percent growth in the number of people who said they were in same-sex relationships between 2000 and 2005, from 18,937 couples in the 2000 census to 30,669 couples in last year's American Community Survey. Michigan had a 48 percent increase from 15,368 in 2000 to 22,701 in 2005.
And the number of the nation's same-sex couples grew by more than 30 percent from nearly 600,000 couples in 2000 to almost 777,000 in 2005, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the institute. His study, "Same Sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey," is based on an analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey and the 2000 population census.
But unlike an official Census count, its community survey is based on a sampling of households and does not count people in "group quarters" - college students, inmates, and patients in long-term care facilities.____________________________________________
The article goes on to say that couples are "coming out" because of a reduction of stigma --but also as a means of rebutting the ban on gay marriage --(which would seem to be MORE stigma, not less.)
Are more people "coming out" as the article asserts --or are more participating in homosexual co-habitation? I suspect it's both. The article doesn't mention if the report tells the ages of the individuals or how long these couples have been together. That would be interesting.
Even the first gay couple who "married" in Mass. stated they didn't think marriage meant monogamy in their case. So what's it all about? Family Research Institute finds that gay couples are usually not stable. Not that hetero relationships are doing so well. However, heteros don't tend to stay together if infidelity occurs; gay relationships may actually have more tolerance for promiscuity --since that's the nature of the culture for the men, especially. Not that the high profile lesbians are doing any better than their hetero counterparts in Hollywood. If Rosie O Donnel, the "queen of mean," gets any more nasty or manly, one wonders if her "wife" will stay around much longer.
I find the stats alarming, but not surprising. We are repeating the sins of Sodom and Gommorrah. The Bible is clear. God has spoken. He said he vomited the pagans out of the land because of their sexual sins and forbade the Jews, His people, to commit such sins. God created female for male, in HIS image --to become one flesh. Jesus said a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife. And St. Paul was very clear that homosexuality was displeasing to God (Romans 1:18-32).
There is also a bible verse that says some Christians were "once homosexuals" --and others did other sins --but are doing so no more --suggesting that people can stop being homosexuals.
I'll have to pull up the Bible references --later.
Friday, March 23, 2007
George and Jesus
It was a bold statement for Bush to admit to a skeptical world when he was Governor planning to run for presidency, that Jesus was his most admired person because Christ had changed his heart --that's what he said.
I'm glad for a leader who prays and seeks wisdom from God who IS real --who has guided His followers for thousands of years.
Jesus said, "I and the father are one. If you've seen ME, you have seen the Father." He did the miracles; He rose from the grave. He converted Paul who never met him --who was CHIEF SKEPTIC --absolutely SURE like atheists that Jesus was not a divine miracle-worker but more like a snake oil salesman --until Paul had his own Damascus Road experience in Acts Ch. 9.
The story of Jesus involves too many people to be made up by so many different journalists. Jesus changed Paul, assassinator of Christians, and he changed the world! and Easter celebrates again --He is Risen! He is Risen, Indeed!
We should be more appreciative of Bush, a good man of prayer who controls himself and his libido in the presidency --and fully concentrates on affairs of state --instead of having his own affairs for top priority. It's a shame how the democrats want to nitpick over Bush underlings who haven't always had their mouths under control. Bush may not be eloquent, but he hasn't yet been accused of malicious intent and desire to destroy the careers of Plame or the fired attorneys--whereas his predecessor did all he could to smear his accusers in the press --and did goodness knows what blackmail with his illegal access to FBI files.
Loose lips of Bush's staff (as in the Plame case)have been a problem only because democrats are desperate for anything to give them an excuse to impeach, and keep us all focused on subpoenas, firings, etc.
I'm glad for a leader who prays and seeks wisdom from God who IS real --who has guided His followers for thousands of years.
Jesus said, "I and the father are one. If you've seen ME, you have seen the Father." He did the miracles; He rose from the grave. He converted Paul who never met him --who was CHIEF SKEPTIC --absolutely SURE like atheists that Jesus was not a divine miracle-worker but more like a snake oil salesman --until Paul had his own Damascus Road experience in Acts Ch. 9.
The story of Jesus involves too many people to be made up by so many different journalists. Jesus changed Paul, assassinator of Christians, and he changed the world! and Easter celebrates again --He is Risen! He is Risen, Indeed!
We should be more appreciative of Bush, a good man of prayer who controls himself and his libido in the presidency --and fully concentrates on affairs of state --instead of having his own affairs for top priority. It's a shame how the democrats want to nitpick over Bush underlings who haven't always had their mouths under control. Bush may not be eloquent, but he hasn't yet been accused of malicious intent and desire to destroy the careers of Plame or the fired attorneys--whereas his predecessor did all he could to smear his accusers in the press --and did goodness knows what blackmail with his illegal access to FBI files.
Loose lips of Bush's staff (as in the Plame case)have been a problem only because democrats are desperate for anything to give them an excuse to impeach, and keep us all focused on subpoenas, firings, etc.
Tragedy in Detroit --Real Christians Don't Murder
Associated Press
DETROIT - Andrew Anthos died Friday of injuries sustained during an attack last week outside his downtown Detroit apartment building. Family members said he was a victim of an anti-gay hate crime.
Anthos was on a city bus Feb. 13 when a man asked him if he was gay. The man followed Anthos off the bus at the stop in front of his building and beat him with a metal pipe. Anthos, whose family said he was gay, was taken to a hospital and later fell into a coma.
Local and national gay rights groups condemned the attack. Police told The Detroit News in story published Friday that the department was investigating whether the attack was a hate crime.
Police have no witnesses and only a vague description of the attacker from Anthos.''Obviously we're very, very distressed for Andrew's family,'' said Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a statewide gay rights advocacy group based in Detroit. ''But what the crime really is evidence of is the risk with which gay people live their lives every day.''
The Detroit News says:
Andrew Anthos was a private, gentle man whose twin passions to support military veterans and public transportation earned him a reputation for community service.
___________________________
NOtice what Liberal Democrat at Politics in Mudville had to say about this and whom he blames:
Michigan does not have a hate crime law. Interesting. One wonders why.
Just yesterday there was a letter to the editor in The Blade written by an oh-so righteous fundamentalist who makes it a habit to bash gays. Frequent visitors to my blog would recognize her name. Letters like this bolster the delusional homophobic in our society . Because of this, the murderer of Andrew Anthos felt 'justified' in his actions. After all, Anthos's lifestyle was 'against god' and he deserved to die.
Theocracy.
_________________________________________
MY RESPONSE:
This is a tragedy but not so uncommon for downtown Detroit --especially if it was late at night.
No one should blame the Bible or the believers for what happened to Anthos. He lived in downtown Detroit and was on a city bus, for goo'ness sake! He wasn't killed by anyone who just came from church--unless the killer were insane. Because we believers are taught to love sinners but not the sin. We don't believe God wants us to murder anyone, not even babes in the womb.
Just as Matt Shepard's killers were not Christian, neither was Anthos' killer.
The only philosophy that CAN restrain violent forces in our society are the teachings of Jesus --who also said men should leave parents and cleave to their wives. Haters killed Him, too.
The haters/killers of this sort are most likely the irreligious who can't tolerate any differences from the norm ; they despise Christians, too. The most radical Muslims could have done it because they think killing Christians or gays is honorable in Allah's sight. "Kill the infidel." But Christianity does not justify such murder at all --contrary to what LD wrote.
I went to h.s. with some of the irreligious who were mean, petty, cruel, vindictive, haters for no reason. They aren't worried about what the Christian, Biblical God thinks or they wouldn't murder or abuse, verbally and otherwise.
Someone mentally ill would kill gays for the same reason a serial killer murders prostitutes. No good reason. The insane may see them as tempting-to-them deviates of society instead of as people God loves, for whom Christ died.
Liberals need to stop blaming the Christians, their Bible and pulpit, for what could've even been gay on gay crime. Like Afr.American people who call each other the "N" word, so it is that gays can kill each other calling each other insulting names. I'm not saying this WAS gay on gay crime --but whoever the murderer was, he wasn't a true Jesus follower who did the crime. MOre likely an insane person if he acted alone as the victim believed.
I feel very sorry for this kindly man who cared for our veterans.
____________________________
AS for Michigan not having a hate crime law.
No crime comes from godly love. All murders should be prosecuted severely.
Is it really worse to kill someone for racial or sexual orientation reasons--than to murder your wife or your neighbor for OTHER reasons? I think not. I have never understand why the law needs to make a distinction. Murder is murder.
DETROIT - Andrew Anthos died Friday of injuries sustained during an attack last week outside his downtown Detroit apartment building. Family members said he was a victim of an anti-gay hate crime.
Anthos was on a city bus Feb. 13 when a man asked him if he was gay. The man followed Anthos off the bus at the stop in front of his building and beat him with a metal pipe. Anthos, whose family said he was gay, was taken to a hospital and later fell into a coma.
Local and national gay rights groups condemned the attack. Police told The Detroit News in story published Friday that the department was investigating whether the attack was a hate crime.
Police have no witnesses and only a vague description of the attacker from Anthos.''Obviously we're very, very distressed for Andrew's family,'' said Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a statewide gay rights advocacy group based in Detroit. ''But what the crime really is evidence of is the risk with which gay people live their lives every day.''
The Detroit News says:
Andrew Anthos was a private, gentle man whose twin passions to support military veterans and public transportation earned him a reputation for community service.
___________________________
NOtice what Liberal Democrat at Politics in Mudville had to say about this and whom he blames:
Michigan does not have a hate crime law. Interesting. One wonders why.
Just yesterday there was a letter to the editor in The Blade written by an oh-so righteous fundamentalist who makes it a habit to bash gays. Frequent visitors to my blog would recognize her name. Letters like this bolster the delusional homophobic in our society . Because of this, the murderer of Andrew Anthos felt 'justified' in his actions. After all, Anthos's lifestyle was 'against god' and he deserved to die.
Theocracy.
_________________________________________
MY RESPONSE:
This is a tragedy but not so uncommon for downtown Detroit --especially if it was late at night.
No one should blame the Bible or the believers for what happened to Anthos. He lived in downtown Detroit and was on a city bus, for goo'ness sake! He wasn't killed by anyone who just came from church--unless the killer were insane. Because we believers are taught to love sinners but not the sin. We don't believe God wants us to murder anyone, not even babes in the womb.
Just as Matt Shepard's killers were not Christian, neither was Anthos' killer.
The only philosophy that CAN restrain violent forces in our society are the teachings of Jesus --who also said men should leave parents and cleave to their wives. Haters killed Him, too.
The haters/killers of this sort are most likely the irreligious who can't tolerate any differences from the norm ; they despise Christians, too. The most radical Muslims could have done it because they think killing Christians or gays is honorable in Allah's sight. "Kill the infidel." But Christianity does not justify such murder at all --contrary to what LD wrote.
I went to h.s. with some of the irreligious who were mean, petty, cruel, vindictive, haters for no reason. They aren't worried about what the Christian, Biblical God thinks or they wouldn't murder or abuse, verbally and otherwise.
Someone mentally ill would kill gays for the same reason a serial killer murders prostitutes. No good reason. The insane may see them as tempting-to-them deviates of society instead of as people God loves, for whom Christ died.
Liberals need to stop blaming the Christians, their Bible and pulpit, for what could've even been gay on gay crime. Like Afr.American people who call each other the "N" word, so it is that gays can kill each other calling each other insulting names. I'm not saying this WAS gay on gay crime --but whoever the murderer was, he wasn't a true Jesus follower who did the crime. MOre likely an insane person if he acted alone as the victim believed.
I feel very sorry for this kindly man who cared for our veterans.
____________________________
AS for Michigan not having a hate crime law.
No crime comes from godly love. All murders should be prosecuted severely.
Is it really worse to kill someone for racial or sexual orientation reasons--than to murder your wife or your neighbor for OTHER reasons? I think not. I have never understand why the law needs to make a distinction. Murder is murder.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
General Pace, Stick to Your Guns!
General Pace spoke for millions worldwide when he said homosexual acts are immoral like adultery. Why? Because both are temptations that ought to be resisted at the first thought. Moral people flee temptation. (No, Oprah and Montel, homosexuality is not genetic or inevitable.)
I read in People magazine that 16 universities offer co-ed dorm rooms and anyone may sign up for them –not just dating couples, but strangers. Some rooms practically have revolving doors with people frequently changing roommates for current girl/boyfriends. This is as crazy as the co-ed bathroom phenomenon.
We who object to co-ed rooms in colleges also object to out-of-closet Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders in barracks and military bathrooms. It IS simply immoral to put unmarried people of opposite attraction together in intimate quarters.
Just as a moral and responsible father wouldn’t want his daughter to share a dorm room with a man who would naturally and likely be tempted to jump into bed with her; he also wouldn’t want his son to have to share quarters with anyone (male or female) who is tempted to jump into bed with him.
So why not let the GLBT’s all room together in the military? Because they are sexually attracted and tempted by each other, of course. IT’S UNNATURAL to expect to throw attracted young people together in intimate quarters without an eventual breach in moral conduct.
With that breach comes tremendous risk for emotional trauma, pregnancy, disease, jealousy, fights, break-ups, infidelity to spouses and sweethearts back home –all the traditional harms of immorality—not conducive to troop morale and cohesiveness.
General Pace should stick by his guns –and the liberal media should GET REAL and withdraw theirs.
I read in People magazine that 16 universities offer co-ed dorm rooms and anyone may sign up for them –not just dating couples, but strangers. Some rooms practically have revolving doors with people frequently changing roommates for current girl/boyfriends. This is as crazy as the co-ed bathroom phenomenon.
We who object to co-ed rooms in colleges also object to out-of-closet Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders in barracks and military bathrooms. It IS simply immoral to put unmarried people of opposite attraction together in intimate quarters.
Just as a moral and responsible father wouldn’t want his daughter to share a dorm room with a man who would naturally and likely be tempted to jump into bed with her; he also wouldn’t want his son to have to share quarters with anyone (male or female) who is tempted to jump into bed with him.
So why not let the GLBT’s all room together in the military? Because they are sexually attracted and tempted by each other, of course. IT’S UNNATURAL to expect to throw attracted young people together in intimate quarters without an eventual breach in moral conduct.
With that breach comes tremendous risk for emotional trauma, pregnancy, disease, jealousy, fights, break-ups, infidelity to spouses and sweethearts back home –all the traditional harms of immorality—not conducive to troop morale and cohesiveness.
General Pace should stick by his guns –and the liberal media should GET REAL and withdraw theirs.
LD FEATURED MY COMMENT! What a humanitarian!
Answering in your own style of rhetoric: you are full of it, LD, and it's filled up your ears and blinded your eyes. (I only say this because you posted excrement on my previous comments.) (LD is Liberal Democrat of PoliticsinMudville.blogspot.com)
Thanks for posting a post of mine that would resonate with right-thinking folks. Once again, no rebuttal of ideas from you and your friends, just scorn and insult from your dark rooms. (I only say this because you said I came from a dark place without light.)
I suppose anyone who would agree with me in their comments will not be posted --not that right-thinking folks follow your blog as much as I do. Most people can't stand exercises in futility.
As for the death of Matt Sheppard, I understand that was less for hate than an intention to rob? until Matt made a sexual approach to one of them? No excuse for the killers. (Actually any murder stems from hatred and is a hate crime.)
I do not approve the fundamentalist preacher who picketed at Matt's funeral --any more than you should approve those whack jobs like Cindy S. who picket against the war at the military funerals.
However, what do you say about the two gay fellows who sodomized an 11 year old boy to his death about the same time as the Sheppard incident and got comparatively little publicity or indignation in mainstream press? People on either side of the orientation aisle can murder and do --like John Wayne Gacy, Dahmer, and most of the really prolific serial killers --who were more often gay than not --by the data. I believe the facts will show that gays are more often murdered by gays than by straights.
As for freedom of ideas, I wouldn't suppress your speech nor be as discourteous as you.
As for Microdot and the ego charge, I have no bigger ego than you guys. You wouldn't like my views (or me) any more if I demonstrated low self-esteem. You hate that I am confident in what I say. but aren't you? Maybe not --maybe that's why the rebuttal is so pitiful to non-existant -resorting to censorship.
Half a bubble off center, micro? see? that's how you see people who merely disagree with you and want to tell you so, who only email you because the forum is closed where your insults and misinfo are posted, whereas your email is not.
If only the sunni and shia confined their battles to email and verbal exchange. The danger to censorship is that there IS no verbal exchange --only hatred nad misunderstanding and false accusation --eventually erupting in violence. Don't worry --not from my side of the aisle. It's when you want to shut the other side up, rather than respectfully competing in free exchange of thoughts and ideas, that your ideological side of the aisle may become dangerous to the other.
So again, I do appreciate the privilege of being posted on your blog.
As for UPtheFlag's post about the military chaplains. I believe the freedom has been restored for Christian chaplains to preach the Bible at Christian memorial services, etc. --and to pray in Jesus' name. And for those of other faiths to pray and preach according to their beliefs. The question now is to restore the position of Chaplain Klingenschmidt who said in a prayer that this young dead Christian soldier was in Heaven today because the Bible says those who believe in the Son go to Heaven and those who do not believe in Him will perish. The CO got him court martialed --because "his feelings were hurt" by Christian scripture since he was not a believer in Christ.
I wouldn't recommend that Christian chaplains badger anyone who is suffering with the negative and the Hellfire verses. It would be better to stress the love of God, Christ's resurrection, and His offer of salvation for all who repent of sin and believe that He is the Son of God. We don't have to spell out the consequence --we KNOW that death itself is ugly and sure without hope of Heaven. The question is, can any religion authoritatively promise an escape from death? a 2nd chance at life? Only the man who came back from the grave --according to the eyewitnesses who started a major world religion on that premise --who had their lives to lose for proclaiming it --but were willing to die because they had seen a risen Jesus.
It's a shame that UPtheFlag won't hear the truth of this matter on the chaplain due to the censorship by her father --but she probably wouldn't benefit from the truth anyway since she seems to suffer congenital sensory deprivation.
Scorn and hatred for God-believers and Christians has been going on since the beginning --since Elijah's demonstration of the power of God on a firey altar after Jezebel had killed all the prophets of Israel except Elijah--since Jesus did His miracles and rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and was hailed as King and thereafter crucified for what He did and said --no crimes--since Paul went to the Jews and other God-believers in Antioch and was kicked out of town at his second meeting which had drawn out the whole city like a Billy Graham crusade. He was one who had hated the Christians --until the resurrected Jesus blinded him on the Road to Damascus.
Paul said to the angry ones, "Don't you want to have eternal life???" It's the same question today. And many believe --but many do not --to their loss. (This story is found in Acts 13. Later, some of these from Antioch stoned Paul and thought they had killed him. It was at Antioch where believers established a church and were first called "christians.")
"Narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be who find it."
Nothing would please me more than to meet you all and love you all in Heaven --to hear that you eventually decided the Bible was true --and realized God loved you so much that He gave His only begotten son --that whosoever believeth in Him will not perish but have everlasting life."
Yes, I do have an agenda. And it's not for my ego. After all, who really chooses to be scorned? Not me.
Thanks for posting a post of mine that would resonate with right-thinking folks. Once again, no rebuttal of ideas from you and your friends, just scorn and insult from your dark rooms. (I only say this because you said I came from a dark place without light.)
I suppose anyone who would agree with me in their comments will not be posted --not that right-thinking folks follow your blog as much as I do. Most people can't stand exercises in futility.
As for the death of Matt Sheppard, I understand that was less for hate than an intention to rob? until Matt made a sexual approach to one of them? No excuse for the killers. (Actually any murder stems from hatred and is a hate crime.)
I do not approve the fundamentalist preacher who picketed at Matt's funeral --any more than you should approve those whack jobs like Cindy S. who picket against the war at the military funerals.
However, what do you say about the two gay fellows who sodomized an 11 year old boy to his death about the same time as the Sheppard incident and got comparatively little publicity or indignation in mainstream press? People on either side of the orientation aisle can murder and do --like John Wayne Gacy, Dahmer, and most of the really prolific serial killers --who were more often gay than not --by the data. I believe the facts will show that gays are more often murdered by gays than by straights.
As for freedom of ideas, I wouldn't suppress your speech nor be as discourteous as you.
As for Microdot and the ego charge, I have no bigger ego than you guys. You wouldn't like my views (or me) any more if I demonstrated low self-esteem. You hate that I am confident in what I say. but aren't you? Maybe not --maybe that's why the rebuttal is so pitiful to non-existant -resorting to censorship.
Half a bubble off center, micro? see? that's how you see people who merely disagree with you and want to tell you so, who only email you because the forum is closed where your insults and misinfo are posted, whereas your email is not.
If only the sunni and shia confined their battles to email and verbal exchange. The danger to censorship is that there IS no verbal exchange --only hatred nad misunderstanding and false accusation --eventually erupting in violence. Don't worry --not from my side of the aisle. It's when you want to shut the other side up, rather than respectfully competing in free exchange of thoughts and ideas, that your ideological side of the aisle may become dangerous to the other.
So again, I do appreciate the privilege of being posted on your blog.
As for UPtheFlag's post about the military chaplains. I believe the freedom has been restored for Christian chaplains to preach the Bible at Christian memorial services, etc. --and to pray in Jesus' name. And for those of other faiths to pray and preach according to their beliefs. The question now is to restore the position of Chaplain Klingenschmidt who said in a prayer that this young dead Christian soldier was in Heaven today because the Bible says those who believe in the Son go to Heaven and those who do not believe in Him will perish. The CO got him court martialed --because "his feelings were hurt" by Christian scripture since he was not a believer in Christ.
I wouldn't recommend that Christian chaplains badger anyone who is suffering with the negative and the Hellfire verses. It would be better to stress the love of God, Christ's resurrection, and His offer of salvation for all who repent of sin and believe that He is the Son of God. We don't have to spell out the consequence --we KNOW that death itself is ugly and sure without hope of Heaven. The question is, can any religion authoritatively promise an escape from death? a 2nd chance at life? Only the man who came back from the grave --according to the eyewitnesses who started a major world religion on that premise --who had their lives to lose for proclaiming it --but were willing to die because they had seen a risen Jesus.
It's a shame that UPtheFlag won't hear the truth of this matter on the chaplain due to the censorship by her father --but she probably wouldn't benefit from the truth anyway since she seems to suffer congenital sensory deprivation.
Scorn and hatred for God-believers and Christians has been going on since the beginning --since Elijah's demonstration of the power of God on a firey altar after Jezebel had killed all the prophets of Israel except Elijah--since Jesus did His miracles and rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and was hailed as King and thereafter crucified for what He did and said --no crimes--since Paul went to the Jews and other God-believers in Antioch and was kicked out of town at his second meeting which had drawn out the whole city like a Billy Graham crusade. He was one who had hated the Christians --until the resurrected Jesus blinded him on the Road to Damascus.
Paul said to the angry ones, "Don't you want to have eternal life???" It's the same question today. And many believe --but many do not --to their loss. (This story is found in Acts 13. Later, some of these from Antioch stoned Paul and thought they had killed him. It was at Antioch where believers established a church and were first called "christians.")
"Narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be who find it."
Nothing would please me more than to meet you all and love you all in Heaven --to hear that you eventually decided the Bible was true --and realized God loved you so much that He gave His only begotten son --that whosoever believeth in Him will not perish but have everlasting life."
Yes, I do have an agenda. And it's not for my ego. After all, who really chooses to be scorned? Not me.
Holy Week Services
The church I attend will commemorate Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem –when the Jews came out and hailed him as king –on Palm Sunday –hopefully with exciting music –and Good Friday will be a candlelight service remembering his sacrifice on the cross for all people, again with lovely music –and Easter Sunday will be the celebration of Christ’s resurrection—and His promise that “because I live, you shall live also.” If this is true, you would certainly want to know!
Our services are Palm Sunday, April 1, 10:40 AM and Easter on April 8, 10:40 AM—and Good Friday at 7:00 PM –at the Holland Free Methodist Church at 6605 Angola road –right behind Spring Meadows.
Our services are Palm Sunday, April 1, 10:40 AM and Easter on April 8, 10:40 AM—and Good Friday at 7:00 PM –at the Holland Free Methodist Church at 6605 Angola road –right behind Spring Meadows.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
About the Attorney General's Firings and Bush Response; Democrats Much Ado about Nothing
If you were a CEO, would you want all your inter-office memos and emails published? I think not. You want to be able to fire somebody and say so because you think he's an idiot --or inept--or because you want to put someone else in there --which is the prerogative of the president and the AG. Didn't someone say that Janet Reno fired all 93 attorneys? What's the Dems' problems with firing 8?
If the problem is that the AG unwisely said they were fired for performance lack, let's remember TRAVELGATE --when Hillary fired career employees at the White House travel office (not political appointees) on trumped-up charges of ineptitude --so she could hire friends from Arkansas. And she got away with that!
Democrats in congress should bive Bush the same breaks they'd give their own party!
This is what we can expect from the dems all the way to the election--constant nit-picking and media mongering to imply great evil in high places --which is really much ado about nothing.
If the problem is that the AG unwisely said they were fired for performance lack, let's remember TRAVELGATE --when Hillary fired career employees at the White House travel office (not political appointees) on trumped-up charges of ineptitude --so she could hire friends from Arkansas. And she got away with that!
Democrats in congress should bive Bush the same breaks they'd give their own party!
This is what we can expect from the dems all the way to the election--constant nit-picking and media mongering to imply great evil in high places --which is really much ado about nothing.
The Atheist and the Believer; What Kind of World for the Kids? --(revised version)
I responded to a blog comment and got this in reply:
"I checked out your blog, but honestly, I'm not interested. I grew up godless and just don't really care to read about your faith bla bla bla. Believe whatever you want to believe, just dont' legislate it. In many respects I'm more libertarian than liberal. (Note the small "l" meaning I don't belong to the official party.) Do what is ethically right for you but leave me and my uterus alone. I can make up my own mind and ethical decisions based on logic and reason, not faith. If you want respect, you are going to have to give it to us godless folk in return. Thanks for writing."______________________________
I wrote:
Fair enough reply -- I don’t disrespect your right to be an atheist –but we who DO believe don’t want laws based on atheism –as in atheistic communism, which justified the murder of the intelligentsia and aristocracy and the religious in order to establish the evolution and eventual “dictatorship of the proletariat (worker)” –Marx’s phrase, not mine. He used logic and reason to come up with communism. This wonderful concept justified Stalin’s murder of 50 million people and was finally thrown over by the proletariat themselves. They saw that former Czarist thugs were just replaced by secret service thugs.
We don’t want laws based on secularism and atheism any more than you want laws based on Judeo-Christianity because there aren’t any ennobling moral laws inherent or implied in those isms. U.S. laws ARE based on Judeo-Christianity and its value of every person and the Golden Rule taught by Christ. Judeo-Christianity implies you must have freedom of speech and religious belief and not be killed by each other because of it; that’s not what the other religions and ologies say. Much that is right about America, making it the place others want to live, is a result of biblical view of equality in Christ –and equality as sinners at the foot of the cross. The N.T. says no one is better than any other with a right to murder. The protestant work ethic had good influence, also. The N.T. says if you don’t work, you don’t eat. (Of course there are exceptions –like when one can’t find work; the ethic is tempered by Biblical compassion.)
As French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville said in his 19th c. writing about America, ‘’America is great because she is good –and the secret of her goodness lies in her churches with their pulpits aflame with righteousness ; if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
As for your comment on abortion, there are better ways to protect the womb from unwanted pregnancy. Many inconvenient babies have turned out to be the greatest blessings. I can sympathize; pregnancy was not easy for me –4 times. And I am for any rape victim having the rape kit cleansing of the uterus, starting of her period –immediately after the rape as conception may not have occured yet. I do view a rape as a foreign invasion. Others would argue that the victim should wait to see if a conception occurs, that it would be God's will. I think He doesn't mind if we flush ourselves immediately after a foreign invasion in that rape is not His will. the technology may be His mercy after a rape. I WOULD personally hate to see a very young,innocent rape victim go through pregnancy.
However, abortion after pregnancy is confirmed has a high correlation with breast cancer because it unnaturally abrupts the changes that take place in the breast during pregnancy in a way that natural spontaneous miscarriage does NOT–-not to mention the risk of the emotional trauma from ending the baby's life.
People think they object to judeo-christian morality, but really, when they consider their children, what kind of people and laws do they want their children to experience? I don’t want anyone next door who really would molest my kids if given a chance, or draw them into any sexual activity –or steal –or lie about me—or covet or steal my husband or anything I have –or cuss at my kids –or run around naked in front of them –or take my daughter to get an abortion against my will. Those Ten C’s and The Golden Rule look pretty good to me when I consider the children.
Thomas Jefferson asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”
Our first pres. Geo Washington said, “…the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself ordained.”
The Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” And “there is a way that seems right unto man, but it leads to destruction.” There is a Christmas song that says, “Wise men STILL seek Him, today.”
The beauty of the Gospel (Good News) is that it says God does exist, does love us, sent His son so we could live again and forever beyond the grave –as He did. That is the beauty of EASTER. He is Risen! Indeed!
My church will commemorate Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem –when the Jews came out and hailed him as king –on Palm Sunday –hopefully with exciting music –and Good Friday will be a candlelight service remembering his sacrifice on the cross for all people, again with lovely music –and Easter Sunday will be the celebration of Christ’s resurrection—and His promise that “because I live, you shall live also.” If this is true, you would certainly want to know!
Our services are Palm Sunday, April 1, 10:40 AM and Easter on April 8, 10:40 AM—and Good Friday at 7:00 PM –at the Holland Free Methodist Church at 6605 Angola road –right behind Spring Meadows.
"I checked out your blog, but honestly, I'm not interested. I grew up godless and just don't really care to read about your faith bla bla bla. Believe whatever you want to believe, just dont' legislate it. In many respects I'm more libertarian than liberal. (Note the small "l" meaning I don't belong to the official party.) Do what is ethically right for you but leave me and my uterus alone. I can make up my own mind and ethical decisions based on logic and reason, not faith. If you want respect, you are going to have to give it to us godless folk in return. Thanks for writing."______________________________
I wrote:
Fair enough reply -- I don’t disrespect your right to be an atheist –but we who DO believe don’t want laws based on atheism –as in atheistic communism, which justified the murder of the intelligentsia and aristocracy and the religious in order to establish the evolution and eventual “dictatorship of the proletariat (worker)” –Marx’s phrase, not mine. He used logic and reason to come up with communism. This wonderful concept justified Stalin’s murder of 50 million people and was finally thrown over by the proletariat themselves. They saw that former Czarist thugs were just replaced by secret service thugs.
We don’t want laws based on secularism and atheism any more than you want laws based on Judeo-Christianity because there aren’t any ennobling moral laws inherent or implied in those isms. U.S. laws ARE based on Judeo-Christianity and its value of every person and the Golden Rule taught by Christ. Judeo-Christianity implies you must have freedom of speech and religious belief and not be killed by each other because of it; that’s not what the other religions and ologies say. Much that is right about America, making it the place others want to live, is a result of biblical view of equality in Christ –and equality as sinners at the foot of the cross. The N.T. says no one is better than any other with a right to murder. The protestant work ethic had good influence, also. The N.T. says if you don’t work, you don’t eat. (Of course there are exceptions –like when one can’t find work; the ethic is tempered by Biblical compassion.)
As French philosopher Alexis de Toqueville said in his 19th c. writing about America, ‘’America is great because she is good –and the secret of her goodness lies in her churches with their pulpits aflame with righteousness ; if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
As for your comment on abortion, there are better ways to protect the womb from unwanted pregnancy. Many inconvenient babies have turned out to be the greatest blessings. I can sympathize; pregnancy was not easy for me –4 times. And I am for any rape victim having the rape kit cleansing of the uterus, starting of her period –immediately after the rape as conception may not have occured yet. I do view a rape as a foreign invasion. Others would argue that the victim should wait to see if a conception occurs, that it would be God's will. I think He doesn't mind if we flush ourselves immediately after a foreign invasion in that rape is not His will. the technology may be His mercy after a rape. I WOULD personally hate to see a very young,innocent rape victim go through pregnancy.
However, abortion after pregnancy is confirmed has a high correlation with breast cancer because it unnaturally abrupts the changes that take place in the breast during pregnancy in a way that natural spontaneous miscarriage does NOT–-not to mention the risk of the emotional trauma from ending the baby's life.
People think they object to judeo-christian morality, but really, when they consider their children, what kind of people and laws do they want their children to experience? I don’t want anyone next door who really would molest my kids if given a chance, or draw them into any sexual activity –or steal –or lie about me—or covet or steal my husband or anything I have –or cuss at my kids –or run around naked in front of them –or take my daughter to get an abortion against my will. Those Ten C’s and The Golden Rule look pretty good to me when I consider the children.
Thomas Jefferson asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”
Our first pres. Geo Washington said, “…the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself ordained.”
The Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” And “there is a way that seems right unto man, but it leads to destruction.” There is a Christmas song that says, “Wise men STILL seek Him, today.”
The beauty of the Gospel (Good News) is that it says God does exist, does love us, sent His son so we could live again and forever beyond the grave –as He did. That is the beauty of EASTER. He is Risen! Indeed!
My church will commemorate Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem –when the Jews came out and hailed him as king –on Palm Sunday –hopefully with exciting music –and Good Friday will be a candlelight service remembering his sacrifice on the cross for all people, again with lovely music –and Easter Sunday will be the celebration of Christ’s resurrection—and His promise that “because I live, you shall live also.” If this is true, you would certainly want to know!
Our services are Palm Sunday, April 1, 10:40 AM and Easter on April 8, 10:40 AM—and Good Friday at 7:00 PM –at the Holland Free Methodist Church at 6605 Angola road –right behind Spring Meadows.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Just for the Archives --an older Mudville Discussion on The Tomb of Jesus
Liberal Democrat said....
Last evening the Discovery Channel presented the film, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." The film suggests that the family tomb of Jesus [photo] was uncovered in the 1980's and that it contained 10 ossuaries with the bones of 10 members of the family. Markings on 6 of the ossuaries give the names, Maria, Jesus Son of Joseph, Joseph, James, Judah, and Mariamne. The authors of the book/film suggest that the probability that these 6 names in the same tomb not being those of the family of Jesus is rare. Of course this find, especially the ossuary marked "Yeshua bar Josef," would diminish the long-held Christian belief that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. If a container found in this tomb held his bones, the Resurrection and Ascension would be negated.Many of the early Christians did not believe in the physical resurrection and ascension of Jesus, but rather believed in a spiritual one. The Gnostics and the writers of the Gospel Quelle [Q] did not mention either event. It was of no importance to them because the life of Jesus, what he said and did, was important enough for them to follow his example. They did not need to believe in these extra-human events in his life to increase his credibility. However, the hierarchical church which developed in the 4th and 5th century thought it important to stress the metaphysical/divine qualities of the man who walked the streets of Jerusalem. In order to make Jesus more important than the pagan gods of Rome and Greece, Jesus had to supersede them in ability, rising above the human into the divine. Thus, Jesus took on the qualities of the pagan gods- virgin birth, miracle-worker, rise from the dead, leave earth for the heavens. Naturally, the fact that he may have been married and sired a child with Mary the Magdalene, did not go over well with the early Church Fathers. Her subsequent demise- the 'prostitute' image- was the first step in denying the possibility of a married Jesus. Oddly, most ancient pagan gods were married and sired children. Male dominance of the church would not be helped by such a situation with Jesus and therefore, Jesus 'remained unmarried.' It seems to me that a married Jesus, wife, son, would be quite a great model for us humans. The majority of us do get married and have children. Why would we deny that for him? What purpose does it serve to have a 'chaste' Jesus? Nonsense. If he's 'one of us, then he's one of us.' A family tomb with mother, father, wife, children, and brothers seems quite logical and normal to me.
posted by liberal_dem at 10:23 AM on Mar 5, 2007
microdot said...
I'm sure it was one of Discovery Channels best rated films ever!
Right up there with the documentary on Atlantis.
I almost hate to ask but my naughty nature is forcing me to...
Barb, did you watch it?
12:46 PM EST
Barb said...
No, I had a choir practice. After that, I can't even remember what I watched on tv last night--something. --probably flipped channels in vain search of something interesting. Didn't know when this creative revisionist history was airing and wasn't looking for it.
What an imagination the revisionist historians have --yet --not so creative, just the sort of thing any skeptic could conceive. At least SOME of the gospel accounts which spend a lot of paper space detailing the resurrection of Christ and things he did and said afterward --were written in the first century --not in the 4th and 5th when an unmarried, celibate, resurrected Jesus served the purpose of the church in the Gospel according to LD/TV.
As you said, there wasn't a need for Jesus to be unmarried --from the standpoint of pagan cultures whose deities were VERY human in all ways -- there wasn't a need for Jesus to be resurrected IN ORDER to have a world religion with power and influence --take the married Mohammad and Buddha.
But by the Creator's revealed plan, there was a need for man's sins to be atoned for so he could regain immortality--because God had made man in His own image, longing for fellowship with us --forever. We are the apple of His eye called to "run the race set before us for the prize of the high calling of Christ Jesus."
Newsweek suggested that it was unlikely that Jesus' poor family would be buried in the location of this tomb. In fact, there was no family plot so Jesus was laid to rest in a donated tomb owned by a wealthy man.
Any craftsman in the early centuries (maybe even recent --can make forgeries that fool experts)and could have made these ossuaries hoping for some financial gain--or hoping to debunk the Bible. Also, the names were common to the era and could have been any other family's tomb.
Moreoever, the followers of Jesus just wanted to save their own skins and were hiding out, dejected; Peter had denied knowing Jesus during the trial period --these men were not a brave lot --until transformed by their association with a resurrected God/man. The Resurrection was the turning point for the disciples --the event which birthed the church --whose central message was "christ, crucified, risen, and coming again." Because that's what they witnessed --along with His promise that He would return.
The Resurrection of Christ with a promise of salvation for all who believe is the greatest and best news in all of human history.
All that is said in a film like this and in your report is vain speculation, suggestions, no hard facts--which, however, will mislead many away from the truth --a damnable offense.
1:25 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
What an imagination the revisionist historians have
Would that be to a greater or lesser degree than the writers and scribes of the canonical Gospels?
2:26 PM EST
Barb said...
The gospel writers were THERE --no imagination required --just recording.
The revisionists are speculators only.
3:56 PM EST
microdot said...
So the bible was concieved word for inalterable word, exactly as the document you interpret so literally almost 2000 years ago?
What of the discovery of the Essenes scriptures, hidden in a cave since that time which vary wildly with the approved modern bible translations?
Personally, I think a lot of the History Channel stuff is junk history.
They recently referred to the entire Dark Ages as Europes Godless 400 years. In other words from the fall of Rome to the First Crusade.
Of course, I also think that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are flashes in the pan in the long view of religion and mankind. The reign of the gods of Egypt held sway for almost 8,000 years.
There are a lot of nutty sects, the Catholics and the Mormons...do you know anything about Mormon theology and history? Space gods coming to earth from other planets...Really, I was curious enough to want to know what exactly the Mormons believed and boy I wasn't disappointed when I found out! The entire history...Joseph Smith being a preacher in upstate New York who got a little too friendly with his female congregation (sound familiar?) he was run out of town with his sacred gold tablets...in reality hammered sheets of pewter from an old tea service. Ending up on Fox Island off the coast of Traverse City, Michigan where his followers polygamous lifestyle and attempts at converting the Irish Catholic Fishing community provoked a massacre with some of the Mormons escaping with their lives...culminating in the schism of the church...the church of Latter Day Saints and the Mormons and Joseph Smiths Religious Police State in Utah...read some of the early accounts of those who dared to defy him!
I also have been reading and researching the evolution of American Fundamentalism from storefront scams and tent revivals to radio glamour preachers of the 30's and 40's to the big business it has become today....
As I said there are some things that are much older than the religions of the west, there is the wisdom of the East, the Tao which says that when something becomes so big ands swollen with pride, it will destroy itself.
4:27 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
The gospel writers were THERE
Oh, what ignorance. You don't really believe...
Oh never mind.
4:35 PM EST
Don said...
Muslims believe that the Koran is a word-for-word transcript of God's word as spoken to Muhammed through the angel Gabriel. Wasn't Mohammed equally "THERE", just as much so as the authors of the Gospels?
If not, on what basis can we distinguish the two? Who are the false witnesses? Why are the authors of the Gospels contained in the Bible any more or less credible than the authors of the Koran, or the gnostic codices? Or the authors of the Greek epic cycle?
5:26 PM EST
Chris Rosebrough said...
Liberal dem this must be your lucky day. How would you like to hear a a comprehensive and scholarly rebuttal of the film’s evidence from the point a view of a conservative Biblical literalist? I'd love to know what you think you can find it at ExtremeTheology.com.
8:00 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
Well, Chris, to be perfectly frank, no. I've heard all of the biblical spin, bob and weave that I can tolerate.
It all comes down to personal belief, not facts or data. I'm comfortable with what I wrote in this article while others are comfortable with their own interpretations.
Nothing will be 'proved' one way or the other. My objective is to open the door to new possibilities.
I'm satisfied and I hope the person at the other end of the link is as well.
I've always enjoyed reading of the humanity of Jesus, his dealings with the authority figures and the poor folks too. He spell-bounds both not by some deistic magic, but rather by being a person who speaks in terms of grand postulates like the many we studied and argued in the philosophy classes I took at the university.
He lived a full but short life and what he did and said during that time is enough for me; I need no risen 'lord' nor ascended 'master' to enhance his humanity.
As I, too, am human, we share that connection, not any supernatural, transcendence. My time on earth is what matters to me and his life has portrayed the model for all of us to follow: love one another.
Whether he is up there at the left or right hand of God is of little value to me down here in Northwest Ohio. He may be surrounded by 'hosts of angels' but I am surrounded by hosts of human beings.
He can take care of them and I'll do what i can down here.
9:35 PM EST
Barb said...
Interesting , LD, that you believe in the human Jesus --in that part of the accounts --so why don't you believe it when the writers go on to tell you about his miracles, resurrection and what He said afterwards? There were many witnesses --not just one man's claim to have seen a risen Jesus.
I also think the story of St Paul is very compelling to faith in Christ. He was a persecutor of Christians delivering them to their deaths --until he was blinded by a light on the Road to Damascus --and Jesus' voice spoke to Him--and told Him where to go to receive back His sight --after which He could say with authority and double meaning, "I once was blind but now I see."
Paul was completely changed by that experience. Encountering Christ still changes people today.
Read ACTS ch. 9 -- There were multiple witnesses to Paul's blindness and his experience on the road --and God told a man named Ananias to find Paul and follow directions so his sight would be restored. It's a wonderful story --with witnesses who traveled with Paul and also heard the voice.
Joseph Smith had just his own narrative of an angel visitation --and his life didn't produce Godly fruit. Any religion that departs from the Bible and adds to it and speculates wildly, claiming authoritative knowledge about Heaven beyond what the Bible says --saying our souls pre-existed, etc. as Mormons teach --those religions were founded by false prophets.
but Christianity was founded by a man that MOST people still admire for His life and teachings--though some dare to be sacriligious (like Conan the other night) to their peril. As Pilate said, people today say of Christ, "I can find no fault with this man."
Mohammad had his Gabriel visitation but he is the only witness to it and there was no righteous fruit to his life or ministry--and no healings and no resurrection. It is not a religion of love but one started by a wolf in sheep's clothing --whose followers would behead me for saying so. Look at the mess of radical Islam and all the bombings around the world.They can justify it in these heavenly writings received by mohammad. In his defense, HE was possibly genuinely spiritually deceived, believing in his revelation --perhaps an unwitting channel for something diabolical--because he twisted the revelation about Christ --and said Judas or a body-double was crucified instead --that Christ was assumed into Heaven rather than resurrected from the grave. And that he Mohammad is the greatest prophet, greater than Christ.
Christianity is the religion of the eye witnesses who saw the miracles --who saw Jesus on the cross --and after death in His resurrected body. It's not one man's account or writing --not even Jesus' writing about himself --it's not one man's revelation. His coming was predicted --read the pre-Christian Isaiah 53: 5 & 6 (the whole chapter actually) about the one "who was wounded for our transgressions." "who bore the iniquity of us all."
Jesus said at the Passover Feast before His crucifixion, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."
The witnesses preached, "Christ, crucified, risen, and coming again."
I assume, Microdot, you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls? I don't think there is any contradiction to scripture in them, is there? they just are NOT scriptures. I believe they have been an aid in translation --for the linguists of ancient languages who have done Bible translations.
As for who will be taking care of whom in eternity, LD --Jesus will judge sinners and forgiven sinners on a Judgment Day. Like it or not, He will deal with you. "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
12:50 PM EST
Barb said...
You say, Microdot,that the Egyptians and their religions existed for 8000 years --but no longer. Doesn't Abraham's life occur during those 8000 years --of course --and it is through him that the fallen world will start to hear from their Creator again --actually Melchizadek predates Abraham and is referred to as a true prophet of God who confirms Abraham's position as the father of a nation that will eventually bring light to the Gentiles. A new temple will be built on the foundation of the Jewish prophets and the Christian apostles --with Christ as the cornerstone --and the new temple will house the Spirit of God in the living stones, the believers --the Body of Christ.
1:03 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
She still doesn't get it, does she? Oh well, there is room enough for the ignorant too.
1:19 PM EST
Don said...
"...you believe in the human Jesus --in that part of the accounts --so why don't you believe it when the writers go on to tell you about his miracles, resurrection and what He said afterwards..."
For pretty much the same reason I believe that St. Nicholas was a real man who lived in 4th century, but do not believe that he currently resides at the North Pole, and possesses magical powers.
People lie, exaggerate, misunderstand, etc. Sorry, but I am not so stupid or naive to believe an "eyewitness" simply because a person claims to be an eyewitness. Just because the Gospels are written in such a way as to suggest the authors were eyewitnesses does not make it so. In ANY work of fiction, an author writes as if witnessing the events described.
Even if the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, how might they have been altered by subsequent copyings and translations? Even if the original authors had the best of intentions, the books could have been significantly altered over the course of 2,000 years. Maybe they had the wool pulled over their eyes, just like Mohammed.
1:58 PM EST
Agnostic and logical said...
I really liked the documentary, not so much the debate. I understand names are common. My parent's and my name are very common and I know a couple of families in my town with the same names. Is it a coincidence? well, assuming that we have common names I would say no. BUT, I have two brothers, and there are more siblings in the other two families that makes each of the family basically unique. In that tomb not all the names were so common and they are the ones that gives more credibility to the documentary.
The Christian church has made it own interpretation of the bible, which does not seems to be the same interpretation during the 300 years, and it has been used as a tool to control the population and governments. If you carefully read the bible there are many different interpretations, which have to be put into historical context with the help of archaeological and scientific evidence (and a bit of common sense). The church tries not to include these two elements, treating them as tabues, because they would negativelly affect the basis of what we, today, know as the christian church. The church doesn't like the documentary because they are scared of the potential truth. And the church's followers are so brain-washed that they do what the church says, without even considering that all the dots in the documentary finding seem to connect. This connection or "coincidence" is not a reason to discredit the validity of the documentary but it is the reason to keep finding more evidence that that tumb is in fact the real tomb of Jesus. It would be interesting if they could find the bones and try to do DNA analysis to really confirm the family tree of the different individuals found in that tomb. Also, at the end of the documentary, when they enter the tomb there are some inscriptions on the walls that may say something relevant. Just lets give them a chance to keep investigating and let's use a bit of common sense and make valid comments only if we are well informed. People talk about the bible without reading it, talk about history understanding the historical context.
2:18 PM EST
Barb said...
They found these things in the 1980's --so why haven't they interpreted the writings on the walls by now?
Common or uncommon names --you'd take the word of someone on what names were common in those days among the Jewish people --rather than the word of 4 gospel writers --not all of whom were eye witnesses but at least 2 or 3 were --matt, a tax collector, mark and John, I believe --and Luke, a physician, was an eyewitness to much of the book of Acts and did research for his gospel account, talking with eye witnesses.
The New Testament is simply the work of MANY writers --and not one Mohammad. It is not the writings of Christ himself blowing His own horn --but the account of those with Him.
Yet, you guys will get all excited about some old bone boxes that have some names the same as people in Jesus' family. For all you know, this was an early Christian family who named their kids after Jesus and HIS family. Just like all the Matthews, Joshuas, Davids, Johns and others of Biblical names today in Christian (and other) families. It takes a lot MORE faith to believe in the authenticity of these boxes with a few names on them--than it does to believe in the VOLUME of record-keeping about Jesus. The body disappeared though it was under Roman guard, People! You think it is going to show up 20 centuries later in a bone box with the rest of the family? I don't think so. Conspiracy theorists would sooner think the Christians would destroy such a box and the bones --and the Jews would have considered such a find to be proof that Jesus did not resurrect --and would have been glad to publicize the box's existance in the first century. No way does such a find get preserved in the family tomb of Christ's poor relatives.
I believe with the doubting thomas --who had to see the nailprints in his hands. He is risen! he is risen indeed!
5:08 PM EST
microdot said...
Oh yes, I forgot, Abraham lived for 8000 years, silly of me. Did they use dog years back then?
And yes the dead sea scrolls contain a lot of radical variations from the modern translations of the bible and there are another set of scrolls discovered even more recently.
I will accept that there was someone named Jesus or a person resembling him who lived in or about the Aramic speaking region of what is now called Israel about 2000 or so years ago and he was very good at marketing.
5:12 PM EST
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the author.
5:23 PM EST
Don said...
"The New Testament is simply the work of MANY writers --and not one Mohammad."
Actually, Muslims believe Mohammad transcribed the Koran directly from God. Right from the diety Himself (if we assume Gabriel was a reliable mouthpiece). Isn't there less possibility of error that way, rather than having a bunch of people provide ex post facto recollection?
"It is not the writings of Christ himself blowing His own horn..."
Good grief, Barb...
If writings were discovered that appeared to be written by Jesus Christ himself, would you really be down on him for "blowing his own horn"? I'd much rather hear from Jesus first hand than any second-hand witness.
"For all you know, this was an early Christian family who named their kids after Jesus and HIS family."
A reasonable speculation. If an anthropologist made such a comment, though, we should denounce it as "blah, blah, blah". Right?
I guess speculation is OK when questioning the other side's position.
5:25 PM EST
microdot said...
was it something i said?
3:56 AM EST
Barb said...
A religious leader who writes his own story and claims unique revelation directly from God --needs a little corroboration from others, i think.
Jesus had that --lots of it from the first century witnesses who produced the New Testament scriptures. The groundwork for the church was laid by prophecy in the Old Testament as in Isaiah 53 --and by Christ's miracles and teachings --and ultimately his death and resurrection.
Jesus' life is credible because He did NOT write about Himself --except as part of the God-head, the Trinity, the work of the Holy Spirit inspiring and protecting the writings.
I would be glad if we had writings from the Pen of Jesus in addition to what we already have. As it is, we have parables and teachings that even a child can understand. And a record of miracles with the teachings that paved the way for faith in Him by people like us, who were not eye witnesses.
The Good news is clear --that "while we were yet sinners, christ died for us." and He conquored the grave as only Deity could.
6:00 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
and He conquored the grave as only Deity could.
Several Deities 'conquered' the grave, if you care to look back on religious beliefs.
By the way, what is so grand about conquering the grave? Seems to me that i can't do that. However, something i can do is to follow some of his examples and incorporate them into my life.
One of my favorites is: 'love your neighbor.'
9:10 PM EST
Barb said...
Exactly --you can't do that --conquor the grave. But Jesus did it for you and said,"Because I live, you shall live also."
12:06 PM EST
Barb said...
About Abraham, Microdot --I said he was likely born during this 8000 Year era of Egyptian religions you wrote about --I didn't say he lived 8000 years --HIS RELIGION, Judaism, DID --it has survived LONGER than the Egyptians' religion. When Abraham and God were establishing the Jewish nation through whom Jesus would come --the rest of the world was committing child-sacrifice and worshiping all sorts of man-made gods in their grand temples -the ruins of which you can see today.
Meanwhile the God of Abraham was laying the foundation for an eternal temple of people in whom God would dwell, the Jews and Gentiles who make up the body of Christ - going strong to this day --despite world-wide persecution.
12:19 PM EST
Barb said...
LD, "love your neighbor" is the reason that Christians don't shut up --but keep proclaiming the "inconvenient truth." Inconvenient now, to those who don't want to make a choice --but expedient in the eternal run for those who DO choose to believe Christ.
12:29 PM EST
[Photo]
Last evening the Discovery Channel presented the film, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." The film suggests that the family tomb of Jesus [photo] was uncovered in the 1980's and that it contained 10 ossuaries with the bones of 10 members of the family. Markings on 6 of the ossuaries give the names, Maria, Jesus Son of Joseph, Joseph, James, Judah, and Mariamne. The authors of the book/film suggest that the probability that these 6 names in the same tomb not being those of the family of Jesus is rare. Of course this find, especially the ossuary marked "Yeshua bar Josef," would diminish the long-held Christian belief that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. If a container found in this tomb held his bones, the Resurrection and Ascension would be negated.Many of the early Christians did not believe in the physical resurrection and ascension of Jesus, but rather believed in a spiritual one. The Gnostics and the writers of the Gospel Quelle [Q] did not mention either event. It was of no importance to them because the life of Jesus, what he said and did, was important enough for them to follow his example. They did not need to believe in these extra-human events in his life to increase his credibility. However, the hierarchical church which developed in the 4th and 5th century thought it important to stress the metaphysical/divine qualities of the man who walked the streets of Jerusalem. In order to make Jesus more important than the pagan gods of Rome and Greece, Jesus had to supersede them in ability, rising above the human into the divine. Thus, Jesus took on the qualities of the pagan gods- virgin birth, miracle-worker, rise from the dead, leave earth for the heavens. Naturally, the fact that he may have been married and sired a child with Mary the Magdalene, did not go over well with the early Church Fathers. Her subsequent demise- the 'prostitute' image- was the first step in denying the possibility of a married Jesus. Oddly, most ancient pagan gods were married and sired children. Male dominance of the church would not be helped by such a situation with Jesus and therefore, Jesus 'remained unmarried.' It seems to me that a married Jesus, wife, son, would be quite a great model for us humans. The majority of us do get married and have children. Why would we deny that for him? What purpose does it serve to have a 'chaste' Jesus? Nonsense. If he's 'one of us, then he's one of us.' A family tomb with mother, father, wife, children, and brothers seems quite logical and normal to me.
posted by liberal_dem at 10:23 AM on Mar 5, 2007
microdot said...
I'm sure it was one of Discovery Channels best rated films ever!
Right up there with the documentary on Atlantis.
I almost hate to ask but my naughty nature is forcing me to...
Barb, did you watch it?
12:46 PM EST
Barb said...
No, I had a choir practice. After that, I can't even remember what I watched on tv last night--something. --probably flipped channels in vain search of something interesting. Didn't know when this creative revisionist history was airing and wasn't looking for it.
What an imagination the revisionist historians have --yet --not so creative, just the sort of thing any skeptic could conceive. At least SOME of the gospel accounts which spend a lot of paper space detailing the resurrection of Christ and things he did and said afterward --were written in the first century --not in the 4th and 5th when an unmarried, celibate, resurrected Jesus served the purpose of the church in the Gospel according to LD/TV.
As you said, there wasn't a need for Jesus to be unmarried --from the standpoint of pagan cultures whose deities were VERY human in all ways -- there wasn't a need for Jesus to be resurrected IN ORDER to have a world religion with power and influence --take the married Mohammad and Buddha.
But by the Creator's revealed plan, there was a need for man's sins to be atoned for so he could regain immortality--because God had made man in His own image, longing for fellowship with us --forever. We are the apple of His eye called to "run the race set before us for the prize of the high calling of Christ Jesus."
Newsweek suggested that it was unlikely that Jesus' poor family would be buried in the location of this tomb. In fact, there was no family plot so Jesus was laid to rest in a donated tomb owned by a wealthy man.
Any craftsman in the early centuries (maybe even recent --can make forgeries that fool experts)and could have made these ossuaries hoping for some financial gain--or hoping to debunk the Bible. Also, the names were common to the era and could have been any other family's tomb.
Moreoever, the followers of Jesus just wanted to save their own skins and were hiding out, dejected; Peter had denied knowing Jesus during the trial period --these men were not a brave lot --until transformed by their association with a resurrected God/man. The Resurrection was the turning point for the disciples --the event which birthed the church --whose central message was "christ, crucified, risen, and coming again." Because that's what they witnessed --along with His promise that He would return.
The Resurrection of Christ with a promise of salvation for all who believe is the greatest and best news in all of human history.
All that is said in a film like this and in your report is vain speculation, suggestions, no hard facts--which, however, will mislead many away from the truth --a damnable offense.
1:25 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
What an imagination the revisionist historians have
Would that be to a greater or lesser degree than the writers and scribes of the canonical Gospels?
2:26 PM EST
Barb said...
The gospel writers were THERE --no imagination required --just recording.
The revisionists are speculators only.
3:56 PM EST
microdot said...
So the bible was concieved word for inalterable word, exactly as the document you interpret so literally almost 2000 years ago?
What of the discovery of the Essenes scriptures, hidden in a cave since that time which vary wildly with the approved modern bible translations?
Personally, I think a lot of the History Channel stuff is junk history.
They recently referred to the entire Dark Ages as Europes Godless 400 years. In other words from the fall of Rome to the First Crusade.
Of course, I also think that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are flashes in the pan in the long view of religion and mankind. The reign of the gods of Egypt held sway for almost 8,000 years.
There are a lot of nutty sects, the Catholics and the Mormons...do you know anything about Mormon theology and history? Space gods coming to earth from other planets...Really, I was curious enough to want to know what exactly the Mormons believed and boy I wasn't disappointed when I found out! The entire history...Joseph Smith being a preacher in upstate New York who got a little too friendly with his female congregation (sound familiar?) he was run out of town with his sacred gold tablets...in reality hammered sheets of pewter from an old tea service. Ending up on Fox Island off the coast of Traverse City, Michigan where his followers polygamous lifestyle and attempts at converting the Irish Catholic Fishing community provoked a massacre with some of the Mormons escaping with their lives...culminating in the schism of the church...the church of Latter Day Saints and the Mormons and Joseph Smiths Religious Police State in Utah...read some of the early accounts of those who dared to defy him!
I also have been reading and researching the evolution of American Fundamentalism from storefront scams and tent revivals to radio glamour preachers of the 30's and 40's to the big business it has become today....
As I said there are some things that are much older than the religions of the west, there is the wisdom of the East, the Tao which says that when something becomes so big ands swollen with pride, it will destroy itself.
4:27 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
The gospel writers were THERE
Oh, what ignorance. You don't really believe...
Oh never mind.
4:35 PM EST
Don said...
Muslims believe that the Koran is a word-for-word transcript of God's word as spoken to Muhammed through the angel Gabriel. Wasn't Mohammed equally "THERE", just as much so as the authors of the Gospels?
If not, on what basis can we distinguish the two? Who are the false witnesses? Why are the authors of the Gospels contained in the Bible any more or less credible than the authors of the Koran, or the gnostic codices? Or the authors of the Greek epic cycle?
5:26 PM EST
Chris Rosebrough said...
Liberal dem this must be your lucky day. How would you like to hear a a comprehensive and scholarly rebuttal of the film’s evidence from the point a view of a conservative Biblical literalist? I'd love to know what you think you can find it at ExtremeTheology.com.
8:00 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
Well, Chris, to be perfectly frank, no. I've heard all of the biblical spin, bob and weave that I can tolerate.
It all comes down to personal belief, not facts or data. I'm comfortable with what I wrote in this article while others are comfortable with their own interpretations.
Nothing will be 'proved' one way or the other. My objective is to open the door to new possibilities.
I'm satisfied and I hope the person at the other end of the link is as well.
I've always enjoyed reading of the humanity of Jesus, his dealings with the authority figures and the poor folks too. He spell-bounds both not by some deistic magic, but rather by being a person who speaks in terms of grand postulates like the many we studied and argued in the philosophy classes I took at the university.
He lived a full but short life and what he did and said during that time is enough for me; I need no risen 'lord' nor ascended 'master' to enhance his humanity.
As I, too, am human, we share that connection, not any supernatural, transcendence. My time on earth is what matters to me and his life has portrayed the model for all of us to follow: love one another.
Whether he is up there at the left or right hand of God is of little value to me down here in Northwest Ohio. He may be surrounded by 'hosts of angels' but I am surrounded by hosts of human beings.
He can take care of them and I'll do what i can down here.
9:35 PM EST
Barb said...
Interesting , LD, that you believe in the human Jesus --in that part of the accounts --so why don't you believe it when the writers go on to tell you about his miracles, resurrection and what He said afterwards? There were many witnesses --not just one man's claim to have seen a risen Jesus.
I also think the story of St Paul is very compelling to faith in Christ. He was a persecutor of Christians delivering them to their deaths --until he was blinded by a light on the Road to Damascus --and Jesus' voice spoke to Him--and told Him where to go to receive back His sight --after which He could say with authority and double meaning, "I once was blind but now I see."
Paul was completely changed by that experience. Encountering Christ still changes people today.
Read ACTS ch. 9 -- There were multiple witnesses to Paul's blindness and his experience on the road --and God told a man named Ananias to find Paul and follow directions so his sight would be restored. It's a wonderful story --with witnesses who traveled with Paul and also heard the voice.
Joseph Smith had just his own narrative of an angel visitation --and his life didn't produce Godly fruit. Any religion that departs from the Bible and adds to it and speculates wildly, claiming authoritative knowledge about Heaven beyond what the Bible says --saying our souls pre-existed, etc. as Mormons teach --those religions were founded by false prophets.
but Christianity was founded by a man that MOST people still admire for His life and teachings--though some dare to be sacriligious (like Conan the other night) to their peril. As Pilate said, people today say of Christ, "I can find no fault with this man."
Mohammad had his Gabriel visitation but he is the only witness to it and there was no righteous fruit to his life or ministry--and no healings and no resurrection. It is not a religion of love but one started by a wolf in sheep's clothing --whose followers would behead me for saying so. Look at the mess of radical Islam and all the bombings around the world.They can justify it in these heavenly writings received by mohammad. In his defense, HE was possibly genuinely spiritually deceived, believing in his revelation --perhaps an unwitting channel for something diabolical--because he twisted the revelation about Christ --and said Judas or a body-double was crucified instead --that Christ was assumed into Heaven rather than resurrected from the grave. And that he Mohammad is the greatest prophet, greater than Christ.
Christianity is the religion of the eye witnesses who saw the miracles --who saw Jesus on the cross --and after death in His resurrected body. It's not one man's account or writing --not even Jesus' writing about himself --it's not one man's revelation. His coming was predicted --read the pre-Christian Isaiah 53: 5 & 6 (the whole chapter actually) about the one "who was wounded for our transgressions." "who bore the iniquity of us all."
Jesus said at the Passover Feast before His crucifixion, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."
The witnesses preached, "Christ, crucified, risen, and coming again."
I assume, Microdot, you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls? I don't think there is any contradiction to scripture in them, is there? they just are NOT scriptures. I believe they have been an aid in translation --for the linguists of ancient languages who have done Bible translations.
As for who will be taking care of whom in eternity, LD --Jesus will judge sinners and forgiven sinners on a Judgment Day. Like it or not, He will deal with you. "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
12:50 PM EST
Barb said...
You say, Microdot,that the Egyptians and their religions existed for 8000 years --but no longer. Doesn't Abraham's life occur during those 8000 years --of course --and it is through him that the fallen world will start to hear from their Creator again --actually Melchizadek predates Abraham and is referred to as a true prophet of God who confirms Abraham's position as the father of a nation that will eventually bring light to the Gentiles. A new temple will be built on the foundation of the Jewish prophets and the Christian apostles --with Christ as the cornerstone --and the new temple will house the Spirit of God in the living stones, the believers --the Body of Christ.
1:03 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
She still doesn't get it, does she? Oh well, there is room enough for the ignorant too.
1:19 PM EST
Don said...
"...you believe in the human Jesus --in that part of the accounts --so why don't you believe it when the writers go on to tell you about his miracles, resurrection and what He said afterwards..."
For pretty much the same reason I believe that St. Nicholas was a real man who lived in 4th century, but do not believe that he currently resides at the North Pole, and possesses magical powers.
People lie, exaggerate, misunderstand, etc. Sorry, but I am not so stupid or naive to believe an "eyewitness" simply because a person claims to be an eyewitness. Just because the Gospels are written in such a way as to suggest the authors were eyewitnesses does not make it so. In ANY work of fiction, an author writes as if witnessing the events described.
Even if the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, how might they have been altered by subsequent copyings and translations? Even if the original authors had the best of intentions, the books could have been significantly altered over the course of 2,000 years. Maybe they had the wool pulled over their eyes, just like Mohammed.
1:58 PM EST
Agnostic and logical said...
I really liked the documentary, not so much the debate. I understand names are common. My parent's and my name are very common and I know a couple of families in my town with the same names. Is it a coincidence? well, assuming that we have common names I would say no. BUT, I have two brothers, and there are more siblings in the other two families that makes each of the family basically unique. In that tomb not all the names were so common and they are the ones that gives more credibility to the documentary.
The Christian church has made it own interpretation of the bible, which does not seems to be the same interpretation during the 300 years, and it has been used as a tool to control the population and governments. If you carefully read the bible there are many different interpretations, which have to be put into historical context with the help of archaeological and scientific evidence (and a bit of common sense). The church tries not to include these two elements, treating them as tabues, because they would negativelly affect the basis of what we, today, know as the christian church. The church doesn't like the documentary because they are scared of the potential truth. And the church's followers are so brain-washed that they do what the church says, without even considering that all the dots in the documentary finding seem to connect. This connection or "coincidence" is not a reason to discredit the validity of the documentary but it is the reason to keep finding more evidence that that tumb is in fact the real tomb of Jesus. It would be interesting if they could find the bones and try to do DNA analysis to really confirm the family tree of the different individuals found in that tomb. Also, at the end of the documentary, when they enter the tomb there are some inscriptions on the walls that may say something relevant. Just lets give them a chance to keep investigating and let's use a bit of common sense and make valid comments only if we are well informed. People talk about the bible without reading it, talk about history understanding the historical context.
2:18 PM EST
Barb said...
They found these things in the 1980's --so why haven't they interpreted the writings on the walls by now?
Common or uncommon names --you'd take the word of someone on what names were common in those days among the Jewish people --rather than the word of 4 gospel writers --not all of whom were eye witnesses but at least 2 or 3 were --matt, a tax collector, mark and John, I believe --and Luke, a physician, was an eyewitness to much of the book of Acts and did research for his gospel account, talking with eye witnesses.
The New Testament is simply the work of MANY writers --and not one Mohammad. It is not the writings of Christ himself blowing His own horn --but the account of those with Him.
Yet, you guys will get all excited about some old bone boxes that have some names the same as people in Jesus' family. For all you know, this was an early Christian family who named their kids after Jesus and HIS family. Just like all the Matthews, Joshuas, Davids, Johns and others of Biblical names today in Christian (and other) families. It takes a lot MORE faith to believe in the authenticity of these boxes with a few names on them--than it does to believe in the VOLUME of record-keeping about Jesus. The body disappeared though it was under Roman guard, People! You think it is going to show up 20 centuries later in a bone box with the rest of the family? I don't think so. Conspiracy theorists would sooner think the Christians would destroy such a box and the bones --and the Jews would have considered such a find to be proof that Jesus did not resurrect --and would have been glad to publicize the box's existance in the first century. No way does such a find get preserved in the family tomb of Christ's poor relatives.
I believe with the doubting thomas --who had to see the nailprints in his hands. He is risen! he is risen indeed!
5:08 PM EST
microdot said...
Oh yes, I forgot, Abraham lived for 8000 years, silly of me. Did they use dog years back then?
And yes the dead sea scrolls contain a lot of radical variations from the modern translations of the bible and there are another set of scrolls discovered even more recently.
I will accept that there was someone named Jesus or a person resembling him who lived in or about the Aramic speaking region of what is now called Israel about 2000 or so years ago and he was very good at marketing.
5:12 PM EST
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the author.
5:23 PM EST
Don said...
"The New Testament is simply the work of MANY writers --and not one Mohammad."
Actually, Muslims believe Mohammad transcribed the Koran directly from God. Right from the diety Himself (if we assume Gabriel was a reliable mouthpiece). Isn't there less possibility of error that way, rather than having a bunch of people provide ex post facto recollection?
"It is not the writings of Christ himself blowing His own horn..."
Good grief, Barb...
If writings were discovered that appeared to be written by Jesus Christ himself, would you really be down on him for "blowing his own horn"? I'd much rather hear from Jesus first hand than any second-hand witness.
"For all you know, this was an early Christian family who named their kids after Jesus and HIS family."
A reasonable speculation. If an anthropologist made such a comment, though, we should denounce it as "blah, blah, blah". Right?
I guess speculation is OK when questioning the other side's position.
5:25 PM EST
microdot said...
was it something i said?
3:56 AM EST
Barb said...
A religious leader who writes his own story and claims unique revelation directly from God --needs a little corroboration from others, i think.
Jesus had that --lots of it from the first century witnesses who produced the New Testament scriptures. The groundwork for the church was laid by prophecy in the Old Testament as in Isaiah 53 --and by Christ's miracles and teachings --and ultimately his death and resurrection.
Jesus' life is credible because He did NOT write about Himself --except as part of the God-head, the Trinity, the work of the Holy Spirit inspiring and protecting the writings.
I would be glad if we had writings from the Pen of Jesus in addition to what we already have. As it is, we have parables and teachings that even a child can understand. And a record of miracles with the teachings that paved the way for faith in Him by people like us, who were not eye witnesses.
The Good news is clear --that "while we were yet sinners, christ died for us." and He conquored the grave as only Deity could.
6:00 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
and He conquored the grave as only Deity could.
Several Deities 'conquered' the grave, if you care to look back on religious beliefs.
By the way, what is so grand about conquering the grave? Seems to me that i can't do that. However, something i can do is to follow some of his examples and incorporate them into my life.
One of my favorites is: 'love your neighbor.'
9:10 PM EST
Barb said...
Exactly --you can't do that --conquor the grave. But Jesus did it for you and said,"Because I live, you shall live also."
12:06 PM EST
Barb said...
About Abraham, Microdot --I said he was likely born during this 8000 Year era of Egyptian religions you wrote about --I didn't say he lived 8000 years --HIS RELIGION, Judaism, DID --it has survived LONGER than the Egyptians' religion. When Abraham and God were establishing the Jewish nation through whom Jesus would come --the rest of the world was committing child-sacrifice and worshiping all sorts of man-made gods in their grand temples -the ruins of which you can see today.
Meanwhile the God of Abraham was laying the foundation for an eternal temple of people in whom God would dwell, the Jews and Gentiles who make up the body of Christ - going strong to this day --despite world-wide persecution.
12:19 PM EST
Barb said...
LD, "love your neighbor" is the reason that Christians don't shut up --but keep proclaiming the "inconvenient truth." Inconvenient now, to those who don't want to make a choice --but expedient in the eternal run for those who DO choose to believe Christ.
12:29 PM EST
[Photo]
The Vitriol of the Local Left --Mudslinging in Mudville
My family and friends know I've been posting for a couple of months, comments to Liberal Democrat at Politics in Mudville. He says outrageous, scornful, untrue things about Bush and Bible-believing Christians who make up most of the Religious Right. He daily demonstrates bigotry and tries to foment fear about "social conservatives" who oppose homosexual and abortion wrongs. He even posted a lot of my comments with pictures of horse manure strewn throughout.
Therefore, it is understandable that it is rare that a conservative goes to his blog to shed some light in the darkness. I found it because someone told me he had written about me when I wrote the Blade last November. After a while, he started to censor me out of his blog. Yesterday, I thought he had relented and opened up his blog again, as I was able to post, but alas, he deleted me today. These deleted posts were not LONG comments (as mine often are), nor did they go off topic--which he and all his commenters do at times.
So here is my response to his censorship. My concern is for the vitriol (acidic, corrosive tone) when liberals DO discuss with conservatives and the censorship when they are bankrupt in ideas for rebuttal. They do it at every liberal site I have visited --scorn first and then censorship--but never dealing with the issues effectively at all. Because they can't. Yet, I don't use foul language and avoid name calling,scorn and vulgarity --which deserve censorship. I admit --I am sometimes tempted to out-clever them in insults, as I know how, but I usually refrain.
My latest post to LD:
Ah, you disppoint, LD --I thought you had grown more tolerant in a few days time. (I did say; "grown up to be more tolerant" but realized I was stooping to your level of scornful discourse. See the difference? I would be as scornful as you, when you said to a fellow scorner, "'thinking fundamentalists'? --surely, you jest!"
It would be interesting if you could focus on WHAT conservatives say --instead of on the persons--whom you've probably never met. Ad hominem attack or censorship is your only defense. Where is the debate of WHAT is said --the competition of ideas?
You don't seem to care if your blog continues to say that all right wing conservative Christians oppose stem cell research when this is not true--because you won't print me saying it is not true (we support adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research, but none on aborted fetuses and murdered "excess" embryos in labs.)
You don't care if your blog calls "the right" uniformly liars and bigots --when THAT is not the case.
You don't care that there REALLY IS no known genetic or bio cause for homosexual orientation and that it could possibly be prevented by parenting, protecting, teaching, self-control, and "right" thinking as in rejecting all sexual ideation outside hetero marriage. Also helpful to hetero orientation is cultural support for morality and normalcy, etc. instead of always celebrating the immoral and depicting it in media as good--including the pre-marital hetero-sex promoted on tv--as in "Friends," etc.
You don't seem to care if your blog generates no discussion --just a bunch of like-minded back slapping.
I'll continue to visit and see what you're up to in defamation of Bible-believing Christians and I'll continue to disagree with you on my blog --though I'm sure you and your readership won't go there because I doubt you read any conservative blogs that refute you on topic. Which is a shame --as you say of ME, you are really the ones who won't let any light in. I'm willing to hear from the dark side in order to TRY to shed light; you are not open to your opponents because, it seems, you are bankrupt in rebuttal. I understand; it IS hard to refute the Bible.
But you might consider why opposition makes you so red-faced mad! I suspect it is because of spiritual reality. If I'm right about the truth of the Bible as God's Word to mankind, with your refusal to believe Jesus was divine -and your refusal to believe the Word directs us to God's standards for right living, defining sin so we may repent, you are in trouble. In Romans 1, The Book says we are sinning if we APPROVE sin --as in homosexuality and abortion.
If you libs can't all swarm like wasps with scorn on one lonely pro-lifer like James Love here, free speech has no value to you except for yourselves. Free speech cannot be allowed if the arguments from the Right are better than yours --which they are. You say you just want to prevent any insulting speech against homosexuals --but you delete my remarks that are not even about them. And what I say about them, SHOULD be considered. If there is any way to prevent homosexual orientation in children and adolescents, and to help them be normal, we should do it.
I dare you to prove me wrong about your closed-mindedness or anything else about which we disagree--but you cannot even muster up a good rationale!!!! except for evolution; you can say, "but scientists say thus and so..." But you can't do that with homosexuality --except that the political APA has said it is not a mental illness. Maybe not, but sexual choices are still moral choices to make in one's life -- The APA ALSO can't honestly say homosexual orientation is bio-caused and inevitable --nor that homosexual acts and lifestyle are typically moral,normal or healthy with any authority or evidence.
I do encourage folks to your blog so they may see where the radical element is going in vitriol toward believers--which is the most dangerous thing about your viewpoint--the vitriol and the suppression of dissent from your view.
Liberal Democrat can be read at WWW.politicsinmudville.blogspot.com.
Therefore, it is understandable that it is rare that a conservative goes to his blog to shed some light in the darkness. I found it because someone told me he had written about me when I wrote the Blade last November. After a while, he started to censor me out of his blog. Yesterday, I thought he had relented and opened up his blog again, as I was able to post, but alas, he deleted me today. These deleted posts were not LONG comments (as mine often are), nor did they go off topic--which he and all his commenters do at times.
So here is my response to his censorship. My concern is for the vitriol (acidic, corrosive tone) when liberals DO discuss with conservatives and the censorship when they are bankrupt in ideas for rebuttal. They do it at every liberal site I have visited --scorn first and then censorship--but never dealing with the issues effectively at all. Because they can't. Yet, I don't use foul language and avoid name calling,scorn and vulgarity --which deserve censorship. I admit --I am sometimes tempted to out-clever them in insults, as I know how, but I usually refrain.
My latest post to LD:
Ah, you disppoint, LD --I thought you had grown more tolerant in a few days time. (I did say; "grown up to be more tolerant" but realized I was stooping to your level of scornful discourse. See the difference? I would be as scornful as you, when you said to a fellow scorner, "'thinking fundamentalists'? --surely, you jest!"
It would be interesting if you could focus on WHAT conservatives say --instead of on the persons--whom you've probably never met. Ad hominem attack or censorship is your only defense. Where is the debate of WHAT is said --the competition of ideas?
You don't seem to care if your blog continues to say that all right wing conservative Christians oppose stem cell research when this is not true--because you won't print me saying it is not true (we support adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research, but none on aborted fetuses and murdered "excess" embryos in labs.)
You don't care if your blog calls "the right" uniformly liars and bigots --when THAT is not the case.
You don't care that there REALLY IS no known genetic or bio cause for homosexual orientation and that it could possibly be prevented by parenting, protecting, teaching, self-control, and "right" thinking as in rejecting all sexual ideation outside hetero marriage. Also helpful to hetero orientation is cultural support for morality and normalcy, etc. instead of always celebrating the immoral and depicting it in media as good--including the pre-marital hetero-sex promoted on tv--as in "Friends," etc.
You don't seem to care if your blog generates no discussion --just a bunch of like-minded back slapping.
I'll continue to visit and see what you're up to in defamation of Bible-believing Christians and I'll continue to disagree with you on my blog --though I'm sure you and your readership won't go there because I doubt you read any conservative blogs that refute you on topic. Which is a shame --as you say of ME, you are really the ones who won't let any light in. I'm willing to hear from the dark side in order to TRY to shed light; you are not open to your opponents because, it seems, you are bankrupt in rebuttal. I understand; it IS hard to refute the Bible.
But you might consider why opposition makes you so red-faced mad! I suspect it is because of spiritual reality. If I'm right about the truth of the Bible as God's Word to mankind, with your refusal to believe Jesus was divine -and your refusal to believe the Word directs us to God's standards for right living, defining sin so we may repent, you are in trouble. In Romans 1, The Book says we are sinning if we APPROVE sin --as in homosexuality and abortion.
If you libs can't all swarm like wasps with scorn on one lonely pro-lifer like James Love here, free speech has no value to you except for yourselves. Free speech cannot be allowed if the arguments from the Right are better than yours --which they are. You say you just want to prevent any insulting speech against homosexuals --but you delete my remarks that are not even about them. And what I say about them, SHOULD be considered. If there is any way to prevent homosexual orientation in children and adolescents, and to help them be normal, we should do it.
I dare you to prove me wrong about your closed-mindedness or anything else about which we disagree--but you cannot even muster up a good rationale!!!! except for evolution; you can say, "but scientists say thus and so..." But you can't do that with homosexuality --except that the political APA has said it is not a mental illness. Maybe not, but sexual choices are still moral choices to make in one's life -- The APA ALSO can't honestly say homosexual orientation is bio-caused and inevitable --nor that homosexual acts and lifestyle are typically moral,normal or healthy with any authority or evidence.
I do encourage folks to your blog so they may see where the radical element is going in vitriol toward believers--which is the most dangerous thing about your viewpoint--the vitriol and the suppression of dissent from your view.
Liberal Democrat can be read at WWW.politicsinmudville.blogspot.com.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Andrew Sullivan vs. Barb: Whatever happened to the GOP?
"Andrew Sullivan is the editor of the New Republic and the blogmeister of The Daily Dish. Openly gay, Sullivan is a major conservative voice in U.S. politics and he is angered that his GOP party has been taken over by neoconservative Christians, especially the fundamentalist evangelicals. Sullivan states, "The new divide between the left and the right is the separation between state and church and the fusion of religion and government." He also says that he is trying to "rescue" modern U.S. political conservatism from "the current [Christian] fundamentalist supremacy" that now dominates it." Source: PoliticsinMudville.blogspot.com
_____________________________________
Liberal Democrat of Toledo says Sullivan is "an honest conservative. I can deal with the open, and honest conservative; he puts his cards on the table. As can be seen often in this blog, I have great difficulty in dealing with the so-called Christian conservative whose agenda is held between the two covers of the ancient Hebrew text."
I would ask LD, "Why is one 'whose agenda is held' in the Bible less HONEST than an Andrew Sullivan? It's not a "dishonest conservative" to whom LD objects; it IS, as he admits, the Bible Believing Christian conservative --who is no less honest just because he believes.
I had personal email correspondence a few times with Andrew Sullivan on the topic of his homosexuality. It was a cordial conversation and he does have a book on that subject as well. He is respected by conservatives because he is STILL conservative, even though he is homosexual --and he is a very bright and intellectual fellow. But he also is lost if he doesn't accept the fact that God did not create him to live with a man as he does. Like any homosexual, he was damaged in his sexual orientation, first by outside influences, and secondly, by his own choices.
His sins are no different than anyone else's. We all have sinned. The problem lies in not recognizing sin for what it is --and not believing the book--thus not repenting.
But it's not DISHONEST to put one's faith in The Book, L.D. It's not dishonest to believe that God made us male and female for HIS purposes --that we might replenish the earth. He forbade us to short-circuit our potential by having sex with our own sex.
As for the fundamentalists commandeering the Republican Party. No, the Liberals just got very licentious in their views --so that the parties were no longer similar in our definitions of morality. It used to be that a Democrat would share the same moral views as a Republican. They agreed that girls were girls and boys were boys and they should marry each other. They agreed that people ought to marry before they live together. They agreed that if they got the baby before the wedding, they had better hurry up and get married. They agreed that porn and sex clubs were bad for a community. They agreed that TV and movies shouldn't cross certain lines in nudity and foul language. They agreed that constitutional rights did not include a right to abortion. They agreed that prayer in school was a good thing, along with giving out Bibles for graduation. They agreed that the Christmas creche should be in the public square and that the Bible was a respectable book, that the Golden Rule was good for all.
So who was it, anyway, who got ahold of the DEMOCRATS? Because THEY are the ones who changed --and all the orthodox believers in God jumped the fence to the party that was still saying abortion mattered; sexuality matters; religious freedom in the public square and respect for the nation's Christian roots --matter.
_____________________________________
Liberal Democrat of Toledo says Sullivan is "an honest conservative. I can deal with the open, and honest conservative; he puts his cards on the table. As can be seen often in this blog, I have great difficulty in dealing with the so-called Christian conservative whose agenda is held between the two covers of the ancient Hebrew text."
I would ask LD, "Why is one 'whose agenda is held' in the Bible less HONEST than an Andrew Sullivan? It's not a "dishonest conservative" to whom LD objects; it IS, as he admits, the Bible Believing Christian conservative --who is no less honest just because he believes.
I had personal email correspondence a few times with Andrew Sullivan on the topic of his homosexuality. It was a cordial conversation and he does have a book on that subject as well. He is respected by conservatives because he is STILL conservative, even though he is homosexual --and he is a very bright and intellectual fellow. But he also is lost if he doesn't accept the fact that God did not create him to live with a man as he does. Like any homosexual, he was damaged in his sexual orientation, first by outside influences, and secondly, by his own choices.
His sins are no different than anyone else's. We all have sinned. The problem lies in not recognizing sin for what it is --and not believing the book--thus not repenting.
But it's not DISHONEST to put one's faith in The Book, L.D. It's not dishonest to believe that God made us male and female for HIS purposes --that we might replenish the earth. He forbade us to short-circuit our potential by having sex with our own sex.
As for the fundamentalists commandeering the Republican Party. No, the Liberals just got very licentious in their views --so that the parties were no longer similar in our definitions of morality. It used to be that a Democrat would share the same moral views as a Republican. They agreed that girls were girls and boys were boys and they should marry each other. They agreed that people ought to marry before they live together. They agreed that if they got the baby before the wedding, they had better hurry up and get married. They agreed that porn and sex clubs were bad for a community. They agreed that TV and movies shouldn't cross certain lines in nudity and foul language. They agreed that constitutional rights did not include a right to abortion. They agreed that prayer in school was a good thing, along with giving out Bibles for graduation. They agreed that the Christmas creche should be in the public square and that the Bible was a respectable book, that the Golden Rule was good for all.
So who was it, anyway, who got ahold of the DEMOCRATS? Because THEY are the ones who changed --and all the orthodox believers in God jumped the fence to the party that was still saying abortion mattered; sexuality matters; religious freedom in the public square and respect for the nation's Christian roots --matter.
Strickland and Schools --VOUCHERS FOR ALL!
Ohio's new pro-abortion governor, Strickland, actually graduated from Asbury Seminary --an evangelical school in Kentucky. He has now come out against vouchers and charter schools. I would guess without studying him further that he opposes any government funding of private schools.
There really is something unAmerican about making us pay top dollar for private (usually parochial) schools PLUS funding the often less functional public system. We did go the public school route with OUR kids because our suburban/rural district was good academically and the elementary was near our home. In those days, I had to provide the transportation when we did have our two girls in private Christian schools in pre-K through 3rd grade. That became difficult and prohibitive with 2 younger boys in tow. So we went public thereafter.
It would seem that people believe money is the key ingredient to better public schools when, in fact, the good private schools do well on less money per capita. So expensive schools are not the key. Small classrooms aren't even the key, according to Japanese schools.
Parents, student motivation, discipline and values make parochial schools good --and maybe smaller size--and maybe teachers unprotected by unions who teach as a ministry. Private schools also have the ability to kick people out for goofing off and being truant. That's why vouchers are the most American solution to educational choice--so all wanna-be good students can escape disruptive and truant peers, coming and going and never learning, who prevent good teaching.
We want a public system (we have to have one for those who would refuse to attend daily and behave in the private systems) --but every kid should have a chance to escape a bad school. That was the hope behind the charter schools and the vouchers. If charter schools are failing, that doesn't mean vouchers are a bad idea. It just may mean that the private schools who do best are benefitting greatly from the Christian beliefs shared by parents and faculty, whereas religion is restricted in publically supported charter schools.
If vouchers were available for all school choices, would Christian schools have to drop their requirements that parents be Christians? They might, and some mission-minded schools may allow open enrollment now, as Catholics do, and may be willing to drop some restrictions as long as they don't have to drop the standards for behavior, religious content and required religious activities of their schools.
The slippery slope of government's regulation with vouchers scares some--however, the G.I. Bill and Pell grants for college have been useable at any school, for years, regardless of religious admission requirements. Many Christian colleges require the signing of a statement of faith and/or conduct. Students at least are required to attend chapels and certain Bible classes whether or not students get grants in aid--and that's as it should be. Academic choice. There would be MORE mission-oriented private schools for the needy, if the government made vouchers available to all, making public schools compete for students. Public schools would work harder to survive.
March 17, 2007 12:04 PM
There really is something unAmerican about making us pay top dollar for private (usually parochial) schools PLUS funding the often less functional public system. We did go the public school route with OUR kids because our suburban/rural district was good academically and the elementary was near our home. In those days, I had to provide the transportation when we did have our two girls in private Christian schools in pre-K through 3rd grade. That became difficult and prohibitive with 2 younger boys in tow. So we went public thereafter.
It would seem that people believe money is the key ingredient to better public schools when, in fact, the good private schools do well on less money per capita. So expensive schools are not the key. Small classrooms aren't even the key, according to Japanese schools.
Parents, student motivation, discipline and values make parochial schools good --and maybe smaller size--and maybe teachers unprotected by unions who teach as a ministry. Private schools also have the ability to kick people out for goofing off and being truant. That's why vouchers are the most American solution to educational choice--so all wanna-be good students can escape disruptive and truant peers, coming and going and never learning, who prevent good teaching.
We want a public system (we have to have one for those who would refuse to attend daily and behave in the private systems) --but every kid should have a chance to escape a bad school. That was the hope behind the charter schools and the vouchers. If charter schools are failing, that doesn't mean vouchers are a bad idea. It just may mean that the private schools who do best are benefitting greatly from the Christian beliefs shared by parents and faculty, whereas religion is restricted in publically supported charter schools.
If vouchers were available for all school choices, would Christian schools have to drop their requirements that parents be Christians? They might, and some mission-minded schools may allow open enrollment now, as Catholics do, and may be willing to drop some restrictions as long as they don't have to drop the standards for behavior, religious content and required religious activities of their schools.
The slippery slope of government's regulation with vouchers scares some--however, the G.I. Bill and Pell grants for college have been useable at any school, for years, regardless of religious admission requirements. Many Christian colleges require the signing of a statement of faith and/or conduct. Students at least are required to attend chapels and certain Bible classes whether or not students get grants in aid--and that's as it should be. Academic choice. There would be MORE mission-oriented private schools for the needy, if the government made vouchers available to all, making public schools compete for students. Public schools would work harder to survive.
March 17, 2007 12:04 PM
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Father to Daughter on the GOP ; The Lazy Law Student vs. the Doctor; Malpractice vs. Malfeasance
Conversation Borrowed from www.rightwingtoledo.blogspot.com.
"A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth & she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, & lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican Party."
posted by Right Wing Toledo at 9:43 AM on Mar 9, 2007
kurt said...
Be it known RWT, that as an undergraduate student, and even as a law student, I have never worked my ass off to establish my grades. I find your example moot and irrelevant, for I find that anyone that truly has to work for As and Bs is an idiot. I've never had to work for my As and Bs. Maybe you did, but I find anything less than a B a failure, with very little work. I work for what I want to work for. And when I do, I'm unstoppable. I can get a B sleeping, in anything.
March 10, 2007 1:35 AM
Right Wing Toledo said...
Kurt,
Perhaps you should look up analogy in the dictionary. I think you’ve missed the point of this post.
As to working for good grades, perhaps you were a beneficiary of grade inflation. As a graduate TA, I was told never to fail a student. When I was teaching, I was witness to it every day. You’re right, it isn’t too hard to get good grades today, in the primary/secondary or college settings – and it’s had an effect on how smart the students we’re putting out today. But, that’s another post for another day.
March 12, 2007 4:57 AM
-Sepp said...
Well Kurt, my friend's kid is in college and isn't quite as astute as you are nor, does he make it there every day. Why don't YOU go in and do his work for him in the areas he's lacking in and, go on the days he cuts classes for him. Hell, since you can sleep thru classes it shouldn't put any real damper on you life!
I consider anything less than carrying your own weight as failure! Liberals always seem to forget that "fairness and equality" also means that everyone contributes something more than a burden for someone else to carry.
March 12, 2007 8:30 AM
Barb said...
Loved this post about the daughter.
Public school teachers have seen this attitude of students that follows many of them into the well-paid union ranks and into the low- wage jobs. (Not to indict everyone of these with a broad brush, however.)
It's annoying --this sense of entitlement by people who did not delay gratification in the pursuit of possessions or pleasures --who would not study --who now complain about such things as low wages and the high cost of health care, etc.
Med students are among those who have to work THEIR tails off --almost all of them, Kurt.
And then the lawyers like yourself, an acknowledged playboy, sue the pants off of the hard-working docs as John Edwards did --too often on cases that weren't settled fairly but out of jealousy of the haves by the have- nots on the juries.
the lawyer, in effect, and the patient --are making money on the doctor's altruistic work and lifetime of hard study to get into and out of med school. Would-be- Pres. Edwards, e.g., blamed certain birth defects on docs --which birth defects are now PROVEN to occur in the first trimester, not during delivery --not the doctor's fault. He caused a shortage of insurers and thus, docs, in his state.
A certain ambulance-chasing, highly advertised law firm got 80,000 (settled out of court after suing for a million) for a young guy that was like Audrey in RW's blog--who would not take care of his diabetes --who drank and ate profusely- and never complied with doctors --who had been dismissed by at least 2 doctors for non-compliance --he tried to sue 3 docs and since 2 had dismissed the patient for non-compliance, the first dr. was blamed for not remembering at the fellow's visits for colds, etc. that the fellow had tested positive for diabetes --because the guy never got his glucometer and never came in for diabetic follow up -and wasn't on the doctor's radar as a diabetic -- the patient had been dismissed by the 2 other doctors later for non-compliance.
The first of the 3 sued doctors was in error for not reviewing the guy's first visit from long ago when he came in later for other things -- which old chart page would have told him the fellow was diabetic AND non compliant. but in his high volume practice, often behind schedule, the dr. didn't notice and document the non-compliance of this patient at every visit. Most diabetics are responsible and come in for the condition. The pt. didn't come in often enough, such that the doctor KNEW the patient. The pt. was young and not one who would be routinely screened for diabetes and his complaints were unrelated--and he never brought it up because he didn't want to change his habits, knew he had never gotten the glucometer and returned a week later as directed after the first visit. He started to sue doctors when his condition became irreversible.
The dr should've won in a fair court but wasn't sure he could out-slick the verbage of a john edwards-type from ambulance-chasing law firm, so the lawyers settled. The doctor's lawyer wanted him to fudge and say he told the guy verbally at every visit to get in for the diabetic care --but the honest doc admitted that he didn't realize, seeing the young man so seldom for other things, that he was once diagnosed diabetic --
Each year, the doctors spend more and more time and money practicing defensive medicine because of lawyers --documenting the non-compliance of patients and pursuing them by computer generated mail and phone to remind them to take care of themselves --and documenting the pursuit of the non-compliant patient who wants to blame someone else for his non-compliance.
I believe in being our brothers' keeper to a point--but gee! there oughtta be a law! tort reform!
March 15, 2007 12:22 PM
"A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth & she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, & lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, " Welcome to the Republican Party."
posted by Right Wing Toledo at 9:43 AM on Mar 9, 2007
kurt said...
Be it known RWT, that as an undergraduate student, and even as a law student, I have never worked my ass off to establish my grades. I find your example moot and irrelevant, for I find that anyone that truly has to work for As and Bs is an idiot. I've never had to work for my As and Bs. Maybe you did, but I find anything less than a B a failure, with very little work. I work for what I want to work for. And when I do, I'm unstoppable. I can get a B sleeping, in anything.
March 10, 2007 1:35 AM
Right Wing Toledo said...
Kurt,
Perhaps you should look up analogy in the dictionary. I think you’ve missed the point of this post.
As to working for good grades, perhaps you were a beneficiary of grade inflation. As a graduate TA, I was told never to fail a student. When I was teaching, I was witness to it every day. You’re right, it isn’t too hard to get good grades today, in the primary/secondary or college settings – and it’s had an effect on how smart the students we’re putting out today. But, that’s another post for another day.
March 12, 2007 4:57 AM
-Sepp said...
Well Kurt, my friend's kid is in college and isn't quite as astute as you are nor, does he make it there every day. Why don't YOU go in and do his work for him in the areas he's lacking in and, go on the days he cuts classes for him. Hell, since you can sleep thru classes it shouldn't put any real damper on you life!
I consider anything less than carrying your own weight as failure! Liberals always seem to forget that "fairness and equality" also means that everyone contributes something more than a burden for someone else to carry.
March 12, 2007 8:30 AM
Barb said...
Loved this post about the daughter.
Public school teachers have seen this attitude of students that follows many of them into the well-paid union ranks and into the low- wage jobs. (Not to indict everyone of these with a broad brush, however.)
It's annoying --this sense of entitlement by people who did not delay gratification in the pursuit of possessions or pleasures --who would not study --who now complain about such things as low wages and the high cost of health care, etc.
Med students are among those who have to work THEIR tails off --almost all of them, Kurt.
And then the lawyers like yourself, an acknowledged playboy, sue the pants off of the hard-working docs as John Edwards did --too often on cases that weren't settled fairly but out of jealousy of the haves by the have- nots on the juries.
the lawyer, in effect, and the patient --are making money on the doctor's altruistic work and lifetime of hard study to get into and out of med school. Would-be- Pres. Edwards, e.g., blamed certain birth defects on docs --which birth defects are now PROVEN to occur in the first trimester, not during delivery --not the doctor's fault. He caused a shortage of insurers and thus, docs, in his state.
A certain ambulance-chasing, highly advertised law firm got 80,000 (settled out of court after suing for a million) for a young guy that was like Audrey in RW's blog--who would not take care of his diabetes --who drank and ate profusely- and never complied with doctors --who had been dismissed by at least 2 doctors for non-compliance --he tried to sue 3 docs and since 2 had dismissed the patient for non-compliance, the first dr. was blamed for not remembering at the fellow's visits for colds, etc. that the fellow had tested positive for diabetes --because the guy never got his glucometer and never came in for diabetic follow up -and wasn't on the doctor's radar as a diabetic -- the patient had been dismissed by the 2 other doctors later for non-compliance.
The first of the 3 sued doctors was in error for not reviewing the guy's first visit from long ago when he came in later for other things -- which old chart page would have told him the fellow was diabetic AND non compliant. but in his high volume practice, often behind schedule, the dr. didn't notice and document the non-compliance of this patient at every visit. Most diabetics are responsible and come in for the condition. The pt. didn't come in often enough, such that the doctor KNEW the patient. The pt. was young and not one who would be routinely screened for diabetes and his complaints were unrelated--and he never brought it up because he didn't want to change his habits, knew he had never gotten the glucometer and returned a week later as directed after the first visit. He started to sue doctors when his condition became irreversible.
The dr should've won in a fair court but wasn't sure he could out-slick the verbage of a john edwards-type from ambulance-chasing law firm, so the lawyers settled. The doctor's lawyer wanted him to fudge and say he told the guy verbally at every visit to get in for the diabetic care --but the honest doc admitted that he didn't realize, seeing the young man so seldom for other things, that he was once diagnosed diabetic --
Each year, the doctors spend more and more time and money practicing defensive medicine because of lawyers --documenting the non-compliance of patients and pursuing them by computer generated mail and phone to remind them to take care of themselves --and documenting the pursuit of the non-compliant patient who wants to blame someone else for his non-compliance.
I believe in being our brothers' keeper to a point--but gee! there oughtta be a law! tort reform!
March 15, 2007 12:22 PM
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Christians are Coming!!! All over the world!
From the Dallas Morning News of Saturday, March 10, 2007:
"If you consider the rancor within the worldwide Anglican Communion as only being about church politics or gay rights, you'll miss the larger point. Like nearly all mainline Protestant denominations, Episcopalians in Texas and their Anglican colleagues abroad are indeed facing extreme tensions over homosexuality. But the broader question is why this debate is occurring — and what the why means for global politics.
"Penn State historian Philip Jenkins has written widely about the why. As he recently told Dallas audiences, Christianity is experiencing explosive and historically consequential growth in Latin America, Asia and Africa — the so-called Global South. Brazilian Christians, for example, are among the world's largest buyers of Bibles. Africa is home to half the world's Anglicans, and Nigeria alone will soon have more Anglicans than England. There is power in numbers, and Third World Christians are starting to exercise it.
"Westerners usually err in seeing global Christianity through the lens of our own culture war. But the religious beliefs of Global South Christians, while prescribing a conservative sexual morality, also can lead them into taking economically liberal stances — including radical demands for better health care, schools and jobs. Being largely poor themselves, they take seriously Jesus' admonitions about treating the poor fairly.
"That's why leftist Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has strong support among Brazilian Pentecostals. And that's why leaders like him can draw on an army of the Christian faithful to affect economic policies like trade deals and debt reduction.
"On foreign policy, booming African Christianity is facing potentially violent conflict with resurgent African Islam, complicating the war on terror for America.
"Politicians, policy-makers and other elites sometimes see religion as a hobby for believers.
"For the devout, though, it's not a garnish to life; it is life. If the candidates prepping for the White House miss how the new Christianity is fundamentally changing the Third World, they could get blindsided on the global stage. So could we all."
______________________________________
This is great news --to hear that the world is being won to Jesus Christ and the Word of God.
Social justice starts with freedom of speech and religion and equal opportunities for all--starting with education and/or job training for all.
Socially conservative Christians in the U.S. will agree with this. That's why Geo. Bush has spent our money on AIDS in Africa and why he wants to see some kind of remedy for Mexican labor in the U.S. and for those who are illegal here but have their children and grandchildren here by birth --thus, citizens making a contribution and speaking English very well. Compassionate conservatism.
Liberal Democrat of Politics in Mudville website persists in seeing social conservatives as unsympathic to the poor, unconcerned for social justice for the needy and for environmental concerns.
The liberal talking heads think the Democrats can pull some of the evangelicals on board with religious talk about issues they have in common with the liberal Christians like Jim Wallis --but as the editorial says, Christianity is a way of life and not a hobby or a garnish for the devout.
And that means that the new Christians in the world, eagerly devouring scripture as the "very words of God," will also notice that homosexual acts and abortion don't sync with The Good Book --any more than does systemic, gov't-forced tyranny, poverty, corruption, slavery, porn, prostitution, abuse of the body by drugs and alcohol, or proven harm to the environment.
Talking heads in media are trying to say that evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians have finally seen the light --and are possibly abandoning their concern for abortion and gay rights to focus on the environment and social justice for the poor. No, if there is any change, we are learning to merely broaden our political emphases to include the concerns of liberals when they are legitimate concerns. The liberal response will be to embrace the language of Christianity, use the bully pulpit, to attack the GOP as being unsympathetic to the poor and the environment.
Global warming seems to still be controversial --but if proven, the Christians would certainly not oppose a remedy. Evangelicals have always been concerned about poverty, tyranny, and AIDS. But they have MORE concerns than the liberals --because they see the relationship between sin and disease, sin and poverty.
Evangelicals have also always supported healthcare --not via socialism, but through education, charity, and missions. Insurance programs are a kind of inclusive welfare when everybody contributes and benefits as needed. Government healthcare institutions, however, tend to be inefficient and limited in quality because they protect ineptitude.
Why do we think Pastor Rick Warren of the famous mega church, Saddleback Church, hosted Obama on the subject of AIDS missions in Africa? Because the Evangelicals support a compassionate government and healthcare. And, more importantly, I suspect he wanted to expose Obama to evangelicals and the Gospel itself and Warren's very effective and Biblical view on the purpose for our lives.
Fact is: the evangelicals who vote GOP have been way ahead of Dems for years on social issues INCLUDING the poor here and abroad --they are the ones running the missions sponsoring most of the private (not gov't) relief agencies. Granted some more socially liberal churches also have missions. An evangelical Mega church locally is Cedar Creek which has days where they invite widows and single moms to bring in their cars for repairs and oil changes, etc. and the church men with these skills work on them. That church also has a huge winter coat and gloves mission for children. Our church has ladies who knit baby items for the needy.
It's the evangelicals like my church who take a team to the Katrina damage in Miss. and help build a sturdy house on stilts for an elderly lady --who cleaned out a moldy, soggy Head Start school and were able to salvage it. who are going again in the fall. who support a mission boarding school for troubled or needy youth --who sponsor food pantries and benevolence funds for the needy. My denomination has started hospitals in Africa and India and has schools in various countries.
In the U.S., churches of all kinds minister to loads of people on welfare, single moms, needy children, etc., helping them with practical needs. Their youth rake leaves for the poor elderly and do other helps on their properties. They minister to the poor, the ill and dying and the bereaved with food. they provide transportation, help with resumes, tutor, etc.
The PERSONAL touch and relationship with the poor is done most effectively by believers --who do know their Bible and thus know what Christ said we should do for the poor. And they know they are no better than the poor --because we are all equal at the foot of the cross.
Not that we ALL couldn't be doing more for the needy....
I personally wouldn't know where to start to advocate for the needy through gov't bureaucracy--but I know what to do for a few people personally. The problem is that gov't DOES seem to be so big and unweildy as to not be all that effective in how they spend the monies for disaster relief, etc. I hear that the south is still a mess. Maybe they should take the old chain gangs out from the prisons to do some work down there because they haven't anything better to do.
I gather that Democrats hope to take up the poverty cause with RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AND MOTIVATION--and try to persuade us that the GOP is lagging in this area compared to the democratic party --that Dems are more Christian in charity than the conservative Christians who ALSO care about those "narrow agenda" moral issues.
But it was Jesus Himself who said that "a man should leave his parents and cleave to a wife." Hetero marriage is the biblical standard-- "male and female created He them" because it is "not good for man to be alone." God tells us to "be fruitful and multiply."
Jesus also said that "whoever harms these little ones, were better a millstone were hung about his neck and he be cast into the sea." (Abortion certainly harms the little ones.) The Bible also says "thou shalt not murder."
Greed and the grass is greener syndrome affect everyone --both parties, but democrat solutions tend to just drive the whole economy downward because their agenda is to foment a class warfare between the unworking poor and those who do work and chafe under the ever-higher taxes at all levels. When they tax higher, the working people and retired tighten their purse strings trying to hang on through retirement. They downsize their businesses and don't hire if the gov't taxes them into oblivion. They raise prices trying to keep ahead of the gov't imposed higher wages and taxes.
Democratic economic solutions are just counter-productive. In their drive to make the rich poorer, they make everyone poorer. The GOP believes that jobs will be more available for more people if we don't tax small businesses or sue big businesses out of the market.
If the Dems think they can win the Christian vote by calling themselves more religiously charitable --while championing (or being quiet about) the causes of gay marriage and abortion --they misunderstand the evangelicals.
Christian values are not either/or --either charity and environment OR pro-life and traditional marriage. All four are important and evangelicals already know this and consistently try to do something about them. My Christian alma mater, e.g., has a degree or a major in environmental science.
However, while the liberals continue to focus on the environment (however hypocritically as in Hollywood)and their Robin Hood view of economics; we'll continue to focus on preserving fetal life and hetero marriage while they oppose us on these issues. Because strong families are basic to our national and spiritual health.
And because, God has spoken. All righteousness is to be defended.
"If you consider the rancor within the worldwide Anglican Communion as only being about church politics or gay rights, you'll miss the larger point. Like nearly all mainline Protestant denominations, Episcopalians in Texas and their Anglican colleagues abroad are indeed facing extreme tensions over homosexuality. But the broader question is why this debate is occurring — and what the why means for global politics.
"Penn State historian Philip Jenkins has written widely about the why. As he recently told Dallas audiences, Christianity is experiencing explosive and historically consequential growth in Latin America, Asia and Africa — the so-called Global South. Brazilian Christians, for example, are among the world's largest buyers of Bibles. Africa is home to half the world's Anglicans, and Nigeria alone will soon have more Anglicans than England. There is power in numbers, and Third World Christians are starting to exercise it.
"Westerners usually err in seeing global Christianity through the lens of our own culture war. But the religious beliefs of Global South Christians, while prescribing a conservative sexual morality, also can lead them into taking economically liberal stances — including radical demands for better health care, schools and jobs. Being largely poor themselves, they take seriously Jesus' admonitions about treating the poor fairly.
"That's why leftist Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has strong support among Brazilian Pentecostals. And that's why leaders like him can draw on an army of the Christian faithful to affect economic policies like trade deals and debt reduction.
"On foreign policy, booming African Christianity is facing potentially violent conflict with resurgent African Islam, complicating the war on terror for America.
"Politicians, policy-makers and other elites sometimes see religion as a hobby for believers.
"For the devout, though, it's not a garnish to life; it is life. If the candidates prepping for the White House miss how the new Christianity is fundamentally changing the Third World, they could get blindsided on the global stage. So could we all."
______________________________________
This is great news --to hear that the world is being won to Jesus Christ and the Word of God.
Social justice starts with freedom of speech and religion and equal opportunities for all--starting with education and/or job training for all.
Socially conservative Christians in the U.S. will agree with this. That's why Geo. Bush has spent our money on AIDS in Africa and why he wants to see some kind of remedy for Mexican labor in the U.S. and for those who are illegal here but have their children and grandchildren here by birth --thus, citizens making a contribution and speaking English very well. Compassionate conservatism.
Liberal Democrat of Politics in Mudville website persists in seeing social conservatives as unsympathic to the poor, unconcerned for social justice for the needy and for environmental concerns.
The liberal talking heads think the Democrats can pull some of the evangelicals on board with religious talk about issues they have in common with the liberal Christians like Jim Wallis --but as the editorial says, Christianity is a way of life and not a hobby or a garnish for the devout.
And that means that the new Christians in the world, eagerly devouring scripture as the "very words of God," will also notice that homosexual acts and abortion don't sync with The Good Book --any more than does systemic, gov't-forced tyranny, poverty, corruption, slavery, porn, prostitution, abuse of the body by drugs and alcohol, or proven harm to the environment.
Talking heads in media are trying to say that evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians have finally seen the light --and are possibly abandoning their concern for abortion and gay rights to focus on the environment and social justice for the poor. No, if there is any change, we are learning to merely broaden our political emphases to include the concerns of liberals when they are legitimate concerns. The liberal response will be to embrace the language of Christianity, use the bully pulpit, to attack the GOP as being unsympathetic to the poor and the environment.
Global warming seems to still be controversial --but if proven, the Christians would certainly not oppose a remedy. Evangelicals have always been concerned about poverty, tyranny, and AIDS. But they have MORE concerns than the liberals --because they see the relationship between sin and disease, sin and poverty.
Evangelicals have also always supported healthcare --not via socialism, but through education, charity, and missions. Insurance programs are a kind of inclusive welfare when everybody contributes and benefits as needed. Government healthcare institutions, however, tend to be inefficient and limited in quality because they protect ineptitude.
Why do we think Pastor Rick Warren of the famous mega church, Saddleback Church, hosted Obama on the subject of AIDS missions in Africa? Because the Evangelicals support a compassionate government and healthcare. And, more importantly, I suspect he wanted to expose Obama to evangelicals and the Gospel itself and Warren's very effective and Biblical view on the purpose for our lives.
Fact is: the evangelicals who vote GOP have been way ahead of Dems for years on social issues INCLUDING the poor here and abroad --they are the ones running the missions sponsoring most of the private (not gov't) relief agencies. Granted some more socially liberal churches also have missions. An evangelical Mega church locally is Cedar Creek which has days where they invite widows and single moms to bring in their cars for repairs and oil changes, etc. and the church men with these skills work on them. That church also has a huge winter coat and gloves mission for children. Our church has ladies who knit baby items for the needy.
It's the evangelicals like my church who take a team to the Katrina damage in Miss. and help build a sturdy house on stilts for an elderly lady --who cleaned out a moldy, soggy Head Start school and were able to salvage it. who are going again in the fall. who support a mission boarding school for troubled or needy youth --who sponsor food pantries and benevolence funds for the needy. My denomination has started hospitals in Africa and India and has schools in various countries.
In the U.S., churches of all kinds minister to loads of people on welfare, single moms, needy children, etc., helping them with practical needs. Their youth rake leaves for the poor elderly and do other helps on their properties. They minister to the poor, the ill and dying and the bereaved with food. they provide transportation, help with resumes, tutor, etc.
The PERSONAL touch and relationship with the poor is done most effectively by believers --who do know their Bible and thus know what Christ said we should do for the poor. And they know they are no better than the poor --because we are all equal at the foot of the cross.
Not that we ALL couldn't be doing more for the needy....
I personally wouldn't know where to start to advocate for the needy through gov't bureaucracy--but I know what to do for a few people personally. The problem is that gov't DOES seem to be so big and unweildy as to not be all that effective in how they spend the monies for disaster relief, etc. I hear that the south is still a mess. Maybe they should take the old chain gangs out from the prisons to do some work down there because they haven't anything better to do.
I gather that Democrats hope to take up the poverty cause with RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AND MOTIVATION--and try to persuade us that the GOP is lagging in this area compared to the democratic party --that Dems are more Christian in charity than the conservative Christians who ALSO care about those "narrow agenda" moral issues.
But it was Jesus Himself who said that "a man should leave his parents and cleave to a wife." Hetero marriage is the biblical standard-- "male and female created He them" because it is "not good for man to be alone." God tells us to "be fruitful and multiply."
Jesus also said that "whoever harms these little ones, were better a millstone were hung about his neck and he be cast into the sea." (Abortion certainly harms the little ones.) The Bible also says "thou shalt not murder."
Greed and the grass is greener syndrome affect everyone --both parties, but democrat solutions tend to just drive the whole economy downward because their agenda is to foment a class warfare between the unworking poor and those who do work and chafe under the ever-higher taxes at all levels. When they tax higher, the working people and retired tighten their purse strings trying to hang on through retirement. They downsize their businesses and don't hire if the gov't taxes them into oblivion. They raise prices trying to keep ahead of the gov't imposed higher wages and taxes.
Democratic economic solutions are just counter-productive. In their drive to make the rich poorer, they make everyone poorer. The GOP believes that jobs will be more available for more people if we don't tax small businesses or sue big businesses out of the market.
If the Dems think they can win the Christian vote by calling themselves more religiously charitable --while championing (or being quiet about) the causes of gay marriage and abortion --they misunderstand the evangelicals.
Christian values are not either/or --either charity and environment OR pro-life and traditional marriage. All four are important and evangelicals already know this and consistently try to do something about them. My Christian alma mater, e.g., has a degree or a major in environmental science.
However, while the liberals continue to focus on the environment (however hypocritically as in Hollywood)and their Robin Hood view of economics; we'll continue to focus on preserving fetal life and hetero marriage while they oppose us on these issues. Because strong families are basic to our national and spiritual health.
And because, God has spoken. All righteousness is to be defended.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Support for General Pace: Homosexuality like Adultery
From Politics in Mudville --and the daily news everywhere: "In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
LD's comment on the news: "The Bible test. Deuteronomy decides. The right-wing Christians should be giddy today that they have a General for Jesus heading up the Joint Chiefs. Neocon christians throughout America and on their knees in praise and supplication." Comment by Liberal Democrat on Politics in Mudville blog
______________________________
I feel sorry for any who are gay because they identify with the opposite sex and think like the opposite sex --usually by overly close identification with the opposite sex parent and lack of affirmation by the same sex parent--or some similar variant of parenting. This is a condition of damage to the sexual orientation--a condition to rectify, not something to celebrate and promote. Instead, we need to do better parenting, better teaching, so kids can grow up with their brains and bodies in sync with one another.
I'm not saying, however, that it is ALWAYS parents' fault --but I do think parents need to INTENTIONALLY but subtly help their kids look, feel, think and act normally. And protect them. They need to give them good Biblical counsel about their God-given sexuality --given so they may grow up and become the moms and the dads.
All teens feel some discomfort with their self-image and sexual development. All kids are attracted for friendship to their own sex, rightly so, and need a niche with friends of the same sex, friends who are not exploitive, who will affirm them in their bio-assignments as male or female. All kids should be protected from molesters --if we could just figure out who they were and recognize suspicious situations and individuals.
I feel sorry for any who are gay because older homosexuals (or same age) got ahold of them and drew them into "feel good activities" that were addictive with their own sex--contributing to a homosexual identity and preference.
I feel sorry for kids who were very lonely growing up and found that any port in a storm for friendship was where they belonged --especially when their peers are ridiculing them for not being stereotypically masculine or feminine in their body types or mannerisms. This, too, can contribute to sexual identity confusion.
I especially don't want teachers and counselors to identify certain kids as potentially homosexual, encouraging them to go in that direction.
I don't want sex educators or any other gov't employees or Planned Parenthood in the schools to tell my kids they need to explore their sexuality in order to know which way they "swing."
BECAUSE I agree with General Pace. Homosexual behavior is immoral --like adultery. We have choices to make in life. There is a moment for the homosexual person when he/she first considered his own sex to be attractive (which is normal in itself --as normal people desire to be like the attractive folks of their own sex, and they DO notice what makes men and women attractive.) They do desire friendship with the popular, attractive people of their own sex. However, if they find themselves focusing more on their own sex than on the opposite, getting crushes and desiring physical intimacy with a friend of the same sex, they have a choice to make --to wallow in that thought and get involved in activities, or to reject them --just as a married man has a choice to make when he notices an attractive woman other than his wife. He can fixate on the other woman, entertain adulterous thoughts--or focus on wife and family.
It's when the first temptation comes knocking that we need to slam the door on it.
As Susannah Wesley told her 17 children: "You may not be able to keep the birds of temptation from flying around your head, but you can keep them from making a nest in your hair."
LD's comment on the news: "The Bible test. Deuteronomy decides. The right-wing Christians should be giddy today that they have a General for Jesus heading up the Joint Chiefs. Neocon christians throughout America and on their knees in praise and supplication." Comment by Liberal Democrat on Politics in Mudville blog
______________________________
I feel sorry for any who are gay because they identify with the opposite sex and think like the opposite sex --usually by overly close identification with the opposite sex parent and lack of affirmation by the same sex parent--or some similar variant of parenting. This is a condition of damage to the sexual orientation--a condition to rectify, not something to celebrate and promote. Instead, we need to do better parenting, better teaching, so kids can grow up with their brains and bodies in sync with one another.
I'm not saying, however, that it is ALWAYS parents' fault --but I do think parents need to INTENTIONALLY but subtly help their kids look, feel, think and act normally. And protect them. They need to give them good Biblical counsel about their God-given sexuality --given so they may grow up and become the moms and the dads.
All teens feel some discomfort with their self-image and sexual development. All kids are attracted for friendship to their own sex, rightly so, and need a niche with friends of the same sex, friends who are not exploitive, who will affirm them in their bio-assignments as male or female. All kids should be protected from molesters --if we could just figure out who they were and recognize suspicious situations and individuals.
I feel sorry for any who are gay because older homosexuals (or same age) got ahold of them and drew them into "feel good activities" that were addictive with their own sex--contributing to a homosexual identity and preference.
I feel sorry for kids who were very lonely growing up and found that any port in a storm for friendship was where they belonged --especially when their peers are ridiculing them for not being stereotypically masculine or feminine in their body types or mannerisms. This, too, can contribute to sexual identity confusion.
I especially don't want teachers and counselors to identify certain kids as potentially homosexual, encouraging them to go in that direction.
I don't want sex educators or any other gov't employees or Planned Parenthood in the schools to tell my kids they need to explore their sexuality in order to know which way they "swing."
BECAUSE I agree with General Pace. Homosexual behavior is immoral --like adultery. We have choices to make in life. There is a moment for the homosexual person when he/she first considered his own sex to be attractive (which is normal in itself --as normal people desire to be like the attractive folks of their own sex, and they DO notice what makes men and women attractive.) They do desire friendship with the popular, attractive people of their own sex. However, if they find themselves focusing more on their own sex than on the opposite, getting crushes and desiring physical intimacy with a friend of the same sex, they have a choice to make --to wallow in that thought and get involved in activities, or to reject them --just as a married man has a choice to make when he notices an attractive woman other than his wife. He can fixate on the other woman, entertain adulterous thoughts--or focus on wife and family.
It's when the first temptation comes knocking that we need to slam the door on it.
As Susannah Wesley told her 17 children: "You may not be able to keep the birds of temptation from flying around your head, but you can keep them from making a nest in your hair."
Catholic Church and Penalties for Priests
I agree with the parishioners of the Catholic Church who don't want the present day attenders to have to pay for the sins of the clergy going back an unlimited number of years.
I think it's an awful can of worms to sue the Catholic people for the sins of their priests for any number of years. But if several come forward and are judged credible in their accusations, those priests should be defrocked and denied their pensions and they should be punished.
However, an articulate liar could sue the church and want to see a priest in jail just for the hope of monetary gain. Anybody can accuse someone of molestation when there are no witnesses and no other victims. Therefore the monetary incentive to accusations should be removed.
Accusers should come forward for justice alone --not for monetary benefit.
I think it's an awful can of worms to sue the Catholic people for the sins of their priests for any number of years. But if several come forward and are judged credible in their accusations, those priests should be defrocked and denied their pensions and they should be punished.
However, an articulate liar could sue the church and want to see a priest in jail just for the hope of monetary gain. Anybody can accuse someone of molestation when there are no witnesses and no other victims. Therefore the monetary incentive to accusations should be removed.
Accusers should come forward for justice alone --not for monetary benefit.
A Sorry Tale: About CNN's Thomas Roberts and Father Jeff Toohey
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- CNN Headline News anchor Thomas Roberts says he became a victim of sexual abuse at the age of 14 and the abuse lasted three years.
"I became a victim of sexual abuse at the age of 14; the abuse lasted three years. It took me nearly 20 years to gather the strength to help put my abuser behind bars. Now, a year after "justice" was done, I am ready to tell my story publicly in ways I never have before.
"My abuser was Father Jeff Toohey, a trusted man of God. He was the equivalent of a religious celebrity in my private all-boys Catholic school in Baltimore, Maryland. Father Jeff was every boy's friend and mentor. I considered him my mentor as well.
"When my parents divorced, I was sent to Father Jeff to help me cope with all the changes. Divorce in the mid-1980s still seemed so foreign. Plus, I was just a kid, and I didn't know much about divorce. I just knew it sucked.
"All I had at that time in my life was my family and school. Those were my constants. But as my family fell apart, so did my life at school. After the abuse began, high school became a prison of shame and lies..."
_________________________
I saw the special with Roberts on CNN last night about the two teen boys Father Toohey molested. We call Toohey a pedophile by legal age definition of his victims--but Toohey is really a homosexual taking advantage of adolescent young men. A male with preference for same sex adolescents is called a pederast--like Tom Foley--though Tom wanted them to be at least 18 before hooking up.
In fact, all people admire the beauty and sex appeal of adolescents. The sports Illustrated buyers and other porn viewers and users of prostitutes, don't care if those models or hookers are 15 or 18, believe me (except for the risk of being jailed in the case of under age hookers.) And it is the law and cultural mores that tell us older folks that young people are off limits because they aren't emotionally or mentally mature nor equal in ability to consent in a situation like Father Toohey's. And because it is unseemly for older people to violate virginity with youth. Youth should have a chance to find their own love among their peers when it is age appropriate --and have a chance to be virginal before marriage.
You could see the pain in Roberts' eyes in confessing his involvement with the priest. He said he felt guilty and "it makes you question/doubt yourself" or words to that effect. I know what he meant--it made him wonder if he were homosexual that a man should desire him --and that a man could give him pleasureable touch --and that he might even be erotically stimulated by a man. It makes them doubt their masculinity and question whether they can be normal with a woman. They can develop homosexual addiction because of their experience with it.
I think one of them said he felt robbed of his soul, by Toohey. He was, in a sense. Not that it is irretrievable or unfixable. But he has been damaged by his priest, obviously. The Bible says that sexual union makes the "two one flesh." Jesus said a man joins his soul with a prostitute in the sex act. So the SOUL IS involved --and depression haunts these two young men as a result--as it often haunts homosexuals --who think if society and churches would only approve their lifestyles, they would not feel any guilt or depression because of it.
I got the impression that the other boy Father T. molested had a father who thought he WAS gay --and he lacked confidence in his normalcy and masculinity before Toohey took up with him. Both of the victims appeared to live alone today, at least not with a wife, judging by what was NOT said in the program.
Fact: the human body has buttons to push --and young people are sexually curious, have libido, and are eager to have sexual experiences, so some "child sex play" among equals is not that uncommon --nor long lasting in its effects. Also, youth are SUPPOSED to need the affirmation, acceptance, affection and love --of their parents and their SAME SEX friends. When they don't get it, especially from the same sex parent, or in the case of girls, when they are just eager for sexual experience and have normal adoration for same sex friends, they are vulnerable to predators like Toohey and Foley. The same sex youth questions his sexual orientation if he finds he can respond sexually by yielding to the experience when the perp is deliberately trying to give pleasure rather than pain. Roberts admits he felt he had no choice but to yield --that resistance would get him kicked out of school --especially if he told on the priest.
I've read of many cases where the victim, being young, does feel a bond with the perpetrator --toohey was admired and attractive in his own right --his favoring the boys would have been pleasing to them on some level. Everyone wants to feel special to the popular admired confident leader type. Sometimes they would go on in the relationship if the perp wasn't moving on to new interests and showing a declining interest. But these two fellows knew Toohey's attention was sick and wrong and didn't seem to want it at all. But forbidden sexual experience has its own allure.
The Gay Community would tell them they ARE gay and should embrace their identity enthusiastically.
The Gay Community in their official publications of the past have tolerance for the NAMBLA concept --North American Man Boy Love Ass'n. One of their activist spokesman in a gay magazine said gays were going to pursue the sons of straight, homosphobic America in the schools, libraries, gyms, restrooms, camps, etc. They used to brag on talk shows that they could turn any straight man to gay by their activities. They would mock straight men as being latently homosexual and therefore homophobic --afraid of gays because they feared arousal by them.
Surveys have found that early sexual interest and experience are more common to homosexuals than to straights.
We need to de-saturate our culture from media's promotion of homosex, shacking up, fornication, adultery, nudity, explicit sexual material on line and on TV. Parents are needed; vigilance is needed--for the innocense of our children.
My husband said he saw part of a program that suggested seriously that a girl was a prude if she didn't want a 3-way.
The Church (all believers) should take the lead and continue to sound the alarm, protect the kids with parental controls and chaperonage, provide wholesome activity and monitoring of youth and their exposure to sexually oriented video games, entertainment --and no computers in their bedrooms or in private. Parental locks on computers when parents are out of the house might be good.
Most important, we need to teach kids that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." And that God forbids same sex activity explicitly, along with incest, adultery, and ANY kind of sexual intercourse outside marriage. We need to restore the value of waiting for marriage and the virtues of self-control and virginity. We need to again promote the superior value of "delayed gratification." Kids need to know that they can short-circuit their future in every way, including happiness, by early sexual indulgence --and other harmful, addictive activities and substances. "Flee Temptation."
One needs to know that indulgence in sexual sin (any sin) can SEAR the conscience, so that we aren't remorseful for our sin--as Father Toohey didn't seem to be. King David in the Bible WAS remorseful, repented of his sins --cried out to God to "restore to me the joy of my salvation."
One wonders what Father's devotional chapel talks were like. What were youth to avoid if anything??? Like a liberal, he probably gave ONLY POSITIVE instruction on love and forgiveness--no warnings except about sins of procrastination and failure to do your studies --and lustful thoughts toward women.
He overlooked that scripture that "whoever harms one of these little ones (innocents, vulnerable, young) it would be better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the sea."
Father Toohey has to wear a little ankle bracelet to monitor his whereabouts --that's all--no millstone. But God may have a warm eternity planned for the sociopathic, unrepentant priest who put his own lusts before the well-being of two young men who trusted him as a man of God. Toohey is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing about whom Jesus warned.
-------------------
"I became a victim of sexual abuse at the age of 14; the abuse lasted three years. It took me nearly 20 years to gather the strength to help put my abuser behind bars. Now, a year after "justice" was done, I am ready to tell my story publicly in ways I never have before.
"My abuser was Father Jeff Toohey, a trusted man of God. He was the equivalent of a religious celebrity in my private all-boys Catholic school in Baltimore, Maryland. Father Jeff was every boy's friend and mentor. I considered him my mentor as well.
"When my parents divorced, I was sent to Father Jeff to help me cope with all the changes. Divorce in the mid-1980s still seemed so foreign. Plus, I was just a kid, and I didn't know much about divorce. I just knew it sucked.
"All I had at that time in my life was my family and school. Those were my constants. But as my family fell apart, so did my life at school. After the abuse began, high school became a prison of shame and lies..."
_________________________
I saw the special with Roberts on CNN last night about the two teen boys Father Toohey molested. We call Toohey a pedophile by legal age definition of his victims--but Toohey is really a homosexual taking advantage of adolescent young men. A male with preference for same sex adolescents is called a pederast--like Tom Foley--though Tom wanted them to be at least 18 before hooking up.
In fact, all people admire the beauty and sex appeal of adolescents. The sports Illustrated buyers and other porn viewers and users of prostitutes, don't care if those models or hookers are 15 or 18, believe me (except for the risk of being jailed in the case of under age hookers.) And it is the law and cultural mores that tell us older folks that young people are off limits because they aren't emotionally or mentally mature nor equal in ability to consent in a situation like Father Toohey's. And because it is unseemly for older people to violate virginity with youth. Youth should have a chance to find their own love among their peers when it is age appropriate --and have a chance to be virginal before marriage.
You could see the pain in Roberts' eyes in confessing his involvement with the priest. He said he felt guilty and "it makes you question/doubt yourself" or words to that effect. I know what he meant--it made him wonder if he were homosexual that a man should desire him --and that a man could give him pleasureable touch --and that he might even be erotically stimulated by a man. It makes them doubt their masculinity and question whether they can be normal with a woman. They can develop homosexual addiction because of their experience with it.
I think one of them said he felt robbed of his soul, by Toohey. He was, in a sense. Not that it is irretrievable or unfixable. But he has been damaged by his priest, obviously. The Bible says that sexual union makes the "two one flesh." Jesus said a man joins his soul with a prostitute in the sex act. So the SOUL IS involved --and depression haunts these two young men as a result--as it often haunts homosexuals --who think if society and churches would only approve their lifestyles, they would not feel any guilt or depression because of it.
I got the impression that the other boy Father T. molested had a father who thought he WAS gay --and he lacked confidence in his normalcy and masculinity before Toohey took up with him. Both of the victims appeared to live alone today, at least not with a wife, judging by what was NOT said in the program.
Fact: the human body has buttons to push --and young people are sexually curious, have libido, and are eager to have sexual experiences, so some "child sex play" among equals is not that uncommon --nor long lasting in its effects. Also, youth are SUPPOSED to need the affirmation, acceptance, affection and love --of their parents and their SAME SEX friends. When they don't get it, especially from the same sex parent, or in the case of girls, when they are just eager for sexual experience and have normal adoration for same sex friends, they are vulnerable to predators like Toohey and Foley. The same sex youth questions his sexual orientation if he finds he can respond sexually by yielding to the experience when the perp is deliberately trying to give pleasure rather than pain. Roberts admits he felt he had no choice but to yield --that resistance would get him kicked out of school --especially if he told on the priest.
I've read of many cases where the victim, being young, does feel a bond with the perpetrator --toohey was admired and attractive in his own right --his favoring the boys would have been pleasing to them on some level. Everyone wants to feel special to the popular admired confident leader type. Sometimes they would go on in the relationship if the perp wasn't moving on to new interests and showing a declining interest. But these two fellows knew Toohey's attention was sick and wrong and didn't seem to want it at all. But forbidden sexual experience has its own allure.
The Gay Community would tell them they ARE gay and should embrace their identity enthusiastically.
The Gay Community in their official publications of the past have tolerance for the NAMBLA concept --North American Man Boy Love Ass'n. One of their activist spokesman in a gay magazine said gays were going to pursue the sons of straight, homosphobic America in the schools, libraries, gyms, restrooms, camps, etc. They used to brag on talk shows that they could turn any straight man to gay by their activities. They would mock straight men as being latently homosexual and therefore homophobic --afraid of gays because they feared arousal by them.
Surveys have found that early sexual interest and experience are more common to homosexuals than to straights.
We need to de-saturate our culture from media's promotion of homosex, shacking up, fornication, adultery, nudity, explicit sexual material on line and on TV. Parents are needed; vigilance is needed--for the innocense of our children.
My husband said he saw part of a program that suggested seriously that a girl was a prude if she didn't want a 3-way.
The Church (all believers) should take the lead and continue to sound the alarm, protect the kids with parental controls and chaperonage, provide wholesome activity and monitoring of youth and their exposure to sexually oriented video games, entertainment --and no computers in their bedrooms or in private. Parental locks on computers when parents are out of the house might be good.
Most important, we need to teach kids that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." And that God forbids same sex activity explicitly, along with incest, adultery, and ANY kind of sexual intercourse outside marriage. We need to restore the value of waiting for marriage and the virtues of self-control and virginity. We need to again promote the superior value of "delayed gratification." Kids need to know that they can short-circuit their future in every way, including happiness, by early sexual indulgence --and other harmful, addictive activities and substances. "Flee Temptation."
One needs to know that indulgence in sexual sin (any sin) can SEAR the conscience, so that we aren't remorseful for our sin--as Father Toohey didn't seem to be. King David in the Bible WAS remorseful, repented of his sins --cried out to God to "restore to me the joy of my salvation."
One wonders what Father's devotional chapel talks were like. What were youth to avoid if anything??? Like a liberal, he probably gave ONLY POSITIVE instruction on love and forgiveness--no warnings except about sins of procrastination and failure to do your studies --and lustful thoughts toward women.
He overlooked that scripture that "whoever harms one of these little ones (innocents, vulnerable, young) it would be better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the sea."
Father Toohey has to wear a little ankle bracelet to monitor his whereabouts --that's all--no millstone. But God may have a warm eternity planned for the sociopathic, unrepentant priest who put his own lusts before the well-being of two young men who trusted him as a man of God. Toohey is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing about whom Jesus warned.
-------------------
Monday, March 12, 2007
About Sex Estabishments Opposed in Cincinnati
The existance of such places is a temptation to our young men who should, instead, be inspired in better directions. It helps to further addictions on porn or "sex addictions" --and ruins marriages for men who are especially tempted to indulge in the forbidden--it encourages prostitution and adultery and even rape and sexual abuse --as men want to satisfy the lust that is exacerbated by such places.
The prevalence of places where one can get away with doing wrong in secret --whether on line or in sex clubs --or in the back room of a video store --is harmful to the women and children who aren't benefitting from the fatherly and husbandly presence in the home, help with the kids, and the love and loyalty and faithful(healthy) sex and money from that man who should be home. When illicit sex opportunities are beckoning in many places in a community, the STD's are a greater risk, the behavior of men is demeaning to them and to the women involved --not ennobling --not encouraging to our best aspirations and ideals.
These centers are not where any good parent wants to find his son or daughter nor where any good husband or wife wants his spouse hanging out. Reputations and marriages (and family support) are ruined for people who get into sleaze like this.
I'm saying this because someone should, given the opinions posted here. There are women who consider it a ministry to women to help them get out of this shameful and dangerous exploitation of themselves for cash.
8:35 AM
Barb said...
LD you just don't get Christians who care about community values --who think these values are important. Pharisees thought THEY were righteous and better than others and had no compassion. That's really not the message or nature of fundamentalist Christians as a group. We know some of them/us are just as tempted to sin as the next guy--e.g. haggard. And compassion, even more than indignation, does motivate these women to care about these sex establishments. Most of them probably have husbands staying home who share their faith and values.
Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more." The center for CV is passing on that message--saying there oughtta be a law against such tempting, alluring places and materials (adult book stores) which aren't good for public decency and families, nor for the women involved in stripping and prostituting, nor for the men themselves. I suspect that even the more innocuous Playboy Club in its day -and places with the Hooters concept--would not have been allowed in some communities before 1960 --because people in charge of policy had a common sense of decency --even if they weren't all saints. Even corner bars were regulated --as they still are? --so as to not be in every neighborhood, luring folks away from homes and inclining people to the poor judgment and bad driving that come with inebriation --also encouraging escape from home responsibility.
I was proud of Maumee gov't leaders who were angry about and protested that a sex club sneaked in on corner of Dussel Drive & Holland Road --and also surprised and pleased that it went out of business quickly.
Vices should be regulated to be less beckoning to the tempted, less prevalent --and if they ARE centers of criminal behavior and STD spread in or outside their gates as I've heard they are, why not shut them down? We didn't have them in the past and don't benefit from them now. It is a fact that bathhouses in San Francisco and all prostitution helped to give us our AIDS and Herpes epidemics.
Proverbs 28: 10a: "Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit"
9:08 AM
THE ORIGINAL BLOG ARTICLE BY THE BLOGGER: SEPP TITLED "UNCOMMON SQUALOR"
[Photo] The Cincinnati-based Center for Community Values has spent well over 300 grand to push restrictions on strip clubs and vow to put a measure on the November ballot if elected officials don't act.
The last time I went to a strip club was back in 1992. I drink coffee when I'm out and driving and $7 for coffee is a bit excessive regardless of how nice the wallpaper is. But, there are folks who don't care what the cost of drinks are and, are willing to spend their cash and, regardless of what the "The Center for Community Values" has to say, it's their own personal and private business. Strippers work and pay taxes and contribute to the economy just as any other profession does and, people pay big bucks to go see them. Regulating their work hours doesent make strip clubs go away, so what exactly is these jackasses' point? The messege I'm getting is that a bunch of wives make up the membership of this organization who want their husbands home at midnite instead of hanging around in strip clubs!
My advice to the "Center for Community Values", is to mind your own damned business. There are much larger community problems worthy of your 300 grand, time and, effort to tackle that would better serve the community.
posted by -Sepp at 7:55 AM on Feb 26, 2007
The prevalence of places where one can get away with doing wrong in secret --whether on line or in sex clubs --or in the back room of a video store --is harmful to the women and children who aren't benefitting from the fatherly and husbandly presence in the home, help with the kids, and the love and loyalty and faithful(healthy) sex and money from that man who should be home. When illicit sex opportunities are beckoning in many places in a community, the STD's are a greater risk, the behavior of men is demeaning to them and to the women involved --not ennobling --not encouraging to our best aspirations and ideals.
These centers are not where any good parent wants to find his son or daughter nor where any good husband or wife wants his spouse hanging out. Reputations and marriages (and family support) are ruined for people who get into sleaze like this.
I'm saying this because someone should, given the opinions posted here. There are women who consider it a ministry to women to help them get out of this shameful and dangerous exploitation of themselves for cash.
8:35 AM
Barb said...
LD you just don't get Christians who care about community values --who think these values are important. Pharisees thought THEY were righteous and better than others and had no compassion. That's really not the message or nature of fundamentalist Christians as a group. We know some of them/us are just as tempted to sin as the next guy--e.g. haggard. And compassion, even more than indignation, does motivate these women to care about these sex establishments. Most of them probably have husbands staying home who share their faith and values.
Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more." The center for CV is passing on that message--saying there oughtta be a law against such tempting, alluring places and materials (adult book stores) which aren't good for public decency and families, nor for the women involved in stripping and prostituting, nor for the men themselves. I suspect that even the more innocuous Playboy Club in its day -and places with the Hooters concept--would not have been allowed in some communities before 1960 --because people in charge of policy had a common sense of decency --even if they weren't all saints. Even corner bars were regulated --as they still are? --so as to not be in every neighborhood, luring folks away from homes and inclining people to the poor judgment and bad driving that come with inebriation --also encouraging escape from home responsibility.
I was proud of Maumee gov't leaders who were angry about and protested that a sex club sneaked in on corner of Dussel Drive & Holland Road --and also surprised and pleased that it went out of business quickly.
Vices should be regulated to be less beckoning to the tempted, less prevalent --and if they ARE centers of criminal behavior and STD spread in or outside their gates as I've heard they are, why not shut them down? We didn't have them in the past and don't benefit from them now. It is a fact that bathhouses in San Francisco and all prostitution helped to give us our AIDS and Herpes epidemics.
Proverbs 28: 10a: "Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit"
9:08 AM
THE ORIGINAL BLOG ARTICLE BY THE BLOGGER: SEPP TITLED "UNCOMMON SQUALOR"
[Photo] The Cincinnati-based Center for Community Values has spent well over 300 grand to push restrictions on strip clubs and vow to put a measure on the November ballot if elected officials don't act.
The last time I went to a strip club was back in 1992. I drink coffee when I'm out and driving and $7 for coffee is a bit excessive regardless of how nice the wallpaper is. But, there are folks who don't care what the cost of drinks are and, are willing to spend their cash and, regardless of what the "The Center for Community Values" has to say, it's their own personal and private business. Strippers work and pay taxes and contribute to the economy just as any other profession does and, people pay big bucks to go see them. Regulating their work hours doesent make strip clubs go away, so what exactly is these jackasses' point? The messege I'm getting is that a bunch of wives make up the membership of this organization who want their husbands home at midnite instead of hanging around in strip clubs!
My advice to the "Center for Community Values", is to mind your own damned business. There are much larger community problems worthy of your 300 grand, time and, effort to tackle that would better serve the community.
posted by -Sepp at 7:55 AM on Feb 26, 2007
A witness
We once met a Jewish fellow who was interested in Christ --Steve Cohen was his name --he joined Jews for Jesus eventually--but first he asked God to prove His presence to him --to give him a sign. It had to do with a street lamp --He asked God to make it blink or something --I'm not sure I remember the details --anyway --it happened, whatever he asked for a sign --more than once --and he was "almost persuaded" but kept wanting these signs and he was with a Christian friend and prayed that a candle would go out in the room if Jesus were the son of God --and nothing happened this time--until the friend blew out the candle. He told this as part of his testimony of coming to believe. i realize it's not convincing --but when he told it, it was. The street light part was pretty convincing to him and to us listening. The friend played the role of Christian witness and provided the last sign --Steve knew he had already received enough of a sign without asking for more magic show from god.
People who seek God will find Him --St Paul was an earnest devout Jew who hated Jesus whom he never met --until the Damascus road experience (acts 9) Because he really DID love God and knew the scriptures and persecuted Christians out of his orthodox postition as a Jew, God did a miracle on him --blinded him; Jesus spoke audibly out of the blinding light; he sent Paul (Saul) into town (led by his companions) and told him to wait for instruction; meanwhile, a man named Ananias was told in a vision by Jesus to go to the street called Straight (ironic) and he would find Saul, a man who was told in a dream that Ananias was coming to restore his sight.
Beowulf doesn't compare --doesn't have the ring of history nor the importance --nor do King Arthur's Legends -or Greek myths -- They weren't meant to be history and they don't sound like history ---maybe helen of Troy and the Trojan horse but that's not about salvation--not like the Bible which is wholly about the Creator and man and the problem of sin and the promise of salvation from sin and death. These other stories have no salvation message for us. There are various superman legends as man has always wanted to believe in super powers --but the stories of Jesus are different some how --as the bible says, "His spirit bears witness with OUR spirits" -- there is a consistancy in the Bible that is greater than any of the inconsistencies in the Bible --e.g. before Christ, Isaiah 53 prophesied about a suffering servant on whom all our transgressions would be laid.
CS Lewis in Mere Christianity makes it logical to be a believer --so does Chuck Colson in Born Again. You know CS Lewis had a BBC radio series from which his book is taken --he had been a firm atheist. Of course, faith can't be entirely a matter of proof and logic; the Bible says it is faith that saves us, not our certainty. But there are GOOD reasons to believe that the Gospels just might be true after all!
as for science --it's the study of all that God has made and we have discovered principles and laws and facts, etc. The things we learn through science should and usually do fortify faith for believers--we should regard nature and the universe with awe --and think it's preposterous to believe in ourselves as part of a cosmic accident.
You said a ship is built and designed but that doesn't mean the builder is good or loving. But if that builder talks to you, that can be convincing --and the Bible says that's what the Creator did. You can tell sometimes by craftsmanship if the builder loved his work. If he made a beautiful boat and tied it up at my dock and put my name on it --I'm going to think somebody loves me! If my life is blessed with the joy of living, the joy of parenting, and being a wife to a wonderfully kind and tolerant, long-suffering, handsome man, if I just look at nature and its beauty and the marvels of human beings and our design --at my age and condition I'm glad for what health I have and that I don't hurt all the time somewhere -- I AM the fat lady who sings --or tries to sing --but my kids are beautiful to me --and I enjoy their personalities --I enjoy family and getting together --these things are blessings of God that He wants all of us to have --and the only reason so many don't have all these blessings is too often sin --adultery, porn, tempers, selfishness, unrealistic expectations --more often our doing than God's if we don't feel blessed.
My life isn't completely idyllic as I may make it sound--but when I count my blessings, it is. But I know I'm facing health problems and I hope to run the race of faith to the end with enthusiasm. I just don't suffer well and hope I won't have to.
I have besetting tendencies --I avoid my taxes, bills, filing, mail like the plague --I find the tv too absorbing --I procrastinate and eat too much because I can--I don't walk easily because of a genetic issue compounded by overweight.
Nevertheless, love comes my way --because of God's mercy.
Just ask God to show you the nailprints in His hands and see what He does.
You might be amazed. My husband says that any morning that he remembers to consciously ask God to use Him to share his faith with someone, he gets an opportunity tailor made to tell of his faith in Christ. Some patient will bring up religion --and then he's sure to fall behind schedule! but he thinks he's had some "crucial conversations" just because He told God He was willing and eager.
When you ask God to prove Himself to you in some convincing way, I believe he will. He has for others. But don't dictate the terms --as some people do when they want healings or want to see grandpa sit up in his coffin.
People who seek God will find Him --St Paul was an earnest devout Jew who hated Jesus whom he never met --until the Damascus road experience (acts 9) Because he really DID love God and knew the scriptures and persecuted Christians out of his orthodox postition as a Jew, God did a miracle on him --blinded him; Jesus spoke audibly out of the blinding light; he sent Paul (Saul) into town (led by his companions) and told him to wait for instruction; meanwhile, a man named Ananias was told in a vision by Jesus to go to the street called Straight (ironic) and he would find Saul, a man who was told in a dream that Ananias was coming to restore his sight.
Beowulf doesn't compare --doesn't have the ring of history nor the importance --nor do King Arthur's Legends -or Greek myths -- They weren't meant to be history and they don't sound like history ---maybe helen of Troy and the Trojan horse but that's not about salvation--not like the Bible which is wholly about the Creator and man and the problem of sin and the promise of salvation from sin and death. These other stories have no salvation message for us. There are various superman legends as man has always wanted to believe in super powers --but the stories of Jesus are different some how --as the bible says, "His spirit bears witness with OUR spirits" -- there is a consistancy in the Bible that is greater than any of the inconsistencies in the Bible --e.g. before Christ, Isaiah 53 prophesied about a suffering servant on whom all our transgressions would be laid.
CS Lewis in Mere Christianity makes it logical to be a believer --so does Chuck Colson in Born Again. You know CS Lewis had a BBC radio series from which his book is taken --he had been a firm atheist. Of course, faith can't be entirely a matter of proof and logic; the Bible says it is faith that saves us, not our certainty. But there are GOOD reasons to believe that the Gospels just might be true after all!
as for science --it's the study of all that God has made and we have discovered principles and laws and facts, etc. The things we learn through science should and usually do fortify faith for believers--we should regard nature and the universe with awe --and think it's preposterous to believe in ourselves as part of a cosmic accident.
You said a ship is built and designed but that doesn't mean the builder is good or loving. But if that builder talks to you, that can be convincing --and the Bible says that's what the Creator did. You can tell sometimes by craftsmanship if the builder loved his work. If he made a beautiful boat and tied it up at my dock and put my name on it --I'm going to think somebody loves me! If my life is blessed with the joy of living, the joy of parenting, and being a wife to a wonderfully kind and tolerant, long-suffering, handsome man, if I just look at nature and its beauty and the marvels of human beings and our design --at my age and condition I'm glad for what health I have and that I don't hurt all the time somewhere -- I AM the fat lady who sings --or tries to sing --but my kids are beautiful to me --and I enjoy their personalities --I enjoy family and getting together --these things are blessings of God that He wants all of us to have --and the only reason so many don't have all these blessings is too often sin --adultery, porn, tempers, selfishness, unrealistic expectations --more often our doing than God's if we don't feel blessed.
My life isn't completely idyllic as I may make it sound--but when I count my blessings, it is. But I know I'm facing health problems and I hope to run the race of faith to the end with enthusiasm. I just don't suffer well and hope I won't have to.
I have besetting tendencies --I avoid my taxes, bills, filing, mail like the plague --I find the tv too absorbing --I procrastinate and eat too much because I can--I don't walk easily because of a genetic issue compounded by overweight.
Nevertheless, love comes my way --because of God's mercy.
Just ask God to show you the nailprints in His hands and see what He does.
You might be amazed. My husband says that any morning that he remembers to consciously ask God to use Him to share his faith with someone, he gets an opportunity tailor made to tell of his faith in Christ. Some patient will bring up religion --and then he's sure to fall behind schedule! but he thinks he's had some "crucial conversations" just because He told God He was willing and eager.
When you ask God to prove Himself to you in some convincing way, I believe he will. He has for others. But don't dictate the terms --as some people do when they want healings or want to see grandpa sit up in his coffin.
On Dennis Miller, Rosie O Donnel --a talk with microdot
Barb said...
I got the impression --maybe from Miller's more recent talk show on MSNBC ?(more recent than one you describe as being on Fox) --that he was Jewish and that this concern for Israel and the Palestinian situation inclined him to be supportive of Bush-- that he really did have conservative leanings when it comes to some issues like national defense and security. You stopped short of saying for sure that the baby sitter knows it's all a sham. Is that what she said? I actually think he's much nicer now in his humor than back in his nasty liberal days. I remember him from then, also. Maybe he got converted! and saw the light!
Say, we had a chance to meet Al Franken in Holland area once; he was visiting some tv producer friends of my husband (the tv writer/producers' parents are his patients) --but we had a conflict. Which is fortunate --i can't stand anything political that he says like you can't stand Coulter.
Listen, that guy involved in the scandal with a student --was never considered to be scandalous by the social liberals in his subsequent school district --it was perfectly ok what he did--or at least ignored and not held against him. In fact, he was exalted as a retired teacher. I really DID suspect LD was he at first --REALLY --until he said he had a wife --and I was jabbing at him, after the fact, I admit, because of his outrage over everything said against homosexualtiy. Could he be that guy after all? And yet, he was critical of the Catholic church for harboring their wayward priests --and then on the other hand, chortling to hear that Baptists had some accusations in their ranks,as well. In retrospect, I figured his criticism of the priest cover-ups WAS evidence that he wasn't that other liberal democrat who took up with a guy student as a teacher in Catholic h.s. seminary.
My criticisms of that lifestyle and concern that our kids not get mixed up in it -- are simply legit --even without the religious perspective. I know that's not politically correct to say --but it's hardly the view of a lone ranger. So you need to consider what is being said and refute it with something other than mere outrage and indignation.
The story about Rosie o donnel's conversation with her boy is very telling --Rosie adopted a child who wishes he could know his daddy --have a daddy. But he can't because Rosie told him she was the kind of mommy who wanted a mommy (said on Today -type show, I believe --some talk show --with Diane Sawyer, I think --not sure)
She shouldn't be adopting. There are hetero couples who want babies and can give them both a mom and dad. They should be given preference --any studies show that kids who have both their bio mom and dad (or even adopted mom and dad) do better on all social indicators, on the average, than kids struggling with marital break up and never-married parental situations, step-parents, etc. That's not an indictment or blame --it's a recommendation that we try to have stable hetero marriages for the sake of kids. That we put kids' needs first when it comes to adoption priorities.
Microdot said...."A Barb must protect it's existence and if all else fails, smear the character of the challenger and out and out lie!"
You challenge me often and now you say I didn't smear YOUR character but LD's. And what were the lies?
Your example is not one. the reason you thought I disappeared from the discussion was not for a lack of response; surely you know I am never at a loss for words or retort --I went to a daytime concert on a saturday in Indiana and had church the next morning, a choir practice, Sunday company, a class to teach, etc.--and I just wasn't at the computer that weekend.
No, I don't think of this like a game with fantasy creatures --though it's hard to believe there are such unhappy, exciteable, sensitive, yet vitriolic souls all gathered in one place as here!
I still would take you to dinner --I still would share my chocolate --I am the truly happy soul on here --and marvel that others can't be just as tolerant and friendly as I am!
I got the impression --maybe from Miller's more recent talk show on MSNBC ?(more recent than one you describe as being on Fox) --that he was Jewish and that this concern for Israel and the Palestinian situation inclined him to be supportive of Bush-- that he really did have conservative leanings when it comes to some issues like national defense and security. You stopped short of saying for sure that the baby sitter knows it's all a sham. Is that what she said? I actually think he's much nicer now in his humor than back in his nasty liberal days. I remember him from then, also. Maybe he got converted! and saw the light!
Say, we had a chance to meet Al Franken in Holland area once; he was visiting some tv producer friends of my husband (the tv writer/producers' parents are his patients) --but we had a conflict. Which is fortunate --i can't stand anything political that he says like you can't stand Coulter.
Listen, that guy involved in the scandal with a student --was never considered to be scandalous by the social liberals in his subsequent school district --it was perfectly ok what he did--or at least ignored and not held against him. In fact, he was exalted as a retired teacher. I really DID suspect LD was he at first --REALLY --until he said he had a wife --and I was jabbing at him, after the fact, I admit, because of his outrage over everything said against homosexualtiy. Could he be that guy after all? And yet, he was critical of the Catholic church for harboring their wayward priests --and then on the other hand, chortling to hear that Baptists had some accusations in their ranks,as well. In retrospect, I figured his criticism of the priest cover-ups WAS evidence that he wasn't that other liberal democrat who took up with a guy student as a teacher in Catholic h.s. seminary.
My criticisms of that lifestyle and concern that our kids not get mixed up in it -- are simply legit --even without the religious perspective. I know that's not politically correct to say --but it's hardly the view of a lone ranger. So you need to consider what is being said and refute it with something other than mere outrage and indignation.
The story about Rosie o donnel's conversation with her boy is very telling --Rosie adopted a child who wishes he could know his daddy --have a daddy. But he can't because Rosie told him she was the kind of mommy who wanted a mommy (said on Today -type show, I believe --some talk show --with Diane Sawyer, I think --not sure)
She shouldn't be adopting. There are hetero couples who want babies and can give them both a mom and dad. They should be given preference --any studies show that kids who have both their bio mom and dad (or even adopted mom and dad) do better on all social indicators, on the average, than kids struggling with marital break up and never-married parental situations, step-parents, etc. That's not an indictment or blame --it's a recommendation that we try to have stable hetero marriages for the sake of kids. That we put kids' needs first when it comes to adoption priorities.
Microdot said...."A Barb must protect it's existence and if all else fails, smear the character of the challenger and out and out lie!"
You challenge me often and now you say I didn't smear YOUR character but LD's. And what were the lies?
Your example is not one. the reason you thought I disappeared from the discussion was not for a lack of response; surely you know I am never at a loss for words or retort --I went to a daytime concert on a saturday in Indiana and had church the next morning, a choir practice, Sunday company, a class to teach, etc.--and I just wasn't at the computer that weekend.
No, I don't think of this like a game with fantasy creatures --though it's hard to believe there are such unhappy, exciteable, sensitive, yet vitriolic souls all gathered in one place as here!
I still would take you to dinner --I still would share my chocolate --I am the truly happy soul on here --and marvel that others can't be just as tolerant and friendly as I am!
Thomas Jefferson and Geo Washington--church/state
Thomas Jefferson wrote that phrase "separation of church and state" in a letter about a church's concern against gov't intervention with the church. He himself wrote that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Therefore, faith in a Deity DID influence his public policy statement known as the Declaration of Independence. The Bible WAS an influence in our Constitution --because people raised on the book believed in freedom and rights but not licentiousness to do any Biblically defined sins which are bad for the society --sins that were considered morally wrong for generations of culture with Christian influence. They would never have said that if you don't think adultery or stealing or aborting are wrong, you may do them under our laws.
Early Americans believed in religious freedom --for the sake of the people who had been long oppressed under state churches. These people had not been oppressed by law in their desire to sin, but in their desire to worship freely, departing from the doctrines (not the morality) of the established state church. Cromwell, in England, e.g. had prohibited celebrating Christmas for a time.
For years, we had "blue laws" of restrictions on Sunday (no commerce) --because most of the nation believed in the 10 commandments --that a day should be held apart for God --"Thou shalt remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy." Today we say that since we aren't under the LAW but under GRACE, strictness about sabbath commerce is inconsistent with the NT --also because Jesus Himself weakened the extreme Jewish restrictions on the sabbath -saying "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
TJ was on the D.C school board which had the Bible, Common book of prayer, and the Isaac Watts Hymnal on the text book list. School days were started with prayer for a couple centuries at least in the U.S.
The way we interpret church-state separation today is not the way TJ interpreted it. He would have agreed that Ohare-murray's son should not have to participate in an opening day school prayer (which exception the school agreed to, i think) --but he would never have said that the prayers were illegal, which is what the boy's mother wanted--because he believed in religious freedom and majority rule with minority rights--even in schools. He wouldn't have liked deferring to the minority in a school district in order to outlaw the relgious freedom of the majority.
He saw the good of religious faith in a society. He said, "Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?"
Schools in those days would celebrate Christmas religiously with pageants telling the ancient story of the virgin birth. And the ACLU wasn't then skulking about the music teachers to scare them away from singing religious music.
I know that TJ didn't personally believe in the miraculous of the Bible --his error. After all, he wasn't there at the time; the writers were. ARrogance on his part to assume that God couldn't do what the Bible says He did --all through his relationship with mankind starting with the creation of Adam and Eve, the miracle of Sarah and Abraham's baby in their old age, which baby was the first child of promise and a forefather of the whole Jewish nation/people group, whose child would have the 12 sons as beginners of the 12 tribes).
TJ would not have believed in the miracle of Elijah and the firey altar in the contest with the Baal worshippers whose altar would not ignite, and Elijah did get the Lord to raise a widow's only son from the dead --the miracles, virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus and the miracles of the early apostles, and the miraculous conversion of Saul to St. Paul. True stories. The writers believed them --and there were many of these writers telling one cohesive story about a God who loves us and has standards of righteousness (including family values) toward which we should aspire --a God who has provided salvation through Christ's perfection instead of our own.
TJ, however, may have fathered a child through his slave --whom he did not have the courage to free and marry. So I don't think you really want to champion his Deistic views. A braver Christian man would have fought slavery and freed his own slaves and not had sex with one to whom he was not married--Geo. Washington DID free his slaves, as i recall.
Revisionist historians like to say Geo. Washington had an affair with a neighbor on the basis of some flattery in a letter to that former neighbor. The flattery wasn't sexual in nature --and there was no reason to read into it an affair or infatuation--such flattery was the courtesy of the day. LIke the church usher who greets me warmly on Sundays and says, "You look beautiful today, Mrs.____" He means no romantic interest. And I assure you, beauty was in the eye of the beholder. Such was the flattery of the neighbor in Geo W's letter --out of which the revisionists made an affair. Observers in Geo W's day called him a man of prayer and devout Christian faith, active in his church's business.
It was Bible believers who led in abolition of slavery, in England and in U.s. See Amazing Grace at Spring Meadows theater.
Freedom from the Bible's standards is a dangerous thing --allowing us to advocate and celebrate all sorts of sin --to our personal, family, national, and eternal detriment.
As Geo. Washington put it, "The smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." 1st Inaugural Address.
How can liberals then say that we are not a religiously founded nation??? given that statement was in our first president's first inaugural address?
Therefore, faith in a Deity DID influence his public policy statement known as the Declaration of Independence. The Bible WAS an influence in our Constitution --because people raised on the book believed in freedom and rights but not licentiousness to do any Biblically defined sins which are bad for the society --sins that were considered morally wrong for generations of culture with Christian influence. They would never have said that if you don't think adultery or stealing or aborting are wrong, you may do them under our laws.
Early Americans believed in religious freedom --for the sake of the people who had been long oppressed under state churches. These people had not been oppressed by law in their desire to sin, but in their desire to worship freely, departing from the doctrines (not the morality) of the established state church. Cromwell, in England, e.g. had prohibited celebrating Christmas for a time.
For years, we had "blue laws" of restrictions on Sunday (no commerce) --because most of the nation believed in the 10 commandments --that a day should be held apart for God --"Thou shalt remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy." Today we say that since we aren't under the LAW but under GRACE, strictness about sabbath commerce is inconsistent with the NT --also because Jesus Himself weakened the extreme Jewish restrictions on the sabbath -saying "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
TJ was on the D.C school board which had the Bible, Common book of prayer, and the Isaac Watts Hymnal on the text book list. School days were started with prayer for a couple centuries at least in the U.S.
The way we interpret church-state separation today is not the way TJ interpreted it. He would have agreed that Ohare-murray's son should not have to participate in an opening day school prayer (which exception the school agreed to, i think) --but he would never have said that the prayers were illegal, which is what the boy's mother wanted--because he believed in religious freedom and majority rule with minority rights--even in schools. He wouldn't have liked deferring to the minority in a school district in order to outlaw the relgious freedom of the majority.
He saw the good of religious faith in a society. He said, "Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?"
Schools in those days would celebrate Christmas religiously with pageants telling the ancient story of the virgin birth. And the ACLU wasn't then skulking about the music teachers to scare them away from singing religious music.
I know that TJ didn't personally believe in the miraculous of the Bible --his error. After all, he wasn't there at the time; the writers were. ARrogance on his part to assume that God couldn't do what the Bible says He did --all through his relationship with mankind starting with the creation of Adam and Eve, the miracle of Sarah and Abraham's baby in their old age, which baby was the first child of promise and a forefather of the whole Jewish nation/people group, whose child would have the 12 sons as beginners of the 12 tribes).
TJ would not have believed in the miracle of Elijah and the firey altar in the contest with the Baal worshippers whose altar would not ignite, and Elijah did get the Lord to raise a widow's only son from the dead --the miracles, virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus and the miracles of the early apostles, and the miraculous conversion of Saul to St. Paul. True stories. The writers believed them --and there were many of these writers telling one cohesive story about a God who loves us and has standards of righteousness (including family values) toward which we should aspire --a God who has provided salvation through Christ's perfection instead of our own.
TJ, however, may have fathered a child through his slave --whom he did not have the courage to free and marry. So I don't think you really want to champion his Deistic views. A braver Christian man would have fought slavery and freed his own slaves and not had sex with one to whom he was not married--Geo. Washington DID free his slaves, as i recall.
Revisionist historians like to say Geo. Washington had an affair with a neighbor on the basis of some flattery in a letter to that former neighbor. The flattery wasn't sexual in nature --and there was no reason to read into it an affair or infatuation--such flattery was the courtesy of the day. LIke the church usher who greets me warmly on Sundays and says, "You look beautiful today, Mrs.____" He means no romantic interest. And I assure you, beauty was in the eye of the beholder. Such was the flattery of the neighbor in Geo W's letter --out of which the revisionists made an affair. Observers in Geo W's day called him a man of prayer and devout Christian faith, active in his church's business.
It was Bible believers who led in abolition of slavery, in England and in U.s. See Amazing Grace at Spring Meadows theater.
Freedom from the Bible's standards is a dangerous thing --allowing us to advocate and celebrate all sorts of sin --to our personal, family, national, and eternal detriment.
As Geo. Washington put it, "The smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." 1st Inaugural Address.
How can liberals then say that we are not a religiously founded nation??? given that statement was in our first president's first inaugural address?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
My tolerance for liberal democrats
For the record, LD, I think I love you more than you do me!
I could meet you and be very sociable and pleasant --I don't hate you. Have we met under different circumstances? I ask since you know me, at least by name, but I don't know you.
do you think your feeling and that of your daughter and some of these others toward me reaches the level of hatred? or just scorn and disrespect?
We don't agree --and half the country doesn't agree with the other half --but we had better be able to have civil discourse, lest your side rolls out the canons! My side won't do that --just over disagreement.
I think you all should back off the vitriol and ask yourself why it is that I am able to push your buttons and get all this reaction?
I'll answer the question--it's because there IS a culture war -- we don't agree about good and evil--and you think I am advocating evil --and I think you are. But I'm not the changer --My side of this debate is trying to put the brakes on the social change and erosion of Christian values in our culture that we've been seeing since '73--which started at least in the 60's.
whether you believe in Christ or not -- His teachings on the Golden Rule and forgiveness and love for the enemy and the downtrodden are still bedrock for western civ. but so are the Ten Commandments given to Moses --and the Bible's views on morality.
I think that we have a lot to lose if we exclude our faith in deciding matters of importance in the law and for social policy.
I could meet you and be very sociable and pleasant --I don't hate you. Have we met under different circumstances? I ask since you know me, at least by name, but I don't know you.
do you think your feeling and that of your daughter and some of these others toward me reaches the level of hatred? or just scorn and disrespect?
We don't agree --and half the country doesn't agree with the other half --but we had better be able to have civil discourse, lest your side rolls out the canons! My side won't do that --just over disagreement.
I think you all should back off the vitriol and ask yourself why it is that I am able to push your buttons and get all this reaction?
I'll answer the question--it's because there IS a culture war -- we don't agree about good and evil--and you think I am advocating evil --and I think you are. But I'm not the changer --My side of this debate is trying to put the brakes on the social change and erosion of Christian values in our culture that we've been seeing since '73--which started at least in the 60's.
whether you believe in Christ or not -- His teachings on the Golden Rule and forgiveness and love for the enemy and the downtrodden are still bedrock for western civ. but so are the Ten Commandments given to Moses --and the Bible's views on morality.
I think that we have a lot to lose if we exclude our faith in deciding matters of importance in the law and for social policy.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Western Influence Changes Nations
I find it interesting that when countries are exposed to western culture and people, even through our imperfect vehicles of military, tv, internet, missions, business interests --they pick up some of our views of freedom/civil rights --knowledge of our views, holidays and customs --you see this in Japan, India, e.g. You see this when so many want to immigrate to the U.S. --or the West in general.
Muslim societies have been very closed and rightfully critical of the worst excesses of western culture (in entertainment media, porn access, family erosion, etc.) --but it helps them to see first hand --through our finest soldiers and their mentality of helpfulness(not the worst as in Abu Graib) that we are NOT the "great satan," after all.
E.G. It takes western ideals to influence the women of Saudi Arabia to protest the treatment of women --as in the 90 lashes recently decreed for a woman who has been raped by 5 muslim men.
It takes time to bring some nations into the 21st c. -- there are elements of Indian society that are very contemporary and enlightened (the British influence from the past) and yet very backward because of their mix of religious beliefs which hold back progress--which incline them to ignore through "transcendence" the plight of those enduring bad karma. Our friend from Kenya despaired about the possibility of progress in Kenya because of the tribal traditions that hold them back, in his view.
The power of forgiveness is a great advancement to any people --my pen pal lawyer friend in India hasn't spoken to his mother for about 15 years --and they live in the same house but different rooms. I try to encourage him that forgiveness and reconciliation with parents is good for the soul --and the pscyhe --but he is adamant that ignoring her is best. In Christendom we know that "honoring parents" is good for us --even if they don't deserve it, in our judgment.
There is power in Christian parenting, missions and access to the Word of God --judeo Christian influence of centuries. There are some things westerners believe in as western ideals which make for progress --which have their root in the Bible and the Church. No good historian denies the positive influence of "the protestant work ethic" in the US.
the Chinese church is affecting that country for the better --some companies run by Christians are even allowed to have Bible fellowship in factories if it makes for better work ethics and productivity. Yet, as recently as last year, China cracked down and imprisoned some Christians and churches. I read recently of a Christian in Iran who would not renounce his faith in Christ --and was beaten and imprisoned for 5 years and died of pneumonia recenlty. Offered freedom and healthcare IF he would renounce Christ. he would not.
10:19 AM EST
Muslim societies have been very closed and rightfully critical of the worst excesses of western culture (in entertainment media, porn access, family erosion, etc.) --but it helps them to see first hand --through our finest soldiers and their mentality of helpfulness(not the worst as in Abu Graib) that we are NOT the "great satan," after all.
E.G. It takes western ideals to influence the women of Saudi Arabia to protest the treatment of women --as in the 90 lashes recently decreed for a woman who has been raped by 5 muslim men.
It takes time to bring some nations into the 21st c. -- there are elements of Indian society that are very contemporary and enlightened (the British influence from the past) and yet very backward because of their mix of religious beliefs which hold back progress--which incline them to ignore through "transcendence" the plight of those enduring bad karma. Our friend from Kenya despaired about the possibility of progress in Kenya because of the tribal traditions that hold them back, in his view.
The power of forgiveness is a great advancement to any people --my pen pal lawyer friend in India hasn't spoken to his mother for about 15 years --and they live in the same house but different rooms. I try to encourage him that forgiveness and reconciliation with parents is good for the soul --and the pscyhe --but he is adamant that ignoring her is best. In Christendom we know that "honoring parents" is good for us --even if they don't deserve it, in our judgment.
There is power in Christian parenting, missions and access to the Word of God --judeo Christian influence of centuries. There are some things westerners believe in as western ideals which make for progress --which have their root in the Bible and the Church. No good historian denies the positive influence of "the protestant work ethic" in the US.
the Chinese church is affecting that country for the better --some companies run by Christians are even allowed to have Bible fellowship in factories if it makes for better work ethics and productivity. Yet, as recently as last year, China cracked down and imprisoned some Christians and churches. I read recently of a Christian in Iran who would not renounce his faith in Christ --and was beaten and imprisoned for 5 years and died of pneumonia recenlty. Offered freedom and healthcare IF he would renounce Christ. he would not.
10:19 AM EST
Friday, March 9, 2007
the Culture War Rages ON
As you know, slavery was eliminated in the U.S. at the initiative of the GOP and many Christians --and it was the Christian Wilberforce who got it outlawed in England first.
Granted, the Democrats did more to promote the Civil Rights Act --and some Christians were active in that also --but that was before legalized abortion, wasn't it?--I'm talking about changes in the last 35 years if you'll notice what I wrote. That's not one of the changes I'm complaining about that liberals want to make now --and made since 1973.
Re: civil rights act, I wouldn't have supported segregated restaurants, buses, restrooms, etc. --such as the south had. However, history was not well served by riots and looting as public demonstrations of protest. Peaceful demonstrations were fine --until the pro-life people did it. Then the liberals hollered about access to the clinics. It was OK if it was the civil rights folks restricting access. But people trying to save babies were outlaws and hauled off to jail.
I also didn't like integration by busing -and that has never been enforced much, has it? I'd favor integration by vouchers and parental choice --for attending the religious schools (or any other) that do so well in educating their students.
As for the Unions, don't blame me for their demise; I had nothing to do with that. However, my parents didn't like union thuggery, forced strikes, brutality to those who would cross the picket line, vandalism to their cars, and protection of ineptitude and excessive absenteeism of some union workers. I remember when a union leader keyscratched the school sup't.'s car. I also didn't like how unions would get built-in raises in their contracts PLUS the increase from union negotiations --and then turn right around and start working on the next increase. The whole process was too adversarial --nasty. That's not to say, however, that I agree with the inflated multi-million dollar benefits of administrations of various companies as they lay off workers.
Also, I agreed when the GOP said it wasn't right to take compulsory union dues and give it to candidates who were not the workers' choice. I knew workers who resented that.
So, LD, if it isn't gay rights and abortion rights you think are constitutional and threatened --(you complain that I bring these up) --and Microdot says I accuse you all of promoting those two issues --so if that's not the case, what ARE the rights you are worried about losing if we have social conservatives as a majority in this country --or in office --or on the bench? Don't say we OWE the liberals support because of some good thing they supported in the past. Really, what ARE you worried about --if not that we will go back to the previous standards of our culture regarding abortion and gay rights --if not that we might restore the right to pray in schools where the parents want it? Or have vouchers for ALL educational choices?
The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a lot of things that the majority of people have ruled unlawful in this country. That doesn't mean that such laws made by majority rule are inevitably unconstitutional. Like restrictions on abortion and gay marriage.
I know the ones you are worried about are those 2 because they are the main hot button differences between the two parties --although the Republicans have also been more trusted with national defense in recent history --because of the left's ACLU edge, always protecting the criminal's rights and the suspect's privacy --often tying the hands of law enforcement and intelligence operations --opposing any racial, ethnic profiling, e.g. --when we know, e.g., it is Muslim young men who are most likely to be terrorists.
That "we" I use which microdot refers to, refers to the people that LD maligns along with me. The Bible believers --WE. Jesus gave us some assignments --to be salt and light and stand up for biblical principles.
Well, microdot, we agree on something --we BOTH want honest judges who will interpret cases by the Constitution. To me that means they will not make new law against the majority will of the people --like the legalization of abortion by striking down existing laws that have been on the books for years and written into the culture for centuries.
I KNOW from what you all post here that you are afraid that religious belief will influence legislation as it did prior to 73 --yet it is ALWAYS a BELIEF system --be it secular or religious --that influences how people vote.
We are in a cultural civil war.
8:52 PM EST
Granted, the Democrats did more to promote the Civil Rights Act --and some Christians were active in that also --but that was before legalized abortion, wasn't it?--I'm talking about changes in the last 35 years if you'll notice what I wrote. That's not one of the changes I'm complaining about that liberals want to make now --and made since 1973.
Re: civil rights act, I wouldn't have supported segregated restaurants, buses, restrooms, etc. --such as the south had. However, history was not well served by riots and looting as public demonstrations of protest. Peaceful demonstrations were fine --until the pro-life people did it. Then the liberals hollered about access to the clinics. It was OK if it was the civil rights folks restricting access. But people trying to save babies were outlaws and hauled off to jail.
I also didn't like integration by busing -and that has never been enforced much, has it? I'd favor integration by vouchers and parental choice --for attending the religious schools (or any other) that do so well in educating their students.
As for the Unions, don't blame me for their demise; I had nothing to do with that. However, my parents didn't like union thuggery, forced strikes, brutality to those who would cross the picket line, vandalism to their cars, and protection of ineptitude and excessive absenteeism of some union workers. I remember when a union leader keyscratched the school sup't.'s car. I also didn't like how unions would get built-in raises in their contracts PLUS the increase from union negotiations --and then turn right around and start working on the next increase. The whole process was too adversarial --nasty. That's not to say, however, that I agree with the inflated multi-million dollar benefits of administrations of various companies as they lay off workers.
Also, I agreed when the GOP said it wasn't right to take compulsory union dues and give it to candidates who were not the workers' choice. I knew workers who resented that.
So, LD, if it isn't gay rights and abortion rights you think are constitutional and threatened --(you complain that I bring these up) --and Microdot says I accuse you all of promoting those two issues --so if that's not the case, what ARE the rights you are worried about losing if we have social conservatives as a majority in this country --or in office --or on the bench? Don't say we OWE the liberals support because of some good thing they supported in the past. Really, what ARE you worried about --if not that we will go back to the previous standards of our culture regarding abortion and gay rights --if not that we might restore the right to pray in schools where the parents want it? Or have vouchers for ALL educational choices?
The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a lot of things that the majority of people have ruled unlawful in this country. That doesn't mean that such laws made by majority rule are inevitably unconstitutional. Like restrictions on abortion and gay marriage.
I know the ones you are worried about are those 2 because they are the main hot button differences between the two parties --although the Republicans have also been more trusted with national defense in recent history --because of the left's ACLU edge, always protecting the criminal's rights and the suspect's privacy --often tying the hands of law enforcement and intelligence operations --opposing any racial, ethnic profiling, e.g. --when we know, e.g., it is Muslim young men who are most likely to be terrorists.
That "we" I use which microdot refers to, refers to the people that LD maligns along with me. The Bible believers --WE. Jesus gave us some assignments --to be salt and light and stand up for biblical principles.
Well, microdot, we agree on something --we BOTH want honest judges who will interpret cases by the Constitution. To me that means they will not make new law against the majority will of the people --like the legalization of abortion by striking down existing laws that have been on the books for years and written into the culture for centuries.
I KNOW from what you all post here that you are afraid that religious belief will influence legislation as it did prior to 73 --yet it is ALWAYS a BELIEF system --be it secular or religious --that influences how people vote.
We are in a cultural civil war.
8:52 PM EST
Christians Threaten Constitutional Rights???
Liberal Democrat of Politics in Mudville.blogspot.com has accused the Christians of threatening Constitutional liberties. He means gay rights and abortion.
AGAIN, I tell you , it's not the conservative Christians who are trying to change the Constitution or take away any constitutional rights. It's the LIBERALS who have brought changes in the last 35 years that were not considered GOOD for mankind in all the centuries and cultures preceding--i.e. abortion and homosexual behavior/gay marriage. These are NEW rights sought or given SINCE 1973 --not seen as constitutional by any preceding generation or the constitution's framers --and the gay marriage thing is being debated now --and the majority of Americans still think both of these trends are NOT good for the country--or for the individuals wanting these things. You don't even want these issues subjected to a VOTE for the majority rule --you want to see liberal judges elected who will interpret these activites as freedoms guaranteed by the constitution--which they are NOT.
For one thing, the constitution cannot guarantee a right to something our Creator has declared to be evil. (and which secularists SHOULD be able to see as detrimental to our nation) But of course, that's your big gripe --you think the Creator either does not exist --or that the Bible is not His revelation. What if you are wrong? and you are.
The secularist sees no reason to restrict abortion or sexual behavior in any way --doesn't have a moral conviction that these things are wrong. So you blame the religious folks for narrow-mindedness --for holding out against these practices, for seeing them as evil. And that makes the Religious Right evil and dangerous in your narrow view.
When in fact, Jesus said the believers were to be the salt and light to the nations.
We are to remind you that life is precious, a great gift, and that we ought not abort it --but instead, be more chaste in our sexual behaviors so we wouldn't have unwelcome pregnancies.
We are to remind you that there is nothing healthy or procreative that people of the same sex can do together --especially the men who damage their bodies in some of their practices --who are extremely promiscuous in their behaviors --who risk death and disease for their compulsion. We are made in God's image as male and female --and our design makes that clear. We aren't to follow every inclination of our imaginations --nor to wallow in thoughts that are wrong. We are to screen out the perverse ideas --not entertain them. We are to accept and celebrate God's bio-assignment as males or females and not entertain wishful thinking that we could be the opposite sex or be with the same sex intimately. Surely we will learn that our failure to parent properly and intentionally regarding sexual orientation, is a cause of this great dysfunction.
AGAIN, I tell you , it's not the conservative Christians who are trying to change the Constitution or take away any constitutional rights. It's the LIBERALS who have brought changes in the last 35 years that were not considered GOOD for mankind in all the centuries and cultures preceding--i.e. abortion and homosexual behavior/gay marriage. These are NEW rights sought or given SINCE 1973 --not seen as constitutional by any preceding generation or the constitution's framers --and the gay marriage thing is being debated now --and the majority of Americans still think both of these trends are NOT good for the country--or for the individuals wanting these things. You don't even want these issues subjected to a VOTE for the majority rule --you want to see liberal judges elected who will interpret these activites as freedoms guaranteed by the constitution--which they are NOT.
For one thing, the constitution cannot guarantee a right to something our Creator has declared to be evil. (and which secularists SHOULD be able to see as detrimental to our nation) But of course, that's your big gripe --you think the Creator either does not exist --or that the Bible is not His revelation. What if you are wrong? and you are.
The secularist sees no reason to restrict abortion or sexual behavior in any way --doesn't have a moral conviction that these things are wrong. So you blame the religious folks for narrow-mindedness --for holding out against these practices, for seeing them as evil. And that makes the Religious Right evil and dangerous in your narrow view.
When in fact, Jesus said the believers were to be the salt and light to the nations.
We are to remind you that life is precious, a great gift, and that we ought not abort it --but instead, be more chaste in our sexual behaviors so we wouldn't have unwelcome pregnancies.
We are to remind you that there is nothing healthy or procreative that people of the same sex can do together --especially the men who damage their bodies in some of their practices --who are extremely promiscuous in their behaviors --who risk death and disease for their compulsion. We are made in God's image as male and female --and our design makes that clear. We aren't to follow every inclination of our imaginations --nor to wallow in thoughts that are wrong. We are to screen out the perverse ideas --not entertain them. We are to accept and celebrate God's bio-assignment as males or females and not entertain wishful thinking that we could be the opposite sex or be with the same sex intimately. Surely we will learn that our failure to parent properly and intentionally regarding sexual orientation, is a cause of this great dysfunction.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Why I believe in God
I don't pretend to know the rules of debate, logic and reasoning --I just think I AM logical, reasoning and able to debate --though not in a formal sense.
I can't prove God. But He can prove HImself to you.
I can't look at the stars --or the human body --or any living thing --or any dead thing by contrast --and not conclude that somebody is out there --and He is a God of life, order and beauty --and love --because He, this Designer/Creator --or Design Team, if you prefer --designed my eyes to see color and they gave me a whole rainbow of colors to see in flowers, sky and grass --and they gave us beautiful scents to smell in flowers,fresh cut grass, the ocean breezes --and ears that hear --and we have music with all its mathematical properties --and language --and we find so much enjoyment in it all --and the human spirit soars on the joy of Creation observed, felt, experienced.
And there is the baby --so pure, beautiful, clean and new, with all this hopeful potential parents feel in him --and love like they've never felt before.
No accidents produce such wondrous things. An intelligence MUST be behind it all --and it is reasonable to me that this intelligence could reveal itself to mankind as the God of Abraham did.
I believe those stories --about the contest between Elijah's God and the Baal Worshippers. They danced around their altar calling on Baal for hours --but the sacrifice would not ignite. Elijah called on HIS God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob --and fire appeared on the altar and consumed everything on it and licked up the water in the trench which Elijah had dug and filled with water just so Elijah's God could demonstrate His power. To me, that's a true story.
I think all the Bible stories have the ring of truth --of history --I believe the stories of Jesus are true --and He tells us a lot about the Heavenly Father, HIS Father --and how we can become children of God as the Jews were --chosen as they were --by simply believing in Christ as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of God --to atone for the sins of the world.
That story is only 20 centuries old and passed from generation to generation. I think they got it right --they wrote it down in the first century and passed it down through the ages --along with the scriptures by the Jewish patriarchs and prophets before.
I think it's logical to conclude the disciples had to see the risen Jesus in order to be willing to die for their message of Christ, crucified, risen and coming again --as He promised.
Interesting to me that the Muslims believe Jesus will return; the Jews believe the Messiah will come; and the Christians believe Jesus is coming back.
In the meantime, we should all seek and find, to be ready for OUR last day on earth --before His return.
I had a beautiful trusting faith as a child --God was very close to me, in my mind --after I went to an altar with my father when I was 5 to ask Jesus into my heart. And I felt so wonderful afterwards --like God was close and real to me. I doubted at 16 --and a young college man told me about fact faith and feeling --that feeling was most unstable and would pull faith down--but the Word of God was FACT --and would reach over and pick up floundering faith --which would pick up feeling. Nevertheless, I doubted --until my college classes in New Testament --where I became convinced intellectually --we read John Stott, C.S. Lewis -and were fortified in our belief in Christ. but it was when I was a church camp counselor asking God to give me a sense of His reality and closeness so I might be effective with the kids--that He ZAPPED me --as with the Holy spirit in such a way that my personality was different --joyful, loving, confident in whom I believed --and the fellowship I felt as a child with the Father was restored. I have described this experience to you before --as a washing over me --a flooding of my being --with God's presence, his reality and love for me.
I believe God wants to give everyone this presence of the Holy Spirit --if we seek, we will find.
If we don't want it, we are the losers. but if we hunger and thirst for righteousness --for justification with God --we shall be filled. It's a biblical promise.
I can't prove God. But He can prove HImself to you.
I can't look at the stars --or the human body --or any living thing --or any dead thing by contrast --and not conclude that somebody is out there --and He is a God of life, order and beauty --and love --because He, this Designer/Creator --or Design Team, if you prefer --designed my eyes to see color and they gave me a whole rainbow of colors to see in flowers, sky and grass --and they gave us beautiful scents to smell in flowers,fresh cut grass, the ocean breezes --and ears that hear --and we have music with all its mathematical properties --and language --and we find so much enjoyment in it all --and the human spirit soars on the joy of Creation observed, felt, experienced.
And there is the baby --so pure, beautiful, clean and new, with all this hopeful potential parents feel in him --and love like they've never felt before.
No accidents produce such wondrous things. An intelligence MUST be behind it all --and it is reasonable to me that this intelligence could reveal itself to mankind as the God of Abraham did.
I believe those stories --about the contest between Elijah's God and the Baal Worshippers. They danced around their altar calling on Baal for hours --but the sacrifice would not ignite. Elijah called on HIS God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob --and fire appeared on the altar and consumed everything on it and licked up the water in the trench which Elijah had dug and filled with water just so Elijah's God could demonstrate His power. To me, that's a true story.
I think all the Bible stories have the ring of truth --of history --I believe the stories of Jesus are true --and He tells us a lot about the Heavenly Father, HIS Father --and how we can become children of God as the Jews were --chosen as they were --by simply believing in Christ as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of God --to atone for the sins of the world.
That story is only 20 centuries old and passed from generation to generation. I think they got it right --they wrote it down in the first century and passed it down through the ages --along with the scriptures by the Jewish patriarchs and prophets before.
I think it's logical to conclude the disciples had to see the risen Jesus in order to be willing to die for their message of Christ, crucified, risen and coming again --as He promised.
Interesting to me that the Muslims believe Jesus will return; the Jews believe the Messiah will come; and the Christians believe Jesus is coming back.
In the meantime, we should all seek and find, to be ready for OUR last day on earth --before His return.
I had a beautiful trusting faith as a child --God was very close to me, in my mind --after I went to an altar with my father when I was 5 to ask Jesus into my heart. And I felt so wonderful afterwards --like God was close and real to me. I doubted at 16 --and a young college man told me about fact faith and feeling --that feeling was most unstable and would pull faith down--but the Word of God was FACT --and would reach over and pick up floundering faith --which would pick up feeling. Nevertheless, I doubted --until my college classes in New Testament --where I became convinced intellectually --we read John Stott, C.S. Lewis -and were fortified in our belief in Christ. but it was when I was a church camp counselor asking God to give me a sense of His reality and closeness so I might be effective with the kids--that He ZAPPED me --as with the Holy spirit in such a way that my personality was different --joyful, loving, confident in whom I believed --and the fellowship I felt as a child with the Father was restored. I have described this experience to you before --as a washing over me --a flooding of my being --with God's presence, his reality and love for me.
I believe God wants to give everyone this presence of the Holy Spirit --if we seek, we will find.
If we don't want it, we are the losers. but if we hunger and thirst for righteousness --for justification with God --we shall be filled. It's a biblical promise.
On faux republicans and Christians --neo Cons
Barb said...
LD said: "What a nasty mixture: faux-Republican and faux-Christian all rolled into one. The neocon christian: a terrible freak of intellectual evolution." "... this person is eye-for-eye, eternal damnation, and letter-of-the-law. There is no room for love."
Seems a pretty harsh judgment, don't you think?
I'm thinking you don't know the Bible too well if you think your "neo con fundamentalist" poster "mostly forms the rationale of her posts from the Old Testament."
On the contrary, the big Romans passage was from the NEw Testament --as was the story she posted about Paul's conversion --and everything she says about how people can have a 2nd chance at immortality through repentance and faith in Jesus. She does refer you to the OT for Isaiah 53 to see the prophecy about the suffering servant who would be "wounded for our transgressions."
The nasty edge LD claims to detect in HER posts isn't anything compared to LD's edge--and it's only because you, LD, do not agree with the Bible-believing Christians about the Bible's validity in defining sin. They believe it is God's Word, clearly telling us what God considers sinful so we might repent and turn away from such sins. You do not agree. You like the love teaching of Jesus --and that's all I've heard you say good about the Bible --however, love is not the manifestation of your personality seen on this blog. I'm sure you love your friends and family --but as Jesus said, even the Heathen do that much. he would challenge you farther --to love those with whom you disagree --and consider persuading them to your view point --for what purpose? so they might attain Heaven? so they might have peace with God? Just what IS your purpose??? in tearing down Bible-believers and the Bible at every opportunity?
as for Jesus, He, too was dogmatic --very --and He said He will be punitive when he separates believers (sheep) from unbelievers (goats.) He will be the judge, according to the Book of Revelations and HIs own words in the Gospels. He tells us there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun.
But He also offers the absolutely FREE GIFT of salvation for life eternal in a better place--FREE in that you don't have to be perfect & righteous to get it. He is the perfect and righteous one and His sacrifice on the cross atones for your sins --so you may go to Heaven simply by owning your sinfulness and your need of a Savior --so that when your family gathers at your graveside, the minister can comfort with those words of Christ, "I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, you may be also." (NT by the way.)
LD said: "What a nasty mixture: faux-Republican and faux-Christian all rolled into one. The neocon christian: a terrible freak of intellectual evolution." "... this person is eye-for-eye, eternal damnation, and letter-of-the-law. There is no room for love."
Seems a pretty harsh judgment, don't you think?
I'm thinking you don't know the Bible too well if you think your "neo con fundamentalist" poster "mostly forms the rationale of her posts from the Old Testament."
On the contrary, the big Romans passage was from the NEw Testament --as was the story she posted about Paul's conversion --and everything she says about how people can have a 2nd chance at immortality through repentance and faith in Jesus. She does refer you to the OT for Isaiah 53 to see the prophecy about the suffering servant who would be "wounded for our transgressions."
The nasty edge LD claims to detect in HER posts isn't anything compared to LD's edge--and it's only because you, LD, do not agree with the Bible-believing Christians about the Bible's validity in defining sin. They believe it is God's Word, clearly telling us what God considers sinful so we might repent and turn away from such sins. You do not agree. You like the love teaching of Jesus --and that's all I've heard you say good about the Bible --however, love is not the manifestation of your personality seen on this blog. I'm sure you love your friends and family --but as Jesus said, even the Heathen do that much. he would challenge you farther --to love those with whom you disagree --and consider persuading them to your view point --for what purpose? so they might attain Heaven? so they might have peace with God? Just what IS your purpose??? in tearing down Bible-believers and the Bible at every opportunity?
as for Jesus, He, too was dogmatic --very --and He said He will be punitive when he separates believers (sheep) from unbelievers (goats.) He will be the judge, according to the Book of Revelations and HIs own words in the Gospels. He tells us there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun.
But He also offers the absolutely FREE GIFT of salvation for life eternal in a better place--FREE in that you don't have to be perfect & righteous to get it. He is the perfect and righteous one and His sacrifice on the cross atones for your sins --so you may go to Heaven simply by owning your sinfulness and your need of a Savior --so that when your family gathers at your graveside, the minister can comfort with those words of Christ, "I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am, you may be also." (NT by the way.)
We were asked what Christians were doing for Muslims
Barb said...
I have a Christian friend who teaches math to Muslim women in Toledo. Our church has an Arabic Bible study run by an Egyptian Christian --but only Christians from the Middle east have come so far. I know some Christians who teach English to Muslim women.
I have a Muslim friend to whom I have reached out in several ways --such that he has started studying the Bible with our minister.
I am reading a book now by the Caner (Kaner?) brothers -both college profs with PhD's in Christian schools now --their father was Muslim and they were mosque-raised --but later converted --both they and the young man I know say Islam does not tell them that Allah loves them even as sinners. they expect their deeds to be weighed on the scales of justice to determine if they will be saved or not for paradise.
In Islam, there is no Savior for them who has paid the debt for their sin.
After 9/11, you may recall that the YES FM Christian radio station called for Christians to form a circle of prayer for protection at the mosque --for the protection of our Islamic residents. You can't beat THAT as a demonstration of Christian love for Muslims. If they try to convert us through reason, we will listen --they should listen to us, too, because our Savior lives today and is still the Best News on the planet for all.
But we do have more to fear from them --if you read the fatwah against the west given by Osama (as I just did) --they do believe that Allah's desire is to establish Islamic gov't and law everywhere --and that it will be done by force more than by loving evangelism. That's not how we believe Christianity should be spread--not by the sword.
microdot said...
But don't you think that America should have a Christian Government and your interpretation of the bible should be the law of the land. Isn't that what you keep saying or am I misinterpreting the last 25,000 or so words you've written.
Barb said...
I think America should learn from history --that sexual immorality (as defined by many religions) is is a reproach to any people.
Righteousness, as in sexual morality (Biblically defined and shared by many religions) exalts a nation--and is helpful to her in every way --including economic.
So many of our economic burdens are results of people's immoral sex lives --including disease, poverty, delinquency, teen pregnancy, prisons, fatherless kids. And sexual identity experimentation and confusion are also a result of the messed up families --messed up by adultery, porn, divorce, drugs, alcohol.
True Religion is a bulwark --a fortifier of man's best intentions.
microdot said...
so instead of answering my question directly, you have indirectly tried to disguise your answer in a flurry of another (i'm getting rather good at estimating wordage by the centimeter thanks to you) 120 words of proslytizing. I think you said yes.
Barb said...
I think we are a Christian nation more than we are any other kind of nation--in our views of civil rights --and I think Christianity protects all the other religions --has been open-armed to people from all over the world with all kinds of beliefs.
But Christians/God-believers and Bible -respectors --formed this nation and made it the best in the world. Not all the people here were believers nor moral nor good --and some came here purely for opportunity--and many for religious freedom --and many for both.
I want us to be respectful of our foundation and not cash it in for a purely secular philosophy of governance--because secularism without a Judeo-Christian base --loses all sense --and cohesiveness --and starts to persecute religions and erode our religious freedoms and foundation. Pure secularists are vicious --in their rhetoric for starters.
Wilberforce was a Christian whose religious beliefs convinced him that slavery was evil and so he persevered until Britain agreed. Britain didn't have to embrace his religious view --but they came to embrace his religion-BASED view. And probably because they believed in his religion also.
I think America's gov't needs to keep those same religion-based values that formed our gov't. The equality of man and each person's right to vote are based in Christianity --granted some Greek/Roman influence on our government. Women and slaves had their rights recognized because of Bible-believers --who knew the scripture on oneness in Christ and the fact that salvation is offered to ALL men. Christ exalted the value of each individual. He chose common joes for his disciples.
I have a Christian friend who teaches math to Muslim women in Toledo. Our church has an Arabic Bible study run by an Egyptian Christian --but only Christians from the Middle east have come so far. I know some Christians who teach English to Muslim women.
I have a Muslim friend to whom I have reached out in several ways --such that he has started studying the Bible with our minister.
I am reading a book now by the Caner (Kaner?) brothers -both college profs with PhD's in Christian schools now --their father was Muslim and they were mosque-raised --but later converted --both they and the young man I know say Islam does not tell them that Allah loves them even as sinners. they expect their deeds to be weighed on the scales of justice to determine if they will be saved or not for paradise.
In Islam, there is no Savior for them who has paid the debt for their sin.
After 9/11, you may recall that the YES FM Christian radio station called for Christians to form a circle of prayer for protection at the mosque --for the protection of our Islamic residents. You can't beat THAT as a demonstration of Christian love for Muslims. If they try to convert us through reason, we will listen --they should listen to us, too, because our Savior lives today and is still the Best News on the planet for all.
But we do have more to fear from them --if you read the fatwah against the west given by Osama (as I just did) --they do believe that Allah's desire is to establish Islamic gov't and law everywhere --and that it will be done by force more than by loving evangelism. That's not how we believe Christianity should be spread--not by the sword.
microdot said...
But don't you think that America should have a Christian Government and your interpretation of the bible should be the law of the land. Isn't that what you keep saying or am I misinterpreting the last 25,000 or so words you've written.
Barb said...
I think America should learn from history --that sexual immorality (as defined by many religions) is is a reproach to any people.
Righteousness, as in sexual morality (Biblically defined and shared by many religions) exalts a nation--and is helpful to her in every way --including economic.
So many of our economic burdens are results of people's immoral sex lives --including disease, poverty, delinquency, teen pregnancy, prisons, fatherless kids. And sexual identity experimentation and confusion are also a result of the messed up families --messed up by adultery, porn, divorce, drugs, alcohol.
True Religion is a bulwark --a fortifier of man's best intentions.
microdot said...
so instead of answering my question directly, you have indirectly tried to disguise your answer in a flurry of another (i'm getting rather good at estimating wordage by the centimeter thanks to you) 120 words of proslytizing. I think you said yes.
Barb said...
I think we are a Christian nation more than we are any other kind of nation--in our views of civil rights --and I think Christianity protects all the other religions --has been open-armed to people from all over the world with all kinds of beliefs.
But Christians/God-believers and Bible -respectors --formed this nation and made it the best in the world. Not all the people here were believers nor moral nor good --and some came here purely for opportunity--and many for religious freedom --and many for both.
I want us to be respectful of our foundation and not cash it in for a purely secular philosophy of governance--because secularism without a Judeo-Christian base --loses all sense --and cohesiveness --and starts to persecute religions and erode our religious freedoms and foundation. Pure secularists are vicious --in their rhetoric for starters.
Wilberforce was a Christian whose religious beliefs convinced him that slavery was evil and so he persevered until Britain agreed. Britain didn't have to embrace his religious view --but they came to embrace his religion-BASED view. And probably because they believed in his religion also.
I think America's gov't needs to keep those same religion-based values that formed our gov't. The equality of man and each person's right to vote are based in Christianity --granted some Greek/Roman influence on our government. Women and slaves had their rights recognized because of Bible-believers --who knew the scripture on oneness in Christ and the fact that salvation is offered to ALL men. Christ exalted the value of each individual. He chose common joes for his disciples.
More on Hauser's Theory of Moral Hard-wiring
Microdot says I believe this:
"Only Judeo-Christian believers are capable of being moral." and said to me, "You repeated that thought several times in your multiple posts."
No, I didn't; that's not a quote from me. I said the irreligious and people of other religions can choose morality if they've been taught well, well-parented to do so --and that good parenting and a relatively wholesome culture such as we have enjoyed in the US until the 60's usually comes from generations of Christian teaching about The Golden Rule, Ten C's,--and church attendance, etc.
MOreover, those righteous moral standards used to be upheld in public ed. and all churches as good, whether the hearer or teacher or parent believed the standards had a divine source or not. Every school student should STILL learn the Golden Rule and that Jesus said it --just to be educated --likewise the Ten C's and their source --embraced by Jews and Christians and given to Moses and the Jews on stone tablets by the God of Judeo Christianity.
All American youth used to know that, by our Judeo-Chrsitian culture, they were SUPPOSED to wait for marriage before having sex --that they were supposed to be faithful and that divorce was undesirable. there were always cultural trend setters trying to push the envelope, however. Today the envelope pushers have become more influential than churches and families --for too many people --partly because of the disintegration of american families resulting from our IMMORAL choices.
What I have said consistently is that our morality does not save us --only faith in Christ saves us. I didn't say that non-believers can't make moral choices.
Microdot said: "Do you think George Bush Sr. and Barbara Bush were good parents?"
As far as I know they were good parents who took their kids to church and taught them the values and morals that derive from Judeo-Christianity. They were, however, more liberal than their born again son whose heart was changed by Bible preaching/study and faith and encounter with Christ. I believe that Geo. W. believes the Bible --as does Condi Rice. According to Newsweek, they had daily, optional Bible devotionals with GW open to staff in the White House at the beginning of his term.
Microdot asks "How about Herr and Fraulein Hitler? Good parents? "
I haven't studied Hitler's upbringing but recall that he and Marx were both into diabolical interests as young men by their student writings--and I wouldn't be surprised if Hitler's values and sense of "racial" superiority came from his folks --along with his calloused indifference to the right to life of other people. Europeans can be so "superior," and tend to think that MYOB is a virtue --and are indifferent to basic Judeo-Christian values, eh, microdot? How else would you get the whole nation of Germany to follow a Hitler? It wasn't even in Jesus' teachings or anywhere in the New Testament that we should hate or exterminate Jews or the disabled or mentally ill or that protestants and Catholics should hate each other --and no Biblical justification for anything Hitler did --only clear teaching that people like Hitler and Mussolini were evil and advocates of evil.
Microdot wrote: "The parents of the killer kids at Columbine High School probably thought that they were good parents also." What they THOUGHT is irrelevant. After the fact, I'm sure they felt shame and failure. They've stayed out of the public eye and off of Oprah, as far as I know. They were not frequent church attenders --but liberal Jewish people in one case, who ignored what their boys were into as teens. The boys were pretty much raised in a religious vacuum --both of them, though the Jewish boy had some religious exposure --but not orthodox. And in such a vacuum, their "moral sense" didn't naturally evolve from any "hard wiring" described by Hauser. They were not moral in their choices.
"Some people do horrible things for what seems like no good reason but if you have the chance to see the perspective view, the reasons are there. Again, most people try to do the right thing!"
O puh-leese! So the good reasons were there for the Columbine killers and Hitler??? You need some coffee! Wake up to what you are saying!" HATE was their motivation. Self-pity in the case of the Columbine boys. Revenge motivated.
As the Bible says, you are calling evil, good.
The "most people" who you say "try to do the right thing" are people who were taught to do the right thing --who were taught what the right thing is -- and many of these were taught that they were accountable to Someone --either the Law --or the Law-giver --and a vast majority of the world wants to go to a good after-life and believes their deeds will be weighed. It is ONLY Christianity that says our deeds won't get us to Heaven; our faith in Christ --and HIS righteousness --is what takes us to Heaven. As evidence of that faith, our lives are to bear good works. As James wrote, "Faith without works is dead." but "We are saved by faith and not works, lest any man should boast."
uptheflag quoted the prof:
" 'Humans....have a....unconscious tool kit for constructing moral systems.' I seem to recall Kant stating that ever person has a
'categorical imperative' as to what is right or wrong. Sounds as if the Harvard Professor is borrowing from Kant......"
The Bible, again, does say we are without excuse when we choose sin --that we know in our hearts right from wrong. However, the so-called moral imperative is certainly reinforced by TEACHING. Without teaching, the WILL to choose right is much weaker. Of course, the sin nature is often indulged in spite of teaching --as with Rev. haggard --and various other clergy --who know what is right and wrong --but indulge in sinful lusts and temptations. Some of them count on the grace of God covering their sins --their problem, however, is that persistent sinning callouses the believer --and he will not be truly remorseful in his repentance because he enjoyed his sin too much. If he doesn't come to a place of real shame and misery --as King David did --who cried out to God, "Restore to me the joy of my salvation!" --who knew that fleeting pleasures of sin could not compare to peace and fellowship with God --the joy of the redeemed. David felt great guilt and remorse at the gulf which sin had made between the Psalmist and the Psalm-giver. If the believer doesn't come to that state of remorse for his sin, his repentance will ring hollow and be ineffectual.
We need to beg God to make us capable of feeling remorse --chronic sin hardens our hearts, so that we don't hear that still small voice of conscience like we should.
10:00 AM EST
Barb said...
No, Don, the metaphor doesn't bother me.
I understand the "hard wiring" phrase to mean "innate" and that the prof is also suggesting this is biological, evolved in humans--and present in some animals.
The Bible suggests we are without excuse because we know right from wrong in our hearts (or God and His standards, more specifically) as in
Romans 1:19-20 (NIV)
But then it says Man has "devolved" --lost his sense of conscience. His audience was the Romans who were then steeped in both idolatry, mythical gods and goddesses, and sexual debauchery. Their Empire would fall as prohpesied.
Romans 1:18-32
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [His creation], so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [There was a time of pagan idolatry all over the globe.]
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty [the diseases] for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Approving evil --that's where we are today --so this "hard-wiring" --this innate moral sense --has been severely damaged by our willful choices to sin. And that's why we die --Paul here wrote that such acts deserve death --and so it is, that man's earthly body is mortal --for now.
But we have a promise of resurrection of the body through remorse for our sin and through faith in Christ who not only resurrected others like Lazarus and Jairus' daughter --but was Himself raised after 3 days in the tomb.
I'm staking MY faith on this resurrected rabbi --no other speaks or lived with such authority as to make us suspect He was truly from God--the light of the world --the living bread and the living water --the Prince of Peace, The Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. who said, "Because I live, you shall live also!"
"Only Judeo-Christian believers are capable of being moral." and said to me, "You repeated that thought several times in your multiple posts."
No, I didn't; that's not a quote from me. I said the irreligious and people of other religions can choose morality if they've been taught well, well-parented to do so --and that good parenting and a relatively wholesome culture such as we have enjoyed in the US until the 60's usually comes from generations of Christian teaching about The Golden Rule, Ten C's,--and church attendance, etc.
MOreover, those righteous moral standards used to be upheld in public ed. and all churches as good, whether the hearer or teacher or parent believed the standards had a divine source or not. Every school student should STILL learn the Golden Rule and that Jesus said it --just to be educated --likewise the Ten C's and their source --embraced by Jews and Christians and given to Moses and the Jews on stone tablets by the God of Judeo Christianity.
All American youth used to know that, by our Judeo-Chrsitian culture, they were SUPPOSED to wait for marriage before having sex --that they were supposed to be faithful and that divorce was undesirable. there were always cultural trend setters trying to push the envelope, however. Today the envelope pushers have become more influential than churches and families --for too many people --partly because of the disintegration of american families resulting from our IMMORAL choices.
What I have said consistently is that our morality does not save us --only faith in Christ saves us. I didn't say that non-believers can't make moral choices.
Microdot said: "Do you think George Bush Sr. and Barbara Bush were good parents?"
As far as I know they were good parents who took their kids to church and taught them the values and morals that derive from Judeo-Christianity. They were, however, more liberal than their born again son whose heart was changed by Bible preaching/study and faith and encounter with Christ. I believe that Geo. W. believes the Bible --as does Condi Rice. According to Newsweek, they had daily, optional Bible devotionals with GW open to staff in the White House at the beginning of his term.
Microdot asks "How about Herr and Fraulein Hitler? Good parents? "
I haven't studied Hitler's upbringing but recall that he and Marx were both into diabolical interests as young men by their student writings--and I wouldn't be surprised if Hitler's values and sense of "racial" superiority came from his folks --along with his calloused indifference to the right to life of other people. Europeans can be so "superior," and tend to think that MYOB is a virtue --and are indifferent to basic Judeo-Christian values, eh, microdot? How else would you get the whole nation of Germany to follow a Hitler? It wasn't even in Jesus' teachings or anywhere in the New Testament that we should hate or exterminate Jews or the disabled or mentally ill or that protestants and Catholics should hate each other --and no Biblical justification for anything Hitler did --only clear teaching that people like Hitler and Mussolini were evil and advocates of evil.
Microdot wrote: "The parents of the killer kids at Columbine High School probably thought that they were good parents also." What they THOUGHT is irrelevant. After the fact, I'm sure they felt shame and failure. They've stayed out of the public eye and off of Oprah, as far as I know. They were not frequent church attenders --but liberal Jewish people in one case, who ignored what their boys were into as teens. The boys were pretty much raised in a religious vacuum --both of them, though the Jewish boy had some religious exposure --but not orthodox. And in such a vacuum, their "moral sense" didn't naturally evolve from any "hard wiring" described by Hauser. They were not moral in their choices.
"Some people do horrible things for what seems like no good reason but if you have the chance to see the perspective view, the reasons are there. Again, most people try to do the right thing!"
O puh-leese! So the good reasons were there for the Columbine killers and Hitler??? You need some coffee! Wake up to what you are saying!" HATE was their motivation. Self-pity in the case of the Columbine boys. Revenge motivated.
As the Bible says, you are calling evil, good.
The "most people" who you say "try to do the right thing" are people who were taught to do the right thing --who were taught what the right thing is -- and many of these were taught that they were accountable to Someone --either the Law --or the Law-giver --and a vast majority of the world wants to go to a good after-life and believes their deeds will be weighed. It is ONLY Christianity that says our deeds won't get us to Heaven; our faith in Christ --and HIS righteousness --is what takes us to Heaven. As evidence of that faith, our lives are to bear good works. As James wrote, "Faith without works is dead." but "We are saved by faith and not works, lest any man should boast."
uptheflag quoted the prof:
" 'Humans....have a....unconscious tool kit for constructing moral systems.' I seem to recall Kant stating that ever person has a
'categorical imperative' as to what is right or wrong. Sounds as if the Harvard Professor is borrowing from Kant......"
The Bible, again, does say we are without excuse when we choose sin --that we know in our hearts right from wrong. However, the so-called moral imperative is certainly reinforced by TEACHING. Without teaching, the WILL to choose right is much weaker. Of course, the sin nature is often indulged in spite of teaching --as with Rev. haggard --and various other clergy --who know what is right and wrong --but indulge in sinful lusts and temptations. Some of them count on the grace of God covering their sins --their problem, however, is that persistent sinning callouses the believer --and he will not be truly remorseful in his repentance because he enjoyed his sin too much. If he doesn't come to a place of real shame and misery --as King David did --who cried out to God, "Restore to me the joy of my salvation!" --who knew that fleeting pleasures of sin could not compare to peace and fellowship with God --the joy of the redeemed. David felt great guilt and remorse at the gulf which sin had made between the Psalmist and the Psalm-giver. If the believer doesn't come to that state of remorse for his sin, his repentance will ring hollow and be ineffectual.
We need to beg God to make us capable of feeling remorse --chronic sin hardens our hearts, so that we don't hear that still small voice of conscience like we should.
10:00 AM EST
Barb said...
No, Don, the metaphor doesn't bother me.
I understand the "hard wiring" phrase to mean "innate" and that the prof is also suggesting this is biological, evolved in humans--and present in some animals.
The Bible suggests we are without excuse because we know right from wrong in our hearts (or God and His standards, more specifically) as in
Romans 1:19-20 (NIV)
But then it says Man has "devolved" --lost his sense of conscience. His audience was the Romans who were then steeped in both idolatry, mythical gods and goddesses, and sexual debauchery. Their Empire would fall as prohpesied.
Romans 1:18-32
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [His creation], so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [There was a time of pagan idolatry all over the globe.]
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty [the diseases] for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Approving evil --that's where we are today --so this "hard-wiring" --this innate moral sense --has been severely damaged by our willful choices to sin. And that's why we die --Paul here wrote that such acts deserve death --and so it is, that man's earthly body is mortal --for now.
But we have a promise of resurrection of the body through remorse for our sin and through faith in Christ who not only resurrected others like Lazarus and Jairus' daughter --but was Himself raised after 3 days in the tomb.
I'm staking MY faith on this resurrected rabbi --no other speaks or lived with such authority as to make us suspect He was truly from God--the light of the world --the living bread and the living water --the Prince of Peace, The Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. who said, "Because I live, you shall live also!"
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Dr. Hauser of Harvard says Morality is Hard wired into everyone.
From: www.Politics in Mudville.blogspot.com "If Humans Are 'Hard Wired' For Morality, Why Do We Need Religion?" ---post by Liberal Democrat --my comments below after his blog.
LD writes: "Harvard professor Marc Hauser says that humans and perhaps some other mammals are 'hard wired' for morality. Dr. Hauser runs the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory at Harvard and is the author of several scholarly papers as well as the book, "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Sense of Right and Wrong."
Dr.Hauser argues that humans have a universal moral grammar, an instinctive, unconscious tool kit for constructing moral systems.
In an article in the Toronto Star, Hauser suggests:
"Morality is influenced by cultural teachings but is also so deep and universal an aspect of human existence that it is effectively "hard-wired" into the brain, much like the instinct for language. At work are principles as unconscious and yet powerful as the grammar rules we use when we speak – and the challenge to scientists is to figure out what those built-in moral rules are and how they work."
The Star article goes on to point out the 'religion' dilemma:
"A psychologist, evolutionary biologist and anthropologist, Hauser has felt students grow restless as he talks about the underpinnings of morality. One student, he says, complained, "I know where you're going: Because it's universal, it's biological, and therefore there's no role for religion." Hauser recalls responding: "I'm not saying you shouldn't derive meaning from religion. I'm just telling you that at some level, the nature of the moral judgments that you make and I make are the same, even though I don't go to church and you do.""
The New York Times article reports of Dr. Hauser's theory:
"Dr. Hauser presents his argument as a hypothesis to be proved, not as an established fact. But it is an idea that he roots in solid ground, including his own and others’ work with primates and in empirical results derived by moral philosophers.
The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior."
Thus questions arise:
• If moral judgments are immune to religious doctrine, what then is the role of religion in the morality theory?
• Are 'church folks' more moral than atheists?
• Can religious instruction actually skew the hard-wired morality already in place in the brain?
• Is some sense of 'morality' hard-wired in apes and chimps? [Photo]
In an earlier post I cited an article on the chimp known as the bonobo. Bonobos seem to live by the principle "make love, not war". They are very docile towards one another, never aggressive or murderous, and possess many of the psychological traits we value most, including altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity. Could they, too be hard-wired for morality?
posted by liberal_dem at 10:24 AM on Mar 7, 2007
Barb said...
Of course we are hard-wired for the ability to make moral and immoral choices --especially if taught right from wrong. The Bible says that we are without excuse in our sinful choices --we know better somewhere deep in our hard wiring.
However, there are areas I think in which people don't know right from wrong --children are innately selfish--THAT seems to be hard-wired into us as well. Would we feel any guilt about our selfishness if no one told us that it was wrong? I think of that old man who kept the girls in his underground prison as sex slaves --seen recently on msnbc documentary, i believe. He seemed to lack any remorse or conscience in the matter. totally selfish--pure evil. Poor dear --what was he to do with a wife too invalid to give him sex? Imprison young girls, of course! It was logical to him.
Religion is about a relationship between Creator and Creation --He reached out to us. We respond, either choosing our own path or seeking His. Scorning rules or embracing them as guides for life which are for our own good --and the good of others he has created.
Man has invented many religions realizing through his hard wiring that there has to be somebody greater than we are behind the order and beauty of the universe and the earth and all its inhabitants--whose weather and other calamities might be avoided if we could only figure out how to appease the gods that be....
11:13 AM EST
liberal_dem said...
Hi, barb. I'm glad that this post got your righteous attention. We all are so pleased to have a woman with your fine moral character sweep up the dirt in this blog.
11:22 AM EST
microdot said...
I think that from her opening sentence, Barb shows that she has got it wrong and not really read your article.
"Of course we are hard-wired for the ability to make moral and immoral choices".
Wouldn't a simpler way of stating what she said be, we are hard wired to make choices.
I actually think that positive useful behaviour and "morality" is
part a healthy brain. We make good choices for survival and survival as a human means the ability to coexist peacefully with each other.
That simple statements dictates the entire range of behaviour and interaction with each other.
If an individual has made "immoral" behavioural choices, then there are problems that are greater than a simple dose of old time reliigion would cure.
If it was just as simple as acepting reliigion, then the morally righteous government leaders we have who all profess to be fervent Deists wouldn't let wounded soldiers suffer the conditions we have been learning about in the last week. Moral, upright relgious men wouldn't have started an insane bloody conflict for an insane plan to dominate the worlds petro chemical resources.
The majority of humans living on this planet want to do so in peace and harmony and would do so if the psychotic power crazed god fearing leaders would let them.
12:31 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
I think that from her opening sentence, Barb shows that she has got it wrong and not really read your article.
She has 5 or 6 canned statements which she randomly posts regardless of the subject of the thread.
2:32 PM EST
Barb said...
Some truths bear repeating, LD. As Jesus put it, "Let he who has ears, HEAR!"
If Hauser is right, then Hitler and Stalin and all their disciples were what? They missed out on the "Hard wiring for morality"? they were standing behind the door when this "hard wiring" took place?
Isn't he saying that we are all moral because it is better for our self-preservation? or is it NOT always to our personal, short-range advantage to be moral? Don't we see story after story --some true --about people who considered that the immoral choice was to their advantage? OF COURSE. Being moral is not about advantaging yourself --except in the eternal run. The guy who throws himself on a grenade to protect others is moral --and at the same time, truly not self-seeking. Same way with the guy who threw himself over another person to save him from the subway train.
Such heroic acts are not hard-wired in everyone. Nor is morality hard-wired, such that both the religious and the irreligious will make the moral choices over the immoral.
The fact that some DO make moral choices without being religious is because this country DOES have a Judeo-Christian sense of right and wrong. Chances are good that the irreligious moral person had parents who taught him well what was right and what was wrong and whether they realized it or admitted it or not, the source was Judeo-Christian -Biblical philosophy of life --that sacrifice for others is noble --that unselfishness is better than selfishness --that we should do unto others as we'd like done to ourselves. that we should choose to be compassionate, forgiving, loving.
"Getting even" is the moral code of most of the world --eye for an eye. And while that IS the standard for justice, it is not a prescription from Christianity for how we should live. Jesus added the forgiveness factor. Forgiveness is absolutely the only path to peace.
Obviously, the teen killers at Columbine H.S. weren't hard wired to be moral --nor was the jealous female astronaut --nor was the old man who imprisoned the sex slaves -nor the school teachers taking up with students or Laci's husband throwing her overboard for another woman-nor were all the people who fill our prisons for murder, rape and theft, etc. And some of them ARE believers on the surface --but their temptations to do wrong outweighed their hard-wired preference for morality we all are supposed to have, according to Hauser.
The Bible says that we are hard-wired with a bent to sinning --because of original sin with the first couple. We are willing to be deceived into thinking that immorality is moral and good and for our advantage. But the Bible, as I asserted in my first comment, also says we are without excuse when we DO choose disobedience over obedience, immorality over morality--because hardwired also in us, is a knowledge of good and evil --as from the tree in the garden.
someone once posed a question --if you were in a dark place at night and a group of young men approached --would you be relieved to learn they were just coming from a Bible study instead of a bar?
I think so --religion sharpens the conscience and fortifies the will to do right. It tells us we are accountable for our behavior to someone who is watching --who wants us to do right instead of wrong. Mood enhancers and lack of moral education and lack of religious instruction can dull judgment and can reduce us to indulge our most base and selfish inclinations.
Hard-wired for a sense of morality? yes --for a knowledge of right and wrong even when we aren't religious? --perhaps, but knowledge of morality alone doesn't help us choose morality if we think it is to our advantage to be immoral.
C.S. Lewis said we may not agree about the specifics of what is fair or not --but we all appeal to a standard of fairness --saying over and over again, "That's not right --that's not fair --there oughtta be a law!" He says this universal sense of "oughtness" is evidence of God's existance --lending credibility to the Biblical account of Creator and Created. As he put it, we may not agree how many wives a man can have, but most all cultures/religions would agree that a man can't just have any and every woman he wants.
Hauser probably had some religious AND moral ancestors --who passed down through their parenting (not their genes) his sense of morality which resembles that of the religious. But without the bedrock of the Word of God, he can find excuse for immoral choices --as our whole culture is doing today.
As the Bible says, we have each become a law unto ourselves.
4:48 PM EST
LD writes: "Harvard professor Marc Hauser says that humans and perhaps some other mammals are 'hard wired' for morality. Dr. Hauser runs the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory at Harvard and is the author of several scholarly papers as well as the book, "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Sense of Right and Wrong."
Dr.Hauser argues that humans have a universal moral grammar, an instinctive, unconscious tool kit for constructing moral systems.
In an article in the Toronto Star, Hauser suggests:
"Morality is influenced by cultural teachings but is also so deep and universal an aspect of human existence that it is effectively "hard-wired" into the brain, much like the instinct for language. At work are principles as unconscious and yet powerful as the grammar rules we use when we speak – and the challenge to scientists is to figure out what those built-in moral rules are and how they work."
The Star article goes on to point out the 'religion' dilemma:
"A psychologist, evolutionary biologist and anthropologist, Hauser has felt students grow restless as he talks about the underpinnings of morality. One student, he says, complained, "I know where you're going: Because it's universal, it's biological, and therefore there's no role for religion." Hauser recalls responding: "I'm not saying you shouldn't derive meaning from religion. I'm just telling you that at some level, the nature of the moral judgments that you make and I make are the same, even though I don't go to church and you do.""
The New York Times article reports of Dr. Hauser's theory:
"Dr. Hauser presents his argument as a hypothesis to be proved, not as an established fact. But it is an idea that he roots in solid ground, including his own and others’ work with primates and in empirical results derived by moral philosophers.
The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior."
Thus questions arise:
• If moral judgments are immune to religious doctrine, what then is the role of religion in the morality theory?
• Are 'church folks' more moral than atheists?
• Can religious instruction actually skew the hard-wired morality already in place in the brain?
• Is some sense of 'morality' hard-wired in apes and chimps? [Photo]
In an earlier post I cited an article on the chimp known as the bonobo. Bonobos seem to live by the principle "make love, not war". They are very docile towards one another, never aggressive or murderous, and possess many of the psychological traits we value most, including altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity. Could they, too be hard-wired for morality?
posted by liberal_dem at 10:24 AM on Mar 7, 2007
Barb said...
Of course we are hard-wired for the ability to make moral and immoral choices --especially if taught right from wrong. The Bible says that we are without excuse in our sinful choices --we know better somewhere deep in our hard wiring.
However, there are areas I think in which people don't know right from wrong --children are innately selfish--THAT seems to be hard-wired into us as well. Would we feel any guilt about our selfishness if no one told us that it was wrong? I think of that old man who kept the girls in his underground prison as sex slaves --seen recently on msnbc documentary, i believe. He seemed to lack any remorse or conscience in the matter. totally selfish--pure evil. Poor dear --what was he to do with a wife too invalid to give him sex? Imprison young girls, of course! It was logical to him.
Religion is about a relationship between Creator and Creation --He reached out to us. We respond, either choosing our own path or seeking His. Scorning rules or embracing them as guides for life which are for our own good --and the good of others he has created.
Man has invented many religions realizing through his hard wiring that there has to be somebody greater than we are behind the order and beauty of the universe and the earth and all its inhabitants--whose weather and other calamities might be avoided if we could only figure out how to appease the gods that be....
11:13 AM EST
liberal_dem said...
Hi, barb. I'm glad that this post got your righteous attention. We all are so pleased to have a woman with your fine moral character sweep up the dirt in this blog.
11:22 AM EST
microdot said...
I think that from her opening sentence, Barb shows that she has got it wrong and not really read your article.
"Of course we are hard-wired for the ability to make moral and immoral choices".
Wouldn't a simpler way of stating what she said be, we are hard wired to make choices.
I actually think that positive useful behaviour and "morality" is
part a healthy brain. We make good choices for survival and survival as a human means the ability to coexist peacefully with each other.
That simple statements dictates the entire range of behaviour and interaction with each other.
If an individual has made "immoral" behavioural choices, then there are problems that are greater than a simple dose of old time reliigion would cure.
If it was just as simple as acepting reliigion, then the morally righteous government leaders we have who all profess to be fervent Deists wouldn't let wounded soldiers suffer the conditions we have been learning about in the last week. Moral, upright relgious men wouldn't have started an insane bloody conflict for an insane plan to dominate the worlds petro chemical resources.
The majority of humans living on this planet want to do so in peace and harmony and would do so if the psychotic power crazed god fearing leaders would let them.
12:31 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
I think that from her opening sentence, Barb shows that she has got it wrong and not really read your article.
She has 5 or 6 canned statements which she randomly posts regardless of the subject of the thread.
2:32 PM EST
Barb said...
Some truths bear repeating, LD. As Jesus put it, "Let he who has ears, HEAR!"
If Hauser is right, then Hitler and Stalin and all their disciples were what? They missed out on the "Hard wiring for morality"? they were standing behind the door when this "hard wiring" took place?
Isn't he saying that we are all moral because it is better for our self-preservation? or is it NOT always to our personal, short-range advantage to be moral? Don't we see story after story --some true --about people who considered that the immoral choice was to their advantage? OF COURSE. Being moral is not about advantaging yourself --except in the eternal run. The guy who throws himself on a grenade to protect others is moral --and at the same time, truly not self-seeking. Same way with the guy who threw himself over another person to save him from the subway train.
Such heroic acts are not hard-wired in everyone. Nor is morality hard-wired, such that both the religious and the irreligious will make the moral choices over the immoral.
The fact that some DO make moral choices without being religious is because this country DOES have a Judeo-Christian sense of right and wrong. Chances are good that the irreligious moral person had parents who taught him well what was right and what was wrong and whether they realized it or admitted it or not, the source was Judeo-Christian -Biblical philosophy of life --that sacrifice for others is noble --that unselfishness is better than selfishness --that we should do unto others as we'd like done to ourselves. that we should choose to be compassionate, forgiving, loving.
"Getting even" is the moral code of most of the world --eye for an eye. And while that IS the standard for justice, it is not a prescription from Christianity for how we should live. Jesus added the forgiveness factor. Forgiveness is absolutely the only path to peace.
Obviously, the teen killers at Columbine H.S. weren't hard wired to be moral --nor was the jealous female astronaut --nor was the old man who imprisoned the sex slaves -nor the school teachers taking up with students or Laci's husband throwing her overboard for another woman-nor were all the people who fill our prisons for murder, rape and theft, etc. And some of them ARE believers on the surface --but their temptations to do wrong outweighed their hard-wired preference for morality we all are supposed to have, according to Hauser.
The Bible says that we are hard-wired with a bent to sinning --because of original sin with the first couple. We are willing to be deceived into thinking that immorality is moral and good and for our advantage. But the Bible, as I asserted in my first comment, also says we are without excuse when we DO choose disobedience over obedience, immorality over morality--because hardwired also in us, is a knowledge of good and evil --as from the tree in the garden.
someone once posed a question --if you were in a dark place at night and a group of young men approached --would you be relieved to learn they were just coming from a Bible study instead of a bar?
I think so --religion sharpens the conscience and fortifies the will to do right. It tells us we are accountable for our behavior to someone who is watching --who wants us to do right instead of wrong. Mood enhancers and lack of moral education and lack of religious instruction can dull judgment and can reduce us to indulge our most base and selfish inclinations.
Hard-wired for a sense of morality? yes --for a knowledge of right and wrong even when we aren't religious? --perhaps, but knowledge of morality alone doesn't help us choose morality if we think it is to our advantage to be immoral.
C.S. Lewis said we may not agree about the specifics of what is fair or not --but we all appeal to a standard of fairness --saying over and over again, "That's not right --that's not fair --there oughtta be a law!" He says this universal sense of "oughtness" is evidence of God's existance --lending credibility to the Biblical account of Creator and Created. As he put it, we may not agree how many wives a man can have, but most all cultures/religions would agree that a man can't just have any and every woman he wants.
Hauser probably had some religious AND moral ancestors --who passed down through their parenting (not their genes) his sense of morality which resembles that of the religious. But without the bedrock of the Word of God, he can find excuse for immoral choices --as our whole culture is doing today.
As the Bible says, we have each become a law unto ourselves.
4:48 PM EST
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
a witness to mudville residents
Interesting , LD, that you believe in the human Jesus --in that part of the accounts --so why don't you believe it when the writers go on to tell you about his miracles, resurrection and what He said afterwards? There were many witnesses --not just one man's claim to have seen a risen Jesus.
I also think the story of St Paul is very compelling to faith in Christ. He was a persecutor of Christians delivering them to their deaths --until he was blinded by a light on the Road to Damascus --and Jesus' voice spoke to Him--and told Him where to go to receive back His sight --after which He could say with authority and double meaning, "I once was blind but now I see."
Paul was completely changed by that experience. Encountering Christ still changes people today.
Read ACTS ch. 9 -- There were multiple witnesses to Paul's blindness and his experience on the road --and God told a man named Ananias to find Paul and follow directions so his sight would be restored. It's a wonderful story --with witnesses who traveled with Paul and also heard the voice.
Joseph Smith had just his own narrative of an angel visitation --and his life didn't produce Godly fruit. Any religion that departs from the Bible and adds to it and speculates wildly, claiming authoritative knowledge about Heaven beyond what the Bible says --saying our souls pre-existed, etc. as Mormons teach --those religions were founded by false prophets.
but Christianity was founded by a man that MOST people still admire for His life and teachings--though some dare to be sacriligious (like Conan the other night) to their peril. As Pilate said, people today say of Christ, "I can find no fault with this man."
Mohammad had his Gabriel visitation but he is the only witness to it and there was no righteous fruit to his life or ministry--and no healings and no resurrection. It is not a religion of love but one started by a wolf in sheep's clothing --whose followers would behead me for saying so. Look at the mess of radical Islam and all the bombings around the world.They can justify it in these heavenly writings received by mohammad. In his defense, HE was possibly genuinely spiritually deceived, believing in his revelation --perhaps an unwitting channel for something diabolical--because he twisted the revelation about Christ --and said Judas or a body-double was crucified instead --that Christ was assumed into Heaven rather than resurrected from the grave. And that he Mohammad is the greatest prophet, greater than Christ.
Christianity is the religion of the eye witnesses who saw the miracles --who saw Jesus on the cross --and after death in His resurrected body. It's not one man's account or writing --not even Jesus' writing about himself --it's not one man's revelation. His coming was predicted --read the pre-Christian Isaiah 53: 5 & 6 (the whole chapter actually) about the one "who was wounded for our transgressions." "who bore the iniquity of us all."
Jesus said at the Passover Feast before His crucifixion, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."
The witnesses preached, "Christ, crucified, risen, and coming again."
I assume, Microdot, you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls? I don't think there is any contradiction to scripture in them, is there? they just are NOT scriptures. I believe they have been an aid in translation --for the linguists of ancient languages who have done Bible translations.
As for who will be taking care of whom in eternity, LD --Jesus will judge sinners and forgiven sinners on a Judgment Day. Like it or not, He will deal with you. "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
12:50 PM EST
I also think the story of St Paul is very compelling to faith in Christ. He was a persecutor of Christians delivering them to their deaths --until he was blinded by a light on the Road to Damascus --and Jesus' voice spoke to Him--and told Him where to go to receive back His sight --after which He could say with authority and double meaning, "I once was blind but now I see."
Paul was completely changed by that experience. Encountering Christ still changes people today.
Read ACTS ch. 9 -- There were multiple witnesses to Paul's blindness and his experience on the road --and God told a man named Ananias to find Paul and follow directions so his sight would be restored. It's a wonderful story --with witnesses who traveled with Paul and also heard the voice.
Joseph Smith had just his own narrative of an angel visitation --and his life didn't produce Godly fruit. Any religion that departs from the Bible and adds to it and speculates wildly, claiming authoritative knowledge about Heaven beyond what the Bible says --saying our souls pre-existed, etc. as Mormons teach --those religions were founded by false prophets.
but Christianity was founded by a man that MOST people still admire for His life and teachings--though some dare to be sacriligious (like Conan the other night) to their peril. As Pilate said, people today say of Christ, "I can find no fault with this man."
Mohammad had his Gabriel visitation but he is the only witness to it and there was no righteous fruit to his life or ministry--and no healings and no resurrection. It is not a religion of love but one started by a wolf in sheep's clothing --whose followers would behead me for saying so. Look at the mess of radical Islam and all the bombings around the world.They can justify it in these heavenly writings received by mohammad. In his defense, HE was possibly genuinely spiritually deceived, believing in his revelation --perhaps an unwitting channel for something diabolical--because he twisted the revelation about Christ --and said Judas or a body-double was crucified instead --that Christ was assumed into Heaven rather than resurrected from the grave. And that he Mohammad is the greatest prophet, greater than Christ.
Christianity is the religion of the eye witnesses who saw the miracles --who saw Jesus on the cross --and after death in His resurrected body. It's not one man's account or writing --not even Jesus' writing about himself --it's not one man's revelation. His coming was predicted --read the pre-Christian Isaiah 53: 5 & 6 (the whole chapter actually) about the one "who was wounded for our transgressions." "who bore the iniquity of us all."
Jesus said at the Passover Feast before His crucifixion, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."
The witnesses preached, "Christ, crucified, risen, and coming again."
I assume, Microdot, you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls? I don't think there is any contradiction to scripture in them, is there? they just are NOT scriptures. I believe they have been an aid in translation --for the linguists of ancient languages who have done Bible translations.
As for who will be taking care of whom in eternity, LD --Jesus will judge sinners and forgiven sinners on a Judgment Day. Like it or not, He will deal with you. "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
12:50 PM EST
Christian Influence in the Republican Party?
The Republican Party is not a party separate from its constitutents -not a party whose power is up for grabs by any but the majority who make it up. My family on my mother's and father's side have been republicans --and on my father's side, social conservatives/Christians as well, for at least 4 generations --probably since Lincoln. They always believed in low taxes and limited gov't --and incentives for initiative and business. They opposed social security for the reasons why it is in trouble today. They were members of churches that opposed slavery from the get-go. (However, we're all willing to collect S.S. --my parents still think they could've managed their retirement better themselves. I do recognize, however, that most people would not and would come up short --and have to move in with their kids--which would not be the end of the world.)
I've been intrigued by the delegates to the repub. national convention and their socially conservative planks placed in party platform. Because in Toledo, I don't know of any Christians who work hard to work through the party in that way --taking a stand and getting a delegate's spot to preserve the values of the first 300 years of this country on sanctity of life and marriage, media decency, etc. I am grateful to those who have done so in the nation at large.
The party is fractured now over immigration more than anything else--and Bush's view is the more liberal --and Christian view, i believe. And the more realistic one. Extreme self-protectiveness of conserves like Pat Buchanan is NOT as Christian as Bush's stance. Nor is the "buy American" insistance of Pat and Unions --wanting to cut out the rest of the world from our prosperity by trade restrictions --a richer world with shared prosperity is good for all. And our people benefit from the cheaper goods. We've had a lot to do with teaching the rest of the world how to manufacture and prosper --and in turn, we learned some things from the Japanese in business, also.
ultra-conservatives would not be as compassionate as the social conservatives are --who march to the tune of a different drummer. Granted, Pat B. is a social conservative also.
I understand that the movie Amazing Grace at Spring Meadows now for limited release --is excellent in depicting how Wilberforce's Christian faith influenced his politics and the greatest civil rights decision of all time --end of slavery in the British Empire before it happened in U.S.
Ms. Price shows her ignorance in saying: Limited Government does not have room for a list of social prohibitions trying to change America as a whole nation."
It's the liberals who have been trying to change America by legislating (legalizing) IMMORALITY --by getting into power to choose judges who will legislate from the bench --since it's much harder to get unlimited abortion and new rights for gays (like marriage) through legislatures. So liberals want to change the nation through media, education, and the courts in hopes of eventually winning majorities in the congress for their licentious views of morality.
Our younger generation is so ignorant of history, they don't know that the 21st century is the first time in human history that gay marriage was promoted and exalted as equal and as legit as normal marriage. When I grew up, we knew such a thing was "unthinkable" and unnatural and wrong --as any other perversion is still considered to be --for now.
The Republican party embraced the Christian Coalition --because the Christians who cared most about preserving centuries-old moral standards in our country were already republicans -- We were not the hippies who advocated free love (communal sex) and drugs. Out of the hippies movement has come all the rest of this malarkey in favor of abortion and homosexual marriage.
So we're not about CHANGING America for the worst -but for preserving the better features of her Judeo-Christian heritage. We believe, as Jesus said, that Christians are a light to the world --a salt to preserve righteous standards. "There is a broad road that leads to destruction and many there be that go that way --but the narrow path to righteousness is the path to LIFE and few there be that find it."
I've been intrigued by the delegates to the repub. national convention and their socially conservative planks placed in party platform. Because in Toledo, I don't know of any Christians who work hard to work through the party in that way --taking a stand and getting a delegate's spot to preserve the values of the first 300 years of this country on sanctity of life and marriage, media decency, etc. I am grateful to those who have done so in the nation at large.
The party is fractured now over immigration more than anything else--and Bush's view is the more liberal --and Christian view, i believe. And the more realistic one. Extreme self-protectiveness of conserves like Pat Buchanan is NOT as Christian as Bush's stance. Nor is the "buy American" insistance of Pat and Unions --wanting to cut out the rest of the world from our prosperity by trade restrictions --a richer world with shared prosperity is good for all. And our people benefit from the cheaper goods. We've had a lot to do with teaching the rest of the world how to manufacture and prosper --and in turn, we learned some things from the Japanese in business, also.
ultra-conservatives would not be as compassionate as the social conservatives are --who march to the tune of a different drummer. Granted, Pat B. is a social conservative also.
I understand that the movie Amazing Grace at Spring Meadows now for limited release --is excellent in depicting how Wilberforce's Christian faith influenced his politics and the greatest civil rights decision of all time --end of slavery in the British Empire before it happened in U.S.
Ms. Price shows her ignorance in saying: Limited Government does not have room for a list of social prohibitions trying to change America as a whole nation."
It's the liberals who have been trying to change America by legislating (legalizing) IMMORALITY --by getting into power to choose judges who will legislate from the bench --since it's much harder to get unlimited abortion and new rights for gays (like marriage) through legislatures. So liberals want to change the nation through media, education, and the courts in hopes of eventually winning majorities in the congress for their licentious views of morality.
Our younger generation is so ignorant of history, they don't know that the 21st century is the first time in human history that gay marriage was promoted and exalted as equal and as legit as normal marriage. When I grew up, we knew such a thing was "unthinkable" and unnatural and wrong --as any other perversion is still considered to be --for now.
The Republican party embraced the Christian Coalition --because the Christians who cared most about preserving centuries-old moral standards in our country were already republicans -- We were not the hippies who advocated free love (communal sex) and drugs. Out of the hippies movement has come all the rest of this malarkey in favor of abortion and homosexual marriage.
So we're not about CHANGING America for the worst -but for preserving the better features of her Judeo-Christian heritage. We believe, as Jesus said, that Christians are a light to the world --a salt to preserve righteous standards. "There is a broad road that leads to destruction and many there be that go that way --but the narrow path to righteousness is the path to LIFE and few there be that find it."
Monday, March 5, 2007
Darwininan Claim Rebutted
The claim of evolutionists is that
"because genetic variation has been observed, increases in net genetic complexity have occurred. Though the mechanism for genetic variation may be mutation, there is no proven mechanism for increased net genetic complexity, which evolution requires. [Evolutionists and their writings] mask this scientific weakness. They define evolution as 'change over time' or 'descent with modification,' as 2 very different concepts --observed genetic variation (antibiotic resistant bacteria, e.g....)and unobserved increases in net genetic complexity (i.e., new genes) --the former supposedly validating the latter. Yet with no mechanism for the appearance of more complex kingdoms, phyla, and classes, evolutionary theory cannot explain biodiversity." (info at textbook reviews.org --Ed.Research Analysts)
"because genetic variation has been observed, increases in net genetic complexity have occurred. Though the mechanism for genetic variation may be mutation, there is no proven mechanism for increased net genetic complexity, which evolution requires. [Evolutionists and their writings] mask this scientific weakness. They define evolution as 'change over time' or 'descent with modification,' as 2 very different concepts --observed genetic variation (antibiotic resistant bacteria, e.g....)and unobserved increases in net genetic complexity (i.e., new genes) --the former supposedly validating the latter. Yet with no mechanism for the appearance of more complex kingdoms, phyla, and classes, evolutionary theory cannot explain biodiversity." (info at textbook reviews.org --Ed.Research Analysts)
The Tomb of Jesus? Empty or Not?
What an imagination the revisionist historians of the Discovery Channel have --yet --not so creative or new, just the sort of thing any skeptics could conceive--and have been doing for 20 centuries.
At least SOME of the gospel accounts which spend a lot of paper space detailing the resurrection of Christ and things he did and said afterward --were written in the first century --not in the 4th and 5th when an unmarried, celibate, resurrected Jesus served the purpose of the church in the Gospel according to LD/TV.
As the skeptics said, there wasn't a need for Jesus to be unmarried --from the standpoint of pagan cultures whose deities were VERY human in all ways -- there wasn't a need for Jesus to be resurrected IN ORDER to have a world religion with power and influence --take the married Mohammad and Buddha.
But by the Creator's revealed plan, there was a need for man's sins to be atoned for so he could regain immortality--because God had made man in His own image, longing for fellowship with us --forever. We are the apple of His eye called to "run the race set before us for the prize of the high calling of Christ Jesus."
Newsweek suggested that it was unlikely that Jesus' poor family would be buried in the location of this tomb. In fact, there was no family plot so Jesus was laid to rest in a donated tomb owned by a wealthy man. And that tomb was guarded before the body disappeared.
Any craftsman in the early centuries (maybe even recent --can make forgeries that fool experts)and could have made these ossuaries hoping for some financial gain--or hoping to debunk the Bible. Also, the names were common to the era and could have been any other family's tomb.
Moreoever, after the crucifixion, the followers of Jesus just wanted to save their own skins and were hiding out, dejected; Peter had denied knowing Jesus during the trial period --these men were not a brave lot --until transformed by their association with a resurrected God/man. The Resurrection was the turning point for the disciples --the event which birthed the church --whose central message was "christ, crucified, risen, and coming again." Because that's what they witnessed --along with His promise that He would return.
The Resurrection of Christ with a promise of salvation for all who believe is the greatest and best news in all of human history.
All that is said in a film like this is vain speculation, suggestions, no hard facts--which, however, will mislead many away from the truth --a damnable offense.
1:25 PM EST
At least SOME of the gospel accounts which spend a lot of paper space detailing the resurrection of Christ and things he did and said afterward --were written in the first century --not in the 4th and 5th when an unmarried, celibate, resurrected Jesus served the purpose of the church in the Gospel according to LD/TV.
As the skeptics said, there wasn't a need for Jesus to be unmarried --from the standpoint of pagan cultures whose deities were VERY human in all ways -- there wasn't a need for Jesus to be resurrected IN ORDER to have a world religion with power and influence --take the married Mohammad and Buddha.
But by the Creator's revealed plan, there was a need for man's sins to be atoned for so he could regain immortality--because God had made man in His own image, longing for fellowship with us --forever. We are the apple of His eye called to "run the race set before us for the prize of the high calling of Christ Jesus."
Newsweek suggested that it was unlikely that Jesus' poor family would be buried in the location of this tomb. In fact, there was no family plot so Jesus was laid to rest in a donated tomb owned by a wealthy man. And that tomb was guarded before the body disappeared.
Any craftsman in the early centuries (maybe even recent --can make forgeries that fool experts)and could have made these ossuaries hoping for some financial gain--or hoping to debunk the Bible. Also, the names were common to the era and could have been any other family's tomb.
Moreoever, after the crucifixion, the followers of Jesus just wanted to save their own skins and were hiding out, dejected; Peter had denied knowing Jesus during the trial period --these men were not a brave lot --until transformed by their association with a resurrected God/man. The Resurrection was the turning point for the disciples --the event which birthed the church --whose central message was "christ, crucified, risen, and coming again." Because that's what they witnessed --along with His promise that He would return.
The Resurrection of Christ with a promise of salvation for all who believe is the greatest and best news in all of human history.
All that is said in a film like this is vain speculation, suggestions, no hard facts--which, however, will mislead many away from the truth --a damnable offense.
1:25 PM EST
Thursday, March 1, 2007
For skeptics --My Own Experience
For the skeptic who just doesn't know what to believe --not because he's scornful and arrogant --but because it's so confusing to hear all the competing religious philosophies
Jesus said, if we seek, we shall find. God wants to be known.
He said, "Draw near to me and I will draw near to you." I used to be a doubter --a frightened one --and I became convinced in my mind first --through a Christian college's excellent Bible classes --who taught a rationale for faith in Christ --like C.S. Lewis does --and then, (enter space odyssey music) I DID have a spiritual experience -- Jesus described it as being "born of the Spirit." No, I am not a charismatic, per se.
But I had a spiritual awakening--a life-changing encounter with the Divine --a washing of my soul --a certainty of God's reality literally "flooded" my being.
like the fellow who wrote for national Geog --"walk across America" --he went into a church and had an experience of God also which he described for his readers --
There is an experience beyond the assent to believe --as Jesus said, "I'll give you living water" --"I am the living bread" --that quenches the hunger and thirst in our souls.
We are to seek and find --
But we are also to beware of false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing --who will stray from the traditional Word of the prophets and apostles and Jesus Himself and claim themselves to be prophets with a new direction --a new message differing from the One who spoke from the authority of a Resurrected sacrificial lamb who died for the sins of the world.
Jesus said we should test religious leaders to be sure their lives are exemplary and not phony--NOT wolves in clerical garb molesting anyone in the Good Shepherd's flocks --regardless of age.
and back to RELEVANCE FOR THIS THREAD --
Pagan Roman's view expressed here is truly believed in by those who march in the Gay Pride parades under the banner of NAMBLA. There are grown ups who DO believe that kids are fair game --and some of these grown-ups are in our churches and schools and neighborhoods and families. Sin abounds --and for that reason, we need a Savior --and churches who truly teach and demonstrate biblical precepts on morality --that the only legitimate sex is that between man and wife.
2:31 PM EST
[Photo]
The Toledo City Paper's cover story thi sweek is entitled, "Holy War." The article begins: "The Roman Catholic Church has been suspected of keeping secrets throughout its storied history. Some, like Father Thomas Doyle have written about this, and subsequently been censured, slandered or subjected to other retaliation from church hierarchy. According to Doyle, co-author of “Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes,” and advocate for victims of Catholic clergy sexual abuse, secrecy is literally written into the canon law.
The church in the state of Ohio and the Catholic Diocese of Toledo do not represent exceptions to this rule. For this reason, the claimed victims of sexual abuse by priests, where the statute of limitations for bringing their claim to court has expired, find themselves in dismay over Ohio’s recent passing of the civil registry, rather than the victim driven Senate Bill 17. The civil registry became law under the considerable influence of the Ohio’s Conference of Catholic Bishops." -------------------- I have written often about the cover-up in the Catholic Church and, specifically, the Diocese of Toledo's cover-up of many many cases. The Catholioc [GOP] members of the Ohio House were pressured by their Catholic bishops and priests to close the window, the so-called 'look back law,' to save the Catholic Church embarrassment. It is noteworthy that, today, the archdiocese of San Diego declared bankruptcy in order to avoid clergy abuse trials. The Toldo Diocese bobs, weaves, and does backdoor deals to avoid such trials. My previoous stories are here here here here
posted by liberal_dem at 11:27 AM on Feb 28, 2007
Jesus said, if we seek, we shall find. God wants to be known.
He said, "Draw near to me and I will draw near to you." I used to be a doubter --a frightened one --and I became convinced in my mind first --through a Christian college's excellent Bible classes --who taught a rationale for faith in Christ --like C.S. Lewis does --and then, (enter space odyssey music) I DID have a spiritual experience -- Jesus described it as being "born of the Spirit." No, I am not a charismatic, per se.
But I had a spiritual awakening--a life-changing encounter with the Divine --a washing of my soul --a certainty of God's reality literally "flooded" my being.
like the fellow who wrote for national Geog --"walk across America" --he went into a church and had an experience of God also which he described for his readers --
There is an experience beyond the assent to believe --as Jesus said, "I'll give you living water" --"I am the living bread" --that quenches the hunger and thirst in our souls.
We are to seek and find --
But we are also to beware of false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing --who will stray from the traditional Word of the prophets and apostles and Jesus Himself and claim themselves to be prophets with a new direction --a new message differing from the One who spoke from the authority of a Resurrected sacrificial lamb who died for the sins of the world.
Jesus said we should test religious leaders to be sure their lives are exemplary and not phony--NOT wolves in clerical garb molesting anyone in the Good Shepherd's flocks --regardless of age.
and back to RELEVANCE FOR THIS THREAD --
Pagan Roman's view expressed here is truly believed in by those who march in the Gay Pride parades under the banner of NAMBLA. There are grown ups who DO believe that kids are fair game --and some of these grown-ups are in our churches and schools and neighborhoods and families. Sin abounds --and for that reason, we need a Savior --and churches who truly teach and demonstrate biblical precepts on morality --that the only legitimate sex is that between man and wife.
2:31 PM EST
[Photo]
The Toledo City Paper's cover story thi sweek is entitled, "Holy War." The article begins: "The Roman Catholic Church has been suspected of keeping secrets throughout its storied history. Some, like Father Thomas Doyle have written about this, and subsequently been censured, slandered or subjected to other retaliation from church hierarchy. According to Doyle, co-author of “Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes,” and advocate for victims of Catholic clergy sexual abuse, secrecy is literally written into the canon law.
The church in the state of Ohio and the Catholic Diocese of Toledo do not represent exceptions to this rule. For this reason, the claimed victims of sexual abuse by priests, where the statute of limitations for bringing their claim to court has expired, find themselves in dismay over Ohio’s recent passing of the civil registry, rather than the victim driven Senate Bill 17. The civil registry became law under the considerable influence of the Ohio’s Conference of Catholic Bishops." -------------------- I have written often about the cover-up in the Catholic Church and, specifically, the Diocese of Toledo's cover-up of many many cases. The Catholioc [GOP] members of the Ohio House were pressured by their Catholic bishops and priests to close the window, the so-called 'look back law,' to save the Catholic Church embarrassment. It is noteworthy that, today, the archdiocese of San Diego declared bankruptcy in order to avoid clergy abuse trials. The Toldo Diocese bobs, weaves, and does backdoor deals to avoid such trials. My previoous stories are here here here here
posted by liberal_dem at 11:27 AM on Feb 28, 2007
Interesting exchange on Mudville blog --On censorship and skeptics
Post a Comment On: Politics in Mudville "Ohio’s victims of clerical sexual abuse left frustrated by Senate Bill 17"
12 Comments - Show Original Post
Collapse comments
microdot said...
I'd like to apologize to all the readers of this blog for my over the edge, nasty posts inspired by "she whose name will not be mentioned".
I was way out of line and acting in a way I would not want to be treated.
Voila!
3:43 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
Perhaps 'name not mentioned' was raptured early.
9:39 PM EST
noah's ark said...
Oh, yes...it's all fun and games until God sends everyone who entertains reasonable skepticism about a 2000 year-old text straight to Hell!!
And what does Lord Voldemort have to do with any of this?!? For Pete's sake, talk sense, man!!
10:06 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
Lord Voldemort can scare the dickens out of people just like the Wizard of Oz and other fanciful Great Demons of the Night.
10:30 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
I think Lord Voldemort was Dick Cheney before he saw the dermatologist.
10:31 PM EST
Barb said...
Repentance is good for the soul, microdot --though you DO sound a little like the wife beater who says it's all her fault that you got a little nasty (your word.) "she inspired me! otherwise, the milk of human kindness runs in my veins!"
Sorry, LD, I'm still here!
Faith vs. skepticism --do we really think the infinite God admires and excuses the finite skeptic for his brilliance and his independence --when he lands on the wrong side of truth?
Notice that I have said something similar to what your Father Doyle has written --that there is quite possibly a long history of sexual sin in the cloistered, secretive priesthood --and it's only natural that the all-male enclave would attract males with abnormal appetites--and create more such males through their pedophilia/pederasty--and protect each other. That's not to indict all priests or the church's doctrine, at all --but one wonders what allegations would surface --or would have surfaced--or would even be manufactured --if priests would start to give up some of their own. Is internal blackmail guaranteeing silence --as in "Give me up and I'll tell on you!"
12:05 AM EST
Pagan Roman said...
Back in the Roman Empire, we used to f!ck all the whores we wanted, and drink all the drink we wanted. It was acceptable for adult males to have sex with teenage boys. Indeed, Julius Caesar may have had sex with Augustus Caeser himself when the latter was a child. But now, these Christian folks have turned otherwise ordinary priests into a bunch of perverts. Under a Pagan regime, none of this would be a crime.
2:21 AM EST
microdot said...
I still stand by my opinions, my apologies were to the readers of this blog,whose reason and intellignce I respect.
I still think you are a hysterical nut case who is only a few steps from working yourself into a frenzy of cross burning on lawns.
Keep posting, Babe, you only do yourself more damage with every word!
Anything I say would only inflame your inflated sense of self importance.
3:50 AM EST
liberal_dem said...
microdot- if you or I had the time and/or the desire, we could copy/paste all of her posts and write a book.
I've thought about it. Yet, I am unsure of the best title. Could you help out with some suggestions?
7:42 AM EST
Don said...
"do we really think the infinite God admires and excuses the finite skeptic for his brilliance and his independence --when he lands on the wrong side of truth?"
Should the faithful be admired and excused when faith leads them to land on the wrong side of the truth? Look at the endless varieties of religion in the world. They all can't be right. Maybe God appreciates a skeptic for being honest enough to admit "I really don't know".
What has always been puzzling to me about the Christian faith is the notion that the only unforgivable sin is skepticism. The worst mass murderer can repent before death and be saved. On the other hand, a person who cannot decide, amongst various competing religions, which is the true religion -- that is a crime worthy of eternal damnation?
And what about a person who WANTS to believe, but finds the evidence too shaky, and thus entertains doubts about the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is that worthy of God's scorn and wrath?
What about a four year-old child, raised as a Hindu, who dies of malaria? Didn't accept Jesus...does the child's soul burn in Hell? If God is a reasonable diety, I cannot believe such a result is possible.
Who shows more respect for God, the believer who claims God burns souls in Hell with scant justification, or the skeptic who argues that God would never be so unjust?
9:01 AM EST
liberal_dem said...
Don- excellent comments.
9:13 AM EST
Barb said...
Why did you apologize, Microdot, since you are doing the same thing again?
You are absolutely right to suggest my posts should stand so you can all see how ignorant, illogical, irrelevant, obtuse, and wrong I am -right? What's to delete? I dont' name-call or use bad language nor get terribly explicit in x-rated ways --so why delete ME? (My view on homosexuality is held by millions of bible-believers --and it is not bigotry but a legit view of the Creator's design and intentions for our bodies.) So what is too dangerous about honest exchange of ideas on a forum of this nature? I couldn't possibly convince anyone, right? or give anyone info they don't already know -- or point out any fallacies in anyone else's thinking? Right?
So let the posts speak for themselves.
But of course, it is LD's blog and he is the blogmaster and can do whatever he likes --either entertain free exchange of ideas and free speech --or keep it controlled so that there is only one consistent liberal view on every issue and no info or opinion to the contrary.
Don --In John 20: 24-31 --the disciple Thomas was a doubter who had to see the nailprints in Christ's hands in order to believe that the man standing before him in the upper room was REALLY the crucified one. Doubting is not the unpardonable sin for one who says as Thomas, "Lord, help thou my unbelief!"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:24-31&version=31
It's when we are conceited in our skepticism, scornful of Christ's death and resurrection--that we may be committing --not the unpardonable sin for which there is no forgiveness --but a sin, nonetheless, for which we DO need to repent in order to access the blood of Christ over all our sin.
Thomas presented himself to Christ, doubts and all. And Jesus said, "'Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." ....
"These words are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.
Jeering and mocking Jesus for His claims is nothing new.
The child who dies without knowledge? Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven."
Many believe that the blood of Christ will cover those who earnestly seek God and show compassion to others, even though they lack knowledge of Christ -but we don't have an absolute assurance that this will be a frequent situation because our own righteousness is insufficient in any case --we are commanded to tell the world because Christ's Gospel is LIGHT in the darkness --direction--the Way to God --assurance --for our souls. People will be saved by their faith and repentance, and their baptism is an outward sign of an inward work of God's grace --as is their compassion and righteous deeds.
The Bible speaks of Rahab, a prostitute, as a heroine of the faith --because she believed and helped the disicples escape. David, an adulterer and worse, is our Psalmist and also a pre-Christian hero of the faith --and Job was a pre-Jewish complainer with good reason to complain--but is credited for his patience --because he did not turn against God in his afflictions.
God has not given us impossible standards for entrance to Heaven --just a Savior --for it is ONLY sinners who are saved --"For all have sinned and come short of God's glory" "There is none righteous, no not one."
So skeptics saveable? YES --but the proud and scornful? must repent or beware. The one who is saved says, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."
Rather than, "Thank you, God, that I am not as sinful(or as stupid) as this repentant, humble believer."
12 Comments - Show Original Post
Collapse comments
microdot said...
I'd like to apologize to all the readers of this blog for my over the edge, nasty posts inspired by "she whose name will not be mentioned".
I was way out of line and acting in a way I would not want to be treated.
Voila!
3:43 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
Perhaps 'name not mentioned' was raptured early.
9:39 PM EST
noah's ark said...
Oh, yes...it's all fun and games until God sends everyone who entertains reasonable skepticism about a 2000 year-old text straight to Hell!!
And what does Lord Voldemort have to do with any of this?!? For Pete's sake, talk sense, man!!
10:06 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
Lord Voldemort can scare the dickens out of people just like the Wizard of Oz and other fanciful Great Demons of the Night.
10:30 PM EST
liberal_dem said...
I think Lord Voldemort was Dick Cheney before he saw the dermatologist.
10:31 PM EST
Barb said...
Repentance is good for the soul, microdot --though you DO sound a little like the wife beater who says it's all her fault that you got a little nasty (your word.) "she inspired me! otherwise, the milk of human kindness runs in my veins!"
Sorry, LD, I'm still here!
Faith vs. skepticism --do we really think the infinite God admires and excuses the finite skeptic for his brilliance and his independence --when he lands on the wrong side of truth?
Notice that I have said something similar to what your Father Doyle has written --that there is quite possibly a long history of sexual sin in the cloistered, secretive priesthood --and it's only natural that the all-male enclave would attract males with abnormal appetites--and create more such males through their pedophilia/pederasty--and protect each other. That's not to indict all priests or the church's doctrine, at all --but one wonders what allegations would surface --or would have surfaced--or would even be manufactured --if priests would start to give up some of their own. Is internal blackmail guaranteeing silence --as in "Give me up and I'll tell on you!"
12:05 AM EST
Pagan Roman said...
Back in the Roman Empire, we used to f!ck all the whores we wanted, and drink all the drink we wanted. It was acceptable for adult males to have sex with teenage boys. Indeed, Julius Caesar may have had sex with Augustus Caeser himself when the latter was a child. But now, these Christian folks have turned otherwise ordinary priests into a bunch of perverts. Under a Pagan regime, none of this would be a crime.
2:21 AM EST
microdot said...
I still stand by my opinions, my apologies were to the readers of this blog,whose reason and intellignce I respect.
I still think you are a hysterical nut case who is only a few steps from working yourself into a frenzy of cross burning on lawns.
Keep posting, Babe, you only do yourself more damage with every word!
Anything I say would only inflame your inflated sense of self importance.
3:50 AM EST
liberal_dem said...
microdot- if you or I had the time and/or the desire, we could copy/paste all of her posts and write a book.
I've thought about it. Yet, I am unsure of the best title. Could you help out with some suggestions?
7:42 AM EST
Don said...
"do we really think the infinite God admires and excuses the finite skeptic for his brilliance and his independence --when he lands on the wrong side of truth?"
Should the faithful be admired and excused when faith leads them to land on the wrong side of the truth? Look at the endless varieties of religion in the world. They all can't be right. Maybe God appreciates a skeptic for being honest enough to admit "I really don't know".
What has always been puzzling to me about the Christian faith is the notion that the only unforgivable sin is skepticism. The worst mass murderer can repent before death and be saved. On the other hand, a person who cannot decide, amongst various competing religions, which is the true religion -- that is a crime worthy of eternal damnation?
And what about a person who WANTS to believe, but finds the evidence too shaky, and thus entertains doubts about the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is that worthy of God's scorn and wrath?
What about a four year-old child, raised as a Hindu, who dies of malaria? Didn't accept Jesus...does the child's soul burn in Hell? If God is a reasonable diety, I cannot believe such a result is possible.
Who shows more respect for God, the believer who claims God burns souls in Hell with scant justification, or the skeptic who argues that God would never be so unjust?
9:01 AM EST
liberal_dem said...
Don- excellent comments.
9:13 AM EST
Barb said...
Why did you apologize, Microdot, since you are doing the same thing again?
You are absolutely right to suggest my posts should stand so you can all see how ignorant, illogical, irrelevant, obtuse, and wrong I am -right? What's to delete? I dont' name-call or use bad language nor get terribly explicit in x-rated ways --so why delete ME? (My view on homosexuality is held by millions of bible-believers --and it is not bigotry but a legit view of the Creator's design and intentions for our bodies.) So what is too dangerous about honest exchange of ideas on a forum of this nature? I couldn't possibly convince anyone, right? or give anyone info they don't already know -- or point out any fallacies in anyone else's thinking? Right?
So let the posts speak for themselves.
But of course, it is LD's blog and he is the blogmaster and can do whatever he likes --either entertain free exchange of ideas and free speech --or keep it controlled so that there is only one consistent liberal view on every issue and no info or opinion to the contrary.
Don --In John 20: 24-31 --the disciple Thomas was a doubter who had to see the nailprints in Christ's hands in order to believe that the man standing before him in the upper room was REALLY the crucified one. Doubting is not the unpardonable sin for one who says as Thomas, "Lord, help thou my unbelief!"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:24-31&version=31
It's when we are conceited in our skepticism, scornful of Christ's death and resurrection--that we may be committing --not the unpardonable sin for which there is no forgiveness --but a sin, nonetheless, for which we DO need to repent in order to access the blood of Christ over all our sin.
Thomas presented himself to Christ, doubts and all. And Jesus said, "'Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." ....
"These words are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.
Jeering and mocking Jesus for His claims is nothing new.
The child who dies without knowledge? Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven."
Many believe that the blood of Christ will cover those who earnestly seek God and show compassion to others, even though they lack knowledge of Christ -but we don't have an absolute assurance that this will be a frequent situation because our own righteousness is insufficient in any case --we are commanded to tell the world because Christ's Gospel is LIGHT in the darkness --direction--the Way to God --assurance --for our souls. People will be saved by their faith and repentance, and their baptism is an outward sign of an inward work of God's grace --as is their compassion and righteous deeds.
The Bible speaks of Rahab, a prostitute, as a heroine of the faith --because she believed and helped the disicples escape. David, an adulterer and worse, is our Psalmist and also a pre-Christian hero of the faith --and Job was a pre-Jewish complainer with good reason to complain--but is credited for his patience --because he did not turn against God in his afflictions.
God has not given us impossible standards for entrance to Heaven --just a Savior --for it is ONLY sinners who are saved --"For all have sinned and come short of God's glory" "There is none righteous, no not one."
So skeptics saveable? YES --but the proud and scornful? must repent or beware. The one who is saved says, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."
Rather than, "Thank you, God, that I am not as sinful(or as stupid) as this repentant, humble believer."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
