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.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
