Best Campaign Video Ever

Okay, well maybe not the best campaign video ever, but it sure is a good one. Look at this video for Joe Sestak’s campaign against Democratic incumbent Arlen Specter.

Look at the devious grin on Specter’s face. Then in a country facing almost 10% unemployment, the ad’s kicker line is that Arlen changed parties to save one job … his, not yours. If that isn’t classic, I don’t know what is.

Personally I kinda like Specter. When I close my eyes I hear Jimmy Stewart. Can Sestak beat Toomey in the general election? Not so sure.

You have to say this for Arlen. Joe Sestak isn’t accusing Arlen of anything he hasn’t already admitted to. He thinks his career stands a better chance as a Dem than as a Republican and he’s been pretty frank about it.

An honest politician. Now that’s change we can believe in!

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

About these ads

292 thoughts on “Best Campaign Video Ever

  1. In a Democratic primary, that’s a pretty darn good ad. The only way I would have improved it is to zoom in on Rick Santorum standing there next to Bush.

    No creepy voice-over could have made Specter seem any more cynical and sinister than he made himself look in that little clip.

    Sestak is an attractive Democratic candidate, and I don’t understand why Specter is ahead in the polls. Name recognition alone?

    Meanwhile, Specter represents a breed facing extinction – the Moderate Republican.

  2. The jobs picture continues to brighten. The economy created 290,000 net jobs last month.

    But the unemployment rate rose to 9.9% as 800,000+ re-entered the job market. We still have a long way to go.

  3. Anti-gay activist ‘took ten-day holiday with male prostitute’

    Guy deserves all the mocking you can give him Graychin. Let it rip.

    Self-loathing homosexual and pervert. Perfect candidate for the progressive party, which is full of them.

  4. And speaking of campaign ads, I’m sure you saw last winter’s “demon sheep” campaign ad for Carly Fiorina’s Senate candidacy in California:

    But have you seen “Demon Sheep II” – the Democratic response?

  5. Only a wooden headed Lib would call Arlen Specter a moderate Republican. :roll:

    Specter is a self-absorbed Lib – like Bloomberg without the brains, and willing to call himself Communist if it will get him elected. :roll:

    But assuming you’re right for a minute Graychin, and as Rutherford as made it abundantly clear here that Specter a hypocrite with no shame and classless deluded fool, perhaps you can understand why “moderate” Republicans should be purged from the party, even if it means taking one step backward with the vote for a time.

    If a candidate will say and do anything to get elected, making promises he has no intention of keeping while lying to your face, thinking inanity like “We are the Ones” and “Yes We Can” profound, they need to be placed in your party with the rest of the packs of religious bigots, thieves, perverts, cowards, fascists, communists, pirates, dopers, socialists, anarchists, deviants, crack heads, generational welfare recipients, racists, race hustlers, abortionists, draft dodgers, underachievers, slackers, panhandlers, liars, leeches, porn producers, and one believed and honest Rutherford.

    If I missed any representation, I profusely apologize.

  6. With unemployment now predictably inching back up (wait until the census is over) to 10.0%, any Lib out there willing to be truthful enough to admit the Obama public slush fund $862B stimulus package didn’t work?

    So much for 8% unemployment max, hey boys?

    And in fact, the only thing the slush fund did besides postpone the inevitable and possibly jeopardize our debt rating, is that it left our children with a huge debt to fill?

  7. “Self-loathing homosexual and pervert. Perfect candidate for the progressive party, which is full of them.”

    Actually, it’s not the progressive side that attracts the self-loathing perverts.

    “In 1996, three researchers from the University of Georgia published a study in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology about the links between homophobia and homosexual arousal. The authors, Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr, started with 35 straight men identified as homophobic and 29 straight men that were not. Both groups were shown heterosexual, lesbian and gay male porn while their erectile responses were measured. “Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli,” reported the researchers.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-05/the-christian-rights-gay-problem/?cid=hp:mainpromo8#

    How many more anti-gay crusaders have to be caught with male prostitutes or tapping their feet in the toilet before you begin to notice a pattern? Or acknowledge one.

    You’re very anti-gay yourself, Tex. Just saying.

  8. Graychin, but I’ll bet you’ve become a huge Charlie Crist fan.

    Right?

    There is exactly one Democratic Senator I have a drip of respect. Just one. And then only on a specific issue, otherwise he’s another mealy-mouthed lIb.

    And the progressives hate him for it, because all but a few hate Israel. And of course, that is Joe Lieberman.

    Joe’s a Democratic. If he were simply a secular Jew, you would love him again.

  9. The last time I checked, Lieberman is an independent who campaigned for McCain. He continues to caucus with the Democrats only because they are in the majority. If (God forbid) the Republicans ever get the Senate back, he would flip in a heartbeat.

    Your statement that “all but a few” progressives “hate Israel” is total nonsense. I don’t hate Israel, but I don’t support all of its policies blindly either. I much prefer Israel to any of its neighbors. Israel should never be above criticism, as it seems to be with you. If France had dissed the US us the way Israel did recently, you would probably be ready to declare war.

    I never liked Charlie Crist when he was a Republican, and I don’t like him now. He’s a political opportunist just like Arlen Specter.

  10. Hey Graychin,

    How many more anti-gay crusaders have to be caught with male prostitutes or tapping their feet in the toilet before you begin to notice a pattern? Or acknowledge one.

    I neither agree nor disagree with this assessment. I’ll take you’re word and the activists pushing an agenda – whatever their personal demons or political persuasion.

    You’re missing my point about the exploiting perverts and liars – from charlatan “preachers” to pedophile priests to school administrators. They’re all homosexual; an obvious sickness which you try to normalize.

    You’re very anti-gay yourself, Tex. Just saying.

    I’m anti-gay here because you celebrate it and try to make it an issue of division. I make no bones about it being an obvious mental imbalance – however, neither have I personally hassled or humiliated anyone about it either unless they wish to celebrate it.

    I know you would like to frame me as a gay basher and bully, but I know better. Now if you would like me to get on board and attempt to treat the obvious problem by allocating medical resources to treat, I’m right there with you.

    I believe the choice of being homosexual an incredibly complex neurological medical issue, of which preferences formed at a very young age, and of which we are only now beginning to address. I am absolutely sure before it cool to be gay when we heard, “Do you think I chose to be this way?”, they were being completely honest. At that time, I did sympathize. I do not sympathize with trying to equate a homosexual relationship equivalent to a heterosexual one. Not only is the real truth more than obvious, the wrong choice has also proven to be dangerous to both self and society.

    But instead of treating it or dealing with it, your crowd would rather we celebrate it as diversity – a cop out if you ask me.

  11. I’m curious if the Dems on the board hold any ire for Obama who is going to speak out for Arlen.
    Rutherford you said
    Personally I kinda like Specter.
    Really?????
    Specter(? PA) is a tool and his continued success speaks more of terrible electoral systems and crappy voters.

  12. Your statement that “all but a few” progressives “hate Israel” is total nonsense.

    Really?

    Well then, why don’t you follow me to a board of practicing Jews, both America and Israeli, who will give you a far different story – unless you think you would understand the issue better than they do?

    As a matter of fact, while you worship at the feet of Obama as President, a very subtle change is taking place.

    Secular Jews, the most reliable voting bloc for the Democratic party for decades this side of blacks, is beginning to recognize the hostility of the “Progressive” Obama towards our ally Israel.

    Whether you believe it nonsense or not, the perception is amongst many American Jews and the vast majority of Israeli Jews it that it is you that is wrong.

  13. Here, I’ll make Rutherford both happy and proud of me.

    Neither Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum are Presidential material. That is simply my opinion – and we three share the same basic values.

    If either wish to help the Conservative party gain seats, they would be most effective simply as spokesperson, cheerlead for their party, get people to the polls, and cast their votes.

  14. American Jews have a special emotional attachment to Israel for the best of reasons, but they do not have special wisdom about American policy towards Israel. I don’t think we ought to let the Jewish community decide policy towards Israel any more than we should allow the Cuban émigré community to decide policy toward Cuba. (We have followed exactly that path for Cuba for much of the past 50 years, and what has it accomplished?)

    My position does not constitute “hostility” towards Israel, no matter how hard you try to color it as hostility. Israel is an important ally. But alliance is a two-way street.

    Country first. THIS country first.

  15. Alfie, I’m disappointed that Obama is helping Specter get re-elected but not angry. I suspect that it’s part of the deal that induced Specter to switch to the Democratic caucus, and that deal may have saved the health care bill. Law and sausages…

    I would be voting for Sestak no matter what Obama does to help Specter.

    Israel’s recent diss of the United States? Perhaps you remember this:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/09/world/la-fg-biden-israel10-2010mar10

  16. American Jews have a special emotional attachment to Israel for the best of reasons,

    This statement is not necessarily true. There are many self-loathing Jews who find Israel a pain in the ass, more often not really caring about Israel either way. But that is changing.

    but they do not have special wisdom about American policy towards Israel.

    Sure they do. Not only do they make up a disproportionate share of power in the halls of Congress, but wise Jews understand the nuances, history and enemy far better than you or I do. It actually makes for very interesting conversation, as I find many Jews brilliant.

    Israel is an ally – Cuba an enemy. Your analogy is a poor one.

    You put words in my mouth.

    My position does not constitute “hostility” towards Israel, no matter how hard you try to color it as hostility.

    Though only my opinion, from what I have observed and what I have read of your own posts, I would characterize your position as one of indifference, only requiring Jews to follow your lead furthering your own domestic agenda.

  17. Tex, pedophile priests are not “all homosexual.” Some of them (a minority) molested underage girls. But of course that has not generated the horror that molestation of boys has. Why is that?

    My unscientific observation is of a powerful correlation between anti-gay sentiment and belief that being gay is a “choice.” I believe that gay people are born that way, because I was born straight and never for one moment had a “choice” of being gay. (When my female classmates started developing breasts…. oh my!)

    I suspect that many anti-gay activists DO make a choice, perhaps every day of their lives. Sometimes they TRY to make a choice that is impossible for them, as with Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, and of course George Rekers.

  18. I’m relieved to hear that Tex thinks that Santorum and Palin aren’t presidential material.

    I am astonished that Alfie would consider Santorum to be worthy of mention as a vice-presidential candidate.

    But then perhaps he thought the same about Palin….

  19. Tex, I compliment you on the tone and quality of your discussion today. You have managed to get through the morning with a minimum of name-calling (“wooden headed Lib” wasn’t so bad), and all that other stuff you do that has been so annoying. I am actually enjoying this morning’s discussion with you, even though we agree on little besides Specter and Crist.

    Well done!

  20. Absolutely not,I dislike Palin to no end.
    Santorum on the other hand is qualified and provides energy to national political discourse. Those that choose to pigeon hole politicians like Santorum do a disservice to themselves and the nation.

  21. Again i violate my no comments during work day rule. Damn. Good thing I’m my own boss. I’ve already fired and rehired myself.

    Graychin, I must warn you that most on this board consider Israel untouchable. They can do no wrong because so much wrong was done to them. They’re quick to talk about “white guilt” as it concerns blacks, but they don’t see they suffer from Holocaust guilt.

    The fact is everyone in that region including Israel are bad players. They are more interested in centuries old feuds than moving the hell on and living peacefully.

    I’m still amazed that we tolerate secrecy regarding Israel’s nuclear arms program but we become apoplectic over Iran. The double standard is mind boggling. And I don’t give one rats ass if Bebe N is a virtuous man and Mahmoud is a scumbag. When your foreign policy is inconsistent, you lose credibility.

    I’ll be back later if I can just resist getting on here again before that.

    P.S. No, Tex, The progressives are full of proud perverts, not self loathing ones. ;-)

  22. Tex, pedophile priests are not “all homosexual.” Some of them (a minority) molested underage girls. But of course that has not generated the horror that molestation of boys has. Why is that?

    I’m sure you are right – I’m sure some underage girls were molested. That’s equally egregious and should generate the same level of horror – the key world being pedophile. But my point is that the example you continue to use ad nauseam is a homosexual. You want to slam the hypocrisy as is your right while excusing the perversion of the act. In actuality, it’s also the gay community left with egg on their face and you apparently fail to recognize that.

    My unscientific observation is of a powerful correlation between anti-gay sentiment and belief that being gay is a “choice.” I believe that gay people are born that way, because I was born straight and never for one moment had a “choice” of being gay.

    Graychin, we’ve mapped the human genome, spent millions upon millions of dollars trying to find “the gay gene” so that you can further the gay agenda, and have found no evidence whatsoever. You again ignore the obvious that there are thousands of examples of identical twins – with one “gay” and “one” straight. You really need no further evidence to conclude you are “not born” anyway and the solution not genetic.

    You may think you had no choice – but in reality you made “a lot” of choices between three and five years of age in an environment which you don’t recognize or remember. Much of the neural pathway is constructed after you are born – memory, for instance.

    Let’s face it Graychin. Whether gay or straight, what separates you and me, just like what separates me from Rutherford, is the base from where we start to derive our conclusions.

    I believe in the God of Israel and believe Christ the Messiah. You believe in goodness of man, and believe we are all endowed with the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong. You may call yourself “religious” or “spiritual”, but in reality man is at the top of the totem pole.

  23. Alfie said:

    Exercising their sovereignty and politically returning the snub Obama laid on Bibi. Gotcha

    I don’t think this is what I meant when I said that alliance is a two-way street.

    And when did Obama lay a snub on Bibi? I need a link like the one I gave you. Funny how each of us remembers only one of the two alleged “snubs”

  24. Rutherford, my old pal:

    I tried my best to develop a business plan for you last night on the previous thread. Consider it my donation! :lol:

    I think it right up your alley, you old pervert.

  25. Like I said Graychin, when you give me your faux compliment in your flippant manner, I reevaluate. I neither seek or want your approval, because your type of approval immediately sends up the red flag of wrongheadedness.

    I know you think of yourself as incredibly deep, incredibly brilliant, but you’re as transparent as glass to me. :wink:

    Try to keep that in mind.

  26. The reason that I don’t consider homosexuality a “perversion” is that it is remarkably common, harmless, and a matter over which a person has no control – whether developed at birth or at age 3-5.

    Pedophilia is a perversion and a crime. There are both gay and straight pedophiles.

    “…thousands of examples of identical twins – with one “gay” and “one” straight.”

    Perhaps, but:

    A number of studies have looked at homosexuality in twins, all with similar results. For example, in one study, if one identical twin was gay, the other was also gay 50% of the time. If they were fraternal twins, they were both gay 22% of the time. And if one was adopted, the chances fell to 11%.

    This strongly suggests that there is a genetic component—there is something in their genes that makes them more likely to be gay. Genetics, though, isn’t everything.

    If it were, then identical twins would both be gay 100% of the time. And this clearly isn’t the case.

    And if it were all environment, then identical twins would both be gay as often as fraternal twins. Again, this isn’t the situation.

    So the interplay of environment and genes probably results in homosexuality. By environment, I don’t just mean how someone is raised (although that is sometimes part of it). I mean the effect the environment can have on how the brain is hardwired very early on.

    Interesting reading there. Check it out:

    http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

  27. Actually not a return ,mentally I had messed up the chronology.

    Sadly since Rutherford has alluded to potential prejudices etc.I guess I should offer the following.
    I’m not necessarily pro Israel but I am definitely a pro sovereignty guy. I am definitely anti Zionism which is a key distinction when on the topic.

  28. I believe that gay people are born that way, because I was born straight and never for one moment had a “choice” of being gay. (When my female classmates started developing breasts…. oh my!)

    Of course, this does not for a minute address the slim possibility that there is nothing wrong with you, thus leading to the conclusion that there was no choice to make.

    In the absence of proof to the contrary, and there currently is NONE, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is anything other than a choice, and thus the idea that we should reorder society’s institutions based not on an immutable condition such as race or gender, but instead on the choice to go against such conventions makes no sense, because there will be no reason to view the next such choice on the way down the slippery slope as illogical or wrong, either.

    The progressives are full of proud perverts, not self loathing ones.

    Now if that were true, R, then they wouldn’t be compelled not just to seek, but also to force society’s sanction of their behavior, by forcing it to redifine its institutions.

    I can only imagine what will be demanded next, when such concessions by weaker civic bodies do little to quiet the still small voices inside them that drive them to strive for the approval and approbation of the rest of society.

    I think you meant “open perverts” rather than “proud perverts”, R.

  29. Alfie –

    Obama’s snub of Bibi occurred AFTER Bibi’s dissing of Biden. In order for Bibi to diss Biden as payback for Obama’s snub, Bibi would have to be a character on the TV show “Flash Forward.”

    So I’m sure that you will agree that Obama was only “exercising our sovereignty and politically returning the insult Bibi laid on Biden.”

    Right?

  30. Tex, if I were as transparent as you think you would know that the compliment was sincere.

    I will avoid any future praise for you. Don’t want to get you riled up.

  31. This strongly suggests that there is a genetic component—there is something in their genes that makes them more likely to be gay. Genetics, though, isn’t everything.

    Immediately I recognize a mishmash of propaganda masqueraded as scholarly fact. Your report does nothing of the sort in proving anything but monkeying with chance. And the real conclusion both you and the authors touch on but summarily discount.

    A shared environment with shared caretakers.

    You have forgotten your scientific method Graychin and the null hypothesis. You can’t draw that type of conclusion when the observations are not repeatable nor measurable. It is up to you to discover the genetic component.

    So the only thing you’re left with is evidentiary evidence which says otherwise.

    But keep trying.

    Got to go.

  32. Graychin, you’re a slow learner.

    I will avoid any future praise for you. Don’t want to get you riled up.

    To be riled up falsely assumes that I care what you think. The only thing you can do to rile me up is steal from me, or have opportunity at your blog to censor and rig the game like you were fond of at the T-World when you ran to the libbie moderator.

    You can do neither here.

  33. graychin you do see that I caught myself earlier?

    As for Obama returning a snub…
    No I don’t see it that way at all. In fact Obama was proving himself to be a small petty punk. US sovereignty has nothing to do with Israel and we should disengage from dictating Israeli domestic policy and get out of the peace negotiation game since it is folly.

  34. B is W , you are one more data point in my observations. You fit the “it’s not a choice” pattern perfectly.

    Tex, you’re right. I DO put humans at the top of the totem pole because I have no idea what the Will of God is beyond “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    And there is excellent reason to distrust anyone who says that he knows what the Will of God is, because God’s Will almost always conforms to that person’s self-interest. Amazing, isn’t it?

    (Now I bet I’ve REALLY opened a can of worms.)

  35. Yes, Alfie, I saw that you had caught yourself after I made my post.

    But you’ve got a bit of a double standard there for Bibi and Obama, don’t you? How much crap should a US President be required to take from the leader of a two-bit power looking for handouts before he gives a bit of pushback?

    Like I said – country first. THIS country first.

    It sounds like you would wash your hands of the Middle East mess. That’s a harsher approach to Israel than I would ever recommend. I have no problem at all with the USA guiding (not dictating) Israeli policy because all too often Israel seems to be its own worst enemy. Especially when Bibi is running things. He’s an unreconstructed Zionist.

  36. You have forgotten your scientific method Graychin and the null hypothesis. You can’t draw that type of conclusion when the observations are not repeatable nor measurable. It is up to you to discover the genetic component.

    Me? How the heck would I do that?

    Being neither a scientist nor a geneticist, I was merely linking to an article from the Stanford School of Medicine. No offense, but they know a lot more about the subject than you do.

  37. B is W , you are one more data point in my observations. You fit the “it’s not a choice” pattern perfectly.

    Oooooo. Now I’ve gone and done it. I meet your admittedly unscientific observations. What will I do?

    I guess I’ll simply stand where I have. You have no proof, only some vague prevarication in some scientificky-type articles that maybe, or might show some sort of selective observation of behavior that could, in the abscence of more statistically relevant observations to the contrary, which were either not made, or conveniently ignored, lead one to hypothesize that you might be right about it not being a choice. Wow. How silly of me to not recognize that the debate is over, and simply surrender hundreds of years of laws, culture, and morals based on such utterly convincing slim evidence of nothing being touted as fact.

    How completely unenlightened of me.
    ——————————————–
    The fact remains that this particular choice (which it is in the abscence of proof that it is an immutable condition) does not deny them of any “equality” under the law, nor is it a reason to change the definition of “marriage” or the presumptions that society is entitled to make about such an institution.

  38. I’m not seeing the double standard.There is a complexity to the whole thing that I don’t have time to type out. Suffice to say though when you say:
    It sounds like you would wash your hands of the Middle East mess.
    You heard loud and clear.

  39. B is W, have you no burden of proof? At last, Sir, have you no burden of proof at all?

    The article I linked was by a Stanford Medical School geneticist. Arguments contrary to his explanation of the, er, facts usually wind up quoting the Bible – a remarkably unscientific source.

  40. Alfie, I understand that impulse even if I don’t agree with it. The Big One could start there if we aren’t careful.

    But that position makes your sympathy for poor, slighted Bibi seem odd. Maybe it just springs from dislike of Obama? Do even foreign leaders get your support over the US President?

  41. I dislike & disagree with a number of Obama’s positions. I have nothing to base personal feelings of him since I have never met him personally.
    Do even foreign leaders get your support over the US President?
    Not at all.
    The Big One mmm. I don’t see that as even a distant possibility. The only real escalator there is Iran and they are now (and most likely always have been) countered by Saudi Arabia. It isn’t support from the USA that keeps Hizbullah in Lebanon or Syria open to new talks.The false belief that here exists honest Arab indignation is a cover of convenience.

  42. I think that both sides negotiate in bad faith, Bibi more so than most Israeli PM’s.

    Which is a good argument for your position of the US washing its hands of the whole mess.

  43. “No offense, but they know a lot more about the subject than you do.”

    Appeals to authority don’t win any more arguments around here than over-generalizations and unsupported blanket statements do.

  44. B is W, have you no burden of proof? At last, Sir, have you no burden of proof at all?

    No, I don’t because that is not how law works. It is the party advocating for a change in the law that must prove its case.

    The article I linked was by a Stanford Medical School geneticist. Arguments contrary to his explanation of the, er, facts usually wind up quoting the Bible – a remarkably unscientific source.

    Of course the “science” in this article is beyond question. After all, it begins with an unsupported assertion:

    First off, almost all of the data shows that being gay is not a choice.

    And then proceeds to uncited “studies” of gay brains being different from straight brains. I admit to being aware of one such study done by a pathologist, who later admitted to having an agenda, and also admitted to know being able to determine whether the alleged differences were the cause or the result of such behavior, which is why the more strident members of the pink swastika brigades have not been touting the results of the study in their constant drumbeat to change the law to satisify their whims.

    As for the other studies, the geneticist admits that some studies have resulted in different percentages, and instead relies on the trend, and then uses it to declare his hypothesis as fact, albeit while hedging the conclusion with statments like:

    “The best evidence points to…”
    “This strongly suggests that..”
    “So the interplay of environment and genes probably results in homosexuality.”
    “Being gay is not being mentally ill (at least according to the American Psychiatric Association).” (Although gay rights activists and psychologists/psychiatrists don’t really want to have an honest discussion why this change was made to the DSM)
    and finally:
    “There appear to be real changes in the brain that correlate with being gay.”

    I don’t know how many scientists you know, but having several in my family, I can tell you that they would find this “article” terribly unpersuasive.

    And as a side note, I find it interesting that once we started mapping the human genome that all of the presumptive talk of a potential “gay” gene that was so in vogue in the scientific and unscientifc media suddenly got very, very quiet.

    I don’t think that proof is too much to ask for in an age when science has already been caught whoring itself out to political agendas.

  45. The issue that I thought we were discussing was not about changing a law. It was whether homosexuality is a “choice” or not.

    The studies that show identical twins more likely to share gayness than fraternal twins are a very strong argument that there exists a hereditary component to gayness. Clearly there isn’t a single “gay” gene any more than there is a single gene for eye color. If only life were that simple.

    The same studies indicate (I know you don’t like that phrase) that there is another component to gayness in addition to simple genetics. If it were not so, identical twins would always have the same sexual identity. What is that additional component? I don’t know. Physical environment? Social environment? Free choice at puberty? Gay people tell us that they were “always this way.” But who would believe a gay person?

    Whatever causes gayness, I have never heard anyone talk about “choosing” to be either gay or straight one fine day when he was 13 years old. Whatever happens, it clearly happens well before an age at which we hold people morally responsible for their choices.

    In my opinion, the “it’s a choice” argument is only a fig leaf to cover up the manifest injustice of denying gay people fair treatment.

    (Just an aside – do you think that available evidence “points to…” “strongly suggests that…” or that “the interplay of environment and genes probably results in…” cigarettes causing lung cancer? You woulda made a great advocate for the tobacco companies with that thinking. After all, there STILL is no PROVEN link between cigarettes and lung cancer. Is there?)

  46. Being neither a scientist nor a geneticist, I was merely linking to an article from the Stanford School of Medicine. No offense, but they know a lot more about the subject than you do.

    No, they don’t. Your profound scientists just admitted as much in their own article and told me nothing I didn’t already know.

    However, I would like to ask our non-scientific scientist a few generic questions which even his untrained and illogical mind can handle.

    Let’s assume for a minute you and your hardcore Leftist professors (and I’ll bet a dollar to a donut half of them are gay as all of these studies funded by gay activists) are right – a predisposition toward homosexuality constructed by the infamous “gay gene.” Like they’ve hypothesized a predisposition toward nicotine, alcohol, rape, pedophilia, ad infinitum..

    Am I to assume being that we are nothing but the sum of our biochemical and electrochemical parts, constructed by and in the manner of genetic codes pre-programmed from the outset, so that we are incapable of controlling even our darkest desires, no matter how wicked, perverted, or wrong they may seem to others?

    I can see how you derive many of your conclusions Graychin. I am, therefore I am.

    Why I can excuse all kinds of bad behavior with this concept, in fact to the point of excusing any addiction, any action, coming to any conclusion, carrying out any whim that I may wish, all under the banner of “I was born this way.” That’s quite a novel idea and explains liberalism (as long as you’re not Conservative and/or Christian).

    I guess you’ll need to be excusing the pedophile “preacher man” under these new rules then? A genetic code of homosexuality x serial lying, added to self-destructive pathological hypocrisy, all inconveniently packaged wrapped with biological defect.

  47. Here’s a beauty:

    Tex, you’re right. I DO put humans at the top of the totem pole because I have no idea what the Will of God is beyond “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    You read one-half of one verse, yet you’re telling me I know nothing more than you. Hmmm…

    For starters, the first half of verse you read says, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ You need to add that to memory if you are to believe the second part. :wink:

    Second, if you’ll pick up a Bible, there 66 books, 39 Old, 27 New, that tell us quite a bit about what God expects, what God wants, and who the message would be brought through as you and Obama diss the state of Israel.

  48. Graychin, riddle me this.

    Why does Obama or Bumbling Joe Biden believe they have the authority to tell the sovereign state of Israel exactly where they (the Jews) are allowed to build homes in their capital of Jerusalem?

    Does the Chicago Messiah’s (with hat tip to BiW) authority now extend into the reaches of the Middle East too?

    And please, spare the sanctimony of the foreign aid routine. We don’t tell Egypt or Jordan where they may build, if they may build, and when they may build.

  49. Footnote:

    I had the opportunity today to finally plead guilty to charges levied from Graychin and Co. as I moved the youngest daughter home for the summer.

    Pain in the ass, especially the refrigerator, but the scenery was lovely at the sorority house. The refrigerator left some of my colon in the sorority front yard.

    Anyway, I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh while I wait. I can see where liberals hate Limbaugh’s guts! :smile: Oh, that I were so talented with tongue and cheek.

    Rush is playing some song and verse from Pres. Bongo today, complete with teleprompter I’m sure, actually bragging at the “Da Mansion” about the good news today in the job market. See, an increase in unemployment to 9.9% from 9.7% has become “good news.” Limbaugh says something like, by August when it is above 10.0% we can have a parade! :lol:

    You know why Liberals hate Rush so? Because not only is he incredibly fast, funny as hell, and highly entertaining, Rush figured out before any of us that Liberals absolutely, positively, most assuredly, can not handle one immutable truth:

    Their stupidity to be exposed, then laughed at. :twisted:

  50. If what Greychin says is correct, why are the odds so astronomically high that he would be repeatedly raped in prison?

    Seems weird that those with the gay gene are also those with the crime gene too.

    Even stranger, this “gene” seems to go dormant as soon as the incarcerated become free (with the sad result of AIDS infecting the black female population at an astronomical rate).

    Oh…wait a minute.

    I’m guessing talk about a crime gene should at the very least be whispered.

    Either that or people choose to be gay the same way they choose to rob a 7/11.

    One more thing about the gay gene. Do you guys think it is also often times paired up with a “love-to hang-out-in-rest-stops-or-ruin-parks-so-nobody-can-ever-go-there” gene?

  51. No, they don’t.

    Yes, they do.

    Am I to assume being that we are nothing but the sum of our biochemical and electrochemical parts, constructed by and in the manner of genetic codes pre-programmed from the outset, so that we are incapable of controlling even our darkest desires, no matter how wicked, perverted, or wrong they may seem to others?

    Of course not. At least that isn’t what I believe, although there has been a vigorous philosophical debate through the ages about freedom vs. determinism. The phrase “nothing but” rarely can be applied to individual human beings, much less humankind as a whole. Don’t oversimplify a complex question.

    I believe in free will, but I also believe that a few individuals suffer from uncontrollable compulsions. Sometimes those compulsions are sexual. Sometimes they are violent, even murderous. Those people need help, but sometimes can’t be helped. If dangerous to themselves or others, they should be confined in accordance with the law. If they are not dangerous and can’t be helped they should be left alone.

    For various reasons, many people choose to lead celibate lives. Some are homosexual, some are not. Both gay and straight sexual desire is controllable by most people. For example, most Catholic priests are celibate. Many celibate priests are of homosexual orientation. Not all priests keep their vows of celibacy, as we know. Do some have an “uncontrollable” urge to molest children? I don’t know, but that would not excuse their behavior. They should be confined in accordance with the law.

    I do not choose to lead a celibate life. That would be a very difficult choice and a difficult life for most people. Our sexuality wants to express itself. Human sexuality is very basic and deeply rooted, but also very complex. Demanding that homosexual people practice celibacy because you consider them to be “deviant” would make you more deviant than they are.

    The number of mental health professionals (and non-professionals such as you and I) who believe that homosexuality is “deviant” behavior is shrinking. Shrinking rapidly. Who are you, and who am I, to deny gays (who in my opinion did NOT “choose” their orientation) the freedom to express their sexuality with a consenting partner? Or to deny a loving couple a civil union equivalent to your marriage and my marriage sanctioned by the State because you are “compelled” to consider them “deviant”?

    Your previous comment tells me that you had no idea where I am coming from on the subject of homosexuality. Does this help? Somehow I doubt it.

  52. Yes, they do.

    How? There was nothing in that article that I hadn’t read a hundred times before. Flashing Piled Higher and Deeper credentials is meaningless if it doesn’t provide some insight others don’t have. This is a rehash of twenty year old studies. I suppose you were impressed that credential “Stanford” was included?

    This comment actually gave me a snicker:

    Don’t oversimplify a complex question.

    This after you scanned the net to support your own bias, then found another study asking us to swallow the article because you deem it to be completed by your definition of expert, which actually came to little conclusion?

    Demanding that homosexual people practice celibacy because you consider them to be “deviant” would make you more deviant than they are.

    Was Jesus also a deviant? More deviant than even me or the homosexuals? How about Paul, or Moses? Were they more deviant? Jude? David? Sounds like I’m in pretty good company. :roll:

    Your previous comment tells me that you had no idea where I am coming from on the subject of homosexuality.

    Actually, I’ve been pondering as to exactly why I believe you have arrived at your conclusions concerning homosexuality and answered that succinctly above. I don’t think it takes a PHD in psychology to figure it out as you demonstrate in this answer:

    The number of mental health professionals (and non-professionals such as you and I) who believe that homosexuality is “deviant” behavior is shrinking. Shrinking rapidly. Who are you, and who am I, to deny gays (who in my opinion did NOT “choose” their orientation) the freedom to express their sexuality with a consenting partner? Or to deny a loving couple a civil union equivalent to your marriage and my marriage sanctioned by the State because you are “compelled” to consider them “deviant”?

    Actually, the answer quite obvious as to how you derive your conclusions.

  53. Human sexuality is very basic and deeply rooted, but also very complex.

    I hope you do realize you are defeating your own argument here?

    On one hand, you want us to believe it is genetic, strictly involuntary; a gene producing a protein leading to the innate.

    But then you proceed to admit the behavior deeply emotional and complex, insinuating a learned process. So I assume you want us to believe it is both?

    This creates an inconsistency with the most popular of arguments in the activist crowd about the homosexual animals as proof?

  54. Can any of you libs give me some insight as to why “THE CHOSEN ONE” hasn’t made it to Tennessee yet?

    Wouldn’t be a red state with no return, would it?

    Remember: Never let a crisis go to waste.

  55. Once, just once, I wish that someone would make the anti-gay argument without dragging poor Jesus, other religious figures, or the Bible into the debate. Of course Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality that we know of, so it must not have been as high on his list of concerns as it is on yours.

    I doubt that the Stanford Med School geneticist put everything he knew into that article intended for non-professionals like us. He surely knows more about the subject than we do. And I haven’t seen your link yet “proving” that homosexuality is a “choice.”

    If you would read my freaking post before reacting to it, you would see that I said that I believe that there is no simplistic “gay” gene, that I think it comes from a mixture of genetics and also environment, both physical and social, occurring early in life. I believe that by adolescence a person’s sexuality is pretty much hard wired – and is no longer a “choice.”

    Can you hear me now?

    I don’t channel Obama and I have no idea how he sets his schedule. And who cares anyway?

  56. Once, just once, I wish that someone would make the anti-gay argument without dragging poor Jesus, other religious figures, or the Bible into the debate. Of course Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality that we know of, so it must not have been as high on his list of concerns as it is on yours.

    Au Contraire! To say Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality shows your incredibly simplistic and profound ignorance about the very Word that you vacillate between believing and not believing, including the continued practice of homosexuality and approval a one way ticket to hell.

    He surely knows more about the subject than we you do.

    Fixed it for you, as I said your geneticist told me nothing I didn’t already know. I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, I have forgotten more about genetics than you know, so please don’t include me in your group of abject ignorance.

    And I haven’t seen your link yet “proving” that homosexuality is a “choice.”

    I don’t need a link based on practical sense; the best kind of prove which doesn’t require hearsay. I gave you an example that supported my argument and started this discussion. Again, as you show you’re ignorance of how science works, you still haven’t realized the burden of scientific proof concerning the claims of a gay gene fall on you There is none, therefore you can make no claim of genetics as possibility – this is pure convenient speculation. Can you hear me now twice over?

    If you would read my freaking post before reacting to it, you would see that I said that I believe that there is no simplistic “gay” gene, that I think it comes from a mixture of genetics and also environment, both physical and social, occurring early in life. I believe that by adolescence a person’s sexuality is pretty much hard wired – and is no longer a “choice.”

    Here you move from ignorance to simply stupid. Not only did I read your “freaking post”, I asked you a question based on your “freaking post” which you failed to answer, mainly because you’re too dumb to draw from the inference that your posts are in conflict.

    I don’t channel Obama and I have no idea how he sets his schedule. And who cares anyway?

    Ah, Graychin the great humanitarian and lover of all people, who lives his life by “love thy neighbor.” Who brings us such sweet, sweet cliches of Who are you, and who am I, to deny gays the freedom to express their sexuality with a consenting partner? Or to deny a loving couple a civil union equivalent to your marriage and my marriage sanctioned by the State? Isn’t that beautiful? Almost spiritual. :roll:

    Well Gray, here’s who cares: Nashville Flooding: At Least 29 Dead From Record Rains In Mid-South

    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/nashville-flooding-29-dead-flash-flooding-south/story?id=10555626

    Thousands homeless, one billion in property damage – far greater tragedy than the Gulf of Mexico. That’s who might care. Good job Brownie!

    Graychin, you’re nothing but a phony, leftis,t political hack and reprehensible human being, attempting to masquerade as Mr. Nice Guy.

    ** SPIT **

  57. The issue that I thought we were discussing was not about changing a law. It was whether homosexuality is a “choice” or not.

    Any dicsussiuon of the latter invariably comes to address the former, as you yourself demonstrated so very nicely with:

    In my opinion, the “it’s a choice” argument is only a fig leaf to cover up the manifest injustice of denying gay people fair treatment.

    And

    Who are you, and who am I, to deny gays (who in my opinion did NOT “choose” their orientation) the freedom to express their sexuality with a consenting partner? Or to deny a loving couple a civil union equivalent to your marriage and my marriage sanctioned by the State because you are “compelled” to consider them “deviant”?

    As for your single study which refers but does not cite any particular study, I offer the following, which actually include citations, which do not support the prevaricated kinda-sorta conclusion offered by your genetiticist:

    http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

    http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

    And as for how the DSM diagnosis relied on by your genetiticist came to be, here is a nice account, from a book by a homosexual psycholigist:

    http://tinyurl.com/7z4rmz

    (Just an aside – do you think that available evidence “points to…” “strongly suggests that…” or that “the interplay of environment and genes probably results in…” cigarettes causing lung cancer? You woulda made a great advocate for the tobacco companies with that thinking. After all, there STILL is no PROVEN link between cigarettes and lung cancer. Is there?)

    For something to move beyond the status of a theory to fact, it must be capable of being proven. If the standard were anything less, then we would have the unfortunate luck to live in the era of the scientific “fact” of cold fusion, but the stubborn reality of a petro-power existence.

    To rely on science’s suspicicions and theories as fact is a greater act of faith than beliving in God, because scientific theory is subject to change whenever new information or data is discovered. [Not my idea, by the way. It was more elequently set ofrth and proven in Thomas Kuhn's groundbreaking book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', and illustrated with real world examples in John L. Casti's 'Paradigms Lost'.] But then, I imagine that this will cause you no concern at all as long as such unproven theories conflated with fact are in accord with what you “know in your heart” on the subject.

  58. Obama lieDaily Administration Attaboy of the Day!

    “The U.S. jobless rate was rose to 9.9% in April, the first increase in three months, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment ticked up for the third month in a row, rising 0.2 percentage point to 17.1%.” So how does this jibe with the claim that the rise to 9.9% is good news because it shows that discouraged workers are re-entering the labor market?

    17.1% real unemployment and these bastards spent $862B of funds we didn’t have to buy more votes for the Democratic party. This is how crooked the Democratic party has become. Bring on the dead vote.

  59. Once, just once, I wish that someone would make the anti-gay argument without dragging poor Jesus, other religious figures, or the Bible into the debate.

    You only have yourself to blame. The minute you said:

    Demanding that homosexual people practice celibacy because you consider them to be “deviant” would make you more deviant than they are.

    you attacked the source of such belief for many people. And your assertion that:

    Of course Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality that we know of

    Is demonstrably false, something you’d know if you had read the Bible. “Where is my proof?”, you ask:

    http://tinyurl.com/26fgcq3

    Thank you for playing. Rutherford has a case of Rice-A-Roni and a set of American Tourister luggage for you to pick up on your way out.

  60. Where does Jesus first appear in the Bible Graychin, if you don’t mind me asking you a question first before I provide you an answer to your question?

    You’ll understand why in a minute and this is not a “gotcha” question if you answer without flippancy.

  61. Rutherford has a case of Rice-A-Roni and a set of American Tourister luggage for you to pick up on your way out.

    ROTFLMAO :lol: BiW, dude that was not only hilarious, it really shows your age. The economy sucks so bad now that game shows don’t even offer consolation prizes anymore.

  62. If your answer is other than Matthew, then It’s a gotcha question. Wherever you are going, it sounds like it will be a stretch beyond the breaking point.

    But I’ll play your game anyway. “In the beginning, God…” So there he is. What do I win?

    You and I both know that the Bible records not one word from Jesus about homosexuality. His New Covenant is silent on the matter. (You do know about the Old and New Covenants, don’t you?) So I don’t understand why so-called Christians obsess about homosexuality with all the fornicating, divorcing, and hypocrisy going on in their midst, when Jesus had plenty of clear words to say on all of those topics. Or why they continue to eat shellfish and pork and cheeseburgers while condemning homosexuals. It’s cafeteria Christianity.

    Actually – I do understand. But you don’t particularly want to know what I think about it. It will just get you into a name-calling snit.

    But here I am on religion, which of course is beside the point and which has no place in a discussion about whether or not homosexuality is a “choice” or not. And it is certainly beside the point in determining what the law should be.

  63. Graychin

    You’re simply incapable of being anything but a jerk and a snit. Even when I try to stay civil, you’re still a punk, and as I determined last night a coward. Therefore, I will have little guilt when and where I attempt to humiliate you as poser from here on out.

    How does BiC say it? ** sigh **

    ————–

    The first record reference of Jesus by name is actually in Genesis 1:26 if you are interested. The WikiAnswer is wrong were I predicted you would look – you didn’t.

    Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…

    Christ is again referenced in Genesis 3:15 in the original battle of good and evil (the Garden of Eden): And I will put enmity between you and the woman,and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

    The translation us from the word Elohim is plural as in the triune godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As God has many names, so does Christ.

    If you really new anything about the Bible as you claim, you should know all of this as it referenced in the verse chapter of the Gospel John – there is your Jesus Christ. There is no hidden meaning, there is no gotcha.

    The Christ of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament – “when you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” In Christ, it is God manifested in flesh. From lamb to royal diadem, from Genesis to The Revelation, all are Christ.

    From Yeshua in Joshua, to Immanuel in Isaiah, to son of man in Daniel and Ezekiel. Melchizedek meaning righteous king “priest of God Most High was the one Abram gave tithes to and is a direct reference to King over the tribe of Levi – the high priest of the Jews. All are references to Christ.

    So I am afraid you have missed the most important message of the Bible – who is Jesus Christ and what did He say? You cherry pick verse when required to appear scholarly and adept, probably like parts of the Sermon on the Mount. But your real biblical knowledge is that of a child.

    I’m afraid Christ spoke very much of homosexuality, even called in an ABOMINATION, and you fail to recognize that fact.

    Perhaps you should leave your own discussion of Christianity alone, because when you speak of it, you sound the fool.

  64. CG, youbitched about reading your link. Go backand read mine, then stop with the “cafeteria christianity” bullshit. Your question is answered, and if youdidn’t understand,then I’m not sure whatto do for you shortof getting out the crayins and drawing you some pictures.

  65. OK, time for me to blow the lid off this sexuality debate.

    Graychin calls homosexuality natural, but if I read his earliest comments correctly, calls pedophilia perverse. You boys ain’t gonna like this analysis but it’s ALL natural. The bonobo chimp f*cks everything it can gets its hands on (or its dick in). Hetero and homosexual incest are common in the species. They are known as the horniest animals on the planet.

    This is my view:
    Sexuality exists on a broad spectrum of behaviors. I am pulling this stat out of my ass but I’m pretty sure I’m close on it:: the 90% recidivism rate among convicted pedophiles tells me there is more than choice going on among them. Their desire for sexual interaction with a minor is as strong and deep rooted as a heterosexual adult’s desire to have sex with another adult.

    What we do as a society because some of this behavior scares us is we invent words like pervert to make the pedo a different breed … sub-human. It’s so we can assure ourselves that WE would never do THAT. The fact is pedo’s are human and they are expressing desires quite natural to them. So why do I not ultimately defend their behavior? Why do I support laws that incarcerate them? Real simple.

    Sexuality is more than a physical act. It’s a meshing of wills. A meeting of mutual desires. The balance of desire between an adult and a child is out of whack. The adult has the child at a psychological disadvantage in that the child cannot come to the situation with the same expectations or understanding of consequences as the adult. It makes the contact between them inherently unfair. The perversion, from my perspective, with pedophilia does not lie with the desire. It lies from the inability or refusal to recognize this psychological imbalance between adult and minor.

    I’ll also go one step further. Our society has done one incredible mind-f*ck on us. On the one hand, minors are presented in sexual ways in the media all the time. All you need to do is hear the lines that kid actors on the Disney Channel read (that were written by adults for them to repeat) to see what I’m saying. Commercials are another example.

    On the other hand, everybody and his mother lately has been “molested”. I swear at least once every other month some new celeb or personality tearfully tells of their molestation. You know what? We need to get more real about molestation. We live in a society where if some trusted adult diddles with a kids private parts, the whole world is coming to an end. You know who that hurts the most? The kid, that’s who. In our eagerness to protect the kid and punish the “toucher”, we make the kid feel guilty and hung up about what happened. And heaven forbid the kid enjoyed the experience. Now he feels doubly screwed up in the head.

    We have a pre-historic view of sexuality in this country, full of contradictions and hypocrisy. Do I support NAMBLA? No. But I do think we need to get the whole topic of sexual behavior back into a more rational space. We get way too upset over this stuff.

    OK, I know I’ve just alienated libs and conservatives alike with the just ended lecture. Let the arrows fly.

    P.S. The prevalence of homosexuality in prison is a red herring in this argument,. Homosexuality among folks who would normally be hetero is a product of two things. First, the desperate desire for sexual involvement, to the point that the only available people become potential partners. Second, it is yet another means of establishing power within the prison environment. It is not an argument against the notion that true homosexuals do NOT choose to be that way.

  66. R, you’re older than I am, what the heck are you laughing at?

    That’s the main reason I AM laughing. I’m old enough to remember the days when your consolation prize for GC was a TV game show staple. :-)

    P.S. You and I might not agree on one scintilla of politics but I suspect (particularly based on what I’ve seen on the Hostages) that we could have fun exchanging some pop culture anecdotes.

  67. Graychin,

    You do have one thing in common with Osama and Obama.

    When you speak of Christ, you make him sound the good prophet – but certainly not the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

    From the Gospels Graychin – that part where you think you “only” find Christ. I hope this settles the argument:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

    You Graychin are the darkness that John speaks.

  68. Rutherford,

    I asked you this once and you either refused to answer, or avoided the topic. About your apes up there…

    Back to our best friends, the dog. I’ve seen one male dog hump the other. I’ve felt one male dog hump my leg. I am sure the male dog understands the difference – however, both are a subject of domination and submission. In the doggie world, the one being humped the beta male.

    So, one day I catch my “female” lab humping my male lab when he was sick. The motion was there but the equipment wasn’t. Here’s my question using the rational of liberal “theology.”

    I assume that means Cindy the Lab had penis envy?

  69. BiC,

    Go backand read mine, then stop with the “cafeteria christianity” bullshit. Your question is answered, and if youdidn’t understand,then I’m not sure whatto do for you shortof getting out the crayins and drawing you some pictures.

    Something I just figured out about Graychin I couldn’t confirm on a newspaper board. You apparently picked up on this much quicker than I did. I have misjudged Graychin’s abilities.

    Graychin, for all his mettle and bravado, is incredibly superficial. There’s not much substance there. I thought he would pair up nicely with Rutherford. I was wrong.

  70. It’s cafeteria Christianity.

    Gray, I’m getting to like you more and more, which may or may not please you ultimately. LOL

    For more on cafeteria Christianity I invite you to read my posts, part 1 and part 2 on the subject from a couple of years back.

  71. Regarding 83, no Tex, Cindy didn’t have penis envy. She probably has pleasure censors in her vagina much like a human female. She might have been humping the male dog for the fun of it. Now this is just a wild ass theory because I have noticed from watching reproductive specials that at least to my eye, the female of many animal species doesn’t seem to particularly “enjoy” intercourse. But who knows what is going on in their head?

    Your question has been answered and your point was … ?

  72. You didn’t answer at all. I have to hope you don’t have dogs, because you don’t seem to be particularly knowledgeable of them.

    The point was, what people define as homosexuality in the animal kingdom is again a learned behavior – there is nothing genetic about it, and I doubt sexual about it. Dogs hump when a female is in heat – otherwise, they’re not much interested in pup pussy either.

    If somebody tells you they are proud to be gay, in essence what they are really saying is “I like taking the back seat of the bus as is my nature. I am nothing and like being nothing.” That foolishness may convince the human mind of “normalness” – dogs know better.

    I’m glad I found you a friend in Graychin. I told you he was irreligious like you – but unlike you, I didn’t recognize him the poser until yesterday. This is I did not know.

    I hope you saw my business model for you last night to become a billionaire. If not, you and Rabbit need to read it.

    From the previous post. :wink:

  73. Rutherford, a small quibble. I didn’t call pedophilia “perverse.” I only said that we should confine those with an “uncontrollable” urge to engage in acts harmful to others so that they do no harm. I believe pedophilia is harmful to human children. I have no idea what it does to young bonobos.

  74. And Rutherford, you did an excellent job of explaining the prevalence of homosexuality in prison. And showing how much human and dog sexuality is similar – humping for dominance.

  75. Tex, can you even remember why we ever got into parsing singular and plural nouns and pronouns in Genesis? It’s because I said that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. You seem to be trying to drag all of the old Jewish rules (which most faithful Christians choose not to observe) into the teachings of Jesus. I find that dishonest and I don’t buy it, but it’s irrelevant to the larger discussion.

    (I still think that Genesis 1:1 is an earlier mention of Jesus (either “God” or “elohim”) than 1:23, at least from your viewpoint, but if you insist I’ll let you say I’m wrong.

    As is the case with most religious discussions between people of different sects (I’ll avoid the use of the words “denomination” or “association” or “convention” or other term that you’re touchy about), I think that your interpretation of words in Genesis is a load of crap. You consider yourself absolutely sure about so many of your strained interpretations of scripture, yet you are among a small minority of Christians who believe those things. That is why there are thousands of different Christian sects, and their number grows daily. Once there is a schism, they rarely if ever reunite.

    I think that all biblical “proof-texts” are specious, and I only use them to prove to bible-thumpers that they don’t know their own bible very well – or , as in your case, that they are cherry-picking what supports their beliefs and disregarding the rest. (Which is easy to do, because the bible can be, and is, interpreted in so many different ways by intelligent and sincere people.

    In your case, would you cherry-pick a couple of verses from Leviticus? And then brush off the rest, saying “Oh, that was superseded by the New Covenant?”

    Cafeteria Christianity.

  76. “You do have one thing in common with Osama and Obama. When you speak of Christ, you make him sound the good prophet – but certainly not the Creator of Heaven and Earth.”

    Tex – One thing that most Christians still have in common is the Nicene Creed, which begins:

    “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God…”

    You seem to have thrown out the Nicene Creed, making it appear that your understanding of the words of Osama and Obama is close to actual Christianity than your own understanding is. At least on the important stuff. I’m sure they can’t match your command of specially-selected verses accumulated to support your pre-existing beliefs.

  77. “He was with God in the beginning…

    You have this whole Trinity thing all figured out, don’t you? Never mind that someone as smart as Augustine of Hippo decided that he would never understand it. Of course he never had the benefit of a Baptist sermon. And the popularity of his version of the Trinity never caught on in the East, and eventually led to a separation of the Orthodox churches from Western Christianity.

    It would pop your bubble, but I encourage you to read “When Jesus Became God,” by Richard E. Rubenstein. The somewhat flippant title is misleading, because the book tells about all the competing political and ideological factions that fought over the eventual definitions of Jesus and God that came to dominate Christianity. It involves a lot of hair-splitting, but it’s quite interesting. Some of that hair-splitting nominally led to the Great East-West Schism, but the real issue there was power and control. Isn’t it always?

    As I said, I have a knee-jerk distrust of anyone who claims to know the Will of God. I equally distrust the opinions of anyone who is as arrogantly sure about his theology as you are. To me it indicates a wealth of blind acceptance of some other person’s opinions, and a corresponding poverty of independent thought. (How many preachers have I heard say “Just believe – thinking leads to doubt!”)

    Read the book. I promise you will hate it but find it interesting.

  78. Tex, do you remember Skyhawk (I think that’s right), the TW commenter whose avatar is a mug shot of James Brown? I got into a religious discussion with him on Facebook a while back. He knows everything about God, kind of like you.

    I recommended one of my books to him, and he sounded enthusiastic about it. I never heard back from him. Some people just can’t stand to have their little bubbles popped.

  79. Graychin, :lol:

    You seem to be trying to drag all of the old Jewish rules (which most faithful Christians choose not to observe) into the teachings of Jesus. I find that dishonest and I don’t buy it, but it’s irrelevant to the larger discussion.

    Rules? Heck, I can’t even get to the rules because your understanding of scripture is so personally skewed and shallow, I first have to prove to who Jesus is. :roll:

    You get smoked and in your own arrogance, puffed by your latent insecurities which I am only now beginning to determine, you discard all that doesn’t fit your flavor because you’re woefully blind. I purposely gave you O.T. – all of which preceded the names of Christ, and then tied it to the Gospel of John which proves that yes, Jesus very much has said that homosexuality is sinful and a perversion. Your denial doesn’t change that fact.

    But if I am only to use the Gospels as judge and you seem to require, the Jesus who walked the earth for thirty-three years never said anything about bestiality, blowing up buildings, pedophilia, orgies, bisexuality, Fascism, Nazi Germany, dogs and cats living together….

    So following your lead, therefore we can not discern what Christ thought of any of these because, well because,,,because they are not mentioned BY NAME in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

    Like I said, you are far more superficial than I ever dreamed. Do you still not understand that everything you read, from Genesis to Revelation not of Jesus? What is it that you can’t understand about Alpha & Omega? Do I need to reference that too – that’s the last book.

    I will more than happily pull verses out of the New Testament after the ascension if that is what you require to admit you don’t know your scripture. This is, unless you think you know better than Paul, Peter and Judge too?

  80. Tex – One thing that most Christians still have in common is the Nicene Creed, which begins: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God…”

    Yes, and I can still remember from the my youth how to sing “Jesus Loves Me, this I know”.

    Your point being?

  81. You have this whole Trinity thing all figured out, don’t you? Never mind that someone as smart as Augustine of Hippo decided that he would never understand it. Of course he never had the benefit of a Baptist sermon. And the popularity of his version of the Trinity never caught on in the East, and eventually led to a separation of the Orthodox churches from Western Christianity.

    First, I didn’t get these from a Baptist Sermon. I was trained in Apologetics in a lifetime of adult study by those PHD’s you so admire.

    There isn’t a theologian on earth that can explain the Trinity, anymore than your scientists like Stephen Hawkins can explain a finite universe, which you desperately want to believe in, so you can cast out the ramifications of a spiritual creator and live without moral absolutes.

    But that still doesn’t change the fact of a Godhead, as is exactly what the Nicene Creed speaks. Can you explain one that is not limited by time, space and matter? No, and neither can I. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways not our Ways. What we are required to know is right there in 66 books, which I don’t think you know diddly about.

    Graychin, you’re no Christian – you’re a different flavor of Richard Dawkins, with a little Christian spittle thrown in for effect. Yes, I remember Skyhawk and he was a nice guy but not a trained theologian.

  82. You haven’t “proved” anything, except to yourself.

    Let’s step back a bit.

    I do not believe that humans took literal dictation from God when they wrote down the books of the Bible. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be so many different interpretations – God himself would have spoken in terms that EVERYONE would have understood, unless he considers himself some kind of cosmic puzzle master. I think that the people who wrote down the bible expressed their thoughts in terms that they and the people of their time would understand. Yes, there is divine wisdom in the big picture, but not in the parsing of plural pronouns translated and copied many times.

    Like I said, I don’t listen to proof-texts and don’t use them myself except to shoot down arrogant fools who think they understand all of the divine mysteries.

  83. My point about the Nicene Creed is that it separates God the Father (the Creator) from God the Son. With which you do not agree. You’re ducking.

  84. Oh Graychin,

    You are so woefully misled. You really are confused and full of not only yourself, but by secularists trying desperately to throw a monkey wrench in your spokes.

    Let me shoot a hole in your “theories” without ever reading your book.

    It would pop your bubble, but I encourage you to read “When Jesus Became God,” by Richard E. Rubenstein. The somewhat flippant title is misleading, because the book tells about all the competing political and ideological factions that fought over the eventual definitions of Jesus and God that came to dominate Christianity. It involves a lot of hair-splitting, but it’s quite interesting. Some of that hair-splitting nominally led to the Great East-West Schism, but the real issue there was power and control. Isn’t it always?

    This is one of the big lies from the Left to discount discernment of the Bible. It’s really our fault as Christians, because so many have failed to educate themselves about history and easily get bamboozled by clever little traps like you and your author like to set.

    ———————

    So let me ask you a simple question Graychin. Why do you treat the Council of Nicea as final truth, when all it did was lend its apostolic authority to written verse? What happened at Nicea makes for interesting history and a neat read, including all kinds of conspiracy theories of east and west, but all Council did was lend their apostolic authority to the vote. Nothing changed.

    What do you think Christians used for a Bible before approximately 325 AD for authority Graychin? I can easily prove the Words the Christian fathers used almost 300 years before Nicea are exactly what you are reading now in a book.

    Perhaps you should concern yourself far more with the period of 45-95 AD. Because that is where the real truth is. You would do better simply to pick up a good study guide of the New Testament.

  85. I don’t have a concern about explaining God with the constraints of time, space and matter. God is bigger than that. Too many Christians think he needs to be put into a box, but as the box gets smaller with advances in scientific theory, so does their God. My God isn’t like that. Too bad about yours.

    For example, the concept of eternity going backwards in time is nonsense. Time itself was created when the universe began.

    The bottom line is that we just don’t know much about God, and we probably never will. Except for you, of course.

    Apologetics? “Proving” that your religion is the “true” religion? Been there, done that. An exercise in futility, because it leads you to wherever you wanted to go in the first place. And it always goes in circles, something like “It’s true because the Bible says so, and the Bible says so because it’s true.

    How did you come to believe that the bible is literally true in its every word and letter? Just curious.

    You are beginning to sound like a “young earth” creationist. Are you?

  86. My point about the Nicene Creed is that it separates God the Father (the Creator) from God the Son. With which you do not agree. You’re ducking.

    :razz:

    I’m not ducking anything Graychin. That’s silly. Yes, I separate “Our Father” from “The Son”, but only in the sense of the spiritual and physical. Christ is God manifested in flesh – period. Immanuel means God is with us. Christ Himself says it over and over in those Gospels you speak of (the only part you’ve read).

    What I can not tell you and no one else can either is why a Loving God would place Himself in a position of slaughter for my egregious sins. No theologian can. I have no concept of why Christ took on the sins of the World – for me to say I do cheapens grace.

    Graychin, you suffer from the same malady as Rutherford. You put yourself on a pedestal and place yourself sovereign to all else. You’re not worthy to carry that title and neither am I.

  87. Like I told you, I don’t use proof texts to prove things, only to show inconsistencies to people like you. Your statements to me contradicted the Nicene Creed. How do you explain that away? You can’t, so you’re ducking.

  88. Graychin,

    You know. There is something sinful about what I am doing. I thought about you and Rutherford last night when I got off the blog. I can beat the both of you up with scripture and beat you over the head about it, but the problem then becomes me, because it defeats the purpose of what Christ would wish me to do.

    Instead of doing it out of love, I do with the sword.

    If I offend you when I speak of Christ, I am truly sorry. I shouldn’t and that is my fault. My approach should be better, but I let my dislike of you override my sensibilities. But because of your arrogance Graychin, the hair begins to raise on my neck when you mock Christ, and I want to drive a stake through your head. I’m afraid I too have many faults.

    How did you come to believe that the bible is literally true in its every word and letter? Just curious.

    A lifetime of study with adult measurement, putting the word to the test, historical antiquity, earthly proof including archeology, and observing the Jews and Israel. However, don’t mistake my arguing with you that “I’ve got it all figured out.” I don’t.

    You are beginning to sound like a “young earth” creationist. Are you?

    No. They are as woefully misinformed as you are and actually a bigger pain in the butt to debate than you are, because they are simply stupid – you are just ignorant and arrogant.

  89. From what I have seen so far, if I suffer from the same malady as Rutherford then I’m in good company.

    Your theology is utter nonsense. That’s right – utter nonsense. Rejected by the vast majority of Christians. You may have spent a lot of time with your “study guides” but that’s the whole problem. Those study guides kept you in a bubble and didn’t allow you to actually, you know, think, only to reinforce your narrow little view.

    You won’t find God in a study guide. That’s laughable. You will only find another person like yourself who thinks he has all the answers. The source material is much more valuable. I have read the New Testament several times, and the Gospels many times. (When I have looked through the Old Testament, it only confirms what barbarians the Hebrews were, although there’s a lot of interesting stuff in there that they never talked about in Sunday school.)

    The word “sophomoric” in the dictionary has your picture next to it. Study guides indeed!

  90. Since you are not a Young Earth Creationist, tell me this: how does it make sense to parse biblical pronouns when you don’t even believe that the earth was created in six days like it says very clearly in Genesis?

    Cafeteria Christianity?

  91. This is a poor analogy but for the moment I can’t think of a better one because it would appear that I am making a comparison of myself to some genius like Albert Einstein. I liked physics, but I was never going to be as good at it as Albert was.

    Your statements to me contradicted the Nicene Creed. How do you explain that away?

    Albert was once asked by a housewife to explain the theory of relativity in a way she would understand. His response, “how do you make blueberry muffins?” She said, “Well first I mix the batter, followed by two cups of…”

    Einstein cut her off. He said, “No, how did you make the blueberries….” The woman responded, “Well I went to the market…” Einstein again cut her off. “No, how did you make the blueberries…”

    The point being Graychin, I can’t make my explanation anymore more simple to you than I did above – the spiritual, the physical. Christ was put here as a living testament to be the physical manifestation of God.

    Since we can not go to our maker without death, and are unworthy of being in His presence as no mortal man has ever seen the face of Almighty God and lived, not even Moses, He came to us.

    Your rationale is really limited Graychin, because I think you cheapen God in your restraints. I don’t know if it intentional, or not.

  92. Since you are not a Young Earth Creationist, tell me this: how does it make sense to parse biblical pronouns when you don’t even believe that the earth was created in six days like it says very clearly in Genesis?

    Because I understand metaphor and allegory. Because I understand better than you the culture it penned. Because I understand why Christ taught in parables. Do I believe Satan a Disney Dragon like you would read from The Book of the Revelation. Undoubtedly, you must.

    Cafeteria Christianity?

    Would that be like taking something defined throughout all of scripture as egregious, and spinning it to make it more palatable so you can partake of its fruits? Kind of like Eve, hey? Or was it Sodom?

  93. You didn’t really answer my question about how you came to believe in the literal truth of those biblical pronouns. It must have occurred before your “lifetime of study.” Wasn’t it more like you decided to believe it, then spent a lifetime of study trying to confirm it.?

    You are right about one thing. You and people just like you keep me from ever darkening the door of the sort of church to which you must belong. So-called Christians just like yourself come off as some of the most arrogant, intolerant know-it-alls on the planet. Sure of everything, doubtful about nothing. Having ALL the answers, and ALWAYS right. Ready to send everyone to Hell who dares to disagree. They are enough of a universal phenomenon to make Dana Carvey’s satire of the Church Lady instantly recognizable. They give all of Christianity a bad name.

    I would like to say that the bad name is undeserved, but I then I remember Matthew 7:16-20 and wonder if it’s so.

    I’m going to go work in the yard. Later.

  94. Graychin,

    Your theology is utter nonsense. That’s right – utter nonsense. Rejected by the vast majority of Christians. You may have spent a lot of time with your “study guides” but that’s the whole problem.

    And I assume you can prove that? The rejected by the vast majority of Christians part? My study guides are provided by those PHDs you seem to think rule the universe.

    You make these outrageous claims as you beat your chest like King Kong, and yet I have yet to see you disprove one of my statements.

    Are you going to continue to puff up like a toad, or provide something more meaningful as sound argument than bringing up a book that nobody has heard? And you accuse me of cop out when I continue to quote from the book in dispute?

  95. You didn’t really answer my question about how you came to believe in the literal truth of those biblical pronouns

    Oh, I believe I did and explained in two sentences the weakness of your approach. The fact you didn’t understand not surprising, but if you like to continue to push, it won’t take much for me to show your approach wrongheaded.

    It must have occurred before your “lifetime of study.” Wasn’t it more like you decided to believe it, then spent a lifetime of study trying to confirm it.?

    Actually, I am the original doubting Thomas. Though raised in the church, I rejected it as opiate for the masses for a time. But soon after college that changed as I went out to disprove the Bible.

    Unlike you, I actually took the time to get ready for disapproval, though.

    But understand this so you don’t continue to make frivolous charges and misguided notions. I’m not worthy to be your judge Graychin. The fact you don’t darken a door says nothing of me – only of you. I’m not so sure that you’re so sure of yourself.

    I believe the church you are looking for is not cafeteria Christianity, but hot tub Christianity. That building full of people who want to feel warm and have their ears tickled, all bubbly in their shorts and they sit beside their same sex partners. You shall know them by their fruits is premised first on truth – that which you avoid.

  96. I say that unicorns exist.

    Prove me wrong.

    Is this the gist of your remaining ammunition? If you like unicorns and believe in them, like hot tub Christianity, nobody here is stopping you from the practice.

    As you massage the Word of God to mold to your worldly bias, I can see where you would believe in unicorns – a perfect parallel of child stories. Graychin’s bible? Aesop’s Fables.

    I like rainbows – they do exist.

  97. That you’re not worthy to be my judge has never prevented you from doing it anyway in almost every post you make.

    The point of my unicorn question was your upside-down idea of burden of proof. Never mind.

    Diminishing me with a term like “hot-tub Christianity” is the sort of thing the Church Lady would say, isn’t it? And I’m certainly not the only person you abuse on these threads. Stop preaching and start practicing if you’re going to call yourself Christian. And there’s no point in trying to put that back on me as you usually do. I’m not the one who has spent a “lifetime of study” trying to become a Christian, and I’m only vaguely Christian in the most orthodox sense. I don’t even have a degree in ministry or theology, so what could I possibly know?

    If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

    Paul had you nailed, didn’t he? But then I’m sure that there were plenty of folks just like you around 2,000 years ago.

  98. It shouldn’t be too hard to establish. But guess for my amusement. I’ll give you a hint – medical school prerequisites should be your first thought.

    And a kicker – I didn’t attend theology schools. :smile: There was a time I was very much the pagan like you. :smile:

  99. Paul had you nailed, didn’t he?

    Absolutely. First thing you’ve been right about this morning. Paul nails us all. But now wouldn’t that be the same Paul that wrote:

    Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    Oh my! And in the New Testament too. Graychin, we have a problem.

    But then I’m sure that there were plenty of folks just like you around 2,000 years ago.

    No, I think you would find there were far more pagan, queers, slave holders, Romans, and Baal worshipers running through the streets of Athens to Rome. But many believers in Christ? No, I think your history fuzzy there sport.

  100. and I’m only vaguely Christian in the most orthodox sense

    Really? That’s a shocka!

    But abuse you? :twisted: No wonder you ran from the T-World board. But why? That’s where you belong?

    When you were scolded or whatever, you should have pulled a Tex. I told them they could kiss my ass and delete record of me being there. I only went out there to mock Mick Jones.

    Must have been pretty successful too, because three times he quoted me without name in the editorial published as he ranted.

    Great stuff!

  101. You won’t find God in a study guide. That’s laughable. You will only find another person like yourself who thinks he has all the answers. The source material is much more valuable. I have read the New Testament several times, and the Gospels many times. (When I have looked through the Old Testament, it only confirms what barbarians the Hebrews were, although there’s a lot of interesting stuff in there that they never talked about in Sunday school.)

    So much revealed in a single paragraph. Its kind of like trying to discuss theorhetical physics with someone who never studied gravity and who stubbornly believes that there is no need to do so to understand.

    As for the arrogance of we pitiful believers, it is as much a part of the human condition as the arrogance of your incomplete belief. Your complaints of cherry picking ring hollow indeed in the face of your admission to only choosing to accept part of the story, rather than the whole with a lifetime to reconcile it all as you work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Perhaps removing the mote from your own eye first would lend some legitimacy to your accusations…and maybe not. It is so hard to say.

    By leaning solely upon your own understanding in your rejection of the whole, you have become the spots in the love feast warned of in Jude. Tex is certainly braver than I in attempting to pluck you from the flames.

    And before you imply that my bona fides are rooted in the same study, the degrees are a BA in political science, a JD, and an LLM in tax law.

  102. I’m not a big fan of the Christianity of Paul, although he is the real Founding Father of Christianity as we know it today. He was an odd character – one of those guys who swings from one extreme to the other overnight. First he was a violent persecutor of Christianity, then its most influential promoter, surpassing even Jesus in that regard. Paul was like a devout Marxist who becomes a raging anti-Communist, or Malcom X who went from being a criminal to his version of a spiritual leader. (Insert obvious joke about evangelists here. Or about Malcom X. Or about Obama or Nancy Pelosi – whatever.)

    I suspect that Paul was one of those self-loathing gays that we were talking about – celibate himself as far as we know, but preaching to others about the evils of homosexuality in particular, and not very approving of sex in general. In many ways he turns the teaching of Jesus on its head. Nevertheless, I Corinthians is a masterpiece.

    I only went out there to mock (Mike) Jones.

    Why did you make mockery the focus of your life instead of doing anything productive? Mockery is all that you do here, too. Give us some wisdom, man! We’re all starving and all you have for us is Tabasco!

    Let’s get real here. What you are is an unemployed guy whose wife supports him, with pipe dreams of becoming a doctor at past middle age, wasting your days and evenings arguing and talking trash with other time-wasters like me. (The current internet metaphor is the guy in his underwear, blogging from his mother’s basement. Pretty darn close, eh?)

    Further reality: the focus of your “lifetime of study” has been a bunch of biblical hooey that is of no value to anyone but (possibly) yourself, and certainly not to your family. Your emphasis on the “apologetics” style of study as opposed to free inquiry has enclosed you in a tiny, exclusive bubble. From there, you try to show your supposed superiority to the rest of humanity outside your bubble. But just by looking, most of the rest of humanity has a much wider and more complete view of God that is all around us than you do. You have shrunk God to irrelevancy with your silly pronoun parsing and “this is allegory and that isn’t – because I said so.” (Both Genesis creation stories are entirely allegory, you dope! Including your precious pronouns and plurals.)

    If Christianity has had any positive influence whatsoever on your sour, cynical, mocking personality then I can’t even imagine how awful it must have been to be you before then.

    And don’t try to turn it back on me. I’m not the one claiming to be a “correct” Christian like you do. You called me a pagan, and I’ll cop to that before I would ever want to be whatever you are. Shouldn’t your Christianity show on you? Really, shouldn’t it show, if it’s real?

    You’re one of Paul’s Clanging Cymbals, that’s what you are! And very little else. From now on let the word go forth: my new nickname for Tex Taylor is “CC” – for Clanging Cymbal.

    Have a nice day, CC. Read any good study guides recently?

  103. BW, somehow I had figured out that you’re a lawyer. Don’t expect that to help you argue your way into heaven. It won’t be a litigation.

    I don’t reject the whole for the parts of the bible any more than you guys do, and that has been my point all along. There is no other way to take the bible but as a cafeteria line. Too many contradictions. Too many things that obviously aren’t true. Too many things that you would rather ignore. I don’t blame you for being Cafeteria Christians – there is no other way.

    But Revelation is much bigger than just the pronouns in the bible, and God is a lot more than you give him credit for. You seem to have closed your mind to all revelation but a collection of writings gathered together by early Christian leaders and then sealed forever. Why?

    Tex is certainly braver than I in attempting to pluck you from the flames.

    Geez, I hate it when people try to save me from the flames. It always gets hotter the closer I stand to them.

    Is THAT what you guys are trying to do? Coulda fooled me. Seems more like you both just enjoy a good pissing contest. At least that’s your tone. I never hear even a whisper of Christan charity when someone is trying to “save me from the flames.”

    Why is that?

  104. Why did you make mockery the focus of your life instead of doing anything productive? Mockery is all that you do here, too. Give us some wisdom, man! We’re all starving and all you have for us is Tabasco!

    You mean give us some wisdom which Graychin can agree and support, don’t you? So far, you have yet to refute one argument, provide any insight, enlightening the conversation all the while kissing up or puffing up, depending friend or foe, and asked probing questions which I was nice enough to answer. If I’m the clang of the cymbal, you’re the dull beat of the marching drum.

    Let’s get real here. What you are is an unemployed guy whose wife supports him, with pipe dreams of becoming a doctor at past middle age, wasting your days and evenings arguing and talking trash with other.time-wasters like me.

    :sad: Why, that broke my heart. Sure – but the pipe dream was reality through the most difficult of non-traditional roads. Truth be known, my goal was reached when I was accepted. Think you could do the same? I doubt it – your scientific knowledge base appears on empty past googling links you don’t understand.

    My mistake was carrying it too far. Now if that makes me the miserable failure in your book, the unemployed bum who married right, who cares? You’re an irrelevant bohunk living in Buttfuck, OK, on patrol of a dying lake – a big fish in a tiny pond. Been there, done that. Or have you not realized that’s the real reason you’re here? You’re bored out of your mind like me.

    Kind of like Obama and Nashville, right Gray? Who cares? Besides, what separates unemployed from retired? I know a few that are damn envious of “my predicament.” I’ve found “retirement” sucks and boring as hell. But I’ll bet Rutherford would trade with me at this minute.

    Let’s get real here. You’re used to having your way. That’s why you started your feckless blog. Get a couple of your, and I do mean complete freaking rejects and losers, to follow you from the T-World. It ended the lying dog who can’t spell and the boiler plated cliches and you. I supposed you weren’t so very popular, huh? You thought it would alleviate your own boredom. It didn’t.

    When I hit the scene, I baited you here to smack your lame ass. That’s really the bottom line. :wink:

  105. Graychin,

    BiC is right. There is nothing to you but sanctimonious hand wringing and whining. You’re a weak PuffHo imitator. Either give us specifics, or give it up. So far…

    There is no other way to take the bible but as a cafeteria line. Too many contradictions.

    And they are?

    Too many things that obviously aren’t true.

    And they are?

    Too many things that you would rather ignore.

    And they are?

  106. Forgive us Alfie…

    Graychin stepped in it and now Bic & I must finish absorbing Graychin’s idiocy before revealing his ignorance.

    I’m sure this is monotonous for those not involved.

  107. Contradictions? Who were the parents of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus?

    Obviously not true? The Tower of Babel, Noah’s Ark, the whole Garden of Eden story… (I know – allegory when their truth is inconvenient for you – “gospel” otherwise.)

    What you would rather ignore? All of Leviticus except the part where you pluck a cherry that condemns gays.

    Just to name a few. Books have been written on the subject, and I’m sure your apologetics study guide did its best to explain them all away. Selective allegory or something like that.

  108. “When I hit the scene, I baited you here to smack your lame ass. That’s really the bottom line.”

    I know. That’s just the kind of jerk you are. But it’s SO refreshing when put up against the usual “I’m only annoying you because I love you and I want you to go to heaven” that one gets from most bible-thumpers. But not much better than the “Christians” who take satisfaction that people like me will burn in Hell for all eternity. Assuming that time itself goes on for all eternity. (That’s another biblical problem that needs some work.)

  109. I know. That’s just the kind of jerk you are.

    And you followed. I assume you are a glutton for punishment?

    What to answer first? The easiest I suppose. You’re right. I don’t love you; matter of fact which should come as no surprise, I disdain you. I have no idea whether you going to hell – I only know I’m going to heaven. What happens to you is truly irrelevant to me. I must assume whatever the outcome, you and I will end at opposite poles.

    However, it brings me no comfort that you find me “refreshing” because I’ve always found you incredibly foolish – you tempt fate and are one heart beat away from discovering just how haughty you really were. In mocking God, you have made yourself god – making you worse than shall we say an “infidel.” Better to be hot or cold. I should be no part of that, as I risk wrath myself from dealing with a fool.

    I am sure Christ would instruct me that I jeopardize myself in your presence. There is no doubt in my mind you are truly evil. Christ instructed us to avoid you. If I had any sense, I too should have left well enough alone. Paul was right – there is no doubt idle hands and an idle mind invokes danger.

    Do you remember this verse from the same Paul that wrote of clanging cymbals that you’ve read dozens of times? cough cough

    “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.”

    If I had sense, those should be my last words to you. But you’ve laid down the gauntlet and I will take your challenge.

    ———————

    It is difficult to explain. Again BiC, in his wisdom I’ve come to admire is right. How to educate one to cross the river when they don’t know how to swim? I’ll give it some thought and answer your challenge to the best of my abilities a little later Graychin.

    But a couple of questions for you that I require answer before I proceed:

    (1) Assuming time itself goes on for all eternity.

    What was before the creation of the finite? Can you answer me that?

    (2) Can you give me your “hypothesis” of how a finite universe came into existence , or how our existence came into being. Give it your best shot so that I may have a frame of reference, being that I am obviously going to attempt to explain on a plane of “the natural” that you might accept.

    (3) I assume you are referring to the supposed conflict of Matthew and Luke concerning Luke’s father?

    Are you not aware of the Jewish custom? Matthew’s traces Jesus’ biological lineage, and Luke’s record follow Jesus’ legal lineage. Both genealogies follow the path of Jesus being descendant of King David fulfilling the messianic prophecy.

    Do you really want me to explain the Levirate marriage custom of a relationship where no sons are born in the lineage? Seems to me a specious argument.

  110. To change the subject, giving everyone a much needed break and an idea for a Rutherford Lawson post, so that I may respond further to Graychin without guilt. Please note as I dominate the board, I rest with a partial torn tibio-fibular ligament. I would rather be outside at this moment.

    ———————

    A letter to the editor that I read in response to several critical letters of the new Arizona immigration Law. I thought it quite telling of the majority response, contrary to what the dinosaur media would have you to believe. Mrs. LaBonte refers to herself as simple housewife.

    Dear Editor: So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren’t being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

    Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.

    Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.

    Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.

    When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.

    These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl. And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.

    I’m sorry, that’s not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900’s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

    And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn’t start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

    ~ (signed) Rosemary LaBonte

    THANK YOU Mrs. LaBonte

  111. (1) Assuming time itself goes on for all eternity, what was before the creation of the finite? Can you answer me that?

    In a word, no.

    It is my layman’s understanding that neither empty space nor time itself existed until after the event known as the Big Bang. So to speak of what was “before” creation is meaningless. In other words, you have asked an ignorant, nonsense question, like “do dragons lay eggs?”

    I’m not even sure if we can accept your assumption that time goes on forever into the future. Right now it looks like the universe will expand indefinitely since its rate of expansion seems to be accelerating, but the opinion of cosmologists and astronomers could change. If the universe ends in a reversal of the Big Bang (the Big Crunch) then perhaps time itself could cease to exist, and there would be no such thing as Eternity. At least not in the realm of the natural. Just many billions of years, which to humans is pretty close to the same thing.

    (2) Can you give me your “hypothesis” of how a finite universe came into existence , or how our existence came into being. Give it your best shot so that I may have a frame of reference.

    Concerning the origin of the universe: I have no idea. All I know about the subject comes from reading books written by cosmologists for laymen, and they don’t claim to know either. I don’t have a problem with saying that “God did it” although that doesn’t really tell us much, does it? The more scientists discover about the origins of the universe, the less there seems to be for God to have done. But that doesn’t mean that God didn’t wind up the machine and start it running.

    As for the existence of you and me – our parents had sex (shocking, I know) and our mothers gave birth to us. And on and on, way back to the beginnings of life on Earth. How did THAT happen? Same answer as before – I don’t know. To say “God did it” doesn’t really tell us much, does it? But HOW did God do it? That’s a proper question for science. God might have kicked off the chemistry that evolved into you and me, but if scientists can reproduce the original conditions does that argue against the hand of God in the process? I don’t think so, but some Christians do think so. Too bad for them. Their faith depends on believing in those Genesis allegories.

    I have no idea why studying cosmology and evolution makes some Christians so nervous. All we are talking about is HOW God created the universe. Right? Science has nothing to say about WHETHER God created the universe. Right?

  112. “I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.”

    Oops. I’d better stop putting up my Irish flag on St. Patrick’s day. I wouldn’t want to offend the tender sensibilities of Mrs. LaBonte. I’m sure those nice clean Irish immigrants never did anything so gauche as to wave an Irish flag on St. Paddy’s day like those dirty Mexicans wave the the Mexican flag on May 5.

    Or is St. Patrick’s day different somehow than Cinco de Mayo? I’m not sure.

    Help me out here, CC.

    (LaBonte? Sounds French to me, not American.)

  113. Is THAT what you guys are trying to do?

    Actually, I was indulging your obfuscation after I posted articles with actual citations which illustrate legitimate criticisms of the various studies that your “expert” on homosexuality cited. Your silence didn’t escape my attention; it merely amused me to follow you down your rabbit-hole. I wanted to know how far you’d take it. You didn’t disappoint. While I admire the fighting spirit, I have no respect for the intellectual dishonesty you’ve displayed.

    But there are none so blind as those who refuse to see, and much like the legacy media which takes great pains to never name the threats that remain poised at our throats because the narrative demands them to point where it ain’t, you do the same with Christianity. I agree, there is no point in continuing with you on this subject. Your projection is blinding, and you are as obtuse as they come. Without a command to speak further to the stone on this matter, I don’t really intend to waste your time further on this subject.

  114. Unlike BiC who has more sense than me, I will answer Graychin’s charges, if for no other reason it amuses me to read of Graychin’s idea of cosmology and physics.

    Not only do the subjects not scare me to discuss or make me uncomfortable, I sometimes fill my days reading about them. That answer appeared to read like something between the Discovery Channel and Richard Dawkins, and I will even ignore the attempt at cheap shots. This time I give Graychin credit – he did a wonderful remake of the scientist’s answer we hear from so often – those who simply can not face the truth of the ramifications that point toward a Creator.

    But Graychin, you are mistaken if you believe those questions of ignorance or nonsense because they now allow me to gauge how you might drawn your conclusions so that I would know how to answer you which I will attempt soon.

  115. Oops. I’d better stop putting up my Irish flag on St. Patrick’s day. I wouldn’t want to offend the tender sensibilities of Mrs. LaBonte. I’m sure those nice clean Irish immigrants never did anything so gauche as to wave an Irish flag on St. Paddy’s day like those dirty Mexicans wave the the Mexican flag on May 5.

    Obfuscation is right. Feign right, dart left.

    Do you take your American flag down on St. Patrick’s Day Graychin and substitute the Irish Flag? Do you get offended on St. Patrick’s Day if the America Flag is displayed?

    If not, your analogy is again a poor one because that is exactly what happened in Arizona May 5th – students asked to remove their American apparel – all which had been worn before mind you, if they wished to remain in school.

    Charges of “racism” don’t ask me, and disrespect because it like and I quote, “Would you want me wearing a Mexican Flag on the 4th of July?” :?::?::?: I have no idea if the ‘Mexican’ high school student realize the Cinco De Mayo nothing of the sort?

    But I have a question Graychin. Perhaps it needs a different vantage point for me to understand.

    If the Mexican flag such an admission of pride, if Mexico worthy of special celebration, if we are now to share in the inheritance of our greatness with Mexico:

    Why are so many climbing the fence to get here?

  116. Graychin,

    For the same reason that so many Irish came here, you jerk.

    Yes, but I don’t remember the Irish sneaking in to do it. So I ask again, if Mexico worth celebrating and sharing our day of Independence, why are so many of them sneaking over the fence and remaining here illegally while they celebrate on the streets – many while committing a little anarchy in the process.

    I thought you were the man of civility? :twisted:

  117. You know Graychin, you advertise this on your personal blog:

    The blog authors are unapologetic progressives, but we welcome participation from intelligent, conservative commenters who are able – and willing – to make cogent arguments for conservative principles without resorting to outrageous lies, racist nonsense, ad hominem irrelevancies, or childish gay-bashing.

    We’re serious! Are you out there? Do you even exist? Please come on in and show us! We enjoy the sound of clashing opinions – without all the lying and shouting that too often accompanies political discussion. The well-informed and razor-sharp progressive minds in residence here look forward to engaging with you.

    If you really believe you the man about town, the arbiter of discourse, the man of moderation, beacon of profound wisdom, you really should be more civil towards BiW.

    He’s a wonderful debater, a much more gifted writer than I am, a much nicer guy, the Conservative you have sought as advertised on your blog.

    In other words, if you really mean what you say, and say what you mean, here is your chance opportunity to get a piece of your fat, old ass handed to you in spades by from an intelligent, conservative commenter. :smile:

  118. “it amuses me to read of Graychin’s idea of cosmology and physics.”

    Other than your knee-jerk negative cynicism, what about my answers to your profound questions did you find so amusing? I think that my opinions are harmonious with all but the most far-out, young-earth creationist beliefs.

  119. I think that your opinions are harmonious with…The Discovery Channel

    And you forgot to end your response with “you jerk.” :wink:

  120. The thing about religious arguments like the ones made by BiW so far is that they are totally faith-based and can’t be proven outside the closed realm of religious argumentation. (That statement disrespects CC’s lifetime of study of apologetics, the field in which you set out to prove what you already believe. But so be it.) In religion, science won’t help you. It is neither your friend nor your enemy. Good science has nothing to say about religion.

    Religion SHOULD have nothing to say about science. But the True Believers don’t see it that way.

  121. I think I was wrong about the law. I had only heard a couple sound bites on it and didn’t have the time to research it.

    It does seem that the bill simply empowers the local police to enforce federal law.

    Two concerns I still have.

    Does it give police the right to use “reasonable suspicion” to shake down people to see if they have their papers?

    12 Mexicans running from the border, no problem.

    4 dudes walking down the street speaking Spanish…..different story.

    Problem number 2: Having worked in corrections, it seems to me it lets the federal government off the hook and could possibly swamp the local system with even more bull shit.

    That being said, fishing for illegals while still letting those who hire them off the hook is dumb headed.

    __________________________________________________
    Wasn’t it Cato the Elder who ended every Roman senate session with the line “Destroy Carthage?”

    I think I may end every post here with “Build the Wall”.

  122. Well, if you are going to refer to me as CC, perhaps I should refer to you Graychin as CS, as in cocksucker. Or perhaps you would prefer queer or fag which seem to stoke your inner demons no end.

    So if you would to continue with the pejoratives, I’m game. Your choice “Graychin.”

    I disagreed with little you said because you can’t absolutely disagree with utter speculation. While interesting, that is what the Discovery Channel is – entertainment with little fact.

    However, this statement is incorrect:

    God might have kicked off the chemistry that evolved into you and me, but if scientists can reproduce the original conditions does that argue against the hand of God in the process?

    Scientists can’t – not even remotely close. From cellular biology, to genetics, to particle reactors. But then I never had a problem mixing science and religion, being I think God has a hand in our science. In fact, I am sure of it – from mathematics, to physics, to chemistry, to biology. Before it became cool to try and deny God, virtually all fathers of science were Christians.

    Where I think you fall short is your science is elementary – layman if you will, and I wanted to get a handle on far I could stretch the “boundaries you” spoke being I won’t get four words out before you’ll be yammering with some link you found to support your “theory.”

    If I get in the mood and it doesn’t piss others off like Alfie or Huck, then I’ll take your other “contradictions” of the Bible one at a time sometime soon. We can start with the Tower of Babel.

  123. Huck,

    That was good – what is more, most legal Hispanics are for SB1070. Just like this woman.

    That never gets mentioned by the dinosaur media.

  124. Damn, I wish someone would just show up at the end of this video and beat the shit out of this guy.

    Talk about irony. That fuck wad stands up there and makes his own case why he needs thrown out of the country. No scratch that. Thrown out of a helicopter over Mexico City.

  125. That’s great, isn’t Rabbit? We’ve got Che, and Chavez, Castro and Cuba, occupied territories, and the works. Here, you’ve got Graychin crying for the Indians. He can start by giving him home back on Lake of the Cherokees.

    Do you think Graychin the Irish came into America waving the Irish flag and speaking like the man from above?

    I hope you’re Hispanic or Muslim Graychin. You better get used to worshiping at the footstool of La Raza, while saying Allahu Akbar baby if we decide to lay down and adopt your mindset.

  126. Hey Rutherford,

    Now that Joe Klein has said that Glen Beck and Sarah Palin come very close to sedition in their speech, where does this fine UCLA professor rank in his speech?

    Too bad Hippie is not around so I could ask him if this is representative of the “Conservative campuses” he always espouses.

  127. “Now that Joe Klein has said that Glen Beck and Sarah Palin come very close to sedition in their speech, where does this fine UCLA professor rank in his speech?”

    I am more curious as to what Curator has to say about him. He didn’t seem phased over the threats of “shovels and axes” we’ve already heard, but he sure is sensative to such speech when spoken by people he doesn’t like.

  128. But then I never had a problem mixing science and religion, being I think God has a hand in our science. In fact, I am sure of it – from mathematics, to physics, to chemistry, to biology.

    I don’t think I have ever met anyone who claims to be so knowledgeable and sure of so many things in so many fields. You mock me for being unsure about the origins of the universe when the best minds on the planet are engaged in trying to figure it out. You remind me the words of one of history’s greatest thinkers:

    “It seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.”

  129. You know Huck,

    With Graychin now being here stinking up the place with his weak line of politically correct horseshit, Curator almost seems like a distant memory. I had forgotten that.

    Of course, the most hostile people I’ve met to La Raza coyotes, pendejos, and MS-13 Che wannabees are Mexicans and South Americans who are naturalized citizens. These people have no use for this Mofo and his band of thieves, I guarantee it.

    And most of them are damn good people – and Conservative to the core.

  130. Hey Graychin,

    This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. – Sir Isaac Newton

    Seems my opinion in pretty good company pendejo.

  131. Somebody grab the crayon from Graychin!

    A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell. ~ C. S. Lewis

  132. Graychin, I used to think you were halfway intelligent. This entire week has made me recognize you’re just a run of the mill chump, not particularly knowledgeable of anything. I can see how you chose the progressive cause.

    Consider the stupidity of you mocking this statement:

    But then I never had a problem mixing science and religion, being I think God has a hand in our science. In fact, I am sure of it – from mathematics, to physics, to chemistry, to biology.

    Now consider the people who would not only agree with my statement, but provide proof of the statement:

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html#RaImERxruf5T

    Copernicus, Newton, Faraday, Bacon, Mendel, Kepler, DesCartes all said the same.

    And you think my statement wrong fat man? :lol:

  133. “I used to think you were halfway intelligent.”

    No you didn’t. But I’m intelligent enough to recognize the Tower of Babel as a fairy tale for children and for childlike minds.

    Great scientists have held all sorts of religious opinions from the orthodox to the bizarre, but surely you recognize that brilliance in science does not imply correctness in matters of religion.

    It’s odd that you would quote Newton, pendejo. Newton was a very knowledgeable student of the bible, but wasn’t even a Christian at a time when his heretical views could have gotten him into a lot of trouble.

    Pointing to scientists of past centuries who agree with your religious views of today is one of your sillier arguments, and that’s saying a lot Sounds like something an apologetics study guide might teach.

    “There is nothing so stupid as an educated man, if you get off the thing that he was educated in.” (Will Rogers)

  134. Hurry and write another post, Rutherford. Sunday school is getting old.

    ROTFL :lol: I shall write something more in a minute but I just had to call out Huck’s plea for relief! That was just too good.

  135. Tex Mrs. LaBonte is so full of sh*t my computer is giving off an odor right now. The melting pot is a big fat f*cking lie. First, we came here and told the Native Americans to go to hell.

    Then, in no particular order, the Irish came here and we pissed on them.

    Italians came here and we pissed on them.

    Blacks were kidnapped here and we pissed on them.

    Mrs. LaBonte lives in some fantasy world. You, yourself have offered a very valid explanation for why hard working Mexicans in this country have not sought legal presence here … it’s too damn expensive and bureaucratic.

    In a word … puhleeeeze.

  136. It’s odd that you would quote Newton, pendejo. Newton was a very knowledgeable student of the bible, but wasn’t even a Christian at a time when his heretical views could have gotten him into a lot of trouble.

    Where did you pick up your history degree Joto? Good grief – you’re absolutely clueless. Newton was not only a Christian throughout life, he was a devout Christian.

    He hoped that his entire work in physics would inspire men to believe in God. For example, he stated that:

    “When I wrote my treastise about our System I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” ~ Sir Isaac Newton 10.12.1692.

    Even in the Wikipedia addition, I found this: Newton devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.

    In other words idiot, Newton’s ideas fundamentally opposed to your idiocy of good words from men who may or not have known Christ. Did you pick that up “fundamental belief” and “inspired?” Don’t give me your heresy poppycock – this is strict doctrine.

    You dill weed, are a baboso…

    I can hardly wait for you explanation of many languages after our simians migrated out yonder. That ought to be a hoot to read.

  137. Rutherford, I can see since Joto made it to the board, you have begin to show your ass a little more. Queef must have inspired you to return to the affirmative action mindset. Your insults aren’t even cleverly framed like they used to be.

    Why don’t you show your affirmative action intellect and answer my question from above?

    If there is such a pride from Mexico, a need to celebrate their independence (which Cinco De Mayo does not), and the wearing of American colors to be forbidden on May 5th, why do your brothers in arms continue to climb the fence?

    Can you answer that for me? And after that, why don’t you give your almost foreclosed house to an Indian as a final measure of your guilt?

  138. The fact that it is 1:45 in the morning is testament to how much I enjoyed reading Gray and Tex’s expanded discussion of religion and science. I saw Tex travel an arc of religious arrogance to humility to arrogance in one discussion thread, Wild.

    Tex where you do lose me (and always have) is your selectivity in literal interpretation of the Bible. If you concede that the world was not created in 6 days (you called that allegory) then how can you not concede that a man cannot be his own father and that ghosts don’t literally exist.

    A friend of my late mother once said something very interesting. My mother asked her why she encouraged her young child to believe in Santa Claus. She replied, “if he doesn’t believe in Santa Claus, how can I make sure he believes in God?” She was afraid that her son might view God as just as much of a fable as Santa.

    Tex, you’ve got yourself boxed into a tough spot here. You claim to be unworthy … flawed like all men … a servant to God. Yet in the same breath, you believe yourself capable of dictating the meaning of His word … and the real capper .. you are SURE you are going to heaven. That last one blew me away. I would think that any humble Christian would live with the hope that God grants him such asylum. To be sure that is your destination strikes me as awfully cocky.

    Gray, I love you man but you’ve spent the better part of the day pissing up a rope. You said one key word in the entire exchange: unicorn. Tex sees them. You see horses with ice cream cones lodged on the top of their heads. You’re willing to say God had a hand in creating the cones and the horses. Tex says phooey … it’s a unicorn dammit.

    I think we all wonder about where we came from and where we’re going. We all wonder how it all came to be. We all look for guidance on how to live a “good life”. I find that quest highly personal and I think the quest gets perverted the minute a bunch of guys get together in this thing called “organized religion”. Then it just becomes the Sneetches. Tex has the star on his belly. Muslims don’t. Tex sees the light., Muslims don’t …. nor do a whole variety of other Christians for that matter.

    Here is what Tex will find the most ignorant thing I’ve ever said, but here it goes. God did not invent religion. Man did. As a result religion is HIGHLY suspect.

  139. LOL Tex … the minute you attack I know I’ve scored my point. Answer me this …. were the Irish “welcomed” here? How about Italians?

    I don’t have guilt about Native Americans … I never did a damn thing to any of them. But I know history and so do you so don’t try to re-write it.

    We already discussed that it is low class to wear a flag on your T-shirt. I think you agreed with me on that. If I choose not to give those students the benefit of the doubt, then I can assume they deliberately wore the T’s to piss off the Mexicans on a day special to them. Is it that hard to put your “America first” motto in the desk drawer for one lousy day?

  140. Oh btw, Tex …. don’t get pissed because you invite a progressive to the blog and then find that I agree with him at least some of the time. How damn silly is that?

    FWIW … and Gray I really do mean this … I think Tex is sincere in his faith. I think Tex tries to live by what he thinks the Bible teaches him. I think Tex genuinely fears for people’s souls … at least people who have touched him in one way or another.

    I mean that. Tex can be a mean SOB as comment 165 proves but I think he has a heart.

  141. Tex, you’ve got yourself boxed into a tough spot here. You claim to be unworthy … flawed like all men … a servant to God. Yet in the same breath, you believe yourself capable of dictating the meaning of His word … and the real capper .. you are SURE you are going to heaven. That last one blew me away. I would think that any humble Christian would live with the hope that God grants him such asylum. To be sure that is your destination strikes me as awfully cocky.

    Clueless – not even a remote idea of what grace is, who Jesus is, what the Bible says. A complete lost cause – a testament to a complete and utter breakdown of society.

    Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil – unless it is a Republican.

    Not much more to add besides one whose identity politics is his religion.

  142. Isaac Newton was highly religious. He wrote extensively on the Bible, and on a lot of really strange occult subjects that would get him shunned by most Baptist congregations today. But he most emphatically was NOT a Christian.

    You seem to realize that, because your response to me dances all around what I said but never actually addresses it. Or were you just lied to by your apologetics study guides? I can see why that inconvenient truth might embarrass them and get left out. The most brilliant and productive scientist in history wasn’t a Christian, even in the 1600’s before that was cool.

    That’s the problem with apologetics. It is by definition a one-sided process. It presents the supporting evidence and not the opposing evidence. Then it offers pre-packaged rebuttals to opposing arguments wherever possible. Where not possible, it glosses over inconvenient facts.

    Free inquiry is the way to go. Not apologetics. I think you wasted your time.

    Check elsewhere.

  143. Rutherford, I apologize to you and to the rest of the folks here for my part in the ridiculous exchange between Tex and me on this thread. And on some of the other threads too. “Pissing up a rope” is a very kind way of describing what I’ve been doing in my childish arguing with such an expert on everything from advanced cosmology to the pronouns in Genesis. I’ll try to back off a bit.

    The only excuse I can offer is that I wanted to demonstrate his deep superficiality to people who may have respected him here, but I’m beginning to see that he doesn’t get any more respect here than he deserves, i.e. not much. A “lifetime of study” – of aplolgetics of all things. Talk about a superficial mind!

    You put your finger right on what I have also found to be his weakest argument – his “selectivity in literal interpretation of the Bible.” But you have obviously heard him preach about religion before, so that one is bound to stand out.

    Since he was so literal with his divine pronouns in Genesis, I was sure he would confess to being a young-earth creationist. I was wrong. He dismisses all creationism nonsense as allegory, but has promised a defense of the Tower of Babel tale as factual. I need to ask him which study guide has the key to which bible stories are literally true and which are allegory. Noah and the ark? (I hear that they just found the remains of the ark – again!) Samson and Delilah? David and Goliath? Cain and Abel? Adam and Eve, for that matter. What about all those guys who lived for many hundreds of years? Allegory or fact? (His explanation of the differing genealogies of Joseph was hilarious, contradicting the plain language in two of the gospels.

    WHERE’S THAT DANG STUDY GUIDE???

    But there I go again. I’ll back off. I promise.

  144. Rutherford: Uncharitable as it may be of me, I have to disagree with this one thing that you said: “Tex is sincere in his faith. I think Tex tries to live by what he thinks the Bible teaches him. I think Tex genuinely fears for people’s souls … at least people who have touched him in one way or another.

    Of course I know and have known many, many Christians. I’m even a Christian myself in an unorthodox way. Not all Christians are good people, but as a group I would have to say that their behavior and morals are a bit above average. Tex is as un-Christian in his persona online as anyone I have ever encountered. (That was an exceptionally mean comment that he made at #165, among others.) Obviously he has worked hard to build a fortress of useless information about Christian belief in his conscious mind. And he takes great pride in what he supposes to be his superior knowledge on every subject imaginable. Humility is unknown to him. But no Christianity appears to be in his heart. None at all. And the heart is where Christian faith really resides. (I’m speaking metaphorically about the heart, Tex, so calm down.)

    The description of him that I quoted yesterday from I Corinthians 13 fits him perfectly.

    And Rutherford, I used to work with a woman who was devoutly, sincerely Christian, but was smart enough to be troubled by some of her faith’s obvious inconsistencies. Like your friend, she never allowed her children to believe in Santa Claus either. Her verbatim explanation: “I was afraid that when they found out that Santa Claus was fake they wouldn’t believe in Jesus.” Even if she had her doubts, she WANTED to believe.

    Like Fox Mulder. Right, Tex?

  145. WordPress has amongst its features the “My Comments” section on ones Dashboard. Well this thread is killing my section so I have to insert this comment to clean it up. Thx

  146. Oh Graychin, how shallow your arguments, how narrow your vision, and how disingenuous your character. You’re a buffet of contradiction and pretentious thought.

    The occult you speak of with Newton was his intense writings of Daniel and The Book of the Revelation – hardly occult writing in comparison by today’s humanists such as yourself. Newton believed he had insight to prophecy. If you consider that heresy from whatever information you can gleam from google or your secular readings, remain in your ignorance. It is obvious that Newton was devout about religion, no matter his supposed shortcomings which we all have. Newton would be an anathema to your evolutionary and cosmological sciences of today. He would be a fool to you.

    You’re no more Christian than a man in the moon Graychin, as you deny its very precepts and most basic tenets. You read as a combination of shuffling hedonist and pantheist. You attend some “association” of like mind, more like a gardening club than true worship. You want a worship of man, and politics and a tickling of the ears. And I am sure you receive it without challenge.

    Your buffoonery about the story about the woman is silly. What you have found is nothing but person of like mind with sweet spirit. Of course you would find personal admiration, just as I have admiration of Billy Graham.

    You basic precepts are masked in some mandated compassion you wish to facilitate through the gifts of others under the title of social justice. You attract no following as attested to by your blog. You’re a modern day Herod without his power, a blind spot a mile wide, and use your daily propaganda as a power play of sorts to gain advantage. Frankly, you are a much weaker opponent than I ever dreamed which I did not realize until allowed a real open forum – something you choose not to provide, contrary to your bogus advertisement. If business, you would be convicted for slander.

    Your doubts and your questions about faith are easily explained by a defense of the faith which you are incapable of understanding. You have neither the grounding nor wisdom to comprehend because you are woefully blind and your heart hardened. What’s more, you don’t seek knowledge but to disprove. I have already demonstrated once that I am more than capable of answering your gotchas. Your silence was deafening in return. I have debated these very questions you have asked with people far more talented and far more capable than you. You are a weak link in the humanist chain, and to be honest, with respect to this particular subject matter a bore.

    However, I need no deep seated knowledge of Judaism or Christianity, no experience of custom or culture, no profound knowledge of history or Judeo-Christian philosophy to show your weakness of thought, which I will now demonstrate for you.

    You apparently claim, albeit loosely, to be a follower of Christ, do you not? That is what you stated to Rutherford above.

    It behooves me to remind you that all of these personal doubts you hold, all of these laws you mock, all of these stories you believe baloney, Christ taught. Christ was known by many names, but to the Jews He was Rabbi. He taught from the Torah, with such wonderment it amazed the elders of the temple.

    Christ most definitely believed of these stories of “myth” you speak. He spoke of them often, mentioned them through story and parable, as only He knew the truth. So Graychin, all you really are doing is denying Christ’s own teaching with your foolishness.

    How long will you waver between two opinions? If Christ is God follow Him; if your leftist politics is god, follow it. But quit straddling the fence. Rutherford is far more honest than you and will not be judged as severely – that to is scriptural Graychin. Where Rutherford speaks from ignorance, it is you that speaks from arrogance.

    So you can mock me, scold me, try to belittle me. But there is one fact you can not escape. When you do so, you also mock what Jesus taught.

    You better believe I’m confident in what I “preach.” I am weak follower of the Rabbi I admit, chock full of many faults. But I am a follower and I am a believer. I say that without shame or regret.

  147. “So you can mock me, scold me, try to belittle me. But there is one fact you can not escape. When you do so, you also mock what Jesus taught.”

    I’m going to let that one just hang there, to twist slowly, slowly in the wind.

  148. I’m going to let that one just hang there, to twist slowly, slowly in the wind.

    As you have been doing I suspect your entire life – twisting the truth to suit your means.

    Let thy ears be tickled Graychin… I rest my case.

  149. Back closer to the subject at hand, I am one Conservative that is now ready to admit President Barack Obama a complete success.

    Modern liberalism, the ideology best exemplified by Obama and his cabinet, which rests on the twin pillars of welfare state and the identify politics, is well engage as demonstrated this week in world markets, Arizona, NYC and California.

    The first is unfortunately proving unsustainable, the latter festering hatred and division more so than anytime in my life.

    I want to give a tip of the cap to Rutherford, Graychin, Curator, and the Hippie Professor parts unknown, for in sixteen short months helping to facilitate the paradigm of modern liberalism so successfully.

    Congratulations are in order and a tip of the cap for job well done for as long as it lasts! :wink:

  150. Like your friend, she never allowed her children to believe in Santa Claus either.

    Gray, even though the logic is more or less the same you got my anecdote slightly backwards. My mother’s friend DID want her child to believe in Santa and in fact did not want to disabuse him of this belief for fear that he might make the logical jump … no Santa, no God either.

    Graychin, this is clearly your business so feel free to tell me to take a hike but I’m curious why you feel compelled to call yourself an “unorthodox Christian”? Why not simply say you believe in God? Or even that you believe Jesus was a preacher and teacher of peace? Those beliefs, I might argue do not make you a bona fide Christian but simply make you spiritual, which is a perfectly fine alternative. I’m not sure you even said that you regularly attend church. So I guess I’m wondering why you need to identify with a religion that asks things of you that you are unwilling to give, such as suspending disbelief in matters as fundamental as the resurrection.

    I fully agree with you that most Christians are of the cafeteria variety but I got the impression, that, like me,. you disdain this. So why be a cafeteria Christian yourself?

    P.S. Like I said before, no one has an obligation to explain their faith to anyone else, so feel free to tell me to bug off. I just want to get a better handle where you’re coming from. As you have probably guessed, I have a problem with ALL organized religion.

  151. Rutherford, I love to discuss religion, and it’s impossible to offend me by criticizing my beliefs – because I don’t pretend to have all the answers (like SOME people do). I don’t even object to being called a “cafeteria Christian,” because that’s exactly what I am. But that nickname drives CERTAIN people crazy because they have what they think are excellent reasons for just ignoring the parts of the bible that they don’t want to hear about. It’s a very elaborate kind of hypocrisy.

    The view of Christianity that we have been discussing on this thread is an extremely narrow one. Perhaps you have noticed, but there are thousands of sects that call themselves Christian, and they all believe a different flavor or variety of Christianity. And they all think that the thousands of other flavors are ALL heretical.

    You don’t have to believe in all the silliness that a particular SOMEONE does in order to rightly call yourself a Christian. You don’t even have to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, or even in the divinity of Jesus. (Isaac Newton was NOT a trinitarian and did NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus, but SOME argumentative and self-righteous Christian literalists still want to claim Newton as their own, heretic that he was.) Very few people believe that Jesus’ teachings were worthless. Many people who simply try to practice what Jesus preached could even fairly be called Christians.

    In the first several centuries after Jesus, there were huge arguments between very smart, learned and devout men over the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God. The bible doesn’t make the matter clear at all. It was this subject that was the nominal cause of the Great East-West Schism, in which Eastern (“Orthodox”) Christians (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox etc.) went their separate ways from the Western (Roman) church and the Pope. That happened 1,000 years after Jesus.

    And the argument rages on even today, as you can see. There is no clear answer to the exact nature of Jesus and his relationship to God. The answer can only be found by either taking the word of SOMEONE who claims to have all the answers either from study or direct revelation, or by doing the best you can to figure it out for yourself. I have chosen the latter.

    I enjoy the subject of religion, but my knowledge of the bible is above average among churchgoing folks. As I said in one of my earlier windy posts, I abhor biblical “proof texts” and I only do that myself to embarrass SOME IDIOT who thinks he has all the answers. I emphatically do NOT use a few bible verses to “prove” that my own faith is “correct” (like SOME people) because no one can do that successfully. The bible contains a lot of worthwhile stories and wisdom, but as a clear recipe for theology it is an incoherent mess. (Surely the Literal Word of God would have been written so that sincere people wouldn’t have argued over its meaning from the days of Jesus until now.)

    No, you can only take the bible as Literal Truth if you pick and choose from the cafeteria line and dismiss the rest. Of course that means that you have to tie yourself in knots and make strained arguments to ‘splain yourself when someone pushes back at your certitude.

    Discussions with a person who claims to have all the answers always end up the same way – with something like: “So you can mock me, scold me, try to belittle me. But there is one fact you can not escape. When you do so, you also mock what Jesus taught.” That, and the announcement that you and I are going to Hell. And that he’s glad about it.

    That’s where I’m coming from. Does that help?

  152. I absolutely cannot believe I am jumping into this fray…..

    Many people who simply try to practice what Jesus preached could even fairly be called Christians.

    I beg to differ that it would be far from fair to do so. Philosophical embrace of the teachings of Christ (or Smith, Buddha, Vishnu, Mohammed,Confucius) is one thing but far from an actual leap and commitment of faith.
    A humanist/philosophy stance is ok but it is kind of an insult to align that as equal to faith based belief. Ala carte Christianity isn’t faith because it requires one to distance oneself from those uncomfortable points that truly require it.
    Is this a can of worms in the words of gc?

  153. Alfie, thanks for jumping in.

    It’s like I was saying. People who consider themselves Christians can’t even agree on the definition of “Christian.” All the time, it winds up at “I am, but you are not.”

    My point is that all Christians are cafeteria Christians out of necessity. The guy I was arguing with in this thread is a big-time cafeteria Christian, picking and choosing. He has already rejected young-earth creationism. How much more of the bible would he toss out as “allegory” not to be taken seriously?

    He would be offended to hear from you that his cafeteria choices put him outside your little circle. But then he’s got a comfy little circle of his own, doesn’t he? And you’re probably going to Hell! Just ask him! :D

  154. Well I’m assuming I’ll earn your ire for using the pronoun “I” but I am all set due to WHO I know not what I know.I think that creates the biggest circle.

  155. Good point, and a fair one. But also I don’t buy the whole “salvation through faith alone” business that puts Tim McVeigh in heaven along with Mother Teresa and Father Damien.

    Meanwhile, isn’t it just too bad about all those good, moral people in deepest China who aren’t saved by Christian belief? Doesn’t even seem fair, does it? It seems downright UNfair to me.

    Funny that the whole “salvation through faith” doctrine wasn’t known for the first 1,500 years of Christianity. Not to be blasphemous, but couldn’t God have made himself a lot clearer on this important matter?

    I think that the guy I was debating knows a lot more of the “what” of Christianity than he knows about the “who.” The “who” of it doesn’t show very much on him.

  156. Were the closing passages of Luke unknown for 1500 hundred years. It holds one of my favorites:
    39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

    40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

    42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

    43Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

  157. As for the Chinese et al. I don’t know if Christian salvation is so closed to them but I get your point.
    Isn’t Christian salvation primarily for errr Christians though? I know people throw John 14 around sometimes with a vindictiveness but who but a Christian really needs to take it to heart?

  158. last bit promise. My path is mine. I don’t think its a matter of selfishness. You nor anybody else can take me down the Path. Likewise I can’t bring you down either happily or kicking and screaming.

    Anyway as stated earlier in respect to the post. Sestak ahead but likely won’t win the general.

  159. Rutherford, this is to clear the record and be done with it. My suggestion would be for you to learn on your own, because you are being fed spoonfuls of sugar, trying to make precepts which HE disagrees palatable. I won’ t try to convince you, but you would be wise to stay cold rather than become lukewarm. This is dangerous doctrine which you are being tempted to walk. I say that as a friend.

    —————-

    I need to correct something from the Unitarian from above who think HE knows something about Protestant faith, because HIS flavor of Christianity is about as popular as say Heaven’s Gate – though like the humanists, they have come to dominate the LOUD CROWD of the dinosaur media.

    HE is simply wrong in everything about HIS assessment from above, including HIS depth of scripture – equivalent to the puddle after a rainstorm. There is nothing new under the sun.

    HE is one step ahead of you, and not nearly as knowledgeable as HE would presume. The churches HE thinks HE represents are either being torn apart at the seams such as the Episcopal Church with gay reverends, or poorly attended. However, this is no new phenomenon as HIS type have blown to the wind for two millennia now. What is new is the shrillness of their voice which was warned of by Paul:

    The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

    Concerning the Protestant community, there are numerous ideas but a handful of dare I say it, denominations, that make up at least 80% of the what would be referred to Christians in America. Evangelical Christians in America make up about 50MM of the populace, which include millions of Evangelical Catholics it is estimated, with non denominational including Baptists, then Methodists, and Presbyterians the largest groups. Though each has a differing idea of administration, finances and calls to leadership, all share one thing in common – a agreement of precepts and tenets. They don’t pick and choose what to believe, as all believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. That may be common charge in liberal circles in the attempt to create division, as it seems to be bandied about through the heathen persuasion. And to a degree, it has caused confused and created doubt, as was prophesied throughout the New Testament. I give Lucifer his due.

    The rest of HIS charges are bogus, and I would be happy to prove that to you if you’re really interested off the board, but you are being woefully mislead if you believe what you read from HIM from above.

    HIS is a special version of hostility towards the church. Believing HE is some Martin Luther, in reality from the spiritual and faithful aspect, it’s one step above Fred Phelps and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

    However, if even HIS heresy leads you to discovering truth, something good may come of this discussion yet. :smile:

  160. Alfie, all the words in the bible were known for centuries before Martin Luther discovered salvation sola fide. What I take to be your understanding of what it takes to be saved wasn’t known and widely believed until Martin Luther. It may well be correct, I don’t know. But the fact is that it was unknown for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.

    And if salvation through faith only applies to, you know, Christians, and since you and that other guy don’t consider me a Christian, then I guess I don’t have much to worry about. Right?

  161. Hey HIM. One very simple question. Who do you believe Jesus’ Father to be? Was Christ born of the seed of Joseph or the seed of The Almighty?

    I believe that may clear some of the discussion…

    Surely you can answer this without puffing like a toad.

  162. Dang. I thought we’d run HIM off.

    Sorry to cop out on you, but I don’t know what I believe on that point. The more we learn, the less we find God breaking his own laws or intervening miraculously all the time in what happens on earth. Only 300 years ago, almost EVERYONE was a young-earth creationist. Now most of us (including you, I think) believe that the earth was created in a longer and more “natural” process without so many discontinuities where “God did this” and “God did that.”

    Does that extend to Jesus having a human father? I don’t know. But what difference does it make? Could the Divine Son of God have chosen to be the soul within a human body with two human parents if he had wanted to? If not, why not? Would that have made Jesus less “divine”? I don’t think so. God is Spirit, like a human soul is. Right? I believe that the human soul is what is made in God’s image, not the body. Most humans don’t look very divine, do they? :D

    That’s the best answer I can give. Now you tell me what difference it makes.

  163. hat I take to be your understanding of what it takes to be saved wasn’t known and widely believed until Martin Luther. It may well be correct, I don’t know. But the fact is that it was unknown for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.
    I simply do not see how that can be true given the early Church.
    I’m done though.

  164. That’s the best answer I can give. Now you tell me what difference it makes.

    Your eternal path…You are a mass of meaningless jumbled and puerile confusion.

    Like I said, how long will you waver between two choices?

    The only question remaining for me, is it for convenience or show?

  165. It’s honest uncertainty.

    But I can see why you can’t understand that. It doesn’t appear that you have ever been uncertain about anything – ever.

    Paraphrasing: “It seems that I am wiser than you are to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.”

    Now, would you please tell Alfie that I’m right about Luther being the discoverer of sola fide – about 1,500 years after Jesus?

  166. Hey! Now there are TWO polls showing Sestak ahead of Specter in Pennsylvania, Rasmussen and the Muhlenberg/Morning Call tracking poll. Both have Sestak ahead 47-42.

    Was it Rutherford’s commercial that did it?

  167. Paraphrasing: “It seems that I am wiser than you are to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know…and will believe that which I wish to believe that makes me comfortable of my own notions of right and wrong.

    Perfect.

    But I can see why you can’t understand that. It doesn’t appear that you have ever been uncertain about anything – ever.

    Uncertainty abounds…

    I have great uncertainty how much longer America can survive under the auspices of the Obama regime. Can we even make it another three years before the sand settles and the foundation crumbles?

    I have uncertainty if the Thunder can win the NBA crown without a big man.

    I have uncertainty how to get rid of the weeds in my lawn.

    I have uncertainty what the DOW will be at the end of this week.

    I have uncertainty and no idea how God derived the cosmological constant.

    I have more uncertainty than certainty.

    But I have no uncertainty Jesus Christ is God, not some mortal man with good words, and that He is the only way of redemption.

    It is called faith and apparently foreign to you.

  168. Now, would you please tell Alfie that I’m right about Luther being the discoverer of sola fide – about 1,500 years after Jesus?

    The basis far more complicated than you make it Graychin. The Catholic Church did not believe justification by works for 1,500 years.

    That philosophy evolved over a period of several hundred years.

  169. I am uncertain that there IS a cosmological constant, or any need for one! :D

    All your uncertainty is about mundane things that you encounter every day, but your are so certain about the unseen?

    OK…..

  170. All your uncertainty is about mundane things that you encounter every day, but your are so certain about the unseen?

    Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    Quite certain…and not so unseen.

    I am uncertain that there IS a cosmological constant, or any need for one!

    But how can you claim to be a faithful follower of your god(s) the Discovery Channel and California Berkeley and make such heretical statements! Have you no shame???

    Yes, I threw that one of your benefit. :smile:

  171. Huck, :lol:

    Here – something blended from the Sunday School discussion with Barack Obama followers…

    “OBAMA WAS SELECTED….BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED” :smile:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/farrakhan-on-obama-before-he-was-elected-he-was-selected

    And for once I find myself partially in agreement with Louie Farrakhan. In agreement that Barack was selected before elected..

    Just that Louie never does say as Barack left the planet for the heavens, whether it be for good or for evil. I’m afraid we sit in judgment America…

  172. Okay Huck, up your creek….

    “Radical Immigration Reform” – check out this beauty of the representatives of the party of Rutherford, Graychin, and Curator.

    ALL HAIL OBAMA – THE POST RACIAL PRESIDENT!

  173. You and the Discovery Channel are a bit behind the times on the status of the Cosmological Constant.

    Let’s see if can wrap my head about this statement. You are going to be schooling me about Friedmann’s equation, the dark matter equation and Einstein’s beef, and you don’t understand the basis of the scientific method?

    That’s parody, right? :eek:

    You can make that charge against the Discovery Channel if you want. You can’t make that charge against me, because you have no idea where I stand.

  174. Nope – entirely serious.

    You look up terms to throw around to impress everyone when you have no real understanding of the subject.

    You’re as phony as a Reagan 50-dollar bill.

  175. Ummm… Graychin, Here’s a dirty, little secret.

    You look up terms to throw around to impress everyone when you have no real understanding of the subject.

    Anybody that tells you they “understand” the cosmological constant should immediately be listed as deluded. Wasn’t too long ago they thought the universe static. However, here your moment to shine.

    Your theory and all…lay on me big boy.

  176. Now Hussein is President, I being commodity prices going through the roof, I am in favor of a national referendum to place Obama bad haircut on the wooden nickel.

    Live long and prosper.

  177. WTH? That was terrible Tex.

    Now that Hussein is President, being commodity prices are going through the roof, I am in favor of a national referendum to place Obama and his bad haircut on the wooden nickel.

    Live long and prosper.

  178. President Obama’s decision to nominate Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court could be a critical boon to Joe Sestak just days before the Democratic primary election.

    Last year, Sen. Arlen Specter voted against confirming Kagan to her current post, Solicitor General, in which she argues the Obama administration’s cases before the Supreme Court. Specter was still a Republican at the time — his party switch would come several weeks later — but seven other Republicans did vote for Kagan then, including conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

    Now, Specter is faced with two unpleasant political realities. First, he’ll have to explain his initial vote against Kagan, as Sestak continues to argue that Specter’s not a “true” Democrat. Second, Specter will likely be forced to give some indication that he has rethought his position on Kagan, opening himself up to charges of “flip-flopping.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/joe-sestak-senate-pa-pennsylvania_n_566158.html

  179. I tried to do the < and its opposite and insert text that said insert lighthearted moment here. Apparently wordpress saw it as a legit code attempt ha.
    On a side note you realize we both slipped into a trap.it takes 2 clintons to make a reagan

  180. Alfie, you didn’t need the fancy text. I knew you were being funny. So was I.

    Just making a colon followed by a capital D makes this: :D

    But the two Clintons really WERE worth more than one Reagan. :D

  181. “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer ~ Saul Alinsky

    with Barack Obama the apostle…
    :evil: :evil: :evil:

  182. Stocks rocketed to their biggest gain in a year and bond prices fell Monday after a nearly $1 trillion plan to contain Europe’s debt crisis reassured investors.

    The Dow Jones industrial average rose about 405 points to its biggest advance since March 2009. Broader U.S. indexes outpaced the Dow’s 3.9 percent rise. Gains in several European markets topped 9 percent.

    For much of 2010, major stock indexes had been climbing steadily on signs the U.S. economy was recovering. Last week’s plunge had erased the market’s gains for the year, but the jump on Monday put major indices back in the black for 2010.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37059741/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

  183. Notice how Graychin conveniently omits the information as to what that plan actually entails…

    Investors drew reassurance after the Federal Reserve and other central banks stepped up with financial support to corral what analysts warned was a growing financial crisis.

    The Fed restarted a program from 2008 to ship dollars overseas through the foreign central banks. Those central banks can then lend the dollars out to banks in their home countries. The Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Canada, the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan are also involved in the dollar-swap effort.

    No biggie, just another Washington bailout program.

  184. Now let’s look at some of the steps being suggested for Greece to get it’s financial house in order

    Another reform high on the list is removing the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors like health care, transportation and energy and allowing private investment. Economists say that the liberalization of trucking routes — where a trucking license can cost up to $90,000 — and the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe.
    ….
    Among the most significant features of the plan, a Greek government official said, would be a measure making it easier for the government to lay off some of the many thousands of public sector workers, whose low levels of productivity and high wages are a big contributor to Greece’s debt problem. Until now, the government has not been able to lay off civil servants, whose employment rights are in effect constitutionally guaranteed.

    To summarize, Greece needs to drop its government-run health care programs, as well as get rid of a bunch of its government-created jobs.

    Yeah, I can see why some don’t want to talk about the details.

  185. How come you guys aren’t bashing Elena Kagan yet?

    Of course Oklahoma’s Sen. Inhofe was the first to announce his opposition to her nomination. He said he doesn’t like her “lack of impartiality when it comes to those who disagree with her position.”

    Huh?

  186. “Wall Street seemed to like the plan well enough”

    Ah yes. Now that Barack Obama is president and Wall Street is recovering, it is time to forget all about the whole 2008 “Wall Street vs Main Street” campaign meme.

    It’s great to see Wall Street reacting favorably to the decisions by this administration. Too bad Main Street is still screwed.

  187. “How come you guys aren’t bashing Elena Kagan yet?”

    Seeing as she has never been a judge, she has never made a judicial decision or written a judicial opinion, there isn’t much to bash.

    Except for the fact that she needs lessons on how the Supreme Court actually works.

    But why worry about the little things? After all, it’s a lifetime appointment, so she will have plenty of time to learn, right?

  188. How come you guys aren’t bashing Elena Kagan yet?

    Whoa Hoss! I’m still waiting with bated breath for you to show me your vast understanding of the cosmological constant, beyond what you can copy from Wiki! You told me I was a phony and I think you should prove to me what you know Graychinleo…

    And I am beginning to think you’re more than just full of hot air. After me dragging your old body to this board so I could smack the ass, I thought for sure as you bragged of the strength of Europe (the day before Greece blew up :lol:) on your “highly” trafficked blog, you would lecture me again about how everything is going to be okay because of Obama’s vast experience.

    Hell we haven’t even got to that yet.

    P.S. – Here is my entire schooled knowledge of astrophysics Graychinleo.

    Four one hour courses for one week, the very last thing I ever was tested in physics, and thank goodness that is over because the speculation so esoteric, it was more fun and games than science. But I would bet that is four more hours than you have. :wink:

  189. But why worry about the little things? After all, it’s a lifetime appointment, so she will have plenty of time to learn, right?

    Right! :D

    Actually 40 of 111 previous Supreme Court justices had no previous judicial experience – including Rehnquist, Warren, and John Marshall. They learned fast enough.

    I rest my case! :D

  190. Of course, that means 71 of 111 previous SCOTUSes did have judicial experience.

    But as I have said before, why sweat the details? She has a vagina, so she is qualified enough for Barack Obama.

  191. But as I have said before, why sweat the details? She has likes a vagina, so she is qualified enough for Barack Obama.

    We share something in common. :wink:

    Why be afraid if I’m Conservative? My biggest concern is one is of the four Conservative judges dropping dead of a M.I. before we move Obama back to a job he’s qualified – community activist and guest instructor at Pinko U.

    At best, it’s a wash trading one potential activist judge for the insufferable John Paul Stevens of 30+ years. John will soon be swapping stories with old Harry Blackmun repeating the words forever and a day, “Woe be those who substitute darkness for light.

  192. Ah, ah. A vigna shared by other vaginas = qualified. V squared.

    Oh, and you’ve got to defend Obama protocal.

  193. Rutherford,

    Well, you called her lesbian. Am I supposed to become like a liberal and hide my head in the sand at the obvious?

    I will have many more complaints about Elena Kagan than her sexual orientation – her activist positions for starters.

  194. Tex, I know you think that by following “the Gospel of Graychin” I shall be paving my way to hell, but I do have a simple question.

    Why does it bother you so that perhaps God embedded a divine soul within the human body of Jesus, who was born of two humans? Surely an omnipotent God could do such a thing. Why would that make Jesus any less divine?

    BTW, fear not. While I am still capable of intellectual instruction I don’t think any spiritual instruction will have much impact now. So neither you nor Gray will lead me to salvation I’m afraid.

  195. Why does it bother you so that perhaps God embedded a divine soul within the human body of Jesus, who was born of two humans? Surely an omnipotent God could do such a thing. Why would that make Jesus any less divine?

    That you would ask this question demonstrates how little you realize the importance of who Jesus is, who He said He was, and why it was necessary.

    The entire New Testament is based on this premise and it absolutely necessary.

    I have no fear of your eternal salvation or otherwise – more sadness really.

    It does explain to me how you think like you do, though.

  196. Nice attempt at a dodge, CC, but Rutherford’s asking of a rhetorical question doesn’t show ignorance at all. Rhetorical questions have been around at least since Socrates.

    Answer Rutherford’s question, you sniveling coward. Why would Jesus have been less divine if he had a human father? Why is a special creation of a sperm cell necessary to keep your entire house of cards from collapsing?

    And stop lying to us. Your aren’t even a little sad if Rutherford and I are going to hell with all the good people. I hope you don’t enjoy your stay in heaven for “all eternity” (if “all eternity” even exists) with Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Tim McVeigh, and George “Rentboy” Rekers. Fun company!

  197. Well Gray, not being the Biblical scholar, I can still take a crack at why the immaculate conception is essential to Christianity. It’s because Christianity revolves around deep shame about sex. How could anything be more blasphemous than to suggest that the savior came about via that nasty act called sexual intercourse.

    I would have liked a better answer from Tex but the more I thought about my question the more I realized that doing the nasty and “divinity” just don’t mix. It would indeed compromise the entire narrative.

  198. Rutherford, I hate to pull a Tex Taylor on you by correcting you on religious terms, but Jesus’ being “conceived by the Holy Ghost” and “conceived of a virgin” are referred to as the “virgin birth.” And most Christians take the “virgin birth” literally and not allegorically. “Conceived of the Holy Spirit” can NEVER be taken as an allegory about the SOUL in that conception being the part that is the Son of God. And the soul is the important part of a human being, not these crummy bodies that we live in. Right?

    The “immaculate conception” refers to the conception of Mary the Mother of Jesus. She was conceived, so the story goes, by special exemption from the stain of Original Sin on her soul like the rest of us were born with. Why? Because it wouldn’t be fitting for Jesus to have been born of a mother stained by sin. This doctrine is more of a Catholic thing than a Protestant thing, and the Catholics didn’t even proclaim it as infallible dogma until 1854!

    As an aside, some Christians (perhaps mostly Catholics) believe that Mary was a “perpetual virgin.” That is, a virgin before, during, and forever after the birth of Jesus. Jesus is supposed to have passed out of Mary’s womb “as a ray of light passes through a window.”

    I would have liked a better answer from Tex but the more I thought about my question the more I realized that doing the nasty and “divinity” just don’t mix. It would indeed compromise the entire narrative.

    True, although the whole Virgin Birth idea has been going on since ancient times. How was Jesus supposed to compete against gods like Athena, who wasn’t even born but sprung from the forehead of Zeus?

    More than you wanted to know, I’m sure. Sorry about that.

  199. Graychin, so you burned at my answer in #230? Well isn’t hat too bad. Yes, John Paul’s future has been written – scriptural that is from the book of Isaiah and Matthew. You will find God is not tolerant of butchering of the innocent for starters as man sits on his pedestal of judgment. Woe be to those who pervert their positions of authority.

    Please note this so you don’t keep barking the same mistake. You would be mistaken about how I feel about Rutherford because Rutherford and I have a history of sorts. I wish to share with Rutherford unlike you, who I would cast out given the chance. I find you exceedingly wicked and have from the start.

    I admit I am unduly harsh. I have no tolerance for laggards like you, a personal fault I admit. I am sure am punished for my own misdeeds and my bullying. If I had better sense, I would leave you to burn. But you who have practically ruined my country with your falsehoods and lies, with your propaganda and innuendo, self-absorbed nature and theft., who also substitute darkness for light, bitter for sweet under the guise of your political correctness you use as a club. I’ll spit my last breath at you.

    I will answer this one question. And then I expect you to start acting like a man Graychin. If you want to debate, then debate. Quit running when you are without knowledge and admit your weaknesses. I’ve never read someone so gutless and disingenuous as you. You’re the ultimate poseur as I’ve giggled at your supposed intellect and inner strength.

    But you are beginning to bore me because you are in no way formidable. You’re not the challenge I once thought, neither well versed nor terribly bright, and another in a long list of Christian hating fools cruising the virtual highway. There is no need to explain your frivolous charges against me further after this, nor will I. But I will answer this challenge you make, and explain to Rutherford for Rutherford to prove to you just how wrong you are once again. But before I do…

    Do you know how inane your idiocy from above makes you look? Read through the comments the last few days. You never answer a challenging question – sometimes even after you making the challenge. And you have the hypocrisy to accuse me of being a sniveling coward and ducking issues as you run to the tall grass? I asked anyone on this board to read through what you’ve requested, and the see how you carry forth. BiC was wrong. You have no mote in your eye – you are flaccid and blind.

    While Rutherford on occasion angers me sometimes with his stubbornness and his refusal to consider, I have an affection of sorts on a hunch. I believe he knows this. I believe Rutherford has simply been raised without teaching, and if he is truly unsaved, it is more out of omission than commission.

    You on the other hand are a different story – truly evil, self-serving, devious, traitorous, and a mocking fool of the truth – only knowing enough to be dangerous. You belittle the authors of the New Testament as you so foolishly do, tempting fate like a fool, believing you would know better than the very apostles that walked with Christ or received personal instruction. You are a very foolish man, incapable of reflection at your own glaring faults.

    One of many who mistakenly think Christians should be doormats, attempting to beguile by twisting the truth. Meek does not mean cowardice. You think me wrong? Read of the Old Testament and the men after God’s own heart. Elijah who mocked the pagans of Baal, David a Warrior King but a man after God’s own heart, Joshua and Caleb allowed into Israel when others were not for their faith. The apostles were dismembered, crucified, stoned, and burned – and it wasn’t for their message of simple “love” but preaching the truth.

    You have mistaken the sound of the clanging cymbal for the ringing bell as it tolls of the truth – and there is no such thing as “love” if not accompanied first by the “truth.”

  200. Rutherford, I got to thinking as I started to right my response. This is no simple undertaking.

    In order for me to answer this question of yours about the virgin birth completely, I hope you understand that this will take a bit of work to make it complete and understandable to the layman – including the background because the virgin birth is referenced all the way back in Genesis 3:15, then mentioned many other times why necessary from there.

    It is as basic a tenet as the resurrection and virtually impossible to quickly summarize the meaning and content in a few paragraphs or blurbs. Entire series of sermons have been taught for 2,000 years on this one point.

    If you are really interested enough for me to go into great detail explaining why a virgin birth absolutely necessary, I will be glad to do so. If you were a believer or making attempt at belief, this would be much simpler.

    I’m not going to do this for my own amusement. If you are really interested and believe something good will come of it, I would be more than happy to undertake this. But you have to promise me if I send it to you, you will give it your undivided attention and make a concerted effort to understand.

    If this is simply an exercise to make me prove a point, which you will not give personal consideration, I have no interest in the pursuit. Let Graychin bellow – he’s meaningless and his opinion of me is of no concern. Besides, he needs some ammunition, as he has proven completely futile so far.

    And do you want the response here, on sent to you personally?

  201. CC, if you decide to answer RL’s question, I would appreciate a copy of it. I know that you consider me to be beneath you and not worthy of your time and effort – except to bash me, of course, in #239. Heck, you could have answered the original question in less time than it took you to compose all that purple prose in #239!)

    I have asked this same question before of other “learned” Christian literalists (“learned” like you?) and have never gotten any answer from them, much less a sensible one. It always seems to result in a lot of huffing and puffing – just like you are doing now. I think it must be an uncomfortable question that Christians don’t like to hear. I can’t imagine why that is.

    Isn’t it odd that this central tenet of Christianity for many, which of course can be neither proven nor disproven except by looking for hidden clues in ancient texts, is so troublesome to Christian apologists? I think that the bottom line is that you either believe it or you don’t. And believing it requires a very wide “leap of faith.” That answer would be entirely satisfactory to me. But obviously it cannot be just a “leap of faith” to someone with a “lifetime of study” in the upside-down world of apologetics.

    But not even the “leap of faith” answer would explain why special creation of one sperm cell supposedly underpins the entire structure of Christian belief. Why can’t THAT part of the narrative be dismissed as “allegory”? Why all the huffing and puffing?

    And I’m still waiting for your promised proof of the literal truth of the “Tower of Babel” story. Which, of course, should include an explanation of why the several modern Latin-based languages (Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, etc.) have become mutually unintelligible after only 2,000 years or so.

  202. The virgin birth brings me no discomfort. This time, I have neither huffed like the wolf who easily blows your house of cards down every time, nor puffed like you the bulbous toad.

    I said I take the virgin birth as I do many things as a matter of faith. I have no intention of proving it, nor could I. I only said it was necessary, and am contemplating if I should even bother answering the unbeliever out of laziness. If you wish to use one sperm, who am I to argue? If physical, metaphysical or spiritual, it was begotten of the Father – not Joseph. A typical specious argument that you generally pose as poseur trying to appear wise to the foolish.

    But I found this which saves me the trouble. This guy does a pretty good job of answering the question, if interested:

    http://www.prpc-stl.org/auto_images/1040663531VirginBirthSermon.htm

    I’m just wondering why you, a man of mixed bag and orthodoxy, would use the Nicene Creed as justification in one post of your questioning, then deny its basic precepts two days later?

    You do remember this from an earlier day, don’t you…

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

    Your inconsistency of argument continues to astound.

    ————————-

    As far as the Tower of Babel, I thought I had answered your idiocy from my explanation that is what Christ taught which you ignored. To deny the teachings of the Torah, denies what Christ clearly taught. There is no dispute in that. I guess the obvious doctrine not good enough for you as another myth from Jesus, so if you wish for me to explain the obvious naturally or physically, I will be happy to make the attempt – asking you a question in return.

    Your statement itself incorrect – if they were mutually unintelligible as you attest, why can we still understand all of them, with many an individual speaking at least two of the languages? It causes little consternation in today’s world. People can easily translate each language.

    But at the Tower of Babel if you are to believe it, there was mass confusion, with people swept to the ends of the earth. Fear reigned. If even one person could understand two languages at the time, why do we call it babble derived from the world Babel?

    Now my question to you. As your great granddaddy the chimp migrated from Africa, am I to assume each clan of chimps reinvented their own language, before setting down is a small part of the world by the Black Sea? Or is that there were many chimps with many families arising here and there?

    If so, perhaps you can explain to me why mitochondrial DNA apparently displays a single mother for the whole human race and probably no more than 60,000 years ago. Was it an unexplainable bottleneck of your theories. How so?

    P.S. – you forgot to add English as the unintelligible language to your list, as 53% of english words derived from Latin and it too considered “Latin” based.

  203. Tower of Babel? Because Jesus referred to it. QED.

    I am no statistician, but it is my understanding that the “single mother for the whole human race” is what should be expected mathematically and without any divine intervention into the laws of mathematics or biology. Give the word and I’ll find a link for you. Or check it out for yourself somewhere outside your study guides.

    So was that one woman “Eve.” Or was Eve her mother? Or her grandmother?

    Even after Babel, I assume that people could learn to speak foreign languages just like they can today. By “mutually unintelligible” I meant that a speaker of Portuguese can’t understand Italian and vice versa with out learning the other language.

    I don’t know if all language originated in one place, or if it evolved in several different places. The “Indo-European” language family is all related. It is separate and distinct from East Asian languages and even from Semetic languages. But as the experience with Latin languages shows, languages in places relatively isolated from one another tend to diverge over time. With world-wide electronic communication that process may have come to an end.

    I quoted the Nicene Creed to you ONLY to show that you didn’t believe it or choose to ignore it when convenient. It calls God the Father the creator, not the Son. You “corrected” me when I referred to Jesus as other than the creator. (Here we go again in circles over the Trinity.) For at least the twelfth time, I’m telling you that I don’t use scripture to prove scripture. I only quote it to show people like you that you don’t believe what you say you believe. Or that you pick and choose. That you are a cafeteria Christian. As I am.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that! :D

  204. My list of Latin languages did include English.

    (Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, etc.)

    As good as you are at parsing jots and tittles, you should have caught that.

  205. I think Noah and his incestuous family are the parents of today’s human race. Being as everyone else was killed in the flood, and all.

  206. I’m an cafeteria Christian in the sense that I fail – not that I don’t believe. Sinless, I”m not – but I believe in the truth of the Nicene Creed, I do. You do not.

    You don’t make it to the cafeteria, instead choosing to dine at the Unitarian buffet. And yeah, there is a whole long wrong with that. That separates us as positive and negative poles Mr. Graychin.

    I need not argue the “science” of the Tower of Babel because as I have shown, Christ taught us as much – therefore He believed as He taught from the Torah. He obviously believed as He inspired all of It’s works. Again, this is something else I take by faith. If the choice is between what Christ taught and what you’d like to believe, the choice becomes very simple for me.

    However, you can not prove to me any other way of migration and confusion of tongue that I can’t poke all kinds of holes in no matter how many links you can find surmising this and that, as those “theories” changed what seems week to week. Just like I need not even move out of mammalian biology to prove evolution at best incomplete and simple speculation, not theory. Therefore, you too are left with a choice of who to believe, again separating us by who we choose to believe. I chose to believe God; you choose to believe pseudo-science I assume. It’s hard to tell because you seem to waver back and forth.

    I don’t use scripture to prove scripture.

    But if you’re Christian, you should.

    2 Timothy 3:16
    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Your circular reasoning argument for not using scripture to prove scripture, if that’s what it is, is itself erroneous because the Bible in not one work but a collection of works, with at least 35 different authors, living on different continents, spanning 1,500 years,written in three different languages.

    I only quote it to show people like you that you don’t believe what you say you believe.

    And your argument a valid one except for one simple fact. I’m not divine, but human – I live under grace and am sinful. I have admitted as much and require Christ for redemption.

    However, I will admit as this much. I would be a more effective debater if I simply left it as fact and left out the cheap shots. That fact that I do no like you “colors” my commentary. :wink:

  207. My list of Latin languages did include English.

    (Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, etc.)

    As good as you are at parsing jots and tittles, you should have caught that.

    How so. Here is your moment to shine again. You never took advantage yesterday when I gave you the opportunity, as your silence deafening.

  208. Good point, HF. Implying that the earth was covered entirely by water about 60,000 years ago. And that humans had developed the tools and construction skills by then that would be necessary to build an Ark.

    And then there’s all the gathering up of animals, two by two…..

    Tex, do you believe that human beings evolved from earlier forms of apes? Or do you believe that they are a special creation of God outside of natural processes?

    Did God roll up some dust iwith his hands to make Adam? And take one of Adam’s ribs to make Eve? Or is that allegory?

  209. I think Noah and his incestuous family are the parents of today’s human race. Being as everyone else was killed in the flood, and all.

    No matter how you spin Huck, you are from an incestuous race. But Noah was not one, as it was husband and wife from the three sons and their wives.

    Whether Adam and Eve or brother and sister monkey – their had to be a first couple somatically identica, lest there’s a new “theory” that we direct descendants of bacteria. As Spock once said, “For everything, there is a first time.”

    Who knows. The pseudo-scientists have tried everything and not made it stick.

  210. Tex, do you believe that human beings evolved from earlier forms of apes? Or do you believe that they are a special creation of God outside of natural processes?

    No idea Graychin. I think the current theory of evolution pretty much bunk – at best totally incomplete. I made A’s in all the classes, and still believe the theory is no theory at all. Simply a ramification of scientific minds to scared to admit the obvious – they can’t begin to explain it.

    However, I am not qualified to say how God did it. Whether by the ground of the earth, or the flipping of genetics switches in an instant, God did it. RIght now, that is enough for me.

    I’ll ask for a first row seat if God will allow me when I get there out of curiosity.

  211. A lot like my answer about the birth…

    If I understand anything about scripture, you’ll never get the chance…

  212. Tex, I’ll read that sermon you posted on the virgin birth sometime tomorrow (Wed). Thank you.

    Something else struck me as a huge inconsistency .. it’s funny, I’ve thought more about the Bible in the past week than I probably have in 48 years.

    If Jesus and God are one … and Jesus knew that he was God … then doesn’t that actually lessen the impact of his sacrifice? What I mean is this. If I know I am not mortal, that I am in fact God incarnate, then my attitude would be “go ahead crucify me, big deal.” What courage does it take to risk one’s life when one knows his life is not the same as the mortals that surround him?

    It’s funny … as I ask these questions and I put myself in your shoes, I can see why you must think me the loon. I come at this from an entirely different perspective, rooted in very practical considerations. Perhaps there is no room for practicality in this discussion.

    Aside to Graychin, I discussed the immaculate conception with my wife today, who was raised “mildly Methodist” and she did indeed identify your definition as more Catholic than Christian. She was always taught that the immaculate conception and the virgin birth were one and the same.

  213. Rutherford,

    If Jesus and God are one … and Jesus knew that he was God … then doesn’t that actually lessen the impact of his sacrifice? What I mean is this. If I know I am not mortal, that I am in fact God incarnate, then my attitude would be “go ahead crucify me, big deal.”

    :shock:

    I continue to be amazed that you would ask questions like this. First, it was the most unjust punishment in all of human history, being Christ the only true human to ever walk a sinless, perfect life. He was guilty of nothing and voluntarily gave His life for yours.

    What courage does it take to risk one’s life when one knows his life is not the same as the mortals that surround him?

    Have you ever witnessed say in a movie the act of a crucifixion? The word excruciating actually comes from this crucifixion. The punishment of crucifixion was not even allowed on Roman citizens – it is possibly the most brutal way to die imaginable Rutherford.

    But before cruicified, Jesus was almost flogged to death with a cat of nine tails which literally yanks the flesh from the body in pieces. History surmises this is why Christ died so quickly on the cross – from an incredible loss of blood and asphyxiation through the inability to carry oxygen, fulfilling the prophecy of Christ’s legs not being broken unlike the two thieves, as they had to die before the Passover as Jewish custom – breaking of the legs takes the support hastening the death.

    In addition of this, a crown of thorns has two inch thorns pressed into Christ’s head. Can you even imagine for one moment the pain and suffering, the humiliation to hang on a cross naked while your executioners mocked you and beat you? Forced to carry more than a hundred pound cross some distance after beating flogged – and beaten further as you carry your own method of execution?

    Rutherford, you should do yourself a favor and rent the movie “The Passion” that Mel Gibson did. It will be the most brutal movie you have ever seen. It is sickening – you will understand my comments once you have seen the movie. If it doesn’t make you cry, it will cause you great discomfort simply recognizing how brutal men can be.

    But it may be necessary for you to understand even the inhumane injustice – even if you do not believe Christ said He was.

    What courage does it take to risk one’s life when one knows his life is not the same as the mortals that surround him?

    You will fully understand after you have seen the movie.

  214. Tex, as I was doing assigned reading for a History of Christianity course I came across a passage that mentions Jesus being hung from a tree or a branch or something along those lines.

    I don’t recall the Chapter and verse (but I could find it if needed), and I don’t bring it up to throw anything into your face. I asked the professor about it and she did not have an answer that I can recall (so it must not have been a good one, or maybe one at all).

    Can you shed any light on that?

  215. And yeah I know I am contributing to the Sunday school discussion now so I will quit being a dick about it.

  216. The Gospel according to Mel Gibson? Is that Mel Gibson the drunken anti-Semite?

    First, it was the most unjust punishment in all of human history.

    Jesus was executed for blasphemy according to Jewish law. Strictly speaking, Pilate was only following a literal interpretation of Leviticus 24:16:

    And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

    Hebrews were characterized by their militant monotheism. Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God must have been shocking to most Jewish people of his time.

    If you think execution for blasphemy is highly unjust then I must agree with you. People can still be executed or otherwise punished for blasphemy. Jesus’ sentence was unjust, but was it the “most unjust”? I would say that he had a lot of company in the “unjust punishment” department.

  217. Graychin,

    In your own sissified way, you’re quite the militant. You appear to go looking for a fight every morning. You whine about my supposed hatefulness and then when I respond to someone else in a most civilized manner, you come in with your typical lefty cheap shot. zzzzzzzzz

    Sometimes you would do better to simply shut up. It makes you read the punk and one of a host of reasons I feel little guilt at raising your blood pressure on occasion.

    I was trying to explain to Rutherford how brutal the crucifixion was – nothing more. Whether Gibson anti-Semitic or not is irrelevant to the quality of the movie and irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The way Gibson was treated by the self-loathing Jews in Hollywood certainly didn’t help.

    I’m no big fan of Gibson – but thought he did a good job with directing The Passion showing the brutality of the execution. As the Pope said, “It is as it was.”

    ——————-

    Your history fogged – Pilate knew nothing of The Torah and in fact, tried to wipe his hands of the entire matter. Pilate was at best a coward, more afraid of mob rule and Rome’s reaction to constant insurrection. Pilate left it to the elders of the Jewish Senate to determine Jesus’ fate. Crucify Him! and Pilate stamped the ring with hesitation.

    Jerusalem was considered a pariah to the Roman Empire. And the mob who killed Christ would discover less than 40 years later themselves just how brutal Romans could be when Titus destroyed Jerusalem – JUST LIKE JESUS TOLD THE PHARISEES WOULD HAPPEN. Not one stone unturned at the temple, as Rome used the plunder to build the Coliseum years later.

    Jesus’ sentence was unjust, but was it the “most unjust”? I would say that he had a lot of company in the “unjust punishment” department.

    Lack of wisdom accompanied by mocking. Either I have so gotten under your skin that you feel compelled to insult Christ’s sacrifice because you can’t find something to insult me, or you are one of the most imbalanced, dumbest people I’ve ever witnessed on a blog. If you and I were the two thieves being executed next to Christ, you would be the mocking “Where is your temple?”

    You are a foolish man Graychin. I would try to explain why it does appear as unduly harsh in the Torah, and it is, but if you can’t even understand why a virgin birth necessary, trying to explain the harshness of the Law in the context it was written would be light years beyond you.

    You who claim to know Christ can even ask this kind of statement. A modern day Pharisee if I ever read one. :shock:

  218. Tex, anything for #255? It got pushed up so you might have missed it. I am genuinly interested.

  219. Sorry Huck, I missed your question. I couldn’ t remember how many times it’s in the New Testament (seems like five or six) that the cross is referred to as tree. Here’s four I found cheating at Wiki.

    “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” (Acts 5.30.)

    “And we are witnesses of all things which Jesus did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree” (Acts 10.39.)

    “And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree.” (Acts 13.29.)

    “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness” (Peter 2.24.)

    Believe that would be poetic license for hung on a cross. Part of the crucifixion would have entailed roping the upper arm tightly to the cross, creating resistance in respiration and providing support for the upper torso, since the palm by itself could possible rip from the mass of the body. Crucifixion was intended to be a slow and agonizing death. I read someplace they estimated it usually took 2-3 days to die.

    Christ obviously was nailed to the cross because he shows his scars to Thomas.

  220. Thanks for the answer you gave.

    I don’t do Latin or Aramaic, and can’t say I know which of those the Book of Acts would have been written in. Think there is any chance it could be an issue with translation concerning the word “wood” or a similar term?

  221. Huck,

    The book of the Acts of the Apostles is generally regarded to have been written by Luke, one of only two books of the Bible written by a Gentile.

    Like most of the New Testament, it was written in Greek – most likely because of the specificity of the language.

    As far as your question, Jewish custom and writing has a far more picturesque method of description. While I am certainly no expert at translation, a Christian in Israel might speak of Christ as “living water” where you and I might say savior, or of God’s omnipotence, God is my rock or God is my fortress.

    Hope that helps.

  222. Calling Mel Gibson a drunken anti-Semite was a “lefty cheap shot”? I don’t think so! Do you need links?

    Tex, your rant at 258 only confirmed the the truth of what I said about Jesus’ execution. You refuted nothing.

    Jesus was executed according to Jewish law, just like I said. Pilate did supposedly try to “wash his hands” of the whole business and turn it over to the Jewish elders, but as the representative of Roman authority he still had to sign off on the execution.

    The Jews or the Romans – bicker on this minor point if you must. But the fact remains that Jesus was executed in accordance with Jewish law – just as I said. If you think it was unjust, take it up with whoever wrote Leviticus.

    You are a foolish man Graychin. I would try to explain why it does appear as unduly harsh in the Torah, and it is, but if you can’t even understand why a virgin birth necessary, trying to explain the harshness of the Law in the context it was written would be light years beyond you.

    So only an exceptionally learned man such as yourself can understand your theology? What chance do people who aren’t as smart as you have for salvation? What about the average guy in the pew? Your attitude towards religion is about as “elitist” as anything imaginable. Your path to salvation for the rest of us seems to be the same as the stock answer for kids who ask too many questions in Sunday school: “Sit down and shut up.”

    Every time I stump you, you call me foolish for my ignorance in order to cover the weak spots in your own dogma. Your consistent dodge has been to say that you can’t give a straight answer because it will be “light years beyond me”?

    Everyone can smell your stinking bullshit by now. You don’t actually know how to answer hard questions, do you? Why don’t you just admit it and stop making such an ass of yourself?

    Quite a house of cards you’ve built for yourself there!

  223. I continue to be amazed that you would ask questions like this.

    Tex you do seem to think I just fell off the turnip truck regarding religion. While admittedly ignorant of much the Bible I DO know how Christ died. You needn’t tell me what a painful horrendous death it was.

    The problem is you didn’t answer my question. Or then again maybe you did. You described in your answer the terrible death of a man, not the death of a God in a man’s body.

    Does the notion of the trinity try to have it both ways? He is both the father and the son but he is still capable of human suffering? It is said God gave of his only son … but Christ was resurrected so God gave up nothing. And AGAIN, God and Christ are one and the same so things get even more murky.

    I don’t see how YOU cannot see that someone not immersed in this stuff their whole life would be very confused by all of it. It has got to be one of the most complicated narratives imaginable. If it were a minor detail then the answer would be “just get over it” but by your own admission it (the resurrection and the notion of the trinity) is the cornerstone of the whole thing.

    I have a much more practical consideration that touches an emotional chord. I have debated whether or not to write about it but after all this dialogue I think I will. I may find it therapeutic. You will probably find it frustrating. Stay tuned. I will probably write it tomorrow.

  224. Every time I stump you, you call me foolish for my ignorance in order to cover the weak spots in your own dogma. Your consistent dodge has been to say that you can’t give a straight answer because it will be “light years beyond me”?

    Stump me? :roll:

    You’re incapable of understanding me, much less stumping me. I find you about a half-educated jackass and punk, on par with your lying yellow dog pal. You’re not that bright Graychin, and certainly not about theology.

    Everyone can smell your stinking bullshit by now. You don’t actually know how to answer hard questions, do you? Why don’t you just admit it and stop making such an ass of yourself?

    :lol: You accuse me of not answering hard questions? :lol:

    I challenge anyone on this board to see who answered the questions and who dodged. II’ve answered every one of your questions, except the one you sent to my own personal account, which I moved to the shit hole of deletion. You wasted your time, as I have no intent of becoming a pen pal of an old fool. :wink:

  225. Rutherford,

    You answer your own questions and you don’t even know it.

    Christ was born like you, was hungry like you, suffered the same aches and pains as you, and obviously share the same emotions as you. He was fully human for the very reasons listed in the link. Yet, He was there from the beginning and fully divine – He is God. You need to read the article I listed – I think the man did a nice job of explaining the story. I couldn’t do better.

    If you choose to listen to a foolish man like Graychin because of shared politic, you will never understand what I speak.

  226. Hey fat man. Isn’t time you started to answer some questions about theology? Would you like to prove your mettle Big Fish?

  227. I challenge anyone on this board to see who answered the questions and who dodged. II’ve answered every one of your questions, except the one you sent to my own personal account, which I moved to the shit hole of deletion. You wasted your time, as I have no intent of becoming a pen pal of an old fool.

    Anyone who cares to chime in – how about it? Has Tex addressed my questions, or have his answers been all dodge and rant?

    Tex, can you really not do any better than the sermon that you linked? As I told you in my email (the one that you trashed)l, the guy who wrote that sermon also danced all around the central question but never actually addressed it much less answered it.

    Just to refresh your memory, the question was:

    Why is the special creation of a single sperm cell necessary to underpin your Christian belief, and perhaps that of many other Christians? Why does the entire house of cards fall without that specially-created sperm cell?

    Would not the spirit of God the Son infused in a human body with a human father have been able to satisfy the demand of God the Father for a blood sacrifice to redeem humanity from Original Sin just as well as one made with a specially-created sperm cell? If not, why not?

    I know you won’t even try to answer the question, although I wish you would. But I would like to see how much more elaborate your rants and dodges can get before you admit to yourself that you have no idea how to answer. You don’t know, do you?

    All those years of studying Christian apologetics, and you can’t write a simple paragraph summarizing the reason for one of the most basic elements of the nature of Jesus. That’s just amazing.

    Observers, please give us you opinion of whether Tex actually knows what he is talking about. Or is he full of shit?

  228. “Would not the spirit of God the Son infused in a human body with a human father have been able to satisfy the demand of God the Father for a blood sacrifice to redeem humanity from Original Sin just as well as one made with a specially-created sperm cell? If not, why not?”

    No, because Trinitarianism dictates that God the Father and God the Son are of the same essence. They are not like each other (Homoiousia), they are each other (Homoousia). And when it comes to this subject, there is more than an iota of difference (which is where that term actually stems from).

    Your argument might sit OK with an Arian (not Aryan), but not a Trinitarian (thanks a heap for all the confusion, Council of Nicea).

    And just so you know, I’m a pagan so I don’t have a dog in this fight.

  229. “Would not the spirit of God the Son infused in a human body with a human father have been able to satisfy the demand of God the Father for a blood sacrifice to redeem humanity from Original Sin just as well as one made with a specially-created sperm cell? If not, why not?”

    Your reading comprehension grades out “F”. The man answered this very question in full fool, even mentioning the fallacy of original sin response so common in pulpits.

    Reread it again – maybe you’ll eventually figure it out dummy.

  230. Huck thanks for piping in on the Trinitarian angle. You see, this is the thing that has me stumped big time … the whole Jesus is God and God is Jesus thing.

    I must confess I still haven’t read Pastor Meyer’s sermon … perhaps this weekend.

    P.S. Pastor Meyers???? Shouldn’t that be Rabbi Meyers?

  231. One reason that a virgin birth was absolutely necessary is it is the fulfillment of messianic scripture starting with Genesis 3:15 – the woman’s seed (which of course, women do not have).

    Another is that conception between a couple is not supernatural, but natural. Any of us could make that claim.

    I’m just giving a few reasons I don’t believe were mentioned in the article I linked.

  232. “You see, this is the thing that has me stumped big time … the whole Jesus is God and God is Jesus thing.”

    My History of Christianity professor told a story of her discussing this with a theologian. After an extended discussion, she told him that the concept didn’t make any logical sense. To which the theologian answered that it makes perfect theological sense.

    To those of us who tend to replace faith with logic (at least how we interpret logic), we will likely never understand the Trinitarian connection. But it evidently makes sense to those who want it to.

    My logic tells me that Trititarianism is a mechanism used to get away from the concept of polytheism. A Christian will say I use faulty logic, and I am OK with that accusation. Though I don’t agree with it.

  233. Huck,

    To which the theologian answered that it makes perfect theological sense.

    To those of us who tend to replace faith with logic (at least how we interpret logic), we will likely never understand the Trinitarian connection. But it evidently makes sense to those who want it to.

    I agree with the theologian – it’s the only thing that makes sense, if you believe in One True Living God and that Jesus judge and jury. But I don’t minimize the confusion either, because it used to confuse me.

    I think part of the confusion stems from “son” of God. I prefer to think of it as a subordinate role of physical to spiritual, but only for a time.

    I once heard this, and it’s about as close as I can humanly make in my limited capacity of comparing the God to the finite. Make God as the Universe. And the Universe consists of three basic elements, with each of those elements made up of three components:

    Time Past Present Future
    Space Height Width Depth
    Matter Solid Liquid Gas

    As there are not three times but one, just as there are not three universes but one. When we speak of matter, we know it to be either solid, liquid or gas – but still matter.

    Don’t know if that makes sense, or not. Did to me.

  234. Over the last few months I’ve had this inner pull towards Jesus. I can’t explain it. For a while I was thinking this can’t be happening as I find that Christianity defies rationality and logic. It has merely served as a sort of family/social ritual and, at times, as a moral compass.

    Yet, there it is. Every morning I drive to work.

    I’m starting to think that logic, consciousness, life, the universe, you name it, the existence of all of this stuff is absurd. All of it.

    How can we always defer to logic, both inductive and deductive, when neither can be used to explain it’s own existence in the first place?

    The universe and the fact that I witness it, no matter how flawed my eyes, make no sense.

    For example, the existence of an entity that goes by the name Greychin who mocks people who believe in the Bible is just as unlikely as the the stories in the Bible.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not turning into some post modern pussy who is disavowing truth.

    Logic, truth, science….I find it to be the real deal. Just limited and closed systems.

    So….I need to just open up. Accept the absurd and trust my gut.

    Yet the rabbit only teeters on the edge of being found, not yet having the courage to fall in any direction. And there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do to push me either way. This is between the Rabbit and Jesus.

  235. This is between the Rabbit and Jesus.

    Which is as it should be. In fact, it is the only way it can be. Except the more you study, the more you find what may at first seemed absurd, is in actuality grounded in fact.

    I have no problem with people like Huck. Acceptance requires free choice. If that is the choice Huck chooses to make, fair enough.

    I do have a problem with people like Graychin. It’s not enough to not believe – they have to attack the deep seated beliefs to try and create doubt. They are inherently evil as evil requires others may share in their misery.

  236. Perfect. I think that an excellent selection to conclude our debate. Jack Black in a robe on stage pretending to be knowledgeable, performing in front of fellow rubes, personifies just about the depth of your theological knowledge you’ve expressed here on Rutherford’s board Graychin.

    Off hand, I can’t think of a more excellent selection to provide caricature of your character. I wish I had it picked it for you.

    However, you flatter yourself Big Fish where none is deserved. You’re neither clever enough, nor talented enough to make me uncomfortable in any subject we’ve discussed so far. I would classify you a garden variety bigot and prototypical brain dead progressive.

    About the only thing that does make me uncomfortable is to think there’s millions of you out there and you vote.

    Trust me, once will be more than enough. :wink:

  237. “Except the more you study, the more you find what may at first seemed absurd, is in actuality grounded in fact.”-Tex

    Tex, here is what I don’t get.

    Aren’t you in a weird way bummed when facts reveal themselves? It seems like every time some kind of concrete evidence comes on to the scene a little chunk of the most important part of Christianity disappears. The way I see it, the worst thing that could ever happen was solid proof of the New Testament.

    How can we get in heaven without faith?

    It takes no faith to plot a point on a Cartesian map, nor does it to make the claim mammals are warm blooded.

  238. Man, isn’t Greychin in his 50s and 60’s? Usually people at that stage of their life have moved on from ripping on Christians in that fashion. Kind of a been there done that situation.

    Plus, that video is played out. Not even original., everyone has seen that.

  239. What bugs me about anti-Christian bigots these days is the lack of courage.

    You almost have to respect the taboo Klansman calling people nigers in public.

    But, it so easy to rip on Christians in the modern age.

    Greychin thinks he is some kind of independent thinker and a rebel.

    But, what a big fat yawner he is.

  240. One comment before I go to bed, Rabbit. The Klansmen wore hoods for a reason. They were cowards.

    As for what you are going through right now … anyone who doesn’t wonder about the absurdity of life is an idiot or just not very imaginative.

    You know what I struggle with every now and then? It’s going to sound very strange. I struggle with the fact that I’m in this body looking out at the world through my eyes and I don’t know what it is like to be you. I can empathize, sympathize, etc etc but I can never KNOW what it is like to be you. I cannot see the world through your eyes. And when my life is done, I will never see or hear anything ever again.

    That is mind-blowing. The limitations of personal experience and the finiteness of life (i.e. mortality). Our curse is that unlike the dog or cat, we can contemplate our existence. A dog just IS. As far as we know, he doesn’t think about “being”. We do … and therefore we think about NOT being.

    What I like about you Rabbit is you’re not afraid to admit you think about this stuff. A lot of guys who cop your ‘tude would never do such a thing. Way too pansy ass.

    I’m happy for Tex that Christianity has made him sure of how he got here and where he’s going. It saves him a degree of torment that us doubters suffer. Again, once I get a good chunk of time, I’ll be devoting an entire article to a recent religious experience I had and how it shapes my attitude toward the whole affair.

    P.S. My wife stumbled upon a Tea Party protest in Southbury, CT outside a Dunkin’ Donuts today … I kid you not. I wish I’d been there, I’d have interviewed some of them in my Rutherford role. :-)

  241. “The Klansmen wore hoods for a reason. They were cowards.”

    Yeah…that’s true. I kind of meant the modern day freak who goes on Jerry Springer and embarrasses himself.

  242. “R”, hope you got to feeling better.

    I’m happy for Tex that Christianity has made him sure of how he got here and where he’s going. It saves him a degree of torment that us doubters suffer.

    Ironically, it’s my opinion in some ways you have it backwards. While I don’t know if you really believe me or not, I am comforted that I have something more to look forward to, because if there is all there is, I would surely be bummed. For starters, life is too short, and about the time you begin to figure things out, it’s almost over. At least for me, it is.

    It’s like this. On my trip to medical school, the more I learned, the more I recognized how there was simply not enough time to understand everything in full and we were really so far away from real understanding – we’ve just scratched the surface of understanding the complexities. I found that incredibly frustrating about the practice of medicine – how much we don’t know.

    In a way, religion is like that for me. The more I learn of God, the further I feel distanced from God. While it builds my assurance that He is real, the less I feel in control. It’s actually sometimes very troubling to simply have faith about things I can’t begin to understand. I would love to have some divine revelation – but I have come to the conclusion after waiting my adult life, it is not going to happen.

    By the same token, it is also very cool (and very frightening) in applying what you’ve learned and what you know will transpire, and watching it happen before your eyes – with a speed I never imagined.

  243. “watching it happen before your eyes – with a speed I never imagined.”

    I suppose that’s the very essence of inductive logic. What your saying is almost scientific in nature. Observing real time events over time and applying them to a hypothesis.

    Do you feel in a religious sense that this is nothing more then an extra-curricular activity on your part? Or do you believe this is essential in being saved?

    By the way, I’m truly am asking…not throwing out rhetorical questions in debate.

    Am I even making sense to you?

  244. Rabbit,

    The way I see it, the worst thing that could ever happen was solid proof of the New Testament.

    How can we get in heaven without faith?

    But Rabbit – the New Testament is not based on just a “faith” of believing there is a God, as Romans tells us that is obvious. The New Testament is a “faith” of knowing that our God is Jesus Christ and that it was His gift alone that allowed salvation.

    Prophecy is provided to us as gift – to show the validity of what we believe. Faith is not blind.

  245. D.R.,

    Do you feel in a religious sense that this is nothing more then an extra-curricular activity on your part? Or do you believe this is essential in being saved?

    I think it is easy to get so caught up in life, that I treat faith as an extra curricular activity when it should be my priority. Probably more often than not, that is exactly what happens to me. The older I get, the higher the priority it becomes, though.

    That’s why I think it is a danger when life is too easy – and let’s face it, even with the ineptitude of our government and our so called leaders, we in America don’t really know real hardship. How many of us have actually faced hunger or thirst – not had shelter over our head of some sort?

    If I didn’t have struggles in life, I doubt I would give much thought to God. Why would I? That is why brokenness is necessary. I heard a wonderful sermon on YouTube of all places that addresses this very issue.

    If you have an hour to give, I will gladly direct you. I promise you, if you pay close attention, it will be one of the most productive hours you ever spend concerning the struggles of faith and how God works, if interested.

  246. While it builds my assurance that He is real, the less I feel in control.

    Imagine that revelation played out in an hour, rather than over a lifetime. “Verizon (Can you hear me now?) Moments” with your creator are jarring. I don’t envy Paul for his experience, nor do I question the end result.

  247. BiC,

    Imagine that revelation played out in an hour, rather than over a lifetime. “Verizon (Can you hear me now?) Moments” with your creator are jarring. I don’t envy Paul for his experience, nor do I question the end result.

    Jarring may indeed be the word that does justice. I’m sure you’ve also noted BiC that the one common theme when meeting the supernatural, whether it be angels or Christ, vision or reality, is the jarring of knocked to the knees.

    It may trouble the idiot Oprah, but I have absolutely no problem with the admission, “Wisdom begins with a fear of the Lord.”

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s