The Roman Coliseum

The Colosseum in Rome, Italy

In the grand tradition of the Roman Coliseum, this page is reserved for Internet gladiators full of blood-lust, eager to slay their opponent in an (almost) anything goes theater of rhetorical carnage!

OK, seriously, this page is the fulfillment of a request from several of my readers for a “place” to go for off topic discussions and protracted debates that might otherwise bog down an individual blog post. The two most popular topics that have preoccupied some of my comment threads regardless of what article they were attached to have been religion and the utter evil of liberals and progressives. The blog owner has stated he finds all religions suspect and finds liberals and progressives the only shining hope of our society’s future. This and other topics will be debated here. For the sake of helping pages load faster, the blog owner will probably trim conversations periodically, or upon request of the visitors. We here at The Rutherford Lawson Blog aim to please.

Several alternative names for this venue were offered, among them, Sands of Blood, Hell, Purgatory and The Chapel. My thanks to all who contributed their ideas!

Let the games begin!

112 thoughts on “The Roman Coliseum

  1. Opening statement:
    Organized religion’s origin and appeal basically comes down to man’s attempt to explain the inexplicable: where did we come from — how is “life” as we know it possible? Where do we go — what happens after death?

    Along the way, man’s primitive way of answering these questions by use of fable and allegory got hijacked by ideologues who wanted to attach morality messages to the explanations, entering good and evil into the equation.

    The result has been, in the form of organized religion, a force for good and for evil. Much charity is done through religion and much slaughter and mayhem is conducted in its name also.

    My stance, as a nullifidean is that I do not know the answers to where we came from and where we are going. I do believe a moral life can be lived without getting the answers to those questions.

  2. Good afternoon, Rutherford. Have you read a book called “The Evolution of God?” In light of your description of your beliefs, I believe you might find it very interesting.

  3. Can I be teamed against MeriBeth in the first battle Obi Wan Lawson? 🙂 I have this burning desire to leave blood in the sands of blog history… 😈

    Just teasing MeriBeth…

    It always amuses me to read titles like “Evolution of God”, when it is I AM that is unchanging. The Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. Whatever evolves, it certainly is not the Creator.

    Perhaps a more appropriate title of a book would have been “Man’s Continual Idiocy In His Belief of Sovereignty Over God” authored by millions of Rutherford Lawsons.

  4. actually, Tex–the book would more accurately be titled “Evolution of Religion” but I suppose that the author thought that it wasn’t as catchy. It’s about the development of people’s concepts of gods/God.

  5. I hope MeriBeth, that the author more accurate in the rest of his synopsis that this excerpt:

    but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of sheer silence.” These last few words—“a sound of sheer silence”—are sometimes translated as “a still small voice.” But, either way, you get the picture: the Hebrew god, Yahweh, for all the atmospherics surrounding him, was elusive.

    Your author entirely missed the message and the beauty of the story – and it obviously wasn’t “sheer silence”, but “small quiet voices” as the author wavers between.. Because in the next paragraph, God tells Elijah exactly what He commands Elijah to to do. That’s not elusive – that’s as personal as it gets.

    A little about the author: Wright is a contributing editor at The New Republic and a contributor to Time and Slate. He has also written for The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Foreign Policy, and the op-ed pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Financial Times.

    I need to nothing more than what I read right there – liberal theology, mainstream theology, “interfaith” alliance. Secular man.

    I’m not discounting your interests Meribeth. I’m simply stating these are opinions of mostly secular writers, sometimes loosely affiliated with some form of religion, a generic term not accurate but I use it here for comprehension and understanding.

    In my opinion, a book of this matter would only reinforce in Rutherford’s mind what he already believes. Books of myth, deciphered by unbelievers of Rutherford’s established mindset, not necessarily seeking truth about God, but attempting to create their own narrative about God.

    I’ve read parts of a few of these, and though congratulatory in nature from fellow leftist rubes, they are both hollow and shallow.

  6. Rutherford, I compliment you for this. Great idea by the clan here, of which I was not part.

    I can challenge your brothers and sisters without harassment about ‘Bible Talk’ and without guilt.

    There is a danger, though. What if this becomes a far more popular a forum than your articles? Because I expect it eventually will.

  7. actually, Tex–the book would more accurately be titled “Evolution of Religion” but I suppose that the author thought that it wasn’t as catchy. It’s about the development of people’s concepts of gods/God.

    Leading, of course, to the conclusion that the only truth is that there is no truth?

    Seriously, if it is talking about the development of people’s “concepts of God” rather than a deeper understanding of scripture and development of a deeper relationship with him, then I suspect that it has more to do with projection of the author’s (and audiences’) understanding of the world, than it does with grokking what is in scripture, testing it against itself, and seeing the incongruity with the habit of “picking and choosing” that characterizes much of what passes for faith today.

    I suspect Rutherford would like it as well, based on the excerpt. It’s like having a man who is deaf record an album for his deaf freinds. It isn’t exactly brilliant, but when you can’t hear, you have no idea about that one hand clapping in the background.

  8. BIC,

    Glad you appeared so that I may ask your opinion, being your more current with scholars/authors. It’s been a few years since I read anything of a Christian nature besides the occasional devotional – the last being Philip Yancey.

    If you were to recommend an author to Rutherford, as an offset this suggestion from MeriBeth, what author would you recommend?

    My initial suggestion would be someone like Josh McDowell – not a difficult read requiring a great deal of doctrinal background, but still deep enough that it would challenge Rutherford’s preconceived notions, and perhaps with hope leave a lasting curiosity.

    If you get a chance, tell me what you think.

  9. What if this becomes a far more popular a forum than your articles?

    LOL Don’t think that didn’t occur to me as I set up the page. Oh well it was a calculated risk. And funniest thing of all, it was our newest gang member Meribeth who wrote the first comment, as opposed to all the knuckleheads who asked for it and then didn’t notice it was here. 😆

  10. actually, it’s more anthropological and historical (I am not sure why I am using both terms), based on art, carvings, and geography. It doesn’t purport to be doctrinal–but to trace the recorded evidence of beliefs, going back to small hunter/gatherer groups.

    I am not familiar with Josh McDowell and since I read whatever I can get my hands on, appreciate the suggestion to Rutherford and will look into it myself.

  11. Studying the evolution of religious thought by delving into the Bible is exactly the deaf man scenario that BiW describes. I am not sure it quite falls in the category of tautology but to seek the source of the need for religion by seeking to understand and accept the Bible makes the need to seek the source of the need unnecessary.

    It’s kind of like saying let us investigate the truth behind X. First, assume X is true.

    I plead the ignorance of a very poorly read man. My wife is a reader. I am not. Admittedly that needs to change for my debates in this area to improve. Still I’d rather start my “research” with someone who distances himself from a particular religious doctrine (and has some objectivity) than someone who has already drunk the koolaid.

  12. I might also add my tremendous amusement that I create a blood letting room in which Tex can let go of his inner demons and what do I get …. a far more civil Tex than the one in the threads. LOL

    Meribeth aren’t you shocked that Tex actually addressed your comments without insulting your femininity or anything else ad hominem? 🙂 I told you there was more there than met the eye. 😉

  13. our newest gang member Meribeth who wrote the first comment, as opposed to all the knuckleheads who asked for it and then didn’t notice it was here.

    Women are always more perceptive of detail on a page. That comes from years of primping in front of a mirror. When’s the last time you saw a women with a hair hanging out of her nose or her zipper unzipped? 🙂

    Except cars – damn passenger front door can be smashed in and it takes a week for them to recognize it, usually pointed out by the person trying to get in the passenger side. Men will see the littlest scratch in the paint and go seeking blood.

  14. Studying the evolution of religious thought by delving into the Bible is exactly the deaf man scenario that BiW describes.

    Hardly.

    If you want to understand Christianity, I submit that taking an approach that does not study the text that the namesake himself taught, along with the testimony of the witnesses and his disciples and apostles is a little like saying you can learn how to repair the engine of a fighter plane by observing the plane from afar through binoculars. You might be able to make any number of general statements, but until you remove the cowl and actually see the pistons firing and feeling the breeze from the propeller, you don’t really understand anything.

    It does, however, explain how it is that you can blithly lump it in with other religions.

    Rutherford, the best explanations and arguments in favor of Christianity that I can recommend would be those written by C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, A Grief Observed, Miracles, and my personal favorite, The Screwtape Letters. I’ll be the first to admit that it can be very difficult to read, and I freely admit to sometimes taking as much as 20 minutes a page in some of these works, but he frequently managed to put that much in the way of descriptions and concepts on a page.

  15. LOL Tex #16 reminds me of the day I went to the supermarket and got stared at more than usual. I’m used to getting stared at but this particular day it just seemed like everybody was gawking. By the time I got to my car with my groceries I was pretty pissed off until I looked down and realized my fly was open.

    Needless to say, I was single at the time. 🙂

  16. Still I’d rather start my “research” with someone who distances himself from a particular religious doctrine (and has some objectivity) than someone who has already drunk the koolaid.

    Like eugenics, global warming or the Bell Curve? Many forms of Kool Aid “R”.

    P.S. – I think it worth remembering MeriBeth’s introduction to your blog was a terse list of charges of my inhumanity, only one of which which was true, and only then because my fat fingers don’t type as quickly as my brain moves and I forgot to add “generally” to my statement. My fault. There are two occasions off hand I went seeking trouble on some nebulous blog full of hate mongering women – but only two and both on WordPress.

    Now I did enjoy mocking Ugly Kay at Chen’s Rutherford, of which she was the first butt ugly liberal woman I put in her place (and you’ll note she didn’t last long) and she was a lot more foul than these broads here, but that was on Chen’s blog.

    Somebody dumb enough to post her picture while blasting Palin and any other woman of Conservative nature and calling them nasty, while herself looking like she had been run over by a locomotive, was just too easy a temptation.

    And that really is the honest of truth of commenting 5-6 years at various locations. I used to tease a gal name Kate at Mark’s place (whatever it was called), and always referred to her as ETAK because she got everything backwards, but she was neither a dummy or dolt – and she was pretty good at the give and take.

    She turned down my proposal in marriage, even when I told her she would be doing my wife a huge favor by becoming part of my concubine. 🙂 I don’t know whatever happened to her, but she was far and away the best lefty women blogger I’ve met.

  17. What’s terrible Tex is that your nickname of ‘Ugly Kay” has displaced the woman’s real “handle” in my head. I don’t even remember what her “name” was.But I do remember you having a go at her.

    I still keep in touch with VirgoMonkey. I think you may have tangled with her too. And then there was a guy who posted on Chen’s for whom you had a particular antipathy … can’t remember his name now either (damn I’m getting old). I just remember him promising to punch your lights out if you ever visited his neighborhood. LOL

  18. Still I’d rather start my “research” with someone who distances himself from a particular religious doctrine (and has some objectivity) than someone who has already drunk the koolaid.

    Epistomology. Look it up.

    I have to side with Tex on this. When the people whose views you would rely on regard science as truth, rather than a means to help find truth, the path you’re choosing is less defensible, not moreso.

  19. Tex, this is especially for you. I know you claimed to be Evangelical. This is a 4 part video (sorry for the quality) that exposes the Scofield Bible for what it is and the deception that it causes in many denominations today. I have read much of this info from other sources, but this condenses much of that and makes it easier to grasp. Would like your thoughts, if you can approach the information openly.

    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3
    Part 4

  20. I think the other rotten hack’s name was the Revolting Pawn, or the Revolting Puke. Something like that.

    Do you remember when he had a nervous breakdown on my account one night at Chen’s? He went completely ballistic – threatened to fly down and crucify me and everything. Going to fly down from Buffalo. 😆 I think he quit blogging shortly thereafter, probably still exasperated. I was better then than I am now at pulling strings. Ah, those were the days.

    I couldn’t remember Ugly Kay’s real name either Rutherford. That’s terrible. 😈 You’re right BIC – it was Kay in Maine.
    Now for all I know Flake looks like Catherine Zeta-Jones. But Kay didn’t. 😛 She made the horrid mistake of leaving a bunch of pics of herself at her blog one night in the most unflattering of poses. The most foul mouthed woman I’ve ever ‘met’ – she could make Rabbit blush.

    She yanked those puppies down so quick after that, and replaced them with protest pictures and her hippie bus. Was going to publish my IP Address… oooowwww. I never had the heart at the time to tell her I was running software that assigned dynamic IP addresses. I kept begging her don’t do it! Don’t do it! Don’t do it! 😆

    Old General Chen – he was even more laid back about that kind of crap than you are Rutherford. That’s why I couldn’t help but love the guy. He’s actually pretty clever – that beauty he pulled on LGF was about as good as I’ve seen.

  21. Yeah Tex, Revolting Pawn was exactly who I was thinking of. Damn, the memory really fails me. Comes from too many years of writing nothing down and keeping it all in my head. I truly think I overloaded some circuits. 🙂

    Well the General would rely on his gravatar swaps, but for all the cleverness of the idea, I seldom actually saw him use it and Lord knows you gave him ample opportunity. Heck you didn’t even get a gravatar swap for wishing me dead … and I wasn’t even commenting on the particular thread at the time. LOL Yeah, you’re right. Those were the days!

    Didn’t he somehow create a mockup of an LGF site and trick people into going there? I seem to remember some sort of hoax like that. Well as I’ve said, Trix are for kids but I hope he’s having fun with it.

  22. Poolman,

    I watched exactly 12:19 of the 1st one and will try to finish all four some time out of curiosity. Yes, if you want to label me, call me a Christian Zionist if you want. I’ve never referred to myself that way, but whatever your pal here wants to call me, is okay by me.

    But I have a couple of questions for you before I go further. Let me tell you how dishonest I have found this so far.

    Question #1: Do you honestly think that John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell are the face of my mentors? 🙂 Not hardly, and they surely don’t represent the deep thinkers of the label. At best they are the cheerleaders of the team, but hardly coach and General Manager.

    BIC and I have made mention of many of them here. BIC has a few favorites, and I have my own, but they follow the same basic path and message. Adrian Rogers, David Jeremiah, John McArthur, Josh McDowell, D. James Kennedy, Philip Yancey. I could add many others, one I would mention would be Voddie Baucham, who I recently added as influence. I would include in that list Billy Graham, as he was my first introduction to Evangelism, and I still think the most influential – his message always simple. I have a copy of a very large book with his picture that sits on my coffee table. Since my wife Catholic, John Paul provides the bookend. I always found that humorous.

    Question #2. Do you believe in Israel’s right to exist, governed under control of Jews, with Jerusalem as its capital? If so, do you feel Israel has a right to sovereignty? If not, why?

    Question #3. Do you believe the beatitudes are the highest calling of man? Would you call the troops that liberated Europe and the Jews peacemakers, or war mongers?

    Question #4. Would you call the Christ of the Revelation peace maker, or war monger?

    Answer these questions with some detail and explanation, with whatever biblical support you can render, and I’ll continue. But first I need a frame of reference why you believe the way you do.

  23. Good morning Tex. Here are my answers to your questions.

    1.) I don’t know who your mentors are. I know I have heard good teaching from many you mention. I used to have the highest regard for Billy Graham, which I do not any longer. I believe they ALL have done a lot of good and brought many to the Lord, especially BG whose ministry focus is evangelizing. I was a great fan of Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell in the past, but I have since decided they are/were not sincere. I still enjoy John MacArthur and Josh McDowell. But as with all teaching, I test it with my spirit. Occasionally certain words or phrases “pop” that don’t sit well within, but I can still glean the truth from these leaders. When they are speaking in the Spirit, It feeds mine.

    2.) I believe that the current nation of Israel is NOT supported in scripture, however I am not opposed to a Jewish nation as determined by the UN. I do not think the current nation of Israel is “God’s Israel” of scripture. It is a secular nation with worldly power that does not follow the teachings of God. As with any nation, it should abide by rules set forth by its own government and the UN that authorized its existence. I think it has strayed from a democracy, as all peoples do not receive equal treatment inside its borders.

    3.) The beatitudes are true and very apropos. The highest calling for man, however, is to love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself.

    The troops that liberated Europe and the Jews were righteous as a whole. Their primary intent was peace. Stopping the imperialism of Germany and Japan was a righteous act. I do not know the intent of their individual hearts. Some were likely fond of war and destruction, which I would label warmonger. Their leaders were mixed also, I feel. The enemy is ALWAYS the forces of evil. The leaders are the ones that put the face on it.

    4.) Jesus Christ hasn’t changed since the beginning of time. His first time here in the flesh was as a servant, example, and for the atonement of sin. His next appearance will be as a warrior against the evil forces of this world, setting up His earthly domain, the new Jerusalem. His weapons of warfare will be the sword of His Word and He will have multitudes with Him.

    I hope this adequately answers your questions.

  24. His next appearance will be as a warrior against the evil forces of this world, setting up His earthly domain, the new Jerusalem.

    I hate to disappoint you but if Jesus ever makes a comeback, he will be locked up as a nutjob the minute he opens his mouth.

    Everyone talks about the second coming, but no one will believe it when it happens. That’s the true test of people’s suspension of disbelief. If any man among us today said he was really Jesus Christ, come again, he would be taken to the nearest psychiatric ward.

  25. Rutherford, with all due respect, it won’t be a “man” coming back. The description in scripture is pretty awesome. There will be no question. All these other men, no matter how charismatic, will not even come close to this scene described in Revelation chapter 19 starting at verse 11:

    “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.”

    Besides,

    Atheists don’t have no songs.

    😉

  26. Boy Rutherford, trust me on this one. You’ re about as scripturally illiterate as one can get.

    Assuming you’re still alive, and I think that unlikely, are you not aware when Christ returns the 2nd time, your knee will be bent and your head bowed?

    You’ll know exactly who you are looking at, if you can look.

    ——
    I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

    KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

    ————

    That’s why we don’ t believe the lunatics. 😯

  27. Poolman and I finally found something we are in total agreement. I would say great minds think alike, or something like that but…

    So there you have “R” from Left and Right.

  28. I hate to disappoint you but if Jesus ever makes a comeback, he will be locked up as a nutjob the minute he opens his mouth.

    Everyone talks about the second coming, but no one will believe it when it happens. That’s the true test of people’s suspension of disbelief. If any man among us today said he was really Jesus Christ, come again, he would be taken to the nearest psychiatric ward.

    The Son of God, who defeated death itself, isn’t going to be bound by a straightjacket or cell, R.

  29. Assuming you’re still alive, and I think that unlikely, are you not aware when Christ returns the 2nd time …

    Well that’s quite the point isn’t it? How many have predicted His second coming in their lifetime only for it not to happen. When will it happen Tex? You’ve already guessed it won’t happen in my lifetime. How bout your granddaughter? Will she witness this? Maybe her daughter?

    I can be perfectly illiterate from a Biblical point of view, and read what you and Poolman offered me here about the White Horse, and consider it, on its face, to be pure fiction.

    A man such as yourself who has poured truckloads of money into many more academic degrees than I have, should hardly be able to tell me that this passes the smell test.

  30. I’d like to plant a tangential seed in the discussion because it is something that has been on my mind the past few days. Since I don’t give myself credit for thinking of anything particularly original, there has probably been academic work done on this that I’m just not aware of.

    I know that Tex, for example, rejects the theory of evolution as an inadequate explanation of how we came about. But this is what I’ve been mulling over the past few days. How can we deny what I would call “intellectual evolution”?

    Think about this. There is no reason on Earth that someone could not drive a gasoline fueled car in 1776. Every single component of the cars we drive today existed in 1776 but man was, to be blunt, too stupid to figure out how to do it.

    There is no reason why the British could not have watched coverage of Anne Boleyn’s decapitation on the nightly news. Every component of a television and its transmission mechanism existed at the time. But again, man was too stupid to construct it, and in this case, too stupid to even imagine it possible,

    How does one account for innovation? How does one account for man’s inability to see a way to do something that was always there waiting to be invented? To what do we owe man’s ignorance?

    And then, with that said, why on Earth would we believe gospels written by such ignorant men? “God bless you” when someone sneezes is a custom born of the belief that when you sneeze you lose a bit of your soul. Utter poppycock. Why would we trust scripture written by intellectually ignorant men? Why would we trust a story of resurrection (“they SAW it happen”) from the same sort of folks who believed a woman suffering from uterine problems was “hysterical” (the origin of the word hysterectomy)?

    Could it not be the ultimate end-point of intellectual evolution that religious stories, originated by superstitious and ignorant men, are finally cast aside?

  31. You’ve already guessed it won’t happen in my lifetime

    You misunderstood. I think it’s imminent, but I can’t tell you when. I can only guarantee it won’t happen when people think it will.

    What I met Rutherford is that if by chance, a rapture occurs, you’ll most definitely will be left behind (like the popular book which I thought pretty lame).

    You won’t survive the carnage to see the return. You and everything you know, will most likely die in the aftermath. I know that may be a little unsettling to you, but I’m just telling you the truth. You cynicism will disappear in a nanosecond.

  32. How does one account for innovation? How does one account for man’s inability to see a way to do something that was always there waiting to be invented? To what do we owe man’s ignorance?

    One of the reasons I’m sure time draws close. The incredible leap in knowledge.

    For 1850 years after Christ, men still traveled by horseback. 150 years later, we circle the globe in hours, travel faster across the earth the it’s rotation, incredible leaps in medical and engineering know how, fuse atoms releasing incredible amounts of energy. And the knowledge doubles every 18 months. There’s never been a time like this history.

    Yet our collective soul remains the same – possibly never more evil. Islam is only the latest in a trend of death.

    Consider these verses from the Old Testament Version of the End Times – yes Rutherford, Revelation is not unique. And these were quoted often by secularist fears right after 9/11. How dumb they were – don’t mean to frighten but 9/11 was a pinprick of things to come.

    THE END TIMES…Daniel 12

    “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

  33. I’ll jump in, what the heck…

    “Organized religion’s origin and appeal basically comes down to man’s attempt to explain the inexplicable”

    This is wrong.

    First you need to separate the concepts of faith and organized religion.

    Faith is what you described. Organized religion takes faith and gives it structure. Some, like me, and maybe you, see that structure as rules that are enforced by a hierarchy.

    But those rules and hierarchy (my words) are not required for one to have religious faith.

    So with that said…

    Rutherford, you have to admit that we merely have faith in science.

    Our faith doesn’t necessarily trump someone else’s just because it gives us the answers that we are looking for. It may be us who has consumed someone’s kool-aid. In order to stay objective, we need to always remember that.

    As for the 2nd coming, I think of that song “What if God was one of us?” I am sure it is contrary some lots of scripture that can be cited. And Tex has taught us that it would be obvious. But I sometimes wonder what people would think of Jesus and his message today, if that message were being given by someone who was not being identified as Jesus Christ. My cynical side says that he would not be happy with the reaction he received, even by many Christians.

    I am not accusing anyone of hypocrisy. But I will say that messages of peace and forgiveness just don’t seem to play very well these days. And I am not talking about the stuff I always talk about.

  34. Pretty good post Huck. Very truthful. Just because I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, doesn’t mean I question its sincerity. You should add more of those if led, by whatever atheists are led by. 🙂

    I really have made a concerted effort to distinguish between the world’s great religions. Granted, being raised in a Christian home did help mold my initial conceptions, but there was a time not too many years ago where I did question and went seeking answers. And when I measured the results, Christianity, based upon the Jewish faith partially explaining my defense, is the only the only one that provided the answers I sought.

    The one big difference between you and Rutherford, and someone like myself I believe to be one of origin.

    My approach has always been it is obvious that the universe created. Learning the sciences the last six years, only reinforced that fact for me. I am as sure of that as I am the sun rising tomorrow morning.

    And I would guess you and Rutherford base your belief on prove it to me: “Show me the proof of Creation.”

  35. “And I would guess you and Rutherford base your belief on prove it to me: “Show me the proof of Creation.””

    I can’t speak for him, but I don’t know if that is the case for me.

    I haven’t ever been shown the proof of evolution or the Big Bang. People in whom I have placed my faith—scientists—tell me that those things are truth, and have presented their case in a way that works for me.

    But I don’t know that I would say they have proven anything to me.

  36. Can you believe my youngest is 20 years old today? I have no teenagers anymore. I’ve inherited a few boy friends. Talk about old being an old fart Rutherford. We dragged out angelic looking pics from when my daughter was about your daughter’s age. Cute as a button.

    Enjoy it while you can “R” – I know I’m preaching to the choir, but the next 14 years will pass in a blink for you, even when your daughter’s activities can make an hour seem like a week! 🙂

    I wish I could play “My Little Pony” just one more time. With my kids, they preferred dad to be the pony. I’ve got black knees and a sway back – time for the glue factory.

  37. Huck,

    Does it ever bother you when these people you placed your faith in are wrong, which more often than not happens to be the case? Serious question.

  38. “I wish I could play “My Little Pony” just one more time.”

    Don’t toss the game out, Tex. Grandkids will be right around the corner!

  39. No Tex, I don’t think, for the most part, I am bothered by that.

    I tend to see being wrong as a valuable part of the learning process.

    I will think more about it over this morning’s coffee.

  40. Bring me your broken, your infirmed and crazy…

    Fucking liberals…

    ICE will now provide heart surgery, biopsies and psychiatric care to detainees

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement has agreed to begin providing medical care that goes well beyond emergency treatment, as a result of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU. The suit alleged that ICE was not treating “immigration detainees with constitutionally adequate levels of medical and mental health care.”

    Among the many services which ICE will now provide illegal aliens in their custody are heart surgeries, cancer biopsies, treatment for diabetes, dental care, and treatment for mental depression.

    On Thursday, Elizabeth Alexander, former Director of the ACLU National Prison Project and lead attorney in the suit said: “For the first time, ICE has committed to providing all necessary health care to immigration detainees beyond just emergency care. For too long, ICE’s own policies allowed it to provide detainees with nothing beyond a narrow definition of emergency. This settlement is recognition that it is unconstitutional not to provide people in government custody with all necessary health care.”

    The legal action was filed in June 2007 by the ACLU and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties and stated that detainees at the San Diego Correctional Facility were often subjected to long waits for medical treatment and denied medication for chronic illnesses.

  41. R, congratulations on your new page and your choice of its name. And who knew this would be more civilized? Very mysterious. I have little to add on the topic, but I’ll agree that faith and participation in organized religion are very different things, although I would say that there is an intent for Christianity to be a group activity (“Wherever two or more are gathered in my name…”).
    Many years ago I visited Rome, and because we were pressed for time, my, uh…traveling companion, Art, asked me to pick one place I’d like to see above all others. I picked St. Peter’s Cathedral. It was June, and blazing hot in southern Italy. I was wearing a pair of shorts and a sleeveless blouse. And they would not let me in. Because my ARMS were uncovered. They were willing to let me in wearing shorts, but not with bare arms. Art offered to walk the many blocks back to the car and get me a sweater, but I refused. Suit yourself, he said, but I think you’re being stupid. So I sat on the steps, furious, while he went in by himself. If I ever needed an excuse to despise organized religion, that was it. On the other hand, it was pretty stupid.

  42. Gorilla, I have never understood how the ACLU has been able to get away with the tyranny they have…bleating sheep is what we’ve become.

    Thanks to the ACLU and a few other activist judges, I have virtually lost trust in the code of law and justice. I watched my father-in-law be penalized $11K by the EPA and never damage one blade of grass, never spilt a drop of anything deemed dangerous. Seems he had improperly filled out forms, and when they fined him, he fought it and they penalized him some more for good measure.

    In fact, in many parts of the country, I can’t separate liberal politics from corrupt judges. They appear to be one and the same. And that is exactly the reason I want every possible terrorist tried in a military court.

  43. Here’s why I get bent about the dummies from the Left pushing their agenda, because invariably one of two things happen in short order after implementation of their feckless policies (sometimes both if left to fester long enough before being revoked): (1) The Law of unintended consequences; (2) irreparable damage.

    It wasn’t a few weeks ago that the biggest useful idiot of them all was stating his biggest concern for his grandchildren was climate change; not the debt, not the decadence and feudal wars; not the rancor; not radical Islam – climate change. 😯

    And what perturbs me more than anything is that there is never an account for their stupidity time-after-time of being proven not just wrong sometimes, but completely wrong all of the time. No matter how pathetic and dismal their record stands, there is never a shortage of dopes in the United States dedicated to pulling the voting lever for losers like Obama every two years.

    So this weekend, as half a million passengers sit stranded in U.K. airports due to inclement weather (snow), it is interesting to review what American liberals use as their premiere sources of information to gather information about Europe, to formulate policy, to construct their science, and to increase costs unnecessarily for the rest of us in the name of social justice.

    Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    Mind you, 10 years ago. 😐 And as Obama rushes America into European socialism as Europe burns (literally in Greece, Portugal, and Ireland), Europe is admitting its policies have been a disaster.

    This is what passes for greatness in progressive circles.

  44. Tex, you raise a point here that I’m not even sure you know you’re raising and it syncs nicely with comments made earlier by Huck.

    I DO believe that science can be pseudo-religion. Hell, I got high enough in mathematics to begin to think some of that was hokum. I don’t deny, for example that evolution is a theory. I don’t deny that we are not sure how man contributes to the destruction of the eco-system (which is all climate change is really about).

    The issue with climate change (which is not proven nor disproven by the occasional snow storm or lack thereof) is that we should continue to study it and we should refrain from doing things that we know can’t help matters, such as excessive carbon emissions.

    Now … onto the real thrust of my comment, and the area Tex where I think you are headed without even knowing it.

    Just as I think we get into dangerous territory when we legislate religious dogma, I think it is quite reasonable to state that we run into trouble when we legislate scientific dogma. I don’t think you have any problem with the study of climate and man’s effect on it. I think you get nauseated when Al Gore sticks his nose into it. It is the intersection of government and science that must be done very carefully. The best science is apolitical.

  45. The best science is apolitical.

    The best science starts out with a healthy dose of rational skepticism.

    Climate change started out with an agenda to punish oil companies because they don’t vote Democratic. When the wheels came off their fudged data, then they feigned outrage.

    Now that Al Gore has bought beach front property that he flew to on his private jet, I would think even you might object to his claims of the tides rising 20 ft.. Maybe the man is a pathological liar and self-absorbed lout? Guess not..

  46. Climate change started out with an agenda to punish oil companies because they don’t vote Democratic.

    The boldfaced part sounds like your own propaganda to me. I’d need someone to prove to me that the politics came first and the science came second. I believe the opposite is true. This may not make the outcome any better but it still is contrary to your stated version.

    And you are absolutely right, for science to “work” one must assume the negative and PROVE the positive. If science leans toward self-fulfilling prophesy that is how data gets misinterpreted etc.

  47. Rutherford, Rutherford,

    It’s a well established fact that the carbon theory of AGW was initiated by pseudo-scientists like Gore and academia, both who have personally enriched themselves.

    Though it just recently both been exposed as an absolute farce, I suspected it long ago – at least since 2003, when I wrote a term paper about it. We don’t even know for sure that green house gases heat or cool the earth. You going to limit the oceans too? 🙂

    Speaking of pseudo-science, where’s that huge ozone hole? Remember that fraud? You think the Chinese or Indians are going to be worrying about CFCs when they kick on twenty million new air conditioners?

    Where do you think all this data originated? Academia, the E.U., U.N….

  48. I used to believe the global warming information until I began to research it. Climate change as it is now referred, is still not always science-based. The sun has the greatest impact on our climate, though all the other factors affect it somewhat. The latest scientific data seems to support an ice age in the near future.

    I truly believe science should be apolitical and one should assume the negative, as you’ve said. I also believe evolution has occurred and that it is a part of the way the world was formed. This does not refute a creator with intelligence. I believe science will prove the existence of God. Whether we are privy to that information will be determined by how well free speech and information sharing is allowed to continue.

    An interesting theory I came across is the expanding earth theory. It explains a lot of the previous unexplainable things that science has discovered.

    The biggest issue I see in science today is that everyone is so specialized that they do not have a big picture of how their knowledge and discovery fits the overall puzzle. An Einstein or Tesla type doesn’t exist today that can give us that big picture. Also many of those providing funding for research have an agenda that they want the research to reflect. At least that is how I see it from the outside looking in. But hey, I’m just a poolman. 😉

  49. Rutherford, you have to admit that we merely have faith in science.

    And that is something that I have trouble with.

    Too many people confuse “science” with “truth”, rather than understanding that science is a tool for discovering truth.

    If science is truth, then we have a problem, Houston. Because science’s wake is littered with the carcases of rejected theories that were no longer accepted as truth once we better understood the world around us. This is why pholgiston is no longer discussed as a component of things, or why Lamark’s theories on species are no longer taught was a current understanding, rather than a stepping stone to a better theory.

  50. This has been a very interesting discussion–I don’t have anything to contribute other than to say that I am enjoying it and to thank the participants.

  51. I love it.. anything goes…. This is SPARTA!

    I think some on this thread.. need to read the Septuagint.. It has been translated..

  52. Here’s another BIC of those original scientific theories that have been resurrected in the evolutionary debate by a different name. Spontaneous biogenesis theory. Pasteur proved this one wrong about 150 years ago.

    They can deny it – but by definition to describe the mechanisms of life, evolutionists need to revert the explanation of the first living organism. And their explanations have arisen from the insane to the comical.

  53. Though an interesting read which I did read long ago, I don’t consider the Septuagint particularly important scriptural doctrine (obviously excluding the 39 books of the Old Testament), because the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apocrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture.

  54. Say, ignore her.

    That this idiot would ask that question when 1.5 billion Catholics consider it a basic tenet of their faith, once again proves past the soundbite and speech police routine, Flake is a shallow, poorly read and uneducated moron.

    Add to the fact she’s a coward who writes to the blog owner here to have others banned, Flake becomes insufferable.

    I shall handle her once again.

    Head’s up Rutherford. Flake is one step from having the implants lit on fire again, so I’ll just apologize now to you and get it over with.

  55. Sigh. Thanks a lot SayWhat 🙂 1.5 million Catholics do not consider that Peter never went to Rome. He is widely considered to be the first “Pope”, is considered to be buried on the site of St. Peter’s Basilica (which I incorrectly called a cathedral). That said, whether he was actually ever in Rome is immaterial.
    The only thing I did was tell a personal story to illlustrate the illogicality of religious “rules”, which happened to occur at St. Peter’s. Thanks again, SayWhat:)

  56. Billion, not million dummy. Your mathematical inaccuracy is only exceeded by your theological inanity.

    As usual, your 100,000% off in your assessment of the situation.

    Stick with fish and animals, pejoratives, man hating, and Graychin and you’ll be alright. 😉

  57. Crorrection

    Did you mean to write correction? 😉

    You never told me what I did at Graychin’s Two Useful Idiots Blog that started this battle of words,wits and our wistful relationship (snicker).

    You going to clue me in or keep me guessing? Because I still have no idea what you originally spoke Ms. Fake.

  58. Rutherford,

    Back to our original argument about AGW, why is that you liberals consider it good science when AGW is the only hypothesis I’ve ever witnessed that can’t be falsified? Doesn’t matter the result, it’s always valid. Example…

    Earth warming…ClimateGate; RainforestGate, HimalayaGate. Now the earth has apparently cooled a bit starting earlier this decade, and we’re still having to listen to the same people and their hypothesis.

    New name – Global Climate Change. :lol:. How do the kids say it? WELL, Yeah!

    If a science based on a null hypothesis that is verified no matter the outcome of the result, why don’t you concede that maybe the science isn’t worth much?

    Here’s another head’s up. You’ve heard this before about evolution? The science is already proven. Remember that?

    Now remember, we heard the same thing from the same people about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Just a parallel I thought I might throw out there for comment.

  59. Since Tex was the only one to tackle my question/ line of thought in 37 (thank you Tex) I shall give him a followup question.

    In 39, are you saying that the exponential gain in man’s capacity to learn and discover represents an acceleration toward the “end of days”? To my layman ears, this sounds like we are racing toward an answer “someone” doesn’t want us to have and we shall all be struck down … except for the ignorant who don’t question … they shall be saved in the Rapture. Did I get that right? 😉

  60. Kind of – I just said it is a sign of the times; not necessarily that the knowledge itself leads to the “end of days.” That, I don’t know.

    I think our “knowledge” has set up some interesting possibilities/circumstances that allow the mark of the beast, for all the earth to view a sequence of events simultaneously via the Cable TV or net. How long do you think it required before we are forced to a cashless society, with the only foolproof measure of ID something unique like a retina?

    An answer to something “someone doesn’t want us to have?” You think we threaten the Almighty? 😆 😆 That was worth a double laugh. How does the mortal find an answer to the eternal? Fat chance…

    I don’t know how the rapture happens; I just know it happens. Must be pretty foolproof at fooling the fools though, because you’re still going to be in denial. Perhaps a nuclear war, a natural catastrophe, something where hundreds of thousands or millions suddenly are gone.

    I know this much Rutherford. And this is something you fail to understand in its entirety. What is really ironic is you think this would make everything better. If every true Christian in this nation would disappear in the blink of an eye, it wouldn’t be too long before you can wave goodbye to the life you know. You will quickly be overwhelmed.

  61. Think about this. There is no reason on Earth that someone could not drive a gasoline fueled car in 1776. Every single component of the cars we drive today existed in 1776 but man was, to be blunt, too stupid to figure out how to do it.

    Really? I recall reading somewhere the today’s cars have more on-board computing power than the lunar module. I cannot concieve of anything equivalent in 1776.

    We didn’t have the refining techniques for much of the materials, plastics could not have even been drempt of by the most brilliant minds of the day, and even the finest metal workers would not likely have been able to machine parts to the tolerances expected of today’s cheap cars, even if the materials were available.

    However, if you want to ponder what might make the exponential advancment of technology and knowledge possible, I suggest you consider digital technology. It allows for speed and accuracy in just about everything to a degree that none but the most precise analog technologies could hope to match. Without it, modern computing wouldn’t exist…we wouldn’t have the mchine language, nor would we have the storage media that make the breadth and depth of knowledge as portable as it is.

    That kind of power makes just about everything else possible.

    And a little ol’ EMP tomorrow could knock us back into the 1900s.

  62. We still don’t have the technology today to build some of the existing stone structures and pyramids we find in all parts of the globe. Many have stones bigger than any crane we have could even move. The precision remains unmatched.

    For all our knowledge we cannot even grasp the full essence of why a simple element like water does what it does and how.

    We aren’t sure what will happen if and when the magnetic poles shift as many scientists expect will happen.

    For all the knowledge we have gained and the advances we have made we have also lost much over time. Though this industrial age brought us many advances in technology and science, it has also been the most stressful and damaging to the very planet we occupy.

    If all technology was used for the betterment of man instead of for the profit of some, we would likely be able to sustain all this a lot longer. The inherent nature of man prevents that. Profit and greed are great motivators. Much effort has been exerted to develop control over humans and nature. That is why this earth has to be reborn. The injustices are piling up quite high.

    As in Jeremiah Chapter 2 regarding the day of the Lord:

    So man will be brought low and mankind humbled– do not forgive them. Go into the rocks, hide in the ground from dread of the LORD and the splendor of his majesty! The eyes of the arrogant man will be humbled and the pride of men brought low; the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. The LORD Almighty has a day in store for all the proud and lofty, for all that is exalted (and they will be humbled), for all the cedars of Lebanon, tall and lofty, and all the oaks of Bashan, for all the towering mountains and all the high hills, for every lofty tower and every fortified wall, for every trading ship and every stately vessel. The arrogance of man will be brought low and the pride of men humbled; the LORD alone will be exalted in that day, and the idols will totally disappear. Men will flee to caves in the rocks and to holes in the ground from dread of the LORD and the splendor of his majesty, when he rises to shake the earth. In that day men will throw away to the rodents and bats their idols of silver and idols of gold, which they made to worship. They will flee to caverns in the rocks and to the overhanging crags from dread of the LORD and the splendor of his majesty, when he rises to shake the earth. Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?

  63. BiW, I’m afraid you missed my entire point. The damn computer could have existed in 1776. There is nothing inside a computer when you break it down to its most basic elements that did not exist in 1776. What prevented it’s invention was man’s ignorance.

    Again, we are talking about intellectual evolution. I’m gonna have to Google the sucker and see who has written about it. This notion that mankind is a learning organism. That for some reason, we didn’t arrive fully formed, fully equipped to solve any problem we encountered. Rather we arrived woefully ignorant, thinking the sun revolved around the Earth, that a man loses a bit of his soul when he sneezes, or even that a photograph is dangerous because it captures a man’s soul (I’ve heard that too).

    And this again brings me back to the premise, why on Earth would we believe supernatural accounts from a people literally immersed in ignorance and superstition.

    Science may not have the answer to everything but science does tell me that no man EVER rose from the grave nor will any man ever do so. Science tells me the answer to Tex’s persistent question: “But Rutherford scores of people witnessed the resurrection. Do you call them liars?” The answer is mass delusion probably in part due to following the suggestion of a cult leader (not Christ himself but someone around after he died). The ignorant/superstitious mind is highly impressionable.

    And as for Jesus himself saying “I am the light, the only way to God is through me”. Jim Jones said the same thing. The only difference is Jim Jones lived in a culture of advanced intellect where his delusion was clearly seen as delusion. Christ lived in a time of ignorant people who could be convinced of his divinity. What is unique, is that he created a following so powerful in belief that they established a religion that could sustain itself for centuries such that even perfectly intelligent people now believe all of this lock stock and barrel.

    I propose that I don’t know how the Earth came to be. I don’t know what force, thus far unexplained by science, made it happen. But I am reasonably sure Christ didn’t know the answer either, nor any of those who worship him to this day.

    That my friends is my morning “sermon” for this Tuesday in the Coliseum.

  64. BiW, I’m afraid you missed my entire point. The damn computer could have existed in 1776. There is nothing inside a computer when you break it down to its most basic elements that did not exist in 1776. What prevented it’s invention was man’s ignorance.

    What prevented it was a complete lack of the necessary manufacturing techniques. DaVinci could obviously conceive of the helicopter and the tank. It doesn’t mean that he could produce the necessary alloys and other materials with the refining and manufacturing techniques.

    When you start talking about man’s ignorance being the reason, I suspect you’re demonstrating an arrogance that ill-suits you, R.

    The fact that previous generations did not see the world the same way you did doesn’t make them ignorant; on the contrary, depending on the era in question, I would argue that the average person was actually as smart, or more likely smarter than the average person of today. Don’t believe me? Take a 12th grade English test from the early 20th century.

    Look at men like Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison…I won’t argue that they were average, but I would argue that they were certainly better read then their contemporaries.

    You appear to be sneering at people who didn’t accomplish what we have, but when I look at the aircraft designers and engineers of the early to mid twentieth century, I see people who were capable of quickly performing incredibly complex calculations using nothing more than their brains, pencil, paper, and a slide rule. I can’t use a slide rule, can you, R?

    It seems to me that you had a number of factors that contributed to our forebears not inventing a whole host of things, such as a culture with different values and emphasis, such as a broader focus on pure research in to “hard” science, rather than focused research with fixed aims and goals, a greater emphasis on the development of self, which would include a focus on knowing the answers, rather than knowing where to find the answers and a belief system that placed a value on reflection, as well as accumulation.

    Then there is also the matter of how much time used to be spent meeting the necessities of life. You might be smart enough to conceptualize a computer, but when you have to spend time growing and cultivating food, and bartering for other necessaries, like clothing, or shelter, transitioning that machine from thought to reality just make not be a priority.

    We have processed and preserved foods now. We have technologies to save time that would otherwise be spent on doing tasks like cooking, washing clothes, washingb dishes, heating wather for baths and showers. We have electricity to power many of these marvels, and with innovations such as computers and the internet, it isn’t as much a requirement to know as it is to be able to find out. Facts and figures are at any person’s finger tips, but there is much less understanding, and far less ability to determine the quality of data and how it is compiled, which is how someone can have very strong feelings on DADT without even knowing that Reveille is palyed in the morning and Taps at night, or how the addition of women into the military necessitated a change in the culture, including duplication of resources, and a new bureaucratic and legal framework to deal with the inevitiable issues that such an integration brings, and therefore can see no potential issues or distractions whatsoever with the implementation of social fiats.

    Perhaps you should park the term “ignorant” for a while, R. The way you have been using it lately makes me feel like you keep smiling to show off the teeth whitening that you had done, without any apparent knowledge of the spinich stuck between your front teeth.

  65. Regarding 76 …. this is the God Poolman, Tex and BiW worship, a deity that inspires dread. Yeah … makes perfect sense to me.

    Fear and trembling in the hearts of the unjust and unrighteous, for sure. No one will be able to buy “justice” or oppress others anymore. There will be no doubt regarding God’s existence and power. Right now we are living in a time of grace. We have freewill to choose good or evil. Choose wisely.

  66. How long do you think it required before we are forced to a cashless society, with the only foolproof measure of ID something unique like a retina?

    Or a chip, much like animals and some humans already have.

    “$110 billion worth of $100 bills are currently wrapped in storage at Fort Worth because of a defect.”

    …it costs about twelve cents to produce which puts the total bill of the bills, so far anyway, at $120 million. That really drives home the phrase “it takes money to make money.”

    The “new” currency was too sophisticated for the equipment that printed it, so we trash billions that cost us many millions to print and it’s back to the old currency. They make us pay for all that. That and all they can’t account for that went missing at the Pentagon and in Iraq. That gives them another excuse to go to cashless. It won’t be long and we’ll be there.

    We need to get rid of the Fed that has been robbing us for a hundred years. That is when they started to take this country away from we, the people. The “owners”, as Carlin called them.

  67. And as for Jesus himself saying “I am the light, the only way to God is through me”. Jim Jones said the same thing. The only difference is Jim Jones lived in a culture of advanced intellect where his delusion was clearly seen as delusion.

    Speaking ignorance and delusion, this one was purposely offensive. So be it…

  68. Is it dread to your daughter Rutherford when you attempt to warn or attempt to prevent her from touching a hot stove?

    You mistaken dread for sound advice. I never knew the offer of paradise dread, but that is indeed promise.

    But don’t ever come to another site and tell me you haven’t mocked Christ anymore, even dare me to even find one comment where you have.. I’ll simply retrieve that last one. I trust you’ll leave it as record.

    Foolish, foolish little man. 😉

  69. Au contraire Tex. I didn’t mock Christ. I simply offered the secular based alternative to your belief. The only refutation to Christ’s divinity must be that he was delusional albeit benignly and so were his followers. You’ve tried in the past to get me to call Christ a liar. I have no reason to believe he was.

    I will grant that his benign delusion makes the comparison to Jim Jones a low blow. I apologize for that.

  70. BiW you have also properly corrected me in that I relied too much on the word “ignorant” in my argument. I was not trying to convey sloth or any number of other negative connotations. I meant it in its most pure form of simply lacking knowledge.

    I thought of DaVinci while I was writing my comment. An interesting case of someone who could conceive of an idea but did not know how to execute it, or didn’t have the ingredients at hand to execute it.

    Innovation is a complex thing that seems to involve the perfect storm … the right idea in the right environment with the right people to make it happen. And this has always been, yet as time goes on innovation accelerates. Again, intellectual evolution?

    While I agree that people in ages old were smarter than we are in certain ways … more well read for example … the masses were certainly less intelligent than we are. The masses were capable of being convinced of any number of unscientific things.

    Heck even as recently as the 1930’s Orson Welles was able to convince a bunch of people that Martians had landed on Earth. Ignorance may be too harsh a word … perhaps innocence?

  71. You’ve tried in the past to get me to call Christ a liar. I have no reason to believe he was.

    Now you’re only lying to yourself. You can’t call a man that called Himself divine, Jim Jones. You’re calling Christ a liar every day here without using the word liar. I don’t know why you can’t bring yourself to say as much. You think He was benignly deluded, crazy. Gotcha.

    Your benignly masquerade as tolerant of faith – but not really. I’ve told you better to be hot or cold, and you’re as cold as you get. I would tell you right now if you’re going to continue down this path, live it up. It will be all you have, or will ever have. I don’ t believe that.

    What you apparently fail to recognize is this one belief or lack thereof on your account, colors every conclusion. Like C.S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because I see everything else by it.”

    That’s what separates the two of us in politics, outlook, mindset, and world view. Otherwise, we are pretty much one and the same. Right? 🙂

  72. Science may not have the answer to everything but science does tell me that no man EVER rose from the grave nor will any man ever do so. Science tells me the answer to Tex’s persistent question: “But Rutherford scores of people witnessed the resurrection. Do you call them liars?” The answer is mass delusion probably in part due to following the suggestion of a cult leader (not Christ himself but someone around after he died). The ignorant/superstitious mind is highly impressionable.

    Here is a very good read that documents why we should not doubt that Jesus had indeed risen from the grave:

    http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

  73. The masses were capable of being convinced of any number of unscientific things.

    You mean like the legions of laymen who have surrendered any critical analysis of what the “experts” tell them , and join in the “unscientific” faith that science will eventually prove that a “primordial soup” was the origin of life on earth, or that man is the primary cause of global warming climate change?

    Seriously. You mock faith, by impugning the intellect of those who have it, while clinging it a practice which is very strongly marked by its own dogmatic articles of faith. Just ask any scientist who dares to even ask some of the hard questions that the theory of evolution is incapable of answering on its own. They can show you how quickly and fiercely they and others like them are “excommunicated, for directing a scientific inquiry to the areas others have marked “Off Limits”.

    And this has always been, yet as time goes on innovation accelerates. Again, intellectual evolution?

    I think it would be a mistake for you to pat yourself on the back like that. Technologies that make the diffusion of knowledge easier and more prevalent, as well as the ability to build on previous innovations would have far more to do with it than would any “intellectual evolution”. Books allowed us to move beyond oral traditions, the printing press allowed for faster and more voluminous publishing, computers make it possible to research basic and complex information on a myriad of topics without even having to set foot in a library.

    I really don’t think that it would be accurate to claim we are smarter today, R. (Congress would be an excellent example of how that assertion simply isn’t true.) I think that we simply have access to more knowledge and technology than any time in history, which allows people to put pieces together who might not otherwise have the requisite skill or knowledge to assemble the component parts.

  74. Sorry to go way off topic … but this is the Coliseum after all, do any of you folks with a WordPress.com blog use picapp? I just got a note from the mofo’s that they are discontinuing providing photos to people BUT they are continuing to offer and develop their “widget”. I thought that the widget worked in conjunction with the photos you pull from them. No more photos … what good is the widget?

    I am royally pissed about this because I turned exclusively to Picapp for my blog photos to avoid any licensing hassles and I don’t want to pay for photos. If any of you bloggers are in a similar position, what alternative are you going to pursue?

  75. In the true spirit of the Coliseum, a comment totally off topic for the current thread.

    My wife and I watched “No Man of Her Own” with Barbra Stanwyck (1950) tonight. Damn they just don’t make movies like that anymore. High drama, film-noir, great stuff. It really hit the spot. 🙂

  76. Rutherford,

    I frequently watch TCM because of the movies.

    A studio system that cranked many of the films out in days, not years (with a few notable exceptions), decent scripts, and in many, some better acting than we get from “stars” of today.

    When you get a chance, check out the old film “Doddsworth”. Fantastic story, and quite risque’ in its time.

  77. This place is a little dusty. But going back a little, looks like last year at this time we were talking about much the same stuff. 😀

    But that was before occupyalujah!

  78. These halls seem pretty quiet. Well, this is probably the best place for this preview. I found it entertaining and intelligent. A nice change from politicos.

  79. Ruh-oh. It seems a couple comments vanished. My last post was the hundredth, now it’s at 98. New math kick in? lol. Here is Brother Nathaniel’s latest word…

  80. Poolman … Nathaniel makes Jews sound like …. wait for it … blacks. 😐

    If you substitute “Jew” with “black” in Nathaniel’s presentation, it sounds like every entitlement speech given by Tex, Pfesser and others throughout this blog. Yet I am sure they would NEVER see themselves in Brother Nathaniel.

  81. Boy, you have gotten sensitive regarding race. I don’t see the similarity.

    The big difference…. He was born and raised “black” and was able to change when he discovered “black” wasn’t really beautiful. 😆

  82. LOL no sensitivity. My reply to you was perhaps too cryptic. Tex and PF like to talk about how blacks are always playing the victim and throwing slavery in the faces of whites. I was just saying that Nathaniel makes a similar argument about Jews vis-a-vis the Holocaust.

  83. Okay, I get it. The blacks can’t get you thrown in prison for denying slavery existed, though. They have much to learn regarding victimhood. 😉

  84. Honest question. Tex, if you had been born in Mecca or Laos or Salt Lake City for that matter, do you think you would still be a Christian?

    Had I been born in Salt Lake City, I might be woefully confused for a time. But your question presupposes one false assumption. That is, my faith was and is only influenced by the environment of which I grew up. I admit being introduced to Christ by my own mother, but that wasn’t the end all, and in fact for a time, I walked away from Christian influence.

    So I’ll say this about Mormonism. It is not Christianity. I admire the way for the most part Mormons carry themselves, their devotion to family and faith, their charitable works, and missionary service. I have no problem with a Mormon leading the country, and in fact would find it a huge improvement over Obama’s religion of black liberal theology and political expediency.

    But I believe after study, I would have rejected Mormonism for no other reason than I find many of its basic precepts completely contrary to the Bible, just as I find your conclusions contrary. Truth be known, so did many of my medical school colleagues who were Mormon in name only, who initially tried to convince me, only to find themselves convinced their scripture contrary to God’s. We had many a debate when we should have been studying Gross Anatomy or Biochemistry.

    But if a Mormon, the ones that would bother me most, even more so than their heretical conclusions of who Christ is, it would be this one from the very last book of the Bible:

    Revelation 22:18

    I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book.

    and this one…

    John 19:30

    When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

    Nothing more was required. It was finished.

    I’ll answer the rest of the question when you have answered one of mine. They’re the easier two to answer.

    Quid pro quo. I read on your blog, your support of Planned Parenthood.

    Assuming somewhere down the pike, we find a definitive test for Autism in utero like we’ve found for Downs Syndrome, where it is estimated 90% of Downs fetuses aborted…

    Are you going to be comfortable with the idea that a group you lend your support to, the biggest abortion provider in America, will be terminating millions of lives like your son before birth simply for convenience?

    Or have you discovered like I suspect that young men like your son are special in their own right, influencing you in ways you never dreamed? Have you ever given consideration that God allows such handicaps for a lack of a better word, to demonstrate real love to the world through your own son and your own works?

    Because if you truly believe in God, then surely you must recognize life is but a vapor in the grand scheme of things? My own mortality has hit me square in the face recently, and my own father’s imminent death has reminded me of the brevity of life, being my parents about 20 when they had me.

  85. “Are you going to be comfortable with the idea that a group you lend your support to, the biggest abortion provider in America, will be terminating millions of lives like your son before birth simply for convenience?” – T

    No, I will not be comfortable with it. Because I’m not comfortable with it now. But abortion is still legal and PP does so much more than abort babies. They prevent abortions by providing contraception. They allow children not to become motherless with mammograms. The problem for me is, where do my personal beliefs infringe on the rights of others, the mother and the baby. Abortion is very tough because it involves two individuals in one body, both of which have the ability to kill the other. At what point do they become two souls? A perfect world to me would be one in which a woman had the right to choose, but never chose to abort. Foolproof contraception along with a nurturing society in which we never allow any pregnancy to be viewed as a liability would be ideal. But instead, we beat each other over the head with our crosses and NOW buttons as more children continue to die.

    Muffy once took an unofficial show of hands on where we would draw the line as King. Only a couple of us were brave (stupid) enough to answer. Mine was 14 days.

    BTW, your second to last ppg was spot on. With the arrival of my son, my life became slightly tougher and exponentially more worthwhile. It took me a while to see it. My wife still struggles with it. Early on in our advocacy, I heard a woman speak at one of the conferences we attended. Her words resonated. “Autism steals so much from your life, your dreams. Don’t allow it to steal your faith too.”

  86. Thor,

    Margaret Sanger, an avowed eugenicist, is Planned Parenthood’s founder. Planned Parenthood, an oxymoron if there ever was in name, revels in abortion and you know it. It’s a sacrament to them. It’s their cash cow representing between 30-50% of their revenue stream. It literally makes money. Don’t believe me, look at their published tax statements. It’s a matter of public record. These are some of the most vicious people on earth, busted numerous times recently for the most egregious of lies for the world to see.

    If it was simply providing women’s health like mammograms, there would be no controversy. PP is America’s largest abortion provider. And if these folks ultimately get there way, children like your son will be persona non grata some day. I know you think that paranoid. But Nazi Germany legalized a great many things under the guise of legality, production and public benefit. You of all people should appreciate the gift of life and just how fragile that gift.

    I cannot accept you don’t know better. And I won’t accept it. You’re letting politics substitute for basic decency. Even with all of our disagreements, I can read you well enough to know you are decent enough soul and loving spouse and father.

    But I think you are terribly blind to life’s most important mission, our reason for being, and ultimately where you need to be standing. You can hide behind the flippancy, but I know doubt when I read it. All I can say without threat is this. You had better be sure – because ultimately death meets us all.

    Did I answer your question about my faith to your satisfaction?

    IMO, you falsely assume that my most profound influence of my faith has been parental influence or the society I was raised. That would not be correct. It’s an intense and adult lifetime evaluation, measured in large part not by America, but what I witness elsewhere,including the Jews, Islam, atheism, prophecy, specifically Jerusalem, in conjunction with the greats of my faith who have proceeded me and the culture that has arisen from the Christian foundations. Western Culture is in large part founded on Christian Culture. America was founded by mostly Protestant Christians, our founders preceded by devout Christians. To deny otherwise is foolishness and denial of the most obvious. We are a secular nation, but the foundations and law of this nation are Judeo-Christian.

    Though it ultimately is true my tenets based on faith as I have had no personal revelation nor am I sure I believe in personal revelation in the age of grace, it is not just a simple, child like faith I have but a measurement of what it say vis-a-vis what is, amplified in large part by what I know of science and reason.

    I would be happy to elaborate on Islam, Buddhism, or atheism, but I would not be a Christian if the Christian track record were one of Islam, Buddhism, or atheism. At least Mormons offer something of worth I might admire.

  87. Tex, I hope I didn’t come across as flip here. I am taking this discussion very seriously. I’m well aware that PP makes its money from abortions. If there is an entity you know of that provides all these services (besides abortion) as widely and cheaply as PP, please advise. I will support them.

    This is not about politics to me. It is about the lesser of two evils.

    I didn’t suspect that you were a Christian just because of parenting. You seem far too learned and independent for that. I understand now that you would have rejected Islam and atheism.

    As for my doubt, I would imagine it is palpable. I am searching, after all. As for the Nazi comment, I am well aware of the way these children have been treated. They have been burned, cast out into the woods to fend for themselves, locked up in asylums. But to me, the enemy there is ignorance. Not that I don’t know it couldn’t happen again.

    As for answering my questions, yes and thank you.

  88. One has to look within oneself to find God. The culture will definitely be an influence. Others can be helps or hindrances. Most parents try to lead their offspring down the path they have paved.

    We are unique, like each snowflake that forms and falls to the earth. Every ‘naturally’ created thing is. Therefore, our relationship to our creator will also be unique. It may or may not resemble other relationships.

    One size does not fit all, no matter how hard we humans try to make it so.

    So, in a way, all paths CAN lead to truth and ultimately salvation. But everyone will have to determine within their own heart to earnestly seek that end and eventually they will find that ‘gate’. Jesus just happens to be that gate and left knowledge of that for us. The promise of success in finding Him is told us many times in many generations.

    You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

  89. It’s time to announce the Rutherford Lawson 2012 Comments Hall of Fame:

    1. Tex Taylor with 2941 comments (1st last year)
    2. El Tigre with 2573 comments (4th last year)
    3. Poolman with 2108 comments (2nd last year)
    4. James with 1955 comments and last but not least (well, least here)
    5. Dead Rabbit with 1503 comments (3rd last year)

    Stats care of WordPress.com. Does not take into account accidentally commenting under different name.

    Thanks to all the winners for helping make this place what it is. 🙂

  90. I guess it best to post BrNat here since some most find his truths offensive. He does have a way of getting a point across and not too subtly. 😆

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