JG-TC.com > Opinion > COLUMN: Argue if you will, but faith and facts don't really need each other

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Monday, January 14, 2008 8:32 PM CST
COLUMN: Argue if you will, but faith and facts don't really need each other

By PENNY WEAVER, Night News Editor
pweaver@jg-tc.com

When I read comments by people trying to convince others of the truth in certain religious beliefs, I’m not sure whether to admire such people or move them mentally into my “kooky” category.

Yeah, they probably think that of me, too.

In a way, I can admire folks who speak up and try to convince others of certain religious or biblical truths. Long back-and-forth conversations often get started on these topics on our Web site (www.jg-tc.com — no, not a shameless plug, just FYI).

It’s good to speak up for what you believe in — without undue trampling on others’ views. Many commenters on our Web site have tried persistently to convince others that the Bible is 100 percent accurate, word for word; or that it’s not. Some have argued on and on about evolution versus “intelligent design,” or about Jesus’ very existence, and so on and so forth.

It makes for interesting reading sometimes. Often, a Clergy View will spark an earnest debate, which can be fun.

But on the other hand, part of me says these folks are often just wasting their breath. It’s so unlikely that one person can express their beliefs — no matter how eloquently — to another and change anyone’s mind.

Gosh, I remember when my biggest concern about church was why boys could be altar servers but girls couldn’t. Now that they can, I feel a bit resentful that I missed my chance. I guess they don’t take 37-year-old altar servers of either gender, do they? I wouldn’t look good in those white robes anyway.

But I digress.

Maybe it’s just me, or maybe we Catholics in general aren’t much on evangelism. I’ve sometimes been tempted to join the religious discussions online, but I never do primarily because religion, to me, simply isn’t a matter of proving something — it’s a matter of faith.

Many things can be debated, argued, discussed and hashed out, and sometimes one person can sway others to a different viewpoint, or enlighten someone. Religion isn’t one of those.

Faith is a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof,” according to Merriam-Webster.

I can’t prove to anyone that God exists. I can’t vouch for the Bible’s absolute, 100-percent, word-for-word truth, because I wasn’t there when it was written.

As a journalist, in particular, I want proof of something before I trust it as a truth or a fact. For one thing, that’s my job. For another, that’s also my nature, which makes me a good journalist, I hope.

It continually amazes me that so many people, for example, read something on the Internet and just take it at face value. Suddenly, something they saw online is fact, without any verification, without any proof.

The primary truth about the Internet is that any Joe Schmoe with a computer hookup can start a Web page and put any “facts” on it that he wants. It could be a 450-pound man who logs on while in his underwear — I promise I won’t get more graphic with that particular description — who started the site you’re perusing to learn “facts” about how to get back the svelte figure you had in high school, for example.

That’s not what I’d call a reliable source.

I guess it shouldn’t surprise me, then, that so many people take the Bible at face value, as word-for-word truth, supposedly to be followed to the letter. Some don’t allow any room for interpretation whatsoever, or take into consideration the many times that book has been translated from one language to another.

But that’s their faith. That’s what they believe. The fact is that they can’t truly prove it. Oh, many do try, and more power to them, but it’s something that really can’t be proven.

Faith is just that — a belief. Religion is not science. In science, theories are developed and eventually either proven or disproved. Religion is about faith and about believing in something that you cannot prove. In fact, that’s the key in some ways: Why do you believe in something you can’t prove? You just do.

Even though I make my living via verifiable facts and reliable sources, I have no trouble with faith and believing in certain things that I can’t prove. That’s either a double standard or that makes me really mentally versatile, perhaps — you decide.

I can’t prove to anyone that God exists, or that Jesus was who He was. I don’t want to try. I think that either you believe or you don’t, and it almost doesn’t “count” if someone has to convince you.

I don’t need certain things proven to me. I believe. Depending on what you believe, I’m either pretty stupid for that, or not, but it’s not what others think that matters when it comes to faith. It’s each person being attuned to what is in his or her heart.

So maybe I’m kooky, and it’s the people who try to convince others of certain religious beliefs who are to be admired. Maybe some would say my lack of evangelism puts in doubt just how much I really do believe. Others might say those, like me, who have faith in something we can’t prove are just too idealistic or naive.

That’s okay. The faith I have — and that I keep to myself — gives me great solace and is a source of strength during difficult times. I won’t try to convince anyone else I’m right, but I do wish on anyone the kind of comfort that faith can bring.

If that’s kooky, I like it. I like it a lot.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

newlife wrote on Jan 10, 2008 6:13 AM:

" Good article. Faith is about hope in times of hopelessness. This is where we turn. I hope this is the right spot to mention it, but to those detractors out there to the New Life for Haiti project, we are tryin to provide that hope to a hopeless people. For the detractors, I assume that you realize that people on the New Life committee and attendees are also involved in local projects in our communities. The Haiti mission is just an extension of Jesus' command to Love God and Love Others. Christ did not say to just love those within arms reach of you. Sometimes he asks you to go a litle or a lot further to help and love others. Had he only reached as far as his arms length to others, his meassage would have stopped that day when he was stretched fingertip to fingertip on a cross. We might never had gotten the incredible message of salvation and hope delivered to us. We don't own this message, it is not ours to keep to our own people. We have been commanded to go to all the world and deliver this message. We can do it through preaching to them, but we can also do it through our actions of helping them to build clinics, schools and to learn agriculture. We can assist others in community development projects to make a better life for them...to provide hope..Christ's message.
For the detractors, I hope that you volunteer on the Salvation Army Board or have given food to their pantry when it was nearly depleted last fall or I hope that you swing a hammer for Habitat, dontate time to stay at the PADS shelter, hand out food at the Mattoon Food Pantry, are part of a Christmas program to provide coats or toys to local children, I hope you volunteered and rang the bell for the Salvation Army at Christmas, I hope you have taken a troubled local youth with addiction issues and criminal problems into your own home to provide for them and care for them to give them a better chance in life. Because these are all things that I know that people who are on the NLFH committee or attendees have done and are still doing. But they also know that the mesage of hope is larger again than what we can just reach out and touch in our community. Sometimes God calls people to do something a little harder to live their faith. Something a little more difficult. Please remember, Christ died for the whole world...if we carry out the commandment of Love God and Love Others...the Kingdom of Heaven is much larger than what we can easily reach out and touch. I am glad to be part of this Kingdom, I am glad to be a part of New Life for Haiti, and I am glad to sign my name to this comment. Randy Myers, NLFH Committee Member. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 10, 2008 7:43 AM:

" Great column, Penny. I have always thought that people with true convictions set an example for Christianity, or any other organized religion, by their actions and how they live their life, and have not been too impressed by all the absurdity that usually shows up on this site when the topic turns to religion. I could be wrong, but I have always been a little leery of those types who wear their religion on their sleeve. I like your use of the word kooky, and suspect there are more kooky people out there than not. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2008 8:10 AM:

" If it is "wasting ones breath" because you will never "change anyones mind" why does she write her columns? We write to make sure that alternate points of view are expressed, because silence is complicity, because you never know who might be reading. If we can get one person to THINK about an idea, whether young or old, we have accomplished something even if we haven't changed the particular mind of the person being immediately addressed. "

The Question wrote on Jan 10, 2008 9:10 AM:

" My faith is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster rules over the universe, dispensing cosmic meatballs of goodness to his favored ones and strangling those who displease him with his noodle-like tentacles. If you ask me to provide any evidence to support my faith, I will be deeply offended and call you a mean-spirited atheist.
You can’t criticize my belief, and I don’t have to provide any reasons for it, because it is my “faith.” That’s what “faith” means — the ability to smugly proclaim ridiculous nonsense without having to provide any evidence to support it.
"

father bob wrote on Jan 10, 2008 9:16 AM:

" Faith is a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof,” according to Merriam-Webster.............like watching the waitresses at Hooters??? "

Becky wrote on Jan 10, 2008 9:36 AM:

" Thank you for your wisdom Penny. Too bad more people of faith don't have your attitude. You see, it's not God that I have a problem with, it's his fan club that scares the heck out of me. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 10, 2008 12:28 PM:

" Believe in your "faith" your way Question and I'll believe in mine. Fair enough? Mine happens to be Christianity. "Nuff said!.....Thanks Penny.... Susan, she writes her columns to get her ideas out there so you and others can contradict them OR agree, OR perhaps find themselves somewhere in the middle. So blast away everyone! "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2008 1:01 PM:

" If faith is a trust in something where there is no proof of truth. Is religious faith a good thing or a bad thing? If faith is personal conviction why should any one persons faith be better or worse than another persons faith? Can faith become a liability and cease to be an asset? "

coonbug wrote on Jan 10, 2008 2:52 PM:

" "You see, it's not God that I have a problem with, it's his fan club that scares the heck out of me. " -----------Becky, this one HECK of a statement - I even giggled a bit. Thanks you made my day. ------Coonsey's View: www.freewebs.com/coonsey/ "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 10, 2008 3:34 PM:

" You seem to have all the answers Susan, so you tell us. Your "questions" in your last post seemed to be presented as answers to them. Very cleverly done. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2008 5:49 PM:

" To Billie, I don't pretend to have "all the answers" and I am certainly not afraid to ask the uncomfortable questions. What is your answer to the questions or have you ever given the questions any thought? "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 10, 2008 9:14 PM:

" Golly Susan, You could have fooled me these past few weeks with your posts as far as having all... no, I'll take that back and say most of the answers to the religious topics. Your techinque of putting forth your ideas and opinions in the form of questions is very good! No dear, I don't have all the answers and it's nice to hear you say you don't either. Opinions are not objective. They put forth the feelings and thoughts of a person, so subjective they aren't. Faith, religious faith( or lack thereof) I'm speaking of here, isn't objective either. You ask is one faith(personal conviction) better or worse than another? It's a matter of personal perspective. I think my particular faith which happens to be Christian is the best one. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I shouldn't have to be subjected to mean spirited putdowns by some who disagree with it. Does the fact that I believe my faith is the best, mean I don't respect the faiths of other's. NO! That does not however mean I feel the need to believe what their faith(or lack of it)teaches nor do I want to "force feed" them to embrace mine. Can faith cease to be an asset and become a liability? It depends on what you have faith in. Again, it's a matter of perspective. It rarely is objective. I don't think my faith is a liability. It's gotten me through some pretty tough times losing four major family members these last four years. What is proof Susan? Do you always have to "see" something to know it's there? Do you always have to touch it? No amount of "show me" will convince people such as you and others that our faith is real. I don't have to see it or touch it, I feel it. It's real to me. If you can't wrap your mind around it, so be it. I'm, certainly not going to try and convince you of it. I simply don't give a hoot if you do or not. I'm with Penny. My faith just IS and I really don't feel the need to have to explain it all the time to those who don't "get it";those same people who feel the need to try and make us "faith based" folks feel as though we are stupid for having it. I usually don't get on here and discuss religion, although I have a time or two. From reading the posts, I've yet to see where either side, pro or con religion has made any headway. So we disagree. I've listened to friends who aren't believers(yes I have some who aren't) put forth their "arguements", and they have listened to mine. At the end of the day, we still believed what we believed and were still friends. I feel on the subject of my faith, it's not a matter of a closed mind, rather it's an open heart. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 11, 2008 8:04 AM:

" To Billie your response could have been written by a Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Mormon, or Atheist. The point is that NO ONE should have to defend "their" right to "their" belief, NO ONE should have to submit to prosylityzing in public forums, NO ONE should be called a threat to the morals of society because they support evolution yet that has been done in this paper, NO ONE should have their books of Sacred scripture belittled or trashed yet that has been done in these pages, NO ONE should have to fight to keep religious instruction out of public schools or have religious view points determine public school curicula yet that has been done in Illinois (Illinois has an abstinence only law about teaching of sex education in public schools), NO ONE should have to have their child face ostracism at school because they are not of the "right" faith. Christians may find it a shock to their delicate sensibilities when someone finally decides to speak up and speak out but it is way past time that someone did. If that someone has to be me then so be it. ALL I have ever called for from the beginning, and what I have repeated over and over again is that ALL people be treated with respect and that they be granted equal rights under the law. If I have to poke holes in, expose the hypocrisy in, peoples religious faith and arguments to stress this point I will do so. As I have said if people don't like having their arguments/faith/beliefs challenged they should keep those arguments/faith/beliefs out of public forums. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 11, 2008 8:24 AM:

" And Billie, one other thing, responsible people need to speak up whenever and wherever religion is used to justify fear and hate of those that are different from you. The War on Terror will only be won, when EVERY Minister and Mullah, Priest and Rabbi stop preaching a gospel of fear and hate and start to preach a gospel of respect for differences. That is after all, what Jesus preached, and Lao Tzu, and Buddha, and Black Elk, and Krishna, and a whole host of others. "

The Question wrote on Jan 11, 2008 9:08 AM:

" If faith and facts "don't really need each other," then may I suggest you people of faith go jump off a roof? Your glorious "faith" that you can fly shouldn't be inhibited by the mere "fact" of gravity, should it? "

coonbug wrote on Jan 11, 2008 10:00 AM:

" shumphreys -- I agree with that last statement. Every religion needs to start talking about having respect and love for every human being.

Coonsey's View: www.freewebs.com/coonsey/ "

Rotty wrote on Jan 11, 2008 10:23 AM:

" Someone get me a pillow & let me know when church is out. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 11, 2008 10:48 AM:

" I never claimed to fly Question! That remark really is beneath your supposed intellect! It sounds like the snotty little kid when being repremanded says "So"? in "that tone". Believe, or not in whatever you choose. It's no skin off my un-flying nose. You seem to scream for tolerance and acceptabilty on your issues and viewpoints, but seldom offer the same to opposing ones. Oh! By the way, I DO believe in gravity although I can't see it! I can feel it though and see the results of it. I try to stay as "grounded" as possible. LOL! "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 11, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Holy cow, is Tom keeping files on his fellow posters? Better watch what you say EB. Tom, you really need to get a life, if you are really doing that. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 11, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Oops, wrong thread, but I'm sure Tom will criticise me too, for that. "

The Question wrote on Jan 11, 2008 11:15 AM:

" I never claimed to fly Question!
----
But the Christians who plan to "Rapture" and zoom around the sky like Tinkerbell do, Billie. I think they should get in a little faith-flying practice ahead of time. Avoid the rush, you know. "

Independent wrote on Jan 11, 2008 2:51 PM:

" To Penny and Billie: Well said.
To Rotty: I support speaking one's mind, but if talk of faith bores you so much, why did you bother to read about it and post a comment? Seriously.
To shumphreys: Spiritual faith provides emotional and mental comfort to people in their times of need, and can be a great source of happiness. That is a fact.
My personal spiritual faith is Christianity, so that is what I am writing about. I am sure other faiths can provide the same comfort and happiness. Christianity is just my personal choice.
Spiritual faith can motivate people to do bad things. Examples range from every day hyprocrisy to the horrors or the Inquisition.
Spiritual faith can also inspire people to do good things. This has ranged from monks preserving Greek and Roman learning during the Dark Ages to the ongoing charity of the Salvation Army. Other good examples include Joan of Arc, Gregor Mendel, C.S. Lewis, Mother Theresa, the abolitionists, and Martin Luther King and others involved with the Civil Rights movement.
Faith is connected to humans and humans are fallible. Like faith, the history of government, business, economic classes, athletics, entertainment, social activism, science and every other area of human interaction is filled with examples of greatness as well as corruption. That does not mean any of these things should be scrapped.
If spiritual faith were eleminated, the world would not be a utopia. There would still be plenty of things to fight about, and one less source of comfort and happiness.
To The Question: You are very passionate about your beliefs, but those beliefs tend to get lost in your sarcasm. "

Rotty wrote on Jan 11, 2008 3:59 PM:

" To Independent: Talk of faith does not bore me, well, to a point it doesn't. I have my faith/religion, & I will not discuss it here. Call my post an attempt at humorous sarcasm, whether you liked it or not. I was speaking one's mind, & that is what first popped into my head, after reading through the posts. Thank You for your support. Seriously. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 11, 2008 4:01 PM:

" To Independent well said, faith can be a two sided sword. Religion can be used to promote good or promote evil. Faith and religion can help people become better people or worse ones. When both are used for the worse people need to speak out and speak up, silence is complicity and all Christians get tarred in the same bucket. Shoot All Americans get tarred in the same bucket when a few Christians use their religion to promote fear and hate of those that are different.You can substitute Arabs and Muslims for Christians and Americans in the above sentences. Or Jews and Judaism. "

The Question wrote on Jan 11, 2008 5:00 PM:

" Sarcasm? Sorry. I must remember be solemn and respectful of Christians who plan to fly into the sky at the Rapture, or handle writhing snakes for their dear Lord Jesus, or jabber in tongues like twitching idiots, or beat their wives because the Bible says the man must be master, or run investment pyramids in which Jesus guarantees a tenfold return on your money. That's all that beautiful, intelligent "faith" you talk about at work, isn't it? "

Independent wrote on Jan 11, 2008 10:41 PM:

" To The Question: Sorry. I did not mean you should be solemn and respectful. I just feel you are smart enough to come up with arguments that don't make you sound like a school bully. That's what your whole flying Christian tangent seems like.
I agree with you in some respects. I don't understand snake handling at all. I think any man who beats their wife, whether religion is involved or not, deserves a beating himself. I think the perpetrators of the Omega scandal, as well as the perpetrators of Enron and countless other secular financial scams, deserve lengthy prison stays. (I can't speak for speaking in tongues. I don't know very much about it.)
You ask "That's all that beautiful, intelligent "faith" you talk about at work, isn't it? " Well, because you read my post, you know I am not shy about acknowledging Christianity's faults. Heck, I will raise you one more by saying I hate how the Pope and most of the other Christian leadership in Europe during World War II ignored the Holocaust in their backyard.
That being said, your most recent post basically listed the worst examples of a few Christians to excuse a blanket condemnation of all Christians. Those are the same type of arguments that the fire and brimstone Bible thumpers you hate so much use to dish out their own brand of hate.
C'mon Question, you can do better. "

The Question wrote on Jan 12, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Let's see if you can do better, Independent. Give me rational evidence that anything Christians believe is true, without citing the Bible, which is just a book of ancient myths. "

The Question wrote on Jan 12, 2008 10:22 AM:

" You appear to be a smart and fair-minded person, Independent. Therefore you must realize that religious belief is an extremely dangerous force, combining passionate, even fanatical, certainty with a lack of any rational accountability to facts, evidence and accepted societal norms.
People are free to believe whatever they wish. They are not free to escape the consequences of those beliefs. An introductory course in philosophy will teach you that there are three kinds of faith -- faith supported by the evidence, faith in the absence of evidence and faith contradicted by the evidence. The first is my faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. The second is my faith that a casual acquaintance will not betray me. The third is religion. There is no empirical evidence for the validity of its claims, and plenty of evidence against it -- such as the fact that deities never appear or speak in public.
People who believe the universe is controlled by all-powerful, all-knowing invisible beings who never appear or speak in public or take any discernible action have the burden of proving that these entities exists, Those who reject the very idea of such entities do not.
Empirical evidence, please. “Belief” and “faith” get us exactly nowhere.
In his “When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs,” religion professor Charles Kimball told us to watch out for these ominous signals in religious groups – 1) claiming absolute truth; 2) seizing upon an “ideal time;” citing imminent disaster or looming “end times;” 3) demanding blind obedience; 4) using ends to justify means, as in cheerful acceptance of “collateral damage” and 5) pursuing “holy war.” You will note that American fundamentalists have long since hurtled past all five sign posts of danger, shouting their hosannas all the way.
Morally, only one thing can possibly justify mass murder, and that is divine sanction in one form or another. And how do we know when people have divine sanction? We don’t. They just proclaim they have it, and open the floodgates of blood.
Religion’s purported relation to personal morality and ethical is vastly overstated, where it is not nonexistent. Real morality is born in empathy, not in fear of divine punishment. People who only act rightly because they fear punishment by some deity are not moral at all. They are cowering children, blind to both reason and morality.
In fact, rather than having a positive relation to morality, as so many faith peddlers claim, religion often works for evil ends, sometimes in truly horrible ways. During the Spanish Inquisition, Christians slowly tortured people to death in hopes that their agonized victims would embrace the “truth faith” before the end.
The real horror is that the Christians thought they were doing their victims a favor.
"

shumphreys wrote on Jan 12, 2008 11:13 AM:

" To Question you hit on it, religion and faith are irrational not rational. BUT for better and worse they are major forces in our world and can not be ignored nor should they be trivialized. "

coonbug wrote on Jan 12, 2008 11:17 AM:

" It would be nice if your JG writers would include ALL the facts when discussing a political candidate. Since you don't list this article as one to COMMENT on in your blog, I have to write to you in this manner and on this Post.****************************

Former President Clinton's Evolving Role in Campaign Raises Some Questions:
By Tom Raum **************************

When discussing Barack Obama's views on the Iraq war - this man just 'repeated' what Bill Clinton said. Mr Raum should have also shown what Barack Obama and the Talking Points Memo website reports, that being the following:
***************************************By Greg Sargent - January 12, 2008, 9:40AM
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/
***************************************
Obama defended himself against this criticism a few days ago, recalling that at the time he didn't want to criticize the war votes of John Kerry and John Edwards in the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign.

Obama accused the former president of cherry picking from his past quote:
He keeps on giving half the quote. I was always against the war...obviously I didn’t want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, `Well, I don’t know what -- you know, I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.’ He always leaves that out.****************

As it happens, Obama is right. Here is the actual Obama quote in question, from a New York Times article on July 26, 2004 (via Nexis):******************
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time. *******************

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''*******************************

So, clearly, Obama was pointing to the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time as a way of tactfully avoiding criticizing his party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees. It's perfectly clear that Obama was in fact against the war at the time. His position then -- as now -- was that the case for war had not been made and that the invasion wasn't justified. "

don wrote on Jan 12, 2008 11:28 AM:

" And if you were indeed presented with such, would you listen?
Now we are right back to Penny's point, itS useless to try and convince people of something they DO NOT WISH TO BELIEVE IN.
However, if one wishes to study the issue, there is some good stuff out there. Not all of our beliefs are just because we wish to believe it. My own personel belief does indeed spring from historical evidence and scientific, and logical arguements.
There are 3 R's for doing good history: Relevant sources, responsible method and restrained results.
To answer the question ( pun intended) your relevant sources that exist would be your new Testament writings ( question excludes); a few secualr sources who mention Jesus such as Joesephus,Tacitus and Pliny the younger. ( which is the outside sources Question requests). ONe must also examine the early apologists, and even the gnostic writings.
Once all relevant sources have been identified, you have to apply responsible method. This means assigning the greatest weight to reports that are early, eyewitness,enemy,embarrassing, and corroborated by others.
Restrained results means that historians should not claim more than the evidence warrants.
Of course, one must also be able to minumize thier own bias, which noone is exempt from...we all have them.
They can be minumized, but hardly eliminated.
How can you keep bias in check?
Consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be strong historical evidence supporting them and secoundly that the evidence is so strong that a majority of scholars, including many skeptics accept them as as historical facts that can be agreed to in this case without neccessarily agreeing on ones metaphysical beliefs.
Suggested reading might consist of ( if you like a journalist approach to investigative reporting) would be Lee Strobel's books Case for Christ or The Case for the REal Jesus for starters.
Its not an attempt on my part to convince people in what they should believe in....they can only do that themselves..however..I can share what i believe in and why...and without personel attacks upon another person or thier belief system ( which seems to be a missing element in many of these discussions from both sides)
Ya'all take care ( big smile)
Don
"

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jan 12, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. All things are possible with God. If you have faith as a mustard seed you can say unto this mountain be thou removed and it shall be removed and nothing shall by any means be impossible unto you. Faith is belief without proof. It's sort of like getting in your vehicle and putting the key in the ignition and turning it believing that you hear the engine turn over. There will always be those days when you will put the key in the ignition and turn it and the engine will not turn over. It happens to all of us but we still believe that it will. Now why is that? Because that's what the manual says that it will do. So as Christians especially us radical Christians who actually believe in the words of the Bible, we do so by faith and faith alone. Sorry question, the Christian without the bible is like a lamp without a light bulb in it. It just won't shine any light. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 12, 2008 1:49 PM:

" Independant, Don, Deep Thoughts and all other's who are "Believer's"...Save your breath! It IS wasted on Question who only listens to himself and those who are on his "sacred list" of superior intellect. We foolish and stupid Christians need not apply! Solemn and respectful? He wouldn't have a clue as to how to be either, to anyone who doesn't follow his thinking/logic on any number of subjects. Many have tried to be respectful and present their opposing views, and what do they get for it? Putdowns, sarcasm, name calling, such as idiots, and any other little pet name he can come up with is the order of the day.... As he says often(paraphrasing here) believing doesn't make it so; "fairy tales and all that rot! Well right back at 'cha Bud! Just because YOU say it "ain't so" doesn't mean it isn't! Gasp! I'm out of breath now! I think I'll save it for someone who will at least be tolerant of an opposing thought now and then. Look out folks! Incoming! LOL! "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 12, 2008 4:09 PM:

" To Deep Thoughts all things are also possible without God. It is a matter of faith, but faith in ones self, in life, & in ones fellow man.The Buddha moved mountains. The Taoist would wonder why anyone would even want to? The final crux of the matter is the Bible and how you and others choose to use it. I have said all along that it contains great wisdom for those that are willing to separate the gems from the dross. But it can also be used to promote fear and hate of those that are different from you. It is that use that we need to stifle in order to make the world a safe and better place for all of us--Believers and non-Believers. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 12, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Dear Question: I’m not Independent but I accept your challenge to give “…evidence of something Christians believe is true, without citing the Bible, which is just a book of ancient myths.” Twenty-some years ago my son – as a newborn - contracted a very serious and life-threatening malady. We took him to a doctor who did not give any treatment or medication but told us to take him home and hope something happens but to bring him back on Monday. We took him home, prayed for him and “hoped” for the best. Two hours later, he was completely cured. How do I know? It was a serious liver problem and he was so jaundiced he looked like he had a suntan. Twenty minutes was all it was between praying and seeing a visible change in appearance and behavior. We took him back to the doctor on Monday and the doctor told us he would not have believed the story unless he had seen the child himself. ########## Christians believe God answers prayer and heals. My son is irrefutable evidence. The only change between the time the doctor saw my son and he was healed was prayer. In the scientific community, a single stimulus that changes the outcome of the response or situation is considered to be causal. ########## Now, before we even go there, notice we didn’t pray INSTEAD of taking him to a doctor so I don’t think you can consider us playing God Roulette with our son’s health. ########## I have given you first-hand eye-witness irrefutable evidence of something Christians believe (the power of prayer and the ability of God to heal) coming true without citing the Bible. I can cite several additional examples but you asked for one. And finally, a Christian that has faith he can fly is one confused Christian and someone who thinks a Christian thinks he/she can fly is just as confused. You and I know he can’t. A Christian who misinterprets the “caught up” part about the rapture to mean he/she will zoom around the sky like Tinkerbell is a Christian who doesn’t know what the bible says. A person who thinks he can define “caught up” as zooming around is just as crazy. A person who claims to understand what the Bible says by just reading it and taking every single word literally is another person who doesn’t know what the bible says. Not knowing what the bible says is not limited to Christians. M@H "

The Question wrote on Jan 12, 2008 5:16 PM:

" "Look out folks! Incoming! LOL!"
----
How you flatter yourself, Billie. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 12, 2008 6:44 PM:

" To Billie Brant, I am curious as to why you take Questions sarcasm so personally? It seems to me that he doesn't pick on any particular person, he is quite ecumenical in his disdain. Actually he is a great example of why Christians should be concerned about the misuse of the Bible and their religion. He can't separate out the good from the bad any more than some Christians can separate out good non-believers from bad non-believers. Everyone gets tarred with the same brush. Isn't it better to judge all as individuals, without regard to their beliefs or lack therof? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 13, 2008 10:50 AM:

" To Mattooneratheart what do you say to the parents of a child who pray, who are good people, and whose child isn't saved? Did they not pray hard enough? Did they pray to the wrong God? There are as many examples of no cures as there are examples of "miraculous" cures. Your childs cure isn't proof of divine intervention. Children do spontaneously heal themselves.The fact that the Doctor sent you home with no medicine or treatment shows that he wasn't terribly concerned. The fact that he can't explain what happened just shows that he didn't have all the facts needed. The literature also tells that many children recover on their own from jaundice, it just takes a while for some youngsters systems to get up and running. Your child may just have been a slow starter. If your God is so loving and caring, why did he allow all the children of the Holocaust to die, why is he allowing the children in Africa to starve to death, and allowing children in Iraq to get blown to smithereens? Is it because he hates Muslims, Jews, black babies or non-Christians? If that is the answer then your God isn't any God that I would want anything to do with. "

The Question wrote on Jan 13, 2008 11:59 AM:

" I've got a nice little miracle for you. My beautiful, 35-year-old aunt had an unhealthy respect for religion's healing power, just like you. So she stopped her medical treatment and relied on a faith healer to cure her lung cancer. She died in agony, believing that she had failed because she didn't have "enough faith." And miraculously, I was permanently cured of the dangerous religious nonsense that you people peddle.
By the way, when her number was up, that faith healer died in the hospital. She was no fool. She just fleeced and preyed on fools.
Your wonderful, invisible, inaudible, nonexistent deity's awfully selective with his "miracle cures," isn't he? It's almost as if they just occur at random, isn't it?
"

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 13, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Susan, I really don't take Question's sarcasm , if that's what you want call it, all that personally. Not at all. You are partially correct when you say he doesn't single out indiviuals. I would correct that just a little. He has singled out others on occasion although it doesn't always have to do with religion and usually has lots of descriptive names for them. Yeah, I've been guilty of it too! I'm an imperfect Christian. On the other hand he DOES single out everyone who doesn't happen to see things from his perspective. I have YET to see him even consider that someone else just might have, might have a valid point. I'm not just referring to his obvious hated of religion, particularly the Christian Religion.... "He can't separate out the good from the bad any more than some Christians can separate out good non-believers from bad non-believers" you say? Are you serious? Tell him that! To his way of thinking we're ALL idiots that believe in "fairy tales". It is true we can't always separate the good from the bad. Some of the "bad" are pretty slick in portraying themselves as "good" Does the reference to "wolves in sheep's clothing" ring true? Of course it does! Charlatans are everywhere and not just in religion, but that's a discussion for another time. Unfortunately when one of these "preachers" gets caught and their transgressions are plastered all over the news, it provides perfect fodder for those who are non-believers to say "See, I told you so! How about your so called Christian beliefs now!" And you can bet your bottom dollar our old friend on these threads will be the FIRST one to issue a blanket condemnation concerning all Christians. Never mind that most of us find these types of false,self-serving preacher's and their henchmen absolutely despicable! Nope! Our heads are served up on the same platter or "tarred with the same brush". The Question has spoken! All hail him! If he says it's so, then it must be! If you don't think he's mean spirited and negative, so be it. I happen to think he is. He's a "great example" alright! Of negativity! Postive posts about anything? Nah! He seems to enjoy living in the negative. It's too bad too. He's obviously very intelligent, well read, and expresses his opinions clearly. Boy does he! You know he does have valid points to consider many times, but the way in which he presents them are so downright nasty and mean,they are lost due to his insulting way of presenting them. To put it simply, it turns some of us off that might have been willing to consider his points. An "in your face style" with fangs might be a good description. Now Question, don't pass out because I gave you a compliment, even if it was with a small disclaimer! LOL! Oh Yes! I can get in your face too!... I just happen to believe, that even with all the ugliness this world has in it, there's beauty and wonderful things in it too. We shouldn't be blind to any of it, bad and good. I WILL NOT live all of my life focusing in the bad. As in the lyrics of the Johnny Mercer ( boy that dates me!) "You've got to accent the positive. Eliminate the negative. Latch on to the affirmative, and don't mess with Mr.In-between." Now I realize it's just a song, and it's not possible to always do that. We have to deal with both + and - but I'm not going to let the negative have complete control of my life.... Now Question Darlin, you've had your "fix" of attention today. Happy? Maybe just a little smile?.... Have a great day everyone! My good day started yesterday when my Green Bay Packers( a fan for 45 years), whupped the Seattle Seahawks! Go Pack! Go Bret! "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 13, 2008 4:33 PM:

" Billie, you called him sarcastic, I consider Question "over the top". His words have an edge to them and that edge often cuts too close for many to handle. His commentary sometimes makes me look like the voice of reason! I think he is what is sometimes referred to as "crazy wise". Sure I wish he'd tone down his rhetoric but his jabs though unpleasant are still valuable. In a way it is like reading the Bible, you have to read around, and through the words, look at them upside down and backwards to get the full gist of the meaning. For Better and Worse his point of view is important and shows one of the places where religion has failed and those that want to defend Christianity need to listen to what he says and think long and hard about what they can do to make changes to their rhetoric rather than escalating the verbal abuse. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 13, 2008 5:50 PM:

" shumphreys: "Ecumenical in his disdain . . . " wasn't lost on me. That was funny. Nice touch. ########## What do I say to the parents of a child that is not saved in the same manner? If you mean to explain to them why my child was healed and theirs wasn't - there's nothing that anyone can say. God does not hate Muslims, Jews, black babies or non-Christians abe they adults or children. I will agree with you that my child's healing may not be proof of divine intervention but the challenge from The Question was to give an example of "rational evidence that anything Christians believe is true, without citing the Bible." I did that. Rational is subjective. I believe God heals . . . God healed. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 13, 2008 6:02 PM:

" Sorry . . . I hit the "Post Comment" button by mistake" ########## The fact that the doctor was did not seem to be concerned is not proof of anything other than that he did not seem to be concerned. The fact that he can't explain what happened is proof only that he couldn't explain what happened. ########## I agree that there are as many examples of "no cures" as there are miraculous cures". There's no question. I was challenged to come up with an example. I gave one.
########## If either of the actions or inactions described prove anything other than what I said they did, I challenge you to show me the proof that in this particular situation, the doctor did what he did for any specific reason you can name. Proof. A statement from the doctor, documentation that he was not concerned, documentation that he did not have all the facts needed and/or documentation my child recovered on his own. If I see that kind of proof - I will post a retraction, an apology and never write anything on this site about God again. I promise. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 13, 2008 6:19 PM:

" To The Question: What you described is not a nice little miracle. In fact, it’s a very sad story. But I do not have an unhealthy respect for religion’s healing power. I have absolutely zero respect for religion’s healing power. That is because religion's healing power does not exist. I have complete respect in God’s healing power. There is a difference. Religion can not will not save or protect or deliver anyone from anything. God can and will. ########## I clearly stated that we took our child to the doctor FIRST. We did not choose to stop or forego medical treatment . . . in fact, I was very upset that my child did not *get* any medical treatment. I wanted him to get medical treatment. Is that clear enough????? I am very sorry your aunt died with the thought that she did not have enough faith. This is completely a lie that the faith healer and some Christians tell others because they simply do not know why God chooses to heal some and not others. It’s also because a faith healer cannot heal. It is disgusting that someone posing as a “faith healer” would tell your aunt that complete lie. ########## Secondly, I am not peddling anything to you. You may choose to believe what I tell you or you may choose NOT to believe what I tell you. It is completely your decision. You may walk away from what I write at any time you choose. I will not chase you nor call you names nor be judgmental or condescending. The choice is yours. By the way – peddling infers trading something at a price. I’m not selling a thing. ########## Finally, you may call God anything you wish – wonderful, invisible, inaudible, etc. because he is all of those things. But nonexistent? Prove it. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 13, 2008 6:26 PM:

" To Mattooner at Heart you are missing the point which is that your "proof" of Gods help is not proof it is your "belief". I suggested reasons why it could be possible that what you believe is not so. Since I do not know your doctor, do not know how long ago this happened, I obviously can't prove anything. I can only point out the reasons for doubts. That is what is important about any claim of miraculous cures, or miracles. There are often logical, medical explanations, that are not available because not all the "facts" are known. Just because something happens that we can't explain doesn't mean that it was caused by God or by chance, it just means that we have no way of proving beyond a reasonable doubt one way or the other. Before we understood concepts of gravity did that mean that apples fell to the ground by the hand of God? Some people thought so. Once we understood the mechanism what was once miraculous was no longer so. Remember a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court? Imagine what King Arthur would think if he appeared in Connecticut today? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 13, 2008 7:48 PM:

" I believe on that, we can completely agree. The evidence of action (prayer) eliciting the desired response (healing) is all I have to offer. I cannot say, "It must be God", nor can you say, "It cannot be God". All I can say is that I know God heals and my son was healed and I believe that it was God. ########## The truth is that you nor I will change the other and I respect that. But I must admit it's kinda fun and very challenging to try! "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 13, 2008 8:05 PM:

" No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. Is it possible that God is a Diestic God, that she lit the fuse that set off the Big Bang and is setting somewhere laughing at all of us? Of course it is possible. It is just as possible that life is a continuous cycle of creation and recreation as the Hindus and Buddhists think, never a beginning or an end. I also like Von Danikens books that life was brought to this earth by a ship from a distant planet, like the Genesis project in the old Star Trek movies. I have no doubt that God, as Theistic being, is very real in the hearts and minds of many people. Quite honestly I don't think it matters one way or another whether any of us think that God exists. I think that what matters is what we do with our lives, our actions towards our fellow man, other living things, and our planet. Everything else is just a matter of faith or belief not truth. "

VTucker wrote on Jan 13, 2008 9:47 PM:

" "A statement from the doctor, documentation that he was not concerned, documentation that he did not have all the facts needed and/or documentation my child recovered on his own." Mattooner at Heart, are you going to give us this physician's name? So far I haven't seen where you have shared it. Surely, after such a miraculous recovery, you could have obtained some documentation from the doctor stating that your child had been beyond hope. And what was the name of this "serious, life-threatening malady?" I do believe in miracles, but it is rare to see a legitimate one. Is yours documented at all? Not providing the name of your physician, hospital, etc. raises a red flag, at least for a skeptic such as myself. Anyway, one of the most troubling aspects of faith is why healing happens for some, yet not for others. Why some children, hooked up to IVs and respirators, suffer and die from cancer while others do not. My daughter, critically ill from a ruptured appendix, dreamed of a blonde haired lady who asked her if she could help; my daughter told her to "get my Mommy." I woke up at 2:30 a.m., checked my daughter, and soon took her to the E.R. Was my daughter helped by a being who appeared in a dream, or was this vision from her delirium? For several reasons, I opt for the spiritual, angelic being. However, others suffer and die without any intervention--seemingly at random, as Question stated. Only through faith in God is it possible to make any sense of the apparent randomness, or that what appears to be random is not. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 13, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Susan, You wrote" For Better and Worse his point of view is important and shows one of the places where religion has failed and those that want to defend Christianity need to listen to what he says and think long and hard about what they can do to make changes to their rhetoric rather than escalating the verbal abuse. " You know, this statement could be applied to him ih the reverse also... Are not those of us who oppose his views not important also? Shouldn't what we have to say for "better and worse" have some validity also? Maybe as you suggest, religion fails at times but religion is man made. God isn't. GOD IS!... He won't even consider where religion, actually God hasn't failed, but prevailed! Of course he wouldn't consider this because there is no God to him. AND to drive his point home, he starts with the insults ... None of us knows what HIS plans for us are and why some are spared and some aren't. I truly feel sorry that Question lost his beloved aunt to a charlaton! Those kinds of "healing snake oil salesmen" make me sick to my stomach!.I would harbor terribly hard feelings toward them if I were in his shoes. But not all of us believe in that crap! And crap it is!...You suggest WE should think hard and long about making changes to OUR rhetoric rather than escalating the verbal abuse? You know there are many who do listen to what he has to say and decide we don't agree with it. Many of us TRY to be "decent" to him, but it does not work! For our efforts to point out our side, we get snide remarks such as "zoom around like Tinkerbell" and that's one of the milder ones. Verbal abuse? It's his forte'! He seems to revel in it. "Over the top", "edge" are other terms you use to describe this person. Are we who don't agree, not allowed to be "strong" in disagreements? One way to help stop the escalating verbal abuse as you call it, would be for him to back off just a little and consider someone else's right to feel as they do without the snotty putdowns he so enjoys spitting out. It's a two way street Susan. There have been "Christians" who have been every bit as nasty and insulting, resorting to mean spirited comments that border on extremism, and some completly "flip" to the extreme side. I don't like that either... I'd be willing to bet most of us who have opposing views to his, would be willing to "lighten up" if he showed some respect. Believe me, I've tried for months, even aquiesed to points now and then. What does someone get for it? More crap! He usually starts it Susan with his bullying style, then we fire back. You seem like a strong woman Susan. You put your "stuff" out there! If you believe someone has stepped on your toes, you sure don't put up with it! I don't mind strong arguements. I can dish it out too. I have been guilty of being snotty myself at times. I don't normally like to be that way, but I will not allow a bully to bully me. Sometimes my solution is to merely ignore it. Other times when the "ugly" comes out in me I strike back. I DO respect his intellect Susan. I also respect his right to his opinions although most of the time I don't agree with them. I just wish he would return a small potion of it to his opponents. I would love a truce or at least a softening of the "hostilities. Will one be forthcoming? We'll see. "

The Question wrote on Jan 14, 2008 5:44 AM:

" Mattooner, had you been born in the Australian outback, you would be claiming that your child's life was spared by the glory and mercy of the great lizard god Goanna.
If you wish for something to happen and it happens, that does not demonstrate that the wish caused it to happen. Correlation is not causation. "

The Question wrote on Jan 14, 2008 6:14 AM:

" If Christianity were a minority religion in the United States, as it is in some other countries, then most of the people here who proclaim it as absolute truth would instead be denouncing it as an evil cult. They don't believe in Christianity, or even know much about it, really, because they don't read or study or inquire. They believe in conformity. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 14, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Billie there comes a time when shomeone has to be the bigger person and say, "I will fight no more forever". That doesn't mean that you have to rollover bellyup. It is because people have such trouble doing this that the violence in the Middle East keeps escalating, eye for an eye, kill your mullah because you killed mine, lob a missile for your missile. It gets all of us nowhere. Tell Question to straighten up and fly right then move on. Don't get caught in the trap of exchanging insult for insult. That is a common tactic of bullies. Notice I put a stop to a few bullies earlier by refusing to play their game and it is a game in every sense of the word. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 9:37 AM:

" To The Question: First, whether or not I had been born in the Australian Outback or in the kitchen of an Outback Restaurant is of no consequence. Your challenge was to give “…rational evidence that anything Christians believe is true, without citing the Bible…” I did that. Now you are suggesting that it would have been different if I were from Australia. Maybe it would be – but I’m not from Australia or Mars. I’m from the US and I gave you evidence of something Christians believe is true. ########## Two, I didn’t wish for something. I prayed for something. Wishing is a desire that something happens. Praying is asking God to cause something to happen. What I prayed for happened. ########## Three, nobody will agree with you more than I that “coincidence does not prove causal”. I work with statistics every day. This is one of my favorite sayings. What do you have to offer that would suggest the incident is a result of coincidence? I promise I’ll listen or read if you have anything. I could give more and more first-hand stories and documented circumstances where the same things happened. You asked for evidence that any THING Christians believe is true, not ALL THINGS or EVERYTHING Christians believe being true. I did what you asked. ########## Finally, you’re adding conditions to your criteria now. “IF Christianity were a minority religion . . . “ It isn’t. ########## “. . . most of the people here who proclaim it as absolute truth would instead be denouncing it as an evil cult” That’s kind of a speculation isn’t it? You have rational evidence to support that statement?. ########## “They don't believe in Christianity, or even know much about it, really, because they don't read or study or inquire. They believe in conformity.” Do you have statistics to prove that? Do you have any research to cite that supports your theory? 75% of Americans claim Christianity as their religion. Are you saying you have rational evidence that some (or any) of that 75% don’t actually believe in Christianity or do you have any rational evidence that those who claim Christianity don’t know much about it? What constitutes “much”? Do you have any rational evidence to support those who claim Christianity don’t read, study or inquire? Do you have any rational evidence that instead of Christianity, they actually believe in conformity? ########## If you have any rational evidence of any of these, I will certainly read it. Outside of that, you challenged, I answered. God answered prayer. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 10:47 AM:

"
VTucker: I cannot give you the information you request for a number of reasons. First, I have truly forgotten the doctor’s name since this happened over 24 years ago and over 700 miles from where we now live. A lot has happened since then. I could tell you the name of the clinic where the doctor practiced and I would have no problem doing so except you still could not verify the information without me publishing my child’s name, date of birth and other pertinent information which I’m not going to do in this forum. No, I did not obtain documentation from the doctor since I never imagined that I would have to “prove” anything from this incident. At the time I was thinking “Awesome! God healed him! God came through again.” And then I went on about raising my child. If you choose to believe that my inability to provide names, dates and places makes the story skeptical at best, that is your prerogative. I cannot change your mind. If you believe I am doing so because the event didn’t occur, you are incorrect. ########## I cannot understand how you can say it is rare to see a genuine miracle. People are healed frequently without scientific or medical explanation. Remember . . . if science or medicine can’t explain it, then it can’t be science or medicine. Because if it could be, there would be evidence. But there’s no evidence. But it must be science or medicine because there must be a logical explanation. But there isn’t a logical explanation . . . and on and on and on. ########## Not giving the name of the doctor or hospital has been explained and it would make no difference anyway. You know as well as I do that they could not release information on a patient. Yes, I know my son could give them his consent and on and on and on and on and on ad nauseum. But there is absolutely no need to go there. I’m not the one who has the problem in believing that God can and does heal. I cannot explain why God heals some and doesn’t heal others. I cannot explain why God “allows” good things to happen to bad people.
Folks, this all started when The Question challenged someone to give him “. . . rational evidence that anything Christians believe is true, without citing the Bible.” I did that. I cannot explain every situation before or since, I cannot explain God’s thinking with regard to every situation. I can only explain what I saw. I did that. ########## Somehow, I knew that if I met the challenge and gave the rational evidence requested that the “Yeahbutts” would emerge. You know, yeahbutt we need more evidence . . . yeahbutt that’s just a coincidence . . . yeahbutt God isn’t really real and you’re a jelly-headed irrational right wing neo-Christian militia-starting Bible thumping hypocritical gay-hating religious fanatical blind idiot following in lock step like sheep going to slaugher. ########## Rational is in the eye of the rationalizer so if you don’t think it’s “rational” enough for you, go ahead and blast me with the best insults you got – I can take it. I can’t give you any more evidence than first-hand eye witness. Is there really any better evidence than that?
"

The Question wrote on Jan 14, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Ira Chernus — When it comes to religion and politics, here's the most critical question: Should we turn the political arena into a stage to dramatize our quest for moral certainty? The simple answer is no -- for lots of reasons.

For starters, it's a direct threat to democracy. The essence of our system is that we, the people, get to choose our values. We don't discover them inscribed in the cosmos. So everything must be open to question, to debate, and therefore to change. In a democracy, there should be no fixed truth except that everyone has the right to offer a new view -- and to change his or her mind. It's a process whose outcome should never be predictable, a process without end. A claim to absolute truth -- any absolute truth -- stops that process.

For those of us who see the political arena as the place where the whole community gathers to work for a better world, it's even more important to insist that politics must be about large-scale change. The politics of moral absolutes sends just the opposite message: Don't worry, whatever small changes are necessary, it's only in order to resist the fundamental crumbling that frightens so many. Nothing really important can ever change.

Many liberals and progressives hear that profoundly conservative message even when it's hidden beneath all the reasonable arguments about church and state. That's one big reason they are often so quick to sound a shrill alarm at every sign of faith-based politics.

They also know how easy it is to go from "there is a fixed truth" to "I have that fixed truth." And they've seen that the fixed truth in question is all too often about personal behaviors that ought to be matters of free choice in a democracy. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 11:21 AM:

" To The Question: First, whether or not I had been born in the Australian Outback or in the kitchen of an Outback Restaurant is of no consequence. Your challenge was to give “…rational evidence that anything Christians believe is true, without citing the Bible…” I did that. Now you are suggesting that it would have been different if I were from Australia. Maybe it would be – but I’m not from Australia or Mars. I’m from the US and I gave you evidence of something Christians believe is true. ########## Two, I didn’t wish for something. I prayed for something. Wishing is a desire that something happens. Praying is asking God to cause something to happen. What I prayed for happened. That’s rational evidence of something Christians believe is true. ########## Three, nobody will agree with you more than I that “coincidence does not prove causal”. I work with statistics every day. This is one of my favorite sayings. What do you have to offer that would suggest the incident is a result of coincidence? I promise I’ll listen or read if you have any. I could give more and more first-hand stories and documented circumstances where the same things happened. You asked for evidence that any THING Christians believe is true, not ALL THINGS or EVERYTHING Christians believe being true. I did what you asked. ########## Finally, you’re adding conditions to your criteria now. “IF Christianity were a minority religion . . . “ It isn’t. ########## “…most of the people here who proclaim it as absolute truth would instead be denouncing it as an evil cult” That’s kind of a speculation isn’t it? You have rational evidence to support that statement?. ########## “They don't believe in Christianity, or even know much about it, really, because they don't read or study or inquire. They believe in conformity.” Do you have statistics to prove that? Do you have any research to cite that supports your theory? 75% of Americans claim Christianity as their religion. Are you saying you have rational evidence that some (or any) of that 75% don’t actually believe in Christianity or do you have any rational evidence that those who claim Christianity don’t know much about it? What constitutes “much”? Do you have any rational evidence to support those who claim Christianity don’t read, study or inquire? Do you have any rational evidence that instead of Christianity, they actually believe in conformity? ########## If you have any rational evidence of any of these, I will certainly read it. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 11:24 AM:

" VTucker: I cannot give you the information you request for a number of reasons. First, I have truly forgotten the doctor’s name since this happened over 24 years ago and over 700 miles from where we now live. A lot has happened since then. I could tell you the name of the clinic where the doctor practiced and I would have no problem doing so except you still could not verify the information without me publishing my child’s name, date of birth and other pertinent information which I’m not going to do in this forum. No, I did not obtain documentation from the doctor since I never imagined that I would have to “prove” anything from this incident. At the time I was thinking “Awesome! God healed him! God came through again.” And then I went on about raising my child. If you choose to believe that my inability to provide names, dates and places makes the story skeptical at best, that is your prerogative. I cannot change your mind. If you believe I am doing so because the event didn’t occur, you are incorrect. ########## I cannot understand how you can say it is rare to see a genuine miracle. People are healed frequently without scientific or medical explanation. Remember . . . if science or medicine can’t explain it, then it can’t be science or medicine. Because if it could be, there would be evidence. But there’s no evidence. But it must be science or medicine because there must be a logical explanation. But there isn’t a logical explanation . . . and on and on and on. ########## Not giving the name of the doctor or hospital has been explained and it would make no difference anyway. You know as well as I do that they could not release information on a patient. Yes, I know my son could give them his consent and on and on and on and on and on ad nauseum. But there is absolutely no need to go there. I’m not the one who has the problem in believing that God can and does heal. I cannot explain why God heals some and doesn’t heal others. I cannot explain why God “allows” good things to happen to bad people.
Folks, this all started when The Question challenged someone to give him “. . . rational evidence that anything Christians believe is true, without citing the Bible.” I did that. I cannot explain every situation before or since, I cannot explain God’s thinking with regard to every situation. I can only explain what I saw. I did that. ########## Somehow, I knew that if I met the challenge and gave the rational evidence requested that the “Yeahbutts” would emerge. You know, yeahbutt we need more evidence . . . yeahbutt that’s just a coincidence . . . yeahbutt God isn’t really real and you’re a jelly-headed irrational right wing neo-Christian militia-starting Bible thumping hypocritical gay-hating religious fanatical blind idiot following in lock step like sheep going to slaughter. ########## Rational is in the eye of the rationalizer so if you don’t think it’s “rational” enough for you, go ahead and blast me with the best insults you got – I can take it. I can’t give you any better evidence than first-hand eye witness.
"

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Billie Brant is a Packers fan??? Mattooner @ Heart is a Packers fan. I've been a Packers fan as long as Billie Brant! ########## Is it true that the "G" on the middle of the field and on the helmets prove that Green Bay is God's team????? "

The Question wrote on Jan 14, 2008 11:44 AM:

" "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence; and in this respect ministers of religion follow gospel authority more closely than in some others."
— Bertrand Russell "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 14, 2008 3:10 PM:

" LOL Mattooner At Heart regarding the G for Green Bay Packer's! I don't know if your question OR assessment is correct or not, but I DO KNOW that G stands for "Great", "Go", "Go Get'em", "Grand", etc!! LOL!.. We used to have such fun when Toby was still here, because he was a (dare I say it, shhh,) Bears fan. For years we, meaning my daughters and one friend were Packer fans. We used to take turns going to various homes, including ours, for the Pack-Bear Games. WE took a lot of abuse! WE were outnumbered. LOL! Gradually we stopped getting together except for the friend(Pack fan) and just Toby, myself. daughter, and granddaughter. The other daughter had moved to Oregon Guess who was outnumbered then? LOL! The abuse was heaped back on the abuser in spades! LOL! Even the daughter in Oregon phoned to put in her two cents worth when WE won, which was more often than not! After our friend moved away, Toby would still call him, sometimes tracking him down in hotels out of town and blast away IF the Bears won! Lots of fun, insults,pranks, and all sorts of goings on added to the fun! Our friend , the Packer fan, wrote the greatest eulogy for that big Bear fan. He included some of the funny stuff about him, his wit, his enjoyment of life as well as stating what we all knew, that he was an honorable and honest man. We got some laughter( he would have loved it) at his service, even from the minister, which served us well to remember who and what he was to himself and to us, an honorable,honest and well loved man! Oh how I wish he were here now! Even though those dratted Bears beat us both games this year, Guess who will be playing for the NFC Championship next week! Would I rub it in? You bet I would!!! LOL! Hey! I'll be thinking of you next week! Go Pack!!! "

The Question wrote on Jan 14, 2008 3:11 PM:

" As Steven Weinberg observed, with or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 14, 2008 3:40 PM:

" Many people claim that they are Christians because they expect to sanctify major events in their lives in a church==baptised, married and buried.If the US had Civil Celebrants like Australia, I wonder how many would still claim to be Christians? Civil Celebrants are licensed by the state and can conduct weddings and burials. Many people go to church, actually attend, because they like the companionship of their friends and neighbors not because they are devout believers. Without knowing how a question on a survey is worded we can't vouch for the accuracy of what the survey reports. So as far as the statement that 75- 80% of Americans claim that they are Christians, I think it should be taken with a very big grain of salt. In the end what people claim isn't as important as what they do. If 80% are Christians the state of our country doesn't speak very highly for the success of Christianity in turning out good, responsible citizens. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 14, 2008 3:57 PM:

" The Question asked for "rational" evidence. What is rational evidence? Is something based on a belief not fact rational? Websters isn't much help since it just describes rational as something sensible. In which case something that defies facts would be irrational. Although something based on a belief where facts are unknown lies in that grey fuzzy area inbetween. Just because all the information isn't known doesn't mean that the information isn't there, or that something happened by the hand or will of God, or by pure chance (MaH you said you like statistics), it just means that all the facts aren't in--yet! Any time anyone tries to prove something based solely on a belief they will find themselves called irrational especially when others can put forth "reasonable" explanations for what might have happened if all the FACTS were known.Remember in most court cases "reasonable doubt" is all that is needed to acquit. "

don wrote on Jan 14, 2008 4:01 PM:

" Very True Shumphrey about your observation about many christians not living up to thier calling.
I find it interesting reading in the New Testament that Jesus had some pretty harsh words to say about the religious authorities of his day, which coincidently had him put to death for it.....I find the same thing happening in many of todays churchs
But, all that really doesn't have anything to do with an actual REAL personel relationship with Jesus. sometimes..religion and a personel realtionship have very little in common with one another.
Although ...hmmnnn 80/% claim to be Christian doesn't speak well for the state of our country...perhaps the state of our country doesn't speak well for its citizens at all...Christian or other wise.
Besides..I could say there is a differance with people who SAY they are Christian..and those who ARE Christian.
Never the twain shall meet....... "

The Question wrote on Jan 14, 2008 4:05 PM:

" "If 80% are Christians, the state of our country doesn't speak very highly for the success of Christianity in turning out good, responsible citizens. "
----
You are right, and astute, as usual, Susan. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 14, 2008 4:27 PM:

" Don late last year we got into a discussion on these pages about your very point, what is a "good" or "true" Christian. One gentlemen said that Catholics aren't Christians and from what we have heard recently in the press some don't think that Mormons are Christians.One gent felt that only those who believed exactly what he believed were "true" Christians. He was also one who was the most hateful towards those with other religious beliefs and he considered himself the only "true" Christian around.I asked the question then and I will ask it again, "What makes for a "good" or "true" Christian? How do you tell the "good" from the "not so good"? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 5:22 PM:

" Regarding The Question’s recent posts: Astute observations, all. Regarding the moral absolutes, I’m sure we could find some common ground such as the irresponsible taking of the life of another for arbitrary reasons would probably fall on the “not real good” side of an absolute spectrum. Don’t read “abortion”, “assisted suicide”, “euthanasia” or any other condition into the equation, just the simple taking the life of another. Do you suppose we’d agree on that????? ########## How true it is that it is dangerous to go from “there is an absolute truth” to “I have the absolute truth”. IMHO, what’s even worse is “I have the absolute truth and I’m going to shove it in your face until I completely smother you to death with it.” Could we agree on that????? ########## There is also no doubt that without religion, good people would do good things. It happens all the time – I see it every day and so do you. We definitely agree on that. ########## Oops . . . the “ . . . success of Christianity in turning out good, responsible citizens” comment is a little over the edge for me as it seems to be somewhat subjective, but the truth is, I could even agree with THAT statement as well. ########## What’s my point? My point is that there is some common ground upon which we both can agree. ########## Religion is not perfect. The religious are even less perfect. Heck, some religious aren’t even close to “good”! I realize that. I would never try to tell you that just because a person thinks they are and seems to be religious, they are the smartest, most enlightened, righteous and virtuous people on the planet. I would be a total idiot to claim something like that. ########## There are the religious who do good, there are the non-religious who do good – and sometimes better. There are non-religious who do bad just as there are the religious who do worse. ########## Religion does not make the religious perfect and I’m not going to insult you with the cliché “. . . just forgiven”. I think if we could get past some terrible and unfortunate experiences some people have had with those who claim to be “religious”, we might be able to agree on a number of points and have a real good exchange of thoughts. Ya think????? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 5:41 PM:

" Regarding the shumphreys recent posts: You’re right, we don’t know how the survey question was worded and it may have been worded in such a way that would skew the answers. If the statistics were significant only to the 24% point, it would still make a majority and a 24% statistical significance is just slightly more accurate than me chucking darts at a board blindfolded. ########## Your question regarding “rational evidence” is very valid as well. I believe I may have written something like “Rational is in the eye of the Rationalizer” or some such hatchet job on a good cliché like that. I agree. ########## In fact, all of your points are very valid (as are The Question’s) and they show deep thought, a good grasp of logic and I enjoy reading and responding to them (as long as The Question keeps it relatively civil). (Hey, I’m only asking him/her to be “relatively” civil!) ########## I generally agree with both of you on most of your points. I have not always been a Christian – even though I was raised in the church on 15th and Wabash in Mattoon. I understand your points of view . . . I’ve had them. ########## Even though I agree that all the facts may not be in yet, at what point do we decide they are? What if all the facts are NEVER in? The conclusion I made with regard to my experience is based on the facts I had then and still have today. If other facts come up . . . I have a broad enough mind to consider them. ########## Finally, “Reasonable Doubt” is a term used in American jurisprudence. Reasonable Doubt may have no meaning in other countries. (Or it may have significance in SOME countries or all countries except three or whatever). Reasonable Doubt has very little significance when it comes to things spiritual. ########## I have tried to be very careful in my posts NOT to quote scripture since you and I and some of the other regulars don’t always agree on the Bible as authority or the degree of accuracy so my experience combined with my knowledge is all I have upon which to base the decision I made – and that is God heals. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 5:49 PM:

" Regarding Don’s recent posts: I couldn’t agree more. There is a world of difference between religious and Christian and even at that, there are many who claim to be Christian but may not behave as though they are. It’s just like attorneys. 98% of the attorneys give the other 2% a bad name. (My attempt at humor). ########## And to answer shumphreys response: The gentleman who said Catholics aren’t Christian is wrong. I’ll stand on that absolute based on one of the scriptures I sent you last night via email. ########## To think that only those who believe exactly as I believe is arrogant and proof that one doesn’t understand the meaning of being a Christian. ########## Now . . . what makes for a good or true Christian? THERE’S the question I’ve been waiting for! "

don wrote on Jan 14, 2008 6:00 PM:

" shumphrey
directions for what you wish are found mainly in the New Testament.
REcommended reading would be matthew, the first several chapters.
Mt 22:36
Teacher, which is the greatest commandmant in the law? and he said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandmant. And a secound is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandmants depend all the law and the prophets.
As to your evil 'Christians" try reading what Jesus had to say about the Scribes and Pharisees ( Church leaders of thier day) in Mt ch 23.
You can tell a tree by its fruits, can good fruit spring from a bad tree?
Can good water flow from a bitter well? ( this last part from memory)
hope this helps
Take care
Don "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 14, 2008 6:02 PM:

" Don you made another good point that I hope doesn't get overlooked, "perhaps the state of our country doesn't speak well for it's citizens". This is an election year and I cringe everytime I hear a politician say this is the "greatest country". That hubris has brought down more than one nation in our world's history. We are a great nation but not the greatest.That kind of hubris turns a blind eye to unpleasant little problems such as crime rates, unemployment rates, poverty rates, hunger and homelssness and the rightness or wrongness of Our War on Terror. "

don wrote on Jan 14, 2008 6:15 PM:

" yes, thank you for noticing. doesn't speak well for the community, christian or otherwise does it?
Perhaps if more of us actually practiced what we preached....it would be differant.
oh you will find that one in Matthew also. chp 23.
The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses seat so pratice and observe whatever they tell you but not what they do; for they preach,but do not practice.
Good words
Don "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 6:17 PM:

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 6:19 PM:

" shumphreys asked the $64,000 (to show how old I am) Question, “"What makes for a "good" or "true" Christian? How do you tell the "good" from the "not so good”? For this, I’m going to have to use some scripture. I think you and others will accept my use of scripture since the question is about Christianity and the Bible is the “rules and regulations” of Christianity, so here goes. ########## In Matthew 7:20, a parable (or metaphor if you wish) is seen using a tree’s fruit to represent a Christian’s action, speech and/or behavior. It says, “ . . . by their fruit you will recognize them.” And so it is. If a person is truly a Christian, their actions, speech and behavior will reflect their “fruit”. (Now everyone is entitled to a slip up, an angry moment, a mistake or simply a mistake. (Did you know that this web site won’t accept the word we use to describe a threaded fastener with either a Phillips or flat head on it in relation to messing up? Whoa! My bad!) We’re not talking about each little action and movement, we’re talking in general and over a protracted period of time.) ########## Now that begs the next logical question, “What fruit am I to look for?” The answer to that question is in Galatians 5:22-23, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” This is what one should look for in the actions, the speech and the behavior of one who professes to be a Christian to determine if they might qualify. ########## There are also some other indications as well. As Christians, we are to “Love (our) neighbor as (our)self.” This command is so important to Christianity that it is listed in the New International Version of the Bible ten different times in ten different places; the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18), the Gospels (Luke 10:27 for example), in the Pauline Letters (Romans 13:9) and in James (James 2:8). That’s frequent enough for me to think it’s a pretty important phrase. ########## In my relationship with those of you in these threads, “Loving My Neighbor” means doing all I can not to judge anyone for what they say or how they respond to me. I try to treat everyone with respect regardless of what they say about me or what I post. I try to be respectful of your position and do my best to refrain from trying to convert you (or anyone else) to Christianity. ########## But I’m by no means perfect . . . I screw up. Last night I felt a little “righteous indignation” coming on as I was reading some of the posts in some of the threads and I may have come across a little stronger than I usually do or that I intended to do. I messed up. I didn’t represent Jesus well in one or two of my posts last night. I regret it. I’m sorry. The good news for me (pun intended) is that God knows whether or not I’m sincere about regretting it, whether or not I really mean I’m sorry for it so I believe he forgave me for it. He won’t be happy if I do it again tonight but if I do, I’ll have to start all over with it and learn how to write threads without coming across as angry or judgmental. ########## This, I believe, is how one can tell the difference between a “good” or “true” Christian and a “not so good” one. It has nothing to do with perfection, it has everything to do with attitude. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 14, 2008 7:05 PM:

" Now for the million dollar question. How do you tell a "good" person from a "not so good person"? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 7:13 PM:

" Well, 30 years ago I would have said "Don't trust anyone over 30." Now that I'm over 30, it's more difficult. I guess - and I do mean guess - it's pretty much the same way as you tell a "good" Christian from a "not so good" Christian . . . by their actions and how they treat you. That's my best guess. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 8:12 PM:

" I apologize for posting twice. I guess I'm hitting the button twice. I'll try to be more careful. "

The Question wrote on Jan 14, 2008 8:51 PM:

" " Regarding The Question’s recent posts: Astute observations, all. Regarding the moral absolutes, I’m sure we could find some common ground such as the irresponsible taking of the life of another for arbitrary reasons would probably fall on the “not real good” side of an absolute spectrum. Don’t read “abortion”, “assisted suicide”, “euthanasia” or any other condition into the equation, just the simple taking the life of another. Do you suppose we’d agree on that?????
------
Yes. There we agree. And we need not read "capital punishment" into the equation immediately either. But does divine sanction qualify as an "arbitrary reason?" "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 14, 2008 9:01 PM:

" They call hitting the button or clicking twice, "senior moments" Mattooner! LOL! I'm guilty also! The real senior moments though, are when you post on the wrong article. Been there! Done that! LOL again! I usually try to blame miskeying and mispelling words on them too. I don't have very good typing skills(never took typing in school) so I use the two finger method. I've become farly fast at it, but I do goof up now and then. So haul out the senior moment explanation whenever possible. We've earned it! By the way, I remember the $64,000 Dollar Question TV show too! I remember rabbit ears and snowy TV screens for cryin out loud! LOL! "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Mr. (or Ms.) Question: If you are talking about using "Divine Sanction" as some kind of justification for one individual to take the life of another arbitrarily, then absolutely not. This would refer to some people claiming to be Christian taking the life of - say - a doctor who performs abortions. There is no way a Christian could possibly claim "Divine Sanction" as some kind of mitigating circumstance. It is absurd! "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 9:27 PM:

" Wait a minute! I want to be clear! What I am trying to say is that claiming "Divine Sanction" in the circumstance I stated a few moments ago would definitely qualify as an "arbitrary reason". Arbitrary as in without justification or absent any kind of brain in his/her head. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 14, 2008 9:30 PM:

shumphreys wrote on Jan 14, 2008 9:51 PM:

Independent wrote on Jan 15, 2008 12:53 AM:

" To Question: Sorry for the late reply. Busy weekend, long Monday. Thanks for jumping things up a notch. I was serious when I said I think you are smart. I can make no claims to being smart, but I strive to be fair-minded.

As for your call for rational evidence, I am the wrong person to ask. I know what I believe, but I don't go around trying to teach my beliefs in a public classroom or basing my votes on it. (I don't trust politicians that wear their religion on their sleaves.)

This is not the evidence you are looking for but I can say that my faith has gotten me through some dark times. Prayer has focused my mind, and helped me realize what matters in life and what does not. Perhaps there are other ways I could have accomplished the same thing, but I am satisfied with the role faith has played in my own personal life. I have also heard personal accounts over the years of faith giving people the strength to overcome drug addicton, make it through long prison stays, carry out relief projects in dangerous locations overseas, and deal with other hardships. Again, there may be other ways they could have accomplished the same thing, but faith worked for them in those cases.
As you know from my prior citation of the Inquisition, I am familiar with the fanatiscim that faith can spawn. I know that faith has been the excuse for a lot of atrocities over the years.
I also know that religious fanaticism is not limited to Christianity. Just look at the British teacher that was almost whipped in the Sudan for letting her young students name their teddy bear Muhammad. I also know that faith does not have a monopoly on fanaticism. A lot of wars and atrocities have been committed throughout history due to ethnic or racial hatred, or quests for economic, political or territorial dominance.
As I said in a previous post, humans are fallible and anything we get involved in has a tendency to get fouled up.
Still, I am an idealist enough to believe that everyone has the potential for good in them. I have seen some of this good first hand, particularly in regard to charity and forgiveness. Enough of this good has been performed by Christians that I will never discount my faith despite the bad that has been done by some who share it.
My question for you is do you think all Christians are bad people? If not, can you elaborate on this? "

The Question wrote on Jan 15, 2008 5:22 AM:

" It may be absurd to claim Divine Sanction for an unjust/arbitrary act but it has and is done all the time. Which leads to the question of what is a just and what is an unjust act? Who decides? Your God or mine, your interpretation of Divine Scripture or mine and which Divine Scripture should we defer too? Your good judgment or "my better" judgment?
----
Susan has hit the nail on the proverbial head. Divine sanction is used to justify murders and wars with tedious regularity, and since Christians claim truth through "revelation" — which is to say, through a flatly unverifiable assertion — who is to say who has it? You? Me? David Koresh? Joan of Arc?
When you can claim access to absolute, untested, unverifiable truth without evidence, this is an inevitable problem that leads to predictable horrors. "

The Question wrote on Jan 15, 2008 5:39 AM:

" This is interesting. The theocrats are on the move:
Chris Hedges —
Here is an event I have no intention of honoring: American Religious History Week. OK, it's not official yet. But it is spelled out as Resolution 888 in the bowels of a House committee, sponsored by Republican Congressman Randy Forbes and backed by thirty-one other Representatives. This is an insidious attempt by the radical Christian right to rewrite American history, to turn the founding fathers from deists into Christian fundamentalists, to proclaim us officially to be a Christian nation. If you want to know why Mike Huckabee is dangerous, why his brand of right-wing Christian populism is so frightening, you should read this resolution.

Sent to me by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the resolution has passages like this: "Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible" and "Whereas the United States Supreme Court has declared throughout the course of our Nation's history that the United States is 'a Christian country', 'a Christian nation', 'a Christian people', 'a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being' and that 'we cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion....'"

The resolution is staggering for its sheer volume of falsehoods about our history, our system of government and our democracy. It asserts that Thomas Jefferson "urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive 'the patronage of the government.'" There are seventy-six preambular clauses like these, leading up to four resolution clauses, the third of which states that the House "rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources."

"House Resolution 888 is perhaps the most disgraceful, shocking and tragic example yet of the pernicious and pervasive pattern and practice of the unconstitutional rape of our bedrock American citizens' religious freedoms by the fundamentalist Christian right," says Michael "Mikey" Weinstein, head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and a former White House counsel for President Reagan.
"

The Question wrote on Jan 15, 2008 7:46 AM:

" For a revealing take on moralistic Christianity, check out this short film trailer:

https://www.hypocritenation.tv/trailer.php
"

The Question wrote on Jan 15, 2008 8:28 AM:

" My question for you is do you think all Christians are bad people? If not, can you elaborate on this?
----
No, of course not. As a matter of fact, I think Jesus was a great moral hero who helped defend and enshrine the individual conscience against the demands of conformity. I think when Jesus said that he is the way, he meant that people should not slavishly follow dogma but do what he did — challenge immoral authority and conformity and face the darkness down alone. That's the hero pattern of Joseph Campbell, and it's what religion is at best — a metaphor for human experience. Trying to make it literal is not only stupid, it's inevitably evil.
So today, most of the people who call themselves "Christians" are not. They are conformists, often bitter and strangely vicious and lacking in compassion. If Jesus showed up, they'd line up to crucify him again. Lucky for him he's not going to show up. "

Independent wrote on Jan 15, 2008 11:05 AM:

" To Question: Thanks for the reply. Glad to hear you do not think all Christians are bad people. That shows fair mindedness on your part as well.
I kind of side stepped your question to me. You asked for evidence. I will honestly say I cannot give you evidence. Wish I could. I have never tried to present by beliefs as facts. I try to use my faith as a source of internal comfort and moral guidance while not inserting my faith where it does not belong. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I have never burned a book or tried to change a science text book, and I like to think most other Christians have not gone to these extremes.
I know that everyone does pay when people use faith as an excuse for such extremes. However, we unfortunately pay the price for other people's actions all the time whether they are religious or not. Second hand smoke causes cancer, drunk driving kills people every day, overeating raises all of our health insurance, sporting events have become an excuse for riots, television and Internet entertainment causes people to withdraw from the real world, our cars pollute the atmosphere, and our disposable packaging overflows our landfills. We all share the blame for bad in this world, not just Christians.
Even the actions of the most well meaning and admirable people to the secular cause can hurt that cause. Ralph Nader inadvertantly drew votes away from Gore and Bush reaped the benefits.
Christianity does not necessarily equate to the right wing. Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are liberal icons who have strong Christian roots. Barak Obama talks openly about his faith without pandering and that has been an assett to him.
Christianity is not a monolithic entity. It is composed of millions of people with varying beliefs throughout the world. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 11:25 AM:

" shumphreys & The Question: Great comments. There is no doubt that Divine Sanction for an unjust/arbitrary act has been used frequently and (you read it here first) will likely be used over and over again. Every point that the two of you made is well thought out and goes right to the heart of the matter.
##########
I’m going to address all of the points and questions but I want to make sure we’re on common ground. I have no problem going deeper later but until we can get our common ground and foundation a little stronger, I’m going to address these points and questions with regard only to the taking of another’s life outside of war, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, capital punishment and situations like that. Not that I’m reluctant or unwilling to take on these issues, but like I said, I’d like to get a little more stable ground built up. Also, you know I’m taking the Christian stance on this, so my reference book and sole source will be the Bible. I’m thinking you’re looking for the Christian viewpoint on these topics and I’m going to do my best to represent Christianity and especially Christ as well as I am able.
##########
Outside of Christianity, truth may be situational or relative. Outside of Christianity, morality may be situational or relative as well as right and wrong. Outside of Christianity, any number of principles may be situational or relative. But within Christianity, there are several principles that are absolute. This is a broad statement and there are mitigating circumstances to every action, but generally speaking, several principles are absolute. One of these principles is the taking of the life of another.
##########
Divine Sanction is claimed frequently by people like David Koresh, Timothy McVey, Jim Jones, and the list goes on. Claiming Divine Sanction and actually *having* Divine Sanction are two different things. When you hear someone who has committed a heinous act and claims “God told me to do it”, you have to dig a little deeper. God does not change His mind. He is the same today as He was when He sent the Ten Commandments and He is the same as when Jesus walked the earth and when the apostles wrote the letters that became the New Testament and the same as He will be tomorrow. We can understand God’s nature through the Bible. The first thing I look at when I hear “God told me to do it” is “Does the action described line up with God’s nature and character as I know it from the scripture?” “Does this action reflect the fruit of the Spirit that I listed earlier?” “Does this action indicate loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, etc.?” “Does this action indicate that the person was ‘loving his neighbor as himself’?” If not (and usually in the kind of situations we are looking at, it does not), then God could not have possibly ordained the action. I will stand on stating that this kind of action is wrong, period, end of story. (I’m sure I’ve forgotten some circumstance that someone can think of that might be mitigating but save your fingers . . . I’m standing on the general statement I just made).
##########
We (Christians) should not use *anyone’s* better judgment in these situations . . . we should use God’s judgment. We may have “better” judgment but He has “best” judgment. Who decides? For Christians, God decides. For non-Christians, I have no idea who decides. To which interpretation of Divine Scripture should we refer? For Christians, it would be the Holy Bible as we know it to be as the Old and New Testaments. For non-Christians, I do not know whose interpretation one should use.
##########
The comment “When you can claim access to absolute, untested, unverifiable truth without evidence, this is an inevitable problem that leads to predictable horrors” is true for the most part. The only part I would disagree with is the horrors being “predictable”. I cannot fathom all the horrors that could occur if one were to act based on the claim of *sole* access to absolute, untested, unverifiable truth. And no, I’m not doing that when I refer to the Bible as a source. That’s a topic for another time but for just right now, let me have that point. We can clear the questions I’m sure you have as we go on.
##########
The statement “since Christians claim truth through "revelation" — which is to say, through a flatly unverifiable assertion” is something with which I take a little issue. Truth has been “revealed” to me through the reading of the Bible. The truth of this revelation has been there all along, I just hadn’t understood it yet. To me, it’s a revelation but to others, it’s something they’ve known for quite a while. I don’t know the exact circumstances with regard to the “revelation” but just as before, any “revelation” of truth one claims came from God has to line up with his character which – again – has not changed and never will. A “revelation” that I am supposed to have an affair in Jesus’ name? Laughable. A “revelation” that I am to go out and rob a bank or convenience store? Bull! A “revelation” that I am not to pay the IRS or that “God Hates Fags”? Irresponsible, shameful, disgusting and a serious disservice to God, Jesus and Christianity. How’s that for absolutes?????
##########
I hope I’ve addressed the questions and comments. Thanks. M@H

"

shumphreys wrote on Jan 15, 2008 11:50 AM:

" To Those who haven't read Joseph Campbell you should. One of his books is "The Hero With a Thousand Faces". He also did a series on the Masks of God. I said once before that the Real Jesus would be a much more interesting man than the Disneyesque caricature he has been turned into. We are back to where all of this started several months ago when I wrote a letter to the Editor, "People can use Bible to be better or worse." Sept. 7 and then on Oct. 10 "Bible being used to justify hate,fears". Am I right or what? "

The Question wrote on Jan 15, 2008 12:44 PM:

" THIS is why religion is so dangerous.
-----
The United States Constitution never uses the word "God" or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from "We the People." However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it's time to put an end to that.

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

When Willie Geist reported Huckabee's opinion on MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski was almost speechless, and even Joe Scarborough couldn't immediately find much to say beyond calling it "interesting,"

Scarborough finally suggested that while he believes "evangelicals should be able to talk politics ... some might find that statement very troubling, that we're going to change the Constitution to be in line with the Bible. And that's all I'm going to say."
"

The Question wrote on Jan 15, 2008 3:18 PM:

" "Christianity does not necessarily equate to the right wing. Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are liberal icons who have strong Christian roots. Barak Obama talks openly about his faith without pandering and that has been an assett to him.
Christianity is not a monolithic entity. It is composed of millions of people with varying beliefs throughout the world."
----
You could have fooled me. Then why is television dominated by nasty, ranting nut jobs like the Rev. Pat Robertson? If you Christians want to be taken seriously, or seen as something less than a menace, you need to publicly oppose those people. "

VTucker wrote on Jan 15, 2008 3:20 PM:

" "And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
Question, do you know what amendment Huckabee is referring to in that quote? "

VTucker wrote on Jan 15, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Mattooner at Heart, you can say that truth has been revealed to you through the Bible, but that is a matter of your personal belief rather than verifiable fact. What is your authority for interpreting this truth, other than your own opinion? Many Christians interpret biblical truths quite differently. Anyway, many people do not believe that the Bible contains special revelation. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 15, 2008 3:29 PM:

" To MaH when a Christian is faced with moral or ethical choices that affect only his/her actions I have no problem with that person referring to the wisdom of their concept of God or the Bible as they read it in making their decisions. I do object when a Christian uses his/her interpretation of the Bible, or his God (claiming Divine Sanction) as justification for those actions that affect all of us: such as laws against abortion, decisions about public school education, marriage, legal rights,etc. AND that is what all of this is about.Whether you like to admit it or not Christians have, and continue to use the Bible and what they claim is guidance from God to control the lives of all people.I shouldn't have to trust your interpretation of the Bible or your God any more than you should have to trust my God and my sacred scriptures or even my interpretation of the Bible to determine public policies. Actually inside or outside Christianity, TRUTH is never absolute, it is situational and relative. the bible is full of contradictions "do you take an eye for an eye" or "turn the other cheek"? Is polygamy ok or is it not ok? How can you justify the command in Leviticus against homosexuality and then ignore all the other commands in Leviticus without making a situational choice? Just look at the wide range of opinions on these pages of people who all claim that they know the TRUTH. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 3:30 PM:

" shumphreys, you are right on target with your comment. I recall the letters to which you refer and I probably threw in my two shekels on them as well. People *can* use the Bible to be better or worse or *for* the general good or to denegrate. There’s no doubt about it. There are many Christians that comb through the Bible to find the slightest shred of a mention of their actions to justify them and say “See? The Bible tells you to do this!” I could piece some scripture together myself to justify some pretty sleazy stuff but as you and I have already agreed, context is critical.

But just like using Divine Sanction to justify a number of things that are simply not right for a Christian to do, people use the Bible too. But I see the “justify” thing as “Everyone else is doing it so I thought I could do it, too.” Yes, the Bible is used for all kind of actions from “less than desirable” to brutal and heinous. But just because the Bible is *used* for something, doesn’t mean it’s used correctly. It could be used for a doorstop, too but that wasn’t the original intention for it. And it's not only the Bible that is used to justify some unsavory behavior. You and I could list several documents that are abused in that manner.

However, you did pique my curiosity with something you wrote . . . you described Jesus as a “Disneyesque caricature he has been turned into”. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that because I believe you are right that Jesus is an extremely interesting man. My curiosity is getting the best of me . . . . . . . .
"

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 3:45 PM:

" VTucker: You are right on target . . . it *is* a matter of my personal belief. But I also stated earlier in the same post that I was going to take the Christian viewpoint in the exchange of ideas in this thread

However, would you agree that “Loving thy neighbor” is a good thing? Would you agree that we should pay our taxes? Would you agree that men are not infallible and will fall short of expectations? I think you would. These are the kind of truths to which I refer. These truths and guidelines are in the Bible. You may think that most of these are common sense but look at the last statement. How many times have you heard of people who claim to be Christian following a certain minister or evangelist? Does Jim Jones come to mind? How about David Koresh? One should not follow a particular minister or evangelist and the Bible tells us this. A Christian follows Christ. To some, this is revelation . . . even though you and I may not think so. *This* is the kind of truth to which I refer.

What is my authority for interpreting this truth? Keep in mind, this is the Christian viewpoint so you’ve been warned. God is my authority for “interpreting” this truth. But the truths I’ve listed in these threads isn’t the far-reaching earth-shattering revelatory truths that a lot of people claim have been revealed to them through a visit from the Most Holy. These are very simple truths. Love God. Love your neighbor. There’s nothing really revelatory about either of those far-reaching principles.

I’m also aware that many people do not believe the Bible contains special revelation. Again I must ask, “What is so revelatory that the Bible contains about Christian principles that cannot be believed?” Before you gaze at the screen totally aghast, keep in mind we’re starting out basic here and not addressing the “Can God make a rock so big even He can’t lift it?” kind of stuff yet. One last thing to remember . . . I’m taking the Christian viewpoint and *not* the “religious” viewpoint.
"

shumphreys wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:04 PM:

" A Disneyesque caricature is homogenized and sanitized. All (or most) ethnic characteristics are removed, only the good is presented never the less then good. Pochohantas is a great example look at a picture of the real woman then look at the Disney character. Read the story of Jamestown and their relationship to American Indians and then watch the Disney movie. Another character is the young girl (is it Jasmine?) in Arabian nights. You can hardly tell that figure from Pocohantas. Everything from noses to eye shapes to skin tones, to hair texture and style, you could almost put a little skin color on Snow White and not be able to tell her from Jasmine or Pocohantas. That is what I mean by Disneyesque. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:09 PM:

" shumphreys: Don’t think I won’t admit it . . . I’ll *readily* admit that Christians use the Bible to *attempt* to control the lives of others. And I wouldn’t want you to trust *my* interpretation of the Bible to guide *your* life. Again, I refer to the Bible, but that’s because we’re discussing the Christian viewpoint, but the Bible is clear about that. “. . . continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” is found in Philippians 2:12. *You* are responsible to God for *your* actions and how *you* treat others. And God will not accept “But M@H said I should do thus and so.” That’s not gonna fly. But I must insist that with regard to *some* truths within Christianity, absolutes *do* exist. Again, we’re just setting some groundwork here. The real good discussions are yet to come.

Your points with regard to the “eye for eye vs the turn the other cheek”, polygamy and the passages in Leviticus are all well taken. We’re now getting into the concepts of grace, curse of the Levitical or Mosaic Laws. I hope by now you will trust me at my word that I *will* get into those things if you wish . . . but the basic understanding I want to convey at this point is that Christians are to put God first, they are to love their neighbor (which also means “respect thy neighbor”, obey the laws of the land and other very basic tenets of behavior. If we can completely agree on those few points without reservation, I think we can get into some real great discussions.

Also, please let me say that nobody died and made me the “Supreme Interpreter of Scripture for Those in Darkness”. I hope nobody thinks that I think I am. I am not. I’m just one person crying in the wilderness, so to speak. You (and others) are questioning and I’m trying to answer as best I can. I’m no theologian but nobody needs any degrees to understand God and I’m honored and excited to tell you about Him.
"

shumphreys wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM:

" To MaH I am not interested in going deeper into discussions of Biblical interpretations. We may never see "eye to eye" nor should we have to in order to be "civil". AND being civil is what all of us have been talking about. I have tried to point out from the beginning that there is a common thread that runs through the Bible both Old and New Testaments, the Upanishads, the Tao teh Ching, the Buddhist Sutras, the Analects of Confuscius, the writings of many of our great Philosophers and Theologians, the books of our childhood (Snow White, Cinderella) the Chronicles of Narnia, The Ring Trilogy and even poor little Harry Potter. That message is what you are talking about as being the most important one for Christians, "love thy neighbor". Rabi Hillel was asked to recite the Torah while standing on one foot and he said, "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you". I pointed out that first appeared in the Analects of Confucious. The message is that ALL that matters is how you treat your fellow man (or in the case of some fellow creatures). NOW how do we get others to accept this simple statement as the guide for their relations towards those that are different from them and for decisions about public policies? It is as I think you would agree, exactly what Jesus would want them to do. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:34 PM:

" I understand now the term “Disneyesque” and how it applies to Jesus. Are you ever right! Jesus was not a Caucasian, blue-eyed man (http://tiny.cc/smfIt), nor did he likely have the kind of silky smooth complexion we see in the brownish photo like this one: (http://tiny.cc/EVwjy). Jesus was Jewish. Jesus was a carpenter. He probably had a weather-worn complexion, rough hands and look like any old regular Jewish carpenter would look like. However, when you look at before and after photos of Michael Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . I’ll just let it go at that. :) "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:43 PM:

" The Question wrote on Jan 15, 2008 12:44 PM:
" THIS is why religion is so dangerous.

The United States Constitution never uses the word "God" or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from "We the People." However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it's time to put an end to that.

I’m not questioning you one bit on this (pardon the pun) but I gotta know the source of this information. Not that I doubt you but that I’ve gotta read this for myself. Until I can get a grip on this, all I can say is, “Oy vey!”
"

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 4:59 PM:

" shumphreys: I respect that you have no interest in going deeper into discussions about the Bible. I certainly do not want to coerce or force my particular faith and beliefs on you – not that I have any illusions as to my ability to do so. It’s just that a number of people believe the Bible to contradict itself and the chapter of Leviticus is generally a prime example. I cannot keep you from continuing to believe that the Levitical Laws contradict some or all of the New Testament and I wouldn’t try. But I was just thinking perhaps a viewpoint other than those to which you’ve been accustomed would cause you to revisit this contradiction and maybe come away with a slightly different take. After all, isn’t that what you and I are trying to do . . . ask each other to take another look at information to understand the other’s viewpoints?

I would definitely agree that “loving thy neighbor” is exactly what Jesus would want people to do. It *must* be. He says so. But just as a very teeny tiny weentsy spec of a dot of a point of clarification, loving thy neighbor is the *second* most important commandment. Loving the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, etc. is actually number one. But I’m glad there’s only two . . . it makes it much less difficult for me to forget.
"

The Question wrote on Jan 15, 2008 5:01 PM:

" Mattooner, You can find the full story at http://www.rawstory.com. Also, I happened to hear it on MSNBC early this morning. You can watch the video of Huckabee's remarks at Huffingtonpost in the Politics section. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 15, 2008 5:14 PM:

" What we are trying to do is find some common ground that all of us can agree to that if put to work would help make this world a better place for all people. The first commandment is for Christians. I am not a Christian and it doesn't apply to me. The second commandment as I pointed out is a common ideal held by all the worlds great religions and one if we would follow would make life much better for all of us. PS: I don't see contradictions in Leviticus, I only point out that to insist on the absolute TRUTH and authority of one aspect, (homosexuality is a sin) and ignore all the other commandments is hypocritical. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Question: I followed the URL you gave me and watched the three minute video. Thanks for posting it here for me. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 6:04 PM:

" shumphreys: We have found our common ground in loving thy neighbor as thyself. On that point we can see eye-to-eye and we agree completely that if everyone in the world would put that little five word phrase in practice, it would definitely make the world a better place. No question, we’re in total harmony there.

With regard to the first vs second commandment: I was not trying to sneak one past you there. You are correct that the first commandment is for Christians and I’m not suggesting that you as a non-Christian are obligated to follow the first commandment. My comment regarding the first vs second commandment was in response to your statement of “exactly what Jesus would want them (not you) to do”. All I was doing was stating that Jesus would want them (not you) to do both. I have to be totally true to my beliefs here and state it’s what Jesus would *want* you to do but God respects your right to make up your own mind about what you believe and He will not interfere with your choices.

Please be aware that I am not trying to convert you here or disrespect your point of view. I’m by no means telling you that as a non-Christian you are supposed to follow Biblical guidelines by any stretch. I’m not trying to convince you of anything in regard to Christianity except to try to explain *why* Christians believe as they do. Whether or not you agree with the belief is up to you . . . but sometimes knowing *why* people do and say what they do can break down barriers that we both know exist. You have been kind enough to share the *whys* of your beliefs with me and I assumed that you would be interested in knowing the *whys* of Christianity as well.

Finally, probably the most grievous sin non-Christians accuse Christians of committing is that of hypocrisy. And there’s no doubt Christians are very often guilty as charged. To insist that Leviticus states homosexuality is a sin and that’s that without following all the dietary rules and sacrificial rituals laid out in Leviticus *is* hypocritical. While that may surprise you to read from me, that is why I was offering to discuss Biblical principles with you in more detail. I was just trying to explain the *whys* of the ability of Christians to do exactly what you see as hypocritical (and as you describe it, rightly so) yet not believe they are being hypocritical. It’s not because they’re just so hard-headed and stiff-necked that they think they’re right regardless of the facts, that’s all.
"

shumphreys wrote on Jan 15, 2008 7:20 PM:

" To MaH I and others here understand Christians very well, the good and the not so good. Often when someone discovers that someone else doesn't believe what they believe they: assume that the non-believer is ignorant and needs to be "straightened out". That is often seen as being "patronizing" or as "prosilytyzing" (can't spell that word)or as "self-righteous" by the person who might see themself as smarter/wiser than you! "

VTucker wrote on Jan 15, 2008 8:19 PM:

" Mattooner at Heart, I am a Christian, as people who've been posting here for awhile probably know. I've been reading your posts and am not sure what you're trying to say about Leviticus. Just tell us straight out what you're thinking. To me, it comes across as if you're being disingenuous and playing word games. Anyway, most Christians would say that it isn't hypocritical to condemn homosexuality, yet ignore Levitical laws about clothing and diet, because homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament. That is simplifying the issue, but basically is what's taught. Actually, it's simplifying it a lot, since people latch onto condemning homosexuality yet forget the New Testament issues commands about women wearing head coverings and all of that. And more to the point, the New Testament condemns gossip, slander, lying, etc. Since most Christians have trouble with these things now and then, it is easier to ignore such prohibitions and focus on the ones against homosexuality--which is completely "other" and easy to condemn. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 9:15 PM:

" VTucker: I can tell from your posts that you too are a Christian. Forgive me if I came across as playing word games as that is not my intention. My intention was to try not to go after some of the tougher issues until later. I consider the Leviticus situation one of the many “tougher” issues because a lot of people use Leviticus to point directly to the hypocrisy of Christianity. You’ve taken most of my thunder by simply stating in one sentence what usually takes me six sentences to say, and that is that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. I guess I was too concerned with trying to prepare to explain the concept of "Law vs Grace", "Redeemed from the Curse of the Law", etc. to cut to the chase and state succinctly what you have. And to make matters worse – at least for me – is you said it better than I could. Thank you for jumping in. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 15, 2008 9:43 PM:

" shumphreys: I have done everything I could do to tread on eggshells to make sure I did not give you the impression that I thought you or anyone else was ignorant or needed to be “straightened out”. Neither you nor anyone else needs “straightening out”. I have done all I know how to do so as *not* to be patronizing or to proselytize anyone. I have no right to be self-righteous as there is nothing about anything of who I am or anything I have done to be self-righteous about. And by no means am I smarter *or* wiser than you.

All this bandwidth I have used today has been with one thing on my mind and that is to give non-Christians a view of Christianity without sermons, judgment, condemnation or accusation. I couldn’t care less whether you or anyone else understands Christians because half the time *I* don’t understand them and I’m not convinced some of them even understand *themselves*. I’ve begged repeatedly “Please don’t judge Christianity or Christ on the words and deeds of Christians.” Somebody once said, “The only thing wrong about Christianity is Christians.” Christianity is *not* about Christians! And I’ve been trying to talk about Christ and Christianity and not Christians. And the first sentence in your last post tells me you and others understand Christians therefore need no further explanation. That’s fine. Maybe then you can explain Christians to *me*!
"

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 16, 2008 12:21 AM:

" You hit the nail on the head with your last post Mattooner with your response to Susan who wrote..." To MaH I and others here understand Christians very well, the good and the not so good." Your answer... "And the first sentence in your last post tells me you and others understand Christians therefore need no further explanation. That’s fine. Maybe then you can explain Christians to *me*!.... I'm sure she will! "

The Question wrote on Jan 16, 2008 5:37 AM:

" "I’ve begged repeatedly “Please don’t judge Christianity or Christ on the words and deeds of Christians.”
---
I'm afraid that's all we have to judge religion by, and I will continue to do so, on good advice.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
— Matthew 7:16 "

VTucker wrote on Jan 16, 2008 7:02 AM:

" No offense taken, M@H, and hopefully none given. In response to your statement about judging Christ by the actions/words of Christians, Scripture itself indicates that's what we're supposed to do. And to expect, if we claim to be Christian. "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us." Also, there's that verse about us being "epistles of Christ." I have read more than one story about people coming to faith after meeting Mother Teresa. Not by anything she said, but simply because of her manner, and her touch--people sensed God's presence. Through her, Christ was able to connect with others. "

don wrote on Jan 16, 2008 7:06 AM:

" Well, I would hazard a guess and say that Penny has made her point that arguing about it ain't gonna convince anyone.
There is however still a very good case for proving that indeed The Christ, Messiah, Yeshua, Jesus did exist, Strong evidence that shows he did all the things he said he did......if anyone would just look.
Everyone is free to reject or accept him....free will..
God won't force anyone......Why should we think we can?
God has made himself plain to see, easy to believe in and evident throughout all creation.
Ya just gotta wanna go look for him..if you don't want to......your on your own......and I/we just got to accept that.
I for one will only share with those who wish to hear.....and the door opens...I can share my own faith.......share...not cram it down there throats....
so...which tree are you? ( for all)
Don "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 16, 2008 7:36 AM:

" Question: Very good point you made, as usual. But let’s take a closer look at that very passage. It says “Ye shall know *them* (Christians) by their fruits.” It does *not* say “Ye shall know *it* (Christianity) by their fruits.” And the fruit of Christianity is *not* Christians.

Were I to judge non-Christians by their fruits – or by any other standard - I’d start by judging Adolf Hitler and applying what I know about Adolf Hitler to all non-Christians, finding some characteristic I didn’t care for and claiming “See? You’re all alike!” While I’d have the right to do so, it wouldn’t be *good* judgment nor accurate.

You already know how to judge Christianity since you’ve quoted from the instruction manual. Start your judgement from there. And from reading your posts, I know you already know how to judge Christians. You’ve got the source to judge Christianity (the Bible), and God has given you the ability to discern knowledge about Christianity – not something He gives everyone but something that is evident in your writings. Once again, please judge Christianity on Christianity’s merits, not the merits of Christians.
"

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2008 8:15 AM:

" To MaH what all of us (I think) have been trying to get across is this very simple message, "all men are created equal they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among these are the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This means all men without regard to race, ethnicity, religious preference or lack therof, sexual preference, gender, age, ability or disability. Their creator and it makes absolutely no difference what they call that creator, Jehova, Allah, Krishna, Brahman, happy chance. Equal rights includes the right to be treated with respect and equal rights under the laws. My purpose in these posts is to expose the hypocrisy, the underlying hatreds and the fears that people have towards those that are different. AND if possible to get them to find one little bit of common ground that all can accept that if practiced will help each person reach their full potential and become a better person and help all of us make the world a better place for all of us. That common ground as you have admitted is found many places in the Bible, in the simple statements "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It makes no difference how you interpret the Bible or how I interpret the Bible. It makes no difference what I think of Christians or Christianity as a religion or what you think. I told you once before, you can't apologize for other peoples behavior you can apologize only for your own. Question made the comment a few posts ago, "if you Christians want to be taken seriously, or appear as less then a menace, you need to publicly oppose those people." Christians need to speak out against the fears, the hate, the hypocrisy because if they don't their silence is complicity. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Don none of this is about Doctrine, Right Beliefs, TRUTH, Christianity per se, or Christians in particular. That is what Penny doesn't understand any more than you, or MaH, or Mr. Vanatta, or His or Her Child, or Billie. The fact that you can't see beyond your concept of "right belief" shows that you are stuck on something that is totally irrelevant, and that your idea of "right belief" is actually wrong. Once again the ONLY thing that matters is how people treat their fellow man and that is as much a part of Christianity as it is a part of Islam and all the other worlds great religions. Wherever and whenever, religion of any shape or form, is used to justify fear and hate of those that are different, to justify laws that affect all people, people of compassion and wisdom need to speak up and speak out. If that means they have to attack a few "sacred cows" to expose the hypocrisy and hate to the light of day then so be it. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2008 12:19 PM:

" To All I did it again, I sent an answer to Billie on the "Taking of a human life" post. So I suggest folks tune in to that letter to see the answer so I don't have to repeat it here. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2008 12:28 PM:

" to Question I just got back from a trip to town. On the way I listened to AM 580 and David Inch just happened to interview Michael Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. You can google that name. Talk about good timing. If that mans information and crusade doesn't convince people of the need to speak out against the "Christianizing" of America, nothing will. "

father bob wrote on Jan 16, 2008 12:32 PM:

" it won't be blue and gray, it will be blue and red. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 16, 2008 1:37 PM:

" As usual, I completely agree with the spirit of what you wrote. You are completely correct in that regard. And I’ve even decided not to nit-pick what you wrote and try to explain the differences in our beliefs using the Bible in that regard. I have only two statements in regard to your well-thought-out and on-the-mark post – and I’m not being facetious with that comment – I truly believe all of your posts are well thought out and the spirit of your posts are on the mark.

The two statements are:
1. If it makes no difference what I (you) think of Christians, why would you want to “poke holes in, expose the hypocrisy in, peoples religious faith and arguments”, what’s up with “Christians use their religion to promote fear and hate of those that are different”? And even though you could make the same statements about other religions, why did you choose Christianity as the example? And if it makes no difference what you think about Christians, explain why you would want “ . . . Christians (need) to speak out against the fears, the hate, the hypocrisy . . . “? If it doesn’t matter what you think, then why would you determine a group about which it doesn’t matter what you think to do something that might make you change your *mind* about what you think of them? It *does* matter what you think. It matters to *you*. It matters to *me*. It matters to a number of people who read your posts. It matters to those who read your book. Your point of view is important. To those that read your material, it matters what you think about all the topics about which you write – after all, what you think is how you write.

2. “If you Christians want to be taken seriously, or appear as less then a menace, you need to publicly oppose those people." Christians need to speak out against the fears, the hate, the hypocrisy because if they don't their silence is complicity”. I’m publicly opposing those people. I’m vehemently opposed to those who claim to be Christian but lack the basic fruit to which The Question refers earlier. But there is no way the conclusion can be drawn that Christians’ silence is complicity. Christians’ silence is Christians’ silence. There could be a gazillion reasons why all Christians don’t speak out about any one topic or groups of topics – complicity may be one reason for sure, but I can tell you that it's not the *only* reason. Generalizations are generally incorrect.

If you’re looking for just one Christian – just one - to speak out about the venomous hate, fear and hypocrisy some “Christians” spew and use the Bible to back them up . . . . you’ve found him. Here I am. I’m on your side. Now let’s see how we – you and I – can go about spreading a little respect, tolerance and open-mindedness among people regardless of their religious beliefs or absence of them. Are you in?
"

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2008 2:58 PM:

" Silence is complicity because it leads to: holocausts, genocide, Hitler and Idi Amin, to bullying in schools of children who don't fit the mainstream, (because children who grow up hearing denigrating remarks about others often take name calling and verbal abuse a "little" to far), to ultimate acts of rage and defeat by young people who have grown up in an atmosphere that denigrates others that are different (the last shooter was from a religious family), suicide bombers, the abuse of political power to push for a specific religious agenda (Christianity here and Islamic law in Arab countries), the hate in our own military against Jews and the attempts to Christianize the military, to gay bashing, and the sanction of murder of family planning doctors, to calling people immoral and a threat to society who accept the reality of evolution and whose religious beliefs are different, because the quiet "little" remarks escalate and get out of hand, because if you are a Christian you will speak up for the rights of those who can't or won't speak up for themselves--"the least you do for them you do for me". "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2008 3:11 PM:

" I may have just done it again and sent a post to the other letter. You asked why we are adressing Christians and Christianity. I have explained before in earlier posts a quote from Tolkien, paraphrased, it isn't ours to master all the tides of the world but to do what is in us for the time and place in which we are set, uprooting the evil in the field so that we can leave clean earth to till for those that come after. As far as I know there aren't any Islamic or Jewish extremeists in Coles county but there are Christian extremeists and some who hold no beliefs that are extremeist and would do away with all religions. I'm not willing to go that far! I accept the Dalai Lamas statement that all the worlds religions have the capability of producing caring and more compassionate people. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 16, 2008 3:23 PM:

" Let me clue you in to something Susan, I try VERY hard to be understanding of other's beliefs. I have friends who are not believer's in my particular faith, some of whom have NO religious faith at all. This does not mean that I like them any less, nor do I go around belittling them for their lack of it. My son-in law is from India and he IS NOT a Christian. Do I love him any less because of it? Again the answer is NO! Tolerance? Me thinks you could use a little dose of it my dear. Irrelevant? We're(the names you mentioned) stuck in something that's irrelevent and our "right beliefs" are actually wrong? Says who? You? Irrelevancy is in the eye of the beholder as is religious faith or the lack of it. You actually think because you say it's irrelevent, it is? To whom? You maybe, but not to me. Christians, (I'm speaking for me here as I can't speak for others) don't share your conclusions but do we think your ideas are irrelevant? To you, my assessment of you being wrong is wrong to you. Just because I say so, does not make it so to you! BUT I wouldn't say your ideas or beliefs are irrelelvant! That would be a slap in the face Susan, to dismiss your ideas in that manner. I guess it's tit for tat then huh? Stalemate! Penny was correct in her assessment that columns such as hers spark debates on both sides of the issue. She was also correct in surmising that probably no ones minds are going to be changed because of it. As far as speaking out against those who "preach" in the name of The Lord such as the hateful group from Topeka Kansas, Fred Phelps and his bunch, I have SHOUTED it from the rooftops, publicly! I have no patience with the flim flam faith healers and some con artist preachers on TV who are ripping folks off!I have said so time and time again AND again here and in other places! Pat Robertson is at the top of my list! You Susan, for all your rhetoric here about tolerance, seems to me to fall a teeny bit short when it comes to faith based people, especially Christians. You're very clever with your words and dance around it, but it's there just the same. Oh, you give token mentions to other forms of religions and say all of them need to shape up, but I don't buy it. Wrong? Am I wrong? In your eyes yes. In mine no. There we are again at a stalemate. I do respect your( and others) right to disagree with me or anyone else, but I also respect my right( and others) to do the same. "

The Question wrote on Jan 16, 2008 4:12 PM:

" By the way, Susan, I've always found that sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger. "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 16, 2008 4:32 PM:

" I wouldn't try eating those sacred cow burgers in India Question! It might cause a riot! "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 16, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Folks, if y'all would like to continue the back-and-forth posturing and dancing around an issue, y'all are gonna have to do it without ol' M@H. I've stated about eight or nine times that we're on the same page about the "Love thy neighbor" thing and all I seem to get is that it's not enough to take the "Love thy neighbor" position but now I have to take it for others' reasons or I haven't really taken it.

I quit . . . you win. I love my neighbors . . .shumphreys, The Question, Billie, VTucker, etal. I really do. I enjoy this correspondence. But if agreement includes agreement for the same reasons . . . I'm out. I'll be back on another topic I'm sure . . . Till then . . . You have not convinced a man because you have silenced him.

Love to all . . . M@H "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jan 16, 2008 5:50 PM:

" At last the reason that Question is so cold towards the bible and the God that doesn't exist. Just because your relative stopped taking her medicine and died does not have anything to do with whether God is God or not. Many people die because of ignorance. Faith in God is not an easy task. It takes diligence and perserverance. There will always be questions to why did this not happen but that doesn't change the fact that God is God. And for Ms Humphreys, please wake up! There is no cure for some diseases out there in the world but there is documented evidence that there was a miracle that took place. I'm sorry but there is no other God but Jesus that can perform miracles and you cannot heal yourself. You may take the right steps to get your body to heal the way that it was created to function but you still have to give God the creator the credit for the healing! Nice try though. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2008 6:10 PM:

" To MaH, Question and Vicky you might help clarify as well, I want to make sure I have this right. Did MaH get mad because I pointed out the website about Military Religious Freedom and say that we need to be diligent about keeping the Christianizing at bay? Did MaH expect the Question and I to become Christians, or accept the Christianizing of America because we reached a point of agreement that Christianity does teach about "do unto others" and "love thy neighbor"? Did he get mad like Billie did because I said that a persons religious beliefs are irrelevant to the issue of respecting the rights of others? Fill me in. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2008 6:17 PM:

" To Deep Thoughts 45 are there "many gods" or "many names for one God". You think that Jesus is divine I don't. You believe in miracles I don't. You believe that the Bible is "the word of God" I believe that the Bible is a good book no better or worse then the worlds other sacred texts. Does that make you a better person then me? OR does that just make you different from me? If you say your beliefs make you better I will say that that very statement proves otherwise. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 16, 2008 6:27 PM:

" M@H isn't mad at all. There is no anger in ol' M@H's heart whatsoever. You have every right to attempt to keep Christianity at bay. I didn't for one moment dream that you nor The Question would change and accept Jesus because of what I wrote. I couldn't expect you to accept the "Christianizing of America". And I did not take issue with the relevance or irrelevance of religious beliefs about anything.

I'm sensing that I'm coming across as some kind of phony that says one thing but there's a hidden meaning in there. That ain't the case folks.

I wasn't being snide or facetious when I said I loved those with whom I disagree. Golly gee . . . just because we disagree is no reason to start a hate campaign.

Sorry I came out of retirement from this thread . . . I just think I've done all I can do here. Like Arnold said . . . "I'll be back" PLEASE! Remember he said that as an actor and not as a politician! I'm not trying to start ANYTHING Republican/Democrat, left/right, conservative/liberal here - I just thought that would be a humorous way to close.

"

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 16, 2008 6:51 PM:

" What I meant to say was: "I wasn't being snide or facetious when I said I loved those with whom I disagree. Golly gee . . . just because we disagree is no reason FOR ME TO HATE SOMEONE OR BECOME ANGRY WITH THEM.

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.
"

The Question wrote on Jan 16, 2008 6:51 PM:

" "There will always be questions to why did this not happen but that doesn't change the fact that God is God."
----
I was aware your God didn't exist even before my aunt died her horrible faith-healer death. That was just one of many things that confirmed the fact. Sorry. "God isn't God," after all.
"

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 16, 2008 9:14 PM:

" This time you are wrong Susan. I wasn't mad. It's just your assumption I was. I stated my case perhaps strongly, but mad? Nah! If I were sweetie, you would know it for sure! My use of exclamation marks(!) doesn't neccessarily mean anger. Spirited! That's it!!!Your words here Susan.... "Did he(meaning MaH( get mad like Billie did because I said that a persons religious beliefs are irrelevant to the issue of respecting the rights of others? You were wa-a-a-ay off the mark in your attempt to make me look mad. ... In your previous post you wrote..."The fact that you can't see beyond your concept of "right belief" shows that you are stuck on something that is totally irrelevant, and that your idea of "right belief" is actually wrong. Judgemental aren't we? THEN you go on.." Once again the ONLY thing that matters is how people treat their fellow man and that is as much a part of Christianity as it is a part of Islam and all the other worlds great religions.... I never argued the point that we should respect other's Susan. Read my "mad "post again and you'll see that I said.. "Let me clue you in to something Susan, I try VERY hard to be understanding of other's beliefs. I have friends who are not believer's in my particular faith, some of whom have NO religious faith at all. This does not mean that I like them any less, nor do I go around belittling them for their lack of it. My son-in law is from India and he IS NOT a Christian. Do I love him any less because of it? Again the answer is NO!... I feel at least for me, my choice of faith which is Christian is the "right one for ME" and many others semm to think it's the right one also for them. I'm not going to apologize for it..."So..... I'm going to take your advice Susan( can you believe it?) which is..... "Billie there comes a time when someone has to be the bigger person and say, "I will fight no more forever". That doesn't mean that you have to rollover belly up.".... The words of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe of Native Americans ring true here, at least for now! As you suggested it doesn't mean I've gone belly up,not by a long shot. The "forever" part is just going to take a rest for now. Most of the comments here are getting to be redundant anyway. As my daughter who lives in the beautiful state of Oregon where Chief Joseph and his people once roamed, I'm going to use an expression that's common there now. I'm saying "Hooves up!" for now at least. This mare is going to the barn to rest up! LOL!...See ya Mattooner! "

Rotty wrote on Jan 16, 2008 10:05 PM:

" Excellant post, Billie!!!! HaHaHaHa!!!! You Rock!! My evening was just made! Good night all. LOL! ;) "

Billie Brant wrote on Jan 16, 2008 10:18 PM:

" Goodnight Rotty! "

The Question wrote on Jan 17, 2008 6:10 AM:

" Here's what happens when your glorious "faith" is used to run public policy.
FEMA's website listed the Rev. Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing as second in the list of charities that would speed relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina. In 2004, Operation Blessing gave half its donations to the Christian Broadcast Network, Robertson's ranting whack-job TV channel.
Maybe Robertson decided it would be best to just have "faith" that somebody else would help the Katrina victims, and put the emergency donations into his personal coffers. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 17, 2008 8:20 AM:

" Billie I am glad you "got" the message. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 17, 2008 12:01 PM:

" Ahh . . . Mr. Question . . . doggone you . . . you came up with a fresh look on this thread and now I've already put in writing that I'm retired from the thread.

Now I have to keep my word about not throwing in any more comments on this thread but your post is sooooooo tempting. It's not tempting me to get nasty or beligerent or judgmental or anything like that . . . just tempting me to respond.

Would you do me a favor? Would you kindly remember your post for when I come out of retirement? I'd *love* to address that. However, in the interest of honesty and trustworthiness, I'm afraid I cannot respond here. I've retired from this thread and I'm going to stay retired. M@H "

The Question wrote on Jan 17, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Jim Gerard
—
Pretend you're a Hollywood studio exec and you have a pitch meeting with a writer. He comes in and says: "O.K., let me start with a little back story. It's the twenty-first century, but still millions and millions of people believe in this invisible super-ghost who lives somewhere way, way up in space, see, and he created the entire universe and saw everything and knew everything that had ever happened or will happen -- like a super giant security camera in the sky. The people who believe in him think of him as a magic helper who protects and watches over them. It's as if Santa Claus worked for the NSA -- He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake and engaged in suspected terrorist activities, etc.

"Yet, even though this ghost has, like, all the super powers of all the superheroes rolled into one, plus other powers that no superhero has even conceived of, and he has hundreds of millions of followers, he is so insecure and possessive that he demands everyone on Earth follow him or else he condemns them to an eternity burning in a nonstop forty-hundred-alarm fire, boiling in lava-like **** and battery acid and other really fiery stuff and being constantly stabbed by devils with pitchforks. Also, two thousand years ago, he sent his only son back to Earth to redeem humanity from their wickedness by getting hung on a Cross and, you know, the whole Mel Gibson treatment.

"Now, here's where the story takes off: After two thousand years watching humanity slaughter each other and get really ****-faced and have wild orgies and just, like, slack off, except for a few people that invented stuff or tried to urge people to follow the super-ghost, the son plans to return to Earth from outer space. But before he does, he's going to beam up to heaven all those people who believed in him, levitate them right out of their clothes, wherever they are -- on an airplane, asleep, on the toilet, in the grave!

"Yeah, corpses and cadavers and ghouls blasting out of the ground! It's Saw Meets Night of the Living Dead with a touch of Superman. I mean, throngs of people filling the sky like locusts -- it's an air traffic controller's nightmare!" "

VTucker wrote on Jan 17, 2008 2:36 PM:

" Aw, c'mon M@H! You can see that the Question really wants to hear from you again! :-) Besides, everyone is entitled to change his/her mind once in awhile. "

father bob wrote on Jan 17, 2008 2:40 PM:

" okay......now, after the Huckster's proclaimed opinion of the separation of church and state and attack of the constitution of the united states of america, how many of you "christians" think he's on the right track? "

The Question wrote on Jan 17, 2008 2:47 PM:

" My apologies, Tooner, if my satiric posts tempt you. But I write as the spirit moves me. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 17, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Sometimes I wonder if it is the spirit or "spirits" that move the Question. Question, Father Bob and Vicky did any of you check out the Military Religious Freedom Foundation? There is alot more fodder there for Question to chew up and spit out. Just google the name. "

VTucker wrote on Jan 17, 2008 6:35 PM:

" Susan, I spent some time reading from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation site. Personally, I was as disturbed by the militarization of Christianity as by the Christianization of the military. The coercive aspect of all this is what's most problematic. Something obviously needs to be done at the top. Those who feel coerced in any way to convert, attend religious services, etc. need to take action to make sure regulations (and laws) are followed. As for Campus Crusade, it has been around for many years setting up ministries at public colleges and universities. It is (or at least it is supposed to be) one choice among many, when it comes to preferences of religion--or not. Again, it's the coercion that's wrong. Right now, I don't think any of this is a particular threat. I believe this military/religion combo can only go so far. There are not that many people in the United States who support right-wing Christianity. I suspect changes will be made after the next election. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 17, 2008 8:32 PM:

" Darn you, Question! Darn you to heck! You entice me out of retirement with two or three good posts and then VTucker decides to throw something in and father bob posts a constitutional comment and – I mean – what’s a fella to do? The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak! I guess I have no choice.

Okay . . . here we go . . .

The Question wrote on Jan 17, 2008 6:10 AM:
"Here's what happens when your glorious "faith" is used to run public policy.”

You know, it’s a crying shame when you have to consider the *source* of the news along with the *content* of the news to determine whether something is really *news* or just a recap of information with just enough twist to make is sound like it’s either worse or better than it is – just to serve a larger purpose. But that’s the way it is with Democrats or Republicans or – really – anyone with an axe to grind. So let’s look at the Pat Robertson post.

I’m not going to waste my time or your time debating Pat Robertson because to tell you the truth, we’re not going to agree and we’ll just go back and forth trying to decide whether or not my side can beat up *your* side that we’ll never be able to come to an agreement. But I *will* take up the “Operation Blessing” comments in your post.

I’m not completely sure what your points are with the post but I think it’s the relationship between Operation Blessing and FEMA and money going from Operation Blessing to CBN instead of to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and all wrapped up in the separation of church and state clause in the constitu . . . wait . . . that’s not in the constitution . . . whatever.

Well, as you know, Operation Blessing and CBN are both privately held corporations therefore any policy run by either of those two organizations is . . . well . . . certainly not using faith to run public policy. I guess you would have to call it . . . private policy. You couldn’t mean that FEMA listing a faith-based charitable organization as actually being a charitable organization has anything to do with the public policy statement so I’m afraid that comment is lost on me.

“Operation Blessing gave half its donations to the Christian Broadcast Network . . .” Yeah . . . and? I’m well aware that both are either headed by or run by or under the guidance of Pat Robertson but they’re both also under the laws and guidelines of the IRS though their 501(c)(3) status. Pat Robertson’s ministry or Al Sharpton’s ministry is of no consequence, they both are supposed to obey IRS laws. And being a founder and Executive Director of a 501(c)(3) corporation myself, as well as being the person responsible for IRS compliance, I have a little more than just a clue as to how charitable organizations work. (Just for the record, the 501(c)(3) that I direct is not one of a religious nature.)

While the IRS does make several quite stringent requirements of any charitable organization with regard to their activities, they really don’t have a great deal of requirements as to how the organization spends their money. By that I mean that there is no requirement with regard to how much you spend for administrative costs vs. the amount spent for program costs. Nor do they tell you where to spend your money except that outside of administrative costs, your money must go to another 501(c)(3) organization. After *they* (the other organization) get it, it’s another administrative/program split and on and on and on. It’s like that with CBN, the Red Cross, the United Way, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party or any other 501(c)(3) organization. So to summarize, outside of regulating whether or not a faith-based organization can actually receive tax-deductible donations, regulating what does or does not qualify as a faith-based organization, dictating how a faith-based organization must conduct itself (outside of money), the IRS is really true to the “Separation of Church and State clau . . there I go again . . . I keep forgetting that phrase doesn’t exist . . . sorry . . . . anyway, the IRS tells you about everything you can and can’t do and woe be unto he who decides to mess with the IRS.

There *are* generally accepted guidelines with regard to your administrative vs. program spending and there are watchdog organizations (with both liberal and conservative viewpoints) that monitor your spending and have set what they call “acceptable” standards, but regardless of where Pat decided to put the money entrusted by the public to Operation Blessing, I’d bet he’s perfectly legal. It may not be where *you’d* like to see it go, and maybe me, ether – I don’t know, but ‘taint *our* money he’s moving around.

Your post doesn’t say whether or not Operation Blessing is or isn’t the #2 charity speeding cash to the hurricane victims nor if they dropped out of the #2 spot as a result of transferring funds from one bank account to another (like you and I and everyone and every other organization does or do all the time), so I can’t comment on that. And that’s a pretty serious accusation about Rev. Robertson putting donations into his personal coffers. His accounts for OB and CBN are *not* his personal coffers. If I were to take one nickel from my organization’s account and put it into my personal coffer without the Board of Directors approving it, the IRS would have my worthless carcass in some dingy jail cell awaiting my assignment to some country club where I have free internet, free college . . sorry . . . topic for another post.

Now, having said all of that, I come to my final point. There is a heck of a lot of discussion, argument, positioning, etc. going on about the church and state issue (I’ll resist *this* time) and how the churches shouldn’t be involved in government and they shouldn’t have any tax breaks and on and on, but when a disaster strikes or someone becomes homeless or needs food or clothing or medical care or whatever necessity, they don’t go to the statehouse. Their first stop is usually a church or religious organization. And when a church or religious organization doesn’t do what somebody thinks they *should* do, they undergo scrutiny like one wouldn’t believe . . . but look who’s getting blamed for not doing something they have no obligation to do . . . well, I’ll be . . . it’s a faith-based organization.

M@H "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 17, 2008 10:28 PM:

" father bob wrote on Jan 17, 2008 2:40 PM about “. . . the Huckster's . . . attack of the constitution of the united states of America [stet]”. I think he means the recent flap over Mr. Huckabee “ . . . wanting to change the Constitution to reflect God’s Laws as well as man’s . . .” or something like that. I’m thinking the biggest problem with that is that Mr. Huckabee wants to “change our Constitution” at all. How *dare* he? Who does he think he is? What kind of an idiot would want to *change* our Constitution?

Let’s see . . . to get real close to home, how about Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL) who tried to change the US Constitution eight times in 2005 alone . . . or how about the 49 attempts to change the Constitution during Bill Clinton’s administration . . . or how about all the idiots who have done it twenty-seven times and those who voted in favor of the change already?

They’re called amendments and Mike Huckabee’s in favor of a Constitutional amendment so somebody decides not to call it an amendment but call it “changing the Constitution”. What makes it worse is that Gov. Huckabee has the audacity to want to “change the Constitution” to be more in line with his beliefs! How dare he! Change the Constitution to where it’s in line with you’re beliefs? If I’m not mistaken, pretty much every amendment to the Constitution and every proposed amendment to the Constitution is attempting to “change the Constitution to be in line with somebody’s beliefs”.

I just fail to see how that’s a problem.

M@H "

Early Bird wrote on Jan 18, 2008 5:00 AM:

" To M@H: I have difficulty taking anyone seriously who would defend Pat Robertson on this site, and I suspect a lot of others might feel the same way. A lot of people will never forget how his lies caught up with him during his short run for president a few years back. I suspect the biggest difference in Pat Robertson and Orel Roberts and his son, Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert is that Pat hasn't got caught, yet. I'm not one to suggest that others stop posting, but it doesn't help your credibility saying, over and over, that you are going to stop posting and then coming back a few hours later. If you have difficulty resisting commenting on others messages, fine, but please stop saying I'm going away, and coming back ion such a short time. Good grief, do you really expect people to take you seriously, when you keep doing that? "

The Question wrote on Jan 18, 2008 5:53 AM:

" Unfortunately, Huckleberry Biblethumper wants to change the Constitution to make it serve a theocracy, i.e. "God's standards," instead of the the standards of "We, the People." That change would destroy the Constitution and the republic. "

The Question wrote on Jan 18, 2008 6:10 AM:

" So, Tooner, you really think the federal emergency management authorities should RECOMMEND that citizens donate hurricane relief to a "charity" run by a plutocrat Republican religious fanatic who will stuff half the donations into his own pocket? Is that what your old pal Jesus advises? Steal half the money given for the poor? My, my, what flexible morals we have when we hide behind "tax law." "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:58 AM:

" The question MaH is not whether changes are based on beliefs but what those beliefs are based on. IE a consensus of Scientific opinion whether social, physical or biological science or an interpretation of "Holy Scripture" that as we have shown on these pages there is no consensus what soever on what it says plus the Bible is "holy" only to aome of the people. Public descisions shouldn't be based or justified on anyone's religious beliefs. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:29 AM:

" The Question wrote on Jan 17, 2008 12:53 PM a quote from Jim Gerard.

I hate to admit it to you, but you almost had me there for a minute, Question. I was reading your Gerard post and thinking “Dear Lord, it’s gonna take me a *week* to rebut all of this!” But then the light bulb went off in my head and a voice cometh from heaven saying “This is *satire*, dummy! One doesn’t rebut *satire*!” Of course . . . what was I thinking?

Now I’m secure enough in my faith and my relationship with God that I can read good satire and not start spewing my “venomous judgmental, self-righteous, hypocritical vitriol of fear and hate” (I think that’s the right phrase, isn’t it?) In fact, you know I can chuck a few barbs toward the behavior of Christians every now and then, myself. In fact, I love to read a good piece of satire. But therein lies the problem. This really isn’t good satire or good humor. This is not the kind of satire I’ve come to know, love and expect from my buddy The Question. This is just a whole lot of “I-don’t-know-what” all strung together into some kind of grammatical structure.

I looked up Jim Gerard and found out he is a columnist or blogger or commentator or something like that and I was both dismayed and encouraged at the same time. I was dismayed because this guy actually gets *paid* for stringing this stuff together but I was encouraged because I realized that if he got paid for *this*, well . . . to quote a good old movie, “As God is my witness – I’ll never go hungry again!” *I* can write better anti-Christian satire than *this* guy. Heck, I can eat a box of Alpha-Bits and *puke* better satire than this!

You’re going to have to go out there and Google up some better anti-Christian satire if you want me to come out of retirement from this thread again. This is *not* up to your standard! This must’ve slipped past your Quality Control Department somehow. I’m sorry . . . I just can’t get into *this* one . . . the quality is so poor. Now “Go do the right thing!” - M@H "

VTucker wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:42 AM:

" M@H, maybe Pat Robertson and Operation Blessing can be defended legally . . . but certainly not morally. Read http://www.democracynow.org/2005/9/9/fema_promotes_pat_robertson_charity for more info. You say, "taint *our* money he’s moving around," but the money belonged to somebody, and probably somebody who thought s/he was helping Katrina victims. This is the type of thing that makes Christianity a huge JOKE, and it makes me furious. Hey, Susan, are you out there? Susan . . . I DENOUNCE this behavior! Just wanted to make sure you noticed. . . . :-) Seriously, my husband and I donated a number of years to Christian Freedom International to support a Karen refugee--until we found out that one of their board members, Erik Prince, is the founder of Blackwater U.S.A. Looking into the matter, we found all sorts of disgusting complicity we wanted no part of. Now, we support an outfit that has no political ties, so far as we know. Anyhow . . . M&H, please re-read your post and think about it. As Christians, we definitely need to "clean house." "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Dear Early Bird: I was asked to come out of retirement on this thread. But if there’s a chance that I won’t be taken seriously, I’ll re-retire and stay that way until another topic comes up. However, I thought that father bob and The Question actually *had* come up with something fresh other than the “we agree on this but not on that” stuff that I found myself both reading and writing for 48 hours.

I think I was clear about my stance on Pat Robertson but I’m not sure. Hang on . . . let me check it again . . . yep, that’s right. I said I wasn’t going to waste my time debating about Pat Robertson so to be taken seriously, I won’t. I don’t have enough information to comment on him on this particular topic so I won’t. And as much as I’d love to research it so I could reply, I have a *real* job and I’m retiring from this thread for good after this post.

If you want to debate about all the things that Pat and Jim and Oral and Jimmy did that wasn’t or isn’t behavior becoming someone of their stature, you’re going to have to debate with someone else. I *know* some of their actions went beyond the pale. I *know* some of the things they’ve done or do aren’t quite Kosher (no pun intended). I’m not defending Pat Robertson and I’m sorry I misled you.

Question: I’d love to go deeper into Gov. Huckabee’s “change the Constitution” debate but I want to be taken seriously, so we’re going to have to wait for another thread.

Did the article from FEMA “recommend” people donate to a known Christian charity? I thought they only listed them as the #2 charity donating to the victims. If they were out-donated by every other charity except one, then they’re #2 on the list whether they’re Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or whatever. There’s a difference and I’m going to find it hard to believe that a federal agency *endorsed* a Christian charity and the brouhaha escaped me hearing about it in the media. Maybe it did, but I’m surprised. You know, there are a lot of people out there that would define an action like that as a violation of the Separation of Ch . . . aw heck, we’ve already been down *that* road.

And I’ve already addressed the “putting half the donations in his own pocket” thing. That’s a pretty serious charge to make without some pretty serious evidence. Now if he did . . . I’ll be right on this site posting my thoughts on a Christian defrauding his donators by actually pocketing their donations. And please, let’s not dig up all the past Christians defrauding people . . . I don’t have time to list all of them and tell you how bad I think their actions were. I really want to stay retired this time – at least from *this* thread. I’m losing my credibility. "

father bob wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:54 AM:

" MaH....you're very entertaining, the spiel you just gave had to be taken out of "ann coulter's look at government".

amendments to the constitution have and will be attached, but not amendments to serve a "christian" god's standards. it's about what's good for people, not what's good for the pope.

and by the way your quotation of IRS tax codes pertaining to religious organizations tends to make me think you've probably lined your pockets with some of that free sundayschool cash.... "

VTucker wrote on Jan 18, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Penny, if you're reading these comments, I appreciated your letter. One's faith is a source of comfort and strength. I personally believe it was meant to be these things, and also meant to be something that reaches out to others. The sad thing is that people too often use faith as a weapon, either to bash those with whom they disagree, or to shut out those who have a different (or no) faith. I have many Christian friends, people who exercise their faith by drawing people close. But I've also come across people who use their faith to accentuate differences, to put others in their place, and to keep them on the outside. The really sad thing is that those who use their faith to hurt others are often the most confident that they're doing the will of God. "

father bob wrote on Jan 18, 2008 11:56 AM:

" while we're talking about hucksers, the number one huckster...monkeyboy himself wants to hand us all $800.00 tax rebates to boost the american economy.

lets see...now who's economy will it likely boost??? 93% of all clothing is made overseas, as is about 90% of the electronics, and how about 72% of all power tools....i'd say it's another boon for china.

he say's he wants a legacy of some sort. this 140 billion is about 1% of the GNP. the same amount one.org has wanted for aids and starvation in africa.

oh hell...lets just spend it to go bomb some more dark skinned people somewhere "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:04 PM:

" father bob, I believe we just got personal. ". . . you've probably lined your pockets with some of that free sundayschool cash." Once again, that's a pretty serious charge . . . I trust you have some evidence to back it up. And I guess there's something about "Just for the record, the 501(c)(3) that I direct is not one of a religious nature." that wasn't quite clear to you. Please let me know what I can say to let you know my organization is *not* of a religious nature. You've stumped me.

I beginning to think some people don't know what God's standards *are*. I'm thinking the fact that the name of God was invoked short-circuted something. I just cannot believe you could be against God's standards. You may be against *calling* them God's standards but to actually be *against* the standards? Maybe we'd better scroll up the threads some, ya think?

I appreciate the compliment about being entertaining but I don't get my material from Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or anyone else. I don't copy and paste and I don't regurgitate others' statements unless I'm quoting then. M@H

PS - I'm not giving my personal stamp of approval on Pat Robertson, either. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:07 PM:

" Fatherbob, Bush has left his legacy it is just that it is found in cemeteries and escalating hatreds in the Middle East, not the kind of legacy anyone would be proud of. To MaH the fact that you aren't willing to confront/address head on the Pat Robertsons of this world is part of the reason why Christians and Christianity have received such a bad rap. There is something in the Bible about removing the dust mite from your neighbors eye while ignoring the splinter in your own eye. You alone can't "cleanup" Christians act/ions. BUT you can certainly speak up and voice your disapproval. Your silence is seen as approval. Don't forget that it is Bush that pushed for faith based initiatives for public works projects/ the use of publis funds by faith based groups for public projects. As one disaster relief person said from such a group, we go in and clean up the mess from the disaster (flood in this instance) then give them a message about how God will make it all better. No one should be forced to listen to a religious message to receive help in their time of need. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 18, 2008 5:02 PM:

" Why is it in this country (and probably elsewhere) that we tar and feather the messenger when the message is one that we dislike rather than tackling the difficult problem of doing what needs to be done to change the action the message is about? Denying that the message exists doesn't change the message. Crying that you are picking on me, or my religion, or ethnic group/race, or gender doesn't change the message. "

father bob wrote on Jan 18, 2008 5:16 PM:

" you can't get better than this....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22718384#22718637
"

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jan 18, 2008 6:16 PM:

" God is God no matter what anyone thinks or says! There would be no God if we did not have the Bible which is the Word of God to tell us about how good and wonderful God is. What the majority of the world see's is religion not God. The typical church service consists of man made religious ceremonies and practices. If the Church of the Living God would ever wake up and take God at His Word and live it instead of fighting about it then we would see the real God show up on this earth. The bible is an awesome book filled with many promises that if you believe with your whole heart will be carried out in your life. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 19, 2008 6:35 AM:

" Deep thoughts we are all glad that you consider yourself a "true believer"--if that helps you be a better person.Just don't forget that you still have to take action, God only helps those who help themselves. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 19, 2008 9:02 AM:

" For Mattoon at Heart, that was a new record for your "retirement", about 6 hours. LOL "

The Question wrote on Jan 19, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Fanatic Christian "faith" has brought the United States to the brink of fascism, just as Sinclair Lewis warned it would in 1935.
"He was afraid that the world struggle today was not of communism against fascism, but of tolerance against the bigotry that was preached equally by communism and fascism. But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst fascists were they who disowned the word 'fascism' and preached enslavement to capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty. For they were thieves not only of wages but of honor. To their purpose they could quote not only Scripture but Jefferson."... But he saw that he must remain alone, a 'liberal,' scorned by all the noisier prophets for refusing to be a willing cat for the busy monkeys of either side. But at worst, the liberals, the tolerant, might in the long run preserve some of the arts of civilization, no matter which brand of tyranny should finally dominate the world.""
— Sinclair Lewis, "It Can't Happen Here."
An administration that invades other countries for corporate profits, employs private mercenary forces composed of religious fanatics, peddles Big Lies and suspends individual rights, including even the right of habeas corpus, all while claiming that God speaks through the president? The word for that is fascism, my friend. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jan 19, 2008 6:11 PM:

" For father bob, I've heard Rush Limbaugh claim to have over 25 million listeners, and yet I don't think I have ever heard one of his faithful fess up to listening to him, on this site. Same goes for that whiny little sleazebag Hannity on the Fox Noise channel. I have often wondered why none of their fans are willing to admit they listen to them? What do you think? Personally I enjoy listening to that fat drug addicted moron, Limbaugh, and I can tell you that what you heard from his fat loud mouth shows up on here regularly, but none of his faithful are willing to admit it. I would be willing to bet that old Tom Andres is a regular listener of Limbaugh. "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jan 21, 2008 5:32 PM:

" The Apostle Paul said in Corinthians that God hath made the wisdom of this world fooishness. After hearing Question quote all these wise human beings it is hard to believe that someone would put so much faith in mankind. Of course don't forget that mankind has a brain that was provided to them by God as well as any other parts of the human body that function. I have said it before but I will say it again. It takes more faith to not believe in God than it does to believe in Him. When you look at all creation and especially human kind how could you not say that there isn't a God? I suppose that it is just by coincedence that not one single human being on this earth has the same fingerprints. Now that's a pretty good trick. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 22, 2008 2:36 PM:

" To Deep Thoughts faith is hope of truth where there is no proof. Knowledge has proof of truth. Why can't you just accept the reality that many people have decided not to believe in a fantasy and that they are quite happy and productive citizens. Is your faith threatened by people like me who hold knowledge and not faith? "

The Question wrote on Jan 22, 2008 2:50 PM:

" There isn't any God, shallow thoughts. So dry up. "

The Question wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:13 AM:

" "Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice Day." --
God "

The Question wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:24 AM:

" If we were made in His image, when why aren't humans invisible too? "

The Question wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:32 AM:

" There's a reason why atheists don't fly planes Into buildings. "

The Question wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:39 AM:

" So if there's no God, Mr. Smarty, then what makes the next Kleenex pop up? "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jan 23, 2008 6:26 PM:

" So God is a fantasy? How intelligent is that? Let's see, an alcoholic or drug addict comes to a Full Gospel Church and listens to the Gospel message for the first time. He responds to the altar call and comes and kneels down and prays a simple prayer. He says to God that is a fantasy that he is tired of living this way, if you are real please help me. So the minister prays with this person and he or she repents of their sin and accepts Jesus Christ into their heart. When they get done praying their contenance changes and they know that something has happened in their life that they can't explain. So from that day forward they never drink or take drugs again when before they had no power to overcome them. Now this is not just a made up story this is an absolute fact that has happened thousands of times to people of all walks of life who turned their life over to the fantasy God. Of course any proof given on this site of anything including people who have been divinely healed by the power of God will not be believed because these intelligent people just can't accept the fantasy of the true and living God. If you wonder why I continue to try and persuade people about this fantasy, it's because as a Christian we have been given a commission to tell the world about Jesus. Also, a true Christian should have the compassion of Christ working in their lives so much that they as God does would desire that no one perish but that all would have everlasting life. The message is clear whether you believe it or not.....Jesus Saves and he loves everyone! We must realize that we are sinners and that we need a Saviour! "

The Question wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 24, 2008 9:02 AM:

" To Deep Thoughts unfortunately alcoholic cures such as you describe don't always last. There is much recidivism. Religion is as much a placebo as methodone for the drug abuser. Neither help the person face the root of their problem. The same goes for prison conversions. Humans have an amazing capacity to self deceive if that is what they choose to do. I believe that it is my duty as an enlightened soul to help you face your fears and insecurities, so that you too can face reality if head held high. The difference between us is that I speak up only after others have spoken out. Those that have the greatest doubts about their beliefs feel that if they can convince others of the truth of their belief they will convince themselves. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 24, 2008 10:30 AM:

" To Deep Thoughts Humans are not sinful beings. We are no more sinful then the lion or the lamb. Infants aren't sinful beings. Have you ever observed two infants of different races when they see each other for the first time? They are taught how to be fearful of others/how to sin. Sin is a concept created by man in an attempt to control other mens behavior through fear and intimidation. The problem with attempting to control people through fear and intimidation is that sooner or later someone will come along who is bigger, stronger, more powerful than you--someone who is neither fearful nor intimidated by you. Eastern Sages discovered long before the advent of Christianity that it is far wiser to teach people how to control their selves than it is to attempt to control them. "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jan 25, 2008 6:13 PM:

" For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. There you go Miss Susan and Mr Question, you have just read a portion of the most powerful and most popular book in all the world! How does it feel to be in the minority? And you think I have the problem with not being secure in my Christian faith. Think again! "

The Question wrote on Jan 26, 2008 5:54 AM:

" The Spanish Inquisition: The original faith-based
initiative. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 26, 2008 9:36 AM:

" To Deep Thoughts the Bible is also the most banned book in the world. It isn't about who is in the majority or minority it is about who is right and who isn't. I think the religions that have been around the longest, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism,Judaism and Greek Philosophy have something that the young upstart Christianity lacks. "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jan 26, 2008 5:36 PM:

" Yes they do, it's called a Saviour! All other religions serve a leader who has died and is still dead. Christians serve a risen Saviour and he is alive and well! Why would anyone want to believe in a bunch of mumbo jumbo intellectual garbage when they could believe in the creator of Heaven and Earth? When man begins to convince himself that he is smarter than his or her creator then they are in a very sorrowful state of life. There is no Peace like the Peace of God! No other relgion can offer true spiritual Peace that Christ offers by the authority of who he really is! "

The Question wrote on Jan 27, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Robert Weitzel —
Legend has it that two thousand years ago President Bush’s favorite philosopher dodged the treason bullet by giving a group of Pharisees his honest opinion on the separation of church and state. Appreciating the wisdom in keeping heavenly and earthly concerns separate, Jesus advised them to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

Regrettably, the 2008 presidential frontrunners of both parties are ignoring Jesus’ advice regarding the preferred relationship between church and state by professing—ad nauseam—their undying fidelity to the Christian Right’s version of morality and its vision of our nation as their exclusive fiefdom.

Consider the statements of two Republican candidates. Senator John McCain said he believes the “Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” Mike Huckabee said we should “amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards . . ..” McCain is pandering. Huckabee is deadly earnest. But keep in mind, many a democratic nation has been trampled because politicians were outsmarted by those whose boots they licked. "

The Question wrote on Jan 27, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Robert Weitzel —
That a good number of the Framers of the Constitution were Christians is undeniable. But it is this fact that speaks strongly in defense of their decision to build the “wall of separation” between church and state that keeps government out of the business of religion. Their concern was not necessarily for the rights of the nonbeliever, but for the believer’s freedom to choose which creed he or she will embrace.

The particular genius of the Founding Fathers was their understanding that a Christian nation can be a dangerous place for both believers and nonbelievers. They knew that government prescribed religion—usually that of the most politically connected sect—invariably leads to intolerance and tyranny.

James Madison, writing in defense of this notion, asked the question, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”

If there is any doubt as to the salience of Madison’s question for a secular democracy, one need only consider a promise made by Pat Robertson, the fundamentalist voice of the Christian Right and 1988 presidential candidate. In a stump speech Robertson assured his audience that “after the Christian majority takes over this country, pluralism (non-fundamentalist beliefs) will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anyone to practice it.” If Robertson or Huckabee or Scalia or Forbes have their way, our national motto will be modified accordingly, "E Pluribus Fides Unum"—Out of Many Beliefs, Only One. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 27, 2008 7:39 PM:

" To Deep Thoughts, there is no excuse for your ignorance in this day and age. When you use the term "mumbo jumbo" you show that you don't know anything about the other religions of the world. You don't know what other religions offer so how dare you judge them. I suggest you educate yourself. Only a person who knows that their religion won't stand up to scrutiny in comparison with other world religions would refuse to learn about the other religions. "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jan 30, 2008 10:11 AM:

" You are right Ms Susan when you say that I do not want to learn about other religions. Christianity was given the name religion by man not God. Christianity is not a religion it is the only way to Heaven. There is no other risen Saviour but Jesus Christ and Jesus proclaimed of himself that he is the only Way, Truth, and Life. One day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! Again, it doesn't matter how many people convince themselves that there are other ways to heaven or a way to come back as a turkey or a duck in the next life, there is eternal life after death and it is either heaven or hell. And yes Mr. Question the bible is my source of reference. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 30, 2008 6:49 PM:

" To Deep Thoughts, "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. (the same sentiment is in Matthew 25:31) If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." Marcus Aurelius "It isn't what you believe that matters is how you treat your fellow man." Susan Humphreys "

The Question wrote on Jan 30, 2008 7:01 PM:

" Here's a deep thought for you to ponder, DTs. If God wanted people to believe in him, then why did he invent logic? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 30, 2008 8:09 PM:

" And Deep Thoughts, "a rose by any other name is still a rose." So to is a Christianity, a system of beliefs, not truths. "