JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: The only way to Heaven is through Jesus

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:43 PM CDT
LETTER: The only way to Heaven is through Jesus

By LETHA SNOW, Mattoon

I have been hearing about, people of today, being more lenient of other’s religious views. I have even heard it said that there are many different ways to heaven.

I hear these views, but I do not agree with them.

The Bible is the infallible word of God and is truth.

John 17:17 says, “Thy word is truth.”

The opposite of truth is a lie and we need to decide which we will follow.

Will we follow truth or a lie? In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

The apostle Paul said in Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

The all important question that we need to ask is found in Acts 16:30. “What must I do to be saved? Answer: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy House.”

“Neither is there salvation in any other (name): for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4:12. Many different ways to heaven? I do not think so.

There is only one way to heaven and that is through the name of Jesus.

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.

Read all over wrote on Jul 13, 2008 11:27 PM:

" Okay, the rest of us are going to hell. So why can't you be "lenient" toward us for now? "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:21 AM:

" Those who think that Christianity is only about getting into heaven have completely missed the boat. Actually they are waiting at the train station for their boat for heaven to come in only those who are wiser, know that boats don't dock at train stations. Or another way to put it Ms. Snow is on the tracks on a deadend siding and doesn't realize it. Somewhere along the line she missed a switch. "

Sunbeam wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:37 AM:

" well said. "

sapient wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Susan: I thought you didn't believe in heaven???? "

father bob wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:51 AM:

" here's a link to a topic at the TED Talks. it makes a lot of sense to me regarding the natural evolution of religions.

http://tinyurl.com/5598da

enjoy! "

just wondering wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:04 AM:

" Ah, isn't it nice to see all the anti-religion people put their two cents worth in. You folks make comments like this and wonder why the other side isn't "lenient" to you. "

Equalizer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:58 AM:

" Just Wondering...very nicely said. :) "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:03 AM:

" To Sapient I don't "believe" in "A" Heaven. I know that heaven and hell are of our own making and that they are right here, right now, not a future destination after death. "

father bob wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:54 AM:

" just wondering wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:04 AM:
" Ah, isn't it nice to see all the anti-religion people put their two cents worth in. You folks make comments like this and wonder why the other side isn't "lenient" to you. """

i'm not anti-religion, its great if it's what you truly want in your life. but letters like Ms. Snow's are exactly the stance taken day-in-and-day-out by the "christians" condemning those who believe other than herself. GET OVER IT! when the last time an agnostic or atheist wrote a letter to the JG blasting all "believers"? letters like the one above run at least 2 times per month, hammering away on the rest of us heathens. perhaps i'll start writing letters regarding my agnostic beliefs and how lost those "christians" are. better yet, i'll ask my jewish friends to take a shot or two at you.....that could really get you riled. "

Illinoisbound wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:46 PM:

" Thanks for your article, Letha. It is a comfort to me to know salvation through that wonderful name of Jesus! "

das wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:11 PM:

" I love how you religious people pick and choose what you want to believe in the bible. I guess I'll just pick and choose what I want to think you truly believe, because we all know that according to the religious folk that I could go kill someone and still go to heaven. Kind of ridiculous huh? Oh, and also. I guess you believe in Santa Clause too huh? I mean, you can't believe one man listens to millions of prayers at once, but one many can't deliver millions of presents in one night right? "

The Question wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them, as Mark Twain observed. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. "

just wondering wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Gee Father Bob have you had your head in the sand or someplace else that can't see. The message of the agnostics and athiests is out there all the time, but let someone present the other side and here you come with your compatriots out of the woodwork complaining. If religion is not important to you then this letter wasn't aimed at you and you should have just ignored it. You know the way when some of the programming on tv is not appreciated by some folks, people like you tell these folks to change the channel. Maybe you should take some of your own advice. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:36 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:21 AM:
"Those who think that Christianity is only about getting into heaven have completely missed the boat."

Finally! A point about Christianity on which we agree! One of us is getting there!
==============================
shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:03 AM:
"I know that heaven and hell are of our own making"

Oops! Just when I thought we were beginning to agree. But I just have to jump on one little detail... You "know" about heaven and hell???? "Know"????
=============================
father bob wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:54 AM:
"Ms. Snow's are exactly the stance taken day-in-and-day-out by the "christians" condemning those who believe other than herself.

fb: I didn't see any condemnation in Mrs. Snow's letter. She said she didn't agree with some viewpoints, she made a statement about the Bible and she stated the opposite of truth was a lie. I didn't see any condemnation and I'm kinda glad. Here we have someone who writes a pro-Christian letter and DOESN'T condemn others and tell them they're going to hell. Kinda refreshing if you ask me.
===================================
"...perhaps i'll start writing letters regarding my agnostic beliefs and how lost those "christians" are."

Are you stating your previous posts have NOT been from an agnostic viewpoint?
===================================
das wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:11 PM:
"I love how you religious people pick and choose what you want to believe in the bible."

Who picks and chooses? Christians can't pick and choose.
=====================================
And "...because we all know that according to the religious folk that I could go kill someone and still go to heaven."

You're gonna have to give me some kind of evidence that religious folk believe THAT one for ME to understand! "

father bob wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:38 PM:

" just wondering wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:22 PM:
" Gee Father Bob have you had your head in the sand or someplace else that can't see. The message of the agnostics and athiests is out there all the time,""""

name the last time one was printed in the JG-TC. "

father bob wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:36 PM:
Are you stating your previous posts have NOT been from an agnostic viewpoint?"""

that's not what i posted.

i posted: ""when the last time an agnostic or atheist wrote a letter to the JG blasting all "believers"?""

i didn't say MY posts weren't agnostic. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:10 PM:

" To M@H you don't see Ms. Snows letter as condemnation BUT saying that something is a lie IS condemnation, it is being judgmental it encourages disrespect for others who believe differently.It is this very self righteousness (I know the truth,everything else is a lie) that Jesus himself condemned, if you believe in what the Bible says. Which gets me to my use of the word "KNOW". It drives you crazy. Do you really mean to imply that it is OKAY for a Christian to state that they KNOW the TRUTH and that everything else is a lie but I can't make the statements that I KNOW the truth and what they say is a lie? Enlightenment is based on knowledge (facts and figures) but it is more than just knowledge, it is understanding. AND yes I KNOW that heaven and hell are of our own making and that they are right here and right now and I believe, I think that Jesus also knew this.There is proof all around, in the daily papers, on the nightly news. Hell today is in Darfour, and Somalia where people are starving to death. Hell today is in the Middle East where religious groups and political ideologies are fighting each other for their share or control of the pie. Hell is in the crack houses of our big cities. Women and children in "safe houses" have been in a hell created by their abusive husbands. Hell is in the voice of the fundamentalist Christian who insists that the Bible is absolute TRUTH because if it isn't what is. "

das wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:35 PM:

" Mattooner at Heart: There are SEVERAL things that are picked through in the bible from religious people. For instance, that if we literally lived through the bible then slavery would be legal, politics would be a no go, and various other things that I don't feel like listing right now, BUT when it comes to something that the religious folk want to believe then watch out, that science fiction novel that they believe in is all of a sudden the all mighty word that should control everyone's lives... "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:45 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 4:10 PM: "To M@H you don't see Ms. Snows letter as condemnation BUT saying that something is a lie IS condemnation..."

Pardon my confusion but here is a cut 'n paste quote from her letter: "The opposite of truth is a lie". You've stated "saying that something is a lie IS condemnation" (another cut 'n paste quote). What should Ms. Snow have called the opposite of truth so she would not have been condemning anything or anyone? If the opposite of the truth is NOT a lie, what IS the opposite of the truth? If calling something a lie is a condemnation and stating the opposite of truth is a lie, one is condemning a lie. I don't see anything wrong with condemning a lie. It seems to me that condemning a lie would be a basic foundation for just about ANY religion - and a basic foundation for anyone who would strive to respect others - and that is to condemn a lie.

I may have missed what you were TRYING to say, but I can't be sure of that. But I didn't miss what you DID say.

I do believe, however in reading the remainder of your post, I begin to see the crux of a disagreement we're having. I think it's in the phrase "It is this very self righteousness... that Jesus himself condemned..." You are correct that Jesus himself condemned self-righteousness. On that we agree. And it's also true that many Christians come across as "I know the truth and you don't", which can get all of us on the wrong track and onto a tangent we can NEVER return from, another point on which we agree. Christians have no business being self-righteous (I'm sure we agree on that, too) because none of us have anything to be self-righteous about. As Christians, our righteousness is in Christ and Christ alone. It shouldn't be "I know the truth and you don't", instead it should be "I know where the truth can be found and you can know the truth, too." We're way too selfish!

Or maybe we define "righteousness" differently. For a Christian, righteousness is simply "right standing with God"and nothing more. It doesn't mean we're any better or worse than anyone else - at least it SHOULDN'T mean that. And for someone to think they ARE better than someone else because they are in "right standing with God" goes diametrically opposite of what actually being "in right standing with God" is all about. So maybe we're not so far apart after all.

The word "know" didn't really drive me crazy, I just thought I'd throw it in there to split a hair or two with you - kind of a jibe. But as far as it being "...OKAY for a Christian to state that they KNOW the TRUTH and that everything else is a lie but a non-Christian can't make the statements that they KNOW the truth and what they say is a lie", I would never take THAT stance - at least I can't imagine I would.

I have no problem with you saying you know the truth and what everyone else says is a lie. If you believe it, say it. The only problem I have with all of this is when someone (not necessarily you - but anyone) attempts to prove the Bible is NOT (or even IS) the truth (which is their prerogative) but then misquotes the Bible or takes it out of context or takes the Bible literally or otherwise misrepresents scripture to make their point. THAT'S where I seem not to be able to contain my responses.

Can we agree that we make our own hell? Yes, I think we can. But the hell we make on earth - for ourselves and others - is different than the hell about which the Bible speaks. The hell we experience on earth WILL be over one of these days. It may take until death, but once a person who is "in hell" in Darfour dies, or the woman who is in hell because she's living with an abusive husband is a little different. In those cases, they CAN escape their hell.

A person CAN leave Darfour. (They may not be actually ABLE to because of certain restraints, but if they DO leave Darfour, that hell is over.A woman CAN leave that abusive husband. I know it may be very difficult for her to do so, but it IS possible. Two, if they CANNOT escape the hell in which they find themselves on earth, they WILL eventually die and although that may seem trite, that particular hell for them is over.

That's a completely different hell than what the Bible speaks of. The Bible speaks of a hell that never ends and a hell that one can never escape. But at least with regard to "a hell on earth", we CAN agree.

See? That didn't hurt so much, did it? "

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

" das wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:35 PM: " Mattooner at Heart: There are SEVERAL things that are picked through in the bible from religious people."

Where are you getting your information? "...if we literally lived through the bible then slavery would be legal..." Where dies THAT come from??????

"... politics would be a no go..." Huh??????

I'll not infer anything from your comment about the "...various other things that I don't feel like listing right now..." But I hope you're going to get back to me on at least THOSE two points when you have some time. I'm interested in seeing just where those two points came from.

It's not the Bible I'VE been reading. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:53 PM:

" M@H have you ever considered that there may be many TRUTHS. One problem that many Christians have is a chapter I had in my book, they see the world in terms of BLACK and WHITE. Opposites. When the reality is there are no true BLACKS and no true WHITES but many, many shades of grey and wonderful vibrant colors. There is no opposite of TRUTH because there is no TRUTH only many, many TRUTHS. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:01 PM:

" Now in regards to your discussion with "Das". Where have you been living? There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people reading it. There are as many interpretations of what a "TRUE" Christian is or should be as there are practicing Christians. Now as to Hell, you believe, if I understand you correctly, that Heaven and Hell are real places, the final resting place for those that have been saved through Gods grace and those who have accepted Jesus as their saviour. AND I say that interpretation has taken you down a deadend road. Once again we are back to my earlier question that you adroitly side stepped, "What is Christianity really, at heart, at it's bare bones, all about?" I know, but I am not sure that you do, yet! "

The Cleveland Steamer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:55 PM:

" Good letter Letha. I'll see you at church next Sunday morning. "

Equalizer wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:48 PM:

" Great letter Letha, God bless you dear!

shumphreys...just what is it that you are trying to prove? It seems that you wish to host your own little talk show on here, and cut off anyone who disagrees with you or your beliefs...or lack thereof. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:11 PM:

" To the equalizer my posts are open for anyone to respond. I don't cut anyone off but I do expect people to respond honestly and when they don't I call them on it. I also try to get them to look beyond their own biases and prejudices to look at issues from different points of view. If you don't want me to dominate the conversation, then add thoughtful and appropriate comments to move the conversation along i.e. to explore the various sides of an issue. That is what this site is all about, exploring ideas. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:16 PM:

" Or Equalizer is your problem that I am a woman, articulate, and not cowed by "my betters"? "

das wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:44 PM:

" Well, I don't read the bible because I don't believe in putting all my feelings into a science fiction novel and allowing a few men who wrote it long ago tell me how I should live my life, but I do know that there have been many times that the bible has been used in the past to justify slavery AND in the old testament there is discussion on Jesus being against Government (we actually dissected the bible in one of my college classes)Also, if we lived literally by the bible then when someone did something wrong then they would have their hands cut off, but we don't do that do we? How can there be SO many different interpretations, meanings, and ways to live by a science fiction novel? It just doesn't make sense to me. I should write a book and get people to donate their income to me! It'd be a GREAT way to become rich! I think I'll do that. Brainwash people and take their money! Woohoo! "

lefty wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:02 PM:

" I went through Jesus once...

Whatta mess!

Hooooo! "

Locke wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:36 PM:

" Every religion quotes their sacred texts as the quantifiable, end all, proof that their religion is the one, the only, true religion and that all other views are false.

I'm glad you so many are confident in their faith -- but please, don't quote your Bible as proof.

I sincerely hope, in 3,000 years, people are not praying to Luke Skywalker as a god who struck down the forces of evil and saved our world from Darth Vader. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:11 AM:

" To Das the Bible is a great book and well worth reading. It is full of great wisdom and great stories even if it isn't absolute TRUTH. But it isn't the only book worth reading. Try reading Siddhartha by Herman Hesse, it is the story of Buddha. Religion is treated as superstitious nonsense by many, BUT it is a powerful force for good and for evil, depending on how it is used. It is also well worth studying and learning about. If you are interested in what makes people "tick" you will sooner or later have to learn about the worlds great religions, ALL of them. "

My Point of View wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Okay lets add something here. I truly believe that if you have Jesus in your heart and you pray to be saved then you will be saved. What about all the diffrent methods of baptism? Why do some churches not accept all of them? They say you must be emersed because Jesus was. What about all the other people in the bible? Are we sure there was always abundant water around especially when some people met on a road and were baptized? What about all the people who are baptised on their death bed are they not baptized and not good enough? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:45 AM:

" das wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:44 PM:

"...I don't read the bible because I don't believe in putting all my feelings into a science fiction novel..."

Who has said Christianity is anything about feelings?
================================
"...allowing a few men who wrote it long ago tell me how I should live my life..."

This is a sticky one because to answer it fully would take a lot of space and time. Let me leave it as this...how's the way YOU'RE living your life working for you? Worried about anything? Have any problems you don't know how to handle?
=================================
"...but I do know that there have been many times that the bible has been used in the past to justify slavery..."

Absolutely correct. The Bible "HAS BEEN USED". That's not the same as "THE BIBLE SUPPORTS". Believe me, I can twist scripture around to meet my needs but it's still twisted. That's not what the Bible is for. People misuse it.
=================================
..."AND in the old testament there is discussion on Jesus being against Government."

This is a new one on me. I completely understand that the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament but Jesus being against government? Show me Jesus in the Old Testament and show me where it states he was against government.
==================================
"...(we actually dissected the bible in one of my college classes)."

I refuse to take the cheap shot.
==================================
"Also, if we lived literally by the bible then when someone did something wrong then they would have their hands cut off...."

Where in the world does the Bible say THAT??????????
===================================
"How can there be SO many different interpretations, meanings, and ways to live by a science fiction novel?"

That's easy. People see things differently. Differently does not mean correctly. There are not many ways to live according to the Bible and it's by far not a Science Fiction novel.
==================================
"I should write a book and get people to donate their income to me!"

Are we still talking Bible here or have we jumped subjects without me realizing it? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:04 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:01 PM:

"There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people reading it."

And you've hit on the problem. The Bible is not something to be "interpreted" in the general sense of the word "interpreted". The Bible is not that difficult to read and understand. I know you will be thinking about how smug ol' M@H has gotten in his old age, but bear with me. There are many interpretations of the Bible because there are many people who try to make the Bible say what they would like it to say. Examples:

The Bible supports slavery. Women are not supposed to wear jewelry. God hates homosexuals. You can't belong to this church if you're not baptized by immersion. I could go kill someone and still go to heaven. (That one could be debated but generally not true.) If we lived literally by the bible then when someone did something wrong then they would have their hands cut off.

And those are just the ones from the last couple of days on here. Absolutely NONE of those statements are true. Maybe the one about the baptism, but that's a church rule not a scriptural command. That's a rule THEY set in place - not one that God put into effect.
===========================
Where we have a problem with this topic is the fundamental disagreement of the nature of truth. Your position - if I understand correctly - is there is no absolute truth but several truths. But there is a big difference between "truth" as the Bible speaks of truth and "truths". To a great extent, I can agree with the idea that there are many truths. But when looking at the truth - as the Bible uses the word - truth is absolute.
==========================
"'What is Christianity really, at heart, at it's (stet) bare bones, all about?' I know, but I am not sure that you do, yet!"

I responded on a different thread but for the sake of repetition, Christianity is about loving God and loving others. And before we even GO there, the concept of "loving others" is not exclusive property of Christianity.

Now that I've answered directly, please share YOUR views on "What is Christianity really, at heart, at it's bare bones, all about?" M@H "

sapient wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:29 AM:

" I still believe you liberals are awfully dogmatic for people who don't believe in absolute truth. If there is no absolute truth then why should we believe what you say? "

Equalizer wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:58 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:16 PM:
" Or Equalizer is your problem that I am a woman, articulate, and not cowed by "my betters"? "

HMMM...I couldn't care less if you are a woman, man, or beast. I don't think woman or man or articulate are words to describe you though. Whom are your betters? "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:55 AM:

" M@H wrote about the inaccuracy of the claim that, "I could go kill someone and still go to heaven" and replied parenthetically: "(That one could be debated but generally not true.)"

Why is it not true? My understanding of the Bible is that through Christ, all things are possible -- that if a person is truly sorry for his/her sins, there is no sin too great to be washed away by the blood of Christ, even murder. Aren't some of the heroes of the Old Testament themselves sinners of the colossal variety (murderers, adulterers, etc.) who became heroic by humbling themselves before God, repenting of and atoning for their sins, and changing their life course?

And above all, isn't it a cornerstone of the Bible and Christian faith to say that NONE of us mere mortals get to judge and determine who is in heaven and who is not?

Can you help me out here, M@H, about where you're coming from and how you make these statements with such certainty and authority? Can you show me the Scripture that refutes what I've posted here?

Also, I'm guessing that das' comments about cutting off the hands of thieves might come from a couple of different places (or perhaps others -- I make no claim of being a Bible expert): the Old Testament notion of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth%2 "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:10 PM:

" To the Equalizer, there aren't any! To Sapient you shouldn't any more than you should blindly accept what is written in a book, eventhough it is a good book. Humans have a complex brain and they should learn to use it. We have the ability to "Question Why?" but far too few ever do so. "

HerChild wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:48 PM:

" We enjoy your letters, Letha, Thank you for reminding us of the love of Jesus and God bless you.

We're sorry that shumphreys finds the need to use your letters to attack others.
All letters of God's love brings the sad and lonely out of the closet so we can pray for them. Thank you. "

father bob wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:29 PM:

" HerChild wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:48 PM:
" We enjoy your letters, Letha, Thank you for reminding us of the love of Jesus and God bless you.

We're sorry that shumphreys finds the need to use your letters to attack others.
All letters of God's love brings the sad and lonely out of the closet so we can pray for them."""

shumphreys has done no such thing. you need to pray for yourself for telling lies. "

Equalizer wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:54 PM:

" Scuze me, bob...
shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:21 AM:
" Those who think that Christianity is only about getting into heaven have completely missed the boat. Actually they are waiting at the train station for their boat for heaven to come in only those who are wiser, know that boats don't dock at train stations. Or another way to put it Ms. Snow is on the tracks on a deadend siding and doesn't realize it. Somewhere along the line she missed a switch. "

So Bob...this is not attacking Ms. Snow? It is not attacking others? Wake up. "

Equalizer wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:57 PM:

" And Bob...this is not attacking me?
A lot of A$$uming being done here. Sounds like someone who is bitter against men.

shumphreys wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:16 PM:
" Or Equalizer is your problem that I am a woman, articulate, and not cowed by "my betters"? " "

The Truth wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:10 PM:

" shumphreys is a blasphemer and is not interested in man's salvation, let alone hers. She is more interested in the philosophies and opinions of men than of our Creator. She tries constantly to mix the two, stating as fact something that is only fantasy, a fantasy in her mind. I, for one, am tired of her and her mindless, philosophic babble.

To those who believe that the ENTIRE word of God is truth, and is inspired of Him, bravo! 2 Timothy 3:16 states exactly that. ALL scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for reproving, setting things straight, disciplining in righteousness.

If you don't believe that, then that is your business. All of us are TIRED, TIRED TIRED of listening and reading the babble from this woman. I know I am. I don't know why this paper continues to publish these letters, just so this woman can put her 1/2 cent in and belittle all those who would believe differently.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want how they want and not be criticized for it. If shumphreys would simply like to state her opinion and not ram it down everybody's throat, perhaps someone would be inclined to actually pay attention.

God's entire word is Truth. Either you believe that or you don't. You can't pick and choose. You can't mix philosophies of men and other teachings with the teaching of the Bible.

Ms. Snow has a great letter, but doesn't know her Bible. Perhaps someday both her and shumphreys will actually take the time to examine the scriptures properly and stop wasting everybody's time! "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:25 PM:

" Tammer asked: "Why is it not true? My understanding of the Bible is that through Christ, all things are possible -- that if a person is truly sorry for his/her sins, there is no sin too great to be washed away by the blood of Christ, even murder."

Tammer, that's exactly why I said it was open to debate. Sure, there are circumstances under which someone who murdered another could be forgiven. I stated it's open to debate for just that reason. HOWEVER, murdering someone is a sin. Murdering someone THEN REPENTING, however, are two different actions. I believe I was referring to only ONE action.
===========================
The part about "...through Christ, all things are possible...", however doesn't refer to that kind of thing, it refers to the physical circumstances in which you find yourself. It was written by Paul to - I think - don't hold me to this, I'm typing on the fly - the Colossians or Ephesians about his conditions while he was in prison. He stated he can handle any circumstances in which he finds himself by relying on Christ.
==========================
"Aren't some of the heroes of the Old Testament themselves sinners of the colossal variety (murderers, adulterers, etc.) who became heroic by humbling themselves before God, repenting of and atoning for their sins, and changing their life course?"

Absolutely. But again, we were talking about the act of murder, not the act of murder FOLLOWED by the act of repentance.

(And folks, don't waste your time and MY time by asking about plotting a murder and planning to ask for forgiveness. I really don't have time for that kind of thing.)
============================
"And above all, isn't it a cornerstone of the Bible and Christian faith to say that NONE of us mere mortals get to judge and determine who is in heaven and who is not?"

Yes it is and I hope I have not given you the impression that I think I am the judge and jury regarding who does and doesn't go. I cannot make the final determination, I never have thought I could and I hope I haven't given that impression.
=============================
"Can you help me out here, M@H, about where you're coming from and how you make these statements with such certainty and authority? Can you show me the Scripture that refutes what I've posted here?"

I'd love to do that. Please help me by being a little more specific. Which statements have I refuted for which you're asking for proof? I don't believe I've refuted ANY of your statements.
=========================
"Also, I'm guessing that das' comments about cutting off the hands of thieves might come from a couple of different places (or perhaps others -- I make no claim of being a Bible expert): the Old Testament notion of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth%2 "

Perhaps you're right about his source - I don't know. But he cited the Bible as his source which is why I refuted the statement. You are correct about the "eye for an eye" thing. But what did Jesus say about the "eye for an eye" thing? He said to turn the other cheek.

I know you didn't imply this but I'm trying to save myself a little frustration, so bear with me . . . Does that mean the Bible is contradictory? No. If anything it means the same thing as the US government banning alcohol then repealing the law. Does that mean the law is contradictory? No. It means it's different. "

father bob wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:33 PM:

" The Truth wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:10 PM:
" shumphreys is a blasphemer and is not interested in man's salvation, let alone hers. She is more interested in the philosophies and opinions of men than of our Creator."""

Praise be to Allah! "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 15, 2008 4:21 PM:

" To Her Chird I am neither sad nor lonely. I know how difficult it is to face reality, people can hold very different beliefs from you, then can be very good people, productive citizens, and morally upright. Do you really think that someone like the Dalai Lama will be denied admittance to heaven (if there is a heaven) because he isn't a Christian? Do you really think that Bush or Newt Gingrich or Jerry Falwell or Hagee or Pat Robertson will make it to heaven (if there is a heaven) and Buddha, Lao Tzu, Black Elk, and a whole host of others would be denied entry because they are not Christians? Facing the reality of those questions is the first step to Enlightenment and transcending your EGO to live as Christ would hope you would live. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 15, 2008 4:31 PM:

" To the Equalizer I understand that being "challenged" to move beyond your comfort zone, your EGO, to see beyond mere words to get to the depth of meaning "feels like an attack". That is what happened to Jesus as he wandered the dessert and to Buddha as he sat under the Bodhi tree. Growth only comes through sacrifice of the old as you embrace the new. Jesus fully understood this and the Bible is full of his "attacks/challenges" to people. I am challenging you and others to use the brain (you claim God gave you) as it was meant to be used, to THINK, to QUESTION, to CHALLENGE your self and your comfort, so that you can transcend yourself to find that union with God that Jesus talks about. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:26 PM:

" M@H, you had no way of knowing this, but the moderator seems to have inadvertently clipped off the end of my post. When I sent it, it ended with, "I know Jesus commanded us to turn the other cheek, but our legal system doesn't seem to be based on that, but on 'an eye for an eye.' And remember, too, that Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the old, but to fulfill. (I think that's one of the places that causes some to think the Bible can be contradictory -- eye for eye vs. turn the other cheek seem like 2 very different messages, and if the whole Bible, not just the New Testament, is the infallable word of God, how can the book seem to say 2 very opposite things?) I also listed near the end of my post (but too was cut off by moderator, I'm assuming by accident), that the "cut off hand" part by das could refer to Jesus statement that "if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off. . . if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out," etc., because it's better for one of our members to perish than for our whole body to perish in hell fire, but again, I'm only speculating as to das' reference.

As far as asking for clarification, I wanted to know where in the Bible it said that murderers couldn't be redeemed; your original post made it sound that way to me, but your response clarified where you're coming from. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:58 PM:

" shumphries, thank you for your posts. You've hit a nerve w/ M@H and some others -- keep plugging away. Christianity and words like openmindedness, tolerance, diversity need not be polar opposites. And regarding Ms. Snow's letter, I AM a Christian, and yet I also believe that there are many ways to heaven. It's not up to me to judge anyone or to condemn other religions. I think Jesus could be using a metaphor when he said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Jesus, to me, is about love, acceptance, forgiveness, humility. I think anyone whose religious beliefs contain this substance is a follower of Jesus, even if they don't use the label Christian. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:14 PM:

" Thank you Tammer you are a wise woman and an enlightened soul. "

father bob wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:56 PM:

" Ohmmmmm....Ohmmmmm...... "

mememe wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:09 PM:

" God will not over-ride our will "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:01 PM:

" tammer65 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:26 PM:
"M@H, you had no way of knowing this, but the moderator seems to have inadvertently clipped off the end of my post."

I understand. It DID seem a little incomplete.

"eye for eye vs. turn the other cheek seem like 2 very different messages, and if the whole Bible, not just the New Testament, is the infallable word of God, how can the book seem to say 2 very opposite things?"

Great question. The key here is the word "seem". One not-so-small event changed a heck of a lot of things in the Kingdom of God. It's just like prohibition and the repeal of prohibition. One small event (repeal) changed booze from being illegal to legal even though the booze didn't actually change. (Maybe a lousy analogy but I think you get it.)
===================
"that the "cut off hand" part by das could refer to Jesus statement that "if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off. . . if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out," etc.,"

I suppose you could be correct about that being what das was trying to state but like you, I don't know that, either.

However, even if that WERE to what he referred, the two passages (eye for an eye and pluck it out) are not in any way related, which is again why it "seems" to so many people that the Bible is contradictory.
====================
But later on, you posted: "I AM a Christian, and yet I also believe that there are many ways to heaven."

Tammer . . . there is no scripture to support that statement. If you CHOOSE to believe that, I'm not going to judge, condemn or even talk about you behind your back but that belief has no basis in scripture.
==================================
"Christianity and words like openmindedness, tolerance, diversity need not be polar opposites."

You are correct to a great extent but when the actions or beliefs CONSTITUTING openmindedness, tolerance and diversity go against what the Bible teaches, then what YOU or I THINK need not be polar opposites doesn't mean diddly. Now there's a whole different discussion we could have on tolerance but I assure you the tolerance about which the Bible speaks is not the same tolerance that is preached today from the pulpits of the politically correct.
===================================
"Jesus, to me, is about love, acceptance, forgiveness, humility. I think anyone whose religious beliefs contain this substance is a follower of Jesus, even if they don't use the label Christian."

Jesus IS about all those things, but like my previous statement . . . what YOU think or I think about who is and isn't a follower of Jesus has no bearing on reality. There is simply no scripture to base this on.

Now I don't want to come across as sanctimonious or anything like that. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you want to believe and I'll not judge you or call you names or anything of that nature.

My ONLY concern in these threads is not to allow the Bible or Christ or Christianity to be misrepresented by those who try to explain what they don't know.

Your posts seemed more like questions and observations to me than outright statements of fact - which is why I wrote this response three times before posting it.

I hope I was able to help. "

HerChild wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:06 PM:

" Tammer wrote: "And regarding Ms. Snow's letter, I AM a Christian, and yet I also believe that there are many ways to heaven. It's not up to me to judge anyone or to condemn other religions. I think Jesus could be using a metaphor when he said, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Jesus, to me, is about love, acceptance, forgiveness, humility. I think anyone whose religious beliefs contain this substance is a follower of Jesus, even if they don't use the label Christian. "

Tammer...I can believe that I am a bird because I am covered with His Feathers... does that make me a bird? "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:15 AM:

" To Her Child you can believe that there is a God but that doesn't mean that there is. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:32 AM:

" Now I don't want to come across as sanctimonious or anything like that. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you want to believe and I'll not judge you or call you names or anything of that nature. My ONLY concern in these threads is not to allow the Bible or Christ or Christianity to be misrepresented by those who try to explain what they don't know."

M&H, you (and Equalizer and HerChild as well) ARE coming across as sanctimonious. Who's to say that your beliefs about Christianity and the Bible are the "right" ones? Are you people the Mouthpiece of God?

M&H, you often seem to forget that how you interpret Scripture is just that--an interpretation. Though many of your interpretations are consistent with those of Christendom in general, not all of them are.

I am a Christian. If I believe this, if Tammer believes this--if anyone believes he/she is a Christian, who are any of you to say they are not? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to begin your comments with, "Most Christians believe" or "In my opinion" before you say your piece?

Does being confident that you have your doctrine correct make you a Christian? What if you're wrong about your doctrine? Does that mean you're not a Christian after all, and that God is going to zap you? If you believe that, you must be either very confident in your own beliefs or suffer from a lot of anxiety. "

smilininonu2 wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:34 AM:

" New Pledge of Allegiance- WRITTEN BY A 15 yr. old SCHOOL KID IN ARIZONA :

New Pledge of Allegiance (TOTALLY AWESOME) !

Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore
Because the word 'God' is mentioned....
An amazing child in Arizona wrote the attached

NEW School prayer :

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.

And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene..
The law is specific, the law is precise.

Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.

It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

> Jesus said,
> 'If you are ashamed of me,
> I will be ashamed of you before my Father.

'
>
>
> Not ashamed. Pass this on. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:37 AM:

" HerChild, no, but if you want to try flying out the window I won't stop you, and I wasn't speaking about you thinking you're a bird or an intelligent human being or anything like that. What I WAS speaking about was that the Bible is a book that is filled with many metaphors. Why couldn't Jesus' comments that I mentioned be one of those many metaphors? "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:58 AM:

" M@H, I think your view of yourself is somewhat deceptive, because labeling me as a one of those people "who try to explain what they don't know" IS condescending and judgmental. You can tap-dance around it all you like and preface your statements with, "I won't judge you," but your post seems to be saying, "I, M@H, am right, and you, poor misguided unknowing tammer65, are dead wrong."

As far as a scriptural basis for my beliefs, I offered it: The Bible contains many metaphors (for instance, that the universe was created in 7 days), and Jesus' statement about being the way could very well be a metaphor for saying, "love, peace, humility, tolerance" are the way. As far as saying only Christians and no other religions may enter heaven, many Christian scholars and clergy will disagree with you on that one, though admittedly not many in our geographical area (I know you're a transplant, but even your monikor on these sites acknowledges that your heart and the foundation of who you are comes from around here).

I DO appreciate that you didn't resort to name-calling, that you want very much to be non-judgmental in your statements, that you thought out what you would say and hesitated to post, and that you seem a very kind and well-intentioned person who sincerely is helping others to find Christ. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Hope there are no hard feelings.

P.S. I have no idea what you meant in using Prohibition to explain how "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" aren't contradictory messages, that both are true statements. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:00 AM:

" A little off topic here, but bear with me and I'll attempt to make it relevant.

Rumor has is that if the practicing Mormon, Romney is selected as Mccain's running mate, he will get the soccer moms on his side, by promising to marry all of them.

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist.

My apologies to anyone offended, it was a joke... "

VTucker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:14 AM:

" To My Point of View:

You might enjoy reading the following article about modes of baptism:

http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=278

From your posts, it sounds as if you already have your own beliefs about baptism. The problem seems to be that they don't agree with those of the church you would like to join. It is a difficult situation, one that you will have to resolve in your own mind.

In general, Christians believe that you must be baptized. Some believe that baptism is necessary for salvation; some believe it is part of a salvation process; some believe it is a covenant marking you as a believer; some believe it is simply an act of obedience to the Lord. All of these beliefs are based on how particular Christian groups interpret Scripture. I personally believe God honors all who try to follow Him--even if their interpretations disagree.

The point is, what do you believe? Do you have to compromise your beliefs to join the church you're interested in? Can you co-exist with people who believe differently? Can they co-exist with you, or will your differing opinion be a point of contention?

Can you join this church and be who you are--who you believe God has called you to be? "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:16 AM:

" Well said Vicky we all ignored My Point of Views dilemma. It addressed it honestly, respectfully, and I would say helpfully. I attended a Methodist church for a while, I sang in the choir, the minister and choir director performed in my summer melodrama and they needed another voice in their choir so I couldn't refuse. When the Oklahoma city bombing occured that minister that Sunday made a comment about how those people must have done something terrible to bring Gods judgment down on their heads. Three months later that church had a new minister. They agreed on all other areas but that one VITAL point. I would suggest that My Point of View examine other doctrines of the church he is attending before he commits. Others here have offered good points to consider. There are many churches that will never ask how you were baptized, or even if you were baptized, because they realize it is irrelavant. It is what is in your heart and soul and mind that matters. Because that is what shows in your everyday actions. AND that is why many people have full respect for those of other religious persuasions. "

sapient wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:41 AM:

" TAMMER65: If you believe that the Bible is God's Word, then you cannot believe that there are many ways to heaven. Jesus said, "I am the way , the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except by me."
John 14:6 "

The Question wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:07 AM:

" There is no evidence that the stupid, doggerel "Now I sit me down in school" poem was written by a schoolchild in Arizona or anywhere else. It has been cited by vapid right wingers for at least a quarter of a century, and its known history can be found here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/newprayer.asp
We do know that in November 2004, a high school principal in Athens, Georgia, read "The New School Prayer" over the school's intercom, then apologized a week later after receiving complaints from parents because his actions violated the principle of separation of church and state. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:25 AM:

" To Her Child I apologize for my flippant response to your posting to Tammer, "just because I am covered with feathers, doesn't mean that I am a bird". I let my EGO get in the way and I didn't read in, around, over, and above your exact words! You were responding to Tammers comment that sometimes people who don't claim to be Christians can actually be followers of Christ. Her insight is important. I have never claimed to be a Christian, I am a Gnostic Taoist. BUT she observed that in me she stills sees someone who follows Christ's teachings. That is because, as I have been trying to point out, the teachings are universal, they are promoted by Buddha, Lao Tzu, Black Elk and many others. The teachings are about how you treat your fellow man. Buddha and Jesus were very much alike and if there is a heaven, I am sure they are sitting side by side discussing their successes and where they went wrong. Someone can be "Christ like" and not be a Christian and a Christian can be like the Buddha without becoming a Buddhist. "

The Question wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:34 AM:

" Did you hear that the Unitarians had merged with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Harry?
They knock on our door and they don't know why. "

das wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:01 AM:

" How is the bible NOT a science fiction novel?
Do you have have proof that everything it in truly happened one day? No. You have a book that was written by man that tells you how to live your life. Now that is some power. I wish I had some power like that! "

sapient wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Tammer65: The word "Christian" means "follower of Christ". "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:00 PM:

" tammer65 wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:58 AM: "M@H, I think your view of yourself is somewhat deceptive, because labeling me as a one of those people "who try to explain what they don't know" IS condescending and judgmental. You can tap-dance around it all you like and preface your statements with, "I won't judge you," but your post seems to be saying, "I, M@H, am right, and you, poor misguided unknowing tammer65, are dead wrong."

If I had posted that, it would have been very condescending and judgmental - two characteristics I DO NOT wish to purvey. However that's not what I posted. I stated that what you posted wasn't scriptural. That's not about you, it's about what you posted. I don't know ANYTHING about you to be able to label you. All I know about is what you POSTED.

As far as providing scriptural basis, I was looking for citations of Book, Chapter and Verse and not generalizations, but by what I posted you couldn't have known that. I was a little ambiguous. Sorry.

Your statement "As far as saying only Christians and no other religions may enter heaven," puzzles me because I cannot imagine myself posting that statement.

And "...and Jesus' statement about being the way could very well be a metaphor for saying, "love, peace, humility, tolerance" are the way." I suppose COULD be interpreted as you have, but there are many other passages in scripture that support the statement about "I am the way" refers to Jesus himself and not his characteristics.

We can disagree on what we believe. I have no problem with that and I'll never condemn you or judge you for what you believe. The only thing I have ever tried to do on this site is to refute some Biblical mis-quotes and precepts so the Bible is not misrepresented. "

The Question wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:01 PM:

" " Tammer65: The word "Christian" means "follower of Christ". "
-------
Really? Many of the Christians I run across believe in tax cuts for the rich and the death penalty, and like to sneer at the poor and joke about shooting people with the guns they worship. Nothing to do with Jesus there. "Christian" is just a meaningless, empty word. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Das, don't we all, wish we had that kind of power. The Bible is a mix of fact and fiction, fantasy and myth, parable, morality tale, historical facts, and historical inaccuracies. In one sense it isn't any different than a Science Fiction novel, the Harry Potter Books, the writings of Tolkien or the Chronicles of Narnia, the Tao teh Ching, the Buddhist Sutras, or "Siddhartha". In another sense it is very different because this book has been used to justify wars and great attrocities and has also been used to bring out the best in some men and women. It is used to justify the continued discrimination against homosexuals. What sets it apart for many is that they believe that it is the absolute, unerring, "Word of God" not the "Word of Men, writing on God's behalf or in God's name." I believe that it is a great book but not the only great book and no holier or less holy than some of the others I have named above and that God speaks or has spoken and will continue to speak through the writings of many, if we are wise enough to read and contemplate what is written. "

Elbert wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:17 PM:

" Ms. Snow writes The opposite of truth is a lie . . .
Unfortunately, according to a list of antonyms, the opposite of truth is falsehood. According to the dictionary, a lie is false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Thus, while a misstatement of truth may be false, it is not a lie unless that the person making the statement knows the statement to be false.

I see that others also believe that the opposite of truth is lie. The opposite of truth is falsehood and a lie, while a false statement, is substantially different from a mere falsehood as the person uttering the lie intends to deceive someone into believing something that the person making the utterance knows is not true.
Other than that, I found Ms. Snows letter fascinating and wish her well as she continues on lifes path to whatever goal she seeks. "

farmwife wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:14 PM:

" Here is a thought, why don't we all just agree to disagree? We all think our "faith" religious or not is the "truth" and maybe one of us is right and then again maybe we are all WRONG! "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:06 PM:

" M@H, I'll take you at your word as to what you intended by your posts -- I have no reason to doubt you -- but the overall tone of the statements DID come across as condescending and judgmental, even if that wasn't your intent.

VTucker, as always, great posts! I often learn from you and value your perspective. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:13 PM:

" To Farmwife I wish it were so simple to just agree to disagree. That requires respecting those with differences. Unfortunately there are many in society who want to force their beliefs on others in regards to public policies and laws that affect all, those that believe as they do and those that don't believe as they do. The recent issue of Gay marriage is just one. My point for the last two years has been that religious beliefs/doctrines should not be the basis for public policies, but that ALL people without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion or lack thereof deserve fair and equal treatment under the law. "

Explorer wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:59 PM:

" Instead of wasting all this time arguing about how each of you should live your lives, why don't you go out and live it. This is ridiculous, neither side is going to convince anyone on the other side that that side is more right than the other.

Believe what you believe, keep it to yourselves and your circle, and stop spewing this unneeded hate all over the internet. You are all acting like teenagers or worse... politicians.

Please just close debate, you are giving everyone a headache "

sapient wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:15 PM:

" I just read the weather forecast and it said 91 degrees and sunny, but I think that was just a metaphor for it might snow or rain or sleet. duh "

father bob wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:25 PM:

" smilininonu2 wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:34 AM:
" New Pledge of Allegiance- WRITTEN BY A 15 yr. old SCHOOL KID IN ARIZONA :

New Pledge of Allegiance (TOTALLY AWESOME) !""""

that's a total hoax... "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:51 PM:

" To Explorer if this gives you a headache why do you keep reading? Could it be curiosity or boredom. You are right about one thing, neither side will ever convince the other and public forums "Letters to the Editor", are not the place to post religious beliefs. If they are posted than those that believe differently have a right and an obligation to express an opposing point of view. Especially when the intial letter promotes fear and hate or denigrates the beliefs of others. "

just wondering wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:51 PM:

" For everyone who thinks the Bible is fiction asking"Can you prove it happened?" Can you prove it didn't? As far as the original letter there was not one thing about fear and hate in the letter. That has been added by others in the discussion. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:26 PM:

" Sapient, you obviously have no clue as to what the word "metaphor" means or how they functions. Metaphors aren't used to show polar opposites. To use your oh-so astute phrasing (heavy sarcasm here, if you know what that word "sarcasm" means): DUH!! "

The Question wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:50 PM:

" Getting a headache? How sad. Sounds like somebody's fragile little belief system is getting shaken up. That tends to happen when you believe in nonsense. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:52 PM:

" Todays theme boys and girls:

"I can't tolerate intolerance!"

If this shoe fits- wear it.

Here endeth the lesson. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:15 PM:

" To Just Wondering, this letter was disrespectful of the beliefs of others. Calling others beliefs "a lie", saying that there aren't other ways to heaven, is disrespectful and not a very nice thing, or might I add a very "Christian" thing to do. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:17 PM:

" The Question- "That tends to happen when you believe in nonsense."
------

Do you mean like your nonsense belief that the universe was somehow created from nothingness- Question?

Or perhaps you're referring to that nonsense that Barrack Obama believes in- you know

.....that whole Jesus Christ Lord and Savior faith thingy......

Getting a headache Question? "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:17 PM:

" Oh and her statement about "being lenient of other religious views"--do you really think her opening line promotes love and peace and goodwill among men? "

barb dwyer wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:23 PM:

" give jesus a try ...if you don't like life with him, satan will always accept you back "

HisChild wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Agreeing to disagree
is a good thing!
:-} "

The Question wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:38 PM:

" I don't know how or if the universe was created, BL. I just know how it wasn't created.
Now, it's late. Don't you have some spooks in the sky to bother with your whining prayers? "

VTucker wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:46 PM:

" Thank you, Susan and Tammer. Reading all the comments that have been posted today, I have to say you both are very patient . . . and persistent! I'm not much of a debater, really.

Mainly, I hope My Point of View can find a church that is a good fit for him (or her). Some churches, even if your doctrine doesn't quite mesh with theirs, are okay with different points of view being around. Other churches aren't. I don't have any problem at all with churches holding to one doctrine or another--it's just when they make their preferred doctrine a point of contention, or even a litmus test for "true" Christianity--that's the problem.

I've been to churches representing several denominations. Many of their key beliefs are quite different--the way they interpret Scripture is very different from denomination to denomination. But all are Christian. It would take a lot of arrogance for me to claim that my interpretations are correct (and that someone else's are therefore wrong). Actually, I think Farmwife hit the nail on the head with her comment. "

The 7th Planet wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:56 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 16, 2008 5:51 PM: "and public forums "Letters to the Editor", are not the place to post religious beliefs."

Is this person the moderator or something? "

Rotty wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:11 PM:

" I agree with ya, HisChild.
It's A-OK to agree to disagree.

Now, someone hand me some viagra, a six-pack, & some spearmint gum, I'm off to help someone else's sparkling, bubbly personality.

Hallelujah, & Praise The Lord!

LOL!
:-D:-P "

what? wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:25 PM:

" When you get right down to it, we all know the same. Absolutly nothing. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:10 AM:

" Oops, a couple of omissions in my previous post (to Moderator, if you would like, just post this corrected one and not the first)

what? wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:25 PM:

" When you get right down to it, we all know the same. Absolutly nothing. "

And that's where faith comes in -- belief in what is unseen, "knowing" what isn't sure. Apparently some believe that it's a sign that their faith is strong -- which would please God and Jesus, they speculate -- if they dismiss any and all other points of view as challenges to their doctrine, and therein lies the problem. A little more humility, a little more admission of, "this is ultimately unknowable, but this is what I undoubtedly believe through faith" would help us all get along a little better. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:31 AM:

" TQ- "I don't know how or if the universe was created, BL. I just know how it wasn't created."
------

Really Question?

Then tell me how it wasn't created. Oh and......give me some evidence please.

And yes it is late Question- I'm sure you've already knelt down and said your prayers to your inflatable life-size Obama icon. Sleep tight oh- "believer in contradictions".

Your head must be pounding. "

das wrote on Jul 17, 2008 2:16 AM:

" We can't agree to disagree because the people who believe in Christianity try to force it onto others' lives through the government. How can we agree to disagree when that is happening? Why don't we just take all religion out of the government and THEN we can agree to disagree. When the laws of this country are not guided by what your science fiction novel says, then we will have a great, free country. Until then, we will keep having people fight over religion and people using a science fiction novel to not allow me and millions of others in this country to be free. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:45 AM:

" Well said Das. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:59 AM:

" Two years ago a gentleman wrote a letter to this paper decrying the recent court decision that ruled that Intelligent Design was a ploy to promote religion and challenged anyone to show him proof of evolution. I answered that letter and told him that proof of evolution is all around him, in the food on his table, the clothes he wears, the crops in our fields, and even in the gas in the tank of his car. I never once mentioned my religious beliefs. "Good Christians" immediately responded calling me immoral, a threat to our society (not in those exact words), and insisted that I was going to hell, for not believing what they believed. I set out to discover the depths of the cancer growing inside of them and others in this area. At first I tried a "farmwifes" approach let's just agree to disagree. That didn't work. Then I tried to see if we could agree on the most elementary concept that ALL people deserve to be treated with respect and deserve equal treatment under the law. That didn't work. So I tried to see how far I could get using their own arguments against them. That didn't work. So I tried beating them at their own game, with their own book of scripture and with that we have come to the impasse where we are today. Which in my view takes us right back to where we started two years ago, we should agree to disagree and we should treat ALL people with respect and grant them equal rights under the law, whatever their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual persuasion, religion or lack therof. Your beliefs are yours and mine are mine. Neither one of us is more true, more right, more virtuous, better than the other. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:07 AM:

" Oh and one other thing as long as people like Ms. Snow use public forums to promote intolerance (that is what not being lenient is) fear or hate of those that are different from them whether it is their religion or sexual preference I will speak up and denounce them. I have a right and an obligation to do so. I for one, would like to live in a world at peace, not one filled with religious hatreds, and peace, tolerance and respect start at home, right here in Coles County. "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:42 AM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 16, 2008 8:52 PM:
" Todays theme boys and girls:

"I can't tolerate intolerance!"

If this shoe fits- wear it.

Here endeth the lesson. "

glad you get to make the rules for us all sugar-britches......feeling a bit god-like again i see. how was decompression? hope they upped your medication. "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:47 AM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:17 PM:

Or perhaps you're referring to that nonsense that Barrack Obama believes in- you know

.....that whole Jesus Christ Lord and Savior faith thingy......"""

glad you've become a Obama supporter, sugar-britches. they'll be down to put a bumper sticker on your house in a little bit. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:55 AM:

" Ah yes fatherbob- I see you're still struggling with that debilitating case of homophobia- huh, "sugar-britches".

I don't think your meds are helping with your latent internal homosexual conflicts-bob.
Of course- combined with your overt mental-ret@rdation, I suppose there's only so much modern medicine can do fer ya- huh?

And as always bob- thanks for offering yourself up as my little slow-witted punching-bag.
.....I can always rely on you bob...... "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:59 AM:

" I find it interesting that God or gods just doesn't get that much attention. When the name of JESUS is mentioned on the other hand all of hell breaks loose in the opposition corner. The irony of it all is that Jesus said that these things would happen. He said "Marvel not if the world hates you, it hated me before it hated you." In the end it isn't going to matter how well you thought it out or argued it out. We are all going to bow at the Name of Jesus. I have lived my life not just hoping that what I believe is true but knowing that it is. I have seen Jesus turn people's lives totally around from alcoholics, drug addicts, sex offenders, you name it and turn them into a new creation in Christ Jesus. I have seen the power of the name of Jesus heal many people including myself of many sicknesses and diseases including cancer. So there is no argument or debate with me. Jesus is alive and well on planet earth and he proves that he is on a daily basis. All we have to do is just believe his Word! "Heaven and Earth will pass away but my Words shall never pass away." "

HerChild wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:08 AM:

" BOLOGNA humphreys!
There you go again talking yourself up and others down in the past without using any posts to prove it. Again, That is YOUR version of what happened a couple years ago. At the same time you said this...

"Then I tried to see if we could agree on the most elementary concept that ALL people deserve to be treated with respect and deserve equal treatment under the law. That didn't work."

...You continued to put people in 'groups' and not treat them with the respect they deserved or equal treatment , and that was part of the whole argument.

You were a do as I sayer, not as I doer LOL! Problems arise from that of course,
and just as now, you like to cause chaos and then paint yourself to be the savior trying to teach people lessons. How about just having a class for those whom are interested in your 'lessons' instead of experimenting your power in forums that mention God or Jesus?

May you come to know God as the breath that breathed life into you, God bless you. "

Equalizer wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:38 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:07 AM:
" Oh and one other thing as long as people like Ms. Snow use public forums to promote intolerance (that is what not being lenient is) fear or hate of those that are different from them whether it is their religion or sexual preference I will speak up and denounce them. I have a right and an obligation to do so. I for one, would like to live in a world at peace, not one filled with religious hatreds, and peace, tolerance and respect start at home, right here in Coles County. "

Perhaps you, shumphreys, are see what you want to see in people's letters, and it seems that in defending your view, you are causing religious hatreds that were not there to begin with in the letters that hold views you oppose.

You use the word "them" a lot also, which puts everyone else but two people you approve, into another category below you, especially when you say that you tried to teach 'them' or 'tried to beat them at their own games'. You are putting yourself and your beliefs above those of most others on these forums, and that is a true ego problem on your behalf.

Chill m'lady and be a lady in the real sense of the word, not one who forces separation and backbiting. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:24 AM:

" fatherbob- "glad you've become a Obama supporter, sugar-britches. they'll be down to put a bumper sticker on your house in a little bit."
--------

Well certainly fatherbob- after all we Christians (Barrack, me, and you- bob) need to stick together don't we, sunshine?

Tell me bob- doesn't it just make you all happy inside to know that Barrack Obama is such a devout Christian? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:29 AM:

" By the way fatherbob- what size Obama stick is plastered on the front of your rusted-out double-wide trailer.

....and does it clash with the Lazyboy recliner and the rusted-out beer-fridge on your porch.....?.....yuk* "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Equalizer I don't initiate the letters to the editor. If you refuse to see what is happening/written then you are as much a part of the problem as "they" are. If you think that speaking out against injustice promotes injustice you are wrong. Where do you think young people get the idea to trash/vandalize Synagogues and Mosques and Cemeteries. Where do you think young people learn that those that think differently, or have a different sexual orientation have no value or as a great Supreme Court justice once said in a different context, rights that we need to be concerned with (I paraphrase). Those attitudes are learned in the homes by people like Ms Snow and Mr. Guyer and by people like you that don't have the moral courage to speak up and speak out against injustice, immorality, intolerance, and hate. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Deep Thoughts, you say that "When the name of JESUS is mentioned on the other hand all of hell breaks loose in the opposition corner." I agree that's often true, but let me suggest another reason for the reason "all hell breaks loose." It may be because those representing the name of Jesus are not infrequently hypocritical--you can see examples of this in the posts on this thread. I see a lot of put-downs by many (most?) of those who feel they are standing up for Christ. What about sharing the love of Christ? No one seems to know what that means, although M&H does at least try.

When most people outside the Church hear the word "Christian" they most definitely do not think of Christ. Too often, many Christians end up making his name a source of contempt, or hiding him from the world he wants to reach out to. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:10 PM:

" "HMMM...I couldn't care less if you are a woman, man, or beast. I don't think woman or man or articulate are words to describe you though."

"Chill m'lady and be a lady in the real sense of the word, not one who forces separation and backbiting."

Equalizer, were these comments made in Christian love? I am assuming you consider yourself a Christian from other comments you have made on these forums--correct me if I'm wrong.

What is a lady? Someone who lives up to your standards of what a lady should be? Maybe Susan doesn't want to be a lady.

You referred to "separation and backbiting." I personally have experienced that more in Christian circles than anywhere else. Of course, it isn't called "backbiting" among Christian ladies. Generally, gossip, backbiting, etc. are referred to as "presenting prayer requests" or "sharing counsel" or possibly even "small group sharing."

But I have rambled. Anyway--please do not make the mistake of assuming those who happen to disagree with your opinion are "forcing separation and backbiting." "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:24 AM:

Tell me bob- doesn't it just make you all happy inside to know that Barrack Obama is such a devout Christian? """"

as a matter of fact, sugar-britches, it really doesn't bother me who is "christian" and who isn't. if you want that agruement, you need to splatter that sh*t on someone else. THAT is not the point of discussion.....what is however, is the fact that some christians such as ms. snow, herchild, sunbeam etal can't keep their sick tunnel vision to themselves.

by the way, makes me feel good to know that you and obama are brethren. "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:29 AM:
" By the way fatherbob- what size Obama stick is plastered on the front of your rusted-out double-wide trailer.

....and does it clash with the Lazyboy recliner and the rusted-out beer-fridge on your porch.....?.....yuk* """""

my place is adobe. you're obviously thinking of ol' cornpone evensteven. "

pork chop wrote on Jul 17, 2008 2:15 PM:

" While I'll respect your views on your religion, I must say that I believe you are wrong. There are too many holes in the Holy Bible to be taken literally. For example, Noah put ALL the animals in the world into a ark?? How did they eat? How did the meat eaters not eat the other animals? What did the non-meat eaters eat?
Adam and Eve were the first and ONLY humans on Earth. So, how did we get here without INCEST??? And please don't reply with some fantasy that God magically made everything right.
What gets me most about neo-Christians is that according to their Bible, God gave mankind free will but most of them are consumed in trying to tell other people how to live.
I am a spiritual person. I believe that mankind has the potential to do good, but it starts with dropping your ego, embracing people who are different than you and let God be God, not YOU! "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 2:41 PM:

" pork chop wrote on Jul 17, 2008 2:15 PM:
" While I'll respect your views on your religion, I must say that I believe you are wrong. There are too many holes in the Holy Bible to be taken literally. For example, Noah put ALL the animals in the world into a ark?? How did they eat? How did the meat eaters not eat the other animals? What did the non-meat eaters eat?"""

old men sitting around smoking opium can make up a lot of wild stories to share. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 2:59 PM:

" fatherbob- "...the fact that some christians such as ms. snow, herchild, sunbeam etal can't keep their sick tunnel vision to themselves."
-------

Ah- so it's that whole free speech thing that makes you intolerant of other peoples religious views- huh ret@rded-bob.

More of those Liberal double-standards hard at work in your little Neanderthal cerebral cortex, I see.

So tell me ret@rded-bob, does Barrack Obama believe that Jesus Christ is THE Truth, THE way, and THE life?

Take your time bob.......these are toughies.......hum dee dee dum......... "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 17, 2008 3:07 PM:

" RE: What VTucker wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:48 PM: You are very kind to have mentioned me in the same sentence as sharing the love of Christ. I really do try and up until the last couple of days was enjoying a pretty good record. I slipped on a couple of posts, but I thank you for not taking off points for it.

I couldn't really agree with you more when it comes to some of the reasons WHY the name of Jesus invokes havoc. There is no place for put-downs in the Christian environment yet we see that frequently, making his very name a source of contempt.

But I will offer to you one explanation as to why Christians come across as hypocrites . . . it's because we ARE hypocrites. Once we accept that we commit the same sins as those who do NOT claim to be Christian and decide that it is our job to point to the way of forgiveness instead of diverting attention off of us and onto those who aren't professing to be Christian, I think some great progress will be made.

Thank you again for your kind consideration in your post. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 17, 2008 3:09 PM:

" VTucker wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:10 PM:
"You referred to "separation and backbiting." I personally have experienced that more in Christian circles than anywhere else. Of course, it isn't called "backbiting" among Christian ladies. Generally, gossip, backbiting, etc. are referred to as "presenting prayer requests" or "sharing counsel" or possibly even "small group sharing."
===================
OOoohhh! Good one. One of MY personal favorites is "I'm only telling you this so you'll know how to pray." "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 3:52 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 2:59 PM:So tell me ret@rded-bob, does Barrack Obama believe that Jesus Christ is THE Truth, THE way, and THE life?...

you say he does....so i guess you know the answer.

that's not too tough sugar-britches. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:06 PM:

" ret@rded-bob said - "you say he does....so i guess you know the answer.

that's not too tough sugar-britches. "
--------

uhm.....bob....that wasn't even a real answer.

I'm asking you if you think Barrack Obama believes that- bob. "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:38 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:06 PM:uhm.....bob....that wasn't even a real answer.

I'm asking you if you think Barrack Obama believes that- bob.""""

but it is a real answer lamb-chop....just not the one you're obviously fishing for. i really don't know why you are asking, moron. you made it very plain and simple to TQ that he did, so if you say he does, you must know. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:46 PM:

" fatherbob- "...you made it very plain and simple to TQ that he did, so if you say he does, you must know."
-------

What are you talking about ret@rd-bob?
I never said any such thing to TQ. "

sapient wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Pork Chop: Noah didn't put all the animals in the world on the ark, only two of each "kind". A "kind" could have been something like genus. John Woodmorappe in his book, "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" counted about 8,000 genera (plural of genus), at that time including those that are now extinct. That would put the animal population at about 16,000 members aboard. The largest would probably been represented by young ones. According to his tabulations only about 11% would be larger than a sheep. According to the Bible the ark was 450X75X45 which would have the volume of 522 standard railroad cars each of which could hold about 240 sheep. With three decks on the ark there would be ample room for all those animals as well as food for all plus Noah and his family. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:08 PM:

" sapient, How would there have been enough hours in the day for the 8 people on board the ark to even feed and clean up after 16,000 animals? Ask the staff of the Coles Co. CARE Center (animal shelter) how long it takes them each day to scoop poop for the 100 - 200 animals in their care. "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:13 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:46 PM:
" fatherbob- "...you made it very plain and simple to TQ that he did, so if you say he does, you must know."
-------
I never said any such thing to TQ. """"

try again, lamb chop....you really need to snap out of it. "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:15 PM:

" sapient wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:46 PM:
" Pork Chop: Noah didn't put all the animals in the world on the ark, only two of each "kind". A "kind" could have been something like genus. John Woodmorappe in his book, "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" counted about 8,000 genera (plural of genus), at that time including those that are now extinct. That would put the animal population at about 16,000 members aboard. The largest would probably been represented by young ones. According to his tabulations only about 11% would be larger than a sheep. According to the Bible the ark was 450X75X45 which would have the volume of 522 standard railroad cars each of which could hold about 240 sheep. With three decks on the ark there would be ample room for all those animals as well as food for all plus Noah and his family. """""

you actually believe that whooey??? "

father bob wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:17 PM:

" i'll check in tomorrow to see how the ghosts and goblins are going to preform more miracles.

have a great evening! "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:27 PM:

" Anyone have any stats on how much waste 16,000 animals would produce in a day, especially when 11% of them (or approx. 1,760) are larger than sheep, according to sapient's statistics. The shovels alone would take up considerable space. Why, it's even more voluminous than the amount of excrement strewn on these threads on a daily basis. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:02 PM:

" Tammer, imagine the stench. Maybe they trained all the animals to poop out the port holes. Curious how people can ignore such simple problems in order to prove an unprovable idea. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:16 PM:

" Our friend tammer said-

Why, it's even more voluminous than the amount of excrement strewn on these threads on a daily basis. "

Wow, and I thought we were all going to be nicer to Bryant. LOL! "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:01 PM:

" Oh, no, Susan -- you just gave them the answer. I'm sure sapient's next post will be that the animals were trained to use the porthole. (Of course, my comeback will be related to the amount of food 16,000 animals would eat in 40 days and 40 nights, when 1,760 of them are bigger than sheep. Heck, I know how much cat food my 4 cats eat every week! And never mind the earlier question, which went unanswered, about how Noah kept the carnivores from eating the other animals. And since the literalists believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, there must have been dinosaurs on board, too -- unless all those fossilized bones scientists have unearthed are just a liberal trick to insult Bible believers. How long would you say a pair of young brontosauruses would be?) I'd say LOL if it weren't so disturbing that some will go through such mental aerobics because they have to believe that every word of the Bible is literal truth. Stench indeed!

Good BL reference, Harry! Because of the stuff I've seen on these threads, I'm now going to substitute the initials bl any time I mean "b-s." Easier to get past the moderators, too! "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:41 PM:

" Tammer I knew I liked you. I also have four cats and three dogs. Keeping the litter box clean is enough to wear me out. And people thought we had no sense of humor! "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:25 PM:

" Susan, we have 4 cats and 1 hamster, and sometimes it feels as though I'm nothing more than a zoo keeper (and that's with my sister and my niece in the house, 3 people keeping track of 5 pets, not 8 people keeping track of 16,000). Makes me think that these people who except this parable as literal couldn't have owned pets, let alone lived on a farm -- to see how much hay, grass, and/or grain animals like horses and cows and pigs eat in a day, or how mucky the stalls get in a single day. Heck, even something as small as a goose can certainly digest and excrete a phenomenal amount in a day. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:00 PM:

" Well, I see the conversation here has descended to a new low. . . .

Tammer, how does your hamster coexist with 4 cats? I have 2 cats, but it was a lot of work when I had a parakeet and tried to keep them away from it. I want to get a puppy, but I'm not sure my old girls could ever handle that. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:04 PM:

" Ah bien, M & H, we all slip up now and then--not to worry.

From one of your last posts . . . it's the people who don't realize they're hypocrites who make Christianity a huge laugh (or a huge pain) for everyone else. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:34 PM:

" VTucker, it's not too difficult. The hamster lives in a big aquarium with plenty of room to move around in, and it has a sturdy top on it that locks in place. We had one disaster where the cats toppled the aquarium off its stand, but the top held securely and the glass didn't break, although Chi-Chi was a bit unnerved, understandably. Since then, my niece keeps the hamster in her room, with the door closed, and the cats are allowed in only when she's there to supervise.

I hope I haven't offended with my tirades about the ark (though the discussion has become a bit graphic in terms of animal waste) -- I just think that it's one of the Bible stories that is a bit difficult to accept on a literal level, though its message, and the covenant of the rainbow, certain has value. (Hope you weren't including me with the blind hypocrites that make Christianity laughable.) "

EZ wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:57 PM:

" I may be posting a little late But I noticed this post and felt I should respond. "Really? Many of the Christians I run across believe in tax cuts for the rich and the death penalty, and like to sneer at the poor and joke about shooting people with the guns they worship. Nothing to do with Jesus there. "Christian" is just a meaningless, empty word."
Many people claim to be Christians (as I do) but that dosn/t make them a Christian. I believe there are some pew sitters who may be infor a surpise some day. I do agree with Shumpreys on this one point, that we are to live good productive moral lives. There are many people who do this that aren't Christians, Many people who don't who are or claim to be christians. In my heart I know there is a God and Jesus the Christ died for my sins. I try to live my life in a way that reflects that Do I always succeed? No, Do I try to cram it down others throats? no.Do I witness, Yes if the opputunity arises. Do I judge those that believe diffeerently that I? no.
I included the questions because it seems the anti-Christian posters view all Christians as judgemental and self righteous. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:10 AM:

" No, Tammer, I was not thinking of you when I wrote that.

We had one parakeet that actually knew how to deal with the family cat. She was in one of those large cages with a stand attached. If the cat came along, reached up, and leaned against her cage, the bird would slide down and start pecking at her feet--as long as we were in the room with her. However, if we were not in the room and the cat managed to slip in, she would start screeching until someone ran in to remove the cat. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:34 AM:

" I guess it's OK to bring this up on this thread considering everything under the sun has been put on here.

Anyway, remember a few months ago when Obama said that he wanted to get away from the current in your face, my way or the highway, tough-talking little cowboy wannabe way of conducting foreign relations, and he would actually be willing to sit down and talk to our adversaries? If I remember correctly he was blasted from the right as being naive and wrong headed. The pundits at Fixed news were particularly hard on him.

Well it looks like Bush is wanting to do the same thing now. Fixed news calls it a dramatic shift in foreign policy, and we now hear talk of actually stationing our diplomatic people in Iran. Do you think Fixed news will blast Bush for this? ha ha...To the contrary, I imagine the pundits on that outfit will be hailing his brilliance for this idea.

Obama talks for months about bringing home troops from Iraq and putting more in Afghanistan. So guess what Bush is talking about doing?

Obama talks about actually doing more for the troops (more than just tearful photo-ops with their grieving families) who sacrificed so much. Maybe Bush will pick up on that one too.

I wonder how many more of Obama's ideas Bush will use between now and November? "

oblivious wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:13 AM:

" You know, I have really enjoyed reading this banter back and forth so much I had to sign up for a username for this site.

Just to let you know where I stand...I, at one point considered myself saved, and although not a very devout Christian, I certainly believed. After educating myself and plenty of reading I now consider myself an Atheist.

I was very open minded to the teachings of Christ when I was younger but as I have grown in not only age but mind, I realize how silly I was.

While most people typically think of Christianity as a religion of "good" it's hard to argue that most of the mass killing and wars have all had something to do with religion, whether people want to admit it or not.

What is most rediculous about religion that most don't realize or even think is valid is that people don't CHOOSE their religion, it typically chooses them. That poor SOB that is born in the middle of BFE gets his religion from his bringing up. Of course, people can change...look at me. But we don't choose our religion, it chooses us. Just as Christians think these Islamic radicals are insane to believe they'll be met with 72 virgins in heaven, they believe we're all infidels. They didn't all of a sudden believe this...it's what they were taught, just like the naive Christians who believe a great life of eternity awaits you if you just take Jesus into your hearts....I've prepared myself for what I will become when I'm gone. Worm food. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:24 AM:

" To Harry Potter, we could be so lucky. Actually it is way to late for Bush to start to "sing a different tune". How many lives have been lost, how many families harmed, how much damage has been done to our economy, to our educational system, to our nations reputation......... The next president whoever it will be has one heck of a mess to clean up. I think that if either of the candidates were really sane they wouldn't want the job. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:42 AM:

" I looked into myself and found that yes, I am my own god. I know this because I know this. I know that I have attained all the knowledge of all humanity since the dawn of time because I told myself that this is so. I checked with myself and have determined that there is simply no supreme being.

Why you ask? Well because it is ridiculous to believe in an invisible being in the sky who somehow influences our lives. It's ridiculous because it requires faith. I know faith is ridiculous because it's not fact. I told myself this is so, I know it's true. I also can't prove how the universe came into being on it's own, but I just have faith that it did. But that's a different kind of faith. I told myself that as well.

What I can't tolerate is all of these intolerant Christians talking about their faith.

This is a free and open forum, and a free and open democracy. And it is certainly no place for all of this free and open religious expression.

Religion should be out of site and out of mind. At least that's true of Christianity. Other forms of faith are perfectly acceptable because they don't offend me. And I checked with myself and found that Christianity is offensive because it is the dominant religion of this country, therefore it is evil. I know this because I know this. I checked with myself and found it to be true.

What we need is more tolerance from Christians. They need to tolerate us atheists because we find Christians intolerable. I checked with myself on this and I found it to be true.

So in this free and open forum, I demand that all you Christians learn how to be more tolerant. So shut up and sit down and keep your beliefs to yourselves. Any expression of your faith is highly offensive to me and is in direct violation of my Constitutional Right to not be offended.

I checked with myself and I have concluded that I simply will not tolerate anymore intolerance. So shut up, all of you Christians, and listen to the rest of us self-enlightened open-minded nonbelievers. And then maybe you will learn something.

Keep the lack of faith and always hope for hopelessness. "

HisChild wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:35 PM:

" arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:42 AM:

a lot of things....*LOL!*

I'm doin' my best, honest!
Be patient with me, God is not finished with me yet!

The best to you arrogant! :-) "

arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:58 PM:

" backatcha hischild.
And may nothingness not bless you. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:03 PM:

" to arrogant I find no humor in your tasteless commentary. Whether you accept this blunt reality or not is up to you, religious INTOLERANCE is tearing this world apart, piece by piece. Saying that one should not be "lenient" towards others is INTOLERANCE and the root of much of the EVIL engulfing our world today. It is uncomfortable to stand against such statements but someone has to have the moral fortitude to say NO MORE. "

father bob wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:28 PM:

" oblivious wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:13 AM:I've prepared myself for what I will become when I'm gone. Worm food. """

welcome to the boards....someone who makes a little sense. "

father bob wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:31 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:03 PM:
" to arrogant I find no humor in your tasteless commentary. Whether you accept this blunt reality or not is up to you, religious INTOLERANCE is tearing this world apart, piece by piece."""

thanks..... "

CHILL! wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:39 PM:

" I found a lot of humor in your post, arrogant, and see that HisChild did also,
great job, both of you.
You sadly have no sense of humor shumphreys. Lack of religion does that to some people, it can cause self-centeredness. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Oh I'm with you shumphreys. I absolutely will NOT tolerate that Christian intolerance! If there is one thing I cannot abide it's people who won't abide! We need to bring the world back together by NOT TOLERATING any more Christianity! The world needs to not tolerate any more evil Christianity! Except for the fact that there is no such thing as evil, but that's besides the point.

You and I shumphreys have an obligation, nay, a duty, to rid the world of all hopefulness. We need to drive out the silly beliefs of a loving supreme being. And fill the world with nothing.

We need to march right out to the nearest cancer treatment center and take those poor misguided saps who are being treated for terminal illness, grab them by the hand, look them straight in the eye, and shout out to them "THERE IS NO GOD YOU NARROW-MINDED IDIOT!"

And then, after we have destroyed all of their silly little fairytale fantasies, we can fill their sou.... I mean minds, with a nice peaceful belief in nothing, and then sit back and let the hopelessness take over.

After all shumphreys, you and I, as we sit here in Central Illinois, have truly figured out all those ancient questions about the meaning of life. You and I have talked with ourselves and have figured it out for the rest of the world. We are much smarter than those ignorant dolts from eons past. We are the most enlightened, sophisticated, well-educated experts since the universe happened out of nothingness. And the world HAS to listen to us shout.

Keep the lack of faith, shumphreys and always hope for hopelessness.

And may nothingness not bless you, my fellow worm food :-( "

arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:25 PM:

" shumphreys, moral fortitude? Now you're starting to sound like those pudding-brain Christians. Moral fortitude? Now why should you or I care about morals? There is no afterlife. We are all just worm food, so who cares about morals? Rubish! "

Rotty wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:35 PM:

" tammer65 wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:08 PM:

"Ask the staff of the Coles Co. CARE Center (animal shelter) how long it takes them each day to scoop poop for the 100 - 200 animals in their care."

.......

LOL! GOOD ONE!
But I won't go there, had enough of that jazz!
LOL! "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:52 PM:

" arrogant- LMAO!

..........(wiping away tears of laughter yet somehow sad)........ "

Late Bird wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:28 PM:

" arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:42 AM:
(ME LOL!)

and
HisChild wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:35 PM:
" arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:42 AM:

a lot of things....*LOL!*

I'm doin' my best, honest!
Be patient with me, God is not finished with me yet!

The best to you arrogant! :-) "

(ME LOL!)

and
arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:58 PM:
" backatcha hischild.
And may nothingness not bless you. "

(ME LOL!)

and
shumphreys wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:03 PM:
" to arrogant I find no humor in your tasteless commentary... It is uncomfortable to stand against such statements but someone has to have the moral fortitude to say NO MORE. "

(ME LOL!) Where is your humor? Many of us wish you would say no more shumphreys! LOL!)

and
CHILL! wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:39 PM:
You sadly have no sense of humor shumphreys. Lack of religion does that to some people, it can cause self-centeredness. "

(ME LOL!)

and
arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:57 PM:

(ME LOL!)

and
arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:25 PM:

(ME LOL!)

Thank you all for such an entertaining and laugh-filled afternoon! I applaud you arrogant! I sure hope you are not shumphreys 3rd personality out in print!
(They say the third is a charm!) LOL!
God bless you! And may the non-gods not bless you! "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:06 PM:

" To borrow a line from one of the other threads, "what a piece of work is man", and I am using man in the gender sense. "

ry_n22 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:10 PM:

" First, I'd like to thank Ms. Snow for her boldness and faith. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, regardless of how others may feel about it. I consider myself a Christian and truly believe that the Bible is absolutely clear that faith in Jesus is the only way to Heaven. Although I consider myself a Christian, I AM anti-religion for the following reason: all religion is man's attempt to get to God (doesn't work); Christianity, on the other hand, is God's attempt to get to man through the gift and sacrifice of His Son. You can persecute and belittle all you want; but the fact of the matter is we will all be judged one day and Christians don't profess salvation through Christ for our own sake, it's for your sake because we love you and so does Jesus. "

The 7th Planet wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:14 PM:

" arrogant, it took me 20 minutes to stop laughing long enough to type this comment one of the best my cynical hat is off to you "

Rotty wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:44 PM:

" Rock On, arrogant!
LOL! "

The Question wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:07 PM:

" The fact that we are not immortal is what gives human morality its meaning. What we do is for keeps. It matters because life and death literally depends on it. And life is sweet because it is so brief.
Any half-wit ought to be able to see that. "

oblivious wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:27 PM:

" arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:25 PM:
" shumphreys, moral fortitude? Now you're starting to sound like those pudding-brain Christians. Moral fortitude? Now why should you or I care about morals? There is no afterlife. We are all just worm food, so who cares about morals? Rubish! "

Wow, I've never heard this before...people believing that we cannot have a moral society without religion. Do you not steal from someone because of the repercussions you believe you will receive in the afterlife? Do you not kill because you are simply afraid of "God's" wrath?

Can't a person who's not religious help an elderly person cross the road simply because it's a nice thing to do for a fellow person? Can't a person NOT be a thief, murderer, or felon and it NOT be related to his or her religious views?

One cannot interchange religion and morality. These two things are not dependent on each other and I'm sick and tired of people treating them like they are? "

what? wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:57 PM:

" Such a minor inconvenience as knowing absolutely nothing is no problem for the human imagination. We'l just be whatever we bloody well want and screw the rest of you. Wheeee.. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:31 PM:

" Morality matters because life and death literally depends on it? Well half-wit, maybe that's what you see, but not me. I'm much too clever for that. Unlike you half-wit, I'm enlightened.

I see very little effect on the length of my mortality simply because I "love my neighbor as myself". Besides, what do you and I care how long, short or "sweet" life is. It's all for naught in the end. And I say if it's short and pointless, then why play by any rules? That's for religious suckers.

The next thing you know you'll be telling me about some abstract nonsense called "love", as if that fairytale fantasy has any meaning or purpose in our completely random and meaningless existence.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you people to stand over there with those Christian morons. I simply CANNOT tolerate your intolerant preaching! Tell them shumphreys. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:22 AM:

" arrogant, for satire to work, it has to have a basis in reality. You've misrepresented not only reality, but shumphries' words as well.

This either/or thinking is ridiculous -- either you're a Christian and live by a moral code, or you're not, so it's anything goes. You misrepresent the way atheists and agnostics live their lives. I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the people in prison would profess to belief in God, many Christians among them. Does that make Christianity (or Islam or Judaism or whatever their religion) a bad thing? No -- just saying that plenty of bad people (along with plenty of good ones) profess to religious belief, just as plenty of good people (and bad) claim no religious beliefs. Most people do live by moral codes, whether they are religious or not. And HOPE isn't the exclusive property of Christians. An atheist or agnostic can hope for a beautiful day, world peace, a better environment, etc., for themselves, their children or grandchildren, or just for humankind. Get a grip! And before you attack my personal beliefs, yes, I'm Christian, but I'm also fed up with the intolerance expressed by too many Christians and Christian churches, because it runs counter to Jesus' words and teachings. The world isn't either/or, black or white. That's what many people don't seem to get, including you with your "cute" little satiric remarks. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Wow, there's a lot of hostility over here. I would like to ask the posters arrogant, Chill, and Late Bird what it is that they're trying to accomplish with their comments. What's with this Us vs. Them mentality, this need to treat the Christian faith as some type of turf war?

Assuming you are believers in Christ (there's no way to know for sure), the Christ you believe in is all-powerful. Most likely, he is fully capable of guarding his turf. As I understand Scripture, his message to ALL was something like "Come unto me." So why are you guys barking and snarling like guard dogs, confirming people's negative impressions about Christianity (and driving them further away from the Christ you believe in)?

You all post anonymously, which makes it easy to respond to you--so I'm saying, People . . . you don't seem to have a clue about the faith and Lord you're trying to defend. "

The Question wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:51 AM:

" 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.
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 lunatic hosannas all the way.
Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but to make good people do bad things, you need religion.
Think witch burning and Spanish Inquisition. "

The Question wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:55 AM:

" You know, people who do right only because of the fear that God will "punish them" aren't really moral at all. They're just cowards.
I'm always amazed that people think the primitive so-called morality of religion has anything to do with real ethics or morality, which arise from human empathy, not ancient superstition. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:49 AM:

" Getting back to Letha Snow's letter--I wonder if she ever reads these comments--YIKES!

At least some of you commenting in support of her letter probably enjoy the writings of C.S. Lewis (and the Narnia movies based on his work). Lewis claimed to be a Christian; few of you familiar with his writings would argue that fact.

It is interesting that he is held in such esteem, since he did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture or in a literal six-day creation. Also, he believed that people who didn't know Christ could come to know him after death. As one commentator said, "Lewis expressed hope that many true seekers like Akhenaton and Plato, who never had a chance to find Christ in this life, will find Him in the next one.

What I'm trying to say is, Why is it such a point of contention for some of you when your interpretations of Scripture are challenged? Do you really believe God is going to zap someone because their beliefs are in error (if they in fact are)? Is C.S. Lewis going to hell because he hoped and probably believed he might see Plato in heaven? "

VTucker wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:01 PM:

" From a Christian blog:

"Where we stand on this issue of whether non-Christians can be saved gives a clear picture of what kind of a God we believe in. Does God set up a rigid credal test for whos in and whos out? Will the victim of a priests sexual abuse who subsequently rejects Christianity spend an eternity burning in hell while the priest who abused him is forgiven? Is the Kingdom of God a private club, for members only?

Or is Gods grace limitless? Does God make the effort to reveal Godself to those unable to receive God through the Christian church, for whatever reason? Does everyone, no matter where or into what circumstances they are born, have an equal chance at salvation? Is God just? Is God love?

I know which God I believe in. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:49 PM:

" Moral schmoral! Who decides what is moral? What is moral in your mind might not be moral in mine. There is no god and each and every human decides what is moral for themselves.

I checked with myself and I have decided that I know what is moral and "decent" better than anyone else.

This is a world governed by force, and each and every human is ultimately self-centered. The only thing that really keeps this random and meaningless species in any sort of order is laws enacted by force.

Morals are an illusion borne out of humanity's reluctance to except the fact that we are no more significant or righteous than a worm that lives in the darkness of the soil.

There is no god, and thus, morals are relative to the eye of the beholder.
You fools preach as if a bible is within your arms reach. You speak as if morals have a universal and homogeneous definition and understanding. I look around this world and I look into myself and I know this isn't so.

What will you preach to me about next, a conscience for Pete-sakes? How long must this hopeless and meaningless world suffer you fools?

Keep the lack of faith, and always hope for hopelessness.

And may nothingness not bless you, my fellow members of random insignificance. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:10 AM:

" What happened to you arrogant, where did you go wrong? Did your parents fail to nurture you, were they overly religious and cram moral absolutism down your throat? Was your father a wife and son beater,or did he not have any time for you? Were other children nasty to you in grade school (if you have had these attitudes for that long I suspect they were)? Most human pathology starts in early childhood. Before entering school a child needs to learn to delay gratification, share, take responsibility for actions, learn the meaning of no, to control ones behavior,develop a conscience, learn to care for others, to feel loved and secure, and the only ones who can teach this is the parents in the home. I think your parents failed you. "

The Question wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:42 AM:

" The assumption that religion is the basis of morality is a strenuously spread bit of theological propaganda. It is spread so strenuously because people are always in danger of finding out that it isnt true.
Fundamentalist Christians dont obey God because they think he is good. They tremble before him because they think he is omnipotent. They do not call themselves God-inspired Christians, do they? They call themselves God-fearing Christians.
No moral philosophy at work there. You wouldnt call the cowering subjects of a tyrant moral, would you?
In the Book of Joshua, to take one example, God orders the Hebrews to slaughter every man, woman and child in the land of Canaan. What a moral inspiration that God is, eh?
Far from having any exclusive claim to morality, Judeo-Christian religion often has nothing to do with morality or even works against it, as during the Spanish Inquisition.
Humans have values not because their values are divine, but only because of their natures as thinking mortal beings beings who live or die, together with their fellows, based on the rationality or irrationality of their choices. That is the basis of human morality, and it arises not from any ancient book of myths but from empathy, from the childs recognition that other people can be hurt the way he can be hurt. From that beginning, weve filled whole libraries with thoughtful, philosophical explorations of how humans should live. That field is called ethics, arrogant one, in the unlikely event that you ever develop an interest in knowing something about what youre talking about. "

Equalizer wrote on Jul 20, 2008 2:54 PM:

" VTucker wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:14 AM:
" Wow, there's a lot of hostility over here. I would like to ask the posters arrogant, Chill, and Late Bird what it is that they're trying to accomplish with their comments. What's with this Us vs. Them mentality, this need to treat the Christian faith as some type of turf war?

Well VTucker, I guess you either forgot or it completely went over your head when your friend shumphreys started the whole thing up about "them" and how she tried to teach them, tried to catch them in their own games, suggested that they...she put herself on a whole new level above most of us when she started calling us "them", and that is an ego problem that she is trying to rise above LOL. "

The Question wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:58 PM:

" Exodus 32:27-29 (King James Version)
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
---------
Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version)
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
----------
Yes, religion makes quite a moral basis for civilization, doesn't it? "

The Question wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:08 PM:

" According to a 2002 study conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York, 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States have been accused of sexual abuse of children since 1950, leaving an estimated 13,000 victims and over $2 billion in lawsuits money that could have been spent feeding and clothing tens of millions of destitute, but tithing, Catholics.
That happened because Christians are such beacons of morality, you know. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:14 PM:

" Morals. I say again my unenlightened and feeble-minded ninnies; morals are in the eye of the beholder.

Your closed minds spin in circles and your open mouths expound philosophically, and yet the truth is, morals are in the eye of the beholder.

Morality by its very definition concerns the principles or rules of "right" conduct or the distinction between "right and wrong ".

Does the entire human race agree on what is right and wrong? Do some cultures allow adults to marry children? Do some cultures practice ritual mutilations? Ritual killings?

Who do you people think you are to subject the rest of humanity to YOUR precepts of "ethical" behavior?

Who gave you the "moral" authority to determine MY "moral" behavior?

I have looked into myself, and I have determined that I am the final judge of MY behavior.

Humans are self-centered much more than they are "moral". Humans look out for themselves much more often than they "empathize" with others.

The reason there IS a Golden Rule that states; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is because there is a Golden Tendency for us meaningless humans to; Do unto others, BEFORE they do unto us.

So don't preach to me about your simplistic and narrow-minded philosophy about a childs recognition of "empathy". You're intellectual fortitude is starting to sound like that of a childs.

It's time for you to grow up and look around this random and meaningless world.

Never doubt the doubt. Always hope for hopelessness and never be surprised when you find it. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:15 PM:

" Good grief Equalizer, are you angry because I didn't call you by your name, I lumped you in with "them". Next time I will be sure to signal you out specifically. Or do you just object to "them" being trapped and exposed. I may have baited a trap but "they" took the bait, hook, line and sinker. The choice was "theirs". "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:52 PM:

" There are many illnesses/diseases/pathologies that are hidden. On the surface a person will act and seem quite normal, hiding behind a facade. When the illness/disease/pathology is mental, the only way to bring it out into the open is to trick it and let it expose itself for all to see. I am not saying that "Christianity" is an illness/disease/pathology but it has become a tool of those that have an illness/disease/pathology. Christianity and the Bible have been in the past and have the potential for good, to help people become better people. BUT they, as with all religions and sacred texts, can be used for the opposite, to help people become worse people, to justify fear and hate of the "other". "

VTucker wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:55 PM:

" Hi, Equalizer,

Does it really matter what anyone else says on these threads? Susan has the freedom to say what she wishes, the Question has the freedom to talk about spooks floating in the air--that's the comment that has stayed with me!--and so on. Why should anyone be offended? If what you believe is true, then God is all-powerful and can take care of his own reputation.

You can be sure Paul the apostle heard plenty of debate when he faced off with the philosophers on Mars' Hill (Acts 17). It seems clear to me he treated his opponents with respect. I don't picture him backing down from an intellectual point, yet he tried to approach these people from their own frame of reference. There were those who not only questioned his message but also mocked it--yet he did not retaliate.

Paul experienced far more than challenging remarks and ridicule--he was beaten and imprisoned. I've never read anywhere in the Bible where he attacked his persecutors. Instead, he tried to help them on more than one occasion.

I think we're supposed to follow his model. The early Christians were powerless and had to allow God to take care of the church--which he did. Paul himself emphasized the power of the powerless. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:07 PM:

" Never doubt the doubt. Always hope for hopelessness and never be surprised when you find it."

Arrogant, the tone of your writing is sarcastic, but there is a certain truth to these statements--hopelessness tends to result in a succession of self-fulfilling prophecies. On the other hand, if you open yourself up to even the slightest amount of faith, wonderful things can happen. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:42 AM:

" Fear not oh mindless cattle. Even though the other enlightened non-believers attempt to keep one foot in reality while the other slips into abstract and foolish concepts and delusions, I shall remain steadfast in my non-beliefs.

While The Question clings to outdated fairytale notions of "morality", I see through such primitive nonsense.

He obviously lacks the depth and intelligence to recognize that "morality" stems from a "belief" that is monistic in its very nature. He fails to see the folly of his own illogical conclusions. That the fantasy of "morality" is built upon a universal oneness of a "sense" of "right and wrong".

This is a dangerous position for the enlightened mind. For IF there is truly a universal set of "morals" that transcends all cultures around this insignificant blue orb, an "ethical" standard if you will, that defies humanity's innate disposition of self-centered instincts, then the logical question must be asked. Where did this "morality" come from since man's nature is far from "moral"?

As even you simpletons can see, this thought process can quickly lead to silly abstract conclusions and intangible arguments. And I will have none of that.

I know that god does not exist because I have told myself so. I refuse to believe what I cannot see. And I refuse to see what I cannot believe. I'm simply far too clever for that.

I shall remain faithful to my faithlessness. I shall believe in my disbelief. And I will keep my mind closed to all of this closed mindedness. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:38 AM:

" Well said Vicky. There was a new book out this past year "Secrets", the only problem is that there is not secret, there is nothing new about their message. It has been repeated since the beginning of time. It is the meaning behind "Love your neighbor as your brother". If you behave in a loving way more will come back to you. I like Juliets statement "My love is boundless, the more I give, the more I have to give." Our attitudes ARE an important part of what happens to us in life. Those that are positive and upbeat tend to attract friends that are that way and their lives seem filled with positive happenings. Have you ever walked into a room where everyone was frowning and down in the dumps and tried smiling? It can work wonders. The same can happen if you really try to follow the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc. The kingdom of heaven on earth will be multi cultural, multi racial, multi spiritual, it won't like just like Jesus, or just like Allah, or anyone particular diety. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:24 AM:

" The Question quoted on Jul 20, 2008 6:58 PM: Exodus 32:27-29 (King James Version) and Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version) and then commented: "Yes, religion makes quite a moral basis for civilization, doesn't it?"

Do you wonder WHY these commands were given? It was because the people about whom God spoke were IMMORAL according to God's standard. So when IMMORALITY is eliminated, what is left is MORALITY. And yes, the absence of immorality DOES make quite a moral basis for civilization, wouldn't you agree?

Do I decide what is or isn't moral in God's eyes? Nope. Does GOD decide what is or isn't moral in his eyes? You betcha! And how he chooses to handle immorality is completely up to Him. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:40 AM:

" The Question wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:42 AM:

"The assumption that religion is the basis of morality is a strenuously spread bit of theological propaganda. It is spread so strenuously because people are always in danger of finding out that it isnt true."

Hmmmm...interesting...what would you offer as the basis of morality if it is not religion? (Oh, I see you answered that question later on. Skip this one.)
============================
"Fundamentalist Christians dont obey God because they think he is good. They tremble before him because they think he is omnipotent. They do not call themselves God-inspired Christians, do they? They call themselves God-fearing Christians."

Please understand that Christians use the word "fearing" because of the scripture that says "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". As used in that scripture and defined in the original language (I believe it is Hebrew but I don't have time to research the actual language), "fear" actually means "respect out of love" and not "afraid" as in "afraid for my life."
==============================
"No moral philosophy at work there. You wouldnt call the cowering subjects of a tyrant moral, would you?"

No, but I also wouldn't refer to God as a tyrant if I understood him, nor would I call what those who follow God do as cowering.
==========================
In the Book of Joshua, to take one example, God orders the Hebrews to slaughter every man, woman and child in the land of Canaan. What a moral inspiration that God is, eh?"

It depends upon whose definition of morality you choose to use - yours or God's. If you choose to use YOURS, I don't know whether or not I'd call that an inspiration since I don't know what YOUR morality would be. If I choose to use God's, yes, I would call it moral because of the circumstances surrounding that command, God's ultimate purpose and God's omnipotence that allowed him to see into the hearts and minds of those of Canaan. God brought his justice on them.

We could debate this, I suppose, but I'm thinking justice is a function of morality since we could not dispense justice without the guidelines of morality.
===============================
"Far from having any exclusive claim to morality, Judeo-Christian religion often has nothing to do with morality or even works against it, as during the Spanish Inquisition."

I'm sorry Christians have claimed they have THE corner on morality. As shumphreys has stated here many times, "loving thy neighbor" isn't trademarked by the Christian faith. MANY religions believe in that principle as well as people who are areligious (if there IS such a word). For Christians to claim they have THE corner on morality is a little narrow minded IMHO.
================================
"...from the childs recognition that other people can be hurt the way he can be hurt"

For a few moments there I wasn't following you but I caught on at the end. What you have said is true about the child's recognition. A child CAN recognize that other people can be hurt, but what is it that makes that child actually CARE that another person is hurting? To see someone being hurt is one thing. To give a squat that the person is hurting is quite another. From where do you propose the CARING emanates? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:45 AM:

" The Question wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:08 PM: "According to a 2002 study conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York, 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States have been accused of sexual abuse of children since 1950..."

That happened because Christians are such beacons of morality, you know."
=============
No, that happened because Christians are obviously NOT such beacons of morality. Christians are sinners. In fact Christians can be worse than sinners when they sin and then claim they are above the sin because they are Christians.

Christians are NOT beacons of anything. Christianity - I keep telling you is different - is THE beacon of morality.

Disclaimer:Not the ONLY beacon of morality. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:49 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:38 AM: "...Juliets statement "My love is boundless, the more I give, the more I have to give."

You forgot John Lenon's "...and in the end - the love we take is equal to the love we make." (or was that Paul?) "

arrogant wrote on Jul 21, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Fools. Introduce candy to children, and see how long they "empathize" with one another.

Empathy is not in our inconsequential and meaningless DNA. Selfishness, like gravity is the rule on this randomly spinning blue orb. Like rats on a sinking ship, we will do whatever it takes in order to survive as we stave off the inevitable meaningless end.

The Question and I have determined that there is no god. Unfortunately The Question adheres to the silly and primitive presumption of "morals".

Where he lacks intellect and falls short of his basic premise of unbelief; I suffer from no such weaknesses.

The Question should sit down, shut up, and learn from me. I will show him the true extent of random meaninglessness.

I have looked into myself and I have discovered the wisdom of all ages.
There is no god because I am god.
I believe in me. And I determine what my "morals" are. If it appeals to me, then who are any of you to tell me I am "wrong"? "Morals" change with the wind from culture to culture, from age to age. And all serve no further purpose than for their immediate existence. Any deeper meaning is sheer folly.

I refuse to believe what I cannot see. And I refuse to see what I cannot believe. I'm simply far too clever for that. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:11 AM:

" M@H the Christian may see, the caring emanating from God. For the Buddhist the caring emanates from within when one transcends ones Ego and finds compassion. For the scientist and atheist from understanding (knowledge) of the human condition and a recognition of the common humanity of ALL. Caring isn't the soul property of anyones God. "

The Question wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:10 PM:

" Unbelievers aren't the problem. "True believers" are always the problem, from here to Islam. More respect for reason and evidence, and less reliance on blind, stupid faith, would help solve many of this country's monstrous problems. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 21, 2008 2:32 PM:

" shumphreys caring emanates from understanding of the human condition and a recognition of the common humanity of ALL? Complete nonsense.

Does your definition of "caring" apply to all aspects of the "human condition" in all cultures the world over?

If so, then there should be no difference in cultural values across the entire planet.

You are sounding more and more like the absolute-thinking christians in here, shumphreys. "

The Question wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Arrogant proclaims there is no God because he is God.
Well, that explains a few things. We have right wingers saying that everybody in schools should be armed, and that mental illness is caused by "the devil." I always expect them all to start barking that they're Napoleon or God.
And so they have. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 21, 2008 4:29 PM:

" I proclaimed that there is no god because I am god.

I shall translate my difficult meaning, down for you Question.

The concept of god is as meaningless and insignificant as is my existence and your existence. Although your existence bears even less meaning than the average calcified slug. At least the calcified slug is true to it's state of being.

Tell me more about your stupefied concept of innate universal "morality", Question, and I will enlighten your daft philosophy with more sensible reasoning. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:38 PM:

" Q: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

I'M not calling you a fool but one of my sources seems to indicate that stating "there is no God" is a rather foolish thing to say. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:19 PM:

" Now M@H now which source might that be? At least you have your sense of humor back. I think I detected a slight twinkle in your eye oops voice. "

The Question wrote on Jul 22, 2008 8:49 AM:

" No, what the fool says in his heart is, 'The Bible is literally true.' He also says it out loud, with obnoxious frequency. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 22, 2008 11:28 AM:

" Yes that's right. The Question is right. The bible is not literally true. If anything in it is less than literal then none of it is literal. It must be all, or nothing. Just like the mindset of The Question and myself.

If so called christians, along with their beliefs and writings are not 100 percent accurate and factual and free of any contradictions; then it is all collectively false.

The Question and I demand complete perfection and consistency from the christian faith. We demand an impossible standard. And we do this without acknowledging the imperfections and contradictions in our own enlightened disbeliefs.

The Question and I can do this because we have decided that we are in complete possession of all the world's knowledge that has ever been, and that ever will be.

There is no god. The bible is all false. The universe just somehow came into being from nothingness. And morals are an illusion that can only stem from a supreme being, therefore The Question and I reject any claim of ethics or morals and have no obligations to such fantasies.

Don't any of you mind-numbed cattle doubt us. Close your minds so that we can open them for you. If we don't think for you, how do you expect to think for yourselves.

We don't have to be perfect when we demand perfection. We just have to be right. And we are right because we know the rest of you are wrong. We have decided for you. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:21 PM:

" The Question and I will keep repeating our same infallible set-minded theme with obnoxious frequency. "

The Question wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:32 PM:

" Keep in mind that the Bible was written by the same people who said the world was flat. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:52 PM:

" And The Question and I say that the something that is the universe, came about from nothingness. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 22, 2008 3:07 PM:

" The Question is right. Either the bible is entirely literal and accurate or it is entirely false. There can be no in-between.

The Question and I demand absolute 100 percent perfection from the bible. And since that is impossible in this random and meaningless world; the bible is impossible.

The Question and I have deemed it so.
In our state imperfection we demand perfection. Do not doubt us. Doubt everything else. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 22, 2008 3:36 PM:

" The Question wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:32 PM: "Keep in mind that the Bible was written by the same people who said the world was flat."

Pardon me, but I don't think that's quite accurate. If it IS true, then all other documents written at that time and all the way up until the earth was proven to be round are also in question due to authorship. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jul 22, 2008 5:27 PM:

" I guess Doh gave up on the war, and is now going to take over the religious threads. LOL "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 22, 2008 9:50 PM:

" The Question wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:32 PM: "Keep in mind that the Bible was written by the same people who said the world was flat."

How interesting that you should use the example of the world being flat to denote the unbelievably of those who wrote the Bible. After all, you and I and everyone else knows the world isn't flat - science has already proven that - assuming you can believe science. And why wouldn't you believe science - it's science that can prove everything with fact, right? Can't argue with THAT!

Even though I believe that what the bible says is true, I realize you don't and I'll respect that and not try to jam it down your throat. After all, it does seem a little difficult to prove using the scientific method and all, so I'm not going to argue that the bible is true. I'm going to concede that point for now. However, I think you'll agree that whether or not it is true, it DOES exist - right? I mean, you can see it, touch it, etc. So by scientific definition, it must exist.

And since science has already discovered authenticated the scrolls from which the bible was compiled, I think we can agree on the fact that the scrolls actually exist - whether what's on them is true or not. Science has proven they exist so they must.

So whether or not anything written on those old scrolls and other media is true or not, at least we know those old scrolls and other media exist.

If my memory serves me correctly (and since I looked this up, it does), the writings that comprise today's version of Isaiah were written somewhere around the 8th century BC which has been authenticated as clearly as science can "authenticate" the origin of stuff.

Now according to my sources, the first person to actually propose that the earth might be round was Pythagoras around 570BC. So between the time Isaiah was written (and scientifically documented) and the time around when Pythagoras hung out in Greece was about 200 years, give or take a decade.

Now all that serves to point out only one thing and that is the book of Isaiah was written at least - if not more - than 200 years prior to the first mention of the world being round by any scientist of any merit.

In looking at the KJV of Isaiah 40:22, I read "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." referring to, of course, God. I think science has already established that a circle is round - I believe my 10th grade geometry teacher (Gerald What's-his-name) left that image with me.

So as not to make a mistake in translation, I went to my handy-dandy Hebrew/English lexicon and checked out the word used in Hebrew that somebody translated to "circle" and sure enough, the Hebrew word "chuwg" sure as heck means circle or orb - just as we know it today.

So - if you can believe science - the world is round. "Science" first concluded this around 570BC. The book of Isaiah - again authenticated by archaeology and other sciences - was written somewhere around 200 years prior. Even though nary a WORD in Isaiah may be true (just conceding a point), the words DO exist, and science has proven that. The Hebrew word used in the English translations does indeed refer to something circular (orbal?) and geometry has proven that something circular is round. So it seems that the bible was the origin of the concept of the world being round - or the shape of an orb.

So what's this about people who claimed the world was flat? And where was it first written that the world just might be round? Clue: Not a Scientist. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 22, 2008 11:51 PM:

" Science also dictates that something cannot be created from nothing.

But The Question and I both reject science because we both KNOW that this random and meaningless universe (this something) just simply came into being from nothingness.

And The Question and I also realize that the strongest most powerful thing that governs all of humanity is this intangible fairytale "thing", you believers call "love".

The Question and I reject this nonsense because it lacks any tangible proof by means of empirical evidence.

You see, The Question and I are far too clever to accept ALL of science or ALL of human nature. We pick and choose only that which fits into our modern wisdom.

Of course, we would never accept such inconsistencies from the magical book called the bible. From that, we demand complete and consistent, literal perfection.

And why? Because The Question and I are the most intelligent individuals who have ever spontaneously appeared on this randomly spinning, blue and meaningless orb in the middle of this inexplicably "created" universe.

You christians need to sit down and shut up, and let us do the thinking for you. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:37 AM:

" arrogant: I sincerely appreciate the candid, open and honest feedback and evaluation of my latest post and those upon which you have chosen to comment in the past. Your wisdom and knowledge is such that I know I should listen to you more closely and I vow to continue to sit at your feet and just absorb what you have to share with the world. I ask only for your patience as I begin to see things in light of meaningless nothingness.

However, my recent post was strictly from a historical perspective and not from that of a Christian. If there was ANY religious slant, it would have been Jewish since Isaiah was Jewish. Additionally, to cite Pythagoras was to cite a true non-believer in any religion as Pythagoras - like you - was given the keen insight of knowledge without the needless albatross of religion.

I continue to try to be worthy to post using the same bandwidth as you. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:13 AM:

" To M@H I appreciated the historical lesson, I had forgotten about Isiah. The early Polynesians also knew that the earth was round and settled the Pacific, remember Kon Tiki? The Norse made it to far North America before Columbus ever set sail. And I watched a PBS show about early, early Americans that suggests that they didn't walk across a land bridge between Ice Ages but the earliest sailed or canoed down the coast along the Ice Front. I think the story of what happened to the Catholic Church during the times they declared the earth was flat and persecuted other view points is poignant for today. We still have people here, persecuting others for opposing view points. The church went wrong once and you can see how easy it is for it (or some members) to go wrong again. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Mattooner, you are wise to recognize my superior brilliance.

I, like The Question, will pick and choose from your historical perspective, that which bolsters my unbelieving faithlessness. In like, The Question and I will reject all other "evidence" that is contrary to our enlightened minds.

I have looked into myself and have determined that I am all wise and all knowing. I have deemed my wisdom to be timeless, even though "time" is meaningless. I (like The Question) have concluded that although my existence is random and meaningless, my wisdom and insight is structured and poignant. Yes that's right. Out of random nothingness, I have deemed my existence to be structured "somethingness." Albeit a pointless and meaningless "somethingness".

All must except this insight on it's surface, and look no deeper for any contradictions. To do so would be folly.

You may continue to bask in my great and all knowing wisdom, Mattooner. I have smiled on you, and have decided that it should be so.
You are right to give me praise and glory, as meaningless as that is, it makes me "feel" important. And my intangible "feelings" are all that really matter to me. It's seems that my tangible existence is enslaved by intangible "feelings".

I see no contradiction in this, nor should any of you unenlightened and far less brilliant cattle. You may all carry on with your inferior rational and patter as you stare into the posterior of the bovine ahead of you. I will graciously suffer all fools. "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2008 3:17 PM:

" Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
I'll leave the citation to you, Arro. "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2008 3:48 PM:

" The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.
Again, my friend Arro will take care of the citation for me. Thanks, A-man. "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2008 3:51 PM:

" There is an inherent tendency in all systematized and instituted religion to degenerate intellectually and morally, save for the constant corrective activity of free thought.
Dogmatic and ritual religion being, to begin with, a more or less general veto on fresh thinking, it lies in its nature that the religious person is as such less intelligently alive to all problems of thought and conduct than he might otherwise be a fact which at least outweighs, in a whole society, the gain from imposing a terrorized conformity on the less well-biassed types.
Whatever conduct is a matter of sheer obedience to a superhuman code, it is ipso facto uncritical and unprogressive.
Again, Arro will supply the citation for me. Thanks, pal. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 23, 2008 3:59 PM:

" You are right Question. All of this "belief" in abstract nonsense such as "love" and "morals" can only lead to an inclination, to an infliction, of a universal definition of "right and wrong" behaviour.

There is no right, there is no wrong, there is no god. All is random meaninglessness. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 23, 2008 3:59 PM:

" arrogant: Isn't "Out of random nothingness, I have deemed my existence to be structured "somethingness." kind of like getting a 10% raise from a volunteer job????? "

arrogant wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Do not question me Mattooner.

These are mere contradictions that The Question and I have deemed insignificant.

You bible is the imperfect contradiction here. Let's focus on that instead. Let's move along. "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Religions are like fireflies. They require darkness in order to shine.
Arro will cite for me. Thanks. "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:25 PM:

" A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
I'm sure Arro will cite that for me, too, but I'll help him out with a hint. The guy who said it was pretty smart. "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:35 PM:

" I'm sure Arro will help me out with this one, too: I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Foolish Question, why do you seek the words of the dead to fill your empty mouth?

Stand on your own convictions instead of hiding behind empty words of the unenlightened.

Tell me about your fallacy of "morals". Who decides what is "moral"? Measure a "moral" for me. Show me your empirical proof.

You have attempted to raise the meaningless dead to give your own insignificant and meaningless life; meaning. It is your feeble attempt to grasp for immortality in an effort to give your own mortality something more than the nothingness that is your very essence. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:24 PM:

" I liked that last post Question too bad many aren't able or willing to read it and think about it. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:28 PM:

" For quite a while now I have been bothered by and consequently I have been contemplating, thinking about the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. I have come to realize that there are two inherent problems with the doctrine. First people use it as a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. It becomes an excuse, I am a sinner, what could I do, I couldnt help myself, it wasnt my fault,. Now I know that isnt the intent of the doctrine, but that is the way it appears to be used. It has become the mantric response of many Christians who arent willing to confront their responsibility for their actions.

Second the doctrine implies that human beings are inherently wicked and morally depraved beings. And true to human nature, if we are told something often enough, we come to believe that it is true and that is the way we behave.

Imagine what a Doctrine of Inherent Goodness might bring about--a doctrine that states that humans are basically kind, good, and compassionate beings, if we were told that often enough, we might begin to believe it and might begin to behave that way.

Imagine what a Doctrine of Inherent Wisdom might bring abouta doctrine that states that humans have the capacity for great wisdom if they learn to develop their talents and abilities, seek knowledge and understanding. Rather than running away from knowledge, they might actively seek it and become wise. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Good grief, Susan, after some of the comments on these threads I thought you'd be ready to accept that doctrine (original sin) by now!

Whether original sin or old reptilian brain, I personally don't think its effects can ever be completely overcome. And included among the people who think they have overcome are some of the most unpleasant. "

barb dwyer wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:20 PM:

" science has in very recent years pretty much proved that evolution does not hold up....sure there is adaptation within a species but to evolve into a whole new species has to this day never been proven...a very good book on the subject..darwinism under the microscope....try the read it is based entirely on fact not theory "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:49 PM:

" To those that are curious, there appear to be many on these threads that are very sensitive to any opposing view point. So from now on I will open all of my posts as above, "to those that are curious". That way the sensitive ones can avoid reading what I have to say. I will keep the posts generic, no references other than, they and them, it, etc. If those of you that are curious wish to ask me a specific question feel free to do so and I will respond to you directly. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:55 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:28 PM: "For quite a while now I have been bothered by and consequently I have been contemplating, thinking about the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. I have come to realize that there are two inherent problems with the doctrine."

Actually, it's more than a doctrine - it's a tenet of belief - a basic principle.
========================================
"First people use it as a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. It becomes an excuse, I am a sinner, what could I do, I couldnt help myself, it wasnt my fault,. Now I know that isnt the intent of the doctrine, but that is the way it appears to be used. It has become the mantric response of many Christians who arent willing to confront their responsibility for their actions."

Absolutely correct. However, that's a fault of the person claiming "Not Guilty by Reason of Original Sin" and not the tenet itself. Principles do not perform actions. People do.
========================================
"Second the doctrine implies that human beings are inherently wicked and morally depraved beings."

Original sin may imply wickedness and depravity to some but that doesn't mean that's what it is intended to do. Perception is not reality. Reality is reality. Original sin refers to man's sin nature in that he is naturally self-centered and separates himself from God. But the precept of Original Sin also makes a way for man to redeem himself to God.
=======================================
"And true to human nature, if we are told something often enough, we come to believe that it is true and that is the way we behave."

You're correct again. If a lie is propagated long enough by enough people, people come to believe it is true. So it is with truth. If we are told we are in sin long enough, we'll believe it. But if we're told there is a way to redeem one's self to God long enough, we'll believe it, too. Neither are lies. Some Christians do try to tell non-Christians there is a way to redeem one's self to God but they don't care to listen. Please refer to "self-centered" above. Of course, it doesn't help when Christians try to pound one's "worthlessness" into one's head without pounding the redemption message. Oops! You HAVE to forgive me - I'm in Original Sin! :)
======================================
"Imagine what a Doctrine of Inherent Goodness might bring about--a doctrine that states that humans are basically kind, good, and compassionate beings, if we were told that often enough, we might begin to believe it and might begin to behave that way."

My grandmother's cat had kittens in the oven but we didn't call 'em biscuits. We AREN'T inherently good. Look around. Read these threads for goodness sake. No amount of telling us we're good will change that. Why? Because we aren't inherently good.
=====================================
"Imagine what a Doctrine of Inherent Wisdom might bring about a doctrine that states that humans have the capacity for great wisdom if they learn to develop their talents and abilities, seek knowledge and understanding. Rather than running away from knowledge, they might actively seek it and become wise. "

A "Doctrine of Inherent Wisdom" is what got us into this mess in the FIRST place. Adam and Eve TRIED to have the wisdom of God. They found out (too late for US) that the awesome respect and love of God is the beginning of wisdom. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:33 PM:

" To The Curious, I believe that it is wisdom that will get us out of this mess. Wisdom is a combination of knowledge (facts and figures), faith (for some it is faith in God, and I have no problem with that, for others it is faith in their self, their strength, their courage and I have no problem with that). AND I will continue to think that as a species we are inherently good, we are no different than the lion or the lamb or an amoeba for that matter. BUT we do have the ability to do great evil and great good. It all depends on how we treat our fellows. That is how I see it. "

Dan Bakitus wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:46 AM:

" Wow....there are a LOT of people in this city with way too much time on their hands.

Maybe if you put as much effort into your jobs (or finding a job) as you do in your Internet rants this town wouldn't be in the shape it's in.

And I bet you'd still have time to "do unto each other." "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:17 AM:

" shumphreys: I couldn't agree more! It IS wisdom that will get us out of this mess. There's no doubt about that.

Please refer to my definition of wisdom from my previous post. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:24 AM:

" Dan Bakitis (Apparently, the self appointed critic of this site)
says:

Maybe if you put as much effort into your jobs (or finding a job) as you do in your Internet rants this town wouldn't be in the shape it's in.

Absolutely! You're right Dan, the people who spend a lot of time on here are certainly the blame for the condition of this town. Which town is it that you're talking about, Dan?

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will find a reason to criticise how others spend their time.

I guess the question to Dan should be, if you're so offended by all of this, why bother to spend your time reading it? "

The Question wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:15 AM:

" That quote was from Dan Barker, Susan. He also made this observation: Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Mr. Potter is right Dan. You are not the self appointed critic of this site.

shumphreys and I are.

Now sit down, shut up, and bask in the warm glowing open-minded acceptance of our closed-minded exclusiveness.

shumphreys and I know what is best. You just don't realize it yet, Dan. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Yes the Question is right. Scientists know what is truth and what is real.

They know that there is no god. They know that the something of the universe came from inexplicable nothingness. That is not their belief. They just join hands and sing "Yes! The universe came from nothingness! This is fact!"

They also know that the "belief" of "morals" is abstract, and is in the eye of the beholder, and that there is no homogeneous origins for such "beliefs".

They know there is no innate DNA sequence for the principles or rules of "right conduct."
They know that morals vary the world over from culture to culture.
They know that morals are relative.

Yes The Question is correct; there is no god. There is no such thing as morals. There is only silly beliefs by silly random and meaningless humans. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:56 AM:

" To the Curious, someone commented about the effort we put into our jobs. So far this morning I have made and processed five quarts of Dill Pickles, moved 10 quarts of Apple Juice that I made yesterday to the freezer and have the steam extractor on the stove processing another pot of apples. I have a rule that I never leave the house, other than to walk around the yard and collect Japanese beetles, when I have a pot on the stove. It takes about 4 1/2 hours to extract all the juice out of one pot of apples. While the pot steams away I have plenty of time to add my comments to this site. So far 50 quarts of apple juice and I have only been processing the windfalls. I haven't even begun to pick the tree yet and I have a bumper crop I will be stuck in the house until September. "

Dan Bakitus wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:21 PM:

" Wow. Look at that! All it took was ONE post to get you completely off topic.

It makes me wonder what the writers in this 200+ comment article are really passionate about--the topic at hand or seeing their funny little names on the Internet.

How about it Harry Palmer? Which is it?

(Don't tell me...I've already guessed) "

Hahvahd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:20 PM:

" Mr. Bakitus, for someone complaining about how much free time others seem to have, you seem to be spending quite a bit of time on this site of late. Can you say "hypocrite?" I knew you could! "

Hahvahd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:22 PM:

" Also, Ms. Humphrey was merely defending herself from the claim that she and others who post a lot don't do anything productive in their lives. I think anyone who is attacked on these sites has the right to defend themselves, even if it addresses an issue, almost always that someone else brought up, that strays from the topic. "

Hahvahd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Mr. Potter, my guess is that Mr. Bakitus spends a lot of time alone, if you catch my drift, given his penchant for sexual innuendo, such as the bastardization of your name into Harry Palmer. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:53 PM:

" Yea, Dan and you took the bait and ran. Your type is soooooo predictable. Sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. Works every time. LOL! "

Kelly Armor wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:24 PM:

" I found this site upon the suggestion of a friend, who finds the banter quite humorous. I must say that I disagree! You people are quite vicious, especially for ones professing to be followers of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! Such animosity! "

Dan Bakitus wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:58 PM:

" "spending quite a bit of time on this site of late?" I have just as many posts in this thread as you. You might want to check the color of your pot. It likely matches the kettle.

As for the issue at hand (no offense, Harry), Christians - WAKE UP! Evangelism cannot occur in a nameless faceless forum. If you want to share your faith you've got to look people in the eye, see them for who they are and let them see you. The Internet affords too many opportunities to hide our true selves and next to no opportunities to truly serve your fellow man.

Jesus said "In as much as you've done it to the least of these you've done it unto me." If you're really concerned about they're souls and want people to meet your Lord get out and do unto.

Now...get back to whatever the real topic was. "

barb dwyer wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:33 PM:

" i was just wondering..do ya think some of you should use one of the messenger services..i mean ...isn't this forum public? with threads to pertain to the topic of the article..? just wondering..wwjd "

Kelly Armor wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:11 PM:

" To barb dwyer, what messenger service are you talking about? Your post made no sense, dear. As far as some people posting things that are off topic, your last post seems like a good example of that. And wwjd? I'm assuming, something other than blogging, like curing the lepers or feeding the hungry or ministering to the downtrodden. "

Hahvahd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:15 PM:

" Dan Bakitus, I had 3 posts each about 2 minutes apart, basically the same post, but I just had a couple of afterthoughts. Lots different than posting in the wee morning hours, then again at noon, then again at 9 at night. You seem rather like a moth to the light -- you complain about others being here, but here you are, drawn back to the same site you were b*tching about others coming to multiple times. THAT's hypocrisy, sir! "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:21 AM:

" To The Curious, does anyone find it curious that yesterdays Letters haven't been displayed, especially "You need to tell people about Judgement Day". Has this paper become a Christian paper? Then todays paper prints a very racist letter from one of it's regular Christian writers.We are learning a great deal about Christianity in this area. "

Dan Bakitus wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:35 AM:

" Hahvahd - And yet now you have 4 posts and I have 4 posts. And the only reason I'm posting again is to respond to your off topic post directed at me.

What on earth does my schedule have to do with your constant off topic posting?

Hypocrisy much? "

Hahvahd wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Dan Bakitus writes, "Hypocrisy much? "

Gee, Dan, that made no sense. "Grammar much?" "

Dan Bakitus wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:48 AM:

" And yet you post another off topic post.

Man I'm glad I don't have the job to approve and publish all these! That wouldn't be much fun. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:17 PM:

" This site has a moderator, Dan. You seem to be wanting to do their job job. Perhaps you need to send a resume into the local paper. "

The Question wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:30 PM:

" I was wondering about that same thing, Susan. Thursday's letters to the editor were particularly stupid. Is the paper ashamed of them? "

Dan Bakitus wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:26 AM:

" Once again, Harry, your postings are apparently only for self-gratification. I clearly stated in my post that Im glad I dont have that job. You obviously didnt read it.

Oh and dont worry, no one thinks its weird that you chose the magical hero of thousands of prepubescent boys as your online identity. Im sure youre quite normal. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:34 PM:

" Not that it's any of my business or anything and I'm sure not wanting to become the moderator of the site or want anyone to think I think I'm the moderator of the site but I've had an idea that will save us all a lot of time, effort and brain cells and be a lot of fun. How 'bout it gang?

Instead of the clever and not-so-clever banter and name calling and cuts and digs that take up a lot of ink on my screen, how about everyone starting out with a blank screen and then let's say The Question thinks my thought or idea or post stinks. (Hard to imagine but just work with me here.) He'd post:

"M@H: YAI" . . . which means, "M@H, You're an idiot!"

Then I'd post (for example) "Q: YABFI" . . . which means "Question, you're a BIG FAT idiot."

Then Q responds with "M@H, YABFUI" . . . which means "M@H, you're a Big Fat UGLY Idiot."

And then I go . . . "Q: YABFSUMFAHI"...which means "Q: You're a BIG FAT STUPID UGLY and on and on IDIOT!"

then Q says "M@H, YABFSUMFAHICS" and then it goes back and forth until somebody can't think of anything else from there.

Now of course, you may THINK you know what all of those letters mean but we all know - we can't read each others' minds so we just have to try to decipher everything on our own.

And to make it REALLY fun, the person who can put together the most letters that everyone can understand wins a year's subscription to the JG?

How 'bout it, gang? Fun or what?????? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:11 AM:

" Hahvahd wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Mr. Potter, my guess is that Mr. Bakitus spends a lot of time alone, if you catch my drift, given his penchant for sexual innuendo, such as the bastardization of your name into Harry Palmer. "

I have no idea of how he spends his time (honestly, I don't think any of us want to know about that, LOL), but you're sure right about the sexual innuendo, my friend. And it seems to tilt toward an obsession with homosexuality and or pedophilia.

His obsession with that subject seems rather telling, doesn't it? "

Hahvahd wrote on Jul 27, 2008 7:54 AM:

" Mr. Potter, I haven't noticed the homosexuality or pedophilia that you mention, but I am a newbie to these boards. Perhaps time will tell.

I do see a rather obvious obsession with masturb*tion, typically an obsession by a person with delusions of grandeur, an over-inflated sense of the self, and a penchant toward self-gratification in all he does, even things not of a sexu*l nature. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 27, 2008 9:31 AM:

" To the curious. I like M@H's suggestion, a side benefit is that know one could make fun of speling and typeo errors. "

HerChild wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:05 AM:

" Hahvahd & shumphreys,
it's very clear that you are the same person.
YABFSUMFAHI! "

Dan Bakitus wrote on Jul 27, 2008 1:21 PM:

" Nooooo...it couldn't be that there are actual sock puppets on this forum, could it?? "

Hahvahd wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:28 PM:

" HerChild, wish you'd bet your life on your claim that I'm the same person as shumphreys -- at least the world would have 1 less narrowminded idiot in it then! You left wing nut jobs are all alike -- if you can't beat 2 posters on the facts, with logic, using your brain power, just say they're the same person! Of course, there couldn't be more than 1 person disagreeing with you, because your conservative philosophy is so perfect, eh? What a load of crap! Your posting pseudonym should be "full of it!" "

Rotty wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Hahvahd wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:28 PM:

"You left wing nut jobs are all alike"

.......

LMAO!!!!
LOOK OUT, INCOMING!!!! "

VTucker wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:41 PM:

" Those of my university students who have grown up outside of the church (about half of them) have a very negative stereotypical view of Christianity. When I ask them to write a short essay on their impression of Christianity, they consistently use five adjectives: Christians are literalistic, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, judgmental, and bigoted.

Marcus Borg (from journeywithjesus.net) "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:01 AM:

" Interesting post, VTucker. MOST of the Christians posting on this website have done nothing to dispel the stereotype, unfortunately. Wish people would learn to measure Christianity by Christ and not by Christians. "

Hahvahd wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:07 AM:

" I could have sworn I typed in "you RIGHT wing nut jobs are all alike." That's what I meant, anyway. I have absolutely nothing other than contempt and ill regard for conservatives in this country. They are greedy, narrow-minded, selfish, ill-informed, bible-thumping hypocrites, for the most part, along with being, well, nut jobs. Have a nice day! Let the war begin! "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:20 AM:

" To the Curious and Vicky I wonder where on earth they get those ideas? "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:24 AM:

" To the Curious and Hahvahd, welcome to the world of cyber hate. The "Good Christians" on this site enjoy spreading their peculiar brand of "joy" around. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 28, 2008 8:12 AM:

" To the Curious, The voice of Christianity has become the voices we are hearing on these pages, the voices of Hagee, Hannity and others. The voices of reason, there are three regulars besides me, are drowned out and other reasonable voices aren't willing to suffer the abuse to speak up and speak out. If Christianity is loosing ground they have only their selves to blame. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 28, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Yes vtucker is right. We anti-christians like shumphreys and The Question believe that all christians are negative, stereotypical, literalistic, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, judgmental, and bigoted.

Therefore, we vow to always stay; negative, stereotypical, literalistic, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, judgmental, and bigoted towards christians.

Because we cannot tolerate that christian intolerance. And we hate close-minded hypocrites. Our minds are made up on that. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 28, 2008 8:21 AM:

" "You left wing nut jobs are all alike"

We will not stand for that!

And I know I speak for all the other left wing posters in here; we are unanimous on this!!! "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 28, 2008 8:21 AM:

" To the Curious, Cyber Bullying is going to be the next big media issue. One woman has already been charged with bullying in conjunction with the suicide death of a teenage girl. I haven't heard what has happened in that case, maybe others have. This site and others that allow anonymous postings enable and encourage the bullying and I predict will find themselves in serious legal trouble in the future. For newspapers the problem is a two edged sword, they are losing readers nationwide to web sites and in an attempt to attract the web savy generation set up sites like this. But by the number of posters, they may be getting hits on this site, but it appears few join in on the postings, has the bullying driven others away? Or do they just see the site as a "hoot" as one poster commented, she heard how crazy the site was but found it rather "sick". (I paraphrase her words) What is the message those looking at this site are taking away from the postings here? "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 28, 2008 8:24 AM:

" To the Curious for those interested in a web site that encourages open and responsible THINKING and Discussion about ideas and world problems try www.gnosticismforanewmillennium.com "

The Question wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Yes vtucker is right. We anti-christians like shumphreys and The Question believe that all christians are negative, stereotypical, literalistic, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, judgmental, and bigoted.
------
Not all of them, Arro. Just the fundamentalist whack jobs who are planning to zoom around like Peter Pan and Tinkerbell when their idiotic "Rapture" happens. You know, the kind of people who burned supposed witches and gay people at the stake, and would like to again.
Always be specific, my dear friend. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:59 AM:

" Yes yes. Again I say yes.
shumphreys is right again.

shumphreys, tammer65, and myself, will not be bullied by christians, as we bully christians.

shumphreys, tammer65, and myself all feel that a free and open venue is no place for people to be free and open by being anonymous.

We feel that this democracy is far too free, open and liberal for all you Conservatives.

We feel that we should only be criticized by posters with legitimate names. That way, our open-minded and impersonal criticisms can be directed in a more closed-minded and personal way towards all those who disagree with us.

shumphreys, tammer65 and I, will determine what is and isn't open-minded, and what constitutes bullying.

shumphreys, tammer65 and I have nothing but closed-minded hateful contempt for all of you christians, because you are closed-minded and hateful.

Why can't you christians be more open-minded and accepting like shumphreys, tammer65, and myself? "

arrogant wrote on Jul 28, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Yes The Question is correct.

The Question and I only hate those stereotypical, literalistic, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, judgmental, and bigoted christians who believe in an imaginary spooks in the sky.

The Question and I have no problem with christians like tammer65, who DON'T believe in fairy-tale spooks in the sky.

The Question and I can only tolerate those tolerant christians who don't believe in christ.

We are specific about this my dear friends in meaningless nothingness.

The Question and I will only tolerate the intolerant christians who won't tolerate christ. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Susan and tammer65, I personally do not think that most Christians are literalistic, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, judgmental, and bigoted. It's just that those who are happen to be the ones who are the most vocal and in-your-face. I have friends who believe much more conservatively than I do yet respect the fact that my beliefs are different. We might occasionally discuss our beliefs and end up in disagreement--yet remain friends when the discussion is over.

Being a bully, or acting judgmental, bigoted, nasty, and all that--these are qualities that can grab onto any cause, for any reason. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:58 PM:

" tammer65 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:01 AM:
" Interesting post, VTucker. MOST of the Christians posting on this website have done nothing to dispel the stereotype, unfortunately. Wish people would learn to measure Christianity by Christ and not by Christians. "

Couldn't have said it better myself - and I sure have tried. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:02 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 28, 2008 8:12 AM: "The voices of reason, there are three regulars besides me, are drowned out and other reasonable voices aren't willing to suffer the abuse to speak up and speak out. If Christianity is loosing ground they have only their selves to blame."

Are you by chance saying there are only three voices of reason on these threads? Are you lumping all Christians into one category and - while not actually calling them such - referring to them as "those people"? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:06 PM:

" VTucker wrote on Jul 27, 2008 10:41 PM: " Those of my university students who have grown up outside of the church (about half of them) have a very negative stereotypical view of Christianity. When I ask them to write a short essay on their impression of Christianity, they consistently use five adjectives: Christians are literalistic, anti-intellectual, self-righteous, judgmental, and bigoted.

Hmmm . . . they grew up OUTSIDE the church and have those ideas? Who would have thought? It's a good thing those open-minded unfamiliar non-Christian students don't stereotype. "

cd wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:34 PM:

" For all sides: Yada, yada, yada.

LOL "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:44 PM:

" arrogant wrote, "shumphreys, tammer65, and myself, will not be bullied by christians, as we bully christians.

shumphreys, tammer65, and myself all feel that a free and open venue is no place for people to be free and open by being anonymous.

We feel that this democracy is far too free, open and liberal for all you Conservatives.

We feel that we should only be criticized by posters with legitimate names. That way, our open-minded and impersonal criticisms can be directed in a more closed-minded and personal way towards all those who disagree with us.

shumphreys, tammer65 and I, will determine what is and isn't open-minded, and what constitutes bullying.

shumphreys, tammer65 and I have nothing but closed-minded hateful contempt for all of you christians, because you are closed-minded and hateful.

Why can't you christians be more open-minded and accepting like shumphreys, tammer65, and myself? "

Arrogant, why are you lumping me into your rantings? I did not say these things and do not wish to have them attributed to me. You, sir, are deeply, deeply disturbed. I recommend less time posting on blogs and more time in therapy. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:48 PM:

" arrogant wrote, "The Question and I have no problem with christians like tammer65, who DON'T believe in fairy-tale spooks in the sky.

The Question and I can only tolerate those tolerant christians who don't believe in christ."

Again, arrogant, you are implying things about me that are NOT true, and I don't appreciate your deliberate lies and misrepresentation.

For the record, I AM a Christian, I DO believe in Christ, and you, arrogant, do not speak for me! Please refrain from using my name in your posts, arrogant, unless you're directly quoting me; the lies are getting ridiculous. "

The Question wrote on Jul 28, 2008 1:54 PM:

" Matt Taibbi explains it all for you. The Republican Party returned to power at the beginning of this decade thanks to a brilliantly innovative political hybrid represented in its most advanced form by the Bush-Cheney ticket a high-tech engine of ruthless neocon capitalism wedded to a half-literate aristocrat dunce hiding his alcoholism in born-again Christian platitudes. Add corporate money to fundamentalist-Christian demographics in a country as dumb and superstitious as America, and you can vaporize a century's worth of Al Gores and John Kerrys. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:00 PM:

" VTucker, hope I didn't imply that I think most Christians in general fit the stereotype from the blurb you posted; I don't believe that at all. These threads just seem to attract many of those "in-your-face" conservative Christians that fit the comment so well. As Mattooner at Heart has posted many times, someone who was searching for religious answers, who was trying to learn about Christian faith, etc., would likely be driven away from religion altogether by reading these threads. Even in many of those professing Christian belief in their posts, I have trouble finding anything that speaks to God's love and forgiveness or the awe-inspiring hope to be found in Jesus Christ. I just see a lot of hatefulness, spite, judgment, insults, etc., not the way we're supposed to behave as Christians. And I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou here; I'm sure I've demonstrated many of those negatives myself, especially after being attacked by others on these threads. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Am I allowed to say that all non-Christians think all Christians are self-righteous, homophobic, greedy, narrow-minded, selfish, ill-informed, bible-thumping hypocrites, for the most part, along with being, well, nut jobs who can't think for themselves so they have to rely on Haggee and Hannity whether they really believe them or not? (by the way, you forgot fear-mongering bigots.) Or would that be throwing all non-Christians into one lump and stereotyping?

I mean, c'mon . . . the non-Christians lump all Christians into one category in defense of thinking Christians lump all non-Christians into one category? Does anyone else see the irony in this? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:33 PM:

" What confuses ME in all of this is how intolerant non-Christians are of Christians because Christians are so intolerant of people who don't believe the same way THEY do.

Heck, even READING that confuses me and I WROTE it! "

arrogant wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:47 PM:

" Mattooner, you are now becoming enlightened like the great arrogant!

Your eyes begin to see. Your ears begin to hear. Your mind begins to open. You have become acutely aware of my greatest grace, "irony"! "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:58 PM:

" tammer: Nice post and it's good to see that someone agrees with me that you cannot show God's love by beating it into someone over the head with the Bible. If I didn't know Jesus personally and had to depend on the posts of those who claim to know him, I wouldn't be too excited about meeting him, either.

I've always said you cannot threaten a non-Christian with the idea that they are going to hell. Either they don't believe in hell, think hell's here already, are convinced a loving God wouldn't send somebody to hell or think it's going to be a big party and they'll see all their friends. You can't scare somebody with something they're not afraid of or don't think exists.

I've tried and tried to find anything in the Bible that remotely suggests Jesus used fear, threats, insults or hate as what Christianity is supposed to be but I've failed every time I've tried.

I find I spend more time trying to UNDO the cr4p Christians spew on here than I do actually talking halfway intelligently about Christianity - even though I can't think for myself and need some Rev. Haggee or something. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:02 PM:

" No, tammer--I didn't get that impression at all. You and Susan had commented on the quote from journeywithjesus.net I posted earlier, and I was just continuing to reflect on those thoughts. It's the in-your-face people who show up--plus the people who are looking for an excuse to insult someone.

Every now and then a more low-key type person pops on and posts something, but the less in-your-face folk often say their piece and move on. You have to be somewhat opinionated, at least, to stay on here and keep going. :-)

Also, thinking of the shooter who attacked the Unitarian Church in Tennessee--he had a cause, apparently. It seems he didn't care for the liberal approach of the Unitarians . . . might as well go in and shoot a few of them up. I don't think the problem was his faith, if he actually claims having a faith--he's a nut case who was looking for an excuse to kill. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:03 PM:

" Mattooner at Heart, I'm confused. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:11 PM:

" To the Curious,to M@H it becomes a "dance with the devil" and all too often the devil is the only one left standing. If the only voices being heard are the voices of intolerance on all sides where does that get us? Somehow or another we, as in all human beings, need to learn how to talk TO each other rather than talking AT each other. That requires learning to listen to each other rather than constantly hearing what we want to hear or think that we hear or expect to hear. Or in the case of these online posts reading what we expect to read not what was actually written. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:20 PM:

" Yes, we must all be as tolerant as shumphreys, as she refuses to tolerate those intolerant christians.

We need to learn to listen to shumphreys as she refuses to listen to all who disagree with her. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 28, 2008 4:40 PM:

" To the Curious and Vicky, have you heard more about that shooting? Last night the news just said no motive known. Was it a revenge killing over a love triangle or a religious zealot? You know that word zealot is a great one, there have been a few posters on these pages that fit the bill. I googled Marcus Borg, I will have to look for some of his books. "

The Question wrote on Jul 28, 2008 4:53 PM:

" The shooter was an unemployed man who hated liberals and wanted to kill them, Susan. He succeeded.
See, the vicious hatred of liberals that is peddled all day long, day in and day out, on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News has paid off. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 28, 2008 6:33 PM:

" Well said, Question. Conservatives peddle this belief that liberals are a danger to society. Funny, but I don't see too many gun-toting liberals ready to blow lead into people they disagree with. . . . "

arrogant wrote on Jul 29, 2008 1:09 AM:

" Yes tammer65 and The Question are right. You never see liberals murdering. You never hear of liberal christians like tammer65 advocating the murder of innocent children in the womb. No never.

And you never hear of homosexual serial killers. You never hear of homosexuals like John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer.

Yes yes tammer65 and The Question are right. Only Conservatives hate. Only Conservatives kill. It must be the Consevatives and their vicious hatred of embryos and young men and boys that commit these vicious crimes. Yes that is funny. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:15 AM:

" Tammer: I know I'm going way back here (70's) but it's the first couple of names that crossed my mind without having to tax myself too much.

Remember Lynette (Squeaky) Fromme? The SLA? Katherine Soliah AKA Sarah Olson now of St. Paul?

Just a couple of liberals that let their sidearms do their talking. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Question: I'm not too sure we know he hated liberals. I know he said he shot the preacher for not being conservative ENOUGH but I think it's a stretch to call a preacher of a small-town church in Tennessee much of a liberal. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:25 AM:

" To the Curious for two and a half years now I and a few others on this site have been speaking out against religious intolerance. The quote in todays paper about the church shootings should sound familiar, "Adkisson was a loner who hates, "blacks, gays and anyone different from him." VIOLENCE is NEVER the solution to any of lifes problems. The paper will no longer publish my letters objecting to religious intolerance (do not be lenient) so someone else needs to speak up. OR when tragedy strikes how many people will say we didn't see, we didn't hear, or will they be honest and say we were warned and did nothing about it. "

The Question wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:55 AM:

" Wrong, Tooner. We know without any doubt that he hated liberals and wanted to kill them.
"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Police Chief Sterling Owen said.
RJ Eskow asks who really killed those Unitarians. Was it the preachers who spread hatred and intolerance? The politicians who court and flatter them instead of condemning their hate speech? The media machine that attacks liberals, calls them "traitors" and suggests you speak to them "with a baseball bat"? The economic system that batters people like Jim Adkinson until they snap, then tells them their real enemies are gays and liberals and secular humanists?
If you ask me, it was all of the above.
You killed them, Pat Robertson. You killed them, Pastor Hagee. You killed them, Ann Coulter. You killed them, Dick Morris and Sean Hannity and the rest of you at Fox News.
The shooting began while the children of the church were putting on a musical based on "Annie." One broad-shouldered church member blocked the bullets from hitting other people, and died. You don't need to believe in dogma to be a hero. Remember that song from "Annie"? It probably got on your nerves like it got on mine. "The sun'll come out tomorrow."
The sun coming out. That's natural. It's one with the blowing clover and the falling rain. But a man driven insane, then programmed by society to kill people just because they're loving and tolerant?
That's monster. "

VTucker wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:57 AM:

" Mattooner, it was a Unitarian church. It has to be liberal, small-town Tennessee or not.

Susan, I still don't think it's the guy's intolerance (disgusting as it is) that caused him to go over the edge. The intolerance was his excuse to kill. It could just as easily have been something else. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Letha Snow says that she doesnt agree with the idea of being lenient towards those whose religious beliefs are different from hers. How does one go about not being lenient towards others? What is she actually calling for, encouraging shooters to go out and shoot up Unitarian churches, is she encouraging people to firebomb the homes and property of non-Christians or for snipers to lie in wait for those that look different?

A synonym for lenient is merciful,now isnt that exactly what Jesus calls upon everyone to be merciful towards all, even sinners? And she calls herself a Christian.

I who am not a Christian call for respect for all people, I call for people to SPEAK up and SPEAK out against the religious intolerance. Violence is never the solution, the voice is a far more powerful weapon. "

The Question wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Tooner, please. Radical leftist terrorists are not "liberals." You cannot seriously believe a statement as stupid as that one.
Here' the dictionary definition of liberalism:
1: the quality or state of being liberal
2 often capitalized :
a) movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b) a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c) a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
The last meaning is the one we're talking about here. People who believe in progress, individual autonomy and the essential goodness of the human race do not run around gunning down people whom they hate, or whom they want to kill to make a political statement. Fascists may do that. Communists may do that. Lunatics may do that. Liberals do not, by definition. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:11 AM:

" I am going to cut the "to the curious" BS, I made my point. M@H there have been crackpots at each extreme. That Unitarian Universalist church was extremely liberal for Tenneessee. The core belief is respect for all teligious traditions. "

tammer65 wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:14 AM:

" M@H, the news I've heard about the TN shooting lists the church as Unitarian Universalist, which by definition is liberal even though this congregation is located in the South. It's a church that espouses many of the spiritual beliefs that have been attacked on this forum by many conservative Christians -- it's known for its support of homosexuals, feminism, the environment, and other politically and socially liberal causes. Some congregations believe in Christianity; most glean bits of spiritual belief from Christianity and other major religions, as well as science, humanism, etc. The shooter apparently could not tolerate this type of free thinking and decided to shoot people.

Among the things with this news report that amazes me are the comments that "no children were hurt." Children from a church program witnessed shots fired and people killed right in front of them! I hope we're all outraged by this, no matter what our religious beliefs.

Intolerance IS a very dangerous thing! "

arrogant wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:42 AM:

" Yes that's right.

shumphreys and I will not rest until everyone shares our intolerance of what shumphreys and I deem to be intolerant.

shumphreys and I will not rest until everyone opens their closed and stereotypical minds to our intolerant, closed-minded, stereotypical views; that ONLY conservative christians are liberal hating murderers.

The goddess and I will endeavor to continue to preach our hateful, accusatory, closed-minded, interpretation of all the worlds problems that have been caused by all those hateful, accusatory, closed-minded, christians.

shumphreys says the paper will not publish the goddesses wisdom anymore; therefore shumphreys and I think that the paper is closed-minded and biased against shumphreys goddess-like, closed-minded biases.

If you people do not agree with shumphreys and me, then please; feel free to NOT post your disagreements with the goddess and me.

If you do disagree, let the public and legal record show, that shumphreys and I will accuse you all of stalking, bullying, and harassing.

Now let's have an open, free, and honest discussion about the goddess and me. Feel free to NOT offend us. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 29, 2008 11:05 AM:

" Question: I stand corrected. This is another case that is totally inexcusable. I don't know what else to say that I haven't. This is tragic and NOT what Christianity is all about. There are idiots everywhere. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 29, 2008 11:14 AM:

" Folks: I stand corrected on the conservative Tennessee church. After doing some checking (I should have done that before I shot my mouth off) and reading everyone's replies, I see I was incorrect. Mea culpa!

There is no excuse for anyone to do anything like that guy did and there's no way any act like that was in response to anything Christian with the possible exception of this guy claiming to be Christian - I don't know that, either. I DO know that regardless of what this guy has said or may say, God did NOT tell him to do this - which could very well be part of his insanity defense. (I know I'm getting ahead of myself here but what other defense does this guy propose to have?)

I am truly sorry and embarassed doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about - once again - a Christian does some unspeakable act. And I don't want to jump up and start defending Christianity when there are Christian families hurting today in Tennessee and I have already and will continue to pray for them. If I were in their area, I would do more than just pray for them.

There is no defense for this act - but the act was clearly not Christian. Now, watch some complete idiot come out and try to blame this event on the liberal stance this church took. That'll be enough to make me puke! M@H "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 29, 2008 11:16 AM:

" To ALL we may never know or fully understand what pushed this man over the edge, what the last straw was. When people grow up hearing messages of intolerance, "do not be lenient, they (the evolutionists, the liberals, the Unitarians) threaten the morality of our nation, all other religions/ viewpoints are lies," how are they to behave, what are they to do? One way to behave is the way Arrogant and others like him use, they ridicule others, bully others, in an attempt to drive people off of this site and shut down viewpoints different from their own. Some go out in a blaze of glory from school and work place shooters who can't tolerate their situation any more and look for someone other than their self to blame. Some feel emboldened (sp?) because they believe and have been told frequently that "God will be on their side if they take a STAND against all those out to destroy Christianity, and our God fearing nation". There are many voices of intolerance some are just a bit more subtle than others. The intolerance does go both ways, it is those at the extreme ends that are dangerous. Violence is never the solution, free speech is. "

arrogant wrote on Jul 29, 2008 11:57 AM:

" sumphreys I understand that being "challenged" to move beyond your comfort zone, your EGO, to see beyond mere words to get to the depth of meaning "feels like an attack".

Growth only comes through sacrifice of the old as you embrace the new, my goddess.

I am challenging you, shumphreys and others, to use the brain (you claim that no god gave you) as it was meant to be used: to THINK, to QUESTION, to CHALLENGE your self and your comfort, so that you can transcend yourself to find that union with nothingness that you talk so often about. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:28 PM:

" M@H Christianity isn't too blame, it is the ABUSE, MISUSE, of Christianity that causes many of these problems. It is FANATICISM that is the problem. I have said it before and I said it in a chapter in my book, fanatics are those that will use and abuse anything, their religion, science, history, psychology, to prove their points, to further their agenda,they believe that the rules that apply to others do not apply to them, they will sacrifice/ignore their own values and teachings if they get in their way. Does this remind you of any politicians that we know? It is that constant message that the "others, those that are different" are less worthy, liers, less moral, a threat to the foundations of society, that is the problem. AND that message has and is being conveyed by Christians and Muslims, Jews and others. When will people wake up and say no more? What were Jesus last words on the cross? "Forgive them Lord they know not what they do." Rather prophetic don't you think? "

The Question wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:56 PM:

" I'll present this testimony to deep Christian piety without comment. But with a horse laugh.
---------------
Two prayer services will be held at St. Louis gas stations to thank God for lower fuel prices and to ask that they continue to drop. Darrell Alexander, Midwest co-chair of the Pray at the Pump movement, says prayer gatherings will be held Monday afternoon and evening at a Mobil station west of downtown St. Louis.
Participants say they plan to buy gas, pray and then sing "We Shall Overcome" with a new verse, "We'll have lower gas prices."
An activist from the Washington D.C. area, Rocky Twyman, started the effort, saying if politicians couldn't lower gas prices, it was time to ask God to intervene.
The group thinks the prayer is helping, saying prices are starting to fall below $4 a gallon. "

The Question wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:58 PM:

" Fox News and Limbaugh did not make this man a psychopathic killer. They just gave him a target. "

father bob wrote on Jul 29, 2008 1:04 PM:

" god is not enough......

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1czXvHSjDac "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 29, 2008 4:55 PM:

" Q: I bet the guy in St. Louis will also receive a "love offering" from those gathered to pray for lower gas prices.

Sweet Mother of Moses . . . they're coming out of the woodwork faster than the saner ones can put together damage control! "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 29, 2008 4:57 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:28 PM: "What were Jesus last words on the cross? "Forgive them Lord they know not what they do." Rather prophetic don't you think?"

Yeah, but I kinda think he knew what was coming down the road, too. "

shumphreys wrote on Jul 29, 2008 6:09 PM:

" The problem M@H is there aren't enough sane ones (like you) willing to speak up. It is easier to pretend you didn't see, hear, or know. OR it is just as easy to say "he/she didn't mean to be unloving/disrespectful/unmerciful/
intolerant...... That is what they used to say about drunk drivers, "he/she didn't intend to get into an accident and kill people". I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and Hagee will pass the buck and say they never told anyone to go out and shoot up a Unitarian church, or beat a gay man to death, or murder an abortion provider, or................ I suspect there were many in Nazi Germany that said they never knew Jews were being exterminated, there are still some today that say that. I think the tombstone for the world will read "they didn't know". "

The Question wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:23 AM:

" Bill O'Reilly continued his hate-peddling against liberals even after the news of the horrendous shooting of the Tennessee Unitarians motivated by hatred of "the liberal movement" and the revelation that his book was found in the home of the accused shooter, Jim Adkisson. O'Reilly thought the news that should be highlighted in a Talking Point Memo was "Far Left Running Wild."
I don't think we should assume that Fox News and the talk radio propagandists consider these murders to be a bad thing. Right wingers often wish wistfully for a few killings to scare the mouthy liberals back into line. They are true fascists at heart. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jul 30, 2008 12:31 PM:

" The Question wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:23 AM: "Right wingers often wish wistfully for a few killings to scare the mouthy liberals back into line. They are true fascists at heart."

Easy now, Q . . . aren't we painting with a pretty broad brush here? "

The Question wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:57 PM:

" Johann Hari of the Independent UK got aboard the annual cruise organized by the National Review in 2007. Here's part of the candid remarks he heard from the right wingers:
"I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, 'Of course, we need to execute some of these people,' I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. 'A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country,' she says. 'Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get.' She squints at the sun and smiles. 'Then things'll change.'"
--------------- "

The Question wrote on Jul 30, 2008 5:00 PM:

" People like Michelle Malkin don't make arguments about the costs and benefits of immigration; they paint a picture of an invading army bent on our destruction. They say that illegal immigration is part of a plot to "reconquer" parts of America -- literally to annex the SouthWest. Abortion clinics are bombed, and providers are assassinated, and the bombers and assassins inevitably see the procedure as "killing babies" -- who wouldn't act to stop actual babies from being killed?
When people view themselves as facing an existential threat to their nation, to their very way of life, they defend themselves -- it's a natural reaction. It appears that Jim David Adkisson, unemployed, no doubt mentally disturbed, believed he was taking action to defend his country, his community. He did it because of "his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets." A picture-perfect summary of the back-lash conservative message.
Joshua Holland "