JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: People aren't prevented from discussing religion

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Sunday, November 23, 2008 8:51 PM CST
LETTER: People aren't prevented from discussing religion

By CHARLES ALBIN, Neoga

I was accused of talking religion in a restaurant the other day, that I was breaking the constitution.

People are not aware of what the constitution says. It was an order, that “Congress,” “Government,” shall not rule any one religion as valid. This was done to protect our freedom to choose one’s religion. It was done to keep government from ruling any one religion, such as the Church of England, or the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

It does not restrict individuals, it restricts government.

There was no mention of where it could be exercised, or when. One is promised the free exercise anywhere he chooses.

I was not talking religion the other day in a restaurant, I was merely telling the story of a mother driving through the village of Paradise, with her little son. The mother told her son they had passed through Paradise. The child related it to the biblical paradise, that he thought paradise was better than that.

The man I was talking to, evidently was not aware of the paradise mentioned in the Bible, and accused me of talking religion, which individuals are not restricted from doing.

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.

shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:02 AM:

" There isn't anything in the constitution that says a person has to listen to the religious message of another. The same constitution that guarantees your right to practice your religion guarantees the other mans right not to practice a religion. I suspect the man you were talking to was not interested in your religious clap trap. In reality to force your religious message on someone who isn't interested or who holds different beliefs is plain bad manners. "

Elbert wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Unfortunately, I am not surprised that Mr. Albin found someone who did not know what the Constitution says about the freedom to practice religion.

Specifically, The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Cal Thomass column in todays paper recounts a study that reveals the abysmal state of knowledge regarding the nature of government.

Thus, ignorance is widespread. I understand that there are even some who do not accept what science has revealed about nature. That is too bad.

While the First Ammendment permits free speech is does not require one to listen to another's speech. Thus, if the person did not want to listen to your opinion, he was not required to and should have said that rather than the though you attributed to him.

Thus, I am willing to support your right to express a religious view as long as you are willing to stop when the other person politely requests that you do. "

HeinekenMan wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:03 AM:

" I'm completely behind Elbert here. He said it as well, if not better, than I would have.

I completely support free speech. However, I can become seriously annoyed when someone tries to push their religion. In fact, there's about a 50/50 chance that someone with a bible will knock on my front door today. It happens all the time, and I have to stop what I'm doing and answer the door to explain that I'm not interested in what they're selling. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Of course the man who incorrectly stated Mr. Albin was prohibited from talking about his religion in a public place didn't display any bad manners. Bad manners and oaf-ish like behaviors are reserved only for Christians, right Susie? Pa-leeeeeze! "

Read all over wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:15 AM:

" The person you were speaking to "was not aware of the paradise mentioned in the Bible," and yet he accused you of "talking religion"?

That's make no sense, like most letter published in this paper. "

just wondering wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:21 AM:

" So how do we determine who's rights get upheld? The person who has the right not to listen should just walk away. Both people get to maintain their rights. Kind of like the tv. If you don't like whats on the channel turn to another one. "

Forgiven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:07 PM:

" shumphreys wrote, "I suspect the man you were talking to was not interested in your religious clap trap. In reality to force your religious message on someone who isn't interested or who holds different beliefs is plain bad manners. "

RELIGIOUS CLAP TRAP? FORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS MESSAGE?

Sounds like you have a religious CHIP in your shoulder! Let Live, even if you choose not to! "

father bob wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:21 PM:

" People are not aware of what the constitution says. It was an order, that Congress, Government, shall not rule any one religion as valid. This was done to protect our freedom to choose ones religion. It was done to keep government from ruling any one religion, such as the Church of England, or the Holy Roman Catholic Church.""""

excuse me?......

all along i thought it was to thwart a government ruled BY any one religion.....i'm hoping that was a typo. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:44 PM:

" Puleeeze Ms. Brant and Forgiven a person sitting in a restaurant should not have to get up and leave his meal or seek out another restaurant to avoid a person pushing his religious views. To all things there is a season, and a time and a place. I'd say Mr. Albin got off lucky, with a mild put down, even if what the other guy said wasn't 100% accurate in regards to the wording of our Constitution. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:39 PM:

" One more thing Forgiven, I have been "blessed" on more than one occasion with letters and audio tapes in the mail from Mr. Albin and I am not positive but suspect that he was the one that showed up at my home (in the country) with copies of the Watch Tower to give me. So I am quite familiar with Mr. Albin's religious teachings and calling it "clap trap" was actually a very polite comment for me to make! "

Becky wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:18 PM:

" Hey Heineken, just do what my late husband did...answer the door in your skivies with a Heineken in your hand ask them if they want one. Oh and don't forget to scratch yourself in the right places. This sends them running and they never come back ;) "

Equalizer wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:31 PM:

" "a person sitting in a restaurant should not have to get up and leave his meal or seek out another restaurant to avoid a person pushing his religious views."

Well Susan, nobody was pushing any religious views here. If a person chooses to get up and leave his meal or seek out another restaurant to avoid a person pushing religious views though, then that is their choice, they do not have to do it.

People aren't forced to choose to go to another bank, grocery store, or mall every time you walk in even though your negative aura/presence could be very upsetting to many people. It is their choice to ignore you or to make a mountain out of a molehill and seek ways to avoid you. "

Equalizer wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:32 PM:

" Way funny Becky, thank you! "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:33 PM:

" In all fairness Susie, you do believe in fainess don't you? This letter does not make it clear as to how the conversation came about. So for you to judge that Mr. Albin was "preaching" so to speak his views on religion is presumptious of you don't cha think? If he was in a general "soapbox" way and addressing all the customers in the restaurant, then by all means then the other man had a right to speak up and tell him he didn't want to hear it.

Perhaps it started out as a general conversation with the man and then turned to the religious subject. Maybe the guy in question was evesdropping on someone else's conversation and Mr. Albins reference to "the man I was talking to" horned in on a conversation that was none of his business to start with. This letter does not spell out all the details.

So folks, be on the lookout for Susie and her endless tirades against folks who happen to profess their religious beliefs. She may be listening to your private converstions in public places and will be ready to pounce! LOL!

Wonder what she says about creeps who go into a Christian place of worship (she seems to particularly dislike Christians and their "clap trap") and disrupt the services in disgusting and disrespectful manners as we have seen on TV? I guess since the churches are open to the public, it's ok huh Susie?

By the way sweetie, it's not Ms Brant, it's Mrs Brant. I'm proud of that title. We all know how much you pride yourself on showing respect.Oops! That's respect on YOUR terms. Have a nice day! "

Equalizer wrote on Nov 24, 2008 3:36 PM:

" Oh, and Susan...
you said "and I am not positive but suspect that he was the one that showed up at my home (in the country) with copies of the Watch Tower to give me."

Oh my my...seems that you are still quite paranoid about such things. Perhaps reading the bible while listening to Dr. Phil and doing some relaxing yoga could help you. :) "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:06 PM:

" Becky.

That one made me snort my 7-Up all over my keyboard! Your husbands little trick reminds me of someone I had in my life for many years. He would have "busted a gut" laughing at this and wishing he would have thought of it!!! LOL! He was very good at coming up with stuff like this too! LOL!

I'm going to have to be on guard from now on when I see your name show up on these threads! Cleaning that sticky stuff off my keyboard is not my idea of fun! LOL!

Thanks for the laughs lady! I'm still trying to get my jaws to quit aching from laughing so hard! "

injustice85 wrote on Nov 24, 2008 5:33 PM:

" all this complaining about religion has made America a "no" religion country rather than a country open to all religions like we're supposed to be, not that I fully support all christiantity but it is being taken away from people practically, some schools make it so children can't sing Christmas songs with the word Jesus in them but they can sing about black magic in halloween songs "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 24, 2008 5:52 PM:

" I'm having a hard time believing that this incident happened as it is being reported by Mr Albin. I have read most of his letters to the editor, and I suspect some details are being omitted. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:03 PM:

" Billie reread Mr. Albins letter, "the man I was talking to" this wasn't a third party interuption. So folks be wary of Billie, she has difficulty reading and jumps to conclusions. He also says "I was not talking religion" but then he says "the man was not aware of the paradise mentioned in the bible". HM sounds as though Mr. Albin can't quite tell a straight story. Then for pure speculation was this a man that Mr. Albin knew or a total stranger? The facts are that religion and politics are best left out of casual conversations, especially with people you don't know, and even with some that you do know!As I said Mr. Albin was lucky he got a civil response. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:07 PM:

" Oh and Equalizer, I am not paranoid but having someone show up at your home to push their religious message is cause for concern in this day and age when folks often feel it is okay to shoot up churches, and synagogues, and desecrate grave yards and churches. By the way I checked with the neighbors and this car load of folks didn't stop at anyone elses home in the area that day. They sought me out specifically.Pretty sick don't you think. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:11 PM:

" Oh one more thing Equalizer, a person in a restaurant should not have to get up and leave to avoid a "pushy/over friendly" patron. Only a nut job like you would think otherwise. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 24, 2008 7:02 PM:

" Susie Susie Susie, he still doesn't explain HOW he came to be talking with the man! It could have happened in any number of ways as I suggested. Perhaps the man engaged Mr. Albin in a conversation, then didn't like the way it was going and decided to go for the jugular. Who knows! The letter was pretty vague.

"So folks be wary of Billie, she has difficulty reading and jumps to conclusions." I don't have difficulty with my reading skills darlin, and as far as jumping to conclusions, maybe you had better look before you leap! LOL! I'm not the one jumping to conclusions that Mr. Albin overstepped his bounds while "talking" with the other gentleman. That m'dear is your forte'.

HP, I don't know Mr. Albin and perhaps some things were omitted, I was just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and not jump to conclusions like "I'm always right Susie" :-) "

Forgiven wrote on Nov 24, 2008 7:08 PM:

" Susan, from the way you are responding in your own defense here, I believe it is you whom you talk of being a nut job, not Equalizer, nor anyone else.

It is also sad that you think a car load of folks sought you out, and only you, because you checked with your neighbors.
I am sure that all your neighbors weren't watching out their doors and windows to see if that particular car stopped at anyone else's home besides yours. They probably figure if you are scared, you'll more likely stay in and leave them alone. "

devilishangel61401 wrote on Nov 24, 2008 7:51 PM:

" Becky your comment was too funny I loved it! My late father used to answer the door and say " I already subscribed." "

Rotty wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:29 PM:

" I'm going to let this one play out for a bit, before I touch it.
LMAO!

Rock On, Billie!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Ruh Roh, Soapbox Susie!

Excellant post, Becky!
LMAO!

WOOOOHOOOO!
ROCK DA HOUSE!!!!
LOL! "

HeinekenMan wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:19 PM:

" It's rich that Christians are complaining here about how they're received.

I happen to be one of those Godless folks. I've been an atheist for about 22 years. When I say the pledge, I am forced to say the word "God." My own T-ball team is required to say "I trust in God." When I told one of the fathers that I don't say "God" in the pledge because I'm atheist, he pulled his kid off the team.

On dozens of occasions, people who hear that I'm atheist try to get me to subscribe to their silly superstitions. I never do this to them. I respect their views, and I let them believe what they will. But they show me a great amount of disrespect when they refuse to leave me alone. In fact, many people cast me strange stares, as if I've just told them I eat small children for strength. "

HisChild wrote on Nov 24, 2008 9:25 PM:

" *LOL!* ROTTY! We're with you!
Becky, Billie, Rotty, Equalizer, Forgiven,
you are alright with us here! We're just sitting back and watching the scenery go by, *LOL!*

We are thankful for all of you, and the joys you bring into our lives!
God Bless Everyone, Happy Thanksgiving! "

Rotty wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:25 PM:

" Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep;
Should I die before I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take.

My Version....

Now I am upon this forum,
checking out the other's decorum;
Should I come across a real doozy,
I'll know in an instant it was Soapbox Susie.

LOL!

Be Safe & Have A Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:52 PM:

" H-Man- Not all of us "Believer's" show disrespect toward those who aren't. Some are on the "radical" side I'll admit that but the same can be said for some of the non-believers.

It can get pretty intense can't it? :-)There's plenty of "tit for tat" whenever the subject of religion shows up here.

Thanks for at least trying to show respect toward us. I'm returning it to you H-Man. No, I don't believe you eat small children.:-) "

thefunnyfarm wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:56 PM:

" At least these letters and some of the different responses keep us all talking about religion. For or against, keep talking people that is what made America great!
We as a country are a melting pot and as for me and my house, we serve the LORD.
GOD bless America "

Hahvahd wrote on Nov 24, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Heineken Man and Susan, I apologize to you for the disrespect you have been shown. Here in Charleston, when I was a relative newcomer to town, I started attending Wesley United Methodist Church. I was particularly impressed with the motto they adopted: Open Hearts, Open Minds. Yet one of my neighbors switched to a different church when that message of tolerance was adopted. When her son asked, "Mommy, why can't we go to our church anymore?" she replied, "because they think it's okay to kill babies and for men to marry other men." Even though our church never took those stands on the issue, the mere suggestion of accepting others who act or believe differently is too much for some (and I do emphasize some and not all) Christians to wrap their hearts around. For a religion whose savior is all about love and compassion and forgiveness and not judging others, there are many, many Christians who espouse hatred, intolerance, a lack of forgiveness, and harsh judgments of anyone who disagrees with their narrow views. Not only does this give all Christians a bad name, but it also turns away in disgust the very people they would like to win over to Christianity. "

medic57 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:12 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:02 AM:

" There isn't anything in the constitution that says a person has to listen to the religious message of another. The same constitution that guarantees your right to practice your religion guarantees the other mans right not to practice a religion. I suspect the man you were talking to was not interested in your religious clap trap. In reality to force your religious message on someone who isn't interested or who holds different beliefs is plain bad manners. "

Susan

For once I thought you might have had a decent post with facts only, guess I just hadn't read far enough into it.

Billie

Reminds me of the time I was at Steak and Shake with a friend, he was into photography and wanted to show me his latest pictures of barns, one picture caught my eye, I told him, that's a picture of the Cox Barn, and the guy sitting next to us turned around and said, I'll thank you to not use that kind of language around my wife. Not much to say there.

And from reading Mr. Albins account of the story, it was just that, a story, not a sermon. "

XTownie wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:47 AM:

" Well! It's just a darned good thing that man didn't whip out the Koran and start reading, right Mr. Albin???

I'd say "the man" (who it would appear is not a friend), is fully aware of "the paradise mentioned in the Bible" and correctly surmised that the light-hearted little story Albin related was an opening for conversation about religion. Mr. Albin's upset because the door didn't open for him to bring "the man" into the fold. "

The Question wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:10 AM:

" Someone somewhere sometime didn't say "Merry Christmas." Oh, I think I'm going to faint at the terrible injustice of it all. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:50 AM:

" I am curious how many of you Billie, Forgiven, His Child have been approached in a public place by someone with a Koran,or a copy of Locke or Hume, or the Upanishads and asked "have you heard about" or heard "I saw the fish sticker on your car and I think you need to know that God is dead, such superstition is foolish in this day and age", or? Have we ever had a Muslim or Hindu write a Letter to the Editor saying that Christianity is wrong, that my religion and only my religion is the truth, that I don't think we should show tolerance towards Christians. What religious group feels that it is acceptable to trespass on peoples property to distribute their religious message, even in places with ordinances and signs that prohibit door to door solicitation? You all responded as I assumed you would to my first post, I baited a trap "clap trap" and you all took the bait. AND what have you shown us? "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:53 AM:

" Fit or Faithful

Since Election Day, President-elect Barack Obama has been seen dropping off his daughters at school, taking his wife out to dinner and frequenting a gym in Chicago. But one location Mr. Obama has not been photographed at is church. In the three Sundays since winning the White House, the President-elect has used his free time for workouts instead.

------------------------------

Speaking of religious issues, Fox so called news is so desperate for any issue to beat Obama up with that they came up with the above. Next week they will probably cover his overdue library books.

Bush invades another country under false pretenses, gets thousands of young Americans killed and wounded and they wave the flag, but Obama skips out of church and it's a major issue for them.

Fair and balanced, yeah right! LOL! "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:18 AM:

" Happy Thanksgiving AND Merry Christmas to you Question! :-)

We wouldn't want you to faint. :-) "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:43 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 8:02 AM: "...to force your religious message on someone who isn't interested..." My understanding was that he was relaying a story and not "forcing a religious message" - that is, unless shumphreys has some insight into this exchange that we don't have from just this letter or "force" means something other than what I THINK it means. This is possible since there is more than one definition of "is" nowadays.

Then, going on, we read: "...is plain bad manners..." Thank you for defining bad manners. Are there any more of your absolutes you'd like to force onto us? I mean, grace us with your knowledge and insight?

Then, shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:44 PM: "...have to get up and leave his meal or seek out another restaurant to avoid a person pushing his religious views..." Okay, then what SHOULD a person do to avoid another person pushing his religious view? And who says hes HAS to get up and leave? He can always sit there and ignore the other person while they pursue their right to free speech. Or should we ban all discussion of religion in public places. That wouldn't be censorship or anything, would it?

Then, shumphreys wrote on Nov 24, 2008 6:03 PM: " He also says "I was not talking religion" but then he says "the man was not aware of the paradise mentioned in the bible". HM sounds as though Mr. Albin can't quite tell a straight story." Seems pretty straight to me. He says he wasn't talking religion when he mentioned the village of Paradise. I've been to the village of Paradise. I don't see anything religious there.

Then we read "The facts are that religion and politics are best left out of casual conversations." The facts are? This is a fact? Sounds more like an opinion to me but if shumphreys says it's a fact, who am I to disagree?

So what should I do if I'm not crazy about reading shumphreys' posts? I'm thinking all I COULD do is choose not to read them. I didn't know there was another option. If one shouldn't have to put up with another's religious clap trap then I shouldn't have to put up with someone's non-religious clap trap - that's assuming shumphreys hasn't cornered the market on what can or cannot be called clap trap.

So what should I do? I thought "not reading and responding to it" was all I could do but since - according to shumphreys - I "shouldn't have to put up with it", I guess there's something else I CAN do.

I'd like to know what it is because I'd sure DO it! "

Late Bird wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Visiting here is like visiting the zoo. The lions feedtime is brought to you by shumphreys, LOL! "

just wondering wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:17 AM:

" The interesting thing about Obama not going to church now that he is the president elect is his reasoning. He says he doesn't want to interfere or interrupt services with his presence. He sure didn't worry about that when he was running for president and showed up at churches. But then he was needing votes. Now that he's got them, he doesn't have to worry about that anymore. Nice to see what kind of excuses we will be getting from our new president. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Mr. Right you are getting close to facing the issue but are still tap dancing around it. When do one persons rights trump another persons rights? All the rest of the talk here is a smoke screen,(arguing about how to interpret Mr. Albins exact words) a way of avoiding this most unpleasant and fundamental problem. Does someone have the right to sit in a restaurant and not be bothered/harassed/annoyed by another persons religious message, idle chit chat, political diatribe, hunting prowess, etc. etc. etc. OR is it only if the message is religious in nature that a person does not have the right to object, freedom of religion after all? "

just wondering wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:21 AM:

" You hit the nail on the head, Mr. Right. Using Ms Humphries own so called logic, she should not be posting here, because we shouldn't have to listen to her. "

Late Bird wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:25 AM:

" "You all responded as I assumed you would to my first post, I baited a trap "clap trap" and you all took the bait. AND what have you shown us? "

Oh shumphreys, this is so lame! How many times are you going to fall back on that 'I baited you and you all fell for it' line?

You've used that several times in the past two years, it's old.

You didn't bait anybody here, you are just being your normal self, a paranoid bored & rude old lady stirring up some comfort for herself/himself.

Just for the record, go to O'Hare airport, and you won't have enough memory to count how many times you will be approached about religion. Then you can come back and tell us that all those guys were singling you and only you out. That ought to make you feel the importance & superiority that you seek. "

medic57 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:42 AM:

" In fact, many people cast me strange stares, as if I've just told them I eat small children for strength. "

Remember Hitler, he was godless and he used to expearament on children.

Have we ever had a Muslim or Hindu write a Letter to the Editor saying that Christianity is wrong, that my religion and only my religion is the truth, that I don't think we should show tolerance towards Christians

I believe that on 9/11 they showed us how much tolerance they have, or last week in Afganistan when some Taliban threw acid in 2 ten year old girls faces because they weren't covered from head to toe. Now that showed tolerance and guts didn't it. The one redeeming thing about christianity is that christians don't really care if you are a muslim or not, however, the reverse can't be said about muslims, take Kuwait, you can't even live there unless you are a muslim, no other religeon is allowed. Now there's tolerance. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:10 AM:

" Well Susan, if I were to be approached in public by someone in the manner which you described with a copy of The Koran or the other books you mentioned, I would hope I would politely say "Thanks but no thanks" instead of throwing a hissy fit like you would be prone to do if a Christian would approach you in the same way. This is what I tell the Jehovah's Witness missionary's and they can be pushy, unlike the Morman's who are always polite and don't push their religion on me at my door.

AS far as your reference to Hindu's and others. It may interest you to know my son-in-law is a Hindu and I respect his choice not to believe in my choice of Christianity. BUT, guess what? He does go to church with us on some of our important "Holy Days" Why you ask? Because he is is member of our family and he realizes the importance of these days to us. It's called respect Sue. He isn't forced or "shamed" into going with us. This is his choice to do so.

"What have you shown us?" you ask with the snotty little trap you baited? A lot more respect than you have shown to "Us" here on this particular thread is "what". The other posters who disagreed with us here have not shown the "tone" with which you "speak".

You seem to think you can throw out your obvious distainful comments and expect us to just put up with them. To be fair to you , there are those on "our side" who can get pretty nasty too and I find their hateful comments as offensive as yours.

I find I can be pretty tolerant of anyone's religion or lack of it except for the radical Islamists whose desire to eliminate or rule all infidels. So, beat me up for that one too. I'm sure you'll be able to dig deep into your bag of "traps" and find justification for doing so.

Lighten up and smile or maybe even laugh once in awhile. It's good for you! I don't "see" much of either one in most of your posts. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:12 AM:

" Late Bird, Looks like there's a steady diet of raw meat available at the zoo! Good one LB! LOL! "

ed miller wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:20 AM:

" People are overlooking the important part of this letter. The obvious put-down of the Village of Paradise. "

The Question wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Hey, Bible thumpers. When the Republicans controlled both Congress AND the White House, did you notice them making a move to require school prayer? To outlaw abortion? To recriminalize homosexuality?
You did not. They did nothing for your intolerant agenda. Why? Because behind your fundamentalist backs, they laugh at you.
Youre good for generating the votes that help them steal more money from you to give to their wealthy patrons. Period.
David Kuo and John DiIulio both worked in the Bush White House, and they both admitted it. "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:03 PM:

" But he/she (shumphreys) makes it so easy! "

Rotty wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Soapbox Sue....

Mine is bigger than yours!

ROTFLMAO!!!!
:-P "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:06 PM:

" Rotty, you are a hoot! LOL! "

injustice85 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:57 PM:

" I personally could care less what anyone said to me while i was talking religion in a restaraunt, if they didn't like it they would get a piece of my mind and we could make a case of it or I would simply ignore the lesser educated and smile and say yeah thats nice "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Anybody ever notice how The Question posts just to "play gotcha", give a little dig, and then get out of the conversation?
______

As she write's, "They did nothing for your intolerant agenda. Why? Because behind your fundamentalist backs, they laugh at you."

Here's one for ya...so what has being a "cornfield liberal" in southern Illinois ever done for you?

I guess your Illinois democrat cohorts have here have just laughed at you too.

Look at how abundantly national and state democrats from this "bastion of Chicago-democrat liberalism" state have heaped jobs, infrastructure, and economic success upon downstate Illinois. Makes ya proud dut-in-it?

I guess the Dick Durbin, "the messiah" Obama, Carol Mosely-Braun, Richie Daley, Emil Jones, Glen Poshard and all the others have had other more pressing things on their minds....LBAY! "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:14 PM:

" I'm sure it is Rotty. But no need to show me I will take your word for it. Yes indeed "clap trap" brings out the hyennas (that is a more apt analogy than lions). Wasn't it August sometime, that Mr. Albin wrote another letter and one of you folks, don't remember who, commented we don't pay any attention to him because he is a crack pot (or something to that effect). So lets see it is ok for you to criticize but not for me. Or is it just the word "clap trap". You don't respect him but lets circle the wagons and burn the heathen at the stake. Shall we address the issues or shall we just continue to trash me, as that is your concept of the "Christian" thing to do. What are the issues? The use of words to describe another persons belief? The rights of one to proselytize versus the rights of another to eat a meal in peace? Shall we discuss leaping to conclusions and making assumptions, i.e. Billies latest statement about how I responded to the folks in the car. OR shall we address the issue of religious stalking, when proselytizing oversteps the line of "polite" behavior. OR what this site is appropriate for, voicing opinions freely versus voicing opinions in other public places. Lots of important issues that could be discussed. OR shall we just let the "lions" slather and snarl and gnash their self-righteous teeth as they feebly attempt to tear this poor little lamb to shreds. "

father bob wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:34 PM:

" medic57 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:42 AM:
" The one redeeming thing about christianity is that christians don't really care if you are a muslim or not, however, the reverse can't be said about muslims, take Kuwait, you can't even live there unless you are a muslim, no other religeon is allowed. Now there's tolerance. """"

______________

that's total BS....geezzzz...i don't know where you idiots get this crap. approximately 12% of kuwaitis are christian, mostly catholic. why don't you TRY to research a subject before you spew BS at it?? "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:05 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:17 AM: " Mr. Right you are getting close to facing the issue but are still tap dancing around it." STILL? That was my first post on the topic. Doesn't "still" imply a continuation of something? There's that darned confusing definition of big words like "is" again. Darn Bill Clinton, anyway! He went and messed up the whole English language!

Then, "All the rest of the talk here is a smoke screen,(arguing about how to interpret Mr. Albins exact words) a way of avoiding this most unpleasant and fundamental problem." No, it's not a smoke screen. You said (wrote) the words about Mr. Albin's exact words - you own it!

And, "Does someone have the right to sit in a restaurant and not be bothered/harassed/annoyed by another persons religious message, idle chit chat, political diatribe, hunting prowess, etc. etc. etc. OR is it only if the message is religious in nature that a person does not have the right to object, freedom of religion after all?" No, it's not a matter of freedom OF religion or freedom FROM religion or anything else like that. THIS AIN'T ABOUT RELIGION!!!!

So to answer the question you posed of "Does someone have the right to sit in a restaurant and not be bothered/harassed/annoyed by another persons religious message, idle chit chat, political diatribe, hunting prowess, etc. etc. etc.", No, they don't. No. They do not. They don't have that right.

Rights are granted by some authority of some kind. If there is some authority that has granted a human or American or anything else like that the right NOT to be "bothered/harassed/annoyed" by another who IS pursuing a granted right by an authority (as in free speech and constiution), I'd sure like you to show me that one.

Just to make sure we don't go off on some kind of smoke screen tangent here, let me be clear . . . the free speech thing IS a right and it IS guaranteed and it IS by authority. If you have the "right" NOT to be harassed by speech, then I have the "right" NOT to be harassed by the printed word - YOURS! "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:22 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Nov 25, 2008 3:14 PM: "Shall we address the issues..." Yes, let's do! That would be a novel thing for you to do.

"The rights of one to proselytize..." the guy was TELLING A STORY! He wasn't giving a "Turn or Burn" dissertation!

"...the rights of another to eat a meal in peace?" Yeah! As guarateed in the US Constitution under Amendment . . uh, Amendment . . uh, what was that Amendment again? Oh yeah, NONE!!!!!

How about "Shall we discuss leaping to conclusions and making assumptions, i.e. Billies latest statement about how I responded to the folks in the car." Yes, let's! Please address your jumping to conclusions in "I SUSPECT (my emphasis) the man you were talking to was not interested in your religious clap trap." and "Then for PURE SPECULATION" (my emphasis) WITHOUT throwing someone else in front of the bus like Billie to divert YOU jumping to conclusions!

shumphreys . . . you're making this way too easy!

And finally . . . "gnash their self-righteous teeth..." Yeah! The LIONS sure are the self-righteous ones here!

"... as they feebly attempt..." Feebly? No, 'fraid not feebly, it was done rather thoroughly.

"...this poor little lamb..." Poor little lamb? POOR LITTLE LAMB???? Oh for God's sake, cry me a freaking RIVER! "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:33 PM:

" The Question wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:35 AM:

"Hey, Bible thumpers. When the Republicans controlled both Congress AND the White House, did you notice them making a move to require school prayer? To outlaw abortion? To recriminalize homosexuality?

No, I did not. One reason is because the conservative viewpoint isn't to REQUIRE prayer in schools - just not to PROHIBIT it. There IS a difference!

No, I did not. One reason is because killing an infant is already criminal. You can't outlaw something that's already outlawed.

No, I did not. One reason is the conservative viewpoint isn't interested in criminalizing homosexuality.

That's ONE reason . . . "

The Curious wrote on Nov 25, 2008 4:47 PM:

" Amen Mr. Right!
And the biggest lion of all, shumphreys is claiming now to be a poor little lamb? If that doesn't just take the cake!
Needed a laugh, got many, thanks everyone! "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:15 PM:

" Clap trap = claptrap. One word. Thought you might like to know that Susie. :-) Feel free to point out any spelling mistakes or miskeys I may make in the future.:-)

Maybe you could clear something up for me Dear. Just how did I jump to a conclusion about how you responded to the folks in the car? I never mentioned people in a car. This is what I referred to...." I am curious how many of you Billie, Forgiven, His Child have been approached in a public place by someone with a Koran,or a copy of Locke or Hume, or the Upanishads and asked "have you heard about" or heard "I saw the fish sticker on your car and I think you need to know that God is dead, such superstition is foolish in this day and age",

My response was that I probably wouldn't throw a hissy fit but politely say "no thanks". From the attidudes toward people of faith( mainly Christians) you espouse vehemently on these threads on a regular basis, it wasn't too much of a leap for me to "jump" to that conclusion. I can envision you going into a state of apoplexy if anyone dared to approach you in a PUBLIC place and want to give you a Bible or profess their faith in any way.

Maybe those teeth you wrote about are trying to expose a wolf hiding underneath all "this poor little lamb's" wool. :-) As thick as that coat of wool you sport it will take some doing.

You're pretty good at "snarling" and "gnashing" your teeth too Sweetie.

Once again, I try very hard to be respectful of others religions or lack thereof and I don't always suceed, but I would like to be shown the same in kind. You m'dear seem to be incapable of it or at the very least resist any tolerance toward Christians.

You may be interestd (or not) to know I have friends who are atheists. Do I wish they weren't? Of course but I don't try and ram my faith down their throats. The fact that they are atheists does not make me love them or respect them any less because of it.

Now it's time to start making preparations for the feast on Thursday.I'm also gonna watch something frivolous and fun on TV tonight! It's "Dancing With the Stars" finals tonight! Go Brooke and Derek! "

The Question wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:21 PM:

" No, I did not. One reason is because the conservative viewpoint isn't to REQUIRE prayer in schools - just not to PROHIBIT it. There IS a difference!
---
Individual prayer is not prohibited in school now, as you must know, and never has been. Organized, state-sponsored prayer is prohibited, as it should be, because that is effectively REQUIRED prayer. And REQUIRED, ORGANIZED, STATE-SPONSORED prayer in school is what you right wingers have always been after. But you knew that already. "

The Question wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:32 PM:

" "No, I did not. One reason is the conservative viewpoint isn't interested in criminalizing homosexuality."
---
That's pretty funny. You were interested in criminalizing it, and keeping it criminalized, for CENTURIES, weren't you? You right wingers fought every effort to decriminalize homosexuality, didn't you, including in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986?
Here is what your famed American right-wing theocratic spokesman Pat Robertson has had to say on the subject: "It is sodomy. It is repugnant. It has been prohibited and proscribed by sane society throughout countless millennia, centuries."
Robertson also said this: "Since our nation was founded, we have discriminated against certain things. We discriminate against kidnappers. We discriminate against murderers. We discriminate against thieves...There are laws that prohibit that kind of conduct. And there have been laws since the founding of our country against what are considered unnatural sex acts, sex between members of the same sex."
Who the devil do you think you're kidding, Mr. Wrong? "

Forgiven wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:42 PM:

" shumphreys says, " I am curious how many of you Billie, Forgiven, His Child have been approached in a public place by someone with a Koran,or a copy of Locke or Hume, or the Upanishads and asked "have you heard about" or heard "I saw the fish sticker on your car and I think you need to know that God is dead, such superstition is foolish in this day and age"

I have been, and sometimes I let them strut their stuff, and sometimes I don't because I have an appointment or a certain time frame I need to stay within. I have never ever been rude to anyone though, and I have never ever been offended by anyone who wants to share their beliefs which are other than my own, or paranoid about them doing so.

From the way in which you hold yourself, the people who share samples of food and drinks at Walmart to get you to try new things are probably offensive to you also, so I tell you in my humble opinion of course, stay home and enjoy your own thoughts, food, etc... since you don't like anyone to share with you.

Why is it that you are here typing? To share your opinions about everything with everyone else that's here? "

Smoke'em If Ya Got'em wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:43 PM:

" This sounds more like the smoking issue. "

ed miller wrote on Nov 25, 2008 5:55 PM:

" FB,

I think medic was talking about Saudia Arabia. "

londonderriere wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:18 PM:

" The Merry Christmas got to me. Try raising children in the Jewish faith this time of year. You learn quickly to just smile and say thank you and to teach your children to do the same. Perhaps the recipient of Mr. Albin's religious discussion should have done the same, and Mr. Albin should have also just shrugged and dropped the subject. And then, if he felt the need, gone home and prayed about it instead of feeling the need to vent in a public newspaper. "

medic57 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:31 PM:

" fb

My bad, Saudi Arabia is all Muslim, and that is all that is allowed. "

Rotty wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:39 PM:

" It may be, but I'll bet your Snap-on could give me a good run for the money, Soapbox Saran Wrap Susie.

LOL!
:-P "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Thanks for your voice of reason and tolerance londonderriere. Happy Chanukah to you and your family when it comes up in December. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:54 PM:

" If I am such a terrible person why aren't you Billie and Forgiven showing/demonstrating how much better you are rather than showing you are just as bad if not worse than me? "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:10 PM:

" " If I am such a terrible person why aren't you Billie and Forgiven showing/demonstrating how much better you are rather than showing you are just as bad if not worse than me?

More bait for your traps Susie? Not this time. I "ain't" biting!

Have a wonderful evening and God Bless. "

ed miller wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:26 PM:

" It speaks volumes about our nation, especially in this Thankgiving season, that so many people complain others are "forcing" a religion on them while around the world, millions face persecution or death for their own religious beliefs. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:35 PM:

" With all due respect to Londonderriere...

I am pleased that you are "raising children in the Jewish faith". Doing so is commendable, but I have a little difficulty with the "characterization of your victimization" in your post.

Mr. Albin may not have articulated his point well, that point can be granted. But I think his point is that people that espouse Judeo-Christian beliefs now, for what arguably here in the US is a Christian-oriented country, feel as though their beliefs are under constant attack by an over-secularizing contingency in this country.

I would think that you would empathize with Albin's position considering the pogroms that took place in Europe against the Jews the last century, but maybe not?

So not to minimize the injustice done to Jews throughout history, but it seems that any "discomfort" you hear/see concerning the words "Merry Christmas", pales in comparison to any historical "discomfort" or any current "discomfort" you might find over the use of "Merry Christmas".

In other countries of the world now, concerning practice of Judaism like say in Europe, or the middle east and SE Asia, both of which are predominately Muslim, or even in Israel that is under the constant threat of war over being a Jewish state, the "discomfort" for practicing Judaism is far, far greater there than in just hearing/seeing "Merry Christmas" here. "

londonderriere wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:37 PM:

" Thank you Billie. And happy holidays from 1 songbird to another--tee-hee. God bless you and yours for helping out my brother and his family this year during his health problems. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:05 PM:

" londonderriere- Thank you. We were happy to provide some shoulders for your brother and family. The little one calls me Granma Billie ya know. She is a sweetie. "

londonderriere wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:21 PM:

" NeoCon Academician: Sorry if I sounded like I was complaining of being "victimized." Not at all. My point is that of live and let live, and not be offended if someone doesn't wish to hear your views on religion, politics, or anything else. I choose to be Jewish, just as others choose to live their lives in other religions. I am no more offended by a Merry Christmas than I would expect someone else to be offended by a greeting of Shalom. Therefore, as you said, in a predominantly Christian nation, when others speak to me of their religions, I listen respectfully, smile, and continue to believe as I wish. My children go to public school, and from now until the end of the year, they are bombarded with gift-giving, Santa Claus, and other symbols of the season. They share in their friends' activities and we host a Chanuka celebration in each of their classes, with donuts, dreidls, and gelt. I am sorry if I offended you by the wording of my comment. Please accept my sincerest apology, and I extend it to anyone else to whom I may have given the wrong impression. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:23 PM:

" Neo- I don't think londonderriere was complaining about the Merry Christmas greeting, just making an observation. londonderreriere's children are being taught to be respectful of others. I didn't "see" any victim here.

I've known several Jewish folks who have always celebrated Christmas in a secular manner and respected Christian's feelings as far as the religious celebration of Christmas is concerned.

Many Jewish singers put out Christmas albums because they enjoy the music, secular and sacred. "

Hahvahd wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:46 PM:

" To the Christians posting on this thread: do you indeed believe the words of Jesus Christ? If you take them to heart, then it seems you wouldn't be treating Susan with such derision and ridicule. Didn't Jesus command that we turn the other cheek? That if someone forces us to walk with him a mile, we should walk two? That we shouldn't just love our neighbors, but our enemies as well? He didn't say forgive people only if they deserve it or ask to be forgiven. He didn't say love only those who love us back, or only those who treat us with respect. The anger and venom shown on these threads by people claiming very loudly to be Christians doesn't do much for winning people to the Christian faith.

And Rotty, not everyone finds you amusing. What's with all the Snap-on tools references? A closet fetish perhaps?

That having been said, please forgive me my judgmentalness. And thank you, londonderriere, for your message of tolerance, acceptance, and well, just chilling out a little bit instead of blowing things out of proportion -- even things that are hurtful or disrespectful to us, such as those who can't budge on the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays issue; you let that go, even though it affected you personally. The world could use a whole lot more of that kind of attitude and spirit, it would seem.

On that note, hope everyone (no matter his/her religion or lack thereof, no matter his/her race, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.) has a happy Thanksgiving and many blessings to enjoy. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:59 PM:

" I think all of you who are jumping on the letter writer for "pushing his religious views" on others need to reread the letter. He clearly states that he was only telling a story about a mother and her child having a conversation in which the child thought the mother's mention of the village of Paradise was a reference to biblical paradise. He wasn't preaching anything. Am I forcing my religion on people if I tell a story about my daughter waking up and telling my wife and I that she had a dream about Jesus? Crazy. "

VTucker wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:38 PM:

" Looks like everything's been said here and then some! Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.... "

Equalizer wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:08 PM:

" Hahvahd wrote on Nov 25, 2008 8:46 PM:
" To the Christians posting on this thread: do you indeed believe the words of Jesus Christ? If you take them to heart, then it seems you wouldn't be treating Susan with such derision and ridicule."

Hahvahd, nobody is doing that, Christian or not. You, shumphreys, do not need to keep coming to your own defense under another name, which you've done quite often.
Happy Thanksgiving! "

medic57 wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:16 PM:

" proselytizing is not illegal in this country, unlike Saudi Arabia nd Afganistan, or, actually, to any muslim. What does any muslim say about the infadels (anyone not of the faith)

shumphreys wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:54 PM:

" If I am such a terrible person why aren't you Billie and Forgiven showing/demonstrating how much better you are rather than showing you are just as bad if not worse than me? "

Susan

Christians are no better than anyone else, they're just forgiven.

Hahvahd

All Susan does it cut people down because of their faith, why is that OK and defending your faith is not? "

Rotty wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:22 PM:

" Hahvahd, has the tool reference hit close to home for you?
LOL!

Tell ya what, if you want to play sweet for Soapbox Susie, may I suggest some chapstick first, you seem to be a pro at kissing up.
Maybe you could share the poor little lamb a tissue.

Take your blinders off, stop drinking your kool-aid, & grow some cajonies, just as Susie has attempted to & failed.

Don't care for, or find my posts amusing?
Skip them, I'm sure plenty of others have & will, & it won't bother me one bit.

Sneak in for another one of your kiss up snippets, then off you will go.

Thank God for that!
LOL! "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:26 PM:

" With all due respect Hahvahad,
Susan set the tone here with her "clap trap" zinger and "nut job" references.

Ridiclue? Susan gives as good as she gets.

While I agree that turning the other cheek as you suggest is a good thing, it doesn't mean while that cheek is being turned we don't have the right to defend ourselves and speak out.

Perhaps you might suggest Susan do a little cheek turning of her own?

Have a Blessed Thanksgiving All. That includes you too Susan. "

Hahvahd wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:55 PM:

" No, Equalizer, I'm not Susan Humphries. Nice attempt at diverting attention/changing the subject though. Would you care to back up your claim that no one has been attacking Susan on this thread? Rotty and Billie Brant seem to have come at her pretty hard, to name but 2.

As for your comment, medic, there's nothing wrong with defending your faith, but I haven't seen most of the posts doing that. Most have been attacking Susan and have resorted to name-calling, lame attempts at diminishing her by calling her "Susie," etc. And what's wrong with that is that it goes against the very foundations of what Jesus directed us (yes, I'm a Christian) to do regarding treating other human beings. We aren't supposed to just be nice and kind and gracious to those we like or who we agree with, but to everyone, including those we dislike and disagree with, our enemies.

Take an honest look at what's been posted here. How much of it is something that Jesus would approve of, and how much of it is mocking, ridiculing, or mean-spirited? I can't imagine many of the writers of these posts being filled with the Holy Spirit as they typed, attempting to discredit or knock the other person down a peg. Susan doesn't claim to be Christian, but many on here have professed their Christian faith -- perfectly fine to do so, but it might be nice to see people practice what they profess to believe. "

Late Bird wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:23 PM:

" Hahvahd wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:55 PM:
" No, Equalizer, I'm not Susan Humphries. Nice attempt at diverting attention/changing the subject though. Would you care to back up your claim that no one has been attacking Susan on this thread? Rotty and Billie Brant seem to have come at her pretty hard, to name but 2.

Been there, done that! :)
Nope Susan, not buying it!
Equalizer has a point there. Nobody is attacking you, Susan, more like dodging your poison arrows that you're continuously shooting.

Which brings up another point...
You believe in tolerance and treating all with respect and equality, yet you have no tolerance toward anyone and certainly don't treat others in any way but disrespectful, Susan.

In other words, Susan believes that EVERYONE ELSE BUT HER should be respectful & tolerant of others and their beliefs treating all equally.

So dear Hahvahd , if you are not Susan, why would you choose to defend her who is not practicing what she preaches? "

what? wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:54 PM:

" The first amendment manifests itself here. Something to give thanks for. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:20 AM:

" You're correct VTucker. Nuff said!

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours also. "

Hahvahd wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:56 AM:

" With all due respect, Billie, I don't recall Jesus saying that it's okay to defend yourself while turning the other cheek; I only remember "If someone would smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him thy left as well" -- doesn't sound like He's advocating taking a defensive position there.

And you're absolutely right about Susan taking a harsh tone with phrases like "clap-trap" and the like. Here's the difference though. Susan has said time and time again that she is not a believer, not a Christian. Christians are supposed to be held to a higher standard, are we not? So whether Susan started it, or said mean things, etc., isn't the issue; it's that a Christian is supposed to rise above, love his/her enemies, be forgiving. The meek shall inherit the Earth. Blessed are the peacemakers. Ring a bell? I haven't seen much of anything on here, other than remarks by londonderriere and HeinekenMan that resonate with such tolerant, live-and-let-live approaches. And yes, I include my own posts here. I DO realize the irony of being judgmental and my own sins and flaws; I don't mean to appear sanctimonious. It's just that so many people are turned off when they hear the word "Christian" and I think that's because they see all too many of us as just huge hypocrites. Sometimes our words speak louder than our actions -- by this I mean that I have a hunch that both of us and probably others on these threads are much kinder in person when dealing with people than our words would indicate.

Rotty, no your tool references don't "hit too close to home" for me; it's just that I don't think homophobic and misogynistic comments have any place in civil, public discourse, and I'm troubled by a grown man resorting to such immature, gutter comments in an attempt to be humorous or witty. That might have them ROFL(their)AO in middle school, but most educated adults don't find such things to be funny, just pathetic. And I do realize, however, that these threads are usually far from civil, but they are a form of public discourse to which some standards of decency could be followed (but probably won't be). So, no, I don't believe I follow your instruction to skip your posts -- any more than you follow the practice of skipping those posts (such as those by Susan) that offend you. Instead, you engage in your first-amendment rights to respond and comment. And since I have those same Constitutional rights, I'll do the same.

And I echo Billie's comments that everyone have a happy, blessed Thanksgiving -- and that includes you, Rotty, and you Billie, and you Soldier, and you NeoCon, etc. etc. Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya. "

Early Bird wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:42 AM:

" Hahvahd, nobody is doing that, Christian or not. You, shumphreys, do not need to keep coming to your own defense under another name, which you've done quite often.
Happy Thanksgiving! "

..........................

This complaint seems to be a reoccurring theme. It usually comes from someone who is getting bested on here. Any one who thinks Susan and Hahvahd are the same person is out to lunch in my opinion.

About the only thing they seem to have in common is that both of them are obviously intelligent and quite skilled at making their points.

Why is that when anyone defends whats another poster says, someone always jumps to the conclusion that they are the same person?

Admittedly, I'm no angel and have resorted to calling names on occasion myself, but it seems that no one gets called names more than Susan. Personally, I think it's out of frustration from those who can't keep up with her.

So I suppose now that I have defended other posters on here this morning, I am now them too. lol! "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:25 AM:

" To The Question

First of all, Pat Robertson may be a right-wing theocratic spokesman but thats where it ends. Thats THEOCRATIC spokesman and not POLICY spokesman. Just because Pat Robertson says it doesnt make it a conservative standard.

Second, he states sodomy is repugnant. That sounds like an opinion to me . . . his. He claims it has been prohibited which is true, but then he says sane society which is clearly used to make the insinuation that anyone who would disagree is ipso facto Insane theres his opinion again. What really disappoints me is conservatives who use their OPINION to make a point. A conservative doesnt have to use their OPINION to make a point. All we have to do is tell the TRUTH and point to the constitution.

So all youre citing is ONE PERSONS OPINION to make a case against the conservative viewpoint. Thats like basing the entire liberal viewpoint on what Al Gore said . . . you really wouldnt want to do THAT, would you?

My comment was about what you called state-sponsored prayer. True conservatives are not interested in state-sponsored prayer. Individual prayer is not illegal I give you that point. True conservatives are perfectly content with everyone praying to whom or what they want to pray they are just opposed to state-prohibited prayer.

I hold to my statement that conservatives are not interested in criminalizing homosexuality. Two homosexuals who want to practice their craft should be able to. Personally, I wouldnt do it but it doesnt mean I wouldnt defend your right to do it. The practice of homosexuality between two consenting adults may be an unpleasant thought to ME, but to throw someone in jail for it? Thats not a conservative viewpoint.

Before your eyes pop out of your head and you start typing a flaming (nice pun, huh?) letter back to me, keep in mind de-criminalizing homosexuality is NOT the same as condoning it and wanting to make it an integral part of our society.

Finally, I wondered how long it would be and who it would be that would be the first to use the term wrong in response to my screen name. The TRUE opposite of Mr. Right as it is used here would be Mr. Left. Im sure youre not interested in calling me that, though. I also wondered how long it would take for someone to start calling someone names. Evidently not long enough. "

HeinekenMan wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:08 AM:

" Medic,

I don't know how this became so heated. But I want to reply to you.

You linked Hitler to atheism. You do this sort of thing often. You pick out one bad apple from an entire apple forest and think that makes the lot of them poisoned.

Let me give you the names of some others who many believe were atheists. Some are self-professed, others made statements alluding to such, still others were strongly rumored to be atheists but kept their views private for fear of judgment:

Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Andrew Carnegie, Ernest Hemingway, Benjamin Franklin, Galileo, Thomas Edison, Nietzsche, Voltaire, John Adams, Helen Keller, Tolstoy, James Joyce, John Lennon, Frank Lloyd Wright and Mark Twain.

I'm pretty sure none of them tortured children. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:11 AM:

" Rotty I am teflon clad. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:14 AM:

" Medic57 if Grace is true, everyone is forgiven. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Billie there is a BIG difference between us I attack ideas not people. Notice I haven't called you or anyone else a name other than your posted name! "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:26 AM:

" No EB. You are an original! -:)

Have a great Thanksgiving. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:27 AM:

" Late Bird I don't always practice what I preach because that doesn't get the issue out into the open. I have said many, many times that in order to move mountains you have to use a little dynamite, no matter how unpleasant it my be, for the one that feels blasted and the one that does the blasting. There are many ways a "good Christian" could have responded to my first post. Hahvahd showed one positive way. He didn't condone my words but pointed out the message behind the message. Someone else could have said "well I don't like the use of 'clap trap' but I have never talked directly with Mr. Albin, so I shouldn't comment on what his message was or wasn't however about the issue of freedom from religion and freedom of religion....." Yes there are many ways a "good person" could have answered my post and addressed the issue. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:48 AM:

" Londonderriere...

No offense was taken. It sounds as though you are strong in your faith, so I understand how the overemphasis upon Santa Claus and gift giving by our over-commercialized, often over-secularized society might cause your consternation.

Your attitude of, "I listen respectfully, smile, and...." and efforts sound like a "winning attitude" over our "over-secularized society" similar to your faith's "victory" some 2173 years ago.

God bless you and yours and have a peaceful upcoming holiday. "

sapient wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:11 AM:

" HM: Your list of atheists needs some revision. Historical records would prove you wrong on some of them. Who made up this list? "

Equalizer wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:44 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:27 AM:
" Late Bird I don't always practice what I preach because that doesn't get the issue out into the open. I have said many, many times that in order to move mountains you have to use a little dynamite, no matter how unpleasant it my be, for the one that feels blasted and the one that does the blasting.

Yes, yes, we know how you use that line also as a back-up for your own bad behavior, talk about middle school tactics!

It's okay for shumphreys to not practice what she preaches because she is the hired hitman? Who the heck hired you? LOL! "

The Question wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Too bad you Bible thumpers keep yourselves so ignorant of history.
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, a former altar boy who was baptized into the church as an infant in Austria.
He also greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."
According to Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his suicide.
In 1941, he told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
So you Bible boys can have your Hitler. We freethinkers dont want him. Hes one of yours. "

The Question wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:11 AM:

" "Just because Pat Robertson says it doesnt make it a conservative standard."
---
Pat Robertson is a major figure in the Republican Party, Mr. Wrong. You, on the other hand, are some anonymous guy on a blog. I'd say his credentials as a spokesman for the American right wing trump yours, wouldn't you? "

father bob wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:27 PM:

" brilliant:

http://tinyurl.com/6ck2ro "

The Question wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:48 PM:

" "HM: Your list of atheists needs some revision. Historical records would prove you wrong on some of them. Who made up this list?"
---
Sappy, you need a lot of work on your reading comprehension skills. HM didn't say they all WERE atheists. He said they all WERE ACCUSED OF BEING atheists. And so they were. "

Billie Brant wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:56 PM:

" "
Susan wrote: Late Bird I don't always practice what I preach because that doesn't get the issue out into the open. I have said many, many times that in order to move mountains you have to use a little dynamite, no matter how unpleasant it my be, for the one that feels blasted and the one that does the blasting. from religion and freedom of religion...". Susan-You might want to be prepared before you push the plunger on the next dynamite charge, for the shrapnel coming out of your latest blast! Some of it may hit you.

" Billie there is a BIG difference between us I attack ideas not people. Notice I haven't called you or anyone else a name other than your posted name! "

Susan wrote:
" Oh one more thing Equalizer, a person in a restaurant should not have to get up and leave to avoid a "pushy/over friendly" patron. Only a nut job like you would think otherwise. -- Susan---I guess "nut job" doesn't qualify as name calling huh ?

I'll admit to being a bit of a smartazz here and yanking your chain a little with sweetie, Sue, Susie,Dear and "I'm always right Susie" GUILTY as charged!!! No excuses.

Hahvahd seems to think Susan has been attacked. Maybe so, but many look at it as defense not offense. She threw down the gauntlet with her clap trap stuff and finger pointing. I and others picked it up. When she throws her "stuff" around we're supposed to stand in front of the fan, let it fly around and land on the cheek of anyone who doesn't agree with her.I guess that would be one of Hahvahd's versions of turning the other cheek. It's ok for her to fling it, but we're just supposed to duck and cover. If you can do that all the time when you think you've been attacked Hahvahd, more power to you. "You're a better man than I am Gunga Din".
Because she's not a Christian, Susan gets a pass on the cheek turning bit. Is that what you're saying Hahvahd? I'll admit I could stand some improvement on the cheek turning issue, but due to my sometimes willful nature and the natural instinct to defend myself, I find it difficult.

Susan says." Yes there are many ways a "good person" could have answered my post and addressed the issue. Back at cha Girl. Oops there I go with more name calling( Girl)! Could it be that Susan with her "good person" crapola is name calling in reverse? Pretty slick veiled putdown. Just a thought. Oh Well.

I feel as though I'm within my rights to call her to task and pick up that gauntlet whenever she decides to throw it down again, IF I choose to do so. As for now, this is getting boring and anything else I would say would be redundant. So have fun Susan. Get out your dynamite. Be careful when handling it though. If it gets old and starts to get "slick" it could blow up in your hands while you're setting the charge. I'll be back some other time. Ain't cha glad to hear that? ;-)

It's off to the kitchen to start baking for tomorrow. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving everyone. That includes you too Susan. No put down or smartaleck wish, I mean it. You too TQ! Have a great day tomorrow. "

Hahvahd wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:00 PM:

" EB, thanks for being the voice of reason in the whole double identity issue. Thanks for the support. It really does get heated on here quickly, doesn't it? I'll admit to stoking the flames.

To anyone I've offended, I apologize. Not changing my mind on the issues, mind you, but I do feel we all should be bound to civil discourse, and I've crossed over the line. Bottom line is that it can't become a poo-flinging match if I don't pick up the poo hurled at me and throw it back, and I'm guilty of throwing it back, for sure.

I want to try to adopt more of a live-and-let-live philosophy, like london d.
I'll admit with my Irish temper, that won't be easy, but I'll try.

To all a Happy Thanksgiving.

And to TQ, you're absolutely right about Hitler's upbringing and religious views. There have been evil people of all faiths, as well as evil among atheists, just as there are good people of all faiths and among atheists. God will sort it all out in the end. In the meantime, while I'm here on earth I'll try to be a little nicer. Rotty may call me out for "playing nice" or "kissing up," if so, so be it. All any of us can do is to try to live up to our values systems. "

Rotty wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Hahvahd, only in your opinion.

Contrary to your belief, I'm an equal opportunity spewer.
LOL!

You have your opinions & comments, I have mine.

I echo some, but not all of your & Susan's thoughts.
Billie's thoughts pretty well sums up mine.

I'll be little bit more civil, for now, anyways.
LOL!

Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone, even you Hahvahd, & Ms. Humphreys.

Take Care & Be Safe,
~Rotty "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:31 PM:

" The Question wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:11 AM: "Pat Robertson is a major figure in the Republican Party, Mr. Wrong. You, on the other hand, are some anonymous guy on a blog. I'd say his credentials as a spokesman for the American right wing trump yours, wouldn't you? "

No. No, I wouldn't. I'd say they're about equal. I'm anonymous and he's wrong. If Pat Robertson is a spokesman for the American Right Wing, would you say Louis Farrakhan spoke for all liberals? How about Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Jeremiah Wright? Bible boys, all. "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:37 PM:

" Oh, and one more thing for The Question . . . do you want to talk about the Republican Party or do you want to talk about conservatives? No longer are they one in the same. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:16 PM:

" Billie you aren't "defending your self or just speaking up" you are helping me by reinforcing every negative stereotype about Christians that has ever been presented. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi preached a message of non-violence. Was the power of that message in the preaching or was it that time and time and time again they PRACTICED what they preached? Is the power of Christianity in the Bible, in a man named Jesus, or in the concepot of being saved? Or is it in the everyday actions of people that listen to the message and time and time again when push comes to shove they take a deep breath, count to ten, and no matter how difficult, how unpleasant they take the "high road" and try their darndest to practice what they preach? Good food for thought this Thanksgiving. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:58 PM:

" This is frightening.

"The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted."

- Senator Barrack Obama
(who apparently hears the voice of God)

So...how many of you a Atheists in here were responsible for putting this religious nut job in the White House? "

HisChild wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:54 PM:

" "Good food for thought this Thanksgiving"

Not eating anything from the zoo :-) "

The Question wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:59 PM:

" "Oh, and one more thing for The Question . . . do you want to talk about the Republican Party or do you want to talk about conservatives? No longer are they one in the same."

Let me clarify your position for you, Wrong-O. I wrote this:
"Hey, Bible thumpers. When the Republicans controlled both Congress AND the White House, did you notice them making a move to require school prayer? To outlaw abortion? To recriminalize homosexuality?"
You responded thusly:
"No, I did not. One reason is because the conservative viewpoint isn't to REQUIRE prayer in schools - just not to PROHIBIT it"
Therefore YOU identified Republicans with conservatism. Dont try to squirm out of it now, sonny. LOL. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Thankyou HisChild you just helped me prove my points. "

father bob wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:28 PM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:58 PM:So...how many of you a Atheists in here were responsible for putting this religious nut job in the White House? """

we didn't, we voted for Obama and Obama won..... "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:44 PM:

" Question . . . when you're right, you're right . . . and you're right. I DID identify the Republican Party with the conservative movement. I guess it was just wishful thinking coming through my fingers.

If only the Republican Party WAS conservative any more. Darned RINOs! "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:08 PM:

" Question . . . now that you caught me making a semantical error and I've admitted to it . . . what the heck does that have to do with the issues? Republican . . . conservative . . . whatever . . . Pat Robertson DOESN'T speak for conservatives. If the Republicans want him to be their spokesman - who the heck cares? The Republicans have unfortunately strayed farther from conservatism than the Democrats have strayed from common sense! And pal - there's a HUGE gap there! "

The Question wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:12 PM:

" Well, you're an honorable man to admit it, Mr. Wrong, which makes you Mr. Right again, I guess.
Frankly, I agree with you about the Republican Party. I suspect that Barry Goldwater would be horrified to see the authoritarian, torture-loving, trillion-dollar drunken-spending bunch of people that call themselves contemporary Republican leaders. "

dj1956 wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:09 PM:

" Havavd: It is not hatred and intolerance to be against abortion and homosexuality..it is simply what the Bible says about murder and homosexuality. You cannot call yourself a Christian and believe in either of those two things. The Bible is the guide for Christian living, and it explicitely says that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Take it or leave it, if it says it in the Bible... we, as Christians, believe it because it is the word of God. Now, for those who don't believe, that is "their" problem, but as I said, if you truly believe the Word of God, you can not stand for either of those two things.
It has never meant to hate the people who do it, but to love them and try to let them see their error...hopefully drawing them into the Kingdom of God. "

rehpotsh wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:14 PM:

" There is religion and then there is Christianity, one will take you straight to hell the other will take you to heaven. No one sends you to either place. it is a matter of one's personal choice. You and only you make the choice, now which will it be for you.
Read my Testimony, some things the Lord has done in my life.

Go to Yahoo. Type in Harold Stopher's Testimony

Have a good evening and a Blessed Thanksgiving. "

The Question wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:38 PM:

" "There is religion and then there is Christianity, one will take you straight to hell the other will take you to heaven."
----
Neither will take you anywhere. But enjoy the trip! "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:40 PM:

" Dj1956 actually the Bible does NOT say one way or the other whether homosexuality is wrong. The word never appears. Then there are the other problems. Leviticus lists a whole bunch of dos and dont's and man lying with a man isn't any worse or a greater abomination than greed, divorce, adultery, eating shellfish, etc. etc. To select homosexuality as being worse than all others is pure hypocrisy. Then none of the four Gospels mentions homosexuality so we have no idea what Jesus might have thought. Then there are three passages in the New Testament that possibly refer to homosexuality. Note I said possibly. Two are like Leviticas long lists of dos and dont's with none singled out as being worse than any other. Than there is a little problem of mistranslation. One word is translated as male prostitutes, which on its face value refers to paid sex of males which could be to other males but also women. Prostitution is the key word, not male to male activity. BUT the word should have been translated as soft or effeminate, which could refer to a homosexual male but it also refers to a large number of peaceful, non-agressive,males. Then the last word has been translated as sodomites which is also a bit of an error because the original Greek word is about sexual exploitation, quite possibly men exploiting boys, what we now would consider pedofilia. Anyway you look at it a loving relationship, between consenting adults of the same sex isn't addressed in any shape or form in the New Testament. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:40 PM:

" The Question wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Too bad you Bible thumpers keep yourselves so ignorant of history."
----

..So ignorant of history, huh? Really? Since you read a few liberal blogs, The Question, I guess your a historian, eh? More liberal elitism....
-------------
"Hitler was a Roman Catholic, a former altar boy who was baptized into the church as an infant in Austria.
He also greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."
According to Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his suicide.
In 1941, he told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
So you Bible boys can have your Hitler. We freethinkers don't want him. Hes one of yours. "
----------

First of all, Martin Luther was a controversial figure.... period...and because of his controversy, other Protestant branches, less dogmatic, developed, and much to the benefit of mankind.

And if you are so knowledgeable on Luther you would know that he went-off on the peasantry, nobles, princes, kings, the papacy, Jews, and the Turks, with equal disdain. I know, I've been to Worms, Magdeburg, and Wittenburg, and read his words. His anger at the Jews came from him thinking that they would be empathetic toward his "fight" against the papacy that had become so corrupt.

So, so much for your "Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews" statement.

And anybody who knows anything about the Papacy and Luther knows that they were diametrical opposed to each other, especially after Luther's excommunication from the Church of Roman.

So who cares if a maniacal Hilter was Catholic and admired Luther?....Well obviously you....

You associate maniacal Hilter with Martin Luther...with your profound insight...So I guess it's safe to say then that Obama, one of yours, is guilty of association with the maniacal rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan like the right has been saying.

Well great...thanks for proving all of us right-wingers fears about "the messiah" Obama.

So whose ignorant of history?

Yeah...don't answer...just insert foot to mouth...and have a very Quaker Thanksgiving. "

Locke wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:50 PM:

" I think the problem here is, well, someone told Mr. Albin to shut up. I really find it difficult to believe, in this rural cestpool of humanity, that anyone could mistake the Constitution for a prohibition on religious expression.

No, the guy in the resteraunt probably just leaned over and told Chuck to stuff it -- to which Mr. Albin felt his civil rights were being violated.

Listen, I tell idiots to shut up every day. Not because they are talking religion, but rather because they are simply idiots. "

The Question wrote on Nov 27, 2008 5:17 AM:

" Time for another history lesson, Connie. Here's some of what your little pal Martin Luther had to say about Jews:
"Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously."
-- Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

"Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security."
-- Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
---
No wonder Hitler admired him, eh? "

God Is wrote on Nov 27, 2008 6:03 AM:

" It amazes me sometimes what lengths people will go to in order to put down those who don't follow their beliefs. Such as commenting on a letter while ignoring most of its content.

Mr. Albin did not say that he had been discussing religion. He said that he had been passing along an amusing story, probably passed along to him by the mother of the boy who had made the original comment. And it was a funny story. Children say many funny, honest things. And if some people didn't dedicate their lives to villifying a group of people for not adhering to their own personal value system, they might have found the time to enjoy a good chuckle, for two reasons. First, for the humor found in the honest child, and second for the complaining individual who possibly had to have the joke explained to him, and then objected to the explanation.

For those individuals who are so biased that their hatred has blinded them to the facts, allow me to point out that this letter, surprisingly considering the source, wasn't really about religion. No dogma has been presented, nor claims of value or truth posed by the letter writer. This letter was about the funny things children say, and the Constitution and how individuals do not know it well enough to understand what is law and what is wishful thinking. It was about people who, under the guise of personal rights, see their own rights as more important than everyone elses without bothering to understand that the laws they quote don't support their claims.

In this country people have the right to discuss in public anything they might wish. A group of Christians having a meal in a resturaunt are as free to discuss their beliefs as they would be to discuss political speeches, school events, family issues, and outcomes of baseball games. If those same Christians had complained about overhearing a group of people discussing any other religious dogma except their own while in that resturaunt, you would have accused them of being vile and restrictive. Yet, when faced with the fact that you have done exactly what you have often accused them of doing, you call it truth and justice. Shame on you!

The bottom line is, if you don't like what you are hearing, quit evesdropping on someone else's conversations. Change the channel, and tell the people at the door that you aren't interested. And, in keeping with the season, if you don't like the Christmas display, look at something else. Listen to something else, believe in something else, be something else. But you still must recognize that we have the right to do the same, and you do not have the right to restrict us because we aren't on your path. "

God Is wrote on Nov 27, 2008 6:17 AM:

" I probably should have read a little further before responding!

shumphreys...Have we ever had a Muslin or a Hndu write a letter to the editor saying that Christianity is wrong, that my religion and only by religion is the truth...

Every three weeks, darl'in. Every three weeks. With complaints that you cannot be published more often. In fact, you are quite verbose about it. "

God Is wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:04 AM:

" Grace is true. And everyone is forgiven. All that is required is that they accept that forgiveness. This would, of course, require that the acceptor recognize the authority of the one offering the forgiveness. Which would, in turn, require that the acceptor recognize the existance of the one offering forgiveness. It requires their acceptance of the authority of the forgiver to say "you are forgiven. Now go and sin no more." And then to follow through on the instruction.

How can anyone complain that they aren't being forgiven by someone that they profess doesn't exist? Or that that individual must keep forgiving them over and over because they wish to keep doing what they are doing without consequence.

To not believe is your right. To complain that you are not the recipient of the Grace that you aren't given by an individual you don't believe in is a bit twisted. To expect that someone to forgive you on your own terms is a bit arrogant.

To be a recipient of forgiveness is to admit that you were in the wrong. But you believe that you are not wrong (as is your right). Are you really expecting forgiveness for being right? "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:53 AM:

" Yes God Is you should read fully before responding. I write on a public forum set up for the purpose of "sharing" opinions. Overhearing conversations in a public place is quite different from iniating conversation with a stranger. Notice that I said that "if Grace is true". There is no proof that it is! BUT if it is it will be granted to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs or even of their life long behavior. Even Hitler and Sadam Hussein will be granted grace,AND even you and me. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:03 AM:

" So now this gets us back to the points I have been trying to get across for the past two years. Christians keep shooting themselves in the foot, time and time and time again. Christianity is loosing ground, recent studies still showed a large percentage of Americans claim to be Christians but a small percentage of those actually consider themselves devout. A University religious professor has reported on the opinions his students hold of Christians, judgmental, narrow minded, hypocritical, unintelligent, self-righteous. Where do these opinions come from? I wonder. As long as the public voice of Christianity is the voice of Hannity and his ilk and the few commentors on blogs like these these opinions grow. The voices of Christian reason, Havahad, Vicky Tucker, are too few and far between. If I can soo easily set the attack dogs loose with my comments when you know what my intentions are, since I have told you time and time again, what happens in this great big world of ours. A look at the Middle East will give you a hint.The latest shooting in a Universalist church should give you a hint. Do words warrant bullets? Or should harsh words be met with tolerant, peace brokering words? Ask yourself what Jesus would do, since you profess to be one of his followers. "

Elbert wrote on Nov 27, 2008 9:43 AM:

" Having read most of the comments here, I have some questions. First, I wonder if Mr. Albin has access to the internet so that he can read the comments. Since I have never seen him respond, I tend to doubt it. Second, I wonder, since I understand that he is a minister, how he feels about the hatred, on both sides, that his letter has engendered. Finally, I wonder what really happened. I have read numerous posts where people assume realities which permit them to express their viewpoint. Remember you are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. "

sapient wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Elbert: Mr. Albin's letter did not engender any hatred. If hatred is demonstrated in the responses it was there before Mr. Albin's letter. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Nov 27, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Susan, Every time you try to explain Christianity you really show your ignorance of the Way and then you try to deceive others, as you have been deceived. You said to Dj1956, Leviticus lists a whole bunch of dos and dont's and man lying with a man isn't any worse or a greater abomination than greed, divorce, adultery, eating shellfish, etc. etc. To select homosexuality as being worse than all others is pure hypocrisy.
Christian teaching does not select homosexuality as being worse than all others. In Christianity dear Susan homosexuality is no worse than any other sin (except for the consequences it lays upon non-participating others who are inadvertently hurt by it). In Gods eyes deceiving others is just as bad a sin as homosexualism. That means we are all sinners because we all sin. You cant rate sin. There is only one way that God will accept sinners which we all are and that is through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus. All sin will have to be paid for, so do you want to pay for your sin yourself or would it be better to accept the price Jesus paid for your sin?
Oh yes the New Testament does condemn same sex relationships. Paul is very explicit in Romans 1:27 for just one example, men with men committing what is shameful but Paul also presents the good news. Paul described in Romans 7 that even he was carnal 24O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Then in 8:1 he said, There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. If a person is in Christ Jesus he or she will not continue deliberately living in a lifestyle of sin. Like Paul though this does not mean a Christian is going to be a perfect sinless person. Paul never said he deliberately sinned. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Nov 27, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Susan yes yes a look at the Middle does give us a pretty good hint. Good point Susan. Israel exists. The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is still in control. "

Myopinion wrote on Nov 27, 2008 1:25 PM:

" In her very own twisted way, Ms. Humphries is shoving her own religious "clap-trap" down everyones throat.

It's fun to watch her try to defend her brand of "clap-trap". She should be banned from this forum, especially since she spews nothing but hatred for Christians.

I for one am tired of her crap. "

God Is wrote on Nov 27, 2008 2:21 PM:

" I am not really all that worried. As long as the antiChristian torch is carried by individuals as snake-tongued and twisty as demonstrated by one using these postings, we are all perfectly safe to continue on. Evidently it is hatred, disrespect, and discrimination only when other people are doing it. When she does it, it is called protecting the innocent. So, how is the air up there where you think you are? It must be lonely being the god. "

Cognitus wrote on Nov 27, 2008 5:27 PM:

" When these religion-peddlers come to my
house, I'm very polite.
I tell them I'm a non-believer, and
while they're searching the sidewalk
for their eyeballs, I point out that they are wasting their time and perhaps they could more efficiently spend their time with the neighbors down the street.
If they PERSIST, I gently and slowly
close the door.
Bu thanks, Becky; I may end up using
your suggestions. "

Cognitus wrote on Nov 27, 2008 5:31 PM:

" There's an organization that several in this column should belong to:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sometimes just called
Americans United when the reader likely will know the rest.
I'm a member, and I get an interesting
little magazine titled only "Church and State", which tells of outrageous violations of the separation and legal cases related to this issue. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Mr. Vanatta you reiterated my points. I said to select Homosexuality as worse than any of the other sins is hypocritical, which means they are all the same in the teaching. Now as to Paul in Romans,The passage reads that "God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men...." What is natural for one is unnatural for another. It is about EXCHANGING, and notice that God abandons them, so the punishment is abandonment by God. If you read the passage literally. BUT the passage taken as a whole, from start to finish, not just one sentence, is about idolatry, with homosexuality mentioned because the author assumes that it is a result of willful idolatry. People chose to worship false Gods and God gives them up to the activities of idolators which includes but is not limited to homosexual activity and wild wanton sexual orgies. A truly great passage when you read the WHOLE story. SO YES Mr. Vanatta my point is exactly your point homosexuality is not worse than any other sin, greed, lust, eating shellfish,divorce, adultery,bearing false witness, not circumcising your male children, to think otherwise is as you point out un-Christian. By extension denying the same rights to homosexuals that are granted to other sinners (marriage) is un-Christian. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:17 PM:

" God Is Jesus also found it quite lonely at the top, and appeared to be constantly amazed at the "density" of his desciples. Since you have placed me at the top. I guess I am in good company! "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:32 PM:

" Have any of you ever heard of the "devils advocate", it is a difficult position, a dirty job but someone has to do it? Why, because the stakes are too high not to and no one else is doing it. The voices of moderation are not speaking up. The only way to cleanup a festering sore is to open it up and expose it to the light.

There is a great biblical story about Jesus wandering in the wilderness and being tempted by demons and devils. Was it 40 days that he spent. Curious that Buddha spent 40 days under the Bodhi tree tempted by demons and devils. Both came through their ordeals/trials with a new look, new understanding, enlightened outlook. Now what do you think they might have been tempted by? The offers of food and drink for sure, 40 days is a long time. Probably promises of great wealth, wonderful sex, palaces and servants and.............. Could Jesus also have been tempted with taunts? "there is no God", "this monotheism stuff is a bunch of bunk/clap trap"? And how did he respond did he come out spouting hate and fire and brimstone, or peace and forgiveness, tolerance, turn the other cheeck (not once but 70 times or 70 times 70 times)? The Bible is full of good lessons for those that are willing to follow them. I don't promote any religion, frankly I think this world would be better without it AND we can see why just on these pages and the letters to the editor. AND I have nothing to loose and everything to gain by bringing the hate out into the light. "

Rotty wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:35 PM:

" It must be from a lack of oxygen, when one places theirselves so high up in a self righteous ivory tower, attempting to speak down to the masses, not actually having a clue about the world around them, attempting to paint the world with a broad stroke, trying to be the queen of spin, & failing every time.

Wow, this woman could be a Disney character, because she is fargon goofy. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Nov 27, 2008 11:30 PM:

" Susan you are so busy twisting the truth around that you miss the point. However you view homosexuality it is a sin and an abomination in the eyes of God. Anyone who continues in that lifestyle will never inherit the kingdom of God.
Why are you still writing about shell fish I have told you before it has no bearing on Christianity but if you are a Jew trying to earn your salvation through obeying the Old Testament laws then you had better not eat shell fish. But no Jew or anyone else can ever earn their salvation through the law or through works so forget about not eating the shellfish. There was a reason God told the Israelites not to eat shellfish as they wandered in the wilderness that particular shellfish was poisonous in the waters of that area and Susan you were saying about how others need to read closely you need to read in Leviticus 11 and Deut. 14 more closely. It says that eating whatever in the water does not have fins or scalesthat shall be an abomination to you. God did not say an abomination to me but an abomination to whoever eats it.
...." What is natural for one is unnatural for another. It is about EXCHANGING where did you ever get that from? That is just your idea. You would like relativism to be true but it is not. You are not going to put your words to my posts. I have definitely never said that to deny homosexuals the right to marry each other is un-Christian. The Bible never approves of same sex marriage. You have a warped interpretation of Romans 1 and you are even changing the words. Does God love homosexuals? Yes He does. Does He want homosexuals to repent? Yes He does just like He wants all sinners to repent of their sin.
The main point you are missing is that all sins must be paid for. God does not and will not tolerate sin and will not allow anyone with unpaid for sin into His presence. The only way that sin can be paid for is through the blood of Jesus Christ He shed for us. Any other way is unacceptable to God. Are we all sinners? Yes we are and that is why we all need Jesus Christ. If you do not accept the gift of Gods grace through faith in Jesus Christ then you will never be accepted by God. You cannot earn it by your works that is why it is grace. God will not throw open the door to everyone who rejects and rebels against him no matter how much you think He will. John 3:36 God is not going to make an exception for homosexuals He makes that very clear. "

just wondering wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:14 AM:

" Susan Humphries, the voice of moderation? Give me a break. Not unless you have come up with a new definition of the word moderation. Labeling yourself that is either the height of arrogance or ignorance. Lady, there is nothing moderate about you. You are one of the most narrow minded people I have ever run into. It's either your way or no way. It must be nice to have nothing else to do but sit and write your drivel and try to pass it off as intellectual discussion. In your own words, I have the right not to have to listen to, or read your stuff. So please stop, because according to you, I don't have to leave and go somewhere else. "

Elbert wrote on Nov 28, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Sapient:
Thank you for your comment. Never-the-less I must respectfully disagree in part with your comment.

According to the dictionary the term engender means to produce, cause, or give rise to: Hatred engenders violence.

While I agree that the hatred being expressed undoubtedly existed before Mr. Albin wrote his latest letter, his present letter did give rise to the expression of hatred that appears.

Thus, I stand by my statement that the letter engendered that is gave rise to the expression of hatred. Just look at the comments that have been posted since my post. Most, but not all contain expressions of hatred for someone on the other side of the argument.

Finally, the major point of my comment was the question of how Mr Albin feels about the ongoing expressions of hate which occur from all sides of this argument. I think it is too bad that people cannot express their strongly held opinions without resorting to attacks on the person. Since, I have never seen a response on the internet, I dont know.

Dispute the ideas, but dont denigrate the person. Be respectful of people and perhaps they will be respectful in return. "

The Question wrote on Nov 28, 2008 9:05 AM:

" Susan has long been a voice of moderation and reason on these threads.
The fact that ranting whack jobs who think they're going to "Rapture" into the sky like Peter Pan don't recognize that does not surprise me for some reason. "

RAK wrote on Nov 28, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Elbert:

having dealt w/ Chuck Albin , the levels of contempt and vitriol you mention is right up his alley. His radio show as well as personal correspondence w/ him is filled w/ personal attacks, ad hominems, and outright nonsense. "

God Is wrote on Nov 28, 2008 10:43 AM:

" shumphries, I do not place you at the top. I simply acknowledge the premise that you place yourself there. You seem to spend a lot of time comparing yourself to Jesus, Buddah, and others. Sounds like an "I am God" complex to me. Which also means you spend a lot of time staring down your nose at others. I would be willing to bet that you cannot think of many people that you would consider your spiritual/intellectual equals. Of course, that would mean choosing among the more mortal types. I already know that you would consider yourself on par with those you consider great.

A voice of reason? I am beginning to believe that all of those claims concerning shumphries "multiple personalities" are correct. I also have an extra secret identity, although I do practice the good manners of never using them together in the same column, much less use them to support each other. It is a source of amusement to me to recall the numerous times shumphries has complimented my intelligence and insight when I am using identity number two. But a voice of reason? If this is what passes for reason in America tody, we are all doomed.

Argument has been made of people attacking the person instead of the issue. I admit, of that I am guilty. It is because I don't fault the issue. People are free to believe in whatever they wish. A review of my postings will show that I try to avoid putting someone down for their beliefs, unless they are seeking to use the law to enforce them, or demonstrating a vicious attitude toward others. I usually simply express my opposing viewpoints and what they mean to me. The so called voice of reason is the attacker, and thus made of herself my target. I faced down that which I found negative, the person, not the idea. Shumphries, I am not against the Jew, the Hindu, the Muslim, nor the atheist. I am against you.

A voice of moderation? Someone who claims to be acting as devil's advocate (usually after being caught in an inaccuracy or outright untruth?) Someone who has spent so much time talking about violence in churches that it makes me want to caution everyone to post guards whenever services are held? A moderator seeks to bring those in opposition together on common ground, preserving the lives and dignity of both. In her own words, shumphries wishes to blow it all up. So much for moderation.

It was commented that shumphries ought to be banned from posting. I disagree. The freedom to express ones personal ideas should never be restricted to those we can agree with. I celebrate them, the speakers of destruction, the flag burners, the voices of dissention. If they can continue to publicly decry that which the majority of us find repugnant, and then go home to supper, I truly can understand that my father, my brothers, my cousins, my friends and neighbors who all put their lives on the line to preserve that freedom did exactly what they set out to do. They were victorious. They are still victorious.

Besides, if she were banned, who would I continue to mess with? "

dj1956 wrote on Nov 28, 2008 10:48 AM:

" SHumphreys: Of course, I know you will scoff at these scriptures, but NO one can deny what they are about and what they mean. Lev. 18:22, Lev.20:13. And even though you say homosexuality is not even addressed in the New Testament, I beg to differ with you.
NEW TESTAMENT: I Rom. 1:24-31, I Tim.1-10,I Cor. 6:9. As intellectual as you seem to be....you should be able to understand them. I'm sorry for your disbelief, and don't know how you live each day without a faith in God...and NO it is NOT a crutch, as you atheists like to insist, but if I need it to be, I know He is there! "

Mr. Right wrote on Nov 28, 2008 10:49 AM:

" shumphreys . . . please stop trying to explain Christianity and the Bible. It's like me trying to explain nuclear physics. What I would espouse on nuclear physics would be hilarious amusement to nuclear physicists.

What you espouse on Christianity and the bible is hilarious amusement to Christians and those who actually understand the bible.

Do what you want . . . I'm just trying to save you some embarrassment. "

just wondering wrote on Nov 28, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Only someone like the question would consider Susan Humphries a moderate. I would like to see what your dictionary looks like. If this is an example, I bet you have a lot of different definitions to words that the rest of us have never heard. "

The Question wrote on Nov 28, 2008 12:12 PM:

" This little witch hunt is your reward for patiently trying to reason with religious fanatics, Susan.
But then if they were rational, they wouldn't be religious fanatics. "

Stanley Stetson wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:23 PM:

" * professor libtard should slip on his holy sweatsuit and take his cheeseburger beer belly back to politics 101 where he might learn something * "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:37 PM:

" (But then if they were rational, they wouldn't be religious fanatics.)

Did you vote for this religious fanatic, Question?

"The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted."

- Senator Barrack Obama
(who apparently hears the voice of God) "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:39 PM:

" shumphreys, did you vote for the religious fanatic (Barrack Obama) who claims to hear the voice of God? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:45 PM:

" (we didn't, we voted for Obama and Obama won.....)

Looks like fatherbob voted for the religious nut who hears the voice of God- Barrack Hussein Obama. "

God Is wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Oh, I get it. Everyone who disagrees with shumphries and the question are fanatics. Sounds like a great club to be in to me. We'll elect a president and start a fundraiser to purchase weapons to hunt down the infidels....whoops! Sorry about that. Wrong religion.

Incidently, it has been my usual experience that, when faced with an inability to provide a logical, rational argument, most people do resort to name calling. Considering the level of the reply that I have just read, I believe my appropriate response should have been "yeah, and so's your mother! That's what I hear on the playground, anyway. Can you two be any more childish? "

God Is wrote on Nov 28, 2008 2:05 PM:

" Christianity as a crutch. Yep. That's about right. Something that helps me to keep on my feet when life tries to drive me to my knees. Something I can go to for help and feel that help was received. Something that says don't worry, you will never be alone. Something that helps me to hang in there despite everything the world dishes out. I have a great crutch. I'm keeping it. "

The Question wrote on Nov 28, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Did you vote for this religious fanatic, Question?
---
Of course. Nobody's perfect.
In an election that includes only believers, I'll vote for the more rational and the less vicious one. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Nov 28, 2008 3:50 PM:

" (Of course. Nobody's perfect.
In an election that includes only believers, I'll vote for the more rational and the less vicious one.)

Ah I see. So you would admit that Obama is a fanatical religious nut because he claims to hear the voice of God, right Question? "

God Is wrote on Nov 28, 2008 3:51 PM:

" I nearly forgot, I wanted to point out the following: A Devil's Advocate is one who does not endorse, propose, or defend their own viewpoint. They exist to keep debate going by alternately adopting the viewpoint of conflicting others in order to keep a debate going. A good Devil's Advocate leaves the audience wondering which side he/she was really on since they have been heard arguing both. Also, a good Devil's Advocate can help an individual make a decision by accurately outlining both viewpoints and speaking favorably about each while downplaying the other, and then switching back again.

There are other names for people who resort to tactics such as have been exhibited in these postings. A few of them can actually be used in polite society. "

The Question wrote on Nov 28, 2008 5:01 PM:

" Ah I see. So you would admit that Obama is a fanatical religious nut because he claims to hear the voice of God, right Question?
----
No. I am confident he's speaking figuratively, because he's not insane.
If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're crazy. "

God Is wrote on Nov 29, 2008 12:49 AM:

" Gee whiz! A fanatic and crazy. This just keeps getting better and better.

Rationalize much there, question? "

lefty wrote on Nov 29, 2008 2:49 AM:

" This letter is 100% dumb. "

God Is wrote on Nov 29, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Gee whiz! Fanatic and crazy. This just keeps getting better and better.

So when the man said that sometimes God's voice is loud and sometimes dim, he, of course, was speaking figuratively. Therefore you are not crazy for voting for a crazy man (using your definition). Rationalize much?

And you got your degree in psychology where? Or do you just practice the standard layman's version: "I don't like it and they do, therefore they are crazy."

You should probably figure that out since, under the right circumstances, you just hovered over the legal terms slander and libel. If you actually make the mistake of naming a person that you have self diagnosed in this manner, they could decide to help you get to know those terms. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:28 AM:

" DJ go back and read my posts I explained all the passages in detail. Face it "the New Testament does not provide any direct guidance for understanding and making judgments about homosexuality in the modern world." William O. Walker, Jr. What the New Testament Says About Homosexuality. www.westarinstitute.org "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:31 AM:

" God Is do you have any idea what I believe? As you said a "good Devils Advocate leaves the audience wondering". I have never claimed to be "GOOD" the position is new to me. But I am getting the hang of it. "

Harry Potter wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:49 AM:

" Didn't George Bush say God talked to him? Wait a minute, was that Bush or Pat Robertson? Maybe it was the latest addition to their club, old holy roller tongue speaking, Sara Palin. It's so easy to get those right wing religious kooks mixed up these days, as most of them claim to have regular conversations with God these days.

We heard about a dozen different justifications for Bush's invasion of another country. From the false claim of WMD to the freeing of a people, and now from Palin we got one more. She said the troops are doing God's work.

I guess God only talks to religious nutballs like Robertson and Palin and Compassionate Republicans like Bush, huh? "

The Truth wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Our buddy humphreys is at it again I see. Using man's word to explain God's word. Hilarious.

Anyone reading her apostate responses can see that Satan truly has a grip on her.....and her "clap-trap".

Why she feels the need to refute all responses that don't appeal to her is pathetic. Keep it up humphreys, with every response you show how ignorant you truly are. If you don't want to believe what the Bible really teaches, then shut your own "trap". "

The Question wrote on Nov 29, 2008 10:50 AM:

" "You should probably figure that out since, under the right circumstances, you just hovered over the legal terms slander and libel."
---
You should study libel law, Issy, one of many areas in which you are remarkably ignorant. "

God Is wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:08 AM:

" Every three week for a couple of years now. I'm not sure there's anyone left in America who doesn't know what you believe. And thanks for seeing my point. I don't think you are good at it either. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Not long ago there was a "Clergy view" item in our local paper about a local pastor that believes that God speaks to him. But how do you know if it is really God and not the Devil? Especially considering all the evils that God has "told" man to do in his name: Inquisitions, Burn Witches, not promote the use of condoms to prevent the spread of Aides...... "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Susan Humphreys we know what you believe and what you don't believe you push it on us continually you leave none of us wondering it is yourself you haven't yet convinced. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Nov 29, 2008 11:44 AM:

" God speaks to me everytime I read His Word the Bible. "

Rotty wrote on Nov 29, 2008 5:51 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:31 AM:

"do you have any idea what I believe?"

.......

shumphreys wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:22 AM:

"Personally, when I rule the world, all people will be sterilized"

.......

I sure as hell hope you will be a good role model, & be the very first in line!

Hallelujah!
LOL! "

God Is wrote on Nov 30, 2008 12:19 AM:

" Libel laws are pretty well self explanatory. Say something degogatory and it's slander. Put it into print and it's libel. Of course you have the anonymity of the situation in your favor at the moment. But if you ever forget and cross the line, remember that the best defense for this offense in court is the truth. Be able to show evidence that the individual you are calling crazy is actually crazy using other than the running off of your own mouth, then you are home free.

Of course, Christians could probably bring up a class action case, but as an irritant you are pretty much small potatoes and not worth calling out. They are way too busy trying to feed and cloth the needy, supporting hospitals and schools, buying medication for those who can't afford it, and in general looking for ways to ease pain and suffering in the world. For all their imperfections, they usually manage to do the world a good turn.

You spend so much time focusing on the bad apples you've become incapable of seeing that which is good. I believe that is known by the old standard "throwing out the baby with the bath water." But hatred does that to people. It takes away the ability to see the colors in the dark.

And yes, I am sure who is speaking to me. The question is who do you think is speaking to you? And how many people have you fed lately? What have you actually done to make the world better other than sit at a keyboard and type out vitriol? "

God Is wrote on Nov 30, 2008 12:22 AM:

" Hey Question. So's your mother. "

The Question wrote on Nov 30, 2008 2:44 AM:

" " Susan Humphreys we know what you believe and what you don't believe you push it on us continually you leave none of us wondering it is yourself you haven't yet convinced.
----
That's awfully funny coming from you, Vanatta. "

rehpotsh wrote on Nov 30, 2008 4:47 AM:

" The Question wrote: If you talk to God then you are religious, If God talks to you then you are crazy.

Sounds to me like a one way conversation, and not a personal relationship.

You can keep your one way conversation, and I will keep my personal relationship with Someone who thinks enough of me to answer my praise and petitions. "

God Is wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:44 AM:

" I was just reading through the postings and noticed something.

shumphries...Nov 24 8:02 a.m.---to force your religious (or lack thereof...my insert) message on someone who isn't interested or who holds different beliefs is plain bad manners.

Gee, it's got to be a first. Shumphries actually said something that I can agree with.

Incidently, it isn't tresspassing until they have been informed that they are not allowed to walk the path to the door and they do so anyway. Try putting up a sign where it can be read. Then if they knock, it is tresspassing. The path leading to the door is generally considered to be an invitation to visit unless otherwise designated.

You might give it some thought, though. Sometimes the ones with the pamphlets are the only ones who want to visit. Negative auras tend to be repulsive. "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 30, 2008 9:13 AM:

" Then tell me God Is and the rest of you what I believe. And we will see if it is accurate. Now you will have to set aside your bias and try to define what "I" believe not what "you THINK" I believe. By the way you can check to see if your report is accurate in three ways. You can read my book "Searching for Enlightenment, Gnosticism for a New Millennium", check my website:
wwww.gnosticismforanewmillennium.com OR you can go back through posts over the last two years. "

The Question wrote on Nov 30, 2008 10:37 AM:

" "Libel laws are pretty well self-explanatory."
---
What a ridiculous statement. You should practice law, Issy. No need for any of that silly legal training. Just have God whisper the answers in your ear. "

God Is wrote on Nov 30, 2008 11:07 AM:

" And the book can be had for the low, low price of $19.95.

Thanks, but I'll wait for the infomercial. I'll watch it in between the guy hyping "what they don't want you to know" and those promising riches through taking advantage of people hitting hard times by purchasing their homes out from under them by paying their property taxes.

So, did you use a legitimate publisher, or one of those vanity press types. They'll print anything for a price. "

Myopinion wrote on Nov 30, 2008 11:45 AM:

" Did anyone notice that humphreys just went against everything she's ever spouted here, and pushed her religion on everyone by providing a website? What a hypocrite. "

The Question wrote on Nov 30, 2008 1:24 PM:

" Libel actions are extremely difficult to win in the U.S., and involve a substantial burden of proof on the part of the plaintiff, because of the courts' respect for our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.
American courts have defined six elements of libel, and all six of those standards have to be met before anyone can win a libel suit. One of those elements completely precludes you from winning a libel action based on any remarks that are addressed to you in this forum. Care to guess what that element is, Issy? "

shumphreys wrote on Nov 30, 2008 1:49 PM:

" Grow up My Opinion, that is my opinion. I haven't crammed anything down your throats. Connecting to my website is voluntary and takes a fully FREE decision on your part to do so. This site by the way is also about the FREE expression of ideas and in my opinion is GREAT. You can also choose not to log on if you don't like what is expressed here. "

God Is wrote on Nov 30, 2008 3:27 PM:

" Not really. You just aren't of that much importance to me. Issy (thought I didn't understand it, didn't you?)

If you can't take the heat, quit fanning the flames. "

The Question wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:33 PM:

" Just remember, a man needs religion like a fish needs a bicycle, Issy.
And you really should see somebody about these voices you hear when nobody's around. I understand they have pills for that now. "

Rotty wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:39 PM:

" Just a quick shoutout to those who may be interested....

If any of these topic threads/comment areas interest you for any reason, please make sure to "Bookmark" them, or place these in your "Favorites", so you can follow along when these articles are moved to the "Archives" section.

Personally, I usually wait until folks stop commenting after a couple of days, or so, before I update/remove them from my "Bookmarks/Favorites".

Thank You.
:-) "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:54 AM:

" Just like it is a "fully free" decision for you to listen to a religious sermon or not to listen.

So, why don't you practice what you preach instead of insulting people here? You are great at handing down the insults and snapping back when one proves a point.

Hypocrite. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:12 AM:

" (No. I am confident he's speaking figuratively, because he's not insane.
If you talk to God, you're religious. If God talks to you, you're crazy.)

Oh I see, Question. So Obama "figuratively hears" God's "figurative voice".

And just what does he "figuratively hear" God's "figurative voice" with?
Those giant "figurative ears" of his?

Oh and, I thought you've been claiming that God doesn't exist; so Obama is "figuratively hearing" a "figurative deity" that not so figuratively doesn't exist Question?

And this makes Obama "sane" according to you?

"......I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted."

- Senator Barrack Obama
(who apparently hears the voice of God) "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 10:19 AM:

" The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted."

- Senator Barrack Obama
(who apparently hears the voice of God)

"Just remember, a man needs religion like a fish needs a bicycle, Issy.
And you really should see somebody about these voices you hear when nobody's around. I understand they have pills for that now."

- The Question Nov 30, 2008

And you should really see someone about that blind double standard you're sporting in here, Question. It's really quite laughable. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:36 AM:

" The Question wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:33 PM: a man needs religion like a fish needs a bicycle
Seldom do you ever write anything even worth responding to but here out of your ignorance you have made a true statement. You are right religion will do nothing for man it is only a relationship with Jesus Christ that will be worth anything, all the rituals and traditions and rules of religion are not all bad but futile when you stand in Gods judgment. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:55 AM:

" Obama said - "... I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted."

Question said - "No need for any of that silly legal training. Just have God whisper the answers in your ear."

Either Obama's a crazy idiot, or Question is. LOL! "

father bob wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:24 PM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 11:55 AM:Either Obama's a crazy idiot, or Question is. LOL! """

we'll give you two more guesses, then you have to quit and get back on the bus to the home.... "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:59 PM:

" (we'll give you two more guesses, then you have to quit and get back on the bus to the home.... ")

Looks like fatherbob (the village idiot) just woke up. "

father bob wrote on Dec 1, 2008 4:33 PM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 3:59 PM:
" (we'll give you two more guesses, then you have to quit and get back on the bus to the home.... ")

Looks like fatherbob (the village idiot) just woke up. """"

LOL!!!.....good one you blithering moron. unlike you, i have a life other than these forum threads. but sociopaths such as yourself wouldn't understand such interactions. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Temper temper there, fatherbob.

I obviously struck a nerve, didn't I.

And if you're going to accuse someone of not having a life- then I suggest you talk to Question. He seems to live on this site.

So sorry I got under your skin, bob.
I think I'll stick around. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:17 PM:

" And if you're going to accuse someone of not having a life- then I suggest you talk to Question. He seems to live on this site.

--------------

Good one Doh, except for the fact that when you count all of your posts under your multiple names you beat all of us for shear numbers.

Hell Doh, you even post more than I do. LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:31 PM:

" You talking to me, Harry? "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:39 PM:

" If the shoe fits.... "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:56 PM:

" That shoe doesn't fit, Harry. "

RAK wrote on Dec 1, 2008 8:59 PM:

" "And perhaps if you waited for at least a half an hour, before responding you wouldn't look so desperate for attention. "
-Harry Potter (desperate for attention) "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:16 PM:

" RAK (-Harry Potter (desperate for attention)

LOL

Harry must think he owns this site.

He doesn't. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:09 AM:

" Harry must think he owns this site.

------

Oh really, then why is it that you have twice as many posts on this thread?
And that's just counting what you posted as the squeaky little blue smurf.

Doh must think he owns this site. LOL!

And what's the gun nut-ball doing on this thread? No one mentioned anything about any gun bans. LOL! "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:42 AM:

" In a sense I agree with you Mr. Vanatta and with the Question. Man does not need religion in some uses and sense of the word. BUT I do think that many men (though not all)feel a need to connect with something beyond their selves, something that is often (though not always) called spiritual. Which for Mr. V he finds in is his relationship to Jesus. The problem comes when people look for that "something" in all the wrong places: drugs, alcohol, shopping, plastic surgery, houses, cars,the latest gadget/electronic device and the dogma of organized religion. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:44 AM:

" I should have included in my list: sex, power, money, the Bible, a man named...... "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:59 AM:

" "And what's the gun nut-ball doing on this thread? No one mentioned anything about any gun bans. LOL! "

Well Harry, what I'm not doing is counting posts, keeping track of usernames and posting habits while projecting failings onto others.

Perhaps your desperate need for attention is what's compulses you to do that. "

.Doh wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:05 AM:

" I do! LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:58 AM:

" (Oh really, then why is it that you have twice as many posts on this thread?)

Because Harry, you're not intelligent enough to carry on a calm sensible debate based on logic and fact; therefore you simply cower in the corner until your emotions get the best of you, and then you pop up with nonsensical juvenile comments.

It's too bad you can't act like an adult. Because the only thing keeping you away from these threads is your own immature behavior. "

The Question wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:40 AM:

" " The Question wrote on Nov 30, 2008 5:33 PM: a man needs religion like a fish needs a bicycle
Seldom do you ever write anything even worth responding to but here out of your ignorance you have made a true statement. You are right religion will do nothing for man it is only a relationship with Jesus Christ that will be worth anything, all the rituals and traditions and rules of religion are not all bad but futile when you stand in Gods judgment. "
---
So we agree, Vanatta. We're both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. "

father bob wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:59 AM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:58 AM:
" It's too bad you can't act like an adult. Because the only thing keeping you away from these threads is your own immature behavior. """"

this from a sociopath Smurf??...LMAO!! "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:06 AM:

" Because Harry, you're not intelligent enough to carry on a calm sensible debate based on logic and fact; therefore you simply cower in the corner until your emotions get the best of you, and then you pop up with nonsensical juvenile comments.

---------------

And we get this from the village idiot, whose debating skills are on a par with those of RAK's. Who, by the way, now seems to have turned his attention to stalking. LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 2, 2008 12:36 PM:

" (Well Harry, what I'm not doing is counting posts, keeping track of usernames and posting habits while projecting failings onto others.)

Yep. Harry has to do something to fill his busy day after he wakes up at PADS, eats a free breakfast, and strolls over to the public library for some free internet time on the JG. LOL "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:14 PM:

" "And we get this from the village idiot, whose debating skills are on a par with those of RAK's. Who, by the way, now seems to have turned his attention to stalking. LOL! "

No Harry, your 'debating skills' are nowhere near on par w/ mine. I actually have some.

It's funny. First he complains that I don't post anywhere else but on firearm issues, then when I do, he whines about 'stalking'.

As if he matters enough for anyone to bother. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:02 PM:

" You're confused again Harry, fatherbob's the village idiot. LOL

Oh and, thanks for proving my point, Harry:

You're not intelligent enough to carry on a calm sensible debate based on logic and fact; therefore you simply cower in the corner until your emotions get the best of you, and then you pop up with nonsensical juvenile comments. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Looks like the blue smurf and RAK might have a little something going on. I'm not surprised. LOL! "

RAK wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:47 PM:

" I'll tell you again Harry. I have no interest in fulfilling your fantasies of watching other people play w/ your squeeky toys.

Projecting your desires onto other people is the mark of a weak mind Harry. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:15 PM:

" The Question, No we do not agree. My God is God and I believe in Him and you dont believe in Him, however that does not change the fact that God is real. And the truth of the existence of the one true God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the God of Christians and who is in full control today does not depend on who believes it for He exists eternally past present and future He is the Lord God Almighty. Just because you think you are an atheist does not change those facts. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. "

The Question wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:15 AM:

" "Just because you think you are an atheist does not change those facts. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."
-----
Bow, scrape, kneel before Zod! Rant away, Vanatta. It's all nothing but hot air. "

The Question wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:34 AM:

" Here's organized religion at its usual busy work.
A federal indictment unsealed Tuesday accuses evangelist Tony Alamo of sexually abusing five girls on separate occasions beginning in 1994, including a period when he was serving a tax-evasion sentence at a halfway house in Texarkana. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:35 AM:

" Beliefs are not facts Mr. Vanatta. You state you "believe" in him. Belief is not proof of existence. Jesus would be horrified at the thought of people bowing down to him, what heresy, in his eyes. "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:21 AM:

" Beliefs are not facts. Well now, that is a revelation. So humphreys, who spouts off her beliefs as FACT, is herself saying that her own beliefs ARE NOT FACTS. They are simply BELIEFS.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, either atheiest, gnostics, whatever, without ridicule from others.

If you choose to believe that God does exist, great. If you choose to believe that God doesn't exist, or wonder if he exists, great. It is called personal choice.

That doesn't give you license to belittle or condemn others beliefs. Which is exactly what humphreys and question do here. In their own way, they are forcing their beliefs down everyone's throat, by belittling, making fun of, condemning others' beliefs - you name it. It's pretty sad that they spend most of their time forcing their beliefs on others, then scream, rant and rave that isn't what they are doing.

Just about every post from these people slam those who choose to believe in a Creator. How is that a debate? They aren't interested in Truth, they are interested in taking apart the beliefs of others for their own satisfaction, just to justify their own position.

Beliefs aren't facts. Thank you, again, humphreys for stating that so clearly, so we all can see that what you believe in isn't actually factual. Bravo! "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Susan's website! I think Susan should start her own religion since she doesn't really know much about anyone's else' religion. Jesus Christ would not want people to bow down to him. Well since He is God and it clearly states that every knee will bow down to Him and every tongue confess to him that Jesus Christ is Lord! Of course Susan will say that the Bible is not true and it is not the Word of God and all the Susan wannabe's will bow down and worship her every word. Be thankful Susan that you have this web site provided by the JG. It is not your website it is their website and they can take it away anytime they want. By the way Question....Merry Christmas! "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:01 PM:

" Read more closely I said, "the truth of the existence of the one true God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the God of Christians and who is in full control today DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHO BELIEVES IT for He exists eternally past present and future He is the Lord God Almighty." "

The Question wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:55 PM:

" So what you believe in claims your belief should always be believed, eh, Vanatta? Brilliant.
Do you know what a tautology is? "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:02 PM:

" I don't normally post on threads dealing with religious issues, but after reading some of the comments directed toward Susan, I feel compelled to respond to some of the accusations being leveled at her. I can't see that she is the one being pushy, disrespectful or arrogant, quite the opposite. I'm not taking a stand here, one way or the other. Religion can get pretty emotional, and the discussion would probably go a lot better if those attacking her would look in the mirror. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:48 PM:

" deep thoughts 45:

Have you looked at her web site??? She HAS started her own religion!

I've been staying abreast on the postings on the threads that either start out as "religious" topics or end up that way although I haven't really posted on any of them. But I can tell you when I read her statement that " Jesus would be horrified at the thought of people bowing down to him, what heresy, in his eyes. ", I figured she had to be talking about Jesus Alou, one of the three Alou brothers in baseball along with Moises and Matty. I KNEW she couldn't be talking about Jesus Christ because she posted as though she actually knew what she was talking about. Imagine my shock when I discovered it was Jesus Christ that she WAS talking about!

Sheeeesh! Let me send you my book on nuclear physics I wrote this afternoon. I know more about THAT than she does about Jesus Christ and I'm not sure I even SPELLED it correctly! "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:55 PM:

" The existence of God or His Truth does not depend on my believing it and your not believing it makes no difference either that is not tautology. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:01 PM:

" (Do you know what a tautology is?)

Is it anything like- "Hope and Change"? "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:16 AM:

" I know it is a shock to learn that a non-christian has learned more about Christianity and the Bible than you. It is really remarkable what historians and archaeologists, theologians and scholars have discovered and made available for everyone to read. Some of you forget that this site is expressly set up for the free exchange of ideas. Which means that if you make a comment I can comment on your comment. If you want to make an argument that discredits my arguments than try to do so. Trying to attack me, denigrate me, insult me, does nothing to destroy the power of my IDEAS or the TRUTH of them. It actually reinforces them. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:22 AM:

" Thanks for checking out my website Mr. Right, I haven't started my own religion though. Gnosticism is not a religion, it is a way of thinking, of viewing the world. There are and have been and will continue to be gnostics in all of the worlds religious traditions. There is a woman who frequently posts on these pages who considers herself a gnostic Christian. I don't promote any one religious path or non-religious path, I encourage all people to read, to learn, to explore ideas (and all religions), and follow the path that is right for them, in order that they may become the best possible person that they can be. "

deep thoughts 45 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 10:48 AM:

" If you want to help people become the best that they can be then you need to lead them to Jesus! When someone comes to Christ he not only washes away their sin by his blood but he also changes the way that person thinks. Again, please don't misinterpret the word religion for Christianity. Christianity is not a religion it is a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Therein lies the problem with everyone trying to be so religious. Religious people will not go to Heaven and neither will people like you Susan if you don't repent of your sins and turn your life over to Jesus Christ. Grace is not for everyone. It is only for those who admit that they need it but humbling themselves and turning their life over to Jesus Christ! Merry Christmas! "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:59 PM:

" Even though none of your personal beliefs are facts, right humphreys? Let people become the best people they can become by shutting your mouth and keeping your opinions to yourself. If they want your help, they can ask for it.

You are shoving your beliefs (albeit not to be proven by your own words) down everyone's throat. Period.

You attack those who do not believe (albeit not to be proven as fact, according to your own words) as you do. Discrediting is a form of attack.

Gnostism is A BELIEF, which according to your own words, cannot be proven as fact.

Keep up digging that hole, you are getting deeper and deeper.

What a joke you are. "

The Truth wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:32 PM:

" Now the apostate humphreys thinks she has a lock on what truth is or is not.

Spoken like a religious zealot if I've ever heard one.

It's all about her, isn't it folks? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:06 PM:

" A non-Christian (pagan) cannot learn about Christianity or have understanding of the Bible through studying or reading it. If all you know is what historians and archaeologists theologians and scholars have written in books then all you have is what they tell you and most of them have an ulterior motive or have private ends to serve, even theologians. I have heard many well educated theologians speak and have read their writings that have no knowledge of Truth or of Jesus Christ. These are the Jesus seminar types of scholars you are writing about. The mainstream media and the general public may be easy to fool and naive about the authority and findings of the Jesus Seminar but true Christians are not. These scholars start out with the presupposition that every thing must be explained naturally. Christianity is supernatural and the miracles of Jesus and of the Old Testament cannot be naturally explained. To know and understand the Bible and Christianity only comes by revelation from the Holy Spirit. Non-Christian pagans do not receive this revelation. I know you totally reject this fact but it is a truth you will never know until you become a Christian and allow the Holy Spirit to work in you and reveal the Scriptures to you.
If you are not Christian Jew or Muslim you are pagan. If you do not accept the supernatural deity of Jesus Christ you are not Christian and these scholars do not so they are pagan.
Dictionary.com
Pagan
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.

1 Corinthians 2:14 (NKJV)
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:17 PM:

" I'm pretty sure I have never witnessed any clearer or more frequent and numerous examples of hypocrisy as I read in shumphreys' posts.

There are so many examples of hypocrisy that I'm not completely convinced her whole personna isn't some writer from Saturday Night Live doing a number on us for an irony skit sometime later on. "

The Question wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Yup, that Jesus said things like:
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
And, "Blessed are the peace makers."
Jesus, too liberal for America! "

Brother Rotty wrote on Dec 4, 2008 5:17 PM:

" The Truth wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:32 PM:

"It's all about her, isn't it folks?"

.......

Amen to that!
LOL!

Soapbox Susie, under the guise of goodness, will never truely see things in any other light - her loss, our gain. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:30 AM:

" Question, a fifth grade Sunday School student could rip that "rich man in heaven" argument of yours to shreds. So now we know the answer to the question, "Is Question smarter than a fifth-grader?" "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:59 AM:

" Deep Thoughts there are many ways that people can find their "way to heaven" and Christianity is just one. As I have said many times if Grace is true, grace will be granted to everyone, Jew and Gentile, Buddhist, Pagan, Atheist, Scholar and Theologian. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:06 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta you have stated something that I have tried to get folks to address before, what makes a Christian a Christian. You stated, which I would support, a belief in the Divinity of Christ. Which would mean that Catholics are Christians which one writer on these pages a while back tried to deny. It also means that Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Christian Gnostics, Church of Christ, Quakers, etc. etc. can all be Christians (which a Jehovahs Witness on these pages a while back also tried to deny, only members of his church are REAL Christians) even though their doctrines are quite different. Which means that many of those theologians and scholars who have the temerity to point out the TRUTH about Grace, homosexuality and Biblical teachings, hold different opinions about abortion, accept the reality of Evolution, read the Bible as myth and metaphor, are Christians as long as they accept/believe in the divinity of Christ. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:11 AM:

" There is one other point Mr. Vanatta, you don't have to BE something to have an understanding about the thing. I can have an understanding and compassion for: homosexuals without being homosexual, women facing an unwanted pregnancy without ever being pregnant myself, history of Greece, Rome, the Middle East, Europe, South America without ever living in those places, ALL the worlds religions whether I practice a particular religious tradition or not. It is precisely because WE can understand and feel compassion for those that are not like us, that we can live happy and fulfilling lives,AND that real PEACE on this planet is a possibility. "

The Question wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:40 AM:

" Woody Allen observed that if Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he wouldn't be able to stop throwing up. "

The Question wrote on Dec 5, 2008 10:34 AM:

" In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
-- Mark Twain "

The Question wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:07 PM:

" Men and women who profess Christianity die by thousands every day. No matter how fatal the disease, how great the agony, how sure they are of heaven, they will travel the world over and be cut to pieces by inches so that they can stay in this vale of tears a few days longer, when they might be singing hosannahs and enjoying all the pleasures of the blest. If any one knew of, or even had a strong belief in, a heaven of peace and comfort and joy they would be more anxious to go there, as Clarence Darrow noted. No one ever witnesses a group of children with tickets for the circus tarrying long outside the big tent when they know that the show is going on. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:18 PM:

" Brother Rotty, It is probably true that Susan will never see things in any other light because the only work the Holy Spirit does with unbelievers is to convict them of their sin and I fear that she has resisted that conviction so many times that she has become glazed to His calling. It is also possible to quench the Holy Spirit in other words He just quits working with someone who constantly rejects and rebels this is definitely her loss but I fail to see how it is our gain.
2 Peter 3:9 (NKJV)
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:35 PM:

" The Question wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:40 AM: "Woody Allen observed that if Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he wouldn't be able to stop throwing up."

Now if Woody Allen isn't the closest thing to a world-reknowned theologist and Christian proponent, I don't know who is. Now THERE'S an expert!

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
-- Mark Twain "

Wasn't it YOU that pointed out that one of the great athiests in American culture was Mark Twain? Another expert to quote on Christianity there Question.

The Question wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:07 PM:

"Men and women who profess Christianity die by thousands every day. No matter how fatal the disease, how great the agony, how sure they are of heaven, they will travel the world over and be cut to pieces by inches so that they can stay in this vale of tears a few days longer, when they might be singing hosannahs and enjoying all the pleasures of the blest. If any one knew of, or even had a strong belief in, a heaven of peace and comfort and joy they would be more anxious to go there, as Clarence Darrow noted. No one ever witnesses a group of children with tickets for the circus tarrying long outside the big tent when they know that the show is going on. "

Okay, maybe Woody Allen and Mark Twain aren't the staunchest Christians around but Clarence Darrow sure was.

So if we want the inside story on Judaism, we should seek the insight of Hitler, right?

You never cease to amaze me how you will sidestep issues and do your best to divert and not address. Are you sure you're not shumphres' alter-ego????? You're out of smoke and the mirrors all just broke. It's just you out here and you haven't got a leg to stand on. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:37 PM:

" Mr. Vanatta you do not have to "BE something" in order to understand something. It is precisely on that strength that the hope for Peace in this world rests. A non homosexual can understand and have compassion for the homosexual, a woman who has never had an abortion or even been pregnant can understand and have compassion for someone who has been, any one, (Christian or non) can understand Christianity and other religious beliefs. The information is out there for all to read. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Here's what Question's hero had to say:

"The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted."

- Senator Barrack Obama
(Question's hero, who apparently hears the voice of God) "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:20 PM:

" You see many stars at night in the sky but find them not when the sun rises; can you say that there are no stars in the heaven of day? So, O man! because you behold not God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.

- Voltaire "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:28 PM:

" Again, humphreys is stating her BELIEFS, which cannot be proven as fact.

Are we seeing a kinder, gentler humphreys? I doubt it.

Beliefs cannot be proven as fact.

Hypocrite. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:41 PM:

" Whoa!!! I just was digging around today and found THIS little tidbit of information . . . .

Did anyone else know that Gnosticism is really a cover for pagan devil-worship including but not limited to the active pursuit of burning animal sacrifices and misleading non-Gnostics actually AWAY from the known truth????

Interesting . . . . . . . . "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 5, 2008 5:27 PM:

" It is not possible to read the Bible as myth and metaphor if you believe that Jesus is God. That would make Jesus a liar. Who could be a Christian and believe that divine Jesus is a liar and furthermore you have to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and that God accepted Jesus death as payment for your sin to be a Christian. Believing in His divinity is just part of it. Satan and the demons know that Jesus is divine and they are not Christians. You see Susan this is just what I was saying you do not have the capability of understanding for you are an outsider receiving no revelation and you only know what you think you know. "

Rotty wrote on Dec 5, 2008 6:24 PM:

" Mr. Right wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:41 PM:
" Whoa!!! I just was digging around today and found THIS little tidbit of information . . . .

Did anyone else know that Gnosticism is really a cover for pagan devil-worship including but not limited to the active pursuit of burning animal sacrifices and misleading non-Gnostics actually AWAY from the known truth????

Interesting . . . . . . . . "

.......

Why do ya think she has several psychologists in the family?
The poor girl was their first patient.

Reminds me of the bottles of beer song....

Take one down, pass it around....
LOL!

.......

Btw, why is it she mentions homosexuality in practically every other post, anymore?
Yuletide yearnings, perhaps?

.......

It's our gain as long as she wants to remain in the closet, or her ivory tower, with her poor little lamb complex.

If she wants to be accepted by the masses, she needs to address herself towards them, instead of down upon them.

She preaches equality, I say, she needs to eat her own words. "

The Question wrote on Dec 5, 2008 6:29 PM:

" I don't know what you have against non-Christians, Tighty Righty. Your Jesus wasn't a Christian either.
Here's another Twain quote to enlighten you:
"India has two million gods, and worships them all. In religion all other countries are paupers; India is the only millionaire." "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 5, 2008 6:34 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:37 PM:
" Mr. Vanatta you do not have to "BE something" in order to understand something. It is precisely on that strength that the hope for Peace in this world rests. "

Huh??? The hope for peace in this world rests precisely on the strength that you do not have to be something to understand something???? I thought the hope for peace rested on Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and Al Sharpton! Learn something new every day, huh.

Does anyone actually, really comprehend that or is it just me that sees that as pure babble? I spent the whole night in a garage once. Am I now a Buick???? Do I now know anything about how to BE a Buick?

"any one, (Christian or non) can understand Christianity and other religious beliefs. The information is out there for all to read. " Then why can't YOU?

There is a huge difference between knowing ABOUT something and understanding it! I know nuclear physics exists. I even know there are people who practice that profession on a daily basis. But I sure as heck don't UNDERSTAND it.

And you know Christianity exists and you even know some of the basic tenets of Christianity - especially those that have cognates in other faiths. But to say you "understand" Christianity? You could not POSSIBLY understand Christianity and write some of the mind-boggling and hilariously uproaring stuff you write about your vast knowledge of it.

I'll make a deal with you - you stop claiming you "understand" Christianity and I'll stop claiming I understand how you haven't been carted off to a home for the reality impaired. Deal? "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 5, 2008 6:40 PM:

" Question . . . here's ANOTHER great quote for you . . .

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." - Al Gore - March 9, 1999 on CNN's "Late Edition" program with Wolf Blitzer.

He said it. That must make it something we can all believe! "

The Question wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:08 PM:

" "Did anyone else know that Gnosticism is really a cover for pagan devil-worship including but not limited to the active pursuit of burning animal sacrifices and misleading non-Gnostics actually AWAY from the known truth????"
----
You are an astoundingly ill-informed bigot, Mr. Right. Gnostics emphasize spiritual advancement through knowledge rather than blind faith, something even someone as ignorant as you should know. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 6, 2008 8:47 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta accepting the reality that the Bible is a mix of myth and metaphor, poetry and prose, and that it was written by men who claimed divine inspiration does not negate the reality that the book is filled with great wisdom and that amongst everything there may even be tidbits of historical facts and actual sayings of Jesus. IT does take a wise and thoughtful reader to be able to sort out the gems from the dross and that is where the writings of historians and theologians and scholars can help. Without an understanding of the times when the pages were written, the political situations facing the writers, the different groups in the middle east at the time, a good part of the Biblical story is lost. Imperfect knowledge, leads to the misuse and abuse of the Bible (and Christianity) that has fostered wars and civil strife, inquisitions and hate crimes, and fear of the other. "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:13 AM:

" This is DIRECTLY from the MSN Encarta Encyclopedia regarding Gnostics:

Mythology: To explain the origin of the material universe, the Gnostics developed a complicated MYTHOLOGY. From the original unknowable God, a series of lesser divinities was generated by emanation. The last of these, Sophia (wisdom), conceived a desire to know the unknowable Supreme Being. Out of this illegitimate desire was produced a deformed, evil god, or demiurge, who created the universe. The divine sparks that dwell in humanity fell into this universe or else were sent there by the supreme God in order to redeem humanity. The Gnostics identified the evil god with the God of the Old Testament, which they interpreted as an account of this gods efforts to keep humanity immersed in ignorance and the material world and to punish their attempts to acquire knowledge. It was in this light that they understood the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise, the flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Does anybody else find this as hilarious as I do? Humphreys keeps spouting that the Bible is a myth, when her own religion is developed from mythology.

Another example of the pot calling the kettle black. Oh and another example of beliefs that can't be proven as FACT.

humphreys refuses to address that subject, has anyone noticed that too?

Keep on entertaining us! This is great stuff! "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:18 AM:

" When Christians were killed in the coliseums and many others burned and murdered in other ways from the 1st century till present day I wonder if anyone ever considered those might be hate crimes? "

Rotty wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:34 PM:

" PROOF!
LMAO! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 6, 2008 5:38 PM:

" "How else can you fight God but to pretend He doesn't exist?"

-Chris Bowyer "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 6, 2008 5:42 PM:

" "Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

- G.K. Chesterton

And how does one "prove" a negative? "

VTucker wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:14 PM:

" "The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man."

--G. K. Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:31 AM:

" There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions."

G.K. Chesterton "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 7, 2008 12:54 PM:

" My Opinion I am not a Christian Gnostic, what you have quoted is the teaching of an early Christian Gnostic sect. As I have pointed out there have been Gnostics in all the worlds religious traditions and Gnostic that are not religious at all. Gnosticism isn't a religion it is a way of thinking, of understanding the world and the human condition. But to go back to the teachings of early Christian Gnostics they are no more fanciful or outlandish than your believs. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 7, 2008 1:03 PM:

" A puritan is a person who pours righteous indignation into the wrong things. G. K. Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:25 PM:

" "Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition."

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 2:26 PM:

" "There is no bigot like the atheist."

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:58 PM:

" (A puritan is a person who pours righteous indignation into the wrong things. G. K. Chesterton)

Puritanism

A large portion of the American populace espouses a moral code that can be accurately described as Puritanical. Although this code is wrapped in religious language, it is fundamentally a denial of the goodness of creation, finding the source of evil in material things of pleasure (as tobacco, alcohol, art, and so on) rather than in the disordered human will to misuse the good things nature affords us. The Puritans' fondness for legal prohibitions as well as their presumption of their own moral superiority have given religion a bad name in America.

At the conclusion of his Illustrated London News column for September 11, 1909, Chesterton made the point with his characteristic logic and wit:

Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice.

-The American Chesterton Society "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:00 PM:

" The simplification of anything is always sensational."

-G.K.Chesterton "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:02 PM:

" "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." G. K. Chesterton "It is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But now it is equally bad taste to be an avowed Christian." G. K. Chesterton You know you really should be cautious about using quotes from a man known as "the prince of paradox". "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:17 PM:

" (You know you really should be cautious about using quotes from a man known as "the prince of paradox)

I know Chesterton very well humphreys.

You should really be cautious about using quotes from a man you obviously don't understand. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:19 PM:

" "Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle."

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:20 PM:

" There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life."

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:20 PM:

" I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification."

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:21 PM:

" If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:23 PM:

" The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:24 PM:

" These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own."

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:37 PM:

" And for shumphreys.

"It is assumed that the agnostic is impartial, whereas the agnostic is merely ignorant.

-G.K.Chesterton "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 5:45 PM:

" In the wake of the publication of his book "Orthodoxy", Chesterton was no longer tolerated as a young and precocious writer, but was considered provocative and a threat to the agnostic status quo. Chesterton was acutely aware of this change of attitude:

Chesterton- "Very nearly everybody . . . began by taking it for granted that my faith in the Christian creed was a pose or a paradox. The more cynical supposed that it was only a stunt. The more generous and loyal warmly maintained that it was only a joke. It was not until long afterwards that the full horror of the truth burst upon them; the disgraceful truth that I really thought the thing was true . . . Critics were almost entirely complimentary to what they were pleased to call my brilliant paradoxes; until they discovered that I really meant what I said." "

VTucker wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:23 PM:

" BlueDogDem, I have not read ORTHODOXY but did read, some years ago, a little novel Chesterton wrote called THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY. The story is strange--though chaotic, surreal, even bizarre in places, you come away from it feeling as if you've gotten the briefest glimpse of ultimate Mystery. Chesterton's written some amazing poetry as well. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:30 PM:

" "What embitters the world is not an excess of criticism, but an absence of self-criticism." "To have a right to a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." "All the exaggerations are right, if they exaggerate the right thing." "The past is not what it was."The only defensible war is a war of defense."The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistake from being corrected." Ah yes, understanding. Just what do you understand BDD? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:49 PM:

" I understand that Chesterton started off as a pagan, then became an agnostic, and later advanced through Christianity, using commonsense and logic to advance his journey of faith, shumphreys.

You would do well to delve into Chesterton, shumphreys. Especially his writings on the brilliant St. Thomas Aquinas, another spiritual genius who also embrace logic, commonsense, and an intimate understanding of the worlds great faiths and mysticisms to reveal the great Truth that is Christ.

So what do you understand about Chesterton shumphreys? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:02 PM:

" VTucker, you should get a copy of Chesterton's "Orthodoxy". It's widely considered to be his best single work.
It's basically about his personal journey of spirituality and an overall defense of Chrisitanity. You'll find yourself engulfed in deep thought after every couple of pages. It's worth taking plenty of notes when you read this book. Zen has nothing on this man!

Another great book is Chesterton's "The Common Man". "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:29 PM:

" The Question wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:08 PM:

" "Did anyone else know that Gnosticism is really a cover for pagan devil-worship including but not limited to the active pursuit of burning animal sacrifices and misleading non-Gnostics actually AWAY from the known truth????"
----
You are an astoundingly ill-informed bigot, Mr. Right. Gnostics emphasize spiritual advancement through knowledge rather than blind faith, something even someone as ignorant as you should know. "

Oh how disappointing! I was hoping shumphreys would respond to this, Question, instead of anyone else. You see, I got the information I got about gnosticism from the same place shumphreys got her information about Christianity. I read a little bit about gnosticism - not enough to really understand it - then made up my own definition to fit what I wanted it to fit. In other words, I MADE IT UP!!!!

Your response however DID show me one thing. I don't think you (or even very few people of your belief system) can counter a post without ridiculing, calling names, labeling, etc.

You could have told me how I was misinformed and the error of my ways but you chose to throw in the "astoundingly ill-informed bigot" and "someone as ignorant as you". Wow! You folks can't resist doing the same thing you accuse the right of doing. "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:34 PM:

" The mystical shumphreys did it again! Ignored the fact that her mythical religion is based on beliefs which cannot be proven as fact, then bashed someone elses beliefs.

Hysterical, hypocritical, typical. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 7, 2008 9:38 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:30 PM:
"To have a right to a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."

I couldn't have described the whole "woman's right to choose" argument any better than that. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:20 PM:

" (I couldn't have described the whole "woman's right to choose" argument any better than that.)

That's because, Mr.Right, shumphreys was actually quoting Chesterton:

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."

and she had no idea what she was doing. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:56 AM:

" First about a womans right to choose, Chestertons comment is "right" on about many things (which is why I used it), having the right to do something is not the same as being right to do it. I agree completely. BUT it doesn't negate my entire premise that it is not mine to pass judgment on the choice a woman makes. The position of the compassionate person is to promote education, FREE birth control for ALL of child bearing age, support for pregnant women if they choose to go through with a pregnancy or if they choose to abort, medical insurance to cover the costs of prenatal care, care of premature babies, and help for families with children with health and learning problems. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:11 AM:

" Now what do I know about Chesterton? First calling him a Pagan who eventually became a devout Roman Catholic is a misleading statement. Someone who was "fascinated with the occult, and experimented with Ouija boards as a young man" (his words) is hardly a Pagan. He claims that he was a convinced Christian long before becoming a Roman Caholic. I also understand that he commented upon a great variety of subjects, politics, economics, government, philosophy, theology etc. (HM sounds like me). He used wit, humor, paradox and what he called uncommon sense to make sensical points. Because of his use of paradox (which can mean a statement that is false because it says two opposite contradictory things), one must read his words carefully and with great thought. Also like all great thinkers, there are a few quirks to his personality, he is only human, and one doesn't have to buy into everything he says in order to appreciate the TRUE gems. Just like the Bible, full of great wisdom for those who take the time to sort through the dross to find the pearls. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:21 AM:

" Now another point about his quote, having the right to do something is not the same as being right in doing it. That can also be applied to proselytizing which by the way was the ORIGINAL subject of this letter, so do you still think that I selected a quote without recognizing the full extent of its use? By the way there was an article on the news about the gent who put up a creche scene in the rotunda of the state capital. The news focused on whether it was legal, which it is, but didn't address the issue of whether it was the "right thing to do". Any good advertising consultant will tell you that timing and placement are as important as the message. The wrong placement or timing and a message can do more harm than good, it can become "negative" advertising, and that kind of aadvertising is very difficult if not impossible to overcome. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:29 AM:

" Another great Chesterton saying, "Women are the only realists: their whole object in life is to pit their realism against the extravagant, excessive, and occasionally drunken idealism of men." "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:33 AM:

" My Opinion, I am curious as to why you can't accept the TRUTH that Gnosticism is not a religion, that I do not promote any one religious belief, AND that I think that all religous traditions have great potential for good as well as evil. "

VTucker wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:50 AM:

" BlueDogDemocrat, thank you for the reading suggestions. If I remember correctly, those books are as massive in length as they are in thought--at least if you're short on time. Still, they're something to add to my reading list.

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."

I'll ask you as I asked Mr. Right on another thread--has being right stopped a single abortion? "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:33 AM:

" WRONG, apostate humphreys. Gnostism is a RELIGION, with beliefs and a system of worship, whether you choose to recognize it or not. Most people who have read your "beliefs" would agree with me on that point.

The point of this whole "discussion" is you base your "opinions" on a belief, which you said cannot be proven as fact. Your religion is based on a myth, you in turn name-call those who would choose to believe in a creator as believing in a myth.

You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever ran across. You say one thing, turn around and say another to cover yourself.

Gnostism IS a religion. And you are part of that religion, with it's beliefs, and myths as you like to call them

Hypocrite! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:45 AM:

" shumphreys-

Chesterton considered himself a Pagan. Why? Because according to him Paganism is a search. It is seeking something.

Chesterton had a very high regard for pre-Christian paganism. He famously said that paganism was the attempt to reach God through the imagination. He declared, Paganism was the largest thing in the world and Christianity was larger; and everything else has been comparatively small. The thing it is seeking is the thing we all seek: the thing St. Thomas Aquinas says we cant not seek happiness.

Chesterton did not limit his view of paradox as only false because it says two opposite contradictory things.

Paradox, said Chesterton, "is truth standing on her head to attract attention." As used by Chesterton paradox is either a statement that at first glance seems false but actually is true, or a "commonsense" view exposed as false.

And please shumphreys, do NOT compare yourself to Chesterton. Not only do you lack the intellect and depth of mysticism of Chesterton; you especially lack the humility of Chesterton. He shared the paradox of Socrates who realized that the so-called "wise men" thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance.

And thank you, shumphrey's, for your foray into Chesterton. I'm glad you decided to investigate him further. You will soon discover that he is addictive. He is not a fast read, and he is certainly NOT a shallow read. You can pour over his works multiple times and still not comprehend his full intent. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:47 AM:

" (I'll ask you as I asked Mr. Right on another thread--has being right stopped a single abortion?)

Indeed it has, VTucker. The logical appeal of life beginning at conception; the sensible conclusion, to error on the side of caution, has convince many women to turn away from abortion. They have said as much. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Let me clarify, shumphreys:

Chesterton STARTED his life as a self-described "pagan", then an agnostic, and then advanced through Christianity to Catholicism.

I did not mean to imply that he limited himself to paganism through-out his life. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:56 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:56 AM: " First about a womans right to choose, Chestertons comment is "right" on about many things (which is why I used it), having the right to do something is not the same as being right to do it. I agree completely. BUT it doesn't negate my entire premise that it is not mine to pass judgment on the choice a woman makes. "

Do you believe it is yours to pass judgment on the choice a person makes when he/she decides to unload an automatic assault rifle on a group of people? If you do NOT, then whose is it to pass judgment on such an act? If you DO, then what's the difference between killing someone with an assault rifle and killing someone with a pair of forceps?

"The position of the compassionate person is to..."

That is the position of a compassionate person as YOU define compassionate - doing something FOR someone again and again regardless of the result. MY definition of a compassionate person is to help them make the right decisions in the first place yet help them to mature by allowing them to take the responsibility for their own actions.

"Now another point about his quote, having the right to do something is not the same as being right in doing it. That can also be applied to proselytizing..." I've never read a death certificate that listed the cause of death to be from excess proselytizing. Bored to death by it maybe, but not as a direct result of someone's choice.

Are you sure you're not just trying out some new material for a comedy routine? "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:57 AM:

" VTucker wrote on Dec 8, 2008 8:50 AM: "I'll ask you as I asked Mr. Right on another thread--has being right stopped a single abortion? "

Refresh my memory . . . did I respond to that question? If not, I will. I don't usually dodge questions. "

VTucker wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:30 PM:

" Maybe, BDD--but, instead of rationally working her way to a logical conclusion, perhaps the woman chose not to have an abortion because she received something she needed--physical assistance, possibly, or even emotional support/affirmation. More than likely, she was not argued out of it. Generally, women contemplating abortion are not in a rational state of mind. "

VTucker wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:34 PM:

" I don't remember you responding to it, Mr. Right. If you did, I missed what you wrote. Since you're asking, I'll try to clarify what I mean by "being right." I mean right-fighting--proclaiming that abortion is wrong, debating it, protesting it, shelling out money to lobby against it, condemning those who choose it, etc. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:37 PM:

" "Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like."

-G.K.Chesterton "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:45 PM:

" My Opinion, I don't worship anything. Gnosticism is not a religion, in any sense of the word. Christian gnostics had beliefs and systems of worship as do Jewish gnostics. But their beliefs and systems of worship are Christian or Jewish. Gnosticism is nothing more than a way of seeing the world, life and the human condition. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:58 PM:

" BBD Chesterton was many things but not humble. As I said on another thread, you can have a thorough understanding of something and not be that thing. Playing with Ouija boards is not practicing Paganism. Also what you have said about him does not show that he was a Pagan, only that he had an understanding of what he called paganism. Now than about the use of paradox,it doesn't seem that you fully understand the term since you seem to think that my use of it is wrong (to remind you I said "which can mean" in front of a definition). Which by the way means that paradox can be used in more than one way. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:05 PM:

" Mr. Right if we could return to the original abortion letter thread, you would see that I already presented the argument that if YOU choose to call abortion killing it is hypocritical to accept the death penalty, killing by police and military personnel, or your person with an assault rifle in a shopping mall. Killing is killing. It still isn't my job to judge, condemn to hell, the person who kills in the line of duty or the person in the shopping mall. In the case of the shopping mall the compassionate stance would be to see to it that the person gets psychiatric counseling,drug counseling and rehab, job training,an education etc. while incarcerated so that he/she may have the opportunity to become a productive member of society and become a person at peace with his or herself. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:10 PM:

" And Mr. Right who decides what the "right decisions" are? Your book of scripture or my book of scripture, my religious teacher or your religious teacher, my superior intellect or your somewhat less superior intellect? Compassion is not about forcing your concept of right or wrong on another person, that is coercion. Two very different concepts. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Finally your last point Mr. Right, about proselytizing, death certificates?, and the right to do something and doing what is right. You are off your rocker. The right to do something has nothing to do with death certificates, give us all a break and try to make sensical arguments. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:11 PM:

" (BBD Chesterton was many things but not humble.)

I disagree, shumphreys. Why do you claim otherwise?

And Chesterton wasn't in his Pagan phase when he played with Ouija boards. If he claimed he was a Pagan; he should know. Or do you purpose to tell Chesterton that he didn't know his own life? Again, you lack humility, shumphreys.

And I never meant to imply that your definition of paradox was wrong either; only limited, as Chesterton often proved. I apologize for the misunderstanding. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 8, 2008 3:12 PM:

" (More than likely, she was not argued out of it.)

I never meant to imply that they were VTucker.

(Generally, women contemplating abortion are not in a rational state of mind.)

I completely agree. Abortion always claims at least two victims. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 8, 2008 4:14 PM:

" " Mr. Right if we could return to the original abortion letter thread, you would see that I already presented the argument that if YOU choose to call abortion killing it is hypocritical to accept the death penalty..."

And I clearly recall rebutting Mr. Potter's similar argument that it is decidedly NOT.

" And Mr. Right who decides what the "right decisions" are? Your book of scripture or my book of scripture, my religious teacher or your religious teacher, my superior intellect or your somewhat less superior intellect? Compassion is not about forcing your concept of right or wrong on another person, that is coercion. Two very different concepts. "

Have I mentioned scripture anywhere with regard to the abortion question unless it was in a response to another's question or comment? Even then I don't think I took a stance because of scripture. And I'm pretty certain I haven't made any reference to my "spiritual teacher". And with regard to a superior vs somewhat less superior intellect, you can't afford to get into a battle of intellect. You are severely unarmed.

" Finally your last point Mr. Right, about proselytizing, death certificates?, and the right to do something and doing what is right. You are off your rocker. The right to do something has nothing to do with death certificates, give us all a break and try to make sensical arguments. "

I now realize I shouldn't have tried to use hyperbole with you. What I was trying to say in my obviously less than humorous manner was that I've never heard of anyone dying by being proselytized to death. I've heard of several being "choiced" to death. Comparing the right to "not being proselytized" with not being killed is a stretch to say the least.

Oh, and one more point . . . . you didn't adress my question about whose right it is to judge someone who commits a crime. It's not yours? Whose is it? A judge? A jury? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 8, 2008 4:46 PM:

" (Or do you purpose to tell Chesterton that he didn't know his own life?)

Make that:

Or do you (propose) to tell Chesterton that he didn't know his own life? "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 9, 2008 8:57 AM:

" BDD since I didn't know Chesterton personally, I accept what others say about him and what they say he said. Sometimes the opinion of others is more insightful about a persons character than the persons own judgment about his character. Arguing whether he was humble or a Pagan is a waste of time, a distraction from the issues at hand. You love to try to change the subject and wander down dead end lanes. The point originally was that YOU should be careful about using quotes from a man who was dubbed the "prince of paradox". That comment still stands. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 9, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Once again Mr. Right you sidestepped the basic question. Who decides what is right or what is wrong? Quit being defensive about things you haven't been accused of. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 9, 2008 9:04 AM:

" What you used wasn't hyperbole Mr. Right it was a non-sequitor. There is a difference.If you want to argue about intellect, I suggest you learn to check your dictionary before using such big words. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 9, 2008 11:32 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Dec 9, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Once again Mr. Right you sidestepped the basic question. Who decides what is right or what is wrong? Quit being defensive about things you haven't been accused of. "

I really didn't think I would have to answer such an obvious question. Who decides what is right and wrong? I'm thinking in terms of what is legal and what is illegal, uh......maybe the legal system?

And since I am operating under that assumption and the legal system has placed penalties on killing that the legal system has decided that killing is . . . how do we say that . . . wrong? "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 9, 2008 1:15 PM:

" It is a religion, a belief, which cannot be proven as fact. Check any encyclopedia.

You are such a hypocrite. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 9, 2008 2:47 PM:

" ( Arguing whether he was humble or a Pagan is a waste of time, a distraction from the issues at hand. You love to try to change the subject and wander down dead end lanes. The point originally was that YOU should be careful about using quotes from a man who was dubbed the "prince of paradox". That comment still stands.)

Actually shumphreys, Chesterton is also known as the Apostle of Commonsense. That's something else you don't know about him.

-And you NEVER demonstrated why I should be careful about quoting him.

-And I clearly demonstrated that YOU have no idea WHY you quoted him.

-And you NEVER admitted that you were wrong about the correlation of his Paganism and his Ouija board experience.

-And you NEVER gave a justification for your baseless claim that Chesterton wasn't humble.

And this all demonstrates four salient points about YOU, shumphreys:

-YOU just tried to change the subject and wander down dead end lanes.

-YOU could not bring yourself to admit that you were wrong.

-YOU are a hypocrite.

-And this just proves that YOU lack humility in the most profound way, and thus, verified my claim.

So what is your spiritual secret to all these wonderful personal attributes that you possess, shumphreys?

It must be Christianity...huh. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 9, 2008 3:40 PM:

" You haven't proven anyting BBD. Have you honestly never played with an Ouija board. Exploring, gathering information about non-Christian concepts is not being a Pagan any more than calling yourself a Christian means that you are one.You also forget that I have enough internet savy to Google Chesterton, you'd be amazed at what one can find and you'd be amazed (as you have shown) by what I know. Let's see do you know about Chesterbelloc, do you know what he wrote in respone to a Times invitation to write a them on "What's Wrong with the World? You too can google Chesterton. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 9, 2008 3:54 PM:

" (Have you honestly never played with an Ouija board.)

What does that have to do with anything, shumphreys?

(Exploring, gathering information about non-Christian concepts is not being a Pagan any more than calling yourself a Christian means that you are one.)

And who said it did?

(Let's see do you know about Chesterbelloc, do you know what he wrote in respone to a Times invitation to write a them on "What's Wrong with the World? You too can google Chesterton.)

Uhm yes....and yes.

So what does any of this have to do with your original point, shumphreys? "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:02 PM:

" Honestly Mr. Right in this instance we are talking about everyday decisions made by everyday people not governed by laws: such as cheating on a test in school, lying to the American people in order to justify taking a nation to war, lying about and spreading misinformation about a political candidate in order to get your candidate elected, lying to your wife when she asks you if she thinks she has gained a little weight recently, cooking the books, withholding information from the public in the interest of.... getting an abortion, when one should speak out against injustice, or as the initial letter mentioned the "right" to speak in public about your religious beliefs or topics. BUT if you want to talk about laws then the same question is still out there, who decides what laws to write, what is legal and illegal based upon what principles. Someone somewhere at sometime has got to make a decision about something, and sometimes those decisions are very difficult to make. Who decides whether their decision is right or wrong? AND more importantly to refer to the Ethical letter strain, how can we help people get the tools, the information they will need to make "wise", "thoughtful", decisions. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Gnosticism like many words in the English language has multiple meanings. It HAS been defined as a mystical religion. It HAS also been identified as a philosophical way of thought found throughout many of the worlds religions. The word comes from Gnosis which means knowledge, to know, and as I have pointed out many times I do not follow the religious tradition I follow the philosophical tradition. Most accurately a person should be described by the religious tradition they are closest to, Christian Gnostic, Jewish Gnostic, Hindu Gnostic, or in my case just a Gnostic. "

Rotty wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:25 PM:

" (enter the sizzling frying pan)

This is Soapbox Sue's brain.
This is Soapbox Sue's brain on drugs.

Any questions?

LMAO! "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 9, 2008 4:32 PM:

" shumphreys: I've already answered your question. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:15 AM:

" BDD as to your comment, "and you never demonstrated why I should be careful about quoting him". If you aren't clever enough to extrapolate meaning from a simple warning (i.e. if I have to explain it in detail to you) then you aren't clever enough to "one up" me. More battles are lost BDD by those who underestimate the intelligence, cleverness and stamina of their opponents. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:17 AM:

" And I have pointed out the errors in the reasoning of your answer. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:54 AM:

" (If you aren't clever enough to extrapolate meaning from a simple warning (i.e. if I have to explain it in detail to you) then you aren't clever enough to "one up" me.)

On the contrary shumphreys- if you aren't courageous enough to attribute a specific interpretation to a Chesterton quote, then you aren't being clever at all, you're simply being coy because you're a coward who's too proud to admit your weaknesses.

(More battles are lost BDD by those who underestimate the intelligence, cleverness and stamina of their opponents.)

Actually shumphreys, more battles are won by understanding the weaknesses of the opponent.

"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."

-Sun Tzu "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 10, 2008 10:43 AM:

" (" And I have pointed out the errors in the reasoning of your answer. ")

Perhaps I missed that, shumphreys.

When? Where?

Show me. "

Mr. Right wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:10 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:17 AM: " And I have pointed out the errors in the reasoning of your answer. "

That is total crap and you know it. You haven't pointed out one error. You have attempted to divert the issue, you have thrown up exceptions as opposed to the rule, you've gone into a Dennis Miller style rant on topics about which you are very ill-informed and you have attacked a person instead of their ideas while hiding behind the passive-aggressive rhetoric of "who am I to judge?".

Sweet Mother of Moses, TRY to stay on topic here! "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 10, 2008 3:17 PM:

" BDD I pointed out all along where my info. came from, you just failed to pay attention. You can go back and reread the posts. Ouija board, by the way was from Chesterton himself. You should also pay attention to Sun Tzu, if your enemy is in superior strength evade him. One should be careful about using quotes that can also be..... oh forget it you wouldn't understand anyway. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 10, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Sorry Mr. Right one only has to read back through the posts to see where you jumped the track. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:13 PM:

" (Ouija board, by the way was from Chesterton himself)

*sigh*

Let me try this AGAIN Susan.

Chesterton was NOT delving into Paganism when he was experimenting with the Ouija board.

The Ouija board came AFTER his stint with Paganism, therefore the two are not related.

"I was a pagan at the age of twelve, and a complete agnostic by the age of sixteen." - G.K. Chesterton

The Ouija board experience happened in 1893 when Chesterton was 19. He used it in an attempt to break a period of skepticism and depression.

DO....YOU....UNDERSTAND? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:18 PM:

" (BDD I pointed out all along where my info. came from, you just failed to pay attention.)

Info on what?

What was your point? "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Sighhhhh, BDD just as I said playing with an Ouija board does not a Pagan make. Or is that too confusing to you. Being fascinated with the occult does not a Pagan make. Reading your horoscope in the daily paper does not make you a Pagan. Chestertons own statement of what he was at the age of 12 should be read/understood with humor. Many a mother will claim that her 12 yr. old is quite a pagan. Get on with it. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:49 PM:

" Sorry BDD if you can't follow your own train of thought/posts. "

VTucker wrote on Dec 10, 2008 5:51 PM:

" Hello, this is your friendly neighborhood mediator stepping--er, butting--in. The term "pagan" can have a variety of meanings, depending on who's using it. So there . . . let's all hug and make up. :) "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 10, 2008 6:16 PM:

" (Sighhhhh, BDD just as I said playing with an Ouija board does not a Pagan make. Or is that too confusing to you. Being fascinated with the occult does not a Pagan make.)

uhm....shumphreys....who said that it did? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 10, 2008 6:18 PM:

" (Hello, this is your friendly neighborhood mediator stepping--er, butting--in. The term "pagan" can have a variety of meanings, depending on who's using it.)

Thank you VTucker!

FINALLY some commonsense!

You get a Chesterton star! "

VTucker wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:01 PM:

" Well thank you, BDD--it's been a long time since I've gotten any type of star. :) "