JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: Actions matter more than religious beliefs

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Sunday, December 28, 2008 10:38 PM CST
LETTER: Actions matter more than religious beliefs

By SUSAN HUMPHREYS, Oakland

The New Year, a time to “turn over a new leaf,” a time to evaluate the past year and make a resolution about what you want to “change” or “do better” during the coming year. This past year has seen plenty of hatred and ill will in actions and in speech around the world and some here in Coles County. And a great deal of it is connected to/spawned by religious beliefs.

Generally speaking, I believe that all the major world religions have the potential to serve humanity and develop good human beings. By “good” I mean that they have a good and more compassionate heart. “A Simple Path,” p. 10, the Dalai Lama.

Nobel Prize-winning American physicist Steven Weinberg said, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Blaise Pascal said something similar, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” Both quotes are found in “The God Delusion” p. 283 by Richard Dawkins.

In “The Shack” by Wm. Paul Young, p. 182 Jesus says “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian. Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats or Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions ... I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved.”

I wonder, what will the New Year bring? Will we continue to hear from people that choose to use their religion to promote fear and hate and justify the persecution of the “other” (all those that are different from you, people of other faiths and of no faith, homosexuals, people that support the right to choose, people of the opposing political party, Evolutionists, Academics ...), or will we see a toning down of the rhetoric and a new understanding/acceptance that it doesn’t matter what religion you follow or whether you follow any, all that matters are your every day actions, how you treat your fellow man, especially those that don’t believe what you believe.

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.

Rotty wrote on Dec 29, 2008 12:19 AM:

" Suzie Q Shemphreys rambles on under the guise of goodness, folks.

Yet, she forges on with her goosestepping hypocritical inane blather.

Hey Soapbox Shemp, when you going to erect your sign "thou shall not steal" my *sensical* ways"?

Remember Shemp....

"And when it rains on your parade, look up rather than down. Without the rain, there would be no rainbow."

-G. K. Chesterton

And to top it off....

"But you see, you do understand, you do understand that this issue right here, of intellectual arrogance, is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people of faith. I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I know so much more, and if you only read the books I know, and if you only knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me. Well, sir, there could be many things that you know well. There are other things that you don't know well. As you age, you'll find yourself wrong on some things, right on some other things. But please, in the process of it, don't be arrogant."

-Ted Haggard

.......

Shemphreys a knowledge seeker?
BS!
You're a pure & simple claptrap writing hypocrite.

The only thing you provide is bird cage bottom covers.
LOL!

Thank goodness for the 3 "Letter to the Editor" week rule! "

medic57 wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:32 AM:

" Once again, all of her knowledge comes from the athiests and the truely religious nut jobs of the world, not from real christian leaders, of which, unfortunately, there are few.

"In The Shack by Wm. Paul Young, p. 182 Jesus says Who said anything about being a Christian? Im not a Christian. Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats or Republicans and many who dont vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions""

Where is that in the Bible? Sorry Susan, if it's not in the Bible, Jesus didn't say it.

By the way Susan, if you see a toning down of all things christian in this world, it will simply mean that the christians are no longer here, and that's not a world that I will have to live in. Thank God. "

medic57 wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:35 AM:

" By the way Susan, nice letter, it figured your first letter of the year would be a diatribe against christians.

It is truely unfortunate that Mattoon is forever tied to the most Godless person in US history. Don't get your ego up Susan, it's not you. "

Billie Brant wrote on Dec 29, 2008 8:11 AM:

" To Susan-----Yawn.ZZZZ "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 29, 2008 8:24 AM:

" medic57 wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:35 AM:

" By the way Susan, nice letter, it figured your first letter of the year would be a diatribe against christians.

****************

Huh?

Medic, you and I must not be reading the same letter. "

The Question wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:01 AM:

" Good letter, Susan. Thanks for it. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:35 AM:

" Yall got to remember when evaluating this letter and its writer that Suzie Q has publicly stated, Budhism shaped the thinking of our founding fathers. And that she also gives more authority to secular books than she does to the Bible even in this letter by pulling a quote from one of those books and attributing it to Jesus as though it is His words. By the way this novel The Shack by Wm. Paul Young portrays God as an African American woman. So even though she rejects Jesus and the Bible where His words are found she uses words He supposedly said quoting from a secular writer to try to make her spurious points. Now if you are able to accept this garbage from Suzie then I can understand that you can probably accept her words, it doesnt matter what religion you follow or whether you follow any, all that matters are your every day actions, how you treat your fellow man, especially those that dont believe what you believe.
As for me I will take the Bible as Truth not secular books because it has proven itself and is continuing to prove itself by being more accurate in current events than the daily newspaper. "

VTucker wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:40 AM:

" medic57, this letter is not a diatribe against Christians who follow the teachings of Christ. If it is a diatribe against anyone, it is against those of any faith who use their faith as an excuse for bad behavior.

Susan, who is not a Christian, nevertheless proclaims that what matters is "how you treat your fellow man." What is the problem with that? Didn't Jesus Christ say something very similar (over and over again)? "

VTucker wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:52 AM:

" "By the way Susan, if you see a toning down of all things christian in this world, it will simply mean that the christians are no longer here...."

What this letter actually said was "a toning down of the rhetoric." It didn't say "a toning down of all things christian in this world." You aren't reading what was actually written.

In today's newspaper, there is an article about a beautiful ministry, that of creating shawls to show support for people who are sick, alone--or even for those celebrating milestones in their lives. This is the "good" of Christianity; it is faith in action and what the world needs more of.

Believe me, people would have a much more positive view of Christianity if Christians concerned themselves with expressing love and concern for others rather than expressing defensiveness, divisiveness, and fear--not to mention doctrinal nit-picking. "

The Truth wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:54 AM:

" Here we go again! The so-called gnostic/atheist is forcing her "beliefs" down everyone's throat again - EVEN THOUGH BELIEFS CANNOT BE PROVEN AS FACT, ACCORDING TO THIS WOMAN.

Beliefs and actions go hand in hand. To an unbeliever, who is going to have to answer for her actions, that may seem illogical and riduculous. So be it.

Why this paper continues to print these letters from an apostate thinker is beyond me. We shouldn't be surprised, however. As 1 Timothy 3:1-5 points out, we are living in the last days, and there are ones who will try to push their godless way of thinking upon others, to their detriment.

I will be laughing the day you are forever put out of commission, apostate. It is in God's word, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it. He will rain his judgment down upon you, and it will be so funny..... "

Raptor wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Susan: The title says it all for me.

Actions DO matter more than religious beliefs.

What actions are we taking on a daily basis to make this community a better place to live?

Thanks for taking the time and effort to share your thoughts with us. "

Hahvahd wrote on Dec 29, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Why can't we all just get along? Some are Christians (and some cling to that term but don't practice its tenents), some are Jewish or Muslim or Budhist or Hindu. Some are athiests, some agnostics. Some are spiritualists who embrace a Creator but shun organized religion. And there are the many differences beyond religion that Ms. Humphries touched upon in her letter.

Why should it matter to you what another person believes? Rotty and Medic, how does it affect you one iota that Ms. Humphries doesn't share the same beliefs as you? What has she ever done to you to warrant such animosity that you aim toward her every time she posts? (And much of the time I post, by the way.) You can disagree with a person without turning it personal or hateful. Christians of all people should know better. Jesus didn't tell us to turn the other cheek only if we like the other person. He didn't say it is okay to fire off a comeback if we feel we're insulted first. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Love thy enemy. Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you. Take the mote out of your own eye before working about the speck in your brother's -- all among the many of Jesus' teachings that are worth living by (though understandably difficult to do). I fail at it, I know; I apologize if this seems judgmental or seems like a rant. But if we're indeed Christians, we need to act according to our professed beliefs, instead of attacking other people because they aren't Christian enough. "

father bob wrote on Dec 29, 2008 10:56 AM:

" medic57 wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:32 AM:
" Once again, all of her knowledge comes from the truely religious nut jobs of the world,""""

don't think she quoted vanatta... "

father bob wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:12 AM:

" the so called "christians" will be showering you with their "christian" love and tolerance susan....

i can hear the bibles thumping now...like a remote tribe of drum-beating aborigines. "

dstew66 wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:16 AM:

" I've never made any comments here, but I have read much of the diatribe that comes from your pen. If you have a bible, I am going to lead you to a verse which will give you great wisdom. Everyone, regardless of belief, can benefit from Proverbs. Proverbs 17:28. If by chance you don't have one, here is a link to the verse online.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2017:28&version=31 "

father bob wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:21 AM:

" It is good to be tolerant, but you can not be so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance. Bill Maher "

father bob wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:36 AM:

" medic57 wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:35 AM:
" By the way Susan, nice letter, it figured your first letter of the year would be a diatribe against christians."""

i didn't see any "diatribe against christians". you obviously didn't read it well.....or maybe you just read more into it than was said. feeling guilty perhaps???.....nah.....nevermind, you so called "christians" have no guilt.....or shame for that matter. "

father bob wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:37 AM:

" happy Kuanzaa by the way. "

father bob wrote on Dec 29, 2008 12:58 PM:

" surprise!!!:

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking." "

VTucker wrote on Dec 29, 2008 1:38 PM:

" medic57 and Vanatta, THE SHACK is written as metaphor. The author, who is a Christian by the way, portrays God as an African-American woman to make a point. I'm sure he no more thinks God is a black lady than He is an old white man with a beard. Have you guys even read the story?

Many Christian leaders applaud the book, including evangelical ones. It is a fresh way of looking at faith, and the big "why" behind suffering and death. "

The Question wrote on Dec 29, 2008 1:44 PM:

" The holy harpies screech again. Nothing less than theocracy will satisfy their need to eliminate all other religious views. "

father bob wrote on Dec 29, 2008 2:46 PM:

" thanks susan....anyone who gets phony jon riled is ok in my book. "

Rotty wrote on Dec 29, 2008 3:06 PM:

" Everytime Susan Humphreys aka Shumphreys writes/posts, she proves without a shadow of doubt, that she, herself, is in the starring role in Revenge Of The Nerds.

Well done, Booger!

Now, let's everyone flick her off.
LOL! "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 29, 2008 4:07 PM:

" Yes indeed Dstwe66, those same fools also sat silently as Hitler led Jews to the slaughter and as a Pope sent Christians marching to kill the infidels and as preachers called for the bombing of family planning clinics and as blacks were lynched in the south and forced to sit in the back of the bus and as ............ Sometimes the wisest course of action is the most difficult and courageous and it calls for saying NO to hate. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 29, 2008 4:28 PM:

" Oh and Dstew66 I also love proverbs, 1-22, 2 13-14 (shoot all of 1 and 2) then there is 3-13-18 "Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding, for her income is better than silver." or 4-7-8 "the beginning of wisdom is this: Get widom." or 4-24 "Put away from you crooked speech, and put devious talk far from you." Yes Proverbs has much that we all can learn. AND don't forget my simple statement that the most important thing is how you treat your fellow man is just a rewording of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others" which also came first from Confuscius and Rabbi Hillel long before Jesus. A teaching straight from the Bible. "

medic57 wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:00 PM:

" Hahvahd

Exactly which part of my posts were hateful? "

Hahvahd wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:18 PM:

" Oh, I dunno meds, saying that "all of her (Susan's) knowledge is tied to atheists and truly religious nut jobs" doesn't exactly come across as the spirit of brotherly love. . . . "

Collatine wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:28 PM:

" The Question - I was thinking the same thing after I read Susan's letter, except her theocracy is secular humanism... and it's already shouting down all other dissenting views. Someday, any kind of proselytizing by Christians or Muslims will be de jure outlawed... today it is de facto.

Someone said it was unfortunate that there aren't a lot of "true" Christian leaders... I completely disagree... it's just that most "true" Christian leaders don't bother trying to project their leadership through mass media or politics. They lead through personal relationships.

They don't donate to political parties: they donate to the poor. They don't feel the need to beat down dissenting views: they extend a helping hand. They worry less about indoctrinating the masses, and more about "doctoring" the individual.

Jesus' own brother said "Faith (in Jesus Christ) without works (action) is dead."

Faith though is not religion. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 29, 2008 5:31 PM:

" VTucker, I'm sorry but Suzie didn't quote it as a metaphor she quoted it as the words of Jesus and she wanted to use His words against Christians no other religion just Christians. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:10 PM:

" How funny that - intended or not - Ms. Humphreys wrote a letter encouraging people to conduct themselves in the manner that Jesus Christ taught, yet she is being accused of bashing Christians.

Guess what, folks? If you don't already act this way, you aren't following the teachings of Christ - in other words, you're not a Christian.

The "What Would Jesus Do" fad didn't last long, did it?

I think often of the Ten Commandments, and I wonder: if you commit hateful acts in the name of religion, is that really what is meant by taking the Lord's name in vain? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:17 PM:

" Ahem.

Speaking of actions and religious beliefs......

BLEEDING HEART TIGHTWADS

NewYorkTimes (Dec 20 2008) This holiday season is a time to examine whos been naughty and whos been nice, but Im unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: WE LIBERALS ARE PERSONALLY STINGY.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, LIBERALS ARE CHEAPSKATES.

-The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans

-When I started doing research on charity, Mr. Brooks wrote, I expected to find that political liberals who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.

-IT'S TRUE THAT RELIGION IS THE ESSENTIAL REASON CONSERVATIVES GIVE MORE, AND RELIGIOUS LIBERALS ARE AS GENEROUS AS RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES. AMONG THE STINGIEST OF THE STINGY ARE SECULAR CONSERVATIVES.

-Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

Read it here:
http://tinyurl.com/9v59rf "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:47 PM:

" "Atheism is an insult to human dignity. With it, you have good people doing evil things and evil people doing unrivaled evil things. For good and evil people to do the most evil things, it takes Atheism."
-BDD "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:50 PM:

" Blaise Pascal lived in the 17th century.

He never witnessed the unprecedented evil carried out by Atheist regimes, like those of Stalin, Lenin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu or Fidel Castro.

If he had- he would have undoubtedly revised his quote! "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Thanks BDD for that article but we already knew that about bleeding heart liberals the article just confirms it. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:19 PM:

" And by the New York Times even, my oh my! ('_') "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 29, 2008 7:27 PM:

" Oh I forgot they do give a lot to Planned Parenthood though. (getn rid o those lil inconvient babies) Right father bob? "end of year giving" you know. 300M tax payer funds not enough gotta help em out some more. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 29, 2008 8:20 PM:

" Collatine I wonder if you would expand more on your comment "faith is not religion". I think that is an important distinction and that few will grasp what you mean and they certainly would just trash anything I said about it. "

Hahvahd wrote on Dec 29, 2008 8:40 PM:

" Blue Dog, maybe Republicans give more because they have more wealth to give -- if indeed what you're saying is even true. I work with several local charities and know PLENTY of generous people from both political parties. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:07 PM:

" (Hahvahd- Blue Dog, maybe Republicans give more because they have more wealth to give)

Read the article- "Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."

(if indeed what you're saying is even true.)

*I* am not saying this. The New York Times is.

(I work with several local charities and know PLENTY of generous people from both political parties.)

The main reason I posted this article on this thread was NOT the charitable disparity between political parties;

but rather religious versus secular.

"IT'S TRUE THAT RELIGION IS THE ESSENTIAL REASON CONSERVATIVES GIVE MORE, AND RELIGIOUS LIBERALS ARE AS GENEROUS AS RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES. AMONG THE STINGIEST OF THE STINGY ARE SECULAR CONSERVATIVES." "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 29, 2008 11:10 PM:

" I wonder,

in light of the data that PROVES people of religion are in fact more generous;

can we now expect Susan Humphreys to CRITICIZE Atheist, secularists, all non-religious groups et al, for their miserly humanitarian actions?

Or maybe she would like to apologize on behalf of her fellow Atheists, for all the evil they have wrought upon humanity?

I wonder............ "

medic57 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:01 AM:

" Oh, I dunno meds, saying that "all of her (Susan's) knowledge is tied to atheists and truly religious nut jobs

No hate there, just pity, what part of her post doesn't spell hate? "

VTucker wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:29 AM:

" Religion as a Force for Good and Evil:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/relhateov.htm

The writer of this article attempts to examine and explain why religious faith motivates some to do good and others to do evil. Interesting reading! "

VTucker wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:43 AM:

" Definitions and Causes of Religious Intolerance:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/relintol4.htm

One of the most interesting points I gleaned from this article was how it defined "religious tolerance." The writer made a distinction between perceiving religious tolerance as being about beliefs vs. civil rights. Many people with extremely conservative beliefs feel that "tolerance" means they must accept others' beliefs as their own. Others interpret tolerance to mean an acceptance of the fact that people have the right to believe as they wish without censure, interference, persecution, etc. "

gringa wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:44 AM:

" Actually, shump, ANY day is a good day to turn over a new leaf. Why must you wait for a New Year?

As to your comment that this past year has seen plenty of hatred and ill will, you must be looking in the wrong places and perhaps not finding the much larger measure of love and good will happening everyday all around you - and almost all of it spawned by religious beliefs. If all you see is negative, perhaps you are attending the wrong church. LOL.

And finally, shump, a little help from the grammar police. You claim to be an published author, yet in almost all of your letters and posts on here, you use the word *that* to refer to a person! For example, in the last paragraph of this letter, you did it twice. In the future, please use the personal pronoun *who*, as in *...people who choose...* and *...your fellow man, especially those who dont...*

That's all right. I know how easily influenced you are. You probably picked up that bit of improper word usage from Katie Couric. She does it all the time too.

You're welcome, no problem. I'm always happy to lend a hand to those among us who come across as book smart and practically stupid. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:57 AM:

" BDD you should note the article was about donation of MONEY not labor. So shall we look for statistics to see what group donates more of their time! Shall we have a discussion as to which is more valuable a persons TIME or a persons MONEY. Shall we also have a discussion about "sounding trumpets on your way to the temple to make your offering". Do you have a clue what that Bible passage is all about? How many ANONYMOUS donors are there that put neither their name or religious affiliation on their donation? Shall I continue? OR shall you just back off and quit being so self-righteous? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:59 AM:

" When the anti-Christian supporters of atheism try to use the alleged sins of Christianity and tabulate the deaths they attribute to the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem witch trials, etc. they go back at least 1000 years and they are vastly overblown, if you add up a realistic total of estimates of all these deaths it will be not over 100,000 but no one could know for sure. You dont have to go back 1000 years to tabulate the murders committed by atheists just in the last century there are over 100 million. Make no mistake about it these were murders were committed by atheists and in the name of atheism. Make no mistake about it also that the murders of 100,000 attributed to Christians are a detestable tragedy. Many Christians acknowledge that and try to apologize. How often have you heard an atheist try to apologize for the over 100 million cold-blooded murders of the last century? "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Oh and BDD while we are having this pi--ing contest/comparing the size or our organs (an activity you seem to be very fond of) shall we look for statistics to see which group Christians or Atheists: recyle more, drive more fuel efficient cars, live in smaller more energy conserving houses, work in green industry jobs, and then there are their recreational pursuits shall we see who participates in gas guzzling, carbon emitting motorized sports or which group chooses low impact sports (walking, fishing, bird watching) OR shall we cut out all this CRAP and quit trying to prove that one group is BETTER than another group. Because it is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY Irrelevant. All that matters are INDIVIDUAL daily actions not your political or religious affiliation. "

father bob wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:56 AM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 29, 2008 6:47 PM:
" "Atheism is an insult to human dignity. With it, you have good people doing evil things and evil people doing unrivaled evil things. For good and evil people to do the most evil things, it takes Atheism."
-BDD "

whooohoooo!!!! the ultimate in arrogance.
the village moron quotes himself! ROFLMAO!!
this comedy gets better every day! you can't go anywhere and pay money to get this much entertainment.

next i'm hoping vanatta will do some faith-healing for us!! "

father bob wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:01 AM:

" thanks for reminding me vendetta...

Please support Planned Parenthood, your tax deductible contributions are appreciated! "

arrogant wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:02 AM:

" Listen, all you religious believers!

STOP criticizing Susan Humphreys for criticizing all you religious believers!
Ms Humphreys has consulted "her herself and Humphreys" and they confirmed that "her herself and Humphreys" was enlightened and all knowing! Why do you religious people get so upset when Shumphreys points out that you are ALL good people except when you all believe and act on all your evil religious beliefs? We are ALL capable of good! So long as YOU CHRISTIANS stop being evil christians!

I mean REALLY people! Why is it so hard for you BELIEVERS to simply STOP BELIEVING in your stupid BELIEFS? Why can't you unenlightened dolts believe your beliefs the way Susan Humphreys believes your beliefs?

If you closed-minded simpletons would simply open your minds up to Susan's closed minded simple beliefs, we could ALL get along! Why can't you believing believers believe Shumphreys when she tells you that your beliefs are not believable?

You believers are really unbelievable! "

father bob wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:33 AM:

" arrogant wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:02 AM:
"You believers are really unbelievable! """

well, you got the last sentence right.. "

even steven wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:39 AM:

" Since all I know personally is based on the here and now, then I'm of the opinion that actions do indeed speak louder than words. I'll not argue about others' spirituality or lack thereof. It's pointless. Living a good life benefits me and others now in tangible ways, so if there is an afterlife or not is kind of a moot point for me. I donate time and money for charitable causes and donate blood for selfish reasons: it makes ME feel good about who I am. I'll be the first to admit it, too. "

Hahvahd wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:40 AM:

" BDD, measuring generosity by % of income given is a dubious way to measure it! If I only make $20,000 a year and donate 1% of my income ($200) to charity, that's a much bigger sacrifice than if I make $1,000,000 a year and donate 10%. I can afford to give a much bigger amount (percentage-wise or dollar-wise) if I earn a lot than I can if I am poor. DUH! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:23 PM:

" (shumphreys- "So shall we look for statistics to see what group donates more of their time!")

Why yes Susan. We shall!

Here's some "truth" for your "knowledge".

From the articles study ("Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.")

- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

- The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion.

- Religion increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s."

- America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.

- One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one - secular conservatives.

See what I did there, Susan?

I patiently educated you. That's what good teachers (like me) do.

No, no, Susan. No need to thank me. The pleasures all mine. ;-) "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:23 PM:

" Thanks Vicky for telling us about that article and website. Sounds like what I have been saying for the last 3 years now. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:28 PM:

" (shumphreys- "Oh and BDD while we are having this pi--ing contest/comparing the size or our organs")

Good Lord Susan! What a dirty filthy mind you Atheists have! Did you kiss your kids with that mouth?

Feel free post all the Global Warming "works" that you little Atheist troglodyte's engage in.

And I'll point out to you, that all your Climate Change garbage is nothing more than a BELIEF SYSTEM (or faith) based on a load of pseudo-science. In other words Susan; you're full of a lot of "green house gas".

LOL "

The Question wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Sorry, Vanatta, Christians are still slaughtering Muslims by the thousands. Ever hear of "Shock and Awe?" "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:20 PM:

" Let's recap Susan's hypocritical mind, shall we?

We shall.

FIRST SUSAN CRITICIZES RELIGION WHILE SHE IGNORES THE EVIL COMMITTED BY ATHEISTS:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, youd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

AND

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

AND SHE COCLUDES WITH

"Will we continue to hear from people that choose to use their religion to promote fear and hate and justify the persecution of the "other"

THEN WHEN THE FACTS PROVE THAT RELIGION LEADS TO MORE HUMANITARIAN ACTIONS....WELL THEN, SUSAN WANTS TO SWITCH THE PREMISE OF THE DEBATE TO "INDIVIDUAL" ACTIONS, AND LEAVE THE INCONVIENTENT CATAGORIES OF ATHEIST VERSUS RELIGIOUS ACTIONS OUT OF THE DEBATE.

So then, individual actions are all that matter with Susan UNLESS those actions are bad, and are being performed by a religious person. Then, RELIGION is the problem.

But as far as evil actions performed by Atheists?

Susan says,

"... shall we cut out all this CRAP and quit trying to prove that one group is BETTER than another group. Because it is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY Irrelevant. All that matters are INDIVIDUAL daily actions not your political or religious affiliation."

ROFL!!! "

Collatine wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Susan - Faith is merely belief in something unprovable. Could be faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, or that government intervention in the economy will benefit the most people, or something more mystical, as I meant it.

In my context, faith is that there is such a thing as sin, that Jesus Christ paid my penalty for my sin, and because of my belief, I have hope for eternal life at some point after I die. Certainly all unprovable, but in my worldview, based on some historical truths.

Christian actions based on faith include helping the poor, loving and helping enemies, doing good to those that spitefully use you, putting God first, others second, and yourself last, ...all actions Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and even Ayn Rand (whom I otherwise like) despised as weak and immoral.

Religion, on the other hand, are man-made rules, practices, traditions, and rituals that may or not be based around a faith. Typically, the weaker the faith the religion is based on, the more belligerent or zealously the practitioner defends it. "

father bob wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:47 PM:

" susan.....you can't argue with someone who quotes himself. the narcissistic arrogance blinds him to real life. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:47 PM:

" (Hahvahd - "BDD, measuring generosity by % of income given is a dubious way to measure it!")

Uhm Susan....er...a.... I mean Hahvahd (wink* wink*)

You might want to sit down for this:

- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

ROFLMAO! "

father bob wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:51 PM:

" The Question wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:48 PM:
" Sorry, Vanatta, Christians are still slaughtering Muslims by the thousands. Ever hear of "Shock and Awe?" "

Q.....you didn't see the disclaimer?:

"no innocent civilians were harmed in the waging of this war."

that's according the the rightwing fascist republican christian terrorists. "

father bob wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:54 PM:

" The Question wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:48 PM:
" Sorry, Vanatta, Christians are still slaughtering Muslims by the thousands. Ever hear of "Shock and Awe?" "

and by the way....phony jon vendetta is too busy setting up his tent for the faith-healing service he's going to give. i'm betting he'll make the cripple walk again..... "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 30, 2008 2:54 PM:

" (Question Moe- "Sorry, Vanatta, Christians are still slaughtering Muslims by the thousands. Ever hear of "Shock and Awe?")

Golly gee Moe.

I didn't know the U.S. Armed Forces were exclusively Christian. And I didn't know that the U.S. waged this war on a religious basis.

Tell me Question Moe, why are all those evil communist regimes all Atheistic? "

The Question wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:47 PM:

" The ape managed to make the Iraq invasion a Christian attack when he stupidly used the word "crusade" to describe it, before being corrected by his handlers. Remember that?
Listen to talk radio. Much of the hatred and fear of Muslims that's expressed in this country isn't about terrorism. It's about the moronic, tribal, religious fear of "them people." "

just wondering wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:40 PM:

" Ah arrogant, so nice to have you back. Haven't heard from you for a while. Thought maybe you had left us. Several here need your guidance and hopefully you can get them straightened out. "

Hahvahd wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:54 PM:

" BDD, why is it when you start losing an argument, you always claim I'm someone else??

As far as your "evidence," a statistic is only as good as its source, and other than the New York Times, you've either cited no source at all (so for all we know, you're makin' this stuff up) or you've cited conservative sources, definitely biased and with their own agenda to prove. So sorry, but no sale; I ain't buyin' it!

As Mark Twain once put it, "There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Spout away all you want, Doggy; you've proved nothing! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:06 PM:

" It's fascinating, Question,

how you Atheists embrace fear and loathing of Islam when it furthers your argument AGAINST religion;

but then quickly EMBRACE it's innocence (jihad and all) when it serves your hypocritical need to embellish Christian injustices.

hmmmmmmm. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:08 PM:

" Losing an argument Hahvahd humphreys?

Show me were I've stopped winning!

Ah yes. You doubt my sources. The Liberal NYT's is no longer credible for you? Why?

The NYT's article also mentioned a Google survey which was even LESS kind to Liberal secularists.

But how about this from Real Clear Politics: http://tinyurl.com/ys6j63

And I've already stated the name of this study: "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." By Arthur C. Brooks a professor of public administration at Syracuse University.

"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."

But there is also this:

Byron R. Johnson, a sociology professor and co-director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, says he recently gathered data that show similar results such as high levels of civic engagement among religious people while assembling a report on faith in America that was released in September 2006.

Look it up for yourself. And then show me YOUR unbiased sources that counter it, Hahvahd Humphreys.

How do I know Hahvahd is shumpreys? Only Susan Humphreys could be this dense.

LOL! "

Cognitus wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:51 PM:

" Blue Dog:"I didn't know the U.S. Armed Forces were exclusively Christian. And I didn't know that the U.S. waged this war on a religious basis."

Blue Dog appears ignorant of the fact that at the U. S. Air Force Academy,
at church services, a military group
carries the flag to the front of the
church, and when they near the front,
they dip the flag before the Cross to
acknowledge that the US Government is subservient to Jeezus Krist.
There were those who complained about this display of religion and particularly subservience, but though the practice was discountinued for a brief time, it was restored when Christians demanded that it be resumed. "

Cognitus wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:54 PM:

" Blue Dog:" Let's recap Susan's hypocritical mind, shall we?"

I'd prefer to recap Blue Dog's
mind -- but I can't seem to find it????
Maybe he doesn't have one yet??? "

Cognitus wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:57 PM:

" Susan:"BDD you should note the article was about donation of MONEY not labor. "
Thanks Susan. I volunteer about 90
40 hour weeks every year --- and drive
4000 miles to and from the location where I work, serving the public. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:25 PM:

" inCOGNIzant apparently is ignorant of the fact that a church service in the Air Force does not make the U.S. Armed Forces exclusively Christian.

Nor does it make our current wars in the Middle East religious based.

Further more, inCOGNIzant is ignorant of the fact that Susan's statement "BDD you should note the article was about donation of MONEY not labor." was completely wrong. The article was about money AND labor.

My goodness. My little article on religion and generosity certainly has caused a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance on the secular Left in here.

LOL "

SSFAN wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:57 PM:

" Blaise Pascal was simply a mathematician who happened to have a really rotten Computer Programming Language named after him. "

Rotty wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:10 PM:

" It looks like some of the "secular left" had a complete meltdown today.

Keep up the great work, BlueDog, Soapbox Swindler Susie, especially, deserves every bit of it.

Shemp looks like she's ready to set up another consultation with those certain other family members of hers.
LOL! "

God Is wrote on Dec 31, 2008 7:58 AM:

" Hello again, everyone. I had a great Christmas. Hope those of you who celebrate did too. And I am hoping those with other celebrations enjoyed themselves as well.

A while back I read a cute little fictional novel called "The Second Greatest Story Ever Told." It was a very off beat and tongue in cheek account of the experiences of the "sister" of Jesus who was given permission to be born on Earth to try her hand at saving the world after Jesus' two previous attempts ended short of the finish line.

If I were to follow Shumphries lead, right now I would be worshipping at the doors of the descendants of Charlie Chaplin and looking forward to unlimited tickets in Satan's amusement park (you'll just have to read the book.) Instead I continue to chuckle at the memory of a very amusing and entertaining work of fiction. Fun to read, but didn't have much to do with my personal religion.

Actions are important, and they are important for those involved in every system of belief. But, in Christian belief, action alone is comparable to trying to buy the stairway to heaven. You can try, but it isn't for sale. Jesus paid for it long ago. It takes faith in God and the acceptance of his son that gives us the ability to walk the stairs.

For those with other beliefs, action is all that is left to try. In my system of belief, I don't think you will be able to walk the stairs, but you will be contributing to a better life here on earth. So go for it, and feel good about the things that you can do. I am just sorry that we won't be able to meet in heaven and celebrate the good things that were done. This is my personal belief. To each his own. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:42 AM:

" One other minor observation about your arguments BDD, Conservatives come in all shapes and sizes (religious and non-religious). A large part of your argument is that Conservatives are better than Liberals with no FACTS about religious affiliation or non-affiliation. You are the one who keeps comparing the size of yours or mine so don't try to be sooooo prudish. It doesn't work. AND all this is is a pi--ing contest. By the way since you may not understand what that means, it is a contest to see who can do something irrelevant, and childish, a way of avoiding the issue. Which is what you are very good at. As I said, there are good people doing good, evil people doing evil and it takes religion to get good people to do evil. You are a prime example along with several other posters on this site. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Thanks Collatine for responding. I don't know if you have heard of Eric Hoffer,he wrote a book "The True Believer, thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" in 1951. He wasn't a well educated man, he was a long shoreman and a thoughtful man. He says "Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves." I think many of responders on these pages have little faith in their religious beliefs OR in their selves. "

God Is wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:01 AM:

" VTucker. The problem many of us have with Shumpries isn't that she verbalizes her anti-Christian sentiments. It is that she doesn't practice what she preaches. It seems that everyone on the planet has the freedom to believe as their conscience dictates, unless they happen to be Christian. And just because she opted to leave the word Christian out of her opening paragraph doesn't mean she was not once again attacking them. The lady has a huge chip on her shoulder. She uses the terrible acts of the few to condemn the whole, and refuses to acknowledge that most Christians are leading good lives, contributing time and money to good causes, and are doing what they can to make the world better. One example, a man who turned up at a location where victims of a housefire were sheltered with 500 dollars who told the family "Jesus pointed out to me that you needed new underwear." He didn't question them about their religion first.

Now she says that Christians are wrong because they are motivated to do these things because of what they believe. Did this man commit an unpardonable act because he felt it was what Jesus would have him do? Show me anyone who is not motivated to do things because of what they believe.

To judge something evil requires a point of comparison. That something must be the complete opposite of evil in order to make the comparison. Evil is a concept born from religion, for only a supreme being can be the complete opposite. Shumphries accepts the concepts of good and evil (she uses those words a lot). She is therefore an individual following a religion, different from mine, but a religion none the less. And she constantly exhibits an intolerance of those who practice a religion other than her own in her obsessive crusade against Christians. She fails to recognize that she is that which she is complaining about. "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

And let us not forget her demonstrated conceit in her own intellectual superiority. Shumphries. Your reading list doesn't make you more intellectual than others. It just means you have a different reading list. And to put your faith solely into what the writers of these books are saying is limiting. I would be willing to wager that, in the seventies, you thought God rode in a space ship. After all, you could read about it in a modern book. Written by a modern man. Who made a lot of money by writing it. Now, what was that P. T. Barnum quote? "

father bob wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:16 AM:

" Rotty wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:10 PM:
" It looks like some of the "secular left" had a complete meltdown today. "

hmmmm....meltdown? not hardly. seems as though you "christians" are the embattled ones here. you have no arguements, no defense, no facts......just the easter bunny. "

Rotty wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Funny, I see no critter hopping along the bunny trail here, I do however see Soapbox Susie side skirting her hypocrisies, though.
LOL!

The only thing Swindler Shemp has a positive run at, is being a sleeping aid.
LOL! "

Collatine wrote on Dec 31, 2008 12:02 PM:

" The discussion on Susan's letter quickly degenerated into a Conservative / Liberal bash.

This, as labeling so often does, grossly oversimplifies what Susan is talking about. For instance, many churches labeled "African American" are typically filled with congregants who are socially and fiscally liberal but morally conservative. They wouldn't be caught dead being called "Christian Right," although they would often vote with the "Christian Right" (as they did in CA's vote for Prop 8).

But I don't know what someone's political views has to do with their relationship with God or religion.

Heck, merely labeling someone "conservative" or "liberal" does a large disservice to that person.

For instance, I lean conservative regarding fiscal policy, conservative on some domestic issues, liberal on others, and liberal on most foreign policy issues. What does that make me? If you called me a liberal or a moderate, I'd get mad. If you called me a conservative, I'd think you were shallow.

But all that has NOTHING to do with my spiritual faith, and spiritual faith has NOTHING to do with government's role in society.

For instance, allowing someone to assault me out of Christian love is not the same as letting someone come and rape my wife and murder my child.

The government is not a Christian institution (although it does support churches, Christian radio, and other ministries through tax exemptions). The government exists to fill certain obligations to its citizens (good roads, safety net, security, etc), as long as the citizens fill certain obligations to it (taxes, obey laws, allegiance, etc).

A government cannot be "Christian" because "being Christian" is about a personal relationship with God and other people. (The notion that the Iraq War was a Christian crusade is really a distortion of actual events in the broader geopolitical context). A government is not a person and therefore cannot have a relationship with anyone.

I'm rambling now, but my point is, a person's personal spiritual walk has little if any bearing on his or her's political views. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:29 PM:

" God Is there is one thing you miss about the concept of action, every day deeds. Nowhere have I claimed that they are connected to anyone's SALVATION. As I have pointed out elsewhere, if there is any TRUTH to the concept of Gods GRACE (salvation), grace will be granted to everyone, free of charge, no strings attached, no quid pro quo. It means you can't BUY your way into heaven with false or any other promises, good deeds, great bequeasts or monetary donations, belief or non-belief is irrelevant. Since everyone's salvation is assured what is left but your day to day actions that help you and your fellow man live a more happy, compassionate, satisfied, goodly life. "

shumphreys wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:34 PM:

" What you have against me God Is is that I speak honestly, sincerely, directly, and that I can't be intimidated. I have never said that ALL Christians are bad nor do I attack Christianity. I do however attack the misuse and abuse of Christianity. If that makes me evil than so be it. I'd rather be evil and honest than a hypocrite or blind to the "evil" being put forth in the name of God and too afraid to speak out against it. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 31, 2008 3:11 PM:

" (shumphreys- A large part of your argument is that Conservatives are better than Liberals with no FACTS about religious affiliation or non-affiliation.)

*sigh* Here's the relative part of the NYT's article, AGAIN:

"-IT'S TRUE THAT RELIGION IS THE ESSENTIAL REASON CONSERVATIVES GIVE MORE, AND RELIGIOUS LIBERALS ARE AS GENEROUS AS RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES. AMONG THE STINGIEST OF THE STINGY ARE SECULAR CONSERVATIVES."

That's a direct quote from the article Susan.

Read it sloooooowly Susan.

Take your time.

Take a nap.

Read it again.

Take another nap.

Read it again.

Use a dictionary if you have to.

Take another nap.

Read it one last time.

........

Then get back with me.

*sigh*

(walks away shaking head in utter disbelief........) "

God Is wrote on Dec 31, 2008 3:40 PM:

" Father Bob says "...you have no arguments, no defense, no facts..."

Let us just flip this around. Father Bob. Where is your evidence that God does not exist? I want hard, substantiative evidence, and not personal convictions. Show me. You threw the gauntlet on the table. Proof lies with the accuser. And take care. If I cannot put God on the table, that isn't proof that God doesn't exist. It is just proof that his is not on the table.

You accuse us of having nothing, but you are standing in the same position. You have nothing more to go on than your own personal feelings. Yet you put us down because you see us the same way. Are we looking at one more example of the so called intellectually elite?

I have never seen a molecule of oxygen. Neither have I seen a wave of light nor a heat stream. But I know that they are there because I feel their presence. Their existances have a direct effect on my life. Their absence effects me as well.

A scientist could show me data and tell me that the data is a molecule of oxygen, but it isn't. You cannot see a molecule. What he will show me is a representation derived from studying the effect that oxygen molecules have on other things. But I accept his data because it is the only possible explanation for the things that I have sensed myself. His concepts just seem to fit.

I have not seen God with my own eyes (that I am aware of) nor heard him with my own ears. But I see organization where others see only accident. I see purpose where others see only chaos. I sense his presence because of the effect he has on myself and others. I sense him. He has an effect on my life. He speaks to my soul. He is the only possible explanation for what I have been feeling.

And I have more than the Easter Bunny. I have hope. I have faith. I am at peace. And I am no longer afraid of what lies in the dark. I have the understanding that I exist for a reason, and the comfort of knowing I have someplace nice to go to when that reason is completed. I am years from being ready to die, but I do not fear death. I have traveled far, explored many other concepts, studied many other words, and tried out many other ways to believe only to return to where I began. Finally content.

I cannot provide you with physical proof. And you cannot provide me with physical proof. This has always been a personal journey. In order to complete it, you must stop trying to feel with your mind. You must pay attention to your soul. "

father bob wrote on Dec 31, 2008 4:22 PM:

" God Is wrote on Dec 31, 2008 3:40 PM:
In order to complete it, you must stop trying to feel with your mind. You must pay attention to your soul. """"

that's right, and it has nothing to do with a god, but what's inside you....and what you choose to do with it. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 31, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Let's go over this AGAIN.

I clearly stated:

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 29, 2008 9:07 PM:

"The main reason I posted this article on this thread was NOT the charitable disparity between political parties;

but rather religious versus secular."

++++++++

That point was made in the article. I even HIGHLIGHTED IT:

From the NYT's article:

-IT'S TRUE THAT RELIGION IS THE ESSENTIAL REASON CONSERVATIVES GIVE MORE, AND RELIGIOUS LIBERALS ARE AS GENEROUS AS RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES. AMONG THE STINGIEST OF THE STINGY ARE SECULAR CONSERVATIVES. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Dec 31, 2008 5:02 PM:

" (shemphreys- What you have against me God Is is that I speak honestly, sincerely, directly, and that I can't be intimidated.)

The fact that you have to state (during a debate) that you can't be intimidated; clearly demonstrates that you ARE, in fact, intimidated Susan.

*sigh*

(continues to shake head) "

Myopinion wrote on Dec 31, 2008 5:08 PM:

" Who cares what a small-minded, self-important woman thinks anyway? She is just one of six billion people on this earth. If she wants to continue to spout her antichrist mumbo-jumbo, let her. Those who are true christians will continue to be true christians, knowing that the bible foretells of people like this one.

The only opinion we should be concerned with is that of our Almighty Creator, and like his son, Jesus, we should just turn the other way and let her ramble on.

It just doesn't really matter what she thinks. It's sad, really, that one like this one thinks she is so worldly, so educated, when she really comes off as a self-righteous snob.

Remember, her own beliefs cannot be proven as facts, (her words), so let her drone on. I certainly intend to focus my efforts on people who really want to know the truth about God's word, and she definitely isn't one of them. "

Harry Potter wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:21 PM:

" Don't you all feel the love and Christianity flowing from the words put on here by Vanatta and BlueDogDemocrat.

I'll bet those two win a lot of hearts and minds with their words of Christian love and understanding.

These two, without realising it, probably do more harm to Christianity than all of the so called atheists they like to browbeat. "

STINKY wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:07 PM:

" God Is: How can someone provide "physical proof" of something that doesn't exist? I just don't understand. Please clarify this matter for me. "

STINKY wrote on Dec 31, 2008 9:19 PM:

" God Is: I would guess that since God does exist, you can provide physical evidence, but you just haven't at this time. "

VTucker wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:45 PM:

" To this site's liberals and conservatives; Christians, gnostics, JW's, and pagans; and agnostics, too--HAPPY NEW YEAR. If I missed you, Happy New Year to you, too--hope that everyone has a blessed and prosperous 2009. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 1, 2009 7:37 AM:

" God Is you are right with your last sentence "this is a personal journey". What you believe matters ONLY to you and should not in any way be affected because I and Father Bob and a whole host of others do not believe what you believe. I have said before if you want to try to PROVE that God exists you won't be able to do it. I don't have to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. It would be up to YOU to prove that something that doesn't exist does. BUT that is totally irrelevant because Gods existence is PERSONAL, either YOU believe or YOU don't believe, it matters only to you, it is no ones business but YOUR OWN business. Which gets us back to the point of this letter, Actions are more important than beliefs, because ACTIONS, how you treat your fellow man, affect ALL of us, and are OUR business. "

God Is wrote on Jan 1, 2009 8:30 AM:

" Actually, Shumphries, I told you directly what I have "against" you. If you choose to continue deluding yourself that I and others actually meant something else, there isn't much that we can do about it. You have built up this entire fantasy based upon your personal concept of how good you are and how others fail the mark, a concept based upon nothing but your own imagination and self rationalizations. You twist other peoples words and beliefs, then blame them for the your updated versions. The very least you could do is to be respectful enough to leave my words as I have stated them. You claim to know how be respectful.

So let me be direct once again. No Shumpries, I am not against you because of your honesty because I don't find you to be honest. You have built a twisty web of deceit that you have caught yourself up in. And since I have no interest in intimidating you, the fact that you believe that you cannot be intimidated is immaterial to me. And that salvation that you talk about is available to all, but not without strings. You can rationalize it otherwise all that you want, but it won't change anything. Salvation is there and you can have it, but it comes with obligations. We can accept freely, or not accept it just as freely. But one must also accept the responsibility that comes along with it. No one gets a free ride. They only get a free choice.

Now, about the not being against all Christians. I have copied the comments. You do not say "some" Christians are guilty, you say Christians are guilty. You are attempting to rewrite your own comments once again to continue your delusion of being a martyr for the "truth". Your rewrites won't work. We saw the originals. We aren't buying it. You may not wish to be a hypocrite, but none the less you are.

And I prefer not to remain blind to the "evil" being put forth in the name of enlightenment, delusions of honesty,
and sensations of intellectual superiority. And I am not afraid to stand up to them. You see, I don't intimidate very well either. I have had to stand up to much worse than you. Compared to others, you are easy. Just one more hold out trying to avoid judgement by rationalizing it away.

You have my sympathy. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:04 AM:

" Tell me Susan,

Are good Atheists capable of evil? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:18 AM:

" Don't you all feel the love flowing towards Christians from Susan Humphreys and Harry Potter?

I'll bet those two promote a lot of good in the world with their words of acceptance, and their intentional advancement of Christian bashing, along with their moral indifference and complete silence on Atheist atrocities throughout history.

These two, without caring about it, probably do more harm to humanity than all of the so called Christians they hypocritically like to browbeat. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:20 AM:

" (Susan wrote - "I don't have to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist.")

Uhm....Susan.

You CAN'T prove that something doesn't exist.

Even if you wanted to.

One cannot prove a negative.

Therefore, YOUR position, is one completely and entirely built upon a supremely illogical and irrational "BELIEF".

ROFL

+++++++

"Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

-G.K.Chesterton "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:02 PM:

" Sorry BDD, the fact that I keep writing and writing and writing, I am like the Energizer Bunny proves that I can't be intimidated. The fact that I mention it is to point out that you don't argue facts your only tactic is intimidation and bullying. Rather juvenile. "

Rotty wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:05 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Dec 31, 2008 2:34 PM:

"I speak honestly, sincerely, directly, and that I can't be intimidated."

Total BS.

"I have never said that ALL Christians are bad nor do I attack Christianity."

More BS, as usual.

"I'd rather be a hypocrite or blind to "evil" and too afraid to speak out against it."

Now that is truely befitting of our beloved Soapbox Shemp.
LOL!

Now, as for her butchering job of the English language, with her being a published author & all.... "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:06 PM:

" Sorry God Is, I have said many times that I respect Vicky Tucker, or do you consider her not to be a "real" Christian because she respects ALL people and their religion or lack thereof? Remember one of those pesky little Commandments says "thou shalt not bear false witness". Good advice, try following it. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:09 PM:

" I don't rationalize God Is, I accept and respect the world on its terms. I have no need to pretend it is anything other than what it is. I am not afraid of "Divine Wrath" because I KNOW a loving God loves ALL his creatures, the Bible tells me so. "

arrogant wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:41 PM:

" Why do you christians insist on bashing shumphreys and me, just because we are bashing you evil christians? shrumphreys and I think that all of you christians are able to do good if you just stop being evil christians. Why can't you christians stop believing like christians and start believing like shumphreys and me? Why don't you christians stop believing that your jesus christ is the only way, and instead start believing that there are many ways. You know, the way christ said? Wait. christ did say that didn't he? Oh well, that doesn't matter. Let's just say he did. What shumphreys and I are saying, is that you christians need to except our contradictory beliefs about your evil christian religion, and in return, shumphreys and I will believe our contradictory beliefs about your evil christian religion.

If you evil christians will just start accepting our beliefs, then in return, shumphreys and I will continue to bash your beliefs. Why can't we all just see things the way shumphreys and I see things? After all, we are "enlightened"! Don't believe us? Just ask us! We'll tell you! How many bleeping times do shumphreys and I have to point out the flaws of you evil christians until you realize that shumphreys and I are not evil and have no flaws?

Look, you biblebeating bunhead wearing ape descending fools, shumphreys and I know that we are all gods and that there are no gods. gods are in everything. gods are in nothing. All that matters is how we treat each other. So STOP treating shumphreys and me bad, as we treat you filthy evil closeminded warmongering christians bad! And start opening your closed minds up to our closeminded views!

Can't we all just get along? We can if you evil hateful christians start seeing things the way shumphreys and I see things!

shumphreys and I are the many truths, the many ways, and the many lives. There are many truths.

Many truths, of course, EXCEPT for the evil christian truths, ways, and life.

Thank you, and may closedminded nothingness not bless your closed evil minds. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 1, 2009 12:59 PM:

" If there is no God there is no good or evil so how do you tell a good atheist from a bad atheist? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 1, 2009 1:07 PM:

" Did you hear about the atheist with dyslexia? He didn't think there was a dog. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:46 PM:

" (Susan Humphreys wrote- "Sorry God Is, I have said many times that I respect Vicky Tucker")

Well of course you do Susan.

That's because YOU ARE PROBABLY POSTING UNDER THE NAME VTUCKER.

You're not fooling anyone SuzieQ

LMAO!

Oh and speaking of your veracity, Susan, tell everyone in here how you're related to two former Presidents.

LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:49 PM:

" Arrogant

LMAO! "

God Is wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:50 PM:

" Nice little side step there, Shumphries. It almost worked. But then, I know that I never said anything personal about VTucker, and I refuse to be tricked into making statements that I do not believe. And as for what I said about you, well, for it to be considered "false witness", it has to start off being false.

And to claim to accept and respect the world on its terms is another rationalization. Christians are a part of that world, and you don't respect them at all (except for your little token example.)

And let me see if I am understanding this. This loving God whose existance you deny loves you because you read about it in a book written about a God you say doesn't exist. Let's just forget about understanding this. That would take a degree in psychology.

Better luck next time. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 4:51 PM:

" (Jon Vanatta - "Did you hear about the atheist with dyslexia? He didn't think there was a dog.")

Ping!

That's a keeper!

LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 5:00 PM:

" Shemphreys wrote - " the fact that I keep writing and writing and writing, I am like the Energizer Bunny proves that I can't be intimidated."

a.....no....it proves that you are in love with your own words.

nonsensical as they are....

(Shemphreys wrote - " your only tactic is intimidation and bullying. Rather juvenile.")

Oh! So you DO find me intimidating!

Well thank you SuzieQ. "

God Is wrote on Jan 1, 2009 5:19 PM:

" For Stinky. Please refer to my posting on Dec. 31 at 3:40 p.m. If you had read the final paragraph, you would not have written your request.

Shumphries and her cohorts say that Christians have no facts, only their beliefs to back them up. My intent was to point out that they only have the same back up for themselves. Yet they put us down for our beliefs, and glorify themselves for their own. How sad. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:49 PM:

" No, Susan was not posting under the name of VTucker. However, VTucker is now posting under this name.

To arrogant: Do you remember these words, from a comment you wrote on August 14 at 10:53 a.m.?

"Today, I feel compelled to drop my attacks, and to turn inward as I recognize my hypocritical actions.

Today, Christ has touched me in a very profound way. And he made me aware what my conversations with you have revealed about myself. My own hypocrisies and my own doubts have weakened me, torn me down, humbled me, and today- made me whole again.

I want to apologize for my cynical attacks and unfair criticisms. I am truly sorry. You have brought me closer to Christ and you have allowed me to see Christ in all His forgiveness and mercy. And I have felt His unconditional love this day in a most profound way.

I thank you, Susan. And I pray the Lord will bless and keep you, as He draws you closer. And I don't say those words with any condescension or judgements. I mean them most sincere.

God bless you Susan."

Careful with those words, arrogant. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:52 PM:

" Hey STINKY, take a look out you window and in your mirror, now do you really think all that evolved from stinky moss. And if you do where did the moss come from? You see God has provided us with the evidence and you might also check the night sky. He also made the stars. "

Rotty wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:56 PM:

" If this is more or less just a war of words, & I see no name being mentioned, why would Susie try & inject Mrs./Ms. Tucker's name into the middle of it all?

More of Susie's guise of goodness, fairness, & togetherness ploy, or is she still not being intimidated?
LOL!

Good ole Shemphreys.... you should go get a refund.... that would be "sensical".
LMAO! "

Rotty wrote on Jan 1, 2009 6:59 PM:

" LOL @ arrogant!

dog....
LOL @ Jon!

Excellant!
LOL! "

God Is wrote on Jan 1, 2009 7:10 PM:

" Dec. 29 4:07 p.m.

"Sometimes the wisest course of action is the most difficult and courageous and it calls for saying no to hate,"

Susan. That is what we have been doing. We are telling you no. "

arrogant wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:12 PM:

" Yes yes. A thousand times yes!
Shumphreys and I remember those words from August 14 at 10:53 a.m.

Behold I am ARROGANT! christ did indeed touch me in a profound way, but shumphreys taught me that it was all but an illusion! Behold we are ENLIGHTENED! Behold shumphreys and I are ARROGANT!
shumphreys and I would like to thank you crowwoman. You have reminded all of these silly willy christians that faith is but a fleeting shadow that is by the ENLIGHTENMENT!

Now let all of you evil christians cease your attacks on shumphreys christian attacks. You must all stop writing and writing and writing so shumphreys can keep writing and writing and writing. You must all start listening as shumphreys continues writing. shumphreys and I have NOTHING to feel hypocritical about. Nothing to feel guilty about. Nothing to be judged about. Therefore shrumphreys and I will judge who is hypocritical and who is guilty! We are the teachers. We have nothing to learn!

god isn't. christ wasn't. Shumpreys and I can't help it. We are ARROGANT! "

Rotty wrote on Jan 1, 2009 9:54 PM:

" OH NO!
Another file keeper!
LOL!

I was wondering who would bring that up first.
LOL! "

Brother Rotty wrote on Jan 1, 2009 10:01 PM:

" Let us now bow our heads.

Let us pray....

The Dog is a God!

Donations will be accepted at the door.
LOL! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:13 PM:

" My goodness.

It's been a busy evening in here.

First of all, VTucker, huh?

I was only half serious when I mentioned that you were probably Susan Humphreys, but.......you changed your name to CrowWoman....why?

And then you go back through the archives and dig up a comment in defense of Susan from last August......why?

LOL

So Susan really IS VTucker?

And now you're CrowWoman? HAHAHA

CrowWoman? LOL! CAW CAW CAW! HAHAHA!

Oh Susan. How you DO go on dear.

This is better than cable! ROFLMAO! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:16 PM:

" Susan dear, in all seriousness, are you on any kind of medications? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 1, 2009 11:51 PM:

" Susan, I just wanted to be sure you would not miss this so posing it here also because it is so important.
I just done a little research on your family tree the Harrisons. So what are you the black sheep of the family or what? Since you know so much more about Washington than I do I cant believe you wouldnt have known how Christian all the Harrisons were and how they embraced the Christian values into their political lives and actions. Seems they were like nearly all of the founding fathers in their dedication to Jesus Christ.

Benjamin Harrison
a Signer of the Declaration of Independence
an Episcopalian

President William Henry Harrison
9th president
William Henry Harrison understood the necessity of the Christian religion as the foundational base of a free society. Unlike future leaders who would use the argument of separation of the church and state as a means to muzzle the Christian influence, he fully realized that the First Amendment was a restriction on the government and not on the individual's right to believe and practice his Christian beliefs.
He stated: I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time. From The American Christian History Page

Benjamin Harrison, 23 president
Presbyterian, church elder taught Sunday School
Quotations:
"I hope you will renew your Christian faith and duties. It is a great comfort to trust God -- even if His providence is unfavorable. Prayer steadies one when he is walking in slippery places -- even if things asked for are not given." -- letter to Russell Harrison, 8 August 1887 "

God Is wrote on Jan 2, 2009 4:23 AM:

" VTucker wrote on Dec. 29 9:52 a.m.

"Believe me, people would have a much more positive view of the world if Christians concerned themselves with expressing love and concern for others rather than expressing defensiveness, derisiveness, and fear, not to mention doctrinal nit-picking."

Christians do good things daily. Unfortunately most of these things are not considered newsworthy in a world where people are more interested in reading about violent acts, violent accidents, and the shenanigans of the latest public figures. As a rule, more positive stories never make it to the paper except in the guise of a public service type announcement: please note that the prayer shawl article was an advertisement about the existance of those shawls and how to get them. This is important information about a worthwhile project, but there were no stories about the Christians who go to hospitals to pray for the sick and injured directly, sit with the families, and help to take care of things at home while the families are otherwise occupied. Little is said about the money spent to provide medical assistance, access to education, and the basic necessities of life. Practically nothing is heard about those who donate their time to food kitchens, food pantrys, and crisis centers. There are no articles, because these types of articles do not sell papers or get the public to watch the news program. And when they do hear of these things, they accuse Christians of using these means to further their propaganda. The idea that most Christians are simply trying to do something to help seems foreign. As the old saying goes "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

People would rather read about those identifying themselves as Christian who blow up abortion clinics, assault homosexuals, and scream about hellfire and damnation. They want the stories about the very public ministers with huge cathedrals and t.v. programs who constantly press for money and then live lavish and immoral lifestyles on the donations. So they get what they want, then use these few to judge the faith and actions of the many.

Negativity sells papers. Stories about the bad apples sell papers. This isn't the media's sole responsibility. It is also the public's. A few years back one newspaper decided to become "The Good News" paper, printing only the positive things happening in the world. They couldn't sell enough copies to stay afloat. People were just not interested. Evidence for this exists on this web site. Penny Weaver often publishes very sweet and positive stories based upon her view of the world and personal experiences. She is usually derrided by those who devalue her work for being so positive. They want her to stop writing these stories, and focus solely on negative things. They can become quite ugly about it.

So we are flooded with such negativity on a daily basis to the point where those who really do not know the people that they are bashing use only the restricted information that makes it into the public media. To suggest that it is the Christian way to overlook such a blatant display of misinformation is an error. Other people who are also seeking answers read these items. They deserve to hear the entire story, not just that of a bigoted few. We must feel compassion for these misinformed few. We must treat them with caring and understanding, but we cannot remain silent about the misinformation. This would be nothing more than providing validation for the lies.

As for the doctrinal nit-picking, that is present in these postings. But most of it is being done by those picking apart Christian writings, rearranging the words, providing their own interpretations (which by itself is fine), then spewing it back out again as an attack against those Christians. Remaining silent is usually intrepreted by these individuals as an admission of guilt rather than the more Christian act of just letting them ramble on about something they truly have little understanding of. These same people will then say that any attempt on our part to provide another view of their ramblings is proof that we must not be Christian since Christians must turn the other cheek and allow their chain of public misinformation to continue. They live to ridicule, but object when they are ridiculed. They are the playground bullys who push around the little kid, but run home crying no fair when the little kid proves to be able to defend himself. They say mean things and call it a debate, then scream "bad Christian" when debated with.

Remain silent? I don't think so! No one should remain silent in the face of such an injustice. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:53 AM:

" You need to quick making assumptions and jumping to conclusions God Is, I never acused you of bashing Vicky. So now you consider her a "token" Christian? I pointed her out because she is the ONLY moderate Christian that regularly posts on this site, the only one who has the courage of her convistions to speak out. AND that is admirable, even of you. The problem is that you consider any difference of opinion as an ATTACK on YOU. AND that is part of the point of this letter. I have told you before if you want to argue about TRUTH, what is REAL and what isn't, I will argue with you. If you choose to use the Bible as proof of your TRUTH I will use the Bible to point out OTHER TRUTHS. If you want to call me names, denigrate my character feel free to do so. It doesn't hurt me, intimidate me, or slow me down. BUT it does HURT you and your "Holy" cause. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:58 AM:

" Now to restate my position which I have made from the beginning, "I do not care what religion YOU follow or whether YOU follow any." I do CARE how you treat your fellow man, ALL of them because that effects ME directly, it makes the World I want to live in a world of hate and war, not a World of peace, prosperity and compassion. Which by the way is just what "The Kingdom of God" will look like, whether it is on this earth or some heavenly paradise (out there, somewhere). AND that comes straight from the Bible, and The Upanishads, and Siddhartha, and the Tao teh Ching, and................................ "

God Is wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:08 AM:

" Once again being disrespectful enough to change my words then try to hurl them at me. It didn't work.

I did not call VTucker a token christian. I said she was your token example. There is a difference. Use your intellect, now.

And once again an indirect insult for Christians and myself.

"I do care about how you treat your fellow man, all of them because that effects me directly, it makes the World I want to live in a world of hate and war, not a world of peace, prosperity, and compassion."

Mighty big assumption there, missy, considering that the only thing that you know about me is that I take you on in a debate and you don't like that. For all that you know I might be the latest serial killer, or maybe I organize helpers for AIDs shut-ins. It could be that I arrange for abortion doctors to be exterminated, or that I carry medecines across borders to needy third world countries. You don't know anything except that I am a Christian and I dared to disagree with you. Evidently that was enough for you to conclude that my effect, along with that of my fellow Christians, on my fellow man is that of hate and war. You are such a hoot! The entertainment value alone was worth the price of admission.

Dear old hypocritical Susan. You only pointed out VTucker because she was the only one identified as a Christian who chose to back you up. Of course, I am not 100 per cent convinced that all that talk about split personalities is all wind, but for the moment I choose to accept the concept of separate individuals. VTucker may not have fully realized what she was aligning herself with. You just called her a dispenser of hate and war as well. After all, she is a Christian. Or does your hate list make room for individual exceptions. I'll bet it is a short list, and that they all agreed with you. We can divide Christians into two categories: those that hate and make war, and those that agree with Susan.

I told you you were easy. Now I have things to do. The war may fall apart if I don't get back and keep it going. (For those too intellectual to understand, that was a joke.) After all I have to hate and make war since I think Susan is full of hot air. Weren't those the two categories? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Well Susan, let me restate MY position, which I have made from the beginning:

Why do you keep ignoring the evil that Atheism has caused?

You keep claiming that it's all about personal actions but then in the same breath you collectively bash religion as a whole. And you specifically go out of your way to attack Christians.

WHERE IS YOUR CRITICISM OF ALL THE ATHEIST ATROCITIES THAT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED THROUGHOUT HISTORY?

YOUR HYPOCRISY IS BLATANT GIVEN THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF EVIL THAT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY ATHEISTS WHEN COMPARED TO ALL THE SO-CALLED RELIGIOUS EVIL. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS COMPARED TO ALL THE "CHRISTIAN EVIL".

So why don't you just drop your self-righteous charade. You're simply using a phony altruistic face to hide your egoistic hatred of Christianity.

Oh but wait. You DO like Christianity as long as it DOESN'T profess that Christ is the only truth.

So in other words, you just "LOVE" Christians as long as they don't believe in the actual precepts that Christ stated.

So in the hate filled anti-Christian rhetoric of Susan Humphreys, we can ALL get along as long as Christians stop believing as Christians and we all ignore the evil perpetrated by Atheism.

If you're really sincere about peace and harmony in this world, Susan, then admit that Atheism has had it's evil downfall (just as we Christians have admitted that evil has been committed in the name of Christ), and stop attacking Christian beliefs.

You just like to hide behind a specious theme of universal acceptance of all belief systems as you intentionally chastise religion as a whole, while at the same time conveniently ignoring (and thus exonerating) all the inhumanity spawned from Atheistic beliefs. "

Rotty wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:17 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jan 2, 2009 8:58 AM:

"Now to restate my position which I have made from the beginning, "I do not care what religion YOU follow or whether YOU follow any." I do CARE how you treat your fellow man, ALL of them because that effects ME directly, it makes the World I want to live in a world of hate and war, not a World of peace, prosperity and compassion.

.......

This same statement can be made by most everyone on the planet, with the exception of those with the likes of Shumphreys subterfuge. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:28 PM:

" The upshot of your position is this, Susan Humphreys:

You're every bit as self-righteous, judgmental, egotistical, hate-filled, holier-than-thou and pretentious, as the worst Bible-beating Fundamentalist bigot that has ever taken to the pulpit.

But you're actually worse than that Susan. Because you choose to hide behind a specious theme of universal acceptance of all belief systems as you intentionally chastise Christians, while at the same time conveniently ignoring (and thus exonerating) all the inhumanity that has spawned from Atheistic beliefs.

You are the worst kind of hypocrite, Susan. You're a hate-filled religious hypocrite who hates hate-filled religious hypocrisy. You're essentially the hypocrite's hypocrite. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 2, 2009 1:03 PM:

" Mr. Vanatta I don't hold their religious beliefs against them any more than I hold yours against you. There actions speak louder than their religious beliefs. Personally I think they would be pleased with me, I know God is. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 2, 2009 1:18 PM:

" Yes, many Christians donate money and time, sometimes to the point of sacrifice, to make the world a better place. I never denied that; in fact, more than once, I have acknowledged it.

HOWEVER--there are reasons (other than the media focusing on negativity) that Christianity is viewed negatively. The Barna group found that a huge majority (91%) of non-Christians age 16 to 29 said Christianity had an anti-gay image. 87% said Christianity was judgmental and 85% said it was hypocritical.

Such views were held by smaller percentages of the active churchgoers, but the faith still did not fare well: 80% agreed with the anti-gay label, 52% said Christianity is judgmental, and 47% declared it hypocritical.

These perceptions are created not by media negativity, but by what people experience in their own lives. Perhaps the most outstanding example of hypocrisy, which I've mentioned time and again, is how most Christians treat homosexuality. It is viewed not only as a sin, but as one that must be repented from before one can even become a Christian.

Contrast this with the current Christian (even conservative Christian) take on divorce. Barna's research has shown that the likelihood of married adults getting divorced is identical among born again Christians and those who are not born again. Even allowing for the fact that born again Christians are less likely to cohabit prior to marriage, the statistics are very similar.

Jesus clearly taught that divorce is a sin, unless adultery is involved. Additionally, as Matthew 5:32 indicates, "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Interestingly, a majority of both Protestants (58%) and Catholics(69%) disagreed that divorce without adultery involved is a sin. 52% of the "born-again" group did not believe that divorce without adultery involved was a sin.

So, statistics confirm the hypocrisy that many of us have witnessed. Divorced Christians claim God's forgiveness and grace day after day while denying that same grace to the homosexual. Christians who remarry rationalize that Jesus didn't REALLY mean what he said, or that the verse should be interpreted in light of the culture. Technically, however, remarried Christians are living in sin--no different from the homosexual couple they would condemn.

God Is, your defensiveness is a curious phenomenon. God doesn't need you or anyone else to defend His kingdom. Maybe He does need for us as Christians to acknowledge that our hypocrisy has distracted people from the good that we do. Maybe we need to clean up our own houses before we barge into and meddle around in those of others.

Regarding my example, maybe we as Christians need to focus on strengthening and healing our own marriages. Everyone knows the social cost of divorce (especially on women and children), after all. Once Christians are seen as following the rules we try to set for others, who knows? Maybe other people would see us and our God in a different light. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 2, 2009 1:45 PM:

" Once again BDD you have demonstrated the severity of the sickness of your soul. Vicky has chosen to post under another name, Crow Woman. Do you have any idea what this name might be to her? Perhaps she is a Crow woman, a female member of the Crow Indian nation. Perhaps she earned the name in a spiritual quest, many American Indian tribes encourage their children to pursue such quests and find their animal spiritual guide. Is any of this something to make fun of? Since none of us KNOW why she has made the change we should show respect to her name, whatever name she chooses to post under. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 2, 2009 1:52 PM:

" God Is ALL people do good works daily that go unreported, unacknowledged, and unappreciated. Good Works are not restricted to Christians. Everytime I hold a door open for some little old man, or when I reach for something on a high grocery shelf for some littler person, when they thank me do I need to say, by the way I am not a Christian I just want to make sure you know that. When I return my shopping cart to the cart corral do I need to shout, look everyone I am a non-Christian and I am returning my cart to the corral. You know there is something in the Bible about all of this, can't remember where but it is something about sounding drums and trumpets on your way to the temple to make an offering. There is another passage, can't remember where that talks about not praying in public but in privacy. Do we only do GOOD deeds if they are recognized and credited to our group? I think not. We do what is good and don't worry about who or what group gets the credit because we know what we did and God if he is ALL knowing also knows who did what and for what reasons. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 2, 2009 2:18 PM:

" You almost guessed it, Susan, although my Native American ancestry is rather distant. (My great-grandfather was half-Indian.) Still, the name is an acknowledgement of who I am and what I have long been in that context.

As for people respecting it or not, that is of no consequence.

Ah, now I get to feel guilty about the shopping carts....Well, I NEARLY always return them to the proper spot! "

God Is wrote on Jan 2, 2009 4:24 PM:

" VTucker, the only requirement to becoming a Christian is to believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. You have confused being Christian with being a member of a human congregation. Show me a church banning homosexuals, and I will show you five more with homosexual ministers, deacons, and youth leaders. There are also churches where you have to hug a rattlesnake, never cut your hair, always wear dresses, and get married when you are seventeen. Humans can't quite seen to agree on the details.

And you are right. God does not need my defense. I was defending my right and the right of others to be Christian. Plus I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who accuse me and others for wrongs even though the only thing they know about each of us is that we are Christian. Since those many of us who strive to lead a good useful life seem to be invisible to those seeking to justify their bigotry, then setting a good example is pretty much useless isn't it. The time has come for use to stand at the door of dissenters and wayward Christians alike and say "Knock-Knock. We are here."

I remember that 16 to 29 year age myself. That was the period when I was studying all of those writings that Shumphries seems to put so much stock in. I believed my parents were idiots and that Christianity was just old fashioned mumbo jumbo. So I am not surprised about those percentages. That is what young people do. They begin to question, look for new ideas, stretch their wings, and begin to fly. Show me lower percentages than that, and I will believe that they were lying. Especially when those young people were innundated daily with the kind of drivel that this posting exhudes. It all comes down to the media and what they are hearing.

But I have work to do and must run now. I will probably have more to say much later. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 2, 2009 6:06 PM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:28 PM:

" The upshot of your position is this, Susan Humphreys:

You're every bit as self-righteous, judgmental, egotistical, hate-filled, holier-than-thou and pretentious, as the worst Bible-beating Fundamentalist bigot that has ever taken to the pulpit.

But you're actually worse than that Susan. Because you choose to hide behind a specious theme of universal acceptance of all belief systems as you intentionally chastise Christians, while at the same time conveniently ignoring (and thus exonerating) all the inhumanity that has spawned from Atheistic beliefs.

You are the worst kind of hypocrite, Susan. You're a hate-filled religious hypocrite who hates hate-filled religious hypocrisy. You're essentially the hypocrite's hypocrite. "

-----------

And this from one who professes to be a believer in the tenets of Jesus Christ. Oh Yeah, Blueboy you sure have a right to call any one a hypocrite. I still maintain that people like you and Vanutty run more people away from Christianity and any atheist ever could with your blathering and hateful ignorant rantings. "

Rotty wrote on Jan 2, 2009 6:36 PM:

" She also could have started getting visits, from Father whats-his-name, who was visiting you, since supporting some of your statements, Hypocrite Hemp.

.......

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 2, 2009 12:28 PM:

"The upshot of your position is this, Susan Humphreys:

You're every bit as self-righteous, judgmental, egotistical, hate-filled, holier-than-thou and pretentious, as the worst Bible-beating Fundamentalist bigot that has ever taken to the pulpit.

But you're actually worse than that Susan. Because you choose to hide behind a specious theme of universal acceptance of all belief systems as you intentionally chastise Christians, while at the same time conveniently ignoring (and thus exonerating) all the inhumanity that has spawned from Atheistic beliefs.

You are the worst kind of hypocrite, Susan. You're a hate-filled religious hypocrite who hates hate-filled religious hypocrisy. You're essentially the hypocrite's hypocrite."

.......

BINGO - right on target!
A definite keeper, excellant post! "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 2, 2009 10:11 PM:

" The time has come for use to stand at the door of dissenters and wayward Christians alike and say "Knock-Knock. We are here."

Really, God Is? Where in the Bible does it say we're supposed to do that?

Also, "This is not a passing fad wherein young people will become 'more Christian' as they grow up," the Barna report states. "While Christianity remains the typical experience and most common faith in America, a fundamental recalibration is occurring within the spiritual allegiance of America's upcoming generations."

Reading Barna's comments, one analyst states, "There's a surprisingly unified sense between young adults, both inside and outside the faith, that the divisive, judgmental authoritarianism that's dominated Evangelical Christianity for the past 30 years has run its course. Furthermore: the "insiders" (as Barna terms Christians) see the same issues and agree with many of the criticisms as those on the outside -- and are openly talking about taking their theology in some new directions. There's an emerging sense that it's time to let go of the harsh legalism that's defined American Protestantism for the past three decades, and return to something more like the Social Gospel that demanded more of Christians than merely passing judgment on the details of other people's lives."

Praise the Lord. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:15 PM:

" Do me a favor Harry,

Tell me what I said about Susan's hypocrisy that isn't true?

Here's the distinction Harry.

Unlike Susan, I never professed to be "enlightened", or to be the self-righteous bearer of some great pretentious knowledge, or to be highly qualified to pass judgment on an entire belief system of others.

I'm simply responding to her attacks on Christianity, especially in light of the horrendous history of Atheism.

But most importantly Harry; unlike Susan, I d@mn well KNOW I'm a hypocrite.

You see Harry, the vast majority of the human race is, in fact, hypocritical to one degree or another.

Painful though it may be, most of us can realize that fact. Christ demands that we admit that fact. But when it comes to herself, Susan won't even acknowledge that fact.

But all that aside Harry: why should Christians have to sit back and take this kind of abuse from Atheist?

Are Christians somehow forbidden to defend the faith? Is Christianity not worth defending in your opinion, Harry?

Is that a job reserved only for the Saints and thus isolated from the sinners? Because last time I looked around this vast existence, I found that the entire human race was made up of sinners.

So Harry, consider me to be a self-confessed hypocritical sinner completely unworthy of the title "Christian", and who insists on defending Christianity in spite of this shortcoming.

+++++++

In G.K.Chestertons day, the London Times asked this question: Whats wrong with the world?

His answer was simply:

"Dear Editor: Whats wrong with the world? I am. Faithfully yours, G.K. Chesterton." "

The Question wrote on Jan 3, 2009 6:02 AM:

" As David Michael Green observed, a society that assuages its existential fears through the rigid and tenacious adherence to ludicrous fairy tales will also be one that is fundamentally ripe for other such nonsense stories in the political sphere, and one that lacks the mental infrastructure, developed and sustained by habitual use, for rational decision-making. "

God Is wrote on Jan 3, 2009 7:04 AM:

" Good Morning, all. My work is done for the time being, and I thought that I would scratch out a few thoughts before trying to get some sleep.

My great-grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee. Any suggestion on my part that my connection ties me in to such a wonderful heritage is usually met with derision by other full blooded members of her tribe. It also negates the fact that I am also descended from several western European countries, one gentleman who I believe hailed from the northern coast of Africa, quite possibly an African American, and others whose cultural identities have been lost with time. I feel it is best for me to not isolate myself to only one small part of my heritage. There are thousands of us around here. I like to refer to us as the Heinz 57 variety Americans. Our ancestors were on the boats, and also standing on the shores staring out towards the sea saying "Darn. There goes the neighborhood!"

For someone who identifies herself as a Christian, you seem to spend quite a bit of time collecting reasons about why "Christians" are bad. I think that I just slipped two more notches toward the split personality theory mentioned before. Mostly because it is not human nature to associate oneself with those that they appear to find so distasteful. Then again, maybe you are just the kid who pals around with the bully so the bully won't turn around and begin beating up on you.

In closing, allow me to leave you with one final "truth". In all the postings following all the letters submitted by Shumphries since she began her anti-Christian campaign I have noticed one thing. With very rare exceptions from the verbally abusive few, I have not read attacks on the Hindi, the Taoists, or other of the world's religions. The focus of the debate has always been one of facing down the hypocrisy, bigotry, and outright hate mongering of one individual. An individual who chose to make a public display of her hypocrisy, bigotry, and hatred. An individual who tries to hide these traits under the guise of goodness and light, and who wears the trappings of the martyrs to that disguise when people fail to be fooled by it. An individual who runs home crying "no fair" when those that she bullies prove to be capable of defending themselves. An individual who then says that they are bad because they aren't supposed to be defending themselves at all.

And just think. In three weeks we can start all over again. Like I said, the entertainment value is worth the price of admission. I am looking forward to taking apart the next letter.

Good Night to all. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 3, 2009 9:48 AM:

" There is one problem with your thinking er reasoning God Is. This letter is not an attack on Christians or Christianity. AND the fact that many times I have said I have nothing against Christians or Christianity just the ABUSE of the religion to promote fear and hate of the "other", which is actually un-Christian. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 3, 2009 11:38 AM:

" So Harry, consider me to be a self-confessed hypocritical sinner completely unworthy of the title "Christian", and who insists on defending Christianity in spite of this shortcoming.

It might be just a tad late for humility on your part, Doh......er.....uh..... I'll play along, BlueDogDemocrat. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 3, 2009 11:47 AM:

" I am looking forward to taking apart the next letter.

Huh?

It appears that you're about as delusional as Blueboy and Vanutty.

For the most part, Susan is having you clowns for lunch, and you don't even see it.

But considering that at least two of you think the earth is only 6000 years old (or is it all three of you)...well... I'm not surprised.

I would say Susan gives as good as she gets. lol! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 3, 2009 12:30 PM:

" Tell me Question Moe- what ludicrous fairy tales did all those Atheistic Regimes tenaciously adhere to, as they unleashed there horrific political purge of all-things religious and in turn, all things humane? What ludicrous fairy tales prompt Christians (Republican and Democrat alike) to give more of their time and money to charitable causes than their Secular counterparts? What ludicrous fairy tales have motivated the Christians in Africa to make the most positive improvements in that country where the secular government programs could not? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 3, 2009 12:39 PM:

" G.K.Chesterton stated: while we agree about the evil of this world, we no longer agree about the good.

Ask a Christian what is right with the world and the Christian will tell you- God.

Ask Susan Humphreys what is right with the world and she'll tell you- Susan Humphreys. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 3, 2009 3:58 PM:

" God Is have you ever considered the possibility that CrowWoman would like to SAVE Christians and Christianity from their/its own self-destruction? If you see someone about to swallow something poisonous do you sit there quietly and watch the process unfold, or does the Compassionate person speak up and say excuse me but you might not want to do that and here is why. Many wars and kingdoms have been lost because of the failure of the leaders to SEE and admit their own mistakes. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 3, 2009 4:03 PM:

" Now as to your argument, "she doesn't attack the Hindi or the Taoists." That is the argument of the petulant child that knows he is wrong. It doesn't free you from your guilt or from the error of your actions. Second as I have pointed out many times there haven't been any Hindus or Taoists posting on these threads. If you go back to this original letter notice I used the term "RELIGONS" that word by the way refers to ALL the Worlds religious groups not just Christians. AND that is a statment I have made from the beginning. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:37 AM:

" You never answered my question Harry.

Tell me what I said about Susan's hypocrisy that isn't true?

And uhm.... since Susan is having us clowns for lunch, why has she been running away from my questions:

-Are good Atheists capable of evil?

-Why do you keep ignoring the evil that Atheism has caused?

-WHERE IS YOUR CRITICISM OF ALL THE ATHEIST ATROCITIES THAT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED THROUGHOUT HISTORY?

Oh and Harry, if you scan back up this page you'll see that, after I posted the article citing evidence that people of faith are in fact more generous than secularists; Susan not only tried to discredit the article (unsuccessfully I might add) but she also failed to grasp the findings of the research. She failed to understand the actual words....numerous times. And I'm STILL not sure she ever "got it". *snicker*

So Harry, if your gold standard of "winning" in a debate is represented by these charming traits of Susan Humphreys:

+ Lack of comprehension

+ Obfuscation

+ An incoherent train of thought

+ Avoidance of pointed questions

+ Repetitious statements void of substantiation

+ Cognitive dissonance

+ An overt display of the six basic types of denial:

- Denial of fact
- Denial of responsibility
- Denial of impact
- Denial of awareness
- Denial of cycle
- Denial of denial

....then yes Harry, yes you could definitely say that Susan Humphreys is most certainly "winning" in this debate.

She in absolutely "having clowns for lunch"!

ROFL!!! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 10:51 AM:

" BTW Harry,

since you seem to be the self-appointed expert on "unconventional" debate tactics around here; would you mind citing for everyone, just when and where I made the statement that the earth is only 6000 years old?

Or would you like to come clean with your OWN hypocrisies Harry, and admit that you have been LYING about that statement?

So what's it going to be Harry Potter?

+ Cited proof that I actually made that statement.

+ or an admission that you have been falsely attributing that statement to me. An admission on your part that you have been LYING?

Let's see if Harry Potter has the intestinal fortitude and integrity to admit HIS OWN hypocrisies.

hmmmmmmmmmm...... "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:01 PM:

" Susan- the "telepathy" that "you" and (ahem) VTuker, and (ahem) CrowWoman, seem to "share" is really cute.

Why don't you just drop the ridiculous pseudonyms and make your ignorant points without insulting the collective intelligence of this blog?

Then again; your mere presence automatically lowers the collective intelligence level of this site.

Please Susan, disregard my attempt to inject "sensical" into the nonsensical. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 12:04 PM:

" Sorry BDD, the fact that I keep writing and writing and writing, I am like the Energizer Bunny proves that I can't be intimidated.
-Susan Humphreys

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago.
-Bernard Berenson "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:00 PM:

" BDD and God Is, I have re-read Susan's letter once again and still cannot fathom why the two of you are reacting so strongly to what she wrote. Are her words a threat to your own faith? That is what's coming across from your posts.

If it is important that others come to faith in God and accept his Son, I suggest a different approach; your "witnessing" has moved over into the obnoxious zone. The Christianity you are representing is not anything most people would want to be part of. As for Christ, you have rendered him invisible. "

arrogant wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:09 PM:

" Yes shumphreys and I will tell you that it is RIGHT for us to be intolerant of your intolerance!
Yes yes shumphreys and I say that it isnt just right it is our moral duty/obligation to protect the rights of ALL. ALL that is EXCEPT you filthy disgusting evil christians.
The rights of you evil intolerant christians to express your evil intolerant religious beliefs is interfering with the rights of shumpherys right to express her evil intolerant religious beliefs!
Why can't you christians accept the TRUTH that shumphreys refuses to accept the TRUTH that jesus christ was the only TRUTH? Why can't you stupid christians just STOP believing that jesus christ was the only TRUTH? There are MANY TRUTHS. jesus christ just doesn't happen to be one of them.

shumphreys and I KNOW what is best for ALL! It is best for ALL that you christians STOP believing as christians and start believing as shumphreys! You christians can believe in all the TRUTHS about jesus christ as long as you DON'T believe jesus christ when he said he was the only TRUTH!
So listen you ignorant christians, stop believing what jesus christ said and start believing what shrumpreys says. After all, who's ENLIGHTENED here? Some guy whose life two thousand years ago fufilled some ancient prophesy's and left a permanent mark on the world, or susan humphreys from Oakland Illinois whose personal path to ENLIGHTENMENT discovered the many TRUTHS that all of humanity missed out on since the dawn of time.

The TRUTH is easy to see people. shumphreys is right and YOU'RE ALL WRONG!
There are MANY TRUTHS as long as they agree with susan humphreys TRUTH. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 3:27 PM:

" Moving right along here . . . if you feel Susan's letter is attacking Christianity (which I do not at all believe it is), why not take a more civil approach in confronting this perceived attack?

I would certainly take issue with Weinberg's statement, "Religion is an insult to human dignity." And it seems perfectly reasonable to list the many good things that have been done by Christian people through the centuries, as I believe several comments did.

One can also be reasonable in disagreeing with Susan's belief that it doesn't matter what religion you follow. I mean, in one sense, we all feel that what we believe is "right." Still, surely we can read something that disagrees with our own faith and not flip out--can't we calmly accept the fact that other people have the right to believe as they wish and actively disagree with what we believe?

If you believe in Christ, explain why and what He has done for you. Otherwise, why would anyone care?

It seems to bother several of you that Susan has pointed out the evil resulting from religious zeal. Unfortunately, it is true that a lot of evil has been done (and continues to be done) in Christ's name. It is only being honest to acknowledge that, and such an acknowledgement in no way detracts from the character of God.

As an aside--why would Susan focus on the evil done by Hindus or followers of Islam when we aren't reading anything posted by them?

Most of Jesus Christ's words focused on how we are to treat our fellow human beings, so there is no way you can disagree with Susan's words about the importance of our day-to-day actions.

So--why not take a different approach next time, God Is and BDD in particular? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:00 PM:

" Thank you for the suggestions "CrowWoman/Susan Humphreys" but if it's all the same to you, I'll set the parameters for my position.

In your attempt to misrepresent my position by framing it in a "strawman" argument, you made several erroneous (or perhaps intentional) presumptions that I will now correct:

-I'm in no way threatened by Susan's inane words. On the contrary, Crow Tucker Susan, if "reacting strongly" is your measure of threat, then I would remind you that it is SUSAN the self-described "Energizer Bunny" who has been obsessively posting the same drivel over and over and over. And THAT "strong reaction" would certainly constitute your presumption of threat. No?

-I'm not "witnessing" anything. I'm attacking.

-I'm not attempting to represent "Christianity" nor am I delusional enough to think that a miserable sinner such as myself could render Jesus Christ invisible. None of us possess such an awesome power, my dear. Believe me, the Atheistic Regimes that you refuse to acknowledge have tried and failed.

-The level of obnoxiousness and incivility you detect in my posts is directly proportional to the intimidation you feel from the validity of my argument.

-And that brings me to the basis of my argument (which I have stated NUMEROUS times). This is the simple premise that you refuse to acknowledge. My point of contention is NOT a specific religion versus another religion.

Oh no no.

I take issue with the blanket fallacy that religion has caused more evil and destruction in the world- than Atheism.

And IF you are sincere in your statement:

"I would certainly take issue with Weinberg's statement, "Religion is an insult to human dignity."

then why aren't YOU acknowledging the greater evil spawned by Atheism throughout history, as opposed to the lesser numbers of death and destruction performed in the name of religion?

Why aren't YOU acknowledging the success of religion versus the failure of secularism in the development of Africa?

How many times do I have to state my argument before you start to comprehend?

How many times Susan CrowHumphreys? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:44 PM:

" Susan, VTucker and CrowWoman I'm sure that by now you realize your not debating a very well person. Many of his posts are now bordering on rants. And he still thinks the earth is only 6000 years old too. He might be heading for one of his famous meltdowns. Fortunately we have a monitor for this site. I've seen some of his rants on sites that don't use a monitor and believe me, they aren't very pretty either. lol! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:56 PM:

" Hello Harry Potter.

Please cite for everyone, Harry, just when and where I made the statement that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Or would you like to come clean with your OWN hypocrisies Harry, and admit that you have been LYING about that statement? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 5:59 PM:

" Tell us Harry Potter,

when will you get help with your compulsive lying and paranoid delusions? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:05 PM:

" Good Grief, we're back on atheism again! What is with you and the atheists?

BDD: "I'm not "witnessing" anything. I'm attacking."

Well, that's honest anyway!

BDD: "I take issue with the blanket fallacy that religion has caused more evil and destruction in the world- than Atheism....why aren't YOU acknowledging the greater evil spawned by Atheism throughout history, as opposed to the lesser numbers of death and destruction performed in the name of religion?"

First, I don't know that atheism has in fact spawned more evil throughout history. Most people are religious, in one way or another, and many would not hesitate to attack someone of differing belief in the name of their god; that's why I would hesitate to say that more death and destruction have resulted from atheistic belief. So I am skeptical about that claim.

Also, the reason that I am very, very concerned about evil done in the name of Christ is that it misrepresents who God is, and that it drives people away from Him (not to speak of the effects of evil itself).

BDD: "Why aren't YOU acknowledging the success of religion versus the failure of secularism in the development of Africa?"

That is an easy question to answer--I don't know anything about it. If you wrote about that earlier, I missed it. Can you explain more about what you mean? Is religion leading to material success, making the people's lives better? If so, that's great. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:07 PM:

" Poor Susan! She not only gets attacked for what she writes, she also gets attacked for what I write! Sorry, dear.

HP, I'm not really a debater. I just like to have a little chat now and then.... "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:27 PM:

" Get used to it CrowWoman. He attacks anyone who dares to disagree with him and his delusional thinking. If more than one person disagrees with him, in his delusional mind, he thinks their the same person. Most of the regulars on here know that and sort of humor him out of pity.

Despite getting cyber wedgies on a daily basis he keeps coming back for more.

One sure fire sign that he's really worked up is when he posts 3 or 4 non-stop messages.

A couple of days ago he got so rattled that he called me Larry instead of Harry so now in order to cover up his lame error he calls me Larry Harry. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:29 PM:

" BACK on Atheism again? I never LEFT Atheism.

The Weinberg quote that you claim to take issue with, was a direct inference of the evils of religion as opposed to the "sensible" civility of Atheism.

You apparently missed that obvious point.

And you don't know that atheism has in fact spawned more evil throughout history?

So you admit that you're entirely uninformed about that fact.

Well now we're getting somewhere.

And you don't know about the success that the Christian movement has had in the modern development of Africa?

So you're uniformed on THREE of the premises of my argument.

I see.

Tell me again, Susan CrowWhatever, if you're so uniformed about my position; then why did you decide to criticize it? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 4, 2009 6:57 PM:

" I have not been in on this debate much lately but I must make one observation.
SH wrote."God Is have you ever considered the possibility that CrowWoman would like to SAVE Christians and Christianity from their/its own self-destruction?"

Neither Christians nor Christianity needs CrowWoman to save them. And that is the truth. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:10 PM:

" Did you folks notice that Harry Larry Potter (One the Liberal Three Stooges)

never cited any proof to support his lie that I supposedly claimed the earth is only 6000 years old?

Nor did here produce any evidence for his delusional paranoid ranting that I am posting under some other name.

For over a month now, he's not only accused me of being someone named Doh; but he keeps ranting about my supposed posts on some other site.

He's one sick sick puppy folks.

tsk tsk tsk *sigh* "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:14 PM:

" Oh and, as further evidence of Harry Larry Potter's unhinged state of mind,

note his comment:

"Despite getting cyber wedgies on a daily basis he keeps coming back for more."

him and fatherbob (another Liberal Stooge) seemed to be obsessed with "cyber wedgies".........

I'll let that point speak for itself.

tsk tsk tsk "

Rotty wrote on Jan 4, 2009 7:44 PM:

" Boy O Boy, under the guise of goodness, & maybe a few thoughts from Fantasy Island, trek onward & down the ole hypocritical path of blindness.

"Just remember, there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything and the wrong way is to keep trying to make everybody else do it the right way."

-M*A*S*H, Colonel Potter "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 4, 2009 8:02 PM:

" One more observation for CrowWoman

Dont miss the real reason Jesus came to earth to be with men. What was his real ministry and purpose?
He told us.

Luke 19:10 for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.

"Lost means humankind has lost its spiritual orientation, that we were on a path leading away from God instead of toward God.

Since only Jesus Christ knows the way "home," we, the lost, must follow Him alone.

He didnt die on the cross because there were poor people or sick, lame, or heartbroken, and downtroden people His dying was to save the lost people of the world.

While I was writing this I was listening on the TV Mike Huckabee talking to Elvis step brother Rick Stanley and I just heard him say what Elvis said to him, Ricky its those people that talk to you about Jesus they are the ones that really care. Interesting huh? "

God Is wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:34 AM:

" Oh the wonders of modern instruction in reading and comprehension.

My point wasn't that Shumphries wasn't making comments derogitory about other religions.

My point was that, despite that we have very often been accused of doing so, as a rule these religions have not been attacked on this site by the Christian responders.

They have been dealing with one individual, an individual who delights in stating regularly that Christians are what is wrong with the world. She is so ingrained into her bigotry that she is no longer capable of understanding what she says and how she has pinned every wrong that has ever been committed squarely on the backs of one group. This is what Hitler did to the Jews when he made his move to become powerful. And before someone once again points out the Hitler was a Christian, allow for a little further history. He orderd the burning of every bible found within his sphere of influence. He may have been born into a Christian family, but he certainly wasn't a Christian.

Now case in point. When referring to the deaths in the Middle East, she manages to argue that those deaths were the result of the evil Christian influence.

When Christian people, as the individuals removed violently from the places overseas where they served were assasinated, or those shot in their own meeting places here, are reported about, she says that it is their fault for being bad Christians.

No mention is ever made of the hundreds of Middle Eastern citizens who have been murdered by their own governments because they chose to be Christian. It was their fault for being Christian.

No, no, no, the message is simple. When non-Christians are harassed or murdered, it is the fault of the Christians. And when Christians are harassed and murdered, it is their own fault.

"One can also be reasonable in disagreeing with Susan's belief that it doesn't matter what religion you follow..."

I certainly should be reasonable about it, if I actually believed that that is what Susan believes. Which I don't. In all the time that I have been reading these letters and their resultant postings, and in all the time since I have been posting myself, one thing is abundantly clear: Susan does not view Christianity as an acceptable religion for one to believe in. In actuality, if it isn't on her list of acceptable beliefs, then she puts down those that believe in them. Period.

And if VTucker truly is what she claims to be, I think it is high time for her to seek a discussion with her minister. Print out these discussions and show him/her. That minister is sure to have heard all of this before.

And now for Harry. Get off the time frame as a diversion schtick. I have already mentioned several several times on this web site that I do not agree with the 6000 year old earth concept. The closest star is over 30,000 light years away, so for us to be able to see its light here on earth it had to start off in this direction 30,000 years ago. Once again an entire group is being taken to account for the beliefs/actions of a few. Maybe we should add Harry to the split personality list. They certainly operate alike.

For the record, I accept the scientifically derrived age for the Earth as being 4.6 billion years. I do not believe that the week of creation was seven twenty-four hour days. Mostly because I do not believe that God, an eternal being, is confined to such a thing as time, and if he wants to call a billion years a day its his perogative. He is the creator. He can do that.

Now drop it, and go find some other inane point to belabor us with. In the meantime, we'll sit back and read more of Shumphries same old-same old. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Vicky there is a key to understanding Weinbergs quot in Collatines post, there is a difference between religion and faith. Religion can be used in many senses and can be interpreted quite broadly. A good book is Eric Hoffers book "The True Believer, thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" first published in 1951 and still in print and you can probably find a copy in the library or at Pages for All Ages. For example #9 "The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause." Religion can be a generic term for any "holy" cause. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:39 PM:

" BlueDog, if you can cite proof for any of your claims about atheism, feel free to post it or provide a link. I'll read it with an open mind.

God Is, I'll take Susan at her word. I have no reason not to. But even if she believed that Christians were responsible for everything wrong in the world and should be rounded up and thrown into prison--what is that to you? Why should her opinion, which she has a right to express, bother you? I get the impression that it really, really bothers you for people to believe and think differently from you.

Really, God Is, God can manage just fine without you functioning as the Thought Police. Accept it: not everyone is going to agree with you.

And relax; I don't believe that Susan has the power to destroy the Christian faith. No one does--it is in God's hands. He can defend Himself and the faith. Christ Himself left no mandate for you or BDD to freak out and attack others in His name. You seem to be obsessed with Susan, and it's really difficult to understand.... "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:50 PM:

" Sorry God Is you can accuse me falsely and it doesn't work, people can read for themselves. I have NEVER stated that Christians are what is wrong with this world that is your own perverse interpretation, your view not TRUTH. I have stated that the abuse and misuse of Christianity is a serious problem. I have also pointed out that the abuse and misuse of any religious teaching is what is wrong with this world. If you go back to the top of this letter I start with a quote from the Dali Lama, that ALL religions can help people become better people. It is just as true that ALL religions can help people become worse which the second two quotes address. The third quote is from a great and very popular Christian book. Perhaps you should read it. It might just help you knock that chip off of your shoulder. "

Rotty wrote on Jan 5, 2009 5:36 PM:

" soapbox storyteller shemphreys wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:50 PM:

"It might just help you knock that chip off of your shoulder."

.......

Hey hypocrite, how do you get that swelled head of yours through doorways? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:37 PM:

" God Is, I certainly respect your viewpoint about the light years however Proximus Centauri is said to be approximately 4 light years away not 30,000 but that is beside the point actually. Here is something to think about for we who believe the Bible:

SuzyQ you just ignore this you couldnt possibly grasp it.

For God Is:
When God created Adam did He create a baby that had to age and grow up or did He create a mature fully functioning man?

When God created a tree did He create a fully grown tree or did He create a small sprout that had to grow?

If God created a full grown tree such as an oak tree for instance with a trunk about 24 in diameter would that tree have growth rings like a tree has to have? Of course it did other wise it could not reproduce.

If you counted the growth rings would it indicate the tree was about 50 years old or whatever the growth rings indicated? So did the tree appear to be old and have age the same day He created it? Of course it did.

In Genesis 1:21 it says that God created birds so were these birds fully grown and all feathered so they could fly? Of course they were.

God told all the life that He created to be fruitful and multiply so did all life have to mature for a period of time to age to their reproductive maturity? Of course not God created all life to be able to reproduce immediately.

I could just go on and on with this but I think you can see my point. Everything that God created was mature, aged, and functional. So is there any reason that on the fourth day when God created the stars He would not have created them fully functional with a beam of light already extending to earth for His greatest creation of man to see? Of course there is no reason He could not have done that since He created everything else fully functional. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:43 PM:

" God Is once you start compromising the literal truth of the creation account then you have a lot of problems with the rest of Gods Word and then we cant believe or trust God.

So if you want to ridicule me go right ahead but Im sticking with 6-24 hour days (yom) for creation and about 6,000 years ago because the evidence we can observe fits that time scale much better than 4.5 billion years. There is a whole realm of evidence to support the young earth age.

If a person is a Christian and believes that God has prepared or is preparing a place we generally call heaven for us then how can we believe He can do that if He could not have created this earth and all that is in it in the way He said He did. Creating heaven seems like a much tougher job to me than creating earth. In actuality though our place of eternal abode is right here on a remade earth.

Revelation 21:2-4
2Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.
4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.

If a person really believes in our powerful almighty God he has no problem accepting that God could have created in 6 literal 24 hour days. When someone says they think God used evolution to do His creating then they dont believe in an all powerful God who will keep His promises to us but instead in a weak god who tried to deceive us in his written word.

So now come on God Is do you believe God is an all powerful
God that we can trust or not? Or would you rather compromise and cater to the evolutionists who mostly dont believe in God at all and have found that their best way to create doubt is to diminish God to the point He is too weak to have created at all. "

injustice85 wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:48 PM:

" sadly a lot of people in this town still need to learn that religion or no it means taking action even if that action is waving to your neighbor "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 5, 2009 8:19 PM:

" " God Is once you start compromising the literal truth of the creation account then you have a lot of problems with the rest of Gods Word and then we cant believe or trust God."

Vanatta, I wondered if you were going to let him get away with picking and choosing what to believe from Scripture. Shocking! "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:08 PM:

" Shocking? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:50 PM:

" Well, shocking may have been stretching it....Surprising, though, that "God Is" can feel free to believe a rather liberal interpretation of Genesis yet be quite dogmatic about the Scripture he chooses to take literally. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:11 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:50 PM:

" Well, shocking may have been stretching it....Surprising, though, that "God Is" can feel free to believe a rather liberal interpretation of Genesis yet be quite dogmatic about the Scripture he chooses to take literally. "

Ouch! A cyber wedgie for god is...

But don't fret Vanutty, you'll always have the Blowdog in your corner over the 6000 year idea. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:05 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta there is one problem with Genesis 1 and that is Genesis 2 as I pointed out they both can't be literally true, both can be false, one true and one false, or neither are true or false because they are allegories. Allegories by the way are a story to explain the unexplainable in terms humans can understand. You are wrong about one thing facing the reality of the contradictions in the Bible DOES NOT mean that the Bible contains NO Truths. It just means that you have to read thoughtfully, do your homework (study Science, History, Psychology and about the other world religions) in order to find the great wisdom contained within its pages. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:24 AM:

" Vicky Mr. Vanatta wouldn't be shocked or surprised because he does the same thing--picks and chooses the parts of the Bible that he wishes to read literally, ignores those that don't fit his agenda, or "interprets" them in a non literal fashion. When confronted with the issue of Salvation: Mr. V sites John 3:16 and ignores James 2:24 salvation is by works and faith or Matthew 25:34-45 by works alone to name a few of the passages. He also still ignores the discrepencies between Genesis 1 and 2. Oh what tangled webs these mortals weave when first they practice to deceive. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:18 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta wouldn't be shocked or surprised because he does the same thing--picks and chooses the parts of the Bible that he wishes to read literally...."

That is true, and I believe every Christian (including myself) does that to a certain extent. The problem is when people claim they don't do it and then denounce others whose beliefs don't line up with their own as "unscriptural."

I'm familiar with the denominations (Baptist and some others) that focus exclusively on the "salvation verses" that Jon V. quotes from. Interestingly, that verse in James was so problematic for Martin Luther that he wanted to remove James from the scriptural canon. Anyway, most denominations reconcile these verses by stressing that although good works do not earn salvation (which is a gift of God's grace) they are necessary evidence of it and of one's commitment to Christ. Some denominations take it a little further by believing that good works are necessary for maintaining one's salvation. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:04 AM:

" Oh what tangled webs these mortals weave when first they practice to deceive."

Susan, I don't believe people intend to be deceptive, and they are primarily deceiving themselves.

The most glaring example of Scriptural picking and choosing is that of Christians who attack the idea of gay marriage yet ignore the issue of divorce.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, that I've talked about this time and again--but it is a comparison that begs to be made. Those who take the Bible literally must acknowledge that God said, "I hate divorce" and that Jesus condemned it (except possibly in cases of adultery). Plus, remarriage is forbidden--Matthew 5:32 indicates, "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

For the few who do acknowledge what the Bible says about divorce and don't try to move beyond the literal interpretation, there is often a quick explanation about why their divorce and remarriage are okay--basically, that God is gracious and forgives.

So far, no problem. God IS a God of Grace who does forgive. However, when the topic turns to homosexuality, the rules change. As you've pointed out, Susan, current translations of homosexual-oriented verses in the O.T. as well as those written by the apostle Paul may be inaccurate. (They are likely referring to ritualistic prostitution and male prostitutes.) Jesus himself never even mentioned homosexuality.

If you are objective and take the Bible literally, the previously divorced and remarried couple is no less "living in sin" in the eyes of God than the same-sex couple living in a committed relationship. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:44 PM:

" I'll ask Susan Humphreys this question AGAIN (for the umpteenth time):

Susan- Has Atheistic Regimes of the 20th century by the likes of Stalin, Lenin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu or Fidel Castro been responsible for horrendous acts of evil? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:19 PM:

" CrowWoman, who are you are trying to convince? Its not me its yourself. You are not sure of your views on homosexuality that is why you dwell on it so much. I really appreciate the fact that you try to use a Biblical perspective to your thinking that says a lot however you said Jesus never condemns homosexuality but does he give approval? There are several places in the Bible that people try to use as an example or approval but they are very vague and they twist them. On the other hand there are several places that quite clearly reveal Gods disapproval. So then they do what liberals always do they attack the character of the writer, Paul. The rules dont change between divorce and homosexuality. In all cases there is sin involved with divorce. In all cases of active homosexuality there is sin involved. God forgives the sin of homosexuality the same as the sin that leads to divorce. But there must be change repentance you cant continue to live in the sin that caused the divorce and you cannot continue to live in the sin of active homosexuality. An active homosexual marriage is continuing to live in sin. Mans laws do not change Gods laws. When a Christian gives approval of homosexual lifestyles that is sin for the Christian.

Moses wrote against homosexuality as well as describing Gods judgment for it. Jesus said, If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead. Jesus is confirming that what Moses said we are to hear.

In another place Jesus said, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

The preincarnate Christ did the speaking to Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, Moses, then we read the Old Testament we are reading Jesus words. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:55 PM:

" Crow Woman I think you are right that neither God Is, nor BDD, or Mr. Vanatta intentionally set out to deceive. BUT they have still woven themselves into a very tangled web that they can't get out of. How much simpler it is to just accept that people are DIFFERENT and those differences are neither good nor bad, neither moral or immoral, right or wrong, TRUTH or NOT Truth. They are simply DIFFERENCES. When I was 20 I mentioned that I read Siddhartha and discovered that Christianity didn't hold the corner on TRUTH. I set out to discover TRUTH and instead I found many TRUTHS! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:11 PM:

" Tell me CrowWoman-

You say you're a Christian; do you believe that Christ is THE Truth?

Or do you believe that there are MANY truths? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:24 PM:

" Yes, let's be objective CrowSusan;

Let's consider "marriage" to include an adult and a child. Shall we?

Did Christ say anything against that? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 6, 2009 3:50 PM:

" Jon Vanatta, you've often brought up the topic of homosexuality on other threads, and I've often responded much as I did today. I'm just continuing those original discussions.

No one's attacking Paul's character, but there are clearly differences of opinion re. how the Greek terms should be translated.

Jesus discussed many things that are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. Why no condemnation of homosexuality? So far, you haven't provided a good answer to that question.

If you're divorced and remarried, what does "repentance" mean? Does that mean you should divorce spouse #2 and get back together with spouse #1? That sounds ridiculous, but that is basically what you would ask a married same-sex couple to do (break up). Deep down, you don't REALLY consider divorce/remarriage a sin, do you? I would guess not, since a large number of divorced Christians piously (and hypocritically) claim that gay people are a threat to the sanctity of marriage....

Seeing divorce and a subsequent marriage as a one-time, essentially inconsequential act that can be brushed away with a quick "Forgive me, Lord" is an incredible rationalization--especially considering the effects of divorce on any children involved and its social cost. But, given the Christian divorce rate, it is obviously a common rationalization. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 4:21 PM:

" CrowWoman Christian-

would it be okay to use a "common rationalization" for gay marriage and apply it to the union of a child and an adult? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:11 PM:

" You tell me, BlueDog. Many Christians have been rationalizing their own pet shortcomings for a long time. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:21 PM:

" Also, I haven't been focusing on what's okay and what's not okay. I have been discussing how divorce and remarriage (when adultery is not involved) is rationalized as being okay by most conservative Christians, in spite of Biblical prohibition while gay marriage is simultaneously condemned by the same people. Re-read my posts.

The predation of an adult on an underage child is completely irrelevant to this discussion; We'll assume everyone is of consenting age. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:51 PM:

" And now I'm asking YOU about the rationalizations of your OWN pet shortcomings, CrowWoman.

Or did you not notice that beam in your own eye?

"Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own?"
-Jesus Christ (Luke 6:41) "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:00 PM:

" Ah CrowWoman,

if by your rationalization, marriage can include the union of a man and man, or a woman and a woman; then why not an adult and a child?

You said that Christ never mentioned homosexuality, in your rationalization.

Did Christ mention pedophilia?

Who are you to say how old a child should be to consent? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:13 PM:

" (CrowWoman Christian wrote- Also, I haven't been focusing on what's okay and what's not okay. I have been discussing how divorce and remarriage (when adultery is not involved) is rationalized as being okay by most conservative Christians,)

Well let's focus on YOUR rationalized Christian beliefs, shall we CrowWoman? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:56 PM:

" I'm not rationalizing anything, BDD, I'm only asking for consistency among Christians who denounce gays for the cause of upholding the sanctity of marriage. I really can't make it any clearer than that. I realize, though, some people may not want to see the obvious inconsistencies that have been practiced.

One thing I meant to say (if I didn't) was that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. Many scholars believe that Matthew 19:12 ("for there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb") refers to men who have no desire for women, based on similar uses of the word "eunuch" by others in the New Testament era.

If this is a correct interpretation, and I believe that it is, Jesus seems to be saying that those born with a homosexual orientation are called to a celibate life. Not that what I believe is especially relevant, but since you asked, BDD--and this is where I tend to part company with my liberal friends.

Whatever the break of biblical command, whether gossip, lying, divorce, remarriage, or gay marriage--I believe in Grace.

Oh, and for whoever asked--I do believe in one truth, but that God is very tolerant of our approximations of it. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:09 PM:

" BDD why is it that when someone gives you a direct answer you refuse to acknowledge it? CrowWoman told you that she was referring to "consenting adults". I told you (many times) the answer to your question to me was "good will do good and evil will do evil, but it takes religion to get the good to do evil." I also explained to CrowWoman how that quote can be understood in the broadest context. I suggest that YOU remove that beam from your eye, it has blinded you. You need to spend a BIT more time THINKING before you start writing. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:10 PM:

" CrowWoman, you are being inconsistent for in your 11:04AM post today you said, God IS a God of Grace who does forgive, now in your 3:50PM post you are ridiculing asking God to forgive. Did you read closely that I said sin is always involved in divorce? Your question, Deep down, you don't REALLY consider divorce/remarriage a sin, do you? just does not relate to what I said. Jesus said Moses permitted divorce under the circumstance of adultery. Even though it is permitted there has been sin involved and in most cases by both parties at least to some extent. There would be no reason for a divorced person who remarried to get a second divorce and go back and remarry one who had committed adultery. Two wrongs dont make a right and two divorces dont correct the first one. Read again that I said sin is always involved in a divorce. There is no such thing as divorce between homosexuals because there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. I must say again when people continue in a homosexual relationship that is continuing sin. When two unmarried heterosexual people engage in sexual intercourse activity that is sin and when two homosexual people engage in sexual acts that is sin if nothing else it is sin because they are not married and God does not provide for them to marry.

Do you understand what repentance means? Do you understand Gods forgiveness? You make light of Christians being forgiven. I agree that if someone just keeps on with the same sin and asking for forgiveness then it means they have not repented. God forgives sin when a person sincerely asks for forgiveness. God forgives adultery, He forgives abortions, He forgives homosexual sin, that is His business and His promise and He knows insincerity. I do not have to beg God for forgiveness every night but that does not mean I can go through a day without sinning.

What do you make of this verse?
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Do you know what it means to be in Christ?

Did Jesus say anything about having sex with your dog? So does that mean it would be OK?
Moses said not to have sex with animals I wonder who told him that.

Really Vicky your reasoning is very irrational in this homosexual matter for someone claiming to be a Christian. Have you been born again Vicky? Jesus said, You must be born again. He didnt say you ought to be or it would be a good idea He said you must be. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:16 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote- If this is a correct interpretation, and I believe that it is, Jesus seems to be saying that those born with a homosexual orientation are called to a celibate life.)

Well now, I agree with you on that point CrowWoman.

(CrowWoman wrote- I do believe in one truth, but that God is very tolerant of our approximations of it)

Ah, CrowWoman, do you believe that Jesus Christ is THE TRUTH? The ONLY TRUTH? The ONLY WAY? The ONLY LIFE? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:21 PM:

" If you are objective and take the Bible literally, the previously divorced and remarried couple is no less "living in sin" in the eyes of God than the same-sex couple living in a committed relationship. "

Good observation, CrowWoman.

I wonder how many of the three main critics of Susan and yourself on this thread fall into this category. I doubt that question will be answered honestly. lol! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:35 PM:

" CrowWoman, you said you believe in Grace.

Now that's interesting, because the Grace that we receive from Christ is the very thing that makes Christianity unique among all other religions that have ever been. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:39 PM:

" And how many times do I have to explain to YOU Susan that; for good people to do extraordinary evil- it takes Atheism.

Religion doesn't even come close. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:46 PM:

" Jon, this quote is from an author who wrote before divorce/remarriage were as widely accepted as they are today:

"The question may fairly be asked, How can the Christian Church maintain its witness on the permanence of monogamy while allowing the continuance of unscriptural unions? While it is true that one can always be forgiven upon repentance, is it not also the case that true penitence involves ceasing from sin? If we take into account the teaching of Jesus that the woman who has sinfully separated from her husband and married another is guilty of adultery in her second union, and that the man who has married her is also guilty of adultery, how would it be possible for those who are penitent for their sin, to persist in their sinful union? The adulteress would be guilty of continually breaking the seventh commandment, because in the eyes of God she is still the wife of her first companion. And the man who married the adulteress would also be living in sin with her who in the sight of God is the wile of another man. If it be objected at this point that it seems cruel for the law of God to demand the breaking up of the home of those who are happily married, it should be remembered that the sin of rejecting God's law is great, and also that in this life one reaps what one sows. There is no way to escape this reaping. And no price is too great to pay to be in the will of God. Again we must remind ourselves that the Bible nowhere explicitly grants the right to continue an unscriptural union. On the contrary two cases point the other way, that of Herod, and that of the Samaritan woman."

That seems rather harsh, doesn't it? What I'm posting seems to be irrational to you for a couple of reasons; one, I think you're misinterpreting some of the things I write. Also, you're refusing to look at divorce and remarriage through the same lens that you look at homosexuality. (The author I quoted pretty much did, and doesn't he sound radical!) Maybe you've accepted it so long you just can't look at the divorce issue objectively. The stark quote I pasted in is from someone who did accept the seriousness of divorce, a certain John Wenger from 1951. Aren't you glad that times have changed? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:47 PM:

" I got to get off here! My family is going to strangle me! Stop asking me questions! LOL "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:48 PM:

" ....good will do good and evil will do evil, but it takes Atheism for good people to do evil. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:06 PM:

" (CrowWoman wrote -I got to get off here! My family is going to strangle me! Stop asking me questions! LOL)

Go Vicky. This site is too addictive. The same arguments will still be here tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day and the next day.......... "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:08 PM:

" ....good will do good and evil will do evil, but for ALL people to do extraordinary good, it takes Christ! "

Rotty wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:08 PM:

" "Did Jesus say anything about having sex with your dog?"

.......

HEY NOW, wait just a doggone minute....
Naah.... I won't go there.
LOL! "

Rotty wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:13 PM:

" LOL @ V!
I feel your pain.
Tis why I've slowed.
Take Care You! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:16 PM:

" Rotty- (HEY NOW, wait just a doggone minute....)

HAH! "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:32 PM:

" "HEY NOW, wait just a doggone minute....
Naah.... I won't go there."

Hey Rotty I'm with you on that one lets just let that dog lie ("_") "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:43 PM:

" Sorry BDD what YOU say doesn't hold water, it doesn't stand up to proof. Atheism is NOT an organized belief system, with dogmas or doctrines, rules or laws, ceremonies or Sacred texts. Technically Buddhists are Atheists yet their religious system/doctrines/beliefs is the most moral in the world. There isn't even a common definition of the word Atheism, shoot there isn't a common definition of the word Religion. The failure of folks like you to identify the REAL cause of something leads to many deadends, (back to my paths through the woods metaphor), it also leads to a failure to correct problems and make improvements and it leads to the persecution of innocents. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:53 PM:

" CrowWomans point is that selecting ONE thing (homosexuality) from a list of equal things (divorce, eating shell fish, not circumcising boy babies on the 8th day, greed, lying,...etc.) and declaring that ONE thing worse than the others in the list by legislating laws to restrict or criminalize or personally denigrating practitioners is HYPOCRITICAL. Either ALL are wrong, sinful OR we have to accept that times have changed and we have to change with it. We now KNOW that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. We now KNOW that the Bible has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by homophobic people and used to persecute homosexuals. We also KNOW that the core of Jesus teaching was about Compassion for the poor, the down trodden, the hungry, the dispossed, it was NEVER about persecuting those that are different from you. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:02 PM:

" Sorry BDD for people to do extraordinary good it takes a move beyond any singular ideology, religious or otherwise to a point where you recognize, acknowledge the inherent worth and value of ALL people, whatever their religion, race, ethnicity, country of origin, sexual orientation. It takes a move to universalism. Note I used a little "u" so as not to confuse this with the Universalist Unitarian church. And universalism isn't a SINGULAR ideology since it recognizes the inherent worth of ALL. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:50 AM:

" Jon Vanatta wrote:

"There is no such thing as divorce between homosexuals because there is no such thing as homosexual marriage."

Jon, if our laws were based on the Bible, marriages subsequent to the first one would be prohibited. In your words, "God does not provide for them to marry."

So, if you are divorced and "remarried," it is not a legitimate marriage, in the eyes of God.

You want the State to recognize your "sinful" marriage (marriage outside of God's will, as any marriages after divorce would be, according to Scripture) but refuse to recognize that of the gay couple.

You want Jesus to give you a "wild card" and ignore your transgressions (if you are a Christian who marries after divorce you are living in sin) yet hold the homosexual's acts against him.

You can't have it both ways! "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:28 AM:

" Vicky said, if our laws were based on the Bible, marriages subsequent to the first one would be prohibited.
What in the world do you mean by that?

You had better read again.
Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

So now you are trying to say that when an unfaithful spouse forces a divorce through unscrupulous methods and perjury to where the court declares a divorce then the offended spouse is living in sin when she (or he) remarries?

And that is the way it was done by an adulterous marriage partner before no fault divorce laws were made.
Do you think that is what Matthew 19:9 says? If you do you probably should attend a reading skills class.

This in no way means that I approve no fault divorce. I believe divorce should be hard to the point where the deceitful spouse has to commit perjury to break a marriage.

But I must repeat whenever there is a divorce there is sin involved in both parties, sin that must be forgiven and God does forgive.

And how can you see a correlation between that type of divorce and an illegal homosexual marriage that is Illegal both by Gods laws and mans? "

father bob wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:43 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:50 AM:
" Jon, if our laws were based on the Bible, marriages subsequent to the first one would be prohibited. In your words, "God does not provide for them to marry.""""

exactly.....what say does this "god" have about anyway? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:47 AM:

" And then we have a certain schizophrenic individual among the outrageous posters who cannot confess to have sinned, but then makes the ludicrous claim that she forgives herself while wandering through the many paths of the woods.
Say What??//??**!!! "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:00 AM:

" What she is saying, in a much nicer way than I would have, is that you are a hypocrite Jon. And by the way, I never heard you say if you were divorced or not. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:14 PM:

" Jon, I'm just taking what the Bible says as it is written. I'm taking these divorce passages literally. Does it pinch a little to think that God means what He's written?

The following is from one of my study Bibles, discussing Matthew 5:31-32:

"The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful.): this "exceptive clause," as it is often called, occurs also in 19:9 where the Greek is slightly different.

"There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf I Cor. 7:10-11b). It seems that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationships (Lev. 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity."

See, Jon, this information resolves an apparent discrepancy between Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12. Not to mention Luke 16:18, which reads:

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

How much clearer can Jesus be? I mean, if you're going to take His words literally.

My point is, you (and most Christians, even conservative ones) do not take His words literally when you find it inconvenient or painful to do so. You grab onto the Matthew scripture and twist it to mean something it was never intended to mean.

His disciples didn't like hearing His views on divorce any more than you do. What did they say? "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (Matt. 19:10) "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:40 PM:

" Jon V.: "So now you are trying to say that when an unfaithful spouse forces a divorce through unscrupulous methods and perjury to where the court declares a divorce then the offended spouse is living in sin when she (or he) remarries?"

I'm not saying that, Jon--that's what the Bible says (see my comment above).

Jon V.: "And how can you see a correlation between that type of divorce and an illegal homosexual marriage that is Illegal both by Gods laws and mans? "

Well, we're not looking at man's laws here, we're looking at God's commands. Doesn't God's law supercede that of man? If God forbids divorce and remarriage, which He does if you take all those verses literally--and you go ahead and divorce and later remarry anyway . . . your marriage is as illegal as a homosexual union would be (in the eyes of God).

I'm just trying to get you to be consistent. It doesn't seem like you want to take Jesus at His word with respect to divorce and remarriage, Jon V.

Jon V.: "But I must repeat whenever there is a divorce there is sin involved in both parties, sin that must be forgiven and God does forgive."

I also believe He forgives. Just as you say He forgives the homosexual, so He forgives those who commit the sin of divorce. But that doesn't mean you can go out and enter into an illegal marriage (remarriage after divorce) and thereby live in sin and continually claim his forgiveness, right?

Or are the rules different for heterosexual sinners? So it would seem from what you're writing.

You know, Jon, you and other supposed biblical literalists not only wink at one transgression (divorce) and vigorously condemn another (homosexuality). By permitting and encouraging this hypocrisy, you do what Jesus talks about in Matthew 23:

"For they preach but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them."

You meticulously remove these burdens from yourselves, by your wordplay with the Matthew divorce scripture (while ignoring the ones in Mark and Luke) but try to make the homosexual live up to a standard you cannot achieve yourselves. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:35 PM:

" The point Mr. Vanatta is that making homosexual marriage illegal (by mans laws) is immoral, unethical and violates the constitutional rights of the individuals involved. AND justifying said law as Biblical and demanded by God is hypocritical, unethical and an insult to God. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:39 PM:

" Mr. Vanatta, I mean no disrespect by what I've posted this afternoon. I'm only trying to open your eyes (and those of any other conservative Christian who may be reading). You asked me some time ago if I was a lesbian. I didn't answer, because it was a rude question that did not deserve an answer. However, in this context, I will tell you that No, I am not a lesbian BUT someone I love very, very much is gay.

When this person revealed their nature a few years ago, I was devastated by learning how much they had suffered and kept to themselves. This person is still suffering and has thought of suicide more than once. This individual is married and has children; this person goes to church every Sunday. This person has chosen not to "come out" and is desperately struggling to change to a straight orientation. Meanwhile, this individual (who belongs to a conservative church) listens regularly to all the disparaging comments made about gays. These comments, made in fun, feel to this person like a knife in the heart...over and over again.

I know enough about the Bible and enough about Christ to say that this is NOT God's way. Through the person described above, I learned that there are many Christians who are gay. (Does that surprise you, Mr. Vanatta?) They are hurting because they feel they must change and cannot. The so-called "reparative therapy" out there is successful for very, very few, and that's if you define success by fighting homosexual thoughts on a daily basis. They are also hurting because of the nasty attacks of other Christians.

For those who choose to practice their orientation, do you really think it helps to express indignation and condemnation? How would some of you feel if people attacked and stigmatized the divorced the same way you attack gays?

I think the problem with you and many other Christian conservatives is that homosexuality does not have face. You see these people as animals, or so it seems from what I hear and read. That is not true. They are people who were often teased (or even beaten) mercilessly as children, who hated themselves for being different, who struggled to fit in, who wanted desperately to be like everyone else, who experienced rejection time and again, and who not infrequently chose to die rather than continue the struggle.

All I can say is that the hypocrisy (discussed in previous posts)demonstrated by many Christians cannot be pleasing to God or loving to those you supposedly want to reach for Christ. "

father bob wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:02 PM:

" ""I learned that there are many Christians who are gay. (Does that surprise you, Mr. Vanatta?)""

vendetta needs to live in iran. there are no gays there.....so it's been said, and religious fanaticism is the norm. he'd fit right in. "

father bob wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:17 PM:

" jon vendetta is no different than moqtada al-sadr....they both have the same philosophy. "it's my way or no way at all."
"you're either with us or against us" and all that other radical republican and religious terrorist rhetoric. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:54 PM:

" Eloquently said CrowWoman. That is why I speak up and put up with the abuse I receive here. Someone has to have the courage, chutzpah, to speak up for those who can't or won't speak up for themselves. AND to show compassion for those that suffer rather than what seems to be the most popular action of many who have posted on these pages "I'll pray for you, I hope you don't mind though if I stab you in the back, pour salt on your wounds, or give you a few good kicks while you are down, while I am at it." "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:09 PM:

" Vicky I think you have jumped to some conclusions about me that are not true. I also have contact with gay people and even have some in my family not my immediate though. You jump that I hate them and I dont. I have stressed over and over in the last two years that what I hate is the agenda that so many gays have to draw others in to that lifestyle and especially the young children even starting in kindergarten are encouraged to adopt the gay lifestyle. Now why would I care you have said it yourself your friend has suffered and I believe that so have you and yet you seem to have no aversion to the gay movement trying to put more people into that troubling situation just causing more suffering and pain. However with all that said I must still stand firm in my belief that gays are not born that way and they do not have to be gay it is what they have become. I recognize that some boys are born with feminine characters and likewise girls with masculine characteristics but that dont mean they have to be gay. The worst thing a person can do is give approval to someone for their homosexual lifestyle even though approval is what they covet.

Now for the divorce issue here again you have jumped to wrong conclusions and either intentionally or non-intentionally misunderstood what I said. We have quoted each other and you have quoted me quoting you and so forth to where I cant even tell where we are. So let me just state something that I hope explains my interpretation of the Scriptures. I have read the passages you suggested. First Mark 10:11-12 makes a distinction between the divorcer and the divorcee for both husband and wife saying that the divorcer if marrying another commits adultery, Not really different than the Matthew 19:9.
Then Luke 16:18, a repeat.
1 Cor. 7:10-11, you also need to read verses 12-16 to get the full understanding. Especially vs. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. These all say the same thing to me. If a person commits adultery and divorces his spouse that person is not free to marry another and that divorce is sin. Then if that person continues to live in that sinful lifestyle after marrying another that person is continuing to live in sin and has not repented. Vicky I dont believe there is any sin that is unforgivable by God if there is repentance. Repentance doesnt mean you would have to divorce that 2nd spouse and go back to the first. I like what Billy Graham said about that, You cant unscramble eggs. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:10 PM:

" The key to repentance is what lifestyle you continue to live in and this pertains to a homosexual relationship as well as an adulterous married lifestyle. Some things in Gods Word are hard to accept. Thats why Jesus said in Matt 19:11, All cannot accept this saying
If a wife or husband are living an adulterous life they are probably not saved. If two people of the same sex are living together in sexual sin they are probably not saved. If two heterosexual people are living together in sexual sin they probably are not saved. It is just hard facts that must be faced. The two homosexual sinners are no worse than the adulterous husband and wife.

You are entirely wrong when you say that I think homosexuals are worse than adulterous married people. I see most gays as victims but that does not free them from the penalty of their sin. If a person thinks he cannot be anything but gay he or she will just have to learn to control and subdue their desires in the same way a man has to control his desires when he is tempted by a seductive girl. Or likewise a woman. We have to learn to control ourselves. Gays do not have a special exception on that. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:08 PM:

" Sorry Susan what YOU say doesn't hold water.

The most evil regimes in the history of humanity all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly Atheistic. They did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a "new man" and a religion-free utopia. Their ideology could not tolerate religion. They are perfect examples of the moral void that is created when the belief in God is extinguished. You cannot separate their moral philosophies and their belief systems from their actions.

It would only be natural that regimes that have no need for religion, would have no tolerance for religion. Communism was their surrogate religion ONLY because they HAD no religion. And by direct extension they had no tolerance for religion. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:16 PM:

" (shumphreys wrote- There isn't even a common definition of the word Atheism)

Uhm....yeah Susan....yeah there is.

And it can be found in THE DICTIONARY

Atheism:

-The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

-The doctrine that there is no God or gods

-The doctrine that there is no deity

Atheist:

-someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

Sorry Susan; you don't get to redefine a definition that predates you. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:34 PM:

" (shumphreys wrote- "Sorry BDD for people to do extraordinary good it takes a move beyond any singular ideology, religious or otherwise to a point where you recognize, acknowledge the inherent worth and value of ALL people, whatever their religion, race, ethnicity, country of origin, sexual orientation. It takes a move to universalism.")

Really Susan? Prove it. Give me an example in history. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:37 PM:

" Sorry, Jon, but you are reading these scriptures through the lenses of your personal biases. This is from the NAB, one of the most literal translations of the Bible:

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

What's not to understand here?

It is interesting that you have been caught up in the cultural drift that excuses divorce and remarriage--without even realizing it. As indicated by the comments I wrote yesterday by Mr. Winger--did you read them? I certainly didn't make them up. Obviously, times have changed.

Now, I don't have a problem with that personally, because God is the ultimate and just Judge. Don't worry--I'm not going to push for legislation that would outlaw remarriage for divorcees, I don't plan to write letters to congress urging an anti-divorce amendment, nor will I picket conventions where divorced people gather to seek fellowship and healing.

Doesn't that sound silly? It sounds just as silly to me, that church people do these things in order to deny homosexuals the rights they themselves enjoy (and illicitly, according to God's Word).

And good night. Where is BlueDog and his atheistic hordes? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:38 PM:

" And CrowWoman-

I never caught your answer;

do you believe that Jesus Christ is THE TRUTH? The ONLY TRUTH? The ONLY WAY? The ONLY LIFE? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:08 PM:

" (shumshpreys wrote- That is why I speak up and put up with the abuse I receive here. Someone has to have the courage, chutzpah, to speak up for those who can't or won't speak up for themselves. AND to show compassion for those that suffer...)

That is pure 100% unadulterated self-aggrandizing self-serving sanctimonious BS on your part Susan.

And you know it.

You simply hate Christianity period. And you continually (obsessively) post articles to the paper to merely further your Atheistic agenda.

In fact, you're doing what more and more Atheists are doing these days; the very thing you criticize Christians for doing- proselytizing.

You have no respect for the Divinity of Christ. You try to diminish and deny the exceptionalism of Christianity. Yet you fail. You make blanket statements about the evil of religion, AND YET, not only will you NOT recognize any of the evil that Atheism has unleashed upon the world, you insist on playing ridiculous semantics with the word "Atheism".

Like the small hateful coward that you are, you hide behind the specious defense that Atheism is really not a belief and therefore you are somehow exonerated from having to defend your belief system.

Yes Susan, you attack the beliefs of Christians, you call them out as hypocrites, and as soon as they challenge you- you exclaim you're the poor innocent victim who is only being singled out for her attempt to bring us all together.

It's a pretty childish little game you're playing; claiming to accept Christians as long as they stop believing as Christians. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:18 PM:

" Clarify something for me CrowWoman-

are you saying that gay marriage should be accepted by Christians because so many Christians are already hypocritical for having been divorced and remarried?

Is that the premise of your argument? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:43 AM:

" THE INFLUENCE OF ATHEISM AS A CENTRAL COMPONENT OF COMMUNISM

Nobel prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who grew up under the Atheistic communism of the Soviet Union, stated the following:

"The world has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice."

(Solzhenitsyn, Acceptance Speech, Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, 1983; Russkaia Mysl', no. 3465, 19 May, 1983, p. 6 (R).) "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:58 AM:

" Bearing false witness Mr. Vanatta is against Gods word. Homosexuals do NOT have an agenda "to draw others into their lifestyle especially young children even starting in kindergarten." You have been fed lies and you continue to spread them. Your reasoning that because people persecute homosexuals the homosexual should have to deny who he/she is rather than have the persecutor STOP the persecution is SICK. Your information that homosexuals are not born that way, that it is a lifestyle they choose, is WRONG. Denying what one is is WRONG. Homosexuality is largely though we can't say 100% genetically based. A person DOES make a decision to live openly as a homosexual, to NOT deny the reality of who they are and they do so in spite of the persecution from people like you. The Bible can not be used in anyway to justify the persecution or even the condemnation of honmosexuality as we have shown. Finally you are wrong the WORST thing a person can do is persecute others. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:05 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta you contradict your own arguments. in the 9:09 post you say "Repentance doesn't mean you would have to divorce that 2nd spouse....." at 9:10 "The key to repentance is what lifestyle you continue to live in...." At least here you admit it is the same for the divorced person as well as the homosexual. Does your reasoning also apply to those that lie, and steal and persecute others? Isn't continuing to live a lifestyle where you continue to do those things living in sin and the person would probably NOT be saved by your reasoning? In otherwords Mr. Vanatta by your own arguments because YOU continue your sinful ways YOU will not be saved. I think you are in serious trouble. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:14 AM:

" If you're still reading, Jon, I forgot to add the King James translation of Luke 16:18:

"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

According to this verse, remarriage of either the active or passive participant of divorce is adultery.

What is interesting is that you are looking at adultery in all of these divorce-related verses as the way out of the marriage--as your escape clause. But Jesus wasn't using it that way. Read the first verses in Mark 10. Jesus answered the question "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife" twice. His first response (to the pharisees) was "What God has joined together, no human being must separate."

Later, talking to the disciples, He made the comment about adultery. But this remark was not to say, this gives you a way out. That would have contradicted what He said earlier. He was actually saying, Moses may have allowed you to write a bill of divorce and dismiss your wife, but I'm saying to you that if you divorce your wife and marry someone else, you are committing adultery.

That's why the disciples were overwhelmed by what Jesus said, it was so different from what they'd always been taught.

Jon, you wrote: "Mark 10:11-12 makes a distinction between the divorcer and the divorcee for both husband and wife saying that the divorcer if marrying another commits adultery, Not really different than the Matthew 19:9.
Then Luke 16:18, a repeat."

The truth is, Mark 10:11-12, as translated, does not deal at all with the divorcee--only the divorcer. However, Luke 16:18 does deal with the divorcee--"whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." It seems pretty clear to me what this means, but I personally don't have any reason to parse Jesus' words into a statement that gives me permission to divorce and remarry.... "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:15 AM:

" Which gets us back to the concept of Salvation. You believe that people will be saved by FAITH alone, if we can take you at your word from your earlier posts. You don't accept faith with good works or good works alone. SO by your reasoning here the unrepentant divorced person or homosexual person will be SAVED if they profess their belief in Jesus as their Saviour. Yet in your earlier posts you insist the repentant person has to demonstrate by their actions that they have repented.You can't have it both ways Mr. V. BUT there is still that pesky little problem of Matthew 25 and the very concept of Grace, which if true, grace will be granted to everyone freely, no strings attached,otherwise it won't be GRACE it would be a quid pro quo. Using fear of NOT being saved as a club to force people to behave (follow your concept of right behavior) doesn't work. You have lost your "ace in the hole." "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:35 AM:

" Jon, let's move away from the adultery escape clause and deal with divorce/remarriage that does NOT involve adultery. Like non-Christians, Christians divorce for reasons other than adultery, as I'm sure you will agree. Eventually, most of them will remarry.

I assume you, who claim to take the Bible literally, agree that divorce for reasons other than adultery is forbidden, and that any subsequent marriages are adulterous.

However, you seem to think that "repenting" in these cases of divorce and remarriage means saying "I'm sorry" for the decision to remarry. Well I'm sorry, Jon, but that is not biblical repentance. Remember, biblical repentance means turning away from your sin. True biblical repentance would mean dissolving the second marriage, which is illicit in the eyes of God. Sure, it would hurt to break up a marriage, but it is after all a marriage that should never have been, and the wrong MUST be put right. After all, we're supposed to be willing to submit everything to God's will, right? Even the sinful webs we weave?

Let's look at a legally married gay couple, from whatever state that allows gay marriage. You protest, saying that gays cannot be married in God's sight. And you say they must dissolve their loving, committed relationship. No matter what the pain and inconvenience, the scrambling of Billy Graham's eggs, they MUST dissolve it.

But again, you fail to be consistent. According to you, as long as the divorced/remarried couple repents of their divorce and subsequent remarriage, they are off the hook. They are forgiven and can stay married, in spite of their living in sin--a marriage not sanctioned by God.

To you, it is okay for the remarried divorced person to continue to live in sin (the second marriage, which is illicit in the eyes of God), but it is not okay for the homosexual to continue his/her marriage. Their sin is WORSE and must be terminated--immediately!

Something is wrong with this picture. The hypocrisy of it is obvious to gay people, and that is one reason why Christians have such a difficult time convincing gay unbelievers. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:27 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta writes: "Cor. 7:10-11, you also need to read verses 12-16 to get the full understanding. Especially vs. 15."

No, Jon, you are incorrect. In I Cor:10 and 11, Paul is writing to the married and says that the Lord is giving these instructions: "A wife should not separate from her husband--and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife." (Notice that there is no adultery escape clause, no allowance for a second marriage.)

Notice also, in verses 12 through 16, that Paul is writing "to the rest" (those in marriages in which there is only 1 baptized Christian). He also says, "I say (not the Lord)...." He's setting forth his own opinion, not God's command. By the way, he's saying nothing about remarriage in this passage.

Taken together, these verses support what Christ said in the verses from the Gospels--No second marriages. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:29 AM:

" (Susan Humphreys wrote - Technically Buddhists are Atheists yet their religious system/doctrines/beliefs is the most moral in the world.)

Oh really Susan?

BUDDHISM'S PEDOPHILE MONKS

WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- Sex between clergymen and boys is by no means a uniquely Catholic phenomenon, a noted American scholar said -- it's been going on in Buddhist monasteries in Asia for centuries.

"Of course, this is against the Buddhist canon," Leonard Zwilling of the University of Wisconsin in Madison told United Press International, "but it has been common in Tibet, China, Japan and elsewhere."

"In fact, when the Jesuits arrived in China and Japan in the 16th century, they were horrified by the formalized relationships between Buddhist monks and novices who were still children. These relationships clearly broke the celibacy rule," said Zwilling, who has written extensively about this topic for more than three decades, and was one of the first to do so.

Zwilling, who holds a doctoral degree in Buddhist studies said in a telephone interview this practice continued until well into 20th century.

Although the Buddha clearly proscribed sex of any kind in monasteries, "we know of incidents where members of the Bob-Dob, an order enforcing discipline among Tibetan monks,fought each other over boys," continued Zwilling.

"They clobbered each other with huge keys that were the tools of their trade."

+++++++++

Yes indeed, some of those good old fashioned Atheist morals for you Susan.

LOL! "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:33 AM:

" Good points, Susan. He does contradict himself, but I honestly believe he doesn't realize it. He reads all these verses as he's been taught to read them, probably over the course of many years. The reason I say that is, I've read and heard it all before--many times. One result of all this is that the conservative Christian who uses these mental gymnastics can not only excuse his own behavior (i.e., sins) but feel virtuous in doing so. It is amazing how quickly people can abandon their literal reading of the Bible in order to rationalize their own life choices. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:37 AM:

" BlueDog asked, "are you saying that gay marriage should be accepted by Christians because so many Christians are already hypocritical for having been divorced and remarried?"

No, I am saying that Christians need to get their own houses in order before they try to clean up other people's. "

father bob wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:48 AM:

" if this "god" person "created" a homosexual individual, and has the ability to alter human events, cure illnesses, answer prayers, why doesn't he rid the world of this so-called bane to mankind???......hey, he made it, he can fix it....right?

just another example of his non-existence. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:38 PM:

" CrowWoman, So what you are saying is that it will make you feel better about homosexuals if you can condemn every remarriage no matter what the reason. Now explain to me how this justifies homosexual marriage. If all remarriages of divorced people are unlawful how does that make it lawful or even better for gays?

Remember the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4? She had been divorced 4 times and now married again but not living with her present husband. Did Jesus condemn her and say go away from me there is no hope for you? Or did He leave the door open for her to repent and turn her life around? He made it clear that the gift of God (grace) was still available to her but I am pretty sure He didnt mean for her to continue living with the man that was not her husband and also dont miss the point that He did recognize that she did have a husband different from the first four.

Vicky you only want to talk about the legitimacy of the marriage of the gays and you are staying clear of the sin of homosexualism. You really are not addressing the root of the problem but instead you are trying to justify it.

These issues of adultery divorce and homosexualism are serious problems that people have to deal with and they would not be problems if sin were not present. We both know that people cannot live and not sin. Remember I said sin is always involved in a divorce. You know what bothers me is when liberals and even many liberal Christians resist every measure that is made to combat things like homosexual indoctrination, pornography and gambling just to name a few because these contribute to divorces immensely and contribute or cause these huge problems we are talking about. I think it is really a sad reality that there is just as many divorces among Christians as non-Christians but I can legitimately say that Liberal Christians are not helping that problem nor are they helping the homosexual problem by trying to legitimize gay lifestyles and give them the approval they so desperately desire.

Arent you glad that Jesus is going to be the final judge of all these things? I am confident that He will judge correctly.

And by the way Billy Graham said you couldnt unscramble eggs not that you cannot scramble them. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:49 PM:

" (CrowWoman wrote- No, I am saying that Christians need to get their own houses in order before they try to clean up other people's.)

Oh I see, Vicky.

Would it be okay for all those Christians who haven't been divorced to condemn gay marriage?

Or in your estimation, should Christianity open up the flood gates and accept gay marriage under the rationale that we are all sinners and are thus incapable of justly critiquing any questionable behavior? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:24 PM:

" Once again BDD your narrow mindedness has gotten you into a bind. The regimes that you have mentioned, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein, Hitler, et. al. are not Atheistic. They are very much theistic. Note I used a little t to indicate that I am using the word in the broadest sense of a belief in a God. It is just that they dont believe in YOUR God because they see themselves as God. When they ban All other religions you should also have noted that they banned ALL sorts of fraternal groups (Masons, Lions Clubs, etc.), all competition for the hearts, minds and control of the people. Since atheism, can be defined in its broadest literal sense as just a belief in no God, (a theistic) even Christianity is considered atheistic to those that believe in a God other than Yahweh. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:48 PM:

" Jesus said, I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Yes, BlueDog, I believe what Jesus said. This is one of several I AM statements in which Jesus refers to the sacred name of God as revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

Jesus had been trying to comfort his disciples and was telling them there are many dwelling places in his Father's house. Thomas asked how they could know the way. In this passage, Jesus is saying, I am your God, the God you have always worshiped. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:14 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:27 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta writes: "Cor. 7:10-11, you also need to read verses 12-16 to get the full understanding. Especially vs. 15."

No, Jon, you are incorrect

No Vicky I an not incorrect I said you need to read verses 12-16 to get the full understanding. what is incorrect about that? I can't help it if you can't put it together in context and you are letting your bias against Paul show through again you are belittling it because Paul said it. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:22 PM:

" "Would it be okay for all those Christians who haven't been divorced to condemn gay marriage?"

I think it's perfectly okay for people to say, I believe gay marriage is wrong (prohibited in the Bible) whether they are divorced or not. We have freedom of speech, you know! However, it isn't consistent to say that and simultaneously believe that divorce and remarriage are acceptable.

"Or in your estimation, should Christianity open up the flood gates and accept gay marriage under the rationale that we are all sinners and are thus incapable of justly critiquing any questionable behavior?"

Interesting thought, and Jesus himnself was criticized as being a friend of sinners. Many sins are listed along with homosexuality in the Old Testament and the New. Gossip, lying, and slander come to mind. I could reword what you said and ask you, "Should Christianity open up the floodgates and accept gossip (and lying, slander, etc.) under the rationale that we're all sinners...." I would say that Christianity has accepted these things and many others--if not most other sins.

I may be uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, but it's scripturally no more wrong than divorce and remarriage. People's personal biases cause them to think that it is, but the Bible does not support these biases. They are cultural in nature. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:27 PM:

" Honestly Mr. Vanatta, Homosexuality is NOT a SIN. Divorce and remarriage are NOT SINS. The laws that were set up for one small tribal group 2000 years ago are no more applicable in our time than their explanations for the beginning of the Universe and life here on earth. What is applicable however is the underlying teaching of the inherent worth of ALL human beings and that to live a goodly life one should treat ALL human beings as one would want to be treated by them. AND that Mr. Vanatta is the common thread that runs through ALL the worlds religions and through the writings of the worlds greates THINKERS. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:54 PM:

" Uhm...Susan?

I never mentioned Hitler or Saddam Hussein.

And Pol Pot was most certainly an Atheist.

You have no idea what you are even talking about.....do you Susan. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:19 PM:

" Christianity has accepted gossip,lying and slander, CrowWoman?

Really? Those things are no longer sins?

Whadda you say we just keep sliding down this slippery slope and start to accept marriage between an adult and a child?

What do ya think Vicky? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:23 PM:

" (CrowWoman wrote- Jesus himnself was criticized as being a friend of sinners.)

Yeah......and?

Did Jesus' friendship condone the sins? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:37 PM:

" Truly, Jon, I am not biased against Paul. He was a brilliant man, and I have great respect for him. What do you think he was saying in the I Cor. passage that you mentioned?

ALSO, I was not trying to justify homosexual marriage. I was simply saying that homosexual marriage is no more wrong than divorce and remarriage, if you take the Bible at its word. That's all.

Actually, my moral beliefs are very conservative; I vote against the expansion of gambling whenever I have the chance, and I certainly oppose pornography as it degrades women and children, not to mention those who indulge in it.

To me, sin is sin. Gossip, lying, divorce, homosexuality...no one is worse than the other. Some sinners bother me a lot less than others, I admit. I'd much rather be around a divorced person or homosexual than I would an incorrigible gossip or child molester. I confess to a real bias against child molesters, even revulsion. At the same time, I don't believe Jesus would feel that revulsion. He would know what makes the child molester tick, why he/she turned out that way, and extend mercy to him.

I strongly disagree with you re. what you wrote about indoctrinating children into a homosexual lifestyle, and not just because I believe people have to be born with a predisposition to homosexuality. Again, I think you see homosexuals in the context of gay pride parades, either being fruity or obnoxious--you aren't getting beyond the stereotypes. Most are quietly, boringly normal people. I am teaching my own children tolerance. They have learned that we don't believe the lifestyle is biblical, but that it DOES exist, and that people are people, no matter what--even if our beliefs do not agree. They deserve NOT to be maligned, beaten up, made fun of, etc., etc. Everyone should be treated with respect.

"Arent you glad that Jesus is going to be the final judge of all these things? I am confident that He will judge correctly."

I agree, 100 percent. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:59 PM:

" Hey now CrowWoman don't cut off the first verse there in John 14. Jesus said, "you believe in God believe also in Me" He separated God the Father and God the Son as two different persons. And then He said in verse 6 I am the only way to God the Father. You are always taking verses out of their context. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:03 PM:

" (To me, sin is sin. Gossip, lying, divorce, homosexuality...no one is worse than the other.)

So, Vicky...... using God's name in vain is equivalent to murder?

Really?

(I confess to a real bias against child molesters, even revulsion.)

Why Vicky?

Many ancient cultures embraced the practice.

Just ask Susan.

Why are you so judgmental towards pedophiles, Vicky?

Are they any worse than homosexuals?

Who are YOU to judge?

Are you free from sin? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:31 PM:

" Oh and Vicky,

why were you insulted when Jon asked if you were a lesbian?

What have you got against lesbians anyway? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:58 PM:

" Vicky I like most of your 3:37 PM post. We probably have a lot more in common than most people might think from watching us banter. But I got to ask you about the child indoctrination thing. When kindergarten children are forced to hear stories read from a book like I Have Two Mommies you dont think this is trying to develop their thinking that there is nothing abnormal about some of their classmates that have two mommies or two daddies? And then there was the 1st grade class in San Francisco that was bused to their lesbian teachers wedding. As one parent said, "This is a day they'll definitely remember." And I have often heard it said, What happens in California will be in Ill. Within 5 years. Did they also have a field trip to a husband and wife wedding? I havent heard about it. And that is the point because that wouldnt be news would it? That is the up front agenda of the MSM that we got to show all the people how wonderful being gay is.
And why shouldnt I see homosexuals in the context of gay pride parades, either being fruity or obnoxious? This kind of activity is the face of gays it is what they are and represent. Children should not be encouraged to adopt that lifestyle.
You have acknowledged that homosexuality is sin as well as Gossip, lying, divorce, so now how would you feel about teaching the young children in public schools about the wonderful and acceptable practices of gossiping, lying, and how great divorces are? This is a major inconsistency in thinking and teaching.

And one more thing would you please quit bothering me in the middle of the day like this dont you think I have anything else to do? (just a little attempt at humor there) LOL "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:25 PM:

" Go back and read what I wrote BDD. And by the way you have at one time or another in your ramblings mentioned all of those folks. I said those regimes were not Atheistic because they were theistic. The GOD they followed just wasn't the God you follow. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:33 PM:

" Now BDD why on earth can't you read what Crow Woman wrote and quit accusing her and others of saying things that they don't say? People know how to go back and read what was actually written/said. Are you trying to bully her into shutting up? OR do you think your bullying tactics might confuse her? She is much sharper than you are and a person who has reached her level of spirituality can't be intimidated by small people like you. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:48 PM:

" "Are you trying to bully her into shutting up? OR do you think your bullying tactics might confuse her?"

I don't feel bullied or intimidated, Susan, but I definitely am getting tired! And thank you for the compliment. It means a lot to me, because I know we are quite different in our spiritual beliefs. Likewise, I especially respect your commitment to urging people of all faiths to put aside their differences and make this world a better place. Why people get bogged down by the specifics of what you believe and miss your essential message is beyond me. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:24 PM:

" "You are always taking verses out of their context."

You wish! LOL--I've gone on and on way too much today, can't touch on every point.

"And why shouldnt I see homosexuals in the context of gay pride parades, either being fruity or obnoxious?"

Probably for the same reason we shouldn't see heterosexuals in the context of Mardi Gras or the frat houses of most colleges. If someone dropped in from another planet (I know, I know, you don't believe in that) and observed these activities, what would they conclude about heterosexuality?

But let me say this--much of the obnoxious, in-your-face, angry behavior results from how these people have been treated. That isn't hard to understand, is it? If someone is pushed to the edge of society, they just might act like someone on the edge of society.

Some in the gay community are advocating a retreat from the histrionics and bizarre behaviors that have been exhibited. They realize that they are alienating straight people and want to show the rest of us that they really are like us, other than who they choose to sleep with.

I personally don't have a problem with the "Two Mommies" book. It doesn't bother me for my children to find out that some people are different. As I said previously, I believe that Jesus taught celibacy for homosexual people. We accept biblical teaching and pass it along to our kids. Still, homosexual unions do exist and my husband and I in no way see them hurting our marriage or society at large. Just as children's stories often feature divorced parents, kids being raised by grandparents, and other non-traditional situations--it doesn't hurt children to know that everyone does not exist in a traditional family unit.

Oh, by the way, if I said I thought homosexuality is a sin, that was a mistake made from being in a hurry. I believe the homosexual orientation is morally neutral.

I would have a problem with my kids being taken to any teacher's wedding, gay or straight, without my permission and on school time.

Finally, Jon, you asked, "how would you feel about teaching the young children in public schools about the wonderful and acceptable practices of gossiping, lying, and how great divorces are?"

Gossiping and lying, alas, seem to come naturally. You might want to add cursing and swearing to that list, too. I've heard words in kindergarten that I didn't hear until high school.

I'm not for "teaching" anything per se, but I am not against kids learning about diversity. And as I mentioned, children are exposed to divorce in their reading materials. I don't think that is a bad thing; again, children need to learn to understand differences and not sigmatize children who come from families other than traditional ones. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:27 PM:

" I don't know either CrowWoman but I have my suspicions. Mr. Vanatta has given us clues, he has said that if he ever let's his guard down, gives an inch, admits that the Bible isn't absolute/100% Truth, then he looses everything, what else might not be true, if the Bible is a metaphor could God be a metaphor? Those who have the greatest doubts about their beliefs try the hardest to convince others of the TRUTH of their beliefs, perhaps by convincing others they will convince themselves. The tragedy is that it isn't necessary, as you have shown you can be a Christian that respects other beliefs without having your own threatened. From my perspective even the divinity of Jesus was never necessary, and it has even caused harm because it is taken people away from the core of his message, "do unto others", "compassion for those that are different". Instead people like Mr. Vanatta have wandered down a deadend road arguing about doctrine and dogma and TRUTH and Sin, and have "missed the boat" completely. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:30 PM:

" Yes, he tries to bully people and after two years of this failed tactic you would think he would come with something new. I don't think he has ever been successful with it. Most of the regulars on here just sort of ignore him, while some of us like to keep him fired up. His strings are easy to pull. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:22 PM:

" You know Susan, YOU need to go back and read what I wrote.

I have never mentioned Saddam Hussein or Hitler when referring to Atheism.

And Pol Pot and his regime the Khmer Rouge were most certainly communist and without a doubt Atheist.

You simply pulled a pat reply off of an Atheist site to counter my facts and you didn't bother to exclude the cookie cutter Hussein, Hitler references. Pretty sloppy SuzieQ. I'm afraid your "knowledge" of worldly Atheism is not quite what you've been leading everyone to believe.

I have just proven you wrong once again Susan, and once again you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

If anyone sees themselves as a god, it is you Susan. You are quite pathetic.

And here's an idea Susan; why don't you let CrowWoman speak for herself? What is it with you two? Is this some sort of puppet show?

Now how can a humble, simple man such as myself possibly "bully" anyone? How does one go about "bullying" someone on a blog, anyway?

And I never got a clear answer from the "Crow of the higher spirituality" on my questions about the equality of all sins and those pesky moral questions on pedophilia.

It seems you to are starting to make a habit of dodging my tough questions.

Strange isn't it, that you two could be so easily intimidated by a lowly inconsequential sinner like myself.

Quite pathetic ladies. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:35 PM:

" How ironic that you should show up Harry Larry. Of course this is hardly surprising since you've always stalked me. I'm naturally very flattered.

And how doubly hypocritical of you to accuse me of unscrupulous tactics, especially since you've been repeating the lie that I supposedly claimed the earth was only 6000 years old, or that I'm someone called doh, or that I supposedly posted things on another site or some such nonsense. And let us not forget the fact that there is a growing list of questions that you are too afraid to answer.

Thanks for being my number one little fan Harry Larry. Try as you might, you just can't get me to leave can you.

*tee hee hee*

I'm glad I can get under your little hide so easily, screwy. I drive you soooo crazy, and we both know it.

You're pathetic lady too, Harry Larry.

LOL "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:44 PM:

" Again CrowWoman;

Since you believe sin is sin; is taking the Lords name in vain equivalent to murder?

And

Why are you so judgmental towards pedophiles, CrowWoman?

Are they any worse than active homosexuals?

And why were you insulted when asked if you were a lesbian?

And you never did give a clear answer to this question;

Do you believe that Christ is THE only Truth?

Or are there "many" truths? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:53 PM:

" Well Vicky you have flip flopped on the Homosexual marriage being sin and you have struggled laboriously to make the point that any remarriage after divorce is an illegitimate sinful marriage not acceptable to God. Are you staying with that or flip flopping there also? Perhaps you were in a hurry and tired and didnt really think about that enough. Id like to know so I can mark my score card. Even more important is that you are so sure Jesus and Paul condemn all remarriage so you must be saying that Jesus flip flopped from His lesson with the Samaritan multi times married woman at the well. Boy its getting hard here to keep up with the changes.
I cannot believe the amount of rationalism you are using in what you think should be taught to schoolchildren. Oh since it just comes naturally it is just fine to teach it and let them experience it because they got it at home anyway. They are gonna do it anyway right well so whatever. You seem to be saying its according to what fits the situation at the time I believe thats called relativism. You and your husband have a right to believe whatever you want but I cant believe Jesus would want children taught to accept immorality in things that even you have adamantly labeled sin. If fact I think He said something about it being better if a millstone were hung around someones neck and they be drowned in the sea than to cause one of the little ones to sin. Wasnt that right after he had just called a little child to Him. Oh well maybe He was just in a hurry and had a bad day. Rationalization, rationalization, rationalization!

It is so much better to take the Bible for what it says rather than all that rationalization to try to cover sin. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:11 AM:

" Sorry BDD I haven't looked at any Atheist websites. The "revelation" was entirely my own. Pol Pot was very much a theist, its just that he and Communism were God. Which you would have figured out IF you had read my post earlier. I think the error in much of your arguments comes from only reading part of a post. Like the Bible you need to read the whole enchilada IF you want to understand what it means. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:20 AM:

" Sorry BDD I have never posed as God just her little helper. Read your own posts, belittling others beliefs, name calling,obfuscating, avoiding the issues those are all tactics of the BULLY.We haven't dodged a single one of your questions, you just refuse to accept honest answers that don't fit your preconceived notions. I let CrowWoman speak for herself, I just offer her my support as I have for all others who post sensibly and make thoughtful comments. Shoot I have even asknowledged you when you made a responsible comment, although I must admit it was when you agreed with something I said. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:31 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta a sign of integrity is to correct ones self if one misspeaks, that isn't called flip flopping. They are NOT teaching children HOW to be homosexuals in school Mr. Vanatta, they are teaching children about respect for people who are different. Once again you are spreading lies which is a SIN in Gods eyes, if you believe in God. Ethical and moral situations should be looked at individually, there are no absolutes (except death) in this world, and yes you are right some call that relativism. If you only took the Bible "for what it says" but you DON'T Mr. V you "picking and choosing what suit their views without acknowledging that the Bible is an extremely complex and intricate concatenation of views, perspectives, and ideas." From "God's Problem, How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer." Bart Ehrman. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:01 AM:

" And BDD just to make the point clear an Atheistic regime would NOT worship any Thing, man (king or despot), beast, ideology or supernatural being. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:31 AM:

" Read your own posts, belittling others beliefs, name calling,obfuscating, avoiding the issues those are all tactics of the BULLY....

Yup, looks like someone has the resident gasbag Blowdog pegged alright.

Good job, Susan. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:37 AM:

" (Shumphreys wrote - Sorry BDD I haven't looked at any Atheist websites. The "revelation" was entirely my own. Pol Pot was very much a theist, its just that he and Communism were God.)

Ah yes, Susan.

You just cited YOURSELF as your "source" to verify your false claims that I referred to Saddam and Hitler, and that Pol Pot thought of himself as a "god".

Well played Susan. Never let any FACTS stand in your way, ole girl.

You just go right ahead and make up any old story you want, sweetheart.

And by all means SuzieQ, keep on ignoring my posts like the one on Nobel prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who stated emphatically that Atheism was THE central component of Communism.

Or my post on Buddhism's PEDOPHILE MONKS that completely shattered your ignorant declaration that "Buddhists Atheists and their religious system/doctrines/beliefs are the most moral in the world."

And again, don't let the fact that you made up out of whole cloth, your completely false statement about my supposed reference to Saddam and Hitler.

No no no, Susan. Never let any pesky little facts, or any tedious amounts of logic and rationale stand in the way of your charade as a "spiritually enlightened" guru and self delusional wise sage.

I apologize for ever taking you serious in the first place Susan. I sincerely admit that I should never have treated you as a person of intellect and integrity. That was clearly my mistake, Susan. The evidence to the contrary was obvious.

It's your story SuzieQ; you tell it the way you want. Far be it from this humble, simple man, to confuse and "bully" you with a bunch of inconvenient facts. I should have known better. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:40 AM:

" Susan, I would like to be able to read the Bible from its source documents, in the original languages. If there's one thing I've learned from my study of different translations, it is that some subjectivity exists in even the most literal versions. What is disturbing (but probably not unexpected) is that the faith of the translating group affects how the translation turns out.

The divorce scriptures that were discussed yesterday--there are subtle differences in translation that dramatically affect their meaning. The verses from my Catholic study Bible are straight out about divorce and remarriage being forbidden. It also states that church leaders should be married only once (I Timothy). The verses from my NIV, a version popular with evangelicals, are much more ambiguous, and the accompanying commentary takes a lenient approach to divorce.

Some translation decisions can drastically affect Christian practice. In Romans 16:7, Paul writes, "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me." My commentary (Catholic Study Bible) reads, "The name Junia is a woman's name. One ancient Greek ms. and a number of ancient versions read the name "Julia." Most editors have interpreted it as a man's name, Junias. That is how it appears in my other translations.

In other words, since women could not possibly have been leaders of the early church, there must be a mistake in the word as written. It has to be "Junias" even though no instances of the name "Junias" are known in Greek literature.

It is interesting that people have latched onto what Paul said to one group of people ("Let women keep silent in the churches") and ignored how he recognized and affirmed female leadership elsewhere. He talks about Junia, Priscilla, and some others I can't think of right now. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:28 AM:

" Susan, one reason I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired is because of the apparently contradictory themes than run throughout the Old Testament. What most people think of when they hear about the O.T. is either a God of wrath or some primitive Hebrew war-God. When you really read it, though, something different emerges--something transcendent. At first take, you read again and again about foreign peoples that the Hebrews supposedly destroyed as they took over their land. But then you see these people popping up again and again. Some of them even figure into the lineage of the king David.

One of the most interesting accounts along these lines is that of Jonah. Telling Jonah to go to Ninevah would be like telling a Jew to go to Nazi Germany. The Assyrians were butchers, far worse than their other enemies. It was understandable that Jonah set off in the opposite direction.

I always wondered why Jonah wasn't immediately killed, and why the people there bothered to listen to him. As it turns out, the deity of that city was a fish-god, and the people believed in a god that sent messages to them by a person who came out of the sea as part man/part god.

The account, like so many in the O.T., transcends and challenges the fear and tribalism characteristic of that time (and ours). "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:14 AM:

" CrowWoman there is great wisdom in the Bible for those that are willing to plumb its depths.I too wish I could read Greek and Aramaic but I can't. So I read as many discussions on Biblical passages, from as many different points of view, as I can. AND then I THINK and make up my own mind. I also think that the Upanishads, the Tao teh Ching, the Buddhist Sutras, even the works of some of our great composers and artists are ALL "divinely inspired". How could anyone listen to Handels Messiah or Wagners Ring Cycle or look at the Pieta or even a Picasso and think otherwise? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 9, 2009 10:41 AM:

" It looks like my first post of the day didn't make it onto the site. I didn't think it was THAT bad! I really, really want to finish this discussion we've gotten bogged down in.

BlueDog: Why do you keep interrogating us, but reveal nothing about yourself? I've volunteered a lot of information the past few days, but I don't know a thing about what YOU believe. Usually I wouldn't ask, I'm not a nosy sort, but since you keep interrogating me....

Where do YOU stand on these issues?

About feeling insulted by Jon's question, that I will answer. It seemed too personal at the time for one thing. Also, the question implied that I could not be straight if I were against homophobia--sort of like saying that, if I was against racism, I'd have to be a black person.

The other questions I believe were answered in comments directed to Mr. Vanatta. If you really want to subject yourself to my pearls of wisdom once again, feel free, ha-ha. Or should I say, Caw-Caw. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:02 AM:

" Jon, Jon, Jon--I don't believe I have flip-flopped at all, other than where I failed to distinguish between homosexual orientation and behavior. Otherwise, maybe it seems I flip-flop because I jump from discussing behavior to discussing people. I can disapprove of activity without disapproving of the individuals involved. For example, if my daughter became pregnant w/out being married, I would definitely not be happy about it--but I would still love and support her. Flip and flop--sure.

It's interesting, Jon, but you definitely seem unable to separate action from person--at least when it comes to homosexuals. You can speak compassionately about people involved in divorce, you see the complexities, the permutations, the ambiguities--you sort of say it's sin, but then again we get back to something like, You just can't unscramble those eggs.

The millstone passage--yes, that is serious scripture. And I would say it is something that many, many Christians need to think about. How many homosexual people feel welcome in most churches? By harassment, covert as well as overt negativity, even wisecracks made in fun--Christians are hurting people and essentially barring them from even entering their churches. Would your church welcome a gay couple? Would that couple feel the love of God there? On the other hand, would your church welcome a straight unmarried couple? Would it welcome a divorced person?

Too many Christians have kept homosexuals away from Christ. I believe they will be held accountable for that. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:20 AM:

" Why the silence CrowWoman?

I asked for your rationale on your condemnation of pedophilia.

Since Christians are hypocrites, and by your rationale, unjustified to criticize the active homosexual life style, why should you or anyone else condemn sexual acts between adults and children?

Why are you afraid to advance this topic?

I thought a person of your high level of spirituality couldn't be intimidated by the likes of a small, insignificant, simple, humble man such as myself?

Your silence is perplexing, Vicky. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:47 AM:

" You can spin all day Susan. Pol Pot's Communist Khmer Rouge regime was Atheistic through and through.

This is as lame as your attempt to redefine "Atheism" as a "non-belief" completely separate from any active belief. I destroyed that nonsensical argument of yours as well.

In your own highly enlightened, highly educated vernacular, Susan; Please start making some "sensical" arguments!

LOL!

Now about those most moral ever Buddist Monks.................... "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:16 PM:

" Why do you refer to my questions as "interrogating" CrowWoman?

And I have revealed some of my beliefs.

Right here:

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:16 PM -

(CrowWoman wrote- If this is a correct interpretation, and I believe that it is, Jesus seems to be saying that those born with a homosexual orientation are called to a celibate life.)

Well now, I agree with you on that point CrowWoman.)

And Here:

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 2, 2009 11:15 PM:

"Unlike Susan, I never professed to be "enlightened", or to be the self-righteous bearer of some great pretentious knowledge, or to be highly qualified to pass judgment on an entire belief system of others.

I'm simply responding to her attacks on Christianity, especially in light of the horrendous history of Atheism.

But most importantly Harry; unlike Susan, I d@mn well KNOW I'm a hypocrite.

You see Harry, the vast majority of the human race is, in fact, hypocritical to one degree or another.

Painful though it may be, most of us can realize that fact. Christ demands that we admit that fact. But when it comes to herself, Susan won't even acknowledge that fact.

But all that aside Harry: why should Christians have to sit back and take this kind of abuse from Atheist?

Are Christians somehow forbidden to defend the faith? Is Christianity not worth defending in your opinion, Harry?

Is that a job reserved only for the Saints and thus isolated from the sinners? Because last time I looked around this vast existence, I found that the entire human race was made up of sinners.

So Harry, consider me to be a self-confessed hypocritical sinner completely unworthy of the title "Christian", and who insists on defending Christianity in spite of this shortcoming." "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:43 PM:

" CrowWoman, you have some good viewpoints on the OT 9:28AM today. God being a
God of wrath is a hard thing to take. I believe the misunderstanding is that His justifiable wrath is not against man but against sin. You mentioned the foreign peoples that the Hebrews supposedly destroyed as they took over their land. I hope you are not thinking it was the foreign peoples land that the Hebrews took over. You cant though because then they would not have been foreign people living there. (Would you want to clarify that?) Then you said that they supposedly destroyed them you know that has a lot to do with the problem, they supposedly destroyed them. But they didnt totally destroy them and that was what God told them to do. Perhaps if they had fully obeyed God there wouldnt be the problems in the Middle East there are today. Now they are still struggling . Those people occupying the land of Canaan were totally pagan and disobedient to God. Child sacrifice, pagan idol worship, pagan temple prostitutes, homosexualism, not much unlike what our nation is becoming. So Joshua and others left some of them and then the Israelites fell into the sinful stuff they picked up from the pagans. This is all tuff realities to accept but the thing is the liberals in our nation follow pretty well along the lines of the pagans who God wanted exterminated from the promised land and then many people while claiming to be Christians are more concerned with pleasing the pagans and conforming to their ways then they are with obeying God. We need not think that just because we are Americans we are immune from Gods wrath.

Meanwhile God has made the offer of His new plan to accept the gift of His Son and have everlasting life instead of having Gods wrath remain upon us. John 3:36

It is the best offer I know of "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 9, 2009 12:52 PM:

" Well said BDD in your 12:16 post today. Even though you won't back me up on the 6,000 years, thats allright we'll work on it. I'm more flexible than they might think. I might even agree to 6,300 years. More or less LOL "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Thanks Jon.

Our differing views on the age of the planet is minor, as far as I'm concerned. That topic was an amateurish attempt to divide and conquer, on Harry Larry's part.

Gosh, two Christians NOT shouting each other down while beating Bibles!

I thought this was unheard of?

LOL "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:57 PM:

" BDD we have addressed pedofilia before. Since you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between what is right and wrong I will give you some advice. It is all about exploitation of the weak by the powerful and there is plenty of reference to such in the Bible if you would try to read it. But I must grant that pedofilia isn't mentioned directly in the Bible and one does have to use ones intelligence to figure out what is wrong with it. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:12 PM:

" What's with the worm theology, BlueDog? Christians are called saints in the Bible, after all. They are reborn, right? You're supposed to be a saint, not a sinner. What happened to being "seated with Christ in the heavenly realms?" "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:13 PM:

" BDD you are not responding to my attacks on Christianity because I haven't made any. I have gone after those that abuse and misuse Christianity to persecute those that are differnt from them. There is a BIG difference. Now back to the concept of theism. Note as I explained earlier that I used a little "t" when I wrote the word to show that I was using the word in the broadest sense of its meaning. You tried to show that "atheist" governments were more evil than Christian governments and I both CrowWoman and I explained that they weren't atheistic. I even explained further why they weren't because they were actually theistic, they very much believe in a God it just isn't the God you believe in. An atheistic government would not worship a man (king or despot), a beast, or an ideology (Communism). If you don't like the explanation than show why it is wrong, tear it apart, put forth a better explanation. Just denying it doesn't work, it shows you have nothing better and that my explanation is right on. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:26 PM:

" Mr. Vanatta, do you hear that dull, thumping sound? That is the sound of my head banging against the wall....

If it weren't for those foreign peoples that should have been utterly destroyed, there would be no King David. Jesus himself was descended from some of these pagans. THAT is the point, that they were likewise included in God's redemptive plan.

In the Old Testament, as God was revealing Himself to humanity, He didn't have a whole lot to work with. As He reminded the people of Israel many times, they were no better than their neighbors. If you have any doubt about that, just read the book of Judges.

If you're trying to move to end times discussion, I've told you that I am not a dispensationalist. I am a panmilleniest, though--everything is going to pan out in the end.... "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 9, 2009 3:31 PM:

" " Well said BDD in your 12:16 post today. Even though you won't back me up on the 6,000 years, thats allright we'll work on it. I'm more flexible than they might think. I might even agree to 6,300 years. More or less LOL "

But Vanutty, he does back you up. Why do you think he doesn't? He steadfastly refuses to back away from his original claim. So you two are on the same page after all. He even goes along with the man and dinosaur idea. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:17 PM:

" When did you address pedophilia, Susan?

And who's to determine the many facets of "exploitation of the weak by the powerful"?

And Susan, you haven't given ANY evidence that the Atheistic Regimes were somehow theistic. You have cited absolutely NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that any of the Communist regimes I mentioned had ANY belief in any sort of gods. You simply have made that claim with no evidence to back it up. I on the other hand, Susan, cited the article "THE INFLUENCE OF ATHEISM AS A CENTRAL COMPONENT OF COMMUNISM" by Nobel prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to substanciate MY claim.

And remember Susan- you made your ridiculous theist claim using the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Hitler as examples, however, I NEVER REFERRED to Saddam or Hitler.

You were mistaken as usual, Susan.

Are you really THIS dense?

You're not being very "sensical", as you would say.

And CrowWoman- you haven't answered my questions about pedophelia have you? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:27 PM:

" Who said I was reborn, CrowWoman?

Do you require me to be a "Saint" in order for me to defend Christianity against Atheism, CrowWoman?

Are YOU a Saint, CrowWoman?

And do YOU believe that Jesus Christ is THE ONLY Truth, Vicky?

Or do you believe that there are "many truths"? "

father bob wrote on Jan 9, 2009 4:33 PM:

" interesting how a country settled by europeans and their culture could morph into and anal society that condemns sexuality of any sort, hates open-minded though process and deems academia as a threat to society.

all a result of christian conservatism. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:04 PM:

" Vicky in case you havent caught on yet Gods redemptive plan is available to everyone even those Hamas types. Did I say they should have been killed? Or did you say they should have been killed? I cant believe you would say that Vicky! Should have been killed wow! You are surprising.

Oh I betcha God could have used someone else besides Rahab if she hadnt cooperated. But by saving her he showed how with His grace He can accept and use anyone if they will trust in Him and if they dont He can use them anyway. Thats just the way He is. Remember He used old Nebuchadnezzar ( spelling might be close) and the Pharaoh that let em go and He used Pilate. Pilate served God quite well and didnt even know he was doing it. LOL

I keep running across the same phrase in Judges, They done what was right in their own eyes and then things would go bad until they came back to obeying God then there they go again. Whats right in their own eyes just the way the liberals we have with us think.

Panmilleniest thats a good one Ill have to remember that. Youre pretty close to being right about everything panning out for those who love Him. I believe God has already got it planned though.

Oh, you might want to take some Tylenol after all that head banging and get ready for more.

Have you noticed Im in a rather light mood tonight? God gave me a great day. I noticed you changed your name, Im thinking about it but just cant decide. Im torn between Grumpy old man and Doggie GranDaddy No Im not asking for suggestions.

Hey did you hear the Popes Christmas address? Heres some of it:
The Church must "protect the human being against self-destruction" - a destruction which comes from a warped understanding of marriage and human sexuality. The Pope suggested that the gender ideology which seeks to redefine the sexes to allow for homosexuality, transgenderism and such things are examples of mankind separating himself "from creation and the Creator." With such attempts to decide for himself, mankind "lives against the truth and the Spirit of the Creator."

Quoting great theologians of the past, the Pope called marriage "between one man and one woman for life" the "sacrament of creation"

Wow Im not Catholic but he sure nailed it. I agree one man and one woman for life anything else is sin that must be repented of. He just mentioned creation over and over! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:44 PM:

" (Wow Im not Catholic but he sure nailed it. I agree one man and one woman for life anything else is sin that must be repented of. He just mentioned creation over and over!)

Pope Benedict also had the wisdom to ban homosexual men from admittance into seminaries - "because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers."

This Pope has decided to confront the Liberal tide that has infected the Catholic Church in the Western World.

More power to him. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2009 8:16 AM:

" BDD the regimes are proof of my point. Where a leaders photo is blown up and plastered all over the state the leader expects to be worshipped as a God. Proof is in the pudding. Oh forgot you also have problems with metaphorical concepts. The proof is in the regime, read a History book. As I mentioned you mentioned Hitler and Sadam on other posts on other threads. Pedofilia was discussed the last time we discussed homosexuality on another thread. Finally you ask who is to determine the many facets of exploitation of the weak by the powerful. Determine what?You didn't ask a complete question. If you mean who determines what is exploitation and what isn't? Then I will answer we as a society and as individuals need to make that determination using as a base principle the equality of ALL humans to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2009 8:31 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta the Pope also says "Every instance of trespass among men involves some kind of injury to truth and to love and is thus opposed to God, who is truth and love." It would seem to me that your continued persecution of homosexuals is just what he is talking about.He also says "And the fact of the matter is that social order has to be capable of development. It must address changing historical situations within the limits of the possible, but without ever losing sight of the ethical standard as such, which gives law its character as law." Perhaps he should practice what he preaches.The quotes are from "Jesus of Nazareth" Pope Benedict XVI. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 10, 2009 12:19 PM:

" Jon, again you are not making the distinction between gay orientation and acting on one's orientation. The Catholic Church makes this distinction. As an example:

"Bishop Joseph P. McFadden, the former Secretariat of Catholic Education and current Auxiliary to the Archbishop of Philadelphia, said (referring to a controversial article) Theres a fine line between recognizing diversity and promoting a lifestyle. Being a homosexual is not sinful. Acting on the homosexual lifestyle is as is all sex outside the bond of marriage, which is defined as a union between one man and one woman.

About admitting gay men to the priesthood:

"The new document from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education says the church deeply respects homosexuals, but adds that it "cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."

As I understand it, current priests are unaffected by the policy that's in place. I'm not Catholic, but I understand that Pope Benedict functioned as "doctrine police" for the Church. Anyway, I believe that gay priests would be as capable of a celibate lifestyle as straight ones.

If gay priests are banned, I can't imagine the Church's loss. Although he never came out publicly, the priest Henri Nouwen (who is as nearly popular among Protestants as among Catholics) was apparently gay. People might be really shocked to find out how many prominent priests have been homosexuals. And since Benedict is vehemently anti-gay, who knows about him? It is often the strongest persecutors who have same-sex attraction; by attacking others, they attack the Thing inside themselves. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 10, 2009 12:26 PM:

" (Shumphreys obfuscates with - "BDD the regimes are proof of my point. Where a leaders photo is blown up and plastered all over the state the leader expects to be worshipped as a God. Proof is in the pudding.")

Oh I see, Susan;

1) - The larger than life photos of the Communist leaders, automatically denotes a supernatural aspect to their existence. They are understood to be deities. Supreme Beings. All powerful by their own force. And worshiped as such.

-But here's the problem with your faulty assumption, Susan;

Communist Regimes demanded absolute allegiance to THE STATE, and the leader simply represents the supremacy of THE STATE. The Leader can only carry out his evil within the precepts of THE STATE. His power exists, not within himself, but within THE STATE. Leaders may come and go, but THE STATE and it's Atheistic foundations remain.

Do me a favor Susan,

Go back and actually READ the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

This man suffered under the Atheistic Communism of the Soviet Union. Since he grew up under this Godless oppression, he would surely be a better authority to reference than you, would he not Susan? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 10, 2009 12:36 PM:

" (Susan repeats the falsehood - "As I mentioned you mentioned Hitler and Sadam on other posts on other threads.")

Never in the context of Atheistic regimes, as you claimed Susan. I asked you to cite this, and you can't. Yet, you still won't admit you're wrong, will you Susan.

Another example of your blindly stubborn, egotistical, open-minded high-spiritual-enlightenment, huh Susan.

You find it impossible to admit you're ever wrong, don't you Susan. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 10, 2009 12:43 PM:

" (Susan prattles on - Pedofilia was discussed the last time we discussed homosexuality on another thread.)

First of all, Oh highly-enlightened an educated one;

it's spelled PEDOPHILIA.

NOT Pedofilia.

Just like your creation of the word "sensical"; Pedofilia is NOT a word.

We all make spelling errors,(myself included) but this is the THIRD TIME you've misspelled that word, Susan.
So I can only conclude that you don't know any better. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 10, 2009 12:44 PM:

" I guess I was also addressing BlueDog with my previous post. Anyway, BDD, I thought I answered your question about pedophilia. What did I miss?

I don't know a whole lot about pedophilia. It seems to me that people who are pedophiles always act upon their inclinations, that it is compulsive and something they cannot stop. It is exploitative and predatory. It frequently leads to killing. Although it is expressed in a sexual way, I believe pedophilia is really about something else, just as rape is. Anger, control, domination? I wouldn't compare it to homosexuality at all.

Still, our theology teaches that God loves everyone unconditionally. That would include you, me, the pedophile, the rapist, the murderer--you name it.

Now, about doctrine. Yours seems pretty fuzzy to me, BlueDog. Who are you to ask me about mine? LOL "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 10, 2009 1:01 PM:

" Susan, have you read anything by Thomas Merton or Henri Nouwen?

More liberal-bashing from Vanatta--Jon, a lot of the time it was the "conservatives" doing what was "right in their own eyes" that earned God's wrath. In the Old Testament, those who thought by keeping the law they were okay, but were simultaneously exploiting the poor....Well, read Isaiah 58. True religion is shown is acts of justice, mercy, generosity, and such.

In the New Testament, the religious conservatives were the Pharisees. Jesus certainly didn't mind confronting them. I hate to break it to you, Jon V. and BlueDog, but Jesus was a liberal.

Believe it or not, guys, I taught one of my parakeets to say, "God is a liberal." Merry (the bird) said that more than once though he seemed to prefer "God is a pretty bird." That one he made up on his own....

I'm sure people who post here will be happy to help you think of a new name, Jon, ha-ha. I'll try to come up with some suggestions myself. For me, New Year needed a new name. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 10, 2009 1:01 PM:

" (Susan rationalizes - Finally you ask who is to determine the many facets of exploitation of the weak by the powerful. Then I will answer we as a society and as individuals need to make that determination using as a base principle the equality of ALL humans to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.")

Oh, then you would agree, Susan, that the pedophile has just as much right to pursue happiness by living a life of pedophilia, as the homosexual does by expressing his life through "gay marriage". No?

And just as homosexuality used to be condemned; we must now consider the rights of the pedophiles.

After all- how young is too young? "Children" are certainly more mature these days, are they not?

And just what does "exploitation" really mean, in this case, Susan?

Who are YOU to determine what is or isn't "exploitation" between two human beings in "love", Susan?

Just what is YOUR definition of "weak" and "powerful" Susan?

And if "gay marriage" requires this society to open it's collective mind to modern concepts, and to redefine what is "natural", what is "normal", what is a "right", what is "equality" for "ALL" humans; then we HAVE to entertain the possibility that the pedophile may be entitled to his or her OWN "alternative lifestyle", no Susan?

Who are YOU to pass judgments, Susan?

Have you walked a mile in the shoes of the humans involved in a so called "pedophile relationship", Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2009 1:43 PM:

" Thanks for correcting my spelling BDD I will try to get it write next time. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2009 1:52 PM:

" Honestly BDD get with the program. Marriage between CONSENTING adults, or a sexual relationship between CONSENTING adults whether heterosexual or homosexual is what we are talking about. In an exploitative relationship there is one person that is unable to consent, thus the EXPLOITATION. No wonder you are so messed up you have no understanding of right or wrong, what is exploitative and what isn't. Obviously your "education" Christian or otherwise hasn't given you the tools you need to make intelligent distinctions and decisions. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:04 PM:

" Now back to Atheistic regimes. I stand by my point, the worship of a leader is proof that the regime is not atheistic but theistic. Communist Russia is another point, the leaders have come and gone, their portraits haven't been plastered all over the place as in North Korea for instance or to go back in time further where the Roman emperor was seen as God and worshipped as such. BUT here we are with another problem when does the state/ideology become the object of worship, which in Russia Communism became just that. Which my point was that when you use the broad definition of theism,which I doubt that Solzy (however you spell his name) wasn't using but since I haven't read what he wrote I am guessing, the broad definition a person, an animal or a doctrine/Communism can become an object of worship. In a pure atheistic regime, nothing would be worshipped. WORSHIP is the key word here. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:20 PM:

" CrowWoman I know of both men but I haven't read any of their works. I will see if I can find some next time I go to the book store. Right now I printed out some info about both from a google search and will read that. "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:55 PM:

" I wonder if Jesus was a charter member of the ACLU? He surely must have been if He is as liberal as CrowWoman thinks He is. Really Vicky I wonder if you might probably ought put a little more importance on Gods Word than you do in all those books you read. You know its possible to seek out the authors that will make the argument for what you want to believe.

I submit that people who think Jesus was a liberal apply the characteristics of liberalism to Him. If they can paint Jesus as a liberal than it gives them a basis to deny His deity and that is a key objective of liberalism. Diminish Jesus to a good benevolent man and then liberals can accept that but Jesus being God in the flesh! Unacceptable! Now perhaps Vicky is the exception to the rule as far as His deity, I believe I remember from past posts that Vicky does allow deity to Jesus, but you better tell the rest of your liberal friends and this also indicates to me that Miss Vicky has not really put a lot of thought into what she said when she wrote Jesus is a liberal but rather allowed influence from liberal writers.

One of the central tenants of liberalism is the natural goodness of humans. Well now theres a real dinger Jesus better read His own book because His book is dedicated to the proposition that human beings are in a dreadful sinful state in need of redemption. In fact Jesus was so sure of this that He laid down His life to save humanity. So there we are with liberal thinking being entirely in opposition to Jesus thinking and His actions.

Values do not establish who Jesus is; Jesus establishes what values are and anyone who is a Christian which by the way is the religion established by Jesus in case you might have forgotten know they dont asses Jesus on the basis of their values.

Liberals are pushers of naturalism and I got to tell you Jesus was about as far from a natural person as anyone could be. He wasnt conceived naturally, He performed totally unnatural acts throughout His ministry and then it was quite unnatural when He conquered death. All this just demonstrates the fact that if liberals can make Jesus into a liberal they have effectively destroyed Jesus and Christianity.

I have to repeat a former post I recently made that by His own declaration the foremost purpose of Jesus life and ministry was not to heal the sick, restore sight to the blind, or feed the hungry people but to save lost people because without His atoning sacrifice for sin all people are hopelessly lost.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:05 PM:

" I'm sorry Susan, the definition of the word "theism" does not relate to the form of "worship" that the Communist regimes fostered for their leaders.

The Communist leaders were not revered because they were believed to be gods or any sort of deities; they were feared and honored because they personified the "Cult of Party". There was nothing divine about this form of adoration. This was NOT theism. In fact, for this "Cult of Party" to thrive, the basic precept of Atheistic Communism (there is no God and there are no gods) must first be fully embraced. That is NOT "theism" by any definition of the word, broad or narrow.

On the other hand, the "Imperial Cult" in ancient Rome was the worship of a few select emperors as actual gods AFTER they were deceased. The only exception to this was the emperor Domitian who declared himself a god while he was still living, which caused outrage among the citizenry at the time.

And your theory that the wide spread use of portraits and images was indicative of some sort of god-like worship hits a road block with Pol Pot; his image was rarely seen. In fact, he actively sought to minimize his own public adulation. But on the other hand IF the widespread use of portraits and imagery is a sign of "theism" by your invented definition of the word; then you should be slightly uneasy about the "cult of personality" that seems to surround Barrack Hussein Obama. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:08 PM:

" You missed my point entirely on pedophilia, Susan.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate.

Your use of the words "consenting" and "adult", and "exploitative relationship" can all be redefined to represent a modern and more-sophisticated understanding of the "alternative lifestyles" that are the right of ALL Americans.

Who determines what's right or wrong, Susan? Who is to say what is exploitative and what isn't?

The rationale that "gay marriage" is no longer taboo and unnatural, and should not only be a right, but also the new accepted norm, gives every justification under the sun to apply the very same "open-mindedness" to the misunderstood pedophile. Does it not Susan?

Maybe our notions of right and wrong, and good and bad, need to be challenged, Susan.

I believe "gay marriage" has given society the road map to continue to slip and slide right on down that slippery slope.

How has it not, Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 11, 2009 7:56 AM:

" Mr. Vanatta Jesus did NOT establish Christianity. Jesus was a Jew and thought and preached adherence to the law with a touch of greater compassion instead of stoning folks to death. The Christianity that we know was CREATED by Paul, a man who never met Jesus. Jesus was also an apocalypticist (sp?), he felt that the end times were near and he was quite possibly a very radical political leader. Jesus never claimed to be divine, that was all added later after his death and wasn't a part of church doctrine until many years after his death. The Christian church in its early years was very diverse, probably as much as it is today. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:45 AM:

" (Susan attacks Christianity with - "Jesus was a Jew and thought and preached adherence to the law with a touch of greater compassion instead of stoning folks to death. The Christianity that we know was CREATED by Paul, a man who never met Jesus.")

I thought you weren't attacking Christianity Susan?

I guess discrediting the validity of Christianity's basic precepts established by Christ, doesn't qualify as an attack in your book, huh Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:50 AM:

" You aren't playing the Devils advocate BDD you are playing the Fool. Exploitative is self-explanatory, I also gave you an explanation so you wouldn't have to look it up. Consenting is also self-explanatory, it means the person willingly, freely, without coercion says YES. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:52 AM:

" Oh and BDD there isn't any reason why a PedoPHile should not be allowed to marry, no one has ever suggested otherwise or legislated otherwise. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:53 AM:

" Susan Humphreys version of a world wide utopia begins like this:

"I have said many many times that actions are all that matter, what we do to one another is all that matters! I have found the TRUTH, and the first action that TRUTH requires of me is to attack Christian beliefs!

Gee, why are you Christians attacking my beliefs when I attack your beliefs?

Golly you Christians are a bunch of hypocrites!

I have said many many times, that YOUR actions matter.......mine do not." "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 11, 2009 5:13 PM:

" (Susan cries out - "Exploitative is self-explanatory, I also gave you an explanation so you wouldn't have to look it up. Consenting is also self-explanatory, it means the person willingly, freely, without coercion says YES.")

Again Susan, you (either willfully or through utter ignorance) have missed my point entirely.

No "victims" of pedophilia have ever willingly engaged in a sex act with an adult?

You don't know that, Susan.

And if society needs to rethink the unnatural taboo of "gay marriage", then why shouldn't society re-evaluate ALL of our taboos?

(Oh and BDD there isn't any reason why a PedoPHile should not be allowed to marry, no one has ever suggested otherwise or legislated otherwise.)

Okay Susan. Do you personally have an age requirement for the two party's involved in that marriage? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jan 11, 2009 6:12 PM:

" I'm not surprised that the conversation turned to pedophiles. It usually does when Blow gets involved. He seems to have an unusual interest in that topic. That subject and any mention of homosexuality will draw him like flies to a cow pie. lol! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 11, 2009 6:37 PM:

" Gee Harry Larry Potty- the conversation turns to pedophilia and homosexuality, and -

*POOF*

You appear! "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 12, 2009 8:06 AM:

" BDD give it up I have said many times that this forum is set up specifically for the FREE exchange of opinions. If you choose to use the Bible as proof to show that I am wrong or immoral I will use the Bible to show that you are wrong and immoral. If you try to prove that God exists I can prove that your proof is wrong. The FREE exchange on ideas is NOT an attack on other ideas, it is a way to show that there are many ideas, many ways to interpret/read the Bible and no ONE idea is more right, more moral, more TRUTH than any other idea. If you don't like the FREE exchange of ideas on this forum it is time for you to move on and find another forum. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 12, 2009 8:15 AM:

" BDD I never said "No victims of pedoPHilia have ever willingly engaged in a sex act with an adult?" That is your twisted perverted reasoning, not mine. The idea of Consent is that it isn't coerced, that the person is of legal age and in a good mental state able to make such a decision. Children are not of legal age, that is why they are called children. Adult victims of abusers are also subject to coercion and to mental states that inhibit they capability to act responsibly. I do agree that society should constantly evaluate its laws and taboos, and how its laws are administered. AND I have suggested a base line to consider, the equality of all human beings to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.The key there BDD is ALL and judgments have to be made when ones rights conflict with anothers rights and the base line there is Consent and Exploitation. Difficult concepts for someone with your limited moral background to understand. So I suggest you broaden your knowledge. Perhaps a good book about ethics would help you out.The Bible isn't a good book about ethics so I suggest you try something else. "

father bob wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:55 AM:

" interesting to note the "degrees" of sin these christians like to throw around. also interesting that these christians don't consider catholics christians....how funny..now we have degrees of christianity too. "

father bob wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:58 AM:

" Harry Potter wrote on Jan 11, 2009 6:12 PM:
" I'm not surprised that the conversation turned to pedophiles. It usually does when Blow gets involved. He seems to have an unusual interest in that topic. That subject and any mention of homosexuality will draw him like flies to a cow pie."""

proven fact....people who protest homosexuality the loudest most generally feel a personal sexual inadequacy, and have a difficult time dealing with anything sexual. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:37 PM:

" (Susan proves me correct with her hypocrisy- "The FREE exchange on ideas is NOT an attack on other ideas, it is a way to show that there are many ideas, many ways to interpret/read the Bible and no ONE idea is more right, more moral, more TRUTH than any other idea.")

Uhm.......Susan......your statement that there are MANY TRUTHS, is a direct rejection (and by definition an ATTACK) on the very basic Christian belief that Christ is THE ONLY TRUTH.

How many times have various posters tried to point out this glaring hypocrisy of yours?

Your absolute refusal to understand, and much less acknowledge this fact, can only be explained by three possibilities:

1)- You fully understand your hypocrisy yet you continue to dishonestly deny it.

2)- You are completely incapable of grasping this very obvious, basic, and elementary fact.

3)- Some combination of (1) and (2). "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:39 PM:

" (Susan spins herself into a corner -"I do agree that society should constantly evaluate its laws and taboos, and how its laws are administered.")

Well then Susan- maybe society should re-evaluate what constitutes "legal age", no?

And why shouldn't we then move on to re-evaluate what constitutes "Consent and Exploitation"? No?

And since all of you proponents of "gay marriage" have insisted on redefining what is "right" or "wrong", what is "taboo", what is "socially acceptable", what is "natural" and what is a basic human "right"; then how can you POSSIBLY deny the SAME freedom to pedophiles, Susan?

Not long ago the active homosexual lifestyle was widely believed to be "wrong", "unnatural", and "immoral".

So in light of recent events, Susan: Who are YOU, to judge what is "right or wrong"?

Come on Susan, slide on down that slippery slope that "gay marriage" has already created.

Oh and, Susan....you just ATTACKED Christianity AGAIN with THIS STATEMENT:

("The Bible isn't a good book about ethics so I suggest you try something else.")

For someone who professes "MANY TRUTHS", you seem to be very close minded to any other version of "right and wrong" other than your own.

So why do you claim I have a "limited moral background", Susan? You don't know me. Who are YOU to judge me?

Why are you ATTACKING me Susan for merely taking your Liberal concept of "marriage" to an advanced level?

I'm not a pedophile. I think the act is reprehensible. I'm just looking for a little moral consistency and clarity from you, Susan.

You really need to look into the mirror, don't you Susan.

Yes. Yes you certainly do. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:50 PM:

" (FatHeadBob utters nonsense -"interesting to note the "degrees" of sin these christians like to throw around. also interesting that these christians don't consider catholics christians....how funny..now we have degrees of christianity too.")

Oh, so in your mind bobby, there is no moral distinction between telling a lie and murder? All sins are equal, right bobby?

And I don't have a problem considering Catholics Christians.

(FatHeadBob further prattles - "proven fact....people who protest homosexuality the loudest most generally feel a personal sexual inadequacy, and have a difficult time dealing with anything sexual.")

Well now, bobby, you should have a problem with your Liberal friend Vicky too, huh:

(CrowWoman wrote- "If this is a correct interpretation, and I believe that it is, Jesus seems to be saying that those born with a homosexual orientation are called to a celibate life.) "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 12, 2009 1:46 PM:

" It doesn't matter if you are Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, appleknocker, or spaghetti monster hugger, nor how many good things you have done, or if you have been a victim. Just one thing matters; that you have repented of sin and made Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 12, 2009 1:57 PM:

" BDD your rejection of my statement that there are many TRUTHs is a direct attack on MY beliefs and I am fully allowed the right to defend my beliefs.The difference between us is that I accept ALL beliefs as having equal value. You don't. It works both ways BDD. The only alternative is to accept the reality that people are different, and that they ALL have the right to pursue the path that is right for them, without persecution. If you choose to use your religious beliefs to persecute others I will speak up for them.When you quit persecuting others I won't have anything to attack. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:02 PM:

" BDD society has and continues to address the question of what constitutes legal age. When I was young it was 21, to marry, to drink alcohol and to vote. Then it was lowered to 18. Just how low will you stoop to lower the age to satisfy your prurient interests? Personally if you are old enough to fight in a war you are old enough to vote, to marry without parental consent, to sign legal documents, to drink alcohol etc. AND personally I don't think 18 year olds should be sent off to war. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:05 PM:

" Sorry BDD accepting the Bible for what it is, its limitations and its wisdom is NOT an attack on Christianity. As I have said all along it is a great book but not the only great book. "

father bob wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:20 PM:

" according to christian theologians, a sin is a sin, is a sin.

and according to the bible, those restaurant employees serving you sunday dinner at cracker barrel are to be put to death for working on the sabbath.

tends to make me think these murderers that shoot and kill at fast food joints must all be true christians.

kind of unique way cchristians have of looking at the world, i'd say.....through jaded glasses. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:56 PM:

" (fatherbob - "according to christian theologians, a sin is a sin, is a sin.")

Uhm....bob?

Ever heard of the Catholic concept of Original Sin, Venial Sin, and Mortal Sin? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 3:12 PM:

" (Susan whines - "BDD your rejection of my statement that there are many TRUTHs is a direct attack on MY beliefs and I am fully allowed the right to defend my beliefs.")

Oh I fully agree, Susan. And unlike you, I'm honest enough to admit that fact.

However; my attack was in response to YOUR original attack on Christianity.

And I wasn't using my religious beliefs to "persecute" per se, but to defend.

And when you discredit the validity that Christ is THE ONLY TRUTH, then you have attacked the very cornerstone of Christianity.

You are the very thing that you rally against, Susan. You are the hypocrite's hyocrite. You're just too dense to see that. Or too dishonest to admit that.

End of story. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 3:18 PM:

" You really didn't answer my question about age and consent, Susan.

What age constitutes "consent" in your book Susan? "

Jon Vanatta wrote on Jan 12, 2009 3:42 PM:

" Hey foddy bobby I want to clue you in on something. Do you want to know why no one pays much attention to what you say? Its because you dont know what you are writing about. First of all Sunday is not the Sabbath, Saturday is. Then second unless those would be Jewish employees of Cracker Barrel it doesnt matter. Maybe you could show me in the Bible where a Christian is not to work at Cracker Barrel on either Saturday or Sunday. You do have a Bible where you could look I presume. "

father bob wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:17 PM:

" guess you christians don't even know when to rest then....you all say it's sunday, now it's saturday....do i hear a friday out there??

christians.....a moronic lot. "

father bob wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:20 PM:

" hmmmm....guess it's okay to get drunk, dance, raise he11....all on a sabbathday night!!....LOL i love it! "

father bob wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:21 PM:

" hey vendetta.....don't you have some gay bashing to do somewhere like a good christian? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:27 PM:

" (.....a moronic lot.)

Oh I think you lead that "lot", FatHeadBob.

Every time you show up the collective I.Q. of the thread drops at least 50 points.

And that's even AFTER Susan's dumbed it down.

(shudders) "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Once again Harry Larry Libtard (under the pseudonym FatHeadBob) tries to sidetrack a thread when one of his Libtard cronies starts to take a beating.

Sooooooo predictable........ "

father bob wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:56 PM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:27 PM:
"Every time you show up the collective I.Q. of the thread drops at least 50 points.

And that's even AFTER Susan's dumbed it down."""""""""

woooohoooo!!.....this coming from the warren jeffs wannabe. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 12, 2009 6:05 PM:

" Uhm.....no FatHeadBob, I believe your friend Susan is the one with the new religion around here.

Thanks for demonstrating once again, that you are utterly clueless 99.9% of the time.

I recognize the fact that you are frantically running interference in a desperate attempt to obscure the fact that your girl, Susan, has completely lost this debate, but it won't work.

Go back to sleep, bobby. You're in over your head again. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 12, 2009 7:32 PM:

" I see this debate has continued on...and on. BlueDog and Jon, I am not a liberal, theologically speaking. I can affirm the historic creeds of the Christian church. I may not use the Christian terminology you expect or are used to, however.

Also, I try to accept people for who and what they are. I don't preach to them--they've heard it all before. In fact, they've often been beaten over the head with it. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jan 12, 2009 7:36 PM:

" I admit to being fairly liberal in the political sense, though. I don't see that as being in conflict at all with following Jesus, which is what I was alluding to a couple of days ago.

God is a (politcal)liberal. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:02 AM:

" Sorry BDD it unfortunately is NOT the end of the story. You attack me and I respond and then you attack even more visciously. Words lead to rocks which lead to bullets which lead to rockets which lead to bombs. This is what is happening ALL over the world and someone needs to have the courage to stand up and say no more. No more to the use of religion to denigrate and justify the persecution of others. This letter is also a PRIME example of how it works. The letter does NOT denigrate Christians or Christianity yet look at your (and a few others) responses. This letter was NOT about YOU BDD although you decided to make it about you. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:05 AM:

" I gave you an answer BDD about what age is the best age for consent. You just didn't accept the answer. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 13, 2009 12:58 PM:

" Or you're right about one thing Susan, this letter is NOT about me; it's all about YOU. Specifically about your hatred of Christianity disguised as an altruistic noble cause. You attacked Christianity by discrediting the validity that Christ is THE ONLY TRUTH.
And after slapping Christians in the face with that statement, you expect them to accept your premise and embrace your truths.

Sorry Susan, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to make disparaging remarks about the Christian faith and expect Christians to just sit back and take it. You don't get to launch the first volley and then demand that no one defend against your attacks.

And my defense of Christianity has always been founded in reason, logic, and historical fact. None of which you possess, Susan. I didn't make any threats, Susan. I'm not waging any wars. I'm simply defeating your ridiculous premises, point by point, and you know it. I don't debate the way you've come to expect from Christians, and that has you thoroughly frustrated and furious. I've exposed your silly little new-age "insights" for the empty prattle that they are.

And again,- religion has not been the greatest source of evil in the world, Atheism has. And your attempt to disprove that TRUTH utterly failed, didn't it Susan. Yes it did.

The fact that you egotistically profess yourself to be some great courageous source of wisdom and "enlightenment", is proof in and of itself (as Socrates stated) that you are NOT "enlightened" and you are certainly NOT wise.

It also proves that you are utterly unaware of the basic history of Socrates. And your "wisdom" is nothing more than old fallacies.

You're NOT a courageous peace-maker, Susan. You're an egotistical, judgmental, self-serving, poorly educated charlatan. You know it. I know it. The vast majority of the world knows it. And the dismal sales of your pathetic dime-store novel is indicative of it. The sooner you can accept these facts, Susan, the better off you'll be.

End of story, Susan. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:00 PM:

" ("I gave you an answer BDD about what age is the best age for consent. You just didn't accept the answer.")

Really Susan?

What age was that again? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 14, 2009 9:09 AM:

" Sorry BDD I do not hate you or Christianity, but you certainly seem to hate your self. You can't demonize someone who supports the rights of ALL people, who considers those who are suffering and oppressed, whether it is for their religious beliefs or for their sexual orientation, race or ethnicity. It is about putting the needs of others before ones own, THAT was Jesus message, and the message of the Buddha and Lao Tzu, and by doing so one will find compassion and that oneness with their God or their conscience or their higher spirituality that they are seeking. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 14, 2009 1:14 PM:

" I'm not demonizing, Susan. I'm pointing out your attack on the Divinity of Christ.

You continually deny, discredit, and thoroughly denigrate Christ's claim that He is THE Truth THE Way and THE Life. You demand that Christians suspend that belief and accept falsehoods that you refer to as (ALL "truths").

Why do disrespect the very basic premise of Christianity, Susan?

You attacked Christians, they didn't attack you. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 15, 2009 9:09 AM:

" I don't demand anything from you BDD. I do accept the reality that Jesus was just a man, no more divine than Buddha or Lao Tzu or you or I. I also accept the reality that Christianity is ONE way ONE Truth but NOT the ONLY way or the ONLY TRUTH.All the worlds religions and no religion can help people become better people and can lead them to that which they seek OR lead them astray and help them become worse people. Holding beliefs different from yours is not an attack on you or an attack on your religion. I told you quite a while back that when I was 20 I read Siddhartha and I realized that Christianity did not hold the corner on Truth. I set out to discover Truth and discovered many TRUTHS. I have also told you many times that if you are going to use your religion to denigrate and persecute others I will show you that you are wrong. Christianity can be a religion that promotes peace and compassion, that respects the beliefs of ALL people, and that actively works to make this world a better place for ALL people. OR it can be used to promote fear and hate of those that are different. The choice is yours. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 15, 2009 11:52 AM:

" Susan, you just stated as absolute undeniable fact, as "reality", that Jesus Christ is NOT divine.

That is an insult and an attack on Christianity. You didn't state it as a "belief" on your part, but rather as an established fact.

Congratulations Susan. You just hypocritically denigrated all of Christianity.

And then you whine when I reciprocate. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 15, 2009 2:13 PM:

" Sorry BDD you state that he is,as an absolute fact, that is an insult to me and the other religious traditions. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 15, 2009 10:08 PM:

" (Sorry BDD you state that he is,as an absolute fact, that is an insult to me and the other religious traditions.)

How can that be Susan?

I thought you just stated "Holding beliefs different from yours is not an attack on you or an attack on your religion."

Congratulations Susan. You just contradicted yourself big time. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2009 9:21 AM:

" Sorry BDD I have just turned your own argument around against you. I advised you earlier to not use an argument that can be so easily turned around. You believe that I insult you and I believe that you insult me and all others that don't believe what you believe. You can't have it both ways BDD. If you don't like to have your beliefs challenged or insulted than don't challenge or insult or denigrate the beliefs of others. Respect goes both ways. That is what the golden rule is all about, remember that little gem, first promoted by Confuscius, than Rabbi Hillell, "do not do unto others what you would not want them to do to you." The difference between us is that I accept that there are places/forums where ALL religious beliefs should be freely and openly discussed. This forum happens to be one. I also feel that if someone makes a public comment in a forum such as a newspaper or radio or TV that others who hold different beliefs not only have the right they have the obligation to speak up and say that there are other ways, other beliefs. The only way to avoid having your beliefs challenged is to keep them to your self, where they belong. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 16, 2009 5:12 PM:

" (You can't have it both ways BDD. If you don't like to have your beliefs challenged or insulted than don't challenge or insult or denigrate the beliefs of others.)

As usual Susan, you not only missed MY point, you even missed your OWN point.

I have never had a problem with you voicing your beliefs, Susan.
I have never had a problem with your attacks on Christianity per se. I don't mind having my beliefs challenged or insulted, Susan. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MY ARGUMENT.

What I HAVE had an issue with IS YOUR HYPOCRISY, Susan.
You attack through your insulting statements (and that's fine with me) but you do so while hiding behind a bogus altruistic and self-righteous motive of "peace and harmony" (THAT'S A COMPLETE CONTRADICTION SUSAN). And to add to your hypocrisy, you not only refuse to recognize your blatant double standard, but you get indignant when anyone returns the favor. Then you demand that Christians suspend THEIR beliefs (that Christ is the ONLY Truth) in order to accept ALL "truths".

Further more- I've never objected to any open forums. In fact I thrive on them. I welcome all opinions, no matter how ludicrous. But I will criticize accordingly.

Look back at my last post Susan; I just walked you into your own contradiction. YOU are the one who has had a key premise of YOUR argument turned against YOU.

Now let that sink in Susan.

You stated that differing beliefs are not an attack; then you stated that beliefs different from yours ARE an attack.

The only questions that remain are: are you really this dense and oblivious to the fact that you are in over your head against me and that I have just caused you to contradict yourself and expose yourself?

Or are you fully aware of this, only you're simply too dishonest to admit as much? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 16, 2009 8:02 PM:

" BDD my message has been constant from the time I first started writing and posting. You just haven't been listening. Or I might say you hear what you want to hear. I have also explained my tactics from the beginning. I haven't hid anything. I have said that if you wish to use the Bible to bolster your opinion I will use the Bible to bolster mine. I have said that I will use your own arguments against you, even your own tactics, except I generally refrain my name calling, that is your tactic. I have also said time and time again that there are forums that are for the purpose of free exchange of ideas and opinions and this forum is one of them. It seems to me that you think that FREE discussion is off limits, NOT permitted if the discussion covers religious ideas/doctrines. If that is what you THINK than this forum is not for you and you need to move on. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 16, 2009 9:45 PM:

" Did you read anything I just posted Susan?

I welcome ALL debate. I welcome ALL tactics. I welcome ALL opinions. I welcome ALL disagreements. I welcome ALL insults. I welcome ALL love and hate. Nothing is off limits as far as I'm concerned. It is ALL part of the free exchange of ideas in a free and open forum. Truth can only be discovered, AFTER the lies have been exposed. Please don't misconstrue my tenacity as an effort to stifle. After all, silence is self-imposed in a forum such as this. True Susan?

Seriously. I'm not trying to be insulting here.
But, did you comprehend what I just formulated in my last post?

Your reply addressed absolutely none of the points in my last statement. It's as if your are responding to an entirely different debate. What point of mine did you turn against me, Susan? Tell me.

I on the other hand just exposed your contradiction, Susan:

1)Susan states- "Holding beliefs different from yours is not an attack on you or an attack on your religion."

2)Susan states- "Sorry BDD you state that he is,as an absolute fact, that is an insult to me and the other religious traditions."

And now your latest contradiction:

Susan states- "I have said that I will use your own arguments against you, even your own tactics"

But Susan, if you engage in the very same tactics as this Christian, then how does that make YOU (with all of your self-proclaimed Atheistic "enlightenment") morally superior to ME, a humble "closed-minded" Christian?

You're the one who claims peace and harmony as your motive, Susan. So how does employing MY tactics (which you so deplore) make you any different than me, Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 17, 2009 9:16 AM:

" BDD I have never claimed to be morally superior to you. You have given me that honor. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 17, 2009 9:33 AM:

" BDD have you ever heard of the term figure of speech, or of speaking in the first, second or third person? Sometimes as when I said "you say that what I believe insults your religion and I say what you believe insults my religion." I am speaking in the communal, sometimes called Kingly or Godly sense of I and my. I am making a general statement of how the argument plays out. One really shouldn't have to explain such things to a man who appears to be intelligent. I can only assume that you refuse to acknowledge the point. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 18, 2009 12:15 PM:

" You've never claimed to be morally superior, Susan?

Really?

Then what was all your talk about "enlightenment" and "wisdom" and religion causing people to do bad?

If those statements were not made from a morally superior position, or at least an aspiration towards a morally superior position; then why did you post your letter in the first place?

Why are you debating me at all?

And I fully acknowledge that Christian beliefs are insulting to other religions and vice versa. I always have.

The question has always been- do YOU acknowledge this, Susan?

If you do- then you have engaged in the very same action that you deplore.

If you do not- then you have still insulted Christians by failing to acknowledge their belief that Christ IS the ONLY TRUTH; and have thus, STILL engaged in the very same action that you deplore.

For your utopia of world peace and harmony to come to fruition, Susan;

The Christian must turn his back on the cornerstone of his faith (that Christ is THE ONLY TRUTH) in order to accommodate MANY TRUTHS.

Who are YOU to demand such heresy from Christians, Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 19, 2009 8:18 AM:

" Honestly BDD whats wrong with aspiring to be a better person? Or as you put it a morally superior person. It doesn't take much to be morally superior to much of what is presented on these posts. I debate you because I enjoy it, because I like to rub your nose in it, because it serves my purpose (as I have told you before). The question has never been about my position, I have written letters to the editor stating my position several times and I post on these threads under my name, unlike you I have nothing to hide. This letter is a very clear statement of my position. You on the other hand don't appear to argue from any one position, you argue with me just to argue, because I pull your strings, push your buttons, because I am a strong minded woman who can't be bullied... "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 19, 2009 8:32 AM:

" Now lets address your last statement, "The Christian must turn his back on the cornerstone of his faith (that Christ is the ONLY Truth) in order to accomodate MANY TRUTHS." First as Crow Woman and a few others have shown and as we see from the writings of many Christian thinkers and denominations, a Christian can be a Christian and acknowledge that other religions are of equal value and worth. Believing that Christ is the ONLY truth is NOT the cornerstone of Christianity. YOU for what ever reason have made it the cornerstone of your belief by literally reading bits and pieces from the Bible that support your belief, choosing to "interpret" (non literal reading)of parts that don't fit and ignoring the rest that can't be given an interpretive twist that suits your purpose. AND that is hypocritical, declaring the inerrancy of the Bible for the parts that fit your agenda and ignoring the parts that don't. To sum it all up this is a very diverse world and one way or another we have all got to learn how to get along. Declaring that your religious belief is the ONLY TRUTH and all other religious beliefs are lies is NOT the place to start. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 19, 2009 10:01 AM:

" Congratulations Susan.

You just contradicted yourself, yet again.

First you denied that you thought of yourself as morally superior.

Now you admit it.

Which brings us back to my original question:

If you engage in the very same tactics that you deplore Susan, then how does that make YOU morally superior?

Then Susan, you go on to say that this is not about you; then you proceed to explain how your motives for debating ARE ALL ABOUT YOU.

LOL

I swear, it is to laugh.

It's painfully clear Susan, that I have not only frustrated you, debated you into a corner, exposed your incoherent positions, demonstrated your obvious lack of logic and reason, but most importantly, Susan; I goaded you into demonstrating your out-of-control ego.

You have just proven my original assessment about you Susan: Your motive is really nothing more than an egotistical self-serving hatred of Christianity, poorly disguised as some noble altruistic spiritual mission.

And your last few posts have perfectly demonstrated your ever-changing positions, Susan. I, on the other hand, have always maintained my same position through out.

But the most delightful aspect of your last, nonsensical, contradictory, and blatantly hypocritical posts is this Susan:

Your deep rooted insecurity.

Nothing screams !INSECURITY! Susan, like a spontaneous, unprovoked, self-assuring boast such as: "I am a strong minded woman who can't be bullied"

You really don't know yourself at all Susan. In fact I know you better than you know yourself. Fortunately for you Susan, I have been willing and patient (dare I say I have 'suffer fools') in order to reveal this valuable lesson to you.

If any strings have been pulled, any buttons have been pushed, any truths been have revealed, my dear Susan; they have been done so, exclusively to you, by you. I simply provided the motivation.....and the mirror. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 19, 2009 11:20 AM:

" ("Believing that Christ is the ONLY truth is NOT the cornerstone of Christianity.")

What?

So Christianity does NOT start with Christ as the Truth, Susan?

John 14: 6-7 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him." "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 19, 2009 11:48 AM:

" Sorry BDD you need to learn to read. I said strive to be a better person YOU put it as being morally superior. That is your twisted wording not mine. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 19, 2009 11:51 AM:

" There is ONE BIG problem with your premise BDD a person with deep rooted insecurities would not post on these threads or write Letters to the Editor under her own name. I have nothing to hide and no fears about stating what I think. YOU however hide under an assumed name, one can only infer that you are afraid to have what you write associated with your name, talk about an inferiority complex. You take the cake. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 19, 2009 3:40 PM:

" We have gone round and round about this very question BDD, what makes a Christian a Christian. There are just about as many concepts as there are Christian denominations. The simplest is that one believes in the Divinity of Christ. Nothing more than that. Note also when Jesus supposedly says I am the way the truth and the life, he doesn't say I am the ONLY way the ONLY truth and the ONLY life. Note also that there is a great difference of opinion as to what Jesus may have actually said and what others claim that he said. One can see the difference in what has been written about the pre-resurrection Jesus and what was written about the post-resurrection Jesus, and what was written by Paul and what was written by other early Jesus followers. Selecting that one passage from John as your proof, basis for your belief and ignoring other passages that don't support that position creates a problem. It still doesn't deny the fact that the path to a peaceful world lies in acceptance of other religious beliefs as of equal value and worth, and that doesn't come from stating that ONLY my belief is TRUTH all others are lies. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 19, 2009 3:46 PM:

" Then ask yourself what it means to say "I am the way."? Tao is the way. That is its translation. What is a way? It is a path to follow, a method to follow, a way to act. You can follow a path that someone has laid out, you can walk alongside a person that is walking on a path that someone has laid out, but that person is not the path (you are not walking on that person). The very statement "I am the way" is a metaphorical statement. Just what is the path that Jesus laid out? It had nothing to do with his divinity, he never claimed divine origin. The hints are there in your Bible if you choose to look for them. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 19, 2009 4:22 PM:

" Like I said before Susan, when you use terms such as "enlightenment" and "knowledge" and "wisdom", and when you criticize religion as a whole, you are by inference making a statement from an assumed morally superior position. Otherwise your letter and your book is meaningless by your own standards. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 19, 2009 4:23 PM:

" On the contrary Susan, individuals with deep rooted insecurities would indeed place themselves in the public eye, and would certainly make emphatic statements geared toward their own glorification in a desperate search for mass adulation.

The entertainment industry has been well noted with these personalities. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 19, 2009 4:25 PM:

" And Susan, the Divinity of Christ is based on the premise that Christ is THE Truth.

What passages detract from this premise, Susan?

The operative word here Susan is "THE"

Not "a" Truth.

Not "some" Truth.

"The" Truth.

There have been countless Saints, theologians, mytics, early Church fathers, and philosophers through out the last 2000 years who have stated this basic principle, Susan.

And my favorite writer Chesterton discovered this Truth to be the very essences of all truth.

You can't redefine Christianity Susan. It predates you. And it is simply much larger than just you. Yet in another sense, Christianity is not large enough for you. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 19, 2009 4:43 PM:

" Jesus' claim to rise from the dead was not a claim of His Divinity, Susan?

When questioned about how He could be old enough to have seen Abraham, Jesus said, "...before Abraham was, I AM."

His statement clearly claims eternal existence, just like God used "I am" in the Book of Exodus. The Jews recognized this significance and tried to stone Jesus.

That was not a claim of His Divinity Susan?

Jesus claimed He came down from heaven so that whoever believes in Him can have eternal life.

That was not a claim of His Divinity, Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 20, 2009 9:21 AM:

" BDD the FACT is that the TRUTH is metaphorical and shown by the FACT that it appears in a sentence with other metaphorical words, the way and the life, the entire sentence is metaphorical. Now I understand that you don't understand what a metaphor is, it is a literary expression that says one things is like but not identical to something else. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 20, 2009 9:24 AM:

" Try again BDD it takes a person of strong character, sense of self and strong purpose to speak up and put up with verbal abuse. Those that verbally abuse others are the ones that are weak and insecure, the bullys and misfits of this world. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 20, 2009 10:27 AM:

" Metaphorical "Truth", Susan?

Which authors of the Gospels said that Susan?

What passage in the New Testament stated that "fact" of yours Susan?

Was Jesus' Death a metaphor?

Was His Resurrection a metaphor?

What metaphor was Christ using when He risked being stoned to death by referring to His eternal existence by calling Himself "I AM"?

When Saul of Tarsus claimed that he was knocked off his horse and blinded by The Risen Lord in a great light, was the newly converted Paul speaking metaphorically, Susan?

When the Risen Lord appeared to the disciple named Ananias and sent him to restore Paul's sight; was that all but a metaphor Susan?

Was Saul's blindness a metaphor Susan?

Was the restoration of his sight by Ananias, a metaphor, Susan?

Why would the newly converted Paul tell such a story steeped in detailed metaphor, upon detailed metaphor, Susan?

Wouldn't it have been easier for Saul to simply tell of his earthly conversion without all of the cumbersome metaphors, Susan?

Were all the other disciples aware of this?

Show me the evidence that states that these stories were mere metaphors, Susan. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 20, 2009 10:40 AM:

" (Try again BDD it takes a person of strong character, sense of self and strong purpose to speak up and put up with verbal abuse. Those that verbally abuse others are the ones that are weak and insecure, the bullys and misfits of this world.)

There you go again St. Susan.

Your method of denial actually validates my theory.

Your fragile ego, your insecure motivations, your tentative intellectual self-awareness, manifests itself in an uncontrollable barrage of altruistic self-aggrandizing courageous victimhood.

All centered around the fact that YOU have to let ME know that YOU KNOW that YOU are righteous, strong, and smart.

But alas, Susan; Socrates would point out to you, that such a display of self-security, is (in and of itself) an overt display of insecurity.

You know I'm right, Susan.

You know Socrates is right, Susan.

You and I both know this, don't we Susan. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 21, 2009 8:00 AM:

" In one word laregely YES. The Bible is a great mix of metaphors, myths, poetry and prose, fact and fantasy. It was written by men who claimed they were inspired by God and some who made no such claims. A literal reading misses much of the meaning and majesty of the passages. AND as you and others have shown, some people read literally the passages that fit their agenda, they read metaphorically the passages that can be explained in a way that fits their agenda and they ignore the passages that don't fit either way. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 21, 2009 8:04 AM:

" There you go again BDD, you haven't been RIGHT about anything since you started posting. AND once again you avoid the BIG point, you post under a FAKE name and I post under my real name. I have nothing to hide, which is not a sign of insecurity. You on the other hand have much to hide.Quite frankly if I were you I'd be ashamed of posting under my real name. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 21, 2009 10:28 AM:

" Well Susan, if the Divinity of Jesus Christ is merely metaphorical (and you cited no New Testament evidence of this) then why stop there?

Why not have the courage of your convictions Susan? Why are you even entertaining the incremental insult to Christianity over Christ's Divinity?

Why not go for the fait accompli, Susan?

Why don't you just simply state (as an established fact in your eyes) that Jesus Christ never really existed in the first place, Susan, and that the entire spiritual concept of Christianity is founded on a lie?

Since you've already insulted Christians for not embracing your brand of heresy, why not go for broke, Susan? I thought you were a "brave" "courageous" woman, Susan?

Why these paltry little half-measures, Susan? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 21, 2009 10:43 AM:

" Actually Susan, I've been right about all my positions thus far. Feel free to cite any specific evidence to the contrary, Susan.

Why do I not use my real identity, Susan?

Because of my political opinions.

My career involves daily interaction with my political adversaries. If you met me, Susan, you would be in complete disbelief of my political and religious ideologies.

There is no way I would let my posts on this sight jeopardize my hard earned career at the hands of the truly radical.

But since you've established your own spoken rule about the moral and intellectual illegitimacy of anonymous identities, I trust you will have no problem with my use of your definition of honorable posting, against the majority of your political and religious cronies, like: The Question, Harry Potter, Father Bob, and now CrowWoman.

Do I now have your permission to use your name as the blanket criticism of ALL anonymous postings on this site, Susan?

I trust you'll launch these very same aspersion's against your own ilk.

Right Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 21, 2009 2:40 PM:

" BDD I have stated on other threads that Jesus was a real man, there is evidence outside the Bible to prove that point. I have also stated that he was a wise man, if some of the words that have been attributed to him are true (or close to true). If YOU are insulted because I don't believe what you believe than you need to take a hard look at your self. It seems that you have serious doubts about your beliefs since you are threatened/insulted by my disbelief. AND just how do you think others feel when you call their beliefs lies? Do you see how this could lead to the hatreds that are the root of wars and a threat to the peace for ALL mankind? AND for the Christian it is NOT a part of the core of Christianity and is totally unnecessary, since many who call themselves Christians (believe in Christs divinity)and also accept that other religions are just as true and valid and worthy. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 21, 2009 2:46 PM:

" The point remains BDD the person who does not post under an anonymous name is NOT the one that has something to hide OR as you put it is insecure. The point also remains that those that have posted under their own names are generally more civil than the anonymous posters. (but there are acceptions) The fact also remains that YOU are the most UNcivil poster on these threads. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 21, 2009 3:32 PM:

" While I am on a roll here let's see if my psycho analysis of your character is correct. You feel castrated by your job (you'd never let your posts on here jeopardize your career at the hands of the truly radical)and so you turn to posts like this where you can strut and bully to your hearts desire, trying to prove you are more of a man than they (your enemies) are. Then you run into a woman who can't be bullied, is more intelligent, cleverer, wittier, a better debater, more compassionate, all the things that you are NOT. It seems to me that you need to find a new job and a new hobby. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 21, 2009 4:20 PM:

" (BDD I have stated on other threads that Jesus was a real man, there is evidence outside the Bible to prove that point.)

Really Susan?

So Christ lived, but the authors of the New Testament were really lying when they claimed time and time again that Christ was Divine? They were lying when they claimed he rose from the dead?

Evidence please. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 21, 2009 4:26 PM:

" (The point remains BDD the person who does not post under an anonymous name is NOT the one that has something to hide OR as you put it is insecure.)

But Susan, I never framed your insecurities in the context of real identifications versus the use of pseudonyms.

YOU frame my premise in that context, Susan.

So now you are arguing with yourself.....again. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 21, 2009 4:47 PM:

" (let's see if my psycho analysis of your character is correct.)

Not even close, Susan.

My career has been very fulfilling. I divorce my political and religious beliefs from my work environment, and so do most of my Liberal work mates.

And contrary to your overtly sexually laced analysis, I don't fear strong, clever, intelligent women with a razor sharp wit.

In fact, I married one. And I couldn't truly be attracted to a woman who didn't possess those characteristics.

Like I told you Susan, if you met me, you would recognize my personality, but you would never guess my political or religious ideology.

You see Susan, I'm a former Liberal AND Atheist.

In my university days I could advance the Atheistic position against friend, foe, laity. and clergy alike with astute adeptness. And I knew it.

But alas life, dare I say God, humbled me.

Like I said Susan. I know you better than you know yourself. And I understand your hatred towards God. I've been there. I've done that. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 21, 2009 7:53 PM:

" Really BDD, you know me better than I know myself. Curious than why do you acuse me of hating Christians? Why do you acuse me of being insecure? You project your own insecurities and inferiorities on others. And why do you do that, as a way to avoid addressing issues? You attack personalities rather than issues, why is that? Because you don't have any principles, facts, to support your positions? God hasn't humbled you BDD I think "God" gave you a good scare. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 21, 2009 8:14 PM:

" I might add, you not only appear to have run away from "God" but you appear to be hiding from the reality of your self. There is help for folks like you but you appear to have looked or are looking for IT in all the wrong places. I suggest you find help or pursue a little self-help. Try reading Siddhartha by Herman Hesses. It just might help you find what I have found, the peace beyond religious doctrine and dogma, the peace of being comfortable within one's own skin, the peace that comes from understanding the world and ones self. The Buddha found enlightenment but instead of going off into that sweet bliss he stayed around and taught. I too have chosen to stay around. Different times and circumstances require different methods. Now is the time to speak up and speak out, people of moderation have been quiet too long, there is too much at stake not too. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 21, 2009 8:32 PM:

" (You attack personalities rather than issues)

Wrong. I attack both.

I attack issues with facts. I attack personalities based on their responses and based on facts.

What issues have I avoided Susan?

And Susan, did I not already explain to you why I think you are insecure?

Really Susan? Socrates? Remember?

Do you have Alzheimers Susan?

And yes, I do know you better than you know yourself. Again Socrates, Susan?

And yes I believe I do know why you hate God especially Christ and especially Christians.

Tell me Susan, do have a meaningful relationship in your life?

And yes Susan, I am quite humble. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 22, 2009 8:05 AM:

" Well BDD at least you admit you attack personalities, finally a truthful statement from you. Now how can I hate God when there is NO God. You can't hate something that doesn't exist. Only those who don't understand hate what they don't understand. Gnosticism has brought me understanding and freed me from hate. But that is a concept you can't grasp, HATE stems from fear something that you seem to ooze from your being. And what is this bit about Socrates, a subtle threat, a reminder of what happened to Socrates for encouraging the youth of Athens to think, to question, are you suggesting that I should take the poison hemlock? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 22, 2009 11:53 AM:

" Still missing my point about Socrates aren't you Susan.

You really aren't comprehending my reply's are you Susan.

Go back to Jan 13th and reread what I referenced about Socrates.

And your silence about any meaningful relationship in your life confirms what I've always suspected about you Susan.

Your lifestyle is unconventional in more ways than one, isn't it Susan.

Hence your overt anger towards Christianity. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 22, 2009 2:14 PM:

" BDD your posts are getting sillier and more foolish. My silence about my personal relationship/s means nothing other than it is personal. One can no more judge a person's character by what is posted on these threads than one can by the religion a person follows (if any),or the political party they support. You are right in one way I am not a conventional/common person. I am quite unique and special. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 22, 2009 2:21 PM:

" Socrates also stressed that "virtue was the most valuable of all posessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know." And you know very little. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 22, 2009 3:21 PM:

" I hit pay dirt on your alternative lifestyle didn't I Susan.

For a poster who touts her forthright openess, you are surprisingly "private" all of a sudden, aren't you my dear.

I know you better than you know yourself Susan.

No wonder you hate Christianity. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 22, 2009 3:24 PM:

" You still don't understand my reference to Socrates towards you, do you Susan.

It's ok. You can admit it, my dear. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 23, 2009 7:37 AM:

" BDD you admit that you attack personalities, do you honestly believe that attacking personalities (my alternative lifestyle for example)is the adult/mature way to handle/address differences of opinion about religion, ethics, morality, politics, world and national problems? If so than your religion and your upbringing has failed you. Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu and other great religious leaders and thinkers realized that humans can rise above their baser human/animal instincts to reach for that oneness with God, a higher power, the peace and harmony that comes with unity with the universe. AND in their teachings they offered mankind guidance, ways to do just that, ways to become better people, ways to handle their differences so that ALL can live in peace and harmony and have the opportunity to find that which they seek. AND one way to do that has been expressed quite simply in that great maxim, first proposed by Confuscius, do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 23, 2009 5:26 PM:

" So Susan, it's perfectly okay for you to attack and offend Christians, but it is completely unacceptable for me to draw conclusions about your lifestyle?

Hmmmmmmm.

I smell a double standard here.

In reality, facing these personal issues would be far more mature and courageous than politely skirting around them.

You might be surprised by my opinions.

And if you want to do unto me; feel free, Susan. I welcome it.
I always have in here. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 23, 2009 7:58 PM:

" I do BDD, I keep giving you ways out and you refuse to take them. You have dug quite a hole for yourself. My lifestle, my personality,my name, my race, my gender, my religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with the truth or untruth of an idea I present. Ideas stand on their own, if they are only supported by the authority/character/personality of the person holding the idea than they are unsupported. Attacking the person does NOT discredit or knock down the idea. It actually helps to reinforce the idea. Which is why to carry this further since you have trouble making connections between ideas, the validity of Jesus teachings do not rest on his divinity. The validity of a teaching/idea stands on its own. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 23, 2009 8:39 PM:

" Oh and BDD, for the skeptic there are three basic principles to follow: 1. question everything 2. judge nothing (both of which I agree whole heartedly) the 3rd is for the wise man to admit that he knows nothing. I however am woman! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 24, 2009 12:17 PM:

" So Susan, you do unto me as you would have me do unto you; by giving me ways out.

Apparently, YOU are looking for a way out, Susan.

Who's stopping you, Susan?

After all, I'm not looking for a way out

Thank you, for extending that additional depth to this "hole" that you have created for yourself, Susan.

Let's see how much deeper you can dig.

Shall we Susan?

Contrary to your conjecture Susan; every aspect of your life has everything to do with your version of "truth".

You turn inward for your "truth". Relying only on your interpretation of a thread of universal "truth" that seemingly runs through-out the breadth of humanity.

Rather than seeing that "thread" as the very essence of God's nature in all of humanity, you choose to attribute this "truth" simply to a "happy accident" of humanity.

Or is this "thread of truth" a happy accident of our very DNA, Susan?

And your concept of the validity of "Ideas" is amazingly limited down to only TWO options Susan:

1) Ideas stand on their own.

2) If they are only supported by the authority/character/personality of the person holding the idea than they are unsupported.

Really Susan?

Allow me to introduce you Susan, to YOUR SHOVEL:

Susan wrote - "Life is never so simple as to be an either/or choice, there are way too many twists and turns, too many different sides to a story....... Those who look for simple answers to complex problems are simpletons."

Happy digging my dear. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 24, 2009 12:19 PM:

" Susan's rules of "truth-y" Hypocrisy:

1.) question everything

Check- You're not questioning the possibility that your lifestyle governs your inward-bound interpretations of "truth".

Check- You're not questioning your inability to refute the logic, reasoning, and facts, that I have used to defeat a growing list of your false conclusions.

Check- You're not questioning your hypocritical attacks on Christianity in the name of your altruistic peace and harmony.

2.) judge nothing

Check- You're judging me, Susan.

Check- You're judging Christianity, Susan.

3.) It is only for the wise MAN to admit that he knows nothing. Susan however is woman!

Check- You apparently believe that a wise "woman", wisely professes that she is wise. You believe that you are beyond the mere minds of "men". You are a goddess, Susan.

Or? (Your elusive 4th option Susan)

4.) Perhaps, "some" are just angry women whose alternative lifestyles have fostered a deep-rooted guilt that manifests itself in the poorly veiled hatred of "men" and Christianity.

Why do you question EVERYTHING but that Susan?

Happy digging my dear. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 24, 2009 12:22 PM:

" You restate this contradiction of yours again Susan: "the validity of Jesus teachings do not rest on his divinity."

Uhm....yes Susan they do.

Because THE very fundamental teaching of Christ is that HE IS DIVINE.

He cites His own Divine Authority as the basis for his teachings. He stated his Divine eternal existence when he referred to himself as "I AM". He resurrected from the dead in the ultimate display of His Divinity.

He stated this many times, and you have never been able to give any evidence to the contrary Susan.

Not only have you been digging your own hole Susan;

But you've been filling it with your own intellectual quicksand.

Several of us have enjoyed the spectacle of your struggle Susan.

Happy struggles, my dear. "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 25, 2009 8:26 AM:

" Honestly BDD just what is my "lifestyle". You seem to know everything there is to know about me, why don't you tell everyone what you know. Be explicit, so there can be no misunderstandings. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 25, 2009 10:49 AM:

" (Susan wrote - "Honestly BDD just what is my "lifestyle". You seem to know everything there is to know about me, why don't you tell everyone what you know. Be explicit, so there can be no misunderstandings.")

But Susan, I thought it was none of my business?

I thought it had nothing to do with your ideas or your version of the "truth", or.....anything?

I don't know anything about you Susan.
I was simply asking.
And you started objecting.

It's your story to tell, Susan- not mine. All I can do is speculate. Just as you have done about my moral character.

And I noticed you didn't respond to any of my other points, Susan.

Funny that........ "

shumphreys wrote on Jan 25, 2009 8:21 PM:

" As I thought BDD, you are all bluster and no muster. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Jan 25, 2009 9:24 PM:

" All bluster and no muster about what specifically Susan? "