"Since we are all sinners and no one is better than anyone else... ...who is Anthony to judge GWB or any other deceptive christian or any other person." The concept of judgement has to do with sin, i have passed no such judgement upon Bush or anyone else as it is not my place. We are however to test everything and be careful about what theology is espoused. "Hopefully it's obvious that I do judge people. I think it's also obvious that Anthony does too. It's just that, being dogmatic, I think he finds it hard to admit his faults." I judge people's actions yes, but not their nature when it comes to sin. Judgement i was speaking about is a Biblical one. As for your last comment, you do not even know me but you can figure out from this one exhcange that i find it hard to admit my faults? WOW. "I would suggest that Anthony 'judged' GWB to be a deceiver." Of course, he is a proven liar. There is not a scintilla of doubt about that. I have not however judged his sin. "Be that as it may, I still find it to be the height of arrogance to suggest that your prayers have any effect on my life whatsoever." Whatever. Look, if i believe that prayer is effective and i CHOOSE to not pray for you, then you should be offended. "No the Democrats aren't, but that's beside the point. The point remains that when Bill Clinton was president, and our economy was more favorable to a blue collar, middle class guy such as myself, I had all the things I listed that are no longer a part of my life. Now that we are living in the middle of a corporate cutthroat economic system, all I have left is this computer, my beat-up car, and the clothes in my closet. That economy came to pass due to the christians being willingly hoodwinked by DUBYA, the most criminal president ever to disgrace the White House." I do not understand how you are arguing against me, when i have written over 100 articles about this adminstration, none of them positive. My point stands, the dems are not much better, check out the guy caught with the cash in his freezer. "And yes, the Diebold machines in Ohio were also another scale tipping point; of that fact there is also no denying. However, that's only one state. Yes, I am sure there were voting irregularities in other states as well, but I think the number of rigged polling places pales in comparison to the number of christians who came out to "bible belt" the vote. Look at the states in which these "morals" amendments appeared. They ALL went red on election night. Coincidence? I think not!" Diebold stole alot more then Ohio, Florida was clearly stolen as well. "So is sexism inherent in god's plan? The bible is sexist in the extreme. Women are demonized throughout the pages of the bible. Eve is the cause of expulsion from "paradise". " Wrong, if you read the Bible, you will see that Adam had full knowledge when he chose to eat the fruit. He tried to blame Eve, but it is called the fall of Man, not woman. Delilah is the reason for Samson's skinhead look, and subsequent loss of virility." Actually, Samson's hair had nothing to do with his strength, it was his committment to God, he may have thought it was his hair. Imight add, that the Bible does not excuse Samson, nor do they blame Deliliah. We are responsible for our own actions. "Mary Magdalene is painted as a harlot, when there are some "censored" texts of the bible that suggest she was, in fact, closer to Jesus than Judas." Only if you believe Dan Brown. "If the bible is, as you say, the, "inspired word of God," then you are telling me that sexism is part of god's plan; that he somehow inspires it." You had much better examples of sexism then those you presented. However, sexism is a term man created, not God. "As I am sure you are aware, there is a movement afoot in some christian churches for preaching that god wants christians to be rich. This is a direct result of selective biblical interpretation. This sort of interpretation would be impossible if the bible were a coherent, non-conflicted work of prose. There are biblical passages that both support and refute the theology of god wanting his "flock" to be wealthy." Yes, prosperity preaching. God does not wish that we all are poor, but neither does He intend for all to be rich. I agree that it is beyond unseemly to fleece people by blaming them for their own poverty bassed on sin. That isnot Biblically supported. god loves both, it has nothing to do with wealth. I would however point out that "poor in spirit" has nothing to do with money/wealth. "The point is, has been, and remains, the bible is a conflicted, self-contradictory book." There is nothing contradictory about God loving all, regardless of wealth. "It is arrogant to assume that christians have any sort of moral high ground in any way, shape or form." I agree. "My moral code came to me through my parents. Since my father was Catholic, and my mother was Lutheran, it naturally follows that code was most likely lifted from the bible. However, I continue to carry that moral code, and in some cases do it better than many I have met who claim christianity. I am not christian at this point, nor do I expect I will ever again be a part of a religion that condemns me for being who and what I am, i.e. gay." Then you agree with me. Your morals essentially come from the Bible you dismiss. That is a vast contradiction. "You can make any assumptions you wish as to whether or not my morals are fruits of biblical study. Since I did study the bible up to the point of almost entering a seminary, there is a likelihood that part of that code is based in the bible. That does not mean I have any place for that book in my life, nor that I hold any part of it to be anything other than what it is: a book of fictional stories with a generally moralistic message, yet fraught with inconsistency and self-contradiction." Dont personalize it. I am saying that anyone who lives by the basic societal moral codes, have gotten them from the Bible. "Once again, whether you choose to believe it or not, the simple truth is one does not need to read the bible to have a personal code of morality. Let me reiterate: [saying the bible is the only way to morality] ignores persons who are brought up agnostic, atheistic, pagan, or Muslim who are also moral. While I will grant you that I was brought up in a christian household, many others are not, and live moral lives. This fact cannot be ignored or minimized away. Christianity is not the only way to a moral life, no matter what you may think." But all morality came from the Bible. That is where the notion of right and wrong came from. You cannot avoid it, nor can you pretend that man somehow came up with this on his own. God decided it. "I threw YOUR god away." Fortunately, He does not throw you away. He will be waiting. "I have many gods and goddesses in my personal pantheon." I am unsure what to say to that except, where did you get them from? "So I get to go direct to the source of my spiritual power, and I don't have to pay anyone to do so. Sounds like I am getting the better deal, spiritually speaking." Except where did your "god" come from? Heck, i can say i believe in Baal, like in the OT, but Baal did not actually exist. God has been reinvented by man for millenia, but that does not make your reinvention any more real then Baal was in the OT. "So, what does make me "good"?" God does of course. "You don't know me from Adam. You can only read my words and see a photograph next to my writings. You are not qualified in any way, shape or form to know whether or not I qualify as "good". To do so brings you seriously close to crossing the line into judging me, and we all know Jesus doesn't like that." You keep personalizing it. NO ONE IS GOOD. That is how i can know for sure. ""For you, or anyone else to say that I am wrong, or a sinner because of who and what I am is just one more thing about christians (and others who use religion as a means of gay bashing) that I find completely reprehensible. Who died and left you, or others like you, to be MY judge? Even the tome to which you attach importance warns you, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Sigh, judgement keeps getting confused in this thread. Stop personalizing it. Everyone is a sinner. No one is better than the next, that was the point. "You cannot deny that there are many who call themselves christian who regularly and publicly judge homosexuals. " I do not deny it, but i am not one of them. They are wrong. "you must make a choice as to which parts of it you hold sacrosanct, and which parts you don't hold as such." I do no such thing. I believe it all. "Clearly, we will never have a meeting of the minds on this issue." I dont know Pappy, i thought we made some progress and had a decent debate without too much agita. "Even here, where the debate is sometimes less than classical, matters of faith and belief cannot be debated to the satisfaction of either of the parties. I am sure you will find holes in what I have written. I am sure that when I read your critique of this comment, I will find holes in what you say. Such is the way of things when people choose to debate questions of religion and spirituality." Agree Now i see that there was an additional argument between a believer and Pappy. I really do not wish to comment line by line. I would like to thank the person who tried to defend me, although i personally have far less of a problem with Pappy then i had with the other two people who were lying about things i said and believed. Pappy is plenty angry but he has not misrepresneted me. He has misunderstood me, but that is hardly a travesty as i am often confusing for people since i believe in the inerrant word of God and believe that Bush is the worst president in the history of America. I would ask both pappy and Chris to just take a step back and realize that this is not productive for anyone. I defend my beliefs primarily for those who may be reading, not so much for pappy. There are lives at stake and i do not want there to be any confusion about anything i have written or said. The exchange between pappy and myself was for the most part, civil. That is quite astonishing when you consider that we obviously disagree quite starkly on some key central points, lol. But that is what can happen when two people try to say what they believe and not attack the other, as the other two people in this thread did to me. So Chris, i appreciate it, but it really was the other two guys and not so much pappy. Pappy's first post was a little over the top which i think he apologized for. Since then, we have agreed to disagree on some points and found some middle ground on others. I feel i have done this without comprimising Jesus or my beliefs. I have tried to respond with love but faith in what i believe. Thanks to all...

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 15, 2006 at 7:31:37 PM

  (0+)

Cutting out the stuff that doesn't pertain to me. The thread that won't die; is it a bad thing or not? I think this is an important topic of discussion. Most people with whom I have this kind of debate run and hide after a while. I am glad that you haven't. PRAYING FOR ME Whatever. Look, if i believe that prayer is effective and i CHOOSE to not pray for you, then you should be offended. I wouldn't be offended in the least. Even as much as I believe in the spirit world, I have to say that it's only reason for existing is to make us feel better. There is not one Iota of proof that prayers do much of anything. One can site all the anecdotal evidence, but that isn't admissible in a court of law. Since it is clear, at least to me, that there is no verifiable, truly evidentiary-based way to prove the existence of the spirit world, why waste time offering up prayers for me? DEMS better I do not understand how you are arguing against me, when i have written over 100 articles about this adminstration, none of them positive. My point stands, the dems are not much better, check out the guy caught with the cash in his freezer. I'm not arguing that point at all. What I said was no matter how the Neo-cons and others continue to bash President Clinton, under his economic policies, I had a job, and all the other things I now lack. Because of a long, unending line of "christian" sheep bleating towards the polls, I am now reduced to the existence I lead. While I truly believe you that you didn't vote for DUBYA, or any of the other Republican charlatans that now rape our country, the point remains that many christians did fall in lock step behind the Republican Party simply because their preachers told them to do just that. The preachers did that because they were stupid enough to believe the lies of the wolves in tweed clothing. Because the preachers blindly bought the sales pitch, they sold it to their minions. Those minions are obviously not going to question their clergy. It simply won't happen. In this way, we had a christian based routing of the election in 2004. It's not like there wasn't evidence in 2003 that DUBYA and the rest of the Republicans were liars. The Iraq war had just started, and it was pretty clear there was more than a shadow of doubt about the veracity of DUBYA's claims about both Iraq and Saddam. Valerie Plame was exposed, and there was more than enough evidence to lay this scandal at the feet of the Republicans at least, if not the President. And yet, the Religious Reich and their trained sheep marched to the polls in record numbers. This is not my fault. While it also isn't yours, you cannot deny that the record turnout in 2004 was a result of the more sheep-like christians blindly playing follow the leader. This is willful ignorance. That willful ignorance now haunts one and all; folks like you and I who did see the writing on the wall, and the others who were too dumb and blind to even see there was a wall in the first place. Diebold stole alot more then Ohio, Florida was clearly stolen as well. I will say it again, of that I have no doubt. When someone who contributes large sums of money to a certain political party manufactures voting machines; that obviously constitutes an egregious and clear conflict of interest at the very least. I have never debated or doubted the influence these tainted voting machines had on the election of 2004. However, the point remains that the voter turnout in 2004 was record setting. The number of christians who came running to the polls was also record setting. I can't help but believe that the number of blind, willingly ignorant christians at the polls is why DUBYA was placed back into the White House. For those people to whine now about how evil the government has "become" pisses me off to no end. The evidence was there in 2004 if they'd have looked, as you did. But no, they MUST follow blindly. That is what I began this debate about in the first place. You might say we have both walked away from that point. I am sure that you will agree now that perhaps it's time to drop the debate about matters of faith. If this is not your idea, I will answer all the other stuff originally debated, but I think we have gotten WAY off topic. The long and the short of it is you feel the bible is the unerring word of god. I do not. I feel it is a conflicted, self-contradictory work of fiction. Never will our minds meet on this point. It's really not important anymore in context of what is the more important topic of this debate, whether or not the more willingly ignorant among the christians are the cause of our present state of government. There is much evidence in existence that the 2004 election was tipped in favor of DUBYA and the Republican party because of the actions of conservative Republicans selling and heaping load of bullshit to the Religious Reich. The preachers of the Religious Reich used their pulpits as a place to spread a political message, something that clearly breaks separation of church and state. In doing this, they mobilized the more brain-dead among the "flock". This translated into a record number of bleating voters. The fact that the evil genius Hot Karl Rove placed gay marriage amendments on ballots in key states only insured an even greater number of sheep would find their way to the polls. While there is more than enough evidence to prove that Diebold voting machines played a part in the routing of the election of 2004, the record number of christians at the polls cannot be ignored, and should not be minimized. Their sheer numbers stand as proof of the reason that church and state should never be mixed. As I recall, the original reason I entered into this fray was because of the author saying something about how now many of those christians feel they were betrayed. My point was, is, and shall ever be, "aw, ain't that too bad?" If they blindly followed the leader, then I don't want to hear their cries and moans. If they didn't care when their preachers were egregiously breaking the separation of church and state in this country, then I have no sympathy for the fallout from the criminal actions of their constitution smashing preachers. If they were dumb enough to believe that god wanted DUBYA in office, then I have not one Iota of sympathy for the fact they now feel betrayed. If the root of all of this was the prevalent idea, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," then cry on, you morons. Your cries fall on deaf ears, at least as far as I am concerned. Further, I hold every christian that voted for DUBYA and the Republican party completely responsible for the mess that is our government today. Their actions in the 2004 election not only placed them in the position they are in presently, those actions placed all of us there as well. The time they could have been looking into whether or not their blind voting for the "moral" Republicans was good for the country has long since passed. The time for using their brains as more than ear spacers is also passed. Now they cry that they were used, betrayed, taken advantage of, lied to, cheated. And all I can say is, UH DUH! Maybe the next time around, they won't be so quick to buy into political co*k and bull stories. Of course, with the, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," mentality that many of them carry, all bets are off. As to the other guy who stepped in to defend you and bash me, I will say what I said when I answered him. If you don't want to get your wings burned, don't fly too close to the fire. There was nothing I did that was out of bounds. Yes, my first posting here was over the top. It was done that way in order to make people think. When we sell out our constitution for any reason, we all pay the price. The Republicans clearly worked to blur the separation between church and state, and it worked. Christian preachers banged the pulpit with clearly political sermons, and no one saw the problem. Those who stood up to defend our constitution from this clear violation were branded as godless. Instead of asking whether or not the use of a pulpit for making political statement was right, the sheep like christians sat there blindly and stupidly sucking it all in. Then they went to the polls in record numbers and put the preachers' message into the ballot box. And now, at this late date, when it is proved those blinded and willingly ignorant christians were used, then it's time for tears. Now with the publishing of Kuo's book, suddenly, it is clear for all to see that the only reason the Republicans cared anything about the christians were for their votes. Now the folly of their ways is shown to them, and they don't like it one bit. Well, too bad, so sad. Those self-same people were sure dancing for joy when they thought they were getting their Puritan bill of goods. They couldn't get to the polls fast enough to push their draconian rules on the rest of society. It was no harm, no foul back then. "They" knew what was best for this country. Or did they? Well, if runaway deficit, illegal wars, allowing innocent Americans to die in a natural disaster on our own soil, and moving towards even more armed conflicts are good things, then they knew what was best. If not, then clearly, their blind game of follow the leader has damaged this country. Whenever the precepts that built this country are taken for granted, or actively worked against, all the people suffer. The separation of church and state was put into the constitution because the founding fathers knew the hell that could come from a united church and state. The collusion between the Religious Reich and the Republicans to blur or completely eliminate this separation caused the problems we have now. All who took part in this routing of the constitution share the guilt. The Republican Party is guilty because they knew better. They abandoned the constitution because they knew they couldn't win in a fair fight. The Religious Reich are guilty because they were so blinded and drunk with power, they didn't care that their actions were clearly outside the bounds of the separation of church and state. Finally, the christian sheep are guilty. Their crime is not questioning whether or not the bill of goods being sold to them was true. Their crime was not asking questions. Their crime was blindly playing follow the leader, even when there was enough in the news to suggest that things weren't as they seemed. I hope that this can become a lesson. Those who blindly follow their leaders without even whimpering one question, or acknowledging one doubt get what they deserve when the sh*t hits the fan. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to bear the fallout from their willing ignorance as well. Blessed be! Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 16, 2006 at 1:12:29 PM

  (0+)

On prayer, if it is my time, don't sweat it. As long as you do not find it offensive that i might pray for you or anyone else. On the 2004 elections, i think that more people voted dem then you think. I think that the elections were clearly stolen, so to blame Christians, when John Kerry wussed out after only 6 hours is not fair. The dems have had no spine for five years now, content to have some power then rock the boat too fiercely (except some brave patriots like Conyers and Russ Fiengold). You want someone to blame, i think it goes around a bit more than just Christians. On Clinton, i agree that the country was better off. Clinton benefitted greatly from the dotcom boom, but since he gets so much blame for everything that is not his fault, i have no problem giving him credit for this. That is about it. If there is anything else feel free to drop a line. Take care of yourself Pappy. AW

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 16, 2006 at 6:42:25 PM

  (0+)

I have to respond to this post because as I see it religion, lifestyle, and politics came into play. I've read many articles from Anthony and Pappy and both of them do an excellent job in conveying their points. Many of which I agree with. What you don't know is that I'm a Deist. Deists believe that yes our world was created by an extreme being, a god if you will, but as soon as our world was created this extreme being left our world to create more worlds in the ever expanding universe. With that said, I have to state, knowing that Anthony was a Christian, or Pappy was gay never had a bearing on whether I would post their articles on my blog. I find it troubling that this blog has reduced itself to the same mind set, the same bickering, that the extreme right thrives upon. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if your religious beliefs differ from mine, I don't care if your lifestyle is different from mine. I'll respect you just the same. What is important is to respect each and every religion and lifestyle. I may not agree with christians, muslims, gays, whatever,but I'll support them if they can prove to me their right. Troubled

by TroubledTexan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments) on Saturday, Oct 21, 2006 at 5:19:29 PM

  (0+)

First let me be the one to say that this should have been a wake up call from the very beginning. I was raised in a church mostly left leaning if you will. where as a methodist we talked more about social justice, the poor and human rights. I cant even remember a time when any minister that I heard from my side of the aisle made a big deal about abortion or gay marriage. Those values are left to conservative chirstians which to me because of those two issues were allowed to be used in the first place. I dont remember Jesus mentioning any of these two. Was he not a liberal after all he did liberate woman and slaves, spoke up for the poor and those who were dehumanize. I also like to state that although this nation was not founded by christians since Indians were here first some of them have bought into this idea that we can have a chrisitan nation. Without thinking that this nation was never about christianity. Indians were slaughtered, we had 400 years of slavery in this country in which certain scriptures were used to justify it and greed has always been apart ot the problem of this country. Why cant this country just learn how to govern in which no one regardless of their religion or none at all can feel included? I realize that people will make a judgement call base on their religious beliefs but that would mean they would have to really understand what the bible really says and a lot of them dont because they were either taught wrong or they have twisted the bible to suite their own needs. I look at some of these conservative ministers black and white who sold their churches down the drain with this faith based initative which was used with tax payers money. to exclude gays and demonize woman who have had an abortion. mostly they are anti-gay, anti-black and anti woman. I see the Republican Party as the rich white mans party and the democrats as the party for the people. although one is the flip side of the coin as the other side but I would rather be with a party that respects peoples religious beliefs whatever that may be then to make a mockery out of it. I hope we can take this opportunity and talk more about ethics and moral relatvism and how our votes effect others instead of using it based on our religious belifs which at times can be used to hurt others especially if you dont understand that person circumstances(parental notifications, abortion, gay marriage, etc) these issues if manipulated have been used to hurt people with not bring people together. And since the chirsitan right is not the true followers of jesus, I dont feel that the GOP will lose much votes since they make up at least 3040% of the party. I just hope that more people will come out and support more democrats or Green party members or even independenats as long as they are about governing for everyone and not about exclusion. Thanks and I am sorry if you vote republican and were manipulated no one deserves that not even conservatives. I am a pro-choice progressive democrat always will be. maybe some of you conservatives can try that we tend to include everyone with facts and truth. talk to ya soon.

by chip90043 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 5:02:35 PM

  (0+)

I was not deceived. I voted dem, even though both sides are corrupt, only one has absolute power and that is never good. I deal with Christian freinds every day who are waking up to the last five years. Thanks for your comments.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 6:11:45 PM

  (0+)

in a word, powerful. i hope people are listening. thank you, anthony! Keep it comin'! Joan Brunwasser, Voting Integrity Ed., OpEdNews

by Joan Brunwasser (208 articles, 3758 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 752 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 6:30:14 PM

  (0+)

and thanks for your tireless work on the most important story the mainstream refuses to deal with, voting integrity.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 6:57:13 PM

  (0+)

Anthony, Before I read your article I posted David Kuo and Keith Olberman's video about this subject to my blog. I do respect your opinion on these matters. With that said I'll also post your article: Deceived and Used, The GOP Leaves Christian America at the Altar of Corporatism on my blog as well. As you said: I leave you my Christian brothers and sisters with the words of Thomas Jefferson: "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." Test everything my friends, test everything. Troubled

by TroubledTexan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments) on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 8:23:48 PM

  (0+)

Feel free to post the link or article. Just one month left...

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 8:41:01 PM

  (0+)

Thanks Anthony, for being true to your faith and to a vision of America far more consistent with Jesus' teachings than the deluded souls who support Bush envision. I know it hasn't been easy at times. And thanks for helping ME understand this realm so much better, though I know I have a ways to go.

by Rob Kall (956 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 376 diaries, 2093 comments [50 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:06:09 PM

  (0+)

You took my writing early on when i needed a platform. We have learned alot from each other. Jesus is love, redemption, and forgiveness. Too many Christians forget that in their pursuit of worldly matters. It has been a long ride these past three years. I am praying that stability and sanity is restored this fall and congressional oversight will come back to this country. Thanks for your support and the work you have put into making Opednews as successful as it is today. Thanks for listening to me as well. AW

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:25:06 PM

  (0+)

I'm going to have to write here in full support of Pappy, as so many of you moderates are condemning him. Whether or not Mr. Wade personally denounced Bush from the beginning is beside the point made by Pappy, that being the blatant power-mongering that is integral to the christian ideology. Pappy is a homosexual, I am bi and an atheist, together we create the absolute worst thing that christians can ever hope to see, and we both, according to your bible, should be put to death, denied salvation and sent to hell to be burned in our personal holocaust for all of eternity. It is precisely this moderate ignorance about the truth of religious fundamentalism that has crippled the nation. And the arrogance born out of such ignorance in thinking that somehow you have the truly true understanding of the bible. Jesus may have preached forgiveness and love, but he also came only for "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", condemned the gentile woman to eat the scraps from the Jewish table, and preached that brought "not peace but the sword." This type of selective reading is precisely what shows the religious ideology to be ridiculous and merely a tool for the power-hungry, for it can be used by anybody who wishes to justify their thinking. This country got what they deserve for the past 5 years because in a nation where over 60% believe in the imminent return of Jesus in the next 50 years, what does it matter that the environment or the poor are ignored. All that matters is being right with god. Christians might be disgusted with the republican sex-scandal but do you really think the so-called moral majority will support a democrat who wants to give homosexuals the right to marry? HA!

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:27:50 AM

  (0+)

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but you got exactly what you deserve. I feel not even the slightest bit of sympathy for christians who now wail and moan about being the victims of government lies. The evangelicals and others preached for Republicans at the pulpit. Clearly this was a flagrant violation of the separation between church and state. At the time, few of your ilk were even thinking that was a problem. "Oh, gee, at last, we will have our one nation, under god," was the prevailing thought. No one even thought to care about whether or not what was happening was in accord with the constitution of the United States. That was beside the point. Now, taste the bitter pill that the willing ignorance of the christian mindset has wrought! If someone can make themselves look like the height of moral decency, you vote for them without question. Do you take the time out of your busy prayer schedule to find out whether you are being hoodwinked? Oh hell no, perish the thought. Republicans would NEVER lie. Yeah right, and Scary Jerry Falwell isn't a closet case. Puh-leez! In the time that warnings were being spoken from everywhere but the right, what did you do? You ignored them. You assumed that anyone who wasn't sitting on the right was automatically on the left. The left stands for gay rights, the right to choose, and other "immoral" issues which leave such a bad taste in the christian mouth. You didn't want to hear what the "left" was saying because we couldn't possibly be both "immoral" and right at the same time. If we weren't waving flags, praising god, apple pie, and Chevrolet, or goddess forbid we were speaking against the ignorance of "intelligent design", then we were all sinners, immoral, and full of sh*t. You forgot that not only was the left warning, the middle was also in there joining the chorus. You didn't want to hear the middle because they weren't on the right. The voice of moderation went unheard because you allowed the right to tell you that if it wasn't their words, it was wrong. And now, we all have to live in the country that the willing ignorance of American christians wrought. When the words of more moderate and rational christians could have been heard, nothing was said. No one stood up to challenge the charlatans that were obviously changing money in the temple. As long as Crystal Catherdrals and Mega-churches could be constructed, who cared if their message was anything but Christ-like? No one! And now you cry because at long last, you have had the wool pulled from over your eyes. Now, like I have had to do for the past five years, you have to look upon a world of lies and hypocrisy. The picture isn't so pretty, and now it's time for the crocodile tears to fall. Charade you are! So now you feel deceived and used. Isn't that too bad? I have watched for five years as the American dream has been torn from my hands. I tried to speak on it, but my voice went unheard. I tried to warn folks, but what would a sinning homosexual such as myself know about anything? Further, since I am such a sinner and so immoral, who cares if my dreams, my hopes, my aspirations, my health, my sanity, and my ability to make a liveable wage went flying out the window? That was just god's judgment on my sinful, immoral ways. I was getting what I deserved because I didn't accept Jesus as my personal savior. What's worse, I am a practicing pagan; a godless heathen getting his just desserts? No harm, no foul. Well, now you sit on my side of the fence. How does it feel? Do you feel used? Hmm. Me too. Do you feel slighted? Me too. Do you feel deceived? Me too. Gee, now you know how I feel. Isn't that nice? In the words of an old classic jazz tune that's been around for a very long time, "Now you say you're sorry. You cried the whole night through. Well you can cry me a river, cry me a river. I cried a river over you!" Blessed be! Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 1:56:47 AM

  (0+)

Anthony has consistently spoken AGAINST Bush and the right wing. It is inaccurate to paint all Christians as you are doing. Frankly, I have to be careful myself, because there are tens of millions of right wing, evangelical, Bush supporting Christians who you WOULD be right about. But our OpEdNews Zogby polling showed that even among Evangelicals and Born agains, there is a percentage who oppose Bush. Fortunately, as these folks wake up, that number is growing. Bottom line, give credit where it is due. Anthony has been a lonely voice at times, and he's struggled a tough road, since he opposes abortion, and is, as he describes himself, a "red letter Christian." who follows the bible literally. Yet he's stood strong with progressives on most political issues.

by Rob Kall (956 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 376 diaries, 2093 comments [50 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 6:10:29 AM

  (0+)

And a Thanks to Rob and Oped for publishing the other voices of Christianity and NOT the Fawells, Hagee's and corruptors of the gospel JC preached. When candidate Bush claimed his favorite Philosopher was Christ, I thought, "Me too!" President Bush has consistently ignored and defied the teachings and philosophy of JC. Thomas Jefferson weeded out the miracle stories from the gospels and clarified the teachings of Christ in The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth 1. Be just: justice comes from virtue which comes from the heart. 2. Treat people the way we want to be treated. 3. Always work for PEACEFUL resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with COMPASSION. 4. Consider valuable the things that have no material value. 5. Do not judge others. 6. Do not bear grudges. 7. Be modest and unpretentious. 8. Give out of true generosity, not because we expect to be repaid. 9. Being true to one's self is more important than being loyal to one's family...those who think they know the most are the most ignorant...... Bush responded with violence after 9/11, instead of looking within at what USA foreign policy had contributed to provoke the hate that lead to the evil of targeting and murdering innocent people. At the tomb on the first Easter Sunday, Mary Magdelena, cried out, "They have taken my Lord, and I cannot find him." I know that feeling! This Administration has taken my Lord, my brother, my love and I cannot find him in their rhetoric or actions. JC's last words on the cross were: "Father, forgive them. They do NOT know what they do." But we the people can readily see what this Admimnistration had done: they have mis-used religion to get elected! JC refered to politicians as FOXES! Meaning they only look out for themselves. And there is NOTHING Christian about that! There is also nothing Christian about corporate greed and retaliating with violence. "Soon after I had published the pamphlet "Common Sense" [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."-Tom Paine May we ALL have common sense this Nov. at the polls and "begin the world again."-Tom Paine e http://www.wearewideawake.org

by Eileen Fleming (172 articles, 101 quicklinks, 274 diaries, 650 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 9:12:56 AM

  (0+)

That was some rant. I must have done a bad job in this article of being clear. I did not vote for Bush, either time. I found him to be a wolf in sheeps clothing. I was not deceived. I am writing about the experience alot of Christians are finding themselves in today, used by the GOP. I am sorry if that angers you, but people make mistakes in this world. The issue is that if a mistake of ignorance is corrected when knowledge is acquired. I am sorry there is so much anger inside of you. I pray that you resolve it and realize that God loves you. Thanks for those who came to my defense! Blessings.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 9:55:52 AM

  (0+)

No, you didn't do a bad job of being clear. You simply did a great job at being selective, like most moderates. Speak all you want about praying for Pappy to be saved from his anger, but the last time I checked, your christian ideology condemns him as no less than an animal (read Romans and Leviticus) to be burned alive for eternity along with the rest of our sinners. Perhaps the anger you should be praying for is your god's.

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:30:33 AM

  (0+)

Anthony and I disagree on some major issues, but we'be been able to do it while remaining respectful of each other, staying friends. I think y ou can pick almost any belief system, including liberalism, and identify aspects that are extreme or intolerant. Wisdom comes from being able to embrace the most balance organic parts that respect the universal whole. Personally, I believe that a cardinal rule for all religions is to respect other religions. Any faith that declares that it is better than other religions is problematic and deserving of diminished respect. That said, ANY religion you identify will have practitioners who believe that IT is better. But you will also find other practitioners who are willing to and able to respect other people and their faiths, rather believing that their religion of choice is best for them. I was very impressed when my sister-in-law, a rabid, obnoxious, ignorant born again Catholic said in front of my then young children that she was worried that they would go to hell. Well she said it to their late uncle, who was a Jesuit priest. His reply-- there are many mansions in the house of the lord. Don't worry about them. They won't go to hell. That one moment raised my estimation of priests and the clergy immensely. There are religious fools in AND out of religion.

by Rob Kall (956 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 376 diaries, 2093 comments [50 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:49:20 AM

  (0+)

Quote: "Personally, I believe that a cardinal rule for all religions is to respect other religions." I'm sorry, but what world are you living in and what bible did you read? While I personally agree with this statement, it does not at all convey the truth about religious ideologies, especially the absolutist kind of christian, islam and judaism. You do realize that Jesus said "no one comes to the father except through me"? Where in that is found any respect for other religions? Do you realize that islam preaches the complete humanness of jesus and that to believe in his divinity is to dwell in heresy and thus deny yourself heaven? I understand and even appreciate your, and others', attempts to speak about tolerance and understanding, but don't do at the expense of missing what is really going on. In point of fact, it is precisely the moderates who get it wrong when they preach an "all paths go the same place" ideology, because the very holy books that are the foundation of those paths say something completely different.

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:55:55 AM

  (0+)

"No, you didn't do a bad job of being clear. You simply did a great job at being selective, like most moderates." If the guy i was responding to thought i was supportive of Bush and had an epiphany, then i was not clear. "Speak all you want about praying for Pappy to be saved from his anger, but the last time I checked, your christian ideology condemns him as no less than an animal (read Romans and Leviticus) to be burned alive for eternity along with the rest of our sinners." We are all sinners, but some are saved by grace. One man's sin is no worse than anothers. If you break one law, you have broken them all. It is only through grace can you not be condemned. I understand that the pride man has often gets in the way of believing that there might be a God, and he might have rules. I know that propensity for humanism to infect our mindset. If you think you are your own God, or that you merely evolved from monkeys, that is your business but God still loves you and desires for you to be reconciled to Him. No matter how much you don't believe in Him, He will still believe in you. "Perhaps the anger you should be praying for is your god's." Clever but no, i think i will trust my God. If someone came into your home and killed your family, would you epxect justice? Maybe even revenge? Does society provide a remedy for you because a law has been broken? Of course. Why then do you cringe at the thought that God might also have rules, laws and a certain code of behavior we are to adhere to? Rob - thanks again, well said.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:17:41 AM

  (0+)

Like most believers, instead of actually answering the real questions, you resort to personal piety. Thank you so much for telling me that I'm a sinner and that a man who died 2000 years ago in a heinous death that we would all see as despicable, paid the "penalty" for a sin, adam's, that I didn't commit. And yes, that's sarcasm. Preach to me all you want about salvation, but as is usual you'll never try to actually justify your belief because it has nothing to do with reason. Which brings me to my point and the point that I made earlier. Your religious ideology is such, as it is not based on reason, that it can be used by any crazy fanatic or liberal pansy out there. All you are doing is picking and choosing which scriptures to believe, which is no better than what Bush and his cronies are doing. Try answering this: what makes you right and them wrong? What source do you have that makes you correct and them wrong? What it boils down to is that you have a personal morality and, like those you rail against, you use the bible to justify it. And this isn't becuase you believe in the bible, it's because you believe you're right. But see, here's the problem, by invoking an imaginary omnipotent being, you have shut off any discussion, relegating it to mere theological rambling where there is no clear-cut answers. This is why religion shouldn't have any place in the discussion of politics, because democracy is about reasoning together and religion is about being right regardless of what anybody else says. The first relies on public reason and the ability to be wrong, the latter says god supports you and thus you must be right.

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:28:03 AM

  (0+)

"I'm sorry, but what world are you living in and what bible did you read? While I personally agree with this statement, it does not at all convey the truth about religious ideologies, especially the absolutist kind of christian, islam and judaism. " I would suggest actually reading the Bible, which it appears you have not seriosuly done. The only person in this exchange who sounds intolerant is YOU. "You do realize that Jesus said "no one comes to the father except through me"? Where in that is found any respect for other religions?" Are you serious? I believe in the above verse but that does not mean that i am intolerant. I have my beliefs and an atheist has theirs. I happen to think they are wrong and they happen to think i am wrong. That does not preclude me talking to them or being friends with them. Given my beliefs, i would be remiss to not try and convince them, with love, that they are mistaken in regards to there being no God. I would welcome the debate, allow them to speak their beliefs and counter with what i believe. In the end, you must understand that if i believe that people who die apart from God are consigned to eternal separation from Him, then it is a far greater insult if i did NOT try to convince you. The issue is in how you approach people. If you do it from some sense of moral superiority, then it is intolerant and too many Christians make that mistake. I try to keep the mindset of the Apostle Paul, who despite the fact that he wrote 2/3 of the New Tetstament always said "of these i am the least". "Do you realize that islam preaches the complete humanness of jesus and that to believe in his divinity is to dwell in heresy and thus deny yourself heaven?" Unfortunately, i believe they are mistaken. If you analyze history you will see when the relative belief systems emerged and realize that they simply are mistaken. "I understand and even appreciate your, and others', attempts to speak about tolerance and understanding, but don't do at the expense of missing what is really going on." What in the world in my article did you feel was "missing the point?" "In point of fact, it is precisely the moderates who get it wrong when they preach an "all paths go the same place" ideology, because the very holy books that are the foundation of those paths say something completely different." All paths do NOT go to the same place. If that was the impression you had of me, then i apologize. I do believe there is a heaven and a hell. I do believe in the one path of Jesus Christ. That being said, it is imperative that i represent Christ as best i can, with His love, redemption, and patience. I do not despise people who believe somethign else. I do not blame them for anything. I do not feel i am better then them. I simply think they are mistaken and it is imperative that they hear the Word of God and ultimately free will, will decide what they do with the Truth they hear. be well

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:34:12 AM

  (0+)

As a perusal of my bio would tell you, I graduated with honors from a Bible College and majored in both theology and psychology. Telling me that I clearly havne't read the bible is both a sign of your own ignorance concerning myself and also a point concerning your clear inability to allow criticism of your beliefs, since instead of proving how I was wrong, you simply declared I was an idiot. As you believe in the verse where Jesus said there is no other path except through him, therefore condemning any who don't believe in him to an eternity in a personal holocaust, then what about that is tolerant? Perhaps you need to look it up in a dictionary. If you believe that your beliefs are the only correct ones, as you say, then anyone who believes otherwise is therefore wrong and morally despicable, as they refuse to believe the supposed self-evident truths of christianity. Where is tolerance to be found there? In going on and on, ad nauseum, in declaring yourself to be tolerant and loving, etc. you have yet again refused to address the point that I have made; that being, on what grounds do you think your particular choices of scripture are right and those of Bush and his lackeys are wrong? You have not once addressed this. Taking everything I say as some personal attack merely shows your victim mentality, indicative of your religious ideology that claims Satan is in control of the forces of the world and you, the lonely believer, are being persecuted. As with taking some kind of moral affront to intolerance, this thinking again allows you to dwell in your personal piety and not actually address on reasoned grounds, why you're right. This isn't a religious conversation, I am not debating with you the fine points of systematic theology or biblical criticism. I am simply pointing out that your thinking doesn't answer anything and in fact, by not seeing how wrong absolutist ideology is, you undermine the ability of the rest of us to get rid of a thinking that is antithetical to democracy.

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:48:07 AM

  (0+)

"Like most believers, instead of actually answering the real questions, you resort to personal piety." Allow me to explain the english language to you. If you ASK a question, i will give you an answer. If you make generalizatized statements, i respond accordingly. Yes, that too was sarcasm. "Thank you so much for telling me that I'm a sinner and that a man who died 2000 years ago in a heinous death that we would all see as despicable, paid the "penalty" for a sin, adam's, that I didn't commit." You are welcome, we are all sinners though, so don't feel too badly about it. "And yes, that's sarcasm. Preach to me all you want about salvation, but as is usual you'll never try to actually justify your belief because it has nothing to do with reason." Is this the question you feel i have not answered? Questions end with a question mark, just for future reference. What does your "reason" tell you? Do you believe in God at all? Do you believe in right and wrong? Do you believe in morality or some kind of moral code? If you have answered yes to any of these then i would ask you to ponder where those beliefs came from. You are being very vague and antagonstic at the same time, which makes me wonder what your point really is here. "Which brings me to my point and the point that I made earlier. Your religious ideology is such, as it is not based on reason, that it can be used by any crazy fanatic or liberal pansy out there." I'm sorry do i know you? Do you know me or what i believe? Again, try asking me before you assume anything because it sure sounds like you do not have a clue what i believe. "All you are doing is picking and choosing which scriptures to believe, which is no better than what Bush and his cronies are doing." My fear is confirmed, you do not understand what i believe. I do not pick nor choose. I believe in the entire Bible, word for word, as inerrant truth. You stand a better chance of scoring cheap points for mocking that, then in assuming oncorrectly what i do and do not believe. "Try answering this: what makes you right and them wrong? What source do you have that makes you correct and them wrong?" The Bible of course. I base my beliefs on the Word of God. You already have stated that you base them on "reason". Man's reason has been proved to be horribly flawed throughout history. Man once thought the earth was flat. Man once thought the universe revolved around the earth. Today's "reason" is tomorrows old wives tales. I prefer to trust the word of God, which has survived intact for centuries. You can mock that if you like, but at least i base my beliefs on something. I specifically do not pick and choose with a salad bar mentality, discarding what makes me uncomfortable. Are there parts that make me uneasy? Sure, but faith is knowing in whom you have believed. "What it boils down to is that you have a personal morality and, like those you rail against, you use the bible to justify it." I rail against the unjust and the untrue. I do not rail against people who do not share my religuious beliefs. "And this isn't becuase you believe in the bible, it's because you believe you're right." The Bible is right. I am a sinner saved by grace. It sounds like you are advocating that once someone decides what they believe, they should somehow represent those beliefs in an unsure manner. It sure sounds like you are confident in your non-belief but you do see me railing against you for your confidence in those beliefs. "But see, here's the problem, by invoking an imaginary omnipotent being," Trying to get a rise out of me will take more than this transparent attempt. You have well established your atheism. "you have shut off any discussion, relegating it to mere theological rambling where there is no clear-cut answers." Nonsense. I have engaged in any debate anyone has offered, from either side, ask Rob. Yes my answers may be based on God and yours on man, but you wish to attack my credibility based upon the fact that you merely have a different opinion. That is what makes you a dishonorable broker. "This is why religion shouldn't have any place in the discussion of politics," I agree (surprised?). I think it is ok to say what you believe, but not to make public policy solely on religious reasons. "because democracy is about reasoning together and religion is about being right regardless of what anybody else says. Your characterization is silly. Democracy is not always about "reasoning" it right now is about power and control and firmly believing your party is always "right". Religion is about how we are to behave on this planet for the time God has given us, or in your case the imaginary omnipotent being. "The first relies on public reason and the ability to be wrong," Riiigggghhhht... and the last time anyone in politics admitted they were wrong was when exactly? "the latter says god supports you and thus you must be right." You keep getting it backwards. God is right. If i believe in God, it is HE that is right and righteous. What this is really about is your refusal to believe that you could be wrong about your own prejudices and disbelief.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:17:15 PM

  (0+)

I'm going to ignore most of what was said because again, much of what you said was about your particular theological bent, not anything to do with why you think you're right and the conservatives are wrong in their interpretation. "I do not pick nor choose. I believe in the entire Bible, word for word, as inerrant truth." This doesn't prove anything. Do you think that the conservative religious thinker doesn't believe the same thing? Of course they do. The point I made still stands, that the problem is that you are both using the same book to justify completely different ideologies by quoting different scripture verses. You have yet to say how it is that you know you're right and they are wrong. Simply declaring to me that the Bible hasn't changed is not only your belief, but it doesn't even hold up in history. Which Bible? The catholic or protestant one? What about all the texts that claimed to be inspired but weren't added? But this gets off the point and I'm not talkign about biblical criticism. "I rail against the unjust and the untrue. I do not rail against people who do not share my religuious beliefs." This is quaint, but doesn't get you off the hook. You do not have to rail against someone in particular, by simply standing up for an ideology that decrees anybody who believes otherwise will burn alive for eternity, you ARE railing against everyone who doesn't believe you. By standing up for bigotry, even if you never say anything particularly against someone, you are implicit in the condemnation that your religious system heaps on anyone who disagrees. "I agree (surprised?). I think it is ok to say what you believe, but not to make public policy solely on religious reasons." You aren't saying anything here that is different than the conservative. No republican would say that religious reasons are the SOLE source of their thought, only that it informs them. Again, you have yet to address why you are correct and they are wrong in the interpretation of christianity. "Riiigggghhhht... and the last time anyone in politics admitted they were wrong was when exactly?" This is a non sequitor. My point had nothing to do with whether politicians admit they are wrong. Rather, the democratic system has as a cornerstone the fact that knowledge isn't absolute and judgments are fallible. Religious ideology has no such point. "God is right. If i believe in God, it is HE that is right and righteous. What this is really about is your refusal to believe that you could be wrong about your own prejudices and disbelief." This proves my above point and actually goes to the heart of the matter under discussion. By saying "if I believe in god" you implicitly agree that it is YOUR judgment that determines the fact that god is righteous and right. Your belief comes first because you have determined, based on your own moral and cognitive thinking, that what you read in the bible is correct. Hence, you don't believe in the bible, you believe in your belief of the bible. Therefore you are using it as a justification for your belief. As to your psychological evaluation of me, it's amusing, but again, like your ignorance concerning my educational background, it shows your continued ignorance about my own beliefs. The foundation of my ideology is that of the uncertainty and fallibility, for I do not believe in my ability to understand anything perfectly. Debate, for me, is the place where my thoughts can be hashed out and shown, by reason, to be wrong, if that is in fact the case. Your ideology, of which I have made no particular claims to what you believe, only generalizations based on the study of various systematic theologies. I have read Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Lewis, Clark, Henry, Schaeffer, and others. Ignorance of systematic and biblical theology (and yes, those are different) is not my problem.

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 1:00:51 PM

  (0+)

"As a perusal of my bio would tell you, I graduated with honors from a Bible College and majored in both theology and psychology. Telling me that I clearly havne't read the bible is both a sign of your own ignorance concerning myself and also a point concerning your clear inability to allow criticism of your beliefs, since instead of proving how I was wrong, you simply declared I was an idiot." Maybe you missed it but you came into my thread and started mouthing off. Your bio does not come with your posts and i do not have time nor the inclination to read what you wish people to believe about you. Having a degree does not mean you understand the truths therein, as you would know if you went to Bible college. I also never "declatred you an idiot" so drop the self-righteousness. Your own words betray you far better than i ever could. "As you believe in the verse where Jesus said there is no other path except through him, therefore condemning any who don't believe in him to an eternity in a personal holocaust, then what about that is tolerant?" God has rules, you for starters need to believe on Him. I think that is wholly and completely reasonable. As for your reference to "holocaust" it is designed only to inflame the conversation and i will not allow it. "Perhaps you need to look it up in a dictionary. If you believe that your beliefs are the only correct ones, as you say," I am only going to say this one more time. Do not continue to misrepresent what i say. "then anyone who believes otherwise is therefore wrong and morally despicable, as they refuse to believe the supposed self-evident truths of christianity. Where is tolerance to be found there?" These are your own twisted sad pathetic beliefs sir. I am rapidly growing tired of having to answer someone who is such a dishonest broker. "In going on and on, ad nauseum, in declaring yourself to be tolerant and loving, etc. you have yet again refused to address the point that I have made; that being, on what grounds do you think your particular choices of scripture are right and those of Bush and his lackeys are wrong? You have not once addressed this." You asked one time what i base my beliefs on and i answered, so stop lying about what i have and have not answered. "Taking everything I say as some personal attack merely shows your victim mentality, indicative of your religious ideology that claims Satan is in control of the forces of the world and you, the lonely believer, are being persecuted. As with taking some kind of moral affront to intolerance, this thinking again allows you to dwell in your personal piety and not actually address on reasoned grounds, why you're right." Do you actually believe any of the nonsense you spew? I have taken nothing you have said as an attack, merely that you are apparently a habitual liar. You have proven that throughout this thread. I do not play any victim card and i do not feel persecuted. Try playing your pseudo-religious games somewhere else. "This isn't a religious conversation, I am not debating with you the fine points of systematic theology or biblical criticism. I am simply pointing out that your thinking doesn't answer anything and in fact, by not seeing how wrong absolutist ideology is, you undermine the ability of the rest of us to get rid of a thinking that is antithetical to democracy." Wow, quite a mouthful. What you have done sir is lie continually about what i have said, and about what i believe. I have tried to be nice about it, but now i am out of patience. You are a liar and quite frankly, not a very good one.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:41:16 PM

  (0+)

He must have responded in the wriong spot at first. "I'm going to have to write here in full support of Pappy, as so many of you moderates are condemning him. Whether or not Mr. Wade personally denounced Bush from the beginning is beside the point made by Pappy," Actually, it was the entire point he made. Youi just want to interject your personal problems into this thread and use pappy in doing so. "that being the blatant power-mongering that is integral to the christian ideology." Huh? "Pappy is a homosexual, I am bi and an atheist, together we create the absolute worst thing that christians can ever hope to see, and we both, according to your bible, should be put to death, denied salvation and sent to hell to be burned in our personal holocaust for all of eternity." For someone who claims to have attended bible college, you must have cut out alot. Sin is sin, regardless of what it is. It is your sepeartion from God that seals your fate. You are using your sexual orientation as a weapon and it is beyond unseemly. "It is precisely this moderate ignorance about the truth of religious fundamentalism that has crippled the nation." I hate that word. I agree that ignorance to the true motives of the religious right have cause problems, although i would not go as far as to say, "crippled the nation" Overeaching. "And the arrogance born out of such ignorance in thinking that somehow you have the truly true understanding of the bible. Jesus may have preached forgiveness and love, but he also came only for "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", condemned the gentile woman to eat the scraps from the Jewish table, " Correct but once he was rejected by God's people, salvation came to the Gentiles. You sure you went to Bible college? "and preached that brought "not peace but the sword." This type of selective reading is precisely what shows the religious ideology to be ridiculous and merely a tool for the power-hungry, for it can be used by anybody who wishes to justify their thinking." Only if you misinterpret to fit your political or sexual identity agendas. The sword of course is the Word of God, it would divide man against man, brother against sister. Example? Look at this thread. Some will believe it and some will not. That is how it is a sword. "This country got what they deserve for the past 5 years because in a nation where over 60% believe in the imminent return of Jesus in the next 50 years, what does it matter that the environment or the poor are ignored." To a certain extent i think we get what we desrve as well. But more so because most people can tell you who won the last american idol but cant name their congressman. Your 60% statistic is so silly it is not worth responding to. "All that matters is being right with god. Christians might be disgusted with the republican sex-scandal but do you really think the so-called moral majority will support a democrat who wants to give homosexuals the right to marry? HA!" Interesting point, i certainly hope so and that was one of the main points of the article to begin with.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:56:49 PM

  (0+)

Yet again, you never addressed my point. What precisely gives you the right, since you claim beliefs based on the same book that the conservatives do, that you are right and they are wrong? The only thing you've said is that your interpretation is correct. Well, that's all well and good, but since the conservative will say the same thing, it doesn't answer anything. It is also clear that you refuse to answer the argument presented that you gain your beliefs based on your own thinking and then justify it via your interpretation of the bible. Instead of actually addressing my point, you call me a liar. So let's see, am I a liar? What did I lie about? Did I lie when I said you claim your beliefs are correct and therefore everyone else is wrong? Here is what you said: "The Bible is right. I am a sinner saved by grace." If the bible is right, therefore the koran and other holy books are wrong. Again, you said: "I do believe there is a heaven and a hell. I do believe in the one path of Jesus Christ.." If there is only one path and that is of jesus, therefore all other paths lead to hell. So where was I lying when I said you believe you're right and everyone else wrong? I never misrepresented you and yet you say: "These are your own twisted sad pathetic beliefs sir. I am rapidly growing tired of having to answer someone who is such a dishonest broker." The only one dishonest here is you, who continually refuse to address my points. You said: "You asked one time what i base my beliefs on and i answered" Actually, you didn't answer. I asked what you based your belief that your particular interpretation of the bible is correct and you only said "the bible." Sorry, but that isn't an answer because the conservative is going to say the same thing. Therefore, you have to prove why YOUR PARTICULAR interpretation is correct. As other believers are using the same book to say different things, I simply pointed out that this then goes to show that the bible can be construed to justify anything you want and therefore must require a source outside of it to show who is correct in its interpretation, that being human reason. You didn't address this at all either. You said: "As for your reference to "holocaust" it is designed only to inflame the conversation and i will not allow it." Of course you aren't going to address it because the doctrine of hell is a slap in the face of your liberalism. It sickens you that the god of love that you supposedly serve is ok with sending people to be burned alive for all of eternity and hence you ignore it. Well, it isn't going away. I use the term "holocaust" because it's appropriate in getting the understanding of what burning in hell is like. How else are you going to interpret Jesus's statement that the rich man will go "where the worm dieth not" or that the merchant declares that "a drop of water" will give him incomparable joy as he burns in hell. I do hope those who are reading this exchange see what is going on. I quote you and you call me a liar. I bring up a point and you either return to piety, claiming I'm a sinner, or ignore it outright. This is precisely what happens when religion is used as justification for what you believe.

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 1:49:48 PM

  (0+)

"I'm going to ignore most of what was said because again, much of what you said was about your particular theological bent, not anything to do with why you think you're right and the conservatives are wrong in their interpretation." Is there a question anywhere in my future??? Am i supposed to be psychic? My belief is the religious right use their religion. In other wiords they are wolves in sheeps clothing, which i believe i said in my first response to this. "This doesn't prove anything. Do you think that the conservative religious thinker doesn't believe the same thing? Of course they do." Depends on who you are talking about. Some do not believe at all but use the Bible to their own ends. "The point I made still stands," I hate to break this to you, but you have yet to make any point. " that the problem is that you are both using the same book to justify completely different ideologies by quoting different scripture verses." Ok, reality time. Where did this happen exactly. Where have i sued different bible verses to explain something in contrast to someone else. I am tired of you making generalized statements with no basis in reality. "You have yet to say how it is that you know you're right and they are wrong." You original statement was so vague i assumed you mean why my view would correct versus an unbeliever. "Simply declaring to me that the Bible hasn't changed is not only your belief, but it doesn't even hold up in history. Which Bible? The catholic or protestant one? What about all the texts that claimed to be inspired but weren't added? But this gets off the point and I'm not talkign about biblical criticism. " I trust that God know how to control for such things and the word that has survived is intact as God intended it to be. "This is quaint, but doesn't get you off the hook. You do not have to rail against someone in particular, by simply standing up for an ideology that decrees anybody who believes otherwise will burn alive for eternity, you ARE railing against everyone who doesn't believe you." Once again, you can tiwst things anyway you like, but anyone reading this can see you are saying things i did not say as if i had. It is very unseemly. " By standing up for bigotry, even if you never say anything particularly against someone, you are implicit in the condemnation that your religious system heaps on anyone who disagrees." Absolute GARBAGE. Go spew this nonsense and hate somewhere esle. You should be ashamed. If i did not believe in free speech i would ask Rob to ban you. "You aren't saying anything here that is different than the conservative." I am starting to think you are really confused. I AM CONSERVATIVE. "No republican would say that religious reasons are the SOLE source of their thought, only that it informs them. Again, you have yet to address why you are correct and they are wrong in the interpretation of christianity." You have yet to ask the question. Stop making silly generalities and give me a specific instance you are referring to, including whom you feel i am disagreeing with and what about, and i wil be happy to educate you. "This is a non sequitor." No it was a point you could not answer. Thank you for your capitulation on the point. "My point had nothing to do with whether politicians admit they are wrong. Rather, the democratic system has as a cornerstone the fact that knowledge isn't absolute and judgments are fallible. Religious ideology has no such point." If you are saying that religion believes in absolute truth, of course i agree. Of course this had nothing to do with this conversation. "God is right. If i believe in God, it is HE that is right and righteous. What this is really about is your refusal to believe that you could be wrong about your own prejudices and disbelief." This proves my above point and actually goes to the heart of the matter under discussion. By saying "if I believe in god" you implicitly agree that it is YOUR judgment that determines the fact that god is righteous and right. Your belief comes first because you have determined, based on your own moral and cognitive thinking, that what you read in the bible is correct. Hence, you don't believe in the bible, you believe in your belief of the bible. Therefore you are using it as a justification for your belief. As to your psychological evaluation of me, it's amusing, but again, like your ignorance concerning my educational background, it shows your continued ignorance about my own beliefs. The foundation of my ideology is that of the uncertainty and fallibility, for I do not believe in my ability to understand anything perfectly. Debate, for me, is the place where my thoughts can be hashed out and shown, by reason, to be wrong, if that is in fact the case. Your ideology, of which I have made no particular claims to what you believe, only generalizations based on the study of various systematic theologies. I have read Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Lewis, Clark, Henry, Schaeffer, and others. Ignorance of systematic and biblical theology (and yes, those are different) is not my problem.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 1:23:58 PM

  (0+)

Forgot to post the answers at the end of the last one... "This proves my above point and actually goes to the heart of the matter under discussion. By saying "if I believe in god" you implicitly agree that it is YOUR judgment that determines the fact that god is righteous and right. Your belief comes first because you have determined, based on your own moral and cognitive thinking, that what you read in the bible is correct. Hence, you don't believe in the bible, you believe in your belief of the bible. Therefore you are using it as a justification for your belief." Wow, a little education is a dangerous thing for some people. I will not engage in a philosophical discussion on whether i directly beleive this or that or believe that i believe it, as it serves no real purpose but is merely designed to confuse people. I will not allow it. "As to your psychological evaluation of me, it's amusing, but again, like your ignorance concerning my educational background, it shows your continued ignorance about my own beliefs. The foundation of my ideology is that of the uncertainty and fallibility, for I do not believe in my ability to understand anything perfectly. Debate, for me, is the place where my thoughts can be hashed out and shown, by reason, to be wrong, if that is in fact the case. Your ideology, of which I have made no particular claims to what you believe, only generalizations based on the study of various systematic theologies. I have read Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Lewis, Clark, Henry, Schaeffer, and others. Ignorance of systematic and biblical theology (and yes, those are different) is not my problem." You have knowledge, that much is clear, but no application. You are the one speaking in generalities sir, not me. You simply do not like my answers but then you pretend i did not give an answer. You are a dishonest broker. Tell ya what. This is America, you are free to not read my articles and to stay out of my threads. Have a good day

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 1:41:02 PM

  (0+)

Ok, since you keep harping on the fact that I haven't been specific, therefore justifying your refusal to answer anything, here goes. You say the republicans have ignored the bible and done a disservice to christianity by making the rich richer, ignoring the poor, going into Iraq on false pretenses and perpetuating war. You say this because to you, Jesus is all about love and forgiveness and therefore we should reach out to the poor and so on. Why is your interpretation of the bible correct? Could it not easily, as it actually is done by Rove, Robertson, Falwell, etc. to justify the republican policies based on the bible? Republicans believe in a heirarchical society (this is consonant with the bible) and therefore to whom god gives he gives, and to whom god takes, he takes. Republican policies are therefore based on the notion that since god is in control, the outcome of financial disparity points to the fact that god rewards who he rewards and scorns those he scorns. All of this is consonant with a particular interpretation of the bible. You disagree with this. Therefore, my question is why? What source are you using? It can't be the bible because those who support corporations an so on are using it too.

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 2:00:52 PM

  (0+)

"Wow, a little education is a dangerous thing for some people. I will not engage in a philosophical discussion on whether i directly beleive this or that or believe that i believe it, as it serves no real purpose but is merely designed to confuse people. I will not allow it." Since when did education become dangerous? Ah yes, when the result is a denial of your absolutism. How quaint. You say the basis of your belief is the bible. My above point addresses this. You have made an assertion, I have made a criticism that denies the fact that you believe what you say you do and you have dismissed it as being irrelevant because it confuses people. Huh, I followed it. So did many others who are reading this discussion. Are you the only one confused?

by David Teachout (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 2:14:43 PM

  (0+)

First of all, when I used the word "you", I was speaking in terms of "you and your ilk". In the fallout from that posting, the question becomes, was I, in fact, right? I don't care about the particular sect of christianity in question, they all carry similar traits. The most intellectually damning of these is the, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," mentality. This is the cornerstone upon which the Neo-cons KNEW they could build a reliable and firm bedrock of unquestioning loyalty. Did it work? I believe the political climate in which we all presently live answers that quesiton rather well, doesn't it! Secondly, the initial comment was written in a manner I knew would prove a point. I knew that someone would come forth and in classic style, would give me the "I'll pray for you," line. It worked. That's exactly what happened. I don't need prayers. I need a job. I don't need prayers, I need health insurance. I don't need prayers, I need my self respect and human dignity returned to me. All of these things were taken from me by the actions of the willingly ignorant christian sheep who bleated and babbled their way into giving control of the henhouse to the foxes. In saying all that, I do need at this time to appologize to the author of this article for the accusatory and confrontational tone of my comment. I read your article completely, and I knew that you were not a supporter of DUBYA. It is clear that you did what so many others of the "flock" could not and would not do: see whether there was any real indication that you were being used as a means for the ruling elite to gain and retain power. For that, I commend you. As to your praying for me, read above. I will reiterate at this time what I feel is the primary point of my comment. I cannot, do not, and will not feel sorry for any christian who blindly followed the leader in sheep-like fashion by voting for the bill of goods sold to them by the Neo-cons without quesitoning it. It is their actions that have allowed those morally reprehensible hypocrites to rape our country, our government, and our middle class. The sheep bear the full responsibilty for the state of our union. It is their fault! There is nothing contained in the original comment or this one that is different from anything I have said before on this issue. Those who willingly give up their mental faculties get exactly what they deserve. The problem is, the rest of us who did use our brains as more than ear spacers also have to deal with the horrific fallout. Now we are all left with a rotten bag of goods, and no real hope of casting it off in the foreseeable future. It's surely not my fault. I railed agaist the willing ignorance of the christian sheep in my blog several times, and got no replies or response whatsoever. I was speaking about this at a time when no one was listening. I knew what was going to happen. But what could I say or do? No one wanted to hear the truth I spoke. I will say that at least this time, people stood up and took notice. Now it's a bit too late, but at least I know my words were heard. If anyone of christian faith feels deceived and used, that's simply too bad. The time for them to have investigated and questioned the reality of what they were being sold has long since past. Now we all are suffering because of that blind, willing ignorance. Perhaps November 7th will bring us to a place where something can be done to turn this country around. If not, we can be sure that we will be fed on a steady diet of more of the same. So once again, I apologize to the author of the article under which these comments appear. There are times when the only way to get the attention of the donkey is to slap him upside the head with a two-by-four. I am sorry I used that particular impliment on you, but I think I made my point rather stunningly. So the question remains, ignoring the means in which I started the fray, was I right in what I said? I think that without a doubt, I was. The sheer number of comments that follow mine are proof positive that I am not the only one who feels the way I feel on this topic. And even though my tactic may have been admittedly a bit heavy-handed, I did get people to express their feelings on the issue in clear and honest ways. Blessed be! Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 2:13:46 PM

  (0+)

Boy howdy, didn't I set off a good old fireworks display. I need to address some points made in the crossfire. The Bible of course. I base my beliefs on the Word of God. You already have stated that you base them on "reason". Man's reason has been proved to be horribly flawed throughout history. Man once thought the earth was flat. Man once thought the universe revolved around the earth. Today's "reason" is tomorrows old wives tales. I prefer to trust the word of God, which has survived intact for centuries. You can mock that if you like, but at least i base my beliefs on something. I specifically do not pick and choose with a salad bar mentality, discarding what makes me uncomfortable. Are there parts that make me uneasy? Sure, but faith is knowing in whom you have believed. Man did not believe the earth to be flat. If you look at ancient maps, and other archaic navigational tools, they show the earth as round. Those tools were used by ancient sailors. They knew the horizon on the ocean was curved. They saw it every day. The religious of the time believed the world to be flat. Since there was a joining of church and state at the time, what the church said was law, whether or not it flew in the face of reality. Galileo and Copernicus were tried as heretics because they both declaired that the earth was not the center of the universe, as the religious of the day claimed. They both were placed in peril of death for simply stating what their celestial observations told them; observations we now take for granted. The bible is NOT the word of god. It is the word of man about god. There is a real and significant difference. It is a collection of disjointed and many times incredibly conflicting stories, poems, and for lack of a better term, "news reports" from the time of the authors in question. Even within given chapters, conradictions and contrasts appear. The most classic example of this is the story of Noah. In one telling of the tale, a dove brought back an olive branch, thereby signifying that dry land had appeared. In another, it was a raven that brough back evidence of dry land. Which version is right? Which one is wrong? Since there is no way of knowing, one has to pick a story and stick by it. Yet another example is the story of the Garden of Eden. In one telling, Adam had a wife before Eve, Lillith. In another telling, Lillith is never mentioned. It goes even further. Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel and was banished. He went away with his wife to the land of Nod. Where did Cain's wife come from? If she was an unreported daughter of Adam and Eve, was not Cain then in an incestuous relationship with his sister? Can you explain that inconsistency? No one can. They have tried for centuries, but it remains in black and white, continuously confounding the brains of the rational. The so-called word of god has not survived in tact for thousands of years. The bible has undegone many revisions, additions, deletions, complete rewrites from the original Aramaic and Greek. There are whole texts and books that were once a part of the bible, yet were removed because the ruling priests of the day considered them heresy. The Gnostic heresy is just one of many of these. The King James version of the bible is not two thousand years old. Since it is the root of many modern versions of the bible, even on its face, your argument is incorrect. Further, the bible existed as oral tradition for centuries before it was written down. We all know that as stories pass from ear to mouth, embellishment and censorship occur. By the time the earliest stories were written down, they had passed through many ears and many mouths. And yet, the faithfull still hold to the myth that the bible has remained intact and unchanged from time immemorial. Once it was written down, then the work of doing edits, additions, and deletions to the written word began. Let us not forget that the bible remained the sole intellectual property of the church for centuries. The only way the bible could be copied was by monastic scribes. They were all men, and many speculate that fact gave rise to the incredible patriarchal gender bias contained within the covers of what we now call the bible. If you choose to believe the bible, that is your affair. However, I would suggest that you do further investigation before you make the claims you made in the quotes above. Another point I see trying to be made, but being missed completely is that one needs to be religious to be moral. This is such incredible hogwash, I can't believe that people are still dumb enough to buy into it. I know the difference between right and wrong. I have known that difference from a very early age. My morality tells me it is wrong to kill. I don't need a commandment supposedly written by the omnipotent hand of god to tell me that. My morality also tells me it's wrong to steal another's goods. Once again I don't need an invisible hand on Mount Sinai to tell me this. All I need to do is think about how I feel when someone steals from me. It's so much simpler than having to base my morality on the words of ancient shepherds. I am a pagan. I believe in the truths contained in many ancient and arcane traditions that existed even before the tribes of Israel showed up in the middle eastern deserts. However, I don't delude myself that the basis of my spiritual belief system is anything other than what it is: mythology. All belief systems are based upon mythology, even christianity. Therefore, they are all subject to the same amount of irrationality. I draw the line in my personal beliefs where rationality must be diminished in order to hold onto obviously flawed mythological threads. This is why I gave up on the faith of my father, Roman Catholicism, about the time I turned eighteen. They demanded that I subjugate my intellect and understanding of the world that my own eyes beheld. They told me that I had to believe in what I saw as complete hogwash in order to be a good Catholic, and therefore be worthy of entering into purgatory until such time as Jesus came back again. I didn't get to go to heaven, I had to remain in a place somewhere between heaven and hell for no better reason than original sin. And besides all that, I was told that I had to believe that the Pope was the ultimate authority on god. Sorry, he's only a man. Therefore, he is as fallible as any other man that exists. I don't care about his presumed piety, he is no different from me, and therefore, I cannot and will not place him on a pedestal somewhere between this planet and heaven. I simply cannot give myself away with that kind of blind and simple faith. As to my being a sinner, so what? In consideration of what sins I have committed in life, I'm actually pretty dull. Would it be a greater sin to deny myself my true nature? Is this not the sin of Mark Foley? Was not his denial of his personal self the root of his egregious sins committed at the expense of the victims of his one-handed typing? We are flesh and bone. We are animals. Our spirituality demands that we see something within ourselves that is more than just a collection of biological and chemical reactions. However, the existence of a soul cannot be proved or disproved. It remains in that grey area called belief. That is why we humans are hard-wired for a need for the spirit. It is the only way we can reconcile that something which lies beyond definition in light of our meaty, carbon-based reality. When the realm of the sprit gets gobbled up under the umbrella of relgion, therein lies the beginning of all our troubles. Belief is no longer enough. Now, along with belief in the spirit comes the need for belief in dogma. Dogma is first, last, and always a human construct. Since all human constructs are flawed because they come from the flawed minds of flawed people, dogma by its existence as a human construct is also flawed. Once dogma is codified, it cannot be changed. Many people of good faith have found themselves on the outside looking in because they cannot believe in the dogma that goes hand in hand with the religion they hold as true. Many, such as myself, are therefore forced out of the religion. They are forced out not because they don't believe in god, or Jesus, or whatever the deity may be. They are forced out because the dogma flies in the face of their understanding of that deity. In the final analysis, if you CHOOSE to believe that the bible is the word of god, that is your choice. However, to mistake a choice as absolute truth is yet another underpinning of what made the sheep-like christians run to the polls in record numbers to elect the wolves in Neo-con clothing. People choose their religion. People choose to believe or not. One can choose at any time to change their minds on the nature of their spiritual beliefs. People DO NOT choose their sexual orientation. They can only choose whether to embrace it, or deny it. I did not choose to be homosexual. It is how I was from my earliest memories. I did choose to accept it and make peace with it. I could have just as easily chosen to remain in the closet. I can only ponder at the damage that might have done to my mental state. For you, or anyone else to say that I am wrong, or a sinner because of who and what I am is just one more thing about christians (and others who use religion as a means of gay bashing) that I find completely reprehensible. Who died and left you, or others like you, to be MY judge? Even the tome to which you attach importance warns you, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." You can cherry pick all you want from the bible to make yourself appear pious and righteous. However, when it comes down to it, you are as fallible, wrong, and sinful as any other human. You can claim that god forgives you of your sins, but you cannot be one hundred percent sure. Such is the nature of faith. It cannot be proved or disproved. That's why it's called "belief" and not "fact". If you choose to base your spirituality on the bible, that is your right. However, don't sit there and spout your piety with such and air of smugness. You only make yourself out to be a fool, and worthy of the disdain of those who find such smug self-righteousness to be competely reprehensible, and a part of the same mentality that drove the more sheep-like of your ilk to vote the charlatans into the offices they presently hold. Blessed be! Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 4:04:57 PM

  (0+)

An excellent article Anthony, Corporatism is becoming a problem for both parties but it has virtually consumed the GOP. If one looks at the bills proposed by the Republican controlled congress you will find every one of them is some sort of corporate handout or subsidy.The bills are packaged in a way to suggest they are of benefit to average citizens but in reality are strictly beneficial to corporations. Many poltitians have noble intentions when they start but they soon they find out if they want to keep their job they have to get in line with the rest of their peers. This means getting down on their knees and promising their corporate masters that they will completely obey and sneek through congress anything they plan to help their bottom line. Its nausiating to watch free men and women grovel to corporate money like slaves begging for scraps of food. That is what has become of our Democracy. What would Jesus do? He would eliminate corporate campaign contributions. Polititians would become the sincere caring kind of people they claim to be.

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 5:10:13 PM

  (0+)

What Jesus REALLY said is what is in Anthony's essay. What Jesus said is NOT what many right wing neo-con Christian fundamentalists want to read, much less think about! We have 3 canonical sources and a 4th to refute the ONE and ONLY WAY that St. John understood: Matthew 12:31-32 Mark 3:28-29 Luke 12:10 are simpatico with "heretical" Thomas saying 44: Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit [God within] will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven." In other words, what JC was on about was: WAKE UP! God is already within YOU, within every sister, brother and all of Creation. His ways are not your ways Her thoughts are not your thoughts Dominion never meant to rape and plunder, but to nurture, care and love And if you have not love, you have nothing at all. And Jesus would NOT bomb anyone! I wonder, if any of you have heard the one about Rabbi Hillel, who lived 100 years before The Christ walked the earth? Rabbi Hillel understood that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema; Holy Wisdom: The Feminine Divinity was the same as the Greek understanding of The Logos: The Word. It was Saints Paul and John who first understood The Word was good and The Word was The Logos The Word is The Christ. So, with a little imagination, one can understand that before Christ walked the earth a man, He was already a She: Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity Now, isn't that good news? e http://www.wearewideawake.org

by Eileen Fleming (172 articles, 101 quicklinks, 274 diaries, 650 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 7:07:22 PM

  (0+)

"Ok, since you keep harping on the fact that I haven't been specific, therefore justifying your refusal to answer anything, here goes." Don't you see the silliness of this statement? You are mocking me for not answering questions you have not even asked, geesh. "Why is your interpretation of the bible correct? Could it not easily, as it actually is done by Rove, Robertson, Falwell, etc. to justify the republican policies based on the bible?" You make assumptions that i do not share. I have never heard them use your excuse. They simply say they are Christians but do not produce the fruit to support it. You are creating an opinion that they do not have, nor have they advocated. "Since when did education become dangerous? Ah yes, when the result is a denial of your absolutism. How quaint." Uhhh, no, education is dangerous when people abuse it. Purposefull sounding intelligent for the sake of it but having no substance behind it. Pappy - just to be clear, i never said i would pray for you, i said i "pray that you..." If you like i will, but i somehow do not feel that you would care of i did one way or the other. "I don't need prayers. I need a job. I don't need prayers, I need health insurance. I don't need prayers, I need my self respect and human dignity returned to me. All of these things were taken from me by the actions of the willingly ignorant christian sheep who bleated and babbled their way into giving control of the henhouse to the foxes." I believe i agreed with this in my article. Remember, the dems are not much better. The problem is the lack of checks and balances as well as the failed two party system. "In saying all that, I do need at this time to appologize to the author of this article for the accusatory and confrontational tone of my comment. I read your article completely, and I knew that you were not a supporter of DUBYA. It is clear that you did what so many others of the "flock" could not and would not do: see whether there was any real indication that you were being used as a means for the ruling elite to gain and retain power. For that, I commend you." I thank you. "I will reiterate at this time what I feel is the primary point of my comment. I cannot, do not, and will not feel sorry for any christian who blindly followed the leader in sheep-like fashion by voting for the bill of goods sold to them by the Neo-cons without quesitoning it. It is their actions that have allowed those morally reprehensible hypocrites to rape our country, our government, and our middle class. The sheep bear the full responsibilty for the state of our union. It is their fault!" Unfortuantely, they were hardly the only ones who voted for Bush, not to mention those that did not, not to mention the theft of the election to begin with. The point of the article was to hopefully wake up some of those who share my beliefs to what has happened to their faith in man. "If anyone of christian faith feels deceived and used, that's simply too bad. The time for them to have investigated and questioned the reality of what they were being sold has long since past. Now we all are suffering because of that blind, willing ignorance. Perhaps November 7th will bring us to a place where something can be done to turn this country around. If not, we can be sure that we will be fed on a steady diet of more of the same." Then you preach to the choir and have no hope in convincing them that your side might be right. "So once again, I apologize to the author of the article under which these comments appear. There are times when the only way to get the attention of the donkey is to slap him upside the head with a two-by-four. I am sorry I used that particular impliment on you, but I think I made my point rather stunningly." Hmm, are you calling me an ass? LOL. "So the question remains, ignoring the means in which I started the fray, was I right in what I said? I think that without a doubt, I was. The sheer number of comments that follow mine are proof positive that I am not the only one who feels the way I feel on this topic. And even though my tactic may have been admittedly a bit heavy-handed, I did get people to express their feelings on the issue in clear and honest ways." There may have been some truth in your anger, but what followed was people using you and using your opinion to support their own hatred. They claimed to "stand up" for you, but they mangled what you actually said. "The bible is NOT the word of god. It is the word of man about god. There is a real and significant difference. " Well, obviously we disagree. It is the inspired Word of God. God uses man to achieve His ends. I write devotionals and at the end, i know it was not me who wrote it but the Holy Spirit working in me. "The most classic example of this is the story of Noah. In one telling of the tale, a dove brought back an olive branch, thereby signifying that dry land had appeared. In another, it was a raven that brough back evidence of dry land. Which version is right? Which one is wrong? Since there is no way of knowing, one has to pick a story and stick by it." To focus on such a minute discrepancy, of no real relevance to theology or doctrine, shows that there are no substantive contradictions. "Another point I see trying to be made, but being missed completely is that one needs to be religious to be moral. This is such incredible hogwash, I can't believe that people are still dumb enough to buy into it. I know the difference between right and wrong. I have known that difference from a very early age." I never said you need to be religious to be "moral". However, you claim to know right from wrong, but where did you learn that? Where did these codes come from? They came from the Bible of course. So you actually organize your life on biblical principles but dismiss the bible. That is the contradiction you have to live with. "My morality tells me it is wrong to kill. I don't need a commandment supposedly written by the omnipotent hand of god to tell me that. My morality also tells me it's wrong to steal another's goods. Once again I don't need an invisible hand on Mount Sinai to tell me this. All I need to do is think about how I feel when someone steals from me. It's so much simpler than having to base my morality on the words of ancient shepherds." Once again, you pretned that you somehow inherently KNOW that it is wrong to kill, but the reality is you learned it. You were taught it. It is not inherent in your nature at all. Thoise lessons are BIBLICAL. "This is why I gave up on the faith of my father, Roman Catholicism, about the time I turned eighteen. They demanded that I subjugate my intellect and understanding of the world that my own eyes beheld. They told me that I had to believe in what I saw as complete hogwash in order to be a good Catholic, and therefore be worthy of entering into purgatory until such time as Jesus came back again. I didn't get to go to heaven, I had to remain in a place somewhere between heaven and hell for no better reason than original sin. And besides all that, I was told that I had to believe that the Pope was the ultimate authority on god." I feel your pain, i was raised Catholic too. Man always warps what God intends for good. But that does not mean you keep man and throw God away. "Sorry, he's only a man. Therefore, he is as fallible as any other man that exists. I don't care about his presumed piety, he is no different from me, and therefore, I cannot and will not place him on a pedestal somewhere between this planet and heaven. " I agree "As to my being a sinner, so what? In consideration of what sins I have committed in life, I'm actually pretty dull. Would it be a greater sin to deny myself my true nature? Is this not the sin of Mark Foley? Was not his denial of his personal self the root of his egregious sins committed at the expense of the victims of his one-handed typing?" The world does a great job of convincing you that you are not that bad. That does not however make you good. "For you, or anyone else to say that I am wrong, or a sinner because of who and what I am is just one more thing about christians (and others who use religion as a means of gay bashing) that I find completely reprehensible. Who died and left you, or others like you, to be MY judge? Even the tome to which you attach importance warns you, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I never judged you. I said we are all sinners. I have consistently said i am no better than anyone. "You can cherry pick all you want from the bible to make yourself appear pious and righteous. " Where did i do that? "If you choose to base your spirituality on the bible, that is your right. However, don't sit there and spout your piety with such and air of smugness. You only make yourself out to be a fool, and worthy of the disdain of those who find such smug self-righteousness to be competely reprehensible, and a part of the same mentality that drove the more sheep-like of your ilk to vote the charlatans into the offices they presently hold." I hate to break it to you, but you are the one sounding smug. I have tried to humble and contrite. The only time i got agitated is when the other guy lied about what i said or believed. Gdenson and Eileen - thanks for your comments, they are also appreciated. Blessings.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 13, 2006 at 10:14:20 PM

  (0+)

Hi Anthony, Re: Deceived and Used, The GOP Leaves Christian America at the Altar of Corporatism Yes, Bush has let everyone down. It is time for Christian Nationalism Americans to wake up. He is not a "Christian" and does not care about the American people or the world. But once again, what does the government have to do with gays and abortion? It is all about tolerance of others beliefs and lifestyle. Have you read "Kingdom Coming"??? Do you follow the megachurch/mall indoctorination that is going on? Pretty scary when you think about so many young people being taught that evolution is wrong, etc. Anyway, you have written another very good article. Thank you. Regards, Aimee

by Aimee (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Saturday, Oct 14, 2006 at 8:56:10 AM

  (0+)

This is my first comment here and my compliments for a great discussion. My thinking favors Pappy's concepts. Anthony wrote in his original post: "They can take credit for putting a self-proclaimed Christian into the Oval Office and then giving him complete control of Congress in 2002." and then in comments: "I never judged you. I said we are all sinners. I have consistently said i am no better than anyone." My comment: Since we are all sinners and no one is better than anyone else... ...who is Anthony to judge GWB or any other deceptive christian or any other person. By not judging...it's all good, as the saying goes. Hopefully it's obvious that I do judge people. I think it's also obvious that Anthony does too. It's just that, being dogmatic, I think he finds it hard to admit his faults. This quote from Anthony will add further color: "That was some rant. I must have done a bad job in this article of being clear. I did not vote for Bush, either time. I found him to be a wolf in sheeps clothing. I was not deceived." I would suggest that Anthony 'judged' GWB to be a deceiver.

by polnow (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Oct 14, 2006 at 9:00:40 AM

  (0+)

Firstly, forgive me for adding to an already LOOOONG posting, but I figured it's in my interest to respond to the points made on a one-by-one basis. Also forgive me for taking so long to get to this. I have been in the process of learning the song One Tin Soldier for inclusion in my new CD project, as well as recording vocals for an original tune for the same CD. I didn't forget you, or goddess forbid, choose to chicken out in answering you. Pappy - just to be clear, i never said i would pray for you, i said i "pray that you..." If you like i will, but i somehow do not feel that you would care of i did one way or the other. Be that as it may, I still find it to be the height of arrogance to suggest that your prayers have any effect on my life whatsoever. There are other things in this life I need more than un-requested prayers. As I said, I need a job, health insurance, and my dignity more than I need prayers. If you can't give me these things, then I don't want your wasted words either. "...All of these things were taken from me by the actions of the willingly ignorant christian sheep who bleated and babbled their way into giving control of the henhouse to the foxes." I believe i agreed with this in my article. Remember, the dems are not much better. The problem is the lack of checks and balances as well as the failed two party system. No the Democrats aren't, but that's beside the point. The point remains that when Bill Clinton was president, and our economy was more favorable to a blue collar, middle class guy such as myself, I had all the things I listed that are no longer a part of my life. Now that we are living in the middle of a corporate cutthroat economic system, all I have left is this computer, my beat-up car, and the clothes in my closet. That economy came to pass due to the christians being willingly hoodwinked by DUBYA, the most criminal president ever to disgrace the White House. APOLOGIES... I thank you. You're welcome. SYMPATHY FOR HOODWINKED CHRISTIANS Unfortuantely, they were hardly the only ones who voted for Bush, not to mention those that did not, not to mention the theft of the election to begin with. The point of the article was to hopefully wake up some of those who share my beliefs to what has happened to their faith in man. No, they weren't the ONLY ones, just the largest number of "ones" voting for DUBYA. They tipped the scales in DUBYA's favor, and there is no way to deny that. Those who weren't already planning to "go there", were lead into the voting booths by means of gay marriage amendments appearing on the ballots. The christians were mobilized by this, and while they were there trying to force their morals and opinions on others, they also took the time to vote for DUBYA. And yes, the Diebold machines in Ohio were also another scale tipping point; of that fact there is also no denying. However, that's only one state. Yes, I am sure there were voting irregularities in other states as well, but I think the number of rigged polling places pales in comparison to the number of christians who came out to "bible belt" the vote. Look at the states in which these "morals" amendments appeared. They ALL went red on election night. Coincidence? I think not! "If anyone of christian faith feels deceived and used, that's simply too bad..." Then you preach to the choir and have no hope in convincing them that your side might be right. No, I am not preaching to the choir. Since you are a christian yourself, it would follow I am preaching to someone who isn't a member of my choir. While others may read this and draw whatever conclusions they'd like, I am conversing with, or as you say, preaching to you. "...the only way to get the attention of the donkey is to slap him upside the head with a two-by-four..." Hmm, are you calling me an ass? LOL. Uh...hey, Beavis, he said, "Ass!" Heh heh, yeah, that was cool! "So the question remains, ignoring the means in which I started the fray, was I right in what I said?..." There may have been some truth in your anger, but what followed was people using you and using your opinion to support their own hatred. They claimed to "stand up" for you, but they mangled what you actually said. I agree, and for that they should all be horsewhipped at dawn. Ok, maybe not. I did find a few grains of truth in some of the responses. While there were some who may have intentionally or unintentionally skewed my words to mean what they wanted them to mean, I think overall, from what I read, there were some pretty good points made by you and those who spoke after myself. At least vulturetx wasn't around to spew his (or is it her) kind of shortsighted, spin-laden bovine excrement. While there are some folks who aren't as concise in their communications skills as you and I, I think it's important to sometimes read between the lines to find out what they are trying to say. All opinions matter here, even the ones that sometimes make you wonder what certain people smoke on a daily basis. And, if it weren't for people disagreeing with each other here, this place would be entirely too dull to tolerate. "The bible is NOT the word of god. It is the word of man about god. There is a real and significant difference. " Well, obviously we disagree. It is the inspired Word of God. God uses man to achieve His ends. I write devotionals and at the end, i know it was not me who wrote it but the Holy Spirit working in me. So is sexism inherent in god's plan? The bible is sexist in the extreme. Women are demonized throughout the pages of the bible. Eve is the cause of expulsion from "paradise". Delilah is the reason for Samson's skinhead look, and subsequent loss of virility. Mary Magdalene is painted as a harlot, when there are some "censored" texts of the bible that suggest she was, in fact, closer to Jesus than Judas. If the bible is, as you say, the, "inspired word of God," then you are telling me that sexism is part of god's plan; that he somehow inspires it. "The most classic example of this is the story of Noah..." To focus on such a minute discrepancy, of no real relevance to theology or doctrine, shows that there are no substantive contradictions. This is no minute discrepancy, my friend. This is the shape of things to come. This all happens within the first ten pages, and sets the self-contradictory tone for the rest of the bible. The question of where Cain's wife came from is, in fact, a large point of contention among many theologists, as well as non-believers. It is the first appearance of serious contradiction, as well as the first, but by no means last implication of incestuous relationships among characters in the bible. The same holds true for the inconsistencies in the story of Noah. Either that story is an example of really bad story telling, or it's an incredible editorial oversight. In either event, it is a contradiction in your "inspired word of god". It is one of many, and they cannot simply be wished away, or minimized by you claiming irrelevance in either theology or doctrine. Those contradictions have been more than enough fuel to burn people at stakes. Like it or not, this is the history of christianity in America and elsewhere. As I am sure you are aware, there is a movement afoot in some christian churches for preaching that god wants christians to be rich. This is a direct result of selective biblical interpretation. This sort of interpretation would be impossible if the bible were a coherent, non-conflicted work of prose. There are biblical passages that both support and refute the theology of god wanting his "flock" to be wealthy. On the "let's be rich" side, we have the following verses. Deuteronomy 8: 17-18 Then you say in your heart, "My power and the might of my hand have gained me this wealth." And the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you the power to get the wealth, that he may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day. Luke 6: 38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over you will be put into your bosom. For the same measure you use, it will be given back to you. John 10: 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. On the "god loves the poor side, we have the following verses. Mark 10: 24-26 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. (my personal favorite) Luke 12: 33 Sell what you have and give alms: Provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches, nor moth destroys. James 5:1-3 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. And lest we forget, Matthew 5: 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. So who is right and who is wrong? Both sets of verses are from the bible. Both sets of verses are, in your words, "the inspired word of god." Are the Mega-church preachers right? God does say he wants us to "have it abundantly." Or are the more mainstream christians right? "Blessed are the poor in spirit," "easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle." The point is, has been, and remains, the bible is a conflicted, self-contradictory book. It can be interpreted to say whatever the reader wants it to say. You may see all this as rather picayune, but it's just these kinds of bible-based theological discrepancies that have fueled church schisms and created most of the myriad christian sects that exist today. These same discrepancies have fueled dogmatic differences, as well as infighting among many different sects. It is these dogmatic differences and discrepancies that brought the Puritan Pilgrims here, lest they stay in England and suffer torture or death. "Another point I see trying to be made, but being missed completely is that one needs to be religious to be moral..." I never said you need to be religious to be "moral". However, you claim to know right from wrong, but where did you learn that? Where did these codes come from? They came from the Bible of course. So you actually organize your life on biblical principles but dismiss the bible. That is the contradiction you have to live with. No, you didn't. Believe me, if you had, I'd have jumped all over that one! Perhaps you might not feel that way, but I have run into many who claim christianity that have made this claim to me on more than one occasion. It is arrogant to assume that christians have any sort of moral high ground in any way, shape or form. That ignores persons who are brought up agnostic, atheistic, pagan, or Muslim who are also moral. I know many of all of these who are moral people. Proper codes of conduct aren't the sole property of the bible or christianity. I also know many who claim to be christian, yet wouldn't know morality if it hopped up and farted in their noses. My moral code came to me through my parents. Since my father was Catholic, and my mother was Lutheran, it naturally follows that code was most likely lifted from the bible. However, I continue to carry that moral code, and in some cases do it better than many I have met who claim christianity. I am not christian at this point, nor do I expect I will ever again be a part of a religion that condemns me for being who and what I am, i.e. gay. I do not presently organize my life according to the bible. I maintain my moral code because of legal complications if I break that code. This is not a contradiction. I also follow the Wiccan Rede, "That it harm no one, do what thou will." I also follow my conscience, which is not a product of biblical training. It is a product of seeing what happens to others and myself when I stray from my moral code. You can make any assumptions you wish as to whether or not my morals are fruits of biblical study. Since I did study the bible up to the point of almost entering a seminary, there is a likelihood that part of that code is based in the bible. That does not mean I have any place for that book in my life, nor that I hold any part of it to be anything other than what it is: a book of fictional stories with a generally moralistic message, yet fraught with inconsistency and self-contradiction. Once again, you [pretend] that you somehow inherently KNOW that it is wrong to kill, but the reality is you learned it. You were taught it. It is not inherent in your nature at all. Thoise lessons are BIBLICAL. Once again, whether you choose to believe it or not, the simple truth is one does not need to read the bible to have a personal code of morality. Let me reiterate: [saying the bible is the only way to morality] ignores persons who are brought up agnostic, atheistic, pagan, or Muslim who are also moral. While I will grant you that I was brought up in a christian household, many others are not, and live moral lives. This fact cannot be ignored or minimized away. Christianity is not the only way to a moral life, no matter what you may think. GIVING UP THE FAITH OF MY FATHER I feel your pain, i was raised Catholic too. Man always warps what God intends for good. But that does not mean you keep man and throw God away. I threw YOUR god away. I have many gods and goddesses in my personal pantheon. I am quite spiritual, and I do it all without the need of going through a priest (or preacher if you will) to get to Jesus to get to his "Father". I go right to the source of my spirituality. One of my pagan friends says that makes me a sorcerer. I don't really buy that, but it sounds pretty cool to me. This also means I don't have to tithe my non-existent money away to some church that has overflowing coffers anyway. So I get to go direct to the source of my spiritual power, and I don't have to pay anyone to do so. Sounds like I am getting the better deal, spiritually speaking. THE POPE I agree Gee, we can agree. Isn't life groovy sometimes? "As to my being a sinner, so what? In consideration of what sins I have committed in life, I'm actually pretty dull. Would it be a greater sin to deny myself my true nature? Is this not the sin of Mark Foley? Was not his denial of his personal self the root of his egregious sins committed at the expense of the victims of his one-handed typing?" The world does a great job of convincing you that you are not that bad. That does not however make you good. So, what does make me "good"? I am honest to a fault, generous with my money when I have it, I do not actively go out of my way to hurt others, I don't steal, cheat, or otherwise. Hell, even my sex life has become rather dull in the last ten years or so. You don't know me from Adam. You can only read my words and see a photograph next to my writings. You are not qualified in any way, shape or form to know whether or not I qualify as "good". To do so brings you seriously close to crossing the line into judging me, and we all know Jesus doesn't like that. "For you, or anyone else to say that I am wrong, or a sinner because of who and what I am is just one more thing about christians (and others who use religion as a means of gay bashing) that I find completely reprehensible. Who died and left you, or others like you, to be MY judge? Even the tome to which you attach importance warns you, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I never judged you. I said we are all sinners. I have consistently said i am no better than anyone. You say, "TOE-MAY-TOE," I say, "TOE-MAH-TOE." I was not using the word "YOU" to mean you, specifically. Perhaps I shouldn't have used it at all. That's my bad, and when I wrote this message, I was a little on the ready-for-bed side. You cannot deny that there are many who call themselves christian who regularly and publicly judge homosexuals. Since I am a homosexual, it follows that I have been judged many times by christians. What gives them the right to do this? Nothing! They show their immediate ignorance of the book they so tenaciously cling to by judging me, or anyone else like me. "You can cherry pick all you want from the bible to make yourself appear pious and righteous. " Where did i do that? It's more like where do you do it. Since the bible is conflicted and self-contradicting, you must make a choice as to which parts of it you hold sacrosanct, and which parts you don't hold as such. Look at the example of the Mega-church rich christians versus the "old school" folks. Clearly, one has to choose which chapter and verses are applicable to their own way of thinking, and throw out, cast aside, or ignore that which doesn't fit their personal theology. Since you claim christianity, and claim to be a believer in the bible, by default, you must make choices as to which parts of the bible you believe and which you don't. Once again, the statement that precedes this was written in a less than cogent state on my part. I didn't quite make the point I intended to make. I hope this paragraph is more of a clarification of what I meant. "If you choose to base your spirituality on the bible, that is your right. However, don't sit there and spout your piety with such and air of smugness. You only make yourself out to be a fool, and worthy of the disdain of those who find such smug self-righteousness to be competely reprehensible, and a part of the same mentality that drove the more sheep-like of your ilk to vote the charlatans into the offices they presently hold." I hate to break it to you, but you are the one sounding smug. I have tried to humble and contrite. The only time i got agitated is when the other guy lied about what i said or believed. On this point, we will have to agree to disagree. I see you as sometimes crossing over the line into smugness. Don't feel too bad. We all do it. I wish I could claim that this is a strictly christian attribute, but even I can't make that big of a stretch of reality. I also wish I could claim that I don't go there, but obviously, as you pointed out, I do. It's one of the hazards of being human and engaging in this sort of debate. Clearly, we will never have a meeting of the minds on this issue. This is the reason why religion is not a topic for debate vis a vis, those who are part of debate teams, etc. It is built upon faith and belief. Faith and belief directly imply there is no data to support statements made as factual. Ergo, since statements of faith and belief cannot be directly supported with verifiable data, they are not good for classical debate. Even here, where the debate is sometimes less than classical, matters of faith and belief cannot be debated to the satisfaction of either of the parties. I am sure you will find holes in what I have written. I am sure that when I read your critique of this comment, I will find holes in what you say. Such is the way of things when people choose to debate questions of religion and spirituality. Of course, be that as it may, I must say I do dig getting into these kinds of discussions, arguments, whatever. It forces me to question myself. This is always good. Everything I know is subject to review and revision, especially what I think I know about the truth. Hopefully, there is enough humility within you to know of what I speak. Blessed be! Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 15, 2006 at 4:38:20 AM

  (0+)

I've just spent the last hour reading the diatribes and defense of Christianity on this thread. This was a wonderful article written by a Christian, for a mainly Christian audience. It asked us to examine why we voted for Bush and the Republicans and to not make the same mistake in the upcoming mid-term elections. That mistake being not ensuring what candidates were saying lined up with the Bible; ALL of the Bible. Unfortunately, some non-Christians took the opportunity to viciously attack the author for his beliefs and turn the discussion into an attack on Christianity through the centuries. Talk about bait and switch! Look, if you don't believe in Christianity, that's fine. But to make this author have to defend his beliefs to an audience he wasn't even addressing is simply mean. The non-Christians on this thread clearly have a chip on their shoulder and are looking for a fight. My argument is that this was the wrong place for that debate. I couldn't get to any reasoned responses and thoughts on the article and the original point about voting your conscience because of all the attacks going on. Pappy, take your debate to another forum. I respect your views, but it seems to me you just can't stand someone saying you may be wrong. Christians can take it. We've been told we're wrong for more than two millenia. But the non-Christian, rather than accepting to decline the offer of salvation, gets offended and has to attack the person making the offer. Perhaps this is to mask insecurities around your non-belief. In order for your non-belief to be right, you have to "prove" the believer wrong. If you can't, then suddenly you're questioning why you turned down God's free gift of salvation and relationship with Him for eternity. I know that sounds smug, but Jesus also said to not cast your pearls before swine. He specifically told his disciples that if a city would not receive you, then shake the dust off your feet from that city. The bible also records that Jesus didn't do many miracles in his home town because of their unbelief. So you don't believe? Fine. But you can't face God after your death and tell him "I didn't know!?!" Paul, in his letter to the Romans, says it much more eloquently that I: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. " I know it is anathema to quote scripture to you, but the point is, I'm trying to love you, point you to a relationship with the Jesus I love, and see you accept God's free gift of eternal life. In return, the Christian is figuratively "spit upon" and attacked and reviled. Fine. But your attacks aren't going to make me give up my belief that God loves me and has provided a place for me in heaven. Nor, do I think, will it change the author's mind from his stated beliefs. So go your merry way and find another outlet for your anger that there are people in this society who actually disagree with you. I'm just incredulous! The author is making overtures to the left and saying some things that should be agreed with about Bush and the Republicans. You would think that would be good news. But Noooooooooo.... All the author gets is "You're not really on our team you ##K#)*$#$# Christian! And by the way, this is why you ##$@#%$$ suck; and your God too!" Nice responses. Very civil. I don't know why Pappy and his ilk are so angry, but taking it out on this author, who is trying to agree with the fact that Bush and the Republicans was a mistake, only serves to further divide us. Hey, at least he's trying. I have little respect now for the rest of you on this thread with your vicious invective! For the author of the article: An encouragement from Matthew Chapter 10 (NKJV): A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub,[d] how much more will they call those of his household! You've done a great job acquitting yourself and the Christian message in the article and the posts. Please don't waste any further time with people who have rejected God's free gift and trampled it under foot. Oh, and, who by the way, MISSED THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE!! Sheesh! Peace, Chris Ritchie

by Chris Ritchie (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Oct 15, 2006 at 9:40:08 AM

  (0+)

I've just spent the last hour reading the diatribes and defense of Christianity on this thread. This was a wonderful article written by a Christian, for a mainly Christian audience. It asked us to examine why we voted for Bush and the Republicans and to not make the same mistake in the upcoming mid-term elections. That mistake being not ensuring what candidates were saying lined up with the Bible; ALL of the Bible. This site is for everyone. Whether or not the original article was intended for "a mainly christian audience", the fact that it was posted HERE means it is up for debate by anyone at any time, regardless of their religious beliefs. If the author, or yourself wish to post things that won't get debated by us evil nonbelievers (or as the Islamic would say, infidels), then go to a strictly christian site and post your stuff there. I won't go into the "ALL of the Bible" quip as it merely proves you are lacking in understanding about the bible and its conflicted and self-contradictory nature. Unfortunately, some non-Christians took the opportunity to viciously attack the author for his beliefs and turn the discussion into an attack on Christianity through the centuries. Talk about bait and switch! That's the risk one takes in a public forum. Every time I post something here, I take the same risk. I am pretty sure the author knew this. I never saw him crying about that, so why are you? Look, if you don't believe in Christianity, that's fine. But to make this author have to defend his beliefs to an audience he wasn't even addressing is simply mean. The non-Christians on this thread clearly have a chip on their shoulder and are looking for a fight. Oh man, you really need to see a shrink! Firstly, we all have to defend out beliefs every day in every way. To be put in a place where we must actively mentally review what it is we hold true is a good thing. I doubt very much that the author of the original article has been reduced to a point of suicide because of anything that was posted in response to his article. As far as chips on shoulders, you're damned right. It was the bleating, sheep-like follow the leader mentality of the christians that put DUBYA in office. Now they are crying the blues because they find out the Republicans were only using them for their votes. Well, isn't that just too damned bad. That is because not one of you challenged the bullshit being thrown at you. That is why you became victims of a Republican Scam. That is because people like you who snivel and b*tch about having to defend your beliefs can't stand to be wrong. You don't want me and others like me to challenge your belief structure because it makes you think. The last thing you want to do is think. It hurts your brains. That's why we are in the mess we are in now. It is the fault of every christian who was too stupid to even find out if the Republicans were moral, much less intending to make good on their promises. You and your kind chose the path. You and your kind couldn't smell the bovine excrement because you are taught to blindly follow the leader. Now because of this willing ignorance, you want to sit there and cry the blues...well too bad, so sad. You made your beds, and now we all have to sleep in them. My argument is that this was the wrong place for that debate. I couldn't get to any reasoned responses and thoughts on the article and the original point about voting your conscience because of all the attacks going on. That's nice. Take that and five bucks to Starbucks and get a nice latte. This is the place for debate. Like it or not, controversial subjects such as the ones brought up here inspire debate. If that burns your delicate wings, then perhaps you ought not come so near the fire. There are just as many people who engage in reasonable debate as there are people who come out of left field, such as you. It is your perception of persecution that is in question here. I believe the author of the original article handled himself incredibly well. If he's not falling apart at the seams, why on earth are you? Pappy, take your debate to another forum. I respect your views, but it seems to me you just can't stand someone saying you may be wrong. Christians can take it. We've been told we're wrong for more than two millenia. But the non-Christian, rather than accepting to decline the offer of salvation, gets offended and has to attack the person making the offer. Perhaps this is to mask insecurities around your non-belief. In order for your non-belief to be right, you have to "prove" the believer wrong. If you can't, then suddenly you're questioning why you turned down God's free gift of salvation and relationship with Him for eternity. I know that sounds smug, but Jesus also said to not cast your pearls before swine. He specifically told his disciples that if a city would not receive you, then shake the dust off your feet from that city. The bible also records that Jesus didn't do many miracles in his home town because of their unbelief. I have a better suggestion, why don't you crawl back into your little hole and quit whining. Once again, the author and I have not killed each other, and if you check, some of the banter back and forth has been rather jovial. We have both agreed and disagreed with each other in several spots in our debate. It's obvious the author doesn't need you coming in like Lancelot. Get over yourself, dude! Also, If you will look, you will note I admit I am wrong not once, but twice. If you count all my comments, I have admitted being wrong many times. I can take being wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this posting you made proves you cannot. If you could, you would not tell me to "take [my] debate to another forum." If you could take being wrong, you wouldn't try to hide from the voice of dissent, you'd welcome and praise it. Oh, and you can also stop with the amateurish attempts to psychoanalyze me as well. Your attempts to use stone knives and rocks to analyze me just continue to show you are in over your head here. If I have confounded real psychoanalysts with real credentials, you have NO HOPE of dissecting me with your primitive tools and your bumbling ham-handedness. BLATHER BLATHER BLATHER I know it is anathema to quote scripture to you, but the point is, I'm trying to love you, point you to a relationship with the Jesus I love, and see you accept God's free gift of eternal life. Yeah, when it's done as haphazardly as you do it, it's a real pain in my ass. Obviously you didn't read my last posting where I quoted scripture. Sheesh, did you even read the whole thing before you came unglued? I doubt it! I have been alive for forty-four years as of now. I was born and raised in a Roman Catholic household. I have lived in American the entirety of my life. I lived in Ohio, and I now live in Texas, the heart of the bible belt in the US. I have heard the "good news", and so what? I'll encapsulate it for you: Jesus loves you, but only if you are straight. Judge not lest ye be judged, you damned f*ggots. Thou shalt not kill, unless it's one of them f*ggots that needs to die. And so it goes. Yeah, I want to be a part of that. While you're at it, could you hand me a loaded .45 revolver so I can put it in my mouth and pull the trigger. That might get rid of this nagging headache. Sheesh, get real! In return, the Christian is figuratively "spit upon" and attacked and reviled. Fine. But your attacks aren't going to make me give up my belief that God loves me and has provided a place for me in heaven. Nor, do I think, will it change the author's mind from his stated beliefs. Once again, I don't see the original author lying in a heap, bleeding from the mouth, ears, or nose. I think he faired pretty well. I am also willing to bet this wasn't the first time someone has challenged him on his belief structure, and you know what, it won't be the last time, either. Once again, when someone posts a comment here, they take a risk that someone will have an opinion that is opposite of the author's. Hey, such is life. If I can take it, and the original author of this article can take it, why on earth can't YOU? Is your faith perhaps not on as firm a ground as you'd like us to believe? Are you not so sure that even you buy your own bullshit? If so, that's your problem, not mine. Get over yourself! So go your merry way and find another outlet for your anger that there are people in this society who actually disagree with you. At the risk of gaining the ire of Rob, let me just say this: blow me! You don't run this site. You are just another critter in this forest. The ONLY one who has a right to tell me to pound sand and pack my bags is Rob, and while I am sure some of my postings have come close to crossing the line, he likes what I write, and he knows that I am rather perceptive and completely honest. He has written as much to me. I really wish you'd take a ride on the clue bus. Saying there are people in this society who don't agree with me is like saying there are people in this society who have brown eyes. You state the obvious so well. Do you think I care? Hell no! Others don't care whether I agree with them. So, once again, what's your problem? The author of the original article and I have had really good discussions and debates as a result of his article and my commentary upon it. Just because you are on the outside looking in, don't pour your sourpuss derision on me. If you plan on entering into the fray with me, you had better come better prepared than you did this time around. I ate folks like you for lunch on my BBS fifteen plus years ago. If you mess with the bull, you'll get the horns. I'm just incredulous! The author is making overtures to the left and saying some things that should be agreed with about Bush and the Republicans. You would think that would be good news. But Noooooooooo.... All the author gets is "You're not really on our team you ##K#)*$#$# Christian! And by the way, this is why you ##$@#%$$ suck; and your God too!" Nice responses. Very civil. Oh please, take your Valium and chill out! You once again prove your ignorance. It's obvious nothing bad happened to either myself or the original author, nor any of the others who gave commentary. You seem to be the only one with poopie in your pants. Sheesh, take a quarter and call someone who cares! I don't know why Pappy and his ilk are so angry, but taking it out on this author, who is trying to agree with the fact that Bush and the Republicans was a mistake, only serves to further divide us. Hey, at least he's trying. I have little respect now for the rest of you on this thread with your vicious invective! I am free to express my opinion. In doing so, I have done nothing that I haven't done in other places here as well as on my blog. You want to know why I am so angry, because the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," mentality that folks like YOU (and I mean it in this instance, YOU!) hold onto is the cause for the present state of government. I have no job. I have no health insurance. I have no life. All of this is because stupid, scum-sucking mindless, willingly ignorant sheep such as YOU didn't have enough brainpower to realize you were being pissed on from above and being told it was a warm summer rain. You couldn't get to the polls fast enough to vote DUBYA and the rest of the "moral" Republicans in to office. Never mind whether or not they were telling the truth, or were really on your side. They talked a good game, and that was more than enough for you. They spoke all the words you wanted to hear, and you didn't question one syllable. Charade you are! Now you must taste the bitter fruit of being used and betrayed. Oh gee, should I start crying for you now, or wait a bit? This is the fault of every willingly ignorant christian. Now WE all have to suck on the sour persimmons of the evil that this government is doing. And I should be happy about this? This government is the fault of every mindless christian sheep who bleated and babbled their merry way to the polls in 2004. Like it or not, the fault rests foursquare on those shoulders. If you were personally one of the blinded, then you are just as much at fault, and I really don't care to hear or read anything you have to say in your own defense at this late date! Oh, and I didn't miss the point of the article in the least. I read the entire thing. But of course, you couldn't fully read the comment in which I said as much because that would disprove your point. It's really too bad your mind shut off after reading just a few of the statements and comments here. I have read every one. Some have been incredibly perceptive; some have been quite off the wall. All have had some good points and bad. All belong here whether you want them here or not. So next time you come here with our righteous indignation, perhaps you will stop to think that your opinion is just one of many. You don't own this site, nor do you make the decisions here. You are just another critter in the forest, and some of us critters are better able to defend ourselves than you. You only make yourself look like a fool by attempting, and open yourself up to derision. If you can handle it, then have at it by all means. If not, then shut the hell up! Once again, I don't think that Anthony, the original author of this article, is lying somewhere in a fetal positioned-heap crying and gnashing his teeth that he had to butt heads with Pappy McFae. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that part of him rather enjoyed it. I know I did. If we both had some fun, why do you insist on coming here pissing in everyone's ears over a supposed injustice perpetrated by folks who don't share Anthony's opinion? The fact that this site offers places for commentary means it invites debate. If you can't handle debate, then it is you that needs to pack your bags. Take your ball, and go play elsewhere. We'll be just fine here without you pissing in the sandbox. Blessed be! Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 15, 2006 at 5:17:12 PM

  (0+)

I don't get the McDuff reference, please enlighten me. I'm not going to be dragged any further into this so-called debate. I don't think Pappy is sincerely looking for the truth, I think he just likes the fight of it as evidenced by his inflammatory writing style. He seems to have made his decision a long time ago and now only delights in attempting to show off his intellect. Frankly, I find such prideful shows distasteful, selfish, and un-inspiring. Pappy and the author are both right. I'm only visiting. If you two like the fight, then have at it. I won't try to defend anyone else here. I'm looking for a serious debate of truth, not flamethrowers looking for a fight such as: "At the risk of gaining the ire of Rob, let me just say this: blow me!" And this quote: "You want to know why I am so angry, because the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," mentality that folks like YOU (and I mean it in this instance, YOU!) hold onto is the cause for the present state of government." This is a serious misrepresentation of what I believe; assumes that there is no rational basis for belief in Christianity, and that people who do believe it must be total morons. You assume I haven't studied, haven't been to seminary, haven't questioned foundational beliefs? This is a gross overgeneralization and stereotyping of me and I'm not going to respond in kind. For the record, I voted for McCain, not Bush, in the 2000 primary, so Bush wasn't my choice. Unlike Pappy who says "I have no job. I have no health insurance. I have no life," I do have a life and I have to get back to it. It was nice "chatting" with you today but no amount of name-calling, logical fallacies, or gross generalizations are getting me to come back and respond to anything this poster has to say. I'll say again, you folks are right, I'm new. I'm trying on new thoughts for size. I'm trying to honestly consider liberal thought with an open mind, which is how I found this site. I've opened my eyes to the lies of the corporation-run economy and educational system and come to see that we have all been conditioned to be sheep in the corporate machine. I'd like to believe that this newfound understanding can coexist with the left even though I still hold a Christian viewpoint. But, I don't have time to debate it further here. I'm going to start submitting articles and Pappy and others can feel free criticize me all they want if I can get it published. Until then, Adieu

by Chris Ritchie (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Oct 15, 2006 at 9:13:27 PM

  (0+)

Hello, Just a very quick note on "Christians" and "Non-Believers" -- There are many types of "Christians." First of all there are the "Christian Nationalists" and then there are the "Christians" -- Christian Nationalists want to control of the government and pass laws which will disrupt others' lives. Real Christians practice tolerance of others' lifestyles. God is the big boss. Not you. Christians - liberals, Democrats, Progressives - just want to help make a better world for future generations. We go to many different churches and love God and our families and America just as much as you do. Check out how many churches there are in the phone book. We will be voting soon and we will be voting for the ones who love America and the World. Peace, Love, VOTE, Aimee

by Aimee (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 17, 2006 at 8:51:24 AM

  (0+)