Moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity? Not even close. King Shamus of Baldilocks eviscerates this silly leftist meme.
Here’s just a taste…
What would it take to make Christianity the moral equivalent to Islam?
There would have to be groups of Christians that call for violent acts in the name of Jesus. It could not just be the rare lone gunman-type with a Bible stuffed into his drawers and a raging desire to kill people for Christ wilding out. You’d need to have densely populated structures incorporated for the purpose of fomenting Jesus-inspired terror. These organizations would be populated by leaders that call for Christians to use terror to spread Christianity. The power of Christ would compel the members of these religious groups to do violence to other humans.
And for Mayor Bloomie and the rest of the Useful Idiots, no, he isn’t done yet. He doesn’t care how much it hurts. Go read the hold thing.
Ouch. Dan’s head might explode and Rutherford is going to foam at the mouth if they read that but…
What’s really interesting is that the article only touched on the evil works. I want to see an example where ten Muslims were murdered in a Christian country while providing free health care for the sole reason of possessing a Koran.
A little off the subject but still relevant is that we Christians haven’t been able to demonstrate the ability to trample each other to death ala the Hajj either, so we’ll need to find a rock to march around where we create the proverbial stinkin’ pyramid and stone women.
Oh, I could come up with a million great examples of how ludicrous it is to mention Christ with respect to Islam, but I need to learn a lesson from Dick and wait with my clue bat. I’ll hold the ammo…
“What would it take to make Christianity the moral equivalent to Islam?”
A time machine set for 1098.
“A little off the subject but still relevant is that we Christians haven’t been able to demonstrate the ability to trample each other to death ala the Hajj either, so we’ll need to find a rock to march around where we create the proverbial stinkin’ pyramid and stone women.”
No you won’t. Just announce a 75% off sale at Wal-Mart.
WalMart? They’ll do that at Hallmark. My wife and I almost got trampled buying Christmas bulbs on sale. And the women were doing the stoning. 😉
However, Walmart is more the white trash crowd of atheists, agnostics and other deviants last I looked (like tonight – still a few things I can’t buy at the mom & pop grocery store).
LOL Atheists and agnostics shop at Walmart? That is rich!
Hey BiW, here’s a zoning question for you. I wish it was original but I stole it from The Daily Show:
“You CAN build a Catholic church next to a playground. SHOULD you?” 😉
Bigot
Well it’s nice to have the shoe on the other foot. Not every day I get called a bigot. 🙂
Let’s not dismiss the unintended significance of Huck’s quip. The Christian church is not without sin. Do they match the current sad record of Islam … no. But they have their own history.
In fact Huck … now that I think about it, why are we going back to 1098? How bout the late 70’s and 80’s with Northern Ireland? Last I looked that was a religious war waged among different Christian sects.
Last I looked that was a religious war waged among different Christian sects.
Do me a favor. Promise never to become a teacher.
With the Irish, it is, and always has been about two words: “Home Rule”. Religion is simply another distinction between them and the Brits.
So why didn’t Christianity, their common basic faith, bring them together and heal their wounds? Obviously they found their differing sects, Protestant vs Catholic, divisive rather than uniting.
The point being at least in this case Christianity is no more the religion of peace than is Islam.
“So why didn’t Christianity, their common basic faith, bring them together and heal their wounds? Obviously they found their differing sects, Protestant vs Catholic, divisive rather than uniting.
The point being at least in this case Christianity is no more the religion of peace than is Islam.” — R
Wow R, you continue to amaze me with your ignorance.
The Northern Irish conflict was less about religion as it was about politics, dating back to the 17th century. The British managed to put down multiple Irish rebellions and Englishmen and Scotsmen began settling in the region. They were Protestant, while the Irish were predominantly Catholic. So, the initial importance of the sectarian differences was that it simplified identifying those loyal to William versus those loyal to James.
“You CAN build a Catholic church next to a playground. SHOULD you?”
That’s right. Of course mocking the Pope and the Priesthood isn’t exactly brave, since they aren’t likely to threaten to cut off your head, but since it already fits your anti-Christianity bias, I’m sure you think that its Brilliant!
You slay yourself. Crack wise about the funny little quirks of islam. I’m sure they will be amused.
Like I said – Rutherford is the ultimate uninformed, liberal Christian bigot and coward – and this is him at his dead level worst. Do you think for a minute if we simply said “we’ll kill you by cutting your head off” and meant it, Rutherford would dare make such a statement? Hell no – this man couldn’t punch his way out of a wet paper bag. He’d wet his pants and beg for mercy.
But the best, most comical part is the bigoted coward occasionally accompanies his man hating, Sarah Palin stalking wife to church. Why they are there is beyond me. 😐 It would be like me attending a NetRoots convention. A complete waste of time.
You would think the “lovely couple” wouldn’t dare let their daughter be exposed to such trash. Perhaps they would better like to school her with Rutherford’s bigoted unbelieving and mocking brethren Larry Flynt?
All right. I haven’t weighed in on this for a while, so perhaps the time has come.
Human organizations, including religious ones, are populated by humans. (Feel free to shield your eyes against the Blinding Flash of the Obvious.) Therefore, they will embed all human characteristics, including reflexive suspicion of and hostility toward The Other. That’s innate in human mental structure. We can’t breed it out, or edit it out with genetic surgery; it was essential to our survival as a species, and will remain so until the end of time.
There has been one perfect Man. He preached among us for three years, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and performed various other miracles to draw the crowds to Him, then accepted death by torture to prove His sincerity — and then rose from the dead to prove His Authority. But we are not He. No one among us can claim His lineage. “The imitation of Christ” is an ideal, not a wholly achievable condition.
In other words, we are fallen. We can’t get up until He returns with His hand extended. The best we can do is to police ourselves and one another — and at that, too, our efforts will remain imperfect.
The Catholic Church has always included among its clerics some who were unworthy of His Commission. Given that all men are fallen, that was to be expected. At a couple of times in its history, it’s been led by men who were unworthy of its throne. Given its two thousand year history (and that all men are fallen), it was inevitable that it should be so; as inexcusable as it is and as much as it pains me to say so, at some future time it could well be so again.
But the Church cannot alter the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” [The Gospel According to Matthew, 5:43-45]
That is integral to Christian living. It’s based on a premise at the heart of Christian faith: That, though we are all fallen, we may yet be raised up. And no man, be he lay or cleric, can change it by word or deed.
You dislike Christianity, HF and Rutherford? Fine; that’s your perfect right. Not everyone receives the gift of faith, and not everyone recognizes it when it’s offered him. But when you slander us severally, or condemn us and our faith for the actions of a few who “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk,” take a good healthy sniff of the air around you. You might catch a whiff of something sulfurous. It would be wise to pay it some attention.
Very well said.
Who said I dislike Christianity and how did I slander it?
Is 1098 a difficult topic for you? Are you unable to accept that there were groups of Christians that called for violent acts in the name of Jesus? That there were densely populated structures incorporated for the purpose of fomenting Jesus-inspired terror? That they were populated by leaders that call for Christians to use terror to spread Christianity? That the power of Christ compelled the members of these religious groups to do violence to other humans?
Well, it happened. Get over it.
You might want to take a sniff of something when you’re done preaching to me…it’s called reality.
Take a sniff of this, HF: First off, the Crusades were defensive wars. They aimed to recover the Hoiy Land from Muslim invaders, who’d butchered their way through the region slaughtering and destroying anyone and anything that wouldn’t bend the knee to Allah. Those Muslim conquerors regularly captured Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land and made them into slaves. How do you feel about that?
Second, though the Crusades were animated by religious feeling, in no way were they commanded by Christ; they were the decisions and deeds of men. Though the pope said Deus vult of them, he was not doing so from any teaching of the Redeemer. Nor would any pope of our time endorse a war — any war — as commanded by Christ or His teachings.
Third, warfare in that era was a terrible, brutal thing that spared no one and nothing. There were atrocities galore. There’s no excusing such deeds, but they were not “compelled by the power of Christ.” The Prince of Peace commanded no one to violence of any sort, much less to arbitrary slaughter among non-combatants and the unarmed.
In conclusion, you can take your counterfeit sanctimony and shove it up your cowardly ass, Mr. Pseudonymous Spreader of Slander. An “anti-theist” such as yourself, who’s really only interested in denigrating Christianity — would you dare to commit a comparable calumny against Islam and Muhammad in the presence of a gaggle of Muslims? There’s far more brutality and bloodshed on their creed’s record than on Christ’s — deserves no respect and will get none, at least from me.
Other than the fact that it is historically inaccurate, I feel nothing about it. Which is still more than I care about you not respecting me. I don’t require your affirmation for me to make it through my day.
The Crusades were not a defensive war as much as they were about giving violent, landless knights someone besides their fellow Christians to kill. The Eastern Emperor asked for a small group of warriors to help stem the tide of Muslims coming his way. He didn’t ask for 60,000. That’s why he screwed them when they got there.
If it was all about defense against Muslim incursion then why were Jews and Christians also killed?
It was also about increasing wealth, land, and influence. And anyone, Muslim or not, who got in the way of the Crusaders and the Pope achieving those things were brutally slaughtered. Was that the warfare of the day?…sure. I’m not condemning a single bit of any of it. But I’m not going to turn my back on the facts, either.
“Second, though the Crusades were animated by religious feeling, in no way were they commanded by Christ; they were the decisions and deeds of men. ”
Is there a point that matters in there anywhere? For starters, since the order came from the Pope, those who took up the cross believed it was a command from God.
The fact is that the Crusaders killed in the name of Christ. And if you look up at the criteria laid out in the original post, you’ll see that action listed.
“Third, warfare in that era was a terrible, brutal thing that spared no one and nothing. There were atrocities galore. There’s no excusing such deeds, but they were not “compelled by the power of Christ.””
I think we’ve already covered that above. The Crusaders believed they were compelled by Christ. That was the weight of the Pope’s word at the time.
You can rewrite history all you want if it helps you get a good night’s sleep. But the facts remain. The Crusades meet every point listed in the original post.
“There’s far more brutality and bloodshed on their creed’s record than on Christ’s…”
Feel free to point out where I have alleged anything to the contrary.
“Other than the fact that it is historically inaccurate…”
And before anyone rips my head off, I was not meaning it was inaccurate that Muslims messed with pilgims and all that. Contrary to what some might think, I’m not interested in being a Muslim apologist.
The “defensive war” is what is poppycock.
“Those Muslim conquerors regularly captured Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land and made them into slaves. How do you feel about that?”
The Christians who founded this country had slaves that had to be captured from somewhere. How do you feel about that? Or is it only Christian slaves that you’re concerned about?
Again..I am not condemning it. It was what it was…history.
Well said as always Francis. After Rutherford’s always predictable shot at the Catholic Church (and I’m not even Catholic), I couldn’ t muster the energy to write what needed to be written, and you’re the more talented writer – best you do it.
All I wanted to do is twist Rutherford’s head off about the demonization of an “organization” that has done more good works, done more for the poor and the sick across the planet, opened more not-for-profit hospitals, provides more charitable works, and healed more people both spiritually and physically than any affiliation on earth. I feel very safe saying there are far more Mother Theresa types in history than a few sick pedophilic priests, or the Crusades, or witch trials, or some other trumped up charge Rutherford has gleaned from the “wisdom” of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher.
But Rutherford is from the school of Alinsky, and he purposely picks out the rare worst to generalize and paint the norm when it comes to the Christian faith. Always. Doesn’t fit the narrative.
I don’t think Rutherford would like the world he would find without the Catholic Church. Chances are good without the Protestant Church, Rutherford might find himself born in a different country – most likely Africa. His cushy life would probably far different than the one God has allowed Rutherford to live. Let him live out his days in ignorance…
“There has been one perfect Man. He preached among us for three years, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and performed various other miracles to draw the crowds to Him. . . [b]ut we are not He. No one among us can claim His lineage. . . we are fallen.”
But Obama’s only been in office two years, not three.
LOL.
Where’s my pet tard?
Dick, I hope you’re referring to Dan. Otherwise, I think my feelings are hurt. 😦
Rutherford, you should know better.
Graychin ran off with his tail between his legs after I asked him to comment on the Think Progress video hack job trying to show Tea Party racism.
I wouldn’t expect him back.
I must admit …. I am very sorry to see the relatively hasty retreat of Graychin. I know Tex predicted this but damn.
I don’t know what it is about the average liberal. No staying power?
Wow, this thread has been fun. I particularly enjoyed watching Francis evolve from a polite pious Christian to a “shove it up your ass” Christian in the space of only a few comments. 😆
First hat’s off to Huck, He and I are about as politically opposite as can be imagined but I love watching him talk about religion, because unlike me, he is detached from it and is well studied in it. He can deflate Christian hypocrisy faster than a speeding bullet. Watching such displays makes his calling me an assh*le most of the time worth every minute. 🙂
Let’s get something real clear. The church/playground joke is tasteless and immature. BUT if we go back to Dan’s premise of judging the many by the acts of a few, then the joke is dead on. It hits the bulls eye. A small minority of Priests did unspeakable things to vulnerable children. Anyone who extrapolates from them to their organization should be nervous about a Catholic church being next to a playground. The question is, is that extrapolation fair? I think we would all agree it is not.
Soooo it is equally the case that the entire religion of Islam should not be condemned for the acts of an admittedly vocal and noticeable minority of violent radicals.
And here is another distinction. Mohammed Atta was not, to my knowledge a preacher. He was a follower of his religion. The pedophilia evident in the Catholic church was committed by those in power. Not the followers. So it makes even more sense to be weary of a Catholic church because its very power structure commits, condones, and covers up acts of pedophilia.
Last but not least, whether or not an act is done in the name of a religion is entirely in the eyes of the actor. Francis you are in no position to say that a Christian who kills in the name of Christ got his wires crossed while a Muslim who kills in the name of Mohammed did not. Both men perceived that their acts were justified by their religions. Oh … and regarding the Crusades, to follow on Huck’s comment, I was under the impression that the Pope is God’s messenger on Earth. So if the Pope advocates murder, then God is advocating murder. And since God and Christ are one, then Christ is advocating murder.
Save your outrage gentlemen. Organized religion walks a tight rope between great acts of charity and humanity, and senseless lunacy. And yes, Francis, that is because organized religions are “organized” by fallible human beings.
“A time machine set for 1098.”
Spoken like a true multiculturalist.
“Spoken like a true multiculturalist.”
Spoken like an igorant fool (who has been banned from yet another blog).
ROTFLMAO
“The Christians who founded this country had slaves that had to be captured from somewhere. How do you feel about that? Or is it only Christian slaves that you’re concerned about?”
Jesus never took slaves. Mohammed did. But like a good multiculturalist, you exclude the teachings of the religions founders because that wont fit in your petty moronic multiculturual world.
Look Elric….I know you are anxiously seeking a new home since Alfie tossed you out on your sorry, childish ass. But if you are going to plant it here, you might want to step up your game a bit because it is already obvious that you’re going to find difficulties in keeping up.
Now let me slow things down for you so that maybe you can play along….
Francis W. Porretto wrote:
“Those Muslim conquerors regularly captured Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land and made them into slaves. How do you feel about that?”
Notice that he was the one talking about Muslims…not me. It would have been his place to introduce your points about Muslims into the conversation…not mine.
In response to his comment, I wrote:
“The Christians who founded this country had slaves that had to be captured from somewhere. How do you feel about that? Or is it only Christian slaves that you’re concerned about”
That same question can apply to you if you think you have the sack to man up to it.
Are you as bothered by Christians who had slaves as much as you are bothered by Christians who were slaves?
I gave my answer, in case you missed it in your rage…
“I am not condemning it. It was what it was…history.”
I think it’s a pretty simple, and fair question. So are you going to limit your comments to shit talk or are you going to step up to the big people’s table and have an adult discussion?
Huck while I love seeing you throw a punch or two at old Elric (whom I thought had completely disappeared into the ether) I do have to take issue with one comment:
I am not condemning it. It was what it was…history. I’d kinda expect you to condemn any group of people making slaves of any other group of people.
Now if you were saying you were limiting yourself to the historical facts and leaving judgments for another debate, I can understand that.
“Wow R, you continue to amaze me with your ignorance.”
Really? Still amazed by it?
Hope I didn’t miss all the fun.
Rutherford said: Francis you are in no position to say that a Christian who kills in the name of Christ got his wires crossed while a Muslim who kills in the name of Mohamed did not. Both men perceived that their acts were justified by their religions. Oh … and regarding the Crusades, to follow on Huck’s comment, I was under the impression that the Pope is God’s messenger on Earth. So if the Pope advocates murder, then God is advocating murder. And since God and Christ are one, then Christ is advocating murder.
Rutherford, why can’t Francis say that Christians that kill in the name of Christ are getting their wires crossed?
Most of us Christians are comfortable with the distinction between religion (human attempt to understand, codify, and practice one’s faith) and theology (the study and understanding of God). An essential tenet of our Christian faith is that we are sinful and need a Savior, so we are totally on board with how we humans can corrupt our own practice of our faith — our religion.
Your saying that these fallible sinful (sometimes sick) Christian humans who screw up by ordering the killing ‘in the name of Christ’ PROVES somehow that Christ advocates murder is simply BAD LOGIC and does not need to be taken any further.
But I’ll offer to put another way, cause I’m a giver that way.*snigger*
If you, Rutherford, started some organization (religious or secular – doesn’t matter for this analogy) motivated by the goodness in your heart and began accepting leaders into your organization, and one or several of your leaders began to misinterpret your good intentions and were committing violent or abusive acts, do you really think that YOU are the one who is responsible and that YOU advocated their violence and abuse because THEY wrote their own practices or MISINTERPRETED YOUR WORDS?
While serving in professional ministry in the parish I constantly struggled with folks who would go and tell someone else what I had said as their justification for some silliness they were found doing. When this crap got back to me, my only defense was to say “I did not say that nor advocate that” and hopefully offer some additional point that I actually had made to show that my encouragements and guidance were in a totally different direction. Ministry is like “herding kittens” we’d say, simply because we knew there was no way to control what people would do and our true purposes were to do what we could in a gentle and encouraging way. It’s very frustrating to be in professional ministry. Chronic and clinical depression is very high among folks in ministry these days… very little support or respect but lots of responsibility and grief. I’m retired from it at the present but am (prayerfully) considering a return.
Btw — in professional ministry WE are frequently the ones who need our reputations protected from goofy or mentally disturbed people who slime us. My general rule was that I would not permit myself to be left totally alone with any youth or adult — and any door to my office MUST have a window installed in that door — so that I/we could be observed. Thorough background checks are done on ministry professionals these days AND no volunteer is permitted to work with youth WITHOUT ALSO having a background check done on them. THESE are REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCH INSURANCE POLICIES. It’s a sick world, but ministry is something that we all are expected to keep doing. Staying ‘above reproach’ takes a lot of smarts and action. As I said before in another thread, we are to be “as sly as snakes and as innocent as doves.”
Cathy you didn’t address a key part of my comment. Am I mistaken that the Pope is viewed as God’s messenger on Earth? Therefore the Popes who advocated murder centuries ago, were supposedly the messengers of God, carrying out God’s will.
Now, if you’re saying that the Pope is just another guy like you and me (not that you’re a guy 🙂 ) occupying an essentially political position, then you and I are in complete agreement that we cannot judge the mind of God from the actions of the Pope.
^ Yea, I’m going to convert to the Rutherford religion. Then I’ll take what Rutherford has said in these comment threads and write the Rutherford-Bible and invite folks to join. Then we can watch how our Rutherford responds when he is misinterpreted by sickos, wackos, silly-morons, pedophiles, the violent and abusers who have also ‘converted’ to his religion.
Mmmmm you apply this scenario to Lawsonism ( 🙂 ) but not to Islam. Why is that?
islam’s founder and “prophet” was a pedophile. muslims consider him “the perfect man”.
^ Agree Eric. And Islam’s founder was illiterate. His utterances were written down by others and then later compiled by several. The various compilations have discrepancies and omissions. Earlier utterances seem to be more general and attractive, mimicking Scriptural passages found in both the Old and New Testament, but also included some clear inaccuracies. And it seems the later writings get a tad more forceful, legalistic, and polemic. Some theologians/historians have explained the later, harsher utterances to be motivated by the lack of growth Mohamed hoped for in numbers of followers, and therefore utterances became more controlling and encouraged violence to force people to come to accept Islam. Sounds like the dude got angry because he wasn’t as popular as he had hoped. Awwwww. Poor baby. And btw, it is well documented in related writings I’ve been taught, that he spoke openly about his own fears that he was mentally ill.
I commented more about these differences between Islam and Judeo-Christianity in an earlier thread.
And Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism is reputed by many to have been a crook, swindler and snake-oil salesman. Your point?
I suppose your point is that Christianity is the only credible religion because its centerpiece, Jesus Christ, was a perfect man.
Talk about an argument-stopper.
Cathy,
Very true. In the early parts of the qur’an or the Mecca verses. Mo was more tolerant and peaceful due to his small numbers. Ones his numbers grew, he got more intolerant and belligerent. Which sounds like any growing islamic community.
Mo-bomb-ed could have been mentally ill or possibly possessed by a demon. He did once admit to being tricked into confusing Gabriel with the Devil, hence the Satanic Verses.
“….or possibly possessed by a demon.”
Demon possession?
What a joke you are.
Hey Huck. Mohamed expressed his own concern about this. Elric is not accusing him of it — simply reporting what he (and I also) have read on this subject. And just to set the record straight, much of what I’ve read is from people who were raised in the Muslim faith.
Is “you are a joke” the new “you are a racist” ???
No, Elric being a joke has nothing to do with shutuppery. I just find even the speculation of “demon possession” to be absolutely laughable.
And I can assure you he was passing judgement, not just relaying information. Just look at what he wrote.
He wrote what Mo-bomb-ed could have been. Not what Mo-bomb-ed thought he could have been.
If he was making a different point then he should select his words better.
Huck just to be fair, I had the same reaction on my blog when Tex referred to Satan as having been an angel at some point.
I have a real problem when religion starts getting into the super natural stuff.
Wouldn’t it be so much easier if Jesus was viewed as the Martin Luther King Jr. of his day (minus the adultery) and we left it at that? Instead we have to get into resurrection, water into wine, etc, etc.
I know Tex thinks I am deliberately trying to offend but honestly, I don’t get how otherwise rational people can sign up for some of the stuff they do when they follow an organized religion.
^ Yea. Kinda feel sorry for the guy (really). Before his ‘visits’ from the angel Gabriel, he enjoyed debating and learning from travelers and traders that came through on caravans and on his own travels and trading (I guess). He was probably kinda smart to be able to recall many of the Scriptural passages that Jews and Christians had been sharing with him. But sometimes he just got it wrong… mixing up the persons and periods of time, and twisting the words to his own liking, when he ‘supposedly’ was hearing the voice of Gabriel speaking to him. It’s kinda sad, actually,
Sorry, I wrote ‘Eric’ rather than ‘Elric’ kinda goes to show… something.
Cathy,
Huck is a multiculturalist fool who will defend islam to his last breath. Doesnt matter what the facts are. He just hates religion and Christianity is an easy target because no fear of head chopping like his favorite religion islam.
Not too sad because we are still dealing with the repercussions of his insanity and his blood lust.
Elric, she is an intelligent woman who doesn’t need you to make her opinions for her.
Cathy, Elric and I have a history on other blogs. He has a habit of rushing to judgement any time someting suits his narrative. And when his stories turn out to be BS, and is called out on them, he snivels like a baby that people aren’t supporting his causes well enough. We’re all RINOs if we don’t support every misleading story that comes down the pike. We’re all appeasers if we don’t show RRRAAAGGGGEEEE!!!!! over the silliest of issue that will likely never even be an issue. And we are all multiculturalists if we make even the slightest attempt to see the world, and try and understand it, through the eyes of anyone other than ourselves.
“(who has been banned from yet another blog).”
Im crush the “moderate” pussy banned me. Really, I am. But whats the list of blogs Ive been banned from? Kinda odd you are keeping track. Obsessed Huck? And please list them if you think you know. 🙂
Cathy,
See what I mean? The fool is still ranting about Christians owning slaves even though Jesus never had slaves unlike Mo-bomb-ed did. The idiot probably also doesnt care that it was the Christian Abolitionist movement that helped end slavery. Did islam ever have one? Hell no. Mo had slaves and took slaves.
This how insane these moderates are. You have two religions. One founded on peace and tolerance and one on violence and oppression. If a believer of the peaceful and tolerant religion acts violent and oppressive, the religion still gets as much blame as the religion of a believer of the violent and oppressive religion acting violent and oppressive. How insane is that?
Elric … you just contradicted yourself dude. You, yourself said that the Koran starts with the Mecca part which is peaceful. So both religions were “founded on peace and tolerance.”
Notice the moderate speaks in generalities like a leftist would?
Guess the moron couldnt list what blogs Ive been “banned” from. Full of crap as always. Just like all moderates.
Elric, there’s enough people that come here that go to blogs you’ve been banned from, so there won’t be many here to buy what you’re selling in that area.
So why didn’t Christianity, their common basic faith, bring them together and heal their wounds? Obviously they found their differing sects, Protestant vs Catholic, divisive rather than uniting.
The point being at least in this case Christianity is no more the religion of peace than is Islam.
Religion is about your relationship with God. Politics are abut our relationships with each other.
Religion is powerful and influential, but it isn’t about political peace, and won’t be until the Son of God returns to take up his iron sceptre and rule. And when He asserts His authority, there will be peace.
BiW, I honestly don’t mean this to be cruel or to mock you but honestly I’d be worried having you defend me in court after that statement.
If we didn’t know that statement was attached to Christianity, it would sound like the words of a mad man.
Now I know you’re not crazy … and if I did have you as a defense attorney, I’d just try to forget that you forgo reason in the religious part of your life.
But damn, that comment was very hard to read.
Rutherford,
You first assume that I’d have you for a client. My choice, not yours, is the only one that matters in deciding if we were to have a professional association. I have refused clients, and I have fired them before.
As for the second, it isn’t for you to say what is and what is not reasonable when there is much more to reality than what you allow yourself to see.
All good points. Just ‘cos I can’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
P.S. You’d have me for a client … you’re big-hearted that way. 🙂
“The fool is still ranting about Christians owning slaves…”
Ummm…I was replying to your comment, champ. Like I said, try and keep up. I’m sure BiW doesn’t want to have to drag out the kiddie table for you to eat at.
Yes, Islam promotes taking slaves. Yes, its founder did it too. No, Christianity does not promote taking slaves. No, its founder did not do it. Yes, Christians led the way to abolition.
See, I have no problems mentioning those things when they are pertaining to the conversation. If you brush up on your reading comprehension, you’ll see that those things were not pertaining to that particular conversation.
Now that we have covered that, would you care to tackle the question you seem to want to bypass?
Are you as bothered by Christians taking slaves as much as you are bothered by Christians being taken as slaves?
Don’t give me any crap about multiculturalism. Just give your opinion regarding a very simple and fair question.
ALL OUT FOR MAJOR PROTEST this Sunday at Ground Zero Mosque Site
by Editors on August 17, 2010
Join us RAIN OR SHINE Sunday August 22 at 11am
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://stopthe911mosque.com/2010/08/17/sunday-august-22-protest-ground-zero-mosque-site/
So who is going?
BIC,
And Christianity isnt political like islam is.
Tell that to the religious right.
Thanks, Elric.
When asked what Christians should do about the devil, Martin Luther’s response was “Laugh at him.” This was quoted in C.S. Lewis’ work, I think it was “The Screwtape Letters,” a delightfully fun but intelligent expose on the devil and temptation. Martin Luther wrote a lot about the devil. Luther offered a lot about his own personal struggle to not succumb to him and how to combat falling into his traps.
Christian apologists are comfortable with the concept that the devil is constantly working to steal God’s goodness and gifts of faith from Christian believers if he can. IF is the operative word.
I believe the devil’s efforts can be easily identified in our every day life. His aim is to twist the truth, corrupt what is pure and beautiful, and lie, … all so that he can pull the weak away and take hostages at all costs… all done to keep us from believing in the One True God.
It’s sad, but I believe that Mohamed was one of the devil’s casualties.
If my beliefs make me a target for mockery, I’m cool with that.
Cathy,
The problem with Lewis is his sublimety is lost on some. The Screwtape Letters would be the easiest of his apologetics to wade through, but even with that, there were several pages I lingered over for many minutes.
When reading some of his others, I’ve been known to spend an hour or two with two or three pages, just trying to make sure I grokked it all.
Yea. Totally understand, BiW. Sorta joking, but it’s easier to ‘get’ C.S. Lewis if you read him aloud and use a British accent.
Wish I could stay and play fisty-cuffs with y’all, but I think I get off the compooter and get ready to go see Michele Bachmann at a BBQ this afternoon. Met and visited personally with Sharron Angle a few days ago… just trying to do my part here, ’cause Ground Zero is too far away for me to try and join that protest.
“Are you as bothered by Christians taking slaves as much as you are bothered by Christians being taken as slaves?”
Like the Sudan today? Oh wait, its only muslims that are the ones taking slaves. But dont worry those muslim Abolitionists will put an end to it.
So you aren’t willing to man up to the question?
Cathy,
A lot of that is going on today. Cant pray at the Lincoln Memorial. Going the way of Europe. Look what happened when Christianity was run out.
And Mo-bomb-ed was definitely influenced by the Devil. islam to its core is the antithesis to Christianity.
“So you aren’t willing to man up to the question?”
I’ll go your buddy Aflie’s route. Since you two moderates are good friends, you shouldnt mind.
And there you have it, folks. The full extent of that Elric brings to the party.
Let’s get something real clear. The church/playground joke is tasteless and immature. BUT if we go back to Dan’s premise of judging the many by the acts of a few, then the joke is dead on. It hits the bulls eye. A small minority of Priests did unspeakable things to vulnerable children. Anyone who extrapolates from them to their organization should be nervous about a Catholic church being next to a playground. The question is, is that extrapolation fair? I think we would all agree it is not.
R, you and Dan ask “Is it right to paint an entire religion with the brush of violence based on the acts of a few?…essentially saying it isn’t a feature, its a bug.
I won’t speak for everyone else, but when I look at it, I see a religion that clearly talks about converting the infidel or killing him. That says its ok to lie to him.
I see that wherever they go in the world, conflict and terror follow, including here in the US (Ft. Hood, the Ft. Dix conspirators…)
You say “Bug”. I look at the evidence…Scripture that teaches it, followers worldwide who act on it, and I say feature.
I find it ironic that the only 2 commenters to targett my 1098 comment are 2 of the biggest hypocrites here. They get all up in arms when dicussing Christians getting the shit end of the stick, but when it gets pointed out that they sometimes control that shitty stick (whether in line with their teachings or not) we get nothing but silence or defense of the actions.
HF,
It seems strange that you have to go back literally a millennium to equate any thing Christianity has done to what Islam does today with out a second thought. And even at that it was a reaction to a Muslim advance that had been on the rampage for at least 450 years at that point including holding wide swaths of the Iberian peninsula and a sortie into southern France. This included the construction of the Cordoba Mosque on the razed site of a previously Catholic church.
Christianity is much differently practiced today as many of the rough edges have been smoothed away by many schisms and reformations and Enlightenment thinking which allowed Christianity to be re-interpreted more on the teaching of Christ as opposed to the more heavy emphasis on the Old Testament. Both have their places but doctrinally I think the current inclination of western Christian thought is more a misconstruction of the benevolent tenets in the New Testament.
On the other hand Islam is practiced in the same literalist version as it was in 1098. Nothing has changed as they reject the Enlightenment out hand as contrary to will of Allah. Those who reject the literalist interpretation are heretics and apostates. At least with the Bible much of what it contains can be explained away as allegorical but Islam is strictly thought to be,literally the word of Allah. Any re-interpretation is sacrilege as if any man can know the mind of Allah. This coupled with the fact the the bulk of the violent verses appear to be of later vintage and are said by Islamic scholars to supersede the earlier ones where they are in conflict. This makes for a “religion”(Islam is first and foremost a political regime) that has gotten more violent with subsequent revelation not more benign(Old Testament-heavy on the smiting, New Testament- Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor, et.al you know the stuff our buddy Dan Trabue thinks make any response to Islamic depredations “unchristian”).
If the popes were authorizing the Crusades it wasn’t because he was following Christ’s will he was acting as a secular potentate. if he claimed he was acting in Christ’s name any literate person could see that he was talking out of his ass. Meanwhile, when Muhammed acted he claimed it was directly in consonance with the will of Allah and all those who followed used the same construction. All the Quor’anic verses cited by the terrorists are easily found and certified by their ecclesiastical hierarchy. Those of us who don’t know the Quor’an as well, including the Obfuscator in Chief and his predecessor are talking through their hat when they claim the terrorist are perverting Islam. The fact is the terrorists appear to be right on the money. Those who say the terrorist are incorrect about THEIR “holy scriptures” are applying a western standard of thought and reason that categorically do not apply to Islam or the Quor’an.
I know you think you’re keeping it real and truly atrocities were abundant of both sides(Islam didn’t get to it’s present size by saying mother may I) but the event you use as an example of “Christians do it too” is in apt(perhaps something more recent than a thousand years ago) This especially in the light of how Islam had advanced up to that point.
fxpcpa, you, and everyone else who’s been on my back over this is missing the entire point of why I said anything.
Look at the original post. In it, there was a question asked.
“What would it take to make Christianity the moral equivalent to Islam?”
Not the numerical equivalent.
Not the religious equivalent.
The moral equivalent.
It then laid out a bunch of criteria.
I believe the Crusades meet every point of that criteria.
It wasn’t an attempt to equate anything to today. It wasn’t an attempt to say the numbers of attrocities are, or ever were equal. It wasn’t an attempt to say anything negative about Christians or Christianity.
It was simply answering the question asked within the post.
I’m sorry everyone has a big issue with the Crusades and the fact that Christians got their blood lust on for a while. But it happened. Pointing it out for what it was shouldn’t be seen as an attack any more than pointing out facts should be seen as racism.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m the one being told “shut up” in this whole discussion.
And I already laid out why the Crusades were not solely a reaction to the Muslim advance, so there is no need to rehash what will obviously continue to be ignored.
Also…I wonder if the hypocrites I called out previously have any comments on the Dum Diversas? Google it.
“I won’t speak for everyone else, but when I look at it, I see a religion that clearly talks about converting the infidel or killing him. That says its ok to lie to him.”
Clear as day. But the multiculturalist must find the moral equivalent. Its in his nature.
“And there you have it, folks. The full extent of that Elric brings to the party.”
Then ignore my comments Chuckles. Ohh and still waiting for the list of blogs I have been “banned” from.
Eric, come by my site and leave a comment. I’ll add ya to the list.
Cathy,
You are going to meet Bachmann? Now Im jealous. Tell her to keep up the good fight. She is one of the few political leaders that I respect for. If you tell her that, I promise to drop a pork rind at Ground Zero tomorrow in your name. 🙂
Mmmm dropping a pork rind in honor of the Bush’s? Was it 41 or 43 who liked them?
Or, more likely, a nasty, immature, offensive swipe at Islam?
If you do it, I hope the police see it and arrest your sorry ass for littering.
Dick,
What site and what list?
Wow, I haven’t even commented here and yet my name is being taken in vain. Interesting. You guys got a man-crush on me already?
Please Dan, I just had lunch.
Apparently Rutherford has latched on to you as a fountain of authority. Just as great minds think alike so do the minds of the indignantly self-righteous.
B is W cites you as a shining jewel of moral relativistic lunacy. After your last performance here it should be shown to school children as a prime example of how to be supremely sanctimonious and belligerently obtuse.
The counselor has much more good will than I have. He cites your premise(shared with Rutherford) that “Islam is tainted by a few bad actors” with which Mr R then made a completely in apt and inappropriate comment about pedohile priests. While child rape is surely a heinous act it truly is just a few priests who engaged in it. By percentage and raw numbers. And before anyone goes screeching “fxpcpa whitewashed and minimizes child rape” Undesstand this, those priests should not have been protected they along with their patrons should have been defrocked and defenestrated then prosecuted or left for 30 minutes with the father or whatever burly male relative would have beat them to death with a spike infused baseball bat. Why should mass murderers and apologists and propaganists for mass muderers get any less?
The idea that your fellow traveler and champion Mr R. seems to be able to equate the molestation of several thousand children(not brushing it off) with the death of millions at the hands of Muhammed’s butchers is incomprehensible. And suggests an immorality that will excuse any depravity as long as he thinks he has a point. I guess he believes in Stalin’s old adage 1 is a tragedy, 1 million is a statistic. He makes the absurd correlation of two events that are several of orders of magnitude apart.
I don’t accept the premise that it is only a few. Even if it is as few as 10%(which seems to be the going rate for muslim admittance to approval of mass murder) that 140 million people who are on the jihad side of town. This does’t even consdider the large part of the muslim population that wishes to impose shar’ia on the entire globe including your buddy the Ground Zero Imam.
Islam is chiefly a supremecist political system with the patina of religiosity to fool the more gullible, politically correct and willfully abstruse among us. That would seem to fit both you and your new BFF.
For someone who didn’t want to minimize Catholic clergy pedophilia, you sure did a great job of it. It wasn’t THAT many incidents after all.
Rutherford,
Please. You’re a fatuous moron.
I did no such thing but in the greater scheme of things the pedophile priest thing is of lesser significance as vile as they were/are and as vile as you are for even suggested that I minimize anything to do with this. They betrayed a sacred trust. The only reason you feel I minimize it is because you try and make the false equivalence with the act of an entire “religion” which has at it’s basic law pedophilia, misogyny and murder and is condoned and confirmed by the leading lights of it’s ecclesiastical community.
Pope Benedict:pedophilia and pederasty is wrong. Al-Azahr in Cairo: Yeah sure take that second nine year-old wife you are still two to the good.
But I’m really surprised about one thing though: That you would be down on one of the lefts pet grievance groups:homosexuals. After all most of the victims were teenage boys. Pedophilia is in and of itself is allegedly a sexual preference whether there is a gender component I am not aware.
The preponderance of early teenage boys is telling as to the real proclivities of the offenders. This was elided by the MSM and perpetuated by Rutherford. Both are betrayals of trust but by perpetrators with different predilections. That one word makes a big difference.
The church didn’t teach these priests to be predators they came that way. The hierarchy of the church is responsible for covering up and those bastards should be put in jail and punished alongside the pederasts. See my previous post for my punishment for the pederasts which you completely glossed over in your infinitely dishonest assessment.
That being said again, not that it will penetrate that swirling fog and mire that you, in your apparent febrile delusion, call a brain, the only way one can equate this with 1400 hundred years of murder and subjugation is if it is in your mind to pull down the institution you seek to pull down. The Catholic church stands athwart much of the social agenda you on the left wish to impose so it must be brought down.
Meanwhile you and your BFF over there continue to make excuses for a rat bastard who has stated his goal as to the implementation of shar’ia law where misogyny and pederasty is de jure. But it opposes what this country stands for so I guess you’re all in on that, the pervasive Islamist ideology is collectivist, totalitarian, dishonest and intolerant many of the same character traits brilliantly displayed by the avatars of the left in this country. No wonder you find it so easy to apologize for them.
Make no mistake the threat Islam(as promulgated by Rauf and his running mates in the Muslim Brotherhood) represents is existential. They wish you to convert, live as a second class citizen and pay the jizya or die. To those who are building this mosque they wish Islam to be supreme and they have the blood of multiple millions on their hands.
Was/is the pederasty of priests, a big deal? Yes, it is, and it better stop. The Catholic church has a lot to make amends for and has apologized and is investigating ways on how to make it right. It is not existential in nature except for the Catholic communion. And it is orders of magnitude less than the serial felonies Islam has committed.
Expansion of Imperial Islam is an existential threat to everyone including other Muslims who practice the Sufi version which actually may be a more tolerant form but is under attack by the Salafists who are the clear majority within Islam itself.
Tell me Rutherford what has Islam done to atone for it’s brutality,intolerance and barbaric mass murder over the years except issue Yes…but apologies, obfuscate and advance goal, by whatever means necessary from dawa to fatwa, jihad to taqqiyah to siyash(use of the indigenous political process), to make the entire world dar-al-Islam and build triumphalist mosques on the footprint of formerly Christian houses of worship or in this case a culturally sensitive place? Everywhere they have triumphed they have either wiped out the indigenous religion or made vassals of them.
So please, next time try your twisted sophistry on someone else. Someone who actually might crumble about having his position misrepresented. I’ve seen enough of your drivel to know that I will never convince you of the depravity of your analogy so I will try no further. You appear to be man of convictions, the wrong ones but convictions none the less.
To the skeptic no amount of proof is possible to the believer no proof is necessary.
“BUT if we go back to Dan’s premise of judging the many by the acts of a few…..”
I brought this up at Rutherford’s and of course got nothing but silence in return.
Imam Whatshisface made some comment saying something about 9/11 being just part of a larger thing by radical Islam against American foreign policies that go back a ways.
I asked, if it was just part of a bigger thing, then shouldn’t we up that count of “a few” beyond 19? If 9/11 was just a piece of a puzzle, why can’t we count all of the other pieces?
Neither Dan nor Rutherford seemed to want to have that conversation.
Huck, if either of us had conclusive numbers it might be worth exploring. My gut tells me there are millions of Muslims in the world. That means any violent subset of them is going to amount to a lot of people.
The fact is we don’t have a radicalized portion of the Christian religion that I can point to off the top of my head. We do have that with Islam.
That said, I still say we should not condemn the whole of Islam for the behavior of a minority …. even if by simple proportions that minority amounts to a lot of people.
The fact is we don’t have a radicalized portion of the Christian religion that I can point to off the top of my head. We do have that with Islam.
Who are the radicalized ones, R? The ones who do what the scripture says and try to kill the infidels, or the peaceful ones who don’t or don’t appear to?
Mmmm rather than call peaceful Muslims radicalized, why don’t we try calling them reformed?
I think all of us agree Islam is in need of reform.
Rutherford says
Something we actually can agree upon.
Who woulda thought?
And someplace in the depths of the earth a snowflake fell.lol.
“Imam Whatshisface made some comment saying something about 9/11 being just part of a larger thing by radical Islam against American foreign policies that go back a ways.”
Back to 622 AD.
BiW, you should probably get out the kiddie table. Looks like “someone” will be needing it.
Elric, this may come as a shock to you, but the United States wasn’t around in 622. So acts against its foreign policies can’t go back that far.
Now go have your mommy put on this video so you can learn something while you eat your Cheerios.
No kiddie tables. I allow Dick to play with his food, so kiddie tables would be a “no”.
“Elric, this may come as a shock to you, but the United States wasn’t around in 622. So acts against its foreign policies can’t go back that far.”
Come to a shock to you that the qur’an refers to the enemies as non believers so that would include the US. Nice how the qur’an created an unending war by defining the enemy as non believers. Perpetual war til islam reigns everywhere. Mo was a pedophile and a psycho but he wasnt stupid. He probably even counted the useful idiots called moderates to come to islam’s aid.
Kind of difficult to include something that doesn’t yet exist.
Unless you think maybe that demon he was possessed with gave him the power to see hundreds of years into the future.
The problem islam has with anyone is rooted in the qur’an so it can always be traced back to 632 AD. But nice of you to go to bat for islam as always. You make an awesome useful idiot. Congrats moron.
I made the mistake of ‘peeking’ at all the comments made since last on. Sheesh. I CAN’T get into this much. I still have to get dressed to go and meet Michele Bachmann.
I love to duke it out. This is frustrating. But just wanna say before I get off this computer and go get ready — that I’m not Roman Catholic — I’m LUTHERAN — and definitely agree with Rutherford that the pope is merely a human being and that many of the edicts handed down by the Catholic church — in my view — are a lot of crap. Martin Luther and I agree on that point. Luther playfully called the pope the Antichrist on more than one occasion.
For me nothing proclaimed by any human being is worth a hill of beans unless it is in harmony with the essential & basics of the Christian faith. Jesus is not just a perfect man or THE perfect man, but God himself in the flesh… God Incarnate. More later… maybe if/when I get back.
Carry on you beloved morons.
“Luther playfully called the pope the Antichrist on more than one occasion.”
The real one is the Mahdi.
Enjoy your day Cathy. Talk to you soon.
Are you bringing a straight jacket with you and calling the white van to come pick her up?
Cathy, I know whether you have credibility with me matters not, but damn you’re losing it by the minute if you support loony tunes like Bachmann and Angle.
Do YOU believe the census is a precursor to setting up internment camps? 😯
Speaking of credibility, isn’t it time for another Rutherford Expression of Palin Obsession™?
Now don’t go register that trademark … you might be doing me out of some much needed funds. 🙂
The only question more intractable than “to be or not to be?” is “who is dumber … Bachmann, Angle or Palin?” 🙂
Notice the drones will never condemn “prophet” or unholy book for the islamic terrorism today?
“Speaking of credibility, isn’t it time for another Rutherford Expression of Palin Obsession™?”
Drones are rather predictable, arent they?
We got the Bachmann rant so the PDS rant isnt far behind.
“Who are the radicalized ones, R? The ones who do what the scripture says and try to kill the infidels, or the peaceful ones who don’t or don’t appear to?”
The radicals are the truly peaceful muslims because they go against the teachings in the qur’an and the examples of Mo-bomb-ed. They are also called “apostates”.
The only question more intractable than “to be or not to be?” is “who is dumber … Bachmann, Angle or Palin?”
And here I thought it was “Can Rutherford go a whole day with out a public expression of his opinion on Palin’s supposed stupidity?
The things I learn some days.
Elric, the only thing predictable is your calling anyone who disagrees with you a “drone.” Get out that wallet and buy a damn thesaurus. 👿
Or Rutherford calling conservative women in politics some variation of “stupid” or “dumb”.
Or Democrats conflating “compromise” with “Shut up and do it our way.”
Or the chattering class claiming that criticism of the President or his policies are “racist”
Or if given a choice to insult the average American or represent them, the President will choose the former everytime.
Or if liberals don’t like a law, they’re sure to find a judge to help them change it.
Or the left’s stubborn reliance on government fulfilling them and making them happy, rather than relying on themselves for it.
There are LOTS of things that are predictable R. The problem is that it is impossible to have a real conversation about any of it.
Do you really think the predictability of Elric calling anyone who disagrees with him a drone, worthy of a real conversation? Perhaps if it would help rid him of his demons. 😉
BIC,
Someone obsessed with a non political figure in a political sense makes one stupid. Remember when the leftists had their gathering and claimed they wanted Palin to face al-Thuggy? Well if she is that weak, why do they waste so much effort in trying to destroy her? Now thats friggin stupid.
Is Newt Gingrich a political figure Elric?
Both Newt and Sarah are political figures as is Carville and Reich on the other side. That said R you do indeed seem to have a Palin thing going.
fxpcpa said…
B is W cites you as a shining jewel of moral relativistic lunacy.
And yet, I don’t believe anyone can point to any of my ACTUAL positions to support that, it’s just a strawman and ad homenim, with no support. Fallacy upon fallacy.
I, for instance, have said that I am consistently opposed to targeting civilians. Whether it’s “Us” or “Them” I say it is always a wrong.
You all seem to be hanging on to the morally relativistic position that SOMETIMES targeting civilians is acceptable.
There’s one example of you all being the moral relativists, none for me thus far.
fxpcpa said…
After your last performance here it should be shown to school children as a prime example of how to be supremely sanctimonious and belligerently obtuse.
This keeps coming up, strangely. The ad homenim attack that I am being sanctimonious or that I think I’m more intelligent or saintlier than thou. What brings this up? Is it simply the fact that I try to be polite, does that indicate to you that I think I’m holier than thou? Or that I think I’m more intelligent?
You all keep saying this, but never supporting it. I’m well use to the ad homs, by now and rambling doesn’t seem to be a problem here so I just wonder: What evidence do you have that makes you think I’m being sanctimonious?
And, because I’m rather slow and not good at reading minds, it would help me if you were specific. Like, “Dan, when you say X, it sounds sanctimonious to me because…” or “When you say X, it sounds like to me that you are suggesting you’re smarter than we are because…”
Thanks.
For my part, I will only attest to thinking that I’m generally more polite than some (but not all) here. I’ve no delusions of genius or righteousness. Just another flawed sinner with some opinions for what they’re worth.
A bit of advice Dan. You do indeed set up sentences and questions in a manner that promotes a certain feeling and then reaction.Now you say you do not do this on purpose or claim you are unaware of it. Newsflash: ya do do it.
Then educate me, Brother Alfie. WHAT specifically have I said and how specifically has it caused this emotional reaction?
“Dan, when you say X, it seems you have set up that sentence…”
Like that.
You all can make vague claims like this all day long and a fella will likely simply have no idea what you mean. I’m willing to learn but, again, I can’t read minds. Sorry about that, but it’s just the way it is.
Help a brother out.
I don’t know I guess you don’t consider coming and lecturing about painting all of Islam with the actions of a “few” as being sanctimonious, hunh. As if we, as intelligent human beings, don’t understand that. We took issue with you because your premise is flawed.
The problem is your definition of a “few”.
(Not to mention your acceptance of Islam as a religion and not an all encompassing socio-economic and political paradigm.)
Yes only nineteen perpetrated the act but was symptomatic of a much larger movement. By this slight of hand you magically exonerate all those who both condone and benefit from the pursuance of the ultimate goal.
You blithely divorce the actors from the ideology which justifies and impels their action. This is where the obtuse part comes in. Multiple hundreds of millions of muslims hold to the same goals as the genesis of the conversation, Abdul Feisal Rauf, and that is the imposition of shar’ia law on the entire globe. This is demonstrated ad nauseum and you either,because you are totally convinced of the rightness of your position(sanctimony) or you just can’t be bothered to look it up(obtuseness and deliberately so) so you dismiss it as not dispositive . You put up your personal experiences as refuting the experiences and observations of billions this again is a form of sanctimony as you apparently feel your experience are more relevant and have more weight than those who have the opposite experience. And if this was not the case why would you bother with it.
If you and your friends had pleasant experiences with the mohammedans good for you. It’s valid as far as it goes. It doesn’t adequately rebut the presumptions that the Salfists who predominate Islam are looking to make the entire globe dar al Islam.
If you want me to not paint all muslims with the same brush I will oblige. The predominant muslim culture in the far east is Sufi and at least by accounts I’ve heard is more benign in it’s outlook and is under severe attack by the Salafists represented by al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. These are people(Sufis) who we may be able to do business with depending on a deep inspection of what they actually practice.
How about some more sanctimony. Wasn’t it you who deplored the dropping of the atomic weapons on Japan even in the face that these two cities were contributing to the material support of the fascist regime there. Even though it has been conservatively estimated that casualties would be on the north side of 5 million for both sides combined with many more civilian deaths than occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined not to mention that with the fanatical bent of the Japanese inner sanctum children may have been used as weapons. I can just imagine what kind of sophistry you would avail yourself of it that had come to fruition.
This is sort of the same concept that al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hizbollah use in order to safeguard themselves knowing we are reluctant to fire on civilian area. Not to mention it moralistic equivocators like you who blast us for shooting but never place the blame on those who purposefully draw fire down on innocents. Your stance creates a perverse incentive for the “religion of peace” to put civilians at risk and you to be able to get on your soapbox condemning us for civilian casualties.
As a matter of course this extends the brutality. So, sir, since war is strictly a numbers game which is better killing 200K or 5 million plus. Sometimes choices are between bad and worse. You deplore an event that brought an immediate end to a war that had killed up to that point 10’s of millions because it doesn’t comport with your pacifist self righteousness, you decry it as immoral as if you had a better answer. Sanctimony anyone. The moral course once war is upon us is to end it as quickly as possible. The A-bomb was clearly that course. The fact that you would have refrained actually puts you on the wrong side of the calculus. I figure that your position is that there shouldn’t have a war in the first place but that wasn’t a viable option was it? War is not a Christian endeavor so to judge by Christian pieties is patently absurd.
Sorry for the rough segue.
Oh and by the way Dan, if you pay taxes, those in the hierarchy of Islamic thought do not consider you a civilian as you impede the progress of the implementation of shar’ia. Therefore you are a target regardless of your support for this nightmare of political system.
Ponder that a while while you think of more risible excuses as to why with all the evidence to the contrary that we should treat the Salafists as represented by Rauf with any less contempt than we would an acolyte of Fascism,Nazism or Communism. He doesn’t represent a religion he represents a totalitarian political movement.
Oh and this just came to mind I cited an article in the original thread which in which you excerpted a fairly meaningless piece of explication on “dawa” completely eliding the true point of the article; Rauf’s connection to the jihad and how he fit’s in. Not only was this sanctimonious “nothing to see here” because it doesn’t comport with my superior personal experiences but disingenuous which often accompanies sanctimony as you have this compulsion to assume yourself to be right. This has been your attitude towards any evidence proposed. Being dismissive is a form of being sanctimonious.
Of course I expect you will dismiss my examples of your sanctimony with no real reflection. I will be the first to admit that sanctimony(like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. One man’s sanctimony is another man’s “politeness”. A rolling sanctimon gathers no moss.;-). But even as I am at the of my platitudeness bromides keep the following in mind.
Christians are supposedly reflective on their faults. Since so many here seem to have this impression of you, except maybe Rutherford who is more specious than sanctimonious, you may want think about why.
And of course, your contention is war is a Muslim endeavor. Do I have that right? Just checking.
I guess you don’t consider coming and lecturing about painting all of Islam with the actions of a “few” as being sanctimonious, hunh. As if we, as intelligent human beings, don’t understand that.
Perhaps, if I was lecturing. But I haven’t been “lecturing,” (I’m not quite sure what that means in this context, but regardless, I don’t believe I was). Rather, I was looking for common ground.
When I come into a conversation with all sorts of points and non-points being made, I find it helpful to begin by finding that common ground on which we all agree and working out from there to discover where we actually do disagree.
Does that seem unreasonable, or “sanctimonious,” now that you see my reasoning?
You said…
Wasn’t it you who deplored the dropping of the atomic weapons on Japan even in the face that these two cities were contributing to the material support of the fascist regime there.
I hold the position that it is wrong to target civilians populations. Beyond that, I believe that it is against our law – at least now – and ought not be done. Is it sanctimonious to believe something is wrong? I don’t believe so.
You continued…
Even though it has been conservatively estimated that casualties would be on the north side of 5 million for both sides combined with many more civilian deaths than occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined
That is debatable. Certainly, many people at the time strongly disagreed. Military folk, like Admiral Leahy, strongly disagreed.
We can’t really prove what might have been.
My point would be that it is and ought to always be considered a moral wrong to target civilians. I believe that such behavior makes us weaker, not stronger and undermines us, not strengthens us.
Regardless, I don’t see how holding such a position is sanctimonious.
Mmmm rather than call peaceful Muslims radicalized, why don’t we try calling them reformed?
I think all of us agree Islam is in need of reform.
What is it about Islam that you think can rehabilitate it?
Christianity got a New Testament. What, besides taqiya, did Islam get?
In all fairness Christianity didn’t get the NT it is the NT or more correctly the New Covenant.
Any thoughts that Islam was created not as a religion but as a means of control and conquest?
Well, if I look at the result, it would be difficult to dismiss that idea, Alfie.
I can’t speak to conquest, but aren’t all religions created as a means of control? Every religion advises on how one should live one’s life. Every religion seeks to control the behavior of its followers.
I’ve readily admitted that I’m no expert on Islam. But even if I follow the Islamic teachings of that learned scholar Elric, I think I’d have one prescription for reform. Stick to the Mecca part of the Koran and toss the rest of it.
Is that likely to happen? No. But if we’re looking for reform, that might be a start.
Are you implying Judaism was in need of reform and we got a new testament to do it? Sounds a bit like Ann Coulter’s famous quote that Christians are perfected Jews. 😉
Sound reason?
This whole notion of “The way I and my group – and we alone – read the Koran (or the Bible) is the One and Only God-approved way!” is problematic for any religion. God has given us reason to use. Any of us who believe in holy texts would be well-served not to allow blind or literal allegiance to a certain view of those texts override some basic moral and logical reasoning.
Some of the reformists Muslims I’ve read have suggested as much and I agree with their conclusion.
BIC,
These drones hate religion so they dont bother studying it. islam by its nature cant be reformed. Thats not my fault.
“Any thoughts that Islam was created not as a religion but as a means of control and conquest?”
Only a “phobe” would suggest that.
“Good for you Alfie. Most of the the right does not understand that the US is a peripheral target to bin Laden . The folks at the NYC mosque – he hates them – they are moderates – the “mosque” is a community center where all faiths are welcome. Al Qaeda has killed far more Muslims than Christians. The Muslim religion is his target – he is secular not religious. Ever met a Muslim in the US? Probably born here. Their ancestors came her of the same reason that most did – for a better life.”
LOL Only a moderate would allow such BS go unchallenged. But call al-Thuggy a muslims and the wrath of the moderate is upon you.
Kind of silly to post thread content from another blog out of context here…isn’t it?
Thanks Alfie …. for a minute there I thought I was losing my mind because I couldn’t find what Elric was referencing in this thread.
Thanks for clearing it up.
I can’t speak to conquest, but aren’t all religions created as a means of control? Every religion advises on how one should live one’s life. Every religion seeks to control the behavior of its followers.
Short answer: NO. Christianity is unique in that it is not at all about rules pr control == sorta the opposite. Individual Christian denominations may have guidelines, but Christianity by itself is more about freedom from the law… freedom from rules and rule books. We actually don’t have to follow these rules, but one who understands and graciously receives what God has freely given in all likelihood will want to please God and follow. God actually gives these guidelines because he knows they are good for us.
I’m not going to look it up, but from St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he proclaimed to them… that “it was for freedom that Christ set us free” There is a playful but great quote from Luther’s treatise on Freedom of the Christian, but I’m not going to try and recite it here right now — I’m simply too tired.
There’s more I can share, Rutherford, but it’s after 2:00 a.m. here and I need some sleep. I posted about my meeting with Michele Bachmann and Jon Voight. I’m not very good at it, so it took me a long time to write it. I still think it sorta stinks. But wth.
So let me get this straight Cathy … you don’t abide by the Ten Commandments? I can’t think of anything more dictating of behavior than the Ten Commandments.
I am NOT REQUIRED to follow the Ten Commandments. Obedience to these rules/guidelines are NOT a prerequisite to my eternal salvation and destiny. Yes. That is exactly correct. That means there’s hope for you, Rutherford (and me too for that matter).
And Rutherford, I caught you playing with my words… naughty fella. You get a Dutch-Nuckle-Noogie, Buddy.
I am free from these laws. I don’t HAVE to obey them. Christ paid the price for my sins and sinfulness on the Friday he was crucified and then rose again from the dead on the third day — the Sunday. Salvation is free. Belief in this proclamation I’ve just made is the forensic justification that I have the gift of faith given to me to be able to believe this.
*It’s okay with me if you think I’m nuts*I’m not, but it’s okay* Ridicule will flow like water off a duck’s back, but you can try iffin you wanna try*
Next question: Being free, do I want to obey?
Well, I guess herein lies the confusion. They are not called The Ten Suggestions, nor Top Ten Ways to Live a Better Life. They are if I understand correctly, rules that must be lived by, passed down directly by God to Moses. I am a bit puzzled that you say Christianity gives you the freedom to ignore those Commandments, and as long as you accept Christ as your savior, you get a free pass through the pearly gates.
My buddy Tex Taylor has tried to educate me on this. Indeed, my understanding is that the most loathsome, deceitful, indecent, cruel person goes to heaven so long as he accepts Christ as his savior.
This means Christianity has nothing to do with justice. I have a problem with that.
Cathy,
These leftist drones hate religion especially Christianity so will never understand the difference between them. You are wasting your time. Just my opinion.
Where is your post on the Bachmann meeting? Love to see it.
@Dan just from this thread
You are indeed obtuse if you have no clue how that comes off. Is it entirely your fault? No,but it serves as an excellent example.
My asking the QUESTION, “How do I come across as sanctimonious,” is, in itself, an example of sounding sanctimonious?? Is that what you’re saying?
Really, it would help me if you would say, “When you say X, it sounds sanctimonious because…”
Because I don’t see how these questions above come across as sanctimonious?
Rutherford said: “Well, I guess herein lies the confusion. They are not called The Ten Suggestions, nor Top Ten Ways to Live a Better Life. They are if I understand correctly, rules that must be lived by, passed down directly by God to Moses. I am a bit puzzled that you say Christianity gives you the freedom to ignore those Commandments, and as long as you accept Christ as your savior, you get a free pass through the pearly gates.
My buddy Tex Taylor has tried to educate me on this. Indeed, my understanding is that the most loathsome, deceitful, indecent, cruel person goes to heaven so long as he accepts Christ as his savior.
This means Christianity has nothing to do with justice. I have a problem with that.
I agree that it all can seem confusing. ^Everything you have said here shows a good grasp of the issues. I’m glad Tex has been part of your tutelage.
I ONLY have one word-edit I want to make… I stay away of the word “accept.” It gnaws on me like the sound of someone scratching their fingernail down an old fashioned chalk board. “Accept” implies we have power and position as an equal to accept the conditions of a contract with another. My preference is the word “receive” … as beggars, Luther would say. People in positions of control and power can choose to accept or reject something with another with whom they are considered an equal. We have no such power or control. We can reject Christ — that is an option. But when Christ comes to us through his Spirit and quickens our hearts… it almost happens without our being aware… like an innocent baby hungry and nursing, is open to a mother’s love and nourishment… or a beggar who is simply grateful to have morsels of food and provisions dropped into his/her filthy hands.
Christian denominations differ on describing this ^ issue. I just tell you where I stand. “Receive” keeps our understanding of our circumstance as a very passive receiver of immense gifts from God. It is an important distinction for me. But forgive me, I’m a fussy, stodgy theologian type.
You seem interested in this topic. There are tons of stuff available online. I think at one point I even found the works of Erasmus and Luther as they debated this very subject. Erasmus believed in the ‘freedom of the will’ and Luther saw limitations on free will and respectfully disagreed with Erasmus by writing on the ‘bondage of the will.’ Luther believed, as I do, that the only exercise we make with our so-called free will is our ability to reject Christ. Free will is limited or ‘in bondage’ according to Luther. Coming to Christ is the work of God, not us. Luther wrote in his catechism in the explanation of the Third Article of the Apostolic Creed, “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to him, but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, sanctified the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith…” Luther was brilliant, but extremely humble, always stubbornly arguing against theological views that might appear to award humans with the ‘good work’ of reasoning that Jesus was good enough for them so they’ll accept him. I WISH I could have kept this shorter and still said everything here… I’m not that good.
Now it may appear that my fussing over “accept” vs. “receive” was a tangent. For me it’s not. It emphasizes the very issue we are on. God gives the gifts. They are UNCONDITIONAL. That word “accept” can lead people into thinking that we have something to offer in this ‘transaction’ with God — like God will forgive us if we try really really hard to obey the 10 Commandments… that’s bullcrap and we’ll begin to think we actually merit it. We can’t keep the commandments. Big mistake on our part to think we have anything to offer. We either earn salvation (plan A) or receive it as a gift (plan B). A or B. There CAN be NO in between.
The only thing we come to God with is our belief and trust in God. This is done by confessing what we believe, turning our ugly filth over to God knowing full well it’s such a mess there isn’t anything we can do about it. And IN RETURN, God sees our faith in him which manifests itself as our hungry, humble and grateful selves ready to receive.
It seems so simple. It is. But it takes an exhausted, terrified, humble, hungry beggar to realize that there is no other option than to dump it all at the foot of Jesus’ Cross and let him deal with it for us.
Rutherford, you are on to something when you show concern for justice being served against the sinful human, even if he/she is Christian. But don’t you think that it’s more difficult for us prideful humans to admit we are hopeless sinners in need of a savior? Our admission forces us to also reject any notion that we might try to live a good life God will sweep our filth under the rug and forget about it? People want to earn it. But we can’t earn anything but eternal damnation.
But there is justice. God chose how it would be executed and this is it: Jesus, both God and Man, paid the price. Excruciating pain and suffering and death. God lowering himself to be born as a human, living as a humble man, being rejected by arrogant, prideful, evil corrupt Jewish leaders and greedy shallow people who wanted him to provide them a good life as an earthly king with the power to heal them and feed them. But instead, Jesus endured it all FOR US long enough to make it to the cross and dying a humiliating death of a criminal. Jesus chose this humble servant-hood and paid the price, so justice was met in God’s eyes as God chose the only way this justice would be met and the price would be paid, and it simply didn’t involve us. It COULD NOT involve us. Kinda humbling.
We humans are very prideful and self-absorbed characters. Most of our wrong attitudes and behaviors have their primary source in our pride and selfishness and everything else sorta stems from that.
Luther offers us Christians a helpful way of seeing how we CAN demonstrate or visualize our faith. We ‘kill’ ourselves when we confess our belief in the fact that we are sinful, hopelessly lost without Jesus as our Savior. To ‘confess’ means to ‘say back what has been said to us’ so our confession is not only a confession of sin but also a statement of our faith in Christ as the gift of salvation… all these things we learn from God’s Word and the proclamation of the truth found in the word (as I have tried my best to do here for you and others).
Justice is getting what we deserve. We deserve death for our corrupt and sinful condition.
Mercy is not getting what we deserve. We prefer to be rescued from the hopless condition in which we find ourselves.
… so Christians humbly pray for mercy instead of justice.
For Elric and those interested in my somewhat stinky post that some of my blogger friends were kind enough to affirm.
*You like me! You really really like me??!!!* *snigger*
Boots On The Ground
Dan I can’t help you further. I can’t crawl into the heads of everybody and ferret out what exactly is triggered.The questions in the quote I included just hit me in a number of ways,in one I get a whiff of smugness.For the record I’m not telling you to change,I just thought I’d give you the friendly heads up that your sentences have some depth and sometimes they yank the shorties.Bottomline I’d advise you to keep on commenting but don’t get in a tizzy about ad homs etc.
Not in a tizzy at all, Alfie. I’m just pointing them out. Since ad homs are logical fallacies, I’m pointing out that those who have engaged in them are just wasting space and not dealing with actual positions.
Since you have no support for the “sanctimonious” ad hom, I’ll just throw that into the pile with the rest of them and ignore them.
If and when you all would like to deal with actual points, let me know.
“Some of the reformists Muslims I’ve read have suggested as much and I agree with their conclusion.”
So do these “reformists” believe the qur’an is the word of allah?
You’d have to ask them. I imagine, like with Christians, you would get a variety of answers.
For example, I believe the Bible is God’s Word, the Word of God revealed to humanity. But that does not mean I believe that in the same sense of, for instance, Creationists who insist that God’s Word would not contain a factually incorrect telling of the Creation story.
Nor does it mean I believe that the Bible contains ALL of God’s Word – every teaching that God might have for us. Just that it is a revelation of God to humanity, and of humanity’s understanding of God.
Some Christians would castigate this fellow Christian for my understanding of God’s Word, calling me a heretic and rejecting me as a Christian, even though by normal orthodox evangelical standards, I am a Christian.
I imagine it’s the same for Muslims, but you’d have to ask them individually. I don’t know the answer to that question.
“I don’t know the answer to that question.”
Well I do so let me answer it for you. The qur’an is an eternal book written by allah itself. So its not open to reinterpretation or reformation. Thats why after 14 centuries, islam hasnt reformed. It can not without destroying itself.
“It’s an eternal book written by allah himself,”
That’s what the more fundamentalist of Christians would tell you about the Bible. I doubt that all Muslims agree with YOUR interpretation of their holy book, any more than I agree with the interpretation of the Bible by some Christians.
I’d prefer to let Muslims speak for themselves than some anonymous guy on the internets. No offense, I just find that a more reasonable starting place.
Elric, may I ask what your credentials are as to your knowledge of Islam? Have you read the whole of the Koran? Have you studied it in school? Read stuff off the internets?
What’s your basis of information?
“I’d prefer to let Muslims speak for themselves than some anonymous guy on the internets. No offense, I just find that a more reasonable starting place.”
Then ask them. I dont make it up, thats what they believe. Just make sure you understand taqiyya as well. Do you know what that is? The islamic practice of lying to non believers to protect islam. For example, “moderate” muslims tell you they want peace. But what they dont tell you for them, peace is when islam rules, not living side by side with non believers as equals. While you are at it, ask them why islam is the only religion that sanctions death for those who leave it. Bet you didnt know that either.
If you truly are interested in learning about islam, I suggest you read books by Robert Spencer. Arm yourself with knowledge so you know if you are being bullshited to or taqiyya is being used.
Does that sound reasonable?
“Elric, may I ask what your credentials are as to your knowledge of Islam? Have you read the whole of the Koran? Have you studied it in school? Read stuff off the internets?
What’s your basis of information?”
I have a qur’an and read it and have also used books by scholars like Robert Spencer who uses islam’s own text like the qur’an, ahadiths and sunas. The unholy Trinity so to speak.
I used to believe islam was like other religions just with a few quirks but through the years by studying it, I learned different. And no it wasnt because of 9-11, I was studying it before 9-11.
For example with this mosque. I knew something was wrong right off the bat when it was called “The Cordoba Project”. Now if you were familiar with islamic history, you would have know how bad the group funding it was. Why would they call it that? Well its exposed and now they changed it to something innocent.
Seriously, study up on it. Do your own research.
Well, I am glad that you have educated yourself some and are not speaking from a position of ignorance.
For myself, I have done some research. I have (Christian minister) friends who live in Muslim Morocco and they have been a wealth of information about the Islam faith. They are quite well-versed in the variety of beliefs within Muslims (although, I’m sure they’re not “experts” in the sense that they know everything about all flavors of Islam, any more than it would be easy to be an expert in all flavors of Christianity). Still, I trust their opinions since so much of what they know they know from first hand knowledge.
I’ve also done a bit of reading of Islamic moderates (Aslan Reza, for instance) and am familiar with some Muslims within the Peacemaker circles that I travel.
And from this variety of sources, I’m wary of non-Muslim “experts” on Islam. Which is not to say that they have nothing to contribute or that I can’t learn anything from them, just that folk with an agenda often, well, have an agenda. I am not familiar with your source and will be watching for his writings. Thanks.
One notion that raises a concern is your take on taqiyya. From the sources I’ve read…
The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”
source
But not only that source. What is your source of information on taqiyya and on what basis do you think it is a more solid source of information than this definition?
Dan, you’re not familiar with Spencer because he is a crackpot that no one in the mainstream takes seriously. Sadly, I’d estimate 90% of Elric’s Muslim related paranoia comes directly from that quack.
The best sources of information on religion, as well as politics, are moderates. The extremists are all nutjobs.
I suspect as much, given the context, but will withhold judgment for reading on my own.
Thanks!
As you should. Absolutely.
Reza Aslan, of course, I meant to say. Sorry.
BTW, while I haven’t read much of his writing, I’ve seen Reza Aslan on numerous TV shows. A pleasure to watch.
“I’ve also done a bit of reading of Islamic moderates (Aslan Reza, for instance) and am familiar with some Muslims within the Peacemaker circles that I travel.”
Ask them about Israel. Thats always a clue. Ask them what peace means with Israel. And ask them why the Palis never had a state from 1948-1967.
“And from this variety of sources, I’m wary of non-Muslim “experts” on Islam. ”
Why? You trust a Nazi to tell you what Nazism is like? Robert Spencer uses islamic text as his sources. So you can always look them up if you dont believe it.
“What is your source of information on taqiyya and on what basis do you think it is a more solid source of information than this definition?”
Books I have read and of course seeing it in action like with the various spokesmen for groups like CAIR. Front group for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Reza Aslan, a Shia Muslim, has this to say about Israel…
“Iraq should look to Israel for a model that combines democracy and religious belief…”
“If we don’t figure out a way to strip these conflicts of their religious connotations, then we will never figure out a way to put an end to them. Because as long as these remain cosmic conflicts, they will go on for eternity…”
Are you comparing Islam to Nazism? Such comparisons tend to make the claimant sound a bit unreasonable (nutty?), I suppose you know?
As it stands now, I’ll trust my sources over yours. I’m open to change – as I’ve said repeatedly, many Muslims DO have a problem with how they practice their religion. But I’ve seen nothing to suggest it’s anywhere near a majority that have this problem.
Robert Spencer uses islamic text as his sources. So you can always look them up if you dont believe it.
The problem with “non-believers” quoting someone else’s holy texts is that very often, they pick and choose that which is most extreme and troubling. Take a look at the Skeptics Bible type websites, where they quote all manner of atrocious behavior in the Bible.
In Ezekiel 9, for instance, God tells the “true believers”…
As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark [ie, the infidels and unrepentant…”
Now, if someone takes that passage (and many, many others like it – keeping in mind that I’m a Christian and have been for 37 years, now) as representative of Christianity or Judaism, then they can say, “hey! Their God wants them to kill all infidels, even babies!!” But would that be a fair representation of Christianity or Judaism?
No, clearly not. People with an agenda tend to find evidence to support their agenda, but also are less believable for just that reason.
“Are you comparing Islam to Nazism? Such comparisons tend to make the claimant sound a bit unreasonable (nutty?), I suppose you know?”
During islam’s expansion to the East, 60 million Hindus were slaughtered. The slaughter only stopped because they needed the jizya so they considered them dhimmis despite the qur’ans teaching. The qur’an is actually more antisemtic than even Mein Kampf. And where do you think the Nazis got the idea for the yellow star? islam.
“The problem with “non-believers” quoting someone else’s holy texts is that very often, they pick and choose that which is most extreme and troubling.”
Not too hard with the qur’an and it gets more extreme and disturbing as Mo’s jihad advanced.
“Take a look at the Skeptics Bible type websites, where they quote all manner of atrocious behavior in the Bible.”
But Christians dont take them to heart as muslims do, now do they? And you do know the NT abrogates the OT, right? So dont try equating Christianity with islam by quoting the OT. Jesus was a man of peace, Mo-bomb-ed was the opposite. Or do you deny that comparison?
Spoken like a true closeted anti-Semite. “Yeah Dan, don’t forget that Christians cleaned up all the nasty Old Testament stuff.” As Ann Coulter said, Christians are perfected Jews. Right Elric?
Not too hard with the qur’an and it gets more extreme and disturbing as Mo’s jihad advanced.
Not too hard with the Koran only? What about the Bible? Are you familiar with it? Are you familiar with teachings of women as chattel? Of killing infidels? Of wiping out cities (including women, children, babies and puppies)? Of polygamy and concubines for the faithful (provided by God, no less!)? Of incest, rape, assault and genocide?
I love the Bible and believe it to be a revelation from God – rightly understood – but let’s not kid ourselves, there’s a lot of troubling passages within those pages.
I stand by my comment: The problem with “outsiders” presuming to state what some faith’s holy texts say is that they are very likely to not get a well-rounded view of the text, especially if they’re starting out with an axe to grind. Hell, most of the time, insiders can’t even agree as to what it means, so how reasonable is it that un-schooled outsiders can rightly understand them?
Cathy thank you for the considerate response to my comment. Interestingly, you complement Tex very well in terms of explaining religious thought. While I don’t ever expect to “become a Christian”, I’m not quite as lost as Tex might think. You’ve shed light on one issue Tex and I have been batting around for over a year …. namely “unearned entrance into Heaven.”
To summarize your comment, it sounds to me that the cornerstone of Christianity (or at least Lutheranism) is humility. Admitting that we are not the be all and end all. Acknowledging that we are flawed does make life a bit easier as perhaps we need not be such harsh judges of ourselves. Does that make any sense?
Anyway, thanks again for the explanation.
SOME Christians do take some of those troubling passages to heart, just as SOME Muslims take their troubling passages to heart.
I say reason dictates we deal harshly with the extremists but court the moderates.
We ought not make this an “Our God against your God” or “Us against ALL of Islam,” as that would be world class stupid. One man’s opinion.
(well, not JUST one man’s opinion…)
How large a problem is “Christian extremism” as compared to Muslim extremism? My guess would be not as large, nor even close. Still, the Christian Identity movement (Eric Rudolph, abortion bomber, White Christian, aryan nation types) appears to have at least 35,000 members in the US, so it’s not small, either.
I say, reason dictates we deal harshly with the extremists but court the moderates.
Fair enough?
^ Awwwww. Rutherford. I’m truly humbled. Thanks for your response. Got a little spot in my heart reserved for ya, buddy.
Yea — the being humble thing. We Lutheran theological types have a totally nerdy self-deprecating joke about humility… we’re real proud of it. (You can laugh now…)
Anyway — you seem to have nailed a lot of this and I’m glad that you read Tex and me in similar veins (if that is the correct analogy).
I say, reason dictates we deal harshly with the extremists but court the moderates.
Fair enough?
I’m in favor of that.
*aye*
Do none of you ever realize when there is a new post? ;- )
Here are some REASONABLE & DECENT writers, all Muslims or former Muslims, that I have found extremely helpful for a better understanding of Islam, Muslims, etc. Different views and approaches represented, but a good healthy cluster.
Brigitte Gabriel
Zudhi Jasser
Ergun Mehmet Caner & Emir Fethi Caner
BTW — My primary interest and goal is to be an integrated decent caring, knowledgeable, human being who can build appropriate bridges with other humans through a truthful message. I’m responsible for my words, my attitude, and my actions. Then I will let God and the Spirit do the work of touching hearts.
The Caner brothers in particular have good guidance for us Christians who want to reach out. They both are now Christian theologians and obviously have the essential inside knowledge on what touched them and helped bring them to faith in Jesus.
“SOME Christians do take some of those troubling passages to heart, just as SOME Muslims take their troubling passages to heart.”
Really? You saying their is a global Christian jihad like the islamic one?
Interesting that you ignored the Jesus/Mo-bomb-ed comparrision. Multiculturalists normally do.
“Eric Rudolph, abortion bomber, White Christian, aryan nation types) appears to have at least 35,000 members in the US, so it’s not small, either.”
But yet its muslims here that are trying to blow shit up. or shoot soldiers and recruiters.
Do none of you ever realize when there is a new post? ;- )
I do. I simply chose to disobey you. *snigger*
Are you scolding me?
I will overlook your eggregious affrontery, but only because I have reason to believe that THERE WILL BE PIE in Oktyabyr. 😉
Rosetta is awesome. Wish he and the Mrs. would make it… for pie and the shoot-out.
If I lived in the Midwest, I’d have bought him a dead hookers ass to snort blow from after the post he did today.
And don’t tell me that wouldn’t be another test of tolerance for the religion that must not be spoken of aloud.
Dan,
I see you are dead set on equating the Bible with the qur’an no matter the evidence against it. You also dont want to compare islam’s and Christianity’s prophet. You arent interested in honest debate. Hopefully one day you will remove your multicultural blinders. Have a nice day.
The day you acknowledge the nastier parts of the Bible, Elric, without hiding behind the OT/NT distinction is the day one can believe you are interested in honest debate.
You also dont want to compare islam’s and Christianity’s prophet.
I’m glad to compare prophets. Which of Christianity’s prophets do you wish to compare to Islam’s? Ezekiel? Daniel? Isaiah (a personal favorite of mine)?
Or are you speaking of Christianity’s source – Jesus, the Christ (who is not usually considered “merely” a prophet in Christian circles)?
I personally dig the prophets of Judaism/Christianity. I love Jesus and His teachings. Teachings like, “don’t bear false witness,” for instance. Don’t slander, don’t gossip, etc.
Or teachings like “remove the plank from your own eye and then you will be able to see to remove the speck in your neighbors,” and “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”
I truly dig Christianity’s teachings. It’s why I’m a Christian.
Islam, on the other hand, has its problems, at least in practice if not in its actual teachings. (But, of course, Christianity has its problems in its practice, too).
I’m fine with comparing them and I’m convinced that Christianity’s teachings are the way to go. And for that reason, I refuse to NOT acknowledge the very real problematic scriptures (and interpretations thereof) found within my Bible.
Do you not acknowledge that they’re there? I’m sure you do. So, what is the problem?
My point remains: It is quite easy to find many troubling passages in the Bible and the Koran. I’m less concerned about these passages than I am what the faithful do with them.
Does that seem unreasonable to you?
Elric, you use “multiculturalists” as an epithet. Do you view being respectful of and loving towards all cultures as a bad thing?
“Do you view being respectful of and loving towards all cultures as a bad thing?”
Absolutely. Mean you have no values or principles. I have no respect or love for intolerant cultures.
I see you still avoided talking about Mo-bomb-ed.
Point taken. It is reasonable to not be tolerant towards violence, towards intolerance, towards oppression. But those are typically sub-cultures.
That Rev. Fred Phelps is a sub-culture of Christianity. We can be opposed to his intolerance and hateful speech. But that does not mean we are intolerant towards ALL Christian culture, just the specific offenders.
KKK and White Religion type believers are another sub-culture of Christianity (at least nominally). We can be intolerant towards their misdeeds without writing off all of Christianity.
The Reasonable Muslims of Morocco are not related to the Muslim extremist sub-culture. We can be tolerant of Muslims and just opposed to those who are violent, oppressive and/or intolerant themselves.
Hold folk accountable for their own actions, don’t blame the whole for the actions of a few, that’s my point still.
What would you like me to say about Muhammad?
And, really, how old are you, brother? “Mo-bomb-ad”? Name-calling of this sort is more appropriate for middle school, don’t you think?
As I have said, I’m not a Muslim and don’t especially buy into Islamic values, at least as they’re often practiced in the more dictatorial Muslim regimes.
Muhammad sounds like a fella with some good things to say and some bad things to say, not unlike some of the folk in the Bible.
Muhammad quotes…
“He is not strong and powerful who throweth people down; but he is strong who witholdeth himself from anger”
Sounds wise and reasonable.
“The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr”
Sounds wise and reasonable, if debatable.
“The world and all things in it are valuable; but the most valuable thing in the world is a virtuous woman”
Sounds wise and reasonable, if debatable.
“Shall I not inform you of a better act than fasting, alms, and prayers? Making peace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots”
Sounds wise and reasonable.
“Do not say, that if the people do good to us, we will do good to them; and if the people oppress us, we will oppress them; but determine that if people do you good, you will do good to them; and if they oppress you, you will not oppress them”
Sounds downright Christian.
“Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Sounds problematic.
“Crushing the heads of the infidels and splitting their skulls with sharp swords, we continually thrust and cut at the enemy.
Sounds horrible, not unlike that Ezekiel 9 passages I cited earlier.
Of course, all of these I’ve quoted out of context. I’d have to know more about each of them to have a well-informed opinion.
The thing is, I’m not an Islamic scholar. I just know what I read and, as shown above, there seem to be some good things and some bad things about Muhammad.
What of it?
So tell me, I’ve quoted Ezekiel 9 which talks about the “believers of God” killing the “infidels” who refused to repent, right down to the children and babies. I also just quoted the Koran where they advocate killing the “infidels” or unbelievers. I say both are wrong, taken at face value.
I stand opposed to killing “unbelievers” or those who don’t believe as I think is right.
What about you? Are both the Ezekiel and the Koran passages I quoted wrong in their assessment of how to treat those who believe differently than you?
Like I said, have a nice day. Doesnt matter to you that he killed, had people assassinated, took slaves and was a pedophile.
Who said that it doesn’t matter that he had people killed (not unlike King David, a man after God’s own heart, who had an affair and then had his mistress’ husband killed in an act of ugly cowardice)? Or that he killed and had slaves (again, like many of the heroes in the Bible) or that he was a pedophile? Of course, it matters, in context.
As an aside, are you as harsh in your consideration of biblical sexuality as you are with Muhammad? You are aware that in the OT, God tells Israel to wipe out the enemies, leaving none alive, not even the young boys – EXCEPT for the virgin girls. THOSE can be taken home, allowed to grieve for a month (how gracious), have their heads shaved (dehumanizing them) and fingernails clipped (no clawing, you know?) and then you can marry these girls – are you remembering that passage? Is that pedophilia? Forced marriage to your parents’ killers??
Are you saying because it’s the Bible, then these actions are good, but if Muhammad did something similar, it’s bad? Or are you saying it’s wrong regardless, but that we need also keep in mind the context of the time, culture and situation?
Yes, for me, it all matters. It’s all part of what needs to be considered. I’ll thank you to not presume to speak for me – people who presume that tend to be wrong.
Thanks.
I’ve quoted Ezekiel 9 which talks about the “believers of God” killing the “infidels” who refused to repent, right down to the children and babies.
You know, I really love you morons, but are any of you at all interested in crawling your way out of the weeds and mud on this? I’d be more than happy to hose you all down. Btw it was 107 degrees @ DFW yesterday — and getting hosed down feels real good in that kinda heat — so hose me down too while we’re at it. Now…
The reference about Ezekiel 9 has been made numerous times. I like Ezekiel’s writings, Dan. I KNOW I have lots more to learn about this prophet and his OT book. But I think you are misusing Ezekiel 9 here. Bear with me, Brother.
1) Everything in our Christian Bible — OT and NT — is to be considered as words of human beings that have been inspired by the Holy Spirit — the third person of the Trinity. (2 Timothy 3:16 ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness to that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work,’ and 2 Peter 1:21 ‘For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.’ NIV)
2) Our Bible contains a variety of types of writings which include, but are not limited to, historical accounts of the people of God from both OT and NT and how GOD intervened for them, prophecies, psalms, poetry, Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ’s mission and ministry while he was here on earth with us showing the fulfillment of OT prophesy, and letters to early Christian churches and individuals.
3) Students of scripture are compelled to work hard to determine the purpose and context of all of Scripture. Everything is useful, but we must use each passage for the purpose for which it was intended.
THEREFORE: The Ezekiel 9 passages are to be seen for their purpose. Ezekiel is recording a historical account here. It involved how GOD ordered the cleansing of some really corrupt people and situation. GOD ORDERED THIS for THIS TIME and THIS PLACE. This is not one of our 10 Commandments. Sheesh! Ezekiel 9 stands on its own for its purpose intended by God — not yours.
And Dan, please notice that Ezekiel 9:6 includes an essential edict from God: BEGIN AT MY SANCTUARY. This is a clear indication that God had been storing up wrath for his own people in positions of leadership who had corrupted the Jewish faith and misled followers, and God was sick of it and was going to tolerate NO MORE of the corruption. This is an essential part of this. God picked on his own people FIRST.
We can apply this today. Those so-called Christians who are really wolves-in-sheep-clothing who try to lead in our churches and faith communities who are abusing their positions and corrupting others INSTEAD of leading them to the truth of God WILL BE DEALT WITH by GOD in his way and time, whether we are talking about pedophile-priests, predatory youth ministers, or white supremacists who work their evil under the guise of ‘Christianity.’ It all makes me sick — but God assures me that HE will take care of it, so I back off and put away my weapons (metaphorically).
So HOW are WE to read this? The good news is that we can be assured that GOD CONTINUES to tolerate US and pull us back lovingly when we go astray IF WE HEED his warnings. AND also good news is that GOD HAS HIS WRATH focused and aimed on the corrupt FIRST. God will put up with a certain amount of evil and corruption BECAUSE HE IS GOD AND CAN DO AS HE PLEASES as the ALL-WISE GOD he is. We know from our own history and historical accounts in Scripture that a certain amount of evil actually can pull the true believers back into a stronger faith — and THAT is what God is all about… helping his people/believers/children to grow in faith. During oppression Christianity grows.
Before we leave Ezekiel, how ’bout we get some of the really good stuff that has MEANING for Christians today — something that reminds us just how much our powerful, holy, loving God loves us and works CONSTANTLY to restore us to him. All these are God talking…
Ezekiel 33:11a – Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the SOVEREIGN LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live…’ NIV
Ezekiel 36:25-27 – I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. NIV
Ezekiel 37:14 – I will put my Spirit in you and you will lie, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD. NIV
^ THIS is the God who prefers to restore and renew what is seemingly dead, corrupt, and hopeless. THIS is the same God who can and will do this with each and every one of us who chooses to not reject his efforts.
Love that ‘heart of stone’ turned to ‘heart of flesh’ metaphor!
^ Oops — need to make typo correction. Sorry…
Ezekiel 37:14 – I will put my Spirit in you and you will LIVE, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD. NIV
Sheesh! So sorry. *snigger*
Exactly my point, or at least partially, Cathy. Yes, I AGREE that “kill the infidels” is not a good reflection of Christianity’s teachings about dealing with those who disagree with us.
MY POINT was that someone not associated with Christianity or Judaism might look at some of these verses and say, “SEE! See how horrible their god is!!”
But they would be mistaken our take on the Bible.
And JUST AS I don’t appreciate other folk telling ME how I read the Bible (when I DON’T read it that way), I think wisdom and grace dictates that we don’t make those same ungracious assumptions about someone else’s holy texts.
Hold people accountable for what THEY believe and their actions, not what some anonymous person on the internet SAYS they believe.
Doesn’t that make sense?
By the way, I LOVE Ezekiel’s writings and teachings. In context and rightly understood.
Oh gag…
As I’m sure only somebody of your immense insight, righteousness and wisdom can decipher for us…
By the way, I LOVE Ezekiel’s writings and teachings. In context and rightly understood.
Glad to hear it. If you mean it then exercise it and refrain from connecting what God ordered in Ezekiel 9 to some sort of “kill the infidels” comparison. That was moronic and factually wrong and I find it disgusting… along with the moronic comparison about so-called Christians who take it upon themselves to bomb buildings and kill people in the name of Jesus. THESE UNREPENTANT PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE CALLING THEM THAT EITHER!!!
God’s FIRST passion is to gently bring people to HIM in LOVE — not to harshly kill any who does not believe in him. Love is what brings people to the true God, not “killing infidels.”
Rather than telling the truth about Christianity and our God YOU — over and over in this thread — choose to obfuscate the clear and concise differences between Christianity and Islam. If you are truly a believer and CHRISTIAN than serve YOUR GOD and quit trying to be nice about the Muslim faith.
You and I already agree about being kind, understanding, and grateful to God for our Muslim friends. But there is a line drawn in the sand. We have a credo and confession. It’s preaching Christ, the Crucified. So pick a side and stand on it.
Now! You ready for the hose-down??
I am.
Cathy…
It involved how GOD ordered the cleansing of some really corrupt people and situation. GOD ORDERED THIS for THIS TIME and THIS PLACE.
While I may disagree with the notion of whether God actually ordered this or if this is merely some folks’ opinion about what God did or didn’t do, I agree that we would be poorly served to consider it to be a universal truth that God wants us to kill the infidels.
I’ve heard Muslim teachers say the same thing about their scriptures. Do you have any support to suggest that, when the KORAN commands killing infidels, it’s a universal Islamic belief for all time and all cultures or do they take it more like most Christians take Ezekiel 9: NOT a universal rule?
The Muslims I’ve heard/read/heard of (setting aside the extremists, as I set aside Christian extremists) say this is the case. Is there any reason I shouldn’t believe that?
One of the things I haven’t been able to determine about Dan, is he keeps referring to all these egregious sins of Christianity with his special blend of moral relativism. A is guilty of 1,000 hideous crimes, B is guilty of two hideous crimes, therefore both are serial criminals.
I understand that people have done horrible things in the name of Christianity in recent memory (Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, the few pedophiles for priests, the sicko who blitzed George the Baby Killer Tiller, and I suppose Fred Phelps), but it certainly not the norm, or even an everyday occurrence. It’s so rare, the fact that they call themselves Christian is news.
If you were to travel to any 3rd world country not dominated by Islam, you would be told that health care providers and Christians are synonymous. More so, all of the above accomplices listed were roundly and loudly condemned by the Christian community, with Paul Hill sentenced to death – and surely a plurality were Christian jurors.
So I guess the only thing left for me to determine what floats Dan’s boat is he really a poseur, or is he simply this misled.
Tex, you keep saying “moral relativism.” I don’t think that term means what you think it means…
Are you trying to suggest I’m promoting Moral EQUIVALENCY? That would be a mistake, but it would make more sense.
I’m not saying Islam is the same as Christianity. Look at my actual words. I’m just not saying that.
I AM saying that people are people, regardless of their faith tradition (or lack thereof). But that is not moral equivalency, either.
So, I guess you are not ready for that hose-down.
You also seem to not be ready to take a stand for Christ and his side of the line drawn as opposed to the other side which includes all false and contorted faiths.
You keep talking about what Muslims teach… blah-blah-blah. Who cares what they teach?! Christ defended the Truth against Satan’s corruption of God’s Word WITH THE WORDS of SCRIPTURE. You fail to realize that what Muslims teach IS the problem — like Satan, Mohamed twisted Scripture. The Koran is an obfuscation and twisting of God’s true Word. Why do you keep looking for good in the Koran? You might find a piece here or there — but as a whole it is NOT THE TRUTH. You need to consider that as a Christian you must reject the Koran in total because it contains twisted and corrupted messages that motivate people to follow other gods.
And you don’t even feel comfy enough to believe that God actually commanded the actions in Ezekiel 9… Honestly — it’s the only way to understand it. All or nothing, Bro.
Even in mathematics in proofs, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE TRUE for the mathmatical statement to be true.
There is not much else I can help you with. I gave you encouragement for a direction to head — to get out of the weeds and mud — but you still wanna wallow in the muddy weeds of obfuscation.
Not gonna humor you by trying to respond to your crap. You know some stuff — but that is dangerous. You lack essential knowledge and you want to keep arguing the same stuff without seeking the knowledge available in all that your Christian friends here have encouraged you to pursue. The line in the sand remains. Stand with Christ and speak HIS truth or get out of His way. Jesus minces no words here in Revelation 3:16 “So because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit (vommit) you out of my mouth” NIV
You keep talking about what Muslims teach… blah-blah-blah. Who cares what they teach?!
Because of the teachings of my savior, Jesus Christ, I believe it is important not to slander people nor to bear false witness. It doesn’t matter if the people we’re talking about are Muslims, pagans or satan worshipers, it would still be wrong to bear false witness or slander them. That’s why I care. Don’t you agree?
And you don’t even feel comfy enough to believe that God actually commanded the actions in Ezekiel 9… Honestly — it’s the only way to understand it.
1. It has nothing to do with “feeling comfy.” It has to do with being a Christian and holding fast to what I think are eternal truths. It has to do with solid biblical exegesis.
2. Obviously, it’s not the only way to understand it. With any verse/passage/biblical teaching, we are flawed human beings with imperfect knowledge and logic striving to understand the Immortal and Mysterious God.
We each need to prayerfully and carefully strive to understand it aright, but Christian history is full of proof that there is more than one way to understand any passage, practically. Does that mean that each person is equally correct in their hunch on how to understand a passage? No, not at all.
It just means that I owe it to God to strive to understand any given passage as best I can and not simply bow to another person’s hunch about what that passage means or says. I must obey God (as best I understand God) rather than humanity, surely you agree on this point?
Dan the Man,
How so? To me, moral relativism means there are no absolute and universal standards of good and evil, right and wrong, but whatever we decide they are.
That pretty much describes you in spades I’d say.
Cathy…
You lack essential knowledge and you want to keep arguing the same stuff…
If you truly believe I lack “essential knowledge,” then don’t you think it would be the Christian thing to do to tell me what “essential knowledge” I lack? And, as always, I invite you to do that personally (email) in accordance to Christian ideals rather than having this sort of personal discussion in a public venue. But failing that, even here, don’t you think you ought to tell me this “essential knowledge” rather than just leave this poor sinner hanging in the wind?
Cathy…
…without seeking the knowledge available in all that your Christian friends here have encouraged you to pursue. The line in the sand remains. Stand with Christ and speak HIS truth or get out of His way
I am striving to stand with Christ, do you not get that? Have I said anything to suggest that I’m NOT striving to follow in Jesus’ steps? I think perhaps you misinterpret my disagreeing with YOU with my disagreeing with God.
I’m sure you can understand that you aren’t god, just another flawed sister in Christ, as I’m a flawed brother in Christ. We disagree. It happens.
That doesn’t mean that I’m NOT trying to follow Christ any more than your disagreeing with me means YOU’RE not trying to follow Christ, right?
Tex…
To me, moral relativism means there are no absolute and universal standards of good and evil, right and wrong, but whatever we decide they are.
That pretty much describes you in spades I’d say.
But I HAVE been defending universal standards. I HAVE been saying, for instance, that it is ALWAYS wrong to target civilians. You and your friends are the ones who’ve been arguing the moral relative position that SOMETIMES it’s okay to target civilians and SOMETIMES it’s not okay to target civilians. That is moral relativism.
As you say, “There is no right or wrong, it all depends on what WE decide is right or wrong. SOMETIMES it’s okay for US to bomb/target civilians. OTHER TIMES, it’s not okay (when it’s THEM doing it, for instance).”
So, I’ve given you a specific instance of your moral relativism and how I’m opposed to such moral relativism. Do you have any support for your claim, or is it just another baseless claim, unsupported by any facts in the real world?
Cathy, I’m a bit surprised at the us against them attitude you express toward Islam.
A Christian who espouses the most brutal ideas in the Bible is no Christian but a Muslim who espouses the most brutal ideas in the Koran is a typical Muslim. That’s a double standard and a half!
WOW that’s an example of the Bible’s conciliatory nature!
Cathy, when you say that you know the TRUTH and Muslims do not, you border on incredible arrogance. Muslims believe they know the TRUTH. Buddhists believe they know the TRUTH. Hindus believe they know the TRUTH. I believe the whole lot of you border on delusional.
Any belief system that summarily discredits and insults another belief system loses its credibility with me. All of you are trying to find a way to explain the world in which we find ourselves … and how to live a better life … and how to cope with our mortality.
None of you have a monopoly on the TRUTH.
^ Where I say, above,
As you say, “There is no right or wrong…
That is my paraphrase of what you say, not an exact quote. Just to be clear.
Rutherford,
You are barking up the wrong tree. Cathy is saying her faith in placed in Jesus Christ – Cathy is simply repeating what Jesus told Christians to say. Condemn Cathy, then condemn me too. And while you’re condemning us both, and any Christian worth his or her salt for that matter, why don’t you condemn THE REAL ONE who said exactly that 2,000 years ago?
But something you need to understand. We’re just the disciples. You really need to take that up with Jesus Christ.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me…
If I’m right, you’re going to get your chance. 😉
None of you have a monopoly on the TRUTH.
Jesus did. He said as much. We claim no truth but Jesus and His Word Rutherford. Why aren’t you condemning HIM?
Dan, you told me I defined moral relativism incorrectly, then proceeded in the next response to repeat your charges using my definition of moral relativism.
Have you looked up the word consistency in the dictionary yet?
Before I answer another baseless accusation, do you really feel that the American military targets innocent civilians Dan? Past or present? I mean, isn’t that what you’re really suggesting here?
Why do these multiculturalists keep bringing up the OT? Christians follow the NT.
And why do you keep bringing up the Medina verses of the Koran and ignoring the Mecca verses which you claim are more conciliatory in nature?
Without the OT, there is no NT. Interesting, Elric, I knew you were anti-Islam but I never thought you the anti-Semite. Now I’m beginning to wonder.
Well, now that you mention it ….
I had a conversation with a friend yesterday where I repeated what I’ve said over at my blog at least once or twice, namely that if someone ever did show up claiming to be the second coming of Christ, all of you devout believers would lock the dude up in the nearest loony bin … particularly if he looked like an Arab (ROTFLMAO).
Then my friend responded, “why do you think Christ died in the first place? … because people back then thought he was a lunatic.”
Now, as an ignorant pagan, I ask you, is there any element of truth to that? Were there those in Christ’s time who thought him insane, and this was partly what led to his persecution?
If so, might history repeat itself with a second coming?
P.S. On a related note, believers have been predicting the “end of days” for decades now. There was a particular anticipation of it as we approached the year 2000. Still hasn’t happened. Since the predictions have all proven false, why are some still waiting for it?
Jesus did. He said as much.
1. One of the tenets of Christianity (and conservatism, as far as that goes) is that we’re all sinners, flawed human beings, lacking in perfection.
2. I happen to agree that Jesus’ taught the Truth. I happen to believe that Jesus was/is the son of God.
3. To the degree that we say, “Jesus said, ‘Love your enemies,’ and I think we ought to do just that!,” we are speaking God’s truth, I’d suggest.
4. To the degree that we (imperfect, sinful, flawed human beings) make claims beyond that (“…and what that means is, you can’t KILL your enemies,” or, “…and what that means is, gay people CAN’T marry, according to God!”) we are stepping beyond known and reliable Truth and into subjective opinion.
5. Another tenet of Christianity (and reasonable humanity, too) is that we ought to recognize our imperfect condition and that ought to remind us to be humble.
6. Thus, when we are offering OUR FLAWED OPINIONS about what is good or right or “God’s Will,” we’re well-served by being humble about it. (“It seems to me that loving our enemies is a GOOD thing to do, that we CAN overcome evil with good, that we DON’T need to rely upon a military to defend us… but that’s just my opinion.”)
7. On matters of morality, we do well to remember that most of what we have to say (if not all) is subjective and a matter of opinion. “I HOLD GOD’S TRUTHS” is usually the beginning of a fall or a mistake, it seems to me, preceded by presumption and arrogance, mistaking our ability to perfectly understand a limitless God, thus placing ourselves in God’s position.
I’m just wondering Dan, before I eviscerate that last comment with scripture, how do you reconcile Romans 13 with your belief set?
Are you saying that God would permit a man to marry a man? That you have doubts to invalidity of same sex marriage? Is your own discernment of Christ exceeding a soul like Peter or Paul? I laugh, because you almost read as Paul with your professed humility, then in the next sentence misconstrue what is actually said.
I’ve never witnessed a person on a blog contradict himself more from one comment to the next. This is actually starting to become humorous. Your circuitous logic continues to amuse – please, continue. 🙂
Rutherford,
I also marvel at you, and self-professed know nothing, then making statements like this:
Do you not know that when Christ does come again, and He will, that every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? Oh trust me, you won’t have doubts anymore.
However, I wasn’t talking about the second coming. I was talking about the Book of Judgment – and I can assure you that you are going to die. 😉
Sorry, I didn’t answer your question “R”.
Absolutely – probably most; as C.S. Lewis once said, “Christ was either a lunatic, a liar, or the messiah because nobody would have made the statement He did without being one of the three.” No doubt the Sanhedrin thought Jesus mad and blasphemous, for they would not have dared crucify Him had they known the real Truth. That was prophesied several hundred years before Christ’s birth, by the way. The Roman soldiers mocked Him, a thief mocked Him, you mock Him. He grants you that right – but not forever.
And had Christ remained in the grave, I would call Him a lunatic too. But several hundred witnessed a resurrection and the world’s greatest religion was born. All but one disciple and tens of thousands when to their deaths willingly because of His message.
Of trust me Rutherford, when He returns there is not a soul in this world that will have a bit of doubt…
You can thank Jesus for the Western Culture He bestowed. 😉
I’m primarily doing this because the “My Comments” thing is getting overloaded.
I think one could academically and intellectually make a case that one could be a devout Christian with nothing but the NT.More importantly if you fail to acknowledge the New Covenant (final one) there really isn’t a way to be Christian.
Alfie, I never said Christians can dispense with the New Testament. I simply said they cannot follow it without giving a nod to the Old. One does follow the other and to ignore the OT is to be at least historically ignorant.
The Old Testament gives meaning to the New Testament. One living under the law – the other living in the age of Grace.
Tex…on the other we might not know he’s here (like a thief in the night) and miss out
Now, as an ignorant pagan, I ask you, is there any element of truth to that? Were there those in Christ’s time who thought him insane, and this was partly what led to his persecution?
Perhaps. It says in the Bible that some thought he was possessed by Satan (“By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.”)
I think the more probable conclusion was that he was perceived to be a threat to good order. The “plot to kill Jesus” is mentioned several times in the Bible, and it is always spoken of as a plan by the religious elite to kill this troublemaker.
For instance, after telling the story of the sheep and the goats (what you have done for the least of these, you have done for me. What you have NOT done for the least of these, you have not done for me)…
Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him.
Or after the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus into getting in trouble and Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath (flouting their rules)…
Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
He [Jesus] looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
The Herodians being those Jews who were collaborators with the Roman empire (without whose approval, they could not legally kill Jesus).
I would say that in the text, the predominant reason given was that it was a political/religious power play, where Jesus was perceived to be a troublemaker and where he might even become popular enough to begin an uprising, which would not behoove the Jews in power, nor the Roman authorities (who, nonetheless, come across as less willing to go along with the kangaroo court that led to Jesus political execution – crucifixions, I’ve been told, were reserved for political prisoners).
It’s an interesting, if horrible and oft-repeated, story.
Tex, can you not fathom how someone might think you sound like Linus and his promise of the visit of the Great Pumpkin?
While I’m sure Charles Schulz didn’t have this in mind, “It’s The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown” is an interesting study in belief systems.
Sure. The ignorant, the pompous, the arrogant, the fool.
If there is anybody I know that can confuse Peanuts characters (by the way, the author a devout Christian) with the mystery, horror and apocalyptic visions of The Revelation, it would be you. 😉
What amazes me Rutherford is that I bet on 9/11, you sat glued to a TV and couldn’t fathom the horror of what you were witnessing. If I’m right, what you witnessed that day will seem a pinprick of things to come.
And miracle of miracles, I need to compliment Dan. He did an excellent job of explaining exactly how Jesus was perceived and why Jesus was crucified. Christ was not only a threat to the order of Pharisee, Sadducee and Sanhedrin, but a perceived threat to the Roman Empire.
The waving of the palms (Palm Sunday) is a testament to this. Waving of the Palms could loosely be explained by us waving the American flag.
And miracle of miracles, I need to compliment Dan.
Then, I’m stopping right now, while I’m ahead…
Tex,
You know you arent going to change the minds of these drones, right?
“More importantly if you fail to acknowledge the New Covenant (final one) there really isn’t a way to be Christian.”
And we all know how the antisemitic, racist, islamic supporting and socialist Trinity “church” lives by the NT.
Oh, I can’t just stop while I’m winning…
Are you saying that God would permit a man to marry a man?
I don’t presume to speak for God what God has not told me.
But I believe in marriage (just celebrated my 25th anniversary!) and MY opinion is that a fellow marrying a fellow, committing to one another in love and fidelity, I think it is a good a blessed thing and I can see nothing in the Bible that would suggest that God would have a problem with it.
That you have doubts to invalidity of same sex marriage?
Do I have doubts as to the invalidity of same sex marriage? No, it seems like commitment, faithfulness, family and love are all good and blessed things, ideas that strengthen and nurture rather than harm or cause ill, so it seems to me to be a good thing.
What would you possibly see wrong with commitment, fidelity, love in the context of marriage, whether straight or gay?
Is your own discernment of Christ exceeding a soul like Peter or Paul?
No, I wouldn’t say that. Your discernment? Possibly…
Wow…nothing against gays but Dan don’t ever bring up religion again you have no cred.
What is that ad homenim supposed to be suggesting?
I have 47 years of Bible study (if you count the first 10 years of my life where I had it read to me/taught to me all the time) and 30 years of serious adult Christian Bible study.
I’ve attended churches from across the evangelical and Catholic religious spectrum (I spent 10 years in a Christian Rock Band traveling around – a very bad Christian Rock Band, but still…), as well as a smattering of interfaith work with Jews and Muslims.
I’ve read a good deal of Christian writing, including CS Lewis, Billy Graham, Oswald Chambers, Leonard Ravenhill, Jonathan Edwards, John Howard Yoder, Corrie Ten Boom, Charles Swindoll, James Dobson, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, John Woolman, Martin Luther King, Jr, Charles Finney, RA Torrey, GK Chesterton, John Bunyan and many others you may or may not be familiar with.
I’ve been a saved, born again, church-going Christian for 37 years now. In what way do you suspect I lack credibility?
That you apparently missed the purpose of our God given biology for starters.
Its not an ad hom,its an observation of fact
Penis for pissing and ejaculating. Vagina pissing and birthing. Those purposes? I’m familiar with them. What of it?
Hate to be a nit picker but women don’t piss out of their vagina. They piss out of their urethra. Men have the privilege of the urethra actually being embedded in the sexual organ. Women aren’t built that way.
Just sayin’. 🙂
D’oh!
Thanks for the correction, boy do I feel dumb.
No doubt Alfie. Dan’s a well read phony. He has a version of Christianity, but no power thereof – salt without taste, pearls before swine. Guaranteed if I probed enough, I could prove that to any Evangelical Christian.
I knew that about two days into our conversation after his lame responses about Judaism – the most lame I’ve ever heard. Dan preaches a new flavor of Christianity about social justice, peace and love, Christian rock band stuff – but life changing? No way. Kind of Obama lite – what I like to refer to hot tub Christianity. Warm and bubbly, but not terribly filling.
Let me put it this way. I’m not Dan’s judge as I’m not qualified. But his take on theology sounds a whole lot more like politics than relationship with Christ.
A new version? Anabaptism, friend. Look it up. It’s been around since the 1500s.
Sorta coincided with the Reformation. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
My take on theology, like the anabaptists before me, came from striving to follow in the steps of Jesus, returning to the basics of Christianity as lived by the early church.
My theology informs my politics, not the other way around. As I’ve mentioned, I believe, I was a Reagan Republican – conservative Southern Baptist Christian who didn’t even read anything remotely “liberal” until later in my life – and only grew into my positions with more years of Christian Bible study.
In fact, I still haven’t really read much in the way of “liberal Christian writers.” As stated, I’m more anabaptist than liberal.
Christian history. Read up on it, it’s great stuff sometimes.
One never knows where the Spirit might lead.
I’m familiar enough with the Mennonites and Amish, who live in close proximity…close enough? Those who espouse the simpler life – except when it comes to baking for profit so they don’t starve to death. Overrated food…
But aren’t you condemning your “gay marriage” brethren to the infernal regions Dan with your approval? Doesn’t sound very Christian to me. Sounds an awfully like heresy, or if you don’t like that deception.
You know, those verses were Paul spoke about who wouldn’t occupy heaven? That included the effeminate – sounds more like your theology heretical. Penis, vagina, and rectum. Did the rectum make it to your biology book?
However, one question I always had with you pacifists Dan? Doesn’t it make you a hypocrite to call yourself an American citizen – a historical citizenry cloaked in war and blood? Or do you just kind of ignore that inconvenience too like you do scripture you don’t much care for?
Tex…
Doesn’t it make you a hypocrite to call yourself an American citizen – a historical citizenry cloaked in war and blood? Or do you just kind of ignore that inconvenience too like you do scripture you don’t much care for?
Where would you suggests anabaptists live? Which nation is a pacifistic nation? Jesus lived peacefully within the militaristic Roman empire. The early church for the first ~300 years lived as pacifists in the militaristic Roman empire. I think I’m in good company there.
I don’t ignore any scripture. Hasn’t happened. Keep in mind that just because I disagree with you on a scripture is not the same as ignoring it.
Familiar with almost all of them, as I’ve read them too. I would include Philip Yancey, Voddie Baucham, Stroebel, Adrian Rogers, D. James Kennedy and John MacArthur too. And to a person, they would disagree with Dan’s assessment of “gay” marriage.
Undoubtedly, Dan missed their message.
Read it, used to agree with it still agree with a good part of it. But where they disagree with sound Christian teaching, I disagree with them.
I disagree with them on gay marriage.
Christians disagree. It happens. Always has, always will.
Can you give me the scripture where “gay marriage” is sound Christian teaching Dan. Here’s betting that this is another theological question that will remain on the “didn’t see list.”
No, I can’t provide a scripture where gay marriage is discussed. Gay marriage is one of those topics that is not discussed in the Bible even one time, so none of us can say, “THIS is God’s opinion on gay marriage cuz the Bible says so!” Cuz the Bible doesn’t.
My profession? Mapmaker.
Dan,
Can I ask what your profession is?
Also, may I ask why you seemed obsessed with the word ad hominem (not ad homenim as you keep spelling it)? To question your character and motive Dan are not necessarily ad hominems, because they are relevant to the discussion at hand.
You use it over and over, seldom in the right context. Did you take one or two philosophy classes and fall in love?
One thing for sure. Rutherford just fell in love. 🙂
Dan is a man after Rutherford’s own heart, and if I were to venture a guess, a man after Rutherford’s own politics.
A match made in heaven. 😈
Well I do kinda like Dan having his cake and eating it too. He does seem to ignore that the Bible refers to homosexuality as an abomination. Instead, he applies the lessons of brotherly love taught in the Bible, to same sex relationships.
Kudos to him for his inclusiveness. But Dan, don’t be surprised that a busload of Christians don’t agree with you.
Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage and I don’t see why it is a big deal to anyone else. Really none of anyone’s damn business.
No, Rutherford, I don’t ignore it. Nor do I ignore the fact that the Bible refers to eating shrimp as an abomination or wearing polyester (which I happen to AGREE is an abomination!). I don’t ignore it. I consider it in context.
If you’d like, I could point you to some links that show how a person can be a serious Bible student and not agree with the historical anti-gay position of most churches.
It basically comes down to this: Homosexual behavior is almost not discussed at all in the Bible, just a handful of times.
In those handful of times, the Bible does not stake out “God’s position” on all homosexual behavior. Clearly, gay rape (as attempted at Sodom) was wrong, but then, so is straight rape. etc.
But homosexuality itself, gay marriage? Not covered.
Some other time when I have more time.
ROTFLMAO … polyester is an abomination. That gave me a good start to my day!
Thank you for explaining the point about homosexuality vis-a-vis the Bible.
Can I summarize your point by saying that just because the Bible mentions it, does not mean it represents the word of God on the subject? You need to look at the issue in context.
That would be my opinion, yes. In context and with due reason.
There are multiple ways one might read the Bible.
Some would say that “It’s God’s Word, everything therefore ought to be taken literally. If God said it, that settles it!”
Most would allow that, while it’s God’s Word, we need to take into consideration the text, context, times and writing idioms being used. One does not treat a parable the way one reads a factual historic story, nor does one treat a poem the way one reads a prediction. So, very few (no one, I’d guess) takes the Bible literally literally. Obviously, for instance, the world does not have four corners, even though the Bible mentions that.
The problem typically comes down to which passages are “reasonably” interpreted literally or even fairly literally? What guidelines are there for making that call? The problem is, there are none but our own reasoning. The Bible doesn’t offer a Key, where God says, “The book of Genesis is a scientific treatise on the beginning of time,” or “Genesis is a creation myth intended to relate the Truth that God created the universe,” or something in between. We have to use our God-given reasoning to work that out.
Hence the disagreements.
But at least the disagreements show that some things ARE everlasting.
In what way do you suspect I lack credibility?
Dan, I can’t answer that ^ question. I truly admire your faithfulness and stick-to-it-tiveness. I mean it. I’m glad you have been involved in all these ways. Stick to it and don’t stop doing what you are doing. I mean it. God will continue to bless you.
Maybe you are fine just the way you are. I’m not in a position to know you very well. Lots of folks put their entire lives and efforts into full time ministry or are pillars of their church as volunteers and still miss the ability to understand themselves, or at least certain things about themselves. And from my perspective, I’ve seen plenty of full-time ministers that I would not trust further than I could throw them. Discernment is a gift. Some don’t have it. I’ve worked with a lot of people who have been badly abused emotionally by professional ministers. It takes a lot of courage for these folks to come back into a faith community.
I’m not saying you are not a Christian. I’m pretty confident that you are and that someday we will meet in heaven.
But ask YOURSELF these questions:
Do I lack an understanding of myself?
Do I love and accept myself?
Do I know deep down what my fears are and how I can combat them?
Do others find issues with me that I fight against seeing? How do I react when people criticize me?
Do members of my family find it hard to get me to see their side of things?
Do I have a mental block on some issues?
Do I find myself defending issues that are not essential to my salvation or theirs?
Can I laugh at myself?
Do I invite others to laugh at me?
I’m retired from professional ministry. I’ve worked in parishes with youth, adults, teens, kids, women, old folks, and even other pastors and ministers in other churches in my district and nation-wide. I’ve studied professionally under excellent theologians and professors, clinical professionals, and clinical pastoral supervisors. I graduated summa cum laude in this field of study. But I was still painfully peeled like an onion. I’ve been challenged to support from where I get my ‘truths’ and core values, and challenged to consider if my cultural and traditional values were worth holding on to. I’ve been emotionally beat up in collegial group sessions and dialogues with pastors and ministers, and by the way we all beat each other up IN LOVE on purpose. It is well known that spiritual counselors and pastors can do a lot of damage if they go into ministry with unresolved issues. So when we are in ministry we are generally REQUIRED to be in clinical supervision with other professionals to sort of check how we are serving and caring for others. I’ve been pushed to the point of excruciating emotional and spiritual pain. I’ve been challenged physically in pastoral work environments including mission work. I been poked and inspected under the microscope and under the scrutiny of a variety of professional organizations BEFORE I was even permitted to be commissioned into service in congregations and institutions. I have certifications in additional areas such as small group formations, youth, burn and trauma ministry, abuse, addiction, critical incident stress debriefing, PTSD, crisis-intervention, and conflict resolution. I passed all inspection and am certified and commissioned in many of these specialties — including chaplaincy, reconciliation, and Clinical Pastoral Education.
I still don’t know everything and never will. But I DO know that what generally comes out of my mouth is INTEGRATED with who I am and what I do. I know myself. I know my limitations, and I am able to love and accept myself in a healthy way — a way that honors God for how he loves and accepts me-the-mess.
I’ve been told many times that I’m SAFE (emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and physically) to be around, maybe because I know how to respect others and their views. People have told me that they sought me out because they trust me. I’ve gotten the reputation of being able to handle very challenging sticky issues. Many people come to rely on me even though they don’t always agree with me or I them. I’ve been told numerous times that I’m a good speaker/preacher and a leader who knows how to plant and grow ministries.
I also continue to seek counsel from trusted colleagues, because I never want to fall into a state of self-deception.
Are you serious with these questions? I’ll bite…
Do I lack an understanding of myself?
I reckon I know myself fairly well. What would be the gauge?
Do I love and accept myself?
Sure, sometimes too much perhaps. But I think I’m a right jolly old elf.
Do I know deep down what my fears are and how I can combat them?
My fears? Just the normal ones, I reckon, but not too much, I’d say. Early on, I began to take quite literally the teaching, “Don’t worry about anything, instead, pray about everything…” and “Consider the lilies of the field… Therefore I say to you, don’t worry…”
I’m not much of a fearer or a worrier. I can say that fairly safely because I know myself pretty well. I have my troubles to be sure, but being fearful and worrying are not especially troublesome problems for me.
I will say that one of my concerns is that people in the US (and world) lose the ability to disagree with respect and grace. Which is why I like visiting friends like you all.
Do others find issues with me that I fight against seeing?
Fight against? No. I might disagree, but I’ll also agree at times. You may have noticed that it’s not unusual for me to say, “I’m sorry,” or “I apologize…” if someone has corrected me justly. For instance, I’m sorry that I misspelled ad hominem. That’s just one of those words for me.
How do I react when people criticize me?
With grace and humor, usually. You can’t see it from where you are, but I generally type with a smile on my face.
Do members of my family find it hard to get me to see their side of things?
No, not at all. I’m quite an empathetic and sympathetic fellow, generally speaking. You could ask most anyone at church or in my household and that’s what they’d tell you, I’d guess.
Do I have a mental block on some issues?
Well, how would I know that??
Do I find myself defending issues that are not essential to my salvation or theirs?
I find myself in all matter of discussions, including ones that aren’t about salvation. I find, however, that quite often my more conservative brethren will denounce MY salvation (calling me a wolf in sheeps clothes or a Muslim, for instance) not because of any Christian essentials, but because they disagree with me about something non-essential and oftentimes, not even biblical. The gay marriage thing is a perfect example.
Can I laugh at myself?
Do it all the time.
Do I invite others to laugh at me?
Do it all the time.
Believe my answers?
(Thanks for the concern, just the same, I believe you are trying to reach out in concern and the thought is appreciated, even if I disagree with the approach.)
I’ve been emotionally beat up in collegial group sessions and dialogues with pastors and ministers, and by the way we all beat each other up IN LOVE on purpose. It is well known that spiritual counselors and pastors can do a lot of damage if they go into ministry with unresolved issues…
Very good, I guess. I’ve been fortunate. All my life, I’ve been surrounded by wonderful, caring, wise friends and family, including nearly all ministers I’ve ever had to deal with. Even the conservative ones. I’m not an anti-conservative person. I have reached different conclusions than many conservatives have, but I write that off as, well, just a disagreement. I don’t hate conservatives or think they’re going to hell or anything, just disagree with some of their views and approaches.
Not everyone has been so fortunate. One of my church’s nicknames is “The Church of the Last Chance,” because so many people HAVE felt burned by their churches and a harsh sort of spirituality that is lacking in grace, that these folk were ready to give up but thought they’d give my church a chance and many have found a safe haven there.
I feel for those folk, but that’s not been my experience with most conservatives I’ve known personally (my experience on the internets is a different phenomenon, but that’s another story). From the pastor who was preaching when I was a child, to Miss Marie, my 5th grade Sunday School teacher when I was saved, to my youth counselors and other preachers, to my parents and my best friends growing up into adulthood, I’ve had many positive experiences with conservative Christians. I owe a lot of who I am to them. They taught me to take the Bible seriously, to take the teachings of Christ seriously.
And now, now I’ve had the great good fortune to find a church home with the greatest Christians and friends a person could hope to know.
What a wonderful life! Thank God for such grace!
Tex,
Just in case you missed it. al-Faheed aka Alfie said the Trinity “church” that al-Thuggy attended for 20 years is a real Christian church. He has no cred.
Well, Fred Phelps calls his clan a “church” too. Like my old Baptist Church used to say…
XXX XXXX Church “meets” here – in other words, the people make up the church.
Here Dan,
Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Simple question, being I also was raised a Southern Baptist and am intimately familiar with both the rules and the message…
Can you give me a “liberal rule” that coincides with that Christian doctrine you espouse? And try to come up with something more than “social justice.”
Can I give a “liberal rule”? Well, as I said, I’m not especially well-read on liberal theology, so I don’t think I can, really. I could google it, if you’d like.
I’m not talking about liberal theology – I’m talking about liberal politic you hold dear.
I don’t know that I hold “liberal political points” dearly. I hold my positions because I think they’re right. Sometimes for what might be considered liberal reasons, sometimes for what might be considered conservative ones, sometimes for a combination of reasons.
I believe in marriage. I think commitment and fidelity are good things. Because I believe thusly, and because I know of no good reason (biblical, logical, moral) NOT to, I support marriage for any rational, free-willed adults. Gay or straight. Also, I believe that because generally I’m against a nanny gov’t where the gov’t tries to tell consenting adults what they can and can’t do in instances where no harm is done.
So, while “gay marriage” is something of a liberal and libertarian issue, I hold my position for what I think are fairly conservative and libertarian and liberal reasons.
For another issue, I am generally opposed to war. I am definitely opposed to many wars, wars of aggression, wars of conquest, stupid wars, “pre-emptive” wars (as if!). I am opposed to wars for logical and humanitarian reasons. Generally speaking, I think most wars are unnecessary and counter-productive.
But I’m not against a nation actually defending herself from attack.
As a Christian, I lean towards pacifism/just peacemaking. I believe that the Bible fairly unambiguously teaches US to LOVE our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to overcome evil with good. I take such teachings fairly literally and, since I have a hard time seeing how I can love my enemy and simultaneously kill them (and especially their children!), I can’t imagine myself ever taking part in a war. I think it goes against biblical teaching.
Is that a “liberal” or a “conservative” position? Both. Neither. It’s taking the Bible quite seriously and striving to live by its teachings.
Which is not to say that I necessarily want to enforce my Christian belief on all people, regardless of faith. I’m not trying to legislate pacifism, for instance. I leave that up to people to decide for themselves. But it is a position I hold that you would suggest is a liberal position, I imagine, so do those examples work for you?
Bible doesn’t say anything about NAMBLA either Dan. Because it says nothing specifically, I must assume you lend your support to that too?
But then, that’s not what I said. If the Bible is silent on the issue, then the Bible is silent on an issue. That was my only point. Oftentimes (actually, nearly universally) when I point that out to more conservative Christians, they’ll respond as you have: “So, since the bible is silent on an issue, that means it’s okay?!!”
No, I did not say that. I just think it unwise to presume to speak for God, especially when the Bible is silent on an issue.
In the lack of a specific word from God, we must use our God-given reasoning to consider a point. Is this a good thing? Does it promote healthy living? Godly living? Is it harmful? These sorts of questions ought to be considered.
Marriage (gay or straight) is a good thing in my book. Fidelity, commitment, family, love, support, these are all good things. I see nothing harmful in marriage (gay or straight) when it’s healthy and loving and therefore, I support it.
I believe that NAMBLA is that man-boy/pedophile group? That would be an instance of NOT healthy, because children aren’t in a position to make up their minds about sexuality and I don’t advocate adults taking advantage of children or animals. So, since that falls into the unhealthy category, I don’t support it, even though NAMBLA itself is not mentioned in the Bible.
Simple concept: IS there harm or not? Is it healthy and wholesome or not?
Do you find that unreasonable?
Sorry Dan – if there is any cognitive dissonance being demonstrated here, it is clearly you.
How many times does the Bible need to be clear about something before it becomes fact Dan?
The word abomination is the strongest term in the Bible to reference condemnation – think abomination of desolation referring to the temple. Homosexual acts are clearly condemned from Genesis to the book of Jude. There is absolutely no misunderstanding or doubt about where God stands.
The one individual relationship called “Holy” and sacrosanct in the Bible – marriage between man and woman – can now somehow be equated to something clearly called an abomination. That is text book “cognitive dissonance” which you have repeatedly demonstrated since you appeared here. This is why I have called you a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I don’t think you’re nearly as righteous as you’d like to believe Dan. In fact, you remind me much of the character Balaam.
And if your judgment falls into secular realm of what is “unhealthy”, perhaps you can explain what is healthy about homosexual relationships? Right now in the male homosexual community, in certain parts of the country MRSA is becoming epidemic. This is HIV on steroids, because unlike HIV, MRSA is easily contractable. And you’re old enough to remember the 80s. I would like to think someone calling themselves Christian would have the common sense to clearly distinguish “health.”
Your heart may be in the right place, but your thinking muddled, your logic twisted, and your pacifism not meek but cowardly. I believe you have a bad habit of perverting scripture and sickly twisting it to make it more palatable for your tastes – all under the guise of “love”. Without truth first, there can be no love Dan.
Although you may not partake in the sin, you willingly turn a blind eye to sinful behavior – and that my friend is a sin of omission. What you mask as “love” is really indifferent dishonesty under the ruse of tolerance – a word you do not understand.
You said you liked the book of Ezekial? Well, perhaps you should reread the book then, because these verses from Chapter 33 clearly say it is your responsibility to speak truth:
7 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 8 When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 9 But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.
I think you better give a little more thought to what you are calling “love” and “healthy” Dan, because I believe you are woefully confused about what God really expects from Christians – and moral turpitude ain’t it. 😉
re: “abomination…”
The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the word toevah, which, while we may not know exactly what it means, definitely does not mean “abomination.”
An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians.. Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, a disease, an abomination.
Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.
source
I don’t think that word means what you think it means, Tex.
Is eating shrimp an abomination? According to the KJV, yes. As is polyester.
It’s a cultural taboo. “These things are what the surrounding pagans do,” God was saying. “They are not for you, you are to be different,” God said to Israel.
But these taboos weren’t universal and forever wrongs, just cultural taboos. You DO eat shrimp, don’t you? Or at the least, you don’t condemn it, do you?
fyi.
Tex…
How many times does the Bible need to be clear about something before it becomes fact Dan?
At least once.
Gay marriage condemned? Zero times. God offers an opinion on gay marriage? Zero times.
At least once.
re: “at least once”
And even then, that’s not the be all/end all of reasonable Christian Bible study.
The Bible is quite clear at least once that God’s followers were to kill the unrepentant, right down to their children.
But just because the Bible was clear on that point does not make it a sound Christian position, right? My rules for biblical exegesis include:
1. Consider the text and context
2. Interpret the individual passage through the whole of biblical teaching
3. Interpret the individual in light of Jesus’ specific teachings
4. Interpret the obscure in light of the clear
5. Consider the original language
6. Consider the original audience
7. Keep in mind the style of writing being employed
8. Never forget to use your God-given reasoning, imperfect though it is
Among others. Sound like some sound hermeneutics to you?
Tex,
He said they were “real Christians”
No, I can’t provide a scripture where gay marriage is discussed. Gay marriage is one of those topics that is not discussed in the Bible even one time, so none of us can say, “THIS is God’s opinion on gay marriage cuz the Bible says so!” Cuz the Bible doesn’t.
I see. All the stuff against such a physical union is to be overlooked if they really love each other. What a curious philosophy.
There is no “all that stuff” there. That is mostly a product of your cultural raising, not of biblical text.
Setting aside the two or three rape instances (we can all agree that rape is always wrong, I’d hope) the Bible touches on issues related to homosexuality maybe six times in ALL of the Bible. Maybe. It’s not entirely clear in about three of those instances (in some translations, they refer to “homosexual offender” or “effeminate,” but it’s not known what the original words actually meant).
The three instances in ALL the Bible where it appears to be fairly clearly speaking of SOME form of homosexual behavior are the two times in Leviticus (man shall not lie with a man. If they do, kill them. – paraphrase) and the one time in Romans.
The two times in Leviticus, they appear as part of the larger “Holiness code,” a series of rules specifically for Israel at that time and place. There are many rules there. Rules against eating shrimp, against wearing “mixed” clothing (as in polyester), rules for how you are to sell your daughters into slavery when you do so, rules against bestiality, rules requiring charitable set asides for the poor and for foreigners, rules against tattoos and so on.
These were specific rules for a specific time and place. No Christians are demanding that, by law, farmers set aside a portion of their land so that the poor and “illegal” immigrants can freely take their food. No Christians are advocating killing disrespectful children. No Christians are advocating legislating 90% of the rules that are in the Holiness Code.
Different time, different place.
For instance, the two “men laying with men” passages are in the context of pagan worship rituals. Those two chapters both begin, “The people who live here engage in these behaviors – but YOU are to be different…”
THAT was the context of “men laying with men,” not some universal prohibition of any and all gay behavior.
Likewise, the Romans passage is ALSO in the context of pagan worship rituals (look it up, Romans 1 – read the whole chapter). There is no prohibition against all gay behavior found in the bible. There is hardly ANYTHING about ANY gay behavior in the bible. There just isn’t.
What we have instead is our cultural traditions putting ideas in our heads and, once they’re there, it becomes easy to discover “proof” in the bible that supports those cultural biases. But a closer examination just simply shows that they’re not there.
At least, that’s what I’ve found.
On the positive side, I’ve also found, “whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
Marriage, gay or straight, seems to me to fall into this category. Where is the harm? Where is the downside?
A good marriage is a moral good, it seems to me.
Dan asked: In what way do you suspect I lack credibility?
Cathy answered: I can’t answer that ^ question.
Cathy suggested: But ask YOURSELF these questions…
Am I serious? Yea, but T.M.I. Bro.
Dan I didn’t want/expect you would give US answers, especially so quickly. I was offering a way that YOU could explore (maybe taking some time away from the computer) why someone or some of us suspect that you lack credibility. That is all. Other people’s responses. Your words.
You asked the question. The question came from you I guess because folks here had commented that they don’t believe you or don’t trust you or whatever… there have been several comments (don’t recall specifics) where people are, in a sense, questioning your cred.
No matter. Move on. Nothing here, I guess.
The question came from you I guess because folks here had commented that they don’t believe you or don’t trust you or whatever… there have been several comments (don’t recall specifics) where people are, in a sense, questioning your cred.
The question came because I see this as a repeated pattern at conservative blog after conservative blog. I’ve been engaging in these conversations for several years now and the pattern is fairly consistent.
They question my credibility but they don’t provide any substantial reasons to. They don’t tend to say, “When you say X, it sounds fishy because…” No, they tend to just say, “I don’t believe you, you’re probably not a Christian, you don’t really mean what you say” things like that.
My suspicion is that there’s some degree of cognitive dissonance going on. IF they don’t have people in their backgrounds with whom they’re familiar who are devoted Christians and yet who disagree with them on some issues, then it becomes hard to believe any other Christian actually COULD disagree with their positions. Besides, they appear to think, “my position is so obviously the only possible position to hold, anyone who’d disagree with me must not really be serious about what they’re saying, or they must not be a Christian at all…”
That’s just my guess, but of course, I don’t know that, since I don’t know them any more than they know me.
In a normal conversation, I generally expect points to be made and agreed with or disagreed with and some support for the agreement or disagreement. But this quick jumping to “I disagree with you, you’re probably not a Christian” or “you don’t really even mean what you say,” or, “I disagree with you, you just don’t seem credible!” or those sorts of answers are just not as helpful in the important communication that needs to happen in this world.
One man’s opinion.
And, just for clarity’s sake, here’s the difference between what I consider a rational adult conversation and a less helpful and less rational one:
Good conversation
Dan: I think marriage is a good thing – gay or straight; it promotes fidelity, family and community and I see nothing harmful in it, so why would I oppose it?
“Joe”: When you say, you see nothing harmful about it, Dan, how can you actually believe that? Gay marriage promotes the acceptance of homosexuality as “normal” and acceptable behavior.
Dan: Well, I think homosexuality is normal and acceptable, I see no reason to treat homosexuality in a significantly different way than heterosexuality.
“Joe”: But, if we accept homosexuality as normal and acceptable, then soon EVERYONE would be tempted to be gay…
Dan: People are mostly born in the orientation they’re born with. They don’t “choose” homosexuality because it’s a popular thing to do. Myself, for instance, I accept homosexuality, but I’m a straight guy, there’s nothing anyone can do to “make me” be sexually attracted to guys…
=======
Like that. I made a point, “Joe” responded to that point with disagreement and his reasons why he disagrees. That’s a normal discussion. Or, put it this way: If I were having this conversation with a family member who happens to be conservative and who disagrees with me, that is how it would go. There would be no demonization of me nor by me of him/her. We’d just disagree and offer our reasons.
Continuing…
Joe: But clearly, God hates gay marriage and letting gays marry would undermine the foundations of our Christian society.
Dan: As a Christian, I would have to disagree with the suggestion that God hates gay marriage. Where would you get such a conclusion? God has not said this, anywhere, right?
Joe: The Bible is pretty clear, “homosexuality is an abomination.” If it’s an abomination, then God must hate gay marriage.
Dan: Actually, if you look closer, the Bible no where says “homosexuality is an abomination.” It does say, within the Holiness Code of the OT, that “men laying with men is an abomination,” but, 1. if we hope to understand the bible reasonably, we need to understand context, 2. In that context, it is not clear that “men laying with men” is a universal proscription against homosexuality, in fact, it seems to be specifically about pagan rituals, 3. Many notions are “abominable” in the OT, including eating shrimp. The Holiness Code was written to a specific people…
etc.
Like that. NOT like this:
Bad conversation
Dan: As a Christian, I would have to disagree with the suggestion that God hates gay marriage. Where would you get such a conclusion? God has not said this, anywhere, right?
“Bob”: You got no credibility, Dan.
Dan: I beg your pardon?
“Bob”: You’re a sheep in wolf’s clothing. Anyone who’d disagree with me and dominant modern church position on this point is not a Christian!
Dan: Are you suggesting that one has to agree with you on this one position in order to be a Christian?
“Bob”: Stupid question, Dan, demonstrating your ignorance.
Not like that.
Thanks for the concern, just the same, I believe you are trying to reach out in concern and the thought is appreciated, even if I disagree with the approach.
Dan, I’m glad we can remain civil, but you misunderstood the approach …totally didn’t get it.
You disagree with the approach? Then why the hell would you cooperate and responding by giving answers so quickly as you did?
Sheesh! And people think you lack credibility. No wonder.
If you really disagree, then don’t bother with your phony, glib responses.
… and please. TMI. I don’t want or need to hear your answers. That was for you alone to think about.
?
I disagree with the approach, meaning, I think conversations where you attempt to correct someone should be done in private, as the Bible says. I disagree with the ad homs (not so much from you, but in general).
What’s wrong with having a different opinion about that?
What about your approach have I misunderstood?
“Phony, glib” answers? No, while I answered them with a smile on my face, those are my real answers to those questions. Why would you presume to guess (wrongly) otherwise?
Cathy … you didn’t say you wanted Dan to think about your questions privately. I expected him to answer them … or at least ask you where you got off asking them in the first place. But as you said, you have a background in counseling so these questions come naturally to you.
This thread has gotten real weird. No need to delve into Dan’s psyche simply because he asks for a fair reading of all religious scripture, which is how this thread got started.
Cathy … you didn’t say you wanted Dan to think about your questions privately. I expected him to answer them…
You make a good point. Appreciate you standing up for Dan here. I could have been clearer. Sorry Dan.
This thread has gotten real weird.
Another good point. TMI as far as I’m concerned. Those questions I suggested have been helpful to me, but honestly the answers are personal and nobody else’s business.
And while I’m on a roll, although I think Scripture is pretty clear about homosexual acts being forbidden (both OT and NT), I personally don’t have a problem with it. Folks will do as they please. Got friends and family who are gay and lesbian and they know where I stand. I love ’em anyway. Fin.
Fair enough. I appreciate the apology.
Generally, when questions are asked of me, I strive to answer them. I like it when people answer questions I ask and I try to return the favor, as much as time allows (and sometimes, I understand, we all just run out of time to play “Bloggle”).
US helps fund mosque, minaret restoration around the world as part of cultural outreach
Published August 24, 2010
| Associated Press
The contributions include $76,135 for the 16th century Grand Mosque in Tongxin, China, and $67,500 for the 18th century Golden Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan. An additional $62,169 will be spent on restoring a 19th century minaret in Mauritania’s ancient city of Tichitt; $50,437 for the Sundarwala Burj, a 16th century Islamic Monument in New Delhi, and $15,450 to restore the 18th century Gobarau Minaret in Katsina, Nigeria.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/24/helps-fund-mosque-minaret-restoration-world-cultural-outreach/
Is he a muslim? Yes he is.
A true Christian wouldnt make a moral relevance between islam and Christianity and Mo-bomb-ed and Jesus.
Do you find that unreasonable?
A true Christian also wouldnt use the OT to try to prove Christianity is as intolerant and violent as islam.
How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War
Defeating Jihadist Terrorism
by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010, pp. 3-13
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war
Good read.
Having hopefully made my points about ad homs (as well as strawmen) by now, I shall mostly strive to avoid addressing them. Thus, Elric, I shall ignore your fallacious comments.
“Thus, Elric, I shall ignore your fallacious comments.”
Of course you will. I spoke the truth.
‘Burn the Quran Day’ Plan Prompts Warnings of Anger, Unrest
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor
(CNSNews.com) – The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has joined the growing condemnation of plans by a Florida church to burn copies of the Quran on the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71581
Well isnt that how muslims react?
The only correction (DOH!) that I would give to this is that participation in forums like this involve implicit permission to be publicly corrected. Now being rudely corrected … well that’s another animal but of course that is a symptom of current American discourse in general.
And I’m fine with that in general.
Christians, though, have some specific teachings on how to handle disagreements. So, speaking from one Christian to another, I was suggesting sticking to those Christian teachings.
Having said that, if I thought someone – regardless of faith tradition – was severely mistaken and wanted to rebuke them, it seems like a polite thing to do to do that in private.
There is a time and place for public correction and it’s not that big a deal to me in general. I’m just surprised by the number of Christians who opt out of this church teaching.
Taliban Poison School-Girls… For the 9th Time
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/25/afghanistan.girls.sick/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
al-Faheed said the Taliban arent terrorists.
You mean the metaphor north, south, east, and west – like those four corners of the earth? 🙄 I suppose next your going to give me the “falling off the ends of the earth story” which is also bogus. Sorry Dan, you seem a nice enough guy but a real simpleton. While the Bible does contain metaphor and allegory: i.e, God is my rock, Christ is living water….
There is absolutely no way that God even comes remotely close to hinting at condoning homosexual behavior. Not one place, and in fact He destroyed two towns over sexual deviancy. I would call that clear and definitive.
But I do admire how easily you dismiss the rules that make you uncomfortable by simply invoking the where, why and how. There is nothing “pure” about your religion Dan. It’s phony, convenient and shallow.
Bingo. Now why don’t you begin to utilize it?
For starters, you can explain your own form of “cognitive dissonance” by explaining to me how you can claim influence from the authorship you listed above that you’ve read, yet somehow have missed to a person they all disagree with you about the legality of gay marriage and the legitimacy of homosexual relationships?
How exactly is it that you’ve become the only one to discern correctly, though you attempt to cover with this feigned humility.
So let me get this straight. Christ himself performs his first recorded miracle at a wedding. I have to assume his attendance makes it something important.
You don’t deny that homosexual sexual acts are called sinful – in fact, you don’t deny that they are condemned in the strongest terms.
Yet you can’t get from point A to point B that while Christ found marriage important enough to be in attendance at a marriage between man and woman, and important enough to have perform his first recorded miracle at the wedding clearly indicating his blessing, and don’t deny that both the O.T. and N.T. condemn homosexual relationships, nonetheless the marriage between homosexual relationships might be permitted because what? The marriage bonds trump the homosexual acts and that makes everything okay as long as God doesn’t condemn it by name?
I guess it hasn’t occurred to you that not only is the homosexual act wrong, but the fact that man would take it one step further and redefine homosexual marriage to be okay, might be an even more egregious sin?
Are you just that obtuse, that gullible, or maybe that foolish? I don’t think I would want to use your maps because you might decide what is up might be be defined as down.
Tex…
I guess it hasn’t occurred to you that not only is the homosexual act wrong, but the fact that man would take it one step further and redefine homosexual marriage to be okay, might be an even more egregious sin?
Well, as you may or may not remember, it HAS occurred to me, since that’s the way I used to believe. Before further biblical study and prayer led me to a different conclusion. But, since I don’t think “the homosexual act” is any more wrong than the “heterosexual act,” and since God has not stated that to me or anyone else, and since I DO think marriage, commitment, fidelity, etc, are all good things, I no longer agree with your conclusion.
But you’re welcome to it. You don’t want to marry a guy? No one’s going to force you.
I hope that’s okay with you, but even if not, we all must seek to strive to find the Good as best we can. You can decide what you believe is most righteous and the rest of us will decide what WE think is most righteous. Of course, you or I or both of us could be mistaken, but we are obliged to strive to figure that out nonetheless.
You know Dan, I find nothing edifying about you. I think you are twisted.
I surmise at this time, it would be wise for me to say in the Lord’s name, I rebuke you. I don’t find you capable of entrustment, I find you both obtuse and in error, I believe you pervert scripture under the guise of “doing it with love”, and I find you incredibly deceitful and unwise. You find that an ad hominem, tough luck sport.
————
This one is for you Dan – from Jude, putting your suggestion about misinterpretation to rest.
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Tex, thanks for your concern. But consider our circumstances, please.
You suggested that gay marriage was wrong because “men laying with men” is called an abomination.
I demonstrated biblically and textually how you appear to have a misunderstanding of the word/concepts involved. I did so respectfully and with no name-calling. I just did a bit of Bible study with you.
You suggested that Sodom was destroyed due to “sexual deviancy.” I demonstrated to you biblically and logically how that isn’t what the Bible says. In fact, it was a lack of concern for the poor that is listed, along with other vague “detestable things,” which I allow that rape falls under that category, but that’s not a specific problem with homosexuality.
You have not responded to my biblical exegesis, offered with respect and reason, with any of your own comment about my actual points (“Dan, when you point to Ezekiel 17, you err because…”) but instead respond by once again making an unsupported charge, that I am “twisted.”
Your point is noted, but unless you have something more substantial than just unsupported charges, I hope you will understand that I can’t take it too seriously.
As to rebuking me, may I remind you of how the Bible says to do that (aside from the “in private” thing, which you ignore)?
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.
“Rebuke and encourage, with great patience and CAREFUL INSTRUCTION.”
I take that to mean showing me where I’m going wrong, if you think I’m wrong. Not just saying, “Dan, you pointed to Ezekiel 17, but that’s just dumb!” but, “Dan, what I think you’re failing to get about that passage is…” and make your case.
Vague rebukes about daring to disagree with Tex but not addressing my actual points and my actual words do not seem to me to be “careful instruction.”
Just something to consider.
Tex…
Yet you can’t get from point A to point B that while Christ found marriage important enough to be in attendance at a marriage between man and woman, and important enough to have perform his first recorded miracle at the wedding clearly indicating his blessing, and don’t deny that both the O.T. and N.T. condemn homosexual relationships, nonetheless the marriage between homosexual relationships might be permitted because what?
1. Jesus’ attendance at a wedding between a fella and a gal is not a biblically sound reason for concluding that, therefore, Jesus approves only of male/female marriages. Jesus attended a crucifixion, also, but that is not proof that Jesus approves of those, right? You see the logical flaw in that conclusion, don’t you?
2. I don’t deny that twice in the OT and once in the NT you find condemnation of SOME form of homosexual activity, just as you find MULTIPLE condemnations of some form of heterosexual behavior. But that is not a condemnation of ALL gay behavior any more than it is a condemnation of all straight behavior. Right?
3. It is my conclusion that marriage is a good thing because fidelity, commitment, companionship and family are all good things, gay or straight. THAT is my reasoning. So, with my actual reasoning for supporting marriage (gay or straight), do you have a problem with any of those?
That is, are you coming out against fidelity if it’s fidelity between two guys? Are you coming out against companionship if it’s companionship between two gals?
Put another way, Paul says that it is better to marry than burn in lust (ie, to be miserable because you are alone and companion-less with no morally acceptable way to vent your God-given sexual longings.) Marriage, most of us have decided, is a good and wholesome way of having all of that. I’m saying that the very things that make marriage a good thing for straight folk ALSO makes it a good thing for gay folk.
Yes? No? Why not?
Not one place, and in fact He destroyed two towns over sexual deviancy.
Says you. The Bible says otherwise (or at least partially otherwise).
Again, check out my good friend, Ezekiel (EzekiEl, with an E, not an A, if we want to be picky about spelling)…
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were
arrogant,
overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and
did detestable things before me.
Sexual deviancy? Well, they DID try to gang rape some visitors to their town. That IS deviant.
But rape is wrong, regardless of orientation, right?
Interesting the drone directed the topic to homosexuality and refuses to talk about how islam deals with homosexuals. Thats the multicultural way.
Switzerland?
No he is the President currently presiding over an USAID that believes doing this will endear those folks to us and prevent extremists from providing the service (like how H&H works).
It is however ultimately a waste of money since its not the building its what ultimately inside.
The Taliban are not terrorists,there I said it again Douchebag66
From the linked article
Although quite terrifying acts like these are to be expected in a war. The Taliban was a sitting sovereign entity that was overthrown. They obviously have no intention of laying down. When we leave,and we will,they will make this look like a party.
Heh al-Faheed is so easily played.
Incredible that this low level of neuronal activity can find his way back to the site. Miracles never cease. You need to meet up with a guy called Yellow Dawg Mr. Dan. He’s right up your alley…
Notice how al-Faheed thinks you should expect girl schools to be attack in times of war? What a vile POS.
Cracklick66…My Lai.
Cracklick66
Here get really flustered.
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/middle_east/
Awwww…….the hypocrite moderate is trying to be creative with names. LOL
Good. Hope we see more of this.
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=13038867
You know Dan, I find nothing edifying about you. I think you are twisted… I surmise at this time, it would be wise for me to say in the Lord’s name, I rebuke you. I don’t find you capable of entrustment, I find you both obtuse and in error, I believe you pervert scripture under the guise of “doing it with love”, and I find you incredibly deceitful and unwise. You find that an ad hominem, tough luck sport.
Thanks Tex. Total agreement with you here. Read all the comments and find it disgusting as I clearly spot the contortions and continued glib phony poser responses. He shuts eyes and ears to people’s efforts to respond, even when we do it in love and substantiate it with Scripture.
A shallow diver. Lots of data and words do not equate to spiritual wisdom. Words shot back quickly that darken counsel. And they are getting far too much attention. Nothing trustworthy. No credibility. None. Picks and chooses to suit what he considers ‘reasonable’ without being a servant of the very words that are there as clear as possible. A little leaven infiltrates & corrupts the whole loaf, so to speak.
And I can and will say all that ^ in public and should, the same way Paul argues for why he confronted Peter in public on the issue of food BECAUSE Peter’s violation was done in public and violates the truth and reasonableness of all present (Galatians 2:11-21). Same here, in fact so similar it’s comical.
But Dan wants us in private for the wrong reasons. It has nothing to do with Matthew 18. Nothing. So don’t fall for it, guys. Again his correction of us who confront him is a misuse of Scripture… once again. This is his pattern and our deja vu.
I rebuke all Dan’s crap to. Dan, a brother, is still loved.
It’s all about loving the sinner and hating the sin, whether I’m talking about Muslim people vs. the Muslim faith, or all this crap we’re talking about now.
And so, I have demonstrated by Scripture where Tex made a mistake With his take on “abomination,” and no one has responded to the specific correction. Just called me a fake and move on, with NO support for the charge.
How about it? Let’s just take one bit of Bible study and one bit of this discussion at a time?
Tex suggested that gay marriage is wrong because “men laying with men” is an abomination. I point out that the actual Hebrew word, Toevah, does not mean what he is suggesting. That it’s just a cultural taboo. I pointed out that eating shrimp is ALSO listed as an abomination in the Bible, and yet that Tex and y’all probably spend no time decrying all the lobster-eaters out there, and in fact, you may well engage in that abomination yourselves?
A little truth-telling time: Do you engage in the abomination of eating shrimp or lobster?
Even if not, I’m guessing you don’t think it’s sinful. Why is that abomination not sinful, but “men laying with men” is?
Come, let us reason: Let’s just deal with this one issue. No ad homs, no demonizations. Just address the point. Tex suggested that gay marriage = bad because it is an abomination. I clarified the meaning of the word used. I pointed out that shrimp-eating is also called an abomination.
Dealing with the texts and not Dan, what is your reply?
Or is there nothing but the ad homs to your position?
Let’s Reason. One point at a time.
Okey-dokey.
Take 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 passage I just referenced in my most recent comment here…
The translated words “homosexual offenders” come from the Greek word “arsenokoites” which is translated as “one engaging in homosexual acts, sexual deviant.” No other definition is offered… nothing about Greek slave boys, etc.
Resource: Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. a well-known reliable theologian & Greek scholar.
This NT (1 Corinthians) passage agrees with the OT (Leviticus) passages on this issue of homosexuality as a deviant and detestable act in God’s eyes.
Fin.
ummm, okay, so you want to deal with “arsenokoites” instead of “toevah?” Fair enough.
You have offered one scholar’s opinion of the translation. Well-known and reliable to you, perhaps, I know nothing of him.
But you know, I’m sure, that he is not the only scholar out there (giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is actually a scholar), right?
Other scholars/sources have this to say…
“Arsenokoitai” is a Greek word that appears to have been created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” in the King James Version (KJV)…
What does “arsenokoitai” really mean?
Nobody knows for certain.
“Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.”
Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
source
This source goes on to suggest it might be talking about masturbators, male prostitutes in pagan temples or pimps.
Other scholars may have other ideas. The point is, this word that appears for the first time in Paul’s writings, is not a clearly defined word. Some folk may SAY, “I magically know the One True Meaning of this word,” but they’d be yanking your chain.
Now, sometimes, we so long for our own cultural traditions to be validated, we latch on to those who’d agree with our cultural traditions, regardless of whether their take on it is a good one. This is something to be avoided, I’m sure you could agree.
So, it seems we will have a disagreement on this word. Neither you nor I are Greek experts but we’ve both read some and I think the fairest conclusion we can reach is that on “Arsenokoitai,” no one knows conclusively how best to translate this.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I’d suggest that one is a wash.
Cathy,
Thats why I dont bother engaging these drones for long. They could care less about facts and the truth. Not worth the time. Just a suggestion.
Thanks. I engage, because I care and I thought I had something to offer. I hope, at least, my efforts in this thread have been helpful to you and others. I appreciate the discourse and your points of view — might not always agree with you, but I want to remain open and challenge my own little black-box and come out and play when appropriate.
No expert here, but been at this for many years. I take it seriously and conservatively and will try to demonstrate good healthy skepticism when new-fangled-notions creep into our culture. Some warrant a second look and some do not. Thank God we have the Bible and can delve for God’s guidance.
Scripture always helps us interpret Scripture if we work at it. We can’t simply pull one thing or the other out of our behinds and say it’s proof. If we take time to consider our own personal stuff and how we fight God’s will on things, we can sometimes weed out what’s wrong. I know I’m prone to do that. It’s called concupiscence and we all have it deep within us to fight against God.
Okay, I had to look up that word.
Concupiscence: A strong desire, especially sexual desire; lust.
Is that what you were intending to say? That’s the only definition I could find for it in multiple places…
I’m sorry to chime in on this,and I fully concede I like the NT more than the OT, and I fully respect that my previous “no cred ” comment may warrant that I am not addressed but after checking four versions of of Leviticus 18 I’m pretty sure this
doesn’t stand up
And that’s a fine, fine hunch there, Alfie, but would you like to add some meat to your hunch or is that all there is?
How about taking one thing at a time?
Many actions are described as an abomination in the Bible, yes or no? Eating swimming things without scales (ie, shrimp, lobster, etc) is called an abomination.
IS eating shrimp an abomination? And, if so, what does that word mean in that context?
I understand that it’s easier just to say, “No, you’re wrong,” but if you’d hope to make your case, don’t you think you’d have to, well, present a case?
Thanks for looking this up, Alfie. There’s a lot of modern spinning going on in theological circles. I’ve refrained from returning to seminary because I have no patience to put up with predominant liberal views within the Christian faith especially when I’m paying for that education. I’d rather spend time in a collegial environment that is trustworthy which I have presently.
I heard a liberal pastor talk a few years ago saying that the forbidden homosexuality which Paul refers to is only about doing it with Greek slave boys. What? That is forbidden, but this pastor offered no proof that this was exclusive. He seemed to be trying much too hard to be accepting of gays and lesbians. It was frustrating. Knowing the organization in which he is affiliated, I resolved that he was accommodating all this crap to keep membership, but the opposite is now happening — folks and entire congregations are leaving in droves instead.
Here are some, but not all, of the Scriptural passages I’ve been able to find on homosexuality and it being forbidden act for both OT and NT believers:
Leviticus 18:22 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. NIV
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” NIV
The fact that homosexuality is clearly labeled as ‘detestable’ here in both references shows that it is about the act itself for all times, not simply God wanting to set apart the OT Jews to further his people and the nation. If that were the only reason, God would have told them that. That may have been a part of it, but not the whole enchilada. Detestable is just that. Detestable in God’s eyes does not change with the culture or time period. Pretty strong language, for the goose and the gander, Jew and Gentile, I figure. And NO PLACE in Scripture is it spoken of in a positive way, because it is a twisting of God’s original purpose for men and women and the enjoyment of sex and procreation (Genesis 1:27 – 31. It was good. Very very good.)
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards, nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” NIV
I Timothy 1:8-10 “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murders, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers — and for WHATEVER else is contrary to the sound doctrine.”
Notice that Paul doesn’t even begin a discussion about whether any of this is okay if a person is born homosexual. Not even gonna be debated here. We are all born sinful. That’s the more important point. All fall short. All are doomed without Jesus’ rescue and redemption… that’s the point.
Romans 1:26-27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations (heterosexual) for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” NIV
Actually to best understand this section, since it starts with a transition, the entire second half of Romans 1 (starting at verse 18) can be read to help see how we so easily fall deeper and deeper and further away from God’s truth when we allow the ‘darkening of our understanding’ by twisting God’s clear and evident truths. C.S. Lewis talks about this a lot in his discourses. The really creepy part is that God gets so fed up that he actually turns his back and walks away from this kind of evil so that it gets worse and worse… and hopefully in disgust and fear, SOME see the light and crawl back into his loving arms.
1 Corinthians 5 talks about this hope of people seeing their sin… Paul exhorts the Corinthians by telling them they should throw known sexual sinners out to hopefully help them to see the light, the truth of their sin, so that they can return to the faith community and stop deceiving themselves about their lifestyle while being ‘secure in their sin.’
Cathy…
The fact that homosexuality is clearly labeled as ‘detestable’ here in both references shows that it is about the act itself for all times, not simply God wanting to set apart the OT Jews to further his people and the nation.
The “fact” is, “men laying with men” is what is condemned, not all homosexuality.
The word “detestable” here in the NIV is the same word translated as “abomination” in KJV. It is the Hebrew word, Toevah, which means culturally taboo. It is the same word used in conjunction with the ban on shrimp, which WAS talking about temporal, not universal norms. Cultural rules specific to Israel at that time and place.
You understand that you are offering no support for the conclusion that this is a universal condemnation for all homosexual behavior, right?
Do you have any support for THAT position?
Cont’d…
As a reminder, here is the context of those Leviticus passages, as I’m sure you wouldn’t want to cherry pick two verses out of context to prove something that the text does not support, right?
The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them.
Thus begins Lev. 18, where God goes on to condemn bestiality, “men laying with men,” incest, making idols, stealing, slander (which some here seem to have no problem with and you aren’t condemning, Cathy – in fact, you’re engaging in it yourself), polyester (mixed fibers), tattoos, cutting your hair at the side of your heads, clipping the edges of your beard (I kid you not) and not paying an employee on a daily basis, among other actions.
And in that same set of passages, God commands respecting parents, observing the Sabbath (which I’m guessing you probably don’t do, right?), leaving a portion of your goods (farmer’s fields in that context) for the poor and for foreigners, rising in the presence of your elders (do you always do this?), treating foreigners well (no mention of deporting them), among other actions.
Given all of that, and given that no Christians today think that ALL of these rules apply to us (have you cut the hair on the side of your head? Have you worn polyester? These are condemned in these passages you know, alongside “men laying with men”), on what biblical or logical basis do do you decide that SOME of these rules apply, and which ones do and which ones don’t?
And given that this was written in the context of standing out and being different from the pagan worshipers in surrounding nations, why do you think that the “men laying with men” is talking about all gay behavior. Did you know that back then, “men laying with men” was something that those particular “pagans” did as part of their worship? If you knew that, would that make you at least pause to think, “hmm, maybe this isn’t a universal rule, after all”?
islam sanctions stoning of homosexuals. Where is the outrage from the drones and “moderates”?
Asked and answered.
Okay, Fair enough. Jesus and the NT dismissed the eating “unclean” stuff thing. But Jesus never specifically dismissed the law against wearing polyester. Are you saying that it is still wrong to wear polyester?
Also, you aren’t really addressing the misunderstanding of the word “abomination.” Are you familiar with the Hebrew word “Toevah” and its meaning, that it’s a cultural taboo, not necessarily a universal wrong, the way WE think of “abomination” today?
And you DO agree, don’t you, that it’s important to understand the actual text in the context of its original meaning/language, don’t you?
Well BIC beat me to it and then some. I was just going to go the NT route of eating on the Sabbath and the whole what you put into the body route.I was also gonna add the NT freedom but point out the NT does speak out against homosexuality.
Ah well I really need to break off from this.
In conclusion,for me,I’ll buy Dan is trying his best,good for you and good luck with it.Just as people will persecute you,not that I think threads apply,you will face disagreements.I doubt I’ll find too much agreement with you,but still…good luck.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Just when I thought I was out…
Secondary to the fact that that question begs to be a poll.
No! Otherwise how am I supposed to believe it speaks to me,or the French version to someone in Paris or an Arabic version to a kid in ______ etc.
And you DO agree, don’t you, that it’s important to understand the actual text in the context of its original meaning/language, don’t you?
You mean by understanding the meaning in the oldest texts, which are written in greek?
No, I don’t think I got that wrong. But seeing as my explaination did not dwell on the old testament, shouldn’t it be YOU explaining away the NT prohibitions?
I’m thinking you might fit in with the “Emergent Church” people, Dan.
Not especially familiar with them. From what I know, I would likely find some common ground with them. But then, I also find common ground with Methodists and Presbyterians and even Southern Baptists…
Fair enough, I’ve spent way too much time here, too. Just as an aside, “The NT does speak out against homosexuality” – well, that’s what is at question here, isn’t it.
If the question is “What evidence is there that the NT speaks out against all homosexuality?” the answer can’t be, “Yes.”
Jesus is completely silent on the topic.
Paul, in Romans 1, condemns those who engage in pagan practices and who degenerate into ungodly thinking, including some sort of homosexual behavior, but not necessarily all gay behavior.
Additionally, Romans 1 condemns folk for abandoning their “natural” desires. Thus, one could point out that to suggest a gay guy “go straight,” would be to try to get him to abandon his natural desires, the very thing that is condemned.
There are two other words that appear in the NT, malakoi and arsenokoitai whose meanings are debated, but neither of which are the Greek word for “homosexual.”
Malakoi appears to be “male prostitutes,” perhaps, and is literally translated “Soft,” hence the sometimes translation of “effeminate.”
Arseokoitai is a hard to define word that may mean a man who abuses boys, but that is debatable.
Jesus is completely silent on the topic.
Gee. Why stop there? Why not go full out and give us the whole “Paul was just a man” and the “He was speaking to issues specifically affecting the churches he wrote the letters to, and not all of Christendom.” take?
And given that this was written in the context of standing out and being different from the pagan worshipers in surrounding nations, why do you think that the “men laying with men” is talking about all gay behavior. Did you know that back then, “men laying with men” was something that those particular “pagans” did as part of their worship? If you knew that, would that make you at least pause to think, “hmm, maybe this isn’t a universal rule, after all”?
Dan, you sure know how to be a spot in a love feast, don’t you?
What makes you think that there is no connection between the two? If I accept your premise that the law’s purpose was to set the jews apart from the surrounding pagans, and ignore the typology/symbology, don’t you think that the prohibition was also because if they were to engage in that pagan behavior, that their minds would change to conform the inside with the outside? And that God would let that happen? Wasn’t that the point of Romans 1:18 et seq.? If we engage in the world’s behavior, then we are not set apart from the world?
Just in case you folks missed it in all this mess, Here is my reply/response to Dan about his latest effort to REASON with several of us on the issue of Homosexuality.
Considering that one short comment from one of us births a bunch of words we have to swim through from him with twisted logic that almost makes me drown, I’m repeat this here at the end of the comment thread. Sorry for the redundancy.
Let’s Reason. One point at a time.
Okey-dokey.
Take 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 passage I just referenced in my most recent comment here…
The translated words “homosexual offenders” come from the Greek word “arsenokoites” which is translated as “one engaging in homosexual acts, sexual deviant.” No other definition is offered… nothing about Greek slave boys, etc.
Resource: Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. a well-known reliable theologian & Greek scholar.
This NT (1 Corinthians) passage agrees with the OT (Leviticus) passages on this issue of homosexuality as a deviant and detestable act in God’s eyes.
Fin.
Dan, you prove nothing and win no arguments when your resources are websites and translations that promote tolerance of homosexuality.
These are biased to meet your argument. This is what you have been doing all along.
My source is an extremely well-known scholar in main stream circles of Christianity. Not just one denomination or one issue — like homosexuality or religious tolerance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiros_Zodhiates
You can say to yourself that you won. We know better.
I didn’t say, “I won.” It’s bible study, not a contest. I said that I don’t believe either you or I, not being ancient Greek scholars, are in a place to settle the matter of the definition of Arsenokoitai. You have one source that agrees with your cultural traditions and you like him. I’ve read many, many sources (not just the one I cited) and the definitions have been all over the place.
What they have in common is that no one can say authoritatively “This word was being used to say THIS by Paul.” It’s an unknown. Translators have guesses and hunches about this word that some think Paul may have coined, but no one knows for sure.
Is that a fair statement?
No.
And this is no Bible Study.
I’m done.
All this dialog has proven to me is that the Bible is a huge book full of contradictions from which every believer takes what confirms their world view.
But I will say this, BiW, this thread is a great respite from your most recent one. Please, don’t tell the others that this thread exists. 😉
Hey Rutherford. I just came back to say HI and offer this.
Kinda saddens me that your observations have left you at this conclusion.
I don’t blame you. I wish I could have done more to keep you from reaching this conclusion.
I’m not surprised. This sort of crap is a disservice, I think, to folks like you who might be seeking answers. I’m sorry.
Again, as I just said, this is no Bible Study. I’m done here.
Another reason to hold these sorts of in-house conversations in private, I’d suggest. Perhaps you can now see some wisdom to that suggestion from Jesus?
And I don’t know that Rutherford is far awrong. The Bible IS a big book with many at least seeming contradictions or at least points which can be hard to resolve. Consider the “Don’t shed innocent blood” passages vs the “kill ’em all, right down to the children.” At the very least, I’d hope you could see how that would seem like a contradiction.
And people DO often use the Bible to confirm their worldview, as opposed to being transformed by the renewing of our minds, as Paul suggests. I agree with Paul, renewing our minds is a good thing.
But all of us have a tendency to find evidence to confirm what we already believe, it’s a human condition not unique to Christians, as far as that goes. I would suggest just owning up to our own failings is a reasonable notion that can at least help us come across as honest, if not perfect.
And while I’m sure you’re done with this, Miss Cathy, I would wonder what would make this, “Not a Bible study” in your mind? We were looking at what the Bible has to say and studying some contexts and texts seeking some truths. Why isn’t that Bible study?
Concupiscence: A strong desire, especially sexual desire; lust. Is that what you were intending to say? That’s the only definition I could find for it in multiple places…
No. Generic dictionaries, especially the up-to-date ones steer clear of the full and deeper meaning. Not a complete answer. This is a major problem with modern translations. They want to gentrify and make everything nice. Kinda like main stream media. Totally misses essential points.
Concupiscence studied in theological terms is the pursuit of the human being to be hostile toward God. Hostility is the operative word. Even though we believers seek to please God, there still remains a part of us, our sinful nature, that fights against our spiritual desire to lead a ‘sanctified life’ in Christ.
Paul in his letter to the Romans (Romans 7:7-25) is Paul’s own confession and explanation of this condition.
Martin Luther talks about us being ‘simil justus et peccator’ simultaneously sinner and saint. We can’t get away from the condition completely, but we can seek to push ourselves into one or the other, depending upon what we ‘feed’ ourselves in our thinking, our speaking, our listening – cognition.
That is why it is essential for us to seek and speak truth. It’s our food.
Thanks for the education.
Elric, you are one fickle dude. Alfie gave you a comfy home for years where you could spew your nonsense and the way you repay him is to transform him into some lilly-livered liberal, which we both know he is not. (That one describes me. 🙂 ).
Oh please! You’ve demonstrated nothing. You don’t debate; you ramble.
See Dan, in order for me to believe you, I have to assume that you in your infinite liberal wisdom have somebody determined that the Bible mistranslated, when in reality you’re 2,000 years from when it was written. And both tradition and history have shown that homosexuality is been condemned almost all of those 2,000 years. That is not debatable, being as late as 1973, homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental deficiency by none other than the American Psychiatric Association.
Like so much the last 40 years, we’ve flipped the script to make things more acceptable. You’re not much different than the Gnostic gospel crowd, flailing at anything to make the Bible fit your preconceived notions. You might fool somebody like Rutherford, whose looking for excuse to find “contradictions” in the Bible, but you’re not fooling any Christian worth his or her salt.
I told you that you need to link up with Yellow Dawg. Better yet, you need to hook up with an old man named Graychin. You two would love each other (I’m afraid possibly literally). If you’d like there website where you can trade your twisted schemes, let me know. They could use the traffic at the “Two Useful Idiot’s Blog.”
Finally Dan, if you knew you’re history, you would recognize the last bastion of civilization is defined by rampant immorality and decadence, including the acceptance of homosexuality as normal behavior. No thanks…
Dan, you’re a farce.
there/their 😳
I DIDN’T make a mistake on abomination? Then what does it mean?
Don’t demonize, brother, talk. “When you say abomination means taboo, you’re wrong because…”
Adult conversation. Rational. Cool, calm, collected, respectful.
How about it? Where is my mistake, brother?
Your/you’re. fyi.
I will say this: You are correct, I’m not debating. I’m talking. I’m sharing what I think and am hoping to hear some of what you think ABOUT MY POINTS (not ad homs) in return, along with some of what you think.
Bible study is not debate, for me. It’s just Bible study. Discussion. Conversation. Prayer.
Why wont these multicultural drones talk about how islam treats homosexuals?
Wow! New CBS Poll Shows 72% Opposed to Ground Zero Mosque, Only 24% Have Favorable Impression of Islam…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014737-503544.html?tag=stack
You are in the minority drones and moderates.
Wow!
Cathy Wins!
Dan,
Your game of semantics grows old. Abomination is very clear.
There are five different words translated abomination in the Bible. The predominant meaning is, “to stink, to be loathsome, uncleanness” The original words are expressive of the greatest disdain on the part of God.
Here are what are referred to abomination: witchcraft, adultery, and homosexuality. Divination is expressly called abomination (Deut. 18:9). Abominations is applied to adultery in Leviticus 18: 17-27. Homosexuality is also included in the list, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination”.
Abomination is also mentioned of prayer of disobedient, dishonesty, and justifying the wicked and condemning the just. Proverbs 28: 9 states, “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination and “a false balance is abomination to the Lord…” (Prov. 11: 1). Those who justify the wicked and condemn the just, they both are abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 17: 15).
Clearly, abomination is suggestive of a great degree of depravity and rebellion. Your justification of homosexuality and your dishonesty is an abomination Dan. 😉 In fact, in makes me vomit.
You left off shrimp, Tex. It’s an abomination, too.
Have you engaged in the abomination of eating shrimp, bro?
You see, the drone rather focus on shrimp than gays being stoned and hung by muslims.
Elric I know you’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier but if you look back through the thread, you’ll see that Dan opposes much of what goes on in the Islamic world. You label people drones even when they agree with you on certain points.
Does that make him a drone, too?
Or a clone, maybe?
LOL … Elric is an enigma wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in a conundrum. I’m being nice. 🙂
Tex…
There are five different words translated abomination in the Bible. The predominant meaning is, “to stink, to be loathsome, uncleanness”
I’ve already covered this error, but just in case you missed it…
That may or may not be (that there are five different words for abomination in the Bible), I’m no Hebrew scholar (and I would hazard to guess you aren’t, either, Tex).
BUT (and read closely so we can stick together on what we’re talking about), the word used in Lev 18 and 20 is Toevah, the word for Taboo, not the predominant English version.
You DO understand that this is what the meaning of the word in question is now, right? We can agree that it’s important to get a good translation of biblical words to best understand the meaning and the word used in Lev 18 and 20 is Toevah, meaning “taboo,” or something that is culturally forbidden, right?
OR, if you don’t agree, provide some source to suggest that this wrong translation that you’re providing is the better translation (it’s not, I’ve read all about it). But feel free to offer some authoritative source to support the claim IF you don’t want to agree with the facts as I’ve stated them.
Leave the ad homs behind, this time. Just deal with the facts at hand, I’d suggest.
Oh, I meant to provide some sources for translation. They can be found here or here, among any other places you can find a reliable Hebrew translation.
That first source (Bible-History.com) says…
The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is to`ebhah, meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, “The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians,” this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Gen 46:34).
The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek…
[That is, this is a very culturally-oriented notion of taboo, not some wickedly nasty evil thing that you’re wrongly suggesting]
…It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult, was called an “abomination,”…
…Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination to`ebhah; as are sexual transgressions (Dt 22:5; 23:18; 24:4), especially incest and other unnatural offenses: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you” (Lev 18:27; compare Ezek 8:15)…
I will also note one other use of the term, abomination…
These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren.
If you have spoken falsehoods about me (and you have, whether deliberate or not, I can’t say, but clearly, you have spoken falsehoods: I’m not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, for instance, nor am I a Muslim – two clear falsehoods), then you are committing an abomination unto God, something that God hates.
Just saying, careful about throwing them stones from your glass house, bro.
Sure Dan, I’ll provide the best source. 2,000 years of historical translation leaving no doubt as to the meaning. That is, unless you believe you more qualified to “decipher” the “meaning” that the 1st Century Church fathers?
Did that hurt your feelings? Did it offend you? Did that statement qualify as an ad hominem? Did it sound like an attack? Did it ruffle your feathers, or make you feel scorned?
Let me intercede and apologize now profusely, as I am sure my disagreement with your understanding could be misconstrued as a personal attack, cognitive dissonance, ad hominem, straw man, and red herring.
I wouldn’t want your profound sensitivities be hurt in any way. 😦
By the way Dan. We can ignore the Levitical arguments and go directly to the New Testament written in Greek where homosexuality is also condemned. As I’m sure a “scholar” like you aware, Greek is very specific in meaning.
Somehow, I doubt Paul who said these words:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Would then in turn say, “But hey, if they get MARRIED, everything is OKAY!”
But I’m sure somehow that’s been mistranslated, misunderstood, and misapplied too, hey?
That is, unless you believe you more qualified to “decipher” the “meaning” that the 1st Century Church fathers?
Your source of information that demonstrates the 1st century church interpreted Toevah as something other than its actual meaning?
Or is that an instance of you presuming to know what the 1st century church thought? Based upon how you keep incorrectly guessing what my position is and incorrectly summarizing my position (hurt my feelings? Really?) I’d suggest that you have a poor track record of reading people’s minds.
I mean, if you can’t read MY mind, when I’m your own contemporary, raised in the same nation, same church, same language, same time period, what are the odds you’re correctly reading the minds of folk dead for 2000 years, from a different culture, time and language altogether?
I’d say the odds are against it, friend.
So, I’ll take that as a “No, I DON’T have any sources other than my own imagination to demonstrate the toevah means something other than its actual definition,” fair enough?
Pic(s) of the Day: Those Peace-Loving Palestinians Handing Out Sweets Celebrating the Murder of a Pregnant Israeli Woman…
Hamas officially took credit for the cold-blooded murder of four Israelis including a pregnant woman. This is how these animals celebrate, exactly like they did after 9/11, by handing out candy…
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/31/pics-of-the-day-those-peace-loving-palestinians-handing-out-sweets-celebrating-the-murder-of-a-pregnant-israeli-woman/
This should excite those POS moderates al-Faheed and Huck. Should give those multicultural drones a tingle up their legs.
I got an email sent to me today with a Windows Media video attachment about a minute and a half long. It is of a woman, presumably Muslim, being stoned to death in the street. Quality of the video is not great, but clear enough to know this is a real event occurring.
Beginning of the video shows her surrounded by a pack of men throwing rocks at her, kicking her, and stomping on her. She covers her head and face trying to protect herself, but her face and long dark hair are covered with blood. As things progress, in the process of being kicked, her skirt ends up above her hips, with everyone looking at her underwear and bare legs. We see large bruises and abrasions on her body. All this time she is being rolled around on the pavement, while she receiving these blows and kicks, knowing full well she is going to die. What a horrible experience. Suffering this pain and shame while you are dying at the hands of a pack of angry sick jerks.
This is happening in this present time period. Men were taking photos of her bloody face and body with cell-phone cameras, but no one helped her or defended her. I’m assuming this video was done by someone not part of the stoning; instead hopefully done to record it as evidence and spread it via the internet.
Then one guy takes a huge square stone or building block of some sort, and from waste height, drops it on her head a couple of times. She stops moving.
The video ends with this pack of guys watching the blood pour out of her head, pooling onto the street and flowing in streams away from her head.
She received no ritual. No last words. She didn’t even get buried up to her waste like Soraya M. or others, as I understood is the classic way of stoning a woman.
Wow. That Sharia law is gonna be a great enhancement to our U.S. Constitution, huh.
*Disgusting*
That’s awful Cathy. Both disturbing and disgusting that anyone could be that twisted and inhumane (and cowardly).
One good thing may come out of it. Maybe people like Dan might understand that Islam and Christianity are not one and the same, with the same results, same mindset, same quality of life, same hopes and dreams, and same sense of justice.
But I doubt it.
Twisted. Inhumane. Cowardly. Sexually repressed. Sick.
Violence is mostly done to women. If you recall the videos spread around of the student riots in Iran last year… Observers started noticing that a majority of the targets of the beatings and shootings were women.
I’ve mentioned this on another blog recently, but while I served in parish ministry, my Muslim neighbor made a visit to my office in the church.
She is a beautiful woman, a wife and mother of two great kids. She tried hard to be obedient to her husband. But sometimes he would lose it, accuse her of all sorts of wrongs, and start beating her. She had to wear long pants or skirts most of the time because of the bruises she ‘wore’ up and down her legs. She insisted on showing me her bruises.
When I asked her if she had considered leaving, she said that she was afraid to because he had threatened her, telling her that if she ever tried to leave, he would find her and kill her. He was very rich and had a network of people all over the world, so she believed him.
Or MAYBE, people like Tex will realize that the Bible was serious when it condemned those who gossip, spread false reports and slander, when it said that those who engage in such behavior are NOT part of the Kingdom of God.
You think?
I have not said, nor do I believe that Islam and Christianity are “one and the same.” That is a falsehood. A slanderous comment, since I am a Christian.
Why, since the Bible is abundantly clear that bearing false witness is wrong, do you continue in that sin? Are you just sinning in ignorance? If you’re going to make a false charge like that, you ought to be prepared to back it up. AND when you can’t back it up (that being a false charge with no basis in reality), that should be a clue that you ought not make a false claim.
What if someone came along and said, “WOW! That Tex makes false charge after false charge. He ain’t a Christian! He’s prob’ly a Mooslim! Or perhaps a devil worshiper and baby snatcher!”? Would that be okay, or would it be wrong since it is a false charge? I’d suggest it’d be wrong.
How long you been a Christian, Tex?
“Wow. That Sharia law is gonna be a great enhancement to our U.S. Constitution, huh.”
Thats what leftists are fighting for.
“I have not said, nor do I believe that Islam and Christianity are “one and the same.”
Do you believe that they and their founding prophets are morally similar?
?
I believe Jesus is the Son of God and Mohammad was a guy, so no, not especially.
Hard to give slanderous results about Dan’s opinions because he never answers questions unless he can spin.
Yes Dan, I do believe you are the best example of equivocator I’ve ever met. Is it a talent or a fault? When you can answer our questions beyond a shadow of a doubt, without equivocation and equivalency, then you can accuse me of slandering you, bearing false witness, being a bad example. Because I am going to follow your lead from here on out. 😉
Since you refuse to answer questions that require clear, concise answers, I will stick by my “yeah, you believe Islam and Christianity are basically the same.” And I’ll bet there are many here who agree with my conclusions.
This is just strange, Tex. I answer question after question posed by you all. You all answer about half of my questions.
I don’t answer with “spin,” I answer with my opinion. If you take that as spin, that’s on you, not me.
Here are the facts:
1. I have never said that Islam and Christianity are the same. I just have not said that.
2. I HAVE said that I am a Christian, saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, the risen son of God. I’ve been a Christian for 37 years now and a student of the Bible my whole life, and especially these last 30 years.
3. I HAVE said that I find Islam in practice to be problematic too often. Murder, oppression, attacking innocents, sexism, homophobia, these behaviors are wrong and they occur too often by too many Muslims. Now, of course, that is nowhere near ALL Muslims misbehaving, but it is a consistent problem.
THAT is what I have said about my Christianity and about Islam. No spin, no refusing to answer, just crystal clarity. What part of that are you not understanding? What question remains unanswered? If you have a question that isn’t answered, all you have to do is ask again, this is a conversation and that’s how it works.
If I miss a question that was asked – it’s possible, this is just a few minutes out of my busy day, after all – just ask again.
And yes, Elric, I DID answer your question, even though it should have been obvious to anyone who has read my comments here these last few days. I’ve never compared Mohammad to Jesus. I have ALWAYS stated clearly that I am a Christian saved by God’s grace through faith in the risen son, Jesus. If I’m not mistaken, I’ve even already said specifically that, technically, Jesus is not usually considered a prophet (as you called him in comparing him to Mohammad), but the son of God.
So there’s the answer yet again. What part of that is not clear? And how does that justify your false charges? EVEN IF I was not as clear as you want in answering your questions (all you have to do is ask for clarification), how does that justify the many false charges you’ve made against me?
Tex,
Be interesting if he answers my question posed to him.
Dan, accusing people here of slander is comical. SLANDER?!!? Get a grip.
Slander is about malicious lies that DAMAGE one’s REPUTATION. A reputation is damaged when someone’s ability to function in society is impeded. Our dialogue in this blog here is not doing that. Your ability to function in your community, at your job, or in your place of worship has not been damaged. Get a grip.
You have misused of Scripture again! You want my run-down on the Scripture you abused above about the 6-7 things that God hates? Never-mind. I’m gonna hold off on anything like that until I’m not spitting nails.
And your words in this blog post once again, look like you have made this about you. This is not the first time you feign that you’ve been slandered here, I see.
Get a grip.
Reality check. This is blogging on the internet. No one here being slandered. You have not been injured. If you don’t like the way conversations are going, then get off and move away from the computer and go DO something worthwhile for you, your family, your community, or your country.
And you say that when you study the Bible, you pray. Well maybe you can pray that God will help you to know how YOU PERSONALLY can do something IN REAL LIFE that might help prevent stoning or abuse of another woman, who IS being SLANDERED… FOR REAL in her society! Or how to defend the old man who was verbally abused by that ranting hateful lying jerk in that recent video.
Your BEHAVIOR is my problem, Dan. It reveals your priorities and choices. I truly care for you as Christian brother struggling, like the rest of us to find meaning in things and live a life that we are trying to do according to God’s will. But I HATE the behavior and attitude that drives you to focus on self-absorption.
This is not about you. You have not been injured or damaged by slander or lies. Get a grip.
*Have I said GET A GRIP yet…? Yea, I think so…*
Slander is about malicious lies that DAMAGE one’s REPUTATION.
Cathy, slander in the Bible generally is just another way of saying “false charges.”
source
But beyond that, you don’t find calling a Christian a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and a “Muslim” to be slanderous? To be a malicious lie, when you don’t even know the other person??
Okay fine, ignore the slander if you wish (although I’d think that Christians would be concerned about doing something so obviously listed as a wrong in the Bible). What of the blatant false charges? How do you justify that as a Christian?
Cathy…
You have misused of Scripture again!
I don’t believe I have, but I’m willing to listen to your exposition on the point if you’d like to give it a try to support such a (currently) unsupported charge.
Cathy…
Your BEHAVIOR is my problem, Dan.
I appreciate the concern, sister, but you all keep coming up with vague charges that don’t have any support. For me to learn, I need some specifics. Like I’ve done for you all (“When you call me a Muslim, that SPECIFIC act IS a false charge, since I’m NOT a Muslim”) – I cite the words someone used and explained the problem with them.
So, when you say my behavior is the problem, that isn’t citing anything specific. If you said, “Dan, when you say X, this is a problem because…” like that. Like I’ve been saying.
If you have a problem with a brother, go to that brother (preferably in private, per the Scriptures – and that is NOT a misusing of Scripture so far as I can see, so I’m still unsure why you all continue in this less than helpful approach) and explain the problem in respectful, loving terms. I need some specifics in order to learn my mistakes, sister.
Cathy…
YOU PERSONALLY can do something IN REAL LIFE that might help prevent stoning or abuse of another woman, who IS being SLANDERED… FOR REAL in her society!
Well, since you don’t know me, you don’t know the ways I do or don’t go about helping end oppression locally and globally, do you? In fact, I do things that I think are helpful. But thanks for your concern.
You reference my “self-absorption.” I don’t know what you mean by that. Where in my behavior have I indicated a tendency towards self-absorption? In correcting false charges laid against me? In answering questions put to me?
Again, without some specific point of reference, it’s hard to know what you’re speaking of. As a counselor (you said you were a counselor, right?), I’m sure you know the importance of being specific and respectful when discussing interpersonal problems, right?
Last one. Cathy said…
You have not been injured or damaged by slander or lies.
I’m of the opinion that we are all harmed when people spread false testimony. It undermines relationships, community and respect for truth.
Do you disagree?
I think one misconception some here might have is that “my feelings are hurt” or that I’m being “sensitive” when I address false charges. Honestly, no. I see some crazy charge (“Dan is a muslim!”) and I smile and shake my head. It is a charge by someone who does not know me and whom I don’t know and it does not worry me in the least. I laugh at such craziness because it is so NOT based in the real world.
No, I bring it up to CLARIFY that the charge is false, because I believe in truth and setting things aright when I can. Beyond that, I generally think that such falsehoods, while goofy as hell and humorous, also damage truth and community, so I correct them.
Doesn’t that seem reasonable to you?
Maybe Dan needs to re-vist THE RULES (BiW author and owner of this blog) here…
The Rules
1. I’m a believer in free speech, but I am not the United States Government, so I do not owe you the right to say whatever the Hell you want to say. You want to argue with me or a commenter, that’s cool. You want to stray far off topic or just be obnoxious, obtuse, or try to hijack my soapbox, be prepared to be moderated, singled out for special ridicule, have your comments edited, or find yourself banned. Don’t like it? Too damn bad. This is my soapbox; you’re welcome to get your own.
2. This is a political blog. That means that I’m likely to be abrupt, blunt, and I do not care if you are offended. You can always choose not to read it.
3. Have fun. This is part of the exercise of our right to use our voices and intellect in the attempt to keep our government honest and under control. Yeah…I know, but I can dream, can’t I?
Ummm, okay. I’m not sure why you’re pointing to those. I know this is a blog. I have not strayed off topic any more than anyone else. O have not been deliberately obnoxious or obtuse. I don’t mind if someone is blunt. I have yet to be offended here. I have been having fun, in a perverse sorta way. (It is just amazing to me how these conversations so often tend to go, from conservative blog to conservative blog to conservative blog.)
So, what is your point? That because this is a blog, it is okay for Christians to misrepresent other people’s point of view? Legally, sure it is. Morally, I find it less than helpful, if strangely amusing.
Accusing others and saying you have been slandered is a lie.
Slander: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation, MW.
False charges have been levied repeatedly against me. If taken seriously, they could damage a fella’s reputation.
Calling me a Muslim IS a false charge and misrepresentation that defames my reputation. How about answering this: DO you think that spreading false charges about someone does not damage their reputation? What of that Sherrod lady who was accused of racism? THAT damaged her reputation.
Do you not find it troubling when people spread false charges? Yes or no? A simple question, sister. Could you answer it, please?
Focus on YOU instead of those truly injured demonstrates you are self-absorbed.
Just to choose one: Tex said I was a Muslim. That is a falsehood, since I am a Christian and I am NOT a Muslim. Pretty straightforward. I don’t hold to Muslim theology, but Christian theology. I don’t have much of an opinion at all about Mohammad, but think Jesus is the risen son of God. I attend Christian church several times a week and have for my whole 47 years. I am saved by orthodox Christian standards. I have attended a mosque once or twice. I don’t generally read the Koran, just some excerpts here and there. I read the Bible regularly and have for 47 years.
Pretty straightforward. By any reasonable measure, I am not a Muslim, therefore, that is a falsehood.
Agree or disagree?
Focus on YOU instead of those truly injured demonstrates you are self-absorbed.
Where have I focused on ME? Again, “Dan, when you say X, that says to me…”
In your counseling, don’t you encourage people to be specific about their issues?
My addressing false statements is not a focus on me, you understand, but on the false statements, right?
One last thing as to the “Focus on me” charge: Do you recall how this started? Early on, instead of addressing my points, Tex and others began with ad hominem attacks, attacks on me personally rather than my positions, remember?
And do you remember my repeated polite response? I suggested that ad homs are not real arguments. I suggested that if someone had problems with me personally, that they should address it individually, via email, as personal attacks and discussions were rather inappropriate in a public forum? Do you recall how I repeatedly made that offer, TO GET THE PERSONAL discussion OFF this public forum?
So, do you understand how very odd this seems, to have personal attacks, false charges made about me personally, and I offer graciously to take it off line and go one on one about the specifics of my character, only to have that offer rebuffed and the personal attacks to continue and personal questions asked which I have responded to, ONLY to have the charge that I’m focusing on the personal? Do you see how that might be counted as strange and, well, just ha-ha funny, if a bit ridiculous?
Çome sister, you are intelligent: do you see the absurd humor in that at all?
Being called a Muslim on this blog does NO damage to your reputation.
If someone is calling you a Muslim (I DID NOT) then maybe they are trying to get YOU to see your disconnectedness in your words here. I can’t speak for them. Just guessing.
Maybe they are poking fun. Maybe it is in jest. Have some fun. Lighten up. Consider what they see in you to poke you this way. It’s just a poke. Lighten up. Get a grip.
Look at yourself and take responsibility for YOUR OWN WORDS that cause people to respond. What a great opportunity you have if you bother to use it. Actually people here seem rather loving about how they treat you.
But your reputation is not damaged. There is NO slander here. Get a grip.
Stop your whining. Stop lying to yourself. No one believes you and you lose more credibility with this self-indulgent crap. You are doing more damage to your own so-called reputation with carrying on this way than any accusations or little pokes others may or may not be making.
Get a grip. This is a blog on the internet.
*Did I say GET A GRIP again…?? Yea, me did repeat mess-self*
Being called a Muslim on this blog does NO damage to your reputation.
Well, I would consider it damaging, if people believed it, but that is because I don’t have a very high opinion of Islam and the acts of its believers.
So, you care nothing about false charges? Since you refuse to answer this basic question, is that the conclusion I should draw? That any false charges should be construed as jokes, not actual real world commentary.
Fair enough.
From henceforth then, I shall consider all crazy-assed comments (Dan’s a Muslim, Dan’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, etc) as just lame jokes and goofy ad homs, not worthy of a response.
My apologies for failing to see the “humor” in those “jokes.”
Moving on then…
So, you care nothing about false charges? Since you refuse to answer this basic question, is that the conclusion I should draw?
Care? False charges?
Perspective, Dan! A wonderful thing.
Get a grip.
Jesus demonstrated many times his intellect and powerful choice to refuse to answer questions. Do you accuse him of wrong doing? His early discourses almost got him killed… and then were the catalyst for a build up of hatred in others that led to his final crucifixion.
I don’t claim to be Jesus or even to do a good job at dodging what I don’t see as the important priority in an issue or discussion. But I’m making a clear concerted effort here.
Maybe you wouldn’t know ‘care’ iffin it poked you in the ribs. Read the book of Job and consider how much God showed REAL CARE for Job despite his complaints and suffering. Then come back here and tell us we don’t care.
I am a bit embarrassed, if this whole “it’s just a joke” theme is true. I consider myself a pretty funny guy, but I never saw that most of what is said here is just a joke, not to be taken seriously as adult conversation.
But it DOES make a bit more sense, now. Adults talking and spatting as if they were third graders (“You’re a Mooslim!” “Oh yeah, your momma!”). Wacky stuff.
Still, I wonder Cathy. I understand now that when YOU say wacky less than rational comments (“stop whining” “You’re making it all about you”) that you are likely just goofing and that I shouldn’t take such irrational commentary as being serious conversation, just silly Cathy goofin’ around.
But how do you know the others are joking? And direct questions with no hint of humor (“Do you believe that they and their founding prophets are morally similar?”) but that are, nonetheless, wholly irrational-sounding, should I take those as jokes not to be seriously answered?
If some folk here are joking (and I have to admit, that makes this whole conversation make a bit more sense), I must also admit I can’t tell when they’ve stopped joking and when they want to make a serious point. How do you know they are joking and that I shouldn’t take them seriously? Or are you just saying I shouldn’t take you seriously?
I appreciate your thoughts about all this AND realizing the quandary that we ALL are in here… in blogs… trying to make real human connections. This is tough stuff and not for everyone.
More than once I’ve walked away from the computer so furious and outraged (maybe in tears) about what I interpreted as an insult to me. Luckily, in most cases, I got some perspective before responding. But not always. I’ve been ugly online. I own it.
Most of these morons here on this blog, I think, would be willing to admit to you that they know how it feels to sense an insult.
Taking me seriously? Well, if I talk about you in your jammies and robe in the Sponge-Bob print in the lock up ward while you are on meds, I keed! But in that ‘rant’ was something serious sprinkled in there for you to consider.
I can’t discern the individual words or statements for you. That’s your call — your ‘work’ & ‘worthship.’ I totally believe that God will help you discern if you ask.
When I sense it happening and, if I am truly concerned, I ask the commenter to clarify while being willing to own how the comment made me feel or how I might be interpreting it. It’s okay to have feelings. It’s part of being human.
And for how and whether to respond, I honestly seek counsel and examples from God’s Word. Sorry, folks, if I’m sounding ‘churchy’ or pious. Deal with it. The honest truth is that deep down, I really am an asshole and a bitch. I can easily be arrogant, prideful and even hateful sometimes. I know it. But I also know that I can take all that negative energy and ‘grist for the mill’ and use it to respond positively in a way that is pleasing to my Lord. Again, outcomes are not always what I intend, but will keep trying and remember always…
“… that God will forgive me and the rest of you morons will just have to get over it!”
Hang in there, Bro.
I insinuated some days back I thought you could be a Muslim. Since then, I’ve changed my stance from Muslim to equivocator – fluff blowing in the wind without fortitude, purpose or meaning. A wind-up box with a nice song; an inanimate object with random generated answers. 🙂
I have no idea what you are Dan for sure but confused.
But you are the only person on record I’ve ever conversed with after hours of conversation, I still find myself thinking, “Is anyone really there?”
Since then, I’ve changed my stance from Muslim to equivocator – fluff blowing in the wind without fortitude, purpose or meaning. A wind-up box with a nice song; an inanimate object with random generated answers. 🙂
Wow! NOW I feel the love, Tex.
*snigger* (my version of ‘giggle’ but with a snort in there)
*Group hug!*
The honest truth is that deep down, I really am an asshole and a bitch. I can easily be arrogant, prideful and even hateful sometimes. I know it. But I also know that I can take all that negative energy and ‘grist for the mill’ and use it to respond positively in a way that is pleasing to my Lord. Again, outcomes are not always what I intend, but will keep trying and remember always…
“… that God will forgive me and the rest of you morons will just have to get over it!”
Amen, sister.
As the owner of an acid tongue and a rhetorical veg-o-matic, I decided I wanted to stay out of this donnybrook for the most part, otherwise I probably would have insulted everyone at some point.
…otherwise I probably would have insulted everyone at some point.
*puts butt firmly in chair*
*grabs seat with both hands*
*waits…*
You all will have to try a lot harder to insult, if that’s what you’re trying to do. I didn’t realize that was the purpose of the false charges, grade school insults and humorless jokes?
I’m not in grade school anymore and not insulted so easily.
If anyone wants to talk about these issues on a more rational adult level, though, I stand ready.
me Me ME mE me Me ME me ME
I i I I I I I I i i i III i
It’s like someone set Barack Hussein Obama loose in the comment section.
Dan, (I can call you Dan, right?)
It wasn’t about trying to insult you. As much as you claim we don’t know about you, you don’t know about us.
IF I wanted to insult you, I assure you, I could manage it, with little or no effort. It simply isn’t something I want to do at this point, although I find that I understand why you seem to be sand in everyone’s shorts.
If I wasn’t so busy, I might take some time to break it down for you, but you might at least consider how many of your comments in the last day have been in some way about you.
BiW: IF people keep asking me about my position and I answer, is that ME making it about ME? OR, is that people asking me a personal question and me answering it?
Could you just answer that question?
AND, IF people misrepresent my position and I correct that misunderstanding (AFTER suggesting they take their personal comments to an email forum rather than a public forum, and that suggestion is ignored and rebuffed), is that ME making it about ME? OR, is that just a reasonable response to a false claim?
Could you answer that question, please?
Thanks.
If anyone wants to talk about these issues on a more rational adult level, though, I stand ready.
So, are you presently standing in the HQ of Discovery Channel in Silver Springs, Maryland?
😆 If so, we’ll no for sure when the comments suddenly disappear.
Shazaam!
We keep pokin’ but just not feelin’ the love from Dan…
Pity.
Not at all sure what those last three comments mean. Sorry.
A guy named James Lee entered the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in Silver Springs Maryland today. He is an environmental activist and produced demands about them changing their programming, etc. We have not heard the whole story yet, but he was threatening people with bombs, gun shots were heard, and he took hostages.
He has been apprehended now.
He’s a Green-guy and I was KIDDING!!!!!!
YOU CAN LAUGH NOW!
*poke*
Correction.
Gunman was killed by the police.
Hostages are all safe.
Glad the hostages are safe.
Glad eco-terrorist assumed room temperature and returned to the bio-sphere he was willing to kill to protect.
He only wanted more Shark Week
😆 😆 😆
I’m on board with BiC. I admire the guy for volunteering to rid us of at least one parasite. Kudos where deserved.
Bet he had a Hope & Change bumper sticker.
One of many demands…
For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!
Guy shoulda taken some wisdom from that George Carlin comedy ‘Earth Day’ routine where he talks about us being a pimple on the butt of the earth that is not phased by us.
^ Oops. Not the vid where he talks about the pimple… but still amazingly therapeutic.
GLAR!
That means ‘giggling like a retard’ for those who wanna know.
Off Topic! Thank God. It’s FINALLY raining here. Haven’t had a good rain in a long time. Might just be a good old fashioned Texas gully-washer.
My poor dog ‘Peaches’ is struggling to not be afraid of the thunder, though. She was abandoned and a stray for so long that she lost much of her fur and was mostly skin and bone when rescued.
What a sweet, decent survivor she is. But she still has issues. She has really worked on several of her fears. When it thunders, she looks up at me as if to say, “See, momma, I’m not as afraid as I used to be…” But she still has to fight off that fear.
She also freaked out at flashlights, cameras, and ceiling fans. I almost cry thinking about what she had been through to cause her reactions.
*kinda into dog-rescue-adoptions*
I miss the good old fashioned, house shaking, earth drenching gully washers from the midwest. Here, the slightest rumble of thunder makes the natives wet their pants, and they have no idea what a storm is.
ROTFLMAO!!! 😆 No Cathy … that’s Elric. Notice he hasn’t posted any comments recently.
Whenever some psycho goes on a rampage, all of us in the blogosphere need to hold our breath and hope for his sake that an Elric comment surfaces somewhere soon. 😉
For the record: George Carlin was DA BOMB! Fewer men have spoken as much truth in a lifetime as George spoke in a dozen or so HBO specials.
Of course there is a certain irony to Cathy introducing him as a side-topic since George was rabidly anti-religion. And yet, his view of the Earth (“the big electron”) could be considered downright spiritual.
Dan … you present the same dilemma that Obama presents. If being called a Muslim is slander, then you must surely be saying that being a Muslim is something bad. Simply calling someone what they are not, is not slander. If someone here called me a genius, it would not be true, but I sure wouldn’t call it slander. (Of course, anyone doing that in this forum would be laying on the sarcasm pretty thick anyway.)
I’m just saying be careful what you call slanderous because in so doing, you’re compromising your position that there are good decent Muslims out there (a position with which I whole-heartedly agree).
Hey Rutherford.
George Carlin seems a-religious and a-political to me. I enjoyed his perspective on things. His crude language never bothered me. His raw edge is very engaging knowing he is not pushing a religious or political agenda. Most of what he talks about is not in conflict with my conservative or theological stance. Yea, as you said, he can be downright spiritual. He was gifted with pure genius and a fun, raw version of reality.
Elric, huh? I’m still wet behind the ears. I’ll watch for that.
I was sticking that one on Dan because of his earlier comments about teh Green Party and Global Warming.
I’m just saying be careful what you call slanderous because in so doing
Point taken, R. I guess I should have stuck with the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” tag, which is clearly slanderous, or one of the other misrepresentations of my position.
I guess I was thinking that there’s something to intent – that TO THEM calling someone a Muslim is slanderous. But you make a good point.
Cathy, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never said anything about global warming here. I’ve pointed out the problems of the individual-car-as-transportation, but I don’t believe I added GW to the long list of reasons.
Dan, I’m gonna rescue you here, buddy, to help you understand HUMOR.
Funny can go from the sublime to the ridiculous and anything in between. Watch the George Carlin video and you will see the best. Humor doesn’t have to be true to be humor, although a little glimmer of truth can make for very good humor.
Sometimes when people communicate, HUMOR is the GOAL and truth is not. Legally, when something is said by a person that is obviously said ‘in jest’ others can not legally hold them accountable for it. Thank God we have a legal defense and still remain to have some freedom to be humorous and say things that are obviously said ‘in jest.’
REMEMBER??!! I SAID I was joking about the Discovery channel guy. Sheesh. Lighten up.
You have discussed here stuff about taxes for roads, parking lots, and other ‘green’ issues. THAT makes you a TARGET for a JOKE about the Discovery Channel guy or any other green issues.
And, just to attempt to demonstrate that I’m not totally off base, you Dan, my brother, linked a website recently that USED the GLOBAL WARMING issues (which I call LIES) to prove THEIR point. Maybe you don’t believe in global warming either. I dunno. Not important for this discussion. It still set you up for a joke.
And… guess what?! It worked. People here laughed at the poke and joke. You could laugh too. No one was accusing you of anything. Lighten up.
Hey (okay this is a poke here) Dan!!! Maybe you could actually read what you link. Just a suggestion…
And NO I’m NOT going to go back through all your comments to find that link that promotes global warming to prove it to you — not gonna rescue you that way — you can do that yourself.
It was a joke. Lighten up.
*Have I said ‘joke, lighten up’ ? Yea. Prolly ad nauseum*
“I believe Jesus is the Son of God and Mohammad was a guy, so no, not especially.”
So Mo was just a guy? Not a war lord, slave owner and a pedophile?
LOL there’s no winning an argument with Elric. LOL
Hey language expert, there is a difference between “just a guy” and “a guy”.
If Mohammed had a penis, then I suspect he was a guy. Or are you now telling us she was a “war lord, slave owner, pedophile transvestite”? 🙄
“Elric, huh? I’m still wet behind the ears. I’ll watch for that.”
Drones just say crazy crap because they cant debate me. Watch for that.
UK Islamist Cleric Says Islamism in U.S. Growing Like it did in 1990s Britain, Praises Revolution Muslim Website…
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/09/01/uk-islamist-cleric-says-islamism-in-u-s-growing-like-it-did-in-1990s-britain-praises-revolution-muslim-website/
Easy when you have a muslim “president”
Good to see you commenting Elric! I was afraid they finally got you at the Discovery network. 🙂
Sermon on Egyptian TV: “By Allah, We Will Conquer Italy and the Rest of Europe, North and South America, The West Will Convert to Islam”…
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/09/02/sermon-on-egyptian-tv-by-allah-we-will-conquer-italy-and-the-rest-of-europe-as-well-as-north-and-south-america-the-west-will-convert-to-islam/
The drones favorite religion.
Cathy,
You are wasting your time with these drones.
WeaselZippers: The
dronesidiot’s favoritereligionwebsite.I corrected it for you. 🙂
See what I mean. They love islam.
Headline of the Day:
Gun-wielding ecoterrorist calls for reduction in human population, gets wish.
Deval Patrick on Beck rally: “It’s a free country. I wish it weren’t.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/01/deval-patrick-on-beck-rally-its-a-free-country-i-wish-it-werent/
Spoken like a true POS fascist.
Pakistan Denying Flood Relief Aid to “Infidel” Christians…
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/72113
Gotta love muslims
I’m sure Dan will equivocate by saying Christians are denying aid to Muslims here in America with GZM Elric, and that two wrongs don’t make a right. Something along those lines.
Or maybe even better Jews are doing that to Palestinians. That’s a Huckster favorite during one of his condemnation Zionist screeds. 😉
Tex,
Screw these muslim apologists and drones. I bet they will ignore this like everything else.
You’re right, Cathy. Taken as absurdist comedy, this DOES make a lot more sense and is almost enjoyable…
Kinda like perusing the legacy media, as their “stories” frequently are textbook examples of absurd.
Funny, seriously.
Most of us — libs, tea-baggers, conservatives, or whatever — we are ALL GROANING in this current mess.
My husband and I have friends and family members without jobs who are hurting. Several of them have lost their homes — folks with little kids and mouths to feed! We’ve sent friends and family members money-gifts to help them pay bills while they remain out of work. We do this while we still tithe to our church and respond financially funding disaster relief and other charitable organizations on top of it. I don’t brag or complain — just saying that we are IN this also as best we can — and I wonder how long will this go on. We’ve lost a large chuck of our investments and would like to think about retirement soon. Again, not complaining. Just saying we are concerned about the future and frustrated.
It’s easy to be angry, sad, fearful, frustrated. I never want to feel so bad or so alone that I would become depressed or do something against my own ethical values.
HUMOR and FRIENDS meet the need and are therapeutic.
Fin.
Liek I said, these drones will ignore the brutality of islam like the good drones that they are. But if you are a conservative and oppose gay marriage or oppose islamists planting a victory mosque on Ground Zero……look out.
Politico) — President Obama is a “mainstream Christian,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday, questioning why Glenn Beck has said the president follows “liberation theology.”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0910/w_h_vs_beck_b6481045-c252-4e74-be56-c5d507cc5568.html
al-Faheed and Gibbs have the same talking points. LOL
Pakistani Minister Wants Obama to Offer Eid Prayers at Ground Zero, Declare Himself Caliph of All Muslims…
(MSN News)- A Pakistani minister wants US President Barack Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero in New York and become the “Amir-ul-Momineen” or Caliph of Muslims.
Minister of State for Industries Ayatullah Durrani, who belongs to the ruling Pakistan People’’s Party, said the upcoming Eid-ul-Fitr festival, expected to be observed on September 11, would be a “golden opportunity” for Obama to offer Eid prayers and declare himself the leader of all Muslims.
“In this way, all the problems of the Muslim world would be solved,” Durrani told The Nation newspaper.
Durrani, a former member of the Pakistan Ideological Council, contended that the Muslim world is in “dire need” of a Caliph and occupying this distinguished slot would provide Obama “exemplary titles” like “Mullah Barack Hussain Obama” or “Allama Obama”.
He said: “The time is approaching fast. Barack Hussain Obama must act now. This is a golden opportunity, Muslims badly need it.
Obama’’s elevation to the Islamic Caliphate would be the “key to success, he claimed but did not offer any explanation for his remarks.
http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4337606
Just for you al-Faheed.
Maybe Dan is a muslim. He certainly doesnt argue against his “president” being a muslim.
Elric, Dan doesn’t argue about Obama being a Muslim because Dan also doesn’t argue about unicorns living in his back yard. He is sane. You on the other hand, desperately need help.
I still contend the only “religion” The Bomba has is political expediency and his own self-aggrandizement.
Black liberal theology in south Chicago, Muslim in Saudi, heathen in Frisco, snake charmer in rural Kentucky, Evangelical in Texas, medicine man in New Mexico, witch doctor in Africa, and rabbi in Israel. Whatever will grab the fawning adulation, the peeing in the pants, the fainting, the sycophantic toe licking – that’s what the man is at the moment.
NObamba is such a megalomaniac (he won’t be when November is through :smile ) that he actually believes he is messianic, king of the world, emperor standing naked in front of teleprompter, and his only conviction is to draw attention to his greatness.
Mind numbing and epic failure.
Tex, couldn’t agree more. While I actually think that Obama does actually believe in Black Liberation Theology- he has commented on collective salvation far too often- I think his play into Wright’s church was for street cred with the local community.
Tex,
I wont argue that he is a narcissistic POS.
Don’t get me wrong Elric – I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m expanding on your assessment. I think you’re discounting the danger of Obama and giving him too much credit. There is absolutely no doubt Bongo is a Muslim sympathizer and I can see where people would construe he’s Muslim.
I’d have more respect for Pres. Bomba if he declared himself Muslim.
I think Obama is more dangerous than some radical Muslim. Seriously. Malignant narcissist with a healthy dose of the messianic complex, opportunist and self-serving thug. I could go further and say I suspect he’s a sociopath, who without the restraints of American military might and the Constitution (and his own disproportionate lack of sense), perfectly capable of incredible evil. I believe he’s unfeeling and detached. I don’t think he would hesitate for a minute to sell America out in any shape, form or fashion if it served his purposes.
Radical Muslims kill many innocents with their perverted form of religion. I think Obama believes he is the religion – and history has shown men of his ilk have destroyed entire nations with their actions.
And that is why he must be stopped now.
Tex,
I dont disagree with your psychological analysis of him either. I dont think its a 100 percent slam dunk he is a muslim. At a minimum, thats where his sympathies lie. But you would have to be a moron to say he is a real Christian. Yeah, talking to you al-Faheed.
He is either a muslim or view islam as a natural ally on his war on America and freedom.
I’ll go one further Elric and Gorilla. Here’s my prediction, predicated on the elections going like everyone is predicting in November, which is a Dimocratic meltdown.
Unlike Clinton, who after seeing the results of having his ideas summarily rejected in ’94 and without any principles decided, “okay, I’ll become something I’m not – a moderate – whatever it takes to save my ass”, Obama will lash out and become more dangerous. And I’m not basing this on what I’ve heard from the talking heads each night. I’ve thought this about him from the git go. He’s done nothing to change my mind.
I really am convinced that Obama is sociopath. So to make sure I knew what I was talking of, I went to look up the common symptoms. Consider these common traits:
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
Grandiose Sense of Self
Pathological Lying
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Shallow Emotions
Incapacity for Love
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency “gets by” by conning others.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
Tell me which one of these traits Obama doesn’t possess?
Tex,
No doubt he is a sociopath. Frank Marshal Davis did a number on him when he was a child.
As for lashing out and being more dangerous. Well yes and no. He will lash out because he does hate the American people but I dont think he really intended to be a 2 termer. His goal is to do as much damage as he can before 2012. He did say he rather be an awesome 1 term president than a mediocre 2 term president. Of course intelligent people read into that as he rather fvck this nation over in one term than serve the will of the people and serve 2 terms.
But being a sociopath, its a bit difficult to really read his evil mind. And you are right, he is one evil, demented, sick POS on a scale America has never seen.
Whats even sicker is these POS “moderates” willing to stick up for the asshole from time to time.
Tex, I’ve thought this from back in the days when Elric used to hold forth on my blog
You two are no good for each other
You egg each other on into absolute nutjoberry. Now Elric’s got you calling Obama a “Muslim sympathizer if not an outright Muslim”. C’mon … get a grip.
Aside to Elric …. with the exception of Tex who for reasons unknown has really fed your nutjobbery (I like that word), listen to the sound of crickets chirping with regard to your comments in this thread. Every once in a while you poke Alfie in the ribs and he bites you. Beyond that, no one is addressing your comments. You know why? Because they secretly think you’re bonkers so your comments go over like white noise. The only thing that saves you is you’re conservative bonkers. So they give you a pass and ignore you. If you were lib bonkers (ala Kos) then they’d cut you a new orifice.
Tex, my conservative friend, you’re medically trained … don’t contribute further to this man’s delusions. 😦
Watch it Tex, the drones are out with Alinsky tactics. Notice how they never offer anything to make up their claims, just smears.
Well Rutherford, I know you may think me nuts, but I think you’re naive and gullible.
Besides, I said Muslim sympathizer – not Muslim. And I added I wish Obama was Muslim – he might scare me less. At least he wouldn’t appear a blank page. Obama is what he needs to be at the moment – his only religion is politics and power.
You tell me Rutherford. Which one of those traits I listed of a sociopath Obama doesn’t have? Now you won’t admit all of his faults, I know because of your ideology. But if you don’t recognize the man is aloof, detached, unemotional, and narcissistic, then you’re not as perceptive as I’ve given you credit for in the past.
I think the shared ideology has blinded you to Obama’s glaring personality faults.
Elric, I’m just curious, are you able to produce a single comment that doesn’t have the word “drone” in it?
Makes about has much sense as your comments.
Tex,
Dont expect any drones to actually use facts to defend their position.
Tex,
See what I mean? Out all the accusations against al-Thuggy, all these drone vermin can come up with is being fixated on the term “drone”. Ironically proving my point that all they are is mindless drones.
Elric, I’m just curious, are you able to produce a single comment that doesn’t have the word “drone” in it?
Hey Lovely Morons. Sorry I’m late to the party. Didn’t get to bed until 6:00 a.m. I think WordPress was messin’ with me during off-hour maintenance while I was writing a blog post. HINT HINT! @ Innocent Bystanders. I got color pictures for the kid in us who likes pictures in our books. *snigger*
Hey Rutherford. Elric is doing his part saving the planet by using a short concise word, since KOOLAID DRINKING MORON is six syllables. George Carlin woulda’ liked drone better too, just sayin’
Cathy,
Thanks. I try to be concise. These drones have a short attention span so if you use too many words, they lose interest.
ROTFLMAO … ok that was three times in one comment. You’re outdoing yourself. Perhaps if you read the following sentence your head will explode.
Drones follow drones who are drones who follow drones who love drones who live with drones who consort with drones who f*ck drones who dine with drones. — Resident Drone
Dag … BiW … didn’t close my quote properly. Ironic isn’t it? Makes me look like a moron. 🙂
Cathy, I beg to differ. Carlin loved getting to the point but he HATED verbal laziness. He loved words. I can just hear him now saying “koolaid drinking moron” with relish.
Ruth-dude. Beg all ya want. You look real good down there on your knees. *snigger* I really do love you, Rutherford.
Carlin did a classic routine many years ago on unnecessary syllables in euphemistic language. He argued that less syllables make the point with more emotion. Maybe you were still in junior high, I dunno.
You assume I pulled that stuff about Carlin out of my butt?! Wrong again, Grasshoppa!
New Post. Everyone go argue there.
Yes massa.
We need Michael up in here to control your dominatrix tendencies. 🙂
Yes, I know Carlin hated euphemisms. “Koolaid drinking morons” is hardly euphemistic. So I have snatched the pebble from your hand Mistress Po … but I shall hand it back to you so you can remain my mistress (only in the Chinese instructor role of course). 😉
So how does that “control of your dominatrix tendencies” thing work, pray tell? Is that gonna be any fun?
*pitches pebble at Rutherford’s head* boink!*
Rutherford, we kiddies from the short-bus are gonna get in trouble! BiW has sent us to another chat room. He’ll put us in the corner for a time-out iffin we keep this up.
So you think koolaid drinking morons is not a euphemism for drones?
Okay. You get this ‘win.’
*note to self: (1 syllable : 6 syllables) = still a good point* but will drop it *
*…for now*
Top 10 Islamo-Fascist Apologists
Islamic totalitarianism is a serious threat to life and liberty, globally. In some places the battlefront is obvious — you can tell by the gunfire, bomb craters and bodies — elsewhere it is ideological. Nonetheless ideas have consequences, slower than bullets, but often far more destructive.
You will excuse my bluntness I hope, when I say that America is still recovering from the ideological butt-kicking that we took from the communists. Walk into any college or cocktail party and say “from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs“. See how many objections you get. We had better wise up.
The ideological battle against Islamo-fascism is a critical front in the fight for freedom in our time. Right here in America, there is a considerable fifth column — believers, paid agents and dupes — conducting an energetic propaganda campaign on behalf of the Islamo-fascists. Let’s consider some of the star hitters in the lineup and what they bring to the fight.
Intro
Mohammedanism is referred to as a religion. “Religion” in the mind of most people denotes a private spiritual discipline, a morality shared with a surrounding community, and in the biblical cultures, a personal relation with God. And Islam certainly does include a religion among its doctrines.
However Islam (an arabic word meaning submission) is more than only a religion. As understood and practiced in Arabia, Iran, parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan and many other places, it is a total system of life, governing the details of domestic life, government, jurisprudence the lot — from the nation’s policies to the courts of law to what’s for lunch. And make no mistake, as practiced full out by the orthodox, it is a totalitarian, and grossly oppressive ideology.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/09/02/top-10-islamo-fascist-apologists-1/
Very good read. Bet the drones will refuse to read it because well they are drones.
Representing the Corrie family, Hussein Abu Hussein, a leading human rights lawyer in Israel, said: “It is clear that the army investigation was very far from being sufficient, thorough or impartial.”
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/09/06/rachel-corrie-wrongful-death-lawsuit-moves-forward/
Loved the “African” name Hussein so much, he used it twice. 🙂
hello! , Is fantastic composing pretty lots! proportion all of us sustain some sort of communications added about your report on America online? We need a consultant with this household in order to unravel my own difficulty. Possibly that may be people! Waiting for glimpse an individual.