Democrats Need to Get Right with God

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God, but only a minority (29%) think Democrats are friendly to religion, according to a recent Pew study . Dems remain out of step with ordinary Americans and don’t even know it. Even voters who favor Dems on other issues don’t like the perceived Democratic disrespect for faith. Maybe Dems should center their party around Obama & Lieberman instead of Pelosi & Dean.

According to the same poll, 55% of Americans think Republicans are religion friendly and only 9% see them as hostile (versus 20% for Dems). This is a predicament for Dems. Most Americans (70%) think a president should have strong religious beliefs. We are not talking only evangelicals. Democratic leaders, who tend to hang with Hollywood or academic elites or with themselves in autoerotic circles, tend to miss this important point. Everybody THEY know agrees with their view on religion and those benighted folks who still believe in it.

Democratic activists get a lot of mileage and cash out of bashing religion and/or religious folk. Nothing opens a big left wing donor's fat wallet faster than the stereotype of an out of control Christian. Most rank & file Dems disagree and a majority of Americans consider it a flaw. Even many secular people respect people of faith. Democrats have managed the ostensibly impossible feat of kicking their own ass.

I know they will try to blame the ever-clever Karl Rove for demonizing them, but (as I often do) all I ask is to look at the pages of this blog. There is a relentless attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular. How often do we find the word Christian w/o some sort of negative of qualifying statement nearby? It has become a syndrome, a default option among liberals to blame Christianity for many of the ills of society.

Most Americans would agree with the statement, "On balance, Christianity has been a positive force in American and world history". We all know that if I wrote that out of this context, it would be follow by dozens of negative comments. I happen to believe it. How many Dems share my belief? Let me answer my own question. I think MOST ordinary Dems agree, but most liberal Dem activist do not.

There are many Democrats with sincere and deeply held faith. Notice I say faith. I am not advocating any particular religion, but faith is essential. Democrats of faith should stand up and tell the others to just cut out the attacks. People w/o faith are lost. I pity the fools, but I sure do not want them running my country. It looks like around 70% of the American people have the same idea.

Posted by Jack at July 8, 2006 2:43 AM | TrackBack (1)
Comments
Comment #165614

Jack,

“How often do we find the word Christian w/o some sort of negative of qualifying statement nearby?”

How often do we find the word liberal w/o some sort of negative qualifying statement nearby?

And that from “good” Christians.

Posted by: Rocky at July 7, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #165618

Rocky

I admit that I think many liberal ideas are wrong. That is why I say negative things about them or ridicule them. Your statement seems to support my point about the activist Dem hostility to Christians or people of faith generally. If they treat Christians as I treat liberals, they should expect to get as much support from Christians as I get from liberals.

Posted by: Jack at July 7, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #165620

I suspect most Democrats are just fine with God and their faith, whatever it is. We just don’t feel the need to go overboard.

I suspect it’s the folks who feel the need to go overboard and think everyone should “prove” their faith that are the ones who answered negatively to this poll.

I am very comfortable with my faith and my relationship with God. I just don’t need to shout it from the rooftops or through loudspeakers.

I wonder where those folks got the idea that Democrats don’t respect religion, it couldn’t possibly be a little propaganda could it?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 7, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #165711

Jack, you are confusing perception with reality. In this case they are not the same. Democrats are overwhelmingly religious people. Their stand is that the separation clause should not become a slippery slope toward a national religion or forced observance of religion in public arenas.

The Pew research is not measuring Democrats religiosity. The research is measuring what the public perceives of Democrats as a result of a massive amount of punditry and character assasination by the right to paint the Democrats as a godless party. In other words, the research is measuring the effects of the negative PR campaign by Republicans and fundamentalist religious groups.

So, the appropriate critique of the Democrats is that they are losing the PR war on the religion issue, miserably. But what’s new, eh? They can’t even get their act together on minimum wage, illegal immigration, and debt and deficits. What’s remarkable is that Republicans are going to lose ground in November, anyway! That anti-incumbent sentiment is going to hit Republicans hard, without help from competing Democrats.

Though I desperately hope it takes out a fair number of Dem. incumbents as well. Then perhaps both parties will try to close the gap between their rhetoric and their actions, and our government can get down to the business of solving more problems that it creates.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #165717

Jack,

God told me this morning he is a Democrat and he is coming after those who take his name in vain, and falsely use him as a means of attack.

It isn’t the Dems who need to get right with God. Oh yeah, he also told me Ken Lay is qued in the roasting line. Tom Delay is scheduled for his day of arrival down south. He claims residence in Virginia now, so I wouldn’t get too close to him. :)

Posted by: gergle at July 8, 2006 6:02 AM
Comment #165723

Jack:

You are correct. I’ve noticed the amount of negative comments regarding Christianity just on Watchblog. It’s pretty common, and as you showed Rocky, it becomes polarizing.

People can say its only perception, but that’s just a cop out. One problem the ‘left, in general, has is its steadfast willingness to believe they are right but just misunderstood. They too fervently believe that if only the masses could understand them better, the masses would vote with the Democrats.

That “faith” allows them to see bogeymen everywhere. They blame Karl Rove for doing his job better than they can (and while I don’t like the political game, I can see that Karl Rove is a genius at it), they blame the media for it, they blame propaganda for it. They rarely blame themselves for their message, or lack of message in some cases.

They are consistent in wanting to stay their course, and blame others when they get voted out. This is the same as the 4th grader who blames the coach, the referee or the teacher for poor performance. The child “knows” that he/she is doing all the right things—its just that no one understands them.

We know children like that are misguided. The “left” needs to stop their childish behavior and focus on finding a message that people will accept. When it comes to religion, they are perceived as being against it. And certainly the hard left is. There are a lot of good religious people in the Democratic party, but they get outshouted by the hard left who really seem to me to be anti religion. They may not be in majority, but they do speak the loudest.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 8, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #165724

David,

The perception of Democrats as godless has nothing to do with any Republican smear campaign and everything to do with the Democrat’s stance on issues typically important to Christian conservatives. The Democatic Party favors abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, fetal stem cell research, and a slew of other issues most Christian conservatives find abhorrent. I disagree with the term values voters being applied to Republicans as everyone votes their values. However, the values embraced by the Democratic party are not Christian. That is why the Christians continue to reject the Democrats.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 8, 2006 7:25 AM
Comment #165725

Jack,

“Your statement seems to support my point about the activist Dem hostility to Christians or people of faith generally.”

What’d I say?

You’re one of the guys that are the least insulting.

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #165726

David
I agree that what is measured is perception and I stipulate that most Democrats are people of faith (as are most Americans in general), but the Dem leadership and activists give the impression of being hostile to religion. Liberal bloggers we can see here will attack Christianity w/o much provocation.

PR can enhance stereotypes, but can rarely create them out of whole cloth. The impression that Dem activists are hostile to religion is justified and Republicans are justified in pointing it out.

Dems just do not get it. Right now lots of them are thinking something like this, “We are good people and do good things. You don’t have to be religious to be good.” If they stopped here they would be okay, but their next thought is, “Religious people are hypocrites and religion has too much influence on society.” Many of them go beyond that too. That gets them in trouble. It is not that their sentiment is always wrong. It is just that they always bring it up no matter the context.

Let me repeat the question from above for everyone. You can answer yes or no because it is already nuanced by saying no balance.

“On balance, Christianity has been a positive force in American and world history.”

If you answer “no” to this question and thereby reject 2000 years of Christian history, you could be hostile to religion. Don’t bother arguing whether you are right or wrong. That is not the point. The point is the hostility and why Dems have trouble with religion.

Posted by: Jack at July 8, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #165729

Rocky

My point is that I am anti-liberal. Whether I am insulting or not, you would not mistake me for a supporter of liberal causes. If Dems are to religion as I am to liberals, it indicates that the are against religion.

BTW - I expect they are worse off. I like some liberal ideas and I like most liberals. I think they may be misguided, but not bad. Many liberal activists (let me emphasize as I did to David - activists. Rank & file do not support it) think religion as practiced in the U.S. is bad.

Posted by: Jack at July 8, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #165730

1 LT B,

Euthanasia: Mercy.
Simply because you are (most likely) young and/or healthy, doesn’t mean that everyone is. Simply because you want to live, doesn’t mean that a 90 year old with terminal cancer does. I think that God is wise enough to see this as a mercy; I also believe that God made the right decision when He gave us free will.

Gay Marriage: Equality.
Again, simply because you (most likely) are not gay, doesn’t mean that no one is. Many people are born gay, to say otherwise is to condemn them as liars for no reason other than you don’t want to hear what they are telling you. I believe God knew what He was doing when he created them.

Stem Cell Research: Hope.
Simply because you (most likely) do not have a disease which could potentially be cured by this research, doesn’t mean that no one does. Most people who are against this are woefully uneducated regarding the specifics. Most forms of this research use embryos which, if not used for this purpose, would either remain frozen or simply be discarded. Trash or potential savior, take your pick. I believe that God gave us our minds for a reason.

So, Mercy, Equality, and Hope…if these are anti-Christian, then I am the Antichrist.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at July 8, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #165731

The reason there is so much criticism of Christians is that evangelical Christians are not behaving like Christians at all. Where Christ was the epitome of loving self-sacrifice, and where Christianity calls us not to judge others, lest we be judged, the evangelicals driving this nation’s policy are eager and happy to judge and punish everybody but themselves.

“Values voters” wish to

* control women and ensure their subservience by controlling their fertility—there are even calls now to outlaw birth control, effectively ending the long struggle of women for autonomy

* address the drug problem by punishment, not
rehabilitation, filling our jails with revolving-door prisoners and burdening our society with their upkeep.

* bully other nations into submission rather than
negotiating with them intelligently, an approach that we can see with Iran and North Korea has simply not worked.

* destroy the environment for us all just to ensure absurdly high profits for a few.

* legislate against the ability of homosexuals and lesbians to live within the bounds of committed relationships protected by law.

* get us into conflicts that we cannot withdraw from and cannot win.

Evangelical Christians have lost their credibility because they have consistently backed government interference in our private lives, violent approaches to international relations, and an unexplainable dedication to the welfare of the corporation over the welfare of people. Poor people have fallen off the radar for these “Christians.”

Truly, if Christians behaved like Christians, frankly, the criticism would cease.

Posted by: intelligentlife at July 8, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #165732

Jack,

These are words on a page.

There is no emotion shown unless there is emphasis except, for instance, when those words are CAPITALIZED.

The word liberal has become an insult, a slur, a smug epithet, a jeer, a sarcastic invective, aimed at those that don’t espouse conservative “values”.

75% of the people in this country claim to be Christian, does that mean that only 25% are liberal?
I don’t think so.

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 8:34 AM
Comment #165733

I think we could stand to be more religious. The key, though is that we emphasize individual religion and freedom of religion. This idea that we need to follow the example of the Republicans on this fails on a number of levels. First, our attitudes towards religion are not identical and everybody knows it. Second, we are committed to the Separation between Church and State, and have been since the time of Jefferson. Third, the policies that come out of conservative’s religious beliefs are different from those that would come out of ours, and to simply imitate them would be cowardice. Many conservative Christians may think that liberal church positions on things like abortion, stem cell research, and homosexuality are wrong, but many of us believe like that anyways. Should we bow in public to what we bend no knee to in public.

Finally, with those among us who are atheist, there should be no shame in saying that either. This is a land of freedom, where religion is not imposed on those who don’t want it, nor is the lack of same imposed either.

The tradition of being able to believe or not believe as one pleases goes back the length and breadth of our history. They should emphasize that as a matter of personal choice, and emphasize that being atheist and lacking in morals are two different things. This is America. We should not be afraid to say to people who we are. Most people don’t want the government in their private lives. We have the advantage in that we Democrats can whole-heartedly agree.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #165734

Jack,

I get it now.

This one of those “do you still beat your wife” questions.

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #165735

If Christians believe like Christians..Now which demonination would be right? Even the founders of this country the Puritans said if you did not follow their rules then you were exiled. Quakers shunded you, Catholics just ex-communicated you.
I am a independent when it comes to politic’s I see both good and bad in the 2 major parties, but when some tell me I am not a Christian because I believe that a woman should have a choice to have a abortion, or stem cell is wrong, or assisted suicide is wrong, well they can take that and blow it out of their ass. I have had to make a decision on to abort a baby my wife was carrying and she had a heart attack, if it came down to it who to save my wife or the unborn child, or to not to anything to keep my mother alive as she slowly wasted away from altzeheimer, but it was her wishes not to have tubes put into her. How dare a Democrate or Republican tell me what I can not do with my life based on their beliefs.
If I make the wrong decision, it is between me,the person I had to make the decision for and GOD, no one else.
So to all the high and mighty who think that just because they say they are christians, the road to hell or heaven is paved for others that think different then you.

Posted by: KT at July 8, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #165738

1LT

I couldn’t agree with you more. I would like to include:
a) removing the Ten Commandments from the courthouse, and b) trying to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Posted by: Brian B at July 8, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #165742

also:
c) prayer in school, and d) trying to remove “In God We Trust” from money.

Posted by: Brian B at July 8, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #165748


Democrats believe that the decision of our Founding Fathers to keep the state and religion separated should be adhered to. Therefore, democrats can’t be Christian. All Christians must be republicans or they are not Christians. The democrats are atheists just like our Founding Fathers.

Posted by: jlw at July 8, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #165749
Maybe Dems should center their party around Obama & Lieberman instead of Pelosi & Dean.

Jack:

Shhhh…they might win an election if they do that. Let them prance around Pelosi and Dean all they want, because it only goes to show how out of touch the Democratic base really is.

Obama and Lieberman are two of the few Democrats that can stay lucid long enough to capture some Independent votes as well, which does not bode well for the GOP.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 8, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #165750

It does seem to me that the assault on anything Christian always comes from the left. And I don’t mean all democrats, of course. We have some very nice liberals at our church. But they are vastly outnumbered.

Posted by: nikkolai at July 8, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #165752

I don’t care how many people belive in God. It is deceptive and shallow to use religion for political gain, and paint your opponent as godless. And i firmly believe that most practicing christians are so diluted as to what they really should believe, that they instead cling to some sort of stereotype and talking point for their moral direction opposed to truly loving thy neighbor and all that jazz. I digress, but a society based on religion is too terrifying to me, especially after looking at how the middle east has fared, and how the only thing that could separate we and they is an effective infrastructure.

Many religions, especially Christians believe that you are saved by faith. In fact that is the only criteria. If you don’t have faith then you don’t get into Heaven, end of story. It doesn’t matter how good you are or what works you did - it all rests on faith. So if faith is so important, then what is it?

If Salvation is based on faith, and if faith is believing without proof, then proving God is real undermines salvation.

Faith means to believe in something without evidence or proof. Using the term in the Christian sense, faith is required. You have to make a commitment to accept statements as true without evidence or proof. In fact that is God’s test to see if you can believe in him without any reason other than trust in the authority of the church and it’s holy books. And you are prohibited from doubting, questioning, scrutinizing, or putting the object of faith to the test. Once something that relies on faith is proven, then it becomes science. If everything were proven then there would be nothing left that is real to have faith in.

The requirement of faith puts an interesting twist in the rules. If faith were optional then it wouldn’t matter how you believed in something. But when the test of salvation is based not on what you believe in, but how you believe in it, i.e. faith, then if you don’t believe in it by that method, you burn in Hell forever. Based on this, science can not lead you to God because if you get to God through science then you don’t have faith and you got there the wrong way. There isn’t anything in the Bible that indicates that you are saved through scientific discovery. It’s about faith, and only faith.

The test of salvation is faith. You are required to believe through faith and not through science. But what are you required to have faith in? There are tens of thousands of choices out there to put your faith in, but what if you pick the wrong one? Will you go to Hell if you pick the wrong one? Most definitely you will.

One Sunday afternoon as you are sitting on your porch, a Jehovah’s Witness and a member of the Assembly of God walk up to you at the same time to convert you to their religion. Both of them claim to be Bible believing Christians who are out to save your soul so that you might enter the Kingdom of Heaven to live forever in eternal paradise. However it is soon apparent that these religions are mutually exclusive, each claiming the other is the road to hell. Perhaps there are 10 different religions represented as other Christians start gathering. Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Messianic Jews, Baptists, Moonies, and throw in a Muslim, all of them claiming that all the others are false beliefs and that unless you make the correct choice, your soul is forever lost. But the one thing they have in common is that you must believe through faith.

So - how do you choose? How do you decide which one is right?

Obviously you can’t start out by using reason because if you use science and logic then you will surely pick the wrong one. If the belief is scientifically provable then you won’t be able to believe in it through faith. Since faith is required then scientific proof would be prohibited. Suppose there were one true religion, the religion who got it all right (or at least really close). And suppose that it had the salvation by faith clause. Then suppose that science proved that this religion were real. What would that mean?

If the one true religion required faith based salvation and it were proven to be true scientifically then that would undermine faith because faith is belief without proof and if you have proof then faith is excluded. So if science proved the one true religion then everyone who believed in the true religion would all go to hell, because their faith was undermined by scientific verification. This would create a paradox for God - so the only solution must be that God would make sure that the one true religion must never be scientifically provable.

There is some evidence of this because it would explain why God remains hidden from science and totally scientifically undetectable. And it explains why so much of the Bible can’t be proved with science because if it could be it would undermine the faith requirement preventing the believers in the true religion from obtaining salvation through faith. Thus the Bible has to be unscientific so that it can never be scientifically proven and have Bible believers lose faith because of proof and evidence.

So - based on the salvation through faith assumption we can come to some interesting conclusions.

1. Science can never prove that God exists.
2. Science will never prove that the Bible is true.
3. The true religion can never be proven by science.

So - if this is what we know about the true religion, how then can we find it? Perhaps we can start with a process of elimination? Instead of trying to figure out what it is, let’s start with what it isn’t. If we know that God can not be proven through science all religions who claim the belief in God is scientific must all be false. The same is true of people who claim to use science to prove the Bible. If they could prove the Bible through science then they are going to Hell because where there’s proof there’s no faith. So - that eliminates a huge number of false religions who claim an affiliation with science.

Keeping in mind that if any element of the one true religion were provable then that element would lose it’s ability to contribute to salvation. It raises the possibility that perhaps the one true religion has no basis in science whatsoever, and the more impossible it is to believe in the more likely it is to be true. What religion would fit that classification?

The Church of Scientology might fit the criteria. They make no scientific claims that God exists, that the Bible is based on science, and the idea that 75 million years ago that Xenu slaughtered the Thetans and that we are possessed by their entrapped souls is so scientifically ridiculous that it fits all the qualifications of salvation through faith. So I suppose if I were forced to choose, I’d have to go with Scientology and hope for the best.

Posted by: is this thing on? at July 8, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #165753

“Democrats believe that the decision of our Founding Fathers to keep the state and religion separated should be adhered to. Therefore, democrats can’t be Christian. All Christians must be republicans or they are not Christians. The democrats are atheists just like our Founding Fathers.”

jlw: therefore, by your logic, the founding fathers were athiests too. why are being christian and wanting to keep the church and state separated mutually exclusive. this is a problem that many people have, not understanding that one can be an extremely devoted christian (or jew, muslim, hindu, etc) and still fight to keep religion out of the government. i mean, it’s only one of the pillars of our nation, an ideal of the founding fathers, and one of the ‘values’ that many want to return to.

KT and intelligentlife: you guys are exactly right. if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. if you don’t want to get a homosexual marriage, don’t get one… etc. this is yet another instance of people trying to force their morals, values, and religious beliefs on the rest of the country (and that is not just something done by republicans/conservatives; it is done by all people in all places all the time (ironic, b/c that’s what a lot of these blogs are like…)) abortion, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, etc. are necessities to americans having the freedom that they so dearly love. the foundation of freedom lies in choice. if you eliminate people’s choice(s) then you take away their freedom(s).

Posted by: alefnaught at July 8, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #165754

The problem arrises when liberals try to override the will of the majority. The immoral minority vs the moral majority. I believe there are immoral Christians just like there are moral athiest. When 60 to 80% of the people vote against liberal ideas I don’t think all are republicans I think there are dems, athiest, and agnostics in the mix also.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #165755

Why do liberals…oh, nevermind.

Liberals don’t get it and they never will. They have had explanations as to the differences between right and left wing positions on religion. They have been shown proof.(The incessant attacks on christianity by the dinosaur media, while giving a big ole’ to islam) They have been given every opportunity, and then some, to formulate a rational and cogent argument and they refuse to see anything but, what they want to see. They are 110% certain that they are right in their belief and no amount of explanation or fact or truth, is going to open their minds to the possibility that they are even slightly off base. This behavior is known, in rational circles, as religious fanaticism.
Until we start dealing with the left as the religious fanatics they are, we will continue to have pointless arguments that achieve nothing.
Let me just finish this pointless effort by reminding the left that acusing a conservative or a christian of being intolerant doesn’t excuse you from the same behavior. Calling someone a liar does not make you any less susceptable to the same accusation. So, when you get mad at the Ann Coulter’s of the world for saying something you don’t agree with, remember that the more radically left you lean, the more you are going to inspire a hard lean to the right by those you are intolerant of.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: Bob at July 8, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #165756

The National Catholic Reporter did a study during the 2004 presidential election of which of the two major candidates was more aligned with Catholic teaching…Gore led the study head and shoulders above Bush!

Posted by: Lynne at July 8, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #165758

Lynne
So Bush isn’t Catholic. Whats that got to do with anything. I don’t believe all that the Catholic Church teachs either even though I was once Catholic.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #165759


I think it is time for a repost.
The Bible does not support conservative views

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleconservative.htm

Unless these are your conservative views

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/words.htm

Ok right wingers. if you saddle us with every left wing freak. I assume you don’t mind being labled with the right wing nuts??

Posted by: 037 at July 8, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #165760

nikkolai,

They have to ‘be nice’ at church.

intelligentlife,

Women have control over their reproductive life without abortion and birth control. (Except in the case of forced sex.)
The sexual liberation of women did not make it better for women, it only made it easier to have more sex without the consequences of a child, and to keep that boyfriend who will dump you if you don’t give it up to him.
Free sex is not ‘free’.
Have the number of rapes gone down since women have become more willing?

Posted by: bug at July 8, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #165762

Bob,

GOD BLESS AMERICA! What about the rest of humanity. Should God not bless them! To hell with you if you’re not American?


GOD BLESS AMERICA is a selfish, nationalsitic slogan that should never be stated by anyone that unnderstands what God is. This is why religion is so dangerous. Mix it with patriotism, and now we can can have wars and kill with those with opposing ideas because God is for America. If you think God Blesses America, then you have a lot to learn about God.

For that reason alone, politics and religion, or government and religion should never be mix. Let me believe what I want to believe, and I’ll let you believe what you want. Faith is too personal to bring it into politics or government.

Posted by: mem beth at July 8, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #165764

Jack,

Good thought provoking article. As usual I agree with most of it, but disagree with all of it. I am for it, before I am against it. So, like poor hapless Kerry, my position will require extensive nuance. Most of the good points that you make apply both left, right, and center. It will take me days to craft a full response. So, rather than to post a full response to this thought provoking article here, I will post it as a article in my column. I will title it: “Selection Bias and the Polarization of America.” I will try to post it in the next week and point people back to this article and thread which may be slipping silently into the long dark sleep of the archives by then…

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 8, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #165767


Our Founding Fathers denied the Moral Majority it’s rightful place in government. Their Constituional document is therefore the Constituion should be made mute or at least seriously amended. the Moral Majority has a right to decide who should or should not have rights and freedoms. If we decide to grant rights to a minority or be benevolent to that minority, it is our right to do so. If we decide that a minority is abhorant to us and our God then we have a right to control them or eradicate them.

In the past, minorities have also amended the Constitution against the will of the Moral Majority. The Bible planely states that God is in favor of slavery and He created Black people for that purpose. We have been denied our right to own slaves. They have even given the slaves the right to vote and participate in our government. How can they hate God that much? As if that wasn’t enough, they have given women the right to participate in government, allowed them to own property and allowed them to divorce their husbands. All of these things are violations of Gods Plan. Don’t even get me started on homosexuality.

Posted by: jlw at July 8, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #165768

Jack,

I’ve have never heard more “unchristian” or rhetoric than that from the right. Jesus stayed out of politics “give unto Caeser what is Caeser’s” and didn’t go the route Judas wanted (the inspiration for militant uprising). It is an issue of liberty, not religion that is at stake.

It is the right who want to make religion a political issue, not democrats or liberals. It is the right who try to organize churches against “anti-bible” democrats such as John Kerry who of course is nothing of the sort. Once the Republican party found out that their conservative cause could be implemented by christian conservative activist footsoldiers they found they could win a lot more elections. This doesn’t make Republicans more christian or “right with God”.

Jack, please own up to who is responsible for the perception of Democrats or liberals as anti-religion. Only a very rare few are such, and other supposedly “anti-religion” activists are responding to those who politicize God.

I could care less what Christian conservatives believe or practice as long as it does not affect me or harm someone else. Apparently, conservative activists don’t feel the same. Their rhetoric and feelings of persecution are so out of whack with reality it can only be explained by politics. That doesn’t make me a hater of Christianity, just because I want to stand up for a government that is “godless”.

Posted by: chris2x at July 8, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #165770

jlw

Where does it say that in the Bible about slavery?

Posted by: Brian B at July 8, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #165771

“There is a relentless attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular…”

I completely disagree with this statement. Come on, Jack, back it up! otherwise its just trash talk.

Your one link is completely ambiguous. The Pew study is a poll of perception, not reality. And maybe it’s a misperception, fostered by articles like your own, that make general statements without giving them any empirical support.

Posted by: William Cohen at July 8, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #165773

The religious right want the goverment to invade yoour right to freedom of choice. Those who vote because these few extreme issuse do so at detrement of their finacial well being. Just compare average wage in states that voted for GW and those who voted for Kerry. If they want to live in a Wal mart world they can keep on voting on single issuse and continue living in an ever increasing wage gap of the haves and have nots. Congress had no trouble incresing their wages but denied an increase in the minnum wage. A TR Republican

Posted by: Earl at July 8, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #165776

I say bull. Personally, I consider it my sacred duty as an American to protect my and other peoples freedom of religion. I don’t want government in my, or anyone else’s religion. That doesn’t make me or other Democrats anti-religious.

What offends me as a Christian is the Republicans using the religion card to create divisive issues. Also, policies like rendering captured soldiers to internment camps in foreign nations to be tortured by despots sicken me as a Christian. I don’t like anyone who takes advantage of Christians, whether it be preachers asking for money on TV or the Republican party.

People are confused about this, but I’m hoping someday they learn to see the truth, which is that Republicans create issues like presenting the commandments in the senate, just as a political tool.

Here’s a case in point: (THIS IS REALLY FUNNY, BUT YOU NEED TO WAIT TO THE END)
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/06/ten_commandment.html

Posted by: Max at July 8, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #165777
Maybe Dems should center their party around Obama & Lieberman instead of Pelosi & Dean.

I expect that’s exactly the move you’ll see in the future. There’s little difference between the Dems and repugs in their quest to garner support by lip servicing the masses. That’s politics, baby. I’m not sure anything you’re going to say here will really influence those decisions one way or another.

And I think in time, you’ll find more of the folks who oppose religion disassociating from the democratic party to support other organizations. Being an atheist and simply ignoring society’s continued missteps caused by religion(most specifically christianity and islam) isn’t a terribly effective solution to the problem since religious organizations aren’t content with simply leaving others alone to live life as they choose.

Posted by: Taylor at July 8, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #165779

Liberal Demon,

Euthanasia is not mercy. We have plenty of pain medications and mental help for terminally ill people so that they do not have to suffer. Read the Hyppocratic Oath. Oh yeah, they don’t like to teach that one anymore.

Gay marriage is not equality, it is yet another attempt by the radical left to undermine traditional Christian values to remake the world into their own version of Lenin’s “Workers’ Paradise”. The traditional family is the foundation of all societies and has been for as long as civilization has existed. The US is not your test tube or petri dish to try your social engineering experiments.

I did not say stem cell research, I said fetal stem cell research, the logical extension of which is the mass production of fetuses in artificial conditions for the express purpose of killing them to harvest the stem cells. Its equivilent to me shooting someone in the head to harvest their organs and just as morally and ethically reprehensible.

Mr. Cohen,

Perception is not reality, correct. However, why is it that so many people percieve the Democratic Party to be hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular? I refer you to my earlier post and those of Brian B. Steps like these strip us of our cultural and national heritage. Not everyone views our history as something to be ashamed of or some quaint antiquated notion. The policies of the Democratic Party are hostile to religion.

Just look at the way Kerry treated abortion and gay marriage. As a man who claims to be Catholic, he said he was opposed to these things personally but still supported them. He didn’t say he gave his support for a legitimate reason, such as representing the will of his constituents, he gave some vague nonanswer. You can’t try and play your faith for points and then vote against it.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 8, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #165780

If only I had skipped “autoerotic circle” last night, I could have been in on this sooner.

There are so many holes in this argument. First, the argument that “most Americans” side with the religious right on the “values issues”. Try this, this, and this. So even the perceptions you claim to be widespread are not, and some (abortion) are opposite what you claim. Maybe because you surround yourself with right wingnuts in your autoerotic, God-praising, judgement passing, fire & brimstone breathing, holier-than-thou tower you have lost site of what most of America actually feels.

Posted by: David S at July 8, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #165781

ahhhhhhh religion and politics, such hot topics to discuss at once and together. question to anyone.

Has anyone ever considered the idea that the founding fathers had created a government that can be described along the same idea as the doctrine of the trinity?

Posted by: The Griper at July 8, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #165784

Jack,

If you are so sure that Christianity was so good for mankind, could you imagine how our world would look without the Renaissance and humanism? If you find this task hard, just take a look at the Muslim world. They believe in one God as well, but they had no Renaissance.

Posted by: LeonardoDaVinci at July 8, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #165786

The word “perceived” was used in the first paragraph of Jacks article.

Posted by: Brian B at July 8, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #165788

Jack,

After reading the responses on this thread, I think you should open a deli.

I don’t think I have seen this much baloney in one place ever.

Since 1994, how many elections have the Republican (presumably “more” Christian) party won?
Yet the “perception” is the majority is being persecuted by the minority?
How utterly absurd is that concept?

I’m really sorry to have to say this, but;

You guys won, get over it.

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #165789

How I choose to leave this life is between me and my Creator. It’s not the business of the government nor the Democrats nor anyone else.

That’s why I have a Living Will and a “Do Not Resuscitate” order (in extremely specific circumstances)in my medical records.

When it comes to keeping people alive long after they’ve died (artificial life support), many hospitals and doctors could care less about the patient or the family.

Like politics, it’s all about the money.

They bankrupt the families and milk the insurance companies for every cent they can get their hands on.

As for the Hippocratic Oath, the original oath of Hippocrates includes this line: “I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”

Of course, when the oath was “modernized” in 1964 by a guy named Louis Lasagna, that reference was removed.

After all, abortion is a multi-billion dollar business.

Posted by: ulysses at July 8, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #165791

Thank God George Bush is in the White House. Otherwise we just might have left wing activist judges on the Supreme Court. Than we would have the minority persecuting the majority.

Posted by: Brian B at July 8, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #165793

To Liberal Demon: You’ve done a good job of telling us of your perception of your God. The problem is, your perception is empty and void of any factual evidence of what the Creator intended. For the real “skinny” on what God thinks, take a look at His book. You will quickly find that your views do not coincide with the written “word”! Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at July 8, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #165794

Rich:

You miss the point…the hardline, more “Christian” Catholic bishops were supporting a candidate, Bush, who ranked extremely low when his views, ideas, programs were compared to Catholic dogma and social teaching…

Kerry, who actually is a Catholic (and Christian by definition, as Catholicism IS the founding Christian faith)was castigated by these same bishops…and Kerry ranked very high in supporting Catholic dogma/social teaching.

In case you forgot, Catholicism is Christianity par exellence!

Posted by: Lynne at July 8, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #165797

The perception is that Democrats are a Godless bunch that hates Christians. The very vocal far left wingnuts gives them this perception. They get a lot of press and use this coverage to spout their hatred of anything they disagree with. So the average person could get the idea that Democrats hate religion.
And if all I went by is what I read on this blog I’d get the idea that Liberals hate religion all together, not just Christianity, but Christianity in particular.
But I know several Democrats and most have some sort of religious belief and respect those of other beliefs. So the perception isn’t all together true. Just true of the far left.


Has anyone ever considered the idea that the founding fathers had created a government that can be described along the same idea as the doctrine of the trinity?

Posted by: The Griper at July 8, 2006 12:11 PM

Yes. And it’s not surprising either. Considering that most our founding fathers were of the Christian faith. And I know most won’t believe it but it was the Baptist that insisted on the non establishment clause.
Aw Oh, Don’t tell the libs that. They won’t be able to handle it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 8, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #165800

Lynne,

I think you’re a bit off the mark. This is a product of a Jesuit college saying this. The Catholic Church does NOT endorse political candidates. The Church’s teachings often fall foul of both parties. The Church tends to condemn the selfishness and consumerism associated with the wealthy and Republicans, but also rejects abortion, gay marriage, and many social issues espoused by Democrats. I think the clearest illustration I’ve seen of this applied on an international scale was an editorial cartoon of the late Pope John Paul II from when he visitied Cuba. He stood in between both Castro and a figurative America with his hands raised as in blessing, then slapped both.

Kerry doesn’t rank well with Catholic dogma. While Bush could gain standing with the Church by reading about the preferential option for the poor and the Just War doctrine of St. Augustine, Kerry rated low on everything.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 8, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #165801
“To sum up: 1. The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10, 000 revolutions a minute. 2. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. 3. Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride. “

H.L.Mencken

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 8, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #165802

Lynne
You must be a hard core catholic by your remarks. As far as catholisism being par exellance sorry but I don’t think so. We have good and bad in all religions.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #165803

Brian B Thank God Bush is in the WH or the Left Wing Judges would have the minority prescuting the majority. So instead we have the FAR Right majority trying to force their ways and view on the minority. As far as the founding fathers being Christians, that is not totally true. Most belived in a Divine Creator, but not necessarily in a organized demoniation ie Baptist,Purtain,or Quaker.
How I want to worship is my business and it is by faith alone a person is saved.

Posted by: KT at July 8, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #165805


Ulysses: you seem to be confused. It is the Republicans and the Christian right that wishes to deny you the right to choose to have the plug removed or to let your doctor assist you if is your wish. Terry Schivo was pronounced brain dead by more than one doctor. When her husband wanted to have her plug removed, the Christian right with help from republican politicians tried to prevent this from happening.

The creator of the pledge of alligence made no reference to God. God was inserted into the pledge in 1954 by the republicans.

The moto on our money used to be Liberty until revisionists changed it to In God We Trust. Do you want your government to protect your God given right to Life, Liberty and your Pursuit of Happiness or would you rather trust the Christian right to protect these things for you? Remember that they have made it perfectly clear that they believe some people are not entitled to these principles.

Posted by: jlw at July 8, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #165806

Democrats are anti-Christian? I guess I’m confused because every election I see all the dem candidates speaking at Black churches. You can’t miss them on the 6:00 news where you see them arm in arm on the stage with Black ministers singing hymns. Do you mean to tell me that this election time show of interest in these churches is just an act? I guess I was just assuming that these are not photo op vote pandering visits because that would seem rather shallow. On second thought… never mind.

Posted by: Carnak at July 8, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #165808

Lets state a few facts
-without Christianity there would have been no renaissance because there would have been no leftovers from Greece and Rome to study. (all the old manuscripts were kept and copied and preserved in monasteries. Yes ALL of them) Thus, Western culture and technology would be far less advanced.
-Our Constitution divides State and Religion.
-Where exactly to draw the divide is arguable and very much argued as evidenced by all the above arguments.
-Republicans do use religion (Christianity) to win elections.
-Democrats tend to vote away from traditional Christian values.
OK so some people undoubtably hate Chritianity and not all of them are muslims. Some are Dems. Some people hate atheists. Not all of them are muslims either. Some (alot) of them are Christians. Please note that when I say muslims I mean al-Qaedaites. I am a christian. I do not loathe atheists nor do I wish to force my beliefs on everyone in this country and I abhor the efforts of some of my brothers and sisters to do so. In reference to euthanasia: wrong, but not my business. In reference to abortion: Wrong, and very much my business. I am 17 years old. A lot of my generation has been wiped out by abortion. How many Einsteins and Leonardos have been aborted? In reference to homosexual marriage: wrong but not my business. If the church opposes gay marriage than let them marry people by the authoriy of Jesus Christ no by the authority of their respective state. Lets let the gov’t recognize such church heterosexual marriages and if they wish deny marriage to gays. The state, on the other hand, should give marriage licences to all, with all the legal benefits entailed. I have one more issue central to Christianity. (probably more central than any previously mentioned.) This is poverty. And in this area I must say that Dems have an infinitely better record than Republicans. Republicans give tax cuts to the uberrich while cutting welfare, education, aid for other countries, etc. The list could go on for a long way. Until Republicans get their act together on poverty I cannot recognize any moral high ground they might have over Dems on other issues. On war: Right or wrong, depending on the context. The Iraq war was unprovoked and unjust.
Feel free to argue any of this. Just saying what I think. I do not state my opinion as fact as, unfortunately, many in politics do.

Posted by: Silima at July 8, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #165809

JLW
I am Christian yet I don’t want to be artificially kept alive. Terry Schivo was breathing on her own and her heart was beating on it’s own yes her brain was damaged but being starved to death is barbaric. I believe every person has the right to decide if they want to be kept alive artifically or not. I don’t belive it is the right of some other person to decide that issue family member or not.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #165813

is this thing on? & intelligentlife

You firmly believe that most practicing christians are diluted in their thinking.

Do you really know millions of people well enough to pass on that kind of judgement?
A handfull of people maybe but millions?
I am challenging you on that. Within every church body there are people who disagree on a variety of subjects. So every member of the Southern Baptist Convention does not agree on theology completely. The same with the Anglican or Episcopalian Church, or the Lutheran and all its synods.

You both are making statements that are based upon a limiteed number of people that you know that exhibit what you are posting. You also know people of the same backgrounds that are different from what you are posting. That is just commons sense.

Your arguments about religion and science don’t hold water. There is nothing to debate. Science cannot explain how the earth ended up rotating on an axis for one day perfectly. All alterations to that principle is man made adjustments. How and why does blood clot? Science cannot explain why blood clots. Why is there only written history for about 6,000 years, but science says we are billions of years old?

Oh, well I am sure of my faith and belief in science. I have witnessed things that only a supernatural power could have accomplished, certainly not man.

Posted by: tomh at July 8, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #165814

Silma,

You are 100% right about poverty. I disagree, however, with how you characterize the Republican party. The Democrats probably had the best of intentions when they created welfare. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that it didn’t work. Welfare has concentrated minority poverty into the inner cities and done nothing for white poverty. We now have some 3rd and 4th generation lifelong welfare recipients. Welfare as it exists gives no motivation to attempt self improvement if one is content to live in the projects. Meanwhile, Republican attempts to actually hold schools to the standard of educating their students are bashed by the Democrats as racist.

I’ve made this argument before, but I think it bears repeating. The liberals have taken the role of reactionaries. Their flawed welfare state did not perform as advertised, yet when Republicans try to fix it, they are branded as racist or haters of the poor.

As far as abortion goes, I’m not much older than you, and I agree. Many on the left make issue of 2,500 dead in Iraq but say nothing about the fact that more lives than that are destroyed everyday by abortion. In fact, our average yearly abortion rate exceeds ALL of our loses in ALL of our wars COMBINED. The central hypocrisy of the liberal stance on abortion is that it “pre-emptively” eliminates many people that the liberals claim to protect.

For instance, the liberals say they are on the side of the mentally and physically handicapped, but have no problem with a couple who finds out thier preborn child will be handicapped having thier child aborted. After all, the child will be a burden on society. They also say they are on the side of women’s rights, yet have no problem when sex selection as a criterion for abortion, even though this almost always results in a pre-born girl being aborted. They also say we should seek to rehabilitate criminals, then tout the rate of abortions amongst the poor as a catalyst for dropping crime rates.

Posted by: 1LTB at July 8, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #165817

tomh
I agree. Also I’d like to add science disproves itself daily.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #165819

Democrats=Party of Death
-VS-
Republicans=Party of Life

Democrats:
Kill unborn babies for convenience.
Kill patients in a “vegetative state”.
Kill sick/elderly. Assist them in suicide. Let them die with “dignity”.
Kill embryos for stem cell research. Stem cells from embryos have cured nothing - adult stem cells have.

Republicans are:
anti-abortion
anti-euthanasia
anti-embyronic stem cell destruction
anti-death for convenience

Yep! Democrats have it covered. Explain these positions, make me understand the wisdom of this platform and I will think about not believing that all Democrats are insane! Yeah, yeah, I know, Republicans are fascist theocratic right wing monsters hoping to turn everyone in the US into a christian zombie. Simple choice really.

Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;”

No apologies. I choose life!

Posted by: JR at July 8, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #165823

Jack,

Perhaps you could give some specific examples of “DEMOCRATS” who have been hostile to religion. It seems to me that anytime someone challenges anything the religious right holds dear they are automatically labeled a Democrat.

Brian B. makes a perfect example:

a) removing the Ten Commandments from the courthouse, and b) trying to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

also:
c) prayer in school, and d) trying to remove “In God We Trust” from money.

Could you please provide proof that the people who challenged these things were indeed Democrats?

Defending diversity in religious belief and protecting “David” religions from being clobbered by “Goliath” Christianity is not being hostile to religion.

From my own personal experiance, I hold very unorthodox religious beliefs. I consider myself a person of great faith, but I find a lot more hostility coming from Conservatives. In fact, I have found liberals to be much more tolerant and open to diversity of religious beliefs. If you are a mainstream Christian then you are all good with the religious right, if not, you better watch out!

Democratic Republican activists get a lot of mileage and cash out of bashing religion Gays and/or religious folk supporters of equality. Nothing opens a big left right wing donor’s fat wallet faster than the stereotype of an out of control Christian Homo.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #165824

It isn’t about what people stand for, it’s about what the people who want your vote advocate. For a Democrat to say the aren’t pro-abortion is one thing, but when Democrat officials fight tooth and nail for abortion, even in the eighth month of pregnancy, they are out of touch with what most Americans consider moral. When you shine a light on something immoral about what Republicans are doing, the mess gets cleaned up, usually by that immoral Republican stepping down. Keep shining a light on whatever needs fixing.

We aren’t voting to empower as you call them right wing nuts. Just as you aparently believe you aren’t voting to empower left wing nuts. Please look to see what your elected officials are voting for. If they vote for late term abortion (killing the innocent),
for euthanasia (a fast track to abuses of those who cannot make decisions for themselves - In other words their “guardian” could decide for them to partake in “suicide”),
or for homosexuals being married (a not so subtle attack on what a vast majority of the population of the planet considers the normal one man and one woman marriage - for thousands of years),
then those elected officials need to held accountable for what they are forcing upon us.

And even more so, the unelected judges who are endangering our democracy by trying to place themselves above the people of the United States.

It is sad that aparently one third of that 75% of Americans who call themselves Christians don’t agree with what the Bible says. For you of different religions, including political correctness, what do your scriptures say?


Posted by: Steve at July 8, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #165826


Rich: Every day people are injured to the point of needing life support. Often the person has not specified what they would desire. If they did not then someone has to make the decision. Who should make the decision if not the family with help from their doctor and in some cases their pastor or others. Someone has to decide even if the decision is to leave them on life support indefinitely. I agree that it seems barbaric to allow someone to starve to death even if they are totally gone and don’t appear to be suffering. But in most cases no other option is avalible. Most states do not allow doctors to assist, they have to just let it happen.

Posted by: jlw at July 8, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #165827

tomh,

Simply stating that creationism must be true because we cannot explain all the wonders of life, really doesn’t hold water. At some point life began, whether here or on some other plane. If the wonders of the world can only be explained by a supernatural power, then how do you explain the wonders of the supernatural power?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #165828

I’m going to solve this whole thing right now. Ready? Us Libs will give you abortion, you give us gay marriage and we’ll split the euthanasia issue by requiring all requests for physician assisted suicide come from the person who is dying. Done. How hard was that?

Posted by: David S at July 8, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #165829

Steve,

So what you are saying is that it is ok for Christians to attack those who hold different beliefs than them, but it is not ok for those with different views to defend themselves from those attacks?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #165830

JLW
Living will

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #165831

David S,

I second the motion!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #165832

is this thing on?

You have put some thought into your post, but have based it on some erroneous understandings.

Faith in the Bible does not mean, “to believe in something without evidence or proof.” It is quite the opposite. While faith can be blind, biblical faith is “confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.” http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/faith A brief study of the Bible will show that you error when claiming, “the test of salvation is based not on what you believe in, but how you believe in it.” The important part of biblical faith is the object of the faith. God is even gracious in that. Take the following account from Mark 9:17-27, where a man brought his demon possessed son to Jesus and asked, “if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.” Jesus replied, “If you can?” Everything is possible for him who believes (read: faith).” “Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, ‘I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!’” Jesus did not send them away until the father firmed up his faith. Jesus lovingly healed the son.

The Bible also records many accounts of people asking God for proof. Exodus 4:1-7; Judges 6:36-40 God is not offended by people asking for evidence.

So - how do you choose? A Jehovah’s Witness, the Assembly of God, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Messianic Jews, Baptists, Moonies, and throw in a Muslim.” How do you decide which one is right? First, you will find that the Assembly of God, Seventh Day Adventists, Messianic Jews and Baptists mainly believe the same thing, hold essential beliefs in common and consider each other Christians. A good place to start would be to find out what each believes, the reliability of their scriptures (use a bibliographical test), the historical reliability of those scriptures in relation to other literature of antiquity and archeological discovery, etc. Talk to people who hold those beliefs and those who do not. Pray for guidance. You do your homework and then make an informed decision. In other words, what makes sense to trust?

You are correct in believing that the Bible and God cannot be proven true scientifically. However, your reasoning as follows is completely erroneous.

“The Bible can’t be proved with science because if it could be it would undermine the faith requirement preventing the believers in the true religion from obtaining salvation through faith. Thus the Bible has to be unscientific so that it can never be scientifically proven and have Bible believers lose faith because of proof and evidence.
So - based on the salvation through faith assumption we can come to some interesting conclusions.
1. Science can never prove that God exists.
2. Science will never prove that the Bible is true.
3. The true religion can never be proven by science.

Again, proof does not undermine Christian faith, it supports it. Second, bibliographical and archeological sciences demonstrate the reliability of the Bible to the extent that there is no reason to doubt the historical accuracies of the parts not yet affirmed through archeology. Experts in documents of antiquity, such as Sir Fredrick Kenyon, have determined that there is no longer any reason to doubt that we have the Bible substantially as it was written in the original autographs. Thus, while the Bible cannot be proven to be the word of God, it has be proven to be historically reliable.

The reason that science cannot prove God is that the very rules of science forbid it to consider God as an explanation for scientific discovery. That does not mean that the rational conclusion for scientific evidence cannot be God by those willing to consider something other than simply natural cause. In fact, science points to a big bang as the beginnings of our universe. The only rational explanation for that explosion is God. This is why many astronomers say that the Big Bang is like looking into the face of God.

Instead of writing of Christianity, check it out using your God given intelligence.

Posted by: larry at July 8, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #165833

Welfare also consists of healthcare for poor kids, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid and so on.

So we toss the elderly poor to the curb. Don’t innoculate children, make certain that single mothers who are having a hard time starve alongside their kids. The real number one recipient of government subsidization are corporations not people. And all with no guarantees that it will lead to new jobs just contributions to political coffers.

So the question is of religiosity, correct? So let’s address Jesus. Being that this is a Christian conversation.

Jesus was a man who walked and talked amongst the poor, died on the side of the poor, addressed the situation of the poor viemently all to now be so heavily embraced by the party of insatiable greed.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason why we don’t want it anymore is because you take it turn it into a totallitarian causlaty and ask why we don’t accept it any longer. Republicans made it filth and claim it as theirs alone so we just would rather do without the haughtiness and attitudinal smears than be part of it’s overall agenda that leads to more irresponsibility.
Thanks but no thanks and that’s the attitude.

Some liberals try to reclaim it again, some just let Republicans keep the ball of crap you republicans made of your own desires and wants all from that one little book.

Christ was not someone so irresponsibly hateful of the poor or negligent of poverty issues—do you republican monkeys agree? If not please read the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament front to back and answer the question again. But correct this time.

Posted by: In Italix at July 8, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #165834
It is sad that aparently one third of that 75% of Americans who call themselves Christians don’t agree with what the Bible says. For you of different religions, including political correctness, what do your scriptures say?

Steve,

Really? Only one third? I actually thought that number was much higher. My scriptures say:

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Period. That’s it.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #165835

Mem Beth,

Here is once again proof that those on the left refuse to see anything but what you want to see. God gives everyone the choice. The fact that you make the wrong choice doesn’t change a thing. The fact that your religious ferver is so strong in the church of liberalism, doesn’t make you any less of a religious fanatic. When you chose to purposely take things out of context and think that that, somehow makes you right, is exactly what I was talking about.
As long as the left insists on calling their religious fundamentalism, left wing politics, you can’t honor your statement.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: BOB at July 8, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #165836

Bob,

What is the church of liberalism? Is there a church of conservatism?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #165837

tomh,

You wrote:

Science cannot explain how the earth ended up rotating on an axis for one day perfectly. All alterations to that principle is man made adjustments. How and why does blood clot? Science cannot explain why blood clots. Why is there only written history for about 6,000 years, but science says we are billions of years old?

Science has very good explanations for all of these things. You apparently have very good blind faith beliefs about all of these things and you are free to blindly believe whatever you want, however to do so you must disregard science. The problem occurs when people try to make science and faith agree with each other. Christians used to believe that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. They were similarly outraged when science proved otherwise. They are still free to believe that it is flat. Most choose to accept science on that point, the same will eventually happen on these other issues of conflict. Faith will continue to retreat to ever deeper and more profound realms which are beyond the purview of science. Why would you not place your faith directly in God, instead of tieing it to an insignificant technical question about how old the earth is? Who cares how old the earth is? Is God any less Godly for having created something that has existed and evolved for 4.5 billion years? I understand concerns that if the Bible is not literally true about the earth being 6000 years old then maybe the whole doggone thing is just a lie - but really - your faith needs to be stronger than that - strong enough to accept that it could be technically incorrect about an insignificant metaphorical detail - but spiritually righteous about the big picture. By the way, the length of a day has changed through time and is continueing to change.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 8, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #165838

Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment.
Mastering others requires force;
Mastering the self needs strength.

He who knows he has enough is rich.
Perserverance is a sign of willpower.
He who stays where he is endures.
To die but not to perish is to be eternally
present.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 8, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #165840

womanmarine, July 7, 2006 09:03PM
YOU WROTE:
“I am very comfortable with my faith and my relationship with God. I just don’t need to shout it from the rooftops or through loudspeakers.
I wonder where those folks got the idea that Democrats don’t respect religion, it couldn’t possibly be a little propaganda could it?”

FOR YOUR OWN ENLIGHTEMENT PLEASE READ: 1LT B at July 8, 2006 07:25AM and “THE DEATH KNELL FOR vALEDICTORY SPEECHES”


Posted by: airforcejoe/Gjb at July 8, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #165842

Jay Jay Snow,

The church of liberalism, is where you stand. It is the place where your fundamentalist religious beliefs of the infalibility of the liberal point of view is never questioned, only honored. Anyone questioning the proven statements of fact of all liberal talking points is a heretic who deserves to die or be raped(as was espoused for Ann Coulter).

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: BOB at July 8, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #165846

So Bob, in your response to Mem Beth, since she made the wrong choice in your opinion, she is automatically wrong?

Now there is a Right Wing Person, saying no matter what religion you are, if you aren’t the same as me then you are wrong.
Religion and your personal walk with GOD and Jesus is exactly that, personal.

Posted by: KT at July 8, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #165848

Silama,

You wrote:

without Christianity there would have been no renaissance because there would have been no leftovers from Greece and Rome to study. (all the old manuscripts were kept and copied and preserved in monasteries. Yes ALL of them) Thus, Western culture and technology would be far less advanced.
True - but - there is some evidence to suggest that Christians were involved in destroying the Library of Alexandria - biggest library in the ancient world - Christians never did like us pagens… What did they destroy?

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 8, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #165849

larry,

I agree, belief in Jesus, for no other reason than you are told to, is not really faith. The Bible encourages us to ask questions and seek out the truth, not just blindly believe:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” ~Matthew 7:7-8

Experts in documents of antiquity, such as Sir Fredrick Kenyon, have determined that there is no longer any reason to doubt that we have the Bible substantially as it was written in the original autographs.

It was my understanding that it is next to impossible to determine what was in the original autographs due to the extreme number of variations between the surviving copies, estimated to be over 400,000. Even our oldest surviving copy, Codex Sinaiticus, has sections that were erased and written over.

We also have commentary from before the oldest known copies about “Christians who changed the scriptures at will,” according to Celsus from the second century.

“It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have heard that some of your interpreters…are on to the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism.”

If they were arguing about the accuracy of the scriptures in the 2nd century CE, then how can we possibly know that we have the Bible substantially as it was written in the original autographs?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #165851

sorry of topic, but a good post for the reds. to jump on . by the new york times. ( Surprising jump in Tax revenues curbs U.S. deficit.)

Posted by: Rodney Brown at July 8, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #165850

JayJay

If I could explain the supernatural being that we call God, I would be like God. Lucifer tried that and it didn’t work. I am not about to try it. I am not supernatural and therefore neither I nor anybody else can explain the wonders of God the Creator.

Ray Guest

You stated that Christians used to believe that the world was flat. That was a universal thought by nearly everybody, not just Christians. The age of the earth is a hotly debated topic amongst both creationists and non-creationists. So it must not be insignificant. Your supposition that the Bible is not true about the earth being 6k years old, brings back the old argument that you cannot pick and choose what part of the Bible is true. Either it is all true or if only one little thing is not true, then the whole Bible is not true. I prefer to believe that nobody has shown me any errors in the Bible. Oh, yeah there will be some that will twist and turn what they want, but the Bible is true! As far as my faith, I will agree with you that my faith does need to be stronger, but that I deal with constantly with my Lord (now) and Savior (eternal life). The length of a day has never changed. God created the moon to rule the night and the sun to rule the day and for nearly 6k years that has stayed constant. Man is catching up to this perfection that God has brought upon us.

Posted by: tomh at July 8, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #165853

JLW,

Terry Schiavo wasn’t brain dead. Her husband made sure there were no cat scans that would prove that. He was crass enough to say he hoped they put her brain in a jar to study it. He didn’t love her.

Several people reported Terry reacting to them being in the room or to events.

Again, this is Democrats advocating death for convenience, but not for hardened murderers who will impose death upon future victims if they escape. Let’s pretend they never escape.

Posted by: Steve at July 8, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #165852

BOB,

So, then there is a Church of Conservatism, since Cons do the exact same things?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #165854

JayJay Snow,
Thank you,once again, for making my point.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: BOB at July 8, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #165855

Jack:

Why should a liberal take advice from someone who hates liberals and never misses a chance to defame them?

Defamation of liberals seems to be your goal. All this talk about liberals hating religious people is baloney. It’s part of the Republican noise machine. It’s calculated to get religious people to vote Republican.

And why should a religious person of any sort vote for a Republican Party that is steeped in secrecy and corruption, that sanctions torture and rendition, spying on Americans, and smears its opponents with Swiftboat glee?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 8, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #165858

God has to have a strange sense of humor.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 8, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #165860

KT,
I don’t chose who is right or wrong, GOD does, I am simply giving you the reason why your liberalism is more fundamentalist religiosity than the christians and jews you attack for their fundamentalist religious beliefs.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: BOB at July 8, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #165862

Paul
Are you saying all democrats are angels? Both parties are corrupt. It’s about time both liberals and conservatives admitted this.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #165863

tomh,

If you cannot explain the wonders of God, and humans cannot explain all the wonders of this world, then how do you know that it was the wonders of God that created the wonders of this world? Who or what created the wonders of God? If the Big Bang created this world at the direction of God, then was there also a Big Bang that created God? And if so, was it the result of a collosal set of curcimstances that happened at the right place, at the right time? If so, then why is it impossible to believe the same set of circumstances happened in the creation of this world?

God himself must be a wonder of wonders. At some point, the unexplained wonder of first consciousness began. I believe in a higher power, and I do not need to know his exact origin to believe in the ineffable (faith). My point is that you cannot possibly use the argument that the wonders of this world are unexplainable, therefore that proves the existence of a higher power, when you cannot explain the origin of that power.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #165864

Bob, I did not attack anyone religion. What I said and if you look at my prior post, you will see that I feel religion is between the person and their GOD. I feel that the Right does not have the right to tell the majority or minority, what they can and can’t do, be it having a abortion (it’s still the law), telling someone they can not end their life as they see fit (we treat sick animals better then terminal humans), because it says so in the their bible.
During the campaign’s a lot of things were said that came from the bible but a lot of it was out of contexts also, from both sides.

One thing we do agree on and that is
GOD BLESS AMERICA, because no one else is.

Posted by: KT at July 8, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #165865

is this thing on?,

Loved your post. It was a good beginning primer on Soren Kierkegaard’s Christian philosophy. Is your faith in reason or God. His point was that it is through that existential leap of blind faith that one has a personal existential experience of God and comes to know that God is real from his or her personal relationship with God.

Correction for you though: There are three doctrines of salvation. Most churches mix all three to some extent. The Catholic church being the original Christian church developed the doctrine of “works” - that it is by works that you are saved - this led to the corruption of selling indulgences - give the church enough money for “good works” and you can enjoy a little sin… Luther rebelled / protested this and developed the doctrine of “faith” but quickly added that faith without works is dead because you have to have some way to get people to give money to the church. Calvin “protested” further and developed the doctrine of “grace” - that it is only by God’s grace that ye are saved - you are worthless and unworthy of salvation but God’s merciful grace might save you. God already knows who is going to heaven and who is not. If you are chosen by God then there is nothing that you can do do change it or earn it - it is only his Grace that will save you. Calvin also quickly added that God’s chosen people usually go to church and have faith and do good works because he also had to find a way to fill the collection plate.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 8, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #165866

BOB,

Sorry, I’m not sure how I proved your point by asking that question (that you didn’t answer). I believe what you described happens on both sides, you are simply being partisan by saying Liberalism is a church, but Conservatism is not.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #165871

JayJay

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

God said he is the Alpha and the Omega; the beginning and the end.

It is not necessary for me to know the heart of God. It is necessary for God to know my heart.

There was no big bang that created this earth. That means that chaos created this earth. God is not a God of confusion.

Until God touches your heart, you cannot understand any portion of God and his Wisdom and Mercy. Trying to explain the God of Wonders to someone who does not believe in a God of Wonders is futile. You have to study and explore. The answers to a relationship are available. The answers to the mysteries of God are not available.

Posted by: tomh at July 8, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #165872
I prefer to believe that nobody has shown me any errors in the Bible.

tomh,

There are no errors in the Bible? What do you classify as an error? Was John in error when he wrote that John the Baptist saw Jesus the day after his baptism and that the day after that he left for Galilee? Or was Matthew in error when he wrote that following Jesus’ baptism the spirit led him into the desert, where he fasted for 40 days and nights and was tempted by the devil?

One of these accounts is inaccurate, either he was in the desert fasting, or he on his way to Galilee. Which one is in error? If neither is in error, then how do you explain Jesus being in two places at once?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #165873

JayJay Snow,
As i said in my first post, this is pointless. I know you don’t follow and until you change your view of liberal infalibility you never will. You can’t even prove the main tenants of your faith in, for instance, evolution, without resorting to some form of miracle that somehow just occurs and has to be believed.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: BOB at July 8, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #165874

The answers to the mysteries of God are not available.

tomh,

Nor, are the answers to the mysteries of this world. You cannot prove that those who believe that this world was created by a collosal set of coincidances are wrong.

Until God touches your heart, you cannot understand any portion of God and his Wisdom and Mercy. Trying to explain the God of Wonders to someone who does not believe in a God of Wonders is futile. You have to study and explore. The answers to a relationship are available. The answers to the mysteries of God are not available.

You have no right to judge my relationship with God nor the journey I have taken to establish that relationship. You prove my original point about the religious right being more hostile towards those with diversity of beliefs.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #165877

Jack,

What are you doing? Have you read the right wing irrationality the “so-called” christian conservatives are espousing on this thread? You didn’t know this would happen or aren’t at least embarassed as to where this has gone?

Bob,

Just saying it is so without any reasonable argument and then labeling anyone who disagrees with you leads to what exactly? If the founding fathers thought like you we wouldn’t have a democracy or freedom of religion but some sort of Ayatollah of the worst sort. Thank God, the founding fathers believed in reason rather than whatever church you folks worship at.

Let’s be clear. The Church of Liberalism wherever it may be doesn’t exist no matter how many times you would like to shout it. There is the liberal idea of freedom which our founding fathers believed granted us the right to reason and choose for ourselves, including our leaders and government.

What is really going on here? No liberals are trying to force YOU to have an abortion, worship a God you don’t believe in, live as a vegetable bankrupting all around you except for doctors, lawyers, and hospitals, or marry someone of the same sex. You are free! Keep using your freedom to implore others to believe as you do, not force them to. I suspect if you used more reason you might have more success in convincing people. Sans that, I’m afraid making people live the way you think God wants them to is what the Republican Party is all about (at least that is what they are using you for).

Posted by: chris2x at July 8, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #165878

JAYJAY
You are the one who is in error. Isuggest you reread both accounts.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #165879
As i said in my first post, this is pointless. I know you don’t follow and until you change your view of liberal infalibility you never will. You can’t even prove the main tenants of your faith in, for instance, evolution, without resorting to some form of miracle that somehow just occurs and has to be believed.

BOB,

What are you talking about? Where did I say that I have faith in evolution? What I was doing is defending the right of individuals to believe as each sees fit.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #165880

KT,

Pardon me if i misquoted you. Now as to your response:”We treat sick animals better than we treat terminally ill humans.” I’ll go one step further and state that “We” treat animals better than we treat humans period. Over forty million innocent children/fetus’ have been killed since liberals made that law. So, a woman’s right to kill an innocent child is a good thing and putting a proven murderer to death is barbaric and unenlightened. Now let me say this for the last time, saying that this person or that religion is the same or worse doesn’t change anything or make you any less culpable or believable. But, it sure does make you a religious fundamentalist.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: BOB at July 8, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #165881

JayJay, You are correct that both side have their representatives who aren’t being loving.

I don’t see where you got “Steve, So what you are saying is that it is ok for Christians to attack those who hold different beliefs than them, but it is not ok for those with different views to defend themselves from those attacks?”

I welcome people to present their views. I don’t welcome people to try to deny people their freedom of speech or religion as the ACLU is doing.

Christianity is greatly outnumbered in the world. You won’t need to look far to find those non-Christian countries who slaughter Christians for their beliefs. Christians are very tolerant of other religions. Even the crusades were in self defense against the Muslims killing people. Do you know what Muslim nations do to people who are from the far left?

Posted by: Steve at July 8, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #165882

Rich,

I have read both accounts several times. Perhaps you can expand your response and point out what I am missing.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #165883

I have an idea. Lets all stop calling each other right wing nuts or left wing nuts and respect each others opinions. Then lets have a civilized debate instead of calling each other stupid and a dozen other derogatives. Maybe one wing is right, but morality cannot be proven scientifically. Thus we should accept our own fallibility and acknowledge that there is some chance we are wrong and the other side is right. Then we can all lay our evidence on the table and argue over whose evidence is stronger. Neither side will probably not completely convince the other and the argument will continue. But maybe we can gain some measure of respect for each other instead of ridiculing each others intelligence. Later, you guys can all go vote (I’m not old enough, yet) and whichever side gets more votes throughout the country wins and generally gets their way. Lets try to forget accusations of “vast right-wing conspiracies,” and the “war on people of faith.” After all, Jesus taught that the best way to get rid of an enemy is to treat him like a friend.

Posted by: Silima at July 8, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #165884

Thank You Bob for calling me a religious fundamentalist, I take that as a compliment.

Posted by: KT at July 8, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #165886

Steve,

Terry Shiavo was irreparably brain damaged (If you want to explain how this is much better than brain dead be my guest). Your dog Bill Frist (who was using you) even said so after the autopsy and backtracked quite quickly on his video “diagnosis” that she was responsive. Quit making up things to fit your beliefs.

Posted by: chris2x at July 8, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #165887

JayJay Snow,
Please look at the title of the article and tell me where it says that you don’t have the right to believe what you see fit to believe. I am not questioning your right to believe how you see fit. I am simply pointing out how liberalism is no longer a political point of view but a religion of beliefs that cannot be questioned. But, you don’t have to believe me. Talk to the Al Gores of the world and realize that it is their view or you are a moron or a cretin.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: BOB at July 8, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #165888

BOB,

Again, could you please explain to me how that differs from what the right does? Either you are with them, or you are against them.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #165889

KT,
That’s great, you are one funny lib and I like you, no matter what those other guys are saying about you. Have a great weekend y’all. I have to run.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Posted by: BOB at July 8, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #165890
I am simply pointing out how liberalism is no longer a political point of view but a religion of beliefs that cannot be questioned.

BOB,

Who says that liberalism cannot be questioned? Ann Coulter? You claim that you cannot question liberalism without being labeled. But how does that differ from conservatives who label liberals when they disagree with them? (ie: Un-American, Un-patriotic because liberals question the Iraq War) I don’t see where conservatism is any different.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #165892

David S. and JJ,

Give me an outright ban on abortion and you guys can have polygamous, interspecies homosexual marriages for all I care!

JLW,

If you’ve never read one word of the Bible, it’s best not to make outrageous claims as to what it says. Black people were created for slavery? Funny I never ran across that one either of the two times I’ve read the entire Bible from cover to cover. The ignorance of your statement explains all the other nonsense you’ve posted since. They speak for themselves.

Catholicism is Christianity “par exellence”?
Yeah, you have to be really up there in the Christian ranks before God lets you sexually abuse the altar boys. Give me a break. Catholicism has done nothing but undermine the true message of Jesus. No where does the Bible say “Thou shalt receive a puff of smoke and be buried to sin with a few drops of water, and afterwards thou shalt wear the really big hat.”

I know that most Democratic VOTERS aren’t hostile to religion, and many of them are Christian. The classical liberal ideas have many Christian principles regarding the poor. It’s the fact that the Democratic party has been taken over by these radical atheist donors who in turn change the landscape of the Democratic candidates to become more and more hostile to Christianity. Right now, I believe if the Pelosi and Dean wing was given the reins of government, they would do everything in their power to eradicate Christianity from this country. I honestly believe this, which is why I’m a “values voter”. I don’t vote to desroy people’s religious liberty, just to defend my own. If the Democratic party in general and the Left wing nuts in particular really are no threat to my freedom of religion, the burden of proof is on them. Until I’m convinced otherwise, I will vote for Republicans again and again, even if it means voting against my own economic interests. Less money is a small price to pay to keep from being thrown in a gulag for my religious beliefs.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #165893

Bob, thanks, and if everyone liked me then we would all be the same, and what a boring world we would have. I am not a lib or conserv, just a citizen who thinks that both sides have gone way to far from what the founding fathers of this country started and that it needs to get back to the middle. Thomas Jefferson might be right when he says that a revolution is needed every couple hundred years. I would have to say I am more of a Constitutionist.

Oh I am all for the 2nd Amendent, the right to bear arms, and I am retired military.

Posted by: KT at July 8, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #165896

Lots of the posters are arguing points I specifically did not make.

There is no need to argue that most Dems are people of faith. I wrote that too. There is no point in arguing if Dems are really against Christianity. I said perception.

What ordinary Dems need to recognize is that their leadership is creating the perception that they are not friendly to people of faith.

JayJay

You make the point. When you “corrected” my statement to substitute Republicans for Dems and gays for Christians. I have not actually seen statistics, but I bet that Republicans are perceived as less “gay friendly” than Dems. Why is that? Some Republicans support what could be called a gay friendly agenda and some Dems do not. The PERCEPTION is created by the actions of activists. The same thing goes for Dems and religion.

If rank & file Dems are content to be perceived as unfriendly to faith, it is their business. If they do not like it they have two choices. They can speak out more firmly against activists whose words and behaviors are anti faith and/or stop supporting them.

Paul

I don’t hate liberals. Since I do not believe anyone (myself included) has a monopoly of truth, I believe that we need strong ideas on all sides. I disagree with much of the liberal agenda. I must oppose it. But I don’t expect a complete victory and would not even seek one (because of the lack of monopoly on truth thing again).

I can oppose something w/o hating it. The only ideology (among those often accepted as legitimate) I developed a real animosity towards was (is) Marxism, which I classify with Nazism as completely discredited.

Posted by: Jack at July 8, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #165897

Jesus is a liberal, therefore true christians are liberals. Those who are calling for legislative bigotry against homosexuals are similar to people who were pro-segregation, and similar to people who were pro-slavery before that. Their rational for being in favor of these discriminatory policies came from their interpretations of the Old Testament. Therefore, people who assign the label of “moral values” to their narrow interpetations of the Old Testament, while ignoring the liberal views of the New Testament should call themselves what they really are, Orthodox Jews.

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 8, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #165898

It isn’t. Both sides demonize the other for political gain. Someone who thinks their side is completely right and the other is completely wrong is probably wrong themselves. Maybe we should stop ridiculing the other sides beliefs and instead explain why ours are right. By the way, I am mostly on the right but I still think Ann Coulter is an idiot. I don’t like it when either side classifies the other side as universally stupid. Some on both sides are stupid, but not all of them. Some of us on the right have educated opinions, whether or not they are right. Some left-wingers have educated opinions, whether or not they are right. Ann Coulter is an idiot. So are some lefties. But if those on the left can respect what I believe, I will be far more receptive to what they have to say than if they spend all their time calling me a right wing nut. I hope the same is true of those on the left.
Ray Guest-thanks for mentioning the Library at Alexandria. Yes Christians did destroy it though it should be noted they did so to keep that knowledge out of the hands of conquering muslim Jihadists. Would you prefer that muslims have control of all that knowledge which would almost certainly have been used to conquer Europe. Which would you prefer, fundamentalist Christian law or fundamentalist muslim law?

Posted by: Silima at July 8, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #165899

Duane-o,

That is funny, I feel that the bigger threat to religious freedom comes from the Republican party. The left may have it’s atheist extremists who would be happy to see Christianity wiped out, but the right has just as many fundamentalist extremists who would be just as happy to see Christianity mandated by the Government. The Republican Party seems to be very willing to pander to their extremes. I honestly believe that Democrats are much more interested in protecting religious liberty for everyone, not just it’s extremes.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #165900
Which would you prefer, fundamentalist Christian law or fundamentalist muslim law?

I prefer neither. I prefer American secular law.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #165901

Me too.

Posted by: Silima at July 8, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #165902

Oh, yeah JLW said something about the minority having to amend the Constitution to protect itself from the majority and nobody has called him out. JLW apparently hasn’t read the Constitution OR the Bible. To amend the Constitution, you need a 2/3 MAJORITY in Congress and a 3/5 MAJORITY in the State legislatures. You really gotta read some founding documents.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #165903

Bob,

Thanks for your view. I’m not left or right. I think for myself and don’t let media propaganda and those who misintrepret theology influence my thinking. I also don’t publicize my beliefs unless asked, it is too personal. Those that do are just being pretentious and selfish. Learn to live with others, not over them.

For those who think patriotism is more important than GOD, or that God is an U.S. patriot, please keep saying “GOD BLESS AMERICA”, I will keep saying “GOD BLESS THE WORLD” becuase of what I have learned from the theology I’ve studied.

Posted by: mem beth at July 8, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #165904
I don’t welcome people to try to deny people their freedom of speech or religion as the ACLU is doing.

Your freedoms stop when they infringe on mine.

I believe if the Pelosi and Dean wing was given the reins of government, they would do everything in their power to eradicate Christianity from this country.

There’s your perception. We should have to prove what to who????

Posted by: womanmarine at July 8, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #165905

JJ,

I am truly afraid of what the left wing of your party has in mind when it comes to Christianity. I personally know hundreds of evangelical (the most radical of all, United Pentecostal) Christians and have never encountered ANY who wanted State sanctioned Christianity. If a person is forced into the faith, it isn’t really faith is it? People are free to embrace whatever faith or lack thereof they wish, and I am free to tell them about the life changing experience of Jesus, that is as long as the left stays out of power.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #165906

Womanmarine,

They should have to prove that to me, and I suspect many other Christians if they want our votes, which was the original subject of Jack’s article.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #165908

Duane-o

My religious beliefs are that homosexuals are created by God and that they serve a purpose in God’s plan. Homosexuals are as much as God’s people as anybody else and should be treated with equality. When evangelicals push discrimination laws on homosexuals, they are pushing their religion on them, and denying my religious beliefs that homosexuality is a perfectly natural part of the human condition.

Again, if you are a mainstream Christian then you probably don’t have much to worry about from the right. If you have unorthodox beliefs as I do, then the threat from the right is great.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #165910

That’s interesting: Jesus is/was a liberal!

Several years ago, I had a retired minister take me to task over a Letter to the Editor about Creationism vs Darwinism (Natural Selection/Evolution).

In the course of his “setting me straight,” he too said Jesus was liberal and explained that the word “liberal” is found in the Bible at least 15 times. He challenged me to find the word “conservative” there.

I have since changed my position on Creationism, at least from the point of view that I now believe without a shadow of a doubt that there is an intelligence of unimaginable power guiding the universe and the life within it.

But I’m still looking for the
word “conservative” in the Bible.

I’m beginning to think the old preacher was right.

Posted by: ulysses at July 8, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #165912

I realize that this is a futile exercise, as the right chooses to ignore the facts, but the ACLU does defend religious freedom.

THE ACLU FIGHTS FOR CHRISTIANS

ACLU: Religious Freedom

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #165913

Let me make a case against homosexuality.
1-the Bible explicitly says it is wrong.
2-natural selection says that whichever species has the best adaptations will survive. If homosexuality is normal it cannot under any natural circumstances reproduce another organism. Thus it is a bad adaptation that should expunge itself from the natural human condition as heterosexual partners reproduce and homosexual partners do not. Since homosexuality is still around, it is not natural. It is the result of human sinfulness and rebellion against God.

Posted by: Silima at July 8, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #165916

Ulysses-of course Jesus was a liberal. He befriended all those the powerful disdained: the poor, taw collectors, prostitutes. He fought for the poor and neglected in society. He rebelled against the strict Pharissitic code of law. The problem is that western society has out-liberaled Jesus to the point where he is now on the conservative wing of society as society embraces homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, and flaunted sexuality as exhibited mainly on beer commercials. While Jesus was a liberal, he has been turned into a conservative by the liberal swing in society.

Posted by: Silima at July 8, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #165917

JJ,

Discrimination laws? I am not a politician, and haven’t signed a single piece of legislation for or against anybody’s right to do anything. If you don’t like the law your representative voted for, vote for his or her opponent. You have as much right to call your Senators and rep as all those religious conservatives whose only goal in life is to do all they can to make your life miserable. You know, I sit at home all day and think “How can I destroy the life of a gay person today?” Of course, because it’s our maniacal plan to keep women under our rule by asking that they don’t have someone cut and vacuum the skulls of their children too. Yes, we exist only for the torment of gays, women, minorities (although my mom’s side of the family is American Indian), atheists, socialists, etc. C’mon.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #165918

JayJay
John’s gospel dosen’t say anything about Jesus going into the wilderness to be tempted the other three do. Matthew’s geneology of Christ is different than Luke’s. Each writer portrys Christ differently Matthew as King Mark as a servant, Luke the humanity, and John the divinity. The geneologys one is Mary’s the other is Joseph’s

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #165920

Silma,

AWESOME!!!! Absolutely true, and you said it a lot better than I could have. May God bless you and GOD BLESS AMERICA. {}{

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #165922

I’m not religious, though, by having made a scholarly based study of the Bible, I’ve learned to my surprise that I know more about Christianity’s sacred texts than most Christians do. Having said that, it is abundantly clear to me that everyone selectively chooses which values from the Bible to pay lip service, and it seems obvious to me that Christ, though he may disagree with some of the values of the left, would certainly not consider himself a Republican. It is also clear to me that in the long march of history, it is progressive values that are far more in line with the teachings of Christ than conservative values. Without a historical prospective, that claim may seem startling, but consider — it’s only with the founding of this country that there existed a government that was not designed to preserve the interests of the wealthy, propertied classes — and even in his country, the wealthy have a disportionate say in governmental policies. Virtually every socioetal advance has been a progressive one: suffrage for women, abolishment of slavery, equal rights, etc. Now, I am not saying that Republicans are against these things — Republicans, for the most part, have internalized these progressive values, and, again for the most part, are far more liberal in historical terms than many of them realize.

The danger of injecting religion into political debate is that it is very easy to cite scripture for a variety of cross purposes. One can find support for slavery, the subordinate role of women, the notion that all authority has divine origins. I can refer to the parable of the camel and the needle’s eye to claim that the vast majority of the wealthy are going to hell, and right-wing fundamentalists can find support for vicious war against heathens (i.e., everyone who doesn’t believe as they believe) by referencing God’s command to the Jews to commit genocide in Canaan.

Injecting religion into politics is often a very cynical ploy. I have many Republican friends who are not fundamentalists who feely admit that the Republican party courts fundamentalists in order to build winning blocs. And they freely admit the find the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson abhorrent.

I feel what political debate in this country lacks is honesty. Christians love to claim they are persecuted, yet there are dozens of churches in every community, many politicians are required to take an oath before God, and churches have favored tax status. I have no problem with any of this, though I am pained to see how many charlatans (often televangelists, and no, I am not claiming that all televangelists are con men)in the name of God prey upon the elderly and those lacking common sense. I wish we would see more true Christians stand up to these frauds.

You say the Democratic party needs to adjust its message in order to appeal to Christians. I would agree, to a point, because of course many Democrats are Christians, and yes, Democrats often do lose in the popular mind the religious debate. They need to do a better job of explaining why it is important not to use state resources to promulgate one particular reason; they need to educate the public on the thinking of the founding fathers in regards to religion.

I know that opinion polls are often sacred text for political activists, but as a matter of integrity we should not blindly follow where they seem to lead. I hope the Democratic party doesn’t resort to Republican tactics in regards to religion — we (as a country) are often all too-willing to engage in cynical Bible-thumbing and flag-waving instead of engaging in substantive debate. Although I am not religious (frankly, I find the subject of the divine far too important to follow the doctrine of any particular denomination — systematizing the spiritual always plays into political and organization power struggles), I do adhere to what I consider enlightening values of toleration, justice, charity, and mercy. I’ll close with this observation: the religious liberty and toleration we value so much in this country, and which are inscribed in our founding documents, are pagan values, not Christian. Monotheism by its nature excludes and demonizes everyone who doesn’t pay lip service to the One True God, whoever that particular One True God may be.

Posted by: Trent at July 8, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #165923

Silima,

The Old Testament states that homosexuality is an abomination, however Jesus made no mention of it and it is not written about in the New Testament. So since you only follow the Old Testament you must be an Orthodox Jew right? :P

As far as your view that natural selection would eliminate homosexuality and therefore it must be a choice, you should know that it isn’t merely just a matter of genetics of the gay individual, but rather has to do with hormones produced by the mother while the child is in the womb. Also, it has been statistically shown that men with older brothers are more likely to be gay, and the more older brothers you have the greater the likelihood. This is thought to happen because the mother builds up a response to the male Y chromosome present in her child that would be foreign to her body. So then the female and older male children who still carry this trait of the mothers can pass it on. Then there is the matter of homosexuals who felt social pressures, usually from religious institutions, to conform to heterosexual lifestyles and have children.

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 8, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #165925

JJ,

Go back and read the first Chapter of John again. It says that the day after John “bare witness” about the spirit descending on Jesus was the day he sent two of his disciples to follow Jesus. The day after he told people about the dove, not the day after the actual baptism.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #165926

Larry

I disagree that there is no scientific evidence for the existance of a Creator, whether it be God or little green men.

Some of the world’s foremost scientists, including some Nobel Prize winners (and Athiests) in chemistry and biology, have concluded, after a lifetime of research, that there are many questions about the existance of life that can only be answered by the presence of an guiding intelligence.

That’s why these men still call evolution a theory, not scientific fact.

I have studied these scientist’s research and came to the conclusion that they are right.

But I choose God over little green men.

Posted by: ulysses at July 8, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #165927

Silma,

You got me scratching me head on that one. You say Jesus was a liberal, but is now a conservative because of too many liberals. Or, in other words, Jesus turned conservative because too many people followed his gospel.

Please post some more of your thoughts, you are doing the liberals a favor here, removing all doubt.

Posted by: mem beth at July 8, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #165928

I just love it when people of religion (any damned religion) decide clarify what was written (and re-written repeatedly) to fit their view of the world. If God is divine and all powerful and perfect, then how could the deity do something wrong? How can homosexuality be wrong if God created them as such? If homosexuality is so ‘against-nature’, then why are there animals other than mankind that also produce homosexuals?
If you truly believed in God, a just, perfect, loving God, then how can you (or any of us) dare to question what IS? Homosexuals may not breed, but that hasn’t eliminated homosexuality from the world. End the hate. You are not a follower of Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity, Islam if you believe in killing your neighbor. All 3 believe in the ‘Golden Rule’. Why don’t you?
Want to save the world? Eliminate ALL religions. Believe in yourself. Accept the happiness in your life and take the responsibility for your own losses and shortcomings. Stop blaming God. Stop worshiping an empty space inside yourself. We are all God and We are responsible for everthing that goes on around us. Not some Fairy Tale Father that we should have outgrown as we attempt to become enlightened and civilized.

Posted by: Richard Sawransky at July 8, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #165930

Bushflipflops,

New Testament Romans 1:26-27 Put that one in your flipflop and walk.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #165931

Paul writes about homosexuality 1st Chapter Book of Romans. NEW TESTAMENT

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #165932

Duane-o,

Those aren’t the words of Jesus, therefore they don’t count. Anything in the New Testament that wasn’t from Jesus’s mouth don’t count. Only by following the words of Jesus can you be a true Christian.

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 8, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #165933

Bff,

EVERYTHING counts. God would not allow His timeless words to be changed by any man. “Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but My Word shall not pass away.” Paul wrote with divine inspiration from Jesus himself, whom he met on the road to Damascus to persecute Christians. I’ve had my road to Damascus experience and perhaps yours is just around the corner. God Bless. And BTW, Bush does flip flop!

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #165935

Silima,

1) The modern Bible may state that homosexuality is wrong, however, the original Greek is not so explicit. In fact, there was no word in ancient Greek or Hebrew for homosexual. What modern translators have translated may not be so clear in the original. In addition, almost all those passages that speak of homosexual acts are referring to sins that are sinful for heterosexuals as well, including rape, pedophilia, orgies in temples, prostitution. In addition, when deciding what is being talked about in the Bible it is important to put it in a historical context. Historical documents make it clear that the practice of homosexuality was perfectly acceptable in ancient Rome & Greece up until about the 4th century. We also know that it was a normal practice for straight men to rape other straight men as a form of shame and dominance.

In addition, in a historical context, homosexuals were not known as a separate group, but fell under the umbrella of eunuchs. The modern meaning of eunuch did not come about until sometime after the 4th or 5th century. Prior to that time, eunuchs were a class of men who did have a sexual desire for women, whether naturally as with homosexuals, or by castration (many of whom did retain sexual desire, if castration happened after puberty, and therefore did not make good Chamberlains. In fact, many women preferred castrated males because they could not get pregnant by them.) In addition, men who were celibate for the kingdom of God were also known as eunuchs (probably priests). Jesus speaks of this division in Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. [emphasis mine]

If you care to learn more about who the eunuchs, Chamberlains, and Officers of the Bible were you will find an in-depth article here.

2.) Evolution in higher mammals is extremely slow, taking thousands of years. Homosexuality actually could fit into the natural selection process. Evolution happens by a series of small and slow adaptations, homosexuality could very well be one of those adaptations in a series of steps.

It is now believed that homosexuality is caused by abnormal hormone levels in the womb during gestation, which explains why the variant has not died out despite the fact that homosexuals do not normally reproduce sexually. The mother passes the variant along, not by homosexuals themselves.

Another variant that is believed to be caused by a similar, but more extreme, hormonal imbalance in the womb is intersexuality. Intersexuality may be the next step in the process. The final step of the process may lead intersexed people who are able to reproduce asexually, which would ensure by far the greatest possibility of reproduction and survival.

We cannot say with certainty that homosexuality is not evolution at work because evolution takes so long to happen.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #165936

Duane-o,

For your information I had my road to Damascus experience. I was on the road to Damascus when Jesus showed up and said: “Dude, you gotta take a puff of this shit,” as he handed me a joint. Then we sat on the roadside getting stoned as he explained to me the true nature of the universe. He told me that the old money changers of the temple had now taken control of the religion of his name and twisted his words to benefit the rich and powerful. He then told me that I had to take the whole Old Testament stuff with a grain of salt since those dudes way back then didn’t know shit. As he was leaving his final words to me were: “Tell everyone to just chill, be cool with each other, and whatever you do don’t trust the man.”

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 8, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #165937

JayJay
When medical science can prove that homosexuality is other than a choice of life stiles instead of all this scientific THEORY maybe then I’ll change my thoughts on the subject. But pray tell me in all your infinite wisdom why is mankind the only specie that has homosexual tendensies?

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #165938

Rich,

“But pray tell me in all your infinite wisdom why is mankind the only specie that has homosexual tendensies?”

It isn’t.

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #165940

Silima,


1-the Bible explicitly says it is wrong.

With all due respect, the US government was founded on the principles of the enlightenment and the contstitution, not the bible. There was a good reason the founding fathers wanted a government that made its decisions based on science and reason, not religion.

2-natural selection says that whichever species has the best adaptations will survive. If homosexuality is normal it cannot under any natural circumstances reproduce another organism. Thus it is a bad adaptation that should expunge itself from the natural human condition as heterosexual partners reproduce and homosexual partners do not. Since homosexuality is still around, it is not natural. It is the result of human sinfulness and rebellion against God.

Homosexuality is found in nature, including in wild animals. It probably exists not because it helps a species survive, but because it isn’t lethal, as only a small minority of people are homosexual. Just because something doesn’t lead to reproduction, doesn’t mean it’s caused by sin. By the same logic, people who because of disease are sterile are also sinful. These people didn’t actually choose to like others of the same sex, they were just born that way.

Also, thousands of years ago it might have been more practical to enforce heterosexuality. A group of people might die out if there weren’t lots of babies being born. Now with overpopulation and the fact that dying in childhood is very rare being forced to have lots of children isn’t much of a virtue anymore.

Posted by: mark at July 8, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #165941

bushflipflops,

Wow, Jesus told you; “Tell everyone to just chill, be cool with each other, and whatever you do don’t trust the man.”

me too, what a coincidence! :D

Posted by: mem beth at July 8, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #165942

I sure wish I knew where some of you liberals get your info from. You say the Bible is a fairy tale.I think you guys have been reading to many fairy tales.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #165944

Jack,
Just a reminder that there are just as many religious democrats as republicans. Your ‘padded’ survey just shows the fear that the right-wing conservatives are feeling now that Americans, and the truly religious, are waking to your evil deeds.
You can spout off about Jesus but none of the ultra conservative right-wing bigots are ‘living’ Jesus. You may remember (if you’ve actually read the Bible) that Jesus helps those in need…is full of compassion and good will and not anger and bigotry.
You, and the rest who are like you are ‘fundamentalists’ and, in any religion, including Islam, if you look at the fundamentalists, they are the ones who want to re-write the truth to suit their greedy and psychotic ends.
In fact, Jack, you aren’t religious, you’re just an evil person wrapped in plastic pretending to be spritual in order to protect your nazi portfolio.

Posted by: robin szczepaniak at July 8, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #165947

Rich,

I am sure when science can prove the existance of God, and not just a Myth, many will change their views about that too. There are hundreds of species that have exibited homosexual tendencies.

bushflipflops,

I agree, Paul never even met Jesus, nor did Luke.

Duane-o,

Paul wrote with divine inspiration from Jesus because Paul said so? Ok.

The Bible was written, edited, and assembled by MAN. It has been changed, over and over. Look at Mark 16:9-20, which were added by a later scribe. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus do not contain verses 9-20. There are more variations between the surviving manuscripts of the NT than there are words in the whole bible.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #165948

Rich,

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

“In animals in which “bachelor groups” form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex.”

http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0226/iacentos2.shtml

“PARIS - At a German zoo, the behavior of six penguins that formed same-sex couples has revived the incipient scientific debate about the origins of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Biological or social? ….

The remaining six males formed three homosexual pairs, which in their fruitless attempts to produce offspring have attempted to incubate rocks that they have confused for eggs.”

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #165949

Why is it that the most vocal religionists are also somewhat stupid? No amount of proof can sway them away from their lopsided beliefs. They feel that a book of parables written by men with their own agenda which as been translated and re-written so many times that it may actually be a complete bastardization of the original writings is the ABSOLUTE WORD OF GOD.
1. Jesus is not now, nor has he ever been GOD. Christians have broken the first (and to GOD) the most important commandment; Thou shall put no Gods before me. How did Jesus and Mary get upgraded? Mary was just a vessel to hold the baby and at best, Jesus may (I don’t believe) have been his son. That does not make him a God.
2. Using a book that is loaded with slanted news at best and fiction at worst does not prove any points.
3. Living a clean, loving, harmless life is much more important than going to or belonging to any church. The entire world is a church. Why go inside and hide from God’s creation to ask for guidance?
4. Your beliefs do not constitute a need for me to believe as you do. I have the brain God gave me and I intend to use it. Why else do you think we have intelligence? Keep your dogma out of my home.
5. Thankfully the United States of America is founded and guided by a Constitution, not the Bible. At least the Constitution is still the original not translated to fit specific ideology.
6. I read the Bible (Old Testament) as a child. It was great. I have been reading Science Fiction ever since thanks to those stories.
7. I am admittedly an Athiest, but that doesn’t make me a bad person, no matter how much you curse me for being a non-believer.
Oh, I believe in Evolution also. We are supposed to think for ourselves, too many of us (you) don’t bother. Easier to be a follower with blinders and ear-plugs. Open your eyes. Open your ears. Open your mind. Shut your mouth.

Posted by: tatoo49 at July 8, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #165950

Rich,

Here’s more;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #165952

Duane-o,

BTW, many scholars today believe that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are all forgeries.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #165953
Paul wrote with divine inspiration from Jesus himself

Did he? or was it inspiration from Mithras?


Mithraism and Judaism merged and became Christianity. Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. St Paul as the first “Christian” bears much of the responsibility for merging the two in his preaching and teaching, and also comes from Tarsus, a major Mithraist center.
The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.


It’s a little hard to tell where it came from……

Posted by: Taylor at July 8, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #165958
they would do everything in their power to eradicate Christianity from this country.

Even though I hate what religion is doing to our nation, even *I* wouldn’t want them eradicated or extinct. All things in moderation. A few are ok, and without any, it would inevitably lead to the complete collapse of the nick nack industry. It’s more a matter of population control. Too many deer in the woods ruins the ecology of the whole area. Same thing is true with christians and the political system of our nation.

If left unchecked, they will eventually begin taking care of the problem themselves. christians have an inherent compulsion for in-fighting. If you took a bunch of christians, say some protestants, and some catholics, and put them together on an island together, oh…. say Ireland, they’ll eventually start shooting and blowing one another up. It’s probably not a wise choice to wait for them to snuff out everything else in the political arena before they return to picking fights with one another.

Posted by: Taylor at July 8, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #165959

JJ

It sounds too much like the persecution complex coming from you.

Therefore I will not pursue any more discussion on the homosexual distortions and the original concepts that you seem to relish in. Time to pursue something more productive.

Posted by: tomh at July 8, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #165962

Rocky
www.narth.com. This site has conflicting statements.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #165966

Totoo49
Oh, I believe in Evolution also. We are supposed to think for ourselves, too many of us (you) don’t bother. Easier to be a follower with blinders and ear-plugs. Open your eyes. Open your ears. Open your mind. Shut your mouth.

Telling others to shut their mouths on a website designed to share opinions shows just how open minded you are.

Posted by: Carnak at July 8, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #165967

Ulysses, there is a world of difference between scientists coming to a logical conclusion and coming to an empirical proof. Logically, I can prove internal combustion engines run on the farts of little green gremlins stuffing themselves inside. But, the logical conclusion based on assumed premises doesn’t make for real world proof at all. Empirical proof of god is not possible.

Here is a logical proof. The Universe is infinite. The universe is a creation. The universe requires order to remain the universe. Ergo, the universe proves there is a creator, for one cannot have creation without a creator, and since the universe is infinitely ordered, so must he creator be infinite in co-existence with the perpetual order of creation.

All quite logical. But, it doesn’t provide one shred of tangible or empirical proof of the existence of god. God exists for those who believe s/he does. God is an act of faith. One can no more prove the universe exists without humans to perceive it, than one can prove god exists if humans don’t. The mind of homo-sapiens is capable of creating existence where there otherwise is none. Ask any schizophrenic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #165972

Rich,

“www.narth.com. This site has conflicting statements.


Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #165974

Rocky
It’s not a religious site. It’s just as scientific as the site you gave.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #165980

Rich,

The point of the site you gave me is to facilitate the “conversion” of a homosexual to a heterosexual.
They deny the existence of a “gay” gene ( the old, you can’t prove it exists, therefore it doesn’t).
They believe that homosexual behaviour is entirely psychological and sociological.

“But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable.

Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.”

Homosexuality has existed for millennia, even in places where it was crime to be homosexual, and people were killed because of it.

Don’t you think that a person that has spent their entire life as an object of scorn would rush right out and wish to be cured?
They’d be turning people away.

Sorry Narth’s approach looks benign on the surface, but I ain’t buying it.

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #165983

Rocky
Likewise to the site you posted.

Posted by: Rich at July 8, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #165984

Tatoo49,

Jesus IS God. They are the same person. Mary is a dead Jewish woman who happened to be the vessel through which God came to the earth as a human, and a great Christian, nothing more. You tell me to open my mind, eyes, ears, etc, and to shut my mouth. Nice. How about this: OPEN YOUR HEART.

JJ,

I hate to keep saying this over and over, but if God can Create the earth in six days (not literal days, I believe), part the Red Sea, nuke Sodom and Gomorrah, feed 5,000 people with a little boy’s lunch, walk on water, heal every disease, raise the dead and raise from the dead, why is it that He hasn’t been able to keep His Word which He said would never pass away from being destroyed? And now He needs modern “scholars”? Paul did meet Jesus, and so did Luke. Paul talked to Yeshua on the road to Damascus in Hebrew. I’ve met Jesus, as well. If you haven’t, I could introduce you to Him, but that’s only if you want to live forever and never have any sorrow or crying or pain or any of the former things. Still praying for you JJ, and I think you’re starting to come around.

Watchblog Managing Editor,
In one of the comments above, someone called Jack an evil Nazi. Jack is one of the kindest, gentlest Nazis I’ve ever known and I object to the name-calling. Just kiddin’, Jack, you rule. Excellent post.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #165985

Rich,

You asked for an example, I gave it to you.

Believe it, don’t belive it.

It doesn’t matter much to me.

I kinda thought the news story about the penguins in the German zoo was fairly compelling.

Posted by: Rocky at July 8, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #165987

David R.

“The universe is infinite” is a scientific conclusion, not a known empirical fact. Science can no more prove the universe is infinite than they can provide irrefutable empirical evidence that an intelligence created that universe.

The same is true of evolution. Even Darwin admitted that there were valid arguments against his theory, the most damning among these is the “Cambrian Explosion.”

Evolution cannot explain the sudden appearance of myriad new, complex lifeforms that had no transitional ancestors. The fossil record is silent on this point.

In spite of this and volumes of other contradictions, many still choose to believe in evolution as the sole answer to the origin of life.

I choose to believe that these contradictions and the evidence, or lack thereof, points to an intelligence beyond our comprehension.

How does that make me any more schizophrenic than the former?

In the end, it’s all a matter of faith.


Posted by: ulysses at July 8, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #165991

I have a question for you Biblical scholars.

Leviticus says that homosexuality is an abomination. But it also says that eating shellfish is an abomination. My wife and I both like to eat clams, mussels, and oysters. Does that mean we’re really gay?

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 8, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #165992

ElliotBay,

Only if you are of Jewish heritage. The Gentiles who converted to Christianity were not held to the Levitical law, except to abstain from eating things sacrificed to idols, and fro eating blood, and from things strangled, and from FORNICATION, under which homosexuality would fall.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #165998

The Bible condemns a lot of things, especially in the Old Testament.

But didn’t a carpenter from Nazareth say something about not judging people?

I have a hard enough time finding my own way in this life without wasting energy hating and condemning others because the “Good Book” says so.

I’ll leave that to the nut cases, like Falwell, Robertson and Phelps.

Posted by: ulysses at July 8, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #166001

ElliottBay:

“My wife and I both like to eat clams, mussels, and oysters. Does that mean we’re really gay?”

Only if you eat them with a song in your heart.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 8, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #166003
I hate to keep saying this over and over, but if God can Create the earth in six days (not literal days, I believe), part the Red Sea, nuke Sodom and Gomorrah, feed 5,000 people with a little boy’s lunch, walk on water, heal every disease, raise the dead and raise from the dead, why is it that He hasn’t been able to keep His Word which He said would never pass away from being destroyed?

Duane-o,

That’s assuming those things actually happened, and that God was responsible for them happening. The Bible seems to be a self fulfilling prophesy for you. I ask you if God was able to do all those things, then why was he not able to protect the original autographs? We are left with copies of copies of copies from the 4th century, and our modern day Bible is based on a copy from the 14th century. Sure papyrus rots and falls apart, but this is God we are talking about. Certainly he would have been powerful enough to protect the originals.

I believe that God did protect his word, but he didn’t do it through the letter, he does it through the spirit. If you hold the Bible up as being infallible and the absolute authoritative word of God then you have put it above God and made it into an idol.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #166006

2 Corinthians 3:

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! [em mine]

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #166007

“In fact, Jack, you aren’t religious, you’re just an evil person wrapped in plastic pretending to be spritual [sic] in order to protect your nazi portfolio.”

Jack, we of the brotherhood of the (you know what) apologize profusely for this untimely leak of your pretend ‘spritual’ nazism. We are conducting an investigation and will spare no expense in seeing that justice will be done. Death to all leakers and whistleblowers everwhere!

Yours in ‘spritual’ fascist nazism,

Tim Crow

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 8, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #166008

“Oh I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Mahatma Ghandi (1869-1948)

Posted by: Scott G at July 8, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #166010

Duane-o,

Actually, I think it is even worse than an idol when you put the words of man above the Spirit of God.

  • Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? ~1 Corinthians 3:16
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #166011

JJ,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. His words are from everlasting to everlasting and the fact that they’ve come to us down through millenia is yet another miracle God has performed for His people. Think about it. God could have just caused all the Egyptians to die as soon as they decided to go retrieve the Israelites. He could have just crushed the Roman empire. He could just write his words on the Washington monument like he did the clay tablets. God chooses the simple things with which to confound the wise. Keeping the original texts would have been too easy, not to mention missing out on the glorious history of how we got the Bible of today.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #166014
not to mention missing out on the glorious history of how we got the Bible of today.

Duane-o,

Glorious? I don’t think there is anything glorious about slaughtering those who disagree with you. What was so glorious about the Crusades?

It would only be a miracle if every manuscript that survives, from the 4th century on, were all identical. They are not. Over 400,000 variations between the manuscripts are not a miracle. If you want to worship the word of man, that is your right, but I will stick with the Spirit of God.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #166019

Duane-o said

“Right now, I believe if the Pelosi and Dean wing was given the reins of government, they would do everything in their power to eradicate Christianity from this country. I honestly believe this, which is why I’m a “values voter”. I don’t vote to desroy people’s religious liberty, just to defend my own. If the Democratic party in general and the Left wing nuts in particular really are no threat to my freedom of religion, the burden of proof is on them. Until I’m convinced otherwise, I will vote for Republicans again and again, even if it means voting against my own economic interests. Less money is a small price to pay to keep from being thrown in a gulag for my religious beliefs.”

Wow, Duane, really? You sound very irrational. Except for FDR agreeing to throw Japanese Americans into concentration camps during WWII I don’t know of too many liberal gulags in this country. On what facts or events exactly do you base this on? Just think about it, how are Pelosi and Dean supposed to even dream of taking or maintaining power in a democractic country full of Christians (liberal and conservative) if their real aim is to eliminate Christianity? Jack, are you reading this shit?

And you put the onus on us liberals to disprove it! How about this, “I believe little green men are behind the liberal power grab and if unchecked will start devouring all our children, not figuritively either but with knife and sometimes fork. It’s up to the Democrats to prove me wrong. Until then I will continue to vote against individual liberty and my economic interests until I no longer have any say in my government because I’m working too hard to keep my family fed and the wealthy and priveledged elite in power.

Posted by: chris2x at July 8, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #166021

Silima,

You wrote:


Let me make a case against homosexuality.
1-the Bible explicitly says it is wrong.
2-natural selection says that whichever species has the best adaptations will survive. If homosexuality is normal it cannot under any natural circumstances reproduce another organism. Thus it is a bad adaptation that should expunge itself from the natural human condition as heterosexual partners reproduce and homosexual partners do not. Since homosexuality is still around, it is not natural. It is the result of human sinfulness and rebellion against God.
Pretty scientific - but not good science. You might do better sticking to matters of faith. Your faith tells you homosexuality is a sin and so for you it is a sin - nothing wrong with that. That is your faith, so live it and may your Lord bless you and keep you. But, there are plenty of natural scientific explanations for why homosexuality might evolve in a species. You need look no further than the ground at your feet or the air around your head. Consider the ant - or the bees. They have evolved to have entire colonies of non-breeding workers supporting one breeding relative. A certain percentage of non-breeding men in a closely related tribe provide extra warriors against attack, and extra hunters to kill the wildebeest, but not extra babies to feed during periods of near starvation. Extra non-breeding females provide extra gatherers, weavers, moccasin chewers, and other vital tasks without providing extra babies to feed during periods of near starvation. The closely related tribe survives and everyone’s genes are passed on without everyone in the tribe breeding. So homosexuality is an important component of survival of the species - and so - it evolves and is passed on probably through recessive genes. Your so called case - scientific or logical - whatever you want to call it - against homosexuality, is so full of holes that it is a hole without even a container to contain the hole that it is. That said, personally I think that homosexuality has a learned component for reasons that I have articulated elsewhere. But what difference does it make how someone becomes gay? Sexuality is much more deeply ingrained than skin color. Can you stop being heterosexual? If you can I would suggest that you have homosexual tendencies. If you cannot stop being heterosexual, then how do expect a gay person to stop being gay. Sexuality is ingrained either through breeding, and / or early childhood experience. It just happens to people. You can get a skin transplant for being white - but you cannot get a sexual orientation transplant for being gay. Yet you want to discriminate against them for something that they have no choice about. That is bigotry - pure - plain - and simple.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 8, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #166023

chris2x,

Wealthy, elite, priveleged, blah blah bumper sticker rhetoric, blah blah, Bush is the devil, blah blah conspiracy, blah blah Bush lied kids died, blah blah stolen election, blah blah.

JJ,

If the Bible is just the words of man, why do you quote it so much in attempts to back up your arguments? Could it be because…..

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #166024

Conservatives,

There is no attack on Christianity. Except of course for the attack which your radicals have brought upon it. Who are your Christian leaders? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? The Christian right has made a mockery of the religion.

For instance, somehow capitalism has been tied in to the christian faith. What the hell!? Where does the Bible mention anything about economic systems?

Pat Robertson called for the assasination of a foriegn president. Jerry Falwell called for the use of atomic weaponry. Your religion has become a joke, being why I no longer call myself Christian.

If some of you conservatives would study something other than the bible you might actually learn something. Sure you love to trash liberals but how much good throughout history has come from conservative political moves? Yea, not a whole lot. How much good has come from liberal political moves? Pretty much everything good that has come to society. Lets look at a few things:

Rennaissance period was due to liberal ideology.

Sufferage for poor, minorities, women, ect. also liberal ideology.

Education for the poor, liberal ideology.
Abolition, liberal ideology, (and don’t try to claim that as conservative because the Republicans used to be the liberal party).

The creation of a middle class, liberal ideology.

Workers having rights, liberal ideology.

Anybody gaining anything who was anything other than clergy or nobility, liberal ideology.

Well, there is so much more to write but I’m not going to spend the next few days typing out a specific list.

BTW, how much good has come from conservative ideology?

In short, when good things happen for society it happens because people use sense and shun the Bible thumpers.

It was the Bible thumpers trying to impose their way of life on me that made me denounce my faith. Sure, I still believe in God but am definitely not Christian.

Posted by: Metacom at July 8, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #166025

JJ posted earlier that homosexuality was caused by an abnormal hormone deficiency during pregnancy. Doesn’t this make homosexuality an ABNORMAL trait?

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #166027

Duane-o said,

JJ posted earlier that homosexuality was caused by an abnormal hormone deficiency during pregnancy. Doesn’t this make homosexuality an ABNORMAL trait?

Careful, Duane-o, concerning biology there are a lot of ABNORMAL traits that show up in people. It’s a slippery slope if you are trying to infer therefore it is wrong.

Posted by: chris2x at July 8, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #166029

Metacom,

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are money hungry hacks feeding off the generosity of Christians and are definately not my leaders. I seem to remember a few liberals who had a fixation on the color red and yellow stars and hammers and sickles, and as I remember, they really didn’t make the world a better place. Jesus was a liberal in His time, but would be called a Bible thumper today.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #166031
If the Bible is just the words of man, why do you quote it so much in attempts to back up your arguments?

Duane-o,

Because it is so much easier to back up my arguments using quotes that you say are inerrant.

Doesn’t this make homosexuality an ABNORMAL trait?

You can read whatever you want into what I wrote, but I am not sure what your point is. Blue eyes are an abnormal trait, so what? What is normal and abnormal is relative.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 8, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #166032

Duane-o,

Where are the liberal gulags and how could the Democrats ever get rid of Christianity?

Posted by: chris2x at July 8, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #166033

Duano said,

“Jesus was a liberal in His time, but would be called a Bible thumper today.”

…and he would be a liberal today with quite a few rebukes for both sides of the political body.

Posted by: chris2x at July 8, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #166035

Metacom you said
Rennaissance period was due to liberal ideology.
true but the basis for it was Greek and Roman philosophy and technology preserved by Catholic monasteries. Furthermore all those ideas were liberal at the time but now are the foundation of our society. They belong to all, not just liberals. Conservatives believe in women’s suffrage just as much as liberals. (now)
Chris2x there aren’t any more liberal gulags. Lenin and Marx and Mao were all liberals. They all wanted a workers’ paradise where everyone got the same amount of stuff. This is a very liberal idea. However, the gulag (which was liberal-it was created to hold conservatives like capitalists and republicans) was done away with by Presidents Reagan and Bush. (and all the other Presidents back to Truman, but mostly those two) There’s your answer-there aren’t any any more because conservative republicans got rid of their communist (liberal) states.

Posted by: Silima at July 8, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #166037

“Jesus was a liberal in His time, but would be called a Bible thumper today.”

Actually, he’d probably be a Rabbi.

Posted by: Rocky at July 9, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #166038

And I guess the $60,000 question would be whether he would believe the hype.

Posted by: Rocky at July 9, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #166048

Do we truly believe that one party owns God? So Republicans are the only “ good ” Christians? So how did “we” born with original sin….” We ” who have not sinned throwing the first stone become the chosen ones…The “ first fruit “? Meaning “ we ” who know what is in the hearts and minds of men. “ We ” that can cast judgment down on those that do not espouse or pronounce beliefs with such zealotry? Interesting how Christ simply asks “ we ” to accept and believe in his death and resurrection: Ya know, that he died for our sins (past, present and future) and keep his laws / commandments. So if “ we ” fight for the separation of church and state, and equality. Then we are evil…pagan…atheist. However, if “ we ” fight for Christmas trees (a pagan symbol), embrace Easter eggs and Easter egg hunts (Easter eggs are about fertility…pagan ) and buy Harry Potter for out children : Sorcery, witchcraft and the dark arts; is it not? Allow games of entertainment for the youth on holy ground on the day known as all hallows eve? The bible specifically tells us that he that professes himself a christian, is not necessarily a christian.

So please enlighten me as to how only “ we ” that are Republicans are the party of God, and the only “ good ” Christians in America? Indeed, “… we are on God’s side, but is he on our side “??? Yes the crusaders and the Knights Templar were so exemplary !


Posted by: Eisai at July 9, 2006 2:36 AM
Comment #166066

Jack

This post proves the problem and venom comes from the right. The relentess attacks from god fearing beliving Consrervative Christians against liberals, shows how un-christian they really are.

They spread lies, rumors and misinformation about the liberal position. Most liberals and Democrates are Christian and believe in God. They have a different view of Christianity and its role in society. A more literal interpretation of the seperation of Church and State. A more progressive view. So there are honest differences in how to interpret Christianity. Conservative Christians have defiend Christianity on their terms as being the only right view. If you do not agree with it, you are anti-christian.

Conservatives have used religion politically to their advantage. They mix religion, God and Patriotism for political advantage and to demonize liberals as atheists and immoral who are anti-religion.

In a democratic society that is pluaralistic this all unfortunate. To use religion to divide us When a majority of all Americans believe in God, and Christianity is the dominate rligion, you would think this would unite us.

But as a student of American history, you should know that Christianity has always been divisive. Before the revolution, the colonies were church states and religious bigotry and discrimination between the different christian faiths was prevalant. Dissenters need a license from the state to practice their non-state offical religion. They could not hold political office or vote. You could be banished from one colony to another for practicing the wrong religion.

There are honest differences between Christians and people of all other faiths. And conservatives Christians have promoted intolerance towards progressive christians who do not share their view. But this has been their history. They were the ones who backed Patrick Henry for the continuation of the Church State in the constitution against Jefferson and Madison.

Posted by: stefano at July 9, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #166073

stefano,

Well written. The fact that the Repubs have cynically mixed “religion, God and Patriotism for political advantage and to demonize liberals as atheists and immoral who are anti-religion” has been effective as represented by the poll numbers Jack quotes. As liberals we do need to attempt to change those misperceptions. I am not a Christian in any orthodox sense of the word. Some days I am an atheist, Some days I am an agnostic. Some days I am a new age “A Course in Miracles” student that interprets the Bible from a mystical, eastern, or Buddhist perspective. On all days I think that it is the highest goal of my life to become more Christ like. WWJD? is always a good question. So I think that I am more Christian than some Christians. So I try to balance many of my posts with a recognition of the spiritual core of their religion. At the same time, mean little ant squashing boy that I was, I enjoy persecuting the fanatics. I like poking sticks in their cage and watching them spit tooth picks back out at me. My persecution is no threat to real Christianity. Quite the contrary. First it is a principal of universal spiritual law that you strengthen what you fight against. This principal was demonstrated by the way in which Christ and his followers took persecution with such grace. That is what has made Christianity a great religion. People sat up and took notice when an innocent man loved and forgave the people who crucified him. Many Christians today are too much into judgement and condemnation. “Father forgive them. They no not what they do.”

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #166074

Sorry misquoted God - going to hell for sure…

“know not what they do.”

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #166079

Christians should and do celebrate persecution. Without it their religion would be nothing more than a collection of theological absurdities and contradictions. They should hope that we liberals would put them in gulags. Christianity would grow by leaps and bounds if they did. Even Godless liberals would wind up being Christians.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #166080

Saul of Tarsus became a Christian. Maybe I could too… right after I whacked a few hundred of em in the head with a rubber mallet…

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #166086

Duano,
Since you say that Leviticus applies only to Jews, doesn’t that mean that homosexuality is only an abomination if you’re Jewish?

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 9, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #166116

tomh,

I just saw your reply to me above - thanks. Your beliefs are obviously set in stone - no point in arguing with a stone. It is like talking to a wall. My faith is in science and reason, yours is in the Bible - please do be careful not fall off the side of the earth. I hear hell is down there.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #166118

tomh,

P.S. Like Silima, you would do better to stick to matters of faith. The moon is drifting away from the earth, - a few inches every year - as it does so it is stealing angular momentum from the rotation of the earth and the earth rotates more slowly. It has been measured, but I know that do not believe in modern electronic instruments so please post your next comment on a stone tablet - please make ten goods points - that we may see the light - no - not the electric one - you know - the light…

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #166123

1LT,

You wrote:

The traditional family is the foundation of all societies and has been for as long as civilization has existed.

This is incorrect. There have been, and still are, all kinds of family structures in different cultures. Matrilineal, Patrilineal, polygamous, endless variations…

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #166126

bushflipflops,

As an evangelical Christian, I am tired over Christians who are far more interested in promoting what they are against rather than what God is for. People should see in Christians the love of Christ and in the church a place to come to for comfort, help and healing. I am tired of Christians making the issue abortion rights, homosexuality, etc. This from one who does believe that abortion and homosexuality are wrong.

I am also tired of people who make claims that are blatently false. Bushflipflops, the NT also addresses the issue of homosexuality and anyone who has read the NT would know that.

Christians need to stop trying to set up God’s kingdom on earth (Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world) and focus on the main message off Christianity which is God’s love for broken people and His merciful and gracious plan for forgiveness healing through Jesus Christ.

People being restored will love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and their neighbor as themselves.

Posted by: larry at July 9, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #166134

The root of the perception problem that the left has is the fact that we obey the first ammendment’s message that the government cannot sponsor any religion. Although we may be Christian and personally find certain activities abhorrent there is no logical reason to legislate our beliefs; this country was founded on the right to do anything one wants as long as it does not hurt anyone else. That is why liberals support equality for everyone, including homosexuals.

With abortion, there is no mainstream liberal that supports the murder of children, infants or babies (note that all these words designate persons after they have been born). Fetuses, embryos, blastocysts, zygotes, eggs and sperm are a different issue. First of all eggs and sperm are universally recognized as organisms without rights. Why is that? The Constitution gives rights to Human Beings. In order for a living cell to qualify as a human being it has to be human and it must be sentinent. All the aforementioned things have humand DNA and are therefore human. In order to be a being these things must be sentinent and must have a brain and all do not except for the fetus. In conclusion, only fetuses (developing humans in the second and third trimester) have their lives protected, but first trimester organsisms do not.

Also, I think it would be worth mentioning that there is a completely lesbian species of lizard.

Posted by: Warren P at July 9, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #166169

The blind, delusional, stupid, and dangerous nature of religious faith is precisely that phenomenon which is leading me to abandon the Republican Party. Christianity is wrongheaded - the one great curse on our culture. Economic conservatism I have some fondness for, but moral conservatism drives me kuckoo bananas. I hate christianity with an incredible passion. God is dead. There has NEVER been any God, and those who believe firmly in a God are the most dangerous people on Earth. It’s “our” faith vs. the faith of Islam. The world has erupted in a holy war. They’re both wrong. I’m tired of christians legislating their morality for the rest of society. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, you’ve been deceived.. the belief is absolutely moronic. absolutely moronic. It’s ridiculous. It’s as ridiculous as believing in Zeus, Jupiter, Ea, Ra, Vishnu, Thor, Tiamat, Poseidon, Krishna, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, elves, leprechauns, fairies, demons, angels, ghosts (oh wait, you believe in those three, don’t you), zombies, vampires, ghouls, poltergeists, the tooth fairy, tinkerbell, peter pan, or any of the other stuff of mythology. Belief in god(s) is insidious.. it’s inexcusably ignorant and offensive.. and I will passionately renounce whichever political party more strongly espouses such belief.

Posted by: Matt at July 9, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #166182

“Economic conservatism I have some fondness for, but moral conservatism drives me kuckoo bananas. “

So, you’ve substituted the Invisible Hand of Free(to rich people) Marketism for the Easter Bunny. And you think you’re ahead in this game?

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 9, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #166184

“On balance, Christianity has been a positive force in American and world history.”

If you answer “no” to this question and thereby reject 2000 years of Christian history, you could be hostile to religion. Don’t bother arguing whether you are right or wrong. That is not the point. The point is the hostility and why Dems have trouble with religion.

Posted by: Jack at July 8, 2006 08:06 AM

——————————

Jack, I for one do not believe on balance that “Christianity” has been a positive force in the world. My reading of history gives me a far different impression. Starting with Constantine, Christian theocrats (I use this label to identify those who led the church from a position of power) have waged non-stop war on non-christian peoples. Christian / Papal supported military stormed across Europe and eradicated scores of people who had either nordic, pagan or other belief systems that didn’t map to christianity. All through the dark ages, the “Inquisition” persecuted Jews, “witches”, heretics, etc. etc.

During the colonization of the New World, Christian soldiers and priests wiped out Aztecs and other indigenous peoples considering them savages and not worthy of living. Hundreds of people lost their lives receiving clothes and blankets tainted with small pox from “Christian” people.

Even during the colonization of New England, Roger Williams had to found Rhode Island so his Baptists could escape “christian” persecution.

There has been consistent complicity from the church in destroying villages of indigenous peoples in Brazil, Columbia and other countries.

“Christianity” (at least the loud and in your face and on TV kind of christianity) in the last 50-60 years has continued to narrowly define its followers and focus its condemnation against people who probably could use some of Christ’s love.

I don’t have any question that there are good, ethical people who believe in Jesus Christ and attempt to live in his example. I just don’t see him at Liberty University or on the 700 Club.

There have been many positive contributions from christianity. I believe people like Albert Schweitzer, Father Damien (of the Leper Colony fame) and many others in history have contributed greatly to society at large. The unnamed priests and nuns who run the many aids hospices and homeless shelters are making a differnce. Rheinhold Neibuhr and more recently William Sloan Coffin are to giants in Christian philosophy and have made generous contributions to society. However, it seems to me that the organized, corporatized, homogenized, and rationalized version of christian theology today is far away from the teaching of the carpenter from Nazareth.

I just don’t think you can make a blanket statement that on balance christianity has been a positive force, unless you qualify the statement by saying for whom it was positive.

By the way, most liberals I know, whether believing in a god or not seem to exhibit a closer alignment with the teachings of Jesus Christ that most of the Conservatives I know. Of course, being from Texas, there is a special type of conservative down here…


Posted by: Dennis at July 9, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #166186

Silima,

…Furthermore all those ideas were liberal at the time but now are the foundation of our society. They belong to all, not just liberals. Conservatives believe in women’s suffrage just as much as liberals. (now)
Chris2x there aren’t any more liberal gulags. Lenin and Marx and Mao were all liberals. They all wanted a workers’ paradise where everyone got the same amount of stuff. This is a very liberal idea. However, the gulag (which was liberal-it was created to hold conservatives like capitalists and republicans) was done away with by Presidents Reagan and Bush. (and all the other Presidents back to Truman, but mostly those two) There’s your answer-there aren’t any any more because conservative republicans got rid of their communist (liberal) states.”

Well, of course those ideas like women’s rights are accepted amongst conservatives now, but it was progressives, not conservatives who are responsible for them. Progressives are for making society better by moving it forward. Conservatives are not.

Also, you should do a little research on what communism and liberalism really are. The idea that modern western liberals are communists is a republican lie, just like the lie that the media is liberal and persecuting conservatives. It’s about as absurd as when right wing nutcases say that liberals are for surrendering to the terrorists. No mainstream democrat has advocated marxism or redistribution of wealth. And no, minimum wage laws, environmental protections, and workplace safety standards doest not count as communism.

Posted by: mark at July 9, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #166195

Jack,

Conservative reliousity FULLY ANGERS ME. I’ll tell you why: Primarily it is because of the perspective I have as a result of growing up in East Texas as a Catholic. You have NOOOOOO idea what that was like. most Americans don’t even recognize the hate and intolerence that is being generated in the name of ‘christianity.’ …Not to be confused with Christianity that I was raised in and grew up in the bosom of among my family. The hyper-‘c’hristianity that is rife among the misguided in this country in as far fetched from the life of Jesus as mainstream Islam is from the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

We have managed to find the occasional common ground on things, Jack. But if you begin touting this right-wing ‘c’hristianity garbage, you will lose anu of that there may be with me and with others. That is not because I am anti-religion. That is because I have profound MORAL distaste for the right-wing relgious types calling themselves christian. I believe Jesus himself is offended by what many of them carry in their hearts in his name. It is a tragic waste of humanity, of souls, if you will.

That said, you should know there is a VIBRANT religious LEFT in this country that is growing by leaps and bounds lately. Fundy churches are splitting, groups like the Quakers are gaining strength for the first time in generations, mainstream churches like the episcopaleans, methodists and presbyterians are becoming more accepting and learning to ‘love their neighbors.’ The right-wing churches have run out of steam because it only takes a little bit of insight to see the moral quandry and inhumanity that their road leeds to, inevitably.

None of us on the left even need to say or do anything. We can trust the nature of humanity…the human soul, mind, heart and all the growth that true spiritual introspection brings. The right wing churches are bringing about their own decline.

Posted by: RGF at July 9, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #166198

Jack,

I should add:
I would RATHER have a capable and thinking ATHEIST in the oval office than another misguided and corrupt fundy giving lip-service to faith while he screws us all.

I bet I can a better than 70% “AMEN” on that one…
Let’s hear it my brothers and sisters -

Posted by: RGF at July 9, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #166201

RGF:

Well, as long as the atheist in the Oval Office has values—like believing the government should be run with fairness and competence, instead of being despised, and run by lobbyists and cronyism. That would be a start.

Auuuummmmmm! Brother RGF!

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 9, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #166219

Larry,

Well said. Of course I think the Bible is mistaken about homosexuality - but that is where your faith takes you - so that is what believe. I think that part of the problem here is that there are Christians - and then - there are Christians…

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #166226

RGF,

Amen and Hallelujah!

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 9, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #166248

Jack

“The point is the hostility and why Dems have trouble with religion”/em>

The problem Dems have with religion is that they are not as good as republicans exploiting it for for political gain.

There is no democratic or liberal hostility towards religion. I do not hear any other religious group in this country complain like Conservative Christians. Non-conservative Christians, American Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s, Buddhists. Atheists. None of these groups have complaints like Conservative Christians.

Conservative Christians brought this upon themseleves. They claim a special provance in this country. A historical presidence and advanatage that puts them above all others. The true American Religion. Superior to all other Christian religions. Moving forward with a closed minded moral rightous belief to change our society to Christian moral values. And when you speak against them, you are anti-religion.

This is the hostility you speak of. It is targeted against one small minority group of self-appointed religious zealots. They have taken over the Republican party and demonized liberalism. They created this mess and this political division. Just blame it on the liberals.


Posted by: Stefano at July 9, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #166254

Hmmm,similar thread on the blue column. Interesting.

RGF: Amen


I do wish you real Christians would get together and send those fundementalist simpletons back to snake charming or whatever instead of them trying to run the government. They are giving you a bad name.

Posted by: BillS at July 10, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #166363

Jack,

This is the RED side….
And look at the amens that the sentiment above is getting!

The problem is an emotional and moral one, Jack.
Perhaps you don’t realize it, but when you express what you expressed in the article above, you sound just like those hypocritical faux-christian pastors of right-wing churches who take that ‘hollier-than-thou’ attitude to the absurd extreme. You are making an inherently absurd judgement. One that necessarily offends and creates its own opposition by its very nature.

It doesn’t work. It necessarly backfires. The reason is that a very little moral and spritual introspection is all that is needed to show it for what it is. That is why the religious right is losing steam lately. Ultimately, it is, I hope, what will undermine them completely. All that is required is that they continue to do and say as they have been doing and saying all along, so it looks optimistic from my point of view.

Posted by: RGF at July 10, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #166379

JBOD

Are you able to see the future?

“One problem the ‘left, in general, has is its steadfast willingness to believe they are right but just misunderstood. They too fervently believe that if only the masses could understand them better, the masses would vote with the Democrats.

They rarely blame themselves for their message, or lack of message in some cases.”

After 200+ posts, I can only say your were “spot-on” JBOD.


Posted by: kctim at July 10, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #166386

ElliotBay,

Go back and read my response to your question again. No sacrifice to idols, no blood, nothing strangled, and NO FORNICATION. Those are the only Levitical laws required of the Gentiles. Homosexuality is fornication, just like premarital sex, and is no higher a degree of sin, but sin nonetheless.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 10, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #166390

Jay Jay,

You wrote, “It was my understanding that it is next to impossible to determine what was in the original autographs due to the extreme number of variations between the surviving copies, estimated to be over 400,000.”

It is precisely because such a large number of surviving manuscripts and manuscript portions exist that experts and reconstruct the originals. If there were only a few copies like most every other document of antiquity, it would be impossible. However, the large number combined with wide distribution, and knowledge of when and where they were copied gives us the information need to remove the errata.

Larry

Posted by: Larry at July 10, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #166391

Matt,

I’m glad you’ve got the intricacies of the universe all figured out, there bud. But I have just one question for your infinite knowledge. What was the cause of the “Big Bang”? Physics tells us that every effect is the result of a cause, so how does an infinite universe explode out of no time, no space, and no matter. This should be an easy one for your scholarly intellect. I await your answer with baited breath.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 10, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #166392

Ray and all others,

A large part of the problem is that the term Christian needs so many qualifications today that it has lost much of its meaning. In the early centuries after Christ, the meaning was clear - like Christ.

I am reminded of what a pastor friend of mine tells his staff. You need to act less like a Christian and more like Jesus.

Larry

Posted by: Larry at July 10, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #166416

To all :

I can say from this liberal’s point of view, it is not about ME being mis-understood…it is about LIFE or the WORLD being mis-understood by conservatives.
Perhaps with a little more education….
nah, they already think that is a “liberally biased enterprise.”
Perhaps with a little more travel…
nah…they already actively seek not to confront worldliness or differing points of view, especially abroad…

So what have we?….a never solvable conundrum.
Our point of view has been rejected out of hand by those who actively don’t want to even consider it!

Of course we believe the issue is about you not understanding us… YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND YOURSELVES OR THE WORLD AROUND YOU!
…or try for that matter.

simultaneously, liberals have shown our ability to UNDERSTAND you! We have even demonstrated a better and more effective way to be pro-economy nad pro-fiscal health than you yourselves even seem to understand anymore.

Call it arrogance if you wish, but we DEMONSTRATED this truth while the actions of your OWN PARTY have further proved the truth of it.

Duane-o,

If the big-bang is attributable to God, and I believe it to be, then we can throw the ‘literal’ interpretation of the Bible right out the window where it belongs!

Time to learn to read things more deeply, is it not?

Posted by: RGF at July 10, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #166419

Matt,

Well said.

Duane-o,

Wow! Your posts are very entertaining! Tune in next week when the liberals catch fire and brimstone! Keep up the good work pal, you are really on to something! I speculate on the big bang, You claim to know it indefinitely. Your guide to life was created by MAN, MAN that was still using the bathroom outside. MAN that lived in a time where a wheelbarrow would have been a groundbreaking technological achievement. Wake up! you truly are dreaming.

Posted by: truedrew at July 10, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #166426

Matt, RGF,
You should check out a book written by sam harris… Its called “The End of Faith” its an excellent read that logically and undeniably puts all religion on its head. Make sure and grab a copy before duan-o burns them.

Posted by: truedrew at July 10, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #166446

truedrew,

Thanks, I’ll look for it.

Posted by: RGF at July 10, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #166448

Big Bang Theory has to be the greatest comic book ever written and by a wildly entertaining and creative staff. Someone tried to match it with Chicken Little and Aesop tried to be logical, but WOW!! those Big Bank Guys sure put their little ole IQ’s together and came up with a rip snortin’ highly publicized serial. The laws of physics apply only sometimes, but in Big Bang Theory, they got carried away and called it the law of psycics. And they first documented their little escapade with those fancy tarot cards. WOW!! Did those little cards come thru when they started to run short of ideas. It really is neat how something can come about from nothing. I’m tring to understand that concept so that my investment portfolio can find a new input. I am looking forward to rubbing elbows with Buffet and Gates and giving them the secrets on getting something from nothing. Just think people will be trying to reach me 25 hours a day. In the meantime I will join my fellow Christian Larry in praying for this situation.

Posted by: tomh at July 10, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #166478

tomh,

your messege apers to be trying to be witty and it is failing. I’m guessing you don’t know very much about the science behind the theory, do you? Do you know what red-shift is? Do you know how the age of the universe is being measured now? I would guess these are all alien ideas to you, am I right?

Let’s go a step further: Is the god you believe in disprovable by science? …Because I do not believe God is disprovable, but apparently yours is. Is that true?

Posted by: RGF at July 11, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #166540

RGF

It is all a feeble attempt to try to catch up to God and his infinite power, knowledge, wisdom and glory. Man keeps trying to catch up to the perfection of God, but will never, ever come close to the measure. So all those theories keep changing, but God the Creator of this Universe never changes. He is still Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end; the same yesterday, today and forever.

Posted by: tomh at July 11, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #166565

Is it possible to be a Christian and be a devote Democrat? When I say devote, I mean someone who adheres and supports things like abortion, same sex marriage, etc. With that in mind I would say because of my knowledge of the bible that the answer is, a devote democrat cannot by definition be a christian. I know that will ruffle some feathers but the truth hurts. Christian is to be Christ-like and that doesn’t mean killing babies. Was Hitler a Christian? Can baby killers be Christians? Probably not.

Posted by: topchef(rodney) at July 11, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #166605

That’s gotta be the fifth or sixth time I’ve asked the “Big Bang” question to these rational thinking, brainiac atheists and have yet to get a definitive answer. You guys talk about thinking rationally, but what exactly is rational about an infinite universe exploding from nothing “just because”?

Posted by: Duane-o at July 11, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #166625

Duane-o,

“just because” sounds a lot like the answers I get when I ask people their reasons for believing in God. I cant explain the big bang, but i’m sure there is a better explanation than God did it before he created puppy dogs and ice cream. My feelings on religion can be summed up in a quote by Chris Hitchens… “What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.” But since i’m so off track and “lost” maybe you can pray for me. Which doesnt work by the way. Look at the studies… Here is one by Duke university:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3193902.stm

Posted by: truedrew at July 11, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #166634

Duane-o,

M-theory, which came from the merger of string and quantum gravity theory, has gained quite a following in the scientific community lately. According to M-theory our universe is a higher dimensional membrane that is just just one of an infinite number of membrane universes existing in a mutliverse. Not only do these other universes account for every possible arrangement of matter within universes governed by physical laws and constants like our own, but also universes in which every type of physical constants and laws are possible. This means that there are universes in which the Earth never existed, or it does exist but the dinosaurs weren’t wiped out, and so on. But it also means there are universes where the electromagnetic force is slightly stronger, and the strong nuclear force is slightly weaker, and so atomic nuclei could never form, and therefore matter as we know it couldn’t exist.

Now these parallel membrane universes exist in a higher dimensional multiverse, and once in a while they collide. The collision of two membranes reverberate through these universes, and the collision energy is transfered into all the matter and energy inside the two universes. The point of contact between these colliding universes is what we see as the singularity, or the starting point of the big bang.

Certain ramifications of the theory have to do with explaining gravity’s weakness with respect to the other fundamental forces. If these points about gravity are proved to be true in the future when better particle accelrators can be built, then it will give good support to M-theory being on the right track to a TOE.

If M-theory turns out to be true it raises big questions as to what role God really has with the universe. If every possible outcome of a random event exists in parallel universes then it eliminates any notion of fate or Gods plan. If a universe exists for every possible physical law and constant then it eliminates the idea that God designed the universe just for us. I am not saying God doesn’t exist, but perhaps God is just there to allow all possibilities to exist and not be as involved as most people tend to think.

I would like to ask how you will feel when we eventually find life elsewhere in the universe? It may be intelligent life, or it may be microbial, but if life exists on worlds seperate from the Earth it will destroy the basis of your religion. We can no longer see ourselves as being special, or Gods chosen people, especially if we find an intelligent species that has their own myths about origin.

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 11, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #166654

truedrew,

I have not been following everything, but it seems there is some animosity between you and Duane-O. I am sorry for that. However, I would not write off God and prayer on the basis of such a foolishly put together study. The power of prayer is in the one prayed to, not in the act of prayer. Why should the God of the Bible answer prayer in a situation when many would attribute the answer to the God of Islam or to Buddah, etc.

Also, just because the incidence of healing was relatively the same in each group does not mean that God was absent or did not answer prayer. A can be certain that people in the group who did not receive prayer from the study still had their own prayers and prayers of friends. The study was just plain flawed and silly.

If you honestly opened yourself to hearing from God, you just might be surprised at what happens. Jesus said, Let he who has ears hear. In other words, only people sincerely listening can hear. Others will seek after any theory to explain away things, such as, the M-Theory. Its impetus is far more about explaining away the religious implications of the big bang than it is about true science.

Larry

Posted by: Larry at July 11, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #166664

tomh and others,

Science is NOT a feeble attempt to catch up to God. It is an excercise of God-given will. We have the ability to be self-aware. We can explore and learn about the universe we live in. That is a God-given ability.

One of the things we have determines is that the universe is about 15 billion years old. The Big-Bang is an event that happened approximately 15 billion years ago. We arrive at that age by measuring red-shift among other things. We know how far and how fast the universe has expanded. That far contradicts the ‘literal’ wording of the bible. So, at the very least, let us agree that the bible is a deeper document than some kind of shallow survey course text-book on TRUTH. It requires more introspection than that. Anyone who says differently, I believe, has no spiritual depth whatsoever and necessarily believes in a god that is definable in human terms and whose creation is also so definable.

Posted by: RGF at July 11, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #166665

RGF,

I am republican evangelical Christian who agrees whole heartedly with you when you wrote

I have profound MORAL distaste for the right-wing relgious types calling themselves christian. I believe Jesus himself is offended by what many of them carry in their hearts in his name.

Many of them use the words, but seem to know little of mercy and grace. I would like to recommend a great book entitle What’s So Amazing About Grace by Philip Yancey. He is one who grew up in the same type of social situation as you but from the legalistic unmerciful side. He fortunately came out of that. You may find the book very healing and freeing.

As for the mainline denominations growing, I wish it were true. The United Presbyterian Church has set what they call and ambitious goal to only lose 5% of its membership this year.

I find a lot of sterotyping on this blog. Many would be surprised to know that there are republican evangelical Christians who do not fit the preconceived notions. We are not hate mongering, judgmental radicals trying to set up a Christian theocracy, though we struggle with many practices accepted by our culture that are now being ruled religiously unconstitutional.

They have a difficult time with some of the positions and practices of the republican party, but have been clearly shown that there is no place for us in the democratic party. It is becoming even more narrow. Just look at what the democratic party is doing to their own Senator Leiberman.

When it comes to Christianity and politics, the reality is that neither the republicans nor the democrates represent Jesus very well.

Posted by: Larry at July 11, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #166671

Larry,

I was a christian for a long time. Private christian school, church on sundays and wednesdays, churchcamps and confirmation classes. I have opened myself more than enough. Prayer makes the person praying feel better about themselves. You get your worries off your chest, much like you would do in therapy. There wasnt enough substance in christianity to hold me there. There are way to many holes and not enough fillers. I want to believe that its all true, and there is a divine plan for all of us… but by the day, the beliefs become more and more archaic and out of touch. People cherry-pick out of the bible based on what makes them comfortable.

Thanks for the reply larry, How long have you been of faith?

Posted by: truedrew at July 11, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #166676

RGF,

You claim that liberals have shown the ability to UNDERSTAND conservatives. I respectfully disagree. First of all, conservatives and liberals cannot be lumped into two simple groups. Both terms have broad bases.

Second, I have talked and/or written extensively with many people who have held what appears to be your views. It was a long process for them to finally realize that their stereotype represented only a small part of those who consider themselves conservatives. They did not have a place for someone like me or a church like mine.

On another note, the big bang does not negate a literal interpretation of Genesis 1&2. The term day and evening and morning does not have to represent literal 24 hour periods and for the most part was not considered as a literal 6 days by Jews or Christians until (I believe) the notes in one of the early editions of the King James Bible. See: In A Matter of Days by respected astronomer and author Hugh Ross, Ph.D. A person can believe in an old universe 16-18 billion years and an old earth 4 - 5 billion years, yet still believe in the Bible.

Posted by: Larry at July 11, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #166680

truedrew,

I have been a follower of Jesus for 34 years, since I was 16. I have questioned many things along the way, but I have been able to find answers. I might add that I am not satisfied with pat answers or you just need to have faith. God never meant faith to be blind and mindless.

Many churches and Christians have become archaic and out of touch. God is relevant and the Bible is incredibly relevant to everyday life. Most Christians just don’t present it in a relevant way. It becomes ritual that feels like a waste of time. That really breaks my heart.

I will be glad to respectfully try to address your questions with substance.

Posted by: Larry at July 11, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #166681

Larry,

You give me hope.
As for there being no place for you in the Democratic party, I beg to differ and here is why:

It is NOT appropriate, by christian standards, to judge another. You may hate the sin, but love the sinner as another child of God.

The Constitution gives us LEGAL standards for living together - remember: “Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers.”
However, using or advocating the use of government or laws, originally set up to PROTECT, in order to JUDGE or legalize a religious value judgement, IS UNNACCEPTABLE.
The most obvious example of this today is the area of Gay marriage. It doesn’t really matter what you think of homosexuality. Advocating for dis-allowing a LEGAL recognition because of values within your church…NOT OK. NOT CHRISTIAN.

I understand the problem: You (and I, I might add), believe that there is ONE absolute morality. One God whose will is the source of the moral standards all humanity imperfectly aspires to. That is not really the issue. The difference is that I am willing to *let* the course of human law evolve and grow as it should over time. Others out there want it to be in accord with what they believe to be God’s will immediately or else it must be wrong. That’s both arrogant and silly.
Nobody is trying to say that a gay couple should have the right to marry in a church that doesn’t want to recognize them. Just let the course of human law grow and evolve as it should because chances are, none of us are any more right about it than any other of us.

It is the Democrats who do a better job of understanding this. It is the republicans who seem too guided by the very arrogant folly I have just described. Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and give unto God what is God’s.

Please, CONSIDER that there IS a place for you among the Democrats.

Posted by: RGF at July 11, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #166687

Larry,

The reason I said that liberals have demonsrated an ability to UNDERSTAND conservatives, is because of the undeniable fact that Democrats have PROVEN the soundness of their economic policies largely because they were implementing policies that had previously been conservative. They don’t seem to be anymore. It appears that prideful and stubborn republicans have chosen to abandon those principals simply because the Dems have done a better job with them.

That makes the republicans contrarians who are more into dis-agreeing than seeing what works.

Posted by: RGF at July 11, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #166745

RGF, so you are willing to go against what you know God says in order to reach out to the ungodly? And if you know that President Bush did not steal the 2000 election then you also are aware that Democrat leaders still are bearing false witness against him in their effort to distract from the fact they are the ones who tried to cause a whole state’s votes not to count and they are the ones who tried to steal the elction and the Democrat party are the ones who fought against equality for all. If you know the truth you are held to a higher standard of behavior.

EVERY law is imposing society’s morality upon the citizens. Even speed laws are about it not being morally right to endanger other citizens or waste society’s money by recklessly endangering themselves while expecting society to pay for the emergency care.

Larry, I agree with you that republicans need to be more responsible in cutting costs while being compassionate to those truly in need and not just being lazy.

Truedrew, I agree with you that ritual alone isn’t the answer. People need to love everyone and hate no one in order to truly love God. If people will try to love God then they will want to help the people around them and we won’t need the government to do everything for us.

Warren P, it would be nice if even the abortions of human embryos over 6 months old would be made illegal. Today there are so-called Christians who advocate the mother still having the right to kill her “embryo” for convenience at the eighth month.


Posted by: Steve at July 12, 2006 7:58 AM
Comment #166769

Hi RGF,

You have touched on many things. I wish I had time to discuss them deeply.

Let be begin with a misconception that millions of people have; that God says we are not to judge other people. Judging is a part of having a civil society. God says that He instituted governments for the purpose of maintaining that civil society. Therefore, it is a misnomer to think that Jesus was saying people should not judge one another. Then what was he saying.

As a professor of mine once said: Context, Context, Context.

The context was teaching against the legalist and unmerciful teachings and actions of the scribes and Pharisees. Matthew 5:20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew goes on to record Jesus as saying a number of times, You have heard it said … But I say to you. In the beginning of Matthew 7, Jesus is talking about the way you judge a person.

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5

In other words, if you can’t look at your own life and you aren’t willing to deal with its brokenness, then don’t go judging someone else. Hypocrites act holier than thou and judge harshly. People who admit their own sinfulness (falling short of reflecting God’s character) judge with compassion, mercy and grace as someone who says let me help you as you help me.

Jesus is saying, if you aren’t willing to first admit and work on your own brokenness, then don’t judge others.

People also use the account in John 8 of Jesus with the woman caught in adultery as another example of not judging. That too is erroneous. While Jesus disperses the hypocrite crowd who was only using the woman to try and trap Jesus by saying, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus does not excuse the woman’s behavior. He ends by saying, Go and sin no more.

As for a place for me in the Democratic party, here is my take on the present democratic leadership.

Reinstate higher taxes to trim the deficit. I believe the lower taxes have fueled the economy. To me the answer is lower taxes and less spending (something neither party seems to be able to do).

Cut and run from Iraq instead of staying until the Iraqi military and police can defend themselves, and thereby letting the terrorist of the world know that we can be manipulated by propaganda.

Blame the evils in the world on Americans and American policy.

Killing unborn children is a right. I believe and embryo is simply a human being in its early stage of growth.

Any social position whose can be found in religion is not permissible in the arena of political ideas or it is foisting religion on a person. This by the way is impossible to carry out or we would have to remove a huge number of laws that contribute to a civil society because they are found in the Bible. Laws dealing with murder, steal, etc., etc.

While I believe that homosexuality is wrong, I am loving and caring toward those whose hold to that life-style. That is only one part of who they are. Those in committed relationships should not be kept from seeing one another in the hospital because they are not legally family. If society says that it wants to give them legal rights, it is societies right. However, those in society who believe differently – who are not all Christian by any means – should not be shut out of the dialog because of the Bible.

I realize that most of these people want to quietly live their lives together. However, that does not change the fact that there are others out to change the nature of family and society. Changes are not neutral. The argument for gay marriage, if accepted will be impossible to reject for other issues like polygamy. In fact, the main topic in a recent edition of a gay magazine was the push for homosexual polygamy and how many – whatever that meant – homosexuals where turning to polygamous relationships. Heterosexual and homosexual polygamy is an issue that will probably be pushed into the public arena in the next ten years.

The unwillingness to allow religious – note, I did not limit that to Christian – charity organizations that help poor, homeless, etc. to have government money or work in conjunction with the government. What is the harm in having these types of organizations with excellent track records receiving government funds if the government is not limiting it to one religion or only religious groups. The legitimate organizations are proven to provide better help to people at a cheaper cost than government run organizations. Plus, it doesn’t preclude government run organizations.

I would love to see far more being done for the poor and disenfranchised. People like Rush Limbaugh are deluded when they trumpet people who have pulled themselves up from the poor on their own and then claim that anyone can do it.

On the other hand, the Democrats have pushed a system that seems to simple keep people stuck in their circumstances and continually dependent on the government.

I agree with you that law must have the freedom to evolve. Our founding fathers put a system in place for change to occur. However, that does not mean that all law should evolve. Nor does it mean that people should be allowed to circumvent the process by running to activist courts. (A separate topic for certain.)

While there are many wonderful Democrats, most of them I am certain, the national leadership is clearly taking the party to where there is no room for people like me.

Posted by: Larry at July 12, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #166844

Nope.

Larry, I was wrong. The hope I thought I saw in you is just not there.

I have TRANSLATED the new testament, have you? It is illuminating, I assure you. It is your scripturalk arguments that are misguided, but let’s just hit the one BIG THEME of yours at the beginning: CONTEXT

IF the exortations of Jesus are only to be taken as CONTEXTUALLY relevent, then I don’t understand why there is Christianity at all. YOu MUST therefore be wrong about that.
Besides, we can see the TRUTH of the teachings of Jesus on a human level in the actions and exortations of many others who follow something far closer to my understanding of what we are talking about here: Ghandi, MLK and the newly freed woman leader in Burma whose name I could never hope to spell here. The point is that these truths showing up in other sources, especially non-christian ones such as Ghandi, demonstrate how universal the truths ARE. Further proof, obviously, that morality is non-reletivistic, isn’t it? Judgement is INHERENTLY a moral problem because of what it does to the one who judges. For instance, one who has a moral a problem with homosexuality but accepts and defends their rights as human beings (while perhaps simultaneously hoping, praying and even working to help homosexuals better understand themselves) is in a far different place than one who has a moral problem with homosexuality and judges, excludes, berates and vilifies them as people for what he/she sees homosexuals to be!
No, Jesus was talking about judgement in general. Of that, I am certain.

I should add, since i point out that I have translated the bible, that I can find NO evidence of homosexuality being the sin and horror that the evangelicals describe it as. It simply isn’t so.


AS for the political side of your posts and responses, I have posted ad-nausium on why the course of action we are taking with respect to Iraq is actually CREATING the problems. Even the civil war is being at least exacerbated by our presence. The Taliban are gaining strength again in Afghanistan and this N. Korea rocket stuff is just demonstrating the REAL cost of our being over-extended in a war that was and is illegal.

On a practical level, I agree with you. We cannot leave and let Iraq slip into Chaos!
The problem is, it already IS in Chaos and it looks more and more like our presence there is the reason why. WE are the focus of those who are “suicidally-pilgrimaging” to Iraq to continue to foster the chaos that is going on there.

AS for the fiscal stuff. The Dems have ALREADY demonstrated the soundness of their policies. The GOP now has run up more deficit and debt for this nation THAN ALL PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED FROM THE DAWN OF THIS COUNTRY!!!

A little tax now in order to offset the monster debt we are giving our kids is just being RESPONSIBLE.

And the fact that I had to reiterate ANY of that leeds me to believe that you are closer to being a lock-step-in-line neo-con than your previous posts indicated. In fact, I am not understanding why you ever said anything to the contrary - you seem to have bought the whole GOP hype stuff hook line and sinker.

Posted by: RGF at July 12, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #166894

RGF,

You’ve translated the Bible and have done a better job than the translators commissioned by King James? Wow? What is the following passage? Avinu-shebashamayim yeet khadash shmeekha, tavo malkhutekha ye’ase rhetsonekha ba’arets ka’asher na’asa vashamayim. It’s Hebrew, but you should know that.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 12, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #167152

RGF,

I don’t know what your qualifications are for translating the Bible Apparently your are an expert in Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Greek. However, even if you are an expert, there is a difference in being able to translate words and interpret text. Anyone who understands basic fundamentals of interpretation can easily catch the context looking at the greater passage, other teachings of Jesus and the greater context of teaching on Judgement throughout the Bible

Aside from looking at the Bible, if judgement was forbidden then all laws would be useless and all societies would end up in complete chaos and anarchy with people being hurt in immensly larger numbers than today. If all judging is a sin, then God Himself would cease to be righteous.

As for your statement - IF the exortations of Jesus are only to be taken as CONTEXTUALLY relevent, then I don’t understand why there is Christianity at all. YOu MUST therefore be wrong about that. I have no idea of your thinking. Interpretation involves taking into account context. Context lets us discover the truth or principle that can then be applied in a relevant manner to all. In the Matthew passage it is clear that one should not be a hypocrital uncaring judgemental person. A straightforward truth.

Truth is truth. Jesus wasn’t establishing anything new. It was God’s truth from the beginning. Should one be surprised that God’s truth can be found within other cultures. I find the fact of universal truths found throughout all or most cultures as a strong argument for God. It is proof that morality is non-reletivistic which in turn points to God.

In looking further at what you wrote. It appears that you somehow took the principle of context and assumed that I meant it was only applicable to the people Jesus was talking to or talking about. How you concluded that, I have no idea. Context leads us to understanding the text. Relevancy is taking that truth or principle and applying to your own life.

As for your closing statement

And the fact that I had to reiterate ANY of that leeds me to believe that you are closer to being a lock-step-in-line neo-con than your previous posts indicated. In fact, I am not understanding why you ever said anything to the contrary - you seem to have bought the whole GOP hype stuff hook line and sinker.

I am disappointed. You don’t know me, yet from a couple of posts, you have decided to JUDGE in in the manner that Jesus was clearly speaking against. On top of that, while I have been honest in representing who I am, you who does not know me decides to call me a con.

I take no delight in writing that. What gives? Where is honest dialog.

Finally, Duane-o I hope you are reading this. Your intentions may be good. I hope they are, but you are not representing Jesus very well in some of your posts as exemplied in your last one.

Posted by: Larry at July 13, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #167180

Larry,

You’re right, I might have went a little far on that last post asking RGF to prove his proficiency in Hebrew. Your approach is much more civilized and cordial, and I applaud you for that. I’ve tried that approach as well, but haven’t been able to win any new souls(although I have won an argument or two) with any method of talking about Jesus. Sarcasm and condesention is always the reply, and it gets under my skin sometimes, although I know I’m not supposed to let it. Let me give you a piece of advice about the atheists and secular humanists on this website. They will not receive the message, so you might want to go ahead and shake off the dust of your feet for a testimony against them. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for those people. I hope actually quoting Yeshua Meshiach does a better job of representing Him. Pray for me and be assured of the same from me, and keep fighting the Good Fight!

Posted by: Duane-o at July 13, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #167205

Jesus was talking about judgement in general, but you need to understand the context to understand what he was saying about judgement. Like Larry said, don’t judge others until you first can come to terms with your own failings. We judge people all the time in our society. It’s a byproduct of having a brain. The question is, when you judge someone are you saying, “Your behavior is wrong and therefore you are a bad person and I am better than you”? Or are you saying, “Your behavior is wrong, and harmful to you. I can relate because I mess up a lot, too. I can try to help you if you want.”
That being said, I agree with Larry wholeheartedly that evangelical Christians today need to stop putting so much effort into making the world a safe and comfortable place for themselves, and a little more time evangelizing. I don’t know a single person who has been saved by looking at a statue of the Ten Commandments on public property.
Actually, I pretty much agree with everything you said, Larry. Right on, man.

Posted by: Liz at July 13, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #167397

Duane-o, Larry, Liz

Just one of the many things one must do in the Christian walk is to Glorify God in all we say and do. That is tough to do sometimes, but we do have a redeemer and we can go to him and repent for those things that are not in keeping with Christian teaching.

Keep up the faith!

Posted by: tomh at July 13, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #219025

Right now I will tell you why I can’t stomach the republican party,because it affiliates itself with the religious right, I’m not being critical of normal or moderate Christians. But those on the radical right are what I call on the lunatic fringe and basically want to turn our country into a theocracy(Want to go to Iran and see what a theocracy is like, how about not having any rights like freedom of speech or the fashion police after you) Again I’m not talking about Christianity here, but fanatical elements who seek to undermine our constitution and democracy.Why are people so gullible and listening to the likes of Pat Robertson, or Falwell? Can you say they represent what Christ taught?And of course they are the first ones to ask for a handout..What kind of lifestyle are they living anyway?

Posted by: k at May 2, 2007 6:02 AM
Comment #219026

“the Moral Majority has a right to decide who should or should not have rights and freedoms. If we decide to grant rights to a minority or be benevolent to that minority, it is our right to do so. If we decide that a minority is abhorant to us and our God then we have a right to control them or eradicate them.”
“Yep and they even imposed slavery on African Americans and killed off most of native Americans.” So I guess now you are talking about genocide or extermination? Loony.

Posted by: aga at May 2, 2007 6:15 AM
Comment #219027

Referring to above comment:People like that make me want to throw up,sorry. they do not represent true Christianity, but bigotry. They have no regard or respect for their fellow man and of course folks, I will say these are the people you need to watch out for ,THEY are dangerous.
THEY will take away your rights ,freedom, and impose their version of Christianity on you,They like Pat Robertson will say you are the anti-Christ if you are episcopalian or methodist and they would just as soon blow you away than to look at you.Everyone that does not share their world view or disagrees with them is the enemy or doesn’t believe in God. Everything they believe in centers on violence and destruction. I for one am tired of their hateful rhetoric and arrogance.

Posted by: aga at May 2, 2007 6:26 AM
Post a comment