Pot Pourri! Bring him out here! Yayyy!

Doesn't seem like a risky place to me! No whips, no chains, no Family Feud reruns, no Martha Stewart...yeah, virtually harmless... Hmmm...investigating further...

BarbF,

Listen woman, if we say it is risky, darn it, it is risky. And another thing, Missy, leave Martha Stewart alone, all right! The woman is a SAINT! (AND SHE AIN'T EVEN DEAD YET!) Can you make doilys out of worthless stock certificates? Huh? Answer me! Can you? Listen Babs, until you can, you just leave Martha alone! Got that? (Incase you can't tell this whole post is "".)

Seriously, welcome BarbF.

For those of us of the Southern Baptist religion, can the title be changed to Pot Luck, not Potpourri. (If your Baptist, you'll get the joke.)

Yep, I do.

Well, for those of us who aren't please enlighten us.

Baptists are known for potlucks. I mean, even at my youth group, we'll do "next week, everyone bring some snacks and pop!" In fact, next Sunday is a potluck dinner at my church.

Thank you.

> Baptists are known for potlucks. >

Does anyone one know why? Specifically, why do we have so many potlucks.

I dunno. It saves time and money, I guess.

Potpourri is a trigger of my migraines. I Just thought that comment fit here.

TomM,

Is asking you to define a "fair" question a fair question?" (No emoticon, it is a real serious question. I expect an answer if it is a fair question.)

Yes, it is a fair question, but I'm not sure I can give a "tight" definition of what is "fair."

Since this is based on my comments on the suicide board, perhaps that is where we should begin.

You seemed to equate several actions in which most people would see little or no similarity beyond the fact that there is an almost certain likelihood that the actor would wind up dead.

I saw three possibilities for making these kinds of comparisons, and ranked them based on my understanding of your previous positions and debate tactics.

First, there was the possibility that you are not "most people" and truly saw no difference between dying in an attempt to save Jewish children from the Holocaust and aiming a toy gun at an armed opponent for no good reason in a tense situation. That the only thing to see is that the actor chose a deed that led to her death when there were other choices available. Usually this position is held by someone whose strongest ethic (sometimes only ethic) is self-preservtion at all costs. I did allow for (and apologized)this possibility, but I do consider it unlikely in your case.

The second possibility was that you might be attempting to clarify the limits of which actions are justified and which should be considered suicide, using similar but contrasting hypothetical examples. But the tone and non-connectivity of your examples do not seem to match this goal. (Instead of helping to focus on the central point they became to broad to make any point with the possible exception of the survival first philosophy above). Your dialectic skills are too good for me to believe that you would be so sloppy if this is what you were trying to do.

The third possibility is that you were trying to break up a conversation that you felt had gotten to "heavy" and serious. The problem there is that the first example was apparently given in earnest and you waited until after it was seriously answered to add the "punch line."

When I "accused" you of trying to get a "rise" I did not necessarily mean the word "rise" the way you apparently took it. Yes, you can get a "rise" out of someone by hitting them with a baseball bat, but you can also get one by "goosing" them.

Anyway, as I said, I don't know that your question wasn't fair (you may fall into one of the other two possibilities), but if it was only an attempt to lighten the mood, you should be more careful about how you phrase it.

I'm not sure what else to say about "fair" questions in general, but perhaps as we dialog about this post, we will come to an understanding

TomM.,

Do you not bite your thumb at me sir?

If you want to accuse me of trolling do so now or apologize. I'm serious.

Your comment is a practice that might be considered bordering on doo-doo brainedness. (Note to Moderators: This is the wording he used to “almost” accuse me of trolling on the suicide board. If you delete this please tell me why changing “trolling” to "doo-doo brainedness” changes the sentence.)

I was asking Jwb52z to clarify what he defined as suicide. The first two examples, a martyr and the Holocaust victim-helping Nun I knew how I felt. I did not know how Jwb52z felt. No matter his answer I was not going to chase him down for disagreeing with me because he was responding on how he felt. Those two questions had no "".

The Third was in a separate, much shorter post that ends with a "". I know the difference between pointing a squirt gun at a cop and Saint someguy shot full of arrows. I suspect that Jwb52z (although I'm leery to put words in his mouth) differentiates it too. In case you didn't notice the difference, the third ends in a "". It is not serious. Sometimes “” means “”.

If you require another apology, this time a unconditioned one: I am sorry.

There was something about the original question that seemed somewhat "off" from the tone and focus of the main discussion (similar to but not a "pin-down-able" as the disconnect you get when someone jumps into a conversation that is slightly over their head). Since you are usually clear and on point when you are serious, I assumed that the effect was probably deliberate, and when you added the more frivolous comment, it only made the earlier post seem like a set-up for the joke.

Do you not bite your thumb at me sir?

I do bite my thumb, sir; but I do not bite my thumb at you, sir. -_^

(Shakespeare is fun!)

That's hardly Shakespeare.

But it is! (See Romeo and Juliet)

Jwb, in Shakespearean times, to bite one's thumb at a person was a deadly insult.

More or less that era's giving someone the bird.

Romeo and Juliet, Act 1, Scene 1. Sampson, servant of Capulet, to Abram, servant of Montague.

Oh, and I switched the order. It's "No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir; but I bite my thumb, sir."

Matt, knowing you, I wouldn't be at all shocked if you knew that off the top of your head..


Geek.

Not saying I'm not one, but...

Well, I had to go look up the names of the characters, because they weren't very important to the play and I don't think they show up after that scene. But yes, I did remember what scene off the top of my head.

Matthew Patterson,

Those characters were important so Shakespeare could start his famous "love" play (which ends in many deaths) with a brawl. (A street fight, how romantic.)

Nobody is arguing that they don't have a *function* in the play, but they're certainly not as important as, say, Mercutio or the Nurse.

And, I think the street brawl is my favorite Shakespearean opening scene, and my second favorite scene overall. (The court in The Merchant of Venice edges that one out; one can expect nothing less of a Law and Order junkie such as myself.)

::But it is! (See Romeo and Juliet):: Matthew Patterson

I was talking about the way you said it. That's why I used the word "exactly." I should know my Shakespeare after all. It is my major in college, English Lit that is. If I had just said, "That's the wrong word order" someone would have called me a name or something probably for appearing anal about it.

::Jwb, in Shakespearean times, to bite one's thumb at a person was a deadly insult.:: ScottN

I know that. Deaf people I know do that to each other when they're mad. I always found it kind of funny to do it.

::Those characters were important so Shakespeare could start his famous "love" play (which ends in many deaths) with a brawl. (A street fight, how romantic.):: Blue Berry

Almost no character in Shakespeare's works is unimportant. They all have a role to play, even if it is minor. BTW, I prefer the opening of A Midsummer Night's Dream or some parts of Twelfth Night.

::But it is! (See Romeo and Juliet):: Matthew Patterson

For an English major, you're not very good at attributing quotes. MikeC said this; I did not.

Furthermore, I also corrected myself later on without your assistance, thank you *very* much.

Jwb52z,

If I had just said, "That's the wrong word order" someone would have called me a name or something probably for appearing anal about it. - Jwb52z

And if they did there would be many who ask them if nit pickers are not anal about that sort of stuff or this is nitcentral.com in case you can't read or similar sarcastic remarks about being nit pickers, dammit.

It's been years since I got my degree in English Lit. I remember a line that goes, "I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but i do bite my thumb." Am I mis remembering it or is it a few lines after the opening?

You're remembering it correctly; it's about 55-60 lines into the play. Well, more or less; every version has different line numbers.

I like Twelfth Night and Much Ado About Nothing amongst the comedies, although for sheer belly laughs, the ending of A Midsummer Night's Dream works. I've found As You Like It to be overrated, but it has some good lines (the ages of man).

::For an English major, you're not very good at attributing quotes. MikeC said this; I did not.:: Matthew Patterson

I made a mistake. I'm sorry.

::Am I mis remembering it or is it a few lines after the opening?:: Blue Berry

As far as I know you're right, but my memory is bad.

::I've found As You Like It to be overrated, but it has some good lines (the ages of man).:: MikeC

Overrated how?

Well, I've heard a lot of things about it on how funny it is or how it makes a lot of good points etc.

Well, I saw it on stage, and it wasn't that funny. Twelfth Night does basically some of the same style of plots in a much funnier and likeable manner. As You Like It ends in a cop-out unrealistic manner (it is one of the more quotable Shakespearean plays, and the character of Jaques rocks!).

Everything pales in comparison to The Merry Wives of Windsor. (That is a joke. I'm being extremely sarcastic.)

::Well, I saw it on stage, and it wasn't that funny.:: MikeC

That was either a bad production or your sense of humor is not sensitive to it.

::As You Like It ends in a cop-out unrealistic manner (it is one of the more quotable Shakespearean plays, and the character of Jaques rocks!).:: MikeC

I wouldn't call it a cop out, I would call it almost happy, if I remember right. And yes, Jaques was very good. It's been a while since I have actually read through Shakespeare's plays, but I will read them again soon.

Happy, yes, but it's still a cop-out. And, yeah, I know that most comedies in Shakespearean days (including a lot of his) generally ended in marriages and happiness, but this one just sort of goes a little too far for me (the Duke's brother undergoes a religious conversion off-stage? Okay!).

It might not have been the best production, but I've seen most of my Shakespeare (save Much Ado About Nothing, which I saw locally--and very well done) at the Stratford, Ontario, Shakespeare Festival. As You Like It was easily my least favorite, Hamlet probably my favorite (Paul Gross from Due South played Hamlet).

There is a Shakespearean ramblings thread somewhere in the Kitchen Sink, but no-one's posted on it for months, last I checked.

Anyone know where our Chief Phil Farrand has been all this time? I would at least like to know that he's alive. He hasn't updated the Nitcentral news page in over a year.

Oh he's alive all right. We've talked recently and can you believe he's STILL mad at me for thinking Boogie Nights was a good movie? Ah well, what can a guy do?

Does any one find it repulsive that a diety would sanction and encourage the conquering of another people's land, and the massacre of its people and appropriation of its wealth?

When I read the following passages regarding the entry of the Jews into the 'Promised land', I am reminded of the German invasion of the Soviet union. Or the Japanese rape of Nanking in the 1930s.

Seems that mankind can find any excuse to kill and steal from each other.

What is that you are saying? But they were the good guys? Oh, that explains it. My old preacher actually explained it by saying these people would have corrupted the new Israel with their religions and culture etc. So that's where Adolf got it all from.

Deut 2:32
Duet 3: 3-7
Deut 10: 10-18
Joshua 8:24-28
Joshua 10:29-31

(On a side note I was once in Christian camp and we were singing songs. One of them was the "One Tin soldier" song

"Go ahead and hate your neighbour
Go ahead and hate your friend
Do it in the name of heaven
you can justify it in the end......."


Ironic.

This is edging towards trolling, I think.

Maybe, but I've used similar examples from the Bible over on the Censorship board, if you remember.

For example, Exodus explicitly condones terrorism.

How? Well, what would you call killing the oldest child of everyone who is not in your ethnic group to achieve a political end?

However, the Hitler and Rape of Nanking references were trollish.

If you are talking about the tenth plague, that was not Hebrew terrorists, it was the Angel of Death.

But having said that, Scott and Bob do have a valid point. One which I am not currently prepared to either attack or defend. It requires much more meditation.

::Does any one find it repulsive that a diety would sanction and encourage the conquering of another people's land, and the massacre of its people and appropriation of its wealth?:: Bob James

Well, there's one problem with your thinking. God is perfect and therefore cannot make mistakes and so whatever He decides is correct even if Humanity doesn't like it. That's just the way it is.

Matt Patt,

Isn't your comment a ad hominem attack? You have a right to your opinion but if Bob's post is edging toward trolling are you not calling Bob a troll?

Bob your point is better placed at PM. (Yes, Yes, I know I'm in the minority on that but I'm a vocal minority. Anyone care to discuss differences between RM and PM with me again?)

Here you get replies like Jwb52z's above and he's right on RM. Eventually you get down to applying morality. If morality is religion based (Religious Musings) then faith is a given and morality comes from a Universal yadda, yadda, yadda. Don't ask what religion, etc. If you do you are using reason to argue with faith and unless you like banging your head on walls, don't bother. If you do bother then you are deliberately antagonizing "true believers" (for lack of abetter term to included Christians, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, Gamerainians, Hindus, Buddhist, Atheists, Agnotics and any one I forgot.) If someone does that they are not bodering on trolling; they are trolling.

On Political Musings (aka "PM") asking what religion is a valid question since we are discussing things that affect other people with a different moral view. (Most religious stuff is personal. When it isn't, it belongs on PM.)

However you decide to define 'trolling'. Fact is, I was brought up a strong Christian but at the age of twenty so I became enlightened through university and questioned my faith. So I took theology as a minor and spent years doing my own reading and research to try to discover the human condition and how this applies to Religion.

Yah the Adolf reference may be in poor taste but I am appalled about any thinking that regards other peoples and cultures as 'poluting the chosen'.

In fact, these passages justify it that way, by citing the possibility Canaan religions would spread into the Hebrew culture. (As it turns out, whatever religion these victimized peoples were practicing was somewhat tempting as many Jews converted to these heathen practices.It was a constant irritant for the religious leaders.)

I could go on for days, but another issue that bothers me is in Acts 5: 1-11 where Peter goes into tHe house of Anania and his wife Saphirra. The issue was over this couple holding back some of their tithing for the Church.

As you may know, they are caught and 'executed' by God in there house. Peter aparently the only witness.

Knowing human nature as it is do you really believe that a divine being who created the universe in concerned over this issue enough to kill them?


If too many here think I am flaming, then I wont contribute any further to Religion . I just think a Religion section like this is a great way to debate human spirituality, especially in light of the fanatics across the ocean. We all need to understand man's reliousisty, and perhaps unravell a small piece of the puzzle in what makes our brains tick.
I mean no offence to no one.

Matt Patt,

Isn't your comment a ad hominem attack? You have a right to your opinion but if Bob's post is edging toward trolling are you not calling Bob a troll?

No, as a matter of fact I am not. What I am doing is simply giving a warning, in my capacity as a Roving Moderator, that this topic is a bit on the edge. If people can discuss it politely, great. However, if the entire history of Religious Musings has taught us anything, it's that people probably can't. All I mean to say is that I'm keeping an eye on it and I'd like people to watch themselves.

Bob--

Some of the people here tend to be especially sensitive to discussions that can easily slide into trolling or flame-wars, even when they have not yet. RM and PM, especially. There has been bad history here (Mainly one or two particularly obnoxious posters), that caused these two topics to be closed to the general public for a while and was the direct cause of instituting the roving moderator system.

So far, with the possible exception of mentioning a name that you should use here only when absolutely necessary, your discussion has been more thoughtful than trolling.

-------

Acts 5

The story actually begins in Acts 4, when several believers sold off some excess property and gave the money to Peter and the apostles to feed the poor. When Barnabas was one of them, Ananias decided he needed to save face and contribute as well.

When he gave the money to Peter, he told Peter that it was the entire proceeds from the sale. Peter said that he hadn't have to turn over everything, but that he shouldn't lie and claim that he had. (This was in Peter's house, in front of witnesses Ananias was trying to impress.) Ananais turned pale and died. (I assume that he had a stroke, brought on by an attack of embarrassment and guilt. The "young men" present brought him outside and buried him.

When Sapphira came to Peter 3 hours later, the "young men" were still on their way back from burying Ananias, so in her case, yes, Peter may have been the only witness, but this is a slightly different situation than what you presented.

The point I was making was that it was harsh to sentence these people to death because of that sin. I believe Jesus preached forgiveness and discipleship.

I understood that, but in the example you chose, the text did not match your description. And your description of the "official" story is on what you based your implication of what might have happened. And you needed the implication to give your point "oomph."

Friendly debate and thought-provoking questions are enjoyable, but they lose some of their effectiveness when they are "backed up" by sloppy research and errors in fact. (I've learned this the hard way on PM in discussions with Berry.)

::However you decide to define 'trolling'. Fact is, I was brought up a strong Christian but at the age of twenty so I became enlightened through university and questioned my faith.:: Bob James

I would have not called it "enlightened". I would call it someone making you have a real doubt and that's horrible to make someone do that or cause it.

::Knowing human nature as it is do you really believe that a divine being who created the universe in concerned over this issue enough to kill them?:: Bob James

In Biblical times, God treated people differently than He did after that time. In the specific case you mention, they sinned by lying about how much they sold their property for and if they had just said "we are only going to give this much" instead of lying and saying, "we are giving God all we were paid" they would not have been killed. As I said before, due to the fact that God is perfect, whatever decision He makes is correct.

::The point I was making was that it was harsh to sentence these people to death because of that sin. I believe Jesus preached forgiveness and discipleship.:: Bob James

God is not only a God of forgivness and that kind of thing. He is also a God of Fire. Let's just be glad that God doesn't smite people anymore.

::Let's just be glad that God doesn't smite people anymore.::

I'd say it as "Let's just be glad that people are now 'enlightened' enough not to believe that God smites people anymore."

I'm beginning to hate the word "enlightended".

Yeah JW, cause we all know that people who take off their biblical blinders are the greatest threat to Christianity/Catholicism's power base. Enlightenment is hated becuase it exposes religion for what it is; a crutch.

Gee, Dudette, and that wasn't bigoted?

I'm not the world's biggest fan of organized religion, but I do recognize that without religion, the world would be in much worse shape than it is now.

Sparrow, *who's* religion? The idiots who want to destroy our country claim religion.

[GODWIN]The Nazis used religion.[/GODWIN]

The Spanish Inquisition used religion...

Etc., etc., etc...

And on a smaller scale Scott, so do many serial killers. I'm sure the murderers of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd felt justified in the eyes of their God as well. So did Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, George Bush (Senior), Ollie North, and the people who shot MLK and JFK. Many abusive parents are also religious and believe the Bible tells them it's ok to smack the krap out of Junior sending him to the ICU if he says the S word at the dinner table. The parents of the Columbine killers beleived themselves and their children to be 'good Christians.' Nad many of my critics use their stoopid 2000+ year old book to put me down and insult at any given opportunity, all because God said it was OK for them to be dickheads. If there is a God, which there probably isn't, then he a sadisitc little jag-off who would be in jail right now if he were tangible.

{NOTE TO ROVING MODS: Since there is no God, that comment is NOT ad hominem.}

Actually, the Bible is over 3,000 years old.

::Enlightenment is hated becuase it exposes religion for what it is; a crutch.::

Although it seems to be more political in nature, this is probably the reason that China is disallowing access to the Google search engine. Atfer all, the sharing of information can be a dangerous thing.

::Actually, the Bible is over 3,000 years old. ::
I'd never heard this -- evidence, please?

ScottN,

Religion is asymptom not the cause. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

Oh, I agree, Blue. I was attempting to refute the following:

---

Quote:

without religion, the world would be in much worse shape than it is now.

---

{NOTE TO ROVING MODS: Since there is no God, that comment is NOT ad hominem.}

Since whether or not there is a God isn't a matter you can settle with a post to a bulletin board, I'm afraid this is erroneous.

Actually, though, you're literally correct. Ad hominem attacks are attacks on a person, and since God is not a person, no attack on God can be called ad hominem. Still, I would advise you to keep the belligerence to a minimum, please. Neither I nor any other Roving Mod can Dump your posts just because they're generally offensive, but MarkN the topic moderator is free to do as he likes.

::Actually, the Bible is over 3,000 years old. ::
I'd never heard this -- evidence, please?

Ah, a question I can answer. The Bible comprises quite a range of sources. The earliest ones that we can date come from 1200-900 B.C.E.; they are songs and poetry hailing Yahweh as a warrior. The Song of Deborah (Judges 5), the Song of Miriam (Exodus 15:21), and a few others. (For comparison purposes, Moses was around in about 1250 B.C.E., and Abraham around 1850.) The first account of Israel's history that we can date comes from around 950-850 B.C.E.; they call this the "Yahwist" account, and it forms parts of the present-day books of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. Moving forward, we see that the book of Daniel was composed in 165 B.C.E., and that Jewish scholars at the Academy of Jamnia finished compiling all the various texts around 90 C.E., completing the Hebrew Bible.

New Testament texts are from a much narrower span; 1 and 2 Thessalonians are the oldest, written around 50 C.E., while Jude and 2 Peter are the most recent, written around 130-150 C.E.

Therefore, parts of the Hebrew Bible are indeed around 3000 years old, and we see that there's nothing in the New Testament, which Christians added to the Hebrew texts, that is younger than about 1850 years. The Bible as a whole was written and compiled over quite a period of time, yes, but the period of time was still several millennia ago.

(The preceding information comes from: Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. It's the textbook we use in my Introduction to the Bible class.)

ScottN,

Sorry. I didn't read the entire thread. (Guilty as charged.)


Dude,

Matt is quite right. An ad hominem attack is on a person not a flying turtle. (BTW, Dude, the Lord Most High Gamera forgives you unless you eat cheese on Thursday.)

Ad hominem attacks are attacks on a person, and since God is not a person, no attack on God can be called ad hominem. - MPatterson

This, of course, begs the question: What is a person?

If an entity can be all things at all times (which is how some define God), how can it not be a person? If we're made in God's image (as the Bible purports), how can He not be a person? According to the Holy Trinity , God exists as a human being (the Son), so how can he not be a person?

Those are just the theological issues with your statement. There are some philosophical ones as well:

In the real world, defining a person is easy. They're human beings. But as we've seen repeatedly in the world of the internet, there are no living people... there are personas. While those personas are certainly guided by persons, they are not the persons themselves.

Some posters have gone on record that they have difficulty identifying other posters as persons and that they themselves should not be judged (as people) solely on their expressed opinions in Nitcentral. Does this exonerate them from attacking other posters because they're not persons?

I am a person. But is Darth Sarcasm, a persona who expresses my thoughts in a manner which may or may not reflect how I present myself in person, a person?

Discuss.

Here's how I'm defining person. "Person" equals "human being." Which no deity is, by definition. It's quite imprecise, but as this is off-topic anyway, I'm trying to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

Here is another topic to consider, one which is a stumbling block for my faith in the New Testament.

What we consider as the canon of the New Testament was in fact decided at a council in Nicea, about 300 years after the crucifixion.
The issue at the time was what writings were considered the word of God, and which ones were Heresy. Many Christian writings abounded at the time. There was the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, writings of Clement and other early Church Fathers.

So basically a council took to a vote (Presumedly under the guidance of God) to decide what was legitamate writings.
Apparently, the book of Revelation almost wasnt included. The standards used to measure the acceptance of these writings were based on the doctrine of the time. Some Biblical scholars have reported that many writings that depicted women in leading roles were 'thrown to the fire'.

Now, if one accepts that the Roman Catholic church became corrupted itself with false doctrines regarding indulgences, the role of Mary & other Saints, Purgetory, witch burning etc then how can one trust the decisions of the council through faith alone?

Incedently, the famous ending pasage of Revelation where it asserts that "nothing should be added or taken away from this book" refers to the specific book of Revelations, not the Old or New Testaments. (The New Testament didnt exist at the time Revelation was written).

[GODWIN]The Nazis used religion.[/GODWIN]

The Spanish Inquisition used religion...

Etc., etc., etc...ScottN

As Blue already pointed out, the most atrocious mass killings in history have had nothing to do with religion. Think of the mass mudrders initiated by Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. Oh, you might argue that since Hitler's main target was the Jews, that brings religion into it. However, Hitler's perseucution of the Jews wasn't along religious means (he wasn't doing it because he was Catholic), it was along racial means. That's a bit different.

Now let's look at it from the other side of the coin, namely, charity. It seems to me that most religions stress the values of charity and helping one's neighbor. How many other public institutions do that, let alone do that with the effectiveness of a religion?

Now, if one accepts that the Roman Catholic church became corrupted itself with false doctrines regarding indulgences, the role of Mary & other Saints, Purgetory, witch burning etc then how can one trust the decisions of the council through faith alone?

You just said it: through faith alone.

" Faith alone. "

But one question. In a search for the true God how do you know you have faith in the right choice? Your gut instict? How do you know you arent being lead astray by the Devil, or some other evil spirit?


For example, what if God really meant literally there is only one God, and worshiping Jesus in the Trinity is actually offensive to him all along.

How do you know for sure you are not blinded like most of the other world religions, if you take your own spirituality seriously?

One this note, how do you know your faith is placed in the proper Christian denomination? There are so many around, and they all use the same Bible to interpret .

How do you know that the Apostle Paul really did see the resurected Jesus on the road to Damascus, and that the Mormon's Joseph Smith did not?

But one question. In a search for the true God how do you know you have faith in the right choice? Your gut instict? How do you know you arent being lead astray by the Devil, or some other evil spirit?

You *believe*, you do not *know*. The one does not require the other.

::Incedently, the famous ending pasage of Revelation where it asserts that "nothing should be added or taken away from this book" refers to the specific book of Revelations, not the Old or New Testaments. (The New Testament didnt exist at the time Revelation was written).:: Bob James

Sorry, that doesn't mean just that. It means the Bible itself and any of the Word of God. God is not a dummy. If it was writtent that way, He planned it. God would not want people changing His Word.

::For example, what if God really meant literally there is only one God, and worshiping Jesus in the Trinity is actually offensive to him all along.:: Bob James

What the Trinity is supposed to mean is 3 aspects of one being. It's sort of like personality aspects, though not like schizophrenia. As to your other posts, all you CAN DO is have faith. Knowing is impossible in the manner that you would like to do it.

Sparrow,

Red Alert.

I know you don't mean anything, but Hitler was not a Catholic. According to the History Channel he "created" a religion with glorious Aryans etc.

I'll defend many things about Catholicism and explain for the umpteenth time that the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope has been used three times. I will not, however, defend Hitler because I don't have to.

Sorry, Sparrow, I know you meant nothing by it but it can be used as one more club that Catholic bashers use.

Bob James,

What, in the end, is faith? I have faith I'm right. An atheist that thinks he has no faith is mistaken; he has faith there is no God. Faith can be based on almost anything-even illusions of a demon tricking us. In the end it doesn't matter the source of the faith but the person who decides to have faith in the source. (Note to others: I'm saying God exists because you will him to exist -- yup God's existence depends on you. Disagree with it, but that is my faith dammit.)

You never know if the faith is sound. Reason knows. Faith believes. Reason and faith run parallel in a Euclidian geometry and never meet. Someone may post that they "know", but they don't. They believe. (Gee, isn't Kirkegaard helpful.)

You assert that God had planned the ending of Revelation to mean the whole canon of the Bible that we accept in modern day Christianity. However, during the 200 years or so between the writing of Revelations and the acceptance of this book into the New Testament, any person reading that ending would not understand it as referring to anything but the book of Reveleation.
"God is not a God of confusion" 1Cor14:33

Also, I realize that all debate about Christiantity vs secularism (Maybe a better word than 'enligtenment') all boils down to the question of faith.

But how would you apply this to Martin Luther and the Reformation? Luther did not accept that God had guided the established church doctrines. They had become corrupted. Only through rational exegesis and study did he come to his conclusions.

Personally speaking, I think those middle eastern religions need their own Martin Luther and a Reformation. They are stuck in the middle ages.

Question: is falling asleep in church a sin? I nodded off during the pastor's sermon yestarday, and now my mom's acting like I'll burn for all eternity. Can I help it if the guy mumbles and is boring as all heck?!

curious,

Nothing is a sin unless you get caught.

What we hold as the story of the birth of Jesus is in fact an almalgamation of two contradictory Gospel accounts.

Of the four Gospel records, only Matthew and Luke include birth stories.( Mark and John begin their accounts at the baptism by John the baptist.)

The only information that the two nativity stories agree on, is the names of Jesus's parents, and the birthplace being in Bethlehem.


Matthew:
1)Jesus was born at the time of King Herod(4 BC)
2)Joseph and Mary lived in a house in Bethlehem
3)Three wise men visited with gifts
4) Bright star in sky


Luke:
1) Roman census requires trek to Bethlehem(6 AD)
2) No room in Inn, born in a manger
3) Shepherds attend

It seems both stories were written independently of each other. Why the difference?

Mark was the first Gospel written, asserting Jesus was from Nazereth in Galilee. The issue of whether he fulfilled messianic prophecy by being born in Bethlehem was of concern (John7:41-42)

Bethlehem is quite far from Nazareth, in a different geographical area north of Judea.
So it seemed that the writings of both Matthew and Luke filled in the blanks.
However, the two Gospel writers solved this problem differently.

Matthew has them living in Bethlehem originally, then Herod's persecution of first borns forces them to flee to Egypt. On their return after Herod's death, and Angel tells them to go live in Galilee.

Luke has the family originally from Galilee, but are forced to go to Bethlehem for a census, While there, Jesus is born.

Re read the two Christmas accounts in Matthew and Luke and decide for your self whether they are telling the same story.


(FYI, King Herod was the last of the Judean Kings. He died in 4BC. Then the Romans came in and had direct political control of Palestein. The census is recorded as being in 6 AD)

Re read the two Christmas accounts in Matthew and Luke and decide for your self whether they are telling the same story.

But why does it matter if they are or they aren't? There are also two distinct stories of creation, two different flood stories, no fewer than four accounts of God making the same covenant with Abraham, two stories of Jacob coming face to face with God and naming a place after it, two stories of Jacob's name being changed to Israel... and so on. To a person of faith, though, what difference does it make if they're all factually accurate or not? Truth is not necessarily the same thing as being correct in all the facts.

Matthew Patterson,

Bob James (herinafter called King James) asserts his preference for reason in his printed materials. Internal consistency is important to nit pickers who view their faith critically. (Assuming they have FAITH [as opposed to faith].)

Truth may not be the sum of the facts as we may not know all the facts. Truth, however, must be correct in all the facts we know. (That is why "internal" consistency is much more important than "external" consistency.)

King James,

You want another answer? The Bible was not written by God. It was written by men. (Alledgedly men who were inspired by God, but if "Luke" is "Luke" is another debate.) Men are fallible. Star Trek with one guy at the helm is riddled with internal inconsistencies. How is a committee assembling various authors going to avoid that?

No offense Matthew, I know you are a moderator with the power to shut my opinions down, but is your Faith so strong that you would not have been a 'nay sayer' when ordered to use genocide in Palastine by 'God'? Back when the Hebrews were invading the promised land. Would you have said, "No. wiping out these people is not an order from a diety, it sounds like a human being sort of agression thingy."

Would you have stood up when Peter came out of Annias's wife's house to announce that a believer dropped dead when confronted with keeping back tithing?
What if the exact thing happened today? Would you help bury the bodies before an autopsy was performed?

One problem with faith is that it can be misplaced. Most cults have built in mind control to prevent people from seeing it is brain washing. More often than not they will deride your families' concern about you getting involved, and hold 'the movement' higher than people who care about you.

They will deride people who want to see proof of amazing assertions, like Thomas did.

They will make it look like the group has some sort of special gift or knowledge, and all others not part of the group are lost.

They will discourage free thought and criticism, asserting you must believe 'as a small child'.

And so may human beings fall for this type of thinkig all over the planet. It seems to be a part of our makeup. Even the 'cave man' buried their dead with flowers and ceremony.

So recognizing this exists, that humans want meaning in life so bad they can be brainwashed, I think it is important to place faith in an ideology very carefully.

If you are born again, made the mature choice on your own, good for you.

If it is something you got from your parents, you might want to re examine everything.

Lest you think I am Satan or something, I encourage people to be Christians. It helps you and others deal with the fear of death, more often than not it keeps you disciplined and law abiding. Plus you are encouraged to be nice and polite, so it is not a bad thing at all.

However, if you have the desire to know truth the best you can, or to keep an open mind that perhaps just possibly someone else's opinion may be more correct than yours, then consider all the info placed before you.

If not, then maybe you are as hopeless as those Muslim fanatics who believe they know the truth, females are second class, etc etc.
I guess your position on faith in one's religion is a microcosm of how we will never be able to deal with religious zealots.

Well said, Bob.

If not, then maybe you are as hopeless as those Muslim fanatics who believe they know the truth, females are second class, etc etc.

Way to extrapolate, here.

I'm not going to go into this very deeply, since I really don't think that these kinds of discussions are worthwhile in this kind of medium. This kind of philosophical interaction really needs to take place face to face for it to be worth anything, at least for me.

Having said that, let me briefly address your concerns.

No offense Matthew, I know you are a moderator with the power to shut my opinions down, but is your Faith so strong that you would not have been a 'nay sayer' when ordered to use genocide in Palastine by 'God'? Back when the Hebrews were invading the promised land. Would you have said, "No. wiping out these people is not an order from a diety, it sounds like a human being sort of agression thingy."

I dislike hypotheticals, but I'll talk about this one because it lets me make a broader point. Religion does not allow one to abdicate the responsibility to be a thinking human being. You have a brain; you are therefore meant to use it.

However, there's a huge difference between this example and the previous ones you cited, the discrepancies in the Christmas stories. The previous ones deal with merely factual inconsistencies. They agree in the larger concernes: Jesus was born of Mary, this is the son of God, etc. How it happened, in what place, under what circumstances, etc. really doesn't matter when speaking of the religious principles contained within the passage. The interpretation of passages such as (for a helpful example) Deuteronomy 20, wherein Yahweh directly tells the Hebrews to annihilate (the exact word used in the New Revised Standard Version) all the men living in the promised land, and to enslave their women and children is different. Here, your concern seems to be on a higher level. You're not merely trying to resolve discrepancies in the plot of the story, you have a problem with the theme (so to speak).

Now, all that is a roundabout way of not really saying anything. To summarize: There's a difference between your previous plot-level concerns and the higher-level ones presented in your most recent post. The former aren't really of concern to people of faith as long as the themes in the different versions of the passages are the same. (Not that you shouldn't know why there are different version and how they came to be.) The higher-level, "What is God's purpose, or is it his at all?" questions are important to everyone, and unfortunately I don't have time to address them right now because I have a class.

Perhaps someone else can take up this thread?

::but is your Faith so strong that you would not have been a 'nay sayer' when ordered to use genocide in Palastine by 'God'?:: Bob James

You just don't say no to God. God would make it with no doubt if He was to appear that you would know it was Him.

::They will discourage free thought and criticism, asserting you must believe 'as a small child'.:: Bob James

The Bible also says that the Wisdom of God is the foolishness of Man. To me, that says that man screws up because we automatically think we know the correct thing on our own. That's the problem with all your logic.

::Lest you think I am Satan or something, I encourage people to be Christians. It helps you and others deal with the fear of death, more often than not it keeps you disciplined and law abiding. Plus you are encouraged to be nice and polite, so it is not a bad thing at all.:: Bob James

I'm sorry, but if that's your reasoning for it, that's a p i s s poor reason for doing it. Ya don't do it just because it's "nice."

::I guess your position on faith in one's religion is a microcosm of how we will never be able to deal with religious zealots.:: Bob James

You assume all zealotry is wrong just because some PEOPLE are wrong in how they use it. I know a person like you can't believe it, but whatever God says is correct even if humanity doesn'tlike it or thinks it makes no sense.

::I dislike hypotheticals, but I'll talk about this one because it lets me make a broader point. Religion does not allow one to abdicate the responsibility to be a thinking human being. You have a brain; you are therefore meant to use it.:: Matthew Patterson

EXACLY! You use your brain to understand what God wants you to try to understand.

::really doesn't matter when speaking of the religious principles contained within the passage.:: Matthew Patterson

The problem comes in with people like Bob James who want everything in a nice neat package without anything hard to understand or confusing before they will believe in it properly. He and his kind will never go for anything that a man they trust came up with or something out of their own finite mind.

::You're not merely trying to resolve discrepancies in the plot of the story, you have a problem with the theme (so to speak).:: Matthew Patterson

This is what I was talking about. People such as this will not agree to something just because it "seems" or "feels" bad to the human mind regardless of the fact that a perfect God cannot make mistakes so whatever He decides is perfect even if we don't like it no matter what it is. This is one of those "casting your pearls before swine" moments as the Bible says.

Bob-

I don't know you. I assume that your motives are sicere, but I don't know you.

When missionaries knock on my door, whether Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Baptists from the church across the street, their motives are also sincere. But they are not all the same.

Some are open and eager. They are willing to listen to other viewpoints and discuss them rationally. I have met many that later became friends, even though we still don't agree on many points, even 'important ones, that separate our religions.

Others are "on a mission." They "listen" half-heartedly, waiting to hear a word or phrase that they have a prepared resonse for. It is impossible to have an in-depth discussion with them. Despite the sincerity of their motive, they really don't care about the people to whom they are witnessing, they are either fulfilling a "duty" they really don't understand, or are showing off their "superiority".

I don't know you, but if you fall into the first category, I'd like to get to know you. At the moment, your tone comes across in print as a little more like those in the second category, however, so you might want dial it back a little.

If you do fall in the second category, then no matter how sincere your motives, there is a chance that the effect on this thread may become similar to that on a thread with a deliberate troll. Not necessarily, but more likely the more you post. But a much more dreadful (because more likely) possibility is killing the conversation.

Jwb is very sincere, but he has a tendency to drift into the second category of "missionary." Not all the time, but when his core beliefs are challanged. Threads in which this happen do not turn into flame-fests, since we understand where he's coming from, but they do often die out prematurely.


If there were a second "missionary" like this, with opinions so completely opposite Jwb's, the potential for killing off conversation here is not just doubled, but squared.

I don't know you, but I'd like the chance to get to know you.

Hey, no offense meant to anyone. I like this site and the many opinions throughout.
Matthew Patterson is an intelligent guy and I respect his opinion.

In essence as a Star Trek fan I love the vision of the future Rodennberry created. I guess that makes me a humanist of sorts.

Bob James or Bob R.,

I can't speak for everyone else, but no offense taken. One thing you probably realize by now is this is Religious Musings and people can take things personally when you question their faith. (Yeah, I know I'm in the minority at nit central for thinking that, but I'm a vocal minority.)

When, (not "if") you find internal inconsistencies in the Republican and/or Democratic platforms and post them at PM people will get just as defensive but lack the "faith" "out". ("Out" seems cheap. It carries bad connotations I don't want, but other words like "defense", "reason", "excuse", "argument" all have a problem as well.

I have discovered a minor malfunction in my emotion chip which seems to intermittantly attemot to connect my right foot with my mouth. I'll have to take myself offline (from RM and PM) for a brief period to make corrections.

I don't have time to say much, but I'd like to say a thing or two.

First, I'd like to defend the "on a mission" attitude, to some extent at least, mainly because we Mormons tend to use that exact phrasing, "on a mission", to describe the two years of full-time missionary work many of us take part in (no offense taken, though). I'll just relate first a few words from the book of Doctrine & Covenants (which we hold to be revelations of the Lord to modern prophets): "Again I say, hearken ye elders of my church, whom I have appointed: Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit;" (D&C 43:15) The purpose of the mission is primarily to teach, not primarily to learn to understand everyone else's religious ideas. Missionaries are sent out to find those who are prepared to receive the message, and teach them. They may very well understand their "duty" better than you know.

Now, none of this is to say that missionaries shouldn't really listen to and care about the beliefs of others. Please don't think that. But time is precious, and if it becomes apparent (even in a very short time) that a certain person is not ready to listen to the message, well, it's time to move on.

Permit me to relate a personal experience. While "on a mission" in Panama, my missionary companion and I met a Hare Krishna swami. We were on friendly terms with him. We visited him several times over the space of a month or more. We shared many things about our religion, and we listened as he did the same. We came to understand him better, and I now better appreciate his beliefs. He gained a better understanding and of us, but he wasn't prepared to accept our message. Ultimately, we stopped visiting him. It's fine and good to be friends with those we teach, but not to the point where we begin neglecting our "duty".

Now, in the case of those church members who aren't "on a mission" full-time, we still should be missionaries in a sense, but now we have flexibility. We can spend the time to get to know our neighbors and friends of other faiths as we should.

The other thing I wanted to say a word about was that I don't see why "faith" and "reason" keep being referred to as mutually exclusive things. It's true that I don't understand and can't prove each and every one of the things I believe in, but human limitations to understand some things don't necessarily make belief in them unreasonable. I'm sure it's unreasonable to a three-year old child that, say, the world's round and people on the other side are standing "upside down". It doesn't make it untrue or unreasonable.

As for the two Christmas stories, though that was just an example, I don't see that they conflict. It could very well be that the details of both are true. The conflict posed by the contradicting dates is worth thinking about. Honestly, I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's unreasonable that after 2000 years, our knowledge of the chronology isn't perfect, and I could accept that one or both of the dates may be off by a few years. Why should a little thing like that cause a crisis of faith? Faith is (or at least, should be) based in something that may not be tangible or provable, but is no less substantial or real than what we all accept on reason.

Matt-

I was unaware that the phrase "on a mission" had a distict meaning to Mormons. It was certainly not my intention to place all Mormon missionaries in that second category. In fact, as a group, I have found Mormons to be more likely to go out of their way to be in the first. In fact I can think of only one specific instance where a Mormon acted in the manner I described for the second category and I was not a witness to that incident. It was a FOAF story (but related by a truseted friend) so even that may have been apocryphal.

You are one of those that I count as a friend, and if I caused you any grief because of the poor choice of a phrase, I am deeply sorry.

::since we understand where he's coming from, but they do often die out prematurely.:: TomM

Are you saying I kill them? LOL!

.and the fossils found buried in the Earth, are but the bones of the animals drowned in the Great Flood 4,400 years ago, silly scientists.
"evolution is science..fiction."

and the Mammoth isn't extinct, but survives in Siberia. The reason we don't see them, and that scientists keep digging up well preserved specimens is that they are burrowing animals which die on exposure to light.

So drive the greybeards away from the Mammoth carcass with your Stout Stick™ and fire up the barbeque... akn: Robert Rankin

Seriously, I trust BOB was being ironic (although you never can tell around here . The notion that fossilised animals coexisted with humans is so easy to disprove, and you don't even have to restart the Evolution vs Creation debate to do so.

I'll list some arguments if I have to, but it'll be sad if it comes to that.

Dinosaurs are not extinct. They are hiding behind furniture. (OK, I stole that from a Dilbert. I confess.)

::.and the fossils found buried in the Earth, are but the bones of the animals drowned in the Great Flood 4,400 years ago, silly scientists.
"evolution is science..fiction.":: BOB

I wish you could believe that things may not have always been the way we can perceive them.

I wish you could believe that things may not have always been the way we can perceive them.

Thinking this way about science pretty much invalidates all of science.

Jwb is very sincere, but he has a tendency to drift into the second category of "missionary." Not all the time, but when his core beliefs are challanged. Threads in which this happen do not turn into flame-fests, since we understand where he's coming from, but they do often die out prematurely.

I may have overstepped the line slightly with the above remark (and maybe even with the entire post -- hence my 24 hour self-exile from RM and PM), but since it is out:

Are you saying I kill them? LOL! Jwb52z

Not intentionally, not directly, and its not always your specific post, but yes, I do think that the point where it is no longer worth trying to argue the issue does come much sooner once you make an "unanswerable" post.

Again, not all of your posts are "closed" in this manner, only a small minority of them, and We all have "hot" issues where if we post too soon we could do the same, but it does happen noticibly more often in your case.

::.and the fossils found buried in the Earth, are but the bones of the animals drowned in the Great Flood 4,400 years ago, silly scientists.

Terry Pratchett got nicely around this problem, when, in "Eric", he showed the creation of the world and in "last continent" how sth. can be created 10 minutes ago, but has been here for thousands of years. Its just sth. we humans with our forward-notion of time can't understand or follow (All together now: Temporal mechanics give me a headache! )

I wish you could believe that things may not have always been the way we can perceive them. Jwb52z

Thinking this way about science pretty much invalidates all of science. Matthew Patterson

You are grossly overstating the case there, Matthew. Science is founded on on the assumption that natural laws are unchanging, not that all natural phenomena are. Science does not believe that your body is immortal and unchanging, or that the Solar System has always existed as it is now.

In the absence of other evidence, scientists often do assume that certain processes have been uniform through time. Discovering that there were variations would certainly be newsworthy, but would not be earth-shattering, and would not kill science.

For example, Radio-carbon dating is based on the assumption that the "ambient" ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12, and therefore the ratio in living tissue, has been constant. If we were to discover that at some point in the past, this ratio were much higher or lower than it is now, it would invalidate the established dates on everything previouslydated, but it would not invalidate science in general.

It would not even invalidate carbon-dating. It would just mean that we would need to establish a new scale of results to age. Once that was done, even those things that were tested years ago under the now-invalid assumption could be reliably given new dates without re-testing.

CNN.com has this article, Really? They Said THIS In the Bible?, with some funny excerpts taken from Rinkworks.com.

Speaking of invalidating science, here's something a bit, shall we say, interesting, that a roommate found and shared with me recently. Perhaps this is an appropriate forum to showcase it.

International Flat Earth Research Society

Please note that in posting this, I am in no way advocating flat-earth theory.

constanze: Terry Pratchett got nicely around this problem, when ... in "last continent" how sth. can be created 10 minutes ago, but has been here for thousands of years. Its just sth. we humans with our forward-notion of time can't understand or follow

Exactly!
This is why I get frustrated when the Creationists get upset about the theory of Evolution.

If you give God control of time or (more probably) place God outside of time, then it's child's play to reconcile the two theories.

Maybe the Creation vs Evolution schism tells us more about ourselves than it does about the nature of the Universe. It shows how good we are at splitting into rival camps and battling each other, when with a little imagination we could work together.

::Not intentionally, not directly, and its not always your specific post, but yes, I do think that the point where it is no longer worth trying to argue the issue does come much sooner once you make an "unanswerable" post.:: TomM

I don't try to be unanswerable.

::Exactly!
This is why I get frustrated when the Creationists get upset about the theory of Evolution.:: Sophie

Well, I do believe God probably created things to seem and even test older than they really are in reality. I don't think that has anything to do with why people don't believe in Evolution though. If the average evolutionist would believe that God was behind it and a few other things, I would be more likely to go along with it.

You are grossly overstating the case there, Matthew. Science is founded on on the assumption that natural laws are unchanging, not that all natural phenomena are.

... and how is that not what I said? Or perhaps I ought to explain myself better? Allow me to use an example. I'll take the one we seem to be discussing right now. Say that God really did create the universe at 9 AM London time on October 4, 4004 B.C., but created it to *appear* as though it were many billions of years older. If you allow any sort of assumption that God retroactively makes things the way they are, you make it pointless to do science, because you don't have any reason to believe that it is more probable that the universe has always operated in its present manner than not.

Moreover, although Occam's Razor is not a law, this seems to be the type of instance it was created for. Speaking scientifically at the moment, as opposed to religiously, saying, "God did it at this point in the past, but when he did it, it existed for all time" is cumbersome. Saying, "it has existed this way for all time" is simpler, and it avoids the mention of an entity who by definition is unproveable by the scientific method. You can't include God in science, because science simply does not work that way.

... and how is that not what I said? Or perhaps I ought to explain myself better?

It was mostly in your phrasing. My point is that science is not as fragile as "Thinking this way about science pretty much invalidates all of science." would imply. If science were that fragile, it would require more faith than most religions.

Although I agree with the point of your example, it was not the obvious implication of your earlier post.

I don't try to be unanswerable. Jwb52z

I know that. I said that it was not intentional, and that it was ony a minority of your posts, and that it can happen to any of us. It just seems to happen to you more often. Perhaps it's because you haven't had as much social interaction as others, or some similar "environmental" explanation. If so, it should ease up in time.

::Perhaps it's because you haven't had as much social interaction as others, or some similar "environmental" explanation.:: TomM

Where do you get that from now?

oh my, the pratchett post was intended to be funny! I should have put more to make it clear.

Personally, I have no trouble reconciling creation and evolution. We discussed this around 8th grade in our religion class, which of the two was right (almost all said evolution was right, creation a nice story). Our religion teacher then pointed out that both answer different questions: Evolution, or science generally, answers the hard fact questions (How, where, what) "how did earth and animals people start, where do they come from, how come they look different today than the dinosaurs" and so on. Creation, or religion generally, answers the why question: "why are we here on earth? Who put us here?"
I mean, there is strong everyday evidence that people do not exist out of clay. But the story of god making man out of clay and breathing life into him makes sense if you do not take it literal. It tells you where the spirit comes from. Evolution tells you where your body comes from. I see the only problem when people take a story literally that wasn't meant to be. A myth tells us profound things about our soul, like fairy-tales, legends and so on.

(In bavaria, there is a cute little creation story of its own from folk legend, which goes like: A forest guy decides to create a man, too, so he takes his axe and starts chopping on a bloc of wood. While he is working, Father God on his evening stroll comes by, watches him and says "good man, what are you doing there?" The wood worker tells him. Father God bends down, breathes life into the block of roughly hewn wood, and it starts to be alive. Then it runs away, and the wood worker runs after him, yelling "But you aren't finished! Come back so I can work on you!" that was the first bavarian )

::But the story of god making man out of clay and breathing life into him makes sense if you do not take it literal.:: Constanze

That kind of thought doesn't take into account that God is omnipotent and could do anything He wanted, even making Man out of clay.

::I see the only problem when people take a story literally that wasn't meant to be. A myth tells us profound things about our soul, like fairy-tales, legends and so on.:: Constanze

The real problem is that some people don't know when to take things literally and nonliterally at the right times. BTW, myth is a very impolite term to use around believers. It implies falsehood and lies that are just there to be a good story.

BTW, myth is a very impolite term to use around believers. It implies falsehood and lies that are just there to be a good story.

Thats why I explained that to me, myth means a story about the human soul, human emotions, human experiences and so on; its neutral, not implying falsehood. But thanks for telling me; I don't want to offend people, and its always difficult which meaning or definition of a word is more commonly associated by people.

That kind of thought doesn't take into account that God is omnipotent and could do anything He wanted, even making Man out of clay.
Yes, thats right. But Man isn't made of clay, he is made of flesh and bone and so on.

If you like, the breath of live changed the material, too, from clay into flesh.

In other religions, other "building materials" are used. The hopi and navajos, IIRC, told that the first people were made from corn, because its such an important plant for them. I can't remember the other stories right now, but I know when I read them I was astonished about the many different materials the respective gods used. Usually, it shows what was very important for the people or easy to comprehend (everybody who plays with clay and sand on the river can relate to the story.)

BTW, myth is a very impolite term to use around believers. It implies falsehood and lies that are just there to be a good story.

Actually, you're really the only person who takes it that way. "Myth" simply means that, while a story might not be factually correct, it still contains truths about the human experience or about the nature of people or God, which are valid whether or not the facts of the story are correct.

In the begining was the word, etc., etc. Then He (or She or whatever capitalized pronoun you want to use) decided it would really fluster those humans if He (or She or... you know the deal) used evolution. On the eight day He (or She or you know) laughed.

Seems to fit best into off-topic...

I got the general invitation for the german church congress yesterday. It will take place from May 28th till June 1st next year (2003) in Berlin, and for the first time ever its not the protestant church day only, its ecumenical, that is, the german protestant church and the katholic central organisation work together to bring it about.

You can find out more about it from this website (just up, contents will be added all the time; right now it seems to be mainly in german)

http://www.oekt.de/index.php

So, anybody else thinking about coming?

::Yes, thats right. But Man isn't made of clay, he is made of flesh and bone and so on.:: Constanze

I don't think you got my point. I'll say it differently. The first people could have been MADE FROM clay due to God's omnipotence, but also due to that omnipotence, it doesn't mean that they CONSIST of that clay that they were made from in the first place. The clay obviously was turned into "flesh and bone."

::If you like, the breath of live changed the material, too, from clay into flesh.:: Constanze

That makes more sense now, thank you. I still don't like the word myth.

"There are also two distinct stories of creation, two different flood stories, no fewer than four accounts of God making the same covenant with Abraham, two stories of Jacob coming face to face with God and naming a place after it, two stories of Jacob's name being changed to Israel... and so on. To a person of faith, though, what difference does it make if they're all factually accurate or not? Truth is not necessarily the same thing as being correct in all the facts. "

Your knowledge of the bible is sad.

Sad in the sense that I remembered all of those examples off the top of my head, or what? Allow me to provide you with citations for all of them, in the order in which I mentioned them in my original post:

Genesis 1 (the first creation story, "In the beginning" and so on)
Gen. 2:1-3:24 (the second story, with Adam and Eve and the serpent)
Gen. 6:5-8:22 (the two flood stories are interwoven into each other throughout this section; a good study Bible can tell you what comes from where)
Gen. 12:2-3 (the first time God uses covenant language with Abram)
Gen. 15:1-21 (the second time God uses covenant language with Abram)
Gen. 17:1-22 (the third time God uses covenant language, the first time Sarai is included, and the only time God changes Abram and Sarai's names)
Gen. 22:1-19 (the sacrifice of Isaac, also the fourth time God uses covenant language with Abraham)
Gen. 28:10-22 (Jacob's first encounter with God; he calls the place Bethel, or "house of God," and his name is changed.)
Gen. 32:22-29 (Jacob's second encounter with God; he calls the place Peniel, or "face of God," and his name is changed... again.)

"To a person of faith, though, what difference does it make if they're all factually accurate or not?"

That is the part that makes it sad. You seem to think there is some problem there that makes the stories non-factual.

5{t they all either contain contradictory details or imply a schizophrenic God would seem to indicate that they can't all be factual, yes. Particularly the creation stories; the order of creation is completely different from one to the other. And again with Jacob's two name changes; the details of each differ in ways that just can't be rationalized. The *message* of the stories is the same, which is the important part. Getting hung up on literal factual correctness means you're missing the point.

Rene,

God is infinite. Being infinite He (She, It, Nothingness, whatever) can be on both sides of what we see as a contradiction. In fact if he truly has no bounds He (She, It, Nothingness, whatever) has to encompass both sides or He (she, it, nothingness, whatever) is not infinite. All religions are correct especially where they contradict one another. Any self-contradictions in a religion are just more gravy.

Riiiiiiiight. [rolls eyes]

Your eye rolling is what I expect from a finite being.

I think, and seriously hope to God, that Blue Berry is attempting to have fun with us or be intentionally silly.

This thought just hit me. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion in 1 Corinthians 14:33. If God were as Blue Berry just suggested, he would be that very being, "the author of confusion." It can't be so.

And Matthew, if you think the bible is not factual, what's the point? Do you think the gospels are just stories too? Or do you think Jesus is a liar since he mentions events from Genesis?

The creation "accounts" do not contradict each other. The second is more detailed. And the second one has no order. It doesn't say, "And then God did this...and then he did that..."

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Genesis+2%3A1-15&NIV_version=yes&language=english

It's not saying that God created man and then the trees and garden.

And frankly, you must think Moses is a moron if you think he would write "contradictory" accounts one right after the other. I mean, come on.

"a good study Bible can tell you what comes from where"

What does that mean? What comes where?

Gen. 12:2-3 (the first time God uses covenant language with Abram)
Gen. 15:1-21 (the second time God uses covenant language with Abram)
Gen. 17:1-22 (the third time God uses covenant language, the first time Sarai is included, and the only time God changes Abram and Sarai's names)
Gen. 22:1-19 (the sacrifice of Isaac, also the fourth time God uses covenant language with Abraham)


So he mentions the convenant four times? So what?

Gen. 28:10-22 (Jacob's first encounter with God; he calls the place Bethel, or "house of God," and his name is changed.)

There is nothing there about his name being changed.

And Matthew, if you think the bible is not factual, what's the point? Do you think the gospels are just stories too? Or do you think Jesus is a liar since he mentions events from Genesis?

The point is that it is *true* regardless of whether or not it is factual. What's wrong with something being "just a story?" Sometimes the truth is too big to be contained in the words we have to use to describe it. Parables are a perfect example. In all likelihood, Jesus was not referring to a specific vineyard owner who paid all his laborers the same amount regardless of how long they had worked. The story is not factually correct, but it is true nonetheless because it expresses a truth about the nature of God that can't be done any other way. Even better examples are the two different infancy narratives found in Matthew and Luke. They can't possibly have *both* happened, and we have no way of knowing whether or not either of them did. However, they both contain the essential message that this is no ordinary child, this is the son of God, who will be called Jesus because he will save his people. The essential truth that they convey is the same, regardless of the story they tell to get people to understand it.

It's not saying that God created man and then the trees and garden.

In fact, that's *exactly* what it says. Moreover, later in the story it has God creating animals and bringing them to the man as they are created so that the man can name them. This directly contradicts the first creation story, which states that all the animals were created before mankind.

So he mentions the convenant four times? So what?

So, um, why wasn't once enough? Why repeat it verbatim four times? Why use different names for God in the different accounts? Reading this literally, one must think that either God is forgetful or Abraham is.

And frankly, you must think Moses is a moron if you think he would write "contradictory" accounts one right after the other. I mean, come on.

That's the other bit I was trying to think of - the books of Moses include an account of Moses' death. He most assuredly did *not* write that. I also don't recall saying that Moses wrote any of this, and the current scholarly consensus is that he didn't.

Gen. 28:10-22 (Jacob's first encounter with God; he calls the place Bethel, or "house of God," and his name is changed.)

Okay, blah. I actually did notice that, but after it was too late to go back and correct it. My bad.

Jwb52z,

I hate to Vulcan about this, but "confusion" comes from the silly finite beings that cannot grasp the contradictions, not from the God who can.

Let me illustrate with an example out of the Bible. Do you, Jwb52z (or anyone, I'm just using you as an example), understand God? I mean completely and totally understand God. I won't answer that for you (you have a right to say "Yes" as long as you are not a danger to others.) Are you finite? (Same story on not answering for you.) Is your conception of God infinite? (I won't answer in case you are an ancient Greek.) Can a finite being ever completely and totally understand an infinite one?

Can a finite line encompass all the points of an infinite one? The points outside the finite line but in the infinite line are like the “contradictions” that any smarty-pants points out. Yeah, they exist. They have to exist if the infinite line is really infinite.

Lack of ability to understand is not humanity being confused. Lack of ability to understand is not the same thing as, although realated to, not understanding. We couldn't understand God Himself even if we wanted to completely. God would not write things that we are not capable of understanding the way God would want us to understand it. God's Word is the only thing we have to go on to know what He wants, so consequently, an infinite God would not allow confusion to be purposely inserted into His Word if He truly wants to be understood and obeyed.

"That's the other bit I was trying to think of - the books of Moses include an account of Moses' death. He most assuredly did *not* write that. I also don't recall saying that Moses wrote any of this, and the current scholarly consensus is that he didn't. "

Only the last few verses of Deuteronomy contain an account of his death. Obviously added by someone...most likely Joshua.

Are these the same "scholarly consensus" that think the book of Isaiah was written by many people?

"In fact, that's *exactly* what it says."

Nope. It doesn't. You're reading more into that to makes excuses for why you think the bible contradicts itself.

"So, um, why wasn't once enough? Why repeat it verbatim four times? Why use different names for God in the different accounts? Reading this literally, one must think that either God is forgetful or Abraham is."

Or that God is reassuring Abraham and remind him.

Sorry, but this isn't like nitpicking Star Trek. This is history. It really happened. Archeology (sp?) has proven the bible accurate. Only because skepticism is "cool" these days does anyone claim there are contradictions in the bible.

Jwb52z,

If Matthew Patterson can prove conclusively that the Bible is self contradictory and you claim the big guy himself wrote it (God would not write things that we are not capable of understanding the way God would want us to understand it. - Jwb52z) you would not want the old "we'll never understand HIS ways" exit because that would mean sometimes we are just incapable of understanding Him (or Her/It/them/nothingness/whatever)?

Horrible sentence. If I had the time I would revise it. I’m not you, but I would want the out. (Especially since I think Matt is right.)

Anyway, Rene seems to be doing OK. Maybe it is moot.

Are these the same "scholarly consensus" that think the book of Isaiah was written by many people?

Most likely. And honestly, which seems more logical: That one person wrote in two wildly different styles, or that two different people's writings got put together under the name Isaiah?

Archeology (sp?) has proven the bible accurate.

Document your claims, please. I seem to recall that they have *not*, in fact, found much evidence for, say, massive Hebrew slavery in Egypt. Which doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen, it just means that nothing is proven.

If Matthew Patterson can prove conclusively that the Bible is self contradictory and you claim the big guy himself wrote it (God would not write things that we are not capable of understanding the way God would want us to understand it. - Jwb52z) you would not want the old "we'll never understand HIS ways" exit because that would mean sometimes we are just incapable of understanding Him (or Her/It/them/nothingness/whatever)?

The first "if" in your statement is a pretty big one, as I cannot prove anything about anything, particularly when talking about a work of history and literature and religion. Nothing is ever *proven* in these fields.

I'm not going to take this much further, because neither of us is going to get anywhere. I only wonder why you seem to think that your faith breaks down if the most minor detail can be shown to have happened a different way than it is written. Faith is all about mysteries and things passing human understanding. What a shame that you want to limit it to the realm of provable fact.

::If Matthew Patterson can prove conclusively that the Bible is self contradictory and you claim the big guy himself wrote it (God would not write things that we are not capable of understanding the way God would want us to understand it. - Jwb52z) you would not want the old "we'll never understand HIS ways" exit because that would mean sometimes we are just incapable of understanding Him (or Her/It/them/nothingness/whatever)?:: Blue Berry

I don't think we are capable of understanding EVERYTHING, but I do think God would not write things past our ability to understand and then still expect us to understand them. Trying, on the other hand, is a different matter. There's nothing against TRYING to understand God, it's just impossible.

::Most likely. And honestly, which seems more logical: That one person wrote in two wildly different styles, or that two different people's writings got put together under the name Isaiah?:: Matthew Patterson

Unless I'm vastly incorrect, I've heard of authors writing different kinds of books that require different styles of writing to be written proficiently enough for their purpose and to be worthy of being published. Also, why would the second suggestion you give happen?

::Faith is all about mysteries and things passing human understanding. What a shame that you want to limit it to the realm of provable fact.:: Matthew Patterson

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, so says the Bible. The thing is though that if what you have Faith in proves not to be exactly correct, that means you had faith in the wrong thing. Therein lies the problem. That's why we believe it has to be correct the way it is written, at least, I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way here. If you have Faith in the wrong thing, that displeases God, and displeasing God is a sin. I hope this makes more sense to you now.

Also, why would the second suggestion you give happen?

Because scribes and translators and compilers make mistakes, or because writers want to increase their popularity by calling themselves by the name of someone who was already famous. This probably happened with all four of the canonical Gospels and a few of Paul's letters.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, so says the Bible. The thing is though that if what you have Faith in proves not to be exactly correct, that means you had faith in the wrong thing. Therein lies the problem. That's why we believe it has to be correct the way it is written, at least, I hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way here. If you have Faith in the wrong thing, that displeases God, and displeasing God is a sin. I hope this makes more sense to you now.

The trouble is that I can't see that "I believe in God the father almighty, the creator of heaven and Earth" and "I believe that Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, killed Sisera, commander of the Canaanite army, with a tent peg through the head" are equivalent statements. The first is theology; the second history. What I've been saying is that the *history* of events is not so much important, because it's the *theology* that distinguishes the faith.

"Most likely. And honestly, which seems more logical: That one person wrote in two wildly different styles, or that two different people's writings got put together under the name Isaiah?"

Obviously you haven't done much research if you ask that question.

So, not only do I believe your knowledge of the bible is sad, but if you think the bible is that bad with contradictions and yet still have "faith" (even though I think it's very weak faith...if you did have real faith, you'd believe what the bible says), I have no idea why you have anything to do with the bible at all.

I can't help myself, but I just HAVE to say this. Am I the only one that thinks Rene has had a slight change in some way. It feels like he's had a personality shift. If not, it's me and we're alot more alike than I knew.

Jwb52z,

I have not been following this, but knowing how Rene has been impersonated before I think it is a cause for concern.

That's true, Blue Berry. I just hope it's not the case.

Jwb-

I have always felt that you two were a lot alike. That is why you often end up at loggerheads. But you're right, the two of you are getting along much better lately.

I'm not sure about other boards, but here at RM, you and he have been posting for the last week or two mainly in topics where you happen to be on the same side. Neither of you has posted on the Trinity or the Name of God boards in a while.

(Neither have I, but I am still planning to finish my examination of my understanding of the Trinity soon.)

It's me...Rene. Proof? Okay....um....anyone who hates Deep Space Nine sucks!

Relax, Roving Moderator. I'm kidding

Anyway, if you believe the book of Isaiah was written by more than one person, then you think the bible writers are liars. Anytime the book of Isaiah is quote from in the New testament, the writer says something like "just as Isaiah the Prophet said..." or "the Prophet Isaiah".

The language used in the book itself proves it was one writer.

As for any supposed change in style, he was a prophet for 46 years.

And the bible itself treats the book of Isaiah as one book with one writer. If you think otherwise, then you must think the bible is a liar. And if yo think so, then it's ridiculous to have faith in it.

And the bible itself treats the book of Isaiah as one book with one writer. If you think otherwise, then you must think the bible is a liar. And if yo think so, then it's ridiculous to have faith in it.

As you like. I'm not discussing this with you again, as you've ignored every point I've tried to make.

Pot. Kettle. Black.


Not to mention the fact you ask me for documentation, but I can't help but notice you don't provide any either.

So...again...
Pot. Kettle..oh you get the idea.

Pot. Kettle. Black.


Not to mention the fact you ask me for documentation, but I can't help but notice you don't provide any either.

So...again...
Pot. Kettle..oh you get the idea.

But I make the point again. The book of Isaiah is written with the impression of one writer that has written down prophecies that have come true. The multiple writer theory is used by those who can't accept that the bible's prophecies have come true and use it as an excuse to claim the "prophecies" were written after the fact.

So I can understand why you'd have faith in the bible if you think it's being deceptive.

I mean, I can't understand...not I can.

finding God

Among Wealthy Nations …
U.S. STANDS ALONE IN ITS EMBRACE OF RELIGION

Electron,

I was expecting a US bashing article. I was disappointed.

Well, MarkN already posted that cartoon link on PM a few days ago and I thought that was enough Bushing for this week...

I don't know where this belongs exactly, but it was funny. Cut and pasted from The Onion:


"Supernatural Powers Vested In Local Pastor
BILOXI, MS—Michael Cotto, 27, and Laura Winningham, 26, were pronounced husband and wife Monday, thanks to the supernatural powers vested in local Presbyterian minister Gerald Dreisbach by the Lord Himself. "We are so lucky to live near a man who is an actual conduit of God's will," Cotto told reporters after the ceremony. "We wouldn't have been able to get married otherwise." Dreisbach has also used his otherworldly authority to call for good fortune in the lives of parishioners, as well as swift passage to heaven for the deceased."

Fred Rogers, aka Mister Rogers of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" has died of stomach cancer at age 74.

I don't know wher to put this. Religious Pot Pouri seems like a good place. Any one see any obvoius internal inconsitancies?

Goodwin. Highlight.

Moderator's Note: In my opinion this is not Godwinism, since the references to Hitler (and the rest of the Axis) were in the proper historical perspective. Besides, the post is too long to highlight the whole thing. Therefore I changed the white font to gray.

I’m not very religious, but there is something. Don’t get me wrong. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, etc. cannot be proven. (They cannot be disproven either.) What I can “prove” is a very impersonal GOD (or Q) that only shows his hand when he has too. (Before anyone says how no sparrow falls without him knowing it, let me reply that did a lot of good for the sparrow.)

My first quibble with myself is the word “proof”. If a guy throws twelve sevens in a row is not proof the dice are loaded, however that would be my guess. Since I won’t get to examine the dice until I’m dead, I’ll just take all the rolls of sevens as “proof.”

Next I need a clear conflict with good guys and bad guys. Although winners write history, they usually try to minimize luck and we can all agree an Axis win in WWII would have been bad.

Don’t get me wrong. The Allies are far from perfect. Compare them however with their opponents, however.

United States vs. Imperial Japan (Bash the US all you want, but if you do not think the US are the good guys in that one, who would you rather be taken prisoner by?)

Great Britain vs. Italy of Mussolini (Churchill in a cake walk over El Duce.)

Soviet Union vs. Nazi Germany (OK, this one is close. After multiple sudden death overtimes [penalty kicks for you soccer fans] Stalin is a good guy when compared to Hitler. It is probably the only time Stalin is a good guy.)

Now we have to assume about the Deity. So I won’t upset too many people let’s call him, “Q.” I apologize to the Wiccans, but John DeLancie is a man, last I checked.

Let’s assume that time travel is, for whatever reason, not a good option. That unfortunately fits the fact that Hitler wasn’t killed in a freak bus accident in 1922. Let’s assume that “Q” generally stays out of everything and only interferes when he has to and he held out hope we’d straighten it out ourselves. The Fall of France cured him of that notion.

That’s when the dice act funny.

First we have Dunkirk. If the English army does not escape The Nazis have a much easier time if they invade England. As Ike pointed out when the US entered the war and there was a cry to get the Japanese first, we needed England at least as a base and we had to help it while it was still there.

The little ships that brought the army out of Dunkirk allowed it to “still be there”. The Luftwaffa could have sunk many ships in the channel. Why they didn’t is irrelevant. That they held their fire was the first “7” the allies rolled.

Second, is the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. England was not off the hook after Dunkirk. An invasion, however, yielding air supremacy is too $tupid. The bad news for England was the Battle of Britain was going badly. I forget where, but I remember reading they’d only last a few more weeks if the Nazis kept going after their air bases. Then “Q” gets involved again. I forget the city; I forget why the Nazi Bombers were so far off target. They bomb a civilian target, say Lancaster or some city. That angers Churchill and the Brits bomb Berlin. That angers Hitler and the Blitz starts.

A just and loving God does not bomb civilians. This isn’t God, however, it is “Q”. The moving to “the Blitz” is another roll of “7” that allows England to “still be there”.

Number three is in Greece. Italy invaded Greece. Mussolini was having a hard time of it. Hitler helped him out. To do so he postponed his invasion of the Soviet Union. I forget the actual dates but I think he was planning on May but had wait until August. Three more non-winter months would have helped the Nazis.

Number four is the Japanese not invading the Soviet Union. Troops from Manchuria would have had easy access and if Stalin didn’t have the option of moving his industries over the Urals to saftey he’d have lost.

Number 5 comes on Dec. 8, 1941. The Enterprise came back to Pearl Harbor. Bald-faced luck (rolling a 7) saved the only three carriers the US had in the Pacific at the start of the war. To hold off the Japanese advance, Admiral Nimitz would need them unsunk.

Number 6 comes on Dec.9, 1941. The US is pussyfooting around. It declared war only with the Japanese. Hitler and Mussolini prevent the US from possibly making a serious mistake BY DECLARING WAR ON THE US. This despite having the same excuse the Japanese used for not attacking the Soviet Union. In a weird stroke of luck they are actually honorable and keep their agreement with the Japanese.

Number 7 comes at Midway. Until then the US might have to face the Japanese first despite what good sense says. I forget if it was the Hornet or Yorktown that the Japanese thought they had damaged so much at the battle of Coral Sea it was out of commission. Instead it limped to Midway. The Japanese still blundered into a trap, but the Americans screwed up so bad the extra carrier was needed.

Number 8 is also at Midway. (This is American centric; I make no apologies for being an American.) The Americans were “lucky” to discover the Japanese fleet without giving away the trap.

Number 9 is also at Midway. (Be patient, Brits, without Midway the Axis wins. Until then all the battles in the Pacific feature heroic last stands by American forces. If not for Midway the US would have to face the Japanese and Britain faces the Nazis alone.) Americans don’t attack in waves on purpose. That is a bit of psychology lost on people who might think some lives worth more than others. The plan was for a massed assault.However, the timing was got screwed up, badly. The massive assault by three carriers’ planes on five carriers (and their planes) might not have worked as well as the attack in waves that resulted. The attack in waves even allowed the carrier to be caught trying to rearm their bombers and have explosives on deck. The accidental attack in waves needed a third carrier’s planes. Lucky break number 9 allowed the US to completely stop the Japanese at the cost of the carrier that limped to Midway and focus its attention on Europe.

Number 10 is the invasion of Italy. Any numskull can tell you that after Sicily you go to Italy. How anyone could believe you would split your forces and invade southern France and Greece is beyond me. That is what the Allies allegedly sold the Nazis because Italy was obvious, too obvious.

Number 11 is the weather over the English Channel on D-Day. The Germans were so sure the weather was too bad for an amphibious landing that their commander was away. I forget if it was his wife’s birthday party or a meeting of goosesteppers anonymous. If it rained then Hitler gets another year to develop a “super weapon” like jet aircraft or missles that can hit New York.

Number 12 was the Nazi failure at the Battle of the Bulge. Whether you attribute it to stubborn resistance by the besieged Americans at Bastogne, Patton turning the third army left without preparation or planning, Montgomery taking command of American units in the north, Patton’s weather prayer, or Nazi failure to capture adequate supplies in Bastogne. The result is the same. A battle that could’ve been lost was won through the allies’ lucky breaks.

Make no mistake about numbers 11 and 12. The Nazi’s were on the defensive, but could “come back”. After the Battle of the Bulge it was all over except Hitler’s admission he lost.

The picture that emerges is fuzzy. It is an impersonal “Q” that does not care about individuals. (Or if it does care, is not as obvious in acting.)

The “Q” also sees the ends justifying the means on occasion. I know that won’t sit well.

End Highlight

Blue-

This reminds me of an article Isaac Asimov once wrote. He was remarking on religious types (IIRC, specifically Creationists) who pointed to extremely unlikely coincidences and claimed that because they "defied the laws of probability," they proved the existence of God.

He then wrote that if the chance of something occurring is 1 in 10, then if you have 100 events -- 100 chances for it to happen -- it should occur about 10 times. If the chances are 1 in 100 and you have 1000 events you should again see it about 10 times. and so on. In all of history there are billions of events, so you should expect to occassionally see events whose likelihood is of the order of 100 million to one.

Then he gave an example. Pompey, the Roman general of the first century BCE, was a golden boy. He could do no wrong. Asimov gave example after example of him being in the right place at the right time. Even when he made some serious mistakes, the outcome was better than if he had followed the proper advice. His enemies made mistakes when they knew better, and they often just had an unaccountable streak of bad luck when they went up against him. Then Asimov skipped over one incident in Pompey's life. With the next incident, Pompey's luck had changed. No matter what he attempted, he could not get it right. He never won another battle, he lost his wealth, and his health, etc.

Altogether Asimov must have documented about twenty "good" incidents before the skipped incident and twenty "bad" ones afterward. And what was the incident that he'd skipped over? Pompey desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem.

He then explained that even this coincidence didn't shake his atheism because he expected this kind of coincidence.

Your right. It doesn't prove anything.

If Joe Palooka throws stones over his should and they spell out "ELVIS LOVES TUNA!" that proves nothing as that pattern had just as much chance as any random pattern. I wouldn't claim the person who thinks something is fishy is wrong. Paranoia helps! (Oh, pun intended.)

You can't examine the dice, but if someone rolls sevens repeatedly I would strongly suspect they are loaded. Of course, I'm just paranoid.

Found this on another forums. It's very funny.

Comprehensive Analysis of World Religions

Taoism: Sh*t Happens
Confucianism: Confucius say, "Sh*t Happens"
Buddhism: If Sh*t Happens, it isn't really Sh*t
Zen (Rienzi): What is the sound of Sh*t Happening?
Zen (Soto): Sh*t just Happens
Hinduism: This Sh*t Happened before
Sikhism: Leave our Sh*t alone
Jainism: Don't accidentally swallow flies and Sh*t
Islam: If Sh*t Happens, it is the will of Allah
Nation of Islam: Don't take no Sh*t!
Hare Krishna: Sh*t Happens, Sh*t Happens, Rama Rama *ding ding*
Agnosticism: Does Sh*t Happen?
Atheism: No Sh*t!
Catholicism: Sh*t Happens because you are BAD
Protestantism: Catholics are full of Sh*t
Methodism: Let Sh*t Happen to somebody else
Calvinism: Sh*t Happens because you don't work hard enough
Presbyterianism: This Sh*t was bound to Happen
Episcopalians: If Sh*t Happens, hold a procession
Lutheranism: Sh*t Happens, but as long as you're sorry, it's OK
Anglicanism: Sh*t Happens, but only to Lutherans
Mormonism: Excrement Occurs
Baptist: You're Sh*tting all wrong, and you're going to hell for it, too
Pentecostals: Praise the Sh*t!
Christian Science: Sh*t is all in your mind
Existentialism: What is Sh*t anyway?
Hedonism: There's nothing like a good Sh*t Happening
Dadaism: Bathtub full of power tools
Jehovah's Witness: *knock, knock* Sh*t Happens!
Televangelism: Your tax-deductible donation can prevent this Sh*t from Happening
Fundamentalism: There's no Sh*t in the Bible
Creationism: Sh*t has only been Happening since October 23rd, 4004 B.C.
Judaism: Why does Sh*t always Happen to us?
Reform Judaism: Got any laxatives?
Moonies: Only happy Sh*t really Happens
Wicca: Sh*t is part of the Goddess, too
Paganism: Sh*t Happens for a variety of reasons
Pantheism: It's all a bunch of Sh*t
Panentheism: Sh*t transcends us
Mysticism: This is some weird Sh*t
Unitarianism: Go ahead, Sh*t anywhere you want
Vegetarianism: If it Sh*ts, don't eat it
Scientology: All this Happens to be Sh*t
Church of the Sub Genius: Sh*t has happened. For "Bob" will sell you a way to MAKE MONEY FROM IT.
Discordianism: Hail Sh*t!
Seventh Day Adventist: No Sh*t on Saturdays
Amish: Sh*t is good for the soil
Stoicism: This Sh*t is good enough for me
Zoroastrianism: Sh*t Happens half the time
Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this Sh*t
Voodoo: Let's stick some pins in this Sh*t
Twelve Step Program: Sh*t Happens one day at a time
Environmentalism: Sh*t is biodegradable
New Age: It's not Sh*t, it's feldspar

MarkN,

That is a sh*tty post.


(OK, lol, for you humor impared people.)

I saw a variation of that list once. It also had...

Native Americans: We want our sh*t back!

I've always wondered why the Irish add an "e" to the end of that word? Is it like the English changing *rse to *ss as a euphemism many centuries ago and recently changing it back to *rse because *ss is now cosidered the more vulgar of the two? Or is it a conflagration of the English word, and an Irish equivalent?

The word "shite" with an E is pronounced differently. It is probably the same thing between arse and ass.

I don't know where else to put this bit of doggerel. This board is not as deep as a well nor as wide as a church door, but 'twill serve.

One question in my mind is paramount.
Are there mattresses in Heaven?
On percale sheets do angels do a thread count?

To new entrants are pillows given?
Can saints sleep?
Are there mattresses in Heaven?

“So as ye sow, so shall ye reap.”
Can I sow a field of poppies?
Can saints sleep?

Of the Bible or whatever I’ll illuminate copies.
Before napping in the crop I sowed.
(Can I sow a field of poppies?)

One thing I need to know,
One question in my mind is paramount—
Before napping in the crop I sowed
On percale sheets do angels do a thread count?

In the news from Yahoo:
Romanian priest unrepentant after crucifixion of nun

TANACU, Romania (AFP) - A Romanian Orthodox priest, facing charges for ordering the crucifixion of a young nun because she was "possessed by the devil," was unrepentant as he celebrated a funeral ceremony for his alleged victim.

Apparently the young lady was chained to a cross and kept for several days gagged without food and water in an effort to excorcise satan out of her.

I have no comment on this.

The power of Christ compels you. The power of Christ compels you.

A couple of interesting news items I just saw:

SELMER, Tenn. - A minister's wife was charged Friday with shooting her husband to death in the parsonage in a crime that shocked the congregation and shattered the couple's happy and loving image.

Apparently the wife (Mary Winlker) shot and killed her husband of 10 years in their bedroom.(Mathew Winkler minister of the church of christ(Fundamentalist)) She was arressted in Alabama with the couples 3 kids. She is in custody and the kids are with their paternal grandparents.Police are not releasing any motives.

No real comment on this one as there isnt enough information available yet. Though it does raise some suppositions.

IN afghanistan the new government is facing an interesting legal challnge as charges where brought against a young man for conversion to christianity.

Rahman faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws for converting 16 years ago while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

The punishment under islamic law is death. And since afghanistan is still a theocracy with strong clerical control of governmental positions most of the laws are based on religious texts. Senior clerics are saying they will inctie people to kill him.

Gee sure would be nice to have some seperation of church and state over there wouldnt it? This is why ANY form of government is better than a theocracy.

Suppositions about what? That murders are committed by people? That families can have behind the door problems?

That he was an abusive, bible thumping, jesus freak who wanted his wife silent, barefoot and pregnant? That he took the bible as the literal way to treat his wife including the parts on stoning her and his kids when they misbehave.

anonbiblethumpingidiot: Exactly how many deaths are caused by being those thing? Please provide statisitics. I'm guessing more black men die of heart disease every year, but that supposition, if made, would be immediately denounced as racist, regardless of it's truth or context.

R: Sorry, I doubt an extra paragraph in the Afghan constitution would make a difference in this case. There is no secular legal tradition in most Islamic States, and Afghanistan is always behind the times.

Matt,

Actually, Afghanistan was quite modern in the '70s. The Soviet invasion in 1980 led to todays mess.

What you're defending being an abusive, bible thumping, jesus freak?

Its not just how many people those kinds of freaks kill but how many people they hurt and abuse. The guy probably beat his wife and kids like it says in the bible to do and she had had enough.

Pesti I doubt a paragraph or two (or an entire fedralist paper) would do much good. But then again that is the problem with theocracies.

And as for the suppositions all I will say is this. That when a person takes the bible too litterally especially the directives on how to treat your wife and children like many of the christian taliban do then it would lead to beatings and abuse and that may have happened in that case.

Seriously, folks. The man is dead, and even if he weren't, he's not here to speak for himself. Quit accusing him of heinous crimes without evidence. And let's be a bit careful about conflating "fundamentalist Christian view of marriage" with "spousal abuse," R. (Note: This is not an attempt to engage in debate on this topic. This is a friendly reminder.)

Sorry about that MPatterson you are right the man is dead and there has been no evidence turn up yet as to why one way or the other. So ascribing any motive right now for this would be innappropriate.

However it has been my experience that the two positions usually do go together. That usually the most bible thumping pious arsehat turns out to also be an abuser and wife beater. Not to say that that behavior is exclusive to the christian taliban just that they hide behind their relgion and their bible for it. Which if you read the bible litterally gives them permission to do so. If you want to take one part of the bible litterally you have to take it all or you are being a hypocrit. You cant say this verse that condemns homosexuality is right and we shall obey it and this verse that says we should beat our wives and our children is wrong and we shant obey it. Not if you want to be able to claim the bible is a road map for how a person is supposed to behave.

The Bible does not advocate the beating of wives.

R, see above re: "friendly reminder." There is a certain standard of civility here, and to come right out and say "fundamentalist Christians usually beat their wives" is way out of bounds. Restrain yourself to what can be supported by evidence of some kind, or drop the subject.

Scott N: Not exactly. I agree with you that the 70's were a Afghan Golden Age, but the region as a whole is at the frontiers of Islamic Civilization. Like Scotland or Finland or Russia is to the West.

Look, the only people who belive that the Bible condones Domestic violence are those Leftists trying to use it as a reductum ad absurdum concerning Homosexuality in the form where "If you think the Bible condemns homosexuality, why doesn't it condemn x" where x is a supposedly archacic law on cattle ranching or mixing crops. (The short answer is ask a rabbi.) The simpler answer is that Bibical interpetation is harder than you think.

And speak no ill of the dead nor evil of the absent. And I thought Leftists immediately recoiled at trying to "blame the victim."

Matt Pesti, see above re: my friendly warning to R: "only wacky leftists think the Bible condones domestic violence" is exactly as flawed and counterproductive a statement as "fundamentalist Christians use the Bible to justify beating their wives." If you would like to engage in a substantive debate on these issues, great. Shooting universals past each other will get no one anywhere.

I've been away over the weekend, and I don't like what I've come back to.

R -- I'll accept that you just got carried away, but I will ask you to be more careful in the future.

anonwhatever -- I'd normally be inclined to ask you to be more careful as well, but your posts have been treading the line for a while, and the last one crossed it. Consider this your last warning.

I have been a bit stressed recently due to a lot of personal things that I will not bore you with.
So my normally cheery disposition has been replaced with folgers wolverine crystals. Believe me I have been put on notice by the wife to chill or she will hav eto chill me. (not exactly sure what she meant by that but since she said it while cutting the chicken for dinner I think I will be taking some more long walks in the woods.)
Again I do apologize for getting a bit tetchy about what is already a sensitive subject (and yes some of the personal issues do involve the christian taliban family members trying to pull some stunts against us)

MikeC. I have looked in the bible and you are correct there are no direct verses which state that the man is to beat his wife (though there are several that say stone an adulterer, an insubordinate son etc...)

However that being said there are several verses which I have seen and heard being used to justify spousal abuse by some CT members.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
and
(1 Peter. 3:1-6).Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

I have personally heard people use those as an excuse to be an abuser. (One time when I was in training to be a cop we went to a house on a domestic violence call. The guy was quoting bible verses saying that we had no right to interefere in his god given right to ensure his wife to be submissive or somethign like that. All i felt was sick and pity for the dumb bsrtd. Then anger when I saw his wife with a broken nose and two black eyes grab Dan (yes officer Dan and if you said that in that tone he would get very upset :-)) (the officer I was assigned to shadow) and beg him (Dan) not to take her husband as she deserved it for sinning against her husband and god. Anger because this guy had convinced his wife that it was okay for him to use her as a punching bag.) Not every christian will abuse. Not every person will abuse. However the christian fundamentalist mindset is so different and narrow from rational and intelligent people that from what I can see and tell it raises the probability of abuse. Which still doesnt say that every CT will abuse their wives. However there is this quote "Often abuse against women by men who claim to be Christians is more violent than for non-Christians, as these men mistakenly think God gave them the authority to mistreat their wives. These situations should be treated as highly dangerous.
(gospelthemes.com gospel press)" So even the church recognizes that there are those who use the christian god's name to abuse.

MPatterson. Thank you for the friendly warning but right now friendly warnings are not exactly getting throuhg the noise. I have had more unfriendly words directed at me by people (outsiders) than friendly so I am a bit on edge. Not a good reason I know but it is the only reason. I am a bit of an emotional person and vent rather like a geyser. Which actually according to a counselor I once spoke with is a good thing for me (bad for those around me) as it keep me from building my anger and frustration up to dangerous levels where I might do something much more stupid than sticking my foot in my mouth. I want to apologize to you directly for ignoring you and continuing to charge full steam ahead into the minefield.

Pesti: As for the preacher in tenn: I am not trying to blame the victim totally. However the facts of the case are as follows:
Married for 10 years.
Shot by wife in his bedroom.
Authorities have ruled out infidelity.
Preacher was a christian fundamentalist who was described as a by the book pastor.
No other information is being revealed to the press at this time.

So the facts in the case do lead one to make certain assumptions about the situation as can you think of anything else that would have been the reason for her to do this? If I am shown to be wrong then I will apologize and admit it. However if I am right then I would ask you do the same.

TomM: I wish to personally apologize for my actions and words in this to you. I have been fighting against the christian taliban for quite some time now. Heck I've been fighting for some time now about a lot of things (Worker's rights, several personal battles, father's rights in the child support system, etc...) and am getting a bit burned out. Add in being unemployed and told by the employment bur that the market is very tight right now and having to fight with my former employer as they are telling people a bunch of lies about my work history (such as I was a thief and lazy and a troublemaker. I may cop to the last one somewhat but the first two are dead wrong. I was only wrote up once in the 3 years I was there (speeding) and was one of the few people certified to drive the viper. I was also the only one who would make bank drops. There where times I'd be tossed the keys to a 20K car with a tank of gas and a bank pouch with 20k of cash in it. DO you do that with an untrustowrthy troublemaking thief? I dont think so. But I digress.) But anyhow I will attempt to reign things in a bit. At least unless provoked then I reserve the right of defense.

Ok now to touch on a couple of other things.

The guy in afghanistan who converted to christianity was released by the government. However many of the mullahs are still inciting the public to kill him for his transgressions. So he has begun the process to request asylum outside afghanistan.

Also due to several protests by the Westboro church at military funerals in Kentucky. Gov Fletcher has signed into law a bill prohibiting protests within 300' of a funeral or memorial service. Violaters can receive up to a year in jail.

Is there a religious news or religion in the news section somewhere? I was not able to find it which is why I dropped these thigns into the pot luck area.

Your assumption is just that, an assumption. There are literally millions of other reasons besides the minister being an abusive husband (which could very well be the truth too). It is equally as stereotypical as assuming that when a young black man dies, drugs were involved.

Those verses are tragically misinterpreted and any abuse that comes out of them should be clearly condemned.

I am agreeing with you MikeC on the verses.

I suppose I will also agree with you on the assumption. It was rather quick of me to jump on that particular cause but from the appearances it looked like that was the best fit. At least to me. And forgive me if I take a rather cynical view of the motivation of people. Experience and training helps in that.

The sad thing about sterotypes is that there are people who fit them though, maybe not all the time but at least some of the time...

>So the facts in the case do lead one to make certain assumptions about the situation as can you think of anything else that would have been the reason for her to do this? If I am shown to be wrong then I will apologize and admit it. However if I am right then I would ask you do the same.
-R

No. You don't get to make accusations against people based solely on your own personal biases and prejudices and then claim that you have to be shown to be wrong. It's intellectually dishonest, and bordering on libel. Attempting to claim otherwise only makes you look more irrational.

The scriptures you say that have been used to justify spousal abuse have to be distorted and taken well out of context to even begin to justify such assault. Both of the epistles referenced also direct husbands in how they are to behave toward their wives. In Ephesians, husbands are to "love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," (Eph 5:25) and 1 Peter calls on husbands to "be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect." (1 Peter 3:7)

To translate that as anything close to support spousal abuse requires almost as much mental gymnastics as the claim that the curse on Canaan in Gen 9:25-27 was in reference to African-Americans, despite the fact that the Canaanite peoples were not African at all!

When your read the Bible to see how it supports your position instead of looking to see if it supports your position, you can come up with a whole lot of wacky interpretations. When you put aside your own desires and prejudices, you'll likely find that you are in the wrong, no matter what side you were on to begin with. That's not to say that you might not be right on a specific point, but the attitude you may be exhibiting may be wrong, irrelevant of the argumentative point itself.

That said, R, if your personal issues are clouding your ability to hear friendly warnings and leading you to vent your anger and frustration in inappropriate ways, I would suggest that you not post until you have found some way to get past the issues, at least far enough that you aren't clouded by them. While it is less destructive to yourself to vent than to bottle, that doesn't mean you have free reign to vent, no matter the harm caused to others. I would suggest that you need to find a more productive way of venting, so that you neither hurt yourself nor others.

Dustin. First off I want to say that people, including christians, make prejudicial comments all the time. On this board there have been such comments made by persons towards myself as well. This is not to say that just because everyone else is doing it it makes it that much better but it does make it rather weak to use the terms libel and slander against one without condeming all.

Now as for the minister on that subject I am being objective in the rules of jury objectivity. The evidence as I see it and reported in the news leads me to believe that he was abusing her and she got tired of it and killed him. Listen to the words of her defense attorney. And dont talk about biases as the christian ttaliban have some of the worst biases on the planet.

I never said it was right or intelligent to use those verses as an excuse or justification of abuse just that it has been done. Like many of the verses in the bible that are used to excuse some of the worst and rotton and evil behavior on the planet. Those who do take the words of the bible and use them in that way are not good christians by anyone's definition I will agree. Nor are they ,more importantly, good humans. But then that sort of ignorance and hatred is not exclusive to the christian taliban.

Now as for myself. I am sorry for having a personal life that happens to be expereincing some difficulties right now. I am still attempting to be as objective as I can and in the initial reports I did not indulge in hate mongering christian bashing or let my biases get carried away with. I said the evidence raised certain supositions. Then I was told not to speak out of turn about this. I feel there is sufficient evidence to make the declarations that I did and I stand by those declarations.
He was a minister at a christian fundamentalist church that was described as a by the book minister. He was shot by his wife of 10 years. The police and prosecuters will not say why other than to rule out infidelity. Her lawyer has stated that she had a lot of reason and motives and that she is a bit emotionally overwhelmed right now. A lot of little things that added up over the years. Now this does not support or destroy the supposition that she was abused. But I made those original statements and I stand by them until sufficient evidence comes out to show them to be in error.

And trying to educate and spread the word about thigns that are going on is one way of relaxing as I did not get aggravated until AFTER I was uncalled for told not to make the comments I did. There was nothing "wrong" or incorrect in what I said. People are just all pissy and sensitive since it was a christian involved. Had I made those comments about a muslim or aethiest then not a word would have been said against me saying that. But since he was a minister he of course could not have done anything wrong and it is a great tragedy. Well sorry but ministers are human too. Nothing more and nothing less and are just as capable of doing the worst harms and evils. The only thing is they are in a position of power and authority that gives them tools they can use to carry out their actions.

>Dustin. First off I want to say that people, including christians, make prejudicial comments all the time. On this board there have been such comments made by persons towards myself as well. This is not to say that just because everyone else is doing it it makes it that much better but it does make it rather weak to use the terms libel and slander against one without condeming all.
-R

What does this have to do with anything? Are you honestly equating whatever minor squabbles have happened here with what you have done? Has anyone accused you of a crime with the legal and social ramifications even half as bad as spousal abuse? Unless such a thing happened, and a moderator failed to step in, your comparison is the same as comparing a pin prick to a gunshot wound.

>Now as for the minister on that subject I am being objective in the rules of jury objectivity. The evidence as I see it and reported in the news leads me to believe that he was abusing her and she got tired of it and killed him. Listen to the words of her defense attorney. And dont talk about biases as the christian ttaliban have some of the worst biases on the planet.
-R

WHAT?!? How in the world can you say that you are being as objective as a jury is supposed to. Juries are called to evaluate admissable evidence, without pre-existing prejudice, presented to them in an organized manner, with both sides able to present their full case. You have evaluated the lack of evidence, presented in a haphazard manner, with neither side presenting a full case, and then added your own prejudices in to make your determination.

Other people's biases are utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

>I never said it was right or intelligent to use those verses as an excuse or justification of abuse just that it has been done. Like many of the verses in the bible that are used to excuse some of the worst and rotton and evil behavior on the planet. Those who do take the words of the bible and use them in that way are not good christians by anyone's definition I will agree. Nor are they ,more importantly, good humans. But then that sort of ignorance and hatred is not exclusive to the christian taliban.
-R

So what was the point of bringing it up in the first place? No one questioned that people take the Bible out of context as a way of justifying their pre-existing behaviors and attitudes.

In fact, this all started with you, in your post on 3/26 at 9:19pm making the statement that the Bible, read literally, allows for spousal abuse. In your 3/27 3:58pm post, where you referenced the scriptures, you acknowledged that there is no direct statement supporting spousal abuse, then proceeded to post the scripture references that were used to support it. If you acknowledge that, in context, those scriptures don't condone spousal abuse, why the accusation to begin with?

>Now as for myself. I am sorry for having a personal life that happens to be expereincing some difficulties right now. I am still attempting to be as objective as I can and in the initial reports I did not indulge in hate mongering christian bashing or let my biases get carried away with. I said the evidence raised certain supositions. Then I was told not to speak out of turn about this.
-R

You might want to reread the thread again. The first time anyone told you not to speak out of turn, as you call it, was Matthew Patterson's friendly warning in his 3/26 9:19 pm post, which was in response to your claim in your 3/26 1:59 pm post that taking the Bible literally leads to beatings and abuse. Prior to that, the only post addressing you about this topic was MikeC's 3/25 11 am post asking you what suppositions you were talking about.

>I feel there is sufficient evidence to make the declarations that I did and I stand by those declarations. He was a minister at a christian fundamentalist church that was described as a by the book minister. He was shot by his wife of 10 years. The police and prosecuters will not say why other than to rule out infidelity. Her lawyer has stated that she had a lot of reason and motives and that she is a bit emotionally overwhelmed right now. A lot of little things that added up over the years. Now this does not support or destroy the supposition that she was abused. But I made those original statements and I stand by them until sufficient evidence comes out to show them to be in error.
-R

Aside from the lawyer's statement, which wasn't included in your initial statements and, as you say "does not support or destroy the supposition that she was abused," all you have is assumption and bias. You take the fact that she shot her husband, a fundamentalist pastor, and immediately jump to abuse, despite the fact that you have no evidence to even suggest it, let alone support it: no medical records of excessive bruising or broken bones, no accusation from the wife, no eyewitness accounts from neighbors or friends. You only have your own prejudices.

Even if you are correct, and he did abuse her, you have shown no evidence to support that statement. You've simply pulled an accusation from thin air that coincidentally cooresponds with reality. Just like all adult areas of inquiry, you can't just guess correctly; you have to show your work.

>And trying to educate and spread the word about thigns that are going on is one way of relaxing as I did not get aggravated until AFTER I was uncalled for told not to make the comments I did. There was nothing "wrong" or incorrect in what I said. People are just all pissy and sensitive since it was a christian involved. Had I made those comments about a muslim or aethiest then not a word would have been said against me saying that. But since he was a minister he of course could not have done anything wrong and it is a great tragedy. Well sorry but ministers are human too. Nothing more and nothing less and are just as capable of doing the worst harms and evils. The only thing is they are in a position of power and authority that gives them tools they can use to carry out their actions.
-R

Again, review the thread. You were making wild, unfounded accusations before anyone confronted you about it.

I sincerely doubt people would have let the statements go if they were against a Muslim or atheist, especially with so little in the way of evidence, let alone the suggestion that the rest of that group do likewise. We probably wouldn't be having a discussion of what the Quran says, since I doubt anyone here is familiar enough with it to intelligently argue the point, but the accusation would still be challenged.

No one ever said ministers were perfect. That is a total strawman. Ministers are indeed human beings, capable of all sorts of sins, both subtle and gross. That does not mean that you can make any accusation against them, irrelevant of evidence, and demand it be accepted as valid.

Finally, you said before that you couldn't hear a friendly warning through the noise. You also said that you vent your emotions in a way that is bad for others around you. Rather than simply venting in some selfish, "my emotional health is all that matters," way, I would suggest you find another way to deal with the situation that doesn't hurt yourself or others. It is not an either/or proposition.

Alright fine Dustin. Fine. I made a mistake. I had heard the bible used as an excuse to do violence against womena and what with all the other passages in there that do support doing violence or evil against people (stoning your children for disobedience, god's terroristic acts against egypt, taking virgin women and giving them as war booty to his men by moses,etc...)I thought that was in there too. After doing research I apologized for that as all it says is women should be submissive to their husband, which is taken by many people, especially christian taliban fundamentalists to be permission to make their woman submissive if she wont be on her own. one mistake does not make a fool. And I was apologizing for the tone of my message not the message itself. I feel that I cam to a logical and appropriate conclusion given the evidence that had peen presented in the news. You disagree with that. Fine. Thats nice. I disagree with your disagreement of that and thats the way she goes.

And you may be sure about that but I doubt it. I mean if it hadnt even been a minister it wouldnt have made a minor blip in the national news. The only reason anyone even cares is it was a minister that got shot.

But whatever. As for the minister he is dead his wife is in jail and their children are with their grandparents. A very bad thing happened. Regardless of who says what about it.

>Alright fine Dustin. Fine. I made a mistake. I had heard the bible used as an excuse to do violence against womena and what with all the other passages in there that do support doing violence or evil against people (stoning your children for disobedience, god's terroristic acts against egypt, taking virgin women and giving them as war booty to his men by moses,etc...)I thought that was in there too. After doing research I apologized for that as all it says is women should be submissive to their husband, which is taken by many people, especially christian taliban fundamentalists to be permission to make their woman submissive if she wont be on her own.
-R

While I appreciate the attempt to acknowledge your mistake, you still don't have all your facts straight, not even counting the "evils condoned by the Bible" trap. You never apologized for the error until now, you only acknowledged that the Bible never directly stated that spousal abuse was acceptable, then proceeded to say that the two citations were used to support that position. That doesn't read as an apology, but simply a clarification of details. If you intended it as, at the least, an admission of error, you need to work on your phrasing to make such things clear.

>one mistake does not make a fool. And I was apologizing for the tone of my message not the message itself. I feel that I cam to a logical and appropriate conclusion given the evidence that had peen presented in the news. You disagree with that. Fine. Thats nice. I disagree with your disagreement of that and thats the way she goes.
-R

You still don't get it. Your tone is secondary to the content of your message, especially in a written form as presented here. You made an accusation against an individual and an entire group of people based on the absense of information and your own prejudices. You even acknowledged it as an assumption to MikeC in your 3/27 9:38pm post. (As in "to accept something as existing or being true without proof or on inconclusive grounds"). That is insufficient justification for an accusation, especially one of this magnitude. You can't just walk away from that with an "agree to disagree" attitude.

You can hold whatever opinions you want to in the privacy of your own mind, but when you present them in an open forum like this, especially in an accusatory form, you are held to a degree of responsibility for your words. "Just my opinion" doesn't cut it.

>And you may be sure about that but I doubt it. I mean if it hadnt even been a minister it wouldnt have made a minor blip in the national news. The only reason anyone even cares is it was a minister that got shot.
-R

Your statement was that, had you made the statements you did against a muslim or an atheist, no one here would have challenged you like this. That is utterly seperate from how the national media may have portrayed or ignored the situation.

>But whatever. As for the minister he is dead his wife is in jail and their children are with their grandparents. A very bad thing happened. Regardless of who says what about it.
-R

Yes, a very bad thing happened. So why do you choose to compound it with unfounded allegations against a dead man?

Well sorry Dustin. But why is it when Zarm or another "christian" on here makes unfounded comments against aethiests or homosexuals or other non-christians you dont come out with this rightious indignation. Your entire attitude just makes it sound like you are getting all pissy because of what I said against a priest. Like anyone else is fair game but not priests.

And thank you very much for reminding me of my responsibilites. I am very well aware of them. But as long as I do not break the rules of the forum I can make what statements I wish. Opinion and speculation and wild arse guesses are all not prohibited here (nor in the United States of America 1st amendment you know) and speculating that Winkler was abusive is while disagreeable to you it isnt to me. So thank you but this is a moot point.

And now anyhow the defense is raising the post partum depression defense and hinting that theya re going to ask for a psychiatric evaluation.

>Well sorry Dustin. But why is it when Zarm or another "christian" on here makes unfounded comments against aethiests or homosexuals or other non-christians you dont come out with this rightious indignation. Your entire attitude just makes it sound like you are getting all pissy because of what I said against a priest. Like anyone else is fair game but not priests.
-R

You'll notice that I have made a total of 6 posts in RM ever, all within the last couple of weeks. I intentionally avoided RM and PM specifically to avoid being drawn into protracted debates that, at the time, quickly turned into flame wars. Only since I have been unable to post on a regular basis to the TV nit boards have I even begun participating in these forums. I wasn't here when Zarm and others have done so, so suggesting that I haven't responded the same way because of some bias on my part is unwarranted.

Nothing in anything I have posted suggests that I am reacting because he is a pastor (priests are Catholic and related religions). As I said before, whether this was a Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, Agnostic, Mormon, priest, lay person, convicted felon, Martian, etc is irrelevant. You have made a serious accusation against someone based solely on their religion and your own prejudices, in the utter absence of facts.

>And thank you very much for reminding me of my responsibilites. I am very well aware of them. But as long as I do not break the rules of the forum I can make what statements I wish. Opinion and speculation and wild arse guesses are all not prohibited here (nor in the United States of America 1st amendment you know) and speculating that Winkler was abusive is while disagreeable to you it isnt to me. So thank you but this is a moot point.
-R

The 1st amendment does not allow you to say whatever you want with no consequences whatsoever. Libel, slander and defamation laws are indeed enforcable in court.

As for the rules of this forum, I'd love to see how accusing someone of spousal abuse without any evidence qualifies as "good cheer".

>And now anyhow the defense is raising the post partum depression defense and hinting that theya re going to ask for a psychiatric evaluation.
-R

So, you now have even less reason to believe that he abused his wife. Odd how you still won't back down from the accusation.

So Dustin, how did that Voyager story go? (Yeah, I know it's OT, but I hardly ever get a chance to talk to ya. )

Dustin. I have seen you name around and figured that you might have at least seen or head about the conflagrations that occured involving him. If not then sorry.

And you are saying that if a "Christian" attacked or made the same or similar "unfounded" accusations against say a muslim or an Aethiest you would react with the exact same vehement rightuos indignation? That you would defend a non-christian say a mullah with the same strength and vigor? If so then you are a better person than some around here.

And thank you for the slight reminder about first amendment law. I was in training to be a law enforcement officer and have also been an activist for the past 15 years for several different subjects so I am well aware of 1st amendment and the law. I did not say he was an abuser. I said the evidence as it has been presented so far makes me think and feel that he was an abuser. That is not libel. That is not slander. That is a statement of MY opinion. Your opinion may (and apparently does) vary. And like I've said repeatedly I feel there is enough evidence at this time to support my belief in this. I mean there is the same amount of belief for god and religion but people still believe in that.

A request by the defense for a psychiatric evaluation does not diminish the possibility of him having abused her (if anything it supports it) as abuse survivors have a range of psychiatric issues that they have to resolve. And besides it is the defense's duty to utilize whatever manouvers it is capable of to defend their client.

>So Dustin, how did that Voyager story go? (Yeah, I know it's OT, but I hardly ever get a chance to talk to ya. )
-Luigi Novi

Sorry to say, it stalled. It turned into a whole lot of navel gazing, and I stopped until I could find a way around it. I finally did (I was writing Admiral Paris all wrong), but I haven't had the time to get back to writing again. Hopefully soon, though.

>And you are saying that if a "Christian" attacked or made the same or similar "unfounded" accusations against say a muslim or an Aethiest you would react with the exact same vehement rightuos indignation? That you would defend a non-christian say a mullah with the same strength and vigor? If so then you are a better person than some around here.
-R

Yes, again, that is what I am saying. In fact, I would probably be more vehement against a Christian. Accusing someone of a major crime with nothing more than your own prejudices is wrong, but doing so while claiming to be in relationship with Christ is even worse. It diminishes and demeans the Lord's name in the eyes of the world when Christians act in that manner.

>And thank you for the slight reminder about first amendment law. I was in training to be a law enforcement officer and have also been an activist for the past 15 years for several different subjects so I am well aware of 1st amendment and the law.
-R

I'm not sure why your police training is relevant. The only Free Speech issues police would likely deal with are protests and threats. Libel and slander are generally civil issues, not criminal.

>I did not say he was an abuser. I said the evidence as it has been presented so far makes me think and feel that he was an abuser. That is not libel. That is not slander. That is a statement of MY opinion. Your opinion may (and apparently does) vary.
-R

You just keep dancing. Throwing "It's just my opinion" before an accusation doesn't change the fact that it is an accusation. I'd love to see you try such a reasoning in front of a judge. "Your honor, I didn't accuse him of being a child molester, I simply said that, based on the fact that he is a Catholic priest, that I think he is a child molester. It was just my opinion."

>And like I've said repeatedly I feel there is enough evidence at this time to support my belief in this. I mean there is the same amount of belief for god and religion but people still believe in that.
-R

What evidence? All that has been presented are the facts of the murder, which do nothing to point to spousal abuse, and a statement from the defense that they are seeking psychiatric consultation on a condition with little or no relation to spousal abuse. The only thing that suggests spousal abuse, and only in your own mind, is his role as a fundamentalist pastor.

And belief in God and religion are not accusations against someone of criminal acts, especially a brutal act like spousal abuse. They are utterly unrelated issues.

>A request by the defense for a psychiatric evaluation does not diminish the possibility of him having abused her (if anything it supports it) as abuse survivors have a range of psychiatric issues that they have to resolve. And besides it is the defense's duty to utilize whatever manouvers it is capable of to defend their client.
-R

Yes, abuse victims can have a range of psychiatric and phsychological issues. That does not mean that her husband was abusing her. There are numerous potential causes for this psychiatric condition, but from what I have read, there is nothing to suggest abuse as a potential cause. At most, there is a potential link between PPD and having a "poor relationship with husband or boyfriend," which seems rather tame wording for an abusive situation.

If the defense had any reason to believe that there was abuse in the relationship, they would likely be looking for a justification defense or a battered women syndrome/battered person syndrome defense. By starting with a post-partum depression defense, they hinder any further credibilty with the jury to make accusations against the husband. Either she has horribly inadequate defense counsel, or there is nothing to support even an accusation of abuse.

Well Dustin I am glad that you would defend anyone against that. There are too many who would not and who feel that just because they are christian's they are superior to anyone who is not. I am an aethiest but I do not care if someone feels different or if they are religious, as long as they leave me alone I'll leave them alone.

The Christian Taliban's attitude appears to be a lot like that of the Borg and if you are not in compleate agreement with them you are against them and since they are the chosen of god to oppose them is a mortal sin. Somewhat paraphrase of a comment directed at me during a confrontation with a christian taliban member in Milford.

And my training and statement meant what i said it meant I am familiar with the applicable laws concerning freedom of speech and 1st amendment. I have not crossed ANY legal lines and will not do so. And I have heard this reasoning before in front of a judge as I have sat on juries several times in my life. And from what I recall sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt.

Also I said that belief in god not as a support or equalling that with criminal activity but that there is NO evidence for God or Jesus being a real person or that religion is rightother than the word of the church but people still believe in that.

And as I was goign to say tonight when I posted. It does appear that the initial estimates of her reasons where incorrect. I was not wrong for or in saying what I said but the content of the message was incorrect. This appears to be an ugly and complex issue, and most unfortunate. For that I am sorry.

While I am tempted to respond point-by-point about the numerous issues you've brought up, I know enough to know that it would be fruitless. Therefore, I will accept your acknowledgement of your mistake (however minimal)and apology, and call it a day.

As it is, PM is looking alot more interesting right now anyway.

Thank you. despite appearances contrary I am a reasonable person for the most part.

And yes PM is very interesting right now.

OK Since i'm out of wrok right now I am looking quite hard (since I have the ambition to get a job) and have noticed a slightly annoying/disturbing trend among some companies.

The ads read like this blah inc., A Christian company, la da dee......

Ok now thats all fine and dandy if the company makes religious stuff or is involved in a church or church specific market. But I have seen plumbers, body shops, real estate agencies all saying this. Plumbers with the fish and that painted on the side of their trucks.

Now I'm not saying a person shouldnt be proud of their religion but to declare your company to be a christian one is just a step shy of declaring it a christian only one to me at least. Not really a big deal yet as these companies appear to still do business with whomever has the money just a slightly uncomfortable trend that could turn ugly.

Not really a big deal yet as these companies appear to still do business with whomever has the money

An even bigger concern would be their hiring practices. Many of these companies are small enough to be below the threshhold for state-mandated affirmative action programs, which is fine, but there is a big difference between their hiring practices not being regulated and saying that it's OK to practice blatant discrimination.

It's one thing to have an unrepresentatively high proportion of one kind of employee because you are a small family business and most of your employees are family members, and quite a different thing to refuse to hire someone whose skin color or religion is different.

Unfortunately the owners of these small businesses can often get away with it because they are below the radar of the regulatory agencies.

At this point I think that even though the religion of the companies' owners is, in part, the issue, it is really a political issue, better suited for PM

I have not tried to apply to any of these as for one reason or another they are outside the scope of my job search so I have no real idea about their hiring practices but yeah it would be interesting to find out how they treat or deal with their employees.

I may apply to one and see what their application/interview process is like and if there is anythign different. Now that would be ironic if I got a job at one.

And yeah I guess this would be more political on second thought. As it does involve the legality/illegality of this.

Of course, a "true" Christian* company shouldn't refuse to hire anybody because of their different religion (or non-religion), marital status, race, etc., since Jesus wasn't afraid of contact with Samaritans, tax-gatherers and similar, so Christians ought to be a positive example.

*In real life, in Germany, the Catholic church has been attacked several times for not hiring divorced or muslim faith people for jobs that were not important to religion, like cleaning ladies (mostly muslims) or similar. Of course, it comes down to freedom of whom to deal with vs. non-discrimination.

A Christian company should also follow higher ethical standards regarding good pay for their employees (no exploitation "You shouldn't bind the oxen's mouth when he is threshing"), safety for employees, no child labour in 3rd world countries etc. I wonder how many companies think of these christian values?

That reminds me of some radio host who saw an ad in the paper for an auto mechanic who advertised discounts for customers who were Christians. The host called up the place and asked "Can I also get a discount for being white?"

Constanze: I'll agree one would hope that it would be the case in a company describing itself as christian. Of course another issue is are they just using it as an advertising gimmick/adjective like honest or reliable or do they actually mean it. To put it another way are they Christians or are they "Christians".

Pence: Lovely. Wonder what else would get a person a discount.

I think we should have Lisa banned because she doesn't hold a left wing view of the world

Lisa, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. There have been several conservative posters (both in terms of religion and of social outlook (politics, philosophy of sociology, etc.) who have been on these boards and have been very well recieved.

Everyone, I will be cleaning up the "Homosexuality" and "Sin" boards this weekend. I will be deleting any posts that are more insulting than informative, and any posts that directly respond to those posts. I will be deleting them, not editing them. If there is a point that you wish preserved that you have made in a post I am likely to delete This is your chance to repost it civilly.

Wow, I think I've seen this post somewhere before, I can't quite put my finger on it tho. Oh yea, the other boards you posted it on. hehehe

No Brain, that's just the internet pixies trying to trick you again. I'd advise ignoring them lest you end up wandering into the darkness after them and find yourself lost in the vast network of tubes. Theres a good chance that you'd become trapped in a hellish landscape of Nickelback fansites and old Cathy cartoons.

Um. Brian. Not Brain, unless you happen to be a supergenius mouse or a crime fighting dog and I just haven't noticed it yet.

Narf!

Ah-hem. Poit.