Riled up by Christian music
I read with interest Roger Faber’s Aug. 29 letter, “Choir ban offensive,” in which he calls the decision to ban the gospel choir at the Columbine Memorial “offensive” and “insensitive.”
I would like to have a predominantly homosexual, devil-worshipping, communist choir sing at the event instead. I wonder if Faber would agree that keeping them from performing would be as “offensive” as excluding the gospel choir.
I can hear Faber out there asking the question, “Are there people who are as offended by Christian music as I am by homosexuality, communism and devil worshipping?” Honestly? Yes. Christians are so accustomed to walking all over everybody else that not having Christian music gets them all riled up.
If Faber finds not hearing Christian music so offensive, he is welcome to hum it to himself, which he probably has to do ’round the clock, since even the thought of a moment without it sends him into a tizzy.
Greg Palmer, Aurora
Memorials, eulogies and the like are for the living, the survviors, etc...as the dead...are dead and it makes no matter to them. It is only for the living to say goodbye(at least in the ideal world), but now it becomes a politcal football and everyone has(yes, including me) has to put in their two cents worth. A similar letter was posted some weeks ago and one person replied that maybe having a representative of each family give a little eulogy about each victim. This is the best idea...but it will not fly, because it seems like many people have to make some sort of cause, political statement out it...and in my opinion cheapens the whole memorial.
Posted by Yaakov on September 7, 2007 03:47 AMand so goes a tribute to the kids and teacher who lost their lives.
your wish for what you want is wonderful at your event but dont push it on others.
Greg, you are a freak.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 05:47 AMYour secular beliefs are your religion. By not hearing Christian music at this event, you and those who practice your religion have won the right to enjoy a memorial that practices your beliefs. I'd say that rather than it being Christians that walk all over everyone, this struggle is a religious arm wrestling match in which, in this decade at least, the Christians, despite having pretty good numbers, have regularly been the losers. That fact is kind of a bummer in a nation that practices freedom of religion and freedom of speech. In addition, the memorial is for those who were involved in or related to someone who was involved in the massacre. If the majority of those people happen to be Christians, it does not make sense that you and your kind can walk all over them and the methods by which they choose to publicly remember their friends and loved ones.
Posted by Vince on September 7, 2007 06:52 AMAs the saying says about opinions...everybody has one....and Greg Palmer is one of them.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 06:58 AMBoring...... Yawn....ZZZZZZ....
Posted by A on September 7, 2007 07:27 AMVince,
The left has made tolerance, which is a virture, a value. In fact, it seems to be the only value they hold. That is the point of Palmer's letter.
They see, and society accepts, that absence of prayer is a public school as a neutral, or tolerant, postion. It is not.
There two choices in a public school: the students can a) pray or b) not pray. Each is an affirmative choice and each sends a definitive message.
We have selected. The Ten Commandments have come down off the wall and the metal protectors have gone up on the doors. The crimes commited at Columbine, and subsequently schools across the nation, are in part the fruit of that choice.
We will start to make some progress when we come to realize that tolerance as a value is actually the absence of values.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:37 AMVince,
Make that metal detectors on the doors.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:40 AMJones' claim that tolerance has no value is so absurd as to make one wonder if he was serious. Of course, all virtues have value. It just may be that Jones needs a little further education in vocabulary.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 07:56 AMNow, chillun, You done heerd tha Word o' tha Lawd, as deee-liv-errd by our own bee-lov-ed Pastor Deacon James Jones.
Ain't no more dis-cuss-shun ne-cess-sary!
"Tain't no VALUE in thet thar tolernce bidnus; an them as air reeeel Christians ain't agonna do no more o' thet thar toleratein.
Thet thar's tha Word o tha Lawd!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 08:10 AMTruth,
You are correct - virtues have value. You have a mind with an iron-clad grasp on the obvious. It's in the area of comprehension that you need a little work.
My point is that when virtue becomes a value in and of istelf, then the ethical sense is actually void of values.
See the difference? It's actually not that nuanced.
If not, get someone else to explain it to you.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 08:11 AMA bigot is one who refuses to use rational discrimination when judging others. "All blacks are [whatever]". They paint with a group-wide brush, claiming that everybody in a group believes the same thing about a certain issue.
By that standard, Jones is clearly a bigot.
He says the left is opposed to prayer in school. Many on the left indeed are opposed to prayer in school. Many are not. Many on the right support prayer in school. Many do not.
Jones simply does not have the mental framework or the basic sense of fairness to appreciate the diversity of opinion on all sides of issues such as this.
An ABC poll in 2000 found that:
20% of Republicans do not support prayer in school.
59% of Democrats do support prayer in school.
I don't think Jones is a liar. I think he is just ignorant, an ignorance begotten by his failure to have that great value, tolerance. He is not far removed from those wild men standing on the street corner shouting out their prejudices. He is not a man to be trusted.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 08:19 AMTruth,
I'm pretty sure that Jones' point was that tolerance has become a societal value (the only one that the left accepts), where it should only be a personal virtue (and in the mainstream, there is little tolerance of un-PC thought by people on the right, such as the notion of allowing a Christian music group to sing at a memorial).
I digress though; I think most people on the right, including Jones, recognize that there is value in being tolerant as long as that tolerance is a two-way street and not the only value governing society.
Posted by Vince on September 7, 2007 08:23 AMJonesy,
Every once in a while you even out-do yourself. That one sentence there takes the cake.
" . . . when virtue becomes a value in and of itself, then the ethical sense is actually void of values."
That even beats out the one about chipmunks and the Moonlight Sonata, which you used way back when on the subject of abortion.
But, you are certainly showing your aptitude for a Pulpit! Totally meaningless double-talk, solemnly delivered with an offer of "explanation" yet!
De word o de Lawd, straight from the . . . (you pick the orfice) . . . of Preacher Deacon Jones!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 08:42 AMAren't most choirs already predominantly homosexual? It may be that they are in the closet. Maybe Greg can sue somebody. All the poor Christians are being discriminated against so that must be the new thing to do. sue for all the unwarranted funds you can get.
Posted by just sayin' on September 7, 2007 09:15 AMIf the kids and the teacher were christians then christian music is morally and ethically the right thing because the event is in remembrance of them. If they were not so religiously affiliated than it is not right. What the living want is not the point nor is it morally or ethically right for them to create a bebacle of a memorable service that has nothing to do with them. And shame on those who think it right to drag this into the swamp of inane and meaningless arguement.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 7, 2007 09:27 AMVince,
I do. If in fact Mr. Palmer wants to hold memorials based on homosexuality, communism and devil worshipping then he has the perogative to do so. It's a free country.
Another point I didn't make is that despite all the rhetoric, the religious tend to be much more tolerant than the secular.
Personally, I don't think Palmer will draw much of a crowd.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 09:45 AMI don't object to Greg's sentiment on Communism and Devil worshipping; however, his hatred of gay people; his hated of those born left-handed; his hatred of people because of the way they were born is reprehensible. Could Greg have helped the way he was born? I've sired five and none have been born left-handed. Greg would hate one of my kids had he/she been born left-handed. Greg is a very offensive person.
That "jew" from the "loins of David" with his Holy Genocide imminent beginning within a generation of his assisted suicide is a one-jew plague on the world. In Luke 19:27 (his fan club said [because the jew never reduced one word of what he allegedly said to print]) the jew said to kill all those who would not that a king should reign over them so more than Saddam needed killing this king of the jew needs to die and this Deicide, is the guy to do to the jew what he would do to the Deicide. Ah! This god crap is so ridiculous giving meaning to "God is a spoke in the wheel of shit."
Deicide Corner: “Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.” -- John Morley
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape and Apostate as I told pope Rat... to take a hike. on September 7, 2007 10:47 AMGreg Palmer says in his letter, "I would like to have a predominantly homosexual, devil-worshipping, communist choir sing at the event..."
Sorry, Greg, you're out of luck. I checked, and they're already booked up for the Democratic National Convention and various "Hillary For Pres." fund raisers.
I guess we'll just have to go with an ordinary, traditional choir.
Bummer, huh?
James Jones wrote:
"the religious tend to be much more tolerant than the secular."
Thank you James. I haven't had a good, long laugh all day, and that one statement of yours did the trick! Boy, it must be nice living in a world so delusional that you could actually beieve such a statement!
I would draw your attention to a little thing called history. There's even a section devoted just to it in most book stores and libraries. James, check out history. All of it. Any of it. And it will prove you wrong.
Until then, enjoy the taste of that sand.
Posted by shaupeen on September 7, 2007 12:38 PMJames Jones decries using the coercive force of the government to represent our religious values by using the tax code to support the less fortunate, yet supports using the coercive force of the government for actual religious practice by prayer in school.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 7, 2007 12:49 PMShaupeen,
Parts of history will often show a self-righteous attitude by Christians that helped them to justify mass murder and persecution, not completely unlike Islamic Jihad today, but don't group all Christians of today into that category.
There are still the finger-pointing self-righteous, but there are also those that would encourage people whose cultural, religious or otherwise social practices are not in line with their own thinking (such as homosexuals) to step into their churches and worship with them. They would tell you that homosexuality is wrong but that we are all sinners and practice sin. They believe in the verse in the bible (and I am paraphrasing, not quoting), "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." They would welcome people of contrary beliefs and practices in with open arms. We are all brothers and sisters. Jones' statement was wrong, only because he made an absolute statement (and your belief might be somewhat confused for the same reason).
Posted by Vince on September 7, 2007 01:01 PMI am confused - if folks want to hold a private memorial (that is, funded with non-public dollars) they can have all the choirs and displays of Christianity they want. If it is a public memorial, funded by tax dollars, I suppose it would be okay to have a Christian Choir if every other religion was also invited to provide a Choir - open it up to all and it won't conflict with the first amendment. Close it to all except Christians, and, well, you have a definite problem.
It is really pretty simple - at a government sponsored event you cannot favor one religion over all others.
later,
connie
Christians have had a lock on memorial services in this country until, well until the
Secular Progressive Humanist Lynch Mob (name trademarked) started to call them out on this tradition.
Imagine a memorial service about the dead and not about God, Jesus or Heaven.
New ideas take time to be accepted, like the term "marital rape" did.
But JJ is right, never in my entire life have I been subjected to any kind of intolerant treatment from Christians. My little Darwin symbol on my car just lost his feet, Christians did not break them off.
Christians have never quoted the Bible to me in that smarmy way they have. Not one has ever said "well, I will pray for you" snicker, snicker, smirk.
Their tolerance of my disbelief has been a real Godsend to me.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 01:16 PMSharon B - Is that "little Darwin symbol" one of those used to mock the Christian symbol representing the fish Jesus used to feed the masses? Snicker, snicker, smirk?
I can see your utter dismay at the thought of someone actually taking offense to being mocked.
The nerve of them!
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 01:32 PMshaupeen
Let's look at history and the great mass murderers since, oh, the French Revolution.
They are Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Saddam. One thing they have in common is the secularism of their movements.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 01:54 PMKW, boy you put a heavy hand on everything.
You all communicate now, and in the past, with the fish symbol. It was your way of saying "hi fellow of like mind".
so my Darwin fish is only to mock Christians? And of course it is personal property, so breaking it is a kind of theft, is it not?
My little Darwin symbol is to say "hi fellow, educated person who has studied some of the life sciences and understands the foundation of Evolution" but my car is too small and all that will not fit, so the Darwin fish it is.
And of course, the large fish labeled Truth, eating the word Darwin or the Darwin fish is not to mock us scientists?
NOooooo, of course not.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 01:58 PMRepugnants,
This really isn't as difficult as you think. Using the tax code to redistribute income is not a religious teaching.
You get confused because you advocate communistic beliefs with dogmatic fervor and so you think communism is a religion.
It's not the same thing.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 01:59 PMThat's a nice little rationalization you have there Vince. I hope it helps you sleep at night. If it was just stones being thrown, then history would be much nicer to you. But your people lopped off a lot of heads in the name of your god, you tortured and burned a lot of innocent people in the name of your god, and you still ostricize, humiliate, or rape way too many people in the name of your god for you or James to claim any sort of tolerance. The fact is the jihadists have a lot of catching up to do with the catholics. Even after 9/11, Madrid, and the Tube, they haven't even reached the number of murders committed in the first crusade alone.
Yeah, sleep well, hypocrite.
Posted by shaupeen on September 7, 2007 02:00 PMA yes, we all remember well how Hitler had no preference for or animosity against a particular set of religious beliefs.
You left out Osama Bin Laden.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 7, 2007 02:00 PMNo, not confused, James Jones, but entertained when you make dumb-as$ comments like you have. Again, thanks for the good laugh.
Posted by shaupeen on September 7, 2007 02:17 PMShaupeen,
Now we look at Truth's definition of a Bigot.
In the name of Christianity or otherwise, I and millions like me have never lopped off anyone's head, raped, pillaged, tortured, or done anything else unethical or otherwise evil. Many of us don't even point fingers. I am not perfect, and I mess up a lot, but it is not because I am a Christian.
And how can you hold people, especially American Christians of today, responsible for something Catholics did in centuries past.
Not to mention, I'm not even Catholic.
The point is that many Christians (not all of them by any means) are just as tolerant as secular people, if not moreso.
How can anyone refer to an archaic history that is in some cases over a millenia old, to label someone from this day and age?
Besides, everything that you have written in this blog is intolerant and bigotted.
Until now, the topic of concern between you and I has been intolerant Christians. Maybe, based on you, we should focus on intolerant secular people such as yourself and label all seculars and other non-Christians as intolerant.
Actually, I wouldn't do that because a) that would be stereotyping and b) I am more tolerant than that, and c) I happen to have deep friendships and mountains of respect with and for many secular and other non-Christian people.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 02:28 PMNo heavy hand Sharon B, just an observation.
The fish is a symbol of Christianity.
The Darwin fish is to mock Christianity because some believe the literate word of the earths creation as described by Moses. But most Christians understand that God created the earth and everything in it, including evolution. Everthings gotta grow, right?
Now those who broke your little mocking fish legs were wrong. In doing so they lower themselves to the level of those who mock them.
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 02:40 PMVince, sin is a religious word, it actually doesn`t mean anything outside the confines of church.
Now if I say "tree" that means something. A few of the words that Christians use that have no meaning are sin, evil, devil, demon, hell, abomination and so on.
All these words describe opinions or imaginary beings, not things.
Some of us do not sin. We were not conceived or born into original sin and do not think that "all men are sinners".
JJ, All those mass murderers were men, and I think they all had mustaches. Comparisons aside, they were not religious, they also were not humanists. However they tried to justify their behavior they were just dictators of one kind or another.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 02:48 PMOh, be still my beating heart!!!! There goes that Old Grouch being so darn cute again.
Posted by Sue Donihm on September 7, 2007 03:03 PMKW, now that is my idea of God. She created evolution.
We have been mocked, we mock back. Dueling bumper stickers.
Have you never sat at a red light and seen this one "Fish and Chips" next to "My boss is a Jewish carpenter"?
Take away our bumpers and we would be speechless.
I also have a dinosaur sticker, since some Christians would now have us believe that all those animals were plant eaters. Why? so they could all exist on the ark at the same time. When religious people mess with facts I mock them.
Check out Genesis, I don`t think Moses was the one to describe creation. And by the way, the Bible has two creation stories. One for the masses, Adam and Eve, and the other one for the educated Rabbis.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 03:09 PM"Repugnants,
This really isn't as difficult as you think. Using the tax code to redistribute income is not a religious teaching.
You get confused because you advocate communistic beliefs with dogmatic fervor and so you think communism is a religion.
It's not the same thing.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 01:59 PM "
Besides confusing me with someone else, you're accusing me of saying things I didn't.
You also didn't state your justification for using the coercive power of the state for religious indoctrination.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 7, 2007 03:17 PMHey, 2:28, who are you, what are you talking about, and why should I care?
Posted by shaupeen on September 7, 2007 03:40 PMSharon B - You can mock others if you wish. Just don't be surprised when some of those you mock respond with anger or violence.
It's not the correct way for them to respond but then again, everyone in this world isn't perfect either.
If they were, some wouldn't fell the need to mock others.
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 04:08 PMCould one not enjoy a choir for the beauty of its music without being threatened by its religious undertones? As a "secular" individual myself, I find many beautiful things in all religions, and have yet to worry that listening to a choir will automatically brainwash me into becoming a Christian zealot.
Some days, one has to wonder how far from monkeys we truly have evolved.
Posted by Dan on September 7, 2007 04:14 PMKW--
An excellent point that you made at 4:08pm. Well said.
We secular folks were mocked first, so there. Childish isn`t it?
But the strangle hold that Christianity has on society, needs to stop somewhere. Anywhere will do.
Educated people are mocked daily by Christians and finally we get one little symbol, the Darwin fish, which is so perfect, and you all can`t even let that alone.
A memorial service without Christianity, Imagine that.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 04:30 PMJimmy Jones, at 1:54, why start at the French Revolution. Ah, I see, so you can leave out the Crusades. How many were killed in the name of Christ? Throw in Cromwell, and the Protestants forced starvation of the Irish and....
I think we got a winner! Kill that sinner! Yay Christ!
Posted by HistoryRepeats on September 7, 2007 04:46 PMVince,
What absolute statement did I make that was wrong?
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 04:58 PMHistoryRepeats
Actually it doesn't that's a myth for people who think in platitudes.
Why start with the French Revolution?
Because it is not informative to compare contemporary Western Civilization with the conditions 1,000 years ago. Too many conditions have changed.
If you want an accurate comparison it doesn't make any sense to go back much past the Reformation.
Does that help?
Sharon you sound like a 2 year old today.....
"You mocked us first" AKA "You started it" or how about going ahead and saying something like " I know you are but what am I".......
Posted by Heather on September 7, 2007 05:06 PMRepugnant,
"You also didn't state your justification for using the coercive power of the state for religious indoctrination."
That's because I don't advocate using the coercive power of the state for religious indoctrination. I follow the Christian teaching of Church/State separation which obviates the need to make the case.
You on the other hand follow the secularist teaching of making political belief a religion. So you are the one who needs to make the case - not I.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 05:15 PMSharon B,
Mao and Pol Pot were clean-shaven so I'm afraid your historical analysis linking mustaches to mass murder rather comes undone. You probably got confused with all the "m's" involved.
Was that thesis part of your graduate work? Don't worry - we'll just keep it our secret.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 05:19 PMHeather,
You just offended an awful lot ot 2-year olds.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 05:39 PMHeather, honest to Goddess, did I not say "childish isn`t it? Well, did I?
This is too fun, who mocked first, who gets to mock now. They rip off the feet of my Darwin and that "brings them down to my level". Go back and read KW, that is hilarious.
Lighten up
Christians looking for little puffs of persecution.
Christians were persecuted by Rome and boy did they ever learn how to give it right back.
JJ, feel free to jump in any time with something of substance. Of course they didn`t all have mustaches. That was a joke.
You make awful comparisons, why can`t I?
Mass murderer=secular humanists. Not.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 05:55 PMSharon, my favourite symbol is the Duck-billed Platypus.
Trailing that is Leonardo's "Vitruvian Man", followed by the Pioneer Plaque panel on the Voyager.
A distant contender is the International Humanist "Happy Human" figure.
Although I find the Darwin Fish funny, it is too much of a thumb-in-the-eye to Christians to be comfortable.
Bango, well sigh, I guess you are right. Duck-billed Ptatypus symbolizes what?
I always liked Gary Larsens cartoon "evolution of the stick figure." That is funny.
I will just glue the feet back on again.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 08:21 PMKW said mistakenly:
"But most Christians understand that God created the earth and everything in it, including evolution. Everthings gotta grow, right?"
Christians might believe that out of profound ignorance, but if they think they understand that, they are deluded.
But I can be convinced otherwise if someone brings me even the barest shred of evidence that God exists.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:14 PMKW warned:
"You can mock others if you wish. Just don't be surprised when some of those you mock respond with anger or violence."
Just like Jesus taught them.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:20 PMNoggindog drops in for a bit of ever-so-civil and serious debate of the issues.
Please note the lack of mocking, name calling, and stereotyping in the following bit of learned prose:
"Greg Palmer says in his letter, "I would like to have a predominantly homosexual, devil-worshipping, communist choir sing at the event..."Sorry, Greg, you're out of luck. I checked, and they're already booked up for the Democratic National Convention and various "Hillary For Pres." fund raisers."
Ahh yes, let's raise our glasses and toast to the one -the only- Mr. Congeniality!
What.....a......twit.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:29 PMSharon, to me the DBP is the absolute symbol of evolution’s power and range, and maybe the best example of just how weird the planet can be.
Besides, it is as funny as heck, and would force a creationist to admit that their god has a very peculiar sense of humour or aesthetics. (we can politely avoid asking why there are so many beetles).
Exploding bugs, things that cannibalize their sex partners, and males that get pregnant are odd, but the DBP is in a class (literally) all of its own.
One would think that the Columbine Memorial would be for the victims and their families. Apparently that thinking is wrong. Apparently the victims and the families of the victims must accept the dictates of atheists who may or may not profess any tie to the incident at Columbine High School, but would nonetheless be "offended" if a "Christian" choir sang at the Columbine Memorial, regardless of what the majority of the victims and their families would prefer.
Thus the atheists do what atheists do best: The atheists must offend others so that they don't get their feelings hurt by listening to a few songs at a Memorial they don't have to attend.
If atheists are so offended by "Christians" singing a few "Christian" songs, then, in the long run, they have absolutely nothing to worry about. If Christians and God are that offensive to atheists, I can virtually guarantee them that, once their time on earth is over, they will see God only briefly -- and then they will never, ever have to worry about being bothered by seeing the sight of Him ever again.
One would think that the Columbine Memorial would be for the victims and their families. Apparently that thinking is wrong. Apparently the victims and the families of the victims must accept the dictates of atheists who may or may not profess any tie to the incident at Columbine High School, but would nonetheless be "offended" if a "Christian" choir sang at the Columbine Memorial, regardless of what the majority of the victims and their families would prefer.
Thus the atheists do what atheists do best: The atheists must offend others so that they don't get their feelings hurt by listening to a few songs at a Memorial they don't have to attend.
If atheists are so offended by "Christians" singing a few "Christian" songs, then, in the long run, they have absolutely nothing to worry about. If Christians and God are that offensive to atheists, I can virtually guarantee them that, once their time on earth is over, they will see God only briefly -- and then they will never, ever have to worry about being bothered by seeing the sight of Him ever again.
See Charles, a virtual guarantee. Isn`t that what you asked for?
Bango, thanks for DBP, I always heard that the Basset Hound was a dog so weird it was designed by a committee.
You even beat that.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 12:20 AMMr.Forman, maybe it escaped your attention, but you are also an atheist.
As far as Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, etc, etc. you are an atheist just like me.
I am just an atheist about one or two more religions than you
Bango: I never thought of it that way before, but you are OOOOO SOOOOO CORRECT. People who disagree with other religions are, as you stated, athiestic toward those religions. Brilliant. :-)
ROBERT FORMAN: how you can 'virtually guarantee' anything post-life is beyond me. It is also beyond you. But, seeing as you are now considering yourself to be an all-seer and all-knower, may I ask: can you please tell me where I left the keys to my car?
Posted by Sheila on September 8, 2007 07:42 AMIt's music, get it, not a threat to anyones belief but, if one's belief is offended by music, I suggest their belief is not held in very high regard by them.
My, my, my children, if you and your belief are on such shaky and tenuous ground that you find it necessary to announce you will be offended by music at a memorial, if you go to it, that has nothing to do with you, you had better pray to what ever you believe in for the courage and strength to live in a world of the differing beliefs that put you in danger of what? Loosing your belief ? Becoming socially disfunctional ? Or is it just simply that you need to screw things up for other people because your life is in the toilet ?
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 08:05 AMSkank:
You like to parse word meanings and yet you never seem to use the correct meanings themselves. An atheist believes in NO diety, so how can it be construed that foreman is an atheist??? your stretch is no stretch but completly untenable. And your favorite symbols.........how are any of these things symbols, except to you? I've been trying to determine what they symbolize and can't do it. They may be examples of something to you, but they are in no way symbols, a symbol must be recognized, and I cannot make out your professed symbology here.
And Truth carped about someones use of the words tolerance and value when his own statements completely misused those words, using any of websters definitions.
Maybe they had good teachers. Like, Like a B...job is not sex. or "inventing" the internet.
AF
Posted by on September 8, 2007 08:45 AMAnother round of "Theology". HAH!
Beam me up, Scotty; Now I KNOW there's no intelligent life on this planet.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 09:07 AMHistory does repeat it's self, just look at the postings about this subject and the witless banter that has nothing to do with the subject matter of it.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 09:09 AMGreg,
The bitterness..the anger.
Posted by on September 8, 2007 09:17 AMBango-
Surprising to see you try that tactic. "you are also an atheist."
We are not all "asexual" AND heterosexual if we are strictly hetero, are we?
A person or instrument is not "atonal" or even "partly atonal "just because it cannot hit ALL notes, is it?
Foreman and Campbell have it right. WELL over 80% of Americans say they believe in God in some way (some poles go well above 95%). The vast majority of those identify the Christian God as the focus of that belief. A very small group made up of anti-theist fanatics are the only people who fuss about this stuff- a tiny fraction of those who make up the atheistic portion of our population care enough about the issue to make a fuss about this, or to require a city to pull down a display of a memorial cross on public land, or remove the 10 commandments from a courtroom, etc. And if they were not encouraged by the lefties who's creed it is, "let us not offend anyone but Republicans," they would have very nearly zero impact on this culture at all.
Charles B
Your insults are just way to clever for me. How have I survived even this far against your comedic wit?Please forbear further chastising me, or I will have to leave this forum forever...
Okay, just kidding, you mental midget. Had you going there, didn't I? I know, it's cruel to tease the handicapped, so I will leave you alone for a while now... For a while.
Now if you go back through this thread and pick out the attitude, the name calling, the threats of eternal damnation, well they all came from lefties, didn`t they.
Allen Campbell, we can see that some people are horrified at the idea that Christianity does not "own" every memorial service, but as Dillon said " The times they are a changing".
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 11:01 AM"Ahh yes, let's raise our glasses and toast to the one -the only- Mr. Congeniality! What.....a......twit.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:29 PM
Definitely a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black...
Posted by on September 8, 2007 11:18 AMNoggindog,
Thank you for your observation that those of us who seek to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the First Amendment guarantee of NO establishment of religion are, in your words:
"A very small group made up of anti-theist fanatics . . . the only people who fuss about this stuff - a tiny fraction of those who make up the atheistic population . . . etc. . . not encouraged by the lefties they would have nearly zero impact on this culture".
I see that you are now identifying yourself as being the same kind of arrogant, insulting, and stupid ignoramus as James Jones; just another would be Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ franchisee, looking for a pulpit from which to sound off, and a flock of sheeple to sheer.
What is an "anti-theist"?
Do you also subscribe to James Jones's statement that Buddhists, Bhraminists, Jainists, and others are "atheists"?
And to his additional statement that "Leftists have no morals"?
Do you, or do you not, hold to - or have you even read - the Dictionary definition of "atheist"?
Or, as with Jones, is that "merely semantics", with your fatuous flatulence to be taken as the "real" definition?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 11:46 AMIt's a shame ol' Bango Skank, that sleazy character created by horror novelist Peter Straub, isn't an American citizen. With his megalomania, parsing of words and ability to spin the truth to shade a given situation, he could become president. He's a perfect composite of Clinton and Bush -- a faux intellectual liar with wet dreams of superiority and dominance.
Oh well, I guess our lose will become another's bigger lose...
kcw
Posted by on September 8, 2007 12:11 PMOld Grouch
Well, it appears that sometimes I do make mistakes. In this case, I erred in the judgement that you tend to make rational arguments.
atheist: -noun- one who believes that there is no deity (Meriam-Webster on-line)
Note that it does NOT say, "one who believes in a different god than you do," as Bango Skank, and apparently you, would have us believe.
re: "A very small group made up of anti-theist fanatics"
What is an anti-theist? I admit, I made it up (though I doubt I am the first to use it). I used it to refer to those who not only don't believe in any god, but actively oppose any expression of belief in god in the public sector. I know, it's a bit confusing, but you see, "atheist" by itself does not suggest one must interfere with theists. That would be the prefix "anti" rather than the prefix "a."
anti = against
a = no or none
See how it works? The literal meaning of "anti-theist" would obviously be "against god." If you didn't understand it, I bet you were the only one.
Now, have some fun: Go look up the membership in organizations like "Freedom From Religion" and the like. Include the ACLU. Compare it to church membership in this country. See what the numbers tell you. While many people think prayer in school is a bad idea (and I admit, I am not eager to see teachers proselytizing students for every different group or cult, so I am not big on removing these strictures across the board) it is a vocal few that actively voice opposition to things like crosses in military cemeteries. And while it has happened in the past, it is not common for folks who are religious Jews or Buddhists to oppose the cross because it is sectarian.
The numbers I gave earlier are not exact; therefore I expressed them conservatively. The VAST majority of Americans identify as at least nominal Christians. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is. And most of those who are not do not overtly object to ceremonial expressions that reference God in public, except rather more don't want any reference to any god in public schools.
(by the way, thanks for resisting taunting me about "poles" instead of "polls." I hate that kind of typo, since spell check does not pick it up. And please note that reasonable people can disagree on the original meaning of constitutional references to state-church issues. There are good arguments on each side.)
Now let's all sit back and watch to see what sort of personal diatribe Charles B comes up with because I dared to post again...
Now for the hypocrite of the day...
Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:29 PM
""Ahh yes, let's raise our glasses and toast to the one -the only- Mr. Congeniality!"
This from Mr. Acerbic Tongue himself...
Posted by on September 8, 2007 12:36 PMOld Grouch,
I command thee to no longer call thyself a Christian. You have embarrassed me for the last time. I have given up all hope for ye. Go to hell!
Posted by Jesus Christ on September 8, 2007 12:36 PMNoggindog on September 8, 2007 12:25 PM
"Old Grouch
Well, it appears that sometimes I do make mistakes. In this case, I erred in the judgement (sic) that you tend to make rational arguments."
Old Grouch is an intelligent man whose intellectual rationalization is quite often overwhelmed by his emotions, resulting in BS.
He reminds me of the old adage: If you can't dazzle em' with your brilliance, bury em' in bullshit. He takes it one step further by polishing the turds for a better presentations.
PS: Only a child couldn't understand the term anti-theist...HE (Old Grouch) challenged it because it ran counter to his argument.
Posted by on September 8, 2007 12:50 PM12:50
Yes, Old Grouch is a bight guy, well educated, and able to assemble pretty good arguments most of the time. Sometimes he seems to have an off day and get prickly (or, any day James Jones is posting- you go, James!) I just though I might bring to his attention that he needs to take a deep breath once in a while.
Oh, and not to split hairs, but:
(Marium-Webster on-line)
Main Entry: judg·ment
Function: noun
Variants: or judge·ment/'j&j-m&nt/
(give a minute; you're bound to catch me in a spelling error soon enough...)
Noggindog,
Yep! As with Jones, you didn't say it. . . or, rather, if you said it, you didn't mean it. . .but, even if you said it, it means something else. . .so forth. And of course, you deliberately mis-quote - or deliberately mis-state, or mis-interpret - what the other person wrote; so you can demolish a straw-man, as if it were an answer to what was really there in the first place.
I know what an athiest is. My question was, Do you? You're the one who applied the word - by way of the phrase, "atheistic" population - to those of us who uphold the Constitution by opposing having your set of religious symbols erected on public property; a typical expression of Jonesian double-talk.
Sonny, that "VAST majority" can be found mostly in your imagination. And, as to the response to such matters as a "vocal few that actively voice oppostition, etc."; that, too is highly imaginary.
I pass on the point of "crosses in military cemetaries", since that one, too, seems to come from imagination, rather than from any event publicized around here. But, as to the rest . . . well, of course, again you make statements; and again, as with Jones, you weasel around about them.
Sonny, there is a simple Constitutional reference to the matter of church and state. It's called the First Amendment. Read it! Despite what folks like you and Pat Robertson put forth, THAT IS the position of those of us who uphold the Constitution.
It was early expressed for popular consumption as being: "An absolute wall of separation between church and state."
Jefferson used the phrase when writing about it, and his work in bringing about the Virginia freedom of religion statute. The very first case to come before a Federal Court concerning the matter quoted it. And there is no "good argument" about it.
I've cited before - and you have remarked that you don't need to bother to read books, or other works, since YOU only look for "authority" - but I'll cite again:
"Cases on Church and State", a Harvard Casebook, which details the case I cited above.
"Church and State in American History", John F. Wilson and Donald L. Drakeman, MJF Books, New York, 2003.
As to your made up expression, "anti-theist", another figment of your imagination, just as with Jones, you apply it to others in a pejorative sense; and then everyone is supposed to take for granted that it actually is descriptive of a real position or belief, held in common someplace other than in your own fantasies.
You've made your statement. You've established your position. Some of my ancestors would express it as having "spoken with forked tongue"; while some would add "out of both sides of your mouth". That's it, boy.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 01:17 PMNoggindog on September 8, 2007 12:58 PM
"Variants: or judge·ment/'j&j-m&nt/"
Now you've gone and given Old Grouch new ammunition to twist around, massage, spin and fire at you and James Jones.
Specifically, his interpretation: Variant = deviant
You are "confirming" that your positions are in fact deviant from the recognized "norm" of modern intellectual thought.
Posted by on September 8, 2007 01:24 PMGreg makes an interesting point, “I would like to have a predominantly homosexual, devil-worshipping, communist choir sing at the event instead.” –- you don’t have to wait for any special event for that Greg, this “choir” is “singing” in classrooms already, busy brainwashing the next generation, and contradicting what most parents believe in. It’s simple, classify anything not meeting the liberal agenda as religious (preferably Christian), and keep it out of the classrooms using the ACLU. May be Greg can scout funeral homes next, to make sure no crosses displayed and prayers said. After all, funeral homes are public places, and we know from new smoking laws how much the government cares about private property rights.
Posted by Uno on September 8, 2007 01:26 PMI certainly do hope that all those reading this thread will use the hypelink provided as the screen signature by the posting of 12:36 PM, and consider the source.
And to all you anonymous folks: Thank you for your kind and generous comments and observations. At least you're reading what I write, even if it is so far above your abilities to comprehed that you miss the points. That's at least half-way on the road to wanting to learn; which is vastly different from knowing all about everything alrready; as well as being far and away better than being one of those who just can't learn to begin with.
Keep up the good work. You'll enjoy the fruits of your labors in the end.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 01:32 PMOld Grouch, or anyone that know Catholicism
"I certainly do hope that all those reading this thread will use the hypelink provided as the screen signature by the posting of 12:36 PM, and consider the source."
Isn't using the name Jesus Christ in a vain or derogatory manner considered blasphemy in Christianity?
Posted by mongoose on September 8, 2007 01:41 PMmongoose,
On that one, I think you would have to ask someone such as Noggindog, or one of the other "Theologians" of the website. You'll probably get as many answers as there are those who want to call themselves by the title. So many here think that what they post actually has some kind of "mana", or "power" to it; and that by saying something, it will actually BECOME, or even BE, as they speak the magick words.
But, that's what makes the forum fun.
And, Faith an begorrah! 'Tis a joy indeed to find all the religious nuts, kooks, loose screws and blatherskites with their knickers all twisted up. It goes to assure one that he's doing SOMETHING right, anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 01:59 PMOld Grouch
"I pass on the point of 'crosses in military cemeteries', since that one, too, seems to come from imagination"
Yes, that was an error. I should have said "military memorials," since these are not actually at the places soldiers are buried. The example I had in mind was "Sunrise Rock" in the Mojave National Preserve, where a memorial was erected to soldiers who died in combat. It was erected between WWI and WWII, and it was just a few years ago that the ACLU sued to have it removed because it was a cross. The crisis was resolved when congress authorized passing the land it is on into private ownership. A similar example in 2005 was observed when an atheist group petitioned to have a memorial to fallen State Patrol officers in Utah blocked because it was to be a cross. While they were at it, they sought the removal of crosses in 6 other places where they memorialized slain law enforcement officers in the state.
I provided the definition of "Atheist" in my previous post. You are simply nit-picking to make a fuss because some few people who fuss about crosses in public places identify as leftist Christians. Almost all of these kinds of petitions and suits are initiated by atheist organizations. So don't try to confuse matters by trying to say I used the word incorrectly.
I believe you have me confused with someone else regarding "you have remarked that you don't need to bother to read books, or other works, since YOU only look for 'authority.'" I don't think I ever said that. Ever. But if you can show it to me, I'll have a look to see what you may have misconstrued as that statement. If you cannot produce such a comment, please refrain from such libel.
I am not going to take up the "wall of separation" argument. You know that's a case of choosing which early statements you want to credit to make a case for what the founders really meant by that. If you don't, then I have grossly overestimated you. And as to "anti-theist," I will leave it to other readers to determine if it is descriptive or not. I think it is not only clear, but also accurate.
Don't be obtuse, Grouch. It is unbecoming.
Posted by Noggindog on September 8, 2007 02:02 PMYou guys seem to have wondered off the ranch a bit.
The person who needs religious music at this affair was encouraged to hum it to himself.
For generations, Christians have thought they owned memorial services, that they were allowed to make kids pray in school, that the laws should be made to protect their holy day etc.
This tiny voice of dissent is getting stronger.
Maybe because so many of the professed theists are not really Christians at heart. It is awkward saying " I believe there is no God" so people just say yes. It beats a long discussion of "I think there is a God, but I don`t like organized religion" and so on that folks often say.
A lot of us are don`t-have-a- cluests and we don`t have a name.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 02:51 PMSharon B. on September 8, 2007 02:51 PM
Noddingdog can conjure words to fit his thesis, why can't you?
A suggestion to start the thinking process:
Lacacluist = One who can't claim with certainty the existence or absence of a god. Open to definitive evidence validating one position or the other.
Posted by CA on September 8, 2007 03:03 PMNoggindog,
Just taking your 3rd paragraph: You have made a statement. We are to accept your definition of the organization opposing monuments, etc., as "athiest". After all, thou hast said it; therefore it must be so.
And again, in that same paragraph: "some few people . . . identify as leftist Christians." Again, thou hast said it; it must be so.
PROVE IT! Identify the "atheist" source of the organization. Identify the "few . . 'leftist' Christians". And give us the evidence that their Christianity is "leftist", as opposed to what you deem Right - or "correct" - Christianity.
Back on your "Theology" debate line, I cited some Theology texts, which give the position of Orthodox Christianity. Your reply was that you didn't care about the citations, as you preferred the authority. The line of postings has gone into the archives; and I am paraphrasing. But, you certainly went on to ask me questions about why it was necessary to abandon certain Western ideas, as if my statements were without foundation, AFTER I had told you to read the works and you would find not only the foundation, but the exposition of the development as well.
I had told you that I refrained from the Western form of mutual mental masturbation, as it had nothing to do with my Theology, Orthodox Theology. But, you still seemed to think it was necessary for me to respond in your terms, without regard to the absolutely different foundations and sources. Fine and dandy. The works are there. READ THEM! And then, if you have questions, I'll do my best to answer, and/or explain. Otherwise, I simply take you as you have expressed your own position. Except, of course, when, as with Jones, your position is on the merry-go-round of whatever happens to be today's response for what was said yesterday.
You might also look at the dictionary for a definition of "libel" - but, there too, as with Jones, if it makes you feel good to use the word YOUR OWN way, go right ahead.
Oh! Yes! I'm "obtuse" when I find your neologisms to be faulty and ridiculous, just as with Jones when I find his to be the same. According to YOU, to uphold the separation of church and state, by way of NOT placing religious symbols on public land is "anti-theist". So . . . ? Just another apprentice wizard to the Whiz of a Whiz, James Jones, making it up as you go along.
As to your neologizm: "deism (L, deus, god) the belief that God exists . . . . 2. also found as theism (G, theos, god0 . . . ." I presume you understand that the initials stand for Latin and Greek; and that "Deist" and "Theist" are the proper nouns for those holding the belief.
Are the stone monuments then - those that people who uphold the Constitution want eliminated from public places - your "god", or "gods", in which you "believe"? Or is your remark about "anti-theists" just a stupid attempt to show off, by calling people "anti"-something, as if the insult were meaningful?
Hi Sharon!
That's wonderful! Lackacluist! I love it! Beats Nobrainer all hollow!
Best yet, dear lady!
Hi OG. Yes it is a good word.
I would love to see the 10 commandments posted all over the place, but use the original, long, threatening version, and not the cutesy one we have today.
We Lacacluists are always willing to learn. All Deist/Theist ideas will be considered.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 04:17 PMOld Grouch
Really, this is getting a bit tiresome. Next time around, do your own homework if you want to refute me.
"PROVE IT! Identify the "atheist" source of the organization."
The organization that petitioned to remove the crosses for the Utah State Patrol officers who died in the line of duty is American Atheists. You can find their stuff referencing this at atheists.org/flash.line/utah12.htm (I can't seem to get a working hyperlink in here for some reason, so you'll have to type it in.)
and
"...identify the few leftist Christians..."
If you look quickly, there's one in the mirror right now.
Moving on...
"You might also look at the dictionary for a definition of 'libel'"
Libel:
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means
I looked at the archives. You could have done it yourself before you made the charge, and then you could have done it before you wrote back when I said you should refrain from such libel. But I did it for you. Your words about me were: "you have remarked that you don't need to bother to read books, or other works, since YOU only look for 'authority.'"
In the actual exchange you demanded of me, "Please cite your sources." I responded with, "First of all, I know you are a teacher (50th or 60th anniversary of your teaching career this month, yes? Happy anniversary, sincerely!) but I will decline your instruction to cite sources, unless I rely on someone else's authority. Feel free to mark down my work for that failure..."
That is hardly stating that I disdain books. It is saying I don't need to cite sources unless I am depending on someone else's work for a particular argument. Therefore, my judgement that you engaged in libel stands, unless you would like to say you erred in your understanding of my words.
The next issue:
"As to your neologizm..."
I presume you mean "neologism"? (not to worry, I don't spell well either.)
I should think it is obvious, if "theist" is a pronoun for those holding the belief that God exists, then anti-theist would refer to someone who either opposes the belief itself, or opposes theists. Either works well for my purposes.
However, in all of that rant, you did get one thing right. Sharon and CA were very funny in the posts that lead up to "Lacacluist." Although I notice now that you spelled that wrong, too, as "Lackacluist." Darn. I was trying to say something to boost your self-esteem...
Now, Grouch, let us leave the arcane argument of definitions and such, and stick to exchanging ideas, okay? It's a better investment of everyone's time.
Posted by Noggindog on September 8, 2007 04:37 PMOld Grouch is one of the best educated and most fascinating on this board. His arguments are clear, his points are well-thought out and seldom, if ever, says nasty things to or about other people. Proof that you don't have to believe in superman or santaclause to be a truly good person.
Now... if we think of how many people claim some sort of religion and then go back through their posts and look at all the times they have belittled, befuddled, and insulted anyone who doesn't believe as they do... and, well you can see where I'm going with this.
Keep it up, Old Grouch. I may not write as eloquently as you, but I agree with 99.99% of what you have to say.
Posted by Sue DohNihm on September 8, 2007 05:03 PMSue DohNihm
"...but I agree with 99.99% of what you have to say."
Let me say it in jest, before it's some how taken serious:
But, man...that .01% is the crucial deal breaker!
Posted by on September 8, 2007 05:29 PMSue-
Nice post. However, may I make a few small points?
Old Grouch is one of those who "claims some sort of religion." He claims Orthodox Christianity, what we usually call "Eastern Orthodox" here. Therefore, he is one of those who believe in "superman or santaclaus" as you put it (please correct me if I am wrong, Grouch. I think you have made this clear, but I certainly would not want to libel you in any way.) The difference between Old Grouch and the rest of us is, Old Grouch is adamant that only the Orthodox know superman's secret identity! (I know, it's stretching the metaphor painfully, but it was fun.)
Grouch regularly and rigorously says nasty things to and about James Jones. And he took it up today with me. However, I have not argued with him on things like calling me a liar ("spoken with forked tongue") or calling my posts "fatuous flatulence." I have only met his challenges and addressed his unfounded accusation, and tossed a little condescension back his way. I don't even begrudge him those gratuitous comments as I do some others because, with me at least, he has always made real arguments as he spouts them off. Others simply make insults and THINK it is an argument. And, from me at least, he will be answered in kind.
I would be the first to agree with you, Old Grouch is one of the best educated, most interesting people on this forum. In fact, I have said so several times already. But if he brings matches, I'm bringing gasoline. That's how this game is played around here.
5:29
That was SERIOUSLY funny... This has been a good thread for the "one-liners" today.
Now it's religion you have a pissing contest about, I would have thought you had used up all the bitterness on politics. It would seem though that the contest is not over. Fare thee well my mighty intellectual midgets. Hence forth the war shall continue, while I, at my own pleasureable observe , lean back with a long sigh, and a longer drink , to consider the sanity of those who think this inane display of confusion actually accomplishes any thing of any value at all.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 06:11 PMAllen, better to drink and post than drink and drive.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 07:56 PMNoggindogmism's real civility on display:
you mental midget. Had you going there, didn't I? I know, it's cruel to tease the handicapped, so I will leave you alone for a while now... For a while.
You shall know him by his love...
Isn`t that what Hannibal said to the psychiatrist.? I will leave you alone for awhile?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 10:12 PMCharles, the people you think you are talking to can read my posts as well as you can. 'They can decide if I am going too far over the top with you or Old Grouch. So, the truth is, the things you post demonstrate nothing about me. But they reveal rather much about you, don't they? Well, no harm done, I suppose. From the look of the things people here have been saying all day for the last 3 days, people already know what they think of you, don't they, "Mr. Acerbic tongue himself"
You might observe that Grouch is getting some support from other people here. You, on the other hand, do not seem to be getting much support. I wonder why that is?
Posted by noggindog on September 9, 2007 12:53 AMI'll try one more time. All your arguemental diatribes are meaningless. The salient point in all this is; the only ones who have any right whatsoever to have an opinion as to whether or not to allow Christian music, ( someone please explain to me what qualifications are needed to be called that ), at the memorial are the parents and direct family relatives of the dead based the faith of those that were slain. This is a privately organized event, you have the free choice to go or not but, nowhere in any constitutional or other law is any right you have being violated, in any way, by the music they have freely chosen to be part of the memorial. Any claim made that there is a violation of rights by anyone not directly related to the slain victims is nothing more than grandstanding for a unwarranted intervention in what is essentialy a private matter.
Anyone who tries to intervene based on their personal preferences and contrary beliefs is employing unethical, immoral and imprudent means to interfere in the private interests of a solemn and morally appropreiate ceremony that, quite frankly, is none, and will ever be none, of their lawfully or socially acceptable business.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 9, 2007 08:05 AMNoggindog,
Thank you for noting the typos. I do have difficulties with 6.5 to 7 point sans-serif type face in the posting, and a different type style and size in the writing box when attempting to proofread. Getting to the age of bifocals seems to being along with it a tendency towards having problems such as that.
I shall presume you are intending that one takes you seriously, at least when you are "theologising". So, back to your neologism:
You say: "If 'theist' is a pronoun for those holding a belief that God exists, then anti-theist would refer to someone who either opposes that belief itself, or opposes theists."
You previously referred to those who opposed setting up stone-monuments in public places - such as schools and court houses - as being both "atheist", and "anti-theist". Thus, you are positing that the stone-monument is the "god" in which you have belief; and that those who oppose erection of this "god" in public places have NO god - "atheist" - and also oppose YOU, the believer in the stone-monument "god", as well as the stone-monument "god" itself - "anti-theist".
Christians call that, "idolatry"; but, since you dismiss Christianity as being nothing more than a belief in "superman or santaclaus", and, since the aforementioned idolatry is central to your own belief-system, you have removed the matter from debate.
Belief-systems are, by nature, un-debateable. They may be accepted or rejected. They may be praised, or scorned and criticized. But, since belief, itself, is, among other things, a CONCLUSION to the process of discussion, comparison, and modification; and not a postulate for these processes, debate is no longer possible.
I wish you well as you bow down and worship before your stone-monument "gods". This is your right, under our Constitution; just as it is my right to oppose the erection of those idols in public places - such as schools and court houses - and require that others worship them also.
Thank you for elightening us as to the real structure and purposes of your religion's "game".
Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 08:13 AMFirst off Allen: Most of the time, I consider myself an athiest or agnostic. That said, however, I feel you are right: if they want to play christian music at this memorial that is THEIR affair and none of my business. THAT IS, of course, if not one single penny of tax money is involved. In which case, yes, we should ban the playing of any religious music. This memorial (which, by the way, when are we going to stop with all the dang memorials????) is for the family, friends AND community affected by the murderous minds of DK and EH. Being a member of the community, Mr. Barber is correct in speaking his mind that it should be banned. (IF it involves tax dollars. If not, all parties not party to the party should shut up and let the mourners have their tunes.)
Personally, I object to any city, state, or federal government sponsoring a religious event. I absolutely believe in the separation of church and state! (I suppose one could argue that Christian music is just another form of music, but not in the context of a memorial.)
That said, I believe a memorial to be for the related survivors. After all, they are the ones who best knew the deceased and can plan the appropriate memorial for them. As for everyone else, they can remember the deceased as they see fit in private, even if that means listening to Christian music or throwing a party or dancing . . .
Back to the separation of church and state. I also intensely dislike seeing a country's flag in church. I believe religion should not recognize any man made physical or territorial boundaries or display symbols of them.
Posted by Linda on September 9, 2007 08:33 AMAllen Campbell,
Some time back, when this topic appeared on the website for the first time, I mentioned that this was a Columbine Memorial to Columbine's own beloved lost ones. At that time, I also mentioned that, way back in my day, we had school choirs, who would have provided music for such an event, were it ever to have been necessary. I also suggested that, since it was to be Columbine's own Memorial, it would be most appropriate to let the Columbine School Choir - if the school had one - provide the music.
A simple solution to what is really a non-problem.
The loud howls of the host of religious nuts, kooks, cranks, loose screws, and wannabe preachers, who infest the atmosphere surrounding any and every public event, were immediately raised, descrying the idea that a school Memorial Service did not include THEIR prescriptions concerning its contents and presentation.
And, unfortunately, the subject has done nothing more than degenerate, and deteriorate, into what you so rightly describe as a "pissing contest", ever since.
This is, however, good old Cowlorado, at its Architypical best - or worst, if you prefer. Having never really grown up, and out of the stage where the appearance of the Tent Show Revival Preacher and Snake Oil Peddler, was the biggest event of the year; the villages still cling to the idea that their RELIGION is the local expression of "the greatest show on earth"; and the sole and only three ring circus for everyone.
I, too, get carried away - most of the time doubled up with belly laughter as the "theology expert" performers put on their clown acts. And, as was the tradition of the old Tent Show Revival, I also fall into the "audience participation" part of the show.
Since, in the end, it does all boil down to farce and slapstick, it is something of a waste of time and energy today. But, there is the psychological need for catharsis there, in all of us; and disputing the stupidities, idiocies, and inanities of the "sawdust trail" entertainers does tend to carry one away at times.
I apoligize to you, and to the others who would actually prefer to carry on intelligent and reasoned exchange of ideas in the forum.
And, I would repeat what I've said ealier: Let Columbine memorialize its own, its own way.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 08:52 AMYes in spades OG, let those who are left behind to organize a memorial for the deceased do so as they see fit. I, for one, would never, for any reason, think my agreeing or disagreeing on the music chosen for it is in any way germane to the issue. Indeed it would be more than a little unethical and perhaps even immoral for me or anyone else to interfere in what is a non taxpayer, privately funded event. I might even donate to the fund, if needed, based on my humanity and it's responsibility to support my fellow man in time of sorrow and need. And please, don't anyone of you try to tell me I have any ulterior motive in so doing. That would be a personal insult to me and any other who would do the same based on the stated reasons.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 9, 2007 09:46 AMNoggindog makes much of Christianity's popularity in this country. Okay...so? The reason religion itself has endured so long is because the primary human dilemma--fear of death--has. (It's just too creepy to imagine a time when we simply won't exist anymore, so lots of fantasies about "alternative lives" have been comfortingly conjured.) And just because a "VAST majority" of people in this country choose to identify themselves as Christian says less about the supposed worthiness of Christianity than the human fear of being pointed out as "different," something you're not supposed to be (quite as prevalent as the fear of death, if not more so--as the surge in suicides among teenage girls may indicate). And I hope Noggindog will grant at least a possible difference between "nominal" Christians and actual practicing ones.
Despite Matthew 6, today's culture of conspicuous Christians demands its "right" to public expression--even though Christians never lacked a forum for their agenda (they're called churches, and can be found even in very small towns, sitting tax-free on prime real estate)--because of the political power to be gained in "selling their product." The notion that Christians must be deferred to because they represent "the majority" is like going back a half-century in time and telling people of color to stay in the ghetto "where they belong" because they're only "the minority" and therefore don't matter.
And by the way, "Valley of the Dolls" is the most important American novel in literary history because it still holds the record for copies sold. So burn all your other books or else you're not really an American. ;-\
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 9, 2007 11:04 AMNoggindogma:
It doesn't matter to me whether I am supported or denounced by other posters on this board.
I expect to be attacked since the things I write regarding religion go directly to the heart of most people's belief systems.
It is to be expected that many would voice support for you, since you attempt to validate their beliefs.
Pointing out supporting comments on the board is an appeal to popularity that provides no support for your contentions.
By quoting your name-calling and condescension, I am merely helping people see through your pretensions of being above the fray and not prone to insult and rudeness, since I imagine most people don't get all the way through your long-winded and masturbatory posts.
As for having an acerbic tongue, I thank you for the compliment.
Posted by Charles B on September 9, 2007 11:10 AMOld Grouch
I'll begin by acknowledging that I shouldn't have needled you regarding your typos. It was a cheap shot, and I shouldn't have taken it. I knew they were typos when I wrote that, so I apologize.
That said, it is remarkable to me that you could not bring yourself to acknowledge that you mischaracterized my statements from the previous thread which you referred to. I provided the text, and it is clear what I said. You should acknowledge it, since your accusation was unfounded.
You subsequent remarks which also mischaracterized my words also are somewhat less troubling, since the text is right here with your comments, and any reader has only to scroll up to see what I really said. But I think it is still beneath you, since I am sure you know the "belief in superman and santaclaus" comment was a quote of the post preceding mine, and since I am also sure you know I don't posit stone memorials as gods. If I played that logic and language game, I could say, "Oh, so you want to oppose placing idols in public places, but you want to force us all to worship them?" because you made a small error in your sentence structure in your post to me. But that would be childish and silly, since we all know that is not your position, just as you know I do not invest deity in symbols. Why don't you just say, "I think it's silly to concern yourself with symbols which you know do not contain God?" But of course, I did not make that error. I simply ignored your baseless argument on it's lack of merit, so you wanted to find something, ANYTHING, to skewer me on.
Well, my previous post answered all your points save that one and one more. Let me answer the other one now. You said the "VAST majority of Americans identify as at least nominal Christians" which I referenced is Largely in [my] imagination." (see my post of 09/07, 12:25 and your response, 09/08, 1:17) As it happens, I checked the figures after I wrote that. In actuality, "About 8 in 10 Americans adhere to some form of Christianity." This according to the Gallop Poll (you have to subscribe to see the whole poll, but this quote is observable in an abstract which can be viewed at galluppoll.com/content/?ci=17041&pg=1)
And with that, I have addressed all the specifics you tossed out at me, declining only to further debate the meaning of "anti-theist," which is just a silly rabbit-trail. My original point, that people who make the sort of fuss this thread started with do so from hostility to religion in general, and Christianity in specific, rather than concern for "church/state" issues, stands. I will concede that some few, such as you, do so for reasons other than spite and hostility. And I have "cited my sources" as you are want to demand.
For a long time now Christianity has been the default position in our culture for memorial services, people being sworn into office etc.
We are only trying to challenge that position and free ourselves from religion wherever we can. Our Constitution give us freedom "of" and we want freedom "from" religion wherever and whenever we can manage it.
Christmas will soon be upon us and here we go again with the "War of Christmas" drek.
This particular memorial service has become a battle in the religion wars. But the battle represents a larger issue: Christian contol of our culture.
some of us just want that control to end.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 11:43 AMHans-
Christians do not complain they have no forum (at least, mainstream Christians do not). They complain that they are being forced out of venues they have enjoyed for two centuries because of confusion over "freedom of religion" vs. "freedom from religion ." We disagree with Grouch's understanding of that portion of the Constitution. Many of us also feel that since ANY group other than Christians can get a float into a parade, to use an example, we should not be excluded from presenting one. Another example, look at the recent flap over a graduation speech by one of several valedictorians which included her personal testimony of what she credits as the most meaningful thing in her life. No one else has to agree, but she should have been allowed to make the speech.
To answer your question, about 40-45% of Americans seldom or never go to church. That makes at least 60% who attend frequently or regularly. Those would be the "practicing Christians" you refer to (attendance to non-Christians churches nationwide is a very small percentage of the up to 65% that attend church.) Regarding the above example, most Americans believe that religion is over-excluded from public schools, and would support "a moment of silence" etc. See the same address I gave Grouch a moment ago.
Charles B-
"Noggindogma"- that was pretty good, Charles. You may have some redeeming qualities after all.
"An appeal to popularity..." nice to see you were paying attention in your freshman logic class. However, I am not making an appeal to popularity as an argument for my position. I did not even point out posts that support me. I pointed out posts that support Grouch as a way of showing that he gets support because he makes arguments instead of JUST name-calling. For that purpose, the "appeal to popularity" is appropriate. This post you wrote today is an example of an appropriate argument. Well done. See, I don't mind the insults when they are accompanied by actual reasoning, even specious reasoning, if it is a sincere effort.
You need not point out my name-calling and condescension. I readily acknowledge both, as well as waxing prolific in my posts. I even mention these things myself. After such a promising beginning, why devolve into histrionics now? Don't be a conophile, Charles (Since Grouch has a hard time with new words, I will explain: It means, don't be a lover of cone-heads, Charles. Don't practice being obtuse just because you are irritated by me.)
"Noggindogma"- I might just have to change my screen name...
Sharon B
I agree with your assessment. To bad I didn't see it before I posted, since some of my post just echos yours. I land on the oppostite side of the issue, but you have stated the atheist issue well, and it supports my understanding of the issue.
It's funny, after serving in Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq (soon to return to Afghanistan mountains) in the military, I've never found an atheist in a fox hole under live fire; nor, within moments following a mortar or IED incident, or the death of a battle buddy.
Just an observation from a soldier.
Posted by on September 9, 2007 12:10 PMSome of these finger pointing legalistic types that call themselves Christians need to grow up a little. Maybe I can help this disturbed man a little: No, I'm not a devil worshiping communist and there's no reason why I would be. But yes, I'm gay. If you can't handle it that's your problem. I'll never let you make it mine. Now try reading your bible with a little more comprehension. Can you do that? Give it a shot and you might finally become a grown up.
Posted by cs on September 9, 2007 12:10 PM"The Ten Commandments have come down off the wall and the metal protectors have gone up on the doors."
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:37 AM
So that wasn't advocacy, just bull$hit posturing?
"You on the other hand follow the secularist teaching of making political belief a religion."
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 05:15 PM
And I said that when?
Hans-
Sorry, I erred. The figures for frequent or regular church attendance should be 55%-60%. Higher for those who say they take religion seriously but do not attend often.
cs-
Who are you addressing? Mr. Palmer, who wrote the letter lumping gays in with devil worship is, one presumes, not a Christian at all. Further, the line he gives about being offended by gay people is the sentiment he supposes someone else to have. I, who have staked out a position in favor of Christianity, have said nothing about gay people. If anyone has said something in this thread deriding gay people, I missed it, and I didn't see it after taking a quick look back through the posts. So, I wonder what you are objecting to.
Hi Sharon,
Perhaps you have hit the heart of the point. The dogmatists and "theologists" here want "freedom OF religion" - which to them means the freedom to ram their ignorance, superstitions, and idiocies down every else's throats as they please. Those of us who have actually studied the Constituion however, know that freedom is a two way street; and that these already enjoy ALL the freedom OF religion that any person in the United States is guaranteed.
But freedom ALWAYS being a two way street, the guarantee of freedom FROM religion is the other side of that same coin, and of equal importance and reality. And no one has to have the noxious nonsense of another's religion forced upon him or her - especially in those areas of Government, such as schools and Courts, that are on the state side of the wall of separation.
The specious and spurious wails, whines, and moans about not being able to have a float in parades, or stone monuments on Government grounds, etc., etc., are just the kind of fatuous flatulence that marks the religion racket for what it really is, a kind of, "What we've got already, we'll keep; and what we don't have, we'll try to take.", approach, that is a hallmark of the Bu$ine$$ of peddling Je$u$.
Thus, the religionists throw pejorative epithets at those who would clearly uphold the separation of church and state; along with lies and fabrications about the reality of both the separation itself and its logical consequences; the reality of "freedom OF" - for those who want to be entertained of a Sunday morning by some blatherskite in a pulpit - and the direct concomitant of "freedom FROM" - for those who do not choose to waste their time and or substance, especially by way of their tax monies, on hucksters and con artists.
The religionists certainly do come up with fantasy words, and meaningless neologisms, to indicate how "evil", "immoral", etc., etc., those of us are who don't care to belong to the flock of dumb sheeple being sheered, while at one and the same time taking great umbrage when their noxious nonsense is shown to be just what it is, nothing more than arrogant and insulting self-righteousness and pride in ignorance. But, it does make the suckers - ooops, excuse me, the flock of sheeple - feel sooo gooooood to be able to look upon themselves as being so much "above" all those who aren't stupid enough to stand still for the sheering.
All part of the whole history of human growth and development. The constant struggle between the forces of ignorance, stupidity, and superstition to keep hold of all power over the people, and the advocates of education, enlightenment, and advancement to throw off the chains, and someday even, reach for the stars.
A very wise man once said: "Christianity is a THINKING MAN'S religion."
Perhaps that might be considered a guide to the nature of the religions most loudly, vociferously, and intrusively promulgated by the book-bangers and bullshiters in the mega-auditoriums and Bu$ine$$e$ of peddling Je$u$ today.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 02:35 PMNoggindog, thanks for the comment. I am not speaking for atheists, some of us kind of think there might be a God. But not the Judaeo/Christian one.
Anon 12:10. That says a lot about war, stress and fear, but does not prove the existence of God.
Thank you for your service. Write to us if you can, pick a screen name so we can follow you around.
JJiagitdb. JJ makes simple comparisons, such as: Mass murderers are secular, humanists are secular so all mass murderers are secular humanists.
The 10 very truncated commandments came down, metal detectors went up so, the lack of commandments made kids bring guns to school and kill people.
Even the one boy who shot someone from his after hours Bible study group.
Noggindogma is funny, even if you don`t like the originator of the name.
Pick something new, see if we can mess it up.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 02:38 PMI think cs is referring to the original letter writer who writes with a sarcastic slant which would lead some to believe he was a christian putting the shoe on the other foot as example.
Posted by on September 9, 2007 02:46 PM"specious and spurious wails, whines, and moans "
"fatuous flatulence" (the Grouch really seems to like this one)
"pejorative epithets"
"lies and fabrications"
"the forces of ignorance, stupidity, and superstition"
All this from "the advocate of education, enlightenment, and advancement to throw off the chains, and someday even, reach for the stars..."
Cue the "Star Trek" theme music, please...
And even with all that, you can't admit that you misrepresented me, and you owe me an apology, huh Grouch? I expected better of you, you great enlightener and educator, you.
Let me recommend a different proverb for you: "Christianity is an HONEST man's religion."
Sharon B-
I was serious when I said it was funny (Noggindogma). Did you think I meant it sarcastically? I didn't, and I thought about signing "Noggindogma" for the rest of this thread. It's really very clever.
I don't defend everything JJ has to say, though I think he does a good job often enough, and even when he stretches a point past it's natural breaking point, at least he is always trying to make a good argument. He doesn't toss around gratuitous arrogance anymore than many others (including me, so save your typing fingers for a minute, Charles.) He does paint with a rather broad brush at times, but who among us has not been guilty of that?
Posted by Noggindog on September 9, 2007 02:59 PMMs. Sharon, you said: "Anon 12:10. That says a lot about war, stress and fear, but does not prove the existence of God.
pick a screen name so we can follow you around.
Belief in God comes through individual acceptance of "faith". Such "faith" can result from many different things, as can the rejection of "faith" come from individual circumstances.
When I was in college I had the mandatory course in philosophy. One of the guys we studied was Kirkigarrd (sp?) who explained that it was a "leap of faith" to accept God as there is no verifiable, hands on proof you could touch and feel to get there.
My comments were given in that context. In combat it seems more people are inclined to make that "leap of faith" when they witness and experience first hand man's inhumanity to man. I was not attempting to provide any sort of proof, just observation as I said.
I'm just visiting my parent while on leave and will leave again in a few days for Ft. Bragg and my next deployment. I'll use my MOS (military designation) as a screen name if I have time to return to the website after today.
Posted by SF 18D on September 9, 2007 03:05 PMSharon B-
I see what you were responding to, re: JJ , now. I missed JJiagitdb's post before. I still like a good bit of what JJ says, but you are right in this example, he used a shotgun when a rifle would have been better.
SF 18D:--
You said that was your MOS. What is the designation?
Posted by CA on September 9, 2007 05:07 PMCA, Special Forces Medical Sergeant
Posted by SF 18D on September 9, 2007 05:21 PMSF18D Thank you for your service to our country, and please keep in touch if you can. We are waiting for a poster called "Trinity" to do the same.
I tried so many times to believe, then I would make, I guess a slip of absurdity, I could call it and loose all the new faith again and again.
I like Einsteins God, the rational one.
Noggindog, I was not sure if you liked the name game or not. One of the best word plays so far is
Richard Grimes to richie grimy to grimy dick.
That one cracked me up.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 05:32 PMSF 18D:--
There is another letter on this blog about Who Is Losing the War In Iraq. Can you go there and provide some comments?
Posted by CA on September 9, 2007 05:52 PMSharon B
Yeah, I think the quips and quills thing is all good fun, most of the time- so long as there's a POINT behind it. Charles calling me a twit is just an insult and, aside from ego is meaningless. "Noggindogma" is funny on more than just the insult, it's also an appropriate quip because of the positions I have taken here. I give him props for that one.
I missed that one on Grimes. I was about to ask if he took it well, but then I thought, with Grimes, how would anyone know?
Posted by Noggindog on September 9, 2007 06:10 PMCA, No. I'm a soldier, not a politician.
Posted by on September 9, 2007 06:42 PMThe rediculous thing about this thread is that like so many on this forum the premise is faulty.
The controversy about the Columbine memorial is not WHETHER there will be a Christian presence, but WHAT KIND of Christian presence is approved.
This tragedy occured in a mostly Christian community and all the victims (I believe) were Christian. This event is being held by a private foundation, and they can invite anyone they want. Who they don't want is a BLACK gospel choir.
rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5670633,00.html
"the community wouldn't approve of something like that. He said he has nothing against religion, and we could do it if we submit a CD."
Shoels said she interpreted Easton's response as having racial overtones.
"The way I took it, they (the choir) wouldn't have to be seen," she said. "If I got him a CD, the less black faces that he has to see."
So if anyone has an axe to grind here it's 40Acres, but I guess he has other things to worry about.
As for Darwin fish, mine is there not because I object to Christianity, but I object to Christianity masquerading as science being forced into public schools.
And Jimmy bitch-boy (who doesn't want to discuss his own religious views, but is happy to tell others what theirs are): If you think I'm your glow in the dark nemesis and political belief is my religion, you're forgetting two things:
1) The Rocky's "Hygienic practices" you love so much
2) I told you a long time ago I'm Jewish.
Repugnants,
Ah! Yes! That wonderfully "Christian" bit, once given me by a Presbyterian Elder - one time Pastor of the largest Presbyterian Church in what is now the Metro-Denver area - when he solemnly informed me: "It is the duty of every real Christian to remember that Niggers don't have souls. They are not really humans, just a form of highly trainable apes."
Pure Protestantism! And, ABSOLUTELY "CHRISTIAN" as "Theology" - preached and taught in Church and Sunday School when I was a boy - taken from Genesis, Chapter 9, the myth of Noah and the flood, where Noah exclaims: "Cursed be the sons of HAM".- supposedly the progenitor of the black people - and used even today as the justification for both slavery and discrimination, including Apartheit.
"HONEST" man's religion, Noggindog?
You're the great defender of the Puritans, and the other WASP racists and bigots, boy; and the resident "lord-high-theologian". What's the answer?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 09:33 PMWell that just tears it. We liberals were against Christian music at a public memorial, but now that we hear they wanted to keep black singers out, we are forced to change sides and want them to sing.
This is too complicated, I`m getting a headache trying to figure out which side to be on.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 12:06 AMRepugnants,
The hygienic measures are defeated by posting from a different computer. You post under many names. In your ingnorance you fail to respect human integrity. But your cheap tricks will not hide you from me.
I have never asked and don't care what religion you are. I won't tell you mine for very good reasons. I am only interested about what you have to add to this page.
The Ten Commandments on the wall for a century or so did not force any religion on any one. It ddi not make the US a theocracy - in fact it did just the opposite.
The commandments did however serve as a daily reminder of an ethical code which instructs us to treat our neigbors we would be treated ourselves. That message has been removed and now we think we need metal detectors to keep us safe. Which of course they don't. Our own designs never do.
None so blind as though who will not see.
Religion does not masquerade as science in the hands of the genuinley religious. Science does however prove out religion in the hands of the genuinely inquisitive.
I suspect you know very little of religion or science or you would not say such foolish things.
Noggindog,
I give up my flame thrower for a shotgun and you fault me for not using a rifle? You wound me my friend but I will forgive you as you must me.
I see you have discovered the vileness of the Grouch. There is an innocence in the others that is missing there.
Psalm 62
Power belongs to God;
so too, Lord, does kindness,
And you render to each of us
according to our deeds
Jimmy, get some help dude.
Spend the money, get some ther-a-pee.
According to James Jones, God renders kindness to us in accordance with our deeds. What world does he live in? The world is filled with people who through no fault of their own suffer immensely. There is no shortage of good and loving people having nature crater their lives. The standard answer is that it is man's fault; in other words, this all loving and all powerful God is helpless to do anything about man, so that it looks like man is the powerful one. But is man responsible for natural disasters? This all loving and all powerful God is also helpless there.; nature, too, is his master.
What Jones has done with his quote is to expose his grotesque hypocrisy. Quoting meaningless biblical passages can be quite pharisaical and unctuous. Jones is a master of that.
God is ineffable. We will never be able to explain the pain and suffering in the world. People like Jones simply don't have the integrity to acknowledge that simple and obvious fact.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 07:32 AMNoggindog,
I asked you a question. You certainly have answered. And, you have proved my point quite well.
Way back, I wrote - on another line - concerning the history of the Puritans in Holland, and on some of that same history here in the early days of the Colony. You disputed my statements; and defended the Puritans' actions, as they are written about in what appears to be something of the equivalent of a "propaganda leaflet", or church flyer type of publication.
George Washington had his Parson Weems, and most other historical figures and events also have their equivalent of that kind of whitewash. I call it, "defense" - just as you call those who disagree with some of your positions, "anti-theists". The word, "defense", is not a meaningless neologism, however; and it does have a place in the dictionary; and a clearly defined meaning. Unlike James Jones, for instance, I do not regard dictionary definitions as "merely semantics"; nor do I feel it necessary to "use (my) imagination to understand" what is supposedly meant by something written.
What I asked you, sir, concerns something that is still taught in Protestantism; and lies deeply rooted in Calvinism, and is not by any means whatsoever, just the idea of "one racist old man" of 50 years ago - actually 60+, and quite prevelant in the WASP religions throughout America at the time; as it has been prevelant since the first white men settled in the Northern part of the Western Hemisphere.
YOU were the one who indicated that, for YOU, Christianity was an "HONEST man's religion". As someone who claims to be a Christian, and a "theologian", then, what is your answer concerning racism as part of YOUR idea of (Protestant) "Christianity"? The answer hardly requires your tempermental - one might even say, hysterical - fulminations.
But, that aside: My point, all along, has been, simply, this: ALL Protestantism is based upon PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL forms of "make it up as you go along, and invent 'theology' along the way". And, while for you, Christianity as I have presented it, is nothing more that a belief in "superman and santaclaus", it has a Theology, expressed in a succinct form, called the Symbolion - known in the West as, "Creed" - and, its Theology is NOT merely a matter of reaction to social, political, economic, or other problems and situations of human affairs.
I choose to call Protestantism the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$, as that is the form in which it is to be found most prevelantly and predominantly today. You disagree. And you appear to present Protestantism - your own version, whatever that might be - as being something founded in some sort of "superior" way to that of the Christian Church itself.
And, thus, you - and others posting here - become outraged and furious when someone points out to you just how INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL - without foundation in anything other than individually egotistical claims to some kind of "superior knowledge" of "what God proposes for humankind" - the whole spectrum of Protestant belief-systems really are. And, you immediately leap to the erroneous conclusion that YOU are, personally, being insulted; because someone asks you a question concerning your defense of some part of the fantastic melange of Protestantism as such.
Now, coming down to earth, the matter is again very simple. Since you insist that, "Christianity is an HONEST man's relgion", What is your answer to the whole of racism as it is found, EVEN TODAY, in what you call "Christianity"?
And, presuming you exclude - even personally abhor - racism from YOUR form of "Protestant Christianity", how, then, can you, or anyone else, defend those racists who claim to be "Christians", as well as "fundamentalists", "conservative", "morally superior", etc., etc., in their individual and personal versions of Protestant Christianity?
If you feel this insults you, sir, perhaps you might consider ceasing to hold forth as a "theologian", or otherwise an expert on what others "ought to believe", especially those others who are Christian, whatever their personal faults, "sins", or other "inferiorities" you might find in them, in relation to YOUR religion.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 10, 2007 08:04 AMTruth,
When His Sanctiphoniousness, Preacher Deacon Jimmy Jones, tells you "how it is", that, Brother, IS "how it is".
At least until he tells you that it's different in the next posting today, or perhaps on another line tomorrow, that is.
He makes a point of informing us that he won't tell us what his religion is. He seems to think that this gives him the mystique of "expertise" from which HE then can always "correct" you, and others, for what HE will find "wrong".
Actually, all it does is indicate that, in reality, he knows little or nothing about religion - or anything else for that matter - but has the inflated egotism necessary to thinking that he's entitled to the "last word" on everything.
All the benefits of being in a Pulpit, without any of the disadvantages of having to actually have a basis for his pronouncements. Just another typical example of a "religious leader" today.
I've heard it said that, down in Texas, they call that: "All hat and no cattle". Which, for Jones's head size would be . . . rather amazing, perhaps, to see.
Just what size would fit one of those hot-air balloons?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 10, 2007 09:33 AMJJ-
"I give up my flame thrower for a shotgun and you fault me for not using a rifle?"
That was a pretty good line, JJ (yes, that means I thought it was funny, and no, I'm not being sarcastic about it- it's hard to get the right tone into these posts, isn't it?)
You do use something of a broad brush sometimes. Of course we all do at times. I'm actually pretty sure you do it on purpose the majority of the time, because it gets a more inflamed response... suggesting you really WERE using a metaphorical flame-thrower. If you gave it up, then you must be using incendiary rounds now...
Your principle that deeds have consequences is clearly correct. There are natural consequences for failure to heed wisdom, and in that way, God "renders to each of us" according to our actions. There are myriad examples of God dishing out consequences by means of more direct actions. If this Psalm is Davidic, I would bet it is written after the death of his son which Bathsheeba bore (sp?) whose husband David allowed to be killed in battle by withdrawing his support specifically for the purpose of getting him killed. The death of his son was direct intervention. And there is good support for the idea that both heaven and hell really do have "levels" of reward and punishment, which also will be meted out according to our actions. Remember, though, the parable of the harvesters who were all paid the same regardless of how long they worked. The principle is not a rigid schedule of reward and punishment. We have to acknowledge that God does not always work in ways that seem to make sense to us.
Now I've go some unpleasant business to attend to- good to hear from you, brother.
Grouch
The "propaganda leaflet" you refer to was a 260 page journal, written in real-time as the first settlement was undertaken. It is generally considered to be a reasonable historic record.
But that is really all beside the point today isn't it? The real issue is your choice not to acknowledge your misleading statements about me, and your decision to renew the unfounded attacks, even after I point out to you-PRINT for you- what I really said, cut and pasted from the archives, or printed right here in this forum and available for nayone who will bother to scroll up before tossing out libelous crap. It is no longer possible to grant that it may be honest error, after I post the exact words and point out what, in charity, I was willing to grant COULD be honest error.
Your obvious glee when racism came up cannot be missed by any objective reader. You couldn't wait to accuse me of racism and defending racists. Some things go beyond civil discourse, Grouch, and you crossed that line. I answered your charge in the last post, and your response is to "quote" me, again, taking a line that I quoted from someone else's post, as if it were my words or my position.
You no longer have any credibility for meaningful discourse. You will not take responsibility for the things you say. There was a day when this would have been termed as "You have no honor." And I have no further use for you here.
Posted by noggindog on September 10, 2007 12:42 PMThere's nothin wrong with mocking ignorant trash.
"But most Christians understand that God created the earth and everything in it, including evolution. "
The hell they do. Kansas boards of education and creationist museums show the lie in your words.
Posted by on September 10, 2007 12:48 PM"Christians...complain that they are being forced out of venues they have enjoyed for two centuries..."
That's just it. Christianity has had the big megaphone in this country long enough. Let non-Christians finally find the guts to stand up and say "Hey, wait a minute, we're people too, how about hearing from us for a change?" and the Christians scream foul. As Sharon B. has pointed out, in a few weeks we're going to be hearing the annual blather about "War on Christmas" simply because someone had the nerve to acknowledge that more than one holiday is celebrated in December.
Nonetheless, Christianity remains the dominant cultural force in this country, so--as I've said once or twice before--for Christians to claim they're the victims of oppression is like Donald Trump complaining that he isn't eligible for food stamps.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 10, 2007 12:52 PMHadn't heard that before, Old Grouch: "All hat and no cattle". I gotta remember it.
A long aside. Reminds me of the song below.
I'm An Old Cowhand (From The Rio Grande)
Verse:
Step aside, you ornery tenderfeet,
Let a big bad buckeroo past.
I'm the toughest hombre you'll ever meet
Though I may be the last.
Yes, sir-ee, we're a vanishing race,
No, sir-ee, can't last long.
Step aside, you ornery tenderfeet,
While I sing my song:
Chorus 1:
I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande,
But my legs ain't bowed and my cheeks ain't tanned.
I'm a cowboy who never saw a cow,
Never roped a steer 'cause I don't know how;
And I sho' ain't fixin' to start in now.
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay,
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay.
Chorus 2:
I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande,
And I learned to ride 'fore I learned to stand.
I'm a ridin' fool who is up-to-date,
I know ev'ry trail in the Lone Star State,
'Cause I ride the range in a Ford V-Eight.
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay,
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay.
Chorus 3:
I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande,
And I come to town just to hear the band.
I know all the songs that the cowboys know,
'Bout the big corral where the doagies go,
'Cause I learned them all on the radio.
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay,
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay.
Chorus 4:
I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande,
Where the West is wild 'round the Borderland;
Where the buffalo roam around the zoo,
And the Indians make you a rug or two,
And the old Bar X is a Bar-B-Q.
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay,
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay.
Chorus 5 (from British sheet music):
I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande,
And I've done retired, living on the land.
I spend all my time at the Hotel Bar,
With a gin and lime and a big cigar,
'Cause my old ranch hoss is a movie star.
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay,
Yippy-I-O-Ki-Ay.
I'm nominating that for Jones' theme song.
Noggindog, have you had occasion to run across the phrase, "get over it"?
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 02:02 PMHans-
What you say is pretty accurate, but you have couched it in the most pejorative terms possible. Try this view and see if you don't agree that the pendulum sometimes swings too far in EACH direction.
Christians don't object when the sales person in Walmart doesn't say "Merry Christmas." Christians object when the sales people are forbidden by the company to say, "Merry Christmas." And then Christians don't call for legislation to require all companies to allow that phrase, Christians just get together and say, "Let's take our business to other stores and see if Walmart wants to change their minds. (yes, it's often expressed with more heat than that, but that's the message underlying it.)
Now, I have admitted there are always a few loudmouths who raise a ruckus over stuff like the private grave marker of the pagan soldier, or the kooks form that Kansas sect. They get lots of coverage, but they don't represent the mainstream.
12:48-
Many Christians find no contradiction in creationism and evolution. They say God created THROUGH evolution. Others object to evolution because of the observation in Genesis that species procreate "each after their own kind." Others object to evolution based on the holes in the theory that are not adequately explained, but this group is not all and only Christian. There are some secular scientists who say evolution and random development could not be all their is to the story for reasons other than religious belief. Astrophysicists are among these, not only biologists, because they are finding the universe is not as random as they thought it must be.
Don't make the error JJ was accused of, making generalizations that are too large.
Truth, have you run across the phrase "take responsibility"?
You are no better than Grouch. When faced with an argument you can't win, you just start calling names and making unfounded claims, like "you try to pretend you are a scholar of Greek." As it happens, I did graduate work in exegesis. Though I make no claim of being a linguist, I worked with Greek and Hebrew in inductive study. You obviously did not. Grow up and acknowledge when you are out of your depth. People will respect you more for it.
In the meantime I will never sit still for being accused of defending racism. To allow someone to make that charge spuriously denigrates the seriousness of such despicable behavior. Some things demand a serious response. In this case it is all the more so, since Grouch wouldn't DREAM of painting, say, Islam with that same wide brush he uses to charge Protestantism, saying that because of a minority group of martyrs all Muslims are bloodthirsty hoods. He has no grounds for what he said and only made the charge because I handled his other arguments. I might even tolerate it if he acknowledged the obvious misrepresentation that I pulled quotes from the archives to address. But if he will not acknowledge that, then he has no respect for being accurate, he just wants to fell like he is "winning" the argument.
Noggindog,
I cited some sources for YOU - and others - TO READ, concerning the Theology of Orthodoxy. I made such citation in lieu of engaging in a useless game of mutual mental mastrubation, exchanging "ideas" about what "God intends - or proposes - for mankind", which is what Protestants call "theology".
Your response indicated - and indicates - your refusal to accept any necessity to read, and/or to learn about, Christian Theology, together with a cavalier attitude towards the statements you choose to make about Christian Theology as well. If you decide to say something about Christian Theology, you don't need to cite sources, since your own "authority" is all that is necessary to make your statement.
And, you then go on to make a number of statements concerning Christianity that I challenged as false, thereby proving my point; and that I also pointed out were in the same vein as those of Jones, when he asserts something about another person, or position, without having the slightest knowledge, OR "authority", to cite.
As to your other complaint, concerning the matter of Orthodoxy being nothing more than a belief in "superman and santaclaus". You, yourself, went on to say: "The difference between Old Grouch and the rest of us is Old Grouch is adamant that only the Orthodox know superman's secret identity."
Very amusing. Very smart-ass; and quite typical of the Jones style again. Now, it's the usual after-spin of: "Oh,BUT, I didn't say it; but if I said it, I didn't mean it: but anyway it means something else in the first place.".
Of course you do not need to read anyone else's offered works. As with any Protestant, you are your own "authority". You make up your own religion as your go along, and invent your "theology" to suit it in the process. You also make up your own statements concerning what others hold as their religion; and again emphasize your own "authority" to do so, regardless of what anyone else offers in the way of sources as authority for what their religion really believes.
And, when someone catches you out in this kind of thing, you throw a temper tantrum; and demand apologies for someone else's presentation of the truth concerning the essential bankruptcy of your own religious fantasizing.
In point of fact, I never really expected an answer to my questions about racism. I knew quite well that you would be put to the effort of having to make up some kind of response, just as you make up your religion as you go along; and I again have been proven correct in my judgment. Instead of acknowledging the dichotomy between racism and Protestant brands of peddling Je$u$, with some small attempt to reconcile the inherently mutual contradictions, you immediately accuse me of having personally insulted YOU, thereby indicating that YOU think YOURSELF to be, somehow, an embodiment of Protestantism as a whole.
Again, as with Jones, you wildly flatter yourself, in the course of which self-flattery you question the integrity of anyone who doesn't accept your "authority" in regarding yourself as being such an embodiment of a vast number of quasi-abstract fantasies.
Sonny, I could not care less what Noggindogism is, or Noggindogma either. Join the crowd. You're just another among many, including Pat-Robertsonism, Dobsonism, Haggardism, Falwellism, Jonesism - both with and without Kool-Aid - Phelpsism, and all the rest; all just little pieces and parts of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$, each and all worth just as much, and just as important as, any other as religion; and/or "theology".
But, you do have some saving graces anyway. You can - and usually do - construct a gramaticaly correct English sentence; and you are readable, as well as amusing, in your hysteria. Good luck in teaching something to Jones.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 10, 2007 03:45 PMNoddingdogma, are you kidding...
"Truth, have you run across the phrase "take responsibility"?"
UN Truth wouldn't know the concept if you head him over the head with a 2x4 labeled responsibility. He is truly an example of pure mental masturbation (thank you, Charlie Boy) resulting in fatuous flatulence.
Be smart and ignore him.
Posted by on September 10, 2007 03:54 PMBy the Way, Noggindog,
That's one of Jones's oldest, and most worn out, tactics; i.e., telling others what someone else would, or would not, do about something. Bit of overworked imagination there, sonny; so typical of those who fantasize their pre-eminence as "authority".
I guess it just goes to show that Jones is the teacher, and that you, as pupil, are rapidly taking in - and taking on - all his worst ways, and bad habits. To retun one of your compliments: I had really thought better of you, Noggindog. But then again . . . .
Posted by Old Grouch on September 10, 2007 04:00 PMI wrote:
"I object to Christianity masquerading as science being forced into public schools."
Prompting:
"Religion does not masquerade as science in the hands of the genuinley religious. Science does however prove out religion in the hands of the genuinely inquisitive.
I suspect you know very little of religion or science or you would not say such foolish things."
Posted by James Jones on September 10, 2007 04:46 AM
So, the fools erecting plaques at the Grand Canyon claiming it proves Noah's flood, the creation museum hicks in Kentucky claiming the dinosaurs were on the ark and were vegetarians, and the Thomas Moore center who supported the Dover school board's intelligent design {creationism lite (tm)} weren't genuinely religious according to the Prophet Jim Jones. They'd be surprised to hear it.
Your claim about science proving out religion is patently rediculous.
Please cite one religious claim supported by science. Or has there simply never been anyone "genuinely inquisitive" enough to do so? Is your god small enough that his ways can be made obvious by the scientific method? If god can be proven by science, he can be disproven by science. That's how science works. No scientist worth his degree would make such a claim
At least scientists are humble enough to acknowledge that religion and science ask different questions and address different spheres of knowledge.
To use a Jonesian non-insult insult: I suspect you don't know $hit about $hit.
I wrote:
"I object to Christianity masquerading as science being forced into public schools."
Prompting:
"Religion does not masquerade as science in the hands of the genuinley religious. Science does however prove out religion in the hands of the genuinely inquisitive.
I suspect you know very little of religion or science or you would not say such foolish things."
Posted by James Jones on September 10, 2007 04:46 AM
So, the fools erecting plaques at the Grand Canyon claiming it proves Noah's flood, the creation museum hicks in Kentucky claiming the dinosaurs were on the ark and were vegetarians, and the Thomas Moore center who supported the Dover school board's intelligent design {creationism lite (tm)} weren't genuinely religious according to the Prophet Jim Jones. They'd be surprised to hear it.
Your claim about science proving out religion is patently rediculous.
Please cite one religious claim supported by science. Or has there simply never been anyone "genuinely inquisitive" enough to do so? Is your god small enough that his ways can be made obvious by the scientific method? If god can be proven by science, he can be disproven by science. That's how science works. No scientist worth his degree would make such a claim
At least scientists are humble enough to acknowledge that religion and science ask different questions and address different spheres of knowledge.
To use a Jonesian non-insult insult: I suspect you don't know $hit about $hit.
Noggindog, one nit too good to pass up. Concerning David and Bathsheba. The folks were ready to kill her, (but not him) for their affair and then it started to rain. That was a sure fire sign from God that He approved of them.
Then He killed their son? Oh yes, He reached down with His ham fist ed hand and snapped that babies neck. Then He shook the body in front of his parents, like a rag doll.
When he had their attention, for sure, He then threw the little body down on the floor in front of them to make sure no one missed His point.
Right? That how it happened?
A sure sign from God, for sure. Direct intervention.
Now if God didn`t want the affair to happen He could have given David a touch of ED, but no, better to let it all go on and then kill an innocent baby. Good God.!
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 04:54 PMGrouch
"You, yourself, went on to say: "The difference between Old Grouch and the rest of us is Old Grouch is adamant that only the Orthodox know superman's secret identity."
Of course I said it, you great buffoon. It's right up there in this thread, Sept. 8, 5:49. Here is the exact cut-and-paste text of my words to the person I addressed the post, Sue:
Therefore, he is one of those who believe in "superman or santaclaus" as you put it (please correct me if I am wrong, Grouch.
Did you see the AS YOU PUT IT part? And those funny little marks like Woodstock talks with in the old Charlie Brown cartoons? These marks, " " are called QUOTE marks. They are an indication that I am using SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS. I did not characterize Orthodoxy as belief in superman, someone else implied it, apparently unaware that if you adhere to Orthodox theology, then you do, in fact, subscribe to the notion of a divine Christ. I merely repeated their words back to them in quotes. I did not characterize Orthodoxy in any way except as believing in the historical Jesus, which I believe is accurate. I characterized YOU as confident that you have the answers which the others of us lack. Quotes do not suggest that I agree, or that these are my thoughts. They serve as a reference point to separate my thoughts from those of the original speaker. And at Sept. 8, 4:30 you will see the exact text that you first misrepresented, when I suggested you might like to say "you erred in your understanding of my words." You want to say I claimed no need to read Orthodox theology before I speak on Orthodox theology. As it happens, I don't need to look at Orthodox authors to know that Orthodox theology does not posit "There is no God, or if there is, He has no interest in us," and that is the sum total of all I said about Orthodox theology. And, frankly, Grouch, I could care less if you think all theology subsequent to your personal favorite is apostate. It quickly became clear that you do not discuss theology, you pontificate. And while I did take a short look at one of the authors you mentioned that same day, guess what? You don't get to make reading assignments anymore.
"Very amusing. Very smart-ass." Oh, I'm a smart-ass, huh? GEE, YA THINK?
Grouch, I am the FIRST to admit I'm a smart-ass, you insufferable prig. I'm a smart-ass, and I'm arrogant, and I'm right somewhat more often than I am wrong when I state what I think are facts, but when I am wrong, I admit it, and when I do something over-the-top, like insult you for typos, I admit it and apologize. Take a lesson, Grouch.
Sharon B-
No, actually, the baby sickened and died over a period of days or weeks, and it seems clear that David new the child would die, and petitioned God to spare (him/her, I don't recall.) God chose otherwise.
Yeah, some things God does are hard to understand. Job saw all his children die, simply because God had a point to make, from what we know of that story. I don't apologize for God. I just figure He's God, and He makes the call. Truth has this one right when he says it's not something we can explain adequately. One place to start, though, is the idea that if God IS doing this stuff, then we know that as humans we ARE eternal. And if we ARE eternal, then loss of this life here is not such a big deal in the great scheme of things. That's one reason we can't always understand God. His perspective, by definition, is eternal, compared to out temporal perspective.
Truth
This all loving and all powerful God is also helpless there.; nature, too, is his master.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 07:32 AM
This is remarkable. Atheists hold that the universe operates randomly, by no design and life evolves through chance selection or survival of the fittest.
Believers, religious or not, think that an Almighty God created the universe that operates by the Creator's design.
You manage to believe both. You think that the universe (Nature) operates randomly but co-exists with God. So, God is not all-powerful, for instance is helpless to prevent bad things happning to good people, but operates with some amount of authority within a random universe.
The obvious question then is:
What, just in a general sense, are the limits of God's power?
Posted by James Jones on September 10, 2007 05:39 PMNoggindog,
It was David. I paint with broad brush here because there is so much ground to cover.
God instructs the heart through contradictions. I think that was DeCussade.
Posted by James Jones on September 10, 2007 05:51 PMPlease cite one religious claim supported by science.
Posted by Repugnants are liars on September 10, 2007 04:11 PM
I thought you'd never ask.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning ...
That was disputed about 2500 years ago when Aristotle figured out the Universe was eternal. There was no beginning. There was change but the universe had just always been here.
Just about all educated people, including a young Einstein, agreed with Aristotle. Non-believers said it was evidence that religion is myth. Believers said it must mean something else.
Then about mid-way through the 20th Century measuring devices were developed that proved conclusively that the universe is expanding. If that is true then it must have been smaller in the past. And if that is true, then there must have been a point, billions of years ago, when the universe was contained in a tiny area (say about the size of a tennis ball).
All that lead to the Theory of the Big Bang which is the best description extant of the Creation of the Universe. So you see it turns out there was a beginning after all. Einstein acknowledged it was the biggest error or his career.
I make that Aristotle 0, Old Testament 1.
I hope all that gets me off the hook, at least temporarily, on the wholly unwarranted broad brush charge.
And thanks again for asking. I really like answering that question.
Posted by James Jones on September 10, 2007 06:16 PMReading all the science vs. religion - or other way round - or science/religion = religion/science - or is it . . . well whatever. Anyway I'm reminded of something Mark Twain wrote in "Life on the Mississippi": "Such a wholesale return of conjecture on such a trifling investment of fact." Which fits the whole works, all ways around.
Noggindog,
I've never met a make-it-up-as-you-go-along-and-invent-"theology"-to-fit-on-the-way "authority" yet who stopped with the Dogmatic Decrees of the Seven Oecumenical Councils. That's the beauty of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ (Protestantism). Like any other marketable product, it depends upon its up to date freshness to catch the buyer's interest. And the fluffier the cotton candy, the better it sells. No substance, of course. But no one on the midway, heading for the circus tent, cares about that.
As to "reading assignments", sonny, I've said it before: Those who don't want to learn, won't. And that's not MY problem.
You and Jonesy have a good time now, playing "Church" up there in the rarified stratosphere of "authority". As the Book has it, you can "tickle (each other's) ears".
Posted by Old Grouch on September 10, 2007 06:57 PMNoggin so if you can convince yourself that some events are directly caused by God to make a point, to make Himself apparent to people or to prove He exists, that makes you believe in Him and feel eternal.?
Sincerely, go back over that again. You can pick and choose which events God caused, and which He just let happen, but anyway, they all point to his existence. Hon, that is circular reasoning so profound I can`t think of a name for it.
No one ever said it plainer, you have justified your belief and I am stunned you didn`t realize it as you wrote it.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 07:43 PMJones, I thought at first that you were going to explain that unexplainable question of how an all loving and an all powerful God allows so much pain and suffering. As for my beliefs, I'm just like you and everybody else, I have no idea what the answer is. You are funny, though. You try to take my posts posing questions and act as though I am providing answers. Like you, I don't have the answers. Unlike you, I admit it.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 08:30 PMWhen you walk by some dogs and make any kind of noise, they are up barking. The Noggin dog is like that. You make a noise in his direction, and he's up barking out some more meaningless palaver. He apparently thinks that's the Christian thing to do. I think maybe he has veracity confused with verbosity.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 08:57 PMTruth,
"I thought at first that you were going to explain that unexplainable question of how an all loving and an all powerful God allows so much pain and suffering."
Your ignorance does not demonstrate the question is unanswerable-
Christians agree that pain is the ineluctable consequence of free will. Suffering (the cross) is the only path to God.
In terms you will better understand:
Fun does not lead to happiness.
Now let's look again to your homily offered up of your own free will.
This all loving and all powerful God is also helpless there.; nature, too, is his master.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 07:32 AM
Does that statement have any meaning or were just indugling in a little intellectual self-gratification?
Sharon B-
Actually, no, I don't subscribe to the "God only LETS bad things happen" explanation of natural disasters, etc. Hey, if you have the power to stop a little kid from drowning, but you just stand there and watch him drown, you are still responsible, right? So "God LETS it happen" vs. "God MAKES it happen" is a zero-sum game, IMHO. I'm okay with nodding and saying, "Yep. God took David's child, for God's reasons." I just don't say that I can explain the good or evil of it, except to say by faith that I am confident that what God does is right.
As I said before, Truth had that one right when he said it can't really be explained sufficiently for us to make sense of it (perhaps the only thing he has had right in a while, but I'll give credit where it is due.) The closest I can come to an understanding I am comfortable with is that with our limited view, we do not always know what is good and right, and what is not (we know right and wrong regarding our actions, of course. And we know what fits our selfish hopes and plans. I'm simply saying we don't have God's perspective on the big picture).
So, don't expect that I hold the standard views of many of these things that you have heard from others. I don't know if you read it, but if you did, you can recall that I'm the guy who thinks the Calvinists AND the Arrmenians are both right. I don't know of anyone else who holds that view, though there are plenty who don't hold any view, since they haven't look into it very far.
And Sharon, I don't think the death of David's son is objective evidence of God (that is what you meant, right?) I take God on faith, and I am not looking for "signs and wonders" to convince me He exists. But thanks for your note. It made me stop and remember how so many things are said by so many people, it is not a big surprise that the sum total is not convincing to any one who hears all the different explanations, etc.
Grouch-
"I've never met a make-it-up-as-you-go-along-and-invent-"theology"-to-fit-on-the-way "authority" yet who stopped with the Dogmatic Decrees of the Seven Oecumenical Councils.
I don't know of any physicists who stopped at Newton's Law of Gravity, either. Big deal.
The last of the Councils you so venerate was some 700+ years after Christ. The big issue at the time was the controversy over the role of icons in the church, and the rules for that were alternately adopted and tossed out 3 times before the issue was "settled," more or less. Charlemagne, who CALLED the council, rejected it's "findings." So, Grouch, if they were figuring out stuff up to 700 years after Christ, why not 900 years after? How about 1200 years after? Why not TODAY?
You call US the make-it-up-as-you-go-along crowd, but for Protestants, if it's not in the Bible, it's not authoritative. For you, if some geezer said it long enough ago, and got enough press over it, it must be true. YOU GUYS are the folks who think whoever makes it to the top of the church heap can speak for God.
Truth-
Thanks for that really exacting and critical bit of logic. Don't stress your fingers typing that kind of thing. You might need them sometime when you really have a thought. But then again, how likely is that?
Noggin, I am glad what I wrote didn`t upset you, that was not my intention.
Maybe God exists but we, our at least our conscious awareness of ourselves is not eternal. Judging the existence of God on natural phenomena will make a person batty. Remember that the tsunami was said to have been a message from an angry God.?
I resent dying because I will not see how the World progresses.
I want to look at the place in the New Year of 3000 and see how the countries have fared.
As my Jewish friend would say, "It could happen".
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 01:26 AMNoggindog
It seems to me you are trying to discuss the nuances of Calvinism with people who haven't got beyond platitudes about whether the universe operates by chance or design.
Tell me what I'm missing.
Posted by James Jones on September 11, 2007 06:55 AMYes, Noggindog,
You book-worshipers ignore the fact that the Canon of Scripture - the collection of books you worship as the Bible - was decided upon by Council; and some of you even teach that it was - as with Islamic belief - sort of either "dictated", or otherwise "handed down", word for word, in the English KJV.
Christians know better.
Of course, you have earlier indicated that you don't accept "reading assignments". Why? Perhaps because you're not able to accept the historical facts? Or just because it's so much more fun playing "Do-It-Yourself-Church"?
And just by the way, Charlemange didn't call the Council that did away with Iconoclasm. NO OECUMENCIAL COUNCIL was either called by, or presided over, by a Western (Roman) Bishop or Emperor. As you might have known IF you had the slightest knowledge of CHRISTIAN history. But, as I've said before: Those who don't want to learn, won't.
There is an old saying: "When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." And you appear to be totally blissful in your absymal ignorance.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 09:43 AMOld Grouch
the collection of books you worship as the Bible -
Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 09:43 AM
Woodshed time.
There is nothing Noggindog has posted to even suggest any moral or intellectual basis for the charge that he worships books or any other inanimate object.
The is just the standard vulgarity you bring this to page in your ongoing attempt to destroy productive discourse by bringing everyone down to your own level of corruption.
Noggindog probably made a mistake in taking you seriously. Even I, fully aware of the depth of your vacuosness, thought he might make some progress.
Now you may to criticize Noggindog for anything he has posted or any reasonable reference therof. But remember that I will be here watching and when you indulge yourself with these vile habits I will reappear to administer another good spanking.
Sharon B
"Maybe God exists, but [we]... are not eternal."
You won't know that for a while yet, Sharon- let us hope not for a good long while.
"Judging the existence of God on natural phenomena will make a person batty."
I don't think I agree with that, Sharon. We call it, "God's revelation through creation," meaning that the very observation of the natural world and the way the systems are all balanced, the complexity of biology, the way it appears everything in the universe can be reduced to a mathematical equation... We think this is a strong argument for a created universe, that this is way too much to be the result of a series of random event which all had to happen just right for a nearly infinite period of time, without any hiccups that would, for example, burn this earth into a sterile ball of rock and dust. And if there is a created universe, there must be a creator. The trick is not to determine how unlikely this universe is to have come about by random means. The trick is to identify which god is likely to be THE God.
James Jones
We aren't discussing nuances of Calvinism at all. I mentioned it as an example of how you, she, whoever is reading me, shouldn't assume that I follow the standard ideas that many Christians have. The harsh reality is that kids go to Sunday School and wind up asking their Sunday School teacher hard questions. Some of those questions are beyond the depth of the local plumber who is teaching the Sunday School kids this summer- but you know how folks hate to say, "I don't know." The result is a lot of inadequate answers floating around out there that get repeated over and over until folks start to think they're a legitimate treatment of a question. All to often, they are just the answer that let people be more comfortable with God. "God just LETS bad things happen" is WAY less than adequate, and is really designed to dodge the issue that God sometimes does stuff that appears bad to us. Its an answer that reduces the need for faith. I merely said that I don't subscribe to most of those kinds of platitudes. James, it is clear that God wants us to take Him on faith. Why He wants that is not really clear, but the more readily we can pretend to "understand" all the difficult things about God, the less faith is necessary. That's why I agree with Truth that there are some things we will not be able to explain sufficiently (my version is " some things can't be explained sufficiently to remove the necessity of faith.") I do think we will know the answers when we stand before God.
James Jones,
I see you again express your fixation on other people's nether regions, with your reference to the "woodshed". Is this a projection based upon something that happened to you as you were growing up? If so, I can recommend good therapists. If not, I can only say that the fixation itself is amusing, especially when found in one of such "syperior moral" knowledge and character as you present yourself to be.
Noggindog's comments concerning Protestantism and its reliance on the Bible, are perfectly expressive of the bibliolatry that lies at the root of all Protestant positions.
Christians do not hold to the position expressed by Noggindog - as you might know, were you to have ever read any of the Theological references I long ago offered.
As a buttinsky, Jonesy, you are without peer. As someone who actually knows much, if anything, about the subjects you butt in upon, you are an example of the kind of abysmal ignorance that marks those who "refuse reading assignments"; have no regard whatsoever for either evidence or facts; and generally insist upon being the "last word" on a subject.
I have said all along, you belong in a Pulpit; since you are a pluperfect example of a Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ entrepreneur, a Protestant Preacher. Now go tell your Mommy she needs you.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 11:46 AMOld Grouch,
Ascending from vile
"the collection of books you worship as the Bible"
to silly
"Noggindog's comments concerning Protestantism and its reliance on the Bible, are perfectly expressive of the bibliolatry that lies at the root of all Protestant positions.
Christians do not hold to the position expressed by Noggindog "
Is sufficient to spare you another spanking. The better you understand the requirements, the easier this will be for us all.
I don't doubt you know a good number of therapists. It is patently obvious that none of them could be described as "good."
Noggindog,
I want to respond to your comments but am pushed for time just now. I barely have time to deal with Grouch.
Check me out after 5pm.
Peace
Noggindog, of course you can find God through the Universe and its workings. That mathematical bit was what i think. You just can`t find God through individual events such as earthquakes and babies deaths.
Looking for God in bad events, that proves He exists is as silly as looking for him in good things, puppies and kids smiles.
we have to take it all, what we call good and bad as the way things are supposed to be without any micro-managing by the God.
All life has to end, so we have accidents and disease and war and natural events otherwise all life would live forever until there wasn`t room for another bacteria.
In nature there is no such thing as a disaster, one places flood is another places renewal of the soil.
If God is knowable through observing the Universe, then revelations are not reliable. And they are not needed.
Suppose something happened to most of us and only a few folks on some island survived. No idea of Christianity or the Bible on the island. Can they ever find God without someone else telling them about Him?
I say they can by just looking at the World around them. I know this is simplistic but do you see my point.
Some scientists think that the Universe cycles through big bang to big crunch, which gives us another little ball of matter that goes through another big bang.
This cycle is like a heart beat because it repeats.
In that sense, there never was a beginning and there will never be an end.
What is a "Noggin'' dog? I keep thinking Noddindog after those bobble headed ones in peoples cars.
Noggindog: "The closest I can come to an understanding I am comfortable with".
That's one of the problems. Needing to find an understanding one is comfortable with, that is, fits his previous beliefs. People are forever trying to find ways to explain life and God in terms they are comfortable with. None of us likes to be upset or to question our own beliefs.
Posted by Truth on September 11, 2007 02:08 PMJones: "Christians agree that pain is the ineluctable consequence of free will."
Really? You really mean that it was free will that caused those natural disasters that wrecked all those lives? Gee, can you say a little something more about how that works?
So your idea of an all powerful and all loving God is one who creates people who can't handle free will except in a way that will bring them suffering? And He can't do a thing about it? And we're supposed to thank Him for doing that?
Jones, I think you'll agree with me that you don't make a whit of sense when you try to explain the unexplainable.
Posted by Truth on September 11, 2007 02:29 PMCareful there, Truth,
You might just happen to excite Jones's fixation on other people's nether regions, and get him interested in "spanking" you. Seems to be his response to just about anything, and anybody, who dares to deal with the emptiness of his positions, and the paucity of his thought procsses.
His generalizations concerning "Christians" are but one example of his absolutely abysmal ignorance, not only of religion, but of elementary logic; logic being most often conspicuous by its total absence in his postings. But, the forum does substitute for the pulpit he does not otherwise occupy; so I guess it balances out overall.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 02:46 PMGrouch-
I wrote, "Charlemagne, who CALLED the council..."
You are correct, that is an error. I should have written Constantine. Actually, I should have written "Constantine's mother," (or maybe even grandmother- I don't recall) who ruled for him since he ascended the throne at grade-school age. His grandfather Leo the something-or-other(Leo 2 or 3?) started the problem by removing icons from the church. Constantine's mother decided they needed a council to settle the issue because the Iconophiles and Iconoclasts were killing each other.
What's interesting to me is that you decided to bitch about me writing the wrong name, but you completely dodge the reasonable argument, why are things decided 700+ years after Christ, but not today? Oh, I suppose that response makes perfect sense... BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. The truth is, those councils are just big meetings of ordinary guys who became bishops. We know this because if the votes were unanimous, there would be no need for a meeting. They had councils because they disagreed. It was a simple vote system where the side with the most support won the argument... which means that SOME OF THOSE GUYS WERE WRONG ON ANY ISSUE THAT CAME UP. But here we are 1300 or so years later, and you say they are the only credible authority. Who's to say that on one of those 52% vs. 48% votes the wrong side didn't ever win? Oh, my mistake again. YOU are to say that, huh, Grouch? Big deal. News flash, bud: YOU CAN"T VOTE ON TRUTH. True is true and false is false, no matter how many people make the same error. It's called "OBJECTIVE TRUTH." Heard of it?
So in your whole reply, 2 posts, all you can do is say "Yeah, well, well... some people think the Bible was written in King James English!!! So there, you big meany!"
Great argument, Grouch. Some people think it's okay to sleep with their sister, too. That has no bearing here though, does it? Find me any mainstream, creditable Protestant theologian who is writing that the Bible was written in King James English. So some bumpkin somewhere thinks "thee" and "thou" is how Jesus talked, and you think that's a theological argument? The fact is, this is the same crap you tired to pull by saying I defend racism, and that racism is a standard Protestant doctrine. You really are an ignorant old man, Grouch. I gave you WAY to much credit. Argue the issues, or go take a nap. The name of the emperor has no bearing on the real argument, and you're just a jackass if you think the way to make progress is by simply insisting you are right. You turned out to be a big disappointment, old man.
Truth-
What JJ said is pretty standard doctrine. The inevitable result of free will is rebellion, the fall of man. The fall of man resulted in an imperfect world, including physical death. We may not be able to understand why God made it so, but when JJ said "Christians agree" to that idea, he is generally right, most Christians acknowledge the doctrine of origional.
Truth-
re: your post of 2:28, I agree completely, that is a big problem. When I say "comfortable" though, I mean I am not willing to go further out a limb saying things I can't support from Biblical sources. Not everybody is unwilling to come to new beliefs just because they started with something different- but it is an issue too much of the time.
Sharon B-
"Noggindog, of course you can find God through the Universe and its workings"
Well, actually, no, I would not agree with that statement. You can find support for the idea of God, is that close enough to what you are saying?
"If God is knowable through observing the Universe, then revelations are not reliable. And they are not needed."
Most Christians acknlowedge special revelation, i.e. the Bible, and natural revelation- the world and the universe. All reveal God to some extent. We simply learn different things about God from the different sources.
"Suppose something happened to most of us and only a few folks on some island survived. No idea of Christianity or the Bible on the island. Can they ever find God without someone else telling them about Him?"
THAT is a good question, and here again I depart from that standard Protestant teaching. I find no evidence that causes me to say someone must know Jesus' name in order to particiapate in His sacrifice. However, the traditional teaching is that if someone was really seeking God, God would provide a way for them to know about Jesus. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying I'm sure you can know God without knowing of the crucifixion of Jesus. I'm saying I find no convincing and compelling argument. That standard proof text is "There is no other name by which you are saved." But that, to me, is not the same as "You have to know My name to be saved." Again, was the rebel at the Seminary I attended on this issue.)
Noggindog was the nickname my college girlfriend gave my dog years ago, because he had a rare degree of smarts . Soon, it became a nickname people called me because I have a pretty good memory for information- not eidetic, but pretty good. Some few old friends still call me that from time to time. It's sometimes sarcastic, because I will get a name similar, but wrong, or I'll quote a date exactly 100 years off or something like that.
Posted by Noggindog on September 11, 2007 04:48 PMNoggin, I read an article on those mental slip ups in Discover mag last month or so. Remember spoonerisms? good day comes out dood gay.
I think the God of the Universe, is the Universe, and can be found through science. The God of Einstein, as I have said before. A rational but non-interventionist God.
Now a question. Did God create Himself? Don`t laugh, I know that is "nutty", but if not then Who Did?
Either way, why does God need all those commandments on how to treat him and all that praise and worship?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 05:13 PMNoggindog,
We agree on faith. I view faith and doubt as sides of the same coin. Faith, the ability to accept mystery, is required for salvation.
Having said that, God created a reasoned universe and us as reasoning images. Faith does not excuse the exercise of intellect. That is, to question. Questioning is, it seems to me, then becomes the foundation of faith.
I write this with the full acknowldegement that you have presented some of the best scholarship produced on this page. So all that is not intended to inform but to set a backdrop.
You have said that I paint with a broad brush - I would be interested in knowing what exactly you mean by that.
Posted by James Jones on September 11, 2007 05:37 PMSharon B-
"Spoonerisms"- that's a word I haven't heard for a long time. I learned that word from an old "Donald Duck" comic book as a kid. Before talking movies. (okay, just kidding.)
Did God create himself? No. God exists outside of time, and therefore has no need for a beginning and end. Perhaps you saw my post to James Jones on this topic a while ago? If you stop all (ALL) motion in the universe, you stop time. Before creation there was no matter or energy, and for that matter, no universe before God created it. Therefore, no time. Therefore, no beginning.
The commandments you refer to were given to the nation of Israel as the Hebrews came out of Egypt. They were designed to set the Hebrews apart from other nations- and keep them apart, as well as to make it clear that humanity is able to live without rebelling from time to time. It was God's intention from the time of Abraham to give us the Christ through Abraham's line, and by having a nation of Israel set apart from other nations, the record of Jesus' linage was preserved. It is also through that cultural line that prophecy was made and preserved, as an indication that God designed the whole thing from the beginning (prophecy is not, in my opinion, so that we know what WILL happen. It is so that when God acts, we recognize it and know that He planned it thus.)
The "new commandment" is love, and the "summary" of the commandments is to love God and your neighbor. Much simpler, huh? So all the old ceremonial stuff, sacrifice, Leveitcal law, etc. that existed to set the Hebrews apart is no longer necessary (unless you are Hebrew, and then it's debatable) after the events surrounding the historical Jesus, and the case that humans all rebel from time to time is also made. This is the point that Grimes always misses, why we can eat pork now, etc. However, that is not to say all ceremony is done way with. Communion is a new ceremony Jesus gave us- it is not for salvation, but for celebration, and still sets Christians apart from non-Christians. Likewise baptism.
Those answers work for you?
Truth,
Do I think free will causes hurricanes? No.
Now as to:
"Jones, I think you'll agree with me that you don't make a whit of sense when you try to explain the unexplainable."
I have not attempted to explain the unexplainable. I did ask you to explain what you meant when you posted
"This all loving and all powerful God is also helpless there.; nature, too, is his master. "
Or is that one of the great unexplainables?
Posted by James Jones on September 11, 2007 05:44 PMGrouch,
The ruth is a flame that brings both light and heat.
The others get the light. You get the heat.
Posted by James Jones on September 11, 2007 05:54 PMOh No JJ, you didn`t proof read. Lost all its sting. You are still my favorite.
Thanks Noggindog, my grandson invented a category of sayings that I can`t find a name for: Hurrycane=hurricane because they hurry
Hard of earing=for hard of hearing.
Now the whole family tries to think of some.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 06:12 PMNoggindog,
Constantine was responsible for calling the FIRST Oecumenical Council of Nicea. Not the SEVENTH, which dealt with Iconoclasm.
The First Council was called to deal with Arianism.; and began the formal structure of the Christian statement of Faith, the Symbolion. In the West, the then Bishop of Rome, Honorius, was almost totally illiterate, knowing no Greek, and barely enough Latin to read basic elements of the Leiturgos. As a result, Honorius adopted the diphthong, "homoiusion" - of similar, or like, substance with the Father - instead of the Christian "homousion" - of SAME substance - to speak of Christ, thereby leading the Western Church into nearly a Century and a Half of heretical Arianism.
Which is one reason, among many, that Christians refer to the Bishop of Rome (Pope) as being the First Protestant.
In today' world a group known as Jehovah's Witnesses hold to the Arian position - which the late Archbishop Barthlomew, of Blessed Memory, once summed up as being a statement: "Christ is God, but not quite".
Leo III, 717-741, issued the first decrees banning Icons - influenced by the rise of surrounding Mohammedism, which is a form of extreme denial of the Incarnation, and of the Divinity of Christ, as well as of His two Natures in one Person as True God and True man, like unto us in all things, except He did not sin; as well as the abandonment of the Trinity.
Leo III also was a supporter of Monophysiteism/Monotheliteism, the position that there was no real humanity in Christ, merely something that might be called in today's terms, a form of "holographic projection". The rationale for this heresy was based on the ultra-immaterial idea of God, making any form of human representation - painting or sculpture, etc., etc., - of God, or Christ, impossible as a form of idolatry forbidden by way of the commandment against "images".
The Iconoclastic Emperor best known for his own treatises on the subject was
Constantine V Copronymous 741-775. He convenend a Council in 754, in Hieria, which the 7th Oecumenical Council - 2nd Nicea - condemned in 787; where the Church re-emphasized the Mysteries of Duophysiteism/Duotheliteism; and held that, since God did come and dwell among us as True man, Iconographic representation of Christ God was legitimate to Christianity.
Insofar as Charlemange be concerned, he wrote a treatise - or manuscript - the "Libri Carolini", in which he adopted the Iconoclastic position - as well as Monophysitism/Monotheliteism, which resulted from his own ignorance of Greek, and the meaning of "proskynesis". (I do not have italic, and other special forms for emphasis available.)
Orthodoxy Sunday - the First Sunday in Lent - celebrates the Triumph of the Church over its enemies and heretics, and re-affirms the Dogmatic Decrees of the Seven Oecumenical Councils in the major focus of the Leiturgos of the Day.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 06:37 PMSharon B,
Proving that God has a sense of humor.
Sorry it took me a while to get back here--my, but this forum has grown--but I was busy looking up perjorative (oh, I had a pretty good idea what it meant, but I wanted to be sure, and if you believe that I'll tell you another), among other tasks and occupations.
Okay, Noggindog, if you say the Christians who claim "war on Christmas," etc., do not represent the mainstream of Christianity, I won't argue. But when they start shrieking about the evil "secular humanists" eroding their "rights" a couple of months from now, you be sure to speak up and tell them that.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 11, 2007 07:39 PMNoggindog,
Back when this all started, I stated to you that a belief-system is not debateable. I also stated to you that I am a Christian, and that my Theology is that of Orthodoxy. That is a belief-system.
As a belief-system it is vastly different from the Western. You can take that, or leave it as you choose. As a belief system, it does not deal with the Western philosophical idea of what you call "objective truth", arrived at by some kind of comparison, experimentation, or other current means of decision making.
Again, you can take that, or leave it. As a belief-system, it is sufficient unto itself; and your acceptance or rejection has no effect whatsoever on its contents.
I offered books which clearly show both the historical development, as well as the contents, of Orthodox Dogma. You informed me that you don't accept "reading assignments". Fine and dandy. You don't want to learn the difference, so you won't.
For Orthodoxy, as a belief system, your thoughts on "objective truth" are meaningless. Orthodoxy begins from a position which rejects the idea that man can "know ABOUT God" in an "objective" way. Those philosophers who state that God can be known, described, deliniated, and "objectively" limited and defined - such as Origen - have been expressly condemned by Orthodox Councils.
The Western Churches - Romanism and all its offshoots of Protestantism - are based upon the philosophy of Origen, as amplified upon by Augustine of Hippo, and continuously developed by Aquinas, Suarez, Anselm, and others.
Orthodox Christianity is not.
What you are saying is, simply, that you are going to tell me what Orthodox Christianity "ought to be", from the standpoint of YOUR ideas of "objective truth".
What I am saying is, simply, I am an Orthodox Christian. I am telling you, as best I can from 50+ years studying and living my Faith, what Orthodox Christianity IS.
If that offends you - as it very obviously does - I can only, once again, point out that a belief-system IS NOT debateable. You can take that, or leave it, as you choose.
BUT! Your need - or whatever it be - to "convert" me - or anyone else - is your own. I merely offer you the materials from which to learn the diametric differences between belief-systems. And, I do correct you when you make statements that are false concerning Orthodoxy, in that framework of what YOU think, or believe, Orthodoxy "ought to be".
I would remind you that Christians are told that Faith is the Gift of the Holy Spirit. I offer the opportunity, and the materials, to study my Faith. I have long studied Western Churches - about 75 years all told - and do not find anything in them to meet the wonders of Orthodox Faith; and certainly nothing at all to make me even fleetingly imagine giving up the gift of the Faith I have. So, it is useless to offer me something that is much the same as "stones in place of bread", as can also be found as a lesson from Scripture.
Thus, I decline the mutual mental masturbation sessions in "theology"; and simply stand on the solid ground of Faith. And, when others make flase statements about Orthodoxy, I respond, only to correct their mistakes, and perhaps eliminate their mis-conceptions; i. e., remarks such as are made concerning "atheism", "anti-theism", and the like, especially when used as descriptives of what someone else's position, or Faith, is.
I certainly allow for some degree of "objective truth" in the areas of philosophy, science, and other human disciplines and studies. But, none of those affects, or has effect upon, Orthodox Christianity. As you would learn, were you to read the offered expositions of Orthodox Theology; since none of these has any particular place in Orthodox Theology, or THEOLOGICAL formulations for, expression.
Or, simply, Orthodox Christians have no "infallible" view of social, political, economic, scientific, or other human experiences or activities. - such as led to the murder of Giordano Bruno, or the silencing of Galelio Galilei, for instance.
I said, a wise man once indicated that "Orthodoxy is a THINKING man's religion." It is. And only by studying it can one come to understand what appears to be the paradox.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 07:40 PMJJ, Ruth is a flame, oh bright she burns
Brings light and heat, but me she spurns.
I can`t stop giggling.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 07:45 PMJames Jones-
We all paint with a broad brush here, often enough. What I was saying is that sometimes you would avoid some controversy if you acknowledged some limitations of some of the statements you make. For example, "Christians agree that pain..."
Almost ANY time you say, "Christians agree ______" you are asking for dissent. People who call themselves Christians can't even agree on who all is Christian. That doesn't set Christians apart form other groups. For example, the acronym RINO (Republican in name only) shows that Republicans don't agree on who qualifies as a good Republican. But if you wrote "It is generally accepted Christian doctrine that pain is the ineluctable result of free will" it would be much harder to argue with you. Wait, scratch that. Let us say, it would be much harder to make a cogent argument against you (some will argue no matter what you say).
The example I was looking at before (I admit, I took JJIAGITDB's word for it, and did not look at the context the quote came from) has you saying, "You on the other hand follow the secularist teaching of making political belief a religion." That's a shotgun approach, it seems, taking a bunch of statements and pronouncing a conclusion from them. It might be true, but it gives the other person a lot of room to wiggle off the hook. A "rifle" approach might be, "This statement (give example,) like many things you say, elevates political belief to a religion." Much harder to argue away, if you give a good example. In this case, the person you were speaking to can say, "oh yeah? When did I say that?" He couldn't dodge it that way if you zeroed in on one statement he made and cited it.
Posted by Noggindog on September 11, 2007 07:55 PMHans,
No need to apologize. You haven't been missed.
Posted by James Jones on September 11, 2007 08:30 PMIt`s odd that last night I was thinking of all the Orthodox religions there are. I remember Greek, Eastern, Russian, and regular unleaded Orthodox. There may be even more.
Even orthodoxy is splintered.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 08:30 PMSharon B,
Good. Giggling is one of the primary reasons I'm here.
Fun isn't sufficient but it is essential for happiness.
Posted by James Jones on September 11, 2007 08:36 PMNoggindog,
I have printed out your response (I am from the Old School) and thank you. I will respond when the new day dawns.
Peace be with you.
Posted by James Jones on September 11, 2007 08:38 PMGrouch,
Remarkable, really. After all that came before, I would have denied that these posts could have come from the same man. This was really interesting reading- I don't mean that in any backhanded way. THIS was why I thought it would be interesting to talk with you.
I honestly have no idea why you feel I was/am trying to "convert" you (on theology. Of course you need converting on politics.) I have no such intention, and no such desire to try to change your theology.
I am want to say, "I don't know how you come to (this or that conclusion,)because of (this or that reason.") It is not an effort to persuade. It is an observation and an invitation to expand the thought, if another person cares to.
Here, I originally wrote a long post addressing conversations I have had with other Orthodox theologians, and then discussing the differences in what I know (or thought I knew) about Byzantine church history. I deleted it because it doesn't matter. I have no problem with your chronology in the previous post. I'm happy to concede you probably know that history better than I, and what I learned of it was in a history class not a theology class. The principles are not radically different whatever the order of councils or dates, or who was ruling at the time. Since I was working from memory, I'm gratified that I got it as close as I did- as history, not as theology.
I'll settle for saying thanks for civil discourse.
BTW, interesting that Charlemagne wrote on Iconoclasm. I would like to say that's where my error came from, but in truth I don't recall learning that. I think I just pulled out the wrong name from my memory.
Now you guys see why I am a pagean. So much easier, learn a few dances, gather some evergreens and only celebrate 4 times a year.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 10:44 PMHans-
You took rather more from that post than I intended. Many mainstream Christians do complain about a "War on Christmas." There's good reason to voice that opinion (though it's not quite as big a deal as some make it out to be.) The question is, as an example, is it moral or immoral to boycott a company that forbids it's Christian employees to say "Merry Christmas"? I think it is moral and reasonable for any that want to, and far better than suing or trying to get legislation passed. Is it moral or immoral for an atheist to boycott a company that refuses to allow employees to say "Happy Winter Solstice!" Moral, of course. And, to take an example that hits closer to what is really going on, would it be moral for a Gay Rights group to boycott a company that refused to grant benefits to same-sex couples? Of course, if they want to boycott, they should. But you wouldn't cry foul about that, would you? You're just playing favorites with causes you support vs. causes you don't like (as we all do, of course.)
In the end, just don't lump the reasonable groups of Christians in with groups that do morally reprehensible things, like the folks in the example I gave before. Mainstream Christians don't care what YOU do with Christmas. They just don't want to shop somewhere that decides "Merry Christmas" is a taboo greeting.
Sharon B-
"Hurrycane=hurricane because they hurry
Hard of earing=for hard of hearing."
I think these are examples of a virulent and insidious species of humor, called "puns." They are a bit more complex than the garden variety pun, and the more dangerous for it. : )
"Now you guys see why I am a pagean. So much easier, learn a few dances, gather some evergreens and only celebrate 4 times a year."
Dancing, huh? Is that why most white guys aren't pagans?
Posted by Noggindog on September 11, 2007 11:24 PMHi Sharon,
No. Orthodoxy is not splintered. The identification by Nation comes from the Orthdox principle that all teaching and worship is to be done in the language of the people.
Throughtout history, Orthodox Missionaries have given nations Alphabets, and the necessary tools by which to disseminate the Faith to the people in the tongue they speak, rather than in a so called "universal" language reserved to the Clergy and Hierarchy, such as the dead language of Latin forced upon even those in the Western Hemisphere by the Churchmen attendant upon the Conquistadores. Orthodoxy is not a pseudo-Empire.
Thus, while the Greek of Byzantium is traced as the basic Theological language of the Seven Councils, the Orthodox Christians everywhere worship in their own tongues. Though the Coptic Churches still do use ancient Geez in most of the Canon of the Divine Liturgy, and the Russian Church still has Old Slavonic in use.
In those areas where the Soviet Union controlled, the Russian/Old Slavonic still predominates, except of course for Armenia - where St. Gregory the Illuminator gave them Alphabet and linguistic tools, as well as Georgia.
There is no "Boss of Bosses", or "Capo de Tuti Capi", in Orthodoxy, as the pseudo-Caesar/Pontifex Maximus of Rome claims to be. Each "Nation" has its own Chief Hierarch - or Chairman of the Board - Patriarch or Metropolitan, depending on its status of being "Autocephalous", or under its own "head".
The Orthodox principle is, "First Mission in the area has the right of declaration of Autocephaly for the Mission. And while this can be confusing in America - where immigrants from all the Orthodox areas of the world can be found, it is generally accepted that, since Russia was "first," by of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, Russia would be the one to declare and Autocephalous American Church. The years of Communism in the Soviet Union, however, have added to the confusion; and right now the idea of an American Orthodox Church is very much a hope, dream, and wish, rather than entity as such.
ALL TEACHING is the same, however. In Orthodoxy, it is the universality of the FAITH that matters, NOT the "universality" of political identification. The Western religions, based on Roman philosophy, define status on the basis of externals, i.e., "Matter, Form, Intention"; and a Roman Priest is "forever, after Melchizadech". NOT SO in Orthodoxy. Anyone, even a Patriarch, who renounces Orthodox Faith - or who goes into heresy and schism - takes nothing out, including his status as Clergy, just as no convert, of whatever rank, can bring anything in. (Which would take us rather far afield, into "Economia ", both historically and in the present.)
But Orthodoxy is not "splintered", as all Orthodoxy prays the same Symbolion, statement of Faith in all Leiturgos - worship services - whatever the nationality, or language.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 12, 2007 07:45 AMNoggindog
Point taken. My point on secularism and religion was based on previous posts with this same individual so probably had more context more than appeared was the case.
My intent here is to establish clarity. I think lack of clarity is the primary source of suffering in human society i.e., abortion is usually framed as a helth issue when in fact only a tiny fraction on the one million abortions performed annually are a consequence of health concerns. I will moderate my tone when we don't haved a million dead babies at the end of each year.
I think that the primary obstacle to clarity is prejudice which I typically engage in a full frontal assualt. I told you I speak plainly.
You take a gentler approach based no doubt on the habits of your character. I make no claim that my approach is superior (I doubt it is) but only to, again, clarify the difference.
But I will take your admonition to heart and try to reform - a little.
Your posts set a refreshing tone. I hope you will keep it up.
What did you think about my point to Repugnants on the elctron telescope proving Genesis correct?
Posted by James Jones on September 12, 2007 08:10 AM
I think you did no such thing.
If your behavior in these interactions is the product of your Christlike delusions of knowing what's best for everyone, go for it.
I'd suggest you don't, and you might make your points better if you left the insults out. Something about flies honey and vinegar. The telling point in your last post was that you take fun in insulting people. I think you're a petty old man who gets way too much happiness from your juvenile behavior.
Go pray for absolution of your sins or whatever it is you do in your super secret ghost and fairy tale worship.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 12, 2007 10:26 AMFrom a secularist point of view.
Death and suffering does not = bad.
Something dies, something else eats.
Without death, there would only be a few self replicating bacteria in the ocean and no higher forms of life.
There is no such thing as sin or evil. Those are descriptive words we use to show we don`t like something, sin and evil, devil, demon etc. all made up concepts.
Humans have evolved from living in trees, then in the veld and now all over the world.
We have created civilization, invented the word "humane" to describe extra ordinary care for others and done a darn fine job of trying to have higher amounts of consciousness.
We are risen apes, not fallen angels. There is no original sin, no Garden of Eden and no fall from grace.
Death does not equal punishment for sin.
God does not mess with this, whether there is a God or not, the physical laws of the Universe rule.
There are no miracles, only things we do not yet understand or can not explain. Jesus only cured the hysterical ones, if he cured any, but He never could re-grow a lost limb for someone. God can`t do that today. We many be able some day, but that would break the laws of bio-physics if God just "did it"
Because we do not believe in anything except humanities ability to create a society, this religion discussion is interesting, but never solves anything.
Old Grouch, thank you for the lesson on Orthodoxy, I never understood it before.
I am not a Pagan, that is just a joke. But I do celebrate Winter Solstice because I hate cold, dark days.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 12, 2007 01:36 PMJimmy Jesus
Like I said before, you don't know $hit about $hit.
They had electron telescopes in 1929?
Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe at the Mt. Wilson observatory using a traditional old-fashioned telescope.
Congratulations! You showed that the bible was right that the universe had a beginning. Glad we settled that controversy 80 years ago. The scientists had to revise their theories to conform with new data. That's how science works. Religion is dogma and does not change to accomodate new data.
You can say the creationist loons aren't "genuinely religious" just like OG can claim Protestants aren't truly Christian. What could disprove the existance of God to you? NOTHING! It's a matter of faith, not observation. Falsifiability and revision of theory is what makes science what it is.
But you verified ONE sentence in Genesis. It goes on to say the world was created in six days which is clearly not true.
"But the bible is allegorical" you say. So really it can mean anything then, not just what its words actually say.
And Sharon:
whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
Posted by Repugnants are liars on September 12, 2007 02:54 PM"abortion is usually framed as a helth issue when in fact only a tiny fraction on the one million abortions performed annually are a consequence of health concerns. "
James Jones on September 12, 2007 08:10 AM
Switching disguises for a different topic:
So if a woman was indifferent between abortion and term gestation and adoption but was most concerned about dying in childbirth she'd be correct to choose abortion because the facts are that first trimester abortion is less lethal than carrying to term.
So every early abortion can be argued to be for preservation of the woman's life, a position JJJ has acknowledged to support.
Your "usually framed" claim may hold water on this board amongst the amateur pundits, but that is not how the organized pro-choice movement frames it. It is a question of rights of autonomy and self-determination.
You have acknowledged that women have a right to reproductive self-determination. You think that fetuses are people and have a fully fledged right to life. I think they're potential people with embryonic rights. The constitution confers numerous rights based on the time and place of birth; none at conception. In pregnancy the rights of the woman and fetus can be in conflict. The Supreme Court has recognized that as the pregnancy continues fetal rights increase to allow proscription of abortion post-viability. I think that's a reasonable compromise between conflicting rights.
L'shanah tovah tikatev v'taihatem
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on September 12, 2007 03:16 PM