Religious and anti-religious speakers have to be sensitive about the topics they are handling. Tension between different races and religions are high after the 9/11 terror attacks, and any wrong move can spark major knee jerk reactions. Everyone has their right to freedom of speech, they just have to be very responsible and sensible of what they are saying.

Inherit The Wind, March 14 at 4:31 pm,

God is a Spirit.  The “original” King James Version is fine for me because I rely on the Spirit of God to convict me regarding what is or isn’t God’s Word.  I have read many Bibles, but was never content and always searching until I found the “original” King James Version and I have been content with what it says.

I have followed the “original” King James Version of the bible through carefully relative to the deity of Christ and the deity of Christ is in tact in the “original” King James Version of the bible, which makes it Holy.

The Jehovah Witnesses bible does not show Jesus as deity, which is the only other bible I have checked, because they said it was the same as the “original” King James Version, but it is not; I found it to be changed in reference to the deity of Christ. 

I am satisfied with the meaning in the “original” King James Version, even though it is written in old English.  I use modern versions sometimes along with it, but I like the “original” King James Version of the Holy Bible.

If everyone followed the “original” King James Version of the Holy Bible, we would have a great world, but people like Australian immigrant, Rupert Murdoch, want to control the world and grieve the populace of the United States with conservatives like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly on FOX News accusing, denigrating, denouncing and trying to kill socialism for the populace in the United States, while socialism is the social cohesion that binds a group of people together, any group of people, a city, a county, a state and a nation together to provide benefit to all that are a part of the society of the group.  Glenn Beck wants to kick the populace out of the society of the group, but keep the group conservatively social by excluding all the populace that won’t give up everything to follow conservatism.

If it wasn’t for conservatism, we wouldn’t have an alphabet or a numbering system, but it doesn’t work well for society as a whole economically; the populace want a life, too.

Jesus the Christ was a Jewish liberal Rabbi. “If Jesus of Nazareth was anything, he was an extraordinary friend of the unfortunate and the down-trodden, definitely a Liberal, whose advocacy on their behalf so infuriated the ultra-Conservative religious and political leaders of his day that they had him killed to prevent the public from hearing the very liberal teaching that you will see quoted abundantly in Jesus’ own words on this web site !
    Those who actually know what the Bible says about the life and teaching of Jesus recognize that far from being like Jesus of Nazareth, today’s “Religious Right” are much more like the kind of clerics who battled this revolutionary prophet from the day he opened his mouth until the day they had him nailed to a cross.  Although these people claim to represent Jesus Christ, they rarely quote his teaching or follow his example.  What they do instead is use his name (“in vain”)  to promote their ideas, ideas which Jesus himself did not teach, and might well have opposed.”

Here is Michael Moore’s movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story”, which states pretty well that Jesus was not into conservatism while he was on earth.

You are Jewish, so you may know something about this.  We think we have some Jewish roots somewhere, but uncertain where, because my brother was invited to become a member of the B’nai B’rith when he was in high school, but was unable at the time to honor the invitation, then somehow the paperwork got lost.  We have forever thought we must have Jewish roots from somewhere, because of that invitation, but other than that, we have no religious Jewish background. 

Many people do not accept that Jesus was Jewish, but he was.

The only claim made is one of free speech. No defamation intended.

Here are a couple of items from the Talmud as referred to by a web site and
references males treatment of females.

  Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less
than nine years old.

  Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years
“and a day” old).

  There is an old adage that goes something like this [translated from an old
Middle Eastern language].

  An easy method to authenticate statements made in a document is to produce another document attesting to the validity of the information in the first document. Thereby “certifying”
that the “old” document suports the information in the “new” document and that the
information in the “new” document attests to the validity in the “old” document.

MarthaA, March 13 at 11:09 pm #

Are you Jewish?  Since you have an original copy of the Torah, maybe you can quote from your original copy of the Torah,  and perhaps give us an idea how we can get an original copy of the Torah.
**********************************************

MarthaA: In this case I don’t hold your ignorance against you, but you should learn the history of the KJB and maybe you might question its appropriateness as the “Bible” of much of the English-speaking world.

The Torah is the first 5 Books of Moses, the Pentateuch to you.  It is The Law, but it is not the COMPLETE Jewish Bible.  That’s called Tanakh (pronounced Tan-Ack).  Tanakh is easily available in English, directly translated from the Hebrew texts.  You can find it on Amazon in various versions for about $15.

As a devotee of the KJB, it would behoove you to read modern scholarly translations from the ORIGINAL text, rather than a translation of a translation, written 400 years ago, by men trying to make a political statement, and writing in the language of their own time.

It is that language that has created the hilarious absurdity of preachers and lay sermonizers talking in what they think is “holy” language: “...thus saith the Lord” when, in fact, it is merely Shakespearean English. Reading Tanakh, even in English, will give you an immediacy and intimacy the KJB lacks.

If you are interested, you should also study the Catholic version of the Bible, the Vulgate.  I don’t know a lot about that or where to get it, especially in English rather than Latin.

As I said, you’ll find the 10 C are broken up differently among the 3 religions.  I don’t believe the Catholic version contains the “no graven images” phrase, either, but I’m not certain of that.

I am a Jew, but have never been a religious one, being raised Atheist, but “converting” to Agnosticism in my early adulthood.

Inherit The Wind, March 10 at 9:05 am,

I am not a scholar.  I read the King James Version of the Holy Bible only.  I would read the Torah if I had an original version, but until that time, I will stick with what the King James Version says.  Being a Christian, I am under the fulfilled law of the New Testament. 

If the Lord holds me guilty for not knowing the Torah, then I will be guilty, because I have no idea how to even get an original copy of the Torah.  I understand those are kept for the Jews.

Are you Jewish?  Since you have an original copy of the Torah, maybe you can quote from your original copy of the Torah,  and perhaps give us an idea how we can get an original copy of the Torah.

bogi666, March 10 at 8:16 am,

Women were never considered property.  There has always been the ignorant in every society.  The Book of Esther in the King James Version of the Old Testament was written by a woman.  One must do their best to rise above the ignorance in society.

For many, it took a Holocaust for them to realize that God is dead. In fact God is a lie….a pure invention…just pretend. That’s why nothing fails like prayer. By the way…read John Sack’s book “An Eye for an Eye” which shows that not all Jews held to their beliefs of “do no harm to others” because they set up their own concentration (death) camps in Poland and beat, tortured, raped, and killed anyone suspected of being a Nazi…or even a German. Many innocent men, women, children, and even babies suffered the retribution from the Jews in those “camps”. Granted….they didn’t kill as many as the Germans did….only about 60,000 to 80,000. The book can be downloaded in pdf for free at http://www.archive.org

I think the larger issue here is Mr. Ellis’s current obsession with occupying huge swaths of real estate on every TD comment page I’ve been reading lately. He’s become that fellow on the street corner screaming his angry, judgmental, belittling, loud and just plain incomprehensible view of humanity. Not particularly dangerous I suppose, just annoying, especially in posts that initially had nothing to do with religion (that would be most of them.) I’ve always appreciated the relatively uncensored nature of this site; the fact that all voices are welcome, even the misguided or mischievous ones. So with due apologies for the slightly less tolerant mood I find myself in this morning, I must admit that if a petition was circulated to block this guy I’d probably sign it.

Here are the 10 Commandments given to Moses in Exodus 20:1-20:

3)  Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
***************************************************

I love when supposed “scholars” can’t even get THIS straight.  The Torah, the Vulgate and the KJB all have different versions of the 10 Commandments.  Naturally, in his attempt to speak with holy language like a prophet of Old, J-E cites only the PROTESTANT version of the 10-C, but not what is in the Torah (the most ACCURATE version) or in the Catholic Vulgate Bible.

Just a hint: Commandments 1 and 2 are different in the Torah.  I don’t mean “saith” versus “said” nit-picking. I mean structurally.

So Mr. Ellis’ bias and inability to reason shine through yet again….Why are we bothering to argue with one whose faith defies logic?  Then again, is he any different than Tennessee Socialist or Elisalouisa, other than in which groundless faith they believe in?

Dear John Ellis,

I’ve happened upon many of your posts over the past few days. You seem to be patrolling several articles on this site, looking for opportunities to judge, to belittle and appraise your fellow posters, sometimes stacking them like cordwood, based on little more than a single word or turn of phrase. (Funny how so many folks here are 51% Libertarians, whatever the heck that means.) A few posts back somebody took the time and trouble to advise you that a word you’d inadvertently (and repeatedly) used actually meant the opposite of what you intended. He was trying to help yet he, too, received only scorn, along with the stock quickie appraisal of his class and station.

Sir, you have my sympathy. Like you I know next to nothing about my fellow posters (including you) but the pattern you’ve set has certainly made one detail clear: If this is how you’ve habitually treated the people in your life, you must be a very lonely man.

John Ellis, March 10 at 12:56 am,

There are many things I do not like about the Catholic Church, therefore I am a protestant.

I have no idea what Bible, chapter and verse you are supposedly quoting.  Any Biblical quote has to have verification or it is just a rant.

There is no designation of white lies in the Holy Bible.  I have no idea what you have read, but it certainly doesn’t sound like a Holy Bible.

The worse type of lie is the lie that causes harm in some way to someone else other than yourself.  If in your heart you know you are not telling the truth, then you are lying.  It isn’t complicated.  Lying is one of a multitude of sins of which man is heir.

Yeshua Emmanuel Hamashiah, Jesus’, the Son of God and the Son of Man, gave his blood as a slaughtered sheep for the sins of the populace of the world, as well as the wealthy, but it is more difficult for the rich and powerful to accept the fact that they are all sinners in need of being covered by the blood of Jesus for their redemption and benefit,  than it is for the poor, who readily identify with needing the help and salvation offered by the blood of Jesus in eternity as well as in this world. 

As far as I am concerned the King James Version of the Holy Bible is good enough.  The deity of Jesus is in tact and there is nothing I have read in the King James Version of the Holy Bible that favors the wealthy.  In fact, the wealthy are currently trying to correct the King James Version of the Holy Bible to conform to conservatism, which I consider an abomination.

John Ellis, March 9 at 12:31 am,

Here are the 10 Commandments given to Moses in Exodus 20:1-20:

1) And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:  for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3)  Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

4)  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5)  Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

6) Thou shalt not kill.

7)  Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8)  Thou shalt not steal.

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.  And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.  And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

These are the Old Testament’s biblical commandments that are not conservatism, although today there are many churches of conservatism; and all of these commandments were summed up into two commandments by Jesus in the New Testament,St. Matthew 22:36-40, that is not conservatism either, which states, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Conservatism’s Glenn Beck, who is an employee of Rupert Murdoch, is always putting down socialism as if socialism is not currently being used by our government, as well as the churches.  Socialism is what keeps the churches going and the preachers and the missionaries fed.  There would be no city, county, state or federal government without socialism, and the church would wither and die without socialism.  Conservatism’s propagandists love to use the ignorance of the liberal populace against the liberal populace convincing them that conservatism is the way of the Lord, which is absolutely the opposite, but it has been working for them enough that conservatism has nearly destroyed the United States economically and has much of the populace imprisoned, destitute and starving without homes or any kind of employment.

God’s ways are the way we should go, but God’s ways are not conservatism’s ways.  Hitler’s ways were conservatism’s ways.

bogi666, March 9 at 3:08 pm,

Very interesting, Jewish women were chattel.  For you to think that some had to have thought that, but it definitely is not biblical.

How do you account for Jesus’ words in St. Mark 10:12 that says, “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”  And, St. John 8:3-7, ” And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him [Jesus] a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned:  but what sayest thou?  This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.  But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers?  hath no man condemned thee?  She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

Ezekiel 16:32 in the Old Testaments states, “But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband.

A wife is a woman, this kind of blows your women as chattel story out of the water.

bogi666, March 9 at 3:08 pm,

Very interesting, Jewish women were chattel.  For you to think that some had to have thought that, but it definitely is not biblical.

How do you account for Jesus’ words in St. Mark 10:12 that says, “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”  And, St. John 8:3-7, ” And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him [Jesus] a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned:  but what sayest thou?  This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.  But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.  And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers?  hath no man condemned thee?  She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

Ezekiel 16:32 in the Old Testaments states, “But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband.

A wife is a woman, this kind of blows your women as chattel and being unable to commit adultery story out of the water.

Ho-hum!

By John Ellis, March 8 at 5:41 pm

WARNING — NO MORALITY ALLOWED
“Just look at all the posters here rejecting light, some all religion, the rest all politics, but not a word from either about the thing we call good works.  For without morality which some call civility, no good government of godly religion could there ever be.”

Gee John, I’m pretty sure if you’d read my reply to your previous belittlement (the one I posted an hour before your latest screed) you’d have found that I did, indeed, address your current pet issue, just as I believe I was very clear in my view that morality can and does exist outside of religion (just as, sadly, far too many examples abound of religion existing outside of morality.) I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for two days now but I believe I must surrender the low ground and admit that my fellow posters are correct, and that you have done all the reading you plan to do in this life. Seems a pity as these are obviously matters you’ve spent much time addressing, but I’ve been down this road often enough to recognize an impassible obstacle when I see one. What was it that the scriptures (likely the ones you disapprove of) had to say about those who are none so blind…?

This Old Savage isn’t real sure what it was in an earlier post, way back down the line there, that got John Ellis’s dander up.  Maybe it was the mere mention of his name, in-connection-with The-Light he regularly refers-to hisownself as something we could all use a lot more-of….and AMEN! to that, by The Way.

One thing f’r sure, though, when it comes to the eruption of his customarily scornful ideological tail-chasing, in his peculiar and gratuitous (and way-off-the-mark) attempt to describe (not exactly favorably) this Old Man’s sense of just what-in-hell-is-going-on-here (in Hell), is that John Ellis doesn’t actually know what the hell he’s talking about.  He does, however, seem obsessively compelled to have (and express) THE “opinion” on just about damned-near everything anybody else here has to say. 

Maybe there’s an APP for that.

HokaHey!

Gawd. That john ellis must be in direct daily conract with the God of wisdom and
inanities.

Reminds me of this bit i saw on teevee the other day, where the “pastor” was
informing the herd that Jesus, “was really killed by the Italians and theri friends the
Romans”.

Ignorant pontification must be just too much bliss.

Gawd. That john ellis must be in direct daily conract with the God of wisdom and
inanities.

Reminds me of this bit i saw on teevee the other day, where the “pastor” was
informing the herd that Jesus, “was really killed by the Italians and theri friends the
Romans”.

Ignorance is just so much bliss.

By John Ellis, March 8 at 4:17 pm

ScienceHighway:
        “We each must find comfort in our individual
          comprehension of the universe”

“Our “comfort” of course coming from a true morality today, exactly what is your concept of a harmless way?
Is it better then Scripture?  Namely:
MORALITY
This day of life is more then anyone deserves.
Except it, and most guilty will you feel if ever
you miss an opportunity to give all you can give.
CIVILITY
We are all given a different level of intelligence as a test, to see if we pass our excessive wealth down to the next man less intelligent where it belongs.
LEGALITY
No one shall enrich themselves upon the misery of another.”

Well John I’m far from certain what you mean by ‘harmless’ given the vast inequities done in the name of religion even still. (And let’s not get into that argument, okay? I don’t have the time, Truthdig doesn’t have the bandwidth, and there’s really very little you or I could add to the debate that’s likely to alter either of our opinions.)

However I will admit to having no fundamental quarrel with any of your examples, apart from the underlying assumption - that because you gleaned them from the specific bits of scripture you choose to support, they must, therefore, have originated with some ill-defined spiritual being, rather than within the all-too-human minds of the wise and wonderful writers who penned the words. As a professional writer myself I suppose I could choose to take offense at the inference - we have enough trouble getting credit for our work as it is - but I realize that that argument, too, will fall on deaf ears.

So let me leave you with the closest I’ve ever come to a religious epiphany. It’s not even mine, but was written in 1979 by one of my heroes, the late, great scientist and scholar Carl Sagan: “We are a way for the universe to know itself.”

The end.

By John Ellis, March 8 at 2:25 pm
“Comes now the real issue, who created God, how did there come to be God?”

Thanks John. After all these thousands of words you’ve been offering up on this and at least one other Truthdig article, you’ve finally hit a question I can answer. (Sure am glad it’s the real one):

God, in all his, her or its myriad forms and temperaments, was created by us, or at least some of our more imaginative, hairy, big-brained ancestors, to calm their own children when storms threatened and the earth shuddered. (Greek, Roman, Norse, Hindi and other multiple-deity myths served similar purpose.) Humans are toolmakers and architects, hard-wired as a survival instinct to try to comprehend all that we see. Scientific insights from Archemedes through Keppler let us begin to discern the patterns in nature, while the mechanical and optical tools we started to perfect in the 17th century enabled empirical observation, which led to internally-consistent theories that could be adjusted as the precision of our tools increased over the centuries.

God remains a key component of many, perhaps most of the lives on this planet so far, which I get. We each must find comfort in our individual comprehension of the universe, and as long as yours isn’t used as a guide to, say, vote on issues that affect me, my family or the planet we share, you and I have no issues. As for the logical follow-up question you haven’t yet asked, “Where is God going?”, that one’s easy too. As long as there are those who still require him in their lives, God is safe at home, right where he stared, where he’s still got plenty of work to do.

I would like to first congratulate Trudig for its examplery role in providing
challenging authors as well as providing its readers a truly democratic latitude for
expressions and views.

Secondly, as someone who was born with no inherent relgious affiliations but
had to abide by the one those that begat me allowed.

Thirdly, while not quite the scholarly type have always felt that the logic of
accepting that the New Testament was written after the old was putting the wagon
before the horse so to speak and that logic entailed considering the opposite. “That the OLD was
written after the NEW.”

For my above potentially judged “sacrilegious” comments I hide behind the
truism that,  “the three main branches of knowledge are: “Memory”/History,
“Reason”/Philosophy, and “Imagination”/Poetry.

And the categorisation of religion as being subject to human reason and not a
source of knowledge in and of itself. And that ‘Knowledge of God’ is only a few
nodes away from ‘Divination’ and ‘Black Magic’.

Voila. For youse all consideration.

Much as I see little to be gained from stepping into such a seething nest of raging hornets, there is one point in the ‘does he or doesn’t he?” argument I’ve yet to see raised in this forum so far: There is, as far as I can tell, only one way to truly comprehend the universe we inhabit, though there remain two competing options on the table. Science requires rational thought, empirical evidence, rigorous examination, and an open willingness to be wrong, even to toss long-established dogma on the fire in the face of new discoveries. On the other hand faith, even the professional kind, requires only scholarship. I made my choice when I was ten years old. I have no issue with the fact that the vast majority of the humans I share this particular era with have chosen differently ( other than when they insist on defending their choice through social policies that impact my life and freedom, of course.) But I do wish some of the more fervent proselytizers on this site might one day examine their arguments in this context.
(sigh) Thank you.

Conservatism, sophism and propaganda is the defamation line of free speech.

God is in absolute control, but chose to let man be in absolute control of man, therefore man can not in any way blame God for what man does.

Sorry, I didn’t read the “Romans” correctly.  It’s worse than I thought.

I do know exactly what CNC, CAD/CAM and injection molding is all about.  That doesn’t explain in ONE IOTA your “opinion”, it’s simply an attempt to establish your “authority” as an expert on this field. You may well be, but since I don’t have “faith” or “trust” and require facts and logic, I don’t accept your “authority” as de facto proof that you had a CLUE about what you were talking about that got you fired.  To accept that as “truth” simply on your “authority” would be an act of faith.

As I said, you don’t understand logic.  Yes, this discussion is over unless you try to force my public schools to ram your religious beliefs down my kids’ throats.

” AND WHERE WAS GOD?”  jim morison

John Ellis, March 7 at 2:53 am #

But unless given some spiritual power, surely a human being (soul) is identical to all animals, being made of organic matter and the “breath of life.”  For many animals have a far greater ability to reason then man, butterflies and birds for example, with some able to migrate over 10,000 miles without a compass.
*********************************

I guess you just don’t know what “reason” means—as this entire post shows.  These animals do this apparently amazing thing by instinct and by components in their bodies built by their DNA.  A butterfly doesn’t say to itself and its pals “Oh, the sun is at an apparent elevation of 41deg, 11 min and 22 sec which deviates from where it would be measured at the Equator and the Prime Meridian at this time by exactly 12 degrees which means I’m 720 nautical miles away from that point on a NWW heading…”  THAT would be navigation by reasoning.

Quoting the bible’s definition of how you determine “the truth” refers specifically to evidence given in a legal environment—is the bum guilty or is he a wrongly accused decent man?

I almost fell on the floor laughing at your TOTAL misunderstanding of the definition and argument about “opinion”.  Plus, you say you got fired for suggesting there was a problem and that it was your “opinion” and that it proved correct.  But….upon what was your “opinion” based?  Was it on verifiable facts that could not be denied? Did you show point by point how your conclusion was, if not inevitable, was at least able to pass the straight-face test?  How many other “opinions” did you express that NEVER turned out to be correct?  Was, IN FACT, the failure that occurred actually DUE to the causes you described?

Further illogic: You fall back on the totally flawed assumption that because the Universe exists, that is de facto PROOF that God exists and did it.  That’s the old “How could it happen” if God didn’t do it.  Well, there’s a whole great big scientific field called “Cosmology” that ignores that fundamentally meaningless question to ask how it happened.

Your lack of understanding of the terms “Faith”, “Trust”, “Logic” and “Proof” is depressing.  These terms have definitions and those definitions make it absolutely clear that “Faith” is what you have when you do NOT have “Proof”. If you have “Proof”, then “Faith” isn’t necessary.  Your own Jesus is reputed to have said about Doubting Thomas that he had seen and therefore believed, but “Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed”.

If there is any ONE THING attributed to Jesus in the NT that is totally evil, it is that statement (I know of no other as I’m not a student of either Bible).  In that statement, Jesus is SUPPOSEDLY saying something that is absurd.  Lots of people believe all kinds of stupid shit they haven’t seen, from alien abductions to faces on Mars.  They haven’t seen the facts and yet THEY believe.  Are they, too, “blessed”?  I don’t think so!

This is the only place I know of where Jesus SUPPOSEDLY asks people to deny their very humanity: their ability to reason. 

I say supposedly because I’ve seen enough evidence to doubt the veracity of the NT (I won’t even get started on the OT), to doubt that the men who wrote it didn’t have an agenda that allowed them to lie, to doubt that the assembly of the NT wasn’t pure rather than political.

And, I am NOT an Atheist.  An Atheist has faith there is no God.  I am Agnostic.  I question the validity of the Atheist’s faith just as much as I question the validity of yours.

Martha,
My god speaks to me directly. Alas, what she/it/he says goes right thru me.

Ur god speaks to u indirectly; i.e., thru ‘chosen’ agents who did’t even know the earth was round; thus, for fear of falling off of one of the four corners of flat earth, never ventured anywhere beyond canaan.

But, wldn’t u like god to speak to u directly? The prophets u talk ab have not even professied the three major shoahs: two of which befell israelites and judeans and the third that befell euro-asians of mosheic cult in europe.

Well, martha, it is ur god and u can have lotsof fun with him/her/it or none with the mad prophets-priests! I suggest, u be with IT or if not u’ll be agin IT.
In any case, if it must be god, i prefer a female god i can have lotsof fun with.tnx

heresiarch, March 7 at 4:33 pm,

I do, apparently not you, which is your choice.

John Ellis, March 7 at 5:07 pm,

What business?

Umm…Martha…did you miss your meds today? Read what you wrote, and…I don’t know…realize that it is crazy? Please, please tell me you don’t TRULY believe this OBVIOUS fairy tale—

God isn’t a cat.

It is no more delusional to believe that God is, than it is to believe that a bank will hold your money in a checking account.  Is it delusional to put your money in a bank?  There are people who don’t trust banks, and banks that can’t be trusted, but God can always be trusted.

What God has said through his Prophets in the Bible has come to pass and will continue to come to pass, whether you believe it or not.

The New DLC of conservative NeoRepublicans and conservative NeoRepublicans Lite are of the opinion that they can use God’s Word to their benefit, but they will soon find out that God doesn’t work that way.  God moves in God’s own time in God’s own way and that is what God does.

Jesus is God, born of a virgin, not somebody else’s wife.

As the Christ of God on earth in mortal form, Jesus used his Godly power and fed a multitude of about 5,000 people, had them sit down in companies of 50,  and from five loaves of bread and two fish, fed the whole multitude with 12 baskets full of fish and bread left over.  This feat was recorded by Luke who was a doctor.  St. Luke 9:12-17

This cat as you say, raised people from the dead.  One person that Jesus raised from death had been dead for so long that the body stunk.

The miracles that Jesus did were not in secret.  Jesus is God, but when on earth Jesus was both the Son of man and the Son of God

Here are Jesus the Christ’s words in St. Luke 9:22-27:

“The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.”

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.  for what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world and lose himself, or be cast away?  For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s and of the holy angels.  But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God”

Shortly after this speech, Jesus was transfigured and talked with Moses and Elias who appeared to Jesus and discussed with Jesus the accomplishment of his death in Jerusalem. 

You, heresiarch, should read the Holy Bible and find out about God, then you may not choose to call God a cat, because God holds your life and all peoples lives in his hands.  People are not evil.  Sin is evil.  People are pulled away from God through sin, which is why Jesus died, to save people from sin.

It is not God that wages war.  It is not God that disrespects people.  God is no respecter of people.  God’s judgment is a heart judgment of a person, and by the same judgment that you judge other people, you will be judged.

Um…gerard…not sure of the historical record of athiests trying to force anything on anyone; you may want to review xtian history a TAD closer

Me?  So far it seems impossible to know anything about God.
  Since I can’t know anything about God, I can conclude that maybe God does exist—or maybe God doesn’t exist.
  So far, the evidence that God exists is so frail that I can’t even dream of who or what God might be.
  There is some evidence that the idea of God helps people get through troubles. That’s okay.
  There is also some evidence that the idea of God does not help people get through troubles. That’s okay.
  Problems arise when people who believe in God (or don’t believe in God) try to prove it (and can’t) or push their beliefs about God on others (and can’t).
  It is hard for me to separate what I know from what I think I know, what I want to know, and what cannot be known.  That makes me a Seeker.

Mr. Ellis—-I agree with you, and am chastened—-please see my last post, in response to Dave…

I call on Mr Ellis—Help me…Dave, terminality is the reality that we must face; I am not sure how you can be cogent, and still believe in the sky-fairy, elitism, afterlife…also, if we are, you and I, ‘whimpering men’, that cannot solve the problems of being what ‘GOD’ created, then how is that our fault? ‘For the sake of the Elect’? I am assuming that that would include…you. How can you present yourself as a reasonable, terminal human being and still choose to think some cat, who lives in the sky, had a child by someone elses’ wife, then had him die, because you were evil? Self-delusion is wonderful, but ultimately self-negating..

By heresiarch, March 7 at 1:09 pm #

“Dave, when did death become a problem? War is waged for ideas, plagues were wielded by God natural disasters happen because this is volitile planet, not subject to your short-lived discernment, intolerance comes from others being, well, ‘other’, perceived as outside of your collective; same for racism; the rest is human frailty…So, how is having a sky-fairy helpful with this?”

I never insinuated God was going to help with these problems, nor did I insinuate they were a problem for me.  But these are the things that wimpering men think they have the power to solve, and to listen to them crying about it, you would think they would have made more progress by now. 

I understand perfectly well why all these things happen.  My point was just because it is the 21st century, does not make anything any different.  The idea that mankind is progressing towards some blissful state based on his magnificent accomplishments is bullshit.  He has no real accomplishments.  And if he has no God, then he is terminal. 

But for the sake of the elect, intervention will take place, whether the atheists want it or not.  But not before we go through living hell.  It is easy to trace the countdown if you have a clue what Revelation is saying.  I don’t care if you read the Greek or the KJV, because the truth comes through spiritual discernment, not words on paper.  That’s why you don’t know anything.  And if you know anyone counting on some rapture, tell them not to hold their breath.

Mr. Ellis—I was being facetious for the sake of conversation…

Praise, brother! You, John Ellis, speak the wholly word!

C., you bring ‘God’ into a conversation, as a talking point, and then condemn me for ‘blakets’? I don’t get it…

It may be the 21st century, but there are still a few pesky little problems left to solve, like:  death, war, famine, plagues, natural disasters, intolerance, racism, domestic violence, child abuse, etc.

Dave, when did death become a problem? War is waged for ideas, plagues were wielded by God natural disasters happen because this is volitile planet, not subject to your short-lived discernment, intolerance comes from others being, well, ‘other’, perceived as outside of your collective; same for racism; the rest is human frailty…So, how is having a sky-fairy helpful with this?

No, the argument does not assume a God.  It creates one for the sake of the argument.  I personally do not believe in God and am quite happy with that stand.  I have endured many years of various denominations and found them all lacking.  And I’ve endured several attempts by well meaning followers to tell me that their version is different ... but I doubt it.  These were missionaries in Ukraine trying to convert the heathens from Russian Orthodox to something else.

Given I don’t believe, I certainly can suggest that if there is a God, he is welcome to call the rapture anytime and to take the bigots, wherever they originate, and send them all to hell.  However, not all bigots are religious nor are all religious bigots.  By making that universal assumption you become a bigot as well.

I know and appreciate many people who are deeply religious and yet not captured by the corruption of the church.  They live good lives and are very tolerant of others.  The understand the limitations of the church and act accordingly.  The church doesn’t always accept their stands ... several were excommunicated for their beliefs (including a few who were priests).  So blanket condemnations are not appropriate nor are they true.

I affirm once again that we gather knowledge only via our 5 senses.
The next step is to describe our experience with the apple or a human.

Nevertheless, we can not tell everything ab any fruit, human, or any other happening.
In other words, we cannot know ALL ab anything. However, knowledge ab anything at a point time has to suffice.

Pious people take opposite way of gathering, to what to them is, knowledge.
They cannot see, smell, touch god; nevertheless ‘know’ `god and ‘know’ even that it is HIM.

And even ‘know’ [why not when u’r using sixth sense of knowledge gathering] what god says!

So, what is their problem? Why are most of them so insecure, angry, hateful not only of us impious people but also of other pious people?

And why most of them go see a doctor or take medicine when their ``god is almighty?

Well, this proves that they dont know that god exists; they know that they are only believing.
In short, one cannot fool one`s nervous system.
Our nervous system can be unforgiving.

And `god` or nature ensured that not all of us become like ‘nobility’: glory in their ruthlessness and crimes.
Because if we were all like most politicians and clergy, no one wld be left alive!

Caveat, the words under single quotes denote their false symbolic value. `Gods` do exist but where? Inside people`s skin, seems to me! tnx

John, from whom is the quote“No one shall enrich themselves upon the misery of another.”
? It seems to sum up what we all should know…

Um, C. whatever…You use an argument that ASSUMES a god; Therefore, it is invalid as as an argument. Personally I hope the rapture is coming so these bigots get what they deserve.  God will welcome LGBT people with open arms while sending these hypocrites to hell (no I’m not LGBT).
Do you understand that the argument for god ( small g) is moot. The bigots are created by religion…are you listening?

Sorry for being late to this thread but I live halve a world away in Eastern Europe so my day is your night.  But I am enjoying this thread and will once again step in the shit to see what hornet’s nests I can stir up:

A few comments about various things:

1) “Oral history” was mentioned as the source for much of what is written in the bible.  I was part of an “oral history” experiment in college which might shed some light on how unreliable this form of information transfer is.  The instructor whispered a very simple sentence to the first person in the room with the instruction to memorize it and then pass it on to the next person (whispered again).  This sequence went on around the room until it reached the last person who was instructed to say the sentence out loud.  What he said bore absolutely no relationship to the original sentence.  Each person has added his prejudices and inexact memory to the original and it had become distorted.

I’ve been around story tellers and they like to embellish their stories in an attempt to make them more interesting and captivating.  I’m not above thinking that ancient oral historians were similarly inclined to “add something” to the history for similar effect.  And I reiterate that those early Christians had more than a little incentive to jazz up the stories so they would sell better.

Even the ancient Greek texts are based on man’s input ... not God’s.  You say they were inspired by God ... what exactly does that mean?  God stuck his hand up this guy’s back and caused his mouth to move or hands to write?  Even the ancient texts are a product of man ... even one in religious rapture.  As far as I know, there are no writings directly attributable to God’s hand.

2) I’ve always marveled at the willingness of the “faithful” to swallow the bible or other document hook, line and sinker (after it has been interpreted by their religious leader of course) everything that is written there.  The earth is only 6000 years old?  Really!  And all the dinosaurs which are proven to be millions of year old were just put there to confuse and entertain us?  What if “God” just decided to throw a plate of spaghetti on the universe and sat back to see what happened?  After a few billion years, life evolved not just on Earth but throughout the universe and he was pleased.  And he decided to wait a while more to see if any intelligence evolved.  And a few billion years later humans appeared on one planet along with many other intelligent species in other planetary systems.  And he was pleased.  And he decided to sit back and see how these intelligent species evolved.  And we got the mess we have today and he was very displeased, especially at the religious bigotry attributed to him.

3) Those who do not believe are no less “human” than the most pious of the believers.  I’ve known many religious who were the most corrupt and worthless among us because of their piety and contempt for anyone who wasn’t similarly inclined.  And I have know the most humane agnostics and non-believers who lived their lives according to a creed that cared for others.  A great deal of the intolerance we see in America today comes from churches and their followers.  Prop 8 anyone?  Personally I hope the rapture is coming so these bigots get what they deserve.  God will welcome LGBT people with open arms while sending these hypocrites to hell (no I’m not LGBT).

OK guys ... swing away!

By heresiarch, March 6 at 11:57 pm #

“Religion is but an excuse of small-minded, uneducated homophobic, unintelligent, intolerant, uninteresting, inbreeding sheep…the Great Sky Fairy will fix Everything….(once 144,000 of the true believers are dead)...Unf**king believable—-it is the 21st century…”

Less than 100 years ago, the family car was still the horse and buggy, and many people were still crapping in an outhouse.  Now it is the 21st century, and mankind has finally achieved perfect knowledge and solved all the major problems.  Is that what you are trying to say, Heresiarch? 

It may be the 21st century, but there are still a few pesky little problems left to solve, like:  death, war, famine, plagues, natural disasters, intolerance, racism, domestic violence, child abuse, etc.

Man is the same scared little insignificant animal he was thousands of years ago, he just has a few more toys to play with now than he did then.  But no major problems have been solved, and very few minor problems have been solved by the works of men.

Man has had some minor success at harnessing the effects of some forces, but he has no idea what the source of them are. 

So, until someone can state the source of electromagnetism, gravity, atomic forces, consciousness, and the origin of matter and energy,
I remain unimpressed.  Please tell me what it is about the 21st century that makes you feel so confident that the idea of a higher being or beings cannot possibly continue to be contemplated? 

On another note, I would like to reiterate the posts on this thread which point out the distinctions between the concepts of God, the Church and religion. 

Religion is the creation of man to define God in such a way that He is acceptable to man.  God is basically the same in all religions, but is defined differently by each. 

Church is ordained by God to mean a specific NT concept of “the elect”.  Church is not specific to religion, but is specific to Christ. 

Men choose to join a religion which they like, but they cannot choose to join the Church, except they can join the “false church”, which is a religion. 

The Catholic Church is one of a long line of State religions based in paganism, and borrowing from the early true Christian Church to please the converts to the new Roman state religion, as has been noted already in this thread.

The Bible has writings inspired by God, as well as some inspred by religionists.  The difference is easy to tell through the gift of spiritual discernment.  Without it, the Bible can barely be understood, being a spiritual document, not easily read by the literalist. 

I have knowledge and understanding of God, and through time, I have learned to appreciate and love God, yet I do not practice or belong to any of the formal religions.

Given all these intricacies and nuances between God, religion, Bible and Church, what exactly is separate from state? 

The constitution only mentions the restrictions regarding “establishment of religion”. 
The so-called “wall of separation between Church & state” is not legislated, and is not well defined, yet often quoted.

The Founders wished to separate the administration of the state from the administration of the Church, but through time, this has grown into the attempts by the godless leftist agenda to eliminate completely anything at all of God.

Essentially, the far left must eliminate God completely, because God endows inalienable, individual rights, and this is antithesis to the ideology of socialism, communism and progressivism.  And then there is that troublesome bill of rights to deal with. 

The dismantling of America is a lifetime project for the godless, but they are persistent.  Thankfully, for every atheist who gets offended because someone mentions God in a public classroom, there are ten believers who will jump up and defend their right not to be offended when a crucifix in a jar of piss is called art.

Just when I thought the bible drunks had given up on truthdig they show up in
force to rat out us heretics. Then there’s Tao, who cleverly pencils reason itself in
on his list of false idolatries. That’s an ironic gimme, since reason is his finest
trick—hell, it’s the main reason I read Tao’s comments religiously.

Not being in the controversy business myself, I have no truck with those scaring
up the natives and lighting torches for lynch mobs. So go ahead, get yourselves
good and saved. Just don’t expect us outliers not to call you on it when our own
hides are on the line.

John Ellis==sorry, i misread what you were saying…guess Im not thinking that straight….

HIS LOGIC
He trusts not that there is a God.
He trusts not that there is no God.
He trusts not that he can trust in what he cannot trust.

And so, how can we believe his opinion, when he himself does no believe in his opinion?
*******************************************

You truly do not understand logic or scientific thinking, do you?  I would pity you, if I gave shit because the world is full of your kind, denying the FUNDAMENTAL thing that differs us from animals—the ability to reason.

Your glib little statement is bullshit because you don’t understand logic. It means NOTHING!

At its best, an opinion is nothing but a GUESS about facts that you don’t yet know.  At its worst, an opinion is a belief is something that available facts show isn’t possible.

I am Agnostic. That means I recognize that opinions are fallible, that “faith” is acceptance of something as being true that neither facts nor inferential logic can support.  If it could, faith would not be required.

I don’t ask you to “believe” in anything, either my “opinion” or that some invisible being waived an appendage and the universe was created in 6 days. BTW, if he did so, he created it 13-14 billion years old just to confuse illogicals like yourself.

You put stock in the word “trust”.  How do you define “trust” and what determines upon whom you bestow it?

Don’t believe or trust my opinions.  Evaluate my conclusions based on the available facts and the logical inferences that can be drawn from them.

And please don’t preach at me either. I don’t need or want to hear for the umpteenth time “Why do the heathen rage?”

Defamation is what Rupert Murdoch’s Propagandist Shill Glenn Beck does to progressives, liberals and socialists, as he is doing in these videos:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/03/31/beck_makes_gay_jokes_about_barney_frank.php

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/05/22/glenn_becks_witch_hunt_against_acorn_and_barney_frank.php

Religion is but an excuse of small-minded, uneducated homophobic,unintelligent,intolerant,uninteresting, inbreeding sheep…the Great Sky Fairy will fix Everything….(once 144,000 of the true believers are dead)...Unf**king believable—-it is the 21st century…

I’d rather be called a man of faith rather than a faithless man. And I’d rather have a thinking faculty that leads me to think about and reflect upon the realm of the metaphysical rather than living trapped in the lowly and and base instincts of my perishing body, as if my existence had no purpose other than to eat, shit, fuck or being fucked, indulge in promiscuous sex and material greed and finally die against my will despite of the fact that I would love to live forever. 

Those who deny religious-based faith run the risk of being contradicted by the very development of human civilizations themselves. It’s a fact of history that all human civilizations, past and present, had /have at their core a belief-system that was and still is a crucial ingredient in the progression of such civilizations.

Strip human civilizations from the architectural monuments, works of literature, arts, philosophy, medicine and science created by men of faith throughout human history, then what you are left with is a primitive human life devoid of beauty, variety and creativity. Cancel, for example, all the American hospitals or academic institutions that bear the names of Christian saints or are religiously affiliated, then you will have a health and educational crises that will place America at the the top of the failed nations! 

Le’s take, for example, the ancient Greeks whose thinking, philosophy, and all the scientific works they produced, even the much-bragged about democracy in the West today, were the very foundations of Western culture. In their metaphysical speculations they reached to the conclusion that there were multiples of “gods” rather than one universal God. Even when they failed to understand the fury of nature against what man builds, they invented a God they named “NEMESIS” as being the “goddess or retribution, who punishes human transgression of the natural, right order of things and the arrogance that causes it.”

What the atheists forget in their thinking of denial is that they forget that they have their own religion, which they follow fanatically. Since religion can be defined as being a “system of beliefs and a way of life,” then the atheists are the followers of a religion that can be called “Atheism.” Another aspect of denial by the “Atheists” is the fact that they are a tiny minority among the populations of the word. To the fanatic Atheists of this world I would say,“Are you in control of your thinking faculty to try to declare wars against the overwhelming majority of human beings?!”

I personally don’t have a problem with Atheists as human beings since my motto is “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Qur’an) However, I don’t appreciate any one, Atheist or a follower of any other religion, who defames or ridicules my faith. Live and let other live according to their personal choices is the basis for a civilized society and the preventive measure against hatred, conflict and wars.

“Some nonbelievers, surely, can go too far when ridiculing religion, and there is plenty of room to censure them in this regard. But they do it because they rightfully can.”

Excuse me? Can Scientists go too far when they say that the Laws of Physics dictate that no one can walk on water in its liquid state? Can Scientist go too far when they say that no one can get up and walk away if they are truly dead? That the religiously brainwashed say that the proof of those things happening are contained in the Bible or any other document is to wave a banana in the air as proof of any mythical beings existence. Have no doubt that the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans or any other ancient race believed in their Gods just as fervently as any modern religion does in theirs! It would stand to reason that modern religions are just as shallow and false as those turned out to be. So why does the author say that people who point out these obvious and stupid beliefs for what they are should be censured even tho he admits that those who criticize have the right to do so? I would say they not only have the right to do so but also the obligation.

Voltaire’s old point that while he may disagree with your belief he will defend your right to state it always falls victim to hypocrisy the minute religion rears its ugly head. Dissent is necessary for change and advancement and the entrenched willfully ignorant always try to stifle it in any way they can. Look at the history of any religion except Buddhism and you will find it rife with attempts to stamp out any notion that there is anything of value other than that religion.

I am as certain as anyone can ever be that there is no GOD and if there were I am absolutely certain it would not be anything like what the religiously indoctrinated believe it is like, petty and venal like humans. I developed this idea that religion was a scam when I was introduced to the Baptist way at an early age by my Mother. Every Sunday people said they heard Jesus calling and asked to be baptized. For months my mother would ask me if I had heard Jesus calling. After a while it became apparent that it wasn’t in my best interests to not “hear” Jesus any more. So I jumped up, ran down the isle like everyone else and I lied. I got baptized all the while thinking that that GOD was going to strike me at the moment of my baptism. I was at first very relieved when I wasn’t but suddenly wondered why I was not only able to fool GOD and Jesus but also my mother. All the Sunday school fairy tales and all the fire breathing gospel only reinforced my ever growing doubt. After attending a Catholic private school, a Lutheran church, a Methodist church and even a Unitarian, which is still the only God based religion that had any semblance of sanity, my doubts grew to where they are today. I found over the years that there are costs to letting anyone know you are either and agnostic or and atheist in a country that is full of the religiously bigoted. We are at the same stage that gays are now and blacks were 60 years ago. We have progressed little in our battle to put religion where it belongs. Bill O’Rielly rants and carries on about the destruction of Christmas by atheists when it is the Corporations, his sponsors that have done that and paying to have their shills to blame us.

We still pay the same cost as did George S Kaufman lost a lucrative role in a network series when he let it slip that he was tired of hearing Silent Night being played endlessly during the holiday season.

It is long past time when we need to stand up and fight back at these people who are not content to practice their religion and keep their nonsense to themselves, they come to our homes and try to make us feel bad that we are not as stupid as they are. I do not go door to door handing out literature, but maybe we should gather in small groups and go door to door on Saturday morning or get a bull horn and stand on main street with Signs.

“....thus sullying the discourse before it can even begin,” this article’s author opines, which often looks to this Old Indian like exactly the point and purpose.  Still, the intentional suspension-of-disbelief does seem to offer, to many an “individual” caught-up in the eCONomic ‘operating system’ of the “civilization” CONtraption, a little (dare one say) ‘blessed’ relief from its daily degradations and nightly terrors.

Of course the specific bio-chemistry of ‘relief’ is as likely as any other to become addicting.  So the peddlers of quack nostrums and ‘faith’ cures have a near endless line of eager ‘customers,’ willing to fork-over their very ‘soul’ in-exchange for the steady ‘drip’ or mainlined ‘hit’ of false comfort available (these days) at the touch of a button.  If ‘pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die’ isn’t really your “cup of poison” (ala “Jesus Christ Superstar”), Madam, then a double-dose of ‘logic-and-reason’ might be just the ticket to “....let (you) get (your)self up off the floor,” (courtesy of Bob Dylan), Senor.

This IS the ‘lot’ of homo domesticus, tame Sisters and Brothers….no apologies or explanations necessary or even (maybe) ‘believe’-able, when The Light John Ellis prays-for actually does finally come on.

Hokahey!

For example, it is absolute fact that there are an infinite number of perfection in nature, such as all the planets in our Universe having the perfect speed, distance from the sun, and direction, to lock into an eternal orbit.  Therefore, nature is by intelligent design.
*********************************************

What?????  Where do you get your so-called “facts”, Skeezix?  In FACT, they are all constantly changing speeds (Kepler’s Law) as they orbit the Sun—Kepler figured this out in the 1600’s.  Plus their average speeds are changing as they slowing lose momentum orbiting the Sun.  Orbital speeds, nutation, and rotational speeds all change.  The length of days has gotten longer down the millions of years—dinosaurs had a much shorter day than we do, something on the order of 18 or 20 hours.

There’s nothing “eternal” about the solar system.  We KNOW that in about a billion years or so, the our Sun will expand into a red giant and consume all the inner planets, and possibly even Jupiter as it expands to the size of Jupiter’s orbit.  After that it will probably go nova and destroy the REST of the planets and possibly do damage as far as Alpha Centuri.  Meanwhile, were Rigel to go super-Nova, we wouldn’t see it for about 4,000 years, but it might well destroy us after another 1000 or so years when the actual force reaches us.

“eternal”? “perfect”?  Not hardly!

I’ll butt in here just for a minute to say that if all RICH people suddenly became “a moral people” things would be better for everybody else.  The vast majority of poor people can’t afford to be truly immoral because they can’t afford lawyers, would lose their little jobs if they took time off for jail, and don’t have any money saved up for emergencies—or health care, or education, or vacations, or ...

Rich people are immoral because they can afford attorneys. Rich people are immoral because they lack empathy—the ability to recognize the pain of others and to feel responsibility for caring, kindness, charity.  Their sense of values is skewed to the point where money matters more than poor people. “The poor will be always with us,” they quote from the Bible, and walk away. I pity them at the same time I despise them.

Some rich people give away a lot of the money they can’t use, but they still keep more than they need.
If they donated their time and thought at the same time they donated their money, they might discover ways to solve the causes of poverty and injustice, rather than just treating the symptoms.

All this is painfully obvious and should not need repeating.  Everybody knows it, but nobody talks about it much because to talk about it raises that poisonous word, “socialism.” The word was poisoned by capitalists to save their fortunes.

Hi, John Ellis: I think I understand what you’re saying. I think it’s remarkable how comfortably religion accommodates capitalism and the accumulation of wealth, but I don’t see that as a political issue, meaning as a problem that can be fixed by government. Why? Well…

Along the same lines, we have Congressional representatives and other government leaders engaged in blatant “sinfulness” (as defined by religion) but without any retribution by religion. I’m not singling out Gov Sandford, et al, but every Republican engaged in lies and distortions and obstruction as a political ploy. Our values are no longer apparently being defined by the Bible, but rather by the interpretation of those allied with power. So forget religion enforcing the virtue of poverty.

My point is that this is more than just an ideological matter, “aren’t they naughty” conjecture. This is the real deal, about conspiring to engage in behavior designed to damage this country.

In my opinion, Liz Cheney is engaged in seditious activity. Her intent —similar to Republican filibusterers—is to damage the government. Their rationale is political gain or some righteous baloney, but their stated purpose is to obstruct the operation of the government in a time of war. That’s aiding and abetting the enemy.

Liz, Glen, Rupport, and the rest don’t care, because the worst they envision is a public relations battle, and in that game, they win. And they’re possibly right.

This isn’t a pr fight or ideological debate. Republicans are actively engaged in sedition, using a warped interpretation of fundamental American principles to halt the operation of government by duly elected representatives, including direct and implied threats of force against those who attempt to exercise their freedom, rights, and legal occupations.

Extending Liz’s concept out, it is therefore true that any attorney who defends anyone is as guilty as the accused.

All packaged as “less government”.

John Ellis—if people only practiced religion handed down to them by forefathers, there would be no “christians”..time (and science) marches on…

BTW—Kurt Westergaard is danish, not Dutch…I see Ross noticed that also…

“As long as the fundamental divide between adherents to the numerous world faiths and those who adhere to none remains irreconcilable, the area where we all can—and must—converge is on how we go about actually having the conversation.” What “conversation”??

I am an atheist, and, I dont really see the point..I dont want to talk about religion…I have no way of knowing and I dont feel a need to “get in someone’s face” about it..it achieves nothing..but if someone else wants to, I have no right to stop them.

“Some nonbelievers, surely, can go too far when ridiculing religion, and there is plenty of room to censure them in this regard.” Really…
And who gets to decide where you draw the line on censorship?

This is as silly as everything else on FluffPo..anyone se her on Bill Maher last night? What an ass kisser…

CCD:

You say, “The bible, for example, was not written by God but by Catholic monks.”  I’m not sure where you got this, but it is totally incorrect.

The OT is oral history that was eventually written down by various people, none of whom was a monk (much less a Catholic one! LOL)

The NT is comprised of writings by various people, including Paul, Timothy, Peter, and others.  The vast majority of Bible scholars agree that the first “gospel” was that of Mark, written ~60 A.D., with the gospels of Matthew (an original apostle) and Luke coming shortly thereafter, and John’s (also an original apostle) coming latest (along with his Revelation).  None of these men were monks.

The NT as we know it was “assembled” in the mid-4th century, and was, indeed, as much a political process as a religious one.  The 27 books of the NT were “chosen” at that time, as other books (including the gnostic gospels) were dismissed.  However, the 27 “accepted” books of the NT were not “canonized” by the Catholic Church until, earliest, the mid-1500s.

There is an old saying that “Religion is about laws, rules and behavior; faith is about a relationship with God.”  Thus, your comment that “there is a distinct difference between belief in God and “the church” is true.  However, they are not mutually exclusive: although faith is the more “important” of the two, there is an important place for “religion” within faith.

Peace.

Conservative propaganda has been most effective
against liberals, turning them into apologists for
unAmerican principles. (When Glen or Rush or Mitch or
Liz say something stupid, you can count on liberals
to find a germ of reason within their nuttiness,
thereby validating their nuttiness.)

Conservatives have no intention of allowing liberals
one iota of free anything. Heck, they don’t even
allow Congressional representatives the freedom to
vote for the interests of the districts they
represent! They have to vote the way the party wants
them to.

If the GOP party does that to their own, why in the
world do you think they’d want to protect your
freedoms.

President Bush—an American President—warned
Americans to “watch what you say” just a few years
ago. Liz Cheney’s attack below is simple McCarthyism,
not meant to extend her right to speak but only to
suppress others. And those on the religious right who
retreat to the protection of the Constitution are not
interested in their right to practice religion and
certainly not in your right to practice yours.

They are only interested in their right to make you
listen while they “freely” promote their religion.

Freedom to practice religion, freedom to practice
law, freedom to make a speech, also means the freedom
to not have to, but that’s abhorrent to
conservatives.

Less government! What a laugh. They’re for huge
government.

P.S. It’s reported today that Virginia’s Attorney
General has warned state colleges that it is against
the law for them to include sexual orientation within
their non-discrimination policies. Against the law.
To create a policy. How is a policy different from
religion?

Conservatives will tell you who you can or can’t
discriminate against, and the point is not to protect
anyone from discrimination, but rather to exert
authority to force “free” people to conform to
conservative principles.

Liberals need to understand the difference.

I’ll go out on a limb and probably get attacked for saying this but I hold there is a distinct difference between belief in God and “the church” no matter what incarnation it takes.  A belief in God is a fundamental right of everyone and I acknowledge and uphold every person’s right to this belief.  However, a church is not God but a creation of man and it serves man’s purpose, not God’s.  All religious documents including the bible, the koran, etc. are also creations of man and therefore do not inherently voice what God believes or wants us to believe.  The bible, for example, was not written by God but by Catholic monks.  Does anyone actually believe they had no personal agenda when writing this book?  We know from history that there were spirited arguments about what should be written.  One needs to temper their blind adherence to a document with a realization that it may have a political agenda.

I was married to a Catholic woman for 28 years and went to church every week and was constantly amazed by the blatant hypocrisy of that organization.  The priests were supposed to offer family counseling when they weren’t even married!  This is the organization that covered for pedophile priests and you would be amazed how many of the priests are alcoholics.  The only ones I gave any credibility to where those few who criticized the church and told me not to take the church seriously because it was a joke.

I hold that a believer should take care of his own house and not worry so much about others.  If your religion is against gay marriage, fine ... don’t marry a gay person.  But you have no right to tell others how they should live their lives.  It makes you into a hypocrite of the worst kind.  If you have other objections, please live them in your life but stop jamming them down others’ throats.  You don’t have that right.  We are a free society which means each of us is responsible for our own behavior but that does not give you the right to tell me or anyone else how to live.

Finally, I think that a group’s reaction to criticism tells a great deal about how secure they are.  So what if an atheist group offers to trade your bible for some porn?  By reacting the way they did, I can see that these people are not feeling all that secure in their faith.  Wonder why?  Judging by the violent reactions of almost every church to even the slightest threat, they all must be feeling pretty insecure these days.  All of you need to grow a thicker skin and start practicing the “turn the other cheek” attitude your bible tells you.

Free speech should be used for objective facts and NEVER for the defamation of anyone, especially the President, progressives, liberals and socialists like Rupert Murdoch’s $25,000,000. Glenn Beck does.

Conservatives like Rupert Murdoch’s Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and others use free speech to defame through lies (sophism) and propaganda, which should not be allowed.

As for religions being defamed, I think dealing with religious defamation should be left up to God.  The bible says vengeance belongs to the Lord. The greatest concern should be the people of the populace being defamed because of being progressive, liberal or socialist by the conservative Republicans whose platform is to use fear for the purpose of defamation of progressives, liberals and socialists: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html

It would have been better for me to have said that fact relies on evidence—not reasoning.  Sorry.

One thing you can never really hear is your own accent when you speak. It
always sounds “normal”. It works the same way with culture. When you are
raised as a god-fearing christian, belief in god will be your base line. Anything,
everything outside of that will be foreign.

It just never occurs to most religious people that they have a cultural accent. So
naturally when some group comes along to remind them, it can feel like a gut
punch.

But what christians need to remember, is how truly shocked and frightened
atheists are when, for example, they hear their elected leaders, people who
hold the public welfare in their hands, speaking in some kind of “strange
accent” about trust in the “father” or Jesus knows best.

I know when I hear such things, I try to convince myself that they are only
playing to their constituents, that they don’t really have a mind that allows
them to throw logic and reason to the wind willy-nilly. But deep down it scares
the hell out of me that they might truly be guided by something that exists
only in the collective imagination of the “flock”.

I experience this shock almost every time I hear a politician speak. So it’s only
fair that some christians should feel it once or twice in their lifetime.

Just saying…

... “to take up the cause of the terrorists” ...

Worse than defamation is this:

“The American people have a right to know whether
lawyers who voluntarily flocked to Guantanamo to take
up the cause of the terrorists are currently working
on detainee issues in President Obama’s Justice
Department.”

That is Liz Cheney.

And this:

“An illegal action inciting resistance to lawful
authority and tending to cause the disruption or
overthrow of the government.”

Is sedition.

People defend criticism of their positions and beliefs with the best reasons they can think of.  If they don’t have any good reasons they usually become hurt, angry and defensive.

Religionists, especially fundamentalists, are probably the worst in that regard, but they’re hardly alone.  Consider how often right wing political partisans, unable to defend their positions rationally, resort to equating dissent with treason.  Of course that’s only when Republicans are in power.  When they’re not, dissent is suddenly transformed from sedition to patriotism.

It is not even a matter of “developing a sense of humor,” though that is a good idea.  Rather, it is simply a matter of ignoring it - letting it “roll off one’s back.”  Any person of faith who cannot do this (whether or not they have a sense of humor) cannot be very secure in that faith.

Gerard:

You (unwittingly?) undermine your own position.  You say, “Belief relies on emotion—love, hate, fear, guilt. It is more personal than fact…Fact relies on reasoning…”

Are you suggesting that love, hate, fear and guilt are not “facts?”  And that one is “un”-reasonable for believing in love?

You may want to re-think the way in which you express the point you wished to make.

Peace.

To me, a religion to earn that label, must not only accept all ideating, but also welcome it. If u lie, i have the right to lie; if u’r heard i have the right to be heard!

In short, every human is right according his/her knowledge or what that person evaluates as knowledge.

This wld end all arguing, frustration; possibly even wars, poverty, exploitation, and many other ills.

However, on a doing level, as of a necessary truth, we never kill a human being. This wld occlude al wars.
Talk all u want. Say anything u want or dare, but do not touch.

On doing level, if we wld err, we err on the side of not misleading, abusing, exploiting, torturing, or depriving anyone of universal human rights.

If politico-educational-priestly class of life just talked
and not led us into wars or allowed-demanded such division in society with the top one percent owning 98% of america,we wld all have much better life.

So it is not the talk per se that is injurious to people but the control of it: in schools, media, movies, church. congress.
In other words, control or supression of free speech is evil and not speech self! tnx

Summarizing the obvious:  What is necessary is to bear in mind the difference between belief and fact.  Religion relies on belief and it even attempts to translate belief into fact. Followers believe because they choose to believe, even though what they believe may not be proveable as fact. In fact, fact can even become a threat to belief, which causes believers to deny facts. Oil and water won’t mix.
  Belief relies on emotion—love, hate, fear, guilt. It is more personal than fact.  It is difficult, often impossible, to cancel out one belief with another belief because that implies disloyalty, betrayal, and arouses emotions of disgust.
  Fact relies on reasoning, and therefore a new fact may cancel out an old fact. If someone will not allow a new fact to cancel out an old fact, that is regarded as pig-headedness but not disloyalty.
  Challenting beliefs is a far more delicate matter than challenging facts.  Beliefs have a high resistance to change.  That’s one reason why, for instance, some religions attempt to deny the scientific evidence of global warming—because if they can regard it as a belief, they need do nothing about it because God will take care of it.
  Sadly, and ironically, both believers and nonbelievers regard each other as fools or worse. It is hard for fools to be true to a “live and let live” ideal because each is convinced he/she is right.

The more interesting thing is that it is not only the
religious whose hubris blinds them to criticism. I
would have hoped the author of this article would have
had the self-knowledge, honesty and humility to address
that.