Press "Enter" to skip to content

God Under Attack! Use Church for Political Ads! Jump Around! Vote for Gordon!

If an omnipotent God is under attack by mortals, isn't the proper response a shrug?

341 Comments

  1. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.17

    Good Grief Gordon!!!

    We juts need to do away with the Constitution and hope like hell God runs the country.

  2. Bob Newland 2014.07.17

    Funny. The title that appears at beginning and end of the, uh, thoughtful diatribe on snakehandling, says, "Gordon Howie Foe Senate."

    Howie told me a few years ago while explaining why he would not support legal use of cannabis by suffering people, "I'll tell you what. If I had a sickness that I thought would be helped by marijuana, I'd just go get some, and deal with the legal problems later."

    Fortunately, I doubt we have to worry about this schmuck being in the Senate. Unfortunately, the nominee of the Republican wing of the Big Govt. Party probably will be.

  3. Jerry 2014.07.17

    LOL, Gordo needs to do stand up comedy. The guy has the delivery of a fake newsman like Stephen Colbert. If gordo does any debates, will he bring the shepherds staff? Only God knows. Whenever you see a Gordo sign up, take a look at the business and then go someplace else, cause they are just as goofy as this bonehead is.

  4. Bill Fleming 2014.07.17

    I'm wondering who was handling his A, B and C rolls and why in the world they edited the cuts the way they did. The lighting's not bad, and his makeup is the best I've ever seen it, but those camera angles! And choices on where to make the cuts! What was the editor of this thing thinking? (Hint: sometimes it helps to key off of what the speaker is saying. Just a suggestion.)

  5. Bob Newland 2014.07.17

    Sure. Let preachers endorse whomever or whatever they like. And stop giving them property tax exemptions because their "house" belongs to God.

  6. Bob Newland 2014.07.17

    Didn't God do the editing?

  7. Rocky Racoon 2014.07.17

    Today I learned that Gordon Howie is the exact opposite of someone who should be elected to political office.

  8. larry kurtz 2014.07.17

    Howie is exactly the kind of Protestant to whom the KKK appeals: this ad is a direct shot at Rounds' cult.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.17

    God is everywhere, Bob, but the editing metaphorically suggest multiple points of view, which would be anathema to Gordon's literalism.

    Bill, I thought the line around 0:15 when Gordon talks about being "saved by Jesus Christ" was a terrible cut. Shouldn't Gordon be looking right at us when he says that?

    Bill, the camera shots may have been called by Annette's friend Lee, who is apparently hanging around in Gordon's back yard.

  10. Bill Fleming 2014.07.17

    News guys always do a sucky job on ads. That's why they're still news guys. ;-) (Just kidding.)

  11. Bill Fleming 2014.07.17

    p.s. I think the "God" shot is supposed to be the high angle one.

  12. Bill Fleming 2014.07.17

    Okay, little more seriously, the main problem with Gordon's message is that he his demonstrably wrong. America isn't empty of faith at all. Rather, it appears to be full of it. And we STILL have all that greed and corruption he mentions. Maybe Gordo's barking up the wrong tree here? Just thinking' out loud. Check this link:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx

  13. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.17

    Good point Bill, as grudz would say, we're being goded to death.

  14. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.17

    Bob, I appreciated your post on Powers over on Facebook, funny stuff

  15. jaa dee 2014.07.17

    Dancing around holding a copperhead to prove his faith would've been a good match for his words.

  16. larry kurtz 2014.07.17

    bob, facebook is malware: could you copy/paste your piece on pp to decorum forum?

  17. owen reitzel 2014.07.17

    If ministers come out and support a candidate from the pulpit then that church should lose its tax exemption.
    Actually its bible thumpers that have been hurting this country Gordon. Our founding fathers knew enough to religion out of government.

  18. mikeyc, that's me! 2014.07.17

    Where are the guns?

  19. bearcreekbat 2014.07.17

    Oh boy! We need Gordon's western version of Sharia law. You are screwed Cory! Me too!

  20. Kurt Evans 2014.07.17

    Hey, I think that's Lorenzo Kelly's church in Rapid. It's been almost a quarter of a century, and my theology has changed a bit, but I still have fond memories of the people I met in that place.

  21. Martin Luther 2014.07.17

    Seems that God is co-dependent on humans, constantly needing reassurance that he's Da Man!

  22. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.17

    Bill, when it comes to religion, America is definitely full of it.

  23. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.17

    Roger, is that godded or goaded? Or both?

    Kal Lis, we should be so lucky as to have Jon Stewart make a South Dakota meme. Where's the love, Daily Show? South Dakota could write you material for a full season in one month!

    Lorenzo Kelly's church? Makes sense: Gordon gave Kelly airtime for his Sunday sermon: http://www.rightsidesd.com/?p=17907

    —in which video refers to America as "lost and dying." Gee, what kind of optimism is that for a U.S. Senate candidate?

    —in which Kelly rolls his eyes at the word "tolerance".

    —in which Kelly says he has the medical papers to prove that he died seven times.

  24. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.17

    Cory,
    Goded or goaded, both are likely true given the way the Sibson types respond to everything they don't like. God is likely Goading Gordon an Sibson.
    I'll wait to see how Grudz weighs in on this.

  25. grudznick 2014.07.17

    Everybody now can see the overgodding I have seen. Two days in a row I couldn't agree more with my liberal friend Mr. C.

  26. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.17

    Thanks grudz, see there is still hope for you my friend.

  27. grudznick 2014.07.17

    I appreciate it. Don't take my comments or questions on the other blogging about what the right term is as anything other than my ignorance if that is what it seems like. I just wanted to know the right term and perhaps there is no "description" that would even fit everybody of any ethnic background. I know a couple of Italian American fellows who get angrier than heck no matter what you call them.

  28. Kurt Evans 2014.07.17

    Cory Heidelberger wrote:
    >"Gordon gave Kelly airtime for his Sunday sermon ... in which Kelly says he has the medical papers to prove that he died seven times."

    I think Pastor Kelly may be misinterpreting some of the spiritual aspects of his near-death experiences, but for the record, I regard him and his wife as two of the kindest and most compassionate people I've ever met.

  29. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.17

    Howie is tiresome, along with the entire meme of poor, picked on Christians in the USA. Let them go to Sudan, Uganda, and a few other countries in sub-Saharan Africa for several months. That might clear up the definition of "persecution" for them. Or let them travel the US, especially the rural South, as Muslims.

    I've never seen anything anywhere in the Bible about "blessed are the whiners."

  30. grudznick 2014.07.17

    Like my good friend Mr. kurtz would say, Ms. Geelsdottir. He tasks me, he tasks me and I shall have him or get my money back from his robbery of an old man.

  31. Kurt Evans 2014.07.17

    Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
    >"I've never seen anything anywhere in the Bible about 'blessed are the whiners.'"

    On the contrary, the Bible specifically instructs Christians not to be surprised when we face opposition (Philippians 1:28, First Peter 4:12), but sometimes we get accused of whining when we're basically just stating the facts.

  32. grudznick 2014.07.17

    facts?

    You mean you are quoting some fictional book. I can quote from Moby Dick and say it's a fact because...golly...it is written down.

    Call you Ishmoron.

  33. Kurt Evans 2014.07.17

    Owen Reitzel wrote:
    >"Actually its bible thumpers that have been hurting this country Gordon. Our founding fathers knew enough to religion out of government."

    John Jay was a Founding Father. George Washington also nominated him to become the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Senate unanimously confirmed him. He later served as president of the American Bible Society.

    Jay said this: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

  34. Curt 2014.07.17

    I've seen a few Weiland 'Take it Back' stickers around ... don't recall any Marion-or-Larry-for Sen- stickers, but saw my 1st Gordo sticker today in downtown Rapid City: It read, "God, Guns, & Gordon." Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

  35. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.17

    Kurt, as a woman in the USA, I'd love to be as mistreated as you feel American Christians are.

    I'd love to see polls showing that 75% or more American voters would not consider voting for anyone who was not a woman.
    I'd love to see a Congress dominated by women.
    I'd love to hear Christian men complain that their sports are ignored while women's get all the attention, money, TV time and adulation.
    I'd love to sit down to board meetings with a token man in the corner.
    I'd love to see a photo of world leaders showing a couple of odd men out.

    Oh Kurt! What some Christians are feeling and getting scared about is a diminishment of their dominant position in this culture. Christianity continues to dominate a very large majority of American culture, but it's not completely dominant, as in the past. That's the difference you feel. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics and others have become a somewhat less marginalized than they were in the past.

  36. Barry Smith 2014.07.17

    Thomas Paine was a Founding Father. He wrote the pamphlet "Common sense" John Adams said "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain."

    Paine wrote this in his best selling pamphlet "The Age of Reason". "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of."

  37. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.17

    Kurt,
    Rev. Kelly died and came back 7 times, really? What is he a damn cat? If so, he's only got 2 left.

  38. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.17

    I always get kinds of queasy when I hear quotes from long dead founding fathers.
    When they wrote those words "All Men are Created Equal", they didn't mean a word of it, what they should have wrote for their time in history was "All White Men are Created Equal.
    Remember, these are the men that made slavery legal, denied women the right to vote or be involved in society, worked their own children like slaves, all in the name of Christianity and the Bible.

  39. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.18

    Roger is right about "All Men."

  40. Jim in DC 2014.07.18

    'Call you Ishmoron'! Grudz, you are amazing.

  41. Steve Sibson 2014.07.18

    So Deb goes from apostate Christian to anti-Christian. Not surprised. Somebody needs to warn her flock. It is not the secular humanists that are the biggest threat to Biblical Christians, it is false teachers like Deb that put themselves out as Christian.

  42. larry kurtz 2014.07.18

    So Sibby goes from earth hater to christian. Not surprised. Somebody needs to warn his wife. It is not the secular humanists that are the biggest threat to Biblical Christians, it is false teachers like Steve that put themselves out as Christian.

  43. bearcreekbat 2014.07.18

    Kurt, thanks for the John Jay quote. Now can you explain why Article VI, paragraph 3 of our Constitution, presumably put together by our founding fathers, says,

    "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

    Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent with the notion that the founders wanted "Christians for their rulers"?

  44. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.18

    We are fortunate that the Constitution overruled Jay on preferring Christians for office.

  45. Kurt Evans 2014.07.18

    "Bearcreekbat" wrote to me:
    >"Now can you explain why Article VI, paragraph 3 of our Constitution, presumably put together by our founding fathers, says, '... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.' Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent with the notion that the founders wanted 'Christians for their rulers'?"

    The Sioux Falls paper published a letter from me on this subject back in the mid 1990s. The religious test forbidden by the Constitution is a test by the government, not by the voter. Most of the Founding Fathers would have seen no inconsistency between forbidding religious tests by government and encouraging religious tests by voters.

  46. bearcreekbat 2014.07.18

    Kurt, then are you saying our legislators could require "voters" to be Christians?

    And if Jay's view had been adopted, why is this Constitutional provision even necessary? Since "the government" made of people, including individual elected representatives, and since Jay apparently thought those people should be Christians, why in the world would our founding fathers think it necessary to adopt a Constitutional provision expressly prohibiting our elected leaders from adopting laws that assure only Christians could run for office?

  47. Kurt Evans 2014.07.18

    "Bearcreekbat" wrote:
    >"Kurt, then are you saying our legislators could require 'voters' to be Christians?"

    Not at all.

    >"And if Jay's view had been adopted, why is this Constitutional provision even necessary? Since 'the government' made of people, including individual elected representatives, and since Jay apparently thought those people should be Christians, why in the world would our founding fathers think it necessary to adopt a Constitutional provision expressly prohibiting our elected leaders from adopting laws that assure only Christians could run for office?"

    If the government had the power to prevent non-Christians from running for office, it would also have the implicit power to define the word "Christian" for legal purposes, as well as to reverse course altogether and prevent "Christians" from running for office. The Founding Fathers generally didn't have the kind of faith in civil government that would have allowed them to entrust it with that kind of power.

    A simpler answer is that most of the Founding Fathers believed we're all endowed by God with an unalienable right to liberty, so there ought to be an extremely high threshold for depriving any of us of the freedom to run for office or vote for our candidates of choice.

  48. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.18

    Bear, you are right about atheists. Lots of groups could fit in those scenarios. Just not white Christian men. I noticed Kurt has not addressed the Christian victim fable. Personally, I'd love to be as discriminated against as white male Christians.

  49. Kurt Evans 2014.07.18

    Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
    >"I noticed Kurt has not addressed the Christian victim fable."

    Nothing personal, Deb. I thought you made some good points.

  50. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.18

    Okay. Thank you.

  51. Barry Smith 2014.07.18

    So Kurt in other words what you are writing is that most founding fathers knew enough to keep religion out of government even though they felt it was best for Christians to lead?

  52. mike from iowa 2014.07.18

    god wasn't mentioned in the constitution. I take my creator to be Mom and Dad and since I was born in America I have unalienable rights as a birthright. I'm pretty sure my parents of blessed memory weren't into threesomes with your god,but that's just me.

  53. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.18

    If God is all infinite, all knowing, and all powerful, how do mere humans take him out of anything, including American politics?

  54. bearcreekbat 2014.07.19

    Kurt, I appreciate your analysis and agree that our founding fathers did not want elected officials to be able to define Christianity or use religious tests. That makes me wonder about your earlier comment on Owen Reitzel's statement that "Our founding fathers knew enough to religion out of government."

    It looks to me like you expressly agree with Owen's statement, so what was your point in your response to Owen and quotation of John Jay, as a founding father?

  55. Kurt Evans 2014.07.20

    Barry Smith wrote:
    >"So Kurt in other words what you are writing is that most founding fathers knew enough to keep religion out of government even though they felt it was best for Christians to lead?"

    The Founding Fathers were essentially unanimous in their view that the federal government ought to have as little influence as possible on religion, but they held a range of views regarding the amount of influence religion ought to have on government.

  56. Kurt Evans 2014.07.20

    "mike from iowa" wrote:
    >"god wasn't mentioned in the constitution."

    Article VII uses the phrase "our Lord" in reference to Jesus Christ.

  57. Kurt Evans 2014.07.21

    Roger Cornelius wrote:
    >"If God is all infinite, all knowing, and all powerful, how do mere humans take him out of anything, including American politics?"

    Theologically speaking, God allows temporary evil.

  58. Kurt Evans 2014.07.21

    "Bearcreekbat" wrote:
    >"Kurt, I appreciate your analysis and agree that our founding fathers did not want elected officials to be able to define Christianity or use religious tests. That makes me wonder about your earlier comment on Owen Reitzel's statement that 'Our founding fathers knew enough to religion out of government.' It looks to me like you expressly agree with Owen's statement, so what was your point in your response to Owen and quotation of John Jay, as a founding father?"

    Some of this may be semantic, but Owen's full statement was as follows:
    >"Actually its bible thumpers that have been hurting this country Gordon. Our founding fathers knew enough to religion out of government."

    Even the few Founding Fathers who didn't believe in the Bible weren't trying to keep those who did out of government.

  59. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.21

    Kurt, I'm wondering why you say "Article VII uses the phrase "our Lord" in reference to Jesus Christ."? What tells you that is about Jesus? I know you are aware that people refer to a vast variety of gods.

    I'm also curious if you see God as the epitome of micro managers. Does God control every single thing that happens? Do you believe that God could stop the killing of children? Does God then allow children to be molested? If God protects one child from dying of leukemia, does that mean God allows other children to die?

    Theodicy, the study of God and evil, is extremely difficult and complex.I don't buy a God who punishes some while giving a pass to others. That's a bloodthirsty and random God that I want nothing to do with.

  60. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.21

    Doesn't like a very good God to me for allowing evil, even temporary evil.

  61. grudznick 2014.07.21

    God is dead. She is very dead and never really existed in the first place.

  62. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.21

    "She?" Why Grudz my dear, are you a feminist?!?

    You become more appealing every day.

  63. Kurt Evans 2014.07.21

    Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
    >"Kurt, I'm wondering why you say 'Article VII uses the phrase 'our Lord' in reference to Jesus Christ.'? What tells you that is about Jesus?"

    It says it was His 1787th year.

    >"I know you are aware that people refer to a vast variety of gods."

    The Constitution's reference to "our Lord" is singular.

    >"Does God control every single thing that happens? Do you believe that God could stop the killing of children? Does God then allow children to be molested? If God protects one child from dying of leukemia, does that mean God allows other children to die?"

    We've already had this discussion, Deb:
    https://madvilletimes.com/2014/07/when-does-life-begin-before-conception-says-howie/#comment-344830

    Ephesians 1:11 says Christians have been "predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will." If God works "all things" after the counsel of His will, then His predestination obviously applies to every man and every angel and everything else in all creation.

  64. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.21

    Kurt, I'm not asking you for a bible verse. They are a dime a dozen. I'm asking you, personally, about what You believe. And how do you reconcile an apparently capricious god to your faith?

    "The Constitution's reference to "our Lord" is singular." It doesn't say which god. That was my question. So it may be Ra, Isis, Thor?

  65. JeniW 2014.07.21

    God (whether people believe, or do not believe in a god/God,) God/god is being used as a weapon by people to attack, insult, to be disrespectful, or similar terminology, other people's beliefs.

    Gordon is using God as a weapon, and wants others to use God as a weapon.

    During a Catholic Mass that I attended, the priest said "I cannot tell you how to vote, but God will hold you accountable for how you vote." His implication was God will punish people by how they vote. The priest used God as a weapon.

    Problem with using God as a weapon is that it says a lot about the person using God/religion as a weapon. It is no different from those who use their bare hands, words, knives, firearms to attack people for their beliefs.

  66. Steve Sibson 2014.07.21

    BCB, ever have the problem of being attacked for the actions of an apostate atheist?

  67. lesliengland 2014.07.21

    5-7% of top scientists believe in god. 130-160 million in America believe in god. fox news of course says 90% of americans believe in god.

  68. bearcreekbat 2014.07.21

    Sibby, I have not met any apostate atheists.

  69. mike from iowa 2014.07.21

    Kurt Evans-So, once again, how did this phrase make it into the draft we have today? I don't know. The phrase was not in the draft that the members of the Convention voted on and it may not have appeared on the draft that the framers signed. Daniel Dreisbach, in a 1996 article in the Baylor Law Review (Vol. 48, p. 967) suggests that the reference to "The Year of our Lord" at the end of the Constitution "may have been merely a scrivener's touch." (He also cites a 1991 doctoral dissertation from the University of Dallas: Archie P. Jones, "Christianity and the Constitution: The Intended Meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, p.258, note 5).

    The evidence available suggests that the phrase "Year of our Lord" was not part of the document approved by the members of the Constitutional Convention, but was probably added to the document sometime after the meeting.

  70. Steve Sibson 2014.07.21

    "Sibby, I have not met any apostate atheists."

    BCB, Yes I know. My comment was tongue in cheek. I am sure you did not see that :-)

    But it is a point that is important for Biblical Christians. Too many times heretics in the name of Christianity do hateful things, or they turn the Bible into something that it is not.

  71. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.21

    Christians HATE atheist and Muslims, equally.

  72. JeniW 2014.07.21

    The worst are the people who use the Bible, or selected parts of the Bible, as a weapon against others.

    That is true whether people are Christians, atheist, or others who use the Bible as a weapon.

  73. SDTeacher 2014.07.21

    JeniW,
    Your comment about the priest saying God would judge a person for how they voted caused me to recall why my family left the church of a well-known Sioux Falls pastor. In October 2004, the pastor gave a message quite similar to your priest's and then, (for any dolts in the congregation who couldn't figure out the sermon) the church bulletin contained an insert that listed the scripture's views on the issues of the day. The handout was the primary planks in the republican presidential platform. I was so shocked by the cynical manipulation that I had to double check with my spouse to see if I was hearing the pastor correctly.

  74. Bill Dithmer 2014.07.21

    I know Ive posted this before but it still holds true.

    Deb your common sense sets you apart from this group of people that Im about to talk about.

    Just because I don't choose to believe the same thing as you doesn't mean that I hate a religion. Not hardly. I in fact respect those that let their religions define them. I find intolerable those that want us to think that they are their gods disciples.

    The one thing that has always stuck in my mind about the times that I used to read your bible was this. "Beware of false prophets. I wont apologies for calling you out on that, after all its in the bible. If there is a god I think he would disown you for what you have said.

    As for me and religion, who knows there might be something out there. But there again who are we supposed to believe when it comes to something like that? I think the right thing to do here would be to just treat everyone like you would want to be treated. But that doesn't mean that if I see and or step in some dog crap I'm going to call it chocolate candy. I've seen a lot of dog crap in my life.

    THE INSANE PREACHER BLUES

    I admit that I put this off for a while because I respect those that follow religion, not just Christianity but all of them. In the next couple of words I'm going to try to explain why organized religion isn't for me, anymore.

    It wasn't always this way. Early in life we didn't go to church but church came to us in the form of a traveling preacher. Every week he would show up at one of several ranches in this part of the country and preach.

    I don't remember much about the man while he was here except for one thing, he never told us how we should live our lives, he just gave us the word and let us figure it out for ourselves if we were right or wrong. He never got in anyone's face and told them they were going to hell because they weren't living the way he thought god thought they should live. His name was Reverend Bushnell and he was the last preacher that I ever respected. I knew him for almost my whole life and he never strayed from his path with god.

    From then on our church consisted of working cattle on Sunday mornings in the summer time and watching church on TV in the winter time. My Uncle Cars would say lets go to church when we were getting ready to ride on those Sundays. I guess in a way that's what we were doing. There is nothing like nature to make you feel close to whoever or whatever is out there.

    Now I would like to talk to you about the reason that I don't go to church anymore. TV preachers.

    From the beginning of TV history there have been preachers trying to separate you from your money. There I said it. They all had their little spiels that didn't really have anything to do with religion but had everything to do with their pocket books. Lets talk about a couple of these preachers that I have known through our TV set.

    Kenneth Copeland, Told amusing stories about the bible and tried to bring it up to todays standards. He's still around and still asking for money.Self proclaimed Apostle, Prophet, Pastor, Teacher, TV evangelist

    Jerry Falwell, a true pain in the ass until the day he died. He thought everything hinged on the problems that the gay people were causing in his world. Earthquakes, blame the gays, bad storms, blame the gays, economic collapse yup blame the gays. This mans only redeeming quality was his ability to raise money from those that loved him and his bullshit. He built a collage from that money. More on him in a little bit.

    Kathryn Kuhlman, This old girl was actually fun to watch. She knew how to get your attention with the fire she spat from the pulpit.

    She used to have these two bubbas that stood around until she wanted to heal someone. She would get in front of the sick or crippled and yell and scream and talk to god. Then she would reach out and touch um on the head. They would go down like a sack of rocks only to be caught by the two bubbas before they reached the ground. Then she would have them stand up and walk across the stage. To a person they all said thank you Jesus right along with Kate. Of course then she would ask for money to keep the good times rolling.

    Rex Humbard was another one of the miracle workers on TV. He was the first preacher on our TV that had first class entertainment. The place where he worked the most magic was taking money form people and depositing it in his bank account.

    Oral Roberts, the founder of Oral Roberts University, faith healer, shyster, and taker of money. Roberts claimed that Jesus told him God had chosen him to find an effective treatment for cancer. He was also the first preacher to play the "if you don't send me a million dollars by such and such date god will take me" crap. He knew how to make money the old fashioned way he begged for it, and got it by the millions.

    Jimmy Swaggart, and Robert Tilton, were two more of the first class faith healers. Tilton preached from somewhere down in Texas and wasn't scared to ask for money. His main tactic was shaming you into sending him money because you were basically a sinner and well he was not.

    Then there was Swaggart. Jimmy loved the whores, not once, not twice, but he was caught three times as he would say "counseling the ladies." I might be wrong but I believe he had two famous cousins, Mickey Gilley and Jerry Lee Lewis. He would have been a great entertainer but chose to be a preacher. It was the worlds loss along with the worlds money.

    Pat Robertson, well what cant be said about old Pat that hasn't been said before. He was for a short time in his own mind a Colonel in the armed forces until we found out that the closest he ever got to battle was pinching a Korean girls ass in the officers club. He still offers his advise on the 700 club if you care to stop and drop of some money. He had some interesting relationships with world leaders. He was into blood diamonds and gold bought with other peoples money dug out of the ground by slaves.What a piece of shit he still is.

    And last but not least are Jim and Tammy Fae Bakker. Now I loved these two. They were true showmen that knew how to work a crowd. Jim would preach, Tammy would croak out a tune, and they could both cry on cue. Sometimes you could see six or seven coats of war paint running down Tammys face while they were asking for more money. Back when I partied a lot late at night when there wasn't anything else on TV you could count of the PTL to give great value for your buck, Of course it went down a lot better if you were a little drunk or stoned.

    JB also like the whores. He got into some trouble for his dalliances but until the government put him in jail for taking money that they though he got in an unlawful way he kept right on preaching. The two of them made a ministry of the PTL Club and turned it into a one hundred and fifty million dollar business, tax dodge, slush fund, and from the looks of things whore magnet. Then Jimmy went to jail, Tammy found another man, and our old friend Jerry Falwell took over the PTL Club so it wouldn't go broke. Jerry knew a good thing when he saw it.

    These people all had a couple of things in common. They knew how to work a 501c to make money, and they were healing SOBs. In every show you would see the stage, then down in one corner there would be a pile of wheel chairs, crutches, canes, and oxygen tanks. I saw everything from brain cancer to hemorrhoids healed on these shows.

    Well there you have it. That's why I don't go to church anymore, or at least one of the reasons. It is also the reason I wrote the song below. If there is a god I think he would like my stuff as much as those people I talked about. One more thing here I'm not asking for any of your money.

    THE INSANE PREACHER BLUES

    Aint been to church since I don't know when
    Don't think I'll be going back again
    I've heard the rumors and I've seen the news
    These preachers are all insane

    I like the sound of a good blues band
    A glass of whiskey or a pipe in my hand
    If there's a god and I'm not saying it's true
    I think he'd like me when I'm high

    Don't play me, betray me
    Don't push me down unless you wanna go to
    We're only different in your head
    Stop lying denying, don't need the crap that your putting us through
    Wont make no difference if we're dead

    Its the end of the old way
    Its the start of a new day
    Lets just forget where we came from
    We've all had some rough luck
    Some hard times and tough luck
    Lets hope for better things to come

    I sang the hymns and went to Sunday school
    But that's not where I learned the golden rule
    I've seem people do some real bad things
    I'll remember till I die

    We all do things, think no ones around
    But someone sees and tries to push us down
    The same people think they have not sinned
    But they all have things to hide

    Don't play me, betray me
    Don't push me down unless you wanna go to
    We're only different in your head
    Stop lying denying, don't need the crap that your putting us through
    Wont make no difference if we're dead

    Its the end of the old way
    Its the start of a new day
    Lets just forget where we came from
    We've all had some rough luck
    Some hard times and tough luck
    Lets hope for better things to come

    Aint it enough to love your fellow man
    Treat those around you as good as you can
    We make mistakes and you know its true
    But that's as perfect as we'll ever be
    As perfect as we'll ever be

    Its the end of the old way
    Its the start of a new day
    Lets just forget where we came from
    We've all had some rough luck
    Some hard times and tough luck
    Lets hope for better things to come

    Aint been to church since I don't know when
    Aint never going back again
    I've heard the rumors and I've seen the news
    These preachers are all insane

    ATTENTION DEB, THIS WAS NOT ABOUT YOU.

    From THE CHURCH OF BILL and the pulpit of
    The Blindman

  75. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.21

    Mike, good work on the origin of the "Year of our Lord" Kurt so cleverly cites.

    I can refer to 1787 A.D. as a reference to the prevailing method of counting years or as mere scrivenerial puffery, without positing the divinity of Christ. (I'm still waiting for Asimov's A.E., for Atomic Era, to kick in... or maybe stardates... or heck, since America is awesome, how about A.A., Anno Americi, setting 1776 to 0 and cphnting up from there?)

    I have also announced the hammering of my thumb multiple times with "God damn it all anyway..." and a subsequent profusion of varying and vivid oaths. None should be cited in court or debate as evidence of divinity, conversion, or intent.

  76. mike from iowa 2014.07.21

    I'm not a bible reader,believer,scholar,etc.,but I always figured that god and the lord were father and son,not the same person. If the word god is not mentioned in the constitution(and I stand by that statement) isn't it disingenuous to try to slip our lord in in its stead?

  77. bearcreekbat 2014.07.21

    Blindman, nice post. Jim and Tammy were my favorites too! Next to Monty Python's Flying Circus they were the funniest group to watch. I recall one episode where Jim told his audience to turn off the TV unless they were rich. He said this show was for rich folks only and that they needed to pledge $10,000 apiece. I laughed until I almost cried watching that pitch.

    And Tammy Faye's interactions with Jim were just as hilarious. She would belt out a song and put so much energy in it she would nearly collapse on the floor. I'll never forget one night when she was particularly energetic and typically she about collapsed when Jim looked at her and said "That was great Tammy, do it again!" The look of horror on her face was unforgettable. When she regained her senses, though, she went right back at it.

    Fish Karma did a song called Thighs of Tammy Faye. It is on his album, Lunch with the Devil. I didn't find a full link to the audio, but here is a link to a teaser to try and sell the song. You will get a good flavor of his lyrics.

    http://www.allmusic.com/song/thighs-of-tammy-faye-mt0001340032

    As a musician and a composer, you would like Fish Karma's songwriting. He is not the greatest musician, but his way with words is wonderful, a lot like yours!

  78. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.21

    Bill, thank you. I'm seeing you and Uncle Cars and the other fellas (was it all fellas then working the herd?), early sun bright through clear blue sky, your hats and your horses' legs still casting long shadows. Uncle Cars looks out past the gate, across the dusty grass (maybe past that bright sandstone butte?) and beating Scripture with that one line, "Let's go to church." I could meditate on that line all day.

    I wonder what Uncle Cars and Gordon would have to say to each other.

  79. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.21

    Good work Blindman. You are not alone. Huge numbers of people have been driven away from Christianity by those greedy ba***rds. The damage they have done . . .

    When I was at Fort Meade I visited a veteran in ICU. I don't remember what he was sick with, but he eagerly told me about his efforts to be healed by Benny Hinn, another charlatan faith healer. The vet, in his 80s, described in detail how he closely followed Hinn's instructions to be healed through the television. When it came time, he put the palm of his hand on the tv, closed his eyes and prayed with everything he had.

    He wasn't healed, but he quickly explained that it wasn't Hinn's fault. It was his because his faith wasn't good enough or strong enough. He told me that Hinn had warned that might happen. So this desperately ill man was going to continue watching Benny Hinn, praying, and Sending In Money. Yes, he was pretty hard up for cash.

    I tried to gently offer an alternative explanation for why Hinn hadn't healed him, but the vet didn't want to hear it. With him in such a vulnerable situation, I didn't want to take advantage of that. I let it go. But I'll tell you, if Hinn had been there when I walked out of ICU, I would have decked him. Sort of a Jesus and the Money Changers moment. Grrrrr.

  80. bearcreekbat 2014.07.21

    Deb, I have also watch a bit of Benny Hinn. I figured the people he "healed" on his show were actors and part of the charade. It is distressing to hear your story about a real person who was scammed.

  81. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.21

    Bill, that was outstanding, thank you. I have the feeling that there are more like you out there that have at arrived their opinions about Evangelicals the same way you have.

    Deb has credibility, I don't always agree with her but she provides a consistent balance to discussions on religion and Christianity. Unlike the non-minister we are familiar with.

    My Story
    When my parents married and planned a family, they decided that their children would be raised as Catholics. As children we adhered to the teachings of the church and were required to attend mass every Sunday. I didn't go to kindergarten, I went to "church school", the rest of my education was completed by Jesuits and nuns at Holy Rosary Indian Mission and later Creighton University for a time.

    Most of my adult life I continued to live as a Catholic, a large part of the reason, I think, was that many Jesuits became friends and are so today. Actually, I think I know more ex-Jesuits now.

    My mother was a devout and practicing Catholic all her 83 years, she died with a Rosary in her hands. My father was a non-practicing Episcopalian who only attended church for funerals or wedding. Dad always talked about being baptized Catholic, but never did. Shortly before his death he became a Catholic and was buried with a full Catholic mass.

    This is where my change came, at my father's funeral and later that year at his traditional ceremonial giveaway where hundreds of people attended both events, I continually heard such things as, "he was a good man", "he was a true Christian father", "he helped people as a Christian should", and so much more.
    It was then that I decided my own Christian beliefs. If my mother had a destiny with God because of her devout beliefs and her good works, so did my dad.
    This man believed in God, he did not read the Bible or quote scripture, he didn't attend Church and was buried as a Christian.
    What dad did know and what he taught his children, often by example, is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, and what helps people and what does not. Like his friends said, "he was a good man". Everybody has a father, we were blessed with having a dad,

    Now there are preachers and Christians that would say my dad was a sinner for not attending church and not believing in the Bible and would go to hell for his beliefs.

    There is not a person in the world that cab convince me that a man that practiced what taught, helped many, and made significant contributions to his community is sitting in hell.

  82. Steve Sibson 2014.07.21

    So Roger, what about your mom?

  83. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.21

    What about her Steve?

  84. bearcreekbat 2014.07.21

    Sibby, you repeatedly call folks apostate Christians, but I think you may be misusing the term "apostate." If I understand you correctly, you believe that your understanding of Christianity is the correct one and that others who call themselves Christians but don't agree with are apostates. This would only be correct if the others initially believed as you do, but then renounced or abandoned that belief for a different belief.

    Perhaps you are incorrectly assuming they all once shared your views of Christianity, but I doubt that anyone on this blog ever accepted your understanding of Christianity. If not, they cannot be apostate Christians. Maybe it would helpful to you to inquire about whether they agreed with you to help you avoid the incorrect use of apostate.

  85. mike from iowa 2014.07.21

    http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/marjoe.htm

    Marjoe Gortner was an ordained minister at age 4 and travelled with his parents seperating rubes from their money. Interesting read from one of the first to blow the whistle on "faith healers."

  86. Bill Dithmer 2014.07.21

    Cory that would have been Uncle Cars, either one or both of mt sisters, LaDonna or Claudia and whoever was around that sunday. If you wanted to ride, you rode.

    At that time we took a lot of pride in the horses we rode, but not as much as the ones we put our friends on. I dont know of a ranch anymore that rides horseback enough to do that.

    Uncle Cars was for the most part a quiet man. I'm not sure what he would say about Gordon. He wouldn't argue, he'd walk away and say it was counter productive. He'd get along with Gordon, but I bet he wouldn't pitch pennies with him.

    The Blindman

    I on the other hand,

  87. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.21

    Bear, you inspired me.

    I pulled out my trusty and decades old Webster's to see what was going on.

    What Steve seems to be referring to is actually apostasy, which means renouncing a "religious" or faith. Webster's uses the word "unreciation", which I couldn't find a complete definition. Apostates are those that commit the act.

    Note that this meaning does include Christianity, only religion and faith.

    And so in essence, anybody that leaves one church for another and remains a Christian is an apostate, they have not renounced Christianity, they have renounced a particular religion or belief.

    As people grow and adjust their own faith and beliefs, it is likely that most of us have done that, or we should.

    Unless Steve has maintained a single religion or has been loyal to a single faith all of his life, he is an apostate. He cannot have altered his beliefs in any form, or he is an apostate.

  88. bearcreekbat 2014.07.21

    Exactly Roger. Sibby's labels are only valid when used to describe someone who initially believed, and then renounced whatever faith Sibby has adopted. And if Sibby has grown in his own faith, renouncing earlier ideas, he would qualify as an apostate.

  89. bearcreekbat 2014.07.21

    One other point Roger. Perhaps being called an apostate is really a compliment, as it suggests that someone has matured in his or her evaluation of particular belief systems!

  90. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.21

    Thanks bear,

    Seems to me that apostate Christian is pretty much a meaningless phrase to everyone except Steve.

  91. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.21

    That seems to be the path we should all be on, bear. When we are young we are taught and learned to believe many religious myths, some of them pretty darn scary and often times religious indoctrination can be dangerous. Think of the number of times you have heard a killer say "God told me to kill ..........."
    I value my Christianity and it has nothing to do with religion, my foundation has been established by a simple concept of trying to be a better person today than I was yesterday and to do no harm.

  92. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.21

    I think unorthodox or heterodox is the best way to describe my beliefs. I don't believe some of the old, orthodox, Christianity. And I am a Christian because I say I am. I'm in massive company with that. In actuality, a large majority of Christians world wide are not orthodox. I hear it all the time, as I'm sure most of you do: "I'm Christian, but . . . " and they cite a place where they disagree with the appointed order.

    I don't find the word "apostate" very helpful or useful for exactly the reasons listed here. I'm guessing that it is Sibson's favorite. Whatever.

    I don't find it in my job description as a human being that I must actively and publicly condemn anyone who disagrees with me on religious matters. I think that would be extremely lonely and extremely arrogant. Certainly not Christ-like.

    I don't know and you don't either.
    (My favorite saying.)

  93. Kurt Evans 2014.07.21

    Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
    >"I'm asking you, personally, about what You believe. And how do you reconcile an apparently capricious god to your faith?"

    By trusting that He's working out what's best and only appears capricious due to my limited understanding.

    >"'The Constitution's reference to 'our Lord' is singular.' It doesn't say which god. That was my question. So it may be Ra, Isis, Thor?"

    I answered that the Constitution says it was His 1787th year. The Constitution wasn't signed in the 1787th year of Ra, Isis or Thor.

  94. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    Mr. Evans, to presume that the use of, and reference to the Gregorian calendar in a political/legal document is a profession of one's Christian faith is likewise ridiculous: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

  95. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    Roger Cornelius wrote:
    >"What Steve seems to be referring to is actually apostasy, which means renouncing a 'religious' or faith."

    The word apostasy comes from the Greek word aphistasthai, which simply means to revolt. Evangelical Christians generally use the word in the same sense as Second Thessalonians 2:3, which says the day of Christ's return won't come "unless the apostasy comes first"...

    In that sense it's not referring to personal apostasy, but rather to the widespread establishment of a counterfeit, name-only Christianity (which I personally don't believe has happened yet). Webster's modern definition of personal apostasy probably developed from the New Testament meaning.

    Having said that, I wish Steve would stop using labels like "apostate" and "neo-fascist" as weapons.

  96. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    Bill Fleming wrote:
    >"Mr. Evans, to presume that the use of, and reference to the Gregorian calendar in a political/legal document is a profession of one's Christian faith is likewise ridiculous..."

    I haven't made that presumption, Bill.

  97. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    I've enjoyed reading the comments above about how others came to their religious views. Here's a snippet of my story:

    I was sprinkled as an infant and grew up in the Lutheran denomination. I can remember clear outward evidence of personal Christian faith no later than age six, and I think Jesus was probably in my life at least two years before that, but I didn't really get serious about following Him until my freshman year at SDSU.

    As I studied what the Bible says about baptism, I became convinced that it was always a voluntary decision of the person being baptized, and that it was always done by immersion. I originally planned to be immersed in January of my freshman year, but Dad and Mom were opposed.

    The Baptist pastor in my hometown suggested I could honor my parents by waiting, and I ended up doing so for over a year. They were much more open to the idea by then, and I think it was good advice.

  98. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    " If I understand you correctly, you believe that your understanding of Christianity is the correct one and that others who call themselves Christians but don't agree with are apostates."

    BCB, sorry you don't have it right. Those who believe in the Bible as God's Word are Biblical Christians. Those who do not, but call themselves Christian, are apostate. They are in line with your rejection of the Bible as God's Word. At least you are honest and call yourself an atheist.

  99. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    "I pulled out my trusty and decades old Webster's to see what was going on."

    Roger, if you want the true definition of apostasy, you need to read the Bible, not Webster's.

  100. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    "And I am a Christian because I say I am."

    Deb, spoken like one who has elevated herself to goddess. Yet, instead of implementing Biblical church discipline, you chose to promote the immorality of paganism. Yes, you are an apostate, and I have a Biblical based obligation to publicly expose your false teachings.

  101. larry kurtz 2014.07.22

    how come christians hate jews but support israel?

  102. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    "I wish Steve would stop using labels like "apostate" and "neo-fascist" as weapons."

    Kurt I hope you don't have a problem with Jesus calling Pharisees and Sadducees hypocrites. Clearly, today's apostates and neo-fascists are hypocrites. There is nothing wrong with using swords of truth, even if that means losing popularity in the eyes of the worldly ones.

  103. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    Roger, you made a judgment about your dad. I was just wondering if you had a judgment regarding your mom.

  104. larry kurtz 2014.07.22

    Shaka, when the walls fell.

  105. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Christianity.

    BCB, here's how the word apostasy is used in Christianity. I'm sure you won't be surprised to find that Sibby has it wrong, as usual. Among other things, he's clearly linguistically challenged.

  106. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    Fleming is again making false and hate-filled allegations. Here is the truth:

    "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [Jesus' return] will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction," (2 Thess. 2:3, NASB).

    Apostasy means to fall away from the truth. Therefore, an apostate is someone who has once believed and then rejected the truth of God. Apostasy is a rebellion against God because it is a rebellion against truth. In the Old Testament God warned the Jewish people about their idolatry and their lack of trust in Him. In the New Testament the epistles warn us about not falling away from the truth. Apostasy is a very real and dangerous threat.

    http://carm.org/apostasy-christian-church

    The truth is God's Word the Bible. When church leaders such as Deb argue the Bible is not true, then she represents the apostasy that is suppose to happen prior to the Second Coming. Don't let non-believers redefine truth. And don't let the postmodern church, which rejects absolute truth, get away with calling themselves Christians.

  107. mike from iowa 2014.07.22

    Ho Hum. Another day,another Sibby rant. gawd is in her kingdom and the Czar is far away.

  108. larry kurtz 2014.07.22

    Rapid City has a myriad of sins for which it needs to repent: Howie is merely representative of the deep despair in which Pennington County suffers.

  109. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    You're just lazy Sibby. You give a completely inadequate definition of the word, then when challenged, try to revise it, still get it wrong, and blame others for your error, using an accusing, spitefull, disrespectful tone. That's the main reason smart people can hardly stomach having discourse with you. You have no intellectual rigor. BCB, Roger and I have all provided better definitions of the word than you have, and you still insist on using it improperly. That's why people think you are nuts. But maybe you're not. Maybe you're just stubborn and lazy.

  110. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    This is for those itching ears that are comforted by Deb's false teachings:

    2 Timothy 4:3-4 ESV

    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

  111. larry kurtz 2014.07.22

    Howie makes a good point about privatizing churches: they exist to operate as businesses. Hickey is an entrepreneur just like Gordo is: expanding this industry just makes sense and taxing the properties makes them accountable for their political speech.

  112. Lynn 2014.07.22

    Steve When you get into your rants I generally avoid this blog and disagree so much it's not worth my time to respond. Sorry!

    Larry I am really starting to lean towards the opinion of removing tax exempt status from churches and religious organizations with some of these pastors and churches we see for example on TV that we later find out that they were money making schemes.

    Secondly with what seems to be a constant effort to inject one's religion over others into public policy and blurring the lines of separation of church and state I'd say tax them.

  113. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    Sibby is an apocalypticist. He's arguing that anyone who is not is an apostate. That's the long and short of it.

  114. JeniW 2014.07.22

    I think that privatizing churches would mean that those who make a donation would no longer be able to consider it a tax deduction.

    Since many churches donate to charitable causes in the community, such as Community Outreach, their donation amounts may decrease because donors may not donate as much because of losing that tax deduction.

    But, could be wrong about that.

  115. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    Lynn, I agree. Churches should end there corporate entities and pay taxes so that the government can't use the tax-exempt status to tell them what they can and cannot say. We should also end public schools and make then all taxable private entities if they want to continue implementing the New Age Theocracy.

  116. larry kurtz 2014.07.22

    public schools have clearly failed you, sib.

  117. bearcreekbat 2014.07.22

    Bill, I think you are correct that Sibby believes in a coming apocalypse. His definition of apostate, however, appears to include only those who once had that belief, but then moved away from it or changed their minds. In his earlier post he writes, "Apostasy means to fall away from the truth. Therefore, an apostate is someone who has once believed and then rejected the truth of God." He apparently thinks the apocalypse is the truth of God.

    Sibby, if I am correct in the above analysis, then this validates my earlier statement that you are misusing the term apostate, as you have defined it, because you don't know whether those folks you label apostate "once believed" in "the truth of God" as you understand the Bible to describe. I think that is why you have not labeled me an apostate - you do not think I once believed in "the truth of God" hence I could not have rejected something I never believed in in the first place.

    If this is accurate, then you really have no factual basis to call someone an apostate unless you know what they initially believed.

    Sibby, several comments here have perceived your label of apostate as name calling or an insult - is this your intent?. As Roger and discussed, I think it could mean something positive - a maturing of the mind.

    I understand that some variations of Islam think that Muslim apostates - those who once believed in Islam but then left the religion - must be killed. I assume that is not your view of those you perceive to be Christian apostates, but correct me if I am wrong. If you don't think Christian apostates should be killed, then what do you believe is in store for them?

  118. Kal Lis 2014.07.22

    We're teachers not miracle workers, Larry. We can't get all students to analyze sources, reason, and draw logical conclusions only from the evidence that is available.

    I will work harder.

  119. larry kurtz 2014.07.22

    Bill, bcb, that's exactly why the Sibbys of the world blow off climate change: it's not nearly so organic as creating a black hole at CERN or global warfare.

    No offense meant to the profession, Leo: good to read you.

  120. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.22

    Kurt, I was sprinkled as a young'un, too. I don't think it stuck.

  121. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.22

    JeniW, a reduction in tithing due to the removal of the tax deduction would signify a weak commitment to the faith on the part of those donors. Giving to the Lord should be its own reward... and, per Lynn's statement, giving to a preacher who then uses your money to support political candidates (or to enrich himself, like Hinn) should not receive a tax subsidy.

  122. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.22

    Steve, it has been said that, " once you're dead you don't know it, same applies when you're dumb".
    Actually I anticipated your response and how you would twist the word apostate to fit your particular needs. In many ways Steve, you are wonderfully predictable.
    Is there a benefit, in your mind, for people to develop their Christianity by altering or rejecting various religious teachings? Have you benefited by changing your religious and Christian views, and are you a better person for it?

    There is clearly a conflict with the definition of apostate and apostasy as most of us recognize, and your overuse of the phrase "apostate Christian". And no I will not read the Bible or your quotes to help reinforce the slippery slope you have created for yourself.
    The definition of apostate as I chose to use it, is to abandon a religion for another or none at at all. In other words, I could reject my Catholic upbringing in favor of traditional Lakota spirituality. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Isn't serving or worshiping our God what matters?
    Further, the word apostate does not specifically mean you have rejected Christianity, you may still choose to worship God, only in a different manner than you previously did.
    Deb is an apostate Christian only because you think she is, I doubt that any of the other great minds on Madville would label her as such, they do for the most part respect her opinions and teachings, even while respectfully disagreeing with her.
    Steve, you perpetually proclaim that Christianity is under attack by New Age Theocracy when in reality it is people like you attacking other Christians, atheist, and agnostics.
    The war or attacks are in kind Steve, when people like you find the necessity of identifying and labeling anyone that shares a different opinion other than yours, it appears that your goal is to divide and conquer Christians, is this truly the work of the Lord?
    Over the past weekend Rapid City hosted the annual Hills Alive Concert and Event, it was attended by thousands of people of all religions and faith, by Christian believers and non-believers, it is an amazing to see such a wide group of those that follow God.
    It is an opportunity for teachers to teach, for all to pray together, and for many more to develop their spirituality and Christianity. There are probably some that come away seriously questioning what they have learned.
    By Steve's standard, this wide ranging group of those who worship God are likely all "apostate Christians" and would reject what they have to offer.

  123. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    "Sibby, if I am correct in the above analysis, then this validates my earlier statement that you are misusing the term apostate, as you have defined it, because you don't know whether those folks you label apostate "once believed" in "the truth of God" as you understand the Bible to describe."

    I have heard the use of apostate many times, but never seen it used to refer exclusively to those that once believe, but not longer does. Kurt used the world "revolt". I have also heard the word rebellion used to define apostasy. Deb clearly fits the definition of a self-proclaimed Christian who is rebellion against God's Word, who embraces sin, and promotes the idea that Christianity can be anything you want it to be. She is clearly an apostate. As a pastor of the ECLA, she is a false teacher of an apostate Christian church that once lead movement to place the Bible's authority above man's (the Pope). But now she has rejected the Bible as any kind of authority. She has fallen away from God's truth, and is now among those leading the rebellion against what she calls orthodoxy.

    Here is a link that more further explains false teachers and/or false prophets and their apostasy:

    http://www.devcobaptist.org/272372

    And yes, you cannot be an apostate, one who rebel's against God's truth, since you do not believe there is a God.

    And no, I do not use the word as an insult, but to warn the deceived. All I ask is to ignore false teachers and pray that perhaps they too will repent and turn to God's truth.

    Roger, thanks for sharing with us the sad result that comes from Christian apostasy. From the above link:

    If you will listen closely you will discover that the majority of today’s evangelism is of the wide gate false gospel variety that leads to destruction and perpetuates the apostasy that the Bible says must take place before the Lord returns.

    Not only is there no narrow gate in the false prophet’s preaching, there is also no narrow way in the false prophet’s preaching. The false prophet offers a wide gate easy salvation and a broad way easy discipleship.

    The false prophet will not dwell on or deal with the hard and negative teachings of Scripture. The false prophet only preaches partial truths – the ones that make people feel good or comfortable. He will not proclaim the whole counsel of God.

    The false prophet is never persecuted for his preaching. He has a comfortable and comforting message which is not offensive to the natural man and is especially not offensive to deceived religious people.

    The false prophet is praised by just about everybody. The false prophet is all things to all men in the sense that he makes it “easy” for people to enter and easy for people to follow because in his preaching there is no narrow gate and no narrow way.

  124. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.22

    My church's logo incorporates the words, "Christ tended to attract an assorted crowd too." Those words, in dark bold print, are superimposed on a background of lighter smaller print words. This is them:

    "divorced, rich, poor, black, brown, red, yellow, white, kid, parent, grandparent, nice, cranky, queer, pierced, smoker, tattooed, plain, short, tall, average, fat, thin, heterosexual, bisexual, transgender, slow, quick, employed, free lance, not working, retired, unemployed, gay, lesbian, liberal, conservative, using, recovering, home owner, renter, homeless, ambitious, content, devout, seeking, old, young, athletic, clumsy, doer, thinker, couch potato, reader, writer, geeky, technological, analog, innocent, guilty, aggressive, passive, confrontational, peacemaker, challenger, explorer, single, married."

    I think that about says it. A ragtag bunch similar to whom Christ hung out with. It's not just a clever marketing ploy. In fact, it's not about marketing at all. We really do welcome all sorts of people.

    That's Christianity as I understand it.

  125. Steve Sibson 2014.07.22

    Yes Deb, you proved the point. Don't talk about sin and say, "go and sin no more". Instead promote the wide gate.

  126. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.22

    Steve,
    I've never been to Deb's church and it is probably a sure bet that you haven't either. Given that fact, do you know in detail the content of the sermons preached at her church?

    It would be remarkable to find a church that does not talk about sin in one form or another. Even if they don't cram sin down the throat of parishoners, isn't it kind of okay to go to church to worship God and offer prayers of forgiveness?
    Steve Sibson, you are the epitome of a false prophet with your war on Christians.

  127. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    Sibby, have you stopped sinning yet? Don't you think slander and bearing false witness is a sin? You've slandered and lied about practically everyone here. And in the name of the Lord to boot! That's blasphemy, buddy. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? Don't you think you should be seeking forgiveness?

    Go now, and sin no more, Sibby. Amen.

  128. JeniW 2014.07.22

    Let's summarize, God hates everyone who ever was, is now, and ever will have a different perspective of God than Steve does, and God intends to get even with those who do so!!

    And let that be a warning to you!! LOL :)

  129. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.22

    There are plenty of people ready, willing and able to tell us all what is wrong with us, what terrible people we are, how undeserving we are. Complete strangers do it, so does the checkout clerk, family, media, employers, coaches, colleagues, test scores, bank accounts, advertising, some clergy, etc.

    In my experience, only a very few people understand that they are beloved, worthy and deserving of good things. I figure with all the judgment, they don't need me to pile on. I do deal with right and wrong, harmful behaviors, and so on. But I don't condemn people. I don't decide who's going to heaven or hell. That's not my job. We've got plenty of TV preachers for that, plus Southern Baptist leaders, Pat Robertson, Family Research Council, Sibson, and millions/billions more.

    I'm in the hope business, not the hell business.

  130. bearcreekbat 2014.07.22

    JeniW, your summary seems pretty accurate.

    Maybe one reason atheism appeals to me is that I cannot imagine a God with so much hate! If such a God existed, it would strike me as a completely irrational entity, and such irrationality doesn't strike me as very Godlike.

    That said, I will confess that Sibby's arguments and comments have the positive effect of making me review how and why I discovered the pure joy of atheism. In atheism there is no God that hates, punishes and kills, rather, there is the full human option of morality, caring for others, and doing one's best to try to make the world a better place. So I appreciate Sibby's willingness to expose his own deeply held views and to debate the merits of those views, even when at times his arguments seem circular and inaccurate.

    Meanwhile, I thank Deb for her willingness to open her church to the people she described as these are the same people that Jesus seemed to care about in the NT, and although I don't see Jesus as anything but human, many of the ideas about his views expressed in the Bible seem to make him an example of positive human morality. I wonder if Jesus might have been a closet atheist?

  131. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    Ha. Good one, Deb. Reminds me of a thing I saw the other day. Could be a good name for Sibby's church. "Jalapeño Business." That's Sibby. Always "all-up-in-yo-bidness." LOL

  132. bearcreekbat 2014.07.22

    Hey Bill, that's hot! Habenaroly nice day!

  133. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    ...that JESUS just might well have been a Mahayana Buddhist... sorry.

  134. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.22

    Oh, something I want to add about baptism. I don't really think it matters how wet you get, when you get wet, or even if you get wet at all. I know there are others who strongly disagree with me. I think about it this way: (Somewhat facetiously.)

    You arrive at the pearly gates. God says, "Well done, good and faithful servant. BUT! You didn't get wet enough when you were baptized, so out you go!"

    Seriously?

    That doesn't mean immersion, sprinkling, swimming in the river are wrong. In fact, I've done all 3 and truly loved each one.

  135. JeniW 2014.07.22

    I can relate to that Deb.

    When I was about 11 years old, my cousin who is about the same age as me, and I attended a revival. They divided the children up by different age groups, and then in separate rooms. The adults started yelling at us about how horrible and rotten we were, and destined to to to hell.

    Being ranted at was nothing new, I lived with that almost every day. Another girl, who was also my classmate at school, dropped on to the floor and became hysterical (not the laughter type, the crying, wailing, rolling on the floor kind.)

    When it was finally done, I walked out of that church swearing that I would never again go to another church. Why would I want to be some place where God hated people, including me? The only time after that I went inside of a church was for funerals or weddings.

    It was not until many, many years later that I happened upon the Hour of Power program being conducted by Robert Schuller, Sr. He talked about God as a positive and loving being. That helped the start of my changing my perspective of God.

    That positive attitude and message about God did more for me than all the rantings, threats, and guilt trips ever would.

    Thank you Deb for passing along God/Jesus positive messages. You will probably never know how you might have endeared a struggling soul to God/Jesus.

  136. Lynn 2014.07.22

    This poor thread has turned into Neo-craziness!

  137. bearcreekbat 2014.07.22

    Bill, as I read the NT Jesus did not appear to be seeking enlightenment or anything like it. That makes me question the arguments you describe. I mean doesn't a bodhisattva seek such enlightenment, perhaps by good works?

    I really didn't see the Bible as suggesting Jesus sought any type of reward for his behaviors, including enlightenment or even merging with God. Indeed, his reported comments during the anguish of crucifixion seem to suggest the opposite.

    In any event, the stories suggest to me that he seemed to see himself as a living being who would help the sick and down and out, and as a teacher encouraging others to follow in his path. You know, kind of like some atheists.

  138. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.22

    JeniW, like you, I was clear on the concept of a big, mean, old man who was playing god and hated me. It was clear that I was a horrible excuse for a human. All that, plus the fact that the female was simply loathsome, got me out of church between ages 12-38.

    Then I tried a church. Geez! The pastor talked about God loving me. Me. Not generic humanity. Me! I learned that God likes me. God thinks I'm just what she wants. (The Bible is full of female imagery for God.) I read Psalm 139, which describes how much I mean to God. Holy shit! News to me. But the more I read the more I realized that God really does think humanity is great stuff. Not "good" people, "rich" people. Us common, every day riff raff!

    Blew my mind. I'd been lied to for most of 3 decades. Many of the liars were unaware of what they were saying, others believed it was the right thing to do because I must Fear god. There were also deliberate liars who loved power over fearful, ashamed people.

    Isaiah 43.4. Jeremiah 29.11 (I think.) Tons of good stuff is in there.

  139. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    A bodhisattva doesn't seek enlightenment, BCB. They already are enlightened. And their primary attribute is compassion. In Buddhism, enlightenment isn't the end, (like heaven) it's more like a halfway point. An awakening, so to speak. (Well, in one kind of Buddhism anyway... there are probably as many ways to be a Buddhist as there are to be a Christian.)

  140. Bill Fleming 2014.07.22

    ...anyway, Buddhism isn't really as much of a religion as it is a philosophy or psychology... a way of being. There are a lot of Jewish and Christian people who are also Buddhists. And athiests. You might find the Dali Lama's book "Beyond Religion" interesting, BCB. Also Mark Epstein's "Thoughts Without a Thinker."

  141. larry kurtz 2014.07.22

    Anyway, Gordon Howie represents Pennington County for what it is: a christofascist enclave sprinkled with anarchists and the occasional trapped coyote.

  142. mike from iowa 2014.07.22

    JeniW- Robert Schuller was born and raised about 25 miles west of where I live in a little town called Alton,iowa. Wish I had had the money to buy Windex stock when he wasted millions on his crystal cathedral for fleecing the sheep.

  143. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    Larry Kurtz asks:
    >"how come christians hate jews but support israel?"

    Christians don't hate Jews, Larry. Christ was a Jew.

  144. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    I'd written:
    >>"I wish Steve would stop using labels like 'apostate' and 'neo-fascist' as weapons."

    Steve Sibson wrote:
    >"Kurt I hope you don't have a problem with Jesus calling Pharisees and Sadducees hypocrites."

    As far as I know, Jesus never called any Sadducees hypocrites. As far as I know, the only people Jesus ever called hypocrites were scribes and Pharisees who were faking their religious beliefs, and I don't see anyone here doing that, including Deb.

    >"Clearly, today's apostates and neo-fascists are hypocrites."

    Some probably are. Some probably aren't.

    >"There is nothing wrong with using swords of truth, even if that means losing popularity in the eyes of the worldly ones."

    That's true, Steve, but I don't regard labels that devalue and dehumanize other people as swords of truth.

  145. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    Bill Fleming wrote:
    >"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Christianity.
    BCB, here's how the word apostasy is used in Christianity."

    This obviously isn't your fault, Bill, but it might take me two months to explain everything I believe is wrong with that article. I'd advise you to take it all with a grain of salt.

  146. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    Cory Heidelberger wrote:
    >"Kurt, I was sprinkled as a young'un, too. I don't think it stuck."

    Maybe they should have immersed you (ha ha).

  147. JeniW 2014.07.22

    Mike from Iowa, it is okay for you to have your opinion of Robert Schuller, but that is not going to make me dismiss the positive thing he did for me.

    Although you think of Schuller as a hustler, which is your right, that is not going to cause me to once again think of God has an angry, bitter, and vengeful being.

    I am still grateful for his message. Oh, btw I did not send any money to his ministry.

  148. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    "Bearcreekbat" asks:
    >"I wonder if Jesus might have been a closet atheist?"

    No, God tells me He and Jesus were actually very close. :)

  149. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.22

    How and when did God tell you "No, God tells me He and Jesus were actually very close". Did he email, text, registered mail, video, or just whisper in your ear?

    A number of people that say God talked to them are in prison for killing their children or other heinous crimes

  150. Kurt Evans 2014.07.22

    I'd written:
    >"As I studied what the Bible says about baptism, I became convinced that it was always a voluntary decision of the person being baptized, and that it was always done by immersion. I originally planned to be immersed in January of my freshman year, but Dad and Mom were opposed. The Baptist pastor in my hometown suggested I could honor my parents by waiting, and I ended up doing so for over a year."

    Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
    >"You arrive at the pearly gates. God says, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. BUT! You didn't get wet enough when you were baptized, so out you go!' Seriously?"

    If I saw it that way, I can almost guarantee I wouldn't have waited for over a year.

  151. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.23

    So Kurt, you're agreeing with me that the type of baptism is irrelevant to God?

    I have no problem with people feeling that a certain baptism has more meaning for them.

    One of the most moving baptisms I got to do was in the North Branch of the Moreau River north of Mud Butte. You know where Zeona is? Another powerful one was a sprinkle in church. It's not in the water, it's in the heart.

  152. Kurt Evans 2014.07.23

    Roger Cornelius wrote:
    >"Did [God] email, text, registered mail, video, or just whisper in your ear?"

    I'd describe it as most similar to a whisper, not into my ear but directly into my spirit.

  153. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.23

    I've listened to many people describing contact with God. I have no reason to doubt them. On the other hand, Mother Teresa said she never heard anything from God and struggled with feeling abandoned.

  154. Kurt Evans 2014.07.23

    Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
    >"So Kurt, you're agreeing with me that the type of baptism is irrelevant to God?"

    No, but I'm agreeing that He won't throw anyone out of Paradise just because that person hasn't been baptized correctly.

    >"One of the most moving baptisms I got to do was in the North Branch of the Moreau River north of Mud Butte. You know where Zeona is?"

    Yeah, it's about 70 miles northeast of Sturgis.

    >"Another powerful one was a sprinkle in church. It's not in the water, it's in the heart."

    I don't necessarily believe God would never honor baptism by pouring or even sprinkling, but if it's not a voluntary decision of the person being baptized, I don't think it really fits the way the word is used in the Bible.

  155. Jenny 2014.07.23

    Bush had contact with God telling him to bomb Iraq. ;(
    I don't worry about an afterlife like so many people do. I honestly could care less, it is what it is. I do want to be free of pain when I go.
    Atheists and Agnostics are a such a breath of fresh air. As a recovering Catholic turned Agnostic, I don't feel bad that my daughter has never had the baptism ritual done on her. I have never "felt" God. Growing up Sundays were like hell for me almost, having to sit through the longest hour of the week at a Catholic mass. Confession scared the shit out of me as a young girl. I thought when I ate meat one time on a Friday I was going to go to hell. I still have an 80 year old mom that asks me if I go to church, and I believe she will still ask me on her death bed. A friend and I once joked that we should write a book on our horror stories of our so-called Christian upbringing!

  156. mike from iowa 2014.07.23

    ....so the chairman of a particularly nasty HMO died and went to the Pearly Gates. He explained what his contribution to mankind's health was and asked to be admitted. St Peter opened the gates to allow him entrance,but then told him he could only stay for two days. Karma,Kismet is a b----!

  157. mike from iowa 2014.07.23

    A lot of good immersion did Achilles. JeniW, I only speak for myself. If you have different experiences than I,good for you. Please don't take stuff so personally.

  158. Jenny 2014.07.23

    As an agnostic, I'm a DAMN good person and a loving (most of the time) mother. I don't need 'Christians' preaching to me about whether or not I'm worthy enough.
    :)

  159. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    "I don't regard labels that devalue and dehumanize other people as swords of truth."

    So Jesus calling scribes and Pharisees hypocrites was not devaluing or dehumanizing?

  160. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    Yes Jenny, you are a very proud person.

  161. larry kurtz 2014.07.23

    Kira at Bashi. Shaka, when the walls fell.

  162. Bill Fleming 2014.07.23

    Rev. Barber has it going on. Great guy. Sibby why do you hate people? Because you think Jesus wants you too?

  163. Kal Lis 2014.07.23

    Mike from Iowa,

    The Homeric accounts don't seem to have Thetis dipping Achilles in Styx. That account may be, for lack of a better word, apocryphal.

    As for the rest of the thread, Sibby needs to read either Chesterton's Orthodoxy or Taylor's A Secular Age.
    Although I fear Sibby will misquote and misinterpret both. each book in its own way presents an intellectual framework that might allow him to construct a warranted argument rather than gainsaying the opposition or repeating a series of unsupported claims.

  164. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    To JeniW, Kurt, and Kal:

    Here is something for all of you to ponder:

    In a fallen world such unity will never be based upon theological truths as found in Scripture. After all, Jesus said "The gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:14). And Paul was clear that God has made foolish the wisdom of this world and that the message of the cross is foolish and offensive to the unbeliever (1 Cor 1:20, 23). If God's communication to mankind divides rather than unifies, as Jesus said it would, then what is an "evangelical" leader to do who sees as his mission to unify the Christian faith with other religions and ideologies? He must create a message that is both acceptable to the Christian community and non-Christian community. Schuller does this by taking commonly understood biblical and theological terms and changing their meaning.

    http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/robert-schuller-%C2%96-humpty-dumpty-evangelicalism

  165. JeniW 2014.07.23

    Steve, I am at peace my beliefs.

    I have had a very hard knocks life in which some so-called Christians made life even more difficult for me. You are very much like those so-called Christians who were cruel to me and enjoyed being cruel.

    You do not like Robert Schuller, that is fine. Everyone, regardless of who we are, what we do, or do not do, or say or do not say, will always have at least one person who will not like us.

    Schuller provided me a positive perspective of God, you have not. You use God, Jesus, and the Bible as weapons to attack others. Why would I want to be associated with a bitter, angry, and hostile being?

    Be at peace with your beliefs, and do God and Jesus a favor writing positive things about them instead of using them as weapons. Being positive might help endear people to God/Jesus message, is that not what you want?

  166. Bill Fleming 2014.07.23

    Sibby, here is your "Christian" pass/fail test. In one word, how will you know when you pass through the small gate on the narrow path? What is the behavior that will guide you there?

  167. mike from iowa 2014.07.23

    http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/07/22/no-words-seriously-i-have-no-words/

    Compassionate conservatism wingnut/christian/Texas style. Perry is putting 1000 National Guard troops on the border,but they aren't allowed to do anything except observe,it will cost 12 million and Texas AG Greg A-Butt is going to sue Obama and make him foot the bill. A-Butt brags about all the times he has sued the fed.......and he has lost every time. Perry doesn't want soccer balls,he is leaning on a machine gun with his hat on backwards.

  168. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    "You are very much like those so-called Christians who were cruel to me and enjoyed being cruel."

    I would include making false allegations among the list of cruel things. Judging me as one who enjoys being cruel seems to make you a hypocrite, as you don't want to be judged based on Biblical standards.

  169. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    Shuller, Deb and the rest of the feel good Christian apostates can be summed up with this:

    By using the cherished words so precious to those who love biblical Christianity, he identifies with evangelicals. By infusing those words with new meanings, meanings not in line with their Holy Spirit-inspired original intent, he changes the Christian faith to a man-centered belief wrapped around the core of self-esteem. Through the manipulation of truth Schuller makes Christianity more palpable to the world, but at the same time he guts it of its true meaning. Schuller's new reformation plays well with the unbeliever and the undiscerning Christian, but it does not line up with biblical truth.

    http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/robert-schuller-%C2%96-humpty-dumpty-evangelicalism

  170. JeniW 2014.07.23

    Steve, I intended to write that you "remind" me of those so-called Christians who were cruel.

    Whether you are or not, I really do not know. My apologies for my not using the word "remind" in my post.

    Again, I am at peace with what I believe, and with God.

  171. Bill Fleming 2014.07.23

    Sibby, everybody who follows SD Politics knows that you are a cruel character assassin. It's in the history books and you're proud of it.

    Why try to deny it?

    p.s. Are you going to answer the pass/fail Christian test question?

    "In one word, how will you know when you pass through the small gate on the narrow path? What is the behavior that will guide you there?"

  172. Jenny 2014.07.23

    Sibby, have you ever thought of talking with a counselor/psychologist? You seem to have this obsession with making every topic here always about god and the bible. This isn't a bible blog. We understand that you are a Christian and are committed to god's teachings and what the bible says. We all respect that (we really do).
    We just don't need to be preached all the time about it. We're all adults and most of us have made up our minds about what we believe in. Really, it is a private personal matter what a person decides to search for in regards to spirituality, religion in our lives. You seem to be intent on controlling people in regards to their personal beliefs and interpretations of the bible and God, and that is turning everyone away from you. I don't know maybe you get off on that or it's entertaining to you, but it's not working. You're not reforming anyone.

  173. Craig 2014.07.23

    People are free to believe what they wish of course, but without the benefit of indoctrination as a child (or adult with the mind of a child) I cannot understand how anyone would take the bible at face value.

    Here is a quote which I have found rather telling of the credibility of the bible so many preach as gospel:

    "The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.

    There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike.

    The King James translaters used none of these, anyway. Instead, they editted previously translations to create a version their King and Parliament would approve.

    So, 21st Century Christians believe the "Word of God" is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century.

    That's not faith, That's insanity."

    Funny to think some wish to treat the bible as non-fiction... if they wish to be treated as historically accurate the least they could do is mention something like the Great Wall of China (portions of which existed as early as 7th Century BC), but at least there are a lot of references to camels and wine right?

  174. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    "We just don't need to be preached all the time about it.'

    Jenny, ever think about saying that to Deb? And in case you didn't know, the title of this post starts with "God Under Attack".

    And speaking of attacks, then comes Craig. Craig, what year was the book you use for a standard published? And do you believe the channeled books by Alice Bailey, Carl Jung, Blavatsky, and others are real?

  175. jerry 2014.07.23

    Spot on Craig, it is all smoke and mirrors and a real money maker for those that seek to fleece the sheeple. I crack up when I hear and read these pious bozo heads speak of the bible in such glowing terms, what a bunch of groupies that should just get a real job.

  176. bearcreekbat 2014.07.23

    In his efforts to marginalize Schuller Sibby quotes an article as saying "By infusing those words [of the Bible] with new meanings, meanings not in line with their Holy Spirit-inspired original intent, he changes the Christian faith to a man-centered belief. . . ."

    I find this interesting because it exactly confirms Deb's earlier comments about how the original intent of Revelation was changed by evangelicals to scare and control the flock. Recall she has argued the original intent was to bring hope to the Christians who were being persecuted by Romans, not to predict an Armageddon or Apocalypse and threaten all non-believers with death and damnation. Sibby deserves some thanks for confirming Deb's earlier comment (and without calling her names!)

    Bill, I will try to obtain and digest the two books you recommended. Thanks! I do confess that I have not spent much time at all considering or studying Buddhism, so my comments about a bodhisattva seeking enlightenment was based on superficial look at the term on Wikipedia. If compassion is indeed the goal of a bodhisattva, then your comparison of Jesus to a bodhisattva seems consistent with the Bible's stories about Jesus.

  177. bearcreekbat 2014.07.23

    Interesting link larry - Thanks!

  178. Bill Fleming 2014.07.23

    BCB, I look forward to your take on those two books. I consider them two of the best reads in my "religion" library.

  179. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    BCB, Deb's man-made heresy is designed to deceive us. You have it backwards.

    JeniW, the guilt you feel should not be blamed on Christians. The actual source is the Holy Spirit. The solution to that guilt is Jesus Christ, who conquered death with the resurrection. That is the Gospel. What Deb and the feel good apostates are preaching is another gospel and another Jesus. As long as sinners feel good about themselves and not confront their sin, they will not come to the understanding that they have to let go of themselves and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. It is like drunks who have to hit bottom before they realize they have a problem and then work to fix it. As long as they have people bailing them out and making them feel good about drinking, they will continue destroying themselves. Now, that is cruel.

  180. larry kurtz 2014.07.23

    196 comments on the way to two million hits at Madville!

  181. jerry 2014.07.23

    Here is why gum ball religious nuts like Gordo and his sidekick Mr. Sibson are so ridiculous. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/23/anti-abortion-group-harasses-unitarian-churchs-moment-of-silence-for-dead-member/

    As their "God" is better than any other religions "God" they disrupt the lives of the peaceful gatherings of just people. They hate Muslims, they hate Catholics, they hate Jews (unless they can kill them in the end days) they hate everyone who is not the same as them. They say they love, what a contradiction.

  182. Craig 2014.07.23

    "Craig, what year was the book you use for a standard published?"

    I rely upon hundreds if not thousands of books including those surrounding history and a wide-range of sciences. I'd be hard pressed to site specific years of (original) publication, but in most cases they would range from perhaps 200 years at the oldest up to and including present day. That is the wonderful thing about science - we learn new things every day and scientists generally keep an open mind as opposed to believing a text should be rigidly interpreted as fact hundreds or even thousands of years after it was written.

    The difference here is that I don't just pick up a book and believe it is self-supporting. Even more modern day history I don't accept a single viewpoint on face value, but rather look to supporting evidence which can be independently researched and verified. Where there are debates about historic events I keep an open mind and understand humans are not infallible. In scientific terms, concepts and experiences need to be replicatable and repeatable. If someone makes a claim, they need evidence to support it aside from the claim itself.

    "And do you believe the channeled books by Alice Bailey, Carl Jung, Blavatsky, and others are real?"

    They are real in terms of having physical words on paper (much like your chosen religious text), but the question to ask is are they factual?

    I'll just say I do not believe in "divine messaging", and anyone who claims they received a message from a higher power or other entity and is merely the messenger is likely suffering from mental disease. That applies to Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Alice Bailey, Madame Blavatsky, and yes - even Moses amongst others. There may be valid points or even facts contained in these messages... but as with anything else they must be independently verified and discussed with an open mind.

    "Because I said so" should never been enough justification for the adult mind, but to the religious it seems to be a way of life.

  183. Bill Fleming 2014.07.23

    "They say they love, what a contradiction."

    Jerry, exactly.

    That's the answer Sibby was supposed to give about the "small gate and the narrow path." The thing that ties the whole bible together front to back.

    Love.

    And now notice how Sibby won't answer the question. It's the only thing he's actually supposed to preach and he won't do it. Instead, he spends all this time trying to justify his hate.

    Ironic, huh?

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

  184. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    "Love.

    And now notice how Sibby won't answer the question. It's the only thing he's actually supposed to preach and he won't do it. Instead, he spends all this time trying to justify his hate.

    Ironic, huh?"

    [Bill, I am not discussing this issue with you because I am sick and tired of having hate-based conversations with you that end up taking things off topic by responding to your deceptive personal attacks.

    Ironic, huh?]

  185. Bill Fleming 2014.07.23

    Suit yourself Sibby. You know I'm right.

  186. Bill Fleming 2014.07.23

    Sibby you are what Thomas Jefferson referred to as a "mountebank."
    You have laid it out for all to see here. Nice work.

  187. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    Craig, thanks for your response. Your argument is consistent. Sadly, we those on this thread that reject the Bible as God's Word, but then promote the New Age movement which is based on those channeled books by Bailey and Blavatsky.

    Fleming has even promoted the anti-Christ argument that Jesus was just another Buddhist. I would advise BCB to check the link I am about to give. These excerpts should spark interest:

    ON MAY 25TH 1880 Madame Helena Petrova Blavatsky and Colonel Henry Steel Olcott, took the three refuges and the five precepts from a Buddhist priest in a temple in Galle, a coastal town in Sri Lanka, before a large crowd of Sinhalese.

    He and Blavatsky were the founders of the Theosophical Society, one of the most influential religious movements of the late 19th Century and in this ceremony Olcott became the first American and Blavatsky the first European 2 formally to convert to Buddhism. The twin legacies of Theosophy are the introduction of Buddhism to the West and the amorphous set of beliefs and practices which have come to be known as 'the New Age'.

    Most commentators date the emergence of a distinctive New Age philosophy from the work of the American Theosophist Alice Bailey (1880-1949) which blended occultism, spiritualism and apocalyptic vision with the prevailing Zeitgeist. As Dell deChant comments

    'The New Age is the product of mid-20th century America. It becomes noticeable in the late sixties and ever more pronounced since then as its chief carrier, the 'baby-boom' generation' continues to experiment with beliefs and ideologies which are, at best, distinct from those of capitalism, mainline Christianity and participatory democracy. Its most obvious origin is found in the work of Alice A Bailey'

    New Age-ism is predicated on dissatisfaction with Christianity and an attempt to find alternative forms of spirituality. It is informed by the revival of non-Christian spiritual traditions such as Wiccan, Rosicrucianism, alchemy, Egyptian religion and the Eastern traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Sufism all of which are cheerfully added to the eclectic mix.

    there is a utopian and optimistic sense that the movement into the next phase of mankind's development is inevitable. In this respect the New Age is reminiscent of the Marxist and socialist utopias and indeed they have historical roots in common.

    In particular the esoteric interests of the Theosophists underlie the contemporary attraction of the tantra and Tibetan Lamas-whose true progenitors are perhaps the Mahatmas who communicated telepathically with Mme. Blavatsky.

    When Sangharakshita and other experienced Buddhist teachers arrived in the West in the 1960s they had been preceded, and in some respects pre-empted, by the Theosophically-influenced versions of Buddhism popularised by Humphreys and Alan Watts and enthusiastically travestied by Lobsang Rampa and the Beats. In these ways, Buddhism overlapped with the New Age which, in many respects has continued to support its spread. Buddhist books are sold in New Age bookshops, Buddhist teachers frequently appear in New Age magazines and meditation has become widely popularised. In return Buddhism has provided New Age thinkers with a wealth of images, terms, concepts and texts.

    The two movements were also connected by their counter-cultural principles.

    http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol1/new_age.html

  188. Lynn 2014.07.23

    Good Grief! This is turning into the Madville/Sibby Online blog with threads stuck in a time loop.

  189. JeniW 2014.07.23

    Steve, you accused me of being hypocritical, I can just as easily accuse you of being a hypocrite.

    I acknowledged my mistake, and apologized for it, that does not mean I feel "guilty."

    You do not like Robert Schuller, that is well within your rights.

    I like Schuller because at the time, he accomplished what no one else had been able to do. He was successful in helping me to view that God exist, and that God is a positive and caring being, instead of either being non-existent or as an extremely negative being.

    No one, including you, will ever convince me that God does not exist or that God/Jesus is a negative being.

    My spiritual journey has been, is, and will be different from yours. My spiritual journey is not complete, and I continue to grow. If you are unwilling to respect my spiritual growth, there is nothing I can do.

    Be at peace with your spiritual growth and beliefs.

  190. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    'that does not mean I feel "guilty."'

    Yes, the result of an apostate Christian worldview. It is a negative thing. Sin is a negative thing, not Jesus Christ. He is the solution to sin. Shuller's Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible.

  191. JeniW 2014.07.23

    Chad, my point about the tax deduction is that if people are not allowed to deduct their donations to their church, there will be an outcry. Some of those who might protest the loudest are those who have some big money. How people who want to privatize churches will deal with the outcry is the question.

    I don't get to deduct anything other than the standard deduction of myself. I make a donation to the church I belong to on a regular basis. I do not have the opportunity to use it as a deduction, but I still donate anyway.

  192. JeniW 2014.07.23

    Steve, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to.

    Are you going to be able to convince me that Jesus was/is a negative and uncaring being? Not a chance.

  193. Steve Sibson 2014.07.23

    "Are you going to be able to convince me that Jesus was/is a negative and uncaring being? Not a chance."

    Are you going to be able to convince me that Biblical Christians are negative and uncaring being? Not a chance. Nor do that promote coveting and sin.

  194. JeniW 2014.07.23

    Be at peace Steve.

    I just wish you would stop using God/Jesus and the Bible as weapons. Doing so only supports why some people have rejected God.

  195. jerry 2014.07.23

    Sibson is just keeping this going to take up space and to get you away from speaking about important stuff like a minimum wage that the Koch brothers are trying to kill. Sibson and crew are just shills for them. If you want to speak of religion, see a priest or a rabbi.

  196. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.23

    Resident false prophet Sibson, is coveting Madville Times.

  197. Lynn 2014.07.23

    I'm starting to wonder if Sibson is working on behalf of Satan trying to annoy the hell out of people driving them away from God and more earthly topics such as what Jerry mentioned above.

  198. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.23

    You folks are still at it? Behold the power of Sibby!

    First, let me recommend that you all take a moment and visit my Joaquin Ramos post, in which Ramos's uncle, Angelo Cruz, is posting some mighty hefty comments in defense of his nephew's bid for parole after serving twenty years for killing his pregnant girlfriend. Perhaps ya'll can substiantialize Sibby's theology by applying it to figuring out what constitutes just punishment for Ramos... and whether Rounds deserves any punishment for commuting Ramos's sentence, then wielding his political influence in blocking Ramos's parole. Cruz provides a list of comparable offenders and sentences. Cruz also calls my friend and Pennington County State's Attorney Mark Vargo a liar.

    Been there? Done that? O.K., then resume:

    Steve, after trying mightily to ignore your charges of "New Age Theocracy" (and promising that I will lash you with several wet noodles if you keep trying to inject that catch phrase into any other thread), I rebut directly. There is no New Age Theocracy.

    As a prominent member of the movement that you so label, I assume authority to speak for that movement. I am part of it; I know what it is. I make this promise about my movement:

    Elect me President, invest me with some sort of power to shape America or the South Dakota corner of it the way I see fit, and I will take no action that requires any citizen to worship at any New Age altar, wherever such altars may be found. I will take no action that forces any citizen to engage in worship practices of any religion. Nor will I restrict the rights of adherents of any religion to worship as they see fit, as long as that worship does not compel anyone else to participate. Religious instruction in public schools is right out. So is human sacrifice.

    I will not exclude Christians, Jews, Muslims, New Agers, or any other sort of believer from working in my government. If any member of my administration recommends stacking our government with believers or non-believers of any stripe, I will show that advisor Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution and the door.

    I will make clear, though, to believers of all stripes in my administration that their first duty in my office and on my clock is to the Constitution, the law, the people, and me, and that any advocacy they feel like making for or against any particular faith does not happen on the state's dime. Crosses, crescents, and crystals stay home. Copies of Guideposts, daily devotionals, and atheist tracts are not left in the waiting room or on the staffroom table for others to read.

    If I can find issues where the state and church leaders can work together to promote the general welfare without promoting one specific religion, I will happily work with those church leaders. But I will also apply a form my staff policy to those church leaders: if they use the church resources that they enjoy thanks to their non-profit status to advance clearly political goals, like the church that Gordon Howie co-opts for his political gain (yes! a glimmer of the original topic!), I will use whatever authority falls within the purview of my office to help them lose that non-profit status and place them on the same playing field as other taxpaying political actors.

    To be clear, Steve, I am not a theocrat. I have no interest in establishing the political supremacy of believers of any one faith (which, do we agree, is a reasonable definition of theocracy?). I have a keen interest in ensuring that no one else establishes the political supremacy of any one faith.

    I will also laugh openly at anyone who says God has called him or her to run for office. Annette Bosworth is the only example I need to justify my unapologetic laughter.

  199. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.23

    [Larry, I nuked Sitemeter when it started plugging in adware. But my WordPress Site Stats widget shows 3.39 million views since the great domain migration at the end of 2010. StatCounter indicates 1.8 million unique visits since that point. I know of no New Age Theocrats among those visitors... but if they're out there, let me at 'em!]

  200. larry kurtz 2014.07.23

    Awesome stats, Cory: ip nuked Sitemeter, too.

  201. mike from iowa 2014.07.23

    Cory,will you place your hand on a Mad magazine when you take your oath of office?

  202. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.23

    I forgot to address a question Kurt asked me. It was about my saying regarding God. "I don't know and you don't either. "

    If everything there is to know about God is a mile long, I know maybe 50 feet. At the most! The greatest scholars might go up to 100 feet. It's like a six year old talking with the Buddha.

    Because the gulf is that vast, I believe only a fool would say they are certain of most anything about God. We read, we think, we talk, we listen, and we muddle along as well as we can.

    There is a vastness to creation that we're barely scratching the surface of. So many things happen and we don't know why. I think human absolutivity (I just made that word up.) serves to ease fears, but it's not Fact. It's how some humans deal with the uncertainty and vulnerability of life.

    There. My philosophizing for the day, summed up thusly:

    "I don't know and you don't either."

  203. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.07.23

    Oh, I'm done with this thread now. It seems like it's totally devolved to responses to Sibson. Blech.

  204. Kurt Evans 2014.07.23

    Steve Sibson asks me:
    >"So Jesus calling scribes and Pharisees hypocrites was not devaluing or dehumanizing?"

    Of course it wasn't, Steve. Hypokritēs is the Greek word for actor. Jesus was accurately identifying certain religious leaders whose supposed faith was only an act.

    If you believe Jesus devalued and dehumanized others, and you're trying to follow in His footsteps, that probably explains a lot.

  205. Kurt Evans 2014.07.24

    Craig wrote:
    >"The oldest [Bible] manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike."

    That seems a little misleading, Craig. Because of the massive number of surviving manuscripts, they can actually be compared against each other to construct documents that are essentially identical to the originals.

  206. Kurt Evans 2014.07.24

    Craig also wrote:
    >"So, 21st Century Christians believe the 'Word of God' is a book edited in the 17th Century ..."

    These critiques of the King James version of the Bible are barely relevant, as it's being gradually abandoned for more accurate modern translations.

  207. Kurt Evans 2014.07.24

    Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
    >"I forgot to address a question Kurt asked me. It was about my saying regarding God. 'I don't know and you don't either.' If everything there is to know about God is a mile long, I know maybe 50 feet. At the most! The greatest scholars might go up to 100 feet..."

    Then your saying probably ought to be, "I know maybe 50 feet, and you know maybe 100 feet." The fact that we know very little about God hardly justifies the claim that we can't be certain of anything about Him.

  208. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.24

    Mike, placing my hand on anything to assert my veracity seems a superfluous gesture. If such props are required for the show, I will place my hand on a copy of the Constitution.

  209. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.24

    Kurt, I am certain that if there is a God, she does not need politicians like Gordon Howie to win elections to promote her will. She does not need her pastors to politick or her churches to get tax breaks.

  210. Steve Sibson 2014.07.24

    "If you believe Jesus devalued and dehumanized others, and you're trying to follow in His footsteps, that probably explains a lot."

    Kurt,

    I do not believe Jesus devalued or dehumanized and neither am I by simply calling it the way it is. Your attempts to devalue me and my positions is dehumanizing. You are a hypocrite.

    Cory, I appreciate your defense in regard to being a theocrat. Just don't but Fleming in charge of anything.

  211. Steve Sibson 2014.07.24

    "It seems like it's totally devolved to responses to Sibson. Blech."

    Kurt, you not only defend a false teacher, you also defended one who devalues and dehumanizes. Yes, you are a hypocrite, and I don't mean actor.

  212. larry kurtz 2014.07.24

    maybe just abut fleming, cory.

  213. Bill Fleming 2014.07.24

    I'll volunteer to monitor lithium dispensation on the Steve Sibson Psychiatric Ward.

  214. Steve Sibson 2014.07.24

    Cory, your arguments regarding the New Age/New World Order Theocracy could have held water had it not been for the hate-filled comments made by Larry, Jerry, Roger, Lynn, and Bill.

  215. larry kurtz 2014.07.24

    Sibby, get some professional help.

  216. larry kurtz 2014.07.24

    Does the Mitchell Police Department need a call from me, Steve?

  217. Bill Fleming 2014.07.24

    Sibby's just pissed because he flunked the Great Commandment test. That doesn't bode well for his chances come the rapture. Better brush up, buddy, the hour is at hand.

  218. jerry 2014.07.24

    Correct Mr. Fleming, Sibson is at the same level as the rest of the despots of the world. Hanging tough with Saddam and Pol Pot is his neighborhood of pals in the afterlife. Nice digs but lousy servants.

  219. Lynn 2014.07.24

    Larry I checked out the petition link to tax Religious organizations at the Whitehouse but doubt it would have much of an effect since they more than enough signatures to deport Justin Bieber yet nothing happened. It could by symbolic and maybe get some press though.

  220. Craig 2014.07.24

    Steve: "Cory, your arguments regarding the New Age/New World Order Theocracy could have held water had it not been for the hate-filled comments made by Larry, Jerry, Roger, Lynn, and Bill."

    That hardly seems fair Steve. You need to take Cory's statements upon their own merit - what others do or say has nothing to do with how Cory views the subject, or the actions he would take if he was in a position of power.

    Also, what you perceive as "hate-filled", others seem to perceive as disagreement or opposing views. Sure not every post is filled with positivity and agreement, and I dare say nobody on the Internet isn't guilty of a personal attack from time to time (or at the very least something which could be interpreted as such), but "hate-filled"? Thats a bit much.

    Remember Steve, it was you who recently called someone a man-hating racist (among other things). That is your opinion, but from someone such as myself who was a bystander I saw nothing to support such an accusation. Thus couldn't one perceive your comments as "hate-filled" as you insult and label others? You may not have meant it as such, but keep in mind we are limited to the words posted... not the thought processes behind them.

    That is a long way of just saying lighten up. If you honestly feel Jesus has called upon you to challenge anyone and everything that doesn't agree with your worldview while judging them and using all sorts of descriptors to explain how wrong they really are, you must have read an entirely different bible from the one on my bookshelf.

  221. Bill Dithmer 2014.07.24

    From THE CHURCH OF BILL

    i HAD A DREAM

    Last week during the big storm I wasn't feeling to good. The day started out ok but later it got the worse I felt. I started feeling feverish about three in the afternoon,sweating my ass off sick to my stomach and so sleepy I couldn't keep my eyes open. Needless to say I didn't make it to my regular bedtime, two am. I took three Excedrin and went to sleep.

    Now I'm not prone to dreaming, at least not the kind that I can remember most of the time. It seems like I have a firewall hardwired in my brain that keeps that kind of shit from happening. When I REM up it goes somewhere else but not into my memory.
    Looking back, I had at least a couple of excuses. First I had that damn fever and second Amanda had made soft-shell tacos earlier in the day. The combinations of those things might have had something to do with my condition.

    I can only describe my dreams as a cross between what a person would feel if they had done a combination of acid and moonflower. But then I wouldn't know about that personally.

    My dream started like a Sunday morning watching Meet The Press. Only this time it was people that I knew were dead, or should be. There was David Koresh, Jim Jones, Jerry Farwell, and Warren Jeff's.

    It started with our moderator, Carlos Danger. "Thanks for coming in this morning I know how busy all of you are right now what with trying to make reservations for heaven and all. Let's not waste time but get right to it.

    "David what do you see as the single biggest problem in the world today?"

    "Well Carlos that's simple enough. To few woman that want to have my babies."

    "Jim"

    "Bad koolaid and no place for a man to really start over when they have made a mistake."

    "Jerry"

    "A serious lack of money, and respect for me."

    "Warren"

    "To few little girls and to many old ladies."

    "Good now lets start our round table discussion. How do you feel about the recent government shutdown? Jim why don't you take the lead."

    "What's with all the damn questions? I thought we were here to talk about donations so that I could start my own country. Nothing else matters."

    "Warren how about you?"

    I'm only here because Koresh told me there were going to be young girls. I don't see anyone under fifteen in the audience, What the fuck are you trying to pull here?"

    "David" what do you think?"

    "Why didn't this happen before the government came for me and my family?" And Warren you lying sack of shit you know I never said that. What I really told you was that I was in touch with Swaggart and he was trying to find us some young hookers for after the show."

    "Jerry."

    "Why am I here with these perverts? All I want is money, I needs my money.

    And then for some reason I woke up. I knew immediately that there was some sort of problem. Not only could I remember what I had dreamt but the bedroom was filled with smog. I looked over and saw Kow Kow laying on the bed with a smile on her face, damn dog.

    I had to go pee and get a drink so I swam through the vapor and headed to the bathroom. It took two glasses of water to quench my thirst but nothing could get rid of that smell. It was then that I remembered the tacos from earlier in the day and it was at that very moment that I understood why I was dreaming. My dreams were either being powered by my fever, or from the leverage of the gas from the four tacos, or a combination of the two. But any sane person would still blame the dog, damn dog.

    As I waded back through the thick air to the bed I wondered if I would continue to dream. I needn't have worried because just as soon as my head hit the pillow I was asleep.

    This time when I got to REM I saw something completely different. There was a giant Buddha and he was watching God and Allah setting at a WI GI board. Buddha would ask a question and the two religious leaders would move their hands around on the board and try to manipulate the outcome of the answer. I only heard two words from the gamers all the time I saw them. Infidel, and terrorist.

    The last thing I remember of my dreams was the Voice of Rod Roddy saying "welcome to Family Jihad."

    But really isn't that enough?

    When I woke up my fever was gone, Kow Kow had gone in to be with Belinda doing FB stuff, damn dog, and I was hungry, but not for tacos.

    I should start drinking more, or less
    Or doing more drugs, or less
    Or stop eating tacos.

    The Blindman

  222. Steve Sibson 2014.07.24

    Craig, I did not accuse you. Our conversations are usually constructive. Have not seen any denials from those that I did accuse, only confirmations.

  223. Bill Fleming 2014.07.24

    Hate is the opposite of acceptance.

    I accept Sibby for who he is, and hope someday he finds the truth he's looking for.

    Love is the opposite of fear.

    I'm not afraid of either Sibby or his version of Christianity.

    A morality based on fear and loathing is no morality at all. It's egocentric, self-righteous, and self-serving, having nothing whatsoever to do with compassion for others.

    Even so, as per Jesus, we love the enemy BECAUSE they are the enemy, and make it easy to tell which side we're on.

    I'm not on Sibby's side when it comes to spiritual understanding.

    Obviously.

    But I don't hate him.

  224. Steve Sibson 2014.07.24

    Bill, that is not a denial, it is deception, a play on words.

  225. larry kurtz 2014.07.24

    Steve: that you are allowed to own and carry a firearm is a miscarriage of justice.

  226. Bill Fleming 2014.07.24

    Sibby, you have demonstrated here repeatedly that you don't even know what YOU think, let alone what anyone else thinks. And when they tell you directly and honestly, you refuse to believe them.

    In short, I'm not into denial, that's your gig.

  227. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.24

    Good grief already! The Madville Times resident false prophet is still pontificating his War on Christians to an unyielding congregation and the choir.

    Steve if blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

    Has anyone here been positively influenced by the false prophet?

  228. larry kurtz 2014.07.24

    I like Gordon Howie a little more, Roger: he sure has a murder of signs amassed West River.

  229. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.24

    Larry,

    Given a choice between Gordon and Rounds, who would you vote for senator?

  230. larry kurtz 2014.07.24

    Roger, i would send you my severed arm before having to make that decision in a general election. Everyone left in my home state important to me had better be voting for Rick Weiland or there will be hell to pay.

  231. mike from iowa 2014.07.24

    Blindman you are spot on with your dream. Sounds like you actually were chatting with those....uh......human beings? Being away from all that SD corruption must be good for your soul.

  232. Kurt Evans 2014.07.24

    Cory Heidelberger wrote:
    >"Kurt, I am certain that if there is a God, she does not need politicians like Gordon Howie to win elections to promote her will."

    I technically agree that God doesn't need Gordon's services, Cory, and the Apostle Paul would apparently agree too. Here's an excerpt from Paul's speech to the supreme court of Athens in A.D. 51:

    "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things."
    —Paul the Apostle

  233. Kurt Evans 2014.07.24

    Steve Sibson wrote to me:
    >"Your attempts to devalue me and my positions is dehumanizing."

    I'm not attempting to devalue you or your positions, Steve.

  234. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.24

    Steve, my compadres here are generally not filled with hate. Even if we dissect them and find some hate squirming around in their souls, that hate does not prove anything about the existence of a New Age Theocracy.

    I have laid out my agenda, the agenda of the movement to which you ascribe my allegiance. I'm telling you: I'm not a theocrat. I serve no theocrats. I vote for no theocrats (not a chance, Gordon!). Elect me President or Governor, permit me to appoint the brain trust in this comment section as my cabinet (imagine it, friends!), and I assure you we shall permit no theocracy of any flavor.

  235. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.24

    I seriously question whether or not Sibson knows the definition of theocracy, seriously. Or has he created his own definition.

    Knowing the positions of most of the common sense posters here, I'm convinced that Steve does not know the meaning of this new age theocracy he insists on ranting about.

  236. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    "I seriously question whether or not Sibson knows the definition of theocracy, seriously. Or has he created his own definition."

    Others have noticed it:

    So there is no surprise that at the final hour, this ‘spiritual alliance” is fighting actually to push this through to ‘save their baby” that they were instrumental in pushing forward unethically, if not illegally, as tax-exempt entities. This is corruption at every level, including an alliance of ‘churches” behind the scenes from the beginning to force this fire district on us, despite our votes and despite what the community has said, i.e. ‘we don’t want to fund this unneeded district”. Yet they are calling this process ‘peace and harmony” and community- building.

    I feel as though I woke up and found myself in a new age theocracy pulling the strings of our community with patriarchal elders from another century, a feudal religious arm of the new corporate state. And like feudal theocracies, ‘demonizing” people who do use their critical intelligence and reasoning faculties, and speak out against this kind of corruption this is their real modus operandi.

    http://911nwo.com/?p=2124

  237. Jenny 2014.07.25

    Sibby is good for business!

  238. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    Here is another seeing what I am seeing:

    As Paul A. Fischer aptly demonstrates in his book entitled,
    "Behind the Lodge Door", the original intent of the religious
    establishment clause by the Founding Fathers, who shaped this
    Constitutional instrument, was to guard against the state establishing a
    theocracy of the Roman cult variety that would persecute those
    practicing the tenets of western Christian civilization upon which the
    Republic had been founded.

    Yet, through Justice Black's "wall decision" in "Everson", and hundreds
    of subsequent federal, state, and local rulings, a Manichaean religious
    cult is on the verge of establishing a New Age theocracy in the United
    States today.

    http://www.hourofthetime.com/adl3.htm

  239. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    Another example:

    The Russian government is a shameful hive of scum and villainy (and when you think about it, when has it ever not been? We have the tyrannical and oppressive monarchy, then the totalitarian and oppressive Soviet regime, and now we have this new-age theocracy taking shape), and it seems current Russian mainstream society is no better. Its like a cross between 1950s America and any Islamic theocracy.

    http://www.talkclassical.com/28040-tchaikovsky-not-gay-says-5.html

  240. larry kurtz 2014.07.25

    Holy Roman Kiddie Diddlers excluded from civil rights protections: how diabolically schismatic.

  241. larry kurtz 2014.07.25

    Catholics are heathens, South Dakota: exactly why Sibby left the Church to become holier than we are.

  242. Jenny 2014.07.25

    Asperger's syndrome

  243. Craig 2014.07.25

    So because someone said it on the Internet it must be true? Surely none of those authors have their own biases nor are they trying to protect their personal beleifs right?

    If multiple authors making a claim substantiates that claim (with no other evidence needed), they apparenlty vaccines must cause autism, because there are about 10,000 nutjobs writing about that subject on their own personal blogs and websites at this very moment.

  244. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    David, earlier in this thread I bought up the issue of books that were channeled...Alice Bailey, Blavatsky, Carl Jung. Channeled means that spirit being wrote them through humans. So how can those whose worldview is influenced by those books deny that the Bible is God's Word? Further they have no proof that it is not God's Word.

    What is even more important is that those channeled books formed the foundation for what I have been calling the New Age Theocracy. Both Bailey and Blavatsky are the sources to Lucifer publishing which is now called the Lucis Trust. Check out these excerpts from the Lucis Trust web site ion "Education In the New Age" and especially note the reference to Fleming's Buddhism:

    Education has become of major importance today in all parts of the world. The requirements of education under modem conditions of international relationships and in the light of an emerging new civilisation, are occupying the attention not only of those countries now providing education for the masses of their peoples for the first time in history, but also of countries where a form of compulsory education has been in existence for some time.

    An international system of education, developed in joint conference by broad-minded teachers and educational authorities in every country, is today a crying need and would provide a major asset in preserving world peace. The initial outlines of a world educational systern are emerging today particularly as a result of the pioneering work of UNESCO.

    World democracy will take form when men everywhere are regarded in reality as equal. World unity will be a fact when the children of the world are taught that religious differences are largely a matter of birth.

    Enlightenment is the major goal of education. It is in this statement and region of thought that the distinction is to be found between the work of the Buddha and the Christ. The Buddha achieved "enlightenment", and was the first of our humanity to do so. Christ, because of the attainment of the Buddha and because of His own point in evolution, inaugurated the "age of love", and gave to the people an expression of a new divine aspect, that of love.

    The Buddha culminated the "age of knowledge". The Christ began the "age of love". Both ages embody and express two major divine principles. Thus the new education has been made possible by the work of the Buddha. The new religion has been made possible by the work and the life of the Christ.

    In the future, illumination will be viewed primarily from the intellectual angle and the whole subject will be approached mentally, and not so definitely (as is the case today) from the angle of religion. Illumination, mysticism and religion have gone hand in hand. One of the major contributions of the present age to the unfoldment of the race has been the growing recognition that spirituality is not to be confined only to the acceptance and the following of the precepts contained in the world scriptures.

    The keynote of the new education is essentially right interpretation of life, past and present and its relation to the future of mankind. The keynote of the new religion must and should be right approach to God, transcendent in nature and immanent in man, whilst the keynote of the new science of politics and government will be right human relations. For both of these education must prepare the child.

    http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/world_goodwill/key_concepts/education_in_the_new_age

  245. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    "Islamists are cut from the same cloth as Evangelicals."

    Islamists hate Evangelicals just like you do Jerry.

  246. larry kurtz 2014.07.25

    Protestantism has done such a nice job with Sudan, init?

  247. jerry 2014.07.25

    As most know, the fine line between love and hate is hard to fathom and especially for Evangelicals as their head is mostly stuck up their respective rears. Having said that, I stand behind the love hate relationship you have with your Islamist brothers. Hate begets hate and therefore, you two crazy kids find love. Just like children in school, how touching.

  248. Bill Fleming 2014.07.25

    Mr. Bergan's question:

    "Hi Steve,

    I'm still waiting to hear how it is that you "know" the Bible is God's Word... and how you "know" all other books are not."

    Mr. Sibson's answer:

    "David, earlier in this thread I bought up the issue of books that were channeled...Alice Bailey, Blavatsky, Carl Jung. Channeled means that spirit being wrote them through humans. So how can those whose worldview is influenced by those books deny that the Bible is God's Word? Further they have no proof that it is not God's Word."

    .....

    Anybody here think Sibby's answer passes the smell test?

  249. Lynn 2014.07.25

    Steve what do you hope to accomplish on this blog since you have not posted on Sibby Online your own blog since May 30th?

    I don't hate you but do you realize that each one of us may have our own intimate relationship with God? Are you trying to convert us?

    When it gets to the point of constantly dominating or injecting religion or your interpretation of it in an obsessive compulsive manner in threads by questioning or attacking others beliefs do you think it goes to far?

  250. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    "Are you trying to convert us?"

    No that is not my job.

    "Anybody here think Sibby's answer passes the smell test?"

    There is the call out to fellow New Age Theocrats to attack me. See how it works Cory? I have to be like everyone else on this web site or else I am called crazy, mentally ill, and other such devaluing and dehumanizing attacks. All for the cause of world unity. Question: why did God confuse the languages at the Tower of Babel? Was it to provide world unity?

  251. larry kurtz 2014.07.25

    world unity sounds like globalism signaling the end days: how depressive.

  252. David Bergan 2014.07.25

    Hi Steve,

    Thanks for the reply. I appreciate this dialog.

    Just asking for clarification... are you stating that your standard for "trusting a book as being entirely true" is that it "hasn't been disproven"?

    Do you accept as true all books that haven't been disproven, like, say, the Illiad, the Koran, Hamlet, or Mao's Little Red Book?

    If not... what criteria do you use to accept one not-disproven book and not the others?

    Kind regards,
    David

  253. Lynn 2014.07.25

    drive a person to drink lol

  254. Bill Fleming 2014.07.25

    I would be delighted to read a comment that could explain in simple terms how your answer to Mr. Bergan's question makes sense, Mr. Sibson.

    If I may be so bold as to conjecture and only slightly paraphrase, it sounds to me like you are saying that you "know" the Bible is God's Word because no one can prove that it is not.

    I find that a completely unsatisfactory answer, and I am curious as to whether anyone else here thinks it is satisfactory.

    At best, you validate the channeled documents you claim to dispute along with your own assertion, making all of the claims valid. Thus your position fails to even support your own agenda, let alone anyone else's.

    It's like the Russell paradox "All statements are false, including this one" in reverse.

  255. jerry 2014.07.25

    I can hear and feel the gnashing of the teeth by Sibson while sitting on the pity pot. I am seeing the reason why he left the black robes to come to the bored again side of life. Was it alcohol, drugs, porn or did he just get caught in the bed of a good friends wife that made him who he is. There is always a dirty little secret that happens when they turn.

  256. Lynn 2014.07.25

    This whole thread at least to me is a prime example of why we need a clear separation of Church and State in our government. I try to use my faith as an internal compass throughout life but I'm not going to force or shove my religious beliefs on others.

    I could spend endless hours getting into deep discussion but this is a South Dakota political forum not a religious forum and it's a waste of time for me when we could be contributing to other discussions about issues here in our state.

    Sorry I was just joking about driving a person to drink. That's not me.

  257. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    "At best, you validate the channeled documents you claim to dispute along with your own assertion, making all of the claims valid."

    Bill, yes I am validating the channeled documents. But the spirit beings are demons working for Lucifer and the rebellion (apostasy) against God. By so validating, I have validation for the Bible being God's Word.

    So far Cory, BCB, and Craig deny any kind of spirit beings. So where are you Fleming, with God or with Lucifer, or are you with the three wno refuse to believe there is a spirit realm?

  258. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    "This whole thread at least to me is a prime example of why we need a clear separation of Church and State in our government."

    I agree, lets start by separating our schools from the State.

  259. larry kurtz 2014.07.25

    Exactly, Lynn. Truth is Sibby is representative of thousands of South Dakota voters whose white supremacist views propel the state's legislature. Gordon Howie is running for US Senate because it's good for business, it's just that simple.

  260. Bill Fleming 2014.07.25

    Lynn, I agree with you in principle. Unfortunately, the religious right has insisted on making religion a political issue. Mr. Howie's political commercial (the topic of this thread) is a prime example right here in South Dakota, but it's true on any number of fronts both statewide and national, as of course you know.

  261. Bill Fleming 2014.07.25

    I'm a big fan of the Holy Ghost, Sibby.

  262. David Bergan 2014.07.25

    Hi Steve,

    Thanks for the reply. I appreciate this dialog.

    Just asking for clarification... are you stating that your standard for "trusting a book as being entirely true" is that it "hasn't been disproven"?

    Do you accept as true all books that haven't been disproven, like, say, the Illiad, the Koran, Hamlet, or Mao's Little Red Book?

    If not... what criteria do you use to accept one not-disproven book and not the others?

    Kind regards,
    David

  263. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.07.25

    Jenny, I'm not convinced Steve is good for business. He's crowding other posts out of the Recent Comments section at the top, distracting readers from South Dakota's teacher shortage, Indian foster care scandal, the minimum wage debate, and even the original topic of this post, which ironically suggested the proper response to such theocratic impulses is a shrug.

    And for the last time, the only theocrat here is Gordon Howie. Saying that I or any commenter here is summoning "New Age Theocrats" is like saying we are summoning Process Paremsan Integrators.

  264. Bill Fleming 2014.07.25

    Even avowed atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins don't deny the reality of numinous, transcendent and/or ecstatic experience.

  265. Lynn 2014.07.25

    Bill "Unfortunately, the religious right has insisted on making religion a political issue."

    Yeah! It divides us! If people think our functioning legislative government is paralyzed and polarized now just keep injecting religion and it will be far worse.

    Steve "I agree, lets start by separating our schools from the State."

    I completely disagree! My parents first sent me to Catholic Catechism night classes to teach me about my faith while I attended public grade school but obviously this was outside of my public education. Later my parents sacrificed to send me to our local Catholic school system thru high school which was basically college prep to give me an opportunity to learn more deeply about my faith both the good and bad throughout history.

    Steve it is up to the family to decide whether it be at their home or optional teachings outside of public school to teach their faith. No putting bibles or other religious books in public schools. If you do where do you stop? Which Bible? Koran? Torah? All the other faiths? It will be a mine field locally and nationally.

    It's only going to cause conflict and divide us. The founding fathers saw what happened in Europe and tried to avoid what they escaped from to once again happen in US.

  266. Steve Sibson 2014.07.25

    [Cory, you have a point regarding crowding out other topics in the recent comments (but don't regarding theocracies). I will stop for now, to give room for other topics.]

  267. David Bergan 2014.07.25

    Hi Steve,

    If you don't mind, I'd appreciate hearing your assessment of my questions. You can email me: dbergan at gmail.

    Kind regards,
    David

  268. JeniW 2014.07.25

    Steve, if I may ask, why do you not provide opportunities for people to participate on your blog site the way that Cory provides that opportunity?

  269. Roger Cornelius 2014.07.25

    JeniW.
    Why do you think Sibson's blog has been idle for so long and why doesn't he allow comments? What do you think?

    He has shown us that he has time to blog by the number of comments and the time he spends on Cory's Madville, so we know he has time.

    Is that whatever followers he has have tired of his boorish conspiracy theories and has nothing further to offer them?

    Is his blog dead because his followers finally realized that he is the epitome of the false prophet that has declared war on their religion and Christianity?

    Is the death of his blog God's punishment for his false impersonation of God's word?

    Why did God kill Sibson's blog?

  270. Craig 2014.07.25

    Steve: "World unity will be a fact when the children of the world are taught that religious differences are largely a matter of birth."

    I know you are quoting excerpts Steve, but honestly... I can't disagree with the premise. I have repeatedly said religion is determined by geography and geanology. That is to say - if your parents lived in the United States and were Christian, there is an overwhelming chance you will be Christian. Likewise, if your parents lived in China and were Buddhist, chances are you will grow up Buddhist.

    Is that to say out of the billions of humans on this earth, only a small fraction were fortunate to be born in the right place to the right parents who happened to practice the right religion? Are we to believe that everyone should find their way to your chosen god and your savior Jesus Christ even if they go their entire lives without even hearing about Christianity?

    The truth is, very few people ever truly convert religions. Far more people abandon organized religion than the number of people who cease practicing one faith, and pick up an entirely different one. There is good reason for this of course - because if someone isn't indoctrinated as a youth, they would have a hard time falling for the stories that are meant to serve as evidence supporting any of our world's religions.

    Thus back to the quote you cited - if human beings could one day realize how silly all of these religious based arguments were, and if they would one day cease killing one another in the name of whatever god it is that they beleive in, and if they would one day use logic and reasoning and science rather than faith and tradition.... well you might actually see true unity.

    It won't be in our lifetimes, but we are starting to see the trends. The end of religion as we know it is a mere inevitability. That isn't to say people won't still have doubts and beliefs - but one doesn't feel the need to worship a question nor follow the teachings of men just because they insist you do so.

  271. Kurt Evans 2014.07.25

    David Bergan wrote:
    >"I'm still waiting to hear how it is that you 'know' the Bible is God's Word..."

    There's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence that aligns with the Bible, but ultimately the only way to know for sure it's true is by direct revelation.

    >"... and how you 'know' all other books are not."

    Personally I don't claim to know that.

  272. Kurt Evans 2014.07.25

    "jerry" wrote:
    >"Islamists are cut from the same cloth as Evangelicals."

    I obviously disagree, but the people who started referring to radical Muslims as "fundamentalists" were apparently trying to create that impression.

  273. Kurt Evans 2014.07.25

    Steve Sibson wrote:
    >"There is the call out to fellow New Age Theocrats to attack me. See how it works Cory? I have to be like everyone else on this web site or else I am called crazy, mentally ill, and other such devaluing and dehumanizing attacks."

    It would be easier to feel sorry for you if you'd stop calling people hypocrites, apostates, neo-fascists and New Age Theocrats.

    Cory has specifically, clearly, repeatedly objected to your "New Age Theocrats" terminology, but you slap that offensive label on your victims yet again even as you appeal to Cory for empathy.

    People who don't believe the Bible is true have feelings too, Steve, and they'll almost always give more respect to your feelings if you give more respect to theirs.

  274. Kurt Evans 2014.07.25

    Bill Fleming wrote:
    >"It's like the Russell paradox 'All statements are false, including this one' in reverse."

    No offense, Bill, but I'm pretty sure that's simply a false statement and not a version of Russell's paradox.

  275. jerry 2014.07.25

    No disagreements Mr. Evans, you fundamentalist guys are as equally imbalanced as your brother Islamists, with not a nickels worth of difference between you. Peas and carrots for sure with the same facial expressions as each other, it is touching.

  276. Kurt Evans 2014.07.25

    Craig wrote:
    >"Is that to say out of the billions of humans on this earth, only a small fraction were fortunate to be born in the right place to the right parents who happened to practice the right religion?"

    From the Bible's perspective, yes.

  277. Bill Fleming 2014.07.26

    Oh, it's a paradox, Kurt. Think about it some more. By "including this one" I have made the false statement "true" which disqualifies it from the group of false statements.

    To see it more clearly, reverse it. "All statements are true including this one." True? or False?

  278. Barry Smith 2014.07.26

    This thread makes me think of something that Jon Stewart once said. (I am paraphrasing from memory)

    Religion is a wonderful comfort for a world torn apart by religion.

  279. Bill Fleming 2014.07.26

    Kurt, to simplify, you could just say, "This sentence is false." The same thing happens. If the sentence is indeed false, it becomes a true statement. And vice versa.

  280. David Bergan 2014.07.26

    "There's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence that aligns with the Bible, but ultimately the only way to know for sure it's true is by direct revelation."

    Hi Kurt,

    I'm curious, are you saying that you've had a direct revelation that the Bible is entirely true? (Has Steve?)

    Obviously books can be historically/archeologically accurate without being God's Word. And the historic accuracy of an author doesn't say anything about the soundness of his morals. Don Sterling could deliver a whizz-bang lecture on the Battle of Gettysburg, but that doesn't make his racism any less wrong.

    Similarly, the events of the book of Joshua could be historically accurate, but that doesn't morally exonerate the treacheries and massacres the Lord commanded the Hebrews to commit in those stories.

    Kind regards,
    David

  281. Kurt Evans 2014.07.26

    Bill Fleming wrote:
    >"Oh, it's a paradox, Kurt. Think about it some more. By 'including this one' I have made the false statement 'true' which disqualifies it from the group of false statements."

    The statement, "All statements are false," already includes itself. Redundantly citing that self-inclusion has no effect on the meaning. It's simply a false statement and not a paradox.

    >"To see it more clearly, reverse it. 'All statements are true including this one.' True? or False?"

    False.

    >"Kurt, to simplify, you could just say, 'This sentence is false.' The same thing happens."

    This still isn't a version of Russell's paradox, but at least it's a paradox.

    >"If the sentence is indeed false, it becomes a true statement. And vice versa."

    It can't be true. Therefore it's false. But I agree that it's a paradox.

  282. Kurt Evans 2014.07.27

    I'd written:
    >>"There's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence that aligns with the Bible, but ultimately the only way to know for sure it's true is by direct revelation."

    David Bergan asks:
    >"I'm curious, are you saying that you've had a direct revelation that the Bible is entirely true? (Has Steve?)"

    I believe God's shown me that the books of the Bible were entirely true in the original manuscripts, and I think He's probably shown Steve something similar.

  283. David Bergan 2014.07.27

    Hi Kurt,

    What did it feel like to have God show you that? What kind of experience was it?

    Kind regards,
    David

  284. Bill Fleming 2014.07.27

    Kurt, I'm curious too. Did you see the original manuscripts. What language were they written in? Did you see both Testaments?

  285. Kurt Evans 2014.07.27

    David Bergan asks me:
    >"What did it feel like to have God show you [that the books of the Bible were entirely true in the original manuscripts]? What kind of experience was it?"

    It was apparently an unremarkable experience, because I'm not even sure when I first realized it.

    Bill Fleming asks me:
    >"Did you see the original manuscripts[?]."

    No.

    >"What language were they written in?"

    Mainly Classical Hebrew and Koine Greek.

  286. David Bergan 2014.07.28

    Hi Kurt,

    I appreciate your candid response. However, I still have a hard time understanding how a guy comes to know that a book is entirely true by what appears to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, a feeling? Not even a specific feeling at a certain moment like the Road to Damascus or Augustine's conversion... or even CS Lewis's "most reluctant convert in all of England" experience. Was it just a general drift in your mood over the course of months? Or did you grow up "knowing" the inerrancy of scripture and never came across anything that seriously challenged that notion?

    I grew up a devout follower of the Bible, although never all the way to inerrant. As I started studying the origin of the Bible, though, it became harder and harder to refer to it collectively as God's Word.

    First, consider the conundrums with so many authors. Why did God inspire one guy to write Kings and another to write the (mostly) same stories in Chronicles? Why did He inspire exactly three synoptic Gospels? Why didn't Jesus just write one book instead of having us get 4 versions of his message second/third-hand? (A book written by Jesus would certainly be easier to call God's Word, no?) Manuscripts show us that even touching parts like the woman caught in adultery story were inserted centuries after the fact. Textual analysis shows that the Hebrew words in the Torah flip flop between old and wayyyyy old Hebrew... meaning you find certain chapters in Genesis written 300ish years earlier than the chapters on either side of it.

    Second, we have the conundrums of canonization. The Bible we have today is the result of several committee meetings over hundreds of years... and we know that the votes weren't unanimous. Revelation was not widely considered inspired by Christians the first hundred or so years of its existence. If you had quoted Rev in a sermon in the 100s, you'd have people in your congregation coming up afterwards to inform you that it's nonsense written by a crazy man... kinda like quoting the Book of Mormon in a Baptist Church in the mid 1800s. But Athanasius liked Revelation in the 300s and he had a role in getting it in the NT.

    On the other side, you have books like the Shepherd of Hermas, that the early Christians loved, but didn't get enough votes in the late 300s. How did books like that lose their inspiration?

    In Paul's letters, he occasionally refers us to read other letters he wrote to certain churches, but these letters didn't survive. (Col 4:6) Why not? If God's Word is recommending that we read these letters, why didn't he preserve them and canonize them? Why also would God's Word specifically say it's not speaking from the Lord in 1 Cor 7:12?

    The more I studied the specifics of the Bible, the more things like these I have found.

    I can't help thinking that if it truly was inspired, it would be a lot more obvious. There are dozens of ways He could have proven its inspiration to us. For instance, what if Genesis came with a star chart that we could only have verified with the Hubble telescope? What if Proverbs had a blueprint for the internal combustion engine? What if Revelations had a chart of annual rainfall for Jerusalem for years 1-2000? What if Matthew contained a map of the New World?

    If the Bible contained anything outside the perimeter of knowledge of the culture who wrote it... and independently verifiable... we would have to accept that there's something special about it. Thus, either God is purposefully denying us that level of verifiability... or He wasn't involved.

    Kind regards,
    David

  287. bearcreekbat 2014.07.28

    David, an interesting and informative post - Thanks!

  288. Bill Fleming 2014.07.28

    David, good read. The "inspiration" of the Bible is no doubt the the original manuscripts, of which there appear to be two, one from the north and one from the south. One says God's name is Yaweh, the other Elohim. There are multiple versions of the stories throughout. It is thus a continuous record of generations of people trying to construct a coherent story with a beginning, middle and an end. An evolving cultural meme.

  289. Kurt Evans 2014.07.30

    David Bergan wrote to me:
    >"However, I still have a hard time understanding how a guy comes to know that a book is entirely true by what appears to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, a feeling?"

    You've apparently misunderstood me, David. Direct revelation isn't a feeling.

    >"Was it just a general drift in your mood over the course of months?"

    No.

    >"Or did you grow up 'knowing' the inerrancy of scripture and never came across anything that seriously challenged that notion?"

    No, I came across many things growing up that seriously challenged the inerrancy of Scripture.

    >"Why did God inspire one guy to write Kings and another to write the (mostly) same stories in Chronicles? Why did He inspire exactly three synoptic Gospels? Why didn't Jesus just write one book instead of having us get 4 versions of his message second/third-hand?"

    I don't know.

    >"Manuscripts show us that even touching parts like the woman caught in adultery story were inserted centuries after the fact."

    Possibly reinserted. Possibly true either way.

    >"Textual analysis shows that the Hebrew words in the Torah flip flop between old and wayyyyy old Hebrew... meaning you find certain chapters in Genesis written 300ish years earlier than the chapters on either side of it."

    Concludest thou that I wrote the beginning of this question several hundred years before the rest? The argument you're citing is pure conjecture.

    >"The Bible we have today is the result of several committee meetings over hundreds of years... and we know that the votes weren't unanimous."

    The books of today's Bible were generally considered infallible long before those "committee meetings" were held.

    >"Revelation was not widely considered inspired by Christians the first hundred or so years of its existence."

    It was generally considered inspired by the Christians who had access to it.

    >"If you had quoted Rev in a sermon in the 100s, you'd have people in your congregation coming up afterwards to inform you that it's nonsense written by a crazy man... kinda like quoting the Book of Mormon in a Baptist Church in the mid 1800s."

    That probably would have depended on the congregation.

    >"But Athanasius liked Revelation in the 300s and he had a role in getting it in the NT."

    He recognized it as part of the New Testament. So did thousands of other Christian leaders.

    >"On the other side, you have books like the Shepherd of Hermas, that the early Christians loved, but didn't get enough votes in the late 300s. How did books like that lose their inspiration?"

    Books like that still have the same amount of inspiration they've always had.

    >"In Paul's letters, he occasionally refers us to read other letters he wrote to certain churches, but these letters didn't survive. (Col 4:6) Why not?"

    I'm pretty sure you mean Colossians 4:16 rather than 4:6, and the letter to which it refers may have been what we now know as the book of Ephesians.

    >"If God's Word is recommending that we read these letters, why didn't he preserve them and canonize them?"

    God inspired Paul to recommend that the Colossians read the letter in question. The Bible makes no such recommendation at all for the lost letter to the Ephesians or for either of the lost letters to the Corinthians.

    >"Why also would God's Word specifically say it's not speaking from the Lord in 1 Cor 7:12?"

    God inspired Paul to distinguish between his own inspired opinions and the teachings of Jesus ("the Lord") during His earthly ministry.

    >"There are dozens of ways He could have proven its inspiration to us. For instance, what if Genesis came with a star chart that we could only have verified with the Hubble telescope? What if Proverbs had a blueprint for the internal combustion engine? What if Revelations had a chart of annual rainfall for Jerusalem for years 1-2000? What if Matthew contained a map of the New World?"

    None of those things would prove the Bible true. Ultimately the only way to know for sure it's true is by direct revelation.

  290. Kurt Evans 2014.07.30

    Bill Fleming wrote:
    >"The 'inspiration' of the Bible is no doubt the the original manuscripts, of which there appear to be two ..."

    Two, give or take several dozen. :)

  291. Bill Fleming 2014.07.30

    Very interesting, Kurt. I'm sure you realize that by your "direct revelation" standard, pretty much any writing could be deemed "true." Or any creative work for that matter. It's a pretty low bar, rationally speaking, but sufficient, since it puts one who would dispute it into the impossible position of proving a negative. And that's how religions get started.

  292. Bill Fleming 2014.07.30

    In the arts we call it "the willing suspension of disbelief."

  293. David Bergan 2014.07.30

    "You've apparently misunderstood me, David. Direct revelation isn't a feeling."

    Hi Kurt,

    How would you describe it? I'm trying to understand what this is... but I've ruled out everything I'm familiar with.

    - It doesn't seem to be knowledge acquired by a specific experience (like Road to Damascus)... I've never had that kind of revelatory event, but at least I could understand what we're talking about if that's what you had. You said it wasn't.

    - It doesn't seem to be knowledge acquired by reason (like a Euclidean proof) where based on X and Y, we can infer Z... otherwise you would be happy to provide me with X and Y.

    - It doesn't seem to be knowledge acquired by authority (like reading a newspaper or the report of a scientific experiment), because otherwise you could cite the source and I could go read about it.

    Reason, experience, and authority are the three ways I know of by which we come to know things. Having ruled those out, I guessed at "feeling" (ala "intuition"), but you say that is wrong, too.

    So what exactly do you mean by "direct revelation"? Can you give me any examples or analogies?

    Kind regards,
    David

  294. Kurt Evans 2014.08.01

    Bill Fleming wrote:
    >"[Your 'direct revelation' standard is] a pretty low bar, rationally speaking, but sufficient, since it puts one who would dispute it into the impossible position of proving a negative."

    Proving a negative isn't always impossible, but in this case it is.

  295. Kurt Evans 2014.08.01

    David Bergan asks me:
    >"So what exactly do you mean by 'direct revelation'? Can you give me any examples or analogies?"

    It's like when you know something is true because someone trustworthy whispers it to you, only without the whispering.

  296. David Bergan 2014.08.02

    Hi Kurt,

    Two quick questions...

    1) If someone hasn't had this direct revelation experience, is the Bible then not God's Word for them? Or, more technically, they cannot know it is God's Word?

    2) Is there anything else that we learn this way? I mean, if someone told me they know rainbows have pots of gold because of "direct revelation" or "internal whisperings they trust"...

    Kind regards,
    David

  297. Kurt Evans 2014.08.02

    David Bergan asks:
    >"If someone hasn't had this direct revelation experience, is the Bible then not God's Word for them? Or, more technically, they cannot know it is God's Word?"

    There's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence that aligns with the Bible, but ultimately the only way to know for sure it's true is by direct revelation.

    >"Is there anything else that we learn this way?"

    Yes, I believe it's possible for people to learn other things by direct revelation.

    >"I mean, if someone told me they know rainbows have pots of gold because of 'direct revelation' or 'internal whisperings they trust'..."

    I've never said Christians know the Bible is true because of "internal whisperings they trust."

  298. David Bergan 2014.08.03

    Hi Kurt,

    I must be missing something.

    First you say: "ultimately the only way to know for sure it's true is by direct revelation"

    Then I ask: "How would you describe it? I'm trying to understand what this is..."

    You reply: "It's like when you know something is true because someone trustworthy whispers it to you, only without the whispering."

    Then you say: "I've never said Christians know the Bible is true because of "internal whisperings they trust."

    If direct revelation is not "road to Damascus", "a feeling", or "internal whispering you trust"... what is it?

    Is it a thought?

  299. JeniW 2014.08.03

    Perhaps it is intuition, or "gut feeling?"

    It feels right, or jibes with our conscience?

  300. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.08.03

    Y'all were sure busy here since I last was online. Lots of thoughts and philosophizing. Let me say first that I'm not very good at abstracts. I do much better when I consider actual human beings. I've read a fair bit, but most of my learning is based on observations and conversations. I believe everyone is a teacher, whether aware of it or not. It doesn't matter. My job is to pay close attention so I don't miss the lesson.

    All that being said, back to the topic at hand.

    A close reading of the Bible reveals many, many things that have been suppressed or deliberately ignored and distorted. So, BCB, one need not create a generous, loving, feminine God. It's all there. Isaiah is a great resource for feminine God imagery. God as a pregnant woman, God as a nursing mother, God possessing a womb, on and on and on.

    Proverbs 31 is all about the Wisdom or Holy Spirit of God as a woman. If God and the Holy Spirit are one, she's a woman. There are also a ton of parables Jesus told that feature a woman as the bearer godly qualities or even as a stand in for God.

    So there is plenty of Biblical support for a feminine image of God and for women at the top echelons of Christianity. My overall take is that the image one holds of God is actually irrelevant. God is only seen in one's imagination anyway, so what's the Big Deal with insisting God is a boy's name?! Hahahahaha!

  301. Deb Geelsdottir 2014.08.03

    Oh crap. The above comment belongs on another thread. Please ignore it, and me, and carry on.

  302. Kurt Evans 2014.08.04

    David Bergan asked me:
    >>"So what exactly do you mean by 'direct revelation'? Can you give me any examples or analogies?"

    I answered:
    >"It's like when you know something is true because someone trustworthy whispers it to you, only without the whispering."

    David wrote:
    >>"If direct revelation is not 'road to Damascus', 'a feeling', or 'internal whispering you trust'... what is it? Is it a thought?"

    It influences thought, but no, direct revelation isn't a thought. I think the analogy I gave above may be the best I can do. Sorry, David.

  303. Kurt Evans 2014.08.04

    "JeniW" asks me:
    >"Perhaps [direct revelation] is intuition, or 'gut feeling?' It feels right, or jibes with our conscience?"

    Of those four options, I'd say intuition is the closest, depending on how it's defined.

  304. mike from iowa 2014.08.05

    Bill Fleming or Blindman,I got three groundhogs-Sibby,Lee and Angelo. Am I dealing with the holy trinity-Father,Son,Holy Ghost or are these three indeed one and the same? I need sage advice before I call in the artillery. One of these three spent time in the engine compartment of my Jeep. Could it have been blessing my motor or is it possible it is a religious terrorist? At least one has taken up residence under my residence. Is that now a tax free zone for religious purposes or do I have a freeloader on my hands? Help!

  305. Bill Dithmer 2014.08.05

    First Mike, I find your timing for this post highly suspicious, isn't "Sibby Lee and Angelo" a morning talk show? However knowing your propensity for finding the truth, I will try to treat your questions with all the respect of one religion for another.

    As you know, I recently saw my first woodchuck. I feel that, just like Sibby and religion, I am now an expert on woodchucks.

    First this. " One of these three spent time in the engine compartment of my Jeep. Could it have been blessing my motor or is it possible it is a religious terrorist?" No to the first part, and yes to the second.

    Then this. "At least one has taken up residence under my residence. Is that now a tax free zone for religious purposes or do I have a freeloader on my hands?"

    If that hog has filed a 501c your screwed. I think a 22 caliber is the dispensation that is required in a situation like this.

    Animal jihad is all to common these days. From the deer trying to disrupt traffic, to those damn teabagging skunks that are always shooting from both ends and leaving a trail of victims in their wake. You know the old saying, " the only good skunk is a dead skunk." Remember animal jihad is about religious freedom from persecution, and although it's nothing personal, it seems like it is.

    It is my opinion that you would do better sending one person to do the job. You could tell the neighbors that he is an adviser and that gun he's carrying is a toy. Or, you could leave a blanket with distemper virus impregnated in it to kill the chucks and the friends they share it with. Think US versus american indian as an example of what you could accomplish.

    Folks are you tired of fake religions?

    Have you seen the most religious people in town go to church on sunday and then screw their neighbors on monday?

    What kind of return are you getting for that money your putting in the collection plate?

    If so why not try THE CHURCH OF BILL. You can be assured that the money you spend here will be put to good use, mine!

    From the pulpit of THE CHURCH OF BILL, the only for profit church in the world. We are the only church that will admit to this. This has been your preacher

    The Blindman

Comments are closed.