I had no idea that Gordon Howie would post our Liberty Today conversation about personhood and abortion the same day that I would post about Missouri Governor Jay Nixon's veto of a 72-hour abortion waiting period. But there it is! Kismet!
Notice that Howie—who is running for Senate, by the way—says that life begins before conception. By Howie's thinking, it's not just abortion doctors committing murder; you kids with your condoms are thwarting life and the will of God! Even abstainers are standing against the heavenly tide of LIFE!
Post-Hobby Lobby, Howie's thinking should make us nervous. If religious beliefs about personhood can allow corporations to discriminate against women in health insurance policies, they may allow corporations to discriminate against childless employees who by their use of condoms, their abstinence, or their dorky inability to strike up a sparkling conversation at TeeZer's are ending life that exists in God's mind but not some unplumbed womb.
Contending that life begins before conception would seem to create a sexual imperative that we do it early and do it often. That should make us really nervous: int he Howie-ocracy, government might do far worse than force you to wait 72 hours plus a weekend to get an abortion. It might draft you for insemination in service of the lives God has conceived for you to create.
Does Gordon eat eggs for breakfast?
For what it's worth I agree with Gordon on the facts, just not the conclusion he draws from them.
Life is a continuity, no one knows for sure when it began on our planet, but once it did, it has continued to persist and evolve (thank heavens).
As to Gordon's ethical position, if we mere mortals have no life or death moral authority, then he has no business killing animals just for fun, there is no justification for war and/or capital punishment, etc. (hospitals, health care, you name it, all law is moot.)
I therefore submit that we derive our moral authority from one another, for better or worse, and that there is far more emperical evidence in support of that position than there is for my friend Gordon's.
If we truly aren't responsible for making our own life and death laws, he has no business running for the legislature.
For the entire history of mankind, people have been persecuted and slaughtered for practicing the "wrong" religion. Freedom of religion is a new idea, and has not caught on around the world. It is awful to think that we now have a generation of Americans who would be willing to scrap freedom of religion just to get their employers to pay for their abortions, a notion which only makes sense if their employers impregnated them.
That said, it needs to be pointed out that the whole purpose of birth control is to keep women chained to their workstations. The entire Feminist Movement was the product of American industrialists' need for cheap labor. Women could be paid less than men, and they could be fired if they got pregnant. So women were given birth control and abortion and told to fulfill their destinies working on production lines. Women complained, got maternity and family leave benefits, and equal pay. So now the search for cheap labor moves on to illegal immigrants. Suddenly we need immigration reform. Follow the money folks!
I love these videos. It is so refreshing to see two political polar opposites have a conversation that does not include the usual tabloid TV yelling and interrupting, but rather show two civilized people respecting each other and even laughing together. If only all debates could be like this. Participants...be polite, respectful, and kind and stop trying to out-negative the other guy. Just state an opinion in a civil manner and let the viewer decide.
The Obama/ Romney "please continue" debate was pointless due to Romney's aggressive interuption and Obama's public-imposed mandate to shy away from confrontation in order to not be seen as "the angry black man".
Bravo, Gordie & Cory!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8
Larry-
That's hilarious.
If life begins before conception, can men and women be accused of child abuse or neglect for consuming drugs (and other chemicals) that can and do damage to the ovum and sperm?
If the genetic code of the ovum and sperm causes a child to be born with a disability, or other medical conditions, are the parents guilty of neglect for not having had tests done prior to having sex to determine genetic defects?
Has religion made anything better,ever?
That is funny Anne.
I thought conception prevention methods used by men and women are suppose to prevent conception, and not having more children than they can support.
Not all families get paid to have a TV show like "19 Kids and Growing."
This is what worries me about the Hobby Lobby decision and taking Gordon's beliefs to governance. I have no problem with Gordon believing what he does or having people that respect and trust him follow his advice. I do have a problem when he tries to legislation his beliefs onto me. I also have a problem when the owners of Hobby Lobby use their economic position to force their beliefs onto their employees.
I believe the constitution protects me and my family from religious beliefs I don't hold with. It also protects others from my beliefs. I can't force birth control on the owners of Hobby Lobby.
Frank: should Mike Rounds apply his church's extremist views in the unlikely event he becomes senator?
" It is awful to think that we now have a generation of Americans who would be willing to scrap freedom of religion just to get their employers to pay for their abortions, a notion which only makes sense if their employers impregnated them."
No employer that I know of is directly paying for abortions out of their own pockets. What they are doing is using their insurance coverage as part of the incentive, for working for that company. I could see your point if the employer was paying out of his or her pocket for an abortion, but if it is an insurance package it is part of the employees pay not something extra.
" That said, it needs to be pointed out that the whole purpose of birth control is to keep women chained to their workstations. The entire Feminist Movement was the product of American industrialists' need for cheap labor."
I'm throwing the flag. Prove it!
Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion mean not having to explain your health concerns to anyone, the least of which is your employer. Ann, just so you understand what I'm saying, it is nobodies business what a woman wants to do to or with her body. It sure doesn't effect her employer unless he is offering to front her bills, change diapers, and doing all the things that a mother would do asking for nothing in return, nothing. But we all know that isn't going to happen dont we? That insurance is part of the pay for doing the job she was hired to do.
Anything else is the employer trying to force their employees to view life from the bosses perspective. That is bullshit.
You are right about one thing, unless the boss got the employee pregnant in the first place it is none of their damn business. And then it's none of their business unless the employee wants it to be.
Somehow, I see you as thinking that for some reason a womans body belongs to someone else an not that woman. I've got news for ya Ann, that womens body, her own. That clump of cells, hers to do with as she sees fit, not you or anyone else.
Lets not pretend that your rants are anything but a way to stop women from exercising their rights by law.
If you dont want an abortion, then dont get one, but dont try to force your bull shit beliefs on others that dont think the same as you do.
Before you go there, I'm looking for freedom for women to do what they want with their bodies. What you want is complete control.
GET BENT
The Blindman
This reminds me of the classic Monty Python's Meaning of Life sketch "Every Sperm is Sacred."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/07/federal-judge-supreme-court-following-hobby-lobby-decision-stfu/
This judge has the right idea.
As for these draconian rules on women's rights,these are just more ways one party is skirting the constitution to stop women from exercising their rights.
Masturbate Gordon Masturbate!!!
"As for these draconian rules on women's rights"
OK students, another Neo-Marxist statement. Where in the Constitution does it state that women have a right to sex without getting pregnant? Interesting that the Neo-Marxist hates capitalism, but insists that everyone has a right to work for entities that would not exist without it. As already covered with a discussion with BCB, corporations are not bound by the limitations imposed by the Bill of Rights. Those were designed to be applied to the federal government.
I have a confession. I now believe that I am the father of hundreds of children over the years, perhaps thousands. You see, I have looked at women with lust, just like millions before me who appreciate the beauty of women. Now, thanks to Gordon, I feel fatherly today in a most peculiar way. Does this mean that the Supreme Court could rule to make me pay support? Yikes!
Ninth Amendment, Sib.
As he is a neo-confederate, what 9th Amendment to what flag?
Larry, the Ninth Amendment does not say a women has a right to free contraception, paid for by her employer. It is a violation of the Ninth to take property rights away from the employer in order to pay for contraception as a requirement of the federal government.
Jerry, it takes more than looking at women for them to become pregnant.
That wasn't your question, Sib.
If life begin before conception, then by just even making eye contact could cause the event. Remember what happened to Joe and Mary, two kids cruising near Bethlehem and the next thing, well you know. Gordon says the same thing more or less, in his rambling ways. I am going to have to change my name now to avoid the problems for my checkbook.
Larry & Jerry, sorry you two are not capable of having a discussion.
An enjoyable post Cory! I like Bill Fleming's comment. The argument about when "life" begins is merely a dodge.
As Cory touched on in the video, the question is whether one entity - the fetus - has the right to use another person's body - the woman - against her will. I posted some questions on this point in the past on Blogmore, but with no satisfactory responses from the anti-choice bench. Maybe Madvillians can fill the gap.
For example, if we want to have a policy that a woman's body can be appropriated to save the life of a fetus, then can a man's body be appropriated to save the life of someone needing a liver or kidney transplant? Why should only a pregnant woman's body be subject to appropriation to save a life of an innocent?
Larry, what does one have to do to develop conception to get a neo-confederate? If you know the answer to this, then another question, what kind of condom prevents the occurence? Something from Goodyear perhaps?
Larry, I think we should be careful who we elect and make sure they won't advance this craziness. However, Rounds' church is more likely the church of the laissez faire capitalist which holds equal problems for me.
Jerry, Sibby is incapable of rational thought leaving only ridicule as a hammer to his nail. Frank, good eye.
"However, Rounds' church is more likely the church of the laissez faire capitalist which holds equal problems for me."
"Laissez faire capitalism" is an oxymoron. Capitalism via governmental control of the economy by crony capitalists is not laissez faire. In fact it prohibits laissez faire. Once the deception that is being fostered by both parties, then we can fix it.
"The entire Feminist Movement was the product of American industrialists' need for cheap labor." That is so ignorant I don't know whether to laugh or cry. If it were true, women would have gotten their rights immediately and with no effort because corporate america wanted it so. Stunningly wrong.
more redundant than oxymoronic. only two parties in the us, sib?
Sibby,Where in the constitution does it say you wingnuts have eminent domain over a woman's body? Where does it say your fictitious crutch is the law of the land? Where does it say anyone need pay attention to anything you have to say?
Hi bearcreekbat. I'm wondering further whether Gordon's position isn't perhaps a variation on an ongoing argument in philosophy having to do with the concept of "free will."
Briefly, philosophers fall into three general classifications
1. Determinists (strict scientific, rationalist rigor seems to suggest that free will is an illusion)
2. Compatiblists insist conversely that free will is alive and well.
3. Libertarians (not to be confused with the political kind)
Here's an overview of the ongoing debate:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/sam-harris-vs-dan-dennett-on-free-will/
Curiously, Mr. Howie seems in some kind of mystical way to be positing a position very much related to that of the determinists — many, if not most of whom are actually hard-core atheists. I wonder if he realizes that.
But then again, as Paul Simon says "Maybe I think too much."
Take care BCB, whoever and wherever you are.
Always good to read you.
"Where in the constitution does it say you wingnuts have eminent domain over a woman's body?"
No where. The body in question is not the woman's. It is that of another human being.
a human being with no civil rights until the third trimester.
Jessie, check it out:
"And the feminist movement was social programming by the CIA, the Ford Foundation and other globalist organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is a creation of John D. Rockefeller and is run by his grandson, David Rockefeller. This is all well documented."
"Nicholas Rockefeller, of the powerful Rockefeller family, had befriended filmmaker Aaron Russo, during the 1990’s. According to Russo, Rockefeller had told him that the Rockefeller Foundation had helped to fund the feminist movement.
There were several reasons for this. One, it got women into the work force. This provided more income for taxation.
Second, it got kids in government funded schools at an earlier age for indoctrination. The intent was to break up the traditional family and the acceptance of the government as the primary family."
http://www.newmenstime.com/index170.html
Uhhh: the Industrial Revolution not only began the acceleration of global warming it got women into the workforce as did WW2: perpetuated by war ever since. Remember that President Thomas Jefferson warned that a standing army would ultimately turn on its citizenry: a prophesy now unfolding.
Bill,
Christians are not determinists. You can follow God or you can chose not to follow God. It is your free will to chose. True Christians chose to follow God, and they do more than just say they are.
Yet Sibby would be the first to whine that stay-at-home moms should be denied public assistance.
Sibby, when Howie argues that you — well, actually the prophet Jeremiah, but via the Howie extension, all of us — were already here before you were ever conceived or born, that's determinism by definition. (i.e. your parents' free will to create you had nothing to do with it.) Is Howie right? Are we just meat puppets?
...wait, did I hear Sibby say we have a choice?
Good post, and good comments. Cory, you we very adept at responding to Howie'so repeated attempts to set you up.
I really hope Ann is intentionally trying to be provocative. That's much more believable than sincerity. Geez.
I'd elaborate a bit on Cory's and BCB'see description of the central question. Free people have the right to do with their bodies as they wish. Such folks can choose any doctor who meets their needs. They can decline or accept any procedure. Free people can do as they wish, go where they wish, eat what they wish, etc.
People who are not free, do not enjoy bodily autonomy. These reproductive laws take away women's freedom.
Regarding the women's movement: Sara Evans is a good friend of mine. She was on of the leaders of the second wave of feminism in the 1960s. Her friends of the time included Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinhem, and others whose names you probably don't know. Sara founded the women's center and created the women's studies curriculum at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Evans retired as a full professor 4-5 years ago. Oh yeah, she was always very active in the Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church.
This is only one of Sara'so books:
http://www.amazon.com/Tidal-Wave-Changed-America-Centurys/dp/074325502X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404770643&sr=1-2&keywords=evans%2C+sara
Anne, your bizarre explanation of Feminism is a complete lie.
Sibby, I am interested in your comment that "True Christians chose to follow God, and they do more than just say they are."
I wonder if someone can be a true Christian if he or she believes all that the Bible says about God and Christ. It seems to me that the Bible focuses more on what an individual believes about the nature of Christ rather than how one behaves. Hasn't it often been said that good works alone are simply insufficient. Indeed, isn't the deal that one must believe first and then repent of his or her sins before death? Meanwhile it matters not what one does before death so long as he or she believes and repents before death, correct?
BCB and Sibby, some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism
Hey Bill, good to read you too! As you may recall, I have argued "free will" really means humans cannot legitimately blame whatever choices they make on others, whether human or deity. Instead, humans lack that aspect of freedom. We are essentially trapped by our freedom and cannot honestly ever avoid responsibility for whatever choices we make, whether it deals with how we act or feel or even think.
This view of free will does not seem to fit comfortably within any of the three categories that you identified. Under this view, human choices are not predetermined by anything, but humans can never be free to make whatever choices we want. Instead, we are trapped in a situation where we must bear the full weight and responsibility for our decisions and thoughts no matter how much we would like to blame everyone and anyone else, including God, Satan, Democrats, Republicans, Gordon, Cory, Mom, Dad, or anyone else. Blaming others is not a valid choice, hence we do not have the free will to do this.
We can try to blame others, and even attempt to convince ourselves that we have succeeded, but we cannot escape from the reality that we have no one to blame but ourselves. We are the only responsible parties in our choices. No one can relieve us from that responsibility, "nothing" can save us.
Some argue this is anguish or hell itself. IMHO, however, it is one of the most wonderful aspects of the human condition. Once we accept the notion of our ultimate responsibility, we are now free from the mystical justifications for our bad choices. Instead, we become free to make positive choices.
So Gordon and I differ because, as you recognized, he argues pure theological determinism. He seeks in vain to avoid responsibility for his decisions, because God already made him a meat puppet. His views that hurt women and seek to deny them medically safe abortions can be justified by God's direction to protect the unborn, rather than by Gordon's free will decision that disregards the cost to women.
One other problem with Gordon's argument is that it logically suggests we have a duty to impregnate young girls as soon as they have eggs ready for fertilization. Every egg is a human being and by preventing our children from engaging in sex, we are denying a potential human being life.
Perhaps Gordon doesn't think every egg in the body of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 year old girls is a human deserving of being born. Maybe he thinks God does not want our young daughters to try to get pregnant with every egg that occurs in their bodies once every month. Thus, it is okay for our female children not to have sex ever month, and to abort by flushing those eggs from the body during menstruation. And in that case, to be consistent I think Gordon would have to agree that every single abortion becomes fully justifiable. It is a just as much a choice to deny our daughters to engage in sex in an effort prevent her from becoming pregnant with that baby God knew before he or she was conceived, as it is a choice to terminate a pregnancy when it is not what a woman wants.
Deb,I am glad you clarified which Sara Evans you were talking about. The only one I ever heard of sings country music and is a devoted dumbass dubya fan,certainly nothing like the lady you speak of.
Good thoughts, BCB. The next tangent string in this meat puppet discussion is of course a little digging around in the phenomenology sandbox. But let's save it for later.
http://advisor.d6cn.com/Travel/tttdmq/Ages_of_sexual_consent_in_Europe.html
Lynyrd Skynyrd
Sex Pistols
Molly Hatchet
Bob Marley
The Outlaws
Jeremiah Howie, now theres a money name.
The Blindman
Anne, please, two glaring falsehoods in one comment?
(1) No one is asking employers to pay for abortions. Hobby Lobby is calling birth control "abortion", against the facts, to make that assertion possible.
(2) Birth control enhances women's autonomy. Are you really saying that allowing women not to get pregnant makes them slaves of industry, and that they enjoy more freedom getting knocked up, without any chance to control when they reproduce?
Bill, life as an ongoing cycle, no divisions... oh my!
Obviously Gordon is not talking about the value of Life, but of human existence (human consciousness? human intelligence? human souls, independent of their bodies?). But if we did value big-L Life, all biota, Gaia-wide, do we undermine the dignity of individual elements of that life?
You're on the right track with the problem with Howie's and Hobby Lobby's politics, Frank. Birth control offends Hobby Lobby's (and apparently Gordon's) religious beliefs. They get an exemption from the law so their money doesn't have to pay for such horrors. What next: do they ask for an exemption from contract law so they can withhold a paycheck if they learn that an employee is buying birth control pills and has no other source of income?
larry, you might be interested to learn that during the 19th century under the common law the age of consent for American girls was as low as 10 years old. Gradually, Americans began to deny God's view that every egg was someone God knew before conception, and began to enact statutes to raise the age of consent.
ever been to mesa verde, bcb? your point is etched in the rock.
females as fungible commodities is as old as mammalian history.
Human souls independent of their bodies, Cory? That's probably it. Dualism. BCB and I and a few others spent a lot of time on that back in the old Blogmore days. My most recent thinking is that dualism is probably an illusion. I was agnostic about it for a long, long time. But more and more it starts looking like there is really only one thing. Call it whatever you like but we're all in and of it and nothing else.
What is the point of Howie's opinion and beliefs? As a U.S. Senator does he intend to enact legislation to reinforce those beliefs? And if that is his goal, how does he achieve it?
My concern is that other Howie's in the senate and congress would share his views and once again continue to legislate the health issues that are province of a woman.
Howie's radical right wing views are nothing more than election fodder to draw attention to himself. There isn't even a remote possibility that he could be successful in passing legislation compatible with his distorted views.
Howie isn't fit for the U.S. Senate, hell, he isn't fit for any elected office.
"OK students, another Neo-Marxist statement. Where in the Constitution does it state that women have a right to sex without getting pregnant? Interesting that the Neo-Marxist hates capitalism, but insists that everyone has a right to work for entities that would not exist without it. As already covered with a discussion with BCB, corporations are not bound by the limitations imposed by the Bill of Rights. Those were designed to be applied to the federal government."
So Steve, corporations are immune from any controls?
Where in the constitution does it say that women have the right to sex? Where does it say men have the right to sex?
None of that let alone "without getting pregnant". Your comments are like dry water and fat-free air.
Gordon Howie serves as an advertisement for the absolute separation of religion from government.
Doug,
How about alcohol-free tequila?
With this activist,right wing court majority,is there any such thing as settled law?
Sibby,if that fetus doesn't belong to the owner of the womb it is growing in,should women be paid to have babies,especially ones they don't want and are you going to be first in line to make child bearing worth her while?
So if Gordon Howie ejaculates and leaves a mess, is that child abandonment?
PP using another alias: what a shocker.
'Susan' must know by now that PP can't even see his faucet without a mirror.
bearcreekbat,
"For example, if we want to have a policy that a woman's body can be appropriated to save the life of a fetus, then can a man's body be appropriated to save the life of someone needing a liver or kidney transplant? Why should only a pregnant woman's body be subject to appropriation to save a life of an innocent?"
I believe that also gets to the gist of how Ayn Rand would structure an argument on slavery - one being forced to give of her work to another for no compensation and against her will fits Ayn's definition.
Looks like conservative dogma is looking to have it's cake and eat it too.
Mr. Gibilisco, you could not be righter if you tried. Mr. Howie has overgodded so bad that the complete and utter elimination of his and any other religion from my government is in order.
Let me add, Mr. Gibilisco could not be righter if he used all his nerd powers in his cave and built overgodding detector contraptions from any leftover ham radio parts. Which would be pretty neat if he did.
Cory,
"What next: do they ask for an exemption from contract law so they can withhold a paycheck if they learn that an employee is buying birth control pills and has no other source of income?"
Exactly. Now that the Supreemes have determined that an employer may withhold payment of benefits from their employees for "immoral" acts, can they also withhold salary? What about that action would be inconsistent with the HL decision's expansion/intrusion into employees' spending decisions that are legal but disapproved of by the employer? Could wages be garnished for pornography, or political donations to candidates that oppose the employer's religious beliefs?
This was a rabbit hole that should have been left alone.
This is a very interesting discussion.
A very large, but less noisy, segment of Christians strongly disagree with Howie's opinion. Human beings do have free will, and have since the first sentient one.
Biblically speaking, every human named exercised their free will. Even slaves. When Jesus called followers, he asked. There was no force, no coercion, no ultimatums. They could say no. They could disagree, as often happened. Peter, Thomas and others argued with Jesus.
Free will abounds in the Bible. From the earliest days of Christianity theology has been argued. The favorite topic was all about how one is saved. An important aspect of that is what affect our behavior have.
Theology is so interesting, fascinating and, often, troubling. It's hard work, this wrestling with God. It's very tempting to make it uncomplicated and easier.
And a million man army dies with every blow job. (Please excuse my lewdness.)
I think most people have their own views on when life begins, and, if they are like me, they hold contradictory views on the subject. You can't ever have had life without death. In fact, for life to exist at all and to evolve, there had and has to be a lot of death.
In human terms, for every child born, there are billions of sperm that die, eggs that don't get fertilized or implanted. Then there are the fetuses that don't develop. If you follow Howie's thesis out to its logical conclusion, God is the abortionist in chief. The abortions that are performed by humans are basically nothing stacked up against God's murders. Except when God smites people, let alone sperm, eggs, embryos and fetuses, we somehow don't want to admit to ourselves that God is causing death. We call it "God's will," not murder. I read the Bible. God is definitely not pro-life. I am, which means that I am also pro-choice.
Here's the thing. I don't believe in Howie's God. Howie is welcome to that God, but he, nor anyone else, is not welcome to impose it on any woman, even those women who might agree with his position.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"Biblically speaking, every human named exercised their free will. Even slaves. When Jesus called followers, he asked. There was no force, no coercion, no ultimatums. They could say no. They could disagree, as often happened. Peter, Thomas and others argued with Jesus."
Uncoerced, voluntary behavior isn't the same as metaphysical free will. In other words, the freedom to act according to our desires isn't the same as the freedom to determine them.
>"Free will abounds in the Bible."
Yes, in the sense of uncoerced, voluntary behavior, the Bible often speaks favorably of allowing people to exercise free will. In the metaphysical sense, though, the Bible teaches that only God has free will.
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.
The problem I have with the pre-destined, or God's plan's, is that it makes God seem like a hostile being when someone is murdered, killed while working using a farming machine, or someone being beaten up by someone who is drunk, or someone being bullied, and etc. Is God really that hateful? (blaming the above acts on the devil/satan, is a cop-out.)
If Howie is so concerned about life, maybe he should check in w his wife and her DWI....
"JeniW" wrote:
>"The problem I have with the pre-destined, or God's plan's, is that it makes God seem like a hostile being when someone is murdered, killed while working using a farming machine, or someone being beaten up by someone who is drunk, or someone being bullied, and etc."
Not to mention when most people go to hell (Matthew 7:13-14).
>"Is God really that hateful?"
First John 4:8 says God is love.
"You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm." -- from 'Free Will' by Sam Harris.
What is a lay person supposed to make of the idea that preventing pregnancy is in fact an abortion?
Don Pay's insights on life and death are what the whole religion thing is all about. For clarification on the subject may I suggest 'Deadly Powers' (no relation to Pat) by Montana biology professor Paul Trout, followed by a thoughtful review of the novel 'The Life of Pi.' If one is interested in the origin of religion as survival strategy it's a good place to start. Then see Jared Diamond's chapter on religion in his new book, 'The World Until Yesterday.' For further discussion on 'Free Will', the aforementioned book by Harris, and the Dali Lama's 'Beyond Religion' are a good pairing especially for perspectives on compassion outside the usual Abrahamic religious paradigm.
Mike from Iowa, it's bunk. There is no ideal way things are supposed to be. It's a figment of our imagination. We can create perfect mental constructs (mathematics for example, artworks, music and yes, gods and religions for another) but nature can only do the best it can with what it has to work with. If all human eggs and all spermatozoa were 'meant' to become fully realized as sentient adult human beings, there would be no need for either of them. We would just emerge fully formed out if the mind of God. As Mr. Pay and BCB point out, ours is a messy universe, incredibly chaotic and redundant. But it has to be, or we wouldn't be here to enjoy it.
Thanks BF. What does that tell us about five supposedly learned men who appear to agree with that last question and get paid to decide this stuff?
"But if we did value big-L Life, all biota, Gaia-wide, do we undermine the dignity of individual elements of that life?"
Cory, what do you mean by "Gaia-wide"?
Life begins when we first draw breath, or in my case, when I wake up in the morning to start a new day. It cannot be anymore complicated than that. Humans tend to draw more into that fact then needs to be. We tend to get philosophical as we get older because we feel we are one step closer to the end. What really matters about life and when it begins as well as when it ends, is what we did with it. Did we abuse our fellow humans and especially those that gave us life in the first place, our women. You and only you know the answer to that. Just like these five Catholic men on the Supreme Court just did, they crucified women for wanting to have a choice in their lives. They made it more difficult for these working women to find the ways of planning their futures as well as their families.
"Hasn't it often been said that good works alone are simply insufficient. Indeed, isn't the deal that one must believe first and then repent of his or her sins before death? Meanwhile it matters not what one does before death so long as he or she believes and repents before death, correct?"
BCB, through faith and serious repentance, one is transformed and their life becomes more and more about doing good works. It is Jesus Christ who is responsible for the transformation, and deserves the praise for those good works. Those so-called Christians who do works and take credit for the good works and believe they now deserve eternal life are, off base and are what is called "false conversions". What you do after repentance matters. For example, one who commits murders after their so-called repentance have serious issues. For murderers who repent, the last thing they want to do is kill someone and instead treat their enemies with mercy and grace, while giving thanks and praises to Jesus Christ for those acts.
like you're good, sib.
"They made it more difficult for these working women to find the ways of planning their futures as well as their families."
Jerry, thanks for supporting my point about the Rockefellers supporting the feminist movement so they can exploit "working women" as cheap human capital.
Gaia in the context Cory used it is a term used to reference the sum total of all life forms on planet Earth. Biology tells us that all life on earth is the same life. Gaia is a word used to describe that life, similar to the term 'Milky Way' used to describe all the material that makes up the spiral galaxy we inhabit. That's how I understood Cory's usage anyway, Sibby. But perhaps he meant more than that or was thinking maybe I did.
Rapid City so deserves the Howies and Napolis: what a hole.
Cory, to answer your question as best I can, life and by extension the universe is never about the individual pieces, but rather, all about how those elements relate to one another. It's all about the relationships. This holds for relativity and quantum physics as well as biology, sociology, religion and politics. 'Dignity of an individual' taken out of context with all there is would be meaningless, wouldn't it? Who would be there to honor it?
So, Homo sapiens became god's chosen species to honor god.
Cory, the theology that Mr. Fleming is promoting is pantheism. And from the Golden Age of Gaia we learn that theology is that basis to one-world New Age spirituality that rejects dualism:
"Because the adherents of New Age spiritual philosophy know we’re headed away from a dualistic world and towards a unitive world, one that works for everyone, it tends to be a cooperative inquiry, at least more so than contemporary or conventional religious or spiritual philosophy sometimes is."
http://goldenageofgaia.com/2013/03/27/new-age-spiritual-philosophy/
Bill is promoting nothing, Sib but you are rationalizing your failure to comprehend the creation of god by humanity.
The "Green Agenda" explains how pantheism is used to support political movements:
Anyone who has studied the global green movement has no doubt heard of "Gaia". Believers in Gaia, or ‘Gaians’ as they often refer to themselves, claim that the earth is a sentient super-being, an ancient goddess spirit, deserving of worship and reverence. Sir James Lovelock, in his book Gaia: ‘A new look at Life’, states that “all of the lifeforms on this planet are a part of Gaia - part of one spirit goddess that sustains life on earth. Since this transformation into a living system the interventions of Gaia have brought about the evolving diversity of living creatures on planet Earth.” Gaians teach that the "Earth Goddess", or Mother Earth, must be protected from destructive human activity. It is this belief that fuels the environmental movement, sustainable development, and a global push for the return of industrialized nations to a more primitive way of life.
http://www.green-agenda.com/gaia.html
Correct, Larry. I'm not promoting anything. Just trying to come to grips with reality. That's a tall order for us creative types. ;-)
https://denster57.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/god.jpg
Sibby, I know about the Gaia movement, but that's not what Cory and I are talking about. I'm not an enemy of humanity. But sometimes it sounds to me like you are.
Good cartoon Kurtz. That's the long and short of it in a nutshell, LOL.
Bill, it is you New Agers that don't bat an eye when it comes to destroying humanity in your abortion mills.
p.s. Sibby, it might surprise you to learn that the dualism to which you appear to subscribe is originally a Zoroastrian and Hindu concept. Implicit in the construct is that there are two gods, not one. There has been a conflict between proponents of dualism and monism in Christianity since its inception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#In_Christianity
For a while there I thought Sibby might be showing some signs of rationality. Sad that when confronted with the reasoned discussion he feigns to crave, he retreats into his same old mindless talking points. Sibby, I don't do New Age philosophy, I don't perform abortions, and I don't kill things, period. That's behavior that you and Mr. Howie subscribe to. So, go f--- yourself.
Bill, you are confusing monism with monotheism.
Bill, now it is you who is failing to deal with reality. Here some more for you:
"Gaians claim that “we are part of Nature and Nature is part of us, therefore God is part of us, and God is everywhere, and everything is God”. In reality Gaia is actually a revival of the “Earth-goddess” found in many ancient pagan religions. The current Gaia Cult is a cunning mixture of science, paganism, eastern mysticism, wicca and feminism."
http://www.green-agenda.com/gaia.html
The feminist component should be a clear warning to those of you who are promoting the so-called "women's rights" Neo-Marxist arguments on this and other threads.
Sibby, you are confusing me with someone who gives a tinkers damn about what you think. Get lost. Your keystrokes are a conspicuous waste of digital bandwidth.
Life, living, personhood, humanity, all are interesting and challenging concepts. In thinking about Donald's comment, "You can't ever have had life without death," here are a couple ways to look at the question.
For those who believe that human life begins in a sperm, egg, or zygote, it necessarily follows that such life does not require consciousness or self awareness (unless the sperm, egg, and zygote have these attributes but we all have forgotten the experience). The physical aspect of the sperm, egg, and zygote is enough to qualify for human life under this view. But, when you think about what happens to our physical aspect and bodies upon death, you are faced with the reality that our bodies continue to exist while changing the form. Indeed, if you are cremated, your ashes continue to exist. And while nature continually changes the form of or bodies, none of us ever disappear entirely, we just change form. Well, the logical result then, if consciousness or self-awareness are not required for life, we never die. Abortion kills no fetus or zygote, only its form of existence is changed.
Now those who find the above argument odd and unpersuasive would necessarily have to base their contrary view on the idea that some sort of human consciousness or self awareness is required for life. Indeed, that is how society defines death - the brain dies leaving the body as a mere thing without consciousness or awareness of the world. In such a case, since the sperm, egg and zygote apparently lack any consciousness or awareness, these material entities are not human life, and contraception and abortion have no effect on a living person.
Sibby has no childeren. Ask him why, and he will rationalize by telling us that he is in withdrawal from his New Age period = Bullshit pile number one. He embraces dualism and rejects science and reason, claiming that he (and he alone, apparently) understands the nature of reality = Bullshit pile number 2. He claims to be pro-life, and yet he supports capital punishment, war, and the castle doctrine which stipulates that if you come onto his property uninvited, he can pull out his weapon and kill you = Bullshit pile number 3. Three strikes and you're out, Sibby.
Gaia was presented as a god that makes everything always work for the better on earth in a NOVA or other public TV program. That idea was presented more as a target than an ideal.
A philosophy prof at SDSM&T suggested that on the question of why good and evil, that God presents and allows evil to test the free will of humans. Kind of an untestable circle, but creative anyway.
So Steve has a function after all.
[See Bill. See Bill run from reality.]
I hope the rest of you will take a serious look at the trap that has been set by those you push a faux women's rights agenda. The result is the trapping of women and their male feminist supporters into a life of oppression. Further, the idea that science has freed us with inventions such as contraception that allows us to be like god, is a very dangerous worldview.
"castle doctrine which stipulates that if you come onto his property uninvited, he can pull out his weapon and kill you"
The BS part is how Fleming incorrectly defines the castle doctrine.
The idea that I have been victimized by my involvement in the New Age Movement and the promotion of contraception, have not only repented, but I in addition want to educate others about those dangers, is bad in Bill's eyes is very sad.
Interesting analysis, BCB. That would indeed be the analysis a dualist like Descarte would come up with... and he did.
He based existence itself on his ability to think. Something like that is operating with the human life issue,
I think, but it's difficult to ferret out. I think it must have to do with the concept of "ensoulment" which of course is another aspect of the dualism problem, but those arguing the "pro-life" position are reluctant to bring it up because they recognize that doing so would put the conversation into a religious context and so violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, rendering all their political arguments moot.
So they couch their theology in pseudo scientific jargon... something Sibby et all love to accuse their opponants of doing ad nauseum.
Sibby, when you argue "What you do after repentance matters. For example, one who commits murders after their so-called repentance have serious issues."
Doesn't Christ permit more than one repentance? I saw nothing in the Bible that says you can only repent once. And doesn't that really mean that a true believer can lead the most evil and hateful life, and be rewarded with heaven so long as he or she repents at the very last minute before death, leaving time for no further sinning?
If such a view is true, then it would seem to give Christians license to kill and sin during their lifetime. Atheists do not have such a reward system and must decide whether to lead a moral or evil life with no hope of salvation at the end by repenting. Perhaps that is why Christianity is so attractive, it really does give Christians the option of repressing women, committing atrocities, violating all the commandments, and then when the end seems near, repenting. And even if they are mistaken about the end, they have the option of going back to evil and sinful ways until the next threat of death looms.
Doug, I'm most familiar with James Lovelock's work on the Gaia hypothesis and can appreciate the possibility of it based on what we know about biology in general. Something like 90% of the DNA that allows us to function is not in fact human, but rather microbes (bacteria, viruses, etc.) of other species that actually requlate us (specifically, the flora that inhabits our intestinal tract for example.)
The SDSMT prof's free will observation is circular of course. We have free will over good and evil so we can test how well our free will works. Such is the nature of laboring under self imposed paradoxes. :-)
I'm guessing Sibby swallowed the Blarney Stone.
BCB, I do not know what Christ's judgment would be in regard to one with such a heart. If such an individual claims to be a Christian, each of those sins need to be confronted by fellow Christians when exposed. Perhaps 1 Corinthians 5 will be of help here:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
Deb, I am fascinated by your comment "Biblically speaking, every human named exercised their free will. Even slaves. When Jesus called followers, he asked. There was no force, no coercion, no ultimatums. They could say no." Many Christians see all sorts of coercion and an ultimatum. Either use your free will to believe and repent or burn in hell for eternity.
I was struck by the approach Sartre took to such deistic threats in his play "The Flies." When Zeus told Orestes that Zeus had created everything and could destroy it all, looming large as a terrifying God that could do anything it wanted to harm Orestes absent obedience and worship. Orestes responded:
"Let it crumble! Let the rocks revile me, and flowers wilt at my coming. Your whole universe is not enough to prove me wrong. You are king of gods, king of stones and stars, king of the waves of the sea. But you are not the king of man. . . . You blundered. You should not have made me free. . . . Neither slave nor master. I am my freedom. No sooner had you created me than I ceased to be yours." The Flies, Act III (In No exit and three other plays at pp. 120-21).
It appears like Sartre's concept of freedom is quite similar to your interpretation of Biblical free will.
This crossed the twitters the other day:
http://www.businessinsider.com/water-may-have-shaped-human-evolution-2014-7
So Sibby, since you obviously think we're all unworthy of your company here, what the hell are you doing showing up on this blog all the time? Why don't you take St. Paul's advice and buzz off?
"It appears like Sartre's concept of freedom is quite similar to your interpretation of Biblical free will."
BCB, yes by the decision Satan made...No to obedience to God. Sartre's concept of freedom is a false one, as it is perpetuated by the lies of the serpent found in Genesis.
Sibby, isn't that Paul speaking in 1 Corinthians? On the other hand, didn't Jesus explicitly embrace such sinners, as in the story of the prostitute he saved from being stoned, as well as the prostitute described in Luke 7:36-50. And what about Mary Magdalene, arguably the second most important woman in the Bible after Mary, who as a reformed prostitute became the patroness of "wayward women." These women were "sexually immoral" people, yet they were helped and loved by Jesus.
Bill, you have ears but cannot hear and eyes but cannot see.
BCB, remember Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin no more. Paul was first Saul, who persecuted Christians. On the road to Damascus he was confronted by Jesus and he made the free will decision to make a complete 180 degree turn.
BCB, I think the point you brought up explains why I am here. Sad that Bill cannot see that.
Sibby, if Sartre's concept of freedom is false, then how is it that Satan was permitted to make such a choice. Perhaps what you mean is that God will torture and destroy those who refuse obedience. But isn't that what human freedom is all about - humans can choose to reject a God they see as evil and accept the consequences of that decision, as well as the responsibility for making it. As Orestes said, "Let it crumble! Let the rocks revile me, and flowers wilt at my coming." So what God? You have absolutely no control over me unless I choose to give it to you?
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2010/03/holy-spirit-mental-illness-linked.html
BCB, the freedom is false because it makes us bound by sin.
You seem to argue that Paul lacks credibility as you quoted from Luke. Paul's credibility is established in Acts which is believed to be written by Luke.
Steve, you have a head, but cannot extract it from between your gluteus maximus.
This is where Sibby shows us the consequences of his dualism. He believes in two gods, one good and one evil. It's a remnant of Zoroastrianism. To be sure, in his mind, one is greater than the other, but as far as we humans are concerned, both are superior, supernatural beings. It's pure poppycock.
Bill, I agree with you that this God control that Sibby seems to advocate is pure poppycock. Unfortunately, there seem to be a significant number of South Dakotans who agree in whole or in part with these notions, which in turn had become their justification for treating women as second class citizens.
What I find helpful, however, is assuming such arguments could be based on a factually accurate foundation, and then examining whether they still hold up for the purposes argued. That is what fascinated me about The Flies. There was no argument about whether Zeus existed, nor whether he created everything, nor whether he had the power to destroy everything. Rather, the question was what power does that give Zeus over man.
For Sibby's Yahweh, I believe he exists only in the writings and minds of humans. But, assuming I am wrong, so what? For example, I cannot understand how Christians would worship a Yahweh that would kill all the first born Egyptian children, and torture a whole country full of innocent people to accomplish the goal of freeing Israelites that an all powerful Yahwah could have accomplished without hurting the innocent. So if Yahwah exists as Sibby sees him, and I must be punished for refusing to worship him, so be it.
I also take some solace in Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus." Eternal torture and damnation would get a bit boring unless eternal hope was added to the mix. But to be able to give hope and then take it away over and over, is to give the joy of hope over and over. And in contrast, eternal paradise would be just as boring without contrasting challenges and hope.
Exactly, BCB. A morality based on fear of the unknown and loathing of one's fellow man is no morality at all.
"There was no argument about whether Zeus existed, nor whether he created everything, nor whether he had the power to destroy everything. Rather, the question was what power does that give Zeus over man."
Fascinating indeed! Change the word "Zeus" to "nature" and the whole reason for ethics and morality is placed squarely on the table. The bonus would be that whatever we human beings can mutually agree upon could be used as a check to measure the utility to humanity of any religious construct.
Mike: "settled law"? I suppose we could take it to the extreme and say that in a democracy, the law is never settled. We can amend the Constitution. The rule of law is important, but it goes hand in hand with faith in the intelligence and good will of the people.
"For Sibby's Yahweh, I believe he exists only in the writings and minds of humans. But, assuming I am wrong, so what?"
Answer: There are 4 outcomes as to Yahweh exists and whether you chose to believe. If Yahweh does not exist, then the outcome is the same whether we believe or not. When we die, we no longer exist. If Yahweh does exist, and we do not believe, then when we die we suffer wrath. If Yahweh exists and we believe, we enjoy eternal life. There is only one positive outcome, so a logical person would believe Yahweh exists. So BCB, it does matter if you are wrong.
Bill, your comment is reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright's comment: "I believe in God, only I spell it Nature."
http://imgur.com/r/atheism/Hl76g
Sibby, that is Pascal's wager in a nut shell! The problem is, belief is not a choice. One can claim to believe, as you note many purported religious people do, but if the belief is not sincere it counts for nothing.
http://www.livescience.com/46697-algae-sex-gene-identified.html
BCB, if Yahweh does not exist. How did you come into existence?
The second class citizens are those who are in the womb of a New Ager. The victims of abortion mills can be either male and female. So who are you to judge Yahweh for killing the first born of unbelievers?
Bill rightly interprets my use of the term Gaia. He only misses my additional use of the term to provoke Sibby. I suppose that's unnecessary. :-P
"He believes in two gods, one good and one evil."
There is only one creator God. Lucifer is a fallen angel, not a god.
OK Cory, then you are part of the New Age movement whether you admit it or not.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/08/women-sex-health-excuses-birth-control
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2014/07/08/index.html
Sibby, If Yahweh exists, how did it come into existence? I came into existence the same way you did.
I can judge the Yahweh Passover story because I am a person who has adopted a moral code based on what I believe to be right and wrong, and part of my moral code tells me not to kill or torture other people without a very compelling reason. The Bible identifies no such compelling reason for Yahweh to kill the innocent living first born of the Egyptians, nor any reason to torture the innocent Egyptians. Instead, since the Bible claims Yahweh is all powerful Yahweh could have simply put the Pharoh's army to sleep, or otherwise limited their abilities to enforce Pharoh's commands, until the Israelites safety departed Egypt, without harming a single innocent Egyptian.
A woman who does not want to become pregnant, but does anyway through failed birth control, rape, incest has a compelling reason for aborting, as that is the only way to get an unwanted or dangerous fetus-person to stop using her body against her will. And even when a woman who chooses to become pregnant, but then learns of dangerous complications that endanger her life or health, she has no other means to get the danger out of her body.
Individual dignity meaningless in the absence of relationships—profound. Bill's right: quantum physics is all about interactions. So, it seems, is everything else. I'd love to hear Rick Weiland or Larry Pressler speak of quantum physics and this cosmic relational Life in a debate and hear the audience reaction.
The notion that God knows each of us before we are born can't direct policy. It can't mean that every sperm is sacred, because far too few sperm actually carry out their RNA-propagating imperative. It can't mean that every fetus is sacred, because nature stops far too many fetuses from reaching personhood. I don't even think God's preknowledge can define personhood: it's a backward-looking statement, a verbal affirmation of God's time-spanning omniscience accessible only to people capable of language and abstract thought. Heck, is it even a universalizable statement? In Jeremiah 1:5, Jehovah is assuring Jeremiah that Jehovah planned before Jeremiah was born for Jeremiah to be a prophet. It doesn't say when Jeremiah got a soul or became a person. It's a pep talk for one guy. Howie's scriptural citation gives us no policy guidance, and certainly no justification for fiddling around with other women's womb decisions.
Donald duly reminds us that we are compost on legs. Temporary legs.
Cory, as an aside I really appreciate how quickly comments on your posted are put up. It is more like being in a chat room that on a blog. Thanks!
" I came into existence the same way you did."
That is not an argument "based on a factually accurate foundation" as why any of us exists.
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/june/9-are-we-all-martians
"A woman who does not want to become pregnant, but does anyway through failed birth control, rape, incest has a compelling reason for aborting, as that is the only way to get an unwanted or dangerous fetus-person to stop using her body against her will."
That needs to be determined by a jury, so that due process can be given to the alleged perpetrator.
Bearcreekbat, I'll let those comments keep flowing as long as folks keep saying intelligent things like the conversation you and Bill are bringing to the show. Alas, that also means I have to put up with Sibby. Unlike Lee Stranahan, I won't shout troll; I'll just hit Scroll.
Sibson,
There has aways been various forms of contraception since the begging of man. Contraception hasn't always been about pills and condoms.
Larry, that first link of your most recent pair tells us that we should embrace the fact that most women use birth control because they enjoy sex and don't want to risk pregnancy every time they seek that pleasure. That would require giving up the belief that sex is naughty. Dang—maybe we should swing that club. Drop the health arguments and the medical privacy arguments and just say, "Women want to have sex without facing life-changing consequences each time. We have science, drugs, and tools to make that possible. What's wrong with that?"
And if God already knows us, if he has a bunch of little prophets in the metaphysical chute ready to carry out his plan, he'll find a way around those condoms and pills, right?
Watching Sibby bounce himself off the walls here is kind of like watching a pong game. Fun for a while. Then you really want to do something else. http://www.ponggame.org
Yes Roger, and the New Age movement is not new. It is the current form of ancient pagan religions, including Zeus.
And Cory, I do appreciate the discussion, even though you find it disturbing. I have been trying to stay on the topic of contraception and women's rights. Sorry for the times the discussion moved off to other tangents.
Bill, that last comment possessed an incredibly high level of intelligence. But not to the level of the one that used the F word.
"Women want to have sex without facing life-changing consequences each time. We have science, drugs, and tools to make that possible. What's wrong with that?"
Cory, that does not go to the level that women can then covet the cost of such pleasures from their rich neighbors.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/07/one_key_question_health_care_providers_should_ask_women_would_you_like_to.html
The foetus and the right (to a toxin-free) life:
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2013/12/right-to-life-toxic-births-on-rise.html
Does Hobby Lobby's insurance company provide coverage for "male enhancement" medications and/or devices?
If it is wrong for women to receive insurance coverage so that they can engage in pleasurable behaviors, then IMO, it is wrong for men insurance coverage to engage in pleasurable behaviors.
Hobby Lobby could avoid the whole issue by just hiring males, and women over the age of 55 years old. LOL
JeniW, that makes perfect sense. Forbid the hiring of women and see how far Hobby Lobby would fare. If they are so against women, why hire them in the first place. Hint, a 30% discount is the reason would put their bottom line in a severe hurting. That would put the screws to them and they would not give a care which came first, the chicken or the egg.
" The Bible identifies no such compelling reason for Yahweh to kill the innocent living first born of the Egyptians, nor any reason to torture the innocent Egyptians."
BCB, yes it does repeatedly. The Egyptians were worshipping false gods that they brought from Babylon when God confused the languages and that scattered the people as they took there false pagan religions with them. Today, the attempt is to unite all the religions under the same false ancient pagan gods and goddesses, such as Gaia.
It also be true that children have the right to not have parents, family members, and other adults who consume alcohol, and other recreational drugs so they have a toxin free life.
I meant to type "It should also be true that children...."
Toxic adults (alcohol and other recreational drug users) are poison to the mind, body and soul of children
Babble on about Babylon
Now we see Sibby attempting to justify the slaughter of innocent infants. He has absolutely nothing to teach us here. Nothing.
And Bill's last statement is from a pro-abortion advocate.
Interesting that you believe your authority is above God's.
It is the Bible, God's Word, that is justifying, not me. Of course one who beliefs he is like god would have ears that cannot hear and eyes that cannot see.
Oh, JeniW, by Gordon's thinking, HL could justify covering male enhancement as a way to promote Life.
And Hobby Lobby's insurance appears to cover Viagra.
Interesting that you choose to believe in a God that thinks its okay to kill little kids, Sibby. I don't.
Sibby, as I read the story of passover, Jahwah's killing of the Egyptian children had nothing to do with the God these kids' parents worshiped. The killing was simply one of numerous tortures and atrocities Yahwah imposed on innocent Egyptians to convince the Pharaoh to free the Egyptian slaves. Indeed, my recollection of the Biblical chronology is that neither Moses nor any other human being had yet even heard any of the 10 commandments, including the prohibition against the worship of false idols. And recall that we are talking about the killing of innocent first born kids, which presumably included numerous babies and infants who had not even developed the intellectual capacity to worship any God.
I would encourage you to study your Bible in bit more depth to avoid making such significant errors in your religious assertions.
I hope you aren't arguing that everyone who doesn't know about Yahweh, such as those Egyptian children, deserves to be killed by Yahwah. Wouldn't it be a less horrible alternative for Yahweh to let these kids grow up, learn about Yahweh, and then decide whether to worship Yahweh, Baal, or some other God.
Anyway, I have enjoyed this discussion with you, but it seems we are at a dead end. I did not really think I could change your mind, but you do have some interesting ideas that cry out for another stated viewpoint.
Did god kill people, or did people kill people then rationalized it by claiming it was God's doing, or used God to justify their behaviors so that they would not have to be held accountable for being cruel?
It was the same Yahweh that hardened Pharaoh's heart in the first place that required the convincing of the Egyptians even necessary. I guess that is why we need apologist though, so that they can remind us that we should not question God not matter how crazy and unreasonable his actions seem.
BCB, I also enjoyed our conversation, and I to did not believe I could change your mind. But it is important to test ones worldview against other worldviews.
The Bible needs to be read in its entirety in order to understand what seems odd. Egyptian mythology follows other pagan mythologies and Yahweh clearly objected to those false pagan gods, and stated so when He issued the 10 Commandments. One of the errors made with the Bible is to believe that it is perfectly chronological. God's Word is not always laid out that simple. That is why unbelievers lack understanding as they have ears but cannot hear and eyes but cannot see.
JeniW, God killed unbelievers and Biblical prophecy says He will do it again. It is odd that pro-abortion promoters believe that is immoral, as they do the same without God's authority or the authority based on America's due process.
One more point before I move on today. God also brought life to several of those believers who died in the flesh, plus resurrected one true believer...Jesus Christ.
Barry Smith wrote:
>"It was the same Yahweh that hardened Pharaoh's heart in the first place that required the convincing of the Egyptians even necessary. I guess that is why we need apologist though, so that they can remind us that we should not question God not matter how crazy and unreasonable his actions seem."
We should ask God sincere questions but not argumentative rhetorical ones:
"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.' So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, mere man, who answers back to God?"
—The Bible (Romans 9:17-20)
What a vengeful and hostile God that you believe in!!
Since every living being dies, does God hate bugs, animals, plants, reptiles fish, and etc. too?
If it is true that we are all pre-destined, that means God would already know who will be believers and who will not, so why bother bringing non-believers to physical life?
Don't employees pay for their health insurance or at least part of it? How does that relate to women coveting the cost of their pleasure from the rich?
Kurt is it argumentative and rhetorical for an unbeliever to try to ascertain why the all powerful creator of the universe would bring about a course of action which included infanticide, as a method of demonstrating his power?
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Many Christians see all sorts of coercion and an ultimatum. Either use your free will to believe and repent or burn in hell for eternity."
Yes, unfortunately many Christians see it that way.
>"Sibby, that is Pascal's wager in a nut shell! The problem is, belief is not a choice."
Exactly right. Pascal was a great mathematician and a good theologian, but he wasn't a great theologian:
"'I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe...' True. But at least learn your inability to believe ..."
—Blaise Pascal (published posthumously in 1669)
Okay, Blaise, but I'm wondering about those who are unable to believe that they're unable to believe. Presumably they should at least learn their inability to believe that they're unable to believe. And those who are unable to believe that should presumably at least learn their inability to believe that they're unable to believe that they're unable to believe.
You're losing me, Blaise. :)
"JeniW" asks:
>"Since every living being dies, does God hate bugs, animals, plants, reptiles fish, and etc. too?"
It depends on their party affiliation (ha ha). Seriously, God doesn't hate those things. He's the One who made them in the first place.
>"If it is true that we are all pre-destined, that means God would already know who will be believers and who will not, so why bother bringing non-believers to physical life?"
So they can comment on blogs (ha ha). Seriously, God probably has many reasons for every human life.
Barry Smith asks:
>"Kurt is it argumentative and rhetorical for an unbeliever to try to ascertain why the all powerful creator of the universe would bring about a course of action which included infanticide, as a method of demonstrating his power?"
No, but it's argumentative and rhetorical to suggest you're trying to ascertain possible reasons when you're really only using your question as a pretext to mock the Bible.
who really needs a pretext to mock any work of literature?
Kurt, did God create the the person who murdered the children at the Sandy Hook school for that purpose? If God wanted those children not to exist, wouldn't it have been better not to have created the children?
The only mocking I have done in my comments has been of apologists, who I have found to be woefully inadequate in answering these types of questions. I find the Bible much like the other ancient scriptures to be full of wisdom, also like the other ancient scriptures I find it full of fairy tales and tribal justifications for war. Unless you have ever read the Bible as an unbeliever you would as Sibby says "have ears but cannot hear and eyes but cannot see."
"JeniW" asks:
>"Kurt, did God create the the person who murdered the children at the Sandy Hook school for that purpose?"
Using the analogy of Pharaoh in the Romans passage I quoted above (@18:27), that seems possible.
>"If God wanted those children not to exist, wouldn't it have been better not to have created the children?"
Yes, but apparently He did want them to exist.
Kurtz says: Wessington Springs has a oak grove as old as the Abrahamic god and Gaia smashed it like a bug.
Kurt says, Kurtz says, my feeble mind is so confused between the similar insanities.
Now that Sibson has talked himself into utter confusion, let's see how he deals with this.
Given Howie's beliefs and of course Sibson's how do they translate this into a political platform?
Is it their opinion that their religious beliefs on when conception begins can effect government policy or change the Constitution to fit those beliefs?
Wow. This is fascinating. Trying to treat the Bible as a simple history of God is inaccurate.
People have told fables and myths about creation, gods, the meaning of life, what happens when we die, and so on, for as long as human beings have existed. The Old Testament of the Christian Bible is a collection of those myths passed down orally for hundreds of generations by people in the Middle East. In the life of that collection of stories, they've only taken written form fairly recently. You can imagine what sorts of things happen to stories passed down orally. Consider the experiment of passing a secret around a room.
In addition to that, when the myths were in written form, they were copied by hand, over and over. Again, it was a great opportunity for unintentional mistakes.
And intentional changes. Scribes throughout time have edited received work as they deemed fitting.
The same is true of the New Testament, except for the time frame.
So what is the point of the Holy Bible? Good question.
The value to be found is chiefly in regard to relationships. I don't use the OT much, because I feel it has been so deeply compromised, especially the stories about the big, tough, vengeful, bloodthirsty warrior god. In a time of violent lawlessness, a small, weak population needed a big, bad god who could beat all the other gods.
On the other hand, there are some great relationship stories in the OT. The family tree that begins with Eve and Adam, through that pervert Noah, and on to the women who were the foundation of the covenant God established with Sarah, Rebekah and Leah.
Noah wasn't the only real bastard in the bunch. King David was probably the worst. But even those two were forgivable. Good news for all believers.
Geez, I'm getting into my professorial mode. Sorry. Brakes on now. But I could tell you lots more.
Kurt, once upon a time I believed that God was a vengeful and hateful being that loved to cause suffering, thankfully, I do not believe that any more.
IMO, part of the reason why some people prefer not to believe in God is due to people who promote that idea that God is a hostile being. Back in my days, I preferred not to believe in a God than to believe in a god that is a vengeful and angry being.
Why would anyone want to associate with a hateful being unless they themselves have some deep seated anger?
Deb, I am still curious about the notion you presented in an earlier comment on another post that Revelations in the NT is a coded political statement rather than the hearsay word of Jesus himself. Since that book also presents the idea of infanticide by Jesus killing Jezabel's children, can you elaborate on that passage - Rev 2:23?
"In a time of violent lawlessness, a small, weak population needed a big, bad god who could beat all the other gods."
Brilliant insight, Deb. The gods we worship are a reflection of our social power position relative to others.
Deb, thanks for clarifying that you are not a Biblical Christian. That means you are an apostate Christian.
So Bill, you and your fellow Neo-Marxists who use America's history of slavery to argue whites are racists are hypocrites on two counts, along with your promotion of abortion without due process. God was freeing his people from the oppressive slavery of the Egyptians.
I am having the anti-apostate for lunch today. Yummy, I really like all kinds of that for summer lunches. Never heard of the christian though for a meal, I shall look it up.
"Deb, I am still curious about the notion you presented in an earlier comment on another post that Revelations in the NT is a coded political statement"
So does that coded political statement mean Deb and her ilk represents the Harlot? Members of her so-called Christian organization need to deal with that question.
Jerry, are you fulfilling 2 Peter 3:3
knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts,
Per Roger: Now that Sibson has talked himself into utter confusion, let's see how he deals with this.
Given Howie's beliefs and of course Sibson's how do they translate this into a political platform?
Is it their opinion that their religious beliefs on when conception begins can effect government policy or change the Constitution to fit those beliefs?
Instead of baiting everyone here, Sibby, why don't you answer the question Mr. Cornelius asked you?
Bill, it is you and Roger you are doing the baiting and not answering questions that involve your hypocrisies. If you are against killing children, then you need to change your political position and start opposing abortion.
Deb, did your political code ideas regarding Revelation come from Elaine Pagels?
It looks like the Democrats are going to come through with a plan to overrule the clown car of a Subprime Court ruling on HL. Sometimes you just need to respect the judgments of women regarding planing and their bodies to make the right call. It looks to me like these 5 asshats should be replaced by thoughtful women to help direct our country in the correct direction.
I am going to be fulfilling my belly. That would be Jerry at 3:30. 2 is much to early for me.
Okay, don't answer then Steve. We have already established that you support the wholesale murder of innocent children if your god demands it. That's really all we need to know about you and your politics, I suppose.
Bill, and we know that you think you are a god and can advocate for the wholesale murder of innocent children for the sake of immoral sexual pleasure. Such immoral activity is more important to you than freeing the oppressed from slavery.
Nonsense, I don't believe any such thing. I am the one who has 7 children, 11 grandchildren, and one great grandchild. You are the one who blames his reluctance to reproduce on his New Age dalliances. You're projecting, Steve. That's a sign of psychosis. You should seek medical attention and in-depth psychological therapy. And stop flaunting your madness on blogs.
How many people have been wholesale slaughtered in the name of your god,Sibby? Makes you proud to be a christian,don't it?
Wingnuts aren't opposed to abortions. They just don't want the working class to have them. Show me a wingnut with plenty of money that won't send a woman somewhere on the QT to have an abortion.Speaking of hypocrisy.
Mike, I hesitate to generalize Sibby's extreme irrational beliefs on a larger political body. I think (hope?) his is an isolated (and treatable) form of personal mental disfunction.
Bill & Mike, well you two worship goddesses who can implement wholesale slaughters in abortion mills without due process. You two are not qualified to judge the justice of any authority.
"Nonsense, I don't believe any such thing."
Then stop judging God.
I'm not judging God Sibby, that would be absurd. I'm showing you the contours of your mental derangement, for your own good.
"I am the one who has 7 children, 11 grandchildren, and one great grandchild."
And you promote the wholesale slaughter of children in abortion mills. Hypocrite. Abortion is OK, but not in your family. You must think you are a god.
"I'm not judging God Sibby"
One in a state of denial is not qualified to judge the mental status of anyone.
Sorry Cory. I will now end my discussion with Fleming.
I can claim to be all powerful and then stand around and do nothing as well as your god can,Sibby.I'd think any all powerful being wouldn't need mere mortals like you defending him.
Good idea, Steve. Now call a doctor.
Mike, then you will just have to see for yourself someday. Sorry about that.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/09/3458058/new-study-hobby-lobby-birth-control/
So it really is about men wanting control over women. Who knew?
Don't feel bad for me,Sibby. My next life is already planned out and you and your god aren't part of it.
"So it really is about men wanting control over women. Who knew?"
No Mike, it is about not forcing Christians to play god with contraceptives and making them accept such acts as acceptable. That would be acts bigotry and oppression by New Age Theocrats. That analysis is based on the New Agers own worldview component called Neo-Marxism. Sad that you people cannot even follow your own rules. But such is the case for those who think they are godlike.
So, screw immunizations, industrial agriculture, damming rivers and letting cattle destroy god's earth: right, Sibby?
More men getting a vasectomy would solve some of the problem, concern, issues.
Netanyahu is playing god as this is being typed, Sibby.
Help me with this, Madvillagers. Health Insurance is an employee benefit, correct? It's part of the compensation an employee receives in exchange for their labor for the company who provides it. So, how is it that a company has right to dictate how their employees spend that compensation, based on religious beliefs or for that matter, any beliefs whatsoever?
Oops, wrong thread... sorry.
Been there,done that,JeniW. 33 years ago and counting.
Sibby,who knew christianity is not a religion of love and forgiveness,but is full of me,me,me and I want selfishness?
Sibson,it sincerely hurts my irreligious little feelings for christians to give to their church and I want it stopped.
Footnote:
Here's where Sibby's "thinking they are godlike" is really at for Catholics
(...yes, I am a Catholic.)
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/should-we-be-praying-through-him-with-him-in-him-aloud-with-the-priest
"yes, I am a Catholic"
Correction, Bill is an apostate Catholic.
This is what godlike means in regard to the Catholic's Pope as Vicar of Christ:
The word vicar comes from the Latin word vicarius meaning substitution. The on-line version of the Pocket Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. defines the Vicar of Christ as, “The Pope, visible head of the Church on earth, acting for and in the place of Christ. He possesses supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Catholic Church...”
In the Scriptures, however, we clearly see that the Lord sent His Holy Spirit to substitute on His behalf. The Lord Jesus Christ left the supreme, full, immediate, and universal care of souls in the safekeeping of the Divine Person of the Holy Spirit. Christ Jesus had been on earth the Master, the Counselor and the Guide to the believers. On His passing, He promised to send the Holy Spirit that He might abide with them forever. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you (John 16:7). …the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name...(John 14:26).
Thus the Holy Spirit continues among believers until the end of time to carry on Christ Jesus’ work of convicting, teaching, comforting, advising and defending. The following contrast shows that the true and only Vicar of Christ is the Divine Person of the Holy Spirit.
http://www.whateverycatholicshouldknow.com/wecsk/pope_vicar.htm
Well then, the Neo-Confederate fits right into the fold of the compromised Court. Here now comes the Democrats with this, it is beautiful. From TPM http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/murray-udall-legislation-hobby-lobby
"The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don't permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.
The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they're provided under the law is sufficient to respect their religious liberties. (It lets them pass the cost on to the insurer or third party administrator if they object.) Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate.
This bill will restore the original legal guarantee that women have access to contraceptive coverage through their employment-based insurance plans and will protect coverage of other health services from employer objections as well, according to the summary.
Again with the projections? I seem to recall that you were the one who left the church, Steve, and started what you call a religion of your own. A little from here, a little from there... Kind of a mixed bag of beliefs based on your "research." You seem simply incapable of having insight into your severe mental disorder. Your finding fault with others because you can't see them in yourself causes you and the rest of us a lot of problems. Get help soon, buddy.
The neo-confederate is then an aplastic Christian, makes sense to me. I did not know that he started his own religion. That way you get to keep the shekels that have been tossed in the hat, good call. I am thinking of a name for it. Perhaps, I stole this, "The First Church of the Gooey Death", may be appropriate.
So now I present how the Catholic's Pope, acting as Vicar of Christ implemented mass slaughter of those who believe the Bible is God's Word:
Papal authority extended over kings, nations, and rulers, and was fiercely enforced on pain of death. Anybody who dared question Roman Catholic doctrine was branded a 'heretic', excommunicated, tortured, and killed. The Spanish Inquisition boasted of butchering more than three million people in Spain alone. The pope's dictums were elevated above the Holy Bible, and even when they contradicted God's Word, nobody dared to challenge them.
http://www.born-again-christian.info/foxes.book.of.martyrs/why.martyrs.burned.htm
The lesson here is that without the Holy Bible as God's Word and the standard of truth, then man becomes godlike and makes up his own morality. History shows a many examples of mass slaughter when that happens.
Jackley is catholic, so is Schoenbeck: they are covering up clergy who violated Steve all those years ago.
Stay away from the parks and trees as you are nuts and the squirrels will get you and then gnaw on you to show you Gaia.
Larry, claiming all Catholics are evil is a bigoted position. I thought you were against bigotry?
Which part of the great harlot escapes you, Steve?
Steve, can you only answer questions that relate to our own philosophy? I asked a very direct and logical question about how you, or Gordon, apply your theology or religious beliefs to a political platform or how it applies to potential legislation. It was not bating you.
How would you suggest Gordon use the "Church of Sibson" in bringing about political reform or constructing laws that fit your all knowing god like personna?
You need a reefer, Sib. Something to lighten you up, dude.
MFI, very good about having a vasectomy.
My brother married a woman who had three children from a previous marriage. They could not afford to have another mouth to feed, and financially support in other ways. They made the decision for him to have the surgery. That meant that my SIL could stop taking birth control pills, the procedure was relatively inexpensive compared to her having her "tubes tied/cut," or having a partial hysterectomy, they could enjoy their sexuality without worry, and to this day they have not had any regrets.
Roger, I cannot answer the question because there is no political man-made solution. The solution will happen with the return of Jesus Christ. There are some who believe that they have to take dominion of the government and other institutions in order to create the Kingdom of God on Earth before Christ can return. I disagree with that.
The only thing political that I would work on is laws that protect Christians from the New Age Theocrats.
Jenny, if I lighten up anymore I will start wondering if I am not being raptured. :-)
If you get a vasectomy you may not have to worry so much about getting a rapture.
Jerry, LOL .... tell that to my brother.
I am pretty confident that he and his wife have experienced "rapture" of their own making numerous times.
Steve, our Constitution already provides for Freedom of/from religion, do you seriously believe that Christians need "special" additional protections? I would suspect that any group of paranoid parishioners from any religion would also expect the same protections. Islamist/Muslims would probably require protection from Christians.
In my religious up bringing, I was always taught that when Jesus returned to earth, the world would end. If that is true, the questions of government, politics, and religion would be a moot point would it not?
Apparently several of you wonderful Madizens are engaging with Sibson. Reading half the discussion is much more fun than reading the Church of Sibson's comments. Or is it the Sibson Free Church? The "free" part is very popular with people who create their own church, theology and doctrine. Some of them become little kingdoms for their leaders, though most don't move to South America and make their acolytes suicide.
I don't know if he's still there, but Roger Day moved back to Highmore and has his own little religion there. Most notable in his doctrine is very strict control of women. He has decided how they must dress, wear their hair, be subservient.
I was really surprised to learn what he was doing from a sister pastor in Highmore. Roger and I are the same age and went to college at NSC. I guess one can always be surprised.
Hey Deb, you don't think the neo-confederate will go all Waco with his flock? I don't know the dude but from his rants, you just know he one lightning storm away from stepping over the cliff, so is he like your classmate? Kind of repressed in a strange sort of way.
I don't know Jerry. I haven't seen or spoken to him since the mid 70s. My colleague, living in small town Highmore, 700-800 (?) population, would know. She is a reliable source.
BCB, I will respond to your question about Revelation later this evening. It's time for me to get started on my second job, umpiring softball! It's a lot of fun.
Deb, according to the Highmore SD web page, Roger appear to run the only church in town.
http://www.highmoresd.govoffice3.com/index.asp?SEC=5E72096F-0C90-40BA-8D20-2EDF92FAECD3&DE=64AC49A4-DE75-49CC-AB5A-11A382E18E47&Type=B_BASIC
Meanwhile, I still would like to learn more about your take on the book of Revelations, especially at 2:23.
Deb, I will await your comments! Thanks!
Sibby needs to worry about hisownself,the only thing he can actually control.Or at least he should be able to control.
Help me out, friends. What post could I put up that would get Steve Sibson and Lee Stranahan going at it in the same comment section?
Do you folks remember that original Star Trek episode, "The Alternative Factor"? I think Sibby and Lee are alternative universe counterparts. If they come together, they will destroy the universe. But if we can lure them into a blog post, push them into the comment section, and then fire phasers while they fight, we can trap them in that transuniversal corridor and save our universe from them. That's my plan. Suggestions?
Cory, the last several comments (including yours) shows the bigotry from those who mock others for their bigotry. Sad these people go to such lengths to avoid reality. Mockery is also very juvenile.
BCB, I willing to bet Deb's Revelation position is based on Elaine Pagels. Sounds much like pagans doesn't it?
call the waambulance, sib.
Sibby, Pat is an apostate yet you believe you can sway us pagans: waddup widdat?
Roger, thanks for the sensible questions. This website shows the high level of hatred toward Biblical Christians. Especially from the apostate Christians such as Deb. I think the biggest threat to Christians and Islamist are the New Age Theocrats, which does include the aforementioned apostates. In fact the apostates are the most dangerous as they give their followers a false sense of being Christian.
You last point was addressed when I said politics will not provide the solution, the return of Jesus Christ will. The still open question is when the rapture will happen in relation to the Great Tribulation.
Larry, I do not believe I can sway pagans. That job is for the Holy Spirit. The same goes for apostates.
Sibby: you live in a sewer created by your neighbors but you don't seem to want to fix that.
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_watershed.control?p_huc=10160011&p_cycle=&p_report_type=T
The neo-confederate is trying to convince himself that he is something that he is not. Mr. Sibson does not like women. For some reason, perhaps fear, he and the rest of his crowd despise, fear and want to control them to the point of slavery. That is why they are so in love with Jim Crow laws and white supremacy roles they imagine themselves the masters of. This was proven with his words about the Mississippi open primary voting that was won by of all things, a republican in a republican primary, sakes alive.
Sibby,
The fact is that there are very few here that have attacked Christians or Christianity. It is more that you are playing a victim when anyone questions or challenges your philosophy.
Your penchant for labeling everybody with neo-this or neo-that, apostate, and whatever, actually borders on being judgmental. Doesn't the bible say something about judging others?
Most here know that I'm Native American and also know that most tribes did not know about the bible or Jesus, some not learning until well into the 1800's. They lived with their belief in the creator for centuries and did quite well.
When the black robes and other missionaries and a government called a democracyarrived all of their beliefs were trashed, we hang on to what little is left of our religious culture to this day.
Christians were responsible for insurmountable acts of genocide of Indians, a time when even government boarding schools punished children for not having Christian beliefs.
So much for Freedom of Religion, huh? Once again with the Freedom of Religion thing, it applied only to the white men that framed the Constitution.
I don't have any contempt for Christians and their beliefs, I do have contempt for messengers of the bible that preach a godlike life to others and fail to live by their words with their blatant disrespect for Christians and other religions that don't mirror their own often times perverted beliefs.
Deb is a respected and well education Lutheran minister, her accomplishments are many, she serves many with her good deeds, she has likely performed more Christian acts of kindness than you will ever hope to.
And yet you find it necessary to hang a label on her, I don't always agree with Deb, but I find her comments insightful and not full of condemnation.
Cory,
In response to your challenge, why don't you have a thread titled "The Battle of the Sexes" starring Sibby and Stranahan?
"Doesn't the bible say something about judging others?"
Yes 1 Corinthians 5 which insists we judge those who claim they are Christian. You know the ones. Those that committed genocide. They weren't Biblical Christians, they were apostates. Just like Deb.
Yes 1 Corinthians 5 which insists we judge those who claim they are Christian. You know the ones. Those that committed genocide. They weren't Biblical Christians, they were assholes. Just like Steve.
Maybe you can convince Stranahan that Sibby is Bosworth in drag. Tell Sibby that Stranahan is the walrus and needs to be saved.
The most outrageously stupid comment on this thread, "You know the ones . Those that committed genocide. They weren't Biblical Christians, they were apostate".
Steve, do you truly believe that the Native Americans that were slaughtered as a result of genocide by white Christians really gave a good goddamn whether their murderers were Christian or apostate Christians.
Just as the Republicans today, Christians came in droves to the west, with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other.
Regardless of what you think Sibson, Christians were responsible for the horrendous act of genocide. And your feeble defense, they weren't my kind of Christians. That is just stupid.
Mr. C, it was the Catholics.
It was not my agnostic white grandpappy.
"JeniW" asks me:
>"Why would anyone want to associate with a hateful being unless they themselves have some deep seated anger?"
One possible reason would be to help the hateful being. (There are circumstances under which God can and does hate, but He's not a hateful being.)
hateful beings r us.
Christianity is made up of hundreds of denominations and pseudo denominations. The only hard and fast rule about Christianity is that Jesus Christmas is God's only child, and is divine.
Generally, an overwhelming percentage of Christians agree that God is the only god, the Holy Bible is just that, (Though all Christians don't agree on exactly which writings make up the Bible.) and the Divine consists of 3 parts - God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.
There is vast disagreement about just what those 4 items; God, Jesus, Bible, Trinity; mean and how they ought to be understood and used. That's why all the denominations exist.
Here's the most important thing: No one knows for sure, regardless of how strongly they might insist they do. We're not God. We're just human beings, muddling along trying to do the best we can.
Deb, very well stated. But I still think Sibson is a communist.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"The Old Testament of the Christian Bible is a collection of those myths ... The same is true of the New Testament ..."
There's enough historical evidence outside the Bible to create a basic outline of Christ's life, but for someone who doesn't consider the Bible reliable, there's not nearly enough information to enable that person to become His follower in any meaningful sense.
If you want to make up your own religion, you're free to do that, but I don't understand how you justify identifying yourself as a Christian if you believe there's no reliable record of what Christ taught.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"The only hard and fast rule about Christianity is that Jesus Christmas is God's only child, and is divine."
I'm wondering what your basis for that claim is.
>"Here's the most important thing: No one knows for sure, regardless of how strongly they might insist they do."
I'm wondering whether you believe that applies to your own claims.
Kira at Bashi. Temba, his arms wide.
Absolutely it applies to my own claims Mr. Evans. I don't know and you don't either.
As far as the list of 4 commonalities among Christians, I base that on years of study among and with exceptional Christian scholars. I'm very fortunate to have that opportunity.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote to me:
>"I don't know and you don't either."
I'm wondering how you claim to know whether I know, especially considering that, by your own admission, you don't know.
"As far as the list of 4 commonalities among Christians, I base that on years of study among and with exceptional Christian scholars. I'm very fortunate to have that opportunity."
Jesus opposed the so-called scholars of his day for being hypocrites and false teachers. You are among them today. There are more than one hard and fast rule. Try on the 10 Commandments.
Steve, what can we do to get you to investigate and write some blog posts on Lee, Chad, and Annette?
John Oliver nails it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQCH1qyIDo
Cory, I will consider that. I support what you are doing in exposing the issues that you have covered regarding Annette.
I do want to get back to writing blog posts. I have been holding back lately for two reasons. Number one, I would like to retire from my job so I can focus all of my resources on writing. Second, I have been reading and researching a lot of material that I hope will give me a better foundation on which to write. I have been testing some of that on your web site lately, so I appreciate the liberties that you have allowed. I will be conscious of keeping things on topic as much as possible.
BCB, sorry for taking so long to get back to you about Revelation.
I may have used the word "code", but that's not really the best terminology. There is not a word for word, letter for letter substitution code. It was more like idea for idea. Perhaps a better way I can describe it is through examples:
"There was a terrible landslide in the Hills. 303 people were killed."
"Oh no! That's worse than '72."
or-
"A guy sped right through the stop sign and Janklowed the man on the motorcycle. "
We get those, but nobody outside SD, or maybe MN and ND would have any idea what we were talking about. That's how Revelation was written. That's how it is to the Jews.
If a vacationer asked what it means to be Janklowed, we could make up anything we wanted, and they'd never know. The Romans were clueless about what the Israelite were really saying because, when asked, the Jews just made stuff up. They said it was all about far off in the future predictions. No threat to Rome at all. Just bizarre religious hallucinations.
If they had told the truth, they might have been killed. It was really pretty clever.
For centuries that was a common understanding of Revelation, but as civil/religious leaders became more skilled at using religion to further their economic and political goals, many of the common understandings of the people began to morph, often drastically.
Kurt, I'm not an orthodox Christian, and don't claim to be. There is value in the Bible, but it's not in verse by verse dissection. It's in the big picture, major themes, and understanding the history of the collection pre-1300s.
It's important to know that for 300-400 years imagery in churches consisted of The Lamb, flowers, streams, trees. There were no crosses, no bloody corpses, no stations of the cross. Women were co-celebrants, worship was shared among all the people. There were no positions of power. The people were listened to because they were wise, kind, loving, thoughtful, and insightful. They were probably literate, but it wasn't necessary. There was no theology, no doctrine, no orthodoxy.
As with just about everything, as the number of followers of Jesus grew, they began to desire more form, rules, so they could tell who was out and who was in. Worse came when Constantine declared the newly named Christianity the official state religion of the Holy Roman Empire.
When politics meets religion it's usually bad for all involved, and the 13th century was no exception. Religion has repeatedly shown itself as a great asset to the powerful, or powerful wannabes. However an open and loving God will not suffice. Crucifixes were painted over pastoral scenes in the sanctuaries, Original Sin blossomed, orthodoxy became a mainstay, etc. Coercion abounded.
Remember that at the helm of all of this was white men. Only in the past 50 years have non white and non male humans played any role in forming the faith. Of course women and people of color see it differently. They have much more in common with Jesus and his earliest followers. They were/are all people with little or no power, people under control of another, people with minimal rights.
The orthodoxy that has come to us is inauthentic. In the Christian Church in the present, there is a great upheaval, a powerful change happening. It is a good thing, even though it is hard, very frightening for many, and no one knows exactly where it will lead or how long it will take to get there.
I don't think there is a "there" to get to. I think reforming the faith is an ongoing thing and that is how it should be. Here's the way I think about this very exciting time in religion:
"You better buckle your seat belts folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride."
These videos are great, Cory.
I didn't read all 283 comments that precede this one, so maybe this was brought up already... but I think Carl Sagan's essay on abortion gives the best secular analysis.
Nutshell: at the point the fetus acquires brainwaves, he/she acquires what is (will be) unique to the human experience and ALSO the possibility of feeling pain... thus, that makes the best line for defining personhood and granting legal rights. In general, it is close to the time that the fetus become viable... around 24 weeks.
Also, cross-ex the person-at-conception argument with "Should we screen every single toilet flush in every women's bathroom for zygotes?" At least 18% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and if those zygotes really are people, then we should be diving in to save them as we would a drowning infant.
Finally, this story is fantastic:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
Kind regards,
David
Thanks for your comments about Revelations Deb. What do you think the author of Rev 2:23 was saying, and was this supposed to be Jesus speaking or was this too code, like being Janklowed?
David, thanks for the excellent link! I hope every single anti-choice advocate reads it and thinks about the unintended consequences of banning, not abortion, but safe health care for women.
"Remember that at the helm of all of this was white men."
Yes Deb I agree that you are not an orthodox Christian, You are a male hating racist fueled by a Neo-Marxist worldview posing as a Christian.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/07/zealot-author-reza-aslan-in-talks-with-cnn-191961.html
290 comments on the way to 2 million hits at Madville!
Hobby Lobby, ya gotta love'm http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/28/satanists-want-to-use-hobby-lobby-decision-to-exempt-women-from-anti-abortion-laws/
Funny stuff and shows that God has a sense of humor.
When does life really begin?
When the children move out and the dogs die.
Steve Sibson wrote:
>"Yes Deb I agree that you are not an orthodox Christian, You are a male hating racist fueled by a Neo-Marxist worldview posing as a Christian."
This is apparently Steve's way of saying he doesn't see it that way, Deb. (For the record, I don't see it Steve's way.)
Thanks Kurt. I don't read Sibson's comments. I don't find them helpful, and he likes to hijack posts with his religious issues.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"Thanks Kurt. I don't read Sibson's comments. I don't find them helpful, and he likes to hijack posts with his religious issues.
It's the name-calling I could do without. I'm actually a big fan of hijacking posts (ha ha).