Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Huckabee Submits Liberal View of Text
At last night’s intermittently entertaining GOP debate in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee was asked about a 1998 USA Today advertisement in which he and 130 other signatories endorsed the Report of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee to the Southern Baptist Convention.
One of the lines from the report that Huckabee and others praised a decade ago reads as follows:
“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
For months now, bloggers have been mulling this over -- something that the diligent Fox News staff must have picked up on (Though the ad, I as best I can tell, only appeared in USA Today and not The New York Times , as Carl Cameron's question indicated). Huckabee responded calmly, with the demeanor of a professor clarifying a popular misconception expressed by a well-meaning, but utterly misguided, freshman.
He began by citing the scriptural prooftext for the SBC statement which is found in the Book of Ephesians. In his own words:
"... the point, and it comes from a passage of scripture in the New Testament Book of Ephesians, is that as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it's not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other. It's both mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.
"So with all due respect, it has nothing to do with presidency. I just wanted to clear up that little doctrinal quirk there so that there's nobody who misunderstands that it's really about doing what a marriage ought to do, and that's marriage is not a 50/50 deal, where each partner gives 50 percent.
"Biblically, marriage is 100/100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other and that's why marriage is an important institution, because it teaches us how to love."
Huckabee seems to have interpreted those verses of Scripture liberally (so to speak) at best, and incorrectly at worst (I think the same can be said about his reading of the SBC report that he was praising in that 1998 ad, but I have not had time to peruse the entire statement).
Here is the passage from Ephesians 5:22-25 in the King James Translation (I have bolded the relevant sections):
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. (24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. (25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
The verse does say that wives should submit to their husbands. It does not say, as Huckabee implies, that husbands too -- in some grand spirit of aforetime marital egalitarianism -- should submit to their wives. Husbands are enjoined to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. The men do the loving. The women do the submitting. (I repeat that I can't tell yet if this gendered division of labor is something that the SBC document concurs with).
I have noticed in previous posts that little mistakes like this happen all the time with the Bible. I make them frequently as well. And I am much more concerned about another aspect of his response to this question, which I will elaborate upon next week. Still, if Huckcabee’s faith is his life, if it “defines” and “drives” him, then he will need to give the electorate a more detailed and accurate explanation of his understanding of that troubling passage from Ephesians.
(For more information about religion and the candidates, visit Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.)
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
January 11, 2008; 12:57 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Will "Agents of Intolerance" Return to SC? |
Next: Women's Place
Posted by: Parker | January 15, 2008 11:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E Fav, thanks for the Youtube link. That was hilarious. I hadn't seen them before so I watched them all. Great stuff.
Posted by: Chip | January 15, 2008 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Parker -
Thanks for the chat.
Having once been counted among the faithful, I'm well familiar with the arguments you're making. They're not original and they're not that good, to be honest about it.
Christianity always wants to have it both ways. We non-believers are told that one need only look around them to see god's wonder, and that one needs only the faith of a child to believe and receive salvation. On the other hand, faith is a complicated matter. What Jesus said can't be taken at face value. There are layers upon layers to dig through to gain true enlightenment. Indeed, the simplest statement of the Bible often has some deep, dark mystery attached to it that when examined reveals a meaning opposite to what seemed so obvious.
Jesus' story about god tending to the sparrow is a case in point. Told on a simple level, the story gives believers the impression that if god takes care of the least of all his creation, then he must surely take care of you, his chosen ones. Point out that most birds meet horrible deaths and we suddenly switch gears and plumb the story for some hidden meaning.
Or, take the position that Jesus was aware of science and used it to perform miracles. Point out that jesus was actually clueless about science, and suddenly we enter the realm of metaphor. Well, which is it? Oh, right, which ever way supports one's belief.
It's sadly typical that the simple story will suffice for most believers, at least until the underlying realities of the story are challenged! Then, it's off to he races and it's open season on whatever explanation one wishes to offer.
Like a garden-variety horoscope, the Bible plays both sides of the coin. Non-believers are fools when they say in their hearts "there is no god." That's the "bad" kind of Biblical fool, and that particular verse is probably the most-hurled-at-non-believers epithet in the Xian's arsenal of hurled-at-non-believer epithets. The GOOD type of Biblical fools are Paul's "fools for Christ," or the fools that Jesus speaks of, ie: the not-wise people who get his teachings, as god has hidden their meaning from the wise and prudent.
Non-believing fool: bad. Believing fool: good.
When it comes to scoffing, it's bad to scoff at Jesus' teachings, even when they are nonsensical. However, the Psalmist tells us that it's a good thing that god will laugh in scorn at the unbelievers before he tears them to pieces (Psalm 37:13).
Like a good politician, god panders to every side of every argument.
As I've said before, the believer looks at these sayings and ponders HOW they are true. The skeptic looks at these same sayings as ponders WHETHER they are true.
Thanks again for the chat.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 15, 2008 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker: “I can answer whatever you think I am evading, and I'm willing to do it for you because I actually think you have in your heart a seed of belief that is waiting to sprout at some point in your life--could be many years.”
I have no doubt you can answer anything – you’ve already shown this ability and I’ve seen your answers are ultimately circular, relying on faith when reason alone will not suffice. Such is the argument of the sophisticated, intelligent religious believer.
I fear you’ve misread me. I had a seed of disbelief that was waiting to sprout and has been nourished by studying Christian history. I had always accepted science – just separated it from religion (as I was taught to do in catechism). My interest in talking with you and people like you is to understand you, not to try to be more like you.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 15, 2008 11:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
The Bible is a book talking about revelation and revealed knowledge and how that is obtained. I don't see how that is the exclusive province of Mormonism at all, and I appreciate the truths figured out by Shakespeare and Darwin as much as by anyone else. Just because the explanation that this life is a test with a whole myriad of "rewards"--or in other words, everyone gets what they ultimately have desired--and you don't like that because it destroys a straw man premise, you say I have built up a wall of defense or in other words have copped out. I can answer whatever you think I am evading, and I'm willing to do it for you because I actually think you have in your heart a seed of belief that is waiting to sprout at some point in your life--could be many years. In other words, you're fine as you are. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Parker | January 15, 2008 9:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker - Now it seems like you're suggesting that God saved understanding and appreciation of his infinite knowledge for the Mormons. How nice for the Mormons and how typical of God – always choosing favorites.
And scoffing at the inanities in the bible is also covered. Any criticism can forego examination and be dismissed as being “the easy way out.” A perfect closed system.
As I read your comments and those of other strong believers, I’m think I’m starting to understand what people mean when, struggling with doubt, they say, “It only makes my faith stronger.” Perhaps it means that in order to hold on to their faith, they’ve had to put up a stronger wall of defense to resist outside forces.
Thanks for sharing your thinking.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 15, 2008 8:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
I agree that faith is a component that is necessary, but in my religion it is commonly understood that "miracles" from our perpective used natural laws and faith combined. My religion has had plenty of scientists who have had no problem reconciling the two fields. But faith is understood as necessary. I like James E Talmage's writings, Barker's, and have read others'. Again, this is common knowledge in my religion. They and I agree that the early Catholic and Protestant churches were way off base with regards to disputing the advances of science, including Galileo.
Mr Mark,
The Savior used metaphors, symbolism, hyperbole, personification, and other literary methods including speaking from the human perspective in His teachings, and one of the reasons is exactly as you inferred--to allow people who wanted to scoff the easy way out, to hide truths and allow all sorts of misinterpretations. For example, the mustard seed growing into a large bush in Palestine such that a bird can build a nest in it, doesn't make it a "tree" scientifically, but the comparison in Matthew 13 symbolizes how the gospel would grow from what would appear to be almost nothing to something very substantial. But seriously, scoff all you like--it's to be expected.
Posted by: Parker | January 15, 2008 5:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E Fav -
Enjoyed your posts to Parker.
Parker -
The few examples in the Bible where Jesus talks in a "scientific" way show that he was an idiot when it came to the subject.
In Mark, Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, and that it grows into "the greatest of all trees." But the mustard seed isn't the smallest seed, and NO plants in the mustard family grow into trees.
In Matthew, Jesus says, "The moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven." Looks like Mr Science got both of those things wrong - the moon doesn't emit its own light, and there are trillions of stars that will never fall from heaven onto the earth.
Jesus tells his followers that god will take care of them, just as he takes care of the smallest sparrow. But the scientific truth is that most birds die before leaving the nest, and the few who manage to fly soon die painful deaths of starvation, predation, or disease. If THAT'S what god has in store for his believers, I'd think twice about it!
In Luke, Jesus avers that epilepsy is caused by devils, that people who cannot speak are possessed with devils and that illnesses are caused by Satan. Jesus also believed the story of Noah's ark.
In John, Jesus says that no one knows which way the wind is blowing, and he believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin (he tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.")
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if Jesus was god and understood *anything* about science that he wouldn't have made so many stupid errors, errors that would eventually be revealed to mankind once the scientific method took hold?
Let's face it - Jesus gets a Big Fat F in science.
I'll tell you what would have impressed me about Jesus' scientific knowledge - if he had only once mentioned the marsupials or micro-organisms. Tell us something about the world that lay beyond the view seen from your outhouse, Jesus. I mean, THAT would have been impressive.
Instead, Jesus left a bunch of bone-headed stupidities lying around for everyone to see - and to rightly ridicule.
Some scientist. Some omniscient god. Some savior.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 14, 2008 11:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Chip – if you’re still tuned in – check this out: Mr. Deity and the really big favor – (the Crucifixion) featuring the father, son and holy ghost -- Mr. Deity, Jesus and Larry
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Dzuxyq3ltls&mode=related&search
Parker – Beware – it’s very irreverent and is produced by an ex-Mormon.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 14, 2008 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker, so you ARE saying the miracles weren’t miracles. They weren’t supernatural – they were natural phenomena that we humans hadn’t figured out yet? Where did you learn that? In church-sponsored religious education classes? In a book (if so, which one?) In college or grad school? Or did you figure it out on you own?
Also, you say, “. He would not spoon-feed it to us--that would be outside of and contrary to His purposes”
How do you know that? It seems like knowing the mind of God.
And this: “Yes, it seems like there has been a great deal of "needless" suffering due to lack of knowledge, but it would have been available if people had been willing to seek after the knowledge.”
Some people were seeking quite assiduously (e.g., Galileo), only to be stopped by religious authorities who felt they were heretics or interfering with the will of God. Scientists are always seeking after knowledge and are often hampered by religious people (e.g., creationists) who won’t accept anything but a biblical explanation.
Parker – you're starting to sound like a high-level Spidey – i.e., a spoofer trying to make Christians look bad with convoluted explanations of the bible and God’s motives and actions. Please consider dropping this kind of argument and just going back to simple faith – no need to explain it, it’s just there and gives you comfort.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 14, 2008 9:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
I do think that Christ knew enough to perform "miracles" using scientific knowledge that He knew, and that the world is invited to gather that knowledge as fast as we are able to figure it out, no faster. He would not spoon-feed it to us--that would be outside of and contrary to His purposes.
Yes, it seems like there has been a great deal of "needless" suffering due to lack of knowledge, but it would have been available if people had been willing to seek after the knowledge. So, that knowledge has been gathered bit by bit, and of course I am heartily glad scientists have been involved in that process. (I actually think all the struggle to gather correct knowledge, such as the now-simple treatment of ulcers, is part of the growth God has wanted us to do in this life, collectively.)
Energy, light, and matter are interchangeable, so the ascension doesn't seem to me to be outside of the realm of possible science. Think of cell phone technology times 100. Peace to you.
Posted by: Parker | January 14, 2008 9:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker:
**1) you don't think a virgin could under today's scientific possibilities have a fertilized egg?**
Sure - if she had been fooling around with a guy and let him almost penetrate - it happens. But that would make Jesus an ordinary baby born to a couple of ordinary horny teenagers. If he was male, there was a Y chromosome that had to come from somewhere.
**2) you don't think DNA tests and skin cell findings in lieu of stem cells within current science point in a direction that says "resurrection" is plausible?**
Not true resurrection in a time without advanced mnediacal equipment. Comatose and revived? Sure, that would definitely be possible, even back then. But reversing brain death? Nope.
**3) you don't think a super-knowledgable person could use chemistry to re-create the chemical make-up of "wine"?**
Are you suggesting that Jesus carried a chemistry set around with him? Or that he was a McGyver prototype? Wine production involves fermantation, a process that requires a certain amount of time to occur, and which cannot be accomplished instantaneously.
So I must say that I find no way for the miracle stories associated with Ieshua to have literally happened. They are merely hijacked re-tellings of older myths with the names changed.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 14, 2008 7:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker - are you saying that God is actually a scientist whose ancient miracles were instead feats of science that he decided to use 2,000 years ago to make it appear that his son was born of a virgin, resurrected and ascended into heaven (you didn't address that one)and then he didn't do anymore science, leaving the rest for humans to discover, incrementally over thousands of years, while he watched from above (with his son) while his creation suffered and died from various plagues and other maladies?
Posted by: E Favorite | January 14, 2008 7:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
Please be aware that I'm not trying to "infuriate" anyone, but:
1) you don't think a virgin could under today's scientific possibilities have a fertilized egg?
2) you don't think DNA tests and skin cell findings in lieu of stem cells within current science point in a direction that says "resurrection" is plausible?
3) you don't think a super-knowledgable person could use chemistry to re-create the chemical make-up of "wine"?
Well, I guess we differ in these areas. That's fine with me.
Posted by: Parker | January 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Fav wrote:
"BUT so often believers make it quite complicated anyhow - if they get into trying to figure out the bible."
As I've said elsewhere, believers proceed from the position of finding out HOW the Bible is true, rather than from the position of finding out WHETHER it is true. Big difference.
And, as I've also said many times, I have no problems with people like Jon Meecham who openly admit that their beliefs are irrational. They don't try to find a basis in logic or fact for their beliefs, they just believe (even if there's major compartmentalization going on).
It's the ones who try - always unsuccessfully, it turns out - to offer rational explanations for the Bible when none holds water, or who refuse to believe factual information that counters the Bible as is often the case, that are so infuriating.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 14, 2008 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Paganplace and Joet, you two are the best example of what I'm talking about. The Bible is an intelligent book and idiots should stay away from it coz they do more damage than good to themselves and to others."
If so, I submit it'd still be a good idea for its followers to *learn English, already,* Mr. 'coz.' before going and posturing about how they know better than all of science based on sophomoric, (and highly fallacious) reasoning about texts that know nothing *about* the subject.
Let me guess, you're a teen that someone puffed up with 'Biblical authority' as some kind of instant intellectual gratification, cause you need to make up for something.
Unfortunately, the only road that'll lead you down is becoming more and more invested in thinking you're not the one that looks like an idiot, all the while becoming less and less equipped to get out of that hole.
You can keep your Bible, just remember it's not a magic talisman with all the answers. You gotta live. Especially if you want to style yourself 'wise.'
Capiche?
Posted by: Paganplace | January 14, 2008 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker: "If the Creator (Organizer of this earth) were to go about willy-nilly doing whatever whimsical, capricious thing He wanted to do (as though He would want to do anything contrary to universal laws, which is categorically untrue), then He would lose His omnipotence because He would cease to be master of the order in the Universe."
What about the virgin birth,resurrection and ascension, not to mention turning water into wine? those are contrary to universal laws.
Mr Mark: "Pure belief is fine"
Points well taken, BUT so often believers make it quite complicated anyhow - if they get into trying to figure out the bible.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 14, 2008 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Good thinking, Mar si Doats
xo Doe si Doats
Posted by: Doe si Doats | January 14, 2008 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker - Pam and Chip have already expressed my views. I can see that Chip's comments could sound glib, but only if you already have a noble interpretation of a ghastly act -- and as someone raised Christian, I did. If I had heard Chip's interpretation the first time as a strong believer, I might have found it glib, irreverent or even heretical. As a questioning believer, I might have found it shocking, but fascinating.
As it is, I had already thought about Jesus supposed sacrifice myself, so his description sounded brilliantly clear.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 14, 2008 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam,
I don't have to "bend and twist the scriptures," but there are levels of meaning that can be discerned quite easily, if one is alert. However, those can also be missed entirely, if one wishes, as S2 has done. I suspect I feel as "free" as you or more, but that's because I'm willing to observe laws of balance in nature and life, in both senses of the word "observe".
If the Creator (Organizer of this earth) were to go about willy-nilly doing whatever whimsical, capricious thing He wanted to do (as though He would want to do anything contrary to universal laws, which is categorically untrue), then He would lose His omnipotence because He would cease to be master of the order in the Universe. I don't think that is so hard to understand, but to each their own.
I'm not trying to win you over to my point of view--only trying to add a little more depth to what I said before. Peace.
Posted by: Parker | January 14, 2008 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comparison between this kind of discussion and the likely similar ruminations of the Taliban are tooo scarey! I was under the impression that we are governed under a democracy, not a theocracy. Let's stick to what the Constitution says folks
Mar-si-doats
Posted by: Mar-si-doats | January 14, 2008 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam writes:
"Your second paragraph is yet another convoluted interpretation of what it takes to be "saved." It seems to me that there are as many of those as there are believers."
When you really think about it, religious belief is the laziest and most-egocentric thing going on the planet.
The religionists love to bash the scientifically aware, but at least we all agree on what science does and doesn't say. Were science a religion, we could believe or disbelieve in gravity as our whims allowed. But science doesn't work that way. You WILL encounter hellfire if the o-rings freeze on your space shuttle during launch. You WILL most-likely die if you smash into a brick wall at 90mph.
Religion - which has no truths that are set in stone - attracts the ego-centric in people. If Islam seems to strong for you, opt for Christianity. If you pick Xianity, there are plenty of sects with different beliefs to choose from. If the language of the literal Bible is too strong, then simply join a sect that isn't all hellfire and brimstone. If you can't find a sect that closely mirrors your fears and beliefs, then, just hold to a personal belief with a personal interpretation of the scriptures. Cherry pick that which you like, discard the rest.
It's all good. No standards. No truths. Just fears and opinions. I'm OK. You're OK. God's OK. YAWN!
One need expend not a whiff of intellectual energy on this. No need to learn anything! Pure belief is fine!
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 14, 2008 3:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker,
The god in your first paragraph doesn't meet the definition of omnipotence.
Your second paragraph is yet another convoluted interpretation of what it takes to be "saved." It seems to me that there are as many of those as there are believers.
Doesn't it make you wonder at all that you have to bend and twist the scriptures so much to have them make sense? The fundies may meet the definition of the clinically insane, but at least they have a straightforward, honest view of the bible. The rest of you, who are more educated and intelligent, have to work so hard to make it all fit into an enlightened worldview - you interpret it to death.
Give it up - you will be amazed at how free it will make you.
Posted by: Pam | January 14, 2008 2:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chip,
"..any way he pleased?"
What if that's not a valid assumption? What if He derives His omnipotence because He understands laws that work in the universe and abides by those laws to maintain balance and order? Science talks about balance in nature. I am talking about the same sort of thing, only on a much larger scale.
I would tend to agree with your point of view if I thought anything that S2 has said is true, but I don't. All are rescued except maybe a double handful (who reject with full and intimate knowledge), and all get ultimately what they want deep down in their soul (which will be manifested in how they treat others and use their time); all will receive a far better condition (but still a growing and learning condition) than this life. Peace to you.
Posted by: Parker | January 14, 2008 1:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What purpose would that be, Parker? The son of an omnipotent being had to get nailed to a piece of wood because his father set up the universe that way when he could have created us any way he pleased? Sorry, that's not noble. It's not beautiful. It's abominable. Why anyone would wish to worship such a god out of anything but fear is beyond me. I can't see such a being as anything but a monster. If your reason for worship is to avoid eternal torment and pain then you're a slave under the yoke of a tyrant.
Posted by: Chip | January 14, 2008 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
(Please do not associate the following comment with S2, the high school boy. He's off on his own with his comments.)
You quoted Chip's analogy. I think it was a bit glib--a lot glib.
I recently "passed" a kidney stone at 3am-6am. Two hours into it, I would have been ready to go to a hospital and get some meds to deal with the pain, but I certainly didn't think I could sit or lay in a car for the ride to the hospital. I have new appreciation for the pain of childbirth.
Multiply that pain level by whatever number you choose (say a million), then look at the time factor as time standing still in a different dimension than our mortal time dimension, add not only physical pain but all the mind-tormenting regrets for all the wrong-doing of all people, plus all the "innocent pain" suffered by all the little children who have suffered in myriads of ways, including the unmentionable, and then realize that this loving Being could at any moment have said, "enough of this pain--I cannot endure this any longer" (like asking for pain meds) but He didn't, He endured, thinking not of Himself, but of all of us. He did it so the Universe could stay in balance yet we could access a universal resurrection. It sounds implausible, but I hope need not be talked about glibly.
This is worth thinking about. Balance. Purpose. Life with deeper meaning than we comprehend. Love that we cannot even fathom. Peace to all.
Posted by: Parker | January 14, 2008 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Spidey -
Did you know that the Bible says you need to commit multiple acts of sodomy to get into heaven?
Did you know that the Bible says that killing your parents and/or your children is a sure way into heaven?
Did you know that the Bible says heaven is located in Boca Raton, Florida?
Hey, lookee here! It's as easy for me to aver ridiculous things about the Bible as it is for Spidey to aver ridiculous things about science.
;)
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 14, 2008 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The difference between skeptics/atheists and believers/religionists is this:
the skeptic looks at the "holy books" and contemplates WHETHER they are true...
the believer looks at the "holy books" and contemplates HOW they are true.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 14, 2008 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 -
Come back when you've had an attitude adjustment and finished up your continuing education with remedial reading, writing, and spelling.
I really do hope you take a few science courses as well. A modern education does not start and stop with bible studies my young friend.
By the way, computers, calculators, and electron microscopes (along with studies in genetics, physics, geology and biology) have all confirmed in spades what Darwin said from the start - evolutionary theory is without doubt one of the most iron-clad theoretical propositions found anywhere in science, and is supported by a huge and growing assembly of facts along the way.
You could also benefit from some basic studies in cosmology. Coming on this thread without any foundation in the sciences is just begging to be written off as a semi-literate bible-thumping fundamentalist.
Now you wouldn't want that would you??
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 10:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon, the proper statement would be, "If you're an idiot, you can't win any discussion, let alone, if you have an idiotic doctrine to defend. " Have you noticed that no evolutionist scientist would enter any debate with ID proponents? It's like the fighter pilot story. One pilot was asked, "why are there no enemy planes fighting you?" The pilot replied, "It's simple. If they fly, they die". At least these evolutionist scientists are sane enough not to fly. Or else, they die. Simple.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 14, 2008 10:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks, Chip, for another saver - worth repeating here:
"The son of the richest man in the world gives up all his money to go live among the poor (but only temporarily). Some years later during a particularly difficult month, when he has no money to pay rent on his hovel, one of his friends betrays him to his landlord. Thugs come and beat the crap out of him and repossess his hovel and he is thrown out into the street, destitute and homeless. Three days later, dad sends the limo to pick him up and whisk him off to a mansion in Beverly Hills where he now resides in luxury while super models give him foot massages and feed him canapes. Would you call that a huge sacrifice? No? Neither would I."
Posted by: E Favorite | January 14, 2008 9:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'd use my real name but I'd be too embarrassed to have people knowing that I'd argue with a dolt.
"As the old saying goes, "Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig." It's the natural outcome of almost any religious discussion these days."
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 9:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"If ya can't show him the data, throw him some trash". That has been the evolutionists way of fighting it out. First, they try to defend their doctrine and when put on a corner, they start throwing trash. Another evolutionist, knocked down. Anybody else?
Anon, Jesus knows about computers. Didn't you hear Jesus rose again and is alive? Even on this, you're wrong again. When can you be right? He even knows that there are nukes and some of those will be coming your way.
"Alas, alas, that great city... for in one hour is she made desolate". Revelation 18: 19.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 14, 2008 9:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'd use my real name but I'd be too embarrassed to have people knowing that I'd argue with a dolt.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thopaine, all of us has "long life genes". The difference between believers and non-believers is that believers will spend that long life in heaven and you will spend it in hell. Don't worry coz that "long life gene" is fire-proof. Fire won't affect it so you won't die while burning.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 14, 2008 9:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 -
Both your writing skills and your understanding of science and your perception of evolutionary theory are functionally at about the 7th grade level - and not a very smart 7th grader at that.
You're really embarrassing yourself with your typically ill-informed rants & arrogance as exhibited by fundamenatlists everywhere. Your nonsense has been done alot better on this very blog, believe me. If you're going to play with the grown-ups, you'd better go back to school and get educated.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 9:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"You're defending a guy (Darwin) who's never even heard of the word computer or calculator."
Like Jesus?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Now another idiot is hiding his identity. So idiotic that he can't even spell his name. Give it up guys. You're defending a guy (Darwin) who's never even heard of the word computer or calculator. A trash colector could be lot smarter than him. I guess if he finds a cellphone talking, he might even ask "what creature is that?"
Anon, evolution says that monkeys thru-out time became humans. It means that during that period, they have to learn how to speak. I want to know what period in history is that and show us the DNA transformation how it happened and which part of DNA did it occur?
Anon, your scientists claim that the "data" is missing or simply put, there is NO DATA. No data coz it's all a dream. You've been duped, Anon. Duped BIG TIME. So if I were you, look for those evolutionists who duped you and throw that empty cup you're holding now right on their face. Better yet, look for that engineer, named Richard.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 14, 2008 9:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Two thoughts;
Not only do we share most genes with primates,we share many genes with the lowly earthworm.Promising research with the worms to discover the long life gene is ongoing.
If found, maybe true believers will reject use of this 'common" gene because it came from a worm.Then you all will die out and only secularists will be left.Yippee!
Also, because one is not a christian,does not mean one is therefore a secularist.Buddhism,eg, is a great spiritual system w/o the magic tricks,hocus pocus,and dictatorial and self rightous attitudes of christians
Posted by: thopaine | January 14, 2008 9:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"show me the DATA how monkeys learned to speak and be able to be considered as human"
You'd have to provide the data on this yourself since you are the one claiming it. This is not what evolution says, it's what YOU say. You calling others morons and idiots it RICH!
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 8:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Now it's those who think they were monkeys before has reason and those who don't are unreasonable. Well, that's the funniest and dumbest thing I've ever heard yet. Richard, since you said that your an engineer and have a "nice rule" which states "in god we (may) trust, anybody else brings data", then show me the DATA how monkeys learned to speak and be able to be considered as human. What part of DNA is speech and how did it get there when it was absent even to this day? Im so appalled by the madness. You keep on talking without the real data coz if you really have it, then we can duplicate it in the lab. Even bananas has many similar DNAs with human so forget about inheitance coz I won't call bananas my UNCLE coz I inherit some of it's DNA characteristics. Gosh, an engineer and yet so st*pid.
DNAs are like computer programs on a CD but they act very differently. It's like plugging a CD on an electrical outlet and then that CD morphs into a CD player and plays its tune. That is how intelligent the maker of DNA is and I call that maker God. Science won't be able to reach that level of intelligence. They can only mimic or copy a DNA function but they can never understand it's secrets like how and why DNAs exist.
For as long as you can't achieve that level of understanding , please shut up and stop acting like you know it all coz the more you press it, the more the stupidity becomes unbearable. Im almost convinced to bunch you up with Paganplace, Joet amd Md. They are the new 3 stooges. Please don't let it become the 4 stooges. Or make it 5 to include E. Favorite.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 14, 2008 8:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
And he LOVES you Harold. You better be reading it right...
Deuteronomy 28
28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; (28:58-64)
"The LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you."
28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.
28:60 Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.
28:61 Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
28:62 And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.
28:63 And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
28:64 And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 8:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Walter Disney is a Christian and his place is named as the happiest place on earth."
No, Walt Disney WAS a Christian...and a racist!
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 8:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2 posted: "Humility is always a sign of intelligence."
I just about spit my coffee on the monitor! The IRONY! HA!
Posted by: Are you KIDDING?! | January 14, 2008 8:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The questions I raise, interpret the New Testament or study the Old Testament
1. And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
2. And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
3. Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.
4. Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.
Do you see the blessing of Moses, it is for the “saints: from his right hand (The Hand of the LORD) went a fiery law for them.” Do you see “he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand” “they sat down at thy feet”
1. And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation.
2. There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
9. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.
Look at the prayer of Hannah, “There is none holy as the Lord” “He will keep the feet of his saints” “for by strength shall no man prevail.” Do you see “he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand” “they sat down at thy feet”
1. Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.
2. O my soul, thou hast said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee;
3. But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.
What does David say, “But to the saints that are in the earth” who inherits the earth. Do you know what it means to inherit the earth?
23. O love the Lord, all ye his saints: for the Lord preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer.
Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the Lord.
Do you see “O love the Lord, all ye his saints” it is for the “saints: from his right hand (The Hand of the LORD) went a fiery law for them.” “and he shall strengthen your heart”
13. Let them praise the name of the Lord: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.
14. He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him. Praise ye the Lord.
Do you see “Let them praise the name of the Lord” “the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him.”
The questions I raise, interpret the New Testament or study the Old Testament
Here is my answer. It is the saints who praise The LORD, the author of Law. “all his saints are in thy hand” In whose hand are those who study the New Testament. Look “And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;” Do you see “Thus saith the Lord” “I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul”
Posted by: harold a zeller | January 14, 2008 1:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ERF writes "If Jesus Christ did not submit Himself to dying on the cross for the sins of the people of the Church, I do not know what submission is. I cannot imagine a greater example of submission and sacrifice than to give one's life for another."
He didn't give his life. He came back three days later, remember? He knew he was coming back.
Since you likely can't see through your bias, let's look at a similar example. The son of the richest man in the world gives up all his money to go live among the poor (but only temporarily). Some years later during a particularly difficult month, when he has no money to pay rent on his hovel, one of his friends betrays him to his landlord. Thugs come and beat the crap out of him and repossess his hovel and he is thrown out into the street, destitute and homeless. Three days later, dad sends the limo to pick him up and whisk him off to a mansion in Beverly Hills where he now resides in luxury while super models give him foot massages and feed him canapes. Would you call that a huge sacrifice? No? Neither would I.
So, back to Jesus, I bet most people would allow themselves to be beaten to a pulp and nailed to a piece of wood in exchange for eternal life and the ability to turn water into wine and perform other similarly spectacular magic tricks. As an added bonus they get to condemn anyone who doesn't sufficiently kiss their backside to eternal torment in a fiery torture chamber. Oh the hardship. The sacrifice. Who said omnipotence was easy?
On second thought, if an omnipotent being's life isn't easy, he's either incompetent or a sadomasochist.
Posted by: Chip | January 14, 2008 1:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
OleMax wrote:
"Huckabee should know that true Believers in the Bible are NOT going to accept his distorted intrepretation of this scripture in the Bible. Huckabee should have qouted II Timothy 2: 11-15 where God tells WHY the woman should be in submission and not exercise authority over the man. It seems Huckabee is doing exactly what God said NOT to do in Acts 5:29; where God through Luke tells us in the matter of choice of obeying what God said or what Man says or teaches, we as Christians should obey God."
++++++++++++++++++
I hope you realize that Luke, who wrote the books of Acts & Luke, was one of Paul's disciples. Luke didn't know Jesus.
And since Paul wrote Ephesians as well as I & II Timothy there's a commonality between all of them.
Posted by: Johnny Ringo | January 13, 2008 11:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OleMax wrote:
"Huckabee should know that true Believers in the Bible are NOT going to accept his distorted intrepretation of this scripture in the Bible. Huckabee should have qouted II Timothy 2: 11-15 where God tells WHY the woman should be in submission and not exercise authority over the man. It seems Huckabee is doing exactly what God said NOT to do in Acts 5:29; where God through Luke tells us in the matter of choice of obeying what God said or what Man says or teaches, we as Christians should obey God."
++++++++++++++++++
I hope you realize that Luke, who wrote the books of Acts & Luke, was one of Paul's disciples. Luke didn't know Jesus.
And since Paul wrote Ephesians as well as I & II Timothy there's a commonality between all of them.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2008 11:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Anonymous: "Nobody could be as big a dolt as Spidey appears to be. I think he is just spoofing Christians to stir people up."
Well,
could be. But, I am absolutely positive that that mindset is quite present in this society. And very obviously it allows a lot of the anti science forces to claim political gains, serious political gains. And that is a potentially dangerous situation.
Let's face it, folks like Huckabee promote unreason, they might be appear to be of 'common sense' but in reality they are the big 'simplifiers'. Look at Huck's tax proposal, ridiculous.
We do suffer enough simplifiers in politics, don't we?
Posted by: Richard | January 13, 2008 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: "Nobody could be as big a dolt as Spidey appears to be. I think he is just spoofing Christians to stir people up."
that's just what I was thinking. If that's the case, Spidey, please cut it out. we don't need spoofing -- we have the facts on our side.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 13, 2008 11:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman,
Darwin just observed that. He didn't have the molecular mechanism. There were others closer to that, Gregor Mendel, who systematically studied inheritance of plant properties. Then the mechanism that supports that phenomena that Darwin found was detected, the genetic code, DNA.
Intelligent design says: here are some facts that cannot be explained by evolution (that is their statement). And the they say: the fact that something like 'this' is so highly improbable and still happens, this in itself is a powerful argument for intelligent design. In other words they say: The fact that something (is or considered to be) unexplained is proof that there must be intelligent design.
That is a proof on the observation of something non-existent. That is, no proof at all. You need a chain of evidence.
I am an engineer, we have a nice rule: in god we (may) trust, anybody else brings data.
And even the pope isn't god.
Posted by: Richard | January 13, 2008 11:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard said, "You notoriously try to jump steps, reduce that highly complex web to a 2 step process, simplify what can't be simplified. Things are complex and they can't be explained in a 2 step process."
That is what exactly evolution is all about. Charles Darwin concluded that man came from monkey even without knowing what DNA is. It's ok if we study evolution like how the earth started but once we make fast conclusions like man came from monkeys even without knowing what DNA is (which Darwin just did), there lies the problem. All these Intelligent Design proponents are formerly evolutionist but changed course when they found out it was a dumb theory.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 13, 2008 10:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Atoms don't become monkeys. Atoms do react with other ones and form molecules. Molecules react with other ones, some based on carbon form amino acids. Amino acids form to proteins. The sequence how they are arranged if defined by genes, ...and so on. I don't think anybody claims to have solved the last secrets of life. But this is what we know l o o k i n g at it. (you know how Newton did science, studied the apple fall from the tree; the guy was smart; not smart enough though, because there was Einstein; somebody else will be smarter than Einstein,......)
You notoriously try to jump steps, reduce that highly complex web to a 2 step process, simplify what can't be simplified. Things are complex and they can't be explained in a 2 step process. Far less, they can't be explained with a dogmatic statement like religion likes to tell us.
For heavens sake and our own: Keep science and religion separated. Believe what you want to believe, but you cannot use dogmatic statements to drive political decisions. That is a road heading directly into uncontrolled territory and bound to disaster.
Be a little bit more modest. And accept it: you will die without knowing.
Posted by: Richard | January 13, 2008 10:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee should know that true Believers in the Bible are NOT going to accept his distorted intrepretation of this scripture in the Bible. Huckabee should have qouted II Timothy 2: 11-15 where God tells WHY the woman should be in submission and not exercise authority over the man. It seems Huckabee is doing exactly what God said NOT to do in Acts 5:29; where God through Luke tells us in the matter of choice of obeying what God said or what Man says or teaches, we as Christians should obey God.
Posted by: OleMax | January 13, 2008 10:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard, studying atoms is science. When people start thinking that these atoms become monkeys and monkeys become humans without valid proof, it becomes fantasy. That is were the idiocy begins. People misuse science and if Christians question it, they start calling names. Why? Because that is their method of presenting their case.They have no proof so they start calling names to avoid the issue. Why are they afraid of Intelligent Design? Because it is science and if presented side by side with evolution, evolutionists would all look like dumb monkeys.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 13, 2008 10:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidey, do you work for http://www.landoverbaptist.org ????
Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2008 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Nobody could be as big a dolt as Spidey appears to be. I think he is just spoofing Christians to stir people up.
I prefer to believe that than believe there are really people thinking like him running around loose.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2008 9:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2
"Believe and it will happen. Believe that you're a monkey and it will happen. No wonder this world is going down the drain. There are so many monkeys roaming around thinking they had become humans."
Yes, that exactly is y o u r doctrine: believe, don't use your senses.
You are making step 5000 before step 3. Like the guy in a mega church recently stated: " all these scientists that are looking in what makes these atoms and sub atomic particles stick together?'" And then he goes: " we know, it is Jesus Christ".
Thank you Mr preacher, I did not need to know that precisely how things work.
Hopeless.
Posted by: Richard | January 13, 2008 9:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Speaking about "lack of reason". Evolutionists are scrambling to look for reasons why their theory is still relavant despite new discoveries about DNA that doesn't help their cause. The only reason they can show is because black people or other races look like monkeys. Aren't these people mean coz they like to shove their idiotic doctrine in our throat? And they won't entertain other theories coz it would put their dumb theory on the defensive.
Speaking about "tolerance". I guess Christians have tolerated these secularists too much to the extent that they become abusive like prohibiting other theories in school like Intelligent Design and stick to their dumb doctrine forcing us to believe that we were all monkeys some time ago. They haven't realized that it's the other way around. They had made a monkey out of themselves because of this dumb doctrine.
Believe and it will happen. Believe that you're a monkey and it will happen. No wonder this world is going down the drain. There are so many monkeys roaming around thinking they had become humans.
Any person who believes in evolution which states that man just came from nowhere or thru random process or procedure but does not know how DNAs came to existence (no scientist can explain it) is not a thinking man. Tolerance? They don't have it coz even without concrete proof they would reject other ideas. They really believe that they were monkeys and nobody can't take that away from them.
Now these monkeys are quoting the Bible. Imagine that.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 13, 2008 9:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"spiderman2:
Any person who believes in evolution which states that man just came from nowhere or thru random process or procedure but does not know how DNAs came to existence (no scientist can explain it) is a moron. Only Mike Huckabee spoke out against evolution and therefore he's the only SANE candidate among all of them"
You display that you have absolutely no idea what science is all about and how it works. You don't get at all the concept of slow systematic progression, collecting evidence and analyzing the facts. You put the cart in front of the horse. In science anything can be questioned and reversed, with good proof and evidence. That is the basic difference to the thought of school you are adhering to. You and the likes of you are based on dogma that is not supposed to be questioned at all. An in that sense you have absolutely zero case and reason to complain about the secularist that want to build on reason.
You are basically proposing unreason.
Sorry, but that is how you place the arguments.
Posted by: Richard | January 13, 2008 8:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Better off: “Let me remind you that Jesus himself was a politician and a preacher. He was a king, King of the Jews, and he taught Christianity.”
Jesus was a preacher, but not a politician. Remember, he said ““Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Jesus meant to stay out of government. And he was not any kind of king in his lifetime. According to the story, Roman soldiers wrote “King of the Jews” on his cross to mock him, and it was the Jews who choose him to be crucified, instead of Barabbas. Jesus could not have taught “Christianity” because it did not exist until decades after his supposed death. Also, think about it - why would the King of the Jews” be teaching “Christianity.”
Please, before saying things like this, think about if it all adds up. Having once been religious myself, I know it’s easy to accept a lot of things without really thinking about them – just because the information is coming from a respected authority. But I must admit, everything I mentioned here (except the source of the “Render unto Caesar” quote), I picked up on my own, just by hearing the epistles and gospels at church.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 13, 2008 8:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The problems of america won't be solved unless we put a stop to all of these idiocy propagated by the secularists. It's time that somebody put pressure on them and fight them head-on. A good start would be electing a godly president who would have the conviction to oppose all these insanity like prohibiting bible-giving in school. It's time the secularists feel the pressure and not the other way around. I hope the pressure will be great that they would rather opt to move out of this country than stay. That would be perfect. It would feel like spewing out lots of bad air from our lungs."
Ah, a good old-fashioned religious cleansing--precisely the kind of love and tolerance that fundamentalists (Christian and otherwise) have exhibited throughout history. This is why so many Americans fear and loathe the idea of a President Huckabee and followers like Spiderman2 (BTW your namesake was in part the creation of Stan Lee, Jewish person).
We've had seven years of an evolution-rejecting science-denying former Southern governor clueless on foreign policy who believes his every move is guided by Jesus. Do we want another as we try to repair the extensive damage that is the legacy of G W Bush?
Posted by: ProfPaul | January 13, 2008 8:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have my own little doctrinal take on Ephesians 5:22-25. First, let's examine the culture and politics of that time: most women during Bible times were not learned and certainly did not recieve formal education. Men of the Bible, and Hebrew men specifically, did. The author of Ephesians was addressing men of God and their wives. In the same manner that all believers submit to the Lord, so also a woman should submit to her husband. Likewise, in the manner that the Lord has showed love to mankind, so also a man should show love to his wife.
There are three key elements to rightly dividing the Word of God: a) examine it, b) interpret, and c) apply it. As for the application of the passage, Huckabee is absolutely correct. We can apply this message to our lives by understanding that marriage is a ministry that demonstrates the relationship of Christ and the Church. That relationship is built on love. The Church lovingly submits to Christ, who first loved us.
Posted by: Adam | January 13, 2008 7:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It seems you have missed the point on the New Testament passage. It does refer to husbands loving their wives, but also references "as Christ loves the church" which is the supreme love exibited by God. If I as a husband love my wife that much, then how can I not sumbit to her wishes.
Christian living at it's best
Posted by: Howard Edwards | January 13, 2008 7:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Any person who believes in evolution which states that man just came from nowhere or thru random process or procedure but does not know how DNAs came to existence (no scientist can explain it) is a moron. Only Mike Huckabee spoke out against evolution and therefore he's the only SANE candidate among all of them. The problems of america won't be solved unless we put a stop to all of these idiocy propagated by the secularists. It's time that somebody put pressure on them and fight them head-on. A good start would be electing a godly president who would have the conviction to oppose all these insanity like prohibiting bible-giving in school. It's time the secularists feel the pressure and not the other way around. I hope the pressure will be great that they would rather opt to move out of this country than stay. That would be perfect. It would feel like spewing out lots of bad air from our lungs.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 13, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
So you think the "God" vote will have any power in this country this time around? Indeed the god people are living in a fantasy world as steeped in hocuspocus, mysticism, and fanatacism as that old piece of crap book they believe a god wrote with his hand...What, Jesus had a court reporter following him around all everywhere recording all of his intimate conversations? No one really thinks that what Abraham did to his son on that alter was akin to child abuse? Try hog tying your kid, placing him on an alter, and attempt to sacrifice him cause a voice told you to do it today! You would be locked in an insane asylum and the kid would be getting therapy for life! It isn't just christianity that is sick, it is all of them...All of them are misogynistic, and hate and subjugate women. All religions are densly "phallic", racist,ellitist, prejudice, and a whole array of "ist"...They support fear mongoring, lack of free will, insulate and encourage ignorance, support slavery of someone, and superiority of those that "believe"...Some of the most evil people in my life I have met, have been bible toters and devout christians, Muslims, Catholics, and don't even let me get on those sicko mormons...and their superiority complex...child molesters in the name of god, yea right.
I do not think that the religious will matter this time. I think that humanist and reasonable people will make the difference. Religion is on its last leg. Dominionists, and all the religious fanatics...Radical Islam,elite Orthodox Jewry, all of it is dying out with the old heads that spread this vermin, and keep this division in all the world...
Posted by: Duane | January 13, 2008 6:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Can one interpret this passage as saying that the husband has the greater responsibility here: to sacrifice (give) himself for the wife?
Posted by: Steve | January 13, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
An addendum - if you're in a higher tax bracket to begin with and hold stock and/or bond assets for over one year, the capital gains tax is only 20%. Held assets less than a year old are taxed at higher rates.
Nice work if you can get it.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2008 6:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's all pretty hilarious, these candidates that promise to rid the country of the IRS. Now we've got Ron Paul with a bible aka Mike Huckabee running on Paul's platform - down with that nasty bogeyman, the IRS. If people would stop thumping their bibles and elect representatives that gave a damn, they'd have a re-structured tax system that everyone could live with. One person does not a revolution make - whether Paul or the Rev. Huckster Huckabee.
Congress is made up of millionaires and somehow you think they're going to legislate against their own interests?? Try electing real representatives of the people for a change - fat chance though, because they're never in the running - can't afford it.
Chuck Shumer of New York is a disgrace to the democrats. This senatorial millionaire refuses to support raising capital gains taxes (I think he's the chairman of the Ways and Means committee) - stock dividends have always been a very protected source of income that many of the rich folks live off of, and with a currently low tax rate of 27%. He is a classic example, and I'm a democrat.
Don't fall for this old IRS ploy yet again - the so called Fairtax that Huckabee parades around has been around for ages, and it's never had any traction because it's a death blow to the spending habits of the middle class - the economy would sink like a rock overnite with sales taxes of 30% on Everything You Buy - the Devil is really in the details with this one folks, and apparently that's who Huck is working for after all.
The tax structure can be changed to advantage the middle class (for a change) but the right representation needs to be in place - think about that when you vote next time.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2008 6:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2,
The oldest manuscript of the Old Testament is from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest Bible is from the 400's AD. It is not in complete form, because of time. To the person about Constanine (sp?), he felt that he was able to take over Rome because of his vision of a cross in the sky. He wanted to rule over a united nation and needed the Christians to be a united sub-set. He is generally given credit for allowing Christians to be good subjects while not offering scarfices to the Gods, but by praying to their God. He have Christian leaders bound Bibles (this was really rare as bound books where very expensive, it was a show of power and good-faith).
Posted by: L'nae | January 13, 2008 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Scott from Durham: “So we might have to put up with someone who believes that the Earth was "created" or that evolution is "Just a Theory." But if that is the price to be paid for ridding this nation of the ravages of the IRS, then this I am willing to put up with.”
Please consider that with Huckabee, you might not only lose the IRS, you could also lose science funding (except for creationism) and freedom of religion (except freedom to be Christian). Are you willing to pay that price?
Posted by: E Favorite | January 13, 2008 5:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Furthermore, as for "husbands loving their wives", domestic violence is as prevalent in Christian homes as secular ones-- perhaps even more, given husband's "GOD-given" right to demand submission from wives or ... "straight to the moon" ( or the graveyard, as it were). Recall news headlines from just this last week...
Why, why can't we see Koran, the Bible, the Vedas and the Torah as intellectual pursuits and not codes for life? Why can't they inspire us instead of demanding complete mental and physical supplication from all women and other "meek beings"? Why do we accept them? Who does it benefit?
Religion is chlorofoam. The Catholic church peddles it and so do synagogues (bought your tickts yet?). The Koran is the greatest bootlegger -- only it doesn't want to anesthetize anyone, it would rather martyr them, so Christians, count yourself lucky. God, even Buddhists can't leave people well enough alone.
Vote with your brains and don't mask a somewhat interesting intelletual Biblical debate with actual domestic policy
Posted by: Cobaltgirl | January 13, 2008 4:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is time once again to read "The Handmaid's Tale".
As it is to read Thomas Jefferson's "bible" (moral statements kept; religious sayings, etc. cut out and discarded).
Posted by: DC12 | January 13, 2008 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, but since the New and Old Testament are fraught with frumped-up, ambivalent, contradictory and down-right in-credible references to how men and women should conduct themselves before an omnipotent God who is at once all-loving and all-damning, let me say that the Bible appears to be a fairy tale of the Brothers Grimm variety ... but without any discernable moral. God is a fantasy, so is Hell, Earth is heaven, and human beings have a conscience. And God does not forgive us of our sins ... forgiveness can only come from those we wrong. So it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be ...
What is most disturbing is that someone, who is committing himself to leading the citizens of America, believes in this diatribe in the first place. Complex, just, moral thinking and the ability to lead an economically viable and open society with life and liberty FOR ALL will NEVER coincide with a religious zealot as leader (Huckabee, Romney, Clinton, Obama -- this all applies to you). Their brains are addled.
Posted by: Cobaltgirl | January 13, 2008 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2,
Don't tell me that you are actually not aware that no original manuscripts of the Bible are extant. You can't really be that uninformed about this! It's a simple fact: NO original manuscripts are extant. Do some studying up on the subject, please!
Posted by: MD | January 13, 2008 3:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Vickery, your post, "The more important point is this: the husband is called to love the wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? He gave His life for the church. Therefore, the command on husbands is far, far greater than merely submitting. Husbands must be willing to die for their wives.
I imagine if husbands would love their wives in this way, wives would have no trouble "submitting" to such love."
I totally agree with your point, a huge problem is that men do not what to commit or have the fortitude to love the wife in this manner, Therefore, America suffers with a great crisis in divorce rates.
Does anyone know if anyone has interviewed Huckabee's wife regarding their marriage? It would be interesting to know her response, although I doubt if she would risk being in the public's eye with such a "risky" topic.
Posted by: Better off | January 13, 2008 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is exactly same as mentioned in "Manusmrity", one of the big book for Hindu religion.
Posted by: Chiman | January 13, 2008 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Interesting that a Jew is lecturing us on how to interpret the New Testament. Why don't you address the part about Christ is head of the church? I'm actually more interested in seeing what you have to say about that.
Posted by: Laurie | January 13, 2008 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You left out part of the Scripture text. It starts out saying "submitting one to another" - and then talks about husbands and wives, giving examples of the ways that mutual submission can be put oin practice. His interpretation of the text is not even liberal. He is really saying what the text actually says.
Posted by: John Francis | January 13, 2008 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As with so many Biblical passages, this quotation from Ephesians is subject to the context of the society in which it was written. The social structures of the first century A.D. did not accommodate the mutuality in marriage which is, at present, an ideal, just as the famous passage about Onan, struck down for "spilling his seed upon the ground," must be understood in the context of a society whose labor force, always subject to high infant mortality, was dependent upon a high birth rate to survive. The perpetual insistence that the writers of the Gospels divorce themselves from the usages of the world in which they lived and invoke prophetic powers to address the twenty-first century gives rise to endless literalist oversimplifications and pointless controversies.
Posted by: Ward | January 13, 2008 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Trippin: Again, it means do not push, shove, or try to convert me, a Christian, to your non-Christian way. End of story.
By the tone of your post your seem really angry, I suggest you chill on the need to be argumentative, it is very impolite. Posting etiquette, please.
Posted by: Better off | January 13, 2008 12:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I copied your quote VERBATIM.
V-E-R-B-A-T-I-M.
Don't try to claim I don't how to read now that you've been called on it.
You're quoting the Bible publicly, calling everyone sinners, and all the rest, and you have the unmitigated audacity to tell those who disagree with you or are critical to "keep it within themselves." Need I quote again?
"...if you decide not to choose Christ then leave it there within you, that means no condescending tones, attitudes, or criticisms towards those of us who do chose Christ and live as Christians."
Who wrote that? Not me.
Guess what? Ain't happenin' -- not any more. We've seen the disasters left in the wake of cowering under the boot heel of popular superstition, and all the profane slaughter conducted in the name of Christ. More and more people aren't afraid to say they're sick of it: this submission nonsense being just one example.
You can't tolerate a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, because you're compelled to tell, instead of "keeping it within you" as you admonish everyone who disagrees.
So, you tell, I tell, we all tell. That's called "America."
Posted by: trippin | January 13, 2008 12:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Have none of you who disagree with Huckabee ever read Ephesians 5:21, the verse preceding the one that everyone quotes? "Defer to one another out of reverence for Christ". It might surprise a few of you that Huckabee agrees with Pope John Paul II, who wrote extensively about mutual submission in marriage. Cheers.
Posted by: Rick_C | January 13, 2008 12:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I suggest that those of you who are ignorant concerning reading/knowing scripture inform yourselves on the issue before throwing your comments out there. It is clear to someone that has scripture knowledge when post are posted commenting on scriptural beliefs such as submitting and marriage that you are not a steward of the bible; you look quite silly by your posts.
No offense but the truth is the truth, like it or not. Huckabee's belief in marriage is not a "single" reason that he would or would not serve as a good President. I would try not to get so "hung up" on a single statement. No need to be argumentative.
Posted by: Better off | January 13, 2008 12:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Have none of the commenters ever read Ephesians 5:21, the verse preceding the one that everyone quotes. "Defer to one another out of reverence for Christ" It mat surprise a few of you that Huckabee agrees with Pope John Paul II, who wrote extensively about mutual submission in marriage. Cheers.
Posted by: Rick_C | January 13, 2008 12:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee is right. You are wrong. The word "submit" is not demeaning to women or suggesting a lower place. It is simply a description of God-ordained roles in marriage. The husband is the spiritual leader of the marriage or family. You don't have to believe this spiritual truth. We are all given a choice whether to believe or not. Yet this is what the Bible says about roles in marriage.
The more important point is this: the husband is called to love the wife as Christ loved the church. How did Christ love the church? He gave His life for the church. Therefore, the command on husbands is far, far greater than merely submitting. Husbands must be willing to die for their wives.
I imagine if husbands would love their wives in this way, wives would have no trouble "submitting" to such love.
Posted by: Hugh Vickery | January 13, 2008 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is a difference in coffessing your beliefs/faith and pushing/shoving it onto someone. If I confess Christianity and you are a non-Christian leave the issue alone. I never said to "be slient about." You need to re-read my post.
Posted by: Better off | January 13, 2008 12:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
the fact that there is.... a word called matriarch... wood seam two end the dee-bate on the im-port-ant quest-tea-on in the real world but please check 4 truth i'm just an artist
Posted by: artistkvip | January 13, 2008 12:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
J. Berlinerblau's point is well taken and is a must read for voters. It shows Huckabee's ambivalence. One moment he endorses the marriage's view in the report of the S. Baptist Commitee and another moment he advances his personal view that clearly different.
Posted by: thishowiseeit | January 13, 2008 12:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"But please if you decide not to choose Christ then leave it there within you, that means no condescending tones, attitudes, or criticisms towards those of us who do chose Christ and live as Christians. Oh, by the way being Christian does not mean we are perfect, do not have problems, troubles, or hurt, we are sinners just like you, but saved by grace."
What a hypocrite.
If you want to wear your superstition on your sleeve, that's your prerogative. But spare me the lectures about keeping silent about it. You aren't.
And spare me inclusion in your notion we are all "sinners." Just leave me out of it all together -- leave that within YOU.
Let's just call it a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, shall we?
Posted by: trippin | January 13, 2008 12:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
“The greatness of a man is measured by his ability to submit.”
And so what happens when David Koresh or Jim Jones tells you to submit? You have put yourself in the habit of submission, what happens to all of us when some charismatic leader who knows your bible better than you convinces you that you must kill or die for Jesus? or for that leader himself?
You are already avoiding the questions of your essential faith, that's why they call it blind faith. You make of yourselves a ready population willing to do both great good and great evil all based on someone else's interpretation of your holy book.
"Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep."
After you are done reading your Bible, your Koran, your Talmud ... how about reading a little book written by Eric Hoffer: The True Believer.
I don't fear Huckabee, I don't fear the shepherd, my concern is with the mass sheepage the believers seem to desire, and their willingness to force me to the submission they desire for themselves.
Posted by: Oort | January 13, 2008 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Let me remind you that Jesus himself was a politician and a preacher. He was a king, King of the Jews, and he taught Christianity. He also taught laws of the land and laws on living in the land morally. He supported his Government and taught that we should abide by the laws enacted by them as long as it did not cross the line of scriptural teaching and cause us to sin.
The post that said “Do you have a better recipe for marriage than total, mutual self-sacrifice, submission, and love? Is an ideal flawed because humans fail to make it a reality?” This person hit the nail on the head, i.e. they are right.
Submitting to things in life is a difficult task; it is harder for some than others. The opposite of submit is pride. There is a struggle between the two attributes in mankind and for the most part all of us have more pride then the ability to submit. Humility in a person is a combination of strength and compassion. A writer once wrote, “The greatness of a man is measured by his ability to submit.”
As far as the comment Huckabee=freewill=heaven or hell, it really should read God=gives man free will=heaven or hell. Bottom line you don’t have to be a Christian, it is your choice given to you by God. But please if you decide not to choose Christ then leave it there within you, that means no condescending tones, attitudes, or criticisms towards those of us who do chose Christ and live as Christians. Oh, by the way being Christian does not mean we are perfect, do not have problems, troubles, or hurt, we are sinners just like you, but saved by grace.
1 Corinthians 1:26-28, “ (26) For ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called (27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (28) And the base things of the world, and the things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are.
Hence, the birth of Jesus by a virgin woman named Mary.
2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Men that were called of God wrote the bible, scripture.
Posted by: Better off | January 13, 2008 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
And once he explains this, maybe he can lend some explanation to Leviticus.
Posted by: trippin | January 13, 2008 11:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't care a rat's arse about how Mike and the Missus conduct their marriage. I can tell you that there is no submission on either side in mine. My husband and I are equals, and we make all major decisions together. We maintian separate bank accounts and we split out the monthly bills according to our respective incomes. What money is left in each account after bills are paid, we are not accountable to each other for. There are parts of his life that don't imnvolve me, and parts of mine that don't involve him, and parts that we share. Of course, neither of us is Christian.
But I can recall my Christian ex-husband becoming irate when I told him that I had decided that I would no longer use hormone-based contrtaception because of the damage it was doing to my body. He thought this was a decision that WE should make, even though it wasn't OUR body being wrecked by years of Depo-Provera.
But what scares me about people with the idea of pre-ordained gender roles in positions of power is that they might appoint Supreme Court justices with similar biases against women who could set us back a few decades.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 13, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Fairtax is anything but - who wants to start paying a 30% sales tax on all purchases??
In Huckabee, the GOP might just have found someone dumber than GWB.....but don't tell Chuck Norris, he might just kick your butt. Those two make a beautiful couple.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2008 11:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You'll have to forgive Hickabee for lying through his teeth. He is a Republican, after all.
And, besides, he believes in Jesus, which means he has already automatically been forgiven by God.
Posted by: chasemonster | January 13, 2008 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
is gov huckabee a creationist?
will he trash the school science carriculum
and disband the epa and nasa?
he must be asked these questions.
Posted by: aghast | January 13, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
is gov huckabee a creationist?
will he trash the school science carriculum
and disband the epa and nasa?
he must be asked these questions.
Posted by: aghast | January 13, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey, does that mean that if Huckabee were President my wife would have to do whatever I tell her? Wow, I'm for that!
On another note, it's always been a wonder to me that those who insist on the Bible as the literal word of God feel to pick and choose the parts they like, and interpret them for their own convenience.
I'm not surprised that Huckabee does this, since in my view he's really a politician hiding in a minister's clothing. I really am surprised that there's so little questioning of this habit within the conservative Christian churches. Perhaps within churches and sects there is a sincere effort to understand the wisdom of the Bible, but I haven't seen much of it in the Huckabee constituency.
Posted by: John in California | January 13, 2008 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Fairtax is insanity -
The rich would prosper like never before (they'd be the only ones shopping too) while the economy went south on an express train. It won't happen and that's a fact. It going to take more than one person to trash the current taxation system. He sounds like Ron Paul with a bible!!
Bush is even now calling for more tax breaks for the rich. Has anyone had enough yet??
Instead, let's tax corporations and the rich as they should be taxed without all the loopholes and let's raise capital gains taxes to a reasonable level (the great tax escape of the rich that live on dividends) - Oh, and let's start taxing churches as well....we're losing alot of cash right there!!
Now that's a fair tax system.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2008 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon:
**Just a day ago, it's now illegal to distribute bibles in schools. A few years back, they were almost successful taking out the phrase "In God We Trust" in our currency.**
Why exactly should youhave the right to distribute Bibles in schools? Why should any religionhave the right to proseletize in schools? I am just as upset about my child coming hime from from school with a Gideon New Testament as you would be if yours came home with a copy of The Urban Pagan.
I don't try to convert Christian kids tp Paganism - please show me the courtesy of not trying to convert my Pagan kid to Christiaity.
As for In God We Trust on currency, I must ask Which god? I have many. Some people have none.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | January 13, 2008 10:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
GOD and the FAIRTAX
I could care less if Huckabee believes in "God." But he does believe in the FairTax. That's much more important than "God" and is about all the "God" I need.
So we might have to put up with someone who believes that the Earth was "created" or that evolution is "Just a Theory." But if that is the price to be paid for ridding this nation of the ravages of the IRS, then this I am willing to put up with.
The FairTax is worth it. I support Mike.
Posted by: Scott, Durham, NC | January 13, 2008 10:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Md said, "There ARE no original manuscripts of the Bible. There are copies of copies of copies, etc".
Sorry Md, I forgot to group you with Paganplace and Joet. Now it's complete. Introducing, the new 3 Stooges. You 3 people won't need a script coz you act natural -- real idiots.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 13, 2008 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
THOPAINE,
Don't you mean "grammar"?
Posted by: MD | January 13, 2008 8:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
You had asked about Paul's use of the word "church" in Ephesians 5:24-27. Earlier, there was a comment from you that Christ didn't suffer voluntarily. You might look at Isaiah 53 to get another perspective about how Paul and Isaiah would describe the atonement is though it happens in the future, present, and past. I think it is made clear in the scriptures that Christ gave His life as a voluntary offering, even though He was doing the Father's will. He still had a choice to go through with it or not. Ultimately, the "church" or the "sheep" who have gone astray refers to all of us who have ever been born. "All we like sheep have gone astray; ... and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Is. 53:6)
I think they were good questions, though. Thanks for your always-gentle tone but careful and precise questioning. I side with Pat's comment above; and I am embarrassed for whatever denomination S2 is a part of that it could have produced such a stranger to civility.
Posted by: Parker | January 13, 2008 8:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thopaine, The Bible said He did not created morons but it says He will burn them for becoming morons. He is God, no beginning and no ending, and it means He'll burn them forever. If you die today, by the way you speak about Him, there's very high probability that you would fry. Jesus said " Fear Him. I tell you again, Fear Him". You don't have a clue what that really means.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 13, 2008 7:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2;
Did not the intelligent designer also create morons?
Posted by: thopaine | January 13, 2008 6:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you Pam.
The point is not what has been biblically memorialized as something paul said,rather that the huckster agreed with the baptist convention's interpretation of that passage;wives are to be subservient to husbands.
Posted by: thopaine | January 13, 2008 6:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This article and many others brings out a tendency in today's world of nitpicking every word uttered by the candidates.
Whether I agree or disagree with these utterances is beside the point. The point is we should step back and say to ourselves, " Are we in the business of tearing down everybody who sticks their head above water?".
Where is the positive attitude?
When did we become a nation of negativism?
Why not look for the good in each candidate?
If we go through life always looking for the bad in each person, we will surely find it.
I think many of today's problems stem from this attitude.
Posted by: Thad Busby | January 13, 2008 5:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Insightful article. I learned that a writer should actually study the subject before they write about something they obviously have little knowledge about. So they don't look uninformed, like Mr Berlinerblau. :[
Posted by: xd Jeff | January 13, 2008 2:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E. Favorite, average and below average intelligence is still above moronic level.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 13, 2008 12:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"You are wrong in saying that the Eph.5 passage does not say that husbands are to submit to wives. Verse 21 is explicit: Wives and husbands are to "be subject to one another." Huckabee was correct."
I disagree. V.21 comes at the end of a section of general instructions for all people. It is a generality. Beginning with V.22, Paul gets specific on just who is to submit to whom.
In any case, Huckabee was asked about his agreement with the conclusions of the Baptist convention, not the Babble passage.
Posted by: Pam | January 13, 2008 12:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace and Joet, you two are the best example of what I'm talking about. The Bible is an intelligent book and idiots should stay away from it coz they do more damage than good to themselves and to others. What is it that Joet said that a human male has more DNA similarities with a female chimp than a human female? Paganplace, I guess Joet got your DNA when he compared it with female chimps. In that case I fully agree with him.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 13, 2008 12:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidey: "It needs intelligence to interpret it [the Bible], so please stop thinking that you secularists are capable of doing that"
It that it so, then I wonder why God created so many christians of average and below average intelligence who wouldn't be able to understand His Word and would therefore be condemned to eternal hellfire.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 12, 2008 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
He was also trying to defend while obscuring, his previous quotations of the same body of text to say otherwise, Reverend Panelist.
Posted by: Paganplace | January 12, 2008 8:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You are wrong in saying that the Eph.5 passage does not say that husbands are to submit to wives. Verse 21 is explicit: Wives and husbands are to "be subject to one another." Huckabee was correct.
Posted by: Willis E. Elliott, panelist | January 12, 2008 8:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's really easy for women to submit themselves to a man who treats them as a queen. Otherwise it is blasphemy to suggest that she should.
For Biblically, no man nor woman should submit themselves to slavery, and there exist in America far too many men who would be kings who require the authority of power over their subjects in order to validate that power.
Is king with no authority over others still king?
The flaws of the Bible reveal that it was written at a time when dominance of women was a given, so regardless of its other value, the Bible falls short of female empowerment that biologically was granted to them by God.
If the Bible had never said, suffer the little children to come to me, female submission could be realistic. But what God would embrace the children born of a mother disdained and dispicable? The equation is wrong; the preaching is wrong, and the philosophical marketing of it is wrong.
Of what importance is a father who is a tyrant?
Honor thy father and mother reveals the equality of the family, with assigned roles and assigned duties, and none convey male superiority, nor female inferiority.
Posted by: Pat | January 12, 2008 8:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankly, I think the Huckster can get away with this spin-doctoring cause the people most-invested in the Bible he's quoting are in fact the ones, like most activists who demand posting stone images of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, ...who can't recite what they're demanding we all live by, never mind actually articulate what it means.
They want someone to say, 'Bible,Bible, Bible, Good, Good, Doubleplus Good,' and be flattered, ehen in fact they have no damn idea what they're talking about.
Posted by: Paganplace | January 12, 2008 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff P,
You are welcome. I am glad that we can post our comments to eachother on Mr. Berlinerblau's writing in a civil manner to share our thoughts and opinions.
Many comments have hardly any bearing on the article, get out of hand, and sometimes get ugly. That, too, is a shame.
Posted by: Jake | January 12, 2008 8:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I mean, seriously, do you have any idea how much irony is involved when people who can't even write a proper sentence are trying to tell me that their reading of an Elizabethan *book of theirs* is supposed to not only arbitrate right and wrong, but override *science?*
Forget about it.
You think your book is all that important, you learn to read. Gods.
Posted by: Paganplace | January 12, 2008 7:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2: funny you should mention chimps. did you know that male humans have more DNA in common with male chimps than they do with female humans? In other words, the difference between the two species is smaller than the difference between the sexes in the same species. Be careful before you insult chimps again.
Posted by: JoeT | January 12, 2008 7:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2: no one will take you seriously until you seriously review the history of the bible. As others have pointed out, there really was no such original book. For centuries, christians of countless sects fought tooth and nail over hundreds of different texts, each considering others heresies. The Bible is just a compilation of selected texts resulting from not much more than an act of arbitrary power, by Constantine as I recall (don't hold me to that). So the fact that we have the texts we do and not a whole different set was the act of man, not god (unless you want to claim that Constantine was inspired by god to finally assemble his word correctly - don't even think it). Then you add the translation problems, the authenticity problems, etc. The Bible you revere is just a tradition handed down by the folks who decided which texts they liked centuries ago because they had the power to end the fighting by picking the doctrines they liked. Centuries later, we have folks who think it was written in one sitting (metaphorically speaking).
Posted by: JoeT | January 12, 2008 7:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
" spiderman2:
How many times would have I to say that Intelligence and Idiocy don't mix. The Bible is an intelligent book but how come so many moronic minds want to quote it. "
Wild idea, here, Spiderman, but how bout you learn some grammar, spelling, punctuation, and diction, before you go saying your idea of your *book* is supposed to rule the lives of others?
That's just for starters.
Believe it or not, people have found they could manage the English language *and* the Bible without ending up like yourself.
If you really want to claim a book as authority, at least be *literate.*
Then we can talk.
Posted by: Paganplace | January 12, 2008 7:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oort, yes, so thorough is my infection that I don't believe that I came from monkey lineage opposite of what evolutionists think and I presume you're one of them. If ever you believe in it, which i think is very likely, I just want to know, siince when did any of your grandpa started to look more like human than ape? Talking about infections, you secularists are so infected that you don't know your history anymore. Ask your ape ancestors for answers would you?
And about china and the U.S., you should start reading the papers coz the friction between both is geting hotter. And never mind reading the bible. As I've stated, it's intelligent and i don't think people of your caliber can't fathom it.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jake, appreciate your note. I understand your concern. Thanks for the clarfication.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 12, 2008 7:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is unlikely that Spiderman spends any time reading anything else, so thorough is his infection.
It is good to see you here though, there are many who visit this forum who already know your kind fo what they are. You are also showing the other believers who it is when we unbelievers are thinking of when we describe your state as immature and incapable.
We can at least have a discussion with them though we disagree fundamentall, all we can do with your kind is read your writing as one passes and accident on the freeway.
To put it succinctly: glad I'm not like you.
Posted by: Oort | January 12, 2008 7:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Moronic is not name calling. That is an accurate description for people who muddles a very well crafted document. I can't find a more fitting word, sorry.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 6:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2;
Does name calling make you feel better? It is the last refuge of idiots.
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 6:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
luke;
"...and if your holy book [was] written that way...", is grammatically incorrect.
The proper word in brackets is the subjunctive [were].
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 6:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
How many times would have I to say that Intelligence and Idiocy don't mix. The Bible is an intelligent book but how come so many moronic minds want to quote it. One said that the next war would be fought with swords like what is said in Revelation. Don't you people understand? It needs intelligence to interpret it, so please stop thinking that you secularists are capable of doing that. For centuries, it has not happened and it will never happen. The U.S and China will be banging heads in the near future and I believe at that time, a democrat president is sitting on the white House. How do I know that? It's all in that intelligent book. About a democrat wining this election, is only my opinion. You secularist trying to vote for a president that would give you peace, is a fantasy. "There is no peace to the ungodly, sayeth the Lord". So brace for it, folks. A bigger war is coming.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 6:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Luke;
Before you comment on the poor grammer of others, look at your post;
"....not worth it's weight in dirt."
It reads;"...not worth [it is] weight in dirt."
A common,humbling error of grammer.
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 6:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
KR: " Christ submitted his whole life to the church, and it is by virtue of that submission that Christ is said to love the church"
Jesus died a Jew. There was no "church" when he left this world. Christianity evolved afterwards. How could he have submitted his whole life to the church if there were no church? How could he love something that didn't exist?
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 12, 2008 5:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Every candidate understands he or she must profess some religious belief as a prerequisite for running for office. I'm fairly certain a healthy percentage of political officeholders don't actually hold the supernatural beliefs they profess, but understand that's the price of being in the arena.
Morman, Christian (Evangelical or otherwise), Muslim, Wiccan or Pagan...the particular flavor of invisible-friend-with-superpowers doesn't much matter. From a personal point of view (and I understand it's a minority point of view), only when candidates convince me both of their true belief and that they would make governing decisions based on that belief (i.e., Huckabee), is the candidate unqualified to hold office. That does usually rule out Fundamentalists of any flavor, as their faith nearly always mandates they establish the rules by which others must act.
Posted by: maliss | January 12, 2008 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
IMO, all of the previous hullabaloo is getting close to overlooking what Jesus said about family and love in Matthew 10:34-39 (KJV)--
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Jesus also said that there are no marriages in heaven so you can forget about spending time with your family in heaven. And since the concept of heaven (New Jerusalem on the new Earth) as revealed in the Bible is only for the Jews, most people won't make it there anyway.
Regarding Hitler and Mussolini, remember the story about how God used Pharaoh to convince the Israelites to follow Him and Moses. The best thing to have happened to the Jews lately was the advent of Hitler as their enemy. If he hadn't shown up they would have had to invent another boogeyman. They ended up with their own country and got the US taxpayer to pay for most of it.
Now Huckabee is flapping his jaws about seeing Iran at the gates of hell. Oh well, that's what we get for supporting candidates that think that they're running for the office of Grand Protector of Israel instead of just President of the United States of America.
Posted by: Johnny Ringo | January 12, 2008 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's that simple, Oort. Good post. :)
Posted by: Paganplace | January 12, 2008 3:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The constitution is the law of the land, it defines how we are to be governed, who is to govern us, and from where those who govern get their mandate to govern - from us. Not from any gods, not from any holy books, but only from we the people.
If some politician who wants to run our government says he will follow a higher power than the constitution when is president, then he is violating that mandate and that trust.
Huckabee has flatly stated that he will refer all things through his biblical filter before applying the constitution.
I accept the authority of the constitution, I do not accept the authority of his bible. Yet he is going to govern me with his bible before the constitution?
Then I must decline to accept his authority.
Posted by: Oort | January 12, 2008 3:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
And, hey, don't get me wrong, I welcome Huckabee's candidacy in that the Religious Right have had to frenetically-back people that are really first and foremost GOP. First and foremost corporate toadies.
That pander to the Religious Right instead of representing them. Huckabee would be a nightmare as a President for a lot of reasons, *but,* at least he's representing people who have previously been told they must support unabashed hypocrites in the name of their Christ.
I'm sure Huck's a hypocrite, too, but the fact that he's perceived to *not* be and is chosen by some of these folks is a lot more hopeful than the rampant denial the Religious Right has had to indulge about supporting Bush. (Think that could make *anyone* a little crazy.)
My standards of expectation for a Republican candidate *could not be lower* at this point, after Bush, ... but I was watching the Republicans debating, and he actually took a couple positions (not on issues nearest and dearest to my immediate concern, mind you,) but I found myself saying, 'That's..... Not insane, theocratic, and crass... I could be OK with that policy,' (I can't remember what it was about, ..infrastructure or some point about education, I think... the point was he wasn't wedded to being in lockstep with *everything wrong* :) )
I could never support the guy, especially with Neanderthal ideas about the status of women, (you just can't dress *that* pig up, once you quote St. Paul as a guiding force, it's all over, ...dude had serious issues. But.)
But, Maybe there's an opportunity here to look at the culture war, find some common ground, say *no* to those who use a lot of Christians to support horrible injustices and errors and exploitations, ...and get past the polarization.
In the case of this quotation, though, we see why we don't want a preacher in the White House: even with this spin, he's asserting the authority of a passage that goes against everything America is about... while trying to say it doesn't say what it does...
Personally, I say, if Christian women want to submit to their husbands, that's fine for them if they can make *that* work, but... It's not the government's job to close off or complicate all other options.
Posted by: Paganplace | January 12, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jake;
You refer to Saul as Saint Paul. Who decided Paul was a saint?
And, what exactly is a saint?
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff P,
I agress that disagreements exist on Biblical text. Disunity in the Christian faiths is terribly unfortunate. But, that is a separate issue.
In reference to this text from the Letter to the Ephesians, I believe most Christians would agree that love is submission, love is sacrifice. I believe this is a difficult idea for us Americans sometimes because of our deeply set values of independence and autonomy (which are not entirely bad things). However, the idea of BEING FOR THE OTHER is often a tough one.
I have no problem with critizing political leaders. Candidates should account for their views, policies, decisions, etc. However, Mr. Berlinerblau, in this instance is irresponibly critizing someone (I do not care is that person is a politician, priest, teacher, or bus driver) on a statement they made that seem to him to be contradictory or twisted from what was stated previously. In this piece, Berlinerblau forms his opinion by not looking at the whole text of the passage, and not reading carefully the statement from the SBC. This is a shame. My problem is not criticism of politicians, but how the author here came about his criticism, especially since he is an academic.
Posted by: Jake | January 12, 2008 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To MD,
Granted. Should have done a better job on the first post. How 'bout this for a non sequitur:
I'm probably not even going to vote for Huckabee. For now, my guy is Obama. But all the self-righteous indignation over Huckabee's faith is sickening. Sure, he brought a lot of it on himself, but how are his policies and history as a governor any better or worse than the rest of the candidates, such that you can peg them on his Christianity?
To me, the bottom line is that he's an underfunded upstart who is running circles around the big-money establishment candidates. That makes them look silly and wrath hath no fury like scorned establishment. Or something like that...
Posted by: JR | January 12, 2008 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques obviously never read the original text in Greek ... it's the same word for wives and for husbands. It's the translators of the King James Version that injected their own politics into it.
Posted by: M B | January 12, 2008 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I still think the premise of this original post is that political leaders who choose to use their "faith" as a political tool will be held accountable to their "faith talk."
The Holy Bible can and is used to support a wide variety of positions on generally anything and everything--in that awkward scenario, it becomes meaningless.
Jake: you might see, reading through the entire comments section, that ordinary, smart Christians can completely disagree on what a text says, implies, etc. You and I know that's a fact of scriptural interpretation. Why would it matter? Well, because some church administrative bodies are clearly good with "putting women in their places." Some on this post are just fine with that, others not, and they all have scripture (NRSV vs NIV vs KJV) to support their position.
I think that's the important point that Jacques Berlinerblau continually points out. When the Holy Bible can mean everything, it can also mean nothing. Bible thumping will instantly win votes among some voters, but there are a number of us who are going to call these guys on their rhetoric.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 12, 2008 1:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerlau,
I respectfully disagree with your notion that Mr. Huckabee's take on this passage is liberal or wrong. To be clear, I do not have any solid opinions on Mr. Huckabee as a candidate or minister. However, as a Catholic (who used this reading in my own wedding Mass) I think this passage from Ephesians is an important one in regard to marriage and even applies more generally to how we should love one another.
A few points:
1. Mr.Huckabee's statement that wives AND husbands should submit themselves to each other is right on the money. The author of the Letter to the Ephesians (St. Paul) clearly states in Ephesians 5:21 (NAB), "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." Your failure to include the sentence IMMEDIATELY prior to Ephesians 5:22-25, which you quoted, is irresponsible. How Mr. Huckabee's take on this text is liberal or wrong in your opinion is baffling.
2. Your writing, "The men do the loving. The women do the submitting," seems to indicate in some way that you have separated the two actions (loving and submitting), that loving someone does not mean submitting yourself to the other. Husbands are called, as you highlight in your quoted text from Ephesians, to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and handed himself over for her (the church). Like Jesus did for humanity, husbands are to sacrifice their own lives for their wives. As Jesus says in the Gospel of John, "Love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." He is calling all of us to die to ourselves, submitting ourselves with humility for the sake of others. Love is not just a feeling, although nothing feels greater than being loved, it is giving oneself for the sake of the other.
Even in the SBC statement that you quote, it describes the husband's role as "SERVANT leadership." This clearly indicates that husbands, though the leader of the family, are to give themselves, submitting and serving, to their wives.
All of this goes to the deep roots of the teachings of Jesus: Loving one another, as he loved us...sacrificially.
I do not believe Mr. Huckabee's remarks in this instance are being used for political gain, but for clarity shedding light on a text that is so often misunderstood.
I am disappointed that you, as a scholar from such a renowned Jesuit university, so carelessly distort what he has to say in this instance regarding love and marriage from Biblical text. The more I digest your take on this issue, the more irresponsible your research and writing in this piece seems.
Shame on The Post for allowing such mediocre writing.
Posted by: Jake | January 12, 2008 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I actually think Huckabee is right in his explanation of the text. Christ submitted his whole life to the church, and it is by virtue of that submission that Christ is said to love the church. Husbands, so the verses say, are to love their wives (i.e., to, in love, submit their lives to them) as Christ loved the church.
This isn't a liberal reading of the verses, which are clearly a poetic (though truthful) way of describing the Christian idea of marriage. If anything, Huckabee's response shows that he's well-thought-out on some of these interesting theological issues.
Posted by: KR | January 12, 2008 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To MD,
Granted. Should have done a better job on the first post. How 'bout this for a non sequitur:
I'm probably not even going to vote for Huckabee. For now, my guy is Obama. But all the self-righteous indignation over Huckabee's faith is sickening. Sure, he brought a lot of it on himself, but how are his policies and history as a governor any better or worse than the rest of the candidates, such that you can peg them on his Christianity?
To me, the bottom line is that he's an underfunded upstart who is running circles around the big-money establishment candidates. That makes them look silly and wrath hath no fury like scorned establishment. Or something like that...
Posted by: JR | January 12, 2008 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I would recommend that before you start teaching others about the Bible, you pick up a book on grammar. Yours is painful, and if your holy book was written that way it wouldn't be worth it's weight in dirt.
Posted by: Luke | January 12, 2008 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
All that's very nice, but it's really Huck talking around the fact that his particular Biblical view of marriage as voiced by a previous mention of the overtly-oppressive parts of the passage, which he didn't really deny, he simply sought to mollify fears by saying something *else* which in the context of the whole passage really isn't reassuring at all: the fact is that this clearly demonstrates the problems of trying to elect a Bible-quoting preacher because *anything* in that book could be taken to reflect government policy if he were elected:
Look what's happening here... Instead of a clear policy position, we have a bunch of people trying to *interpret* not only the Bible, but what the candidate might mean about it.
Seems to me that's not what we need in a President right now.
Posted by: Paganplace | January 12, 2008 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidey: I would like to teach you, but you won't read or listen.I am eminently teachable. I studied religion in religious shools from age 6, thru high school and college.My advance degree was not in a religious setting, but I still learned, and my teachers taught me. And I continue to study.
There is no SINGLE christianity;you are too full of yourself to accept that historical fact.There are many christianities, ruthlessly obliterated by the church located in Rome,which ascended to the top perch of the one true religion, only because it was at the center of the Roman empire. This geographical advantage was leveraged,resulting in the super rich and powerful church of rome, and the destruction of the competing theologies of other christianities:the Gnostics,the Ebionites,the Marcionites,to name a few. Surely, you as a teacher must know of these early christian sects/cults? They have as much claim to the true religion as any sect;some would say more.
And did you know that jesus did not ascend to heaven after three days when his tomb was found empty by a few visitors,as your bible says? There were other bibles which say that eye witnesses were there when jesus arose, along with two gigantic angels and a cross as big as a skyscraper? Why do you not believe this version, but believe a story of events which no one admits seeing first hand? Who do you believe,if anyone, about these fantastic stories of loaves and fishes, and raising from the dead, and water to wine? And the ascension of the virgin mother of god to a place in the sky. Holy toledo,Batman!!
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Good lord, Jacques, are we then to treat our wifes as slaves, to order around and do with what we will? If a wife does not submit to her husband, can her husband then beat her into submission? This article is nothing more than right-wing tripe. Who cares if Huckabee got it wrong? Huckabee's interpetation is actually right for todays' world.
All you "Christians", including Huckabee, are nothing more than dangerous right-wing facists who would love nothing more than imposing a Christian theocracy on the US. You are more than irritating.
Posted by: Chagasman | January 12, 2008 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Looking for answers,
How many documented cases are there of humankind having independent knowledge of the god of the Jews and Christians – “God of Creation” – that is without the benefit (?) of being proselytized?
If none, why not?
Posted by: Tommy O | January 12, 2008 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2,
There ARE no original manuscripts of the Bible. There are copies of copies of copies, etc. So King James, with all his resources, did not get the originals to translate into English. You need to study some history.
And YOU would like to teach Thopaine? How could an illiterate like you teach anybody anything?
Posted by: MD | January 12, 2008 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ERF: “If Jesus Christ did not submit Himself to dying on the cross for the sins of the people of the Church, I do not know what submission is. I cannot imagine a greater example of submission and sacrifice than to give one's life for another.”
Sounds like you didn’t see my post of January 11, 2008 10:50 AM. Please check it out. Also, remember that God did not give the Jesus free will that he gave to the rest of us humans. No, Jesus had no choice but to die for our sins. His father, God set the whole thing up in advance. There’s something about it in Matthew 26:39 - And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”
J Reinhart: “only a few passages are actually attributed to eyewitness quotes of Jesus.”
Which ones? Actually the gospels were written at least 35-70 years after the supposed resurrection of Jesus, so none of the passages are from eyewitnesses.
Also, you say: “Jesus did branch out, you know, after his own people refused to follow him. He reached out to Gentiles, which was a general term for all non-Jews.”
No – that was Paul – Jesus was long gone to heaven by the time Paul got started. In Jesus’ earthly life, he didn’t stray too far from Galilee.
Spidey: “I think a lot of secularists here would think twice if the prophecies I mentioned previously would start to happen.” Certainly I’d take notice if a guy wielding a sword and riding a horse came out of the clouds.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 12, 2008 10:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thopaine, try to change Bin Ladin's views if you can. These people, like Hitler or Mosullini won't have that many followers if they are wishy-washy with their beliefs. They rather die than to be caught alive.
Just try to open a King James version bible and read it sometimes when you are at your lowest point of your life. Many people were converted thru that, including the founder of Haven of Rest Christian quartet and many more and that includes me.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thopaine, I'd like to teach you but at this moment I think you are not teachable. If you really want to learn, just read this website : http://www.religion.bravehost.com
I use the King James Bible version. Being King he has great resources to get the original manuscript from Hebrew and Greek original writings and he gathered top scholars from universities to translate them. Committees were also created to review their work.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 9:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Please spiderman2; before I decide to read the bible "for hidden meaning"!!with a spiritual coach, whatever that is, first stop avoiding the painful question you can not answer: The writings are NOT authentic, and therefore not the word of any god. And if I hire a spiritual coach, which bible will he coach me about? And will he/she first satify me that we are reading the good stuff, and not forgeries, mis-translations,etc etc.
To all who swear by the bible; first establish the authenticty of the included writings in the bible, then we can talk. Otherwise ,we are just talking past each other.
Ps what about mussolini? And how do you know hitler committed suicide?Or that as he lay dieing if he did suicide, that he did not" get religion'at the last moment of life?
Now you are just being foolish when you state ;"these people" don't change easily" Really?
PPS If YOU want to learn more,read"Lost christianities;christian scriptures and the battle over authentication.
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Please spiderman2; before I decide to read the bible "for hidden meaning"!!with a spiritual coach, whatever that is, first stop avoiding the painful question you can not answer: The writings are NOT authentic, and therefore not the word of any god. And if I hire a spiritual coach, which bible will he coach me about? And will he/she first satify me that we are reading the good stuff, and not forgeries, mis-translations,etc etc.
To all who swear by the bible; first establish the authenticty of the included writings in the bible, then we can talk. Otherwise ,we are just talking past each other.
Ps what about mussolini? And how do you know hitler committed suicide?Or that as he lay dieing if he did suicide, that he did not" get religion'at the last moment of life?
Now you are just being foolish when you state ;"these people" don't change easily" Really?
PPS If YOU want to learn more,read"Lost christianities;christian scriptures and the battle over authentication.
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JR,
My email asking (rhetorically) whether Christianity isn't "truly bizarre" was in response to your characterizing the Mormon religion as "truly bizarre." Your response was basically a non sequitur.
Posted by: MD | January 12, 2008 9:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 states I ask too many questions..guilty.
He flatly states that if I cannot accept that the bible(which one?) is the word of god(who may or may not be a figment of over active primitive imaginations) then I perforce "lack spiritual discernment." I am sure you think you have this discernment and will therefore not have a problem defining this concept of spiritual discernment? Or is it a ten dollar word for a penny concept: faith?
Bhuddists,mormons, hindus,jews,jains,etc.and ad nauseum, do not accept the bible as the word of god.Do they ,too,lack spiritual discernment?
It must be comforting to be so smug in your own spiritual discernment.
Give me anything to support that the bible, or any of it's thousands of versions, is authenic and the word of god.
Surely in your studies leading to spiritual discernment(or did you acquire this thru osmosis?), you came across the many forgeries,fakes,and just plain incorrect texts included in the " word of god"? And that it was not until the 4th century that the bible was collated and many important competeing texts were excluded, for good reasons and bad, by the human conferees who were invited and who made it to the conference? You are aware of all this, are you not?
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 9:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 states I ask too many questions..guilty.
He flatly states that if I cannot accept that the bible(which one?) is the word of god(who may or may not be a figment of over active primitive imaginations) then I perforce "lack spiritual discernment." I am sure you think you have this discernment and will therefore not have a problem defining this concept of spiritual discernment? Or is it a ten dollar word for a penny concept: faith?
Bhuddists,mormons, hindus,jews,jains,etc.and ad nauseum, do not accept the bible as the word of god.Do they ,too,lack spiritual discernment?
It must be comforting to be so smug in your own spiritual discernment.
Give me anything to support that the bible, or any of it's thousands of versions, is authenic and the word of god.
Surely in your studies leading to spiritual discernment(or did you acquire this thru osmosis?), you came across the many forgeries,fakes,and just plain incorrect texts included in the " word of god"? And that it was not until the 4th century that the bible was collated and many important competeing texts were excluded, for good reasons and bad, by the human conferees who were invited and who made it to the conference? You are aware of all this, are you not?
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 9:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thopaine, some parts of the bible has hidden meanings. It uses figures of speech. If you have spiritual discernment or spiritual "coach" to understand them, you would know that it's really the word of God. Not everybody can understand the Bible and that is the reason why many so called "intelligent" people wrestle with it. They won't understand it by themselves. All of those people who says that the Bible is not the word of God are all lost and everything they say about the Bible like Jacques Berlinerblau are all garbage. Sad to say but unless these people have a change of heart, they will not go to heaven. You can check this out if you wanna learn more:
http://www.religion.bravehost.com
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 8:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2 says I lack spiritual discernment.What exactly is spiritual discernment? I assume you have it and therefore should have no problem explaining what it is. And how does that address my "too many" questions,challenging the authenticity of the writings commonly referred to as "the bible"?
You state flatly, the bible is the word of god;and imply that only persons of spiritual discernment can know that.
Please, give me something, anything, to support your bald statement that any one of the many " bibles" are the word of god?
While you are at it, you might mention your argument for the existence of the "god" whose word you believe it is.
I gather that you retreat to the position that it is a matter of " faith" and you either have it or you don't. If you base your belief that the bible is the word of god solely on " faith" ,then we can end the discussion, because I can just as easily accept the faith of the mormons, jainists, hindus,buddhists,etc. who do not accept the bible. Are they lacking in spiritual discernment?
Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2008 8:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thopaine ask? " Will hitler and mosullini go to heaven?
The answer is no.Hitler commited suicide and it's a sign he has not asked for forgiveness. These people don't easily ask for forgiveness. they believe what they are doing is right.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 8:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff; good for you.Find a woman who agrees with you and live a happy married life! In the interim, accept that there are many who do find it troubling, especially from one who wants to be a president for us all, not just males.
And to the christian poster who says he will be kind to those who are kind to him, and rough to those who are rough;that is the old testament,eye for an eye and all that. Did not jesus in fact say turn the other cheek? Forgive them for they know not what they do? Is not forgiveness the stand alone hallmark of christianity? Just as the catholic church refuses to excommunicate hitler and mussolini,but has chosen to forgive them? By the by, does this mean that they are in heaven, not hell, because their sins they have been forgiven them? After all , the pope is christ's representative on earth and God speaks directly through him -"ex catheda".Or does hucky not accept this?
Assume they got death-bed religion and ''asked" for forgiveness, and assume it was sincere,(after all, there are no atheists in a fox hole, right?) will I meet them in heaven? gee, I hope so...
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 8:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thopaine, the Bible is the word of God and if you doubt it, it means that you won't understand it. It needs spiritual discernment to understand it. You have too many questions and it's hard to answer them all. Question no.1 please.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 8:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff; good for you.Find a woman who agrees with you and live a happy married life! In the interim, accept that there are many who do find it troubling, especially from one who wants to be a president for us all, not just males.
And to the christian poster who says he will be kind to those who are kind to him, and rough to those who are rough;that is the old testament,eye for an eye and all that. Did not jesus in fact say turn the other cheek? Forgive them for they know not what they do? Is not forgiveness the stand alone hallmark of christianity? Just as the catholic church refuses to excommunicate hitler and mussolini,but has chosen to forgive them? By the by, does this mean that they are in heaven, not hell, because their sins they have been forgiven them? After all , the pope is christ's representative on earth and God speaks directly through him -"ex catheda".Or does hucky not accept this?
Assume they got death-bed religion and ''asked" for forgiveness, and assume it was sincere,(after all, there are no atheists in a fox hole, right?) will I meet them in heaven? gee, I hope so...
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 8:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Will someone please first establish that the "bible"(greek,catholic, king james,or any of the hundreds of versions ) is in fact the word of god? That there have been no forgeries ? No mistranslations by trickster monks seeking promotion? That all the interpreters and transcribers were able, educated and competent?
That the hundreds of competing writings of early church personages which were EXCLUDED, were not in fact deleting the word of god?
And we now have established several forgeries in the new testament(some involving Paul),yet organized religion can not bring itself to excise same, because it would show that ALL the writings of the "word of god" are suspect.
Other than the untrustworthy stories of ignorant fishermen,where is the evidence for that place we know as hell? Or is hell merely an artificial construct to keep the troops in line?
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 7:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So our candidate speaks of the Bible as if it were on par with the U.S. Constitution, only to act like one of those godless "activist" judges. Cowardice in pursuit of the inane hardly seems presidential, Mr. Huckabee, but gratifying it is to see you coming to terms with your Christian candidacy.
Posted by: jhbyer | January 12, 2008 7:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To DC Claire; Huck(since everyone refers to Ms Clinton as Hilary,I feel it appropriate to belittle the male candidates in the same manner)may have the context of the epistle more modern ,his religion does not. The statement out of the baptist convention males no such nuances but flately staes that woman must be subservient. Please address that organized religion's statement, not the entire epistle. Huck
has a way of sliming his way out of past Baptist fundamentalism when confronted.And he will live his baptist religion if elected.How can he not? To do otherwise would be contrary to his religion and to the wishes of his supporters. If he is going to be just another secular president,what does he bring to the table?
As to the nasty comment by Jr asking why read comments of an associate professor of jewish civilization,the answer is because otherwise we would be left reading comments by biggoted ignoramuses like him(or her?)
Posted by: thopaine | January 12, 2008 7:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't find the passage from Ephesians "troubling" in the least. It is plain spoken and clear. It needs no further explanation, and certainly needs no apology.
Posted by: Jeff Cote | January 12, 2008 5:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
J Rhinehart: "Interesting. Jesus did branch out, you know, after his own people refused to follow him. He reached out to Gentiles, which was a general term for all non-Jews.
I think you're right though, that Jesus tried to convert his own people most of all. He was, after all, a Jew first. He grew up studying Jewish writings first."
^^^^^^^^^^
It pays to remember that although the New Testament tells the story in sequence that it wasn't written that way. It's like the "Star Wars" movies. They started in the middle and then the beginning was revealed.
Paul was the first to write about Jesus. He's the one who defined Jesus and created the Christian religion for the Gentiles. The Gospel writers gave Jesus a personality by placing Him in situations that showed His relationship to God. They never met Jesus. And Paul only saw Jesus in a self-proclaimed vision. If it hadn't been for Paul we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The idea that Jesus, as the Son of God who was sent only to the Jews, would then turn around and act as the savior for the Gentiles is ludicrous. Jesus didn't interact with the Gentiles and He had no interest in them. He hardly spoke to Pilate. He never preached one word to the Gentiles.
When Jesus returns over a third of mankind will be killed and the Earth will become a complete disaster. Then when New Jerusalem arrives it will be a place for the reunification of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. There's no mention in the book of Revelation about any Gentiles getting in with them.
Posted by: Johnny Ringo | January 12, 2008 2:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I use sarcasm here if secularist use it to demean Christians. Throwing cake at them when they throw us bottled water is not fun and fair. They set the tone and I'll pick it from there. If they say it nice, expect nicer words from me. See how I responded when Jeff set the tone correctly. It's nice to be nice to nice people and fun to be rough to rough people also.
Just set the tone. Im game to whatever rules you set.
I think a lot of secularists here would think twice if the prophecies I mentioned previously would start to happen. The fruit may take years to ripen but that's Ok with me.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 12, 2008 12:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bear in mind that "a bit better educated" is not a high bar. You wouldn't want to try to limbo under it. :D
Posted by: Pam | January 11, 2008 11:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark writes:
"Slowly but surely, Spidey's façade is falling away to reveal the telltale signs of none other than - Canyon Shearer!"
I'm not so sure. Canyon seems a bit better educated than Spidey - and I suspect that Spidey is even younger.
In one respect they are equally stupid, though. They think they're making converts by posting here, when in fact, their hellfire-and-brimstone hatred and vitriol is driving people away - if not from religion itself, certainly from their benighted version of it.
Posted by: Pam | January 11, 2008 11:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
BILL IQBAL said:
I am not Evangelical, White, or for that matter a Christian. I am from Iowa & I voted for Mike. I know of dozens of people from my background who voted for him. The underling understanding of all religions is that we have shared common values. Honesty, integrity, morals, and a basic desire to see the poor in our country receive a better life. Mike brings all of that to the table. It is troublesome to see people like Jacques just think of Mike and box him as a minister who has only one voting block. Sir, let me tell you...that is not the case and may be you will realize it when you actually meet the man in person. I for one met all the candidates on both sides & the only one who came close to Mike was Obama. The guy from HOPE gives hope to people when we feel there is none left.
I hope Huckabee would continue his methods in Iowa and he abandon his method in New Hampshire. He can't please these secularists' call for him to tone down his "Christian Candidate" message. They are his detractors and the last thing he should do is listen to them. Mr. Huckabee, if you're listening, please "thump" it louder so more Christians could hear you.
Guys, i always forget to write my name. Sorry
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 11, 2008 11:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
BILL IQBAL said:
I am not Evangelical, White, or for that matter a Christian. I am from Iowa & I voted for Mike. I know of dozens of people from my background who voted for him. The underling understanding of all religions is that we have shared common values. Honesty, integrity, morals, and a basic desire to see the poor in our country receive a better life. Mike brings all of that to the table. It is troublesome to see people like Jacques just think of Mike and box him as a minister who has only one voting block. Sir, let me tell you...that is not the case and may be you will realize it when you actually meet the man in person. I for one met all the candidates on both sides & the only one who came close to Mike was Obama. The guy from HOPE gives hope to people when we feel there is none left.
I hope Huckabee would continue his methods in Iowa and he abandon his method in New Hampshire. He can't please these secularists' call for him to tone down his "Christian Candidate" message. They are his detractors and the last thing he should do is listen to them. Mr. Huckabee, if you're listening, please "thump" it louder so more Christians could hear you.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2008 11:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Slowly but surely, Spidey's façade is falling away to reveal the telltale signs of none other than - Canyon Shearer!
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 11, 2008 11:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Roy, that's correct. God calls those whose going to hell as FOOLS. Dumb is a nicer word. Also , you don't call people dumb if they are not. People who doesn't believe the bible are dumb and It's not my fault if they choose to be that way.
Rhinehart, the verse is for Christian husbands and I believe your sister's husband is not otherwise she should be the happiest wife on earth.
As I always say, idiots can't understand the bible and I hope secularists should stop quoting the bible coz it's not for you. Intelligence and idiocy don't mix. Play that into your mind again and again so you comprehend it.
You people don't know what Christ-like means. He dislike sin and He can be mean like smiting the people who used God's temple as a place to sell their wares. Also Hell is real. He will burn all you unbelievers if you don't listen. It's forever and not just 5 seconds.
Atheist are the meanest men on earth so stop the hypocricy. Go to North Korea so you'd wake up from your fantasy world.
God is love to those who loves him and He can be the meanest of all if He's your enemy. Believe it coz once you'd hear it directly from Him, no part of your body would not taste pain.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 11, 2008 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Roy, that's correct. God calls those whose going to hell as FOOLS. Dumb is a nicer word. Also , you don't call people dumb if they are not. People who doesn't believe the bible are dumb and It's not my fault if they choose to be that way.
Rhinehart, the verse is for Christian husbands and I believe your sister's husband is not otherwise she should be the happiest wife on earth.
As I always say, idiots can't understand the bible and I hope secularists should stop quoting the bible coz it's not for you. Intelligence and idiocy don't mix. Play that into your mind again and again so you comprehend it.
You people don't know what Christ-like means. He dislike sin and He can be mean like smiting the people who used God's temple as a place to sell their wares. Also Hell is real. He will burn all you unbelievers if you don't listen. It's forever and not just 5 seconds.
Atheist are the meanest men on earth so stop the hypocricy. Go to North Korea so you'd wake up from your fantasy world.
God is love to those who loves him and He can be the meanest of all if He's your enemy. Believe it coz once you'd hear it directly from Him, no part of your body would not taste pain.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2008 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Here's an example of the "new Christian" love and tolerance:
spiderman2:
Pam, you fit dumb person no.1 . I don't see any intelligence in your reply. It's very shallow. It's purely trash-talk. If you like to hear what "stupid sounds like", you've been hearing her since the day you were born
Real Christ-like, huh?
Posted by: Roy | January 11, 2008 10:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One can cherry pick or interpret scripture any way possible. That is what is so endearing about neochristians who tell us what is right and wrong even though the First Amendment protects us from their controlling, judgmental ways.
Posted by: Roy | January 11, 2008 10:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Johnny Ringo:
Since the Bible was written by Jews for Jews why do other people think that it applies to them? It's an ethnic specific theology the same as the Koran is for desert Arabs.
-------------------------------------------------
Interesting. Jesus did branch out, you know, after his own people refused to follow him. He reached out to Gentiles, which was a general term for all non-Jews.
I think you're right though, that Jesus tried to convert his own people most of all. He was, after all, a Jew first. He grew up studying Jewish writings first.
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 11, 2008 9:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
TO spiderman2:
J. Rhinehart, by the way you speak, it seems like you're single and not attached to any man. The bible verse is for married people so it should not bother you.
----------------------------------------------------
My sister married a man. He is now her "head". She is now a thief, a liar, an embezzler. She does what he wants, she tries to please him. She is lost to all that is good.
One must be very careful who one follows. One must have one's own set of ethics, and follow them, or one becomes like a lamb to the slaughter.
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 11, 2008 9:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Since the Bible was written by Jews for Jews why do other people think that it applies to them? It's an ethnic specific theology the same as the Koran is for desert Arabs.
And who did Jesus say that He came for? Hint: It wasn't for all of mankind.
Matthew 15:24 -- But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Posted by: Johnny Ringo | January 11, 2008 9:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
J. Rhinehart, by the way you speak, it seems like you're single and not attached to any man. The bible verse is for married people so it should not bother you.
Also only those who really know Jesus could know if it comes from him or not. For the rest, it's impossible for them to decipher. Engineers understand fellow engineers. An average person won't unless it's given in piecemeal.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 11, 2008 8:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jesus did not have the worst of life from humanity. Crucifixion is not too bad compared to other forms of torture. Also, Britney Spears faces more scorn than Jesus ever did. Jesus got it easy.
Posted by: Luke | January 11, 2008 8:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"...that troubling passage from Ephesians" has been troubling for many women who refuse to let their husbands rule them, regardless of who wrote it. (Note, I am emphasizing here that Jesus did NOT write Ephesians.)
People who worship Jesus forget the fact that NONE of the New Testament was actually written BY Jesus, & only a few passages are actually attributed to eyewitness quotes of Jesus, & those are NOT in Ephesians.
And to top it off, the Bible was written by MEN, so read it that way. Since when have men ever known what's best for women?
Posted by: J Rhinehart | January 11, 2008 8:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff p, it's true that there are those who use religion to further their ambition. But not all. It becomes unfair if liberals bunch all of them as fake. We christians think our rights are slowly being attacked by the secularists. Just a day ago, it's now illegal to distribute bibles in schools. A few years back, they were almost successful taking out the phrase "In God We Trust" in our currency. What's next? We're tired of these attacks, and by God's grace you'd be hearing a lot more from me even after this election is done.
Also it's a wrong perception that Christians are missing out interesting things. True christians or those living Christ-like are the most interesting people on earth. Walter Disney is a Christian and his place is named as the happiest place on earth. Earth is really an interesting place coz it's creator is the inventor of the word "interesting". Im sorry to say but it's you who's really missing out on these things. North Korea is an atheist country. See how interesting that country is.
Here's a post from a reader a few days ago and I kept it because it reflects my conviction on these two candidates. We have different backgrounds but we see things the same.
BILL IQBAL said:
I am not Evangelical, White, or for that matter a Christian. I am from Iowa & I voted for Mike. I know of dozens of people from my background who voted for him. The underling understanding of all religions is that we have shared common values. Honesty, integrity, morals, and a basic desire to see the poor in our country receive a better life. Mike brings all of that to the table. It is troublesome to see people like Jacques just think of Mike and box him as a minister who has only one voting block. Sir, let me tell you...that is not the case and may be you will realize it when you actually meet the man in person. I for one met all the candidates on both sides & the only one who came close to Mike was Obama. The guy from HOPE gives hope to people when we feel there is none left.
Sorry guys, i forgot to write my name. That's me and not anonymous. Sorry
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 11, 2008 8:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff p, it's true that there are those who use religion to further their ambition. But not all. It becomes unfair if liberals bunch all of them as fake. We christians think our rights are slowly being attacked by the secularists. Just a day ago, it's now illegal to distribute bibles in schools. A few years back, they were almost successful taking out the phrase "In God We Trust" in our currency. What's next? We're tired of these attacks, and by God's grace you'd be hearing a lot more from me even after this election is done.
Also it's a wrong perception that Christians are missing out interesting things. True christians or those living Christ-like are the most interesting people on earth. Walter Disney is a Christian and his place is named as the happiest place on earth. Earth is really an interesting place coz it's creator is the inventor of the word "interesting". Im sorry to say but it's you who's really missing out on these things. North Korea is an atheist country. See how interesting that country is.
Here's a post from a reader a few days ago and I kept it because it reflects my conviction on these two candidates. We have different backgrounds but we see things the same.
BILL IQBAL said:
I am not Evangelical, White, or for that matter a Christian. I am from Iowa & I voted for Mike. I know of dozens of people from my background who voted for him. The underling understanding of all religions is that we have shared common values. Honesty, integrity, morals, and a basic desire to see the poor in our country receive a better life. Mike brings all of that to the table. It is troublesome to see people like Jacques just think of Mike and box him as a minister who has only one voting block. Sir, let me tell you...that is not the case and may be you will realize it when you actually meet the man in person. I for one met all the candidates on both sides & the only one who came close to Mike was Obama. The guy from HOPE gives hope to people when we feel there is none left.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2008 8:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman, in all seriousness I know you mean well, in your own Christian way.
Whatever it's worth, I do appreciate that you might care for our souls (if not much for our persons), and I don't really think you'd want Pam and I to kill one another with your knives.
There's no way on earth I'd move you from your position of belief, and it wouldn't be my desire, if the Bible gives you any comfort in this otherwise-"crappy" world. But I hope you can see some good in this world, apart from your religious beliefs, because you'd be missing a lot in life otherwise: Interesting people, interesting places, interesting discoveries.
However, where I and others see belief-systems being used to play the political vote, I think you'll see many people call it like they see it--hypocritical, dividing, and damaging. You might enjoy Jacques Berlinerblau's book "Thumpin' It," as it describes pretty well how the Bible has been used for any political position. I think he's just calling Huckabee as he sees him.
I'll not argue with you on this thread!
Posted by: Jeff P | January 11, 2008 7:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If Jesus Christ did not submit Himself to dying on the cross for the sins of the people of the Church, I do not know what submission is. I cannot imagine a greater example of submission and sacrifice than to give one's life for another.
Posted by: ERF | January 11, 2008 7:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes Pam I saw you beat me to that one position!
JP
Posted by: Jeff P | January 11, 2008 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pam, you fit dumb person no.1 . I don't see any intelligence in your reply. It's very shallow. It's purely trash-talk. If you like to hear what "stupid sounds like", you've been hearing her since the day you were born. Let your ear listen as you speak. Submissiveness is not a negative trait. Humility is always a sign of intelligence. The dumbest people on earth are always the proudest. "The meek shall inherit the earth " because they are the most intelligent.
Jeff--p, you're second in line coz you admit you're dumb no. 1 . Humility made you a bit higher than Pam. As I've said, Idiocy and intelligence don't mix. You didn't understand the bible that's why you became an atheist. A person who does not understand books for Engineers or Medicine does not become Engineers or Doctors. You admiting that you became an atheist after reading the bible means you flanked and it just proved my point.
Pam, you're wiser now after admitting you're dumb no.1. I'm just worried now what the two of you do to each other just to gain that coveted prize. I have two knives and two dumb bells here. But Im keeping the knives coz Im sure both of you would pick the dumb bells.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 11, 2008 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry Jeff, you're only Dumb Person #2.
:D
Posted by: Pam | January 11, 2008 6:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, spiderman2, based on your post, the "fruit" has been judged.
"Here is words of wisdom --Intelligence and idiocy don't mix..."
"Ok guys, advance to be recognize."
Additionally, most Christians capitalize the word "Bible" (because they consider it Holy,) and most of those atheist "liberals" have actually read the book you're talking about--the problem that I have as one of those "dumb liberals" is that I DO understand, and HAVE read the Bible! It's the primary reason I'm an atheist.
By the way, as you describe Huckabee's wife as married for 30 years and "not complaining," how does that paragraph-beginning-sentence then lead into the next one: "Some people can't even understand a single word like Hell."
Spiderman2, (if I were you) I'd take a long look at your next and subsequent posts in the "preview" panel--perhaps have a relative or friend review it--prior to posting as is, especially with your emphasis on your intelligence.
Posted by: Jeff P--Dumb person number 1 | January 11, 2008 6:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Aah, another sweet, Christian post from Spidey.
Please don't miss my reply to you on Berlinerblau's previous thread.
Perhaps we don't hear from Mrs. Huckabee (on any subject at all) because she's too busy being submissive.
Now, please go brush up on your subject/verb agreement. You write like GWB talks.
George - is that you???
If you're intelligent, I shudder to think what stupid must sound like.
Posted by: Pam | January 11, 2008 6:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You can judge a person by its fruit. I believe Huckabee is more than 30 years married to his wife and you don't hear his wife complaining. Some people can't even understand a single word like Hell. What do you expect from these liberals interpreting the bible if they can't even understand a single word like Hell. It must be like squeezing their brains out. Here is words of wisdom -- Intelligence and idiocy don't mix and the Bible is an intelligent book. A basic requirement is that one needs an intelligent brain to comprehend it. As usual, the dumb will be lining up shooting down this post. Ok guys, advance to be recognize. Dumb person number 1, present your case.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 11, 2008 6:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What: "And for you to even say Mr. Huckabee is wrong, it's clear that you don't know the Word of God and it's clear that your Leftist thinking has your mind discombobulated about what anything moral means"
I am laughting out loud!
LDS Mark: "Gay marriage" is an "abomination", in the words of Jesus. Therefore he is not concerned with how it is structured. Only that it should not exist at all."
This is getting better!
Confused: "God gave us (HIS CHILDREN) dominion and power over the earth and every creeping thing in the earth (YEP, WE HAVE DOMINION OVER CREEPS)."
If I was still a praying man, I'd pray for Sam Harris' book to come to pass: "The End of Faith."
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2008 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Broadening the context a bit further, Eph 6 goes on to tell children to obey their parents and slaves to obey their masters. This implies an analogy of husband:wife, parent:child and master slave, softened a bit by the use of "be subject to" for the wife as opposed to "obey" for the child and slave. Doubtless the mutual subjection clause in 5:21 governs all these relationships, but it's clear from the specific instructions given in each case that the subjection of the husband/father/master it to manifest itself in the benevolent exercise of his authority, not in the sharing of authority. If we place this passage in its historical context, an intensely patriarchal society that took slavery for granted, it's pretty progressive, but putting things in context is what liberals do. If we take it as infallibly true and addressed directly to us, it's pretty retrograde.
Posted by: Max | January 11, 2008 5:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Gov. Huckabee sometimes comes across as a huckster, but I believe he is sincere both in his beliefs and in his "testimony" as a candidate. That Paul's letter to the Ephesians is the subject of this post both confirms his evangelical background and the great divide in the Christian community. We are perplexed that Muslims are divided between Shia and Sunni, but ignore the division in the Christian faith, between those who follow the word of Jesus (Thomas Jefferson most prominent among them) and those who follow the word of Paul (Gov. Huckabee and so many evangelicals). For Jefferson, the New Testament begins and ends with the four Gospels. For Gov. Huckabee and so many evangelicals, it begins with Acts and ends with Revelation. That new members of Congress were for years given a copy of the "Jefferson Bible" seems quaint today when Christianity is defined, not by Jesus, but by Paul.
Posted by: robert aylward | January 11, 2008 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Can anyone point out to me where the founding documents of this nation stipulate that wives are to submit to their husbands? The only submitting I recall is that our government submit to the will of the people and draw their power and authority from the consent of the governed, no matter what the gender of those in government.
The tenets of the Bible hold absolutely no sway over this nation. We aren't founded on that load of BS, and good thing! We don't do a damn thing in this country "out of reverence for Christ."
The question is inappropriate to be asked of a presidential candidate, even if he has begged the question himself.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 11, 2008 4:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yonkers, New York
11 January 2008
It is clear from Mr.Berlinerblau's exposition that Mike Huckabee, the politician and presidential aspirant, conveniently distorted what Mike Huckabee the Baptist Christian pastor originally said about wives having to submit to their husbands in conformity with the Christian bible.
He has just been exposed as one who has no qualms resorting to distortions if that is what it takes to get votes.
Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com
Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | January 11, 2008 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What?: "Mr. Huckabee may have just won himself a vote from this Black 30 something year old female and a registered Democrat"
I hope you base your vote on something else than a candidate's view on marital submission. Remember, you're voting for a president, not a pastor.
On a purely religious subject, you say: "So whatever role that the wife and husband agreed upon prior to marriage is what is to be submitted to"
In this agreement, is there any chance of re-negotiation later on or do the husband and wife have to stick with the original submissions.
Also, if renegotiation is allowed, where can I find discussion about this in the bible?
Thanks - looking forward to hearing back from you.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 11, 2008 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You are insane
Posted by: Mortifus | January 11, 2008 4:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Always keep in mind the evangelicals are going to Take Back America for Christ. They aren't going to ask for it, they aren't going to trade anything for it, they plan on taking it.
How many of the evangelicals are dominionists as well? Let me ask that another way: how many dominionists are *not* evangelicals, any?
These people really have no idea what sharing this country means. They feel they are the rightful owners, that we who are not them have somehow been hoodwinked by satanic liberals ...
If I ever could believe in a devil, he would be speaking in evangelical tongues, wearing evangelical clothes, shaking his evangelical finger at me for not being "right", and he would be trying to TAKE back my country in the name of one of the several christian gods.
Posted by: Mortifus | January 11, 2008 4:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Robert:
Great comment!
Posted by: occasional reader | January 11, 2008 3:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The bible does indeed call for the submission of a wife to her husband, as is called for in many of the current marriage ceremonies. Whether one is or is not a religious person, I think that it is obvious that the whole concept of the bible-basd religions are sexist. Ancient men were the only ones allowed to have any authority, the only ones who were allowed to write or allowed to express an opinion. They were so certain that the male was all-powerful that, in the utmost act of their certainty, they even designated that God should be "He". Strange, indeed, as if God needed to be male, having no apparent need for male reproductive activities, etc. What would one expect from a book which was written by men. Any other conclusion would be as if the "Chosen People" were shown as the Eqyptians.
Posted by: Ralph | January 11, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Gay marriage" is an "abomination", in the words of Jesus."
When did JESUS say THAT?!
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2008 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie Hoyt:
"Gay marriage" is an "abomination", in the words of Jesus. Therefore he is not concerned with how it is structured. Only that it should not exist at all.
Mark
Posted by: LDS Mark | January 11, 2008 2:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I also think the reason why Reasonable But Not Hateful states that
"The most loving and giving people I have ever met are evangelicals that believe in all of this"
is because Reasonable is one himself/herself.
I have personally found them to be the most conniving, underhanded and segragationist people I have ever met.
They are kind, in fact overly kind, up until the time they reach the conclusion that you won't convert. Then their true colors show. Perhaps they get upset when they realize that all of their hard work didn't result in tithing that feeds the excessive lifestyle of their cult leader.
Posted by: Robert | January 11, 2008 1:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
My apologies as I am not a New Testament scholar. But the specific passage from Ephesians 5:22-25:
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."
Did Christ love the church? Church of what, where, and when?
And did he give himself for it?
Posted by: Robert | January 11, 2008 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable But Not Hateful posted: "The most loving and giving people I have ever met are evangelicals that believe in all of this."
I can attest to this, but the "loving" and "giving" was conditional upon paying the proper lip service. It doesn't matter what one DOES, as long as they pepper their speech with "praise Jesus", start judgemental statements with "I'm a good Christian, but" and are sure to regularly say that "I have accepted Jesus into my heart as my personal savior".
Furthermore, E-fav asks:
"If you met even more loving and giving people who believed something else, would you start believing in that then? What if you met some really hateful and selfish people who fervently believed in the christian story? Would you stop believing in it?"
GREAT questions! I am curious myself.
Posted by: Are you KIDDING?! | January 11, 2008 1:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee=freewill=heaven or hell.
Most of us faithless would treat Huck as amusing and as quaint as Tom Cruise spouting Scientology if Huckabee weren't seeking the Presidency. We know already that he is a pleasant-speaking anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-free choice, gay-bashing sexist.
The battle of words is larger than an interpretation of a text of myth; the battle of words is the meaning of The Constitution, a document that Evangelicals discount since "free-will" transcends their tribal deity's controlling demands.
Posted by: perhaps | January 11, 2008 12:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable bnh: "The most loving and giving people I have ever met are evangelicals that believe in all of this."
If you met even more loving and giving people who believed something else, would you start believing in that then?
What if you met some really hateful and selfish people who fervently believed in the christian story? Would you stop believing in it?
Posted by: E Favorite | January 11, 2008 12:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
reasonable not hateful -
Exactly what does 'evil and hateful' and 'not caring about humanity' have to do with not buying into the christian fundamentalist 'believe or perish' nonsense?? I know you're a big time Christian from your many posts supporting that philosophical position, so I'm aware of where you're coming from.
Nevertheless, there are many that would prefer to see religion and preaching back in the church and in the pulpit where it belongs, rather than being continuously highlighted in the Huckabee campaign as it makes use of a public forum to trumpet religion (for blatantly political purposes). Does objecting to this total foolishness make me a bad person??
In my view such a public display of religion mixed with politics is at the very least undesirable - and the preening hubris displayed by Huckabee is unmistakeable as a mechanism for securing the evangelical vote.
The Bush administration went a long way toward graying the boundries of what is and is not permissible or acceptable in government, including the use of religion as a smokescreen to advance political agenda.
More of the same is quite objectionable in my view.......
Personally I don't think the 'god' vote is going to get anybody elected this time around.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2008 12:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable; I think the reason there's such passion about this Christianity issue is precisely because we have candidates using it as a wedge--the method to label someone as the "enemy" is a strong driving political force.
It's not so much the take-it-or-leave-it as a personal religion argument or decision, but instead I think it's the "Christianity is here to stay in politics and national decision-making and suck-it-up if you don't like it" argument.
There are many folks who are very politically tuned-in to the God-talk coming from candidates, certainly because of the national tragedies and God-talk we've heard from our leaders over the last 7 years. It's concerning and perhaps defining that many of the population are beginning to see that the devil is indeed in the details of religious talk, as it should be.
I think you'd like Berlinerblau's book "Thumpin' It," as it points out where things are taken at liberty from the Bible to support any position, and how when a holy book can mean everything, it also can mean nothing.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 11, 2008 12:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The most loving and giving people I have ever met are evangelicals that believe in all of this.
I will take this "man made delusion" over what the world offers anyday!
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | January 11, 2008 12:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon, it took me 47 years to climb out of all the marvelous academic expositions of theological debate and analysis to come to the conclusion that you eloquently provide in one sentence above: Christianity="free will=heaven or hell.
What a man-made delusion! (That's being generous, I think.)
Posted by: Jeff P | January 11, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous-
So don't accept Christianity. THat is YOUR choice.
Why the big chip on your shoulder?
I don't find it bizarre given the state of the world, and the greedy, evil people in the world that seem to not care about humanity.
I also note that Berlinerblau leaves out verse 21- "be subject to one another". Seems he is cherry picking the Bible, just what most atheists accuse Christians of doing.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | January 11, 2008 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
And again, if we haven't heard it enough:
Christianity = free will = eternal bliss or eternal damnation.
The utter nonsense of believing the fiction that humans originated from a supreme (if rather tricky) deity that now leaves us with only two choices in life - heaven or hell in a single lifetime.
All the great things god could have done and didn't do, because he loves to roll the dice.
Viva Las Vegas!!
No wonder the state of our current political process in the USA is featured in comedy clubs around the world.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2008 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
EMD DC – Hello – if you aren’t clergy, you should consider becoming one. You almost make a father purposely killing his son sound like a really good thing. You fail to mention that the sacrifice was brief – the son came back to life just three days later and now supposedly lives forever in paradise with his Dad. And according to the Catholic church, Mom came up later to join them.
When I was questioning Christianity a short while ago, something that occurred to me was how many people suffer whole lifetimes of pain and poverty and get nothing for it at the end. If they were unfortunate enough not to have heard the gospel, they will also suffer for eternity in hell, according to the Christian faith. I figure a lot of people, including clergy, don’t really buy that part, but there it is – a tenet of the faith.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 11, 2008 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I would add: "with all due respect," I think it is perfectly valid to investigate the religious beliefs of each candidate when they make it a platform, vote-seeking device, and proclaim that their "faith" drives their every decision.
I've read "Thumpin' It" and agree with your assessments, and enjoyed the reading greatly.
We must remember that this was the guy who, during a republican convention, stopped to take a "phone call" from God on his cell phone, to the cheers of a delighted crowd who marched along with each "America is great and God's country, and we're doing the right things for the world" implication.
He made his bed, he should lie down in it. With all due respect...it has everything to do with his presidential bid, and perhaps his presidency.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 11, 2008 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't support Governor Huckabee for president, but I am a New Testament student. As was pointed out earlier, the Greek (not the King James Version) starting from verse 21 literally says, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ: wives, to your husbands as to the Lord" (Ephesians 5.21-22). This is a common interpretation of these verses.
Posted by: BG | January 11, 2008 10:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
MD: "Let's see now, god took human form (via a virgin) so that he could die in order to redeem humans because Eve bit a fruit when a snake suggested that it would give her godlike knowledge if she did so."
Right, MD, but you left out that God, in his omnipotence, could have kept the fruit from providing forbidden knowledge, could have prevented Eve from eating the fruit, and could have kept humans from being born with original sin.
You also didn’t mention the wonderful gift that God did give us – free will – so we could choose for ourselves whether we wanted to worship him properly and have eternal life with him in heaven, or not worship and believe in him, thus choosing to burn for eternity in a place he invented especially for people who are too dense to appreciate His enduring and encompassing love for us.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 11, 2008 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
MD,
Look at it a different way. The fall of Adam and Eve by eating the fruit of knowledge, as recorded by Genesis, represents all of mankind's sinfulness and decision to turn away from God. Under the Torah, the Law under which the people of Abraham lived (God's chosen people), they fell very far short of the life God hoped for them. As our Creator, did not God have every right to lay down the punishment we deserved under the law?
Instead, our God came down and lived with us, taking upon himself all our shortcomings and yet living a perfect life. He became one of us, enduring all that we endure, indeed the worst of it. In this ultimate act of love, of empathy, of forgiveness, Christ on the cross dealt with sin once and for all time. The Hebrew people atoned for sin with animal sacrifices to God in the Temple. This supreme sacrifice of God giving his only Son, part of himself, to deal with our sin, is something that transcends all sacrifices previously made (read the letter to the Hebrews for a nice comparison).
If he had "simply forgiven" everyone, would that not have rendered God's own law, his own covenant with the people of Israel, nullified? God, in Jesus Christ, established a new covenant with all people of the world.
Is it hard to believe? It is "bizarre" to us that anyone would give themselves for all, despite being rejected by such people at every opportunity. I call it wonderful, amazing grace. It is quite unnatural to us who seek mostly to take for ourselves, not to give of ourselves. God did not issue an emancipatory creed from on high, but he became one of us and experienced the depths of human sinfulness, yet giving his life in forgiveness. That's the kind of forgiveness for which I am so thankful.
Posted by: EMD DC | January 11, 2008 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To MD,
So why pick on Huckabee? Why not rant and rave about the religious beliefs of ALL the candidates, not just the upstarts that defy the establishment coronation process?
My point was that what Huckabee believes the Bible says about how a husband and wife are to treat each other is not an anomaly among Christians. It is quite orthodox.
You have ably summarized the "truly bizarre" themes of Christianity. It would be foolish to expect a non-Christian to see it otherwise. But that's not what Berlinerblau was doing. He seems to have a problem not with Christianity in general (at least in this post), but with certain particulars of Huckabee's, even though they are not outside the mainstream.
Do you have a better recipe for marriage than total, mutual self-sacrifice, submission, and love? Is an ideal flawed because humans fail to make it a reality?
Posted by: JR | January 11, 2008 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
And tell me again how this run of the mill double talking Southern Baptist is qualified to be president?? You would think the country might have had enough of intellectually challenged goofuses in high leadership positions over the last 7 years, but apparently not.
Living in South Carolina, I actually work with otherwise seemingly intellegent, educated and professionally competent people who extole the praises of this backwards thinking hillbilly from Arkansas. Amen! He's their guy!! The rest love character-challenged John McCain, captain of the over-the-hill gang.
I continue to be dumbfounded at the lack of change in people's thinking, even after 7 years of being maligned by the most mendacious administration in modern history. Of course these are the same folks that voted for Bush twice, so maybe not such a big mystery after all.
The Hillary haters abound. It'll serve 'em right if they get 8 years to fantasize about how great life would have been with either of these two GOP losers in the Oval office.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2008 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To JR,
Christianity is not "truly bizarre"? Let's see now, god took human form (via a virgin) so that he could die in order to redeem humans because Eve bit a fruit when a snake suggested that it would give her godlike knowledge if she did so. This omnipotent god, apparently, had no alternative but to put into place this redemptive plan that requires the murder of a scapegoat to wipe clean the sin of everybody else. He couldn't have, for instance, simply forgiven everybody without the need of the scapegoat and murder. You don't find this "truly bizarre"?
Posted by: MD | January 11, 2008 10:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To JR,
Christianity is not "truly bizarre"? Let's see now, god took human form (via a virgin) so that he could die in order to redeem humans because Eve bit a fruit when a snake suggested that it would give her godlike knowledge if she did so. This omnipotent god, apparently, had no alternative but to put into place this redemptive plan that requires the murder of a scapegoat to wipe clean the sin of everybody else. He couldn't have, for instance, simply forgiven everybody without the need of the scapegoat and murder. You don't find this "truly bizarre"?
Posted by: MD | January 11, 2008 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Someone should ask Governor Huckabee:
In a Massachusetts gay marriage, who should submit to whom?
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | January 11, 2008 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So why do we care what an "associate professor of Jewish Civilization" thinks about how a Christian minister understands a New Testament passage?
Perhaps next we'll get to hear Mr. Hitchens complain about Huckabee's belief that a certain Jew, tortured and executed during the Roman occupation of Palestine, was in fact God incarnate and the messiah anticipated by Old Testament prophets.
Where are all the expert pundits when it comes to examining the truly bizarre religion of establishment candidate Mitt Romney?
Posted by: JR | January 11, 2008 9:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Huckabee's remarks show that he has read the Ephesians text in context, since the prior verse reads, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." The grammatical structure of the text shows that this prior statement is foundational to all that is said regarding the roles of husbands and wives in subsequent verses.
Posted by: DC Claire | January 11, 2008 9:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Mr Mark,
I have enjoyed your comments. I never said, and hope you didn't think that I implied something akin to the word "fool". A person who scoffs often has valid reasons for doing so. If you're going about seeking to find what I call "truth", which encompasses much more than revealed religion and enters all spheres of life, then that's great, we're just going about it in different ways. Bear in mind that I have never said you or anyone else would be punished for that.
The sparrow analogy does have significance as you suggested, in that sparrows seem an insignificant bird many of which die as you said, yet the message I get is that every child that has died in infancy or childhood is important and will not be relegated to "purgatory" but will be exalted. 'Good way to end this chat. Thanks.