Whose God? My Pagan Gods?

Geez, another Pandora's Box. How about to the God of compassion, unbridled love, and conservatism when needed? Maybe Buddhism's Tara could be called in to consult and debate.

Religion, what a topic.

William

Good evening Starhawk. I am a 38 year old man with an interest in comparative religion that has been listening to an audiobook version of your Wicca-for-beginners teachings. It has truly been a pleasure to listen to it.

I feel as if I have to cut to the quick by broaching paranormal experiences and The Goddess. No matter the experiences of the psyche in normal or altered states, do you experience a direct relationship with a feminine being that has been described in some UFO literature (W. Strieber)? Do you know of what I speak?

William (Havonanow@aol.com)

"Just like the people that worshipped the false God of Ball"

Really, aren't we starting March Madness a little early? Or maybe you were referring to football, baseball, or soccer balls? :D

BAAL is actually the Canaanite word for "Lord". It was applied to several non-Yahwistic mountain, thunder, lightning, and fertility deities, including Hadad and Melqart. His consort was Astarte, who is related to Asherah.

i feel sorry for you that you need such a crutch as the bible. Some people are capable of making good decisions without any need for it.

I don't believe your hell exists therefore have no fear of it, nor do i have any need of your heaven.

and nope, never suffered any molestation of any kind, whether as a kid or adult. Nice try. Simply commenting on the fact that each one of those people was brought down by the very thing they railed against.

and your rants here fill that pattern as well.

i have no need of your book, your deity or your Jesus since there is nothing to be 'saved' from. Keep them, please, if you must, but stop pushing them onto other people who have no need of them.

I've often been accused of being a 'goody two shoes' in how I've lived my life.. and i can live with that seeing as how the only person I've ever been with I'm married to.

You have my pity.

Blessed be.

1. "and also, your book advocates incest, slavery, infanticide and mass murder. why anyone would want to take rules for living from such a book is beyond"

2. "Mark Foley- wanted to protect children from sexual offenders yet was trying to pick up pages on instant messaging for sex"

3. "Priests and clergymen decrying any sexuality that does not follow their prescriptions yet are afraid enough of their own sexuality that they have to express it by violating the youngest members of their congregations. over 500 MILLION dollars paid to keep victims mouths shut- and they still get to keep their positions"

"you know, once.. ok.. coincidence. twice.. maybe coincidence. three or more times.. a pattern"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well based on your theory of once, twice, three times.......that would make you guilty of having been subjected to the very thing that you referenced (3) times. It seems that you have an issue with "being sexually violated as a child" by your own method of judgement......
See a pattern here and a relationship.........?

Of course there is, based on your own theory and by your own addmission.

I truely pity you with your self-righteous mentality. Anyone that can stand in the face of God who holds the power to take you next breath and mock and trodden the blood that Jesus shed for you on the cross to have eternal life under their feet deserves God's wrath.

Call on your Lord and Lady to "save" you from the burning flames of hell when hell opens her mouth wide to take you in at the appointed time and see if they can prevail against God's judgment for you. Just like the people that worshipped the false God of Ball and was consumed by the fire of God in the following scripture your end will be the same if you continue as you are,

1 Kings 18:20-39, {20} So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. {21} Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." But the people said nothing.

{22} Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. {23} Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. {24} Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God." Then all the people said, "What you say is good."

{25} Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire." {26} So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

{27} At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." {28} So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. {29} Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

{30} Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come here to me." They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins. {31} Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Your name shall be Israel." {32} With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs of seed. {33} He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, "Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood."

{34} "Do it again," he said, and they did it again. "Do it a third time," he ordered, and they did it the third time. {35} The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

{36} At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. {37} Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again." {38} Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench."

I am done discussing this issue with you. Only God himself can reach such a cold and harden heart as yours.

and also, your book advocates incest, slavery, infanticide and mass murder. why anyone would want to take rules for living from such a book is beyond me.

your god and i have nothing to say to one another. i have no need for such a deity.

I have the Lord and Lady who abound in all things.. and have no need for your book. sorry.

it's always the ones prosecuting the very things that they are caught up in. it's really quite fascinating.. and those are the ones that have gotten caught.

Priests and clergymen decrying any sexuality that does not follow their prescriptions yet are afraid enough of their own sexuality that they have to express it by violating the youngest members of their congregations. over 500 MILLION dollars paid to keep victims mouths shut- and they still get to keep their positions.

Larry Craig. railed against homosexuality, caught soliciting gay sex in a bathroom.

Mark Foley- wanted to protect children from sexual offenders yet was trying to pick up pages on instant messaging for sex.

and now Spitzer, the great prostitution prosecutor.. only did it because he wanted in on it.

you know, once.. ok.. coincidence. twice.. maybe coincidence. three or more times.. a pattern.

your rants.. fit the pattern.

what else is to be concluded?

ANONYMOUS @ March 10, 08 9:26 am,
"The first rule of Bigotry is to look directly at the person making such a statement because it's all about fear- either of themselves because they may be hiding aspects of the very same thing that they're bigoted against, or afraid of the unknown.
Selfishness and bigotry allows a false sense of superiority when in fact none exist.

All you've done is denigrate people that you know absolutely nothing about, probably because you have had such feelings for same sex members but cannot bear to admit it because of what that means for you.

Really, you have my pity."

----------

According to who, you? Remember it was your post that depicted the fear

It is ok for me to dislike and feel repulsed by the acts of same sex relationships/interactions.

You do not like the fact that me and many others, Christians and non-Christians alike feel the same about same-sex relationships and see them as sin according to scripture.

According to your theory God and Jesus "have had such feelings for same sex members but cannot bear to admit it because of what that means for you," because they view them as repulsive too.

You are the one to be pitied, really. You argument is with God talk to him about it. I didn’t write the bible he did.

You make me laugh..

I'm not now nor have I ever been gay and only have ever been with the person I am extraordinarily happily married to, of the opposite gender.

The 'revulsion' comes from a deep seated fear of some part of yourself that doesn't even want to admit that there are parts of you that you cannot even bear to begin to face. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so much of a big deal to you.

And that's just sad, pitiful.

anonymous @ 3/10/08, wrong, never has desired the same sex and never will.

To me it is an replusive act just like it is to God. I quoted scripture with about 10% of my post being my personal opinion and you critiize me as if I am the one that wrote the bible.

But my guess is that since you know so much about it you done well describing yourself, and it is just as I thought.

You are the one that needs to be pitied because you are in a trap of self-indulgance that you couldn't get out of on your own if you tried. It's called an addiction to perversion.

Malicious act of tribal-fusion disabled. Such evil in the world today in people's heart to hurt others over stupid ideals of anger. It only makes me never to want to be near them again.

The first rule of Bigotry is to look directly at the person making such a statement because it's all about fear- either of themselves because they may be hiding aspects of the very same thing that they're bigoted against, or afraid of the unknown.

Selfishness and bigotry allows a false sense of superiority when in fact none exist.

All you've done is denigrate people that you know absolutely nothing about, probably because you have had such feelings for same sex members but cannot bear to admit it because of what that means for you.

Really, you have my pity.

anonymous, "it has been proven that homosexuality is not a choice"

~~~~~~~~~

If that is the case then Jehovah God did the following because..........?

Genesis 19:1-13, 23-25
(1) The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. (2)"My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."(3)But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. (4) Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. (5)They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." (6) Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him (7) and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.(8)Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."(9)"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.(10)But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. (11)Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. (12)The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,(13)because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it……" (23)By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. (24) Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. (25) Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. (26) But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

Jude 1:7,(7) “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

2 Peter 2:6,(6)“if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly”

Romans 1:18-32,(18)The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (19) since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (20) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.(21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools(23)and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.(24) Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (25) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.(28)Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.(29)They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, (30) slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; (31) they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.(32) Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

This text is not from an old conservative woman going 20 miles and hour that hit an Atheist man who mistaken the highway for a large bed, this is from the living God who had determined that homosexuality is an abomination before him and sin. Those who choose to live that way, in the end will suffer the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah. And you wonder why the studies prove that the highest rate of HIV and STDs are among the sexually perverted.

it has been proven that homosexuality is NOT a choice, it is something that is inherent to a person. It has nothing to do whatsoever with spirituality.

get the facts straight.

ttw, "Based on the abject unhealthiness (as of 1995) of those in bondage to this "unnatural" vice, according to the BRITISH JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE AND THE HIV/AIDS SURVEILLANCE REPORT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES:

1. “Homosexuals carry one-half of the country's syphilis, although they are only 1- 1/2 to 2- 1/2% of the population, and are fourteen times more likely to have had the disease than heterosexuals.

2. Two-thirds of all the AIDS cases in the U.S. are the direct result of homosexual conduct.

3. Homosexual young people are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than their heterosexual counterparts.

4. In San Francisco, the sexually transmitted disease rate is twenty -two times higher than the national average.” (Ibid)

You don’t have to be a Rocket Scientist to see the immorality in gay sex and its evil, when over 29 million gays have been exterminated by AIDS and STDs, and who knows how many have committed suicide, or been scared and mutilated by these diseases and aren’t quite dead yet. You do have to be amoral and mentally blind to defend such ignominy.

"We know that Homosexuality is not a condition that any human being is born into, nor is it primarily a physical condition. It is a spiritual condition. In the final analysis, it is a choice, or a series of choices and decisions that each individual has made. It is impossible to understand anything about homosexuality without first understanding this." (Ibid)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXCELLENT POINT AND POST.

"Unfortunately, the reason they are committing suicide is because they’ve abandoned God and in effect lost their purpose in life."

really? how do you know that, being the 'purveyor' of all things 'statistical,' that you cannot find a shred of evidence to back that up. that's YOUR conclusion. What if it's because people like you tell them that the god they've always trusted and thought of will torment them forever after having made them the way they are? What if it's because of having to hear day in and day out that they are not fit to have civil rights in this country simply because of the way they're wired? Which is supposed to be a country providing 'liberty and justice for ALL', not just those that you agree with?

Your dogmatism is unbelievable.. and doesn't even follow what Jesus said, about 'loving your neighbors as yourself' and 'judging not' and 'taking the beam out of your eye' before looking for it in others.

Gay people are not responsible for school shooters. For someone who talks about statistics, I'd like to see some that shows a direct cause.

You are absolutely scared of what you would find in your own shadow, and it shows.

Thankfully the Lady has a sense of humor when she allows you to stand there pissing into the wind.

the blowback sucks, doesn't it? Your face is yellow.

You have my pity.

IRT:
“These days the biggest spread is caused by Heterosexual activity. People who feel that their 'manhood' is being threatened because of people telling them to be responsible for their own behavior.”

ANS:
Baloney! You’ve been given the U.S. Government report, and the British report. Show they are wrong.

IRT:
“Actually I have had the joy of meeting Christians who feel that whatever two people do in the privacy of their own home is not their business. Regardless of whether or not they approve, they are willing to live and let live. Because they believe that's what Jesus would have done.”

ANS:
To God homosexuality is an abomination. Love is not disobeying God’s laws and causing others to do so. Love is obeying God and love is loving God. All true love is a vicarious love for God, because he is All Love.

“The Holy Spirit, in 1 Timothy, writing through Paul, called it the work of every 'good servant of Jesus Christ to expose godless errors and profane myths." accordingly; this view, through the truth of God's Word, of homosexuality's history, occult spirituality and inherent destruction of man, should not be dismissed as "hatred," for it is written in obedience to the God of Creation, and with love and concern for the physical and the eternal spiritual well being of all men and women.'
also2 Kings 2: 1, 6 - 14

This is the blessed assurance that the Christian has. In the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul in the First Century stated:

l Corinthians 6:9-11,
'Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor [the] covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” And that is what some of you were, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.'"

IRT:
“You have no knowledge of Nature's laws any more than you show anything other than fear for what you don't understand. And that is sad.”

ANS:
My friend, it is you have no understanding of what you are saying. You haven’t gotten anything right yet.

IRT:
"What the heck is a beetlebomb? Are you a terrorist?"

ANS:
A racehorse that came in last.

IRT:
Really, TTWetc.. you're just talking to yourself. pissing into the wind. Which will get you wet. And covered in your own mess.

ANS:
That’s what truth means to a closed mind. When a closed mind is presented something it can’t understand, it calls it stupid.

You haven’t got anything right yet because you're in denial. You have an obstacle called bias. Your analysis of the Church was wrong; you dispute the findings of the Federal and British governments, and you show no stats or authority to confirm any of your denials.

You can’t refute the truth so you make nonsensical remarks to hide your lack of knowledge. Your predispositions are so overpowering your reason that you don’t want to know and are afraid of the truth.

IRT:
"You are absolutely terrified of things you know nothing about- and are obsessed with the behavior of people that you have no control over. And never will."

ANS:
I am not terrified, just saddened that people could be so ignorant by putting themselves in danger of such an unbearable, insufferable, and excruciating death. It's called being in denial of reality.

IRT:
“To quote from Toy Story: 'you are a sad, strange little man- and you have my pity'”

ANS:
I read a report on gays in Los Angeles. The leader of a gay community couldn’t understand why more of his friends were dying from suicide than from AIDS and STDs. Unfortunately, the reason they are committing suicide is because they’ve abandoned God and in effect lost their purpose in life.

Suicide is becoming in vogue to these shooters of Malls, schools, and work places. The problem is for the shooters as those who engage in gay sex, they always take someone who is innocent with them.

Moreover, it’s not just happening to shooters and gays; it's happening to our whole nation, and most specifically to the whole of the Democrat Party, that is pursuing the Clintons the emblem of gay advocates.

That is what is sad and morbid; that is what is so sorrowful and lamentable. Over 29 million worldwide have died from AIDS and it seems you are in denial of gay sex is not the cause of these sexual transmitted disease. Now who is the one to be pitied?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS
“There are a lot of monogamous homosexual partners out there who are more moral than you. Who just want to have the same rights accorded to them that married people do.

If that bothers you then please, don't marry one.”

ANS:
Monogamous only is applicable to sexual unions in marriage. Monogamous sexual activity out side of marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and in His Natural Moral Law. It is an patent contradiction of the natures of man and woman.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#I

“Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94

The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87

The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics.

Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."89

God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"91

The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Marriage under the regime of sin
1606 Every man experiences evil around him and within himself. This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation.

This disorder can manifest itself more or less acutely, and can be more or less overcome according to the circumstances of cultures, eras, and individuals, but it does seem to have a universal character.

According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman.

Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations;96 their mutual attraction, the Creator's own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust;97 and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.98

In his mercy God has not forsaken sinful man. The punishments consequent upon sin, "pain in childbearing" and toil "in the sweat of your brow,"100 also embody remedies that limit the damaging effects of sin. After the fall, marriage helps to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one's own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving.

Moral conscience concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law. In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even though according to the Lord's words it still carries traces of man's "hardness of heart" which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
POINT OF ORDER TTWETC..- HOMOSEXUALITY DOESN'T CAUSE AIDS.

ANS:

http://www.chefdansculinaryadventures.com/~lgthscac/homosexualityingod'seyes.htm

“Based on the abject unhealthiness (as of 1995) of those in bondage to this "unnatural" vice, according to the BRITISH JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE AND THE HIV/AIDS SURVEILLANCE REPORT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES:

1. “Homosexuals carry one-half of the country's syphilis, although they are only 1- 1/2 to 2- 1/2% of the population, and are fourteen times more likely to have had the disease than heterosexuals.

2. Two-thirds of all the AIDS cases in the U.S. are the direct result of homosexual conduct.

3. Homosexual young people are twenty-three times more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than their heterosexual counterparts.

4. In San Francisco, the sexually transmitted disease rate is twenty -two times higher than the national average.” (Ibid)

You don’t have to be a Rocket Scientist to see the immorality in gay sex and its evil, when over 29 million gays have been exterminated by AIDS and STDs, and who knows how many have committed suicide, or been scared and mutilated by these diseases and aren’t quite dead yet. You do have to be amoral and mentally blind to defend such ignominy.

"We know that Homosexuality is not a condition that any human being is born into, nor is it primarily a physical condition. It is a spiritual condition. In the final analysis, it is a choice, or a series of choices and decisions that each individual has made. It is impossible to understand anything about homosexuality without first understanding this." (Ibid)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
“You don't want liberty and justice for all, nor do you believe that 'all men are created equal', which is our founding basis. Note that it doesn't say 'only straight men are created equal'.”

ANS:
To the contrary, freedom is limited to choose that which is good; there is no right to choose immorality or evil. In that context, you want license. License is a prescription for immoral and social chaos.

All men are created equal in the dignity of their nature. All men are endowed with the same inalienable rights. The nature of all human beings is the same, their properties and philosophical accidents are different. They are physically and mentally different, but not substantially different. Their dignity is not measured by quantity or quality, but by their substantial nature, which is made to the image and likeness to God, and is the same for all human beings. Namely, their nature is human.

The Constitution implicitly in the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration explicitly says all men are created equal and this equality is endowed by their Creator, but it doesn't tell them they are free of consequence when they violate the rights of others and those of God. That is almost verbatim from Church doctrine.

The Church doesn’t condemn homosexuals, but it does condemn their behavior such as gay sex since it violates the moral law and therefore the social order.

IRT:
“Not your warped version of 'living by a book written for a long ago place, time, and culture that no longer exists'”.

ANS:
Your inalienable rights are based on God’s moral laws written in Scripture, in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration. So don’t they have any moral authority? Supreme Court Justice Stephens thinks they don’t. Unfortunately, you have no rights without a transcendental authority to enforce the violations of them. However, you do have rights, therefore there is a transcendental authority.

Under your prescription, government gives you your rights, contrary to the Bill of Rights and the Declaration who recognize they are God given not man given. Thus, the Declaration says they are “endowed” by our Creator. A nation that doesn’t recognize God doesn’t recognize the human rights God stored in human nature.

Evidently, the Court thinks like you. They corrupted the basic right of all humanity, the Right to Life of the innocent.

Since Stephens said, traditional morality is not a legitimate State interest in “Bowers,” then what is a legitimate interest to a State? If it is not morality, then it is social chaos. Is it the whims of man. Ask people who live in Communist countries. The Court has also infringed on the freedom of political speech, and eminent domain. The majority of the Court redefined human nature, and is on the verge of redefining marriage, if either Hillary or Obama are elected president.

Unfortunately, our nation once a republic is morphing into an oligarchy, changing the Constitution by writing immorality into a civil right, usurping the Amendment process, and violating the Equal Powers of the branches of government by writing laws instead of interpreting them.

The Court has become so bold as to redefine the Natural Law and discovered some new beings in the process to justify abortion. By fiat, they created a "1/3rd human 2/3rds "thing," and a 2/3rds human 1/3 "thing." It then declared that a woman is never pregnant with a child, because it never becomes a child until it is completely free of the mother.

Yes, one can believe anything, but they don’t have the authority to manufacture the facts. Men can ignore the Natural Law but the Natural Law will not ignore them.

If you don’t know God, you cannot know the truth. If you know not the truth, then you live in darkness and become like dogs chasing their tales. Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin and Saddam, didn’t know the Truth and we have witnessed the consequences of millions dying because of it. Truth matters whether you believe it or not, so a word to the wise is seek it, act on it, and do not refute it.

"Really, TTWetc.. you're just talking to yourself. pissing into the wind. Which will get you wet. And covered in your own mess.

You are absolutely terrified of things you know nothing about- and are obsessed with the behavior of people that you have no control over. And never will.

To quote from Toy Story: 'you are a sad, strange little man- and you have my pity'."
````````````````````

Ironic that you should say this to ttw, it really applies to you. Point of order, do you always deceive women you sleep with that you are Gay at times?? What an A/H.

Point of order TTWetc..- Homosexuality doesn't cause AIDS.

There are a lot of monogamous homosexual partners out there who are more moral than you. Who just want to have the same rights accorded to them that married people do.
If that bothers you then please, don't marry one.

These days the biggest spread is caused by Heterosexual activity. People who feel that their 'manhood' is being threatened because of people telling them to be responsible for their own behavior.

Actually I have had the joy of meeting Christians who feel that whatever two people do in the privacy of their own home is not their business. Regardless of whether or not they approve they are willing to live and let live. Because they believe that's what Jesus would have done.

You have no knowledge of Nature's laws any more than you show anything other than fear for what you don't understand. And that is sad.

What the heck is a beetlebomb? Are you a terrorist?

Really, TTWetc.. you're just talking to yourself. pissing into the wind. Which will get you wet. And covered in your own mess.

You are absolutely terrified of things you know nothing about- and are obsessed with the behavior of people that you have no control over. And never will.

To quote from Toy Story: 'you are a sad, strange little man- and you have my pity'.

"Paganism is no help; it is a conduit to sexual perversion. Hence, their gods see no discord with the iniquity of human sacrifice or temple prostitutes. Under such a regime, truth becomes relative, subjective, and therefore meaningless since your truths may not be those of another."
___________________________________________

pa·gan:

1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.
adj.
1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.
TheFreeDictionary by Farlex

2 Corinthians 6:14-17, (14)“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (15) What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? (16) What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." (17) Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.” NIV

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
“…it's about EDUCATION, and not restricting natural impulses, but teaching people to respect themselves and other's enough to be RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS.”

ANS:
You can't be educated if you consistently refuse to seek the truth, only seek that which you believe, and not seek what you don’t want to believe and can’t understand. The lack of objectivity is a prescription for a closed mind and an obstacle to the Truth.

Man is given an intellect that he might reason to the truth. Man is given a conscience, that he might reason the difference between good and evil.

God has given man His Church on earth, that the Church may assist man to do good and avoid evil on his journey to his final end that is the purpose of his life. By refusing to believe in the one true God, who is Christian, and who is Truth, one rejects truth.

Paganism is no help; it is a conduit to sexual perversion. Hence, their gods see no discord with the iniquity of human sacrifice or temple prostitutes. Under such a regime, truth becomes relative, subjective, and therefore meaningless since your truths may not be those of another.

Virtue is the discipline of the will by which man avoids evil or vice and controls his will by doing virtuous habitual acts that conditions the will to do what is good.

It was not natural to be sinful when God first created man. Since the sin of Adam, Original Sin, brought evil into the world, man’s nature has been overshadowed by sin, and man’s will has been weakened by its affects.

Hence, man must continuously discipline his will to resist the evil tendencies that attacks his wounded will. Namely, the Seven Deadly sins are a result of man unable to control his passions that overpower the will and reason.

Therefore, man needs the supernatural graces from God given to man through God’s Church by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. He has opened the gates of Heaven so that man may obtain eternal happiness by sincerely seeking it.

IRS:
“…2) who said anything about my being Christian?
I'm not. Never was. and who said anything about my following the bible? Don't assume things about other people. it makes an ass out of you and me."

ANS:
It’s unfortunate that you are not a Christian. If you were a Christian, you wouldn't support gay sex. Those who approve of gay sex, become co-conspirators in the putting of peoples' lives in tragic danger of death and being infected. I think you made yourself the south end of Beetlebomb that is just under his tail. In fact, you already were by not being a Christian, and supporting gay sex.

IRS:
“you don't get to make policy for other people- and it tells me that because you choose to exclude others, you demonstrate your own fear of what you don't understand. if you don't approve of gay sex, don't have it. Don't marry a gay person. It has absolutely no impact on you whatsoever."

ANS:
No, I don’t make policies for you; God does that with the Moral Law and the Civil Law follows suit for the most part. They are all based on the Natural and Moral Law. I just tell you what they are, and why they are. You can reject them at your own peril. That’s what God gave you a free will for when He created you. However, you don’t get the choices of consequences that ensue.

I believe there is a great fear for the lives of people who could get AIDS or STDs from these nefarious evils they bring to unsuspecting others. Apparently, it doesn’t seem to bother you.

It is clear that Homosexuality can be deadly. Gay sex puts an enormous devastating physical and spiritual burden on those who engage in it, on their friends, and on the society they inhabit. Those who engage in gay sex are being socially irresponsible and reckless.

MHughes, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I must admit I'm not familiar with the philosopher you quoted. But I agree with you -- none of us are as open-minded as we profess to be, although it's an admirable quality. I think the best we can do is work in that direction, and knowing our shortcomings is a good first step.

Personally, I reach the end of my tether when I am confronted by a wall of absolute intolerance that seeks to limit my spiritual path. That wall is generally manifested in people who say with "absolute" authority that they have the one and only inside track on spirituality, and all else is balderdash and wrong based on their personal definition of sensible and right. I tend to push against those types -- as evidenced by a few of my posts.

Unfortunately, walls constructed in such a manner seldom budge from their footings, and I wind up beating my head pretty soundly. It is one of my shortcomings. *sigh* But I'm working fixing that. Clearly, two-way discussions are out of the question with those folks. The best I can do is walk around them and keep doing what I know is right for me.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MHUGHES976:
“Like Rousseau he is worried about the claim 'outside the Church there is no salvation', though as I remember he swallows hard and finds ways to live with it."

ANS:
Christ instated His Church so that all man may receive eternal happiness. He died on the cross so that man may be redeemed from the Sin of Adam, Original Sin. However, forgiveness of sin is not automatically bestowed on man; man must seek it and ask for it.

No one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven with sin. Therefore, man must be baptized. Baptism removes all sin, actual and Original. Therefore, man cannot enter heaven without being baptized.

Since the Church is Universal, for all humanity, everyone is a member of His Universal or Catholic Church.

“BAPTISM EXPLAINED, Pros and Cons”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#IV

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace that remits sins.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

(1) The Baptism of Desire

“The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism.

The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate.”

The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him."

And again, "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins.

This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men cannot obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto).

The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

(2) The Baptism of Blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (De Bapt., xvi) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing,” he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus).

St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says, "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."

The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text.

That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants cannot confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church."

Mama Bear - thanks for your reply to my question. I was just trying to explore the question of whether or how those of us who think that there is validity in different theological systems reach the end of our tethers and decide that some systems are unendurable, sacriligeous etc. - maybe because they really, really insult something we hold sacred or are conspicuously totalitarian. The great, recently deceased American political philosopher John Rawls explores this question, saying that there is an 'overlapping consensus' between different religions and ideologies but that beyond this consensus there comes a point where intolerance and even oppression have to be applied: or would have to be applied if the Bad Ideology were becoming too powerful. Like Rousseau he is worried about the claim 'outside the Church there is no salvation', though as I remember he swallows hard and finds ways to live with it. I'm just wondering whether any of us is quite as tolerant and open-minded as we would like to think we are. If you can be bothered to reply it will be some time before I can respond again, since my annual-ish visit to my family in the New World is almost upon me.

ANONYMOUS
“BIBLE & SCRIPTURES”

“Ttw, Nothing in the Catholic bible is of any interest to me based on the fact that they have devised their own bible, which is not consistent with,
-Matthew 5:17-19, "17

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm

At the Council of Trent, she enumerated the books that must be considered "as sacred and canonical.” They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven books (viz: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees) and parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament.

The Bible is plainly a literature, that is, an important collection of writings, which were not composed at once and did not proceed from one hand, but rather were spread over a considerable period of time and are traceable to different authors of varying literary excellence.

As a literature, too, the Bible bears throughout the distinct impress of the circumstances of place and time, methods of composition, etc., in which its various parts came into existence, and of these circumstances careful account must be taken, in the interests of accurate scriptural interpretation. As a literature, our sacred books have been transcribed during many centuries by all manner of copyists to the ignorance and carelessness of many of whom they still bear witness in the shape of numerous textual errors, which, however, but seldom interfere seriously with the primitive reading of any important dogmatic or moral passage of Holy Writ.

the New Testament, completed about A.D. 100, is indeed far more recent than the four last named literatures, and is somewhat posterior to the Augustan age of the Latin language, but it is older by ten centuries than our earliest modern literature.

As regards the Old Testament, most of its contents were gradually written within the nine centuries, which preceded the Christian era, so that its composition is generally regarded as contemporary with that of the great literary works of Greece, China, Persia, and India. The Bible resembles these various ancient literatures in another respect. Like them, it is fragmentary, i.e. made up of the remains of a larger literature.

Of this we have abundant proofs concerning the books of the Old Testament, since the Hebrew Scriptures themselves repeatedly refer us to more ancient and complete works as composed by Jewish annalists, prophets, wise men, poets, and so on (cf. Numbers 21:15; Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 1 Maccabees 16:24; etc.). Statements tending to prove the same fragmentary character of the early Christian literature which has come down to us are indeed much less numerous, but not altogether wanting (cf. Luke 1:1-3; Colossians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 5:9).

AS TO ERRORS IN TRANSLATIONS:
However, ancient and fragmentary, it is not to be supposed that the Biblical literature contains only few and these rather imperfect, literary forms. In point of fact its contents exhibit nearly all the literary forms met with in our Western literatures together with other peculiarly Eastern, but none the less beautiful. It is also a well-known fact that the Bible is so replete with pieces of transcendent literary beauty that the greatest orators and writers of the last four centuries have most willingly turned to our sacred books as pre-eminently worthy of admiration, study, and imitation.

To sum up, the Biblical knowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancient exegetes. the Scriptures are the only ones inspired and free from error. Therefore, one must determine if the text, in which the difficulties arise, has not been altered by the copyist.

St. Jerome .ASSERTS THAT IN THE BIBLE THERE IS NO MATERIAL ERROR DUE TO THE IGNORANCE OR THE HEEDLESSNESS OF THE SACRED WRITER, BUT HE ADDS: "IT IS USUAL FOR THE SACRED HISTORIAN TO CONFORM HIMSELF TO THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED OPINION OF THE MASSES IN HIS TIME" (P.L., XXVI, 98; XXIV, 855).

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
FEBRUARY 25, 2008 10:16 PM
ANONYMOUS
“BIBLE & SCRIPTURES”

The New Testament was completed about A.D. 100,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm

“The Bible is a collection of writings which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired. In the time of Christ, the Jews were in possession of sacred books, which differed widely from one another in subject, style, origin and scope, and it is also a fact that they regarded all such writings as invested with a character which distinguished them from all other books.

TRADITION:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

This was the Divine authority of every one of these books and of every part of each book. This belief of the Jews was confirmed by Our Lord and His Apostles; for they supposed its truth in their teaching, used it as a foundation of their doctrine, and intimately connected with it the religious system of which they were the founders [a.k.a. Catholicism].

The books thus approved were handed down to the Christian [Catholic] Church as the written record of Divine revelation before the coming of Christ. The truths of Christian revelation were made known to the Apostles either by Christ Himself or by the Holy Ghost. They constitute what is called the Deposit of Faith [of the Catholic Church], to which nothing has been added since the Apostolic Age.

Some of the truths were committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and have been handed down to us in the books of the New Testament.

Written originally to individual Churches or persons, to meet particular necessities, and accommodated as they all were to particular and existing circumstances, these books were gradually received by the universal Church as inspired, and with the sacred books of the Jews constitute the Bible.

The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the HOLY GHOST, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration.

It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical ‘because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author. As such, they have been handed down to the Church’.

The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject matter of the statement.

We are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From Her Alone We Know What Books Belong To The Bible." (Ibid)

ANONYMOUS
“BIBLE & SCRIPTURES”
“Ttw, Nothing in the Catholic bible is of any interest to me based on the fact that they have devised their own bible, which is not consistent with,
-Matthew 5:17-19, "17

ANS:
"The Bible is the inspired recorded word of God's Revelation. It contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths that the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

"Tradition sometimes refers to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another, and sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission."

The New Testament was completed about A.D. 100. Therefore, for some 100 years, the New Testament hadn't been created yet, it was still being written. Consequently, the teachings were transferred by word of mouth since there were few copies of the Apostles letters, and few had access to them. Thus, not every thing was handed down only by Scripture, but by Tradition. The importance of Tradition was personified in the play and movie "Fiddler on the Roof."

"Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts that contain revelation strictly so termed." (Ibid)

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Bible

“Bible [Gr., = the books], term used since the 4th cent to denote the Christian Scriptures and later, by extension, those of various religious traditions.”

Did you wonder what Christians were around in the Fourth Century? Was it the Baptists? Was it Lutherans, Episcopalians, or Methodists? I believe it was Catholics. So who was editing and collating the Scriptures into the Bible? It wasn’t Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus;’ it wasn’t pagans was it? Was it the Jews? I don’t think so. I believe it was Catholics.

“The sacred writings of the religions of the world exhibit a variety of genres—prayers, visions, ritual, moral codes, myths, historical narratives, legends, and revelatory discourses. SUCH WORKS HAVE TENDED TO BE TRANSMITTED ORALLY AT FIRST AND COMMITTED TO WRITING AT A LATER DATE.-(Ibid)

This is true of much of the content of the Christian Bible as well as of the Hindu Vedas and the Jewish Mishnah Not all things are written in the Bible, the other source of inspiration comes from Tradition.

The earliest surviving complete manuscript of the entire Bible is the Codex Amiatinus, a Latin Vulgate edition produced in eighth century England at the double monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow.

The Codex Amiatinus is the earliest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible in the Latin Vulgate version. It dates to the turn of the 8th century and is considered to be the most accurate copy of St. Jerome's text. The Codex is also a fine specimen of medieval calligraphy, and is now kept at Florence in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. The symbol for it is written am or A (Wordsworth).

Most variants among the manuscripts are minor, such as alternate spelling, alternate word order, the presence, or absence of an optional definite article ("the"), and so on. Occasionally, a major variant happens when a portion of a text was accidentally omitted (or perhaps even censored), or was added from a marginal gloss. Fortunately, major variants tend to be easier to correct." (Ibid)

Don’t be so foolish; if it weren’t for Catholicism, you would have no Bible. The monks and priest are the ones who preserved the books of the New Testament.

Never has the Church changed any of its doctrines, fundamental beliefs, or teachings since Her inception. Therefore, She is a manifestation of the Word of God and God's providence.

Can you name one Church or religion other than the Catholic Church that hasn’t changed its fundamental precepts in accord with the Scriptures since its beginning? That is evidence She is the one true Church.

Mama bear, please don’t use the term “bible thumping,” is has a great deal of negative connotation attached to it that it makes a person that believes in scripture to be a deviant.

I understand your point and scripture should never be used as an attack on someone and possibly you could make the delineation in your comment. I believe in scripture but try hard to only use it as a basis to an argument as my resource and not as an attack on someone stating, “if you don’t live by scripture then you are wrong.”

Although I agree that requesting a believer in Christ whose fundamental belief is reliant on scripture not to use it, as there’re reference in religious and or spiritual discussion is an unreasonable request. It would be like asking a Muslim not to introduce there’re importance of pray when discussing religion.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MAMA BEAR:
“And as you can see, you've already alienated some Christians who might agree with you on the basic theological precepts of Christianity, because of your over-reliance on your one interpretation of the book.”

ANS:
There can only be one truth and so not only Aristotle, the Father of Logic, but common sense and reason show the First principle of Contradictories is not a whim but a fact. You can’t have Scripture mean anything if it is self-contradictory. Fortunately, it is not; it is infallible, without error, since its author is infallible.

To adhere to the untruth of contradictory interpretations and maintain they all are true is to adhere to confusion and unreality. Therefore, God gave his Church the gift of infallibility in its moral and religious teachings pontificated by the Pontiff “excathedra,” as the Visible Head of the Church, representing God who is its Head.

Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “Why are you here?” Jesus said I came to witness the truth.” Pilate said, “Truth, what is Truth?” Truth was standing before him and he couldn’t see it. Christ came to bear the Truth and they murdered Him for it. The Truth divides families, brothers from sisters, fathers from mothers. However, deny the Truth and descend into the darkness where the blind are leading the blind.

Again, how many universities, orphanages, schools, and hospitals have been started by atheists, agnostics and pagans, the iconoclastic, troglodytes, and sophists? Compare them to the number created by Catholics. Who fights for the dignity of all life more than the Catholic Church? Ever heard of Mother Theresa, Catholic Charities, the Dream Program, Catholic programs for the unwed Mothers

IRS:
“Try something new: Use your own words. Paraphrase, if you must. But the din created by your incessant bible thumping really drowns out what you're trying to say.”

ANS:
What can be substituted for the Truth? The quotes are only to show that the reasoning is substantiated by credible scholars and not my reason alone.

The reason you can’t have a rational discussion is that you want one to agree to your doltish statements. You are so flustered that you cannot answer the questions to defend your preconceived ideas since they have no rational basis. Now you want to run and hide with under the inane conclusion they contain too much Scripture. What priggery!

In your frustration, as the Irish say, “Smile and give your face a holiday.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MAMA BEAR:
“TTWetc, there is no way to have a rational discussion with you unless I agree with you, which I don't. I'm not reading your posts, anyway, because they are too full of scriptural references.”

ANS:
Checking my last four post to you, I find there is not one verse of Scripture in any of them. It's surprising you seen the verses when you haven't read them. What absurdity! How can you reply to post you never read?

To the contrary, you have read them and that’s why you’ve become so unscrewed. You can’t rationally respond to them because your predispositions are an obstacle to your objectivity.

Consequently, you make rash statements and then ignore the responses to them. What beliefs have Catholics imposed on millions of people and impugned their civil rights? Is one that Catholics believe there is no right to murder innocent unborn children? If you support that then those poor unborn never get a chance to worship anything.

You were asked, “Do you believe in a God and if you do, define God.” Your response is you aren’t going to respond because I want you to agree with me. Evidently, your flummoxed comport indicates you more than likely agree with the post since you can't answer them, and lamely claim you never read them. Ridiculous! You can’t refute reason and be rational

IRT:
“The constitution says you CANNOT do that. And I will do everything in my power to make sure that people like you don't mess the Constitution up because of your jealous, vindictive worldviews.”

Where did the Constitution say murder is legal? That was done by the Court. And, why is it vindictive to protect the unborn. Do you not believe in Equal Rights? Though the Court is complicit in the murder of 48 million unborn, it seems it is immaterial to you.

Without a Right to Life, all other rights can be disposable. The majority of the Court, the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse—Souter, Stephens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, joining Kennedy—concurred with Stephens that traditional morality is not even a legitimate state interest. Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, concluded, “The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17.

The Court violated Equal Powers provision, by legislating. It violated the Amendment process by writing immorality into the Constitution. It violated the Bill of Rights and disregarded the Declaration of Independence by obscuring the Right to Life. You sophistically write you will do every thing in your power to see that vindictive people like Catholics, who in fact defend the Constitution, don’t screw it up. Thus, you incomprehensible exalt the Court who is actually screwing it up.

Moreover, you defend gay sex and can’t explain why you do when it has killed over 28 million people worldwide.

You write, “What I DO care about is how much YOUR beliefs interfere with the rights of millions of people to believe, worship, and live as they feel right for themselves.” What beliefs are these? Is it, “You can’t murder your unborn,” or that, “Gay sex is illicit and immoral,” that “Gay Marriage is an oxymoron, and the Court may redefine Marriage,” or that “Traditional morals serve no purposeful meaning to society?” These are precepts of the Natural Law.

Maybe you think that Court has a right to define the nature of man and claim the unborn is not human, as they have done. Are you unaware of what Justice Blackmon’s basis was for justifying that the unborn wasn’t a human? He created the buffoonery that the conceived was a “thing” that morphed into 1/3rd human 2/3rds “thing.” In the first Trimester, In the Second Trimester the conceived was 2/3rds human and 1/3rd “thing. It’ never becomes human until it is completely separated from the mother. So the Court signed on to the preposterous theory that woman is without child but with a “thing.”

Therefore, a butcher surgeon could suck the baby’s brains out while being born. According to the Court, the child is not human until complete separation occurs. Fortunately, Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) is now illegal thanks to Bush and Pro-Lifers. The Abortion Dems’ co-presidency Clintons vetoed the Anti-PBA Bill twice.

Even after complete detachment, the child is not safe. The Court ruled that the butcher could legally strangle the victim even if it survives the abortion. Abortion is infanticide. Jesse Jackson once called it Black Genocide.

You have signed on to this irrational lunacy, the boondoggle of the Trimester Theory. It justifies the legal murder of over 48 million unborn. It facetiously is said to be a compassion for women, a right for a mother to murder her own unborn child.

You have wrote, you will defend the right of millions of people “to believe, worship, and live as they feel right for themselves“ That sounds like you unwittingly defend the right of terrorists to believe and act accordingly to what they feel right for themselves, or all the other iniquitous improvident overindulged passions that are immoral and destructive.

TTWetc, there is no way to have a rational discussion with you unless I agree with you, which I don't. I'm not reading your posts, anyway, because they are too full of scriptural references.

And as you can see, you've already alienated some Christians who might agree with you on the basic theological precepts of Christianity, because of your over-reliance on your one interpretation of the book.

Try something new: Use your own words. Paraphrase, if you must. But the din created by your incessant bible thumping really drowns out what you're trying to say.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MAMA BEAR:
TTWetc, you just don't get it.
“It is your interpretation and your language that is creating the barrier.

ANS:
It is not my interpretation; it’s the Church’s interpretation protected from error by God. There are no barriers; the Truth will set you free from your anger, from you frustrations, and will set you on the way to eternal happiness.

IRT:
“It is your insistence that your way is the ONLY way to believe, worship, and live that is creating the barrier.”

ANS:
Wrong again, the Word of God is not a barrier but the key to open your mind up to the real world. Second, it’s not my way; it’s God’s way. I, and the Founding Fathers, have recognized the dignity of man and that man’s inalienable rights are God given, not man given. That is stated in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, you cannot see that your own rights are being trampled by an oligarchy Court writing its own Constitution, usurping the role of the Creator, and you claim it is their right to do so. You seem to think that since the Scriptures were written in ancient times, the only ones who can interpret them are the ancients

You sound like an agnostic that denies the attributes of God. Moreover, I don’t claim to be infallible, so it's not my way.

Additionally, the Church’s precepts do not just rely on the translated word. They also rely on Tradition, the spoken word. Namely, the Church was teaching the Word of God some 50 to 70 years after Her inception and the Ascension of Christ without any Scriptures, since they were still being written at the time.

In addition, the New Testament is cross-referenced with the Old Testament insuring Scripture’s continuity and is interpreted in its historical context as well. The superficial errors in translation due to the language are minute and inconsequential to the meanings deducted from the translations that are protected under the auspices of God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

“The word Tradition (Greek paradosis) in the ecclesiastical sense, refers sometimes to the things (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another, sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission (kerigma ekklisiastikon, predicatio ecclesiastica).

In theological language, which in many circumstances has become current, there is still greater precision and this in countless directions.

At first there was question only of traditions claiming a Divine origin, but subsequently there arose questions of oral as distinct from written tradition, in the sense that a given doctrine or institution is not directly dependent on Holy Scripture as its source but only on the oral teaching of Christ or the Apostles.

Finally, with regard to the organ of tradition it must be an official organ, a magisterium, or teaching authority.”

ttw, Nothing in the Catholic bible is of any interest to me based on the fact that they have devised their own bible, which is not consistent with,

-Matthew 5:17-19, "17 Let there be no thought that I have come to put an end to the law or the prophets. I have not come for destruction, but to make complete. 18 Truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth come to an end, not the smallest letter or part of a letter will in any way be taken from the law, till all things are done. 19 Whoever then goes against the smallest of these laws, teaching men to do the same, will be named least in the kingdom of heaven.....

But in practical theory they kneel before idols and give thanks, praise, and honor to them, which is strictly forbidden in scripture. Again any honoring, praise, pray, and giving thanks to regarding a deity should only be given to God and Christ, period.

Your arguments are nothing but wordy, they lack substance. Read the book of Revelations and there you will see the Catholic Church. And as for Mary still the same I stand by my position. Find in scripture where God says that we should kneel, pray, worship her and then I will research it.

IN REPLY TO (IRS):
PURPOSE FOR LIVING:
MAMA BEAR,

“GOD, MARY & CHURCH”

"I am very aware of the Catholic practice that worships, prays, and gives penitence to Mary. The Catholic Church has long left off there’re first love, God, and have followed the way of Baal.

There’re church reeks of idol worship where their believers kneel and pray to graven “images” the same as the God of Baal. The Catholic Church also has taken the place of God by granting the forgiveness of sins to their believers through confession to a priest, which is another form of “idol worship, for only God and Jesus has the power to forgive sin. Their leaders are full of immorality and have been abusing innocent children for decades, while their leaders cover up and hide their sin against the innocent.”

ANS:
That reeks of reckless naiveté, of absurd perfumery and facetious crass denseness. There is always the nefarious critic, who knows not what he is pontificating on, who has no sense of expertise on the pronounced subject, and is therefore unqualified to fulminate against Catholicism. To the contrary, Catholicism abhors the worship of idols in Her doctrines and beliefs.

Show were the Catholic Church worships idols in the Church’s doctrines and beliefs contained in the Catholic Church’s Catechism in the link below.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Catholics do not worship Mary, they honor her as they would honor anyone with such merit and grandeur. She is the greatest creature God has made, the Mother of God. Lucifer went to Hell because she displaced him as the Light of Heaven and God sent Mary to crush his head. She is Queen of Heaven and Earth, and the Majestic Queen of Angels, but she is not a God and is not worshiped. As you say, she is a human.

IRT:
“But again this is a form of idol worship and considered sin in the eyes of God. For God alone is worthy of worship along with his son Jesus who is seated at the right hand of God in heaven; that is Jesus’ level of deity. Anything or anyone that takes away from the deity of God and his son Jesus is considered to be an idol in place of God and Jesus and thus becomes idol worship.”

ANS:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

"The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer.... She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."

Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. 'In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason, she is a mother to us in the order of grace.'509

969 'This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.'510

970 'Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."511 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer.

But, just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.'"512

II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

971 "All generations will call me blessed": 'The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.513 The Church rightly honors the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times, the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . .

This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.514 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.515”—The Catechism of the Catholic Church."

IN REPLY TO (IRT):
MAMA BEAR:
“TRUTH AND SOCIETY AND THE FUTURE”
“The future of our country AND our world rests on looking for the common elements that bind us all -- not the differences that separate us.”

ANS:
The future of our country is based on man seeking the Truth and acting in accord with it. The differences that separate us can be irreconcilable. If your neighbor has a fetish to burn down houses, do you ignore it? Do you form an accord on what you agree and ignore the fetish?

To the contrary, evil begets evil. It cannot be ignored because it is socially disruptive, corruptive, and is corrosive. It is said that the greatest sin is for good men to see evil and do nothing. That happened in Nazi Germany. I say the greatest evil in the world is for man not to even see evil though he is overshadowed and assailed by it.

Consequently, today we have many who see no evil, hear no evil, and claim there is no evil while evil engulfs them. We see murder and call it compassion; we see illicit sexual unions and call them love and a natural lifestyle. We see adultery and fornication and say everybody does it. Hence, man becomes a god unto himself and closes his eyes to its consequences until he becomes its victim.

Our imperial Court pontificates that a woman is never pregnant with a child, and describes the conceived as a “thing.” This “thing,” according to the Court, is not a human person until it is completely extricated from the mother’s womb.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/indexes/PROLENC.htm

As Derek Humphry, America’s leading euthanasiast, says, in accord with our courts, “we are killing born people on exactly the same premises that we have been killing unborn people.”

B.D. Cohen, medical writer for Newsday Magazine, says, "The decision to withhold or withdraw treatment from extremely sick, premature, and/or deformed newborns is probably being made at least once every day by anguished parents and doctors in one of the nation's more than 500 intensive care nurseries."

“This hideous attitude is terrifyingly common among more and more people as our society becomes progressively desensitized to killing. A typical recent interview with an abortion clinic employee brought this trend into clear focus.

INTERVIEWER: "Oh, so as long as you make money, it doesn't matter?"

CLINIC EMPLOYEE: "As long as it's food in my stomach, no, it doesn't matter. It is legal ... It is legal ... It is legal!"

INTERVIEWER: "So if they legalized killing four-year-old children, you would have no problem?"

CLINIC EMPLOYEE: "No, I would not have a problem ... My conscience is very clear ..."[7]

A graphically sickening statement by Dr. Magda Denes illustrates this growing genocidal mindset among pro-abortionists; ‘I do think abortion is murder of a very special and necessary sort’

Thus, butchers of abortion, called doctors, who have expunged the century old code of medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, are now legally permitted to murder the child from conception, and even after it has escaped the mother’s womb the aborted is not safe. The butcher has, in many cases, returned and strangled the child to death. A Dr. Edelin of Massachusetts legally murdered the child after a “C-Section.”

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0379.htm

The defense's rationale was that abortion is the legal taking of a life of an unborn “thing” and the legal right to murder it. Therefore, the butcher could legally finish the abortion. Are rational people to ignore such an atrocity? We can thank the President for ending this priggery.

Should we ignore the consequences that befall the unsuspecting victims? Human life becomes deprecated and selfworth deteriorates. What follows are shooters in work places, high schools, and universities, kidnappers of students, women, and children, and mothers and fathers murdering their own children.

Should we ignore that over 48 million unborn have been legally murdered. Do they matter? Should we ignore the aborted’s organs being sold on the open market. Do we ignore the very near future where two workers will be paying one persons SSI. The Dems have.

Murder, the unjust intentional taking of an innocent human life, never is always unjustifiable, an evil by its very nature. To overlook evil is to commit social suicide.

IRT:
“Tell me, do you choose to be part of the problem, or ... part of the solution and stop picking fights based on whose religion is "righter" than the others?”

ANS:
The problem is not seeing evil and attempting to change it; the problem is seeing evil and remaining silent, seeing evil and calling it good, and seeing evil and not recognizing it. The problem is proliferating evil and defending it. We should always seek the Truth, and close our eyes to evil.

Paganism: Western perspective, has modern connotations of spiritual or cult practice. The group so defined includes many of the Eastern religions, Native American religions and mythologies and as well as non-Abrahamic ethnic religions in general. Characteristic of pagan traditions is the absence of proselytism and the presence of a living mythology which explains religious practice. Pagan subdivisions coined by Isaac Bonewits[15]

Paleopaganism: A retronym coined to contrast with "Neopaganism", denoting a Pagan culture that has not been disrupted by other cultures. The term applies to Hinduism, Shinto, pre-Migration period Germanic paganism as described by Tacitus,
Celtic polytheism as described by Julius Caesar, and the Greek and Roman religion.

Mesopaganism: A group, which is, or has been, significantly influenced by monotheistic, dualistic, or nontheistic worldviews, but has been able to maintain an independence of religious practices. This group includes aboriginal Americans as well as Australian aboriginals, Viking Age Norse paganism. Influences include: Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Spiritualism, and the many Afro-Diasporic faiths like Haitian Vodou, and Santería. Bonewits includes British Traditional Wicca in this subdivision.

Neopaganism: A movement by modern people to revive nature-worshipping, pre-Christian religions, or other nature-based spiritual paths. This definition may include anything on a sliding scale from Reconstructionist at one end to New Age and non-reconstructionist groups such as Neo-druidism and Wicca at the other.
(From Wikipedia)

2 Corinthians 6:14-17, (14)“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (15) What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? (16) What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." (17) Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.” NIV

God foretold of people that would always find reasons to reject his truth and HOW TRUE his prediction was..........

"2 Timothy 3:1-8, (1) But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. (2) People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, (3) without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, (4) treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— (5) having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

(6) They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, (7) always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. (8) Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected."

IN REPLY TO (IRT):
MAMA BEAR:
“THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION”
“So maybe with regard to religion, we're both partly wrong, both partly right, but neither of us is 100% on the mark.

ANS:
Individuals can be wrong, but the Church cannot be wrong in its teachings and beliefs when the Pontiff is speaking as the teaching head of the Church.

In religion there can be no partly right in matters of the Natural Law, the Moral Law, and God’s Law because the source of Law is God. They are not matters of opinion but fact, and facts cannot contradict each other.

God is Truth, Pure Actuality, His essence is His Existence. He is Simple in His existence, not a composite. Namely, His Essence is His Existence. Error is the lack of reality or existence. Therefore, God, who lacks neither Essence nor Existence, cannot error. Moreover, his precepts given to man are, by necessity, without error.

From a rational standpoint in respect to infallibility, God would not spend 33 years on Earth forming a Church and the moment He ascends into heaven God would leave His Church vulnerable to error. God is Prescient, and He doesn’t exist in time, therefore He doesn’t make errors. In addition, since God knows all things, He knows the fragilities of humanity.

IRT:
“And how could we be? We approach religion from different perspectives. You use a very old book upon which to base your beliefs, a book that has been interpreted, revised, edited, translated, and reinterpreted through many centuries. “

ANS:
Scripture is not reinterpreted or revised; it is made more clear and revealing and is not subject to error. The Church's precepts, doctrines, and teachings remain the same since their inception. The paths to Truth are Revelation, God's Church, and Reason in respect to the Natural Moral Law. However, the Truth remains the Truth. We can only go to God through the paths God gives us.

Age has nothing to do with Truth because the Truth, who is God, exist outside of time. Things change, but that which exist is not its contradiction. The Natural Moral Law is only applicable to man. Man would have to change his nature for it not to be applicable. If man's nature changed he'd cease to be human.

IRT:
“Couldn't it be that through generations of borrowing, the words in that book morphed like the batata into a poTAYto? And my religion doesn't use a book, let alone your book. We rely on nature to inform us.”

ANS:
No, because God promised the Church that He would protect it from error in matters of Faith and Morals when pronounced from the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff, acting as Head of the Church.

Your problem is that you view God as human or having a limited nature, but God is Omnipotent. We are dealing with a Supernatural Omnipotent Being that exists outside of time. Second, you seem to intimate that God, who is Omnipotent, is incapable of protecting His Church from error. That is incredibly foolish.

Whatever one's religion be, if it doesn’t comport with a transcendental authority, like God, then it is susceptible to human error. Consequently, we have an enormous amount of religions that are created by men alone, founded on subjective beliefs, and are without any transcendental authority conferred on them.

Second, there would be no enforcement of morality. Third, no objectivity, and fourth, religious certitude would rest on the fallible reasoning of men, and therefore subjected to error.

Man alone cannot form a true and errorless religion without God’s assistance because man’s intellect has been clouded by the sin of Adam. Man fell from the grace of God and had to have that grace restored. Though man was redeemed, the residue of sin still remains in man's weakness of his will, concupiscence and the clouding of man's intellect.

For example, if a man broke a window, even though he may be forgiven for breaking it, the damage of the broken window still remains broken and commutative justice demands retribution be made to the injured party.

God redeemed man by restoring him to grace, but man must make retribution because of Adam's sin. Therefore, God gives man His Church as the means of retribution. It cannot be in error or it would forfeit man's salvation, and that would be an injustice to man. But God is not unjust; therefore, God, from reason protects his Church from error. Consequently, man is basked in the unmitigated certitude of the Church as to what man must do to achieve eternal happiness.

Some retribution can't be made whole, as the cause of one's death. Man's reparation must be done by God. Man cannot make retribution to God since the reparation must be proportionate to the damage done against the injured, who is God.

God’s Awesomeness Majesty, His Almighty Power, and God's lack of nothing makes man's reparation impossible.

So the Son of Man, because of His Mercy and Love for man, comes down from Heaven to redeem man and make reparation for man's sin, that is the injury Adam made against God, and was transmitted to all men.

IN REPLY TO (IRT):
MAMA BEAR:
“THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION”
“So maybe with regard to religion, we're both partly wrong, both partly right, but neither of us is 100% on the mark.

ANS:
Individuals can be wrong, but the Church cannot be wrong in its teachings and beliefs when the Pontiff is speaking as the teaching head of the Church.

In religion there can be no partly right in matters of the Natural Law, the Moral Law, and God’s Law because the source of Law is God. They are not matters of opinion but fact, and facts cannot contradict each other.

God is Truth, Pure Actuality, His essence is His Existence. He is Simple in His existence, not a composite. Namely, His Essence is His Existence. Error is the lack of reality or existence. Therefore, God, who lacks neither Essence nor Existence, cannot error. Moreover, his precepts given to man are, by necessity, without error.

From a rational standpoint in respect to infallibility, God would not spend 33 years on Earth forming a Church and the moment He ascends into heaven God would leave His Church vulnerable to error. God is Prescient, and He doesn’t exist in time, therefore He doesn’t make errors. In addition, since God knows all things, He knows the fragilities of humanity.

IRT:
“And how could we be? We approach religion from different perspectives. You use a very old book upon which to base your beliefs, a book that has been interpreted, revised, edited, translated, and reinterpreted through many centuries. “

ANS:
Scripture is not reinterpreted or revised; it is made more clear and revealing and is not subject to error. The Church's precepts, doctrines, and teachings remain the same since their inception. The paths to Truth are Revelation, God's Church, and Reason in respect to the Natural Moral Law. However, the Truth remains the Truth. We can only go to God through the paths God gives us.

Age has nothing to do with Truth because the Truth, who is God, exist outside of time. Things change, but that which exist is not its contradiction. The Natural Moral Law is only applicable to man. Man would have to change his nature for it not to be applicable. If man's nature changed he'd cease to be human.

IRT:
“Couldn't it be that through generations of borrowing, the words in that book morphed like the batata into a poTAYto? And my religion doesn't use a book, let alone your book. We rely on nature to inform us.”

ANS:
No, because God promised the Church that He would protect it from error in matters of Faith and Morals when pronounced from the Vicar of Christ, the Pontiff, acting as Head of the Church.

Your problem is that you view God as human or having a limited nature, but God is Omnipotent. We are dealing with a Supernatural Omnipotent Being that exists outside of time. Second, you seem to intimate that God, who is Omnipotent, is incapable of protecting His Church from error. That is incredibly foolish.

Whatever one's religion be, if it doesn’t comport with a transcendental authority, like God, then it is susceptible to human error. Consequently, we have an enormous amount of religions that are created by men alone, founded on subjective beliefs, and are without any transcendental authority conferred on them.

Second, there would be no enforcement of morality. Third, no objectivity, and fourth, religious certitude would rest on the fallible reasoning of men, and therefore subjected to error.

Man alone cannot form a true and errorless religion without God’s assistance because man’s intellect has been clouded by the sin of Adam. Man fell from the grace of God and had to have that grace restored. Though man was redeemed, the residue of sin still remains in man's weakness of his will, concupiscence and the clouding of man's intellect.

For example, if a man broke a window, even though he may be forgiven for breaking it, the damage of the broken window still remains broken and commutative justice demands retribution be made to the injured party.

God redeemed man by restoring him to grace, but man must make retribution because of Adam's sin. Therefore, God gives man His Church as the means of retribution. It cannot be in error or it would forfeit man's salvation, and that would be an injustice to man. But God is not unjust; therefore, God, from reason protects his Church from error. Consequently, man is basked in the unmitigated certitude of the Church as to what man must do to achieve eternal happiness.

Some retribution can't be made whole, as the cause of one's death. Man's reparation must be done by God. Man cannot make retribution to God since the reparation must be proportionate to the damage done against the injured, who is God.

God’s Awesomeness Majesty, His Almighty Power, and God's lack of nothing makes man's reparation impossible. So the Son of Man, because of His Mercy and Love for man, comes down from Heaven to redeem man and make reparation for man's sin, that is the injury Adam made against God, and was transmitted to all men.

"I know not Anonymous." What a profound statment.

Sounds like something a so-called friend would say. Stand there and watch you get put down and then participate in it, calling you weak, saying you can't handle it.

TTWetc, is there a reason you felt a need to post the same thing twice, two days in a row? Or are there minor differences between one version and the other, which we are supposed to ferret out like we would differences between 2 versions of the Bible?

If you have something to say, be clear about it. Don't make us hunt for your opinion.

IN REPLY TO (IRT):
MAMA BEAR:
Anonymous (whom I strongly suspect of being the rather unpronounceable TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ), wrote

ANS:
I know not Anonymous.

IRT:
[ANS:
Rather, man should seek the truth no matter who expounds it. One should not respect one's conclusions if they are in error, but always respect the person if they are honest and sincere in their pursuit of the truth."]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IRT:
“And that's the crux of the biscuit: Certain factions believe somebody MUST be right, therefore it MUST be them because they couldn't possibly be wrong.

ANS:
To the contrary, it is not THEY that make something true because they think things are true; things are true because they actually exists. The fact, that something is real and exists, makes it true. Things are right because they ARE, or EXIST. Thinking has nothing to do with making something true. Man only recognizes or arrives at the truth by recognizing, reasoning to it, or experiencing it. Contradicting the truth is error. Thus, a thing cannot exist and exist under the same circumstances at the same time. Therefore, if you think something is false and it is true, than you are in error.

Moreover, you have little sense of who God is. He is the Creator of all that exists, the Creator of the Universe. He created man. He cannot error because God is Pure Actuality. Error is the lack of Actuality or Reality, or Truth. So it is written, “All things are possible with God,” and “Nothing is possible without God.”

To implying contradictory views, under the same conditions at the same time, are both right, would be ridiculous. If I believe 2+2= 4, and it is true, not because I think it is true but because it is, then someone else cannot believe it equals a different total under the same conditions. Reality is true. He who sees the reality and believes it is correct is correct. Simply put, if your belief doesn’t conform to reality, it is contradictory and in error.

IRT:
“Then Anonymous "TTWetc" said "Truth can not contradict Truth. Two conclusions can't be true if they are in opposition. [Thus, we have many religions that contradict each other in part or in whole. Should we value the beliefs of the terrorists, or Saddam’s, or Hitler’s,, or Mao’s, or Idi Amin’s?"

ANS:
First, you failed to quote the whole principle: “Two conclusions can't be true if they are in contradiction under the same circumstances at the same time.” It is a First Principle of thought, The Principle of Contradiction. No rational thought can occur without accepting this principle.

Second, we are talking about real differences and not superficial ones.

IRT:
"Two conclusions can't be true if they're in opposition, ya say. Hmm."

ANS:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

“Aristotle holds, exactly one member of any contradiction is true and one false: they cannot both be true, and they cannot both be false….The principle that contradictories cannot both be true has fundamental importance in Aristotle's metaphysics “

Two conclusions cannot be true if they are in contradiction at the same time under the same conditions.

IRT
“You say poTAYto, and I say poTAHto. One of those pronunciations MUST be correct, but which one? I mean, there are commonalities in pronunciation but one big difference smack in the middle.”

ANS:
Both can also be correct. If one pronounces potato in French, another in German, they are both right and not contradicting each other. Namely, there is no difference about the potato because both languages mean the same thing. It still is the same potato no matter what you call it. If the definitions of each appellation have the same meaning they are in consonance. There would be a difference if you called it an orange, which is of another nature, and a substantial difference.

We are not talking about superficial differences in language but real differences in nature under the same circumstances at the same time. Hence, there is no difference between what is MEANT by poTAYto or poTAHto, both mean the same. Even if you call it a spud, there is no contradiction.

Now to say there is a correct spelling or pronouncing (S/P) rule and that there is only one way to S/P potato, and another S/P contradicts the right one, then the contradictory one can’t be correct. That would be a contradiction. One would either be right and the other wrong, or vice versa. Here, we are talking about S/P and not the potato. Thus, facts cannot contradict facts, under the same circumstances at the same time.

TTWetc, you just don't get it.

My point about the potatoes was that things get lost in translation and interpretation. You cannot tell me that your Bible -- which is an interpretation of an translation of a translation from very ancient languages -- can be taken as pure fact. The distortion of our words and pronunciations over time, over a mere generation, bears that out.

And the fact that the varying Christian sects all over the globe cannot agree on one translation should indicate that even if the original Bible was historically and spiritually correct, today's Bible cannot be seen as infallible in anything but perhaps it's original form. So unless you happen to have a copy of it laying around and can actually converse in its ancient languages, I'm not going to believe you or any human can reliably and infallibly interpret it.

It is your interpretation and your language that is creating the barrier. It is your insistence that your way is the ONLY way to believe, worship, and live that is creating the barrier.

I don't CARE if you believe or don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's your choice. I don't CARE if you believe abortion is always 100% wrong no matter what. I don't CARE if you believe homosexuality is an "abomination."

I don't CARE.

What I DO care about is how much YOUR beliefs interfere with the rights of millions of people to believe, worship, and live as they feel right for themselves. What I DO care about is the way you impose your beliefs on others.

The constitution says you CANNOT do that. And I will do everything in my power to make sure that people like you don't mess the Constitution up because of your jealous, vindictive worldviews.

IN REPLY TO (IRT):
MAMA BEAR:
Anonymous (whom I strongly suspect of being the rather unpronounceable TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ), wrote

ANS:
I know not Anonymous.

IRT:
[ANS:
Rather, man should seek the truth no matter who expounds it. One should not respect one's conclusions if they are in error, but always respect the person if they are honest and sincere in their pursuit of the truth."]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IRT:
“And that's the crux of the biscuit: Certain factions believe somebody MUST be right, therefore it MUST be them because they couldn't possibly be wrong.

ANS:
You have little sense of who God is. He is the Creator of all that exists. He created man. He cannot error because God is Pure Actuality. Error is the lack of Actuality or Reality, or Truth. So it is written, “All things are possible with God,” and “Nothing is possible without God.”

So are you implying opposite views are both right? That would be ridiculous wouldn’t it? I believe 2+2= 4. Someone else cannot believe it equals 5 and both be right. Reality is right. He, who sees the reality and believes it, is correct. Simply put, if your belief doesn’t conform to reality, it is in error.

IRT:
“Then Anonymous "TTWetc" said "Truth can not contradict Truth. Two conclusions can't be true if they are in opposition. [Thus, we have many religions that contradict each other in part or in whole. Should we value the beliefs of the terrorists, or Saddam’s, or Hitler’s,, or Mao’s, or Idi Amin’s?"

ANS:
First, you failed to quote the whole principle: “Two conclusions can't be true if they are in contradiction under the same circumstances at the same time.” It is a First Principle of thought, The Principle of Contradiction. No rational thought can occur without accepting this principle.

Second, we are talking about real differences not superficial ones.

IRT:
Two conclusions can't be true if they're in opposition, ya say. Hmm.

ANS:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

“Aristotle holds, exactly one member of any contradiction is true and one false: they cannot both be true, and they cannot both be false….The principle that contradictories cannot both be true has fundamental importance in Aristotle's metaphysics “

Two conclusions cannot be true if they are in contradiction at the same time under the same conditions.

IRT
“You say poTAYto, and I say poTAHto. One of those pronunciations MUST be correct, but which one? I mean, there are commonalities in pronunciation but one big difference smack in the middle.”

ANS:
If one pronounces potato in French, another in German, they are both right. Namely, there is no difference about the potato. It still is the same potato no matter what you call it. There would be a difference if you called it an orange, which is of another nature, a substantial difference.

We are not talking about superficial differences in language but real differences in nature under the same circumstances at the same time. Hence there is no difference between what is MEANT by poTAYto or poTAHto, both mean the same. Even if you might call it a spud. There is no contradiction.

Now to say there is a correct spelling or pronouncing (S/P) rule and that there is only one way to spell or pronounce (S/P) potato, and the wrong S/P is opposite the right one, the wrong one can’t be correct. That would be a contradiction. Either one would be right the other wrong, or vice versa. Here we are talking about S/P and not the potato. If there is only one proper S/P, then the other cannot be proper. If there are two different spelling that are correct, then there is no contradiction or specific differences, namely, both mean potato.

IRT:
“Let's investigate.
The etymology of potato dates back to 1565, based on the Spanish patata. Which means I must be right in poTAHto, yes? However, the Spanish borrowed the word from the Haitian's batata, which means 'sweet potato.'

Hence, our common spud is named after the yam. We're calling the wrong thing by the wrong name, number one. And as far as pronunciation goes, neither of us is 100% on the mark. It's a BATATA.”

ANS:
In English we are correctly calling it a potato. Though we use different labels, we are talking about the same object, a potato. If you are talking about language, then we have a different circumstance.

Differences in two different languages are not a specific difference if they mean the same in each language. No, a sweet potato is not a regular potato though it is in the same genus. Thus, your investigation shows no difference. Namely, a potato is a potato no matter what you call it as long as you both mean a potato.

If you call a potato a boat or the sun, then you have a difference, and both are substantially wrong because the potato is neither the Sun nor a boat. Namely, there is a substantial difference in meaning and substance. We are talking about the nature of the potato, not its pronunciation and the meaning is the same. Hence, there is no substantial difference and not a contradiction.

Oh, please, TTWetc. Adam and Eve were SET UP.

According to your literature, Adam and Eve were created utterly innocent, sinless and pure. They knew nothing of death and nothing of "sin." To them, "evil" and "death" and "suffering" were meaningless words. They had never been punished for anything, ever, so the threat of major punishment would have been totally foreign to them.

So what did God do to protect the children He loved so much? He made a beautiful yet deadly fruit tree and put it smack in the middle of His precious garden where His children could reach it.

God didn't have to create the tree -- He chose to. Of course, He didn't have to put it in Eden. He chose to. That tree must have been mighty important for Him to want it that badly, because He knew full well and good what He was doing and He did it on purpose. God chose to put the instrument of their destruction within the reach of his own children. God introduced "evil" into the world through the tree and its fruit.

Did He take any preventative measures to deter his children from even wanting to eat the apple? It was within His power -- He could have made the apple look repulsive or smell bad. Nope. God chose to make the apple pretty and shiny and tempting and fragrant. What child would NOT eat the apple, if it looks and smells sweet and they cannot comprehend the consequences of eating it????

Furthermore, if God is all knowing and all powerful, he KNEW IN ADVANCE that Adam and Eve would eat the apple. Did he do anything to stop them? NOOO. He LET them eat it.

He left the tree and its fruit like a cookie on the counter, and said they could have anything except that one thing because if they did, He would make horrible things happen to them. He used big words they could not comprehend. Adam and Eve could not possibly have understood in a million years what those horrible things might be, because God didn't give give them the instincts to understand what "evil" might be.

Then when his children messed up, did he cut them a break? I mean, God's all powerful, loving and forgiving. He could have easily given them a do-over. He could have slapped their little hands and given them a warning not to do it again.

Did He do those things to the children He so loved? Nope. He not only punished them, but punished their progeny for all generations to come.

Do you punish YOUR grandkids because of a mistake their parents made when they were babies and didn't know better? Do you punish your great great grandkids?

And when God got sick of His children's bad reactions to eating His apples, he decided to cull the litter. He kept what he deemed the best speciments and drowned the rejects in a massive flood.

And when THAT attempt at housecleaning failed miserably, He decided the only way to improve His breeding program was by killing His favorite kid to atone for something He alone created with one blasted tree when He originally created the world -- something He could have easily prevented, given His knowledge and power.

Your God is a mean spirited thing.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
“MAMA BEAR:
“Women have been terminating pregnancies since the dawn of time, before humans could write and long before your Jesus was born. Certainly before the birth of the Democratic party.”

ANS:
So when did the beginning of time have anything to do with permitting or legalizing murder? Murdering unborn is an intrinsic evil. Murder (the intentional taking of an innocent human life); whether at the beginning of time or at the present, can never morally ever be justified. Under that scenario, murder and thievery would be licit.

The Democrat Party is the Party of Abortion and Homosexuality. The majority of the Dems support the immoral acts that are against the Moral Law and therefore the Natural Law from which the Moral Law flows. They rail against the Nature of Man, namely Human Nature.

IRS:
“AIDS might be a newer mutation of an old virus, but STDs have also certainly been around for centuries and centuries. They exist with and without marriage, and are not at all related.”

ANS:
So what if they’ve been around since the beginning of time, so has murder, thievery, lying and the seven Deadly Sins; that’s why they are called deadly? That doesn’t make them morally licit. To the contrary, the transfer of STDs is generated for the most part by illicit sex and transferred to innocent victims.

Illicit sex is a sin against marriage among its other sins because sexual relations are only moral when between married couples. Gay sex and adultery are both immoral acts outside of marriage. These acts are related to marriage in that they are for the most part, caused by illicit sex, and illicit sex is one of the causes of AIDS, STDs and high divorce rates, single parent families, and the baggage these consequences entail. They undermine the institute of marriage.

There are many stories that relate to spouses having illicit sex, and then infecting their family. Sex only in marriage is one of the many consequential and substantial protections against sexual diseases if the spouses are responsible to their marriage vows.

IRS:
“They are definitely not related to the Democratic Party -- AIDS and STDs do not infect based on party lines.”

ANS:
No, but they are generated by the Dems support of illicit sexual. Illicit sexual relations, the cause of these diseases are supported for the most part by the Dem's Party. When a former President that represents the country, who was the leader of the Dem Party and the country, is a philanderer and an adulterer, is idolized by the Democrat Party that has an affect on our country. Namely, it gives an impression of approval of illicit sexual acts.

Subsequently, the Democrat Party (Representatives and Senators) stood on the White House lawn in front of the White House, along with Vice President Al Gore, and defended Clinton’s exploitation of woman including a neophyte immature aid.

In addition, when a Party promotes gay sex, by giving gays prominence at their political Presidential nomination conventions, starting with Mondale, opening the convention with a Gay band, what do you call it if not support for gay sex?

Subsequently, the White House decorated their Christmas tree with homosexual ornaments, a mockery of Christmas. The Clinton’s are idolized by the Democrat Party. Maybe not to you, but to me that is a connection to illicit sex and an implicit approval of it.

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

"White House-assigned FBI agent Gary Aldrich agrees to help trim the Christmas tree in the Blue Room. Aldrich is surprised to find a small clay ornament of 12-lords-aleaping. Among the things that were aleaping on the 12 lords are their erections. Also provided by Hillary Clinton and her staff: ornaments made of drug paraphernalia such as syringes and roach clips, three French hens in a ménage á trios, two turtle doves fornicating, five golden rings attached to a gingerbread man's ear, nipple, belly button, nose, and penis. That’s the message the Clinton presidency was proffering."

Lots of blame is going around, when you got the President and the Supreme Court protecting sodomy. Moreover, the Supreme Court Justices Stephens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, and Kennedy all signed on to Stephens’ conclusion (Lawrence v. Texas) that the Traditional Moral Law serves no useful purpose in Civil Law, and had banned the 10 Commandments, (the underpinnings that all Moral Law is based on) from the Public Square. Violations of the Moral law, as illicit sex, have serious consequences and AIDS and STDs are one of those consequences.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
“MAMA BEAR:
“One more thing, Anonymous TTWetc. You said,”

“Sorry, I am not Anonymous; we concur on little.”

["Politics must always be based on the Truth, to the best of man's ability. The Dems are a pro-abortion, gay party. Over 48 million unborn have died because of it, and AIDS and STDs are a curse to society because they attack and corrupt the institute of Marriage and demean human life."]

IN REPLY TO [IRT}
“Upon whose "Truth" should the governing bodies base their politics?”

ANS:
God gives man an intellect to reason to the Truth. He gives man a conscience on which he impresses on it the basic tenants of the Natural Moral Law. God reveals Himself through His Creation. He gives man His Church to guide us. He sent His only Son down to establish His Church and redeem man. In addition, God gave His Church infallibility in its teachings and dogmas so that man will not believe in error. God does not hide himself from any man. Man can only ask that he be given the knowledge to know God, who is Truth, and it will be given to him.

Because of the fall of Adam, man’s intellect is overshadowed by Adam's sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

“The Catholic Church declares that the dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are "truths which have come down to us from heaven" (veritates e coelo delapsoe) and not "an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts" (prop., 22).” Man cannot ponder the depths of the Divine Creator without His assistance.

Revelation as thus explained differs clearly from: inspiration such as is bestowed by God on the author of a sacred book. For this, while involving a special illumination of the mind in virtue of which the recipient conceives such thoughts as God desires him to commit to writing, does not necessarily suppose a supernatural communication of these truths from the illustrations which God may bestow from time to time upon any of the faithful to bring home to the mind the import of some truth of religion hitherto obscurely grasped.

And, from the Divine assistance, the pope when acting as the supreme teacher of the Church is preserved from all error as to faith or morals. The function of this assistance is purely negative: it need not carry with it any positive gift of light to the mind.

Much of the confusion in which the discussion of Revelation in non-Catholic works is involved arises from the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of these.”

There is only one truth. Again, Truth cannot contradict Truth. Truth is reality. Second, governing bodies must base their governments on truth, to the best of their ability. Moreover, their beliefs, to be legitimate, cannot contradict right reason or the Natural Law. Right reason is that which is in consonance with reality. Reality is that which exist. Namely, man cannot outlaw what the Natural Law maintains. Hence, man can’t outlaw rain or clouds, nor can man outlaw the nature of man.

Though the Supreme Court immorally attempted to change the Natural Law by redefining man, it can’t create a right to legalize murder by claiming the conceived is not human. Murder counteracts man’s inviolable right, the Right to Life and is in discordance with human nature. Consequently, the Court violated the Natural Law and the Natural Moral Law.

Right reason is consistent with the intelligence of God; yes, it is the Christian God; He is All Reality. It is the same God as the Founding Fathers have based the Bill of Rights on the Declarations of Independence, and your inalienable rights on.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ATANU DEY:

IRS:
“Why is it so important to you that you re-write history to incorporate Christianity?

Why do you ask others to defer to your religion? You've seen what good is accomplished in theocracies like Iran and Iraq. Why would you want to duplicate those atrocities here in America by mandating that we honor your religion above all others?”

ANS:
Christianity does not duplicate these atrocities; it has made it the greatest country in history. The problem is the Court is destroying what the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution, the inalienable rights of man.

What History is being rewritten to include Christianity?

It is important to get the right God and not the wrong one. Islam seems to believe in the wrong god since it is causing havoc throughout the Muslim communities. What's more, Muslims don't always believe in the same things and there are distinctions between them.

Thus, those who believe that which is contrary to truth end in disrupting the social order. Get the Moral Law wrong, and society collapses, cataclysm, and catastrophe ensue because violations of the Moral Law are acts against human nature.

Atheists, agnostics, and pagans have a history of social prostration, distortion, and disarray. The history of paganism is destruction and anarchism.

Hence, the Supreme Court has distorted the Moral Law and redefined man’s nature. The Court has, with impunity, and malice violated the Ten Commandments that it threw out of the Public Square thought they are plastered all over the Supreme Court building.

The mention of God is allover the government grounds. and the Houses of Congress, but they are verboten in the Public Square. Notwithstanding, the Commandments are the underpinnings of all civil law and the social order of the nation. In addition, five Supreme Court Justices signed on to Stephen's conclusion that the Traditional Moral Law has no social value to society.

By the Court redefining man, the conceived became a “thing” and lost its humanity. Consequently, over 48 million unborn have been legally (an oxymoron) murdered. Immorality has been legalized and written into the Constitution. The wrong ideology had taken the inviolable right recognized in the Declaration and Bill of Rights that is essentially basic to all human rights, the Right to Life. If you are dead, you have no civil rights.

If the Court can legally redefine the nature of humanity, it can manipulate the life of all human beings. The Civil War was fought over defining Blacks as being part human. Supreme Court Justice Blackmon defined the conceived as part human. In the Blackmon’s Trimester Theory, the conceived was a “thing,” not a person. The “thing” became 1/3rd human in the First Trimester, 2/3rds human in the Second Trimester, and never human till expunged from the mother. Consequently, we had a Court that concluded the absurd claim that a woman was never pregnant with a child.

We fought WWII over Hitler redefining humanity; he also redefined human life and the end or purpose of human life as did Marx.

Marx’s false ideas create havoc when they were acted upon by the USSR. Stalin murdered over sixty million people, Mao about the same.

The Communist supported thievery because thieves stole from the rich and gave to the poor, themselves. Hence, the distribution of goods was a part of the Communists beliefs.

A problem developed when the thieves started stealing from the Communist officials, who became rich. They changed the equal distribution of goods principle, because they were getting all the goods and the proletariat wasn’t getting much any of anything but grief. Moreover, the proletariats were being murdered for complaining. Thievery is against the Moral Law and the Ten Commandments.

Man has certain inalienable rights that governments can’t trespass. So it is important to get them right. The Catholic Church is the guardian of the Moral Law. She defends the Moral Laws because She defends the dignity of man.

Communism and materialism are the anti-thesis of humanity. Millions have died because of it. So it is important we do not operate in a milieu of irrationalism; it can lead to one’s destruction. Therefore, there is a necessity to encompass the Moral Law created by the only and one true God. No, it is to commit social suicide as the Communist have and are doing and the Court has done.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ATANU DEY:

IRS:
“Why is it so important to you that you re-write history to incorporate Christianity?

Why do you ask others to defer to your religion? You've seen what good is accomplished in theocracies like Iran and Iraq. Why would you want to duplicate those atrocities here in America by mandating that we honor your religion above all others?”

ANS:
Christianity does not duplicate these atrocities; it has made it the greatest country in history. The problem is the Court is destroying what the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution, the inalienable rights of man.

What History is being rewritten to include Christianity?

It is important to get the right God and not the wrong one. Islam seems to believe in the wrong god since it is causing havoc throughout the Muslim communities. What's more, Muslims don't always believe in the same things and there are distinctions between them.

Thus, those who believe that which is contrary to truth end in disrupting the social order. Get the Moral Law wrong, and society collapses, cataclysm, and catastrophe ensue because violations of the Moral Law are acts against human nature.

Atheists, agnostics, and pagans have a history of social prostration, distortion, and disarray. The history of paganism is destruction and anarchism.

Hence, the Supreme Court has distorted the Moral Law and redefined man’s nature. The Court has, with impunity, and malice violated the Ten Commandments that it threw out of the Public Square thought they are plastered all over the Supreme Court building.

The mention of God is allover the government grounds. and the Houses of Congress, but they are verboten in the Public Square. Notwithstanding, the Commandments are the underpinnings of all civil law and the social order of the nation. In addition, five Supreme Court Justices signed on to Stephen's conclusion that the Traditional Moral Law has no social value to society.

By the Court redefining man, the conceived became a “thing” and lost its humanity. Consequently, over 48 million unborn have been legally (an oxymoron) murdered. Immorality has been legalized and written into the Constitution. The wrong ideology had taken the inviolable right recognized in the Declaration and Bill of Rights that is essentially basic to all human rights, the Right to Life. If you are dead, you have no civil rights.

If the Court can legally redefine the nature of humanity, it can manipulate the life of all human beings. The Civil War was fought over defining Blacks as being part human. Supreme Court Justice Blackmon defined the conceived as part human. In the Blackmon’s Trimester Theory, the conceived was a “thing,” not a person. The “thing” became 1/3rd human in the First Trimester, 2/3rds human in the Second Trimester, and never human till expunged from the mother. Consequently, we had a Court that concluded the absurd claim that a woman was never pregnant with a child.

We fought WWII over Hitler redefining humanity; he also redefined human life and the end or purpose of human life as did Marx.

Marx’s false ideas create havoc when they were acted upon by the USSR. Stalin murdered over sixty million people, Mao about the same.

The Communist supported thievery because thieves stole from the rich and gave to the poor, themselves. Hence, the distribution of goods was a part of the Communists beliefs.

A problem developed when the thieves started stealing from the Communist officials, who became rich. They changed the equal distribution of goods principle, because they were getting all the goods and the proletariat wasn’t getting much any of anything but grief. Moreover, the proletariats were being murdered for complaining. Thievery is against the Moral Law and the Ten Commandments.

Man has certain inalienable rights that governments can’t trespass. So it is important to get them right. The Catholic Church is the guardian of the Moral Law. She defends the Moral Laws because She defends the dignity of man.

Communism and materialism are the anti-thesis of humanity. Millions have died because of it. So it is important we do not operate in a milieu of irrationalism; it can lead to one’s destruction. Therefore, there is a necessity to encompass the Moral Law created by the only and one true God. No, it is to commit social suicide as the Communist have and are doing and the Court has done.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ATANU DEY:

IRS:
“Why is it so important to you that you re-write history to incorporate Christianity?

Why do you ask others to defer to your religion? You've seen what good is accomplished in theocracies like Iran and Iraq. Why would you want to duplicate those atrocities here in America by mandating that we honor your religion above all others?”

ANS:
It is important because those who believe that which is contrary to truth end in disrupting the social order. Get the Moral Law wrong, and society collapses.

Hence, the Supreme Court has distorted the Moral Law and redefined man’s nature and has violently violated the Ten Commandments which it threw out of the Public Square even thought they are plastered all over the Supreme Court building and the houses of Congress. Notwithstanding, the are the substructure of all civil law.

By redefining man, the conceived became a “thing” and lost its humanity. Consequently, over 48 million unborn have been legally murdered. Immorality has been legalized and written into the Constitution. The wrong ideology had taken the inviolable right that is essentially basic to all human rights, the Right to Life. If you are dead, you have no civil rights.

If the Court can legally redefine the nature of humanity, it can manipulate the life of all human beings. The Civil War was fought over defining Blacks as being part human. Supreme Court Justice Blackmon defined the conceived as part human. In the Blackmon’s Trimester Theory, the conceived was a “thing,” not a person. The thing became 1/3rd human in the First Trimester, 2/3rds human in the Second Trimester, and never human till expunged from the mother. Hitler redefined humanity; he also redefined human life and the end or purpose of human life. So did the Communist and materialist. Millions have died because of it. So it is important we do not operate in a milieu of irrationalism; it can lead to one’s destruction.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ATANU DEY:
:
“Monotheism has blood on its hands. Even today, Islam is doing what the Christians did long before but have grown up since the Dark Ages: killing those who don't believe in their one true god.”

ANS:
If you are thinking of the Inquisitions, SEE Link below.

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

“The Spanish Inquisition was motivated in part by the multi-religious nature of Spanish society following the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors (Muslims).

“The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and was under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy. It was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabel II.”

The Portuguese Inquisition was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515, but was only after his death that the pope acquiesced.

As in Spain, the Inquisition was put under the authority of the King. It was headed by a Grand Inquisitor, or General Inquisitor, named by the Pope but selected by the king, and always from within the royal family.

The Goa Inquisition, another inquisition rife with anti-Semitism and anti-Hinduism that mostly targeted Jews and Hindus, was established in Goa in 1560 by Aleixo Dias Falcão and Francisco Marques, who occupied the palace of the Sabaio Adil Khan.

Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs to start the Inquisition, such as increased political authority, weakening opposition, doing away with conversos and sheer profit.

Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured pope Sixtus IV to agree to let him set up an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome.

Sixtus IV later accused the Spanish inquisition of being overzealous, accused the monarchs for being greedy and issued a bull to stop it, but he was pressured into withdrawing the bull. On both occasions, Sixtus IV went along with Ferdinand II of Aragon. [1]

During the 16th century, a new target was found: Protestants. About 100 were burned as heretics. An index of prohibited books was drawn up that were alleged to contain heresy. In time, converts from Islam, called Moriscos, were also persecuted by the Holy Office.

The Spanish Inquisition was an institution at the service of the monarchy, but had to follow procedures set up by the Holy See. Most of the inquisitors had a university education in law.

The procedures would start with Edicts of Grace, where people were invited to step forward to confess heresy freely and to denounce others.

Denunciations were followed by detentions. A defense counsel was assigned to the defendant, a member of the tribunal itself, whose role was simply to advise the defendant and to encourage him or her to speak the truth. A Notary of the Secreto meticulously wrote down the words of the accused.

The archives of the Inquisition, in comparison to those of other judicial systems of the era, are striking in the completeness of their documentation. The percentage of cases where torture was used, which was as a means of getting confessions, varied.

Sentences varied from fines to execution and those condemned had to participate in the ceremony of auto de fe (in English auto da fe means act of faith). The arrival of the 18th century slowed inquisitorial activity and it was definitively abolished on July 15, 1834. From 1476 to 1834 an estimated 2,000 people were executed.

“In the mid-16th century to the mid-17th century, a time when Europe was torn apart by Catholic-Protestant strife, there began to appear from the pens of various European Protestant intellectuals, who generally had minimal or no direct access or experience of the Inquisition, what has come to be known as the Black Legend, as part of the Protestant polemic in support of the Protestant Revolution.

With the gradual ebbing of religious hostilities professional historians began investigations, giving a detailed, nuanced, and less exaggerated picture of the Inquisition. And, above all, it showed the same proceedings between the accusers."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ATANU DEY:
Anonymous said, "Monotheism has a unifying power ..."

“Really? And what happens when two people who believe in two different monotheist gods -- each thinking that theirs is the only one true god -- meet?”

ANS:
Simply put, they are united in their beliefs each in their own religion. They are not united to each other, but in their own religion. It would seem self-evident that monotheism believers are united. If they were not united, they would normally leave the religion unless they were forced to stay. It is assumed all who belong to monotheism are there because they feely choose it.

Catholicism is united in its beliefs. If you don't accept its beliefs, you are not an active member of the Church, and are considered a dead member.

IRT;
“How about polytheism which says that there are many gods and you worship your gods and I worship mine and we agree to disagree?”

ANS:
Polytheism is not applicable to the statement above; polytheism is not monotheism. The purpose for many gods is because of many beliefs of many gods. Since there are many different beliefs in Polytheism, it is not united in its beliefs.

IRT:
“Monotheism has blood on its hands. Even today, Islam is doing what the Christians did long before but have grown up since the Dark Ages: killing those who don't believe in their one true god.”

ANS: Islam has many beliefs, and is not a united religion. Are they a monotheism; it’s questionable. However, the factions are united in themselves but not in the canopy of Muslimism. Since they have so many diverse beliefs that are contradictory of one another factions, it appears the many factions are so diverse that they each apparently believe in a different god. How else could they believe in the same god contradicting himself? Therefore, it appears they are not a monotheism religion.

Monotheism is not the cause of blood being on the hands of its believers; it's their other beliefs. Believing in one God doesn't cause violence; what causes the violence is their other beliefs.

If you’re violence is referring to killing those who don’t believe in the one true God, that is not representative of True Christianity who are monotheistic.

If violence refers to the many Crusades that were initiated by the Church, they were initiated to protect the Christians from the atrocious persecutions and invasions from the Turks who plunder their villages. It's called self-defense.

In addition, the Catholic Church has no blood on its hands. Her doctrines and teachings are apart from violence. The Church is infallible and united only in its teachings and beliefs when they represent the whole of the Church. She is fallible in Her human civil acts that are independent judgments that are not relegated to Her doctrines and teachings.

Yes, the cause of your mentioned violence intimates, the Muslims didn’t think, and still don’t think, Christians believe in the one true God. Hence, the Turks were provoking the initiation of the Crusades. They are still assaulting Christians. Some Crusades went astray, but their violence was not approved of or controlled by the Church. See link below.

http://www.reference.com/search?q=crusades

MHughes, in other words, physically, none of us are identical. We do not even interpret our environments in exactly the same way. What you see as purple blue, I may see as blue purple. I think cilantro is very flavorful, but to you it may taste like soap. Is one of us necessarily right in our viewpoint, and the other is absolutely wrong? Of course not -- it's a matter of perception. The color is merely wavelengths, and cilantro will still be cilantro, even if it tastes like soap on a stem.

So why, then, is it expected that we should all perceive Deity in exactly the same way, when Deity is so much greater than anything we can name on Earth?

I tend to think in metaphor, rather than absolute terms. I understand concepts best when they are accompanied by examples. And the best explanation I have ever heard is that we are all travellers climbing the same mountain, following different paths as we make our way to the top. None of us knows exactly what we'll find when we get there, but we're all heading in the same direction.

Have you ever walked up a wooded hill? The scenery on the north slope will be different than what you'd see if you walked on the eastern side. But it's the same mountain -- just different aspects of the mountain.

Some paths are easier to walk than others. Some of the trails are better blazed, some require ropes or walking sticks to make headway. Some people may follow a carefully plotted map, while other people might choose to follow their instincts as they climb upward. But that doesn't mean that one path is the only right way to get where you're going. It's just a different way of walking.

What is important is that we help each other as we climb that mountain, and not push each other over the cliff for taking a different route.

MHughes, you're right. I do not believe that any one theological viewpoint has cornered the market on "absolute truth." I think it is utterly human of us to want to *claim* that we have discovered the real truth, but in reality, it's not possible.

I absolutely love what one of our Anonymous poets wrote about the gems of wisdom contained in every path, and the importance of the thread that runs through all of them. What a beautiful image that evokes, of pearls, rubies, diamonds, and beads of jet. In my mind's eye, I see that thread as a shining gossamer string that links all of us together.

Sadly, what I feel is a tug of war taking place over that shiny thread and all of the glittering gemstones. I hear a recalcitrant child yelling "Mine!"

And what I fear is that somebody is going to pull so hard that all of the gems will scatter and be lost.

What a huge loss of wisdom that would be.

"So what you are saying is only have discussion of books that I believe in or want to discuss. What a selfish point of view. The whole point of having a discussion is for all parties to have the freedom to discuss their views that support the topic or subject matter."

Please do not put words into my mouth. I have certainly not hogged this site. Mama Bear and Purpose seem to be having their own discussions on biblical verse with TTWetc. I have read them with interest. I just respond to responses to my postings. That's all.

I visit Starhawk's threads often because I know that she has a beautiful voice of reason that often gets overlooked in a site full of monotheistic authors. I wish she was not the only Pagan voice on this thread so that the mainstream religious folks can see that there are distinct and vibrant differences within the Pagan community as well. There are just as many different shades of Paganism as Christianity. But the fact that she's even here at all is a huge step forward. We have to take what we can get.

For some people like myself, my views come directly from my own experiences. They are not predicated on the premise of any book. Therefore, using a religious text to claim one thing or another is true for ME is insulting.

I do believe there is some wisdom in the bible, but i do not believe it is any holier than any other ancient work, and is even possibly based on other local mythologies that were present at the time. Including Gilgamesh, Inanna, Isis, and many other stories that were around long before the bible came to be.

I am all for discussion. The more the merrier- but when someone claims to 'know' that their interpretation is better than anyone else's, and is the ONLY truth, and then attempts to say that other people should follow only 'their' way when not everyone even agrees on what those words actually mean, that's where I draw the line.

Especially when someone uses a book that I do not to try to 'prove' their point when said point is by definition an interpretation, an opinion, and therefore unprovable. I respect the right of others to believe as they do or will, but I object when others try to force their scripture on me.

Notice nobody has asked what kind of views someone can come to that are NOT predicated on the bible. It's an assumption that is made that everyone follows it. It's sort of like going to Cuba and expecting everyone to speak English because it's a protectorate of the US.

I will be the first to admit I do not understand Christianity, especially the more I learn about the early formation of the church and the old ways. I look for the common threads in every religion, because I believe that under all the dogma there are basics that everyone can agree on and admire. My spiritual path teaches that ALL ways have some truth to them.

I am fascinated by people's stories of how they got to whatever beliefs they end up with (or even lack thereof.) I am simply here to learn how other people come to the conclusions that they do, but people here like TTWetc are not interested in debate. TTWetc especially is authoritarian, fearful, dogmatic and insistent that his way is the 'only' way. It is not being loving. And I thought Christ was all about loving one's neighbor and not judging others.

Blessed be.

I do have to disagree with anon; TTW does make some very good outstanding points on truth. He also is very persuasive.

I think a lot of what TTW says is good use for practical everyday living.

Sorry about the multiple posting but I was having computer problems.

It was only intended to post one time.

you are right, what ttw is saying is not loving your neighbor. What can I do for you? I do not want to disagree with you.

you are right, what ttw is saying is not loving your neighbor. What can I do for you? I do not want to disagree with you.

you are right, what ttw is saying is not loving your neighbor. What can I do for you? I do not want to disagree with you. xoxo

you are right, what ttw is saying is not loving your neighbor. What can I do for you? I do not want to disagree with you. xoxo

So what you are saying is only have discussion of books that I believe in or want to discuss. What a selfish point of view. The whole point of having a discussion is for all parties to have the freedom to discuss their views that support the topic or subject matter.

By you saying that when I or someone else introduces their point of view with their supporting source it shuts down the communication is essentially saying “keep your opinion to yourself or I won’t talk about it anymore with you.”

Again if you do not like the post do not read it. You do no own this posting board and have no right to dictate to others what they should or should not post and from what source they use to support their subject matter.

What I understand is that you are showing a lack of self-control. Get over it! The world does not revolve around you and you alone. And speak for yourself only. When you say “others” on this thread you include me and I do not support your theory as it stands right now.

what you need to realize is that there are many points of view on this website.. and while Starhawk among others including myself have read the bible, we have found it wanting in many ways, and therefore have no need of it in our daily lives. My belief system in particular has given me quite a different understanding of the same book.

it has nothing to do with 'owning' anything.

But it shuts off discussion in much the same manner as speaking another language that one does not- because others presume to know the mind of their deity, which I for one state is impossible. Especially since there is so much disagreement amongst people who DO consider the bible a source of inspiration in their lives as to what it actually says.

Nobody, particularly TTWetc is as much of an authority as he thinks he is.. and he justifies horrible things- including slavery- with the use of his book. He tries to insist that HIS version of interpretation is the 'only' or 'right' way to interpret such a book, and assumes a smug superior attitude, and enjoys telling other people that it's 'his' way or no way. He demonstrates incredible fear of things he doesn't understand and therefore tries to push things he doesn't like under the heading of 'law should be changed to reflect what's in this book'.

And that's just wrong.

And in case you noticed- i'm not the only one on this thread, nor am I the only one who feels this way.

It's called 'knowing your audience' and 'not making assumptions about how someone views the world around them' and realizing that 'hey there are other folks out there who have a COMPLETELY different worldview and just MAYBE have something that others can learn from as well'.

What TTW etc does is not loving one's neighbor.

anonymous: "Don't quote a book to someone who doesn't follow it."

I was under the impression that this posting board was for free speech. If you don't like what is quoted then don't read the post.

Of course unless you think that you own this posting board, and that would be an entirely different subject, but with a pre....dic....table outcome.

"Gay sex is a direct violation of God’s Natural Moral Law. "

No it isn't. Have you studied anything at all about the animal kingdom? It certainly isn't limited to humans.

You have actually justified slavery. Are you seriously saying 'have slaves, just 'treat them humanely'??

"To the contrary, not my view, but God’s view is given to humanity through His Church."

Because of your OPINION that it is your god's word. Because, of course, you know the mind of a deity.

You have absolutely shown your true colors with such statements. You make dangerous assumptions of superiority. It is those exact assumptions that lead to war.

The Bill of Rights and the 10 Commandments are two different things altogether. Why do you insist on conflating the two?

You are a dogmatist who is afraid of what they know nothing about, hiding behind a version of Scripture that I doubt a whole lot of folks who actually consider themselves Christian would agree with.

"you deny the first principle of contradiction, namely, a thing can not be and be under the same circumstances at the same time."

Actually, in the field of quantum physics and quantum mechanics it has been proven that atoms can actually be and not be under the same circumstances at the same time.

What is true for YOU is not true for everyone. if it was, than everyone would be YOUR particular brand of Christianity. In each religion there are gems of wisdom that are contained, nourished and developed. If you were to string them together like a necklace, the thread running through it is what is important.

Don't quote a book to someone who doesn't follow it.

Mama bear, “It makes no sense at all to have a one-gender Creator. To do so is to believe that the universe is ultimately unbalanced. Thus, many (but not all) pagans believe in a Lord and Lady, Mother and Father couplet."

~~~The trinity is simply “unity in mind and spirit,” with God himself as the head. Meaning Jesus and the Holy Spirit think the same and are in one accord in mind and spirit as they are with God. Neither Jesus or the Holy Spirit will think or act independent of God; hence they are as one. To consider the universe “unbalanced” because of having a “one gender” creator has no merit, there is no proof in existence that speaks otherwise.~~~

“Not to mention the fact that Catholics honor Mary the way they do. Most of us pagani know that Mary is really the Goddess. Our Goddess gave birth to your God.”

~~~Mary was human and chosen of God as any other person called of God to do his will, only her calling was to bear the son of God, Jesus, and serve as his mother while Jesus fulfilled his ministry on earth. She was highly favored by God as we all are. To give Mary any other status is a form of “idol worship.”

We all are called of God to do his will while on earth, some answer the call, some do not answer the call. I am very aware of the Catholic practice that worships, prays, and gives penitence to Mary. But again this is a form of idol worship and considered sin in the eyes of God. For God alone is worthy of worship along with his son Jesus who is seated at the right hand of God in heaven; that is Jesus’ level of deity. Anything or anyone that takes away from the deity of God and his son Jesus is considered to be an idol in place of God and Jesus and thus becomes idol worship.

The Catholic Church has long left off there’re first love, God, and have followed the way of Baal. There’re church reeks of idol worship where their believers kneel and pray to graven “images” the same as the God of Baal. The Catholic Church also has taken the place of God by granting the forgiveness of sins to their believers through confession to a priest, which is another form of “idol worship, for only God and Jesus has the power to forgive sin. Their leaders are full of immorality and have been abusing innocent children for decades, while their leaders cover up and hide their sin against the innocent.

In the last days and at the time of judgment God will show no mercy on the Catholic church and final justice will be served for all those tainted, led astray, and harmed by them in the name of God, as stated in the book of Revelations. For those who have been hurt or violated by the Catholic church God sees every tear that has been shed in the midnight hour. Your justice has not been forgotten, but delayed until the time that God himself will recompense you and serve justice on them. Be encouraged.~~~

Mama bear, “It makes no sense at all to have a one-gender Creator. To do so is to believe that the universe is ultimately unbalanced. Thus, many (but not all) pagans believe in a Lord and Lady, Mother and Father couplet."

~~The trinity is simply “unity in mind and spirit,” with God himself as the head. Meaning Jesus and the Holy Spirit think the same and are in one accord in mind and spirit as they are with God. Neither Jesus or the Holy Spirit will think or act independent of God; hence they are as one. To consider the universe “unbalanced” because of having a “one gender” creator has no merit, there is no proof in existence that speaks otherwise.~~

“Not to mention the fact that Catholics honor Mary the way they do. Most of us pagani know that Mary is really the Goddess. Our Goddess gave birth to your God.”

~~Mary was human and chosen of God as any other person called of God to do his will, only her calling was to bear the son of God, Jesus, and serve as his mother while Jesus fulfilled his ministry on earth. She was highly favored by God as we all are. To give Mary any other status is a form of “idol worship.”

We all are called of God to do his will while on earth, some answer the call, some do not answer the call. I am very aware of the Catholic practice that worships, prays, and gives penitence to Mary. But again this is a form of idol worship and considered sin in the eyes of God. For God alone is worthy of worship along with his son Jesus who is seated at the right hand of God in heaven; that is Jesus’ level of deity. Anything or anyone that takes away from the deity of God and his son Jesus is considered to be an idol in place of God and Jesus and thus becomes idol worship.

The Catholic Church has long left off there’re first love, God, and have followed the way of Baal. There’re church reeks of idol worship where their believers kneel and pray to graven “images” the same as the God of Baal. The Catholic Church also has taken the place of God by granting the forgiveness of sins to their believers through confession to a priest, which is another form of “idol worship, for only God and Jesus has the power to forgive sin. Their leaders are full of immorality and have been abusing innocent children for decades, while their leaders cover up and hide their sin against the innocent.

In the last days and at the time of judgment God will show no mercy on the Catholic church and final justice will be served for all those tainted, led astray, and harmed by them in the name of God, as stated in the book of Revelations. For those who have been hurt or violated by the Catholic church God sees every tear that has been shed in the midnight hour. Your justice has not been forgotten, but delayed until the time that God himself will recompense you and serve justice on them. Be encouraged.~~

Mama bear, “It makes no sense at all to have a one-gender Creator. To do so is to believe that the universe is ultimately unbalanced. Thus, many (but not all) pagans believe in a Lord and Lady, Mother and Father couplet."

~~The trinity is simply “unity in mind and spirit,” with God himself as the head. Meaning Jesus and the Holy Spirit think the same and are in one accord in mind and spirit as they are with God. Neither Jesus or the Holy Spirit will think or act independent of God; hence they are as one. To consider the universe “unbalanced” because of having a “one gender” creator has no merit, there is no proof in existence that speaks otherwise.~~

“Not to mention the fact that Catholics honor Mary the way they do. Most of us pagani know that Mary is really the Goddess. Our Goddess gave birth to your God.”

~~Mary was human and chosen of God as any other person called of God to do his will, only her calling was to bear the son of God, Jesus, and serve as his mother while Jesus fulfilled his ministry on earth. She was highly favored by God as we all are. To give Mary any other status is a form of “idol worship.”

We all are called of God to do his will while on earth, some answer the call, some do not answer the call. I am very aware of the Catholic practice that worships, prays, and gives penitence to Mary. But again this is a form of idol worship and considered sin in the eyes of God. For God alone is worthy of worship along with his son Jesus who is seated at the right hand of God in heaven; that is Jesus’ level of deity. Anything or anyone that takes away from the deity of God and his son Jesus is considered to be an idol in place of God and Jesus and thus becomes idol worship.

The Catholic Church has long left off there’re first love, God, and have followed the way of Baal. There’re church reeks of idol worship where their believers kneel and pray to graven “images” the same as the God of Baal. The Catholic Church also has taken the place of God by granting the forgiveness of sins to their believers through confession to a priest, which is another form of “idol worship, for only God and Jesus has the power to forgive sin. Their leaders are full of immorality and have been abusing innocent children for decades, while their leaders cover up and hide their sin against the innocent.

In the last days and at the time of judgment God will show no mercy on the Catholic church and final justice will be served for all those tainted, led astray, and harmed by them in the name of God, as stated in the book of Revelations. For those who have been hurt or violated by the Catholic church God sees every tear that has been shed in the midnight hour. Your justice has not been forgotten, but delayed until the time that God himself will recompense you and serve justice on them. Be encouraged.~~

I wonder, Mama Bear, if you'd think that a political arrangement that does not involve the equality of the sexes would be sacriligeous - an example of not coming up to divine standards?

I think it's your view that no theological system is absolutely true?

IN REPLY TO (IRS):
ANONIMOUS
* If you curse, you should be stoned to death (Lev. 24:14-15).

ANS:
Blasphemy was a criminal offense even in the pagan societies and I think it still is in Muslim countries. Nothing is unusual abou that.

IRT:
" Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9)."

ANS:
This passage was taken out of context and conveys a different meaning when put in context in the link below.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/TreasuryofDavid/tod.cgi?book=ps&chapter=137&verse=009

IRT:
"* Women should be subjugated by their husbands (1 Pet. 3:1-7)."

ANS:
Again you take the passage out of context and distort its meaning. In context, it continues to say husbands do unto your wife as she should do unto you. Second you didn’t correctly give the correct name of the passage. It’s 1 Peter 3:, not “Peter 3.” It makes a difference, they're are two Peters.

1 Peter 3: 7cf.
“7 Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered. 12 Because, the eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and his ears unto their prayers, but the countenance of the Lord is upon them that do evil things.”

Didn’t you say the Scriptures don’t mean anything to you, and yet you’re quoting them? So, I will assume you are using them to show their ridiculousness. One time you deny the Scriptures are accurate, and the next time you use them to prove your point. However, if you claim they’re inaccurate, then they are meaningless because they have no accuracy and therefore they are in error.’ Hence, you don't know if they were accurately recorded or not.

IN REPLY TO (IRS):
ANONIMOUS

Comment on the harsh laws of God:

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/eze020.htm#2

"If you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death (Exod. 35:2-3)."

The Old Law was given to a specific people for a specific purpose. It was not applicable to others. It’s purpose was that the Jews “be perfected by grace” so they could go and teach all nations when they became redeemed by God, who is Jesus.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2098.htm#1

“The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural law, and added certain precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those precepts of the natural law contained in the Old Law, all were bound to observe the Old Law; not because they belonged to the Old Law, but because they belonged to the natural law. But as to those precepts which were added by the Old Law, they were not binding on save the Jewish people alone.

The reason of this is because the Old Law, was given to the Jewish people, that it might receive a prerogative of holiness, in reverence for Christ Who was to be born of that people.

Now whatever laws are enacted for the special sanctification of certain ones, are binding on them alone. Thus, clerics who are set aside for the service of God are bound to certain obligations to which the laity are not bound. Likewise, religious are bound by their profession to certain works of perfection, to which people living in the world are not bound.

In like manner this people was bound to certain special observances, to which other peoples were not bound. Wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 18:13): "Thou shalt be perfect and without spot before the Lord thy God": and for this reason they used a kind of form of profession, as appears from Deuteronomy 26:3: "I profess this day before the Lord thy God," etc.

“The Old Law was set aside when there came the perfection of grace; not as though it were evil, but as being weak and useless for this time; because, as the Apostle goes on to say, "the law brought nothing to perfection": hence he says (Galatians 3:25): "After the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue."

It was most fitting for the Law to be given at the time of Moses. The reason for this may be taken from two things in respect of which every law is imposed on two kinds of men. Because it is imposed on some men who are hard-hearted and proud, whom the law restrains and tames: and it is imposed on good men, who, through being instructed by the law, are helped to fulfil what they desire to do.

Hence it was fitting that the Law should be given at such a time as would be appropriate for the overcoming of man's pride. For man was proud of two things, viz. of knowledge and of power.

He was proud of his knowledge, as though his natural reason could suffice him for salvation.

Accordingly, in order that his pride might be overcome in this matter, man was left to the guidance of his reason without the help of a written law: and man was able to learn from experience that his reason was deficient, since about the time of Abraham man had fallen headlong into idolatry and the most shameful vices. Wherefore, after those times, it was necessary for a written law to be given as a remedy for human ignorance: because "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

But, after man had been instructed by the Law, his pride was convinced of his weakness, through his being unable to fulfil what he knew. Hence, as the Apostle concludes (Romans 8:3-4), "what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sent [Vulgate: 'sending'] His own Son . . . that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."

With regard to good men, the Law was given to them as a help. That was most needed by the people, at the time when the natural law began to be obscured on account of the exuberance of sin. For, it was fitting that this help should be bestowed on men in an orderly manner, so that they might be led from imperfection to perfection. Wherefore, it was becoming that the Old Law should be given between the law of nature and the law of grace.

Ezekiel 20:25:
"I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments in which they shall not live." But a law is not said to be good except on account of the goodness of the precepts that it contains. But they provoked me, and would not hearken to me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of his eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: and I said I would pour out my indignation upon them, and accomplish my wrath against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.

But I did otherwise for my name's sake, that it might not be violated before the nations, in the midst of whom they were, and among whom I made myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

Therefore I brought them out from the land of Egypt, and brought them into the desert. And I gave them my statutes, and I showed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them. 12 Moreover I gave them also my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them: and that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.

But the house of Israel provoked me in the desert: they walked not in my statutes, and they cast away my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them: and they grievously violated my sabbaths.

I said therefore that I would pour out my indignation upon them in the desert, and would consume them. But I spared them for the sake of my name, lest it should be profaned before the nations, from which I brought them out, in their sight.

So I lifted up my hand over them in the desert, not to bring them into the land which I had given them flowing with milk and honey, the best of all lands.

Because they cast off my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, and violated my sabbaths: for their heart went after idols. Yet my eye spared them, so that I destroyed them not: neither did I consume them in the desert.

And I said to their children in the wilderness: Walk not in the statutes of your fathers, and observe not their judgments, nor be ye defiled with their idols. I am the Lord your God: walk ye in my statutes, Observe my judgments, and do them. 20 And sanctify my sabbaths, that they may be a sign between me and you: and that you may know that I am the Lord your God. But their children provoked me, they walked not in my commandments, nor observed my judgments to do them

If a man do, he shall live in them: and they violated my sabbaths: and I threatened to pour out my indignation upon them, and to accomplish my wrath in them in the desert. 22 But I turned away my hand, and wrought for my name's sake, that it might not be violated before the nations, out of which I brought them forth in their sight."

IN REPLY TO (IRS):
ANONIMOUS
“4. This belief, when applied as a standard for others, is religious bigotry in its purest form. It shows contempt to others who believe that God's influence may be seen elsewhere than the Bible and the select few who are defined to interpret it correctly. This claim has started wars.”

ANS:
Wars started because these standards were not kept. These standards were imbued in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. Madison even wrote in the IX Amendment that if certain rights were not enumerated that the people enjoyed because they were based on man’s nature.

Amendment IX:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Violate the Natural Moral Law and you manufacture rebellion and war. Hitler, Mao, Saddam, Stalin, etc. restricted the inviolable rights of man and war ensued.

IRT:
"5. The Bible says several things that you probably do not believe:
Slavery is acceptable. (Skeptic's Annotated Bible, n.d.)."

ANS:
Slavery is acceptable, as are prisoners acceptable today. The stipulation is that their basic human rights are not violated, if they haven’t forfeited them by their crimes. Many of the Biblical slaves were captured enemy during wars.

ANS:
To the contrary, it doesn’t show contempt, it shows compassion, because it gives others the truth and the truth will set them free of the turmoil encapsulated by the false ideologies that cause their depression, confusion, and their dishevelment.

IRT:
* You should kill your child if he strikes you (Exod. 21:15).”

The verse is: “He that striketh his mother or father shall be put to death.”

ANS: THE HARSHNESS OF THE LAWS AND THE PURPOSE OF THEIR STRICK ADHERNCE.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2098.htm#1

“The Old Law was set aside when there came the perfection of grace; not as though it were evil, but as being weak and useless for this time; because, as the Apostle goes on to say, "the law brought nothing to perfection": hence he says (Galatians 3:25): "After the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue."

“It must be observed that the end of human law is different from the end of Divine law. For the end of human law is the temporal tranquility of the state, which end law effects by directing external actions, as regards those evils which might disturb the peaceful condition of the state. On the other hand, the end of the Divine law is to bring man to that end which is everlasting happiness; which end is hindered by any sin, not only of external, but also of internal action.

Consequently that which suffices for the perfection of human law, viz. the prohibition and punishment of sin, does not suffice for the perfection of the Divine law: but it is requisite that it should make man altogether fit to partake of everlasting happiness.

Now this cannot be done save by the grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby "charity" which fulfilleth the law . . . "is spread abroad in our hearts" (Romans 5:5): since "the grace of God is life everlasting" (Romans 6:23).

But the Old Law could not confer this grace, for this was reserved to Christ; because, as it is written (John 1:17), the law was given "by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

Consequently the Old Law was good indeed, but imperfect, according to Hebrews 7:19: "The law brought nothing to perfection".

"Before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up [conclusi], unto that faith which was to be revealed." Now it is evident that the same thing it is, which gives a disposition to the end, and which brings to the end; and when I say "the same," I mean that it does so either by itself or through its subjects. For the devil would not make a law whereby men would be led to Christ, Who was to cast him out, according to Matthew 12:26:

"If Satan cast out Satan, his kingdom is divided" [Vulgate: 'he is divided against himself']. Therefore the Old Law was given by the same God, from Whom came salvation to man, through the grace of Christ."

“Nothing prevents a thing being not perfect simply, and yet perfect in respect of time: thus a boy is said to be perfect, not simply, but with regard to the condition of time. So, too, precepts that are given to children are perfect in comparison with the condition of those to whom they are given, although they are not perfect simply. Hence the Apostle says (Galatians 3:24): "The law was our pedagogue in Christ."

IN REPLY TO (IRS):
ANONIMOUS
IN REPLY TO (IRT)
1. This claim [infallibility] is dogmatism. It suggests no reason for its conclusion. The views of others, that the Bible is not God's word or is not an ultimate authority, have just as much validity.

ANS:
Yes, they have just the same amount of validity if you want to deny over 2,000 years of history, by the Jews, by the historians, by the pagans and reject by fact that all the other ideologies are failures that contradict the word of God as written in the Scriptures, and are revealed by God in tradition and to His Church. To the contrary, the social order is maintained in proportion to its adherence to Christianity.

You are correct if you deny the failures of all the ideological beliefs that refute or contradict Catholicism, namely, the Muslims, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, animism, paganism, and all the materialistic religious beliefs. All religions based on the auspices of man and not the one true God are prescriptions for social pandemonium.

For example, India, is a nation inundated with unrest and turbulence; the tumultuous Middle East is a basket case. Russia, Vietnam, and Indonesian governments are personified crimes against mankind. All embrace the anti-thesis of Christianity. They are engulfed in social anarchy. One only has to look to Africa and see the pandemoniacal devastation these ant-Christian ideologies have caused.

You defend gay sex, but you apparently have closed your eyes to over 27 million who have died from catastrophic AIDS has wrought in epidemic proportions. Nor is it subsiding but is proliferating maelstrom of death and suffering.. Gay sex is a direct violation of God’s Natural Moral Law. Abortion is murder, irrespective of the Courts. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see these pandemic turmoil, and to realize Christianity isn’t just a whim; it’s a reality.

IRT:
2. The Bible says different things to different people. Beliefs that creationists take as gospel today, such as the fixity of "kinds" and the impossibility of life from nonlife, would have seemed absurd to creationists of centuries past, and those past creationists would have cited the Bible to support their views (such as Moses’ staff changing to a snake and the plagues of Egypt appearing from nowhere), just as today's creationists quote the Bible to support their own views (Brewster 1927).

ANS:
Catholicism refutes Evolution only when it exceeds its formal object, pronounces on the origin of man, and therefore presents itself as an authority in a field it has no authority in. An analogy would be an auto mechanic assuming the authority of a brain surgeon.

As to Creationism, the Church has nothing to do with it. However, the Church does defend the fact that the Natural Law was created by God, who is the Creator of the Universe and all things are moved by the existence God gives them (Psalm 29: 3cf.}”

IRS:
3. In practice, this claim really means, "My view of the Bible is the ultimate authority."

ANS:
To the contrary, not my view, but God’s view is given to humanity through His Church.

IRT:
“Since there are so very many different interpretations of the Bible, not to mention other religions, the claim would be meaningless otherwise.) In practice, then, this claim displays a great deal of arrogance, hubris, and closed-mindedness. It says that the final word on how the universe operates depends on one's personal decision of what to believe.”

ANS:
Are you saying one religion is just as valid as the other even though they contradict each other in part or in whole? That is ridiculous. You view makes all religions meaningless. Second, you deny the first principle of contradiction, namely, a thing can not be and be under the same circumstances at the same time.

Catholicism says that God has the final word on all things, not man. You give such authority to man. Catholicism gives it to God. You deny that God can protect His Church from error in matters of Faith and Morals. That is presumptuous folly. Hence, unheedingly limit the powers of God, and imply that you are more intelligent than the Creator who created you. That is what is what is arrogant.

Just a few more things, TTWetc. You ask if some of us are from Mars. That's rather derogatory, don't you think? I would say that we are grounded, our feet firmly planted on Mother Earth.

When it comes right down to it, we're discussing matters of faith, which by definition *cannot be proved.* If you can prove faith, it becomes fact.

Furthermore, you continuously rebut with scripture, which is what this entire discussion is about. Your Bible is YOUR guiding document, but not everyone's. Obviously, there are a good number of us do not agree with what your Bible has to say about morality, ethics, or the nature of Deity. You are proving Starhawk's points with every rebuttal you write.

Try using your own powers of persuasion. Your own words, describing your own rationale for believing as you do. If you can pepper your rebuttals with information from an unbiased source, more power to ya. But the Bible isn't unbiased, and it's faith-based, not factual. And that is precisely where we butt heads.

TTWetc, you are getting people confused. You've copied and pasted conversations between two different people as if they are one, rather than responding to them individually.

I -- Mama Bear -- am Pagan. However, I was born Catholic and practiced Catholicism until I was 30. If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that. If you choose to reply to my posts, please take into consideration that I am not ignorant of Christianity or Catholicism.

As far as proving the logic of polytheism, I direct you to look in your own Bible, where your God states that humans should place no other god before Him. That indicates that there ARE other gods. If there were no other gods, yours wouldn't have had to tell people to to put those gods behind Him. And if there were no other gods, yours would have nothing to be jealous of.

In addition, everything on this earth was created in pairs. It makes no sense at all to have a one-gender Creator. To do so is to believe that the universe is ultimately unbalanced. Thus, many (but not all) pagans believe in a Lord and Lady, Mother and Father couplet.

At its heart, Catholicism is polytheistic. The trinity is a wonderful example of that. How could Jesus be a human incarnation of God, the Son of God, and God the Father and Holy Spirit at the same time? Not to mention the fact that Catholics honor Mary the way they do. Most of us pagani know that Mary is really the Goddess. Our Goddess gave birth to your God.

Christianity co-opted an awful lot of our beliefs that way.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
“I have Christian friends that consider me to be very "liberal," not politically, with my Christian beliefs because I don't condemn a great deal of behaviors and beliefs by non-believers. “

ANS:
You don't even condemn Partial Birth Abortion? Condemning behaviors is not to condemn the person. Thus, to condemn abortion or illicit sex is not condemning the person but their beliefs. Doesn't God condemn their beliefs if they know their beliefs contradict God? The Scriptures are replete with condemnations for those who disobey God.

Justice Stephens said traditional moral values serve no good benefit to society and civil law. Do you condemn that? It is a false conclusion. Forty-eight million unborn have died because of the falsity that the unborn is not human. Do you not condemn those beliefs?

IRS:
"I have run my course with people like you and I will not be back here to post again, not at any WaPo site at all. I am through with being judged by your merits of unbelief."

ANS;
Is truth relative to you. Do you make up your own standards rather seek God's will?

Are you afraid of the truth. I believe you have little faith in your own beliefs because you can’t defend them. You lament about being told the truth and apparently assume you are infallible. Certainly, you can not believe all beliefs are worthy of belief.

IRT:
"But understand one thing you can never deny, not before any man or God that you have not heard the truth of the gospel.

ANS:
I am assuming you have? Are you the one who said Scripture is false because it is written by humans who are subject to error? How can the Scriptures be true if they are in error, or fallible.

IRS;
"One day I hope you find comfort in it. I wish you well and hope that you find your way in life."

ANS:
That's strange, I have given the Scripture quotes that confirm my statements and you have rejected them. One being that the Church is infallible in its teachings of faith and morals, the Scriptures, and rationale. What gospels are you talking about? I noticed you told a poster don't show me Scripture quotes you don't believe them. You wrote, they mean nothing to you.

IRT:
"It sound like you are not comfortable in your belief, or you would disprove what you claim is unbelief. You claim you do not force your religion on anyone and yet you have obviously condemned my religion."

ANS:
I don't condemn your religion. I don't believe you know what you believe in. I don't even know what kind of religion you believe in. It sounds like a hybrid between Christianity and paganism. You make so many contradictory statements it's impossible to know what you believe.

Moreover, it's conductor to believe all religions are true. that would be irrational. I have not condemned your religion, only shown where your statements about it are in error. If you have the facts you should be able to figure out your errors, or is it, your religion that has no errors.

IRT:
"... and believe you’ve insulted because I have explained my beliefs and pointed out where you are wrong. If you are not wrong, then prove what you believe in is the truth.

ANS;
Have you been on Mars? I gave you plenty of proof, Scripture passages, links that explain why these things are true, and why they are rational explanations. It sounds like your prejudices are obstacles to your reason. What proof have you given other than your unsubstantiated opinions?

IRT:
"I have showed you why it isn’t, and you have only showed that you are discombobulated because you’ve been challenged."

ANS;
What have you showed? I've seen nothing.

IRT:
"Moreover, I have never claimed you were going to Hell, no have I impugned your integrity.

ANS:
I cannot tell you, nor did I tell you that you are going to Hell. That's only God's decision. I did tell you what God and the Scriptures say, and that is to intentionally ignore their meaning by omission or admission is a prescription for going there. It's your choice. I have nothing to do with it; that is Gods domain, not humans.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
Yet any time, no matter how politely, we defend ourselves or point out inconsistencies or contradictions in Christian theology, we are accused of being "hostile?"

ANS:
Below is a link to the Catholic Church’s Catechism. Show the inconsistencies. The problem is you think there is inconsistencies because you have little or no knowledge of what the Catholic Church believes. As G.K. Chesterton once said, the Catholic Church has been found wanting when it has never been tried by its critics.

Personally, I believe your belief of hostility points out the lack of certitude in your own beliefs. Namely, you are having trouble refuting the truth and that’s hostile to you.

IRS:
“And you wonder why we don't buy into your religion."

ANS:
I don’t wonder; I have a pretty good idea why you don’t buy into what you call my religion. It’s not my religion, it’s God’s. Second, instead of feeling you’re being persecuted by the Church, try refuting it’s beliefs and rationally defending your paganism..

How often have we heard, “Don’t force your morality on me.” As I have said, those who say that don’t understand who God is or what the Church is. It’s not my Church; it’s God’s Church. It’s not my morality; it’s God’s Moral Laws. You aren’t buying into MY CHURCH, you’re not buying into God’s Church.

IRT:
“It is no wonder that you do not understand, you are blind to the truth by your own choice. Hostility, point blank, take a look in the mirror, please and for Pete's sake be honest for once."

ANS:
On the other hand, prove that polytheism or paganism is rational, that the pagan ideologies as Communism is rational, that Fascism is rational, and what standard are you using, one you made up for yourself? On who’s authority are they based, your own.

Show that the Sun God is rational, that temple prostitutes are rational, and that such things as sex rites, cultic male and female prostitution, passing a child through a fire to Molech, and child and human sacrifice are rational.

Dispute the Unmoved Mover proof of God by Aristotle, instead of denying it with empty rhetoric. Aristotle refutes the existence of polytheism. If you can’t show your gods exist then they are myths.

IRT:
“If I counted all the times of criticism, prejudgments, and hatred spewed by people such as yourself because of my Christian belief it would be an endless task."

ANS:
It’s all in your mind; you hear the truth and think its hate. You make an absurd statement with no rationale and become disconnected. Truth seems to be a problem for you. Show what is the spewing, and where is the hatred.

IRS:
"Like it or not quoting the bible is just like you quoting any book that you give heed to as wisdom. You believe in yours and I believe the bible, period. No shame on my part about believing it."

ANS:
There’s only one true Bible as far as I know. Do you have a different one? Maybe that’s why you are having so many problems thinking people hate you or malign your beliefs.

IRT:
“However, the truth is what people such as yourself wants is to criticize Christians, preach your hatred or unbelief of God, and expect us to remain quite, so you can "feel loved."

ANS:
Sorry, but I have been pointing out the irrationality of your statements. I think you've fallen off the edge of reason. There are some 26,000 different Christian denominations that contradict, either completely or in part, each other. They can not be all right. Only one can be and that is the one started by Jesus who is God, and not those started by man.

That doesn’t mean they are hated; it means they are wrong when they contradict the Divine Word; namely, they are in error. You admit to that when you scoff at the Church’s infallibility. Under your scenario all Scripture is not credible since it is written by man.

Hence, no one would know the truth which is ridiculous. Unfortunately for you, they are not written by man, but by God using man as an instrument to write His inspired word.

Second you malign the wisdom of the Creator. You have figured out that man is fallible, but denied that God didn't figure it out. You implicitly imply you are more intelligent than God.

IRT:
"Well, not so. God didn't call me to remain quite, he called all Christians to "preach" the gospel. I have never shoved my Christianity on anyone because I do no believe in doing that."

ANS:
Do you believe in telling them the truth and pointing out their errors is shoving your faith on others? Or, do you respect their errors rather than respecting the person and denouncing their errors? It is an injustice and a sin of omission to see a person about to fall over a cliff, and not warn him. Thus, God says, "Go forth and teach all nations the truths I have given you."

TTWetc, you ask what version of the Bible I use. I assume that's a rhetorical question.

But I recently read "The Bible According to Mark Twain" and found it to be an absolutely delightful and insightful anthology. Mr. Twain quite eloquently expresses the insane logic and contradictory nature of the Bible.

Here's a nice example of one of Mr. Twain's insights:

"The two Testaments are interesting, each in its own way. The Old one gives us a picture of these people's Deity as he was before he got religion, the other one gives us a picture of him as he appeared afterward."
-- Mark Twain, Letters From the Earth (1909?; published in 1962)

What really amazes me is that we're even arguing about this stuff any more. After all, Mr. Twain's writings are more than 100 years old. We're recycling all of the old ideas -- nothing new.

But as your good book says, there's nothing new on the face of the earth. Maybe that's a testament to the longevity of Christianity. Or maybe it's an indication that we all need to find a way to work this out and live in peace, because nonChristians aren't going anywhere, either.

Since you are so fond of quoting YOUR Bible to me, here is a favorite from MINE:

"It is curious -- the way the human mind works. The Christian begins with this straight proposition, this definite proposition, this inflexible and uncompromising proposition: God is all-knowing, and all-powerful.

"This being the case, nothing can happen without his knowing beforehand that it is going to happen; nothing happens without his permission; nothing can happen that he chooses to prevent.

"That is definite enough, isn't it? It makes the Creator distinctly responsible for everything that happens, doesn't it? The Christian concedes it in that italicized sentence. Concedes it with feeling, with enthusiasm.

"Then, having thus made the Creator responsible for all those pains and diseases and miseries above enumerated, and which he could have prevented, the gifted Christian blandly calls him Our Father!

"It is as I tell you. He equips the Creator with every trait that goes to the making of a fiend, and then arrives at the conclusion that a fiend and a father are the same thing! Yet he would deny that a malevolent lunatic and a Sunday school superintendent are essentially the same. What do you think of the human mind? I mean, in case you think there is a human mind."

-- Mark Twain, Letters From the Earth (1909?; published in 1962)

ttw wrote, IN REPLY TO (IRT) PURPOSE FOR LIVING:
MAMA BEAR, “Take God out of the bible and just accept the wisdom of the content in it."

There is more to understanding how to reach others with the truth of God's word then you profess to know, my friend. Is God in a box? Does God use whatsoever and whosoever he will to convey his truth? Even Paul wrote in the following scriptures:

Philippians 1:15-18, {15} "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. {16} The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. {17} The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. {18} But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." NIV Translation

It matters not how Christ is preached, provided that he is preached. More importantly the truth of God's word works in every situation and circumstance wherever it is heard, read, and or spoken. God is beyond the need of recognition regarding his scripture as his written word.

Mama Bear was aware that the scriptures were from the bible professed to be the truth of God's word. How much more do you want from a person to acknowledge the truth of the bible? According to the following scripture it will work its good purpose as God intended it to:

Isaiah 55:11, {11} so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. NIV Translation

People like you will never reach needful souls who desire and search for understanding of the truth regarding God. You are pious and think that God needs only to be recognized by one-way, not so. Did God not speak to the backslidden Balaam through a donkey as it is written in:

2 Peter 2:13-16, {13} “They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. {14} With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! {15} They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. {16} But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness”

So how is it that you condemn me for preaching of the word?? God desires that all hears and knows his word and there will be times, more so now in these last days, that the traditional Christian will be put on a shelf and of little use outside his own world of the church he attends and those called to a new ministry will bring the truth of salvation to those who are in need of salvation and not in the church. So spare me your rhetoric of theology, you know nothing of reaching souls beyond your own thinking, which is in a box,

Finally, God’s plan for man is well written in the following scriptures, told of how he will bring his people out of captivity of their sin and return them to himself again:

Jeremiah 29:11-14, {11} For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. {12} Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. {13} You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. {14} I will be found by you," declares the LORD, "and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you," declares the LORD, "and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile." NIV Translation

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MAMA BEAR:
“Purpose for Living, I was raised Catholic, so I know that there's beauty on those pages. I also look to other books from other religions for spiritual guidance and wisdom. If it were as simple as looking for the common areas, life would be much easier and we wouldn't be reading these pages."

ANS:
Spiritual guidance based on only man’s cognizance is subject to error. Man is fallible and that’s why God made his Church infallible—John 15:26-27; Mt 28:20; Mt 10: 20. It's why we have 26,000 different versions of religion contradicting them selves in part or in whole. You are not free to choose evil, only the Good. You have a right to your beliefs but not the facts or the consequences when you make the wrong choice.

IRT:
"Sadly, there are those who choose to use a religious tool as a method to enforce conformity, subjugation, and domination."

ANS:
Subjugation and domination are the products of Seven Deadly Sins, vices, addiction, sexual perversion, pornography, the exploitation of women. Is that what you consider freedom. It is called license. That attitude brought the Drug Culture for an escape from the tragic reality the wrong choice of moral behavior.

IRT:
"And I'm sorry, but when I hear TTWetc's "my way or the highway" rhetoric, I can't help but speak my peace."

ANS:
Be sorry for the little children being ripped apart in the mother’s womb by a powerful vacuum, or being cut into pieces by a curette in the womb, or being scalded to death by saline solution.

Be sorry for that poor little child who is half-way out of the birth canal, uttering his first breath, wailing, his arms reaching for life, and then a butcher called an abortionist plunges a surgical scissors into the back of his skull and then sucks out his brains. The child grows silent; his arms go limp; his blood falls on those who embrace abortion and the blood of over 48 million dead cries out from the ground while the nation closes its eyes and its ears.

Sorry but you have only two choices for truth, either you accept it or don’t. Nor can you go against reason. Multiple Gods are an oxymoron; they make God a composite. You can’t say Scripture is fallible and believe it when it is convenient. You can not accept contradictory religions and say they are all good.

Again, Truth can not contradict Truth. There are 26,000 different religions in the world, they all can’t be right, only one can. You should be able to figure the right one out because God does not hide Himself from you. Ask God for the Truth, seek it, and you will receive it. Simple!

IRT:
“Frankly, I'm tired of being shoved back into the broom closet with a pat on the head and advised to be a nice, quiet little heathen -- or worse, to pretend I'm Christian so I can blend in better."

ANS:
You have a free will to choose anything you want to believe, however, there are consequences you have to pay if you choose wrong. Over 48 million unborn have legally been murdered because the majority of the Court and majority of the culture chose wrong.

We have made life cheap and demeaned human life. Now that might not matter to some, but it is having a horrific impact on our society--school shootings, children, and students kidnapped, raped, and murdered.

The welfare affect on society is immense. Sex is not free as the sirens of the Sexual Revolution proclaim.

The Sexual Revolution has generated the Culture of Deat

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PURPOSE FOR LIVING:
MAMA BEAR,
“Take God out of the bible and just accept the wisdom of the content in it.

ANS:
Absurdity begets absurdity! You make one contradiction after another. God is Wisdom; all the wisdom in Scripture is based on God’s omniscience and prescience. To disregard God is to disregard the wisdom contained in Scripture and its authority.

IRS:
“After all by your own admission you stated that other books have wisdom in them. The bible falls into that category.”.

ANS:
All wisdom comes from God who is Wisdom. The Bible is the word of God and therefore is infallible for God is without error. Error is a lack of Truth or Reality, but God is Pure Actuality and lacks nothing. Again, you lack the sense of who God is.

IRS:
“It is a book that contains wisdom, knowledge, and truth; decide on your own what you choose to believe in it.”

ANS:
To the contrary, how can it contain any Truth or Wisdom for you if you believe it is in error?

Second, Truth can not contradict Truth, as you intimate it does. Thus, you give credit to all beliefs even though they contradict each other in part or in whole.

Third, Truth does not need anyone to believe it. So no matter what you choose, the Truth or not the Truth, the Truth remains the Truth and is not a matter of choice. If you don’t believe the Truth, you believe it is not true and you are in error that contradicts Truth.

IRS:
“But don’t argue the bible because of its history as being written by men of God.

ANS:
That seems like an incomprehensible statement. If it means don’t believe history because it is written by men, it’s an absurdity. If you mean don’t believe it because it is written by God’s chosen scribes and is inspired, that’s even more ridiculous. You limit God to the attributes of man. Thus, it is said you think like an irrational man and limit God to the world.

IRS:
“So take it for the content without taking into consideration the author, if you can. There is a lot of sound, practical truth in the bible that is undisputable, even by an Atheist. Such as, “loving your neighbor as you would love yourself.” Who is our neighbor? Abraham Lincoln said our neighbor is anyone that our paths cross that is in need.” (Paraphrased)”

ANS:
There is a lot of wisdom in Scripture because it is written by God, inscribed on the hearts of men, and inscribed in man's conscience.

All wisdom comes from God the Creator of all men. Atheists perceive some of God's precepts because they are True. Truth is God who reveals his will to man through man's nature, through God’s Scripture, is contained in Tradition and the Bible, and is inscribed on man’s conscience.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TTWetc said, "As the Irish say, 'Smile and give your face a holiday.'"
“And of course I think like a human. Did you expect me to think like Hera or Cerridwen?.”

ANS:
You are trapped in an irrational world caused by man, the error of man's ways. God has no error; to say so is an oxymoron. You have no sense of God and his attributes. Hence, you make God human. Not my view but your view of God is illogical, You think like a human who is subject to error and deny the infallible word of God, His omnipotence, and His omniscience. Even Aristotle, who did not know Jesus, who is God refutes you manufactured synthetic view of God .

You give God gender and make God a composite being, but God is a simple being that is Pure Actuality. He exists outside of time, and is eternal with out beginning or end. Thus, God says to Moses, “I Am Who Am.” You can't opine about God when you don't know whom or what He is.

IRT:
“I never claimed to be a goddess, let alone to know Her mind. All I am doing is pointing out the fallacies in *your* logic.”

ANS:
If you don’t know the mind of your God, then how can you believe in your God, or act on something you know nothing about. You can’t believe in something you know nothing about unless you’re foolish. You can not opine about God when you have no sense of who God is. Thus, as said, you give God gender and make Him mortal and human.

To the contrary, a Catholic knows the will of God; God has revealed it to His Church and its followers. God's will is inscribed in the Scriptures, and transcribed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

What is illogical is to claim to be a Christian, defend abortion, gay sex, and make God no different from man by giving him gender as have the pagan Gods.

Nowhere in Scripture are such irrationalities defended. To the contrary, they are denounced with passion, ardor, promptitude, and conviction in doctrine and principle.

Comments
IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TTWetc said, "As the Irish say, 'Smile and give your face a holiday.'"

“Oh, believe me, I am smiling. Your answers were so predictable it's funny. I suppose it's not very kind of the lions to taunt the Christians, but your arguments are so silly that I can't help it.”

ANS:
Yes, they are silly and meaningless if, as you do, think they are fictitious. If silly, as you call them, try refuting them with some kind of rational basis, other than an empty response like you just made.

It’s not I who am terrified of the truth, as you claim; it is you. Therefore, you dismiss the truth because you can't understand it. Hence, you are frightened that you haven’t, as you say, a leg to stand on, so you use ridiculous retorts to cover up your obtuseness.

IRS:
“You asked what those verses meant to me, and my honest to doG reply is that they mean nothing. Diddly squat. But you expected that, didn't you?”

ANS:
I would expect you to understand simple language and comment on them; evidently, you can’t. Your mind is closed because you want it to be closed. I think you understand the quotes, but are afraid to admit it because it doesn’t fit in with your preconceived ideas.

IRT:
“It's the same thing I said before -- you tell us your book is right because it says it's right, and you expect we will be okay with that. Sorry, but "I said so" and "The Bible said so" just aren't valid arguments. Both presume that we believe the Bible to be an accurate, reliable, and relevant source of evidence, which we don't.”

ANS:
To the contrary, it is you who claim the passages are in error because you say so. It’s not my book; it’s the transcribed word of God. You’ve presented no valid arguments that Scripture is in error. Namely, it is in error to you with no authority or logic but your unsubstantiated view. You are the first person I ever heard of that claims to be a Christian and illogically believes Scripture is in error.

IRT:
“And that doesn't even bring into play the fact that you're claiming that YOUR version of the Bible as interpreted by YOUR church is the only correct one.”

ANS:
What book are you reading from, and whose interpretations are you going by, your own? You can’t interpret Scripture, since you claim it is all in error.

The interpretations I am going by have been the same for over 2,000 years. What’s more, there were no other interpretations until the 16th Century. Incidentally, it is the Catholic Church that has given man the Bible. Where did your book come from and who wrote it?

You claim the word of God is fallible and unwittingly make what ever book you’ve read meaningless. Is your belief founded by man or Jesus, who is God? Does your belief enjoy the unbroken line of authority of the Apostles and was it founded by God on Saint Peter, its first head?

IRT:
“Holy cow, TTWetc. You guys can't even agree on which version/translation/interpretations are the right ones -- but you have the audacity to tell us WE'RE wrong. Give me a break.”

ANS:
Sorry, it’s not my Bible; it’s God’s transcribed Word. What is the authority of your interpretations? It is you that can’t agree on the translations and interpretations that have existed unchanged since they’ve been written. You facetiously deny them all and claim all Scriptures are in error and meaningless.

To the contrary, God’s interpretations are in the Catholic Catechism; it’s you who is confused. The interpretations are not my interpretations, but the Church’s. The Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. These interpretations have been, unchanged for over 2,000 years.

You evidently believe that Christianity endorses polytheism, abortion, and homosexuality. You dismiss the Scripture passages that refute your nonsensical interpretations and use your own interpretations. Yet you say Scripture means nothing to you because it's false. So how can you even interpret them?

Further, you must have your own Bible, unbeknown to God. Consequently, the Bible’s passages are foreign to you.

I don't think that there's any reference in Aristotle either to eternal punishment or to the existence of souls after death. Indeed the slogan of Aristotelianism, that the soul is the form of the body, makes the idea of the post-mortem, bodiless, existence of the soul hard to conceive. For the purposes of the present discussion it should be noted that Aristotle's political system has no theocratic - 'coming up to God's standards' - element. Nor could it easily develop this feature, since A's conception of God is so relentlessly abstract. I find it very hard to conceive of what is meant by a being who eternally thinks about thinking. A's efforts to link this unmoved God to the world led, by various twists and turns which aren't of much concern for this discussion - to the geocentrism - pre-Newtonian mechanics - of the Church. Plato for his part was much more committed to belief in the soul distincte from the body and in eternal rewards and punishments. He did not believe that souls were unreal, or that you and I are unreal. He did very seriously entertain the idea that the material world is a 'mere shadow' of a higher reality, though this idea is not much to the fore in the Timaeus, his most influential creation myth. Plato did not think that we could come up to the standards of God but he did increasingly think that moral and cultural life should be under teligious control - this without rejecting polytheism in every respect. So perhaps he is a counterexample to Starhawk's original claim that polytheistic religion cannot lead to a Huckabee style programme of 'coming up to divine standards'. I feel rather glib in saying this, since the complex intellectual positions taken by P and by A, and also by the religious poets like Sopholes to whom they reacted in such different ways, really illustrate the fact that the boundaries between monotheism and polytheism are not that hard and fast.

I don't think that there's any reference in Aristotle either to eternal punishment or to the existence of souls after death. Indeed the slogan of Aristotelianism, that the soul is the form of the body, makes the idea of the post-mortem, bodiless, existence of the soul hard to conceive. For the purposes of the present discussion it should be noted that Aristotle's political system has no theocratic - 'coming up to God's standards' - element. Nor could it easily develop this feature, since A's conception of God is so relentlessly abstract. I find it very hard to conceive of what is meant by a being who eternally thinks about thinking. A's efforts to link this unmoved God to the world led, by various twists and turns which aren't of much concern for this discussion - to the geocentrism - pre-Newtonian mechanics - of the Church. Plato for his part was much more committed to belief in the soul distincte from the body and in eternal rewards and punishments. He did not believe that souls were unreal, or that you and I are unreal. He did very seriously entertain the idea that the material world is a 'mere shadow' of a higher reality, though this idea is not much to the fore in the Timaeus, his most influential creation myth. Plato did not think that we could come up to the standards of God but he did increasingly think that moral and cultural life should be under teligious control - this without rejecting polytheism in every respect. So perhaps he is a counterexample to Starhawk's original claim that polytheistic religion cannot lead to a Huckabee style programme of 'coming up to divine standards'. I feel rather glib in saying this, since the complex intellectual positions taken by P and by A, and also by the religious poets like Sopholes to whom they reacted in such different ways, really illustrate the fact that the boundaries between monotheism and polytheism are not that hard and fast.

"You must do Good Works, and you do them by obeying the commandments and the will of God."

Nobody knows the will of the Divine, assuming of course that there even IS one. Least of all those people who got together and decided that certain retellings of stories should be made into a 'holy book'.

You presume to speak for your god. I doubt he'd go for that.

Who's to assume that Aristotle thought that people who died went anywhere other than back to the planet Earth from whence they came? Lots of presumption based on very little information. Particularly since he died so long before any biblical ideas of 'heaven' or 'hell' even existed, why would he assume people went there? Even allowing for the possibility that he believed in Nature as Divinity, why would a person go to see a Divine figure that had no impact during their lifetime anyway, seeing as how his Deity did not interfere whatsoever in the lives that were created?

Who says heaven even exists? You are starting with an improvable premise. Why do you assume I believe in a structure that has nothing to do with me? I don't believe in heaven or hell, therefore I can't go anywhere after I die except for what my family may or may not choose to do with my body once it stops animation. If I get recycled in some form that would be ok with me. If I come back as another person I can look forward to another life of adventure and love. If it all just stops, that's ok too.

Stop assuming you know anything about me or my belief system.. and stop assuming that I have subscribed to the same setup that the majority does.

The mother of god? I thought that you believed in an 'unmoved mover'.. which contradicts any written version of your god- and now you're talking about the unmoved mover's mother. Hypocrisy?

I don't need a bible or any sacred scripture to find my own meaning in the world as it is right here, right now. If you are incapable of finding such meaning, that's got nothing to do with anyone other than you.

You condemn women making decisions for their own bodies and want to work to overturn their right to do so.. which says to me that you want to reach into their bodies to 'save the precious blastocysts'.. but as a male you will never be able to reproduce the creative energy that only the female provides during those nine months.. and you don't like the idea of someone having that power you do not. therefore you must control it, by any means necessary. The same goes for your interpretation of homosexuality. Fear of the unknown, particularly the natural, leads to the need to conquer. Just because something is written down in an old book doesn't mean it's anything more than a work of literature.

You start with an assumed authority of yourself and only SOME humans over others- when in fact we are all the same and worthy of the same human respect. Even when others do things that we do not like. You want to impose punishments on people you disagree with- and that's not right.

Not all Christians hold the same idea as you, nor do I wish to give the impression to readers that I feel that way.. I only respond to you. I do not lump all Christians with your particular ilk. Thankfully my discussions with other Christians on this thread have led me to think that there are other Christians who have a great respect for people making their own decisions. Who follow what their Christ said- and do not judge people. And who are some of the most loving people I've been privileged to know. They are the best representatives of what Christianity could be about.

You show your own fear of what you know nothing about. it's really obvious, and pretty sad. it doesn't take a scripture to see that.

I don't subscribe to any magazines, so I don't know what you're referring to.

I've read several editions of the same bible.. and come to the same conclusion. That it is self contradictory, but that people can find a way of living that promotes respect for others from it or can use it to justify horrible things. I choose not to use it as it doesn't apply to me. But I can respect it as a work of mythological literature. But that respect stops when it becomes the bible VS. our constitution.

Don't quote a book to me that has nothing to do with me.

"However, we know souls are falling into Hell like the leaves falling off of trees in the Fall because of their pride and the seven deadly sins. The Church, nor does anyone else, have the authority to condemn anyone to Hell. That is the judgment of God."

This statement is self contradictory. 'we know souls are falling into hell'.. how do you know? You condemn others as worshiping something that YOU believe in and others do not. You have told others that they are going to hell for all kinds of real or imagined transgressions, but you state that nobody has the authority to condemn others except for your diety. Which is it? What if you're WAY off about it? Why do you assume to know what any deity wants or how one thinks?

How about this? Prove that anyone is in hell- or even heaven for that matter.. using the scientific method. and no holy books, which are inherently religious, and NOT scientific.

Then we'll discuss.
*blows kisses*

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
“and on your 'Nicomachean Ethics.'

“The thing is, the biggest difference between Aristotle and the bible is that Aristotle says that eternal happiness (and not 'living forever in heaven') is done by good works. your book does not.”

ANS:
What do you think ETERNAL means. Do you honestly believe Aristotle thought he would live forever on earth? What do you think he was talking about, certainly not an eternal life on earth. He was smart enough to figure that out. All of his friends were dying, and they weren't coming back. They had to go somewhere, either up to God or down to Satan.

IRT:
"Eternal Happiness is heaven, and the Bible does say that. You need a new Bible than the one you’ve been reading. You might check out Mt 6: 1-20; Mt 7: 11-22; Mt 8: 11.

"The Beatitudes (from Latin, beatitudo, happiness) is the beginning portion of the Sermon on the Mount of the Gospel of Matthew. Some are also recorded in the Gospel of Luke. In the section, Jesus describes the qualities of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of heaven and indicates how each is or will be blessed. The Beatitudes do not describe many separate individuals, but rather all the specific characteristics each must have to experience heaven."

ANS:
You must do Good Works, and you do them by obeying the commandments and the will of God.

IRT:
"Plus, Aristotle doesn't say anything about Jesus at all, never mind his 'coming back.'"

ANS;
No kidding, what does that have to do with the cost of tea in China. Aristotle died in 322 (384-322 B.C.) before Christ (BC) was born. He died some 330 years before Jesus was born. He figured man's nature out, namely that man was eternal, and that his nature had an innate desire for eternal happiness. You don’t need Scripture, but it helps, to know that man has an eternal soul. A normal person can figure it out from reason.

IRS:
"You are of the brand that believes that just by believing in your Jesus will you go you to heaven. that what you do doesn't matter."

ANS:
It is written, "If you love Me, you will keeep my commandments.

How do you believe you get to heaven, by ignoring the Commandments and the Scriptures?

To the contrary, you must keep his Commandments, and do the corporal works of mercy. No one’s exempted. If one sins, he must ask God's forgiveness and have a sincere purpose of amendment.

Mt 5:19
"He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

IRS:
"That's why you intend to invade people's lives and bodies particularly those of women, (which says that you are a male afraid of both the creative capacity that you do not know a thing about as well as fear of the power of a woman. therefore you must make decisions for them.)because of course YOU know what's best for others.

ANS:
Wow, where did you get that stuff from, Inner Sanctum, or Mad Magazine? Isn't it aliens that invade people’s bodies? I don’t think Christians do. Second, the most powerful creature ever created is a woman, the Mother of God, and Christianity honors her. That’s why Satan fell from the sky like a lightning bolt into the pits of Hell. As Lucifer did, his pride wouldn’t let him accept a creature greater than he.

IRS:
“You are terrified of something. that's why you can't even follow your own guy who said NOT to judge others. and that's just plain wrong. “

ANS:
Again, get a new Bible and someone knowledgeable enough to interpret it for you. You might try the Catholic Catechism as well.

That passage you’re speaking of does not mean “Don't judge behavior,” that would be ridiculous. It means don’t judge that someone is condemned to Hell. The only one’s we know for sure who are in Hell are Satan and his minions. God revealed that to man. The Church won’t even say Judas is in Hell.

However, we know souls are falling into Hell like the leaves falling off of trees in the Fall because of their pride and the seven deadly sins. The Church, nor does anyone else, have the authority to condemn anyone to Hell. That is the judgment of God.

why do you insist on proving my points?

"What kind of Christian defends immoral sex?"

first of all, you start with a false assumption. YOU say it's immoral. You point to a book that has nothing to do with our laws in this country.

I have two answers for that- 1) a Christian who lives by Christ's teachings to 'judge not lest you be judged' and 'loving thy neighbor as yourself'.

It's only 'immoral' because someone decided it so and decided to write it in their scripture- in a part of which, btw that i think your guy said didn't apply anyway when he talked about 'loving thy neighbor as thyself'. assuming, of course, you are a literalist. can't follow only the parts that you want to, right? How many children have you dashed against the rocks?

besides, straight people are just as guilty of the transfer of STDs.. it's about EDUCATION, and not restricting natural impulses, but teaching people to respect themselves and other's enough to be RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

and 2) who said anything about my being Christian?
I'm not. Never was. and who said anything about my following the bible? Don't assume things about other people. it makes an ass out of you and me.

you don't get to make policy for other people- and it tells me that because you choose to exclude others, you demonstrate your own fear of what you don't understand. if you don't approve of gay sex, don't have it. Don't marry a gay person. it has absolutely no impact on you whatsoever.

You assume that all pedophiliac priests are homosexual. I call BS. It's not just boys that are abused. I've worked with abused women as well.

it's about requiring people to restrict themselves and their own natural impulses, especially people who are not aware of the implications of what that means until they become part of the organization.

You show your own fear of something you know nothing about, as your posts here clearly demonstrate.

you cite no source other than a 'gay magazine' for your statistic. should i believe what statistics according to 'cosmopolitan magazine' says that guys want XYZ in a mate/lover? The problem with a 'gay magazine' is that such information is not scientific, and most likely based on biased questioning of the people involved. If i applied the results of a cosmo survey that said that all guys care about is football and beer to my own relationship, I wouldn't have the guy I have now, who is anything but a sports fan-and our relationship is the most cherished, spiritual and amazing relationship i could have ever wished for and more.. and neither one of us needs to threaten another one with threats that nobody can prove.

For someone who insists on 'scientific accuracies' based in Aristotle's logical findings, your quoting of a 'gay magazine' undermines your entire argument. But you don't want debate.

the difference here is about consent. A child does not have the knowledge to give consent, particularly in the horrible situations they find themselves in in the church, often being told that if they report their abusers they will go to hell. Their brains are not even fully developed yet-to say nothing of their bodies.

Two gay consenting adults can be just as monogamous as straight consenting adults. but taht bothers you, doesn't it? you don't want liberty and justice for all, nor do you believe that 'all men are created equal', which is our founding basis. Note that it doesn't say 'only straight men are created equal'. Not your warped version of 'living by a book written for a long ago place, time and culture that no longer exists'.

Your fear of yourself is showing. insist that your clergy clean up it's own messes before pointing the finger at others.

I thought that's what your guy was about?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
The founders were Deist, not Christian, no matter how much you would like to believe otherwise.

ANS:
Try doing some homework instead of making these outrageous remarks.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

“The 56 delegates who attended the United States Constitutional Convention Among the Protestants Constitutional Convention delegates, 28 were Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists.

Religion
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics, C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons.

Among the Protestants Constitutional Convention delegates, 28 were Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists."

That's 52 of the 56. who were the at the Constitutional Convention.

"Many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were vocal about their opposition to organized religion or anti-clerical, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson's Bible"), Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine.

However, a few of the more notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of traditional Deists, including Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen.

Notwithstanding the spectrum of beliefs held by the Founding Fathers, most viewed religion in a favorable light. This is noted through their statements in speeches and correspondences in which they describe its role in molding "national morality" and securing the rule of law (George Washington), its check on human "wickedness" (Benjamin Franklin), and its preservation of a free government such as America (John Adams).

Regardless, the division of church and state was always emphasized by the founding fathers. "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.”

Posted on February 11, 2008 00:21
IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
Oh, and BTW:

“If the church 'never condoned immorality' then why are all those priests and cardinals still employed at all? And most importantly, why was it not until the stories started surfacing that so many of them were allowed to have access to children? And why are they still allowed to do so?”

ANS:
Here is the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Find one sentence that supports pedophilia, pederasty, or homosexuality in the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

IRT:
“Why not take a no tolerance stance and say that if someone is caught doing something inappropriate to their position they will be stripped of their titles and excommunicated? that would send a message that the church is really interested in meeting the needs of its people. and, oh, i don't know, following the message of Jesus. i doubt he would have stood for such abuses. Hell, it's the LEAST they can do.”

ANS:
The priesthood is permanent. The seal of Holy Orders cannot be erased. The Church has removed the guilty from using their priestly powers and has defrocked them. The Church cannot excommunicate them because God can forgive them if they are sincere and ask God’s forgiveness.

IRT;
“actually Clinton was not pro-gay. 'don't ask don't tell' has done more harm than good. but the ironic thing about it is, that you kick out the gays/lesbians from the army when there are two wars going on, and.. gosh, who's going to fight for us?

ANS;
Would you support men living in the same barracks with women? What do you think would happen when men are running around naked in from of homosexuals, or women running around naked in men’s barracks? You might look up the debacle that happened on naval ships that went out to sea duty with women on them. They formed prostitution rings on the ship ran by some of the officers.

IRT:
"The 10 commandments is not the basis for civil law, especially in this country. Never was. The constitution is."

ANS:
The Ten Commandments are not the Constitution; the Constitution is based on the principles extolled by the Commandments. Compare them to other nations that are not based on them.

You might try rereading the Declaration of Independence. Man is endowed by God with certain inalienable rights. When these rights are trumped consistently by the government and the Supreme Court, the Declaration says the citizens have a right to overthrow the government and replace it with a suitable government.

Any law that is inconsistent with the nature of man, which the Ten Commandments are based and which the Natural Moral Law is based on is an illicit law. Thus, the Constitution has no legitimate authority to legalize murder, redefine man, and redefine marriage. Agreed, the Court has legalized infanticide. That violates the Fifth Commandment.

The Fourth Commandments gives the family the authority of its Children. That is a very sacred Civil law in our society. The Nazis didn't, nor did the USSR.

The Fourth Commandment demands that the parents care for the welfare of their children (another civil law very important to society). Of course, ‘Thou shalt not steal” is the Seventh, and a basic foundation of our civil laws. The Fifth Commandment is the basic foundation of our Criminal Law as is the Seventh. The Fifth protects the dignity of humanity.

You can read them on the link below. The Civil Laws in materialistic countries don't recognize the Commandments, and you should be able to see the difference.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

IN REPLY TO (IRS)
ANONYMOUS:
Anonymous:
“If two people in a loving relationship who happen to be of the same gender want to make it official, they should have every right to do so. If you think it takes away from the sanctity of YOUR marriage, then something's really in need of work in your relationship. Are you really that afraid of people not like you? What are you afraid of? Knowing your real self?"

ANS:
You don’t have a loving relationship by having sex with the same sex; it’s called lust. Love is not the antithesis of God’s laws. Condemning two people to eternal damnation by defending their gay sex isn’t my view of loving relationship, and I can assure you it’s not God’s. That’s why he made man and woman. If you haven’t noticed, they are spiritually and physically complimentary of each other. That’s the way God’s Natural Law made them, male and female.

It is you who has work to do. What kind of Christian defends immoral sex?

Homosexuality is the antithesis of marriage because it directly frustrates the natural end of conjugal love in marriage, pro-creation. Destroy the sacred institute of marriage created by God, and you destroy the family; destroy the family and you destroy a civilization. Evidently, you defend gay sex and gay marriage the bane of society.

It seems somewhat hypocritical to rail against the Church for not catching .025 percent of priest and then to defend gay sex. You might note that a gay magazine wrote that some 70 percent of gays engaged in pederasty or pedophilia sometime in their life. I know of nowhere in Scripture where gay sex is condoned. To the contrary, gay sex is an abomination in the eyes of God. It is you who have no intellectual leg to stand on.

There is no argument; if you are blind to the consequences of this illicit sex you incomprehensibly call love. Doesn't STDs and gays dying from them bother you? Over 28 million around the world have died from AIDS, some two million in Africa alone.

It’s a horrific way to die. You might ask yourself why you would defend such a deadly exploitation of human sexuality. In effect, you’re witlessly promoting the death of gays by defending their iniquity, and are morally responsible for the contamination these diseases spreads in the society in which you live.

If the spread of STDs doesn’t matter, then there is no rational argument in your view. If those who have been stricken and died from the contagion and death of STDs that is being proliferated, throughout the world doesn’t matter to you, then there is no leg to stand on from your view. No, to you, I would also be entirely wrong, if you cannot see Hell is a probability for defending gay sex. Unfortunately, Hell is a probability, irrespective of those who don't believe it.

Do you have your own interpretation of Scripture? Nowhere can I find Scripture supporting your view of sex and love. It looks as if you have no supporting arguments in Scripture that acknowledge your definition of homosexuality. Hence, you defense of gay sex to a Christianity is an anomaly.

IN REPLY TO (IRS)
ANONYMOUS:
Anonymous:
“My point to you was that your clergy has abused people for years (and it's not just young boys, either) and covered it up and paid millions to keep the stories out of the press. Those involved have been simply relocated, often to places where nobody knows of their history and abuse again.

PRIESTS:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html#prev1

“The estimation of any form of deviance in the general population is a very difficult task. It is impossible to assess the extent of sexual offending, either in general or with children as targets. The sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and deacons is part of the LARGER problem of sexual abuse of children in the United States.”

Wikipedia:
“Clerical sexual deviancy allegations have been made against a variety of religious groups including but not exclusively Roman Catholic priests monks and nuns. An estimated 0.2% of Roman Catholic priests have been proven to be abusers.”

As far as estimates are concerned about the uncertainty of statistics of abused children, there is certitude that the problems of pedophilia and pederasty are enormous. Moreover, the comparative percentage of depraved priest in the Catholic Church pales to the ravages of these iniquities that pervade the public population in America.

IRT:
“And if people in the church cannot view sexuality as something natural that need not be removed altogether for them to be great spiritual teachers, that will ensure that abuses continue unabated.”

ANS:
The Church knows that sexuality is something natural; they also know it must be used for its natural proper end in marriage. Celibacy is a gift to God and an offering of one’s complete self to God, unencumbered by one’s duty to a family. A priest’s duty is first to God and his vocation. In a marriage, the primary duty is to God and one’s family.

Moreover, your supposition doesn’t pan out. Ninety-nine percent of priests support celibacy. The priesthood is not forced on them, it’s voluntary; no one is forced to be a priest, Even after the priest is canonized, he may leave the priesthood, though his vows are permanent. Moreover, these vows are not taken lightly.

Married clergy have as high or a higher rate of these depravities than Catholic priests do. Also, the married in the general population have a higher rate of incidents than do celibate priests have. Consequently, you theory has no merit.

As was previously mentioned, the New York Public Schools have a five-percent pedophilia pederasty rate compared to 0.25 percent of Catholic priest over the past 30 years.

Moreover, the Church has tried to do something about it. The New York Public Schools have transferred their pedophiles to another school. Of course, priests have a greater responsibility, but teachers also have a grave responsibility as well.

Man has a free will to do what he wishes. For the most part, we can’t prevent them from their iniquity; however, they will pay the consequences. The classroom shooters are a primary example. Not all the precautions available to prevent such atrocities have seemed to work.

Another point is that psychiatric organizations defend these iniquities, and therefore promote them, as does the majority of our culture. To blame the Church for not catching 0.25 percent of its Bishops, who covered up, and priests who broke their vows and betrayed the teachings of the Church for all the homosexual acts on children is injudicious and a little bit ridiculous.

The Church adamantly rails against such iniquities, apparently the New York City Public School System doesn’t.

The complete stories on Catholic priests are on this link, read it sometime and get your story straight.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/2004_02_27_Terry_JohnJay_notes.htm#2_1_01

IRT:
"Homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is."

So, to you, homosexuality is a natural unavoidable choice. Under that rationale, are priest responsible for being homosexuals? If so, then it would be ridiculous to blame the Church if priests had no choice. To the contrary, everyone has a choice.

IRT:
"And it's really coincidental that those people who tend to see homosexuality as somehow 'immoral' are those with the most proclivities towards it but refuse to accept who they are."

That’s preposterous; so show some proof from an unbiased source. The Church does not condemn the homosexuals; it condemns homosexual sex. That’s part of what caused the Church’s troubles. They let homosexual priests in the priesthood that the PC clamored for and took no responsibility for. That has now been corrected.

IRS:
“It’s always the ones like that congressman who advocated the strongest restrictions on gay rights that are caught making advances towards young people.”

ANS:
Priests are human as are Congressmen. If they don’t get their priorities correct, they end in up in trouble.

IN REPLY TO (IRS)
ANONYMOUS:
Anonymous:
“My point to you was that your clergy has abused people for years (and it's not just young boys, either) and covered it up and paid millions to keep the stories out of the press. Those involved have been simply relocated, often to places where nobody knows of their history and abuse again.

ANS:
The question is “Whose God; Whose principles?” Getting your principles wrong could cost you your life. It’s that important. Those who rail against the right morality, a morality that is in consonance with human nature, again violate the Natural Moral Law.

God imbues man’s nature with an intellect and a conscience; He gives man his Church and the Scriptures to guide man in his moral exigencies. So man has no excuse to get them wrong. However, because man has decided to devise his own moral laws, many do get them wrong. We only have to witness the materialist nations, the worldly religions that govern these nations to see the social turmoil that follows. Only the self-possessed can’t not see them.

Thus, we see the violence that ensues when nations set upon themselves to dictate their own morality, or individuals claim, “Don’t force your morality on me.” Hence, they dictate what is moral, and morality becomes subjective and relative. Only the foolish cannot see the consequences when these laws are violated, and man on his own writes his own moral laws.

Consequently, morality becomes meaningless. What is moral for one is not moral for another. Hence, abortion, divorce, contraception, atheism, pantheism, agnosticism, and paganism devise their own moral laws. Morality becomes what one wants it to be, irrespective of the Natural Moral Law, which such beliefs deny exists.

However, the Natural Moral Law doesn’t go along with their digression; it accepts no arguments, no compromises. Man can forgive; the Natural Moral Law never forgives; it is exacting. Violate it and dire consequences ensue. Some of those consequences are AIDS, STDs, and the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse—Famine, Pestilence, War, and Death.

The impact of these consequences have been witnessed in Cambodia, Vietnam, the Middle East, the Congo, and the Sudan, the former USSR, etc. These countries still have the remnants of their transgression against humanity. No one can bring back the millions who have died from the violations of human dignity that are contained in God’s Natural Moral Laws.

These Moral Laws are basically found in the Ten Commandments. Thus, it is written in Deuteronomy 26cf. “This day the Lord thy God hath commanded thee to do these commandments and judgments: and to keep and fulfill them with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.” These moral laws are imbued in man's nature though its transgressors ridicule and mock them.

The Founding Fathers, specifically Monroe and Jefferson wrote into the Declaration that these laws override the Constitution if the Constitution is used to consistently violate the Moral Laws that guarantee the inviolable rights of man.

Regrettably, America is not immune from these violations. We have legally murdered over 48 million unborn, redefined humanity, and wrote immorality into the Constitution.

Much more, the Court has violated the inalienable rights that are recognized by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, in respect to the unalterable inviolable right, the Right to Life. No other rights matter if you’re dead.

Subsequently, over 48 million unborn are dead because the majority of the Court wrote that a penumbra justified the legal murder of unborn infants, legalizing infanticide.

Moreover, if the child survives this atrocity of the abortion, the butcher has been legally permitted to strangle the child to death. Thanks to Pro-Life, Congress is about to pass a law forbidding the murder of the survivors.

The Court even legalized the plunging a surgical scissors into the base of the skull of this little defenseless child being born and then sucking out its brains. Finally, that process is now outlawed.

Therefore, it is important whose rights, whose principles, and whose God we are using as a standard of moral exigency to guide our nation.

Today America, because of the devaluation and onslaught of human life, is inundated with perverts raping and murdering children, young women students, and lunatics gunning down classrooms and teachers because they can’t handle their life without a God.

f/u

i can't take this TTWetc seriously by his giving an example of bill clinton's stupidity as how far 'american morals have fallen'. At least Monica was of age to give consent, and bill was not a clergyman. is that REALLY the best that you can do? Especially after the unmitigated disaster that is GWBush?

I thought your guy said something about being without sin casting the first stone- and your organization cannot even keep the priesthood to the standards it set for itself. it doesn't even punish those involved, it just shuffles them around and pays your tithings to families of the victims to get them to keep quiet. it doesn't care about the welfare of children beyond forcing women to have them when it may not be right for them.

I am married- and I may not have kids. MY choice, and mine alone. i have no need to 'help my husband attain eternal happiness'.. i have it right here, right now. Nor has he that need, either. If you are incapable of finding said happiness right around you, that's got nothing to do with anyone other than you.

there is a statistic I read that also says that the largest majority of divorces occurred in Catholic families. Should I believe that?

Thankfully people like you don't get to legislate anything in MY life.. and with the winds of change coming, it will stay that way, at least for now.

TTWetc, exactly HOW does marriage protect children? What if one of the parents is abusive, addicted, adulterous, absent, or any/all of the above? How does that nurture and protect a child or help a spouse achieve eternal happiness?

You're beginning to sound rather Taliban-ish here. You sure you're Catholic?

IN REPLY TO (IRS)
ANONYMOUS:
Anonymous:
["White House-assigned FBI agent Gary Aldrich agrees to help trim the Christmas tree in the Blue Room. Aldrich is surprised by the ludicrous lewd homosexual ornaments. Also provided by Hillary Clinton and her staff are ornaments made of drug paraphernalia such as syringes and roach clips, etc. …]

“Exactly what does this straw man argument have to do with anything? What even makes you think I voted for Clinton? “

ANS:
I don’t believe it was said you voted for Clinton. The mention of the Clintons’ derogating nefariousness is to demonstrate the length of acceptable immorality that the majority of the American culture has found palpable.

The Clintons were reelected though he lied on national TV to America, perjured himself as the Chief Law Enforcer of the Nation, and lied to all his staff, Cabinet, Aids, and family. He disavowed his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution, and disgraced the Presidency and his office, not withstanding what he did to a neophyte aid in the Oval Office.

Clinton visibly became angry when he was exposed in his attempt at debauchery. In his attempt to justify his licentious behavior, the Democrats he lied to supported him. As the leader of the country, the Clintons in their Co-Presidency gave immorality national status. So who shares the blame for this proliferation of lasciviousness, other than those who wallow in it, if not those who defend it?

Our nation is facing an implosion of its moral underpinnings. Homosexuality assaults the institute of Marriage, the basic understructure of the family. Already the Court is about to redefine Marriage.

Some States already have legalized gay marriage, or have promoted sexual unions outside of marriage, giving government acceptance to the promotion of wanton behavior. That is an omen for social suicide and self-destruction, and yet we had a president recklessly promoting not only morally illicit sex but also duplicity and prevarication.

Marriage is an institution that is for the pro-creation and protection of the human race. Besides helping your spouse to attain eternal happiness, the chief purpose of Marriage is to protect the fruits of conjugal love in marriage, its children.

Marriage binds parents to the responsibility of caring for the fruits of conjugal love, the child. They are bound in a mutual contract to feed, cloth, educate, and protect the child in its necessities.

Some years back a survey reported that only twenty-five percent of couples living together in the Los Angeles area were married. In the context of a national divorce rate of about fifty percent, that is a harbinger for the implosion of a society.

Purpose for Living, I was raised Catholic, so I know that there's beauty on those pages. I also look to other books from other religions for spiritual guidance and wisdom. If it were as simple as looking for the common areas, life would be much easier and we wouldn't be reading these pages.

Sadly, there are those who choose to use a religious tool as a method to enforce conformity, subjugation and domination. And I'm sorry, but when I hear TTWetc's "my way or the highway" rhetoric, I can't help but speak my peace.

Frankly, I'm tired of being shoved back into the broom closet with a pat on the head and advised to be a nice, quiet little heathen -- or worse, to pretend I'm Christian so I can blend in better. That just reeks of Nazi Germany, doesn't it? So when any group (such as Huckabee and his religious rights backers) tries to legislate rights based on religious dogma, it is our obligation as citizens to assert our rights and make sure that the U.S. does not become a theocracy.

That begins with speaking out against people like TTWetc, who presume to have cornered the market on scriptural interpretation and moral superiority and have no problem telling the rest of us we are wrong. Once they cow the pagans, abortionists, and gays into submission, you could be next.

Mama bear,

Take God out of the bible and just accept the wisdom of the content in it. After all by your own admission you stated that other books have wisdom in them. The bible falls into that category. It is a book that contains wisdom, knowledge, and truth; decide on your own what you choose to believe in it. But don’t argue the bible because of its history as being written by men of God.

So take it for the content without taking into consideration the author, if you can. There is a lot of sound, practical truth in the bible that is undisputable, even by an Atheist. Such as, “loving your neighbor as you would love yourself.” Who is our neighbor? Abraham Lincoln said our neighbor is anyone that our paths cross that is in need.” (Paraphrased)

TTWetc said, "As the Irish say, 'Smile and give your face a holiday.'"

Oh, believe me, I am smiling. Your answers were so predictable it's funny. I suppose it's not very kind of the lions to taunt the Christians, but your arguments are so silly that I can't help it.

You asked what those verses meant to me, and my honest to doG reply is that they mean nothing. Diddly squat. But you expected that, didn't you?

It's the same thing I said before -- you tell us your book is right because your book says it is right, and you expect we will be okay with that. Sorry, but "I said so" and "The Bible said so" just aren't valid arguments. Both presume that we believe the bible to be an accurate, reliable, and relevant source of evidence, which we don't.

And that doesn't even bring into play the fact that you're claiming that YOUR version of the Bible as interpreted by YOUR church is the only correct one.

Holy cow, TTWetc. You guys can't even agree on which version/translation/interpretations are the right ones -- but you have the audacity to tell us WE'RE wrong. Give me a break.

And of course I think like a human. Did you expect me to think like Hera or Cerridwen? I never claimed to be a goddess, let alone to know Her mind. All I am doing is pointing out the fallicies in *your* logic.

IN REPLY TO: (IRS)
Mama Bear:
TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ wrote:
[Scripture is interpreted, not edited. God is Omniscient; He can not make a mistake. Moreover, his interpreters are infallible."]

“This is a joke, right? Are you suggesting that God Almighty Hisself came down from the heavens, took a quill in his mighty All Knowing hand, and literally wrote the Bible?”

“They would have written it perfectly the very first time. If the interpreters are infallible, then why through the generations has scripture been revised over and over again?”

ANS:
They did write it perfectly because God is Perfect. The interpretations are done by God’s Church established by Jesus. These interpretations are guarded by the Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures (Mt.10: 20; John 15: 26-27; Mt. 28:20 "). Those who revised Scripture are in error.

IRT:
“And any book touched by humans -- I don't care HOW holy it is -- is going to contain mistakes. From the scribes to the interpreters to the typesetters to the printers, someone will introduce typos, misspellings, mistranslations, or accidentally leave a paragraph or two out. Those errors require EDITING, not interpretation.

ANS:
So you believe that God, who created man and the entire Universe, Who rose from the dead, Who controls the heavens and earth and all that moves in them is incapable of protecting His Church from error. When God says He will send the Spirit to protect the Scriptures He doesn’t know what He’s saying? Ridiculous!

IRS:
“Which takes us back to your original argument: if God is Omniscience and uses infallible interpreters, then the darned thing would have been done perfectly the very first time, and in a universal language that would require no translations. Or editing.”

ANS:
God gave us His Church as the sole interpreter of the Scriptures, and bestowed upon it the gift of infallibility in its teachings and beliefs. Thus, it is written:

Mt 16:18 -
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell [a.k.a. error] shall not prevail against it.”

Thus, God made Peter the visible head of His Church, the “Vicar of Christ and endowed the Vicar with Infallibility when he pronounces “ex cathedra” on the teachings and beliefs of the Church.

The passages below show the authority of the Church. It confirms God’s Church has such authority. Such authority is not given to any other Church or religion. Namely, all Churches and religions but Christ’s Church and religion are instituted or human originated and therefore subject to error.

Mt 16:19
“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Mt 18:18 -
“Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

There are some 26,000 different religions, that testify to your point that man is incapable alone of interpreting the Scriptures. Don’t you think God, who is Prescient could figure that out?

IRT:
"Which means your God screwed up when he wrote the Bible in the first place."

ANS:
You have little sense of who God is. You think like a man and not like God. God made you; He made the Universe and all things that inhabit it. He controls the heavens and the earth and all that inhabit it, and yet you believe God would be so incredulous as to not know man is subject to errors. However you have figured it out. Unwittingly, you have made yourself more intelligent than God!

Moreover, you infer that God is incapable of keeping his Church from error. God didn’t “screw up,” as you put it, but you have, because you misinterpret the attributes of God and make Him human.

As the Irish say, “Smile and give your face a holiday.”

Mama Bear:
TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ wrote:
[Scripture is interpreted, not edited. God is Omniscient; He can not make a mistake. Moreover, his interpreters are infallible."]

“This is a joke, right? Are you suggesting that God Almighty Hisself came down from the heavens, took a quill in his mighty All Knowing hand, and literally wrote the Bible?”

ANS:
Do you believe that God would be so blunted that He would trust the interpretation of the Scriptures to man who is fallible? Would Jesus spend some 33 years on earth forming His Church and preparing His disciples and leave the interpretations of His Scriptures with out the protection from error by the Holy Spirit? What do you think it means when Jesus says He will be with His Church for all ages, and that He must go to the Father in order that the Spirit may come and watch over His Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it?

We are given the Scripture passages that tell the opposite of what you believe. The Scriptures contradict you. Surely you don’t think that God thought man could interpret the Scriptures on his own, do you?

You scoff at God’s Church being infallible. Therefore, you claim it is with errors. That implies that no one has the truth of Scripture. That would render the Scriptures folly because they would have no certitude. What do these writings below mean to you?

Mt. 28:20 "...and teaching to obey everything I have commanded you. And, surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Mt.10: 20 "For it will not be YOU speaking but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." John 15: 26-27 "When the counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, He will testify about me. And, you must also testify about me, who has been with me from the beginning.

God spoke to the Scripture writers and inspired them what to write, and guided them in their writings. He is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Prescient. It would be incredulous for God, who is Jesus, to ascend into Heaven and leave the interpretations of Scripture solely up to the mischievousness and folly of mankind.

IRT:
“If God chose to use humans to do his handiwork, and those original scribes were infallible, there would be no need for reinterpretation of scripture over the years.”

ANS:
The writers weren’t infallible, the inspired word of God is. The writers were His instruments through which He conveyed His teachings. Therefore, there is only one interpretation; they can not be contradictory because God can not contradict Himself, namely, Truth can not contradict Truth.

You are correct, the Scriptures should need no new interpretation, and they don’t; only those who misinterpret in error need to reinterpret and correct their errors.

The more Scripture is studied, the more it is understood. That does not mean the Scriptures are in error because they are more understood, but when one misinterprets in error, it must be reinterpreted.

The Scriptures remain the same. Nor if someone recopies it in error, the error is in the copier, not the Scriptures. However, God the Omniscient gives His Church the correct Scriptures and guards it from being misinterpreted. That is why Christ’s Church, established on earth, is the sole interpreter with infallible certainty.

The Old Testament has many passages where God chastised and inveighed against the Jews when they strayed from his teachings. Exodus and Genesis are replete with God coming down and speaking to the Jews and He and His angelic messengers are often speaking to the prophets. God continuously spoke to Moses. So it's not earth-shattering that God protects His Church or that God's Wisdom, the Spirit, comes down from Heaven. In one such instance, God struck St. Paul from his horse and chastised him for persecuting His people.

Shawna,

Very well stated. Campbell certainly understood the purpose of such myths in people's lives.

His works should be required reading for all who believe in mythology of any stripe.

Shawna ryan, "Given the sheer number of gods, whether similar or not, man's interpretations of their messages are so varied it would be impossible to direct the country on any single path by modifying the constitution to address those interpretations. And, no one interpretation would be accepted by us.

The country would be divided and violence in god's name would be the order. www.destinysdamned.blogspot.com"

Just what God are you talking about??? And no thanks to your blog site.

I'll stick with reading the bible, written by men, inspired by the trinity God head, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. WOW, now that is an unbeatable team which I might add are my heroes.

As an attorney I agree that to alter the constitution in favor of "god" makes no sense. Yet, in mythology, it appears all gods are virtually the same.
Joseph Campbell was one of the most regarded mythologists of our time. Treating all gods as myth, he wrote and lectured about their similarities. About the needs of man to believe in mythical gods that have the same basic powers and characteristics. Joseph Campbell, THE HERO OF A THOUSAND FACES, Bollingen Series XVII, Princeton University Press, First Edition, 1949, Second Edition, 1968.
In his lecture series, Campbell reminds us that Jehovah (Yahweh), the god of the Old Testament, was a descendant of other gods with which he shared many life changing and miraculous events. Jehovah was a warrior god, a thunder hurler, just as Zeus was. The Book of Genesis, the story of the Garden of Eden was an adaptation of Sumero-Babylonian myths. Campbell compares many mythical stories told hundreds and thousands of years before the Christ era with stories in the New and Old Testaments. Campbell taught that gods are merely our symbolic notions of transcendency and mystery. That mystery could be incarnate in either man or animal. Joseph Campbell, TRANSFORMATIONS OF MYTH THROUGH TIME.
Many other writers have compared the stories of mythical gods with those told of Jesus Christ. In common with many stories of pagan gods are the stories of Christ's birth and crucifixion, the basic tenets of Christianity. There is little, if any doubt, that Jehovah and Jesus Christ are no less pagan than the mythical gods that preceded them.
Given the sheer number of gods, whether similar or not, man's interpretations of their messages are so varied it would be impossible to direct the country on any single path by modifying the constitution to address those interpretations. And, no one interpretation would be accepted by us. The country would be divided and violence in god's name would be the order. www.destinysdamned.blogspot.com.

Somehow TTetc has got it into their mind that THEIR truth is somehow true for everyone, and that's simply NOT true at all.

Sex doesn't kill. Irresponsibility with it does. AIDS is not a gay disease and is more often than not spread by heterosexual contact between people who are unaware of other's history.

You call Paganism meaningless when in fact you have no knowledge whatsoever of which you speak. It's one thing to disagree and say 'I don't believe that', it's another to say that someone who sees the world differently is somehow less of a human and is doomed to some form of 'damnation' of YOUR creation. It's YOUR hell, YOU burn in it.

And thinking that you have any right whatsoever to make decisions for another human implies that you show your own fear of what you don't have an inkling of understanding about.

If you can't trust a woman with a choice, how are you going to trust her with a child?

Mama bear,

I forgot to thank you for your concern.

Dear Anon, "I'm sorry you're going through what you are right now. None of us are perfect... we all try, I think, and end up being too hard on ourselves in the long run. Sometimes it's as important to forgive ourselves as it is to forgive others.

Before our sojourn to the heartland, I was much more open-minded. I didn't think that people could be as mean-spirited as they were. Now, I can take it when someone hurts me. I'm an adult. But I don't do so well when adults hurt children. After seeing my children shunned and ostracized for something beyond their control, it has been hard for me to regain my own naive sense of tolerance.

As a result, I, too, tend toward the defensive. What I need to do is look at my children. In their innocence, they have forgiven the wrongs of our old neighbors. It's been harder for me to forget, though. And I don't like myself so much when I'm resentful. So much for the quest for perfection.

You and Arminius have reminded me that most Christians are not nearly as narrow-minded as the ones we encountered in that little town......and I really needed that. There are small minded people everywhere. I don't need to become one of them. I thank you for that gentle remided.
````````````````````````````````````````````````

Mama bear,

I am hard on myself. I am able to identify my wrongs, whether thinking or actions based, and to make the appropriate recompense. I have no problem asking forgiveness from most people that I have hurt or just plain apologizing for being or saying something inappropriate because I am a peacemaker in that regard. I am also quick to forgive those who have wronged me. I do have tolerance but it has its limits.

What I do have a problem with is those that suppress there’re anger and refuse to communicate about it, which ultimately leads to bitterness. Then mistrust and misguided future analysis of my intentions will often develop. When all the while the big white elephant of resolving the conflict was standing in the room at that very moment when the apology occurred.

Now some people say that no one can make you do wrongs, but I disagree, actions cause reactions it is the law of cause and effect. Unusual or difficult circumstances will yield unusual behaviors this is human nature. Now I am not talking about criminal evil thinking minds here, I am addressing life circumstances related to relationships that have boundaries.

Let me explain that theory. A man, very business like and successful was happily married and had a family, good group of friends, and was financially stable. This same man ventured into a business deal in the Middle East where terrorist wars were rampant and he was mistaken as a spy, captured and taken prisoner. For a period of 9 months he was adversely mistreated, called names, spit on, falsely accused, kicked, beaten, given very little water and food, and was place in a hut to live/sleep with insects and exposed to the elements.

At first the man remained hopeful, he made it his American duty to be peaceful, tolerate of their adverse behavior and thought they would come around and realize as he remained calm and treated them with respect and maintained his position of Americanism that the terrorist would come to know that he was telling the truth and not a spy. However, the adverse treatment continued. After some time the man’s tolerance worn thin and he started to retaliate. After more time the man’s tolerance worn out and he began to fight back.

Long story short the man was rescued because his wife all the while was looking diligently for him and accompanied by the American Embassy they were able to locate him and demanded his release by substantiating that he was not a spy.

The moral of the story is that unusual circumstances will yield unusual behaviors, even from the most mature, level headed, good-natured people. Another thing to consider, this man after returning home had residual effects from the adverse treatment he suffered. Even though he was out of that environment, when someone approached him genuinely he would react defensively. He needed time to trust again.

Children do give unconditional love and can forgive minor offensives freely. We as adults have much to learn in that regard. This is because children are resilient in their early years of development and do not carry resentment.

If someone has the attributes of asking for forgiveness or forgiving those who wronged them freely why would there be a stumbling blocked to restoration of any relationship? What we fail to realize is that stubbornness, resentment, and failure to trust prevents us from seeing or accepting the forgiveness. If we are not careful we can keep the cycle going and in the process we create what we abhor.

Your acknowledgement of knowing you cannot “forget” at this moment in time is winning half the battle. Your neighbors are naïve and not worth losing sleep over. All we can hope for is that they “see the light” one day. I have confidence in you that you will take the right path and come to a full circle of forgiveness without any residual of unkindness to be found regarding your neighbors.

So please, give your heart and soul a rest, in life we are all at different stages of growth and working through difficulties and all are deserving of forgiveness.

Stay in hope, for the best is yet to come. (:~)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
“Why is it that Christians feel compelled to denigrate all other religions, tell us that we are going to hell because we don't buy into the divinity of Jesus, compare us to Satan -- and call that 'love?'"

ANS:
Christians compelled to denigrate people are not Christians in my view. All Christian churches aren’t the same. I belong to the Catholic Church. Denigrating people isn’t a part of Catholicism. To be a Christian one must believe in the two great Commandments, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “Love your neighbor as you love yourself and as God so loves you.

However, Catholics are compelled acknowledge that truth matters. For example, one can not tell a gay person that the gay lifestyle is a normal lifestyle when it’s a deadly act against human nature, both to the body and soul. Catholics can not morally accept the manufacturing of the improvisation of gay marriage; that is an oxymoron. Catholics can not accept the fabrication that the unborn is not a human person. Catholics can not live in a world of false beliefs, nor can anyone without being disruptive to society. Catholics must defend humanity by defending Truth.

Many people think the truth is relative, and that Ethics is personal and situational. Secular humanism is a dichotomy between truth and falsity.. What affects one human life affects all human life. Therefore, the Catholic Church defends the dignity of every human life.

When human dignity is violated, the Church has an obligation to emphatically voice the truth, and not stand by and tolerate error. Its mission is to teach all nations. It has been said, “The greatest evil is to see evil and do nothing about it.” I believe the greatest evil is not even to see evil.

When the Church sees that being gay and having gay sex is killing people, it speaks out that illicit sex is a moral intrinsic evil against God's moral laws, man, and society. Even a simpleton can see the consequences that AIDS is deadly and can be caused by illicit sex. So whose principles do we choose, not your principles or mine but the principles of the one true God who is Truth.

The Church hates no one, She places the dignity of man above all the creatures in the Universe. She succors to the dignity of the homosexual, the prostitute, the infirmed, the dying. Christ came to save sinners. Mother Theresa, and Catholic Charities mirror the compassion of the Church for mankind. Her many Catholic orphanages, hospitals, schools, Her care for the unwed mother and their defense of Marriage are Her expressed compassion for the family and the child.

The Church’s obligation is to defend humanity by defending God and his moral principles, notwithstanding to protect society from moral evil. Violating the moral law corrupts and violates the dignity of the individual and all society.

Moreover, Catholicism doesn't condemn man to Hell; man condemns himself by not seeking the true God.. It is said the damned freely choose Hell because they can not face Truth who is God.

God commands the Church to “Go forth and teach all nations.” It’s your choice to believe or not believe; that’s why you’ve been given a free-will. Therefore, God has an obligation to seek the truth and it will be given to him.

God forces no one against his will. He gives man a choice. After death, there will be no choice.

The Supreme Court redefined man, and legalized the murder of over 48 million unborn. They made Truth relative as does paganism. In order to preserve the organs of an unborn to sell on the open market, butchers, called doctors, were plunging surgical scissors into the back of the head of a child being born, and sucking its brains out. The worth of human life has become relative. Paganism makes the truth relative and subjective. Namely, all beliefs are worthy to a pagan.

In curette abortions, the living child in the womb is being cut to pieces, or when vacuumed, the child is being sucked apart; it is scalded to death by saline solutions. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that’s inhuman. That is why it is important to know Truth is not relative.

The Nazis, the Communist, and the Saddam Muslims, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Mao are atheists and pagans that have redefined human nature as did the Supreme Court. Some 250 to 500 million are dead because of it. Making truths relative can cause your death.

Europe has murdered so many unborn by abortion that they’ve acquired a negative growth rate. France is now offering government incentives for women to give birth because of a population crisis.

Paganism recognizes a polytheism that has many contradicting beliefs. Paganism makes truth relative and therefore meaningless. Hence,, it is not denigrating to tell the Truth; not to do so would be exprobrative.

Anon wrote, "I know the feeling all too well about wanting to hibernate. But I know deep down inside that things will get better. I have hope for the future, for both of us. If it is any constellation to you, you have been an inspiration to me and I haven't forgot your post of working through you tragic relationship. Press on, as long as there is hope, healing will abound."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Anon, I'm sorry you're going through what you are right now. None of us are perfect... we all try, I think, and end up being too hard on ourselves in the long run. Sometimes it's as important to forgive ourselves as it is to forgive others.

Before our sojourn to the heartland, I was much more open-minded. I didn't think that people could be as mean-spirited as they were. Now, I can take it when someone hurts me. I'm an adult. But I don't do so well when adults hurt children. After seeing my children shunned and ostracized for something beyond their control, it has been hard for me to regain my own naive sense of tolerance.

As a result, I, too, tend toward the defensive. What I need to do is look at my children. In their innocence, they have forgiven the wrongs of our old neighbors. It's been harder for me to forget, though. And I don't like myself so much when I'm resentful. So much for the quest for perfection.

You and Arminius have reminded me that most Christians are not nearly as narrow-minded as the ones we encountered in that little town... and I really needed that. There are small minded people everywhere. I don't need to become one of them. I thank you for that gentle reminder.

Blessings to you. And get some rest :-)

One more thing, Anonymous TTWetc. You said, "Politics must always be based on the Truth, to the best of man's ability. The Dems are a pro-abortion, gay party. Over 48 million unborn have died because of it, and AIDS and STDs are a curse to society because they attack and corrupt the institute of Marriage and demean human life."

Upon who's "Truth" should the governing bodies base their politics?

Women have been terminating pregnancies since the dawn of time, before humans could write and long before your Jesus was born. Certainly before the birth of the Democratic party.

AIDs might be a newer mutation of an old virus, but STDs have also certainly been around for centuries and centuries. They exist with and without marriage, and are not at all related. They are definitely not related to the Democratic party -- AIDs and STDs do not infect based on party lines.

Anonymous (whom I strongly suspect of being the rather unpronounceable TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ), wrote "ANS: Rather, man should seek the truth no matter who expounds it. One should not respect one's conclusions if they are in error, but always respect the person if they are honest and sincere in their pursuit of the truth."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And that's the crux of the biscuit: Certain factions believe somebody MUST be right, therefore it MUST be them because they couldn't possibly be wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then Anonymous "TTWetc" said "Truth can not contradict Truth. Two conclusions can't be true if they are in opposition. Thus, we have many religions that contradict each other in part or in whole. Should we value the beliefs of the terrorists and Saddam’s, or Hitler’s, or Mao’s, or Idi Amin’s?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two conclusions can't be true if they're in opposition, ya say. Hmm.

You say poTAYto, and I say poTAHto. One of those pronunciations MUST be correct, but which one? I mean, there are commonalities in pronunciation but one big difference smack in the middle.

Let's investigate.

The etymology of potato dates back to 1565, based on the Spanish patata. Which means I must be right in poTAHto, yes? However, the Spanish borrowed the word from the Haitian's batata, which means "sweet potato."

Hence, our common spud is named after the yam. We're calling the wrong thing by the wrong name, number one. And as far as pronunciation goes, neither of us is 100% on the mark. It's a BATATA.

So maybe with regard to religion, we're both partly wrong, both partly right, but neither of us is 100% on the mark. And how could we be? We approach religion from different perspectives. You use a very old book upon which to base your beliefs, a book that has been interpreted, revised, edited, translated, and reinterpreted through many centuries. Couldn't it be that through generations of borrowing, the words in that book morphed like the a batata into a poTAYto? And my religion doesn't use a book, let alone your book. We rely on nature to inform us.

The one common element we share is the direction to love one another. Every religion has its own version of the Golden Rule. Are you practicing that? Or are you choosing to seek out that which is different and squash it like a potato bug because it doesn't conform to or support your "worldview?"

The future of our country AND our world rests on looking for the common elements that bind us all -- not the differences that separate us. Tell me, do you choose to be part of the problem, or are you going to be a part of the solution and stop picking fights based on who's religion is "righter" than the others?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MHughes976:
I'd like to see Mr.Huckabee's draft a constitutional amendment, which would bring America up to the standards of Aristotle’s God, who’s sole, and immutable activity is to think about thinking.

ANS:
Let's talk about Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Can you disprove it?

IRT:
"I'd want to visit less often. I see value in Plato's (rather too long) account of the origin of the world."

ANS:
So you see value in Plato's account of the origin of the World? Did you know that Plato didn't believe the World was real. He believed our world is a reflection of a real world we aren't a part of. Namely, he deduced that you really don't exist but are only an image that exists in a real world where the real world exists.

IRT:
“In a pure religion everyone who reflects on a difficult problem and forms a belief should value, even love, everyone else who does the same, even if coming to a different conclusion.”

ANS:
Rather, man should seek the truth no matter who expounds it. One should not respect one's conclusions if they are in error, but always respect the person if they are honest and sincere in their pursuit of the truth.

Truth can not contradict Truth. Two conclusions can't be true if they are in opposition. Thus, we have many religions that contradict each other in part or in whole. Should we value the beliefs of the terrorists and Saddam’s, or Hitler’s, or Mao’s, or Idi Amin’s?

IRT:
In politics, that is not so easy, since we have to compete to put our different conclusions into effect.

ANS:
Politics must always be based on the Truth, to the best of man's ability. The Dems are a pro-abortion, gay party. Over 48 million unborn have died because of it, and AIDS and STDs are a curse to society because they attack and corrupt the institute of Marriage and demean human life.

The Supreme Court majority think they can write law irrespective of the Legislative branch. Moreover, they rebuke the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, not to mention their amending the Constitution's Amendment process by their writing new laws. Can you respect an oligarchy writing law and usurping the right of the voice of those who elect politicians to represent you to the best of their ability.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MHughes976:
I'd like to see Mr.Huckabee's draft a constitutional amendment, which would bring America up to the standards of Aristotle’s God, who’s sole, and immutable activity is to think about thinking.

ANS:
Let's talk about Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Can you disprove it?

IRT:
"I'd want to visit less often. I see value in Plato's (rather too long) account of the origin of the world."

ANS:
So you see value in Plato's account of the origin of the World? Did you know that Plato didn't believe the World was real. He believed our world is a reflection of a real world we aren't a part of. Namely, he deduced that you really don't exist but are only an image that exists in a real world where the real world exists.

IRT:
“In a pure religion everyone who reflects on a difficult problem and forms a belief should value, even love, everyone else who does the same, even if coming to a different conclusion.”

ANS:
Rather, man should seek the truth no matter who expounds it. One should not respect one's conclusions if they are in error, but always respect the person if they are honest and sincere in their pursuit of the truth.

Truth can not contradict Truth. Two conclusions can't be true if they are in opposition. Thus, we have many religions that contradict each other in part or in whole. Should we value the beliefs of the terrorists and Saddam’s, or Hitler’s, or Mao’s, or Idi Amin’s?

IRT:
In politics, that is not so easy, since we have to compete to put our different conclusions into effect.

ANS:
Politics must always be based on the Truth, to the best of man's ability. The Dems are a pro-abortion, gay party. Over 48 million unborn have died because of it, and AIDS and STDs are a curse to society because they attack and corrupt the institute of Marriage and demean human life.

The Supreme Court majority think they can write law irrespective of the Legislative branch. Moreover, they rebuke the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, not to mention their amending the Constitution's Amendment process by their writing new laws. Can you respect an oligarchy writing law and usurping the right of the voice of those who elect politicians to represent you to the best of their ability.

We all have the experience of needing forgiveness and we all recollect making mistakes when we felt certain of being right. These are parts of human nature. Perhaps we have reason to be careful about giving political force to the certainties of one side in any dispute. Once political force has been given to an opinion then those on the wrong side of the arument have reason to fear reprisals, as MB says.

Mama bear, thank you again, that was really sweet of you and yes I agree with your comment,

"I agree, this could become a productive discussion. That is exactly what we need: An open exchange of ideas with no fear of reprisals. It's the only way that we as a nation can move forward. I think everyone is so afraid of their rights being trampled on (remember the Snake?) that we tend to go straight to the fight, extreme offense or extreme defense, without taking the time to listen to what one another has to say."

I'm sorry you are feeling tired. I am just worn out from life circumstances, period. I know there is no excuse for my rudeness, translated defensiveness, but I am under a great deal of stress. I have been really hurt by someone I though was a friend and I took my anguish out on him and others. I am ashamed that I wasn't a better example as a Christian. I do hope that he can forgive me as you have. However, I don't think that I will ever see him again.

I know the feeling all too well about wanting to hibernate. But I know deep down inside that things will get better. I have hope for the future, for both of us. If it is any constellation to you, you have been an inspiration to me and I haven't forgot your post of working through you tragic relationship. Press on, as long as there is hope, healing will abound.

:~)

I'd like to see Mr.Huckabee draft a constitutional amendment which would bring America up to the standards of Aristotle's God, whose sole and immutable activity is to think about thinking. I'd want to visit less often. I see value in Plato's (rather too long) account of the origin of the world in Timaeus, with its sense of the false pride of human power captured in the myth of Atlantis. In a pure religion everyone who reflects on a difficult problem and forms a belief should value, even love, everyone else who does the same, even if coming to a different conclusion. In politics, that is not so easy, since we have to compete to put our different conclusions into effect.

Anon said, "I have stated my position many times that at no time will I push my Christianity on anyone, I do not believe in doing that. But, I do not want anyone to try and restrain me from stating my Christian beliefs. Just stating them I do not need or have the desire to talk bible with everyone."

Dear Anon, again the lack of clarity is my responsibility. I meant the universal "you," not the Anon-you. It was meant to be a general question. My apologies. I keep stepping all over myself here.

And you're right, I'm not my usual perky self. I'm more tired than anything. Methinks the bear should hibernate, but as Mama Bear, there's always at least one more thing that needs to be done before the end of the day. You should see me when I get enough rest !

I agree, this could become a productive discussion. That is exactly what we need: An open exchange of ideas with no fear of reprisals. It's the only way that we as a nation can move forward. I think everyone is so afraid of their rights being trampled on (remember the Snake?) that we tend to go straight to the fight, extreme offense or extreme defense, without taking the time to listen to what one another has to say.

We need a really good Mediator :-)

and on your 'Nicomachean Ethics.'

The thing is, the biggest difference between Aristotle and the bible is that Aristotle says that eternal happiness (and not 'living forever in heaven') is done by good works. your book does not.

Plus, Aristotle doesn't say anything about jesus at all, never mind his 'coming back.'

You are of the brand that believes that just by believing in your jesus will you go you to heaven. that what you do doesn't matter.

That's why you intend to invade people's lives and bodies particularly those of women, (which says that you are a male afraid of both the creative capacity that you do not know a thing about as well as fear of the power of a woman. therefore you must make decisions for them.)
because of course YOU know what's best for others.

you are terrified of something. that's why you can't even follow your own guy who said NOT to judge others.

and that's just plain wrong.

oh, and BTW:

if the church 'never condoned immorality' then why are all those priests and cardinals still employed at all? and most importantly, why was it not until the stories started surfacing that so many of them were allowed to have access to children? and why are they still allowed to do so?

Why not take a no tolerance stance and say that if someone is caught doing something inappropriate to their position they will be stripped of their titles and excommunicated? that would send a message that the church is really interested in meeting the needs of its people. and, oh, i don't know, following the message of jesus. i doubt he would have stood for such abuses. Hell, it's the LEAST they can do.

actually clinton was not pro-gay. 'don't ask don't tell' has done more harm than good.

but the ironic thing about it is, that you kick out the gays/lesbians from the army when there are two wars going on, and.. gosh, who's going to fight for us?

The 10 commandments is not the basis for civil law, especially in this country. Never was. The constitution is.

The founders were Deist, not Christian, no matter how much you would like to believe otherwise.

"White House-assigned FBI agent Gary Aldrich agrees to help trim the Christmas tree in the Blue Room. Aldrich is surprised to find a small clay ornament of 12-lords-aleaping. Among the things that were aleaping on the 12 lords are their erections. Also provided by Hillary Clinton and her staff: ornaments made of drug paraphernalia such as syringes and roach clips, three French hens in a ménage á trios, two turtle doves fornicating, five golden rings attached to a gingerbread man's ear, nipple, belly button, nose, and penis. That’s the message the Clinton presidency was proffering."

Exactly what does this straw man argument have to do with anything? what even makes you think I voted for clinton?

my point to you was that your clergy has abused people for years (and it's not just young boys, either) and covered it up and paid millions to keep the stories out of the press. those involved have been simply relocated, often to places where nobody knows of their history and abuse again.

And if people in the church cannot view sexuality as something natural that need not be removed altogether for them to be great spiritual teachers, that will ensure that abuses continue unabated.

Homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. And it's really coincidental that those people who tend to see homosexuality as somehow 'immoral' are those with the most proclivities towards it but refuse to accept who they are. it's always the ones like that congressman who advocated the strongest restrictions on gay rights that are caught making advances towards young people.

If two people in a loving relationship who happen to be of the same gender want to make it official, they should have every right to do so. If you think it takes away from the sanctity of YOUR marriage, then something's really in need of work in your relationship. Are you really that afraid of people not like you? What are you afraid of? Knowing your real self?

You have no intellectual leg to stand on.

Mama bear, "I mean, if I have told you that I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, why keep quoting it to me? The quotes won't convince me. It's only going to chase me away."

Questions arose concerning scripture and then the discussion(s) took place about it.

I have stated my position many times that at no time will I push my Christianity on anyone, I do not believe in doing that. But, I do not want anyone to try and restrain me from stating my Christian beliefs. Just stating them I do not need or have the desire to talk bible with everyone.

I am very private about my Christian belief. Other Christians consider me an outsider because I am not a walking talking bible. I guess you can say that I am more proactive by showing my Christian belief through actions rather then quoting scripture.

You are free to believe what you want, I respect that choice as a private and personal choice. I gave you the option that if it was going to cause discord between us that would could refrain from discussing the bible. I am ok with that but as you reminded me that in a forum such as this a health debate concerning Christian beliefs could very well include a discussion of scripture.

Please give you heart and soul a rest and don't worry about this issue, trust me on this, please. I will not hurt you.

Mama bear,

Thanks for asking about my day and for your response, but I was in training again all day, and will be next week-end as well.

It is a three week-end training that started last week-end. This week-end was my 2nd one. So to answer your question, no not a rested day, the trainings are 8hrs with a 2 hour drive time, 1 hr each way.

How are you? Your post tonight don't sound like your "perky" self? Is something wrong?

Anon wrote, "Christians should use the bible as their reference for truth because it is God’s word to man and as Christians we would want to remain consistent with scripture, not the “Because I said so” profession, which I might add is self-righteous"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Anon, I hope you're better rested today :-)

Thank you for your patient answers. I understand that Christians would feel it necessary to use the bible as their reference point. But again I ask, if you're trying to convince me (or anyone, for that matter) that Jesus is divine and Christianity is the only "right" path, why wouldn't you use something else as your starting point? I mean, if I have told you that I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, why keep quoting it to me? The quotes won't convince me. It's only going to chase me away.

And again, it doesn't address the issue of the double standard. But I don't suppose that issue can be addressed without using the Bible as a reference point, so it's probably moot anyway.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ wrote:
"ANS:
Scripture is interpreted, not edited. God is Omniscient; He can not make a mistake. Moreover, his interpreters are infallible."

This is a joke, right? Are you suggesting that God Almighty Hisself came down from the heavens, took a quill in his mighty All Knowing hand and literally wrote the Bible?

If God chose to use humans to do his handiwork, and those original scribes were infallible, there would be no need for reinterpretation of scripture over the years. They would have written it perfectly the very first time. If the interpreters are infallible, then why through the generations has scripture been revised over and over again?

And any book touched by humans -- I don't care HOW holy it is -- is going to contain mistakes. From the scribes to the interpreters to the typesetters to the printers, someone will introduce typos, misspellings, mistranslations, or accidentally leave a paragraph or two out. Those errors require EDITING, not interpretation.

Which takes us back to your original argument: if God is omnicient and uses infallible interpreters, then the darned thing would have been done perfectly the very first time, and in a universal language that would require no translations. Or editing.

Which means your God screwed up when he wrote the Bible in the first place.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
“where justice for those crimes are not only tolerated but covered up? Something tells me your church is the LAST organization that people should be listening to.”

Justice doesn’t tolerate anything unjust. These crimes were not tolerated, nor were they all covered up. Unfortunately, many Bishops relied on psychiatrists who claimed the priests were cured when they were being treated for their iniquity. Psychiatrist’s organizations approve of gay sex as being a normal lifestyle.

Democrats and their leaders Bill Clinton and Al Gore represented the most pro-lesbian and pro gay ticket in history. So what kind of message does that send you when the former President is pro=gay.

White House-assigned FBI agent Gary Aldrich agrees to help trim the Christmas tree in the Blue Room. Aldrich is surprised to find a small clay ornament of 12-lords-aleaping. Among the things that were aleaping on the 12 lords are their erections. Also provided by Hillary Clinton and her staff: ornaments made of drug paraphernalia such as syringes and roach clips, three French hens in a ménage á trios, two turtle doves fornicating, five golden rings attached to a gingerbread man's ear, nipple, belly button, nose, and penis. That’s the message the Clinton presidency was proffering.

Lots of blame is going around, when you got the President and the Supreme Court protecting sodomy and Supreme Court Justices Stephens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, Kennedy all signed on to Stephens’ conclusion (Lawrence v. Texas) that the Traditional Moral Law serves no useful purpose in Civil Law, and had banned the 10 Commandments, (the basis for all Civil Law) from the Public Square.

So let’s put this thing about responsibility in perspective.

Moreover, many of these depravities were settled out of Court, and any attempt to reconcile these tragedies. Unfortunately, some bishops did try to cover up, and some were gay themselves, unbeknown to the Church. However, the Church has never condoned immorality under any aspect.

his interpreters are infallible? your god can't make a mistake?

People wrote your book. Humans. NO human is ever infallible. that's what makes us human. By claiming his interpreters infallible, that would make them gods. which your book says is idolatry.

Are you an idolater? You worship the creation, the 'infallible book' over any deity. and yet you have problems with those who find divinity in nature?

I call bs, and give the divine enough credit that whatever else is out there is far bigger than ANY book.

You have proven nothing.

Aristotle's god has nothing to do with the god described in the bible. He sat around thinking divine thoughts because they were the only things worthy of him.

Your christ was destroyed. otherwise you wouldn't be able to say that he 'came back from the dead'.

Specious and unfounded arguments based on the premise that 'the bible says it, i believe it and that settles it.'

1. This claim is dogmatism. It suggests no reason for its conclusion. The views of others, that the Bible is not God's word or is not an ultimate authority, have just as much validity.

2. The Bible says different things to different people. Beliefs that creationists take as gospel today, such as the fixity of "kinds" and the impossibility of life from nonlife, would have seemed absurd to creationists of centuries past, and those past creationists would have cited the Bible to support their views (such as Moses's staff changing to a snake and the plagues of Egypt appearing from nowhere), just as today's creationists quote the Bible to support their own views (Brewster 1927).

3. In practice, this claim really means, "My view of the Bible is the ultimate authority." (Since there are so very many different interpretations of the Bible, not to mention other religions, the claim would be meaningless otherwise.) In practice, then, this claim displays a great deal of arrogance, hubris, and closed-mindedness. It says that the final word on how the universe operates depends on one's personal decision of what to believe.

4. This belief, when applied as a standard for others, is religious bigotry in its purest form. It shows contempt to others who believe that God's influence may be seen elsewhere than the Bible and the select few who are defined to interpret it correctly. This claim has started wars.

5. The Bible says several things that you probably do not believe:
* Slavery is acceptable. (Skeptic's Annotated Bible, n.d.).
* You should kill your child if he strikes you (Exod. 21:15).
* If you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death (Exod. 35:2-3).
* If you curse, you should be stoned to death (Lev. 24:14-15).
* Happiness is smashing children upon the rocks (Psalms 137:9).
* Women should be subjugated by their husbands (1 Pet. 3:1-7).

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
“Third, I really liked this when you said "Those who rebuke Christianity implode because of their own immorality, or they are destroyed by their neighbors, who are threatened by their iniquity." No implosion from me. I'm about as boring as you can get as far as morality goes.”

ANS:
This statement is verified by the nations that rebuke Christianity and dictate their own moral laws. The consequences are obvious. Man's nature was violated and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Famine, War, Pestilence, and Death) ensued in China, Russia, the Congo, the Sudan, in Cambodia, and Vietnam, as it did in Nazi Germany.

IRT:
"Didn't your Christ get destroyed, in effect, by his neighbors because he was different and they were scared of him? How exactly is that an argument for anything?"

ANS:
Christ was Truth and many Jewish authorities feared the Truth, especially the Pharisees, Scribes, and High Priests. They weren't scared enough, because they murdered Him. They murdered Truth and eventually suffered the consequences.

Pilot abused his authority by condemning an innocent man, and later was relieved of it. Denying God to appease man or one's self is a prescription for eternal death, and a ticket for a permanent residence in Hell, whether one believes in it or not.

“Archdeacon Farrar: "The aspect,” he says, "in which the early Christians viewed the cross was that of triumph and exultation, never that of moaning and misery. It was the emblem of victory and of rapture, not of blood or of anguish."

Christ wasn’t destroyed; that would be impossible since He is God. God promised Adam he would send a Redeemer. Jesus, the Redeemer, freely sacrificed himself up for the redemption of mankind as an example of the sacrifices man must make in respect to the remnant consequential damages due to Adam’s sin.

Redemption:
"The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation that will include all the nations. In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days, He has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In Him, He has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:”

The Crucifixion was a triumph over death. Christ’s suffering was an example to Christians,” who when he was reviled, did not revile." Thus, on the Cross, Jesus said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” He took the sins of the world upon Himself though He could not sin. He redeemed man so that he would not suffer eternal damnation. Through one man (Adam), sin entered the world: through another, man (Jesus), death was defeated—Galatians 6:14cf.

IRS:
“Man wrote the bible. Quite a few men wrote the bible. Ever hear of editing?"

ANS:
Scripture is interpreted, not edited. God is Omniscient; He can not make a mistake. Moreover, his interpreters are infallible.

When Christ came into the world, He established His Church. When He ascended into heaven, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guard over the Church and protect it from error, thus, making His Church infallible in its teachings and beliefs.

Thus, it is written:
Mt 28:20 “…and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Mt 10: 20
For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” Hence there is no editing, only interpretation under the auspices of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

The writers of Scripture were instruments of whom God used to transcribe His inspired word. God revealed His relationship through the prophets. “Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS:
It's so odd that you as a Christian refer to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. First, Aristotle was not a Christian.”

ANS:
I used Aristotle, who is not a Christian, and not prejudiced toward Christianity so that it couldn’t be said that his proof was Christian propaganda as the skeptics always try to say. My basic philosophy is based on St. Thomas Aquinas, who takes Aristotle’s philosophy and Christianized it. Namely, from the revealed doctrines of Scripture, Aquinas was privileged to the revealed truth from God, which Aristotle wasn’t privy.

Aristotle arrived at an Unmoved Mover from reason. From an Unmoved Mover, we can deduct the attributes of God and one of which is, He is All Loving.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

IRT:
“Second, his idea of an Unmoved Mover was one that sat around all day thinking divine thoughts. Because that was something that was worthy of a divine being's attention. Not someone who cared at all about the lives of those that were created. … This effectively negates your entire book.”

ANS:
To the contrary, it’s not necessary to use Aristotle’s views on the attributes; from Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover we can easily deduct the attributes of God, irrespective of Scripture, but Scripture is quite revealing. Aristotle concludes, as does Scripture that God is Eternal, and an Infinite Being, with no beginning or no end. Thus, Moses asked God, “Who should I say You are?” God said, “Tell them I AM WHO AM.”

Moreover, you might get a synopsis of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle expounds on the purpose of human life, and concludes it is Eternal Happiness. That is the same conclusion of Scripture. Moreover, Aristotle deduces that man’s nature, (from the process of how man gets knowledge and reasons) is spiritual and therefore eternal, as does Scripture.

IRT:
“Second of all, modern science showed that Aristotle got a few things wrong. The stars are not fixed, and neither is the earth. If he had a telescope on hand he would have been the first to revise his view.”

ANS:
Yes he got things wrong, but his Metaphysics, his Logic (He is the Father of Logic), and his Ethics are very sound. His Empirical Sciences , as expected, are not accurate as to our knowledge now because the natural sciences are a process of development. Thus, discovery of truth are an ongoing process.

Metaphysics and Ethics are based on the Natural Law and Human Nature. These principles are not changeable because they are based on human nature and the Natural Law and only God can change them. Namely, since the Moral Law is based on the nature of man, man's nature would have to change for the Moral Law not to be applicable.

Hence, the Third Degree of Abstraction, Metaphysics, and its ancillaries (Cosmology, Logic, Ethics, etc.) have a higher degree of certitude than the two other degrees of knowing—the First Degree of Abstraction (Empirical Science) and the Second Degree of Abstraction (Mathematics); the least being Empirical Science.

Hence, the Founding Fathers implicitly codified the Christian Natural Moral Laws in the Declaration and explicitly in the Bill of Rights. Consequently, man’s inalienable rights are based on the Natural Moral Laws imbued in human nature and explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments of Scripture.

The Declaration writes that it is a duty of the citizens to overthrow the government if it consistently violates man's natural inviolable rights that are founded in human nature and Scripture. Note that Scripture and reason are in consonance, because they both come from God who can not be contradictory.

In addition the Supreme Court violated the inalienable right of the unborn, the Right to Life guaranteed by the IV Amendment and the IX Amendment. To acomplish this the Court had to redefine human nature and claim the unborn wasn't human, notwithstanding, the Court is on the precipice of redefining marriage.

Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Moreover, the Court violated the Constitutional Amendment process by writing law instead of interpreting it. Notwithstanding the Court violated the Separation of Powers by usurping the powers of the Legislative Branch of Government, the Congress.

Mama bear wrote, “Dear Anon, let me put your mind at ease: you haven't hurt me, so there is no need to clarify your intent in that regard.

But if you're going to bring the Bible into the debate, then you must allow others to criticize it. If the Bible is off-limits for discussion, then you cannot use it as evidence. Clearly you know that arguing from a biblical perspective isn't going to carry weight with those who don't believe in it.”

So tell me why those who DO believe in the infallibility of the Bible are so adamant about using it against those who don't believe what it says in the first place? After all, it's the quintessential "Because I said so" argument and as such has no merit.

Before you have a chance to put words in my mouth
about THIS one, let's just be clear that I'm not saying there isn't some wisdom to be found in the Bible -- but there's wisdom in every holy book.
The problem is in the interpretation. “
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First, let me thank you for you kind generosity to readily extend forgiveness. I will sleep better tonight knowing that I have not hurt or offended someone unjustifiably.

Secondly, to answer your question “Clearly you know that arguing from a biblical perspective isn't going to carry weight with those who don't believe in it.”

According to Romans 3:3-4: {3}For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? {4} God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. KJV

Christians should use the bible as their reference for truth because it is God’s word to man and as Christians we would want to remain consistent with scripture, not the “Because I said so” profession, which I might add is self-righteous.

Jesus himself often quoted scripture. Even though Christ had power over Satan, he did not use his own reasoning or belief to answer Satan, a non-believer, he quoted scripture:

Matthew 4: 1-11, (1) Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. (2) After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. (3)The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." (4) Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. (5) Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. (6) "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. (7) Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test. (8) Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. (9) "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." (10) Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only. (11) Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

“………but there's wisdom in every holy book” Yes yo are right, however in Proverbs 3:19 it says,"By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place." Meaning that “all wisdom” comes from God, but yes it can be found in many places and books.

“The problem is in the interpretation.” Yes, you are right again. It is in the interpretation but the main factor is “unbelief.” That is why we have a difference of opinion.

Romans 8:5-8, {5} Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. {6} The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; {7} the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. {8} Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

"Jesus followers who truly loves everyone in spite of their faults, versus the sanctimonious fire-and-brimstone folks who get cheap thrills out of demeaning and reviling anyone who doesn't see things exactly the same way they do." No cheap thrills for me in demeaning anyone, but loving you, everyone, is what I hope to do well in.

I hope that this answers your questions to some degree. I am tired, a long day in training.

Again, thank you for your understanding. GN :~)

Anon said, "The bible is specific in regards to certain topics. Is it my fault God says in the bible that if you or anyone does not believe and rejects him and his son Christ that hell is the outcome of that choice? I wish to God that it wasn't so, but I cannot change what scripture says. It sounds like you do not want to hear what the bible says, if that is so then it would be best for you, us, to refrain from discussing it, agreed?"

Dear Anon, let me put your mind at ease: you haven't hurt me, so there is no need to clarify your intent in that regard.

Contrary to your attempt to put words in my mouth, what I said was a summary. I did not identify YOU as being particularly offensive (not in the beginning of this little exchange, anyway).

But in truth, I ought to have qualified my position by stating "some Christians are narrow minded hypocrites" instead of using the blanket term "Christians." I certainly do not mean "all." This forum is not conducive to editing... so my apologies if you are one of the cadre of Jesus followers who truly loves everyone in spite of their faults, versus the sanctimonious fire-and-brimstone folks who get cheap thrills out of demeaning and reviling anyone who doesn't see things exactly the same way they do.

As far as the Bible is concerned, my original post had nothing to do with the veracity of the Bible. It has everything to do with the double standards employed by SOME Christians.

But if you're going to bring the Bible into the debate, then you must allow others to criticize it. If the Bible is off-limits for discussion, then you cannot use it as evidence. Clearly you know that arguing from a biblical perspective isn't going to carry weight with those who don't believe in it.

So tell me why those who DO believe in the infallibility of the Bible are so adamant about using it against those who don't believe what it says in the first place? After all, it's the quintessential "Because I said so" argument and as such has no merit.

Before you have a chance to put words in my mouth about THIS one, let's just be clear that I'm not saying there isn't some wisdom to be found in the Bible -- but there's wisdom in every holy book.

The problem is in the interpretation.

Objective reading of sacred texts is rather a good thing. Paul's remarks about homosexuality have been mentioned, and it's clear that this kind of passion does on his view cause moral degeneration. Many these days find his view hard to share, but it should be noted that this view isn't essential to his main argument, which is that many sins and morally degenerate practices of all kinds - it is these, not gay sex, that he declares worthy of death - are rife. Therefore - and this is his main point - those who condemn others (for gay sex or for religious error or for anything else, presumably) are themselves indefensible, since we are all sinners. We may then ask whether it is possible for a religion which forbids condemnation of others can possibly take a political form. We might even share Rousseau's concerns, which are remarkably different from Starhawk's. He thought that paganism, since it makes the gods the patrons of the State, is very good for political unity and patriotism, but does cultural damage and fosters war. On the other hand true Christianity, since a true Christian never condemns anyone or even thinks uncharitably of others, simply makes people uninterested in politics and national defence.

"Accuse me of stating an outcome will occur of you going to hell if you "don't buy into the divinity of Jesus," and that "I" compare you to Satan."

You just did. And not everyone reads the bible or other Scripture in the same way. There are multiple meanings that can be taken from said scripture.. and you need to understand that there are some people who DON'T need to rely on Scripture because we tend to think the Divine is far bigger than any one book. and when you make comparisons to your satan, it just goes to show that you know so little about what we are or do that you're willing to jump to conclusions. Satan has nothing to do with us. period. he is part of the christian pantheon.

"When in reality I am just quoting scripture. Many times I have clarified my source of information and asked you not to hold me personally responsible for what the Bible says."

When you insist on pointing out what the bible says, when in fact a lot of people don't agree with the idea that it's some sort of 'word of god', you come after people with the intent to insult their intelligence.

"The bible is specific in regards to certain topics. Is it my fault God says in the bible that if you or anyone does not believe and rejects him and his son Christ that hell is the outcome of that choice?"

It's your fault for using a book that other people do not. There is no proof that that god revealed anything to man. Most likely the stories contained therein are rehashings and retellings of much older myths dressed up for certain folks. It's the
classic 'i believe it because it says so', which is a circular argument and offers no concrete evidence of the claims made within. I could write a book with a character called god in it with long lists of do's and don'ts but it doesn't mean it would be anything other than mythological fiction.

"I wish to God that it wasn't so, but I cannot change what scripture says. It sounds like you do not want to hear what the bible says, if that is so then it would be best for you, us, to refrain from discussing it, agreed?"

it's your scripture. not others. Please keep it to yourself.

Mama Bear wrote: "Here's what I really do not understand.

Why is it that Christians feel compelled to denigrate all other religions, tell us that we are going to hell because we don't buy into the divinity of Jesus, compare us to Satan -- and call that "love?"

Yet any time, no matter how politely, we defend ourselves or point out inconsistencies or contradictions in Christian theology, we are accused of being "hostile?"

And you wonder why we don't buy into your religion.

February 4, 2008 11:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
`````````````````````````````````````
Mama bear wrote, "have to wonder where the love is, myself. All I said was I didn't understand why it's perfectly loving for you to say nonChristians are going to hell but nonChristians are hostile and hateful if we disagree with your worldview" February 8, 2008 11:22 PM
````````````````````````````````````````````

Contrary to you trying to minimize the intent of your post this is what you stated:

1. compelled to denigrate all other religions

2. tell us that we are going to hell because we don't buy into the divinity of Jesus

3. compare us to Satan--and call that "love?"

You tell me that I am compelled to denigrate all other religions, which means that I "belittle, put down, or defame all other religions.

Accuse me of stating an outcome will occur of you going to hell if you "don't buy into the divinity of Jesus," and that "I" compare you to Satan.

When in reality I am just quoting scripture. Many times I have clarified my source of information and asked you not to hold me personally responsible for what the Bible says.

The bible is specific in regards to certain topics. Is it my fault God says in the bible that if you or anyone does not believe and rejects him and his son Christ that hell is the outcome of that choice?

I wish to God that it wasn't so, but I cannot change what scripture says. It sounds like you do not want to hear what the bible says, if that is so then it would be best for you, us, to refrain from discussing it, agreed?

It is not my intent to hurt you.

I will be in mediation training all week-end, so you have a nice week-end. :~)

Dear Anon, you've clearly illuminated the reason why we need to keep church and state separated. Over and over again, you and your brethren find malice where there is none in simple theological disagreements.

You ask "where is the violence" in your posts. Well... you insisted that I am a hateful woman because you erroneously read between the lines of one post. You also said I was blind, called me a liar (for Pete's sake), and falsely accused me of spewing violence and hatred and calling you names.

I have to wonder where the love is, myself. All I said was I didn't understand why it's perfectly loving for you to say nonChristians are going to hell but nonChristians are hostile and hateful if we disagree with your worldview.

If you're allowed to proselytize, I'm allowed to ask you to stop. There's no hostility in saying "I disagree." There is no malice in saying, "The Bible has no validity for me." There is nothing hateful in saying, "I don't believe Jesus is God."

I'm allowed to do that, Anon. As much as your beliefs are protected, so are *all* of ours. There's nothing hostile or hateful about it.

what part of 'loving thy neighbor as yourself' is anon following? I haven't found it.

mama bear, “Brother, if that's how you people love, you can keep it to yourselves.”
-------------------------------------------

”If there is any hostility involved here, it is in your violent reaction to disagreement or perceived criticism, no matter how gently it is offered.”

"I wish you well and hope that you find your way in life.” Where is the violent reaction in my farewell to you?? Huh??
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
It matters not that I am male or female, what matters is that I am rendered equal amount of respect for my values and opinions as anyone one else. What is happening is that “you” do not like what I say in my post. Well, that is you problem.

You project your anger on me, you call me names, you put me down, and you tell me how my behaviors are wrong, this time you said my behaviors are “violent.” Real love….huh???

I responded to you criticisms, hatred, anger, and name calling that is all. I even wished you well, but yet you found fault with that “telling me I had a “violent” reaction. You are someone that does not know how to deal with another person that doesn’t think, believe, or act like you.

Sorry, I am not wired that way. I am an individual that would give my last dollar to someone that needed it. I care about others, their hurts, sufferings, and life’s disappointments. I am loyal, dedicated, longsuffering, and freely forgive others. My friends can tell you that I “tolerate much” before taking measure against ill behavior towards me.

I am not in a “pissing contest with you.” I never asked you for anything nor will I ever asked you for anythng. I started this with the uttermost respect for you. But as I have been informed more then once…..”the world laughs at you…………”

One too many personal attacks, one too many ill words spoken…………where is the love………………that is a question that you should be asking yourself.

mama bear, “Brother, if that's how you people love, you can keep it to yourselves.” My feeling exactly, DITTO!
-------------------------------------------------

“I would thank you to not put words into my mouth. Did I spew hatred at you?”
--------------------------------------------------------
All the time…………….you are not so good at hiding your subliminal message of hatred.

Anonymous wrote, "It is no wonder that you do not understand, you are blind to the truth by your own choice. Hostility, point blank, take a look in the mirror, please and for Pete's sake be honest for once."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not blind to any truths, Anon. Most of my family and friends are Christian and none of them try to convert me back into the fold. They respect my choices, and I respect theirs. Neither do we scorn, mock, berate, or revile one another's beliefs.

The same cannot be said for the evangelicals I know.

We lived in a small rural community for about 2 years. In this small town, it was openly preached that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

While we lived there, I did not "flaunt" my beliefs. I did not tell them they were wrong to believe in Jesus or God the Father. I don't believe that any more than I believe Buddhism is wrong or Judiasm is wrong. I think they're different paths that lead to the same source. But I didn't say that, either.

What I did wrong was NOT attend church. I also did NOT send my children to Vacation Bible Camp or Sunday School. That was it. And I didn't cite religion. We just smiled and said, "No thank you."

How much kindness and love do you believe we felt in that community? They very civilly ostracized us. If it were just me dealing with that bias, I'd have no problems. But those "loving Christians" shunned my children and told their kids to do the same.

Brother, if that's how you people love, you can keep it to yourselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anon also wrote, "If I counted all the times of criticism, prejudgments, and hatred spewed by people such as yourself because of my Christian belief it would be an endless task."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You just proved my point by inserting the phrase "hatred spewed by people such as yourself."

I would thank you to not put words into my mouth. Did I spew hatred at you? All I said was that some Christians have a really funny way of showing love. I also said some Christians are mighty quick to judge nonChristians as "hostile" simply because we disagree.

There is no one group I collectively hate. I might hate your actions -- such as false attribution -- but I don't know you well enough to hate you.

If there is any hostility involved here, it is in your violent reaction to disagreement or perceived criticism, no matter how gently it is offered.

The only thing I can figure is that you must be fearful of something. Only fear elicits such violent reactions to dissent.

I'm rather more convinced by your line of argument, Anonym, than I am by Starhawk's, with all respect to her. It's by recognising many theologies, rather than many gods, that a society makes itself unable to come up Huckabee-style to 'the standards set by God' since these standards cannot be defined if several competing theologies are recognised. Meanwhile here in the UK we're facing up to the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury, senior cleric of the Established Church of which I'm a member, that some recognition of Sharia Law is unavoidable: the story of religion in society takes yet another twist.

MHughes976:

Very true. Of course from some people's perspective, there are many gods already here in the US because so many people here find their god in one or more different scriptures, with different gods/goddesses, different rules for worship and different meanings.

It's just that these days Pagans are ostracized by a large group of people who call themselves Christian but cannot agree even amongst themselves what that means. Which I for one, don't understand.

I am not sure that you have heard the truth of the Gospel if your main contact is with people who say that they are preaching it but who buzz with anger. I'm still unconvinced about the original claim that polytheism cannot be built into the structure of the state, just because it acknowledges many gods. Ancient societies were constituted in this way and could act intolerantly, as Socrates found out the hard way.

mama bear wrote, "Here's what I really do not understand.

Why is it that Christians feel compelled to denigrate all other religions, tell us that we are going to hell because we don't buy into the divinity of Jesus, compare us to Satan -- and call that "love?"

Yet any time, no matter how politely, we defend ourselves or point out inconsistencies or contradictions in Christian theology, we are accused of being "hostile?"

And you wonder why we don't buy into your religion."
*********************************

It is no wonder that you do not understand, you are blind to the truth by your own choice. Hostility, point blank, take a look in the mirror, please and for Pete's sake be honest for once.

If I counted all the times of criticism, prejudgments, and hatred spewed by people such as yourself because of my Christian belief it would be an endless task.

Like it or not quoting the bible is just like you quoting any book that you give heed to as wisdom. You believe in yours and I believe the bible, period. No shame on my part about believing it.

However, the truth is what people such as yourself wants is to criticize Christians, preach your hatred or unbelief of God, and expect us to remain quite, so you can "feel loved."

Well, not so. God didn't call me to remain quite, he called all Christians to "preach" the gospel. I have never shoved my Christianity on anyone because I do no believe in doing that.

I have Christian friends that consider me to be very "liberal," not politically, with my Christian beliefs because I don't condemn a great deal of behaviors and beliefs by non-believers.

I have run my course with people like you and I will not be back here to post again, not at any WaPo site at all. I am through with being judged by your merits of unbelief.

But understand one thing you can never deny, not before any man or God that you have not heard the truth of the gospel. One day I hope you find comfort in it. I wish you well and hope that you find your way in life.

mama bear wrote, "Here's what I really do not understand.

Why is it that Christians feel compelled to denigrate all other religions, tell us that we are going to hell because we don't buy into the divinity of Jesus, compare us to Satan -- and call that "love?"

Yet any time, no matter how politely, we defend ourselves or point out inconsistencies or contradictions in Christian theology, we are accused of being "hostile?"

And you wonder why we don't buy into your religion."
*********************************

It is no wonder that you do not understand, you are blind to the truth by your own choice. Hostility, point blank, take a look in the mirror, please and for Pete's sake be honest for once.

If I counted all the times of criticism, prejudgments, and hatred spewed by people such as yourself because of my Christian belief it would be an endless task.

Like it or not quoting the bible is just like you quoting any book that you give heed to as wisdom. You believe in yours and I believe the bible, period. No shame on my part about believing it.

However, the truth is what people such as yourself wants is to criticize Christians, preach your hatred or unbelief of God, and expect us to remain quite, so you can "feel loved."

Well, not so. God didn't call me to remain quite, he called all Christians to "preach" the gospel. I have never shoved my Christianity on anyone because I do no believe in doing that.

I have Christian friends that consider me to be very "liberal," not politically, with my Christian beliefs because I don't condemn a great deal of behaviors and beliefs by non-believers.

I have run my course with people like you and I will not be back here to post again, not at any WaPo site at all. I am through with being judged by your merits of unbelief.

But understand one thing you can never deny, not before any man or God that you have not heard the truth of the gospel. One day I hope you find comfort in it. I wish you well and hope that you find your way in life.

mama bear wrote, "Here's what I really do not understand.

Why is it that Christians feel compelled to denigrate all other religions, tell us that we are going to hell because we don't buy into the divinity of Jesus, compare us to Satan -- and call that "love?"

Yet any time, no matter how politely, we defend ourselves or point out inconsistencies or contradictions in Christian theology, we are accused of being "hostile?"

And you wonder why we don't buy into your religion."
*********************************

It is no wonder that you do not understand, you are blind to the truth by your own choice. Hostility, point blank, take a look in the mirror, please and for Pete's sake be honest for once.

If I counted all the times of criticism, prejudgments, and hatred spewed by people such as yourself because of my Christian belief it would be an endless task.

Like it or not quoting the bible is just like you quoting any book that you give heed to as wisdom. You believe in yours and I believe the bible, period. No shame on my part about believing it.

However, the truth is what people such as yourself wants is to criticize Christians, preach your hatred or unbelief of God, and expect us to remain quite, so you can "feel loved."

Well, not so. God didn't call me to remain quite, he called all Christians to "preach" the gospel. I have never shoved my Christianity on anyone because I do no believe in doing that.

I have Christian friends that consider me to be very "liberal," not politically, with my Christian beliefs because I don't condemn a great deal of behaviors and beliefs by non-believers.

I have run my course with people like you and I will not be back here to post again, not at any WaPo site at all. I am through with being judged by your merits of unbelief.

But understand one thing you can never deny, not before any man or God that you have not heard the truth of the gospel. One day I hope you find comfort in it. I wish you well and hope that you find your way in life.

and on this:

"A nation’s vitality is in direct proportion to its adherence to the moral principles the Church defends and its reverence to the manifested teachings of the God who is man’s Creator."

which moral principals? the ones where members of the clergy get away with simply paying off those that end up abused? where justice for those crimes are not only tolerated but covered up? Something tells me your church is the LAST organization that people should be listening to.

Ah, good to see you. I've been following your discussions on other threads. Interesting. Wrong though you may be.

It's so odd that you as a Christian refer to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. First, Aristotle was not a Christian. Second, his idea of an unmoved mover was one that sat around all day thinking divine thoughts. Because that was something that was worthy of a divine being's attention. Not someone who cared at all about the lives of those that were created. His idea was of a deity that did not interfere in the affairs of anyone. This effectively negates your entire book.

Second of all, modern science showed that Aristotle got a few things wrong. The stars are not fixed, and neither is the earth. If he had a telescope on hand he would have been the first to revise his view.

Third, I really liked this when you said "Those who rebuke Christianity implode because of their own immorality, or they are destroyed by their neighbors, who are threatened by their iniquity."

No implosion from me. I'm about as boring as you can get as far as morality goes.

Didn't your Christ get destroyed, in effect, by his neighbors because he was different and they were scared of him? How exactly is that an argument for anything?

Man wrote the bible. Quite a few men wrote the bible. Ever hear of editing?

This is our thread. You have proven nothing other than coming in here with some sort of need to prove yourself. doesn't work that way.

Blessed be.

IRT:
"We’d do well to remember that the Constitution was framed by deeply religious men (and, undoubtedly, some women in the background that we never hear about.) They kept church and state separate because they had suffered from the oppression of a state religion."

ANS:
The Founders kept religion separate from the government so that there would be no State religion. The settlers came to America to seek religious freedom, as you said. It was never that the State be estranged to God but that our Judeo-Christian heritage be the conscience of the State. Thus, Jefferson said, "If not the Church, who do we go to seek our moral guidance?"

The God the Founders knew was the Christian God, not a pagan gods, the gods of the Buddhist or Hindu, Totem Poles, animal gods, or gods of the Sun, golden calves, Light, Dark, animisms, Druid gods, or Shinto gods, or the many Muslim gods that in part or in whole contradictory.

The Declaration recognized a Judo-Christian God that endowed man with certain inalienable rights given by the Creator and not by man. These rights are inviolable and cannot be violated by the State. Thus, so stated the Declaration, that if the State consistently violates the Moral Laws, defended by our heritage, which are the covenant for man’s inalienable rights, man’s duty is to overthrow that government and replace it with a suitable one.

IRT:
They knew that the divine reveals her/himself to each person with a unique face, and that to interpose the force of law and the strictures of state authority into that encounter is to violate our deepest freedom and constrain our souls.

ANS:
Gender denotes a dependent being, but God is a self-sufficient being. Therefore, God has no gender. God is called the Father in respect to God’s love for man. He loves man as a father loves his family. Second, the face of God is the same for all. He accords no consonance to different beliefs that are contradictory to his precepts. That would be God contradicting Himself, and that is impossible.

IRT:
To assume that any one individual or tradition knows all there is to know about God—or Goddess—is a form of idolatry, for it limits our conception of the great creativity that moves the worlds.

ANS:
No one can claim to know all about God. The intellect cannot fathom the mind of God. That would make the individual himself God. Man only knows of God by what God reveals to him. However, each individual can come to know the ways of God because he reveals them to man by His works and creation, and through His Church that He guides and protects from error as the Scriptures show. (John 15:26-27; Mt 28:20; Mt 10: 20 )

There is no True God but the Christian God. All other gods are false gods created by man. Jesus proved he was God. Who can produce a God with such credentials other than Christianity?

Some 300 years before He was born, the life of Jesus was written. Who other than Jesus cured the sick, raised the dead, healed the lame, and gave sight to the blind.

Jesus cast out legions of devils, controlled the seas, the heavens, and all the creatures that abided in them. Jesus walked on water, fed 5 and 7,000 with a few fish and loaves of bread, raised the dead, healed the lepers, and the dying.

Jesus walked on water, was crucified, that all might know He is God. Who but the true God could do this; yet many refused to believe even after rising from the dead. The Jews were astonished, and asked in profound amazement, “Who is this man?” He is the Son of God, who is God.

The Jews knew who God was when Moses brought down the plagues on the Egyptians, split the sea and the Jews walked to their freedom. Then God closed the sea and drowned the Pharos’s army. God conquered all who opposed Him. He then fed the Jews manna in the desert.

There shouldn’t be any doubt as to who is the True God that watched over the Jewish people. The pagans feared the Jew’s God. He is the same God who sent his Son down to redeem man and to leave man with a Church and a visible head to guide all mankind.

No nation can rebuke His laws and precepts and not suffer dire consequences. Those who have rebuked him have suffered grave consequences. . We are witness to many pagan ideologies--the Communists, Fascists, Atheists, Agnostics, and Pantheists. These ideologies bring the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, famine, death, war and pestilence. They do not have God to guide them. Nowhere in history has the adherence to Christianity destroyed a nation or a civilization.

Those who rebuke Christianity implode because of their own immorality, or they are destroyed by their neighbors, who are threatened by their iniquity. A nation’s vitality is in direct proportion to its adherence to the moral principles the Church defends and its reverence to the manifested teachings of the God who is man’s Creator.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
"WHO’S GOD, WHOSE STANDARDS?"
“It’s all very well to propose amending the Constitution to be in line with ‘God’s standards’—the question is always, which God? What set of standards? And who gets to decide?”

ANS:
There can only be one true God. Many gods is an oxymoron, as shown by Aristotle’s proof of the Unmoved Mover, who is God. Moreover, there can be no differences in an Unmoved Mover because the Unmoved Mover in one in Actuality. God's essence is His existence. In composite beings, essence (the definition of a being) is separated from the existence. Namely, the essence isn’t in existence until it is given existence. Thus, we can design a car (essence), but it isn't real (exist) until it is actually made.

In addition, God has no potency; He is unmoved, the cause of all causes, the Creator. He created all things from nothing. He can have no differences simply because He is Pure Act, as Aristotle’s proof shows.

Hence, either a thing moves itself, or it is moved by another. That which moves itself, or is not caused, is what we call God, the Uncaused Cause.

That which does not cause itself is caused by another, and is a dependent being. Dependent beings depend on another to move them either in motion or from potency to act, from essence to existence, or from existence to no existence. However, God's essence is His existence. Therefore, God is not a dependent being.

Dependent beings are composites. Namely, they are composites of potency, and actuality. All composites depend on their parts. Dependent beings can’t be a self-sufficient being but God is a self-sufficient being. God is pure actuality without any potency. Therefore, pure actuality has no parts or potency and is simple being. However, multiple gods are composites with a genus and species since they are different. The differences distinguish one from another. Simple being has no differences but God is a simple being. Therefore, there cannot be multiple gods.

In addition, if there were many gods, the word "God" would be the genus, and the many would be different gods or species. “For example, when we say “tree,” we mean something that is similar to all trees but it is not an actual tree. An actual tree exists, not in the mind, but in reality. When we say an oak tree, we state a specific difference, and oak is a species. However, in a simple being there is no genus or species because there are no differences in God, as Aristotle shows. So God cannot be a genus or a species. Therefore, there cannot be multiple gods.

IRS:
"I’m a Pagan. We have many Gods, with widely varying sets of standards."

ANS:
As shown above, there cannot be many gods. Moreover, there cannot be varying principles. Varying principles imply a contradiction of principles. God’s principles cannot contradict themselves; again, that is an oxymoron.

God is Truth (Reality or Actuality), but Truth cannot contradict Truth. That is a First Principle of thought, namely, a thing that exists cannot exists at the same time in the same circumstances. The principle is self-evident. If what is weren’t at the same time, under the same circumstances, than thought would be meaningless.

Therefore, there is only one God, and His principles, laws, and dictates are not in contradiction.

IRT:
"Should we stone adulterers, forbid the collection of interest on debts, require all farmers to leave the land fallow one year in seven? How about live animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem—could we get the Israeli government, the Palestinian authority and perhaps the U.N. on board for that?

ANS:
Christianity was rejected by those who believe in Judaism. Christianity is for all man. Thus, Jesus told his disciples to go and teach all nations. The Old Testament's civil laws are analogous to basic training. They were only disciplines to bring the Jews to the recognition of the authority of God in order they be a vanguard of God’s teachings and mandates so that all nations might receive his precepts. The Old Testament was fulfilled by a new Covenant; the civil laws were modified and changed to accommodate the circumstances of the times.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
"WHO’S GOD, WHOSE STANDARDS?"
“It’s all very well to propose amending the Constitution to be in line with ‘God’s standards’—the question is always, which God? What set of standards? And who gets to decide?”

ANS:
There can only be one true God. Many gods is an oxymoron, as shown by Aristotle’s proof of the Unmoved Mover, who is God. Moreover, there can be no differences in an Unmoved Mover because the Unmoved Mover in one in Actuality. God's essence is His existence. In composite beings, essence (the definition of a being) is separated from the existence. Namely, the essence isn’t in existence until it is given existence. Thus, we can design a car (essence), but it isn't real (exist) until it is actually made.

In addition, God has no potency; He is unmoved, the cause of all causes, the Creator. He created all things from nothing. He can have no differences simply because He is Pure Act, as Aristotle’s proof shows.

Hence, either a thing moves itself, or it is moved by another. That which moves itself, or is not caused, is what we call God, the Uncaused Cause.

That which does not cause itself is caused by another, and is a dependent being. Dependent beings depend on another to move them either in motion or from potency to act, from essence to existence, or from existence to no existence. However, God's essence is His existence. Therefore, God is not a dependent being.

Dependent beings are composites. Namely, they are composites of potency, and actuality. All composites depend on their parts. Dependent beings can’t be a self-sufficient being but God is a self-sufficient being. God is pure actuality without any potency. Therefore, pure actuality has no parts or potency and is simple being. However, multiple gods are composites with a genus and species since they are different. The differences distinguish one from another. Simple being has no differences but God is a simple being. Therefore, there cannot be multiple gods.

In addition, if there were many gods, the word "God" would be the genus, and the many would be different gods or species. “For example, when we say “tree,” we mean something that is similar to all trees but it is not an actual tree. An actual tree exists, not in the mind, but in reality. When we say an oak tree, we state a specific difference, and oak is a species. However, in a simple being there is no genus or species because there are no differences in God, as Aristotle shows. So God cannot be a genus or a species. Therefore, there cannot be multiple gods.

IRS:
"I’m a Pagan. We have many Gods, with widely varying sets of standards."

ANS:
As shown above, there cannot be many gods. Moreover, there cannot be varying principles. Varying principles imply a contradiction of principles. God’s principles cannot contradict themselves; again, that is an oxymoron.

God is Truth (Reality or Actuality), but Truth cannot contradict Truth. That is a First Principle of thought, namely, a thing that exists cannot exists at the same time in the same circumstances. The principle is self-evident. If what is weren’t at the same time, under the same circumstances, than thought would be meaningless.

Therefore, there is only one God, and His principles, laws, and dictates are not in contradiction.

IRT:
"Should we stone adulterers, forbid the collection of interest on debts, require all farmers to leave the land fallow one year in seven? How about live animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem—could we get the Israeli government, the Palestinian authority and perhaps the U.N. on board for that?

ANS:
Christianity was rejected by those who believe in Judaism. Christianity is for all man. Thus, Jesus told his disciples to go and teach all nations. The Old Testament's civil laws are analogous to basic training. They were only disciplines to bring the Jews to the recognition of the authority of God in order they be a vanguard of God’s teachings and mandates so that all nations might receive his precepts. The Old Testament was fulfilled by a new Covenant; the civil laws were modified and changed to accommodate the circumstances of the times.

'Priver, "Good people?? According to whose standards yours of course....."'

What are you talking about? This is not part of anything that i've said.

Sorry, but you don't get to define us. It really seems to me like you give your 'satan' so much power when in fact we have a belief system that has nothing to do with him. Zero. Don't know him, and don't care to, quite frankly.

And when you attempt to define our belief system based on bad information and wrongful assumptions and therefore call us bad people because of it, that is not love.

I just think that what constitutes the Divine is bigger than any book can spell out.

I find wisdom in many different places, the bible being only one of many. I have no need to refer to any part of your book. I understand that you do, and that's perfectly ok. But don't try to put labels on me that are based on things that you know nothing about. That's an argument from ignorance. And it's not love, it's judgment. I think your guy Leshua has something to say about judging others.

Mama Bear- well said. :)

Here's what I really do not understand.

Why is it that Christians feel compelled to denigrate all other religions, tell us that we are going to hell because we don't buy into the divinity of Jesus, compare us to Satan -- and call that "love?"

Yet any time, no matter how politely, we defend ourselves or point out inconsistencies or contradictions in Christian theology, we are accused of being "hostile?"

And you wonder why we don't buy into your religion.

Priver, "Good people?? According to whose standards yours of course....."

Sorry I don't support you theory, sounds like you are the one in need of "basic education" of what constitutes "loving your neighbor."

Try reading the gospel of John, King James Version. That should help you understand the definition of loving your neighbor and Satan's role concerning the same.

Even if you don't believe in God or Satan doesn't mean you can't take wisdom from any writings as so stated in previous post. Or are you so "dogmatically" against any wisdom coming from a supposed "man of God."

Old saying but true, more true then not, "Buy the truth and sell it not." Meaning not matter what venue the truth comes from if truth grasp it and don't let it go.

"You are right about one thing, you are a part to the religious dialogue in the world, and you represent Satan."

Wrong. Satan has nothing to do with us. He is part of the Christian pantheon, which has nothing to do with us. Can't worship something you don't believe exists. We have our own ideas about what constitutes Divinity, and look to many sources of wisdom, using the idea that the Divine is bigger than any one book can describe.

When you start with an assertion like this it
automatically means that we have to start with basic education about who we are and what our beliefs are, which makes discussion about more complex issues harder. It's telling us that our beliefs are not welcome.

And that's not loving one's neighbor.

Paganplace, all things aside for a moment. I would have been more receptive to your comment and proposal had you not started and ended it with criticism.

However, I must take into consideration the source that it came from. Having said that, here is a question for you.

Your quote "Let's be neighbors. Not to make your world fall apart by saying so, but we aren’t so bad to live around. :)"

If that is the case how much of what you brandish of spewing hatred do you think one can tolerate in a life time with a neighbor like you before "contempt arise" and hatred develops on both sides when currently it is on just yours.

I have spent an enormous amount of time investing into just trying to show that a Christian such as myself cares about and loves someone, a non-believer such as you to no avail. Waste of time??? Maybe, maybe not, but it sure hasn’t yielded or establishment anything but what is truly underneath you outer layer, which is hatred, contempt for me, and mean-spirited attacks to do mental and emotional harm to me w/o just cause.

Having said that, do I want such a neighbor??? Yes, I do. But only on one condition, is that you care and love me too. Now that is a reasonable proposal, an evenly proportioned expectation for both parties, don’t you think? BTW, your signature was inviting and really does show what is underneath your outer layer.

Have a nice day! ;~) Maxx

Pagan place wrote: "If we Pagans *did* believe there was some special authority to your book, we certainly wouldn't leave it to the likes of you to tell us about it. We are here, we exist, and in fact, are part of the religious dialogue in the world."

Not your decision to leave it to the likes of us, which is a good thing.

Good people?? According to whose standards yours of course.....

You are right about one thing, you are a part to the religious dialogue in the world, and you represent Satan.

Well, to anonymous Christian posters who believe their Bible contains some compelling authority over the rest of us, let's put it this way:

If we Pagans *did* believe there was some special authority to your book, we certainly wouldn't leave it to the likes of you to tell us about it.

We are here, we exist, and in fact, are part of the religious dialogue in the world.

The habit of so many Christians to seemingly try and shout down and condemn any other people who exist in the world simply does not commend you or your religion to our interest, save that while you squabble about authority to everyone, including each other, there are some real life problems to be dealt with.

We fix the *obvious* problems you're a major source of, *then* you can start saying how your book would make things better.

Frankly, your track record in the material world doesn't beat the spread at all, and having been Christian in a past life or two, to all appearances, I seriously doubt the rest.

See, it happens all the time, you condemn outsiders as the source of all your problems, and when you run out of outsiders to blame, you turn on each other, all about your book.

Enough.

That's not our part in this, as Pagans. If you make it such, that's your doing, and yours alone.

We're trying to live, here, and we have a right to speak.

Especially as Americans.

These are good people you're frothing at, Christians. If you spent half as much effort doing some good as you do trying to 'prove' everyone else must be the 'bad guys,' we might have something good going, here in the world.

Which is really the thing, you come out with your dictates and then try to cast those who don't obey them as inherently-immoral.

Far as we're concerned, you ain't even holding up your end on what we *agree* upon as good in the real world, cause you're too busy trying to blame our not-gay-bashing and not-enforcing *your* book.

Now, the way I see it, your Jesus said, 'Love your enemies,' not *love to *have* enemies.

Love your neighbors, not flip out because you have them and they don't magically-convert cause you waved a book.

In fact, it seems that your apparent need for converts has totally-taken over, and you so long ago turned into all the things you claim to oppose that that you've *forgotten the difference,* ..you may need so hard to believe your 'Jesus is the answer' that all you've done is construct a perception that everyone else is the 'problem.'

And that's sad. A lot of ancestors and relations of mine really tried to make better of your God's churches.

See, when you talk like this, though, all it shows is that all that long since turned into something else entirely.

We're Pagans. We respect the wisdom in things, and have no use for authoritarian demands to enforce folly.

Let's be neighbors. Not to make your world fall apart by saying so, but we ain't so bad to live around. :)

John Stephens:

Thanks for your reply.

--"There have been many ancient manuscripts found, sufficient to authenticate the Bible as written."

Three million exact copies of the novel "Moby Dick" does not make it a work of non-fiction.

Even if the oldest, most complete, Bible manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) dated back to the 1st century, instead of the 4th century, it wouldn't change the overwhelming consensus that the NT was based on an oral tradition, was not written by eyewitnesses and was not begun to be written until decades after the alleged events. That the Gospel of "Mark" had several different endings from early on, in and of itself, leads me to conclude that it is much more the product of self-interested human intervention than divine inspiration.

--"If nothing else survived but the words that Jesus spoke, it would suffice. 'My words are spirit, my words are life.'"

In other words, the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. Circular arguments are of no value to me.

Back to the original issue of Bible prophesy. After his resurrection, Jesus says to a couple of his followers: "How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:25-26) How do you account for the fact that the idea of a suffering Messiah is apparently *not* found in the OT or any other Jewish literature? (New American Bible, 1987, footnote p. 1185). If we can't trust Jesus to get prophesies correct how can we possibly trust the Gospel writers?

It seems we are not going to change each other's opinions, but thanks for the discussion anyway.

Anon:

If you will read my post carefully, you will see that I did not say that you believed Moses invented writing.
I was pointing out that there were both written and oral religious teachings long before the writer of Genesis ever put quill to papyrus, so the wisdom found in those teachings could not have been derived from the Bible, since they pre-date it. And yes, I know Moses didn't write it.

Anon:

I'll address anyone on the forum I please. I don't take orders from you.

Furthermore, since I put my name on my posts, you can easily avoid reading them if you wish.

lepidopteryx, read the rules of posting. Again, do not direct any questions or states directly to me. Enough said, enough done, perion. GOT iT!!!!

send a check or money order?? the IRS makes mistakes, chek again, hack ss#, dob……evil, evil, evil works. Peace asked?? For what evil?? mistrust, envies, rivalry, indignation, strife, seditions, heresies, hatred, backbiting, backstabbing, mocking, name calling, evil, evil, works done. no peace for those who devise wicked against the innocent. respect desired?? for wicked schemes?? the glorious Lord laughs in the face of those who devise wicked schemes, hahaha, no man receives respect for evil works.

Proverbs 6:16-19 {16} “These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination unto him: {17} A proud look, a lying tongue, and hand that shed innocent blood, {18} An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, {19} A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren.”

peace asked?? looked for evil, bck/grd Ö nil, not to put away, obedience is better then sacrifice, asked for peace?? for what evil works?? info. on app. how knows?? hacked electronic device, invaded privacy, personal info gone, federal offense, felony. no skills set?? will train bck/grd fits, jealousy…….evil, evil, evil works,

Psalm 27:1-3, {1} The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? {2} When the wicked, even mine enmies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh , they stumbled and fell. {3} Though a host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear, though war should rise against me in this will I be confident.

no one can save, not friends, money, prestige, friends justify wrongs. what is done in secrete back room hacking sick entertainment, is known by the almighty God.

Matthew 6:5-6, {5} “And when thou pray, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. {6} But thou when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secrete, and thy Father which seeth in secrete will reward you openly.”

send a check or money order?? the IRS makes mistakes, chek again, hack ss#, dob……evil, evil, evil works. Peace asked?? For what evil?? mistrust, envies, rivalry, indignation, strife, seditions, heresies, hatred, backbiting, backstabbing, mocking, name calling, evil, evil, works done. no peace for those who devise wicked against the innocent. respect desired?? for wicked schemes?? the glorious Lord laughs in the face of those who devise wicked schemes, hahaha, no man receives respect for evil works.

Proverbs 6:16-19 {16} “These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination unto him: {17} A proud look, a lying tongue, and hand that shed innocent blood, {18} An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, {19} A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren.”

peace asked?? looked for evil, bck/grd Ö nil, not to put away, obedience is better then sacrifice, asked for peace?? for what evil works?? info. on app. how knows?? hacked electronic device, invaded privacy, personal info gone, federal offense, felony. no skills set?? will train bck/grd fits, jealousy…….evil, evil, evil works,

Psalm 27:1-3, {1} The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? {2} When the wicked, even mine enmies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh , they stumbled and fell. {3} Though a host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear, though war should rise against me in this will I be confident.

no one can save, not friends, money, prestige, friends justify wrongs. what is done in secrete back room hacking sick entertainment, is known by the almighty God.

Matthew 6:5-6, {5} “And when thou pray, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. {6} But thou when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secrete, and thy Father which seeth in secrete will reward you openly.”

send a check or money order?? the IRS makes mistakes, chek again, hack ss#, dob……evil, evil, evil works. Peace asked?? For what evil?? mistrust, envies, rivalry, indignation, strife, seditions, heresies, hatred, backbiting, backstabbing, mocking, name calling, evil, evil, works done. no peace for those who devise wicked against the innocent. respect desired?? for wicked schemes?? the glorious Lord laughs in the face of those who devise wicked schemes, hahaha, no man receives respect for evil works.

Proverbs 6:16-19 {16} “These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination unto him: {17} A proud look, a lying tongue, and hand that shed innocent blood, {18} An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, {19} A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren.”

peace asked?? looked for evil, bck/grd Ö nil, not to put away, obedience is better then sacrifice, asked for peace?? for what evil works?? info. on app. how knows?? hacked electronic device, invaded privacy, personal info gone, federal offense, felony. no skills set?? will train bck/grd fits, jealousy…….evil, evil, evil works,

Psalm 27:1-3, {1} The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid? {2} When the wicked, even mine enmies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh , they stumbled and fell. {3} Though a host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear, though war should rise against me in this will I be confident.

no one can save, not friends, money, prestige, friends justify wrongs. what is done in secrete back room hacking sick entertainment, is known by the almighty God.

Matthew 6:5-6, {5} “And when thou pray, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. {6} But thou when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secrete, and thy Father which seeth in secrete will reward you openly.”

why should she not address you? are you a god or something? will her eyes burn from reading your writing?

If you don't want people to engage in a dialog with you, than please don't post here.

lepidopteryx, Moses inventing writing?? Did I say that??? No, what I did stay is "scriptual is the basis of all wisdom not matter where you and others claim it came from."

Meaning all wisdom comes from God, no matter who the author is. If you have issue with my answer talk to someone else about it.

That means that I do not want you to address me again directly or indirectly. Your vain babblings of discord are not even note worthy. ~~~

Anon:

Cite my refernces?

Surely you are aware of the fact that Moses did not invent writing? You don't honestly believe that your anthology was the first book ever, do you?

"Site your exact references."

The entire library at alexandria most likely held a lot of ancient writings that went up in flames.

The stories of Inanna, isis and other gods/goddesses have outlived the bible. the qaballa. The story of gilgamesh that predated anything biblical. Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Sumerian writings.

the list goes on....

"Which God?" is a good question. Are we going to enforce the standars of the God of Islam who want all women to keep themselves "covered"? And would we go with full coverage of face and hair, or just hair?

"Which God?" is a good question. Are we going to enforce the standars of the God of Islam who want all women to keep themselves "covered"? And would we go with full coverage of face and hair, or just hair?

What counts as a Source of Wisdom?

lepidopteryx wrote: "There were written sources of wisdom long before your scriptures were written down, and oral ones before that."

Site your exact references.

Indeed if humanity were not, as Lepi says, capable of wisdom without scriptures, or without The Scriptures, we would not recognise wisdom, even in scriptures, when we came across it. As the scriptures themselves say, there is a light that enlightens us all as we come into this world. But I'm not sure that Starhawk's original argument is right. Polytheism does imply that there are many gods, but doesn't imply that there are no moral standards that the gods collectively protect. Several ancient polytheists, who had studied the wisdom of their own time, were deeply afraid that 'contempt for the gods' would start a process of 'forgetting justice'. This fear is discussed (maybe not endorsed) by Virgil, who seems to have been George Washington's favourite poet. Those who want to build religion back into politics, perhaps a dwindling band at the moment, seem to share this very fear and to think that the process of forgetting justice is well advanced. I'm not saying they're right but the facts that the religious landscape includes polytheists and that polytheism has some intellectual attractions doesn't in itself mean that they are wrong.

Indeed if humanity were not, as Lepi says, capable of wisdom without scriptures, or without The Scriptures, we would not recognise wisdom, even in scriptures, when we came across it. As the scriptures themselves say, there is a light that enlightens us all as we come into this world. But I'm not sure that Starhawk's original argument is right. Polytheism does imply that there are many gods, but doesn't imply that there are no moral standards that the gods collectively protect. Several ancient polytheists, who had studied the wisdom of their own time, were deeply afraid that 'contempt for the gods' would start a process of 'forgetting justice'. This fear is discussed (maybe not endorsed) by Virgil, who seems to have been George Washington's favourite poet. Those who want to build religion back into politics, perhaps a dwindling band at the moment, seem to share this very fear and to think that the process of forgetting justice is well advanced. I'm not saying they're right but the facts that the religious landscape includes polytheists and that polytheism has some intellectual attractions doesn't in itself mean that they are wrong.

Anon:
"I don't recall anyone saying that you can't use other sources for wisdom, but scriptual is the basis of all wisdom not matter what you and others claim it came from."

There were written sources of wisdom long before your scriptures were written down, and oral ones before that.

John ,

And your point is???

I don't recall anyone saying that you can't use other sources for wisdom, but scriptual is the basis of all wisdom not matter what you and others claim it came from.

I have to say I'm confused as to why folks on this thread in particular insist on claiming the bible as 'the only truth' when Pagans in general use the bible as only ONE of many other sources of Wisdom.

And what do these folks say to those people whose experiences with something bigger than themselves ultimately lead away from traditional ideas of 'one god'? their experiences are no less moving and powerful. And if others can benefit from such experiences and make them lead more productive, happier, more peaceful lives, why is that a bad thing?

ANON:

I didn't write that. Neal wrote that to me.

NEAL:

What you say is true to a point; the point being, many persons have sacrificed their lives for their cause or belief, which in and of itself does not prove the cause or belief. E.g. military combatants who die for their comrades in a useless war like Vietnam or Iraq. Noble acts for ignoble purposes. Most of the poor sods at Jonestown were forced to commmit suicide.

I've studied the Bible for thirty years and read every available version. I have also read many detractors, so I'm well versed in all the reasons why the Bible is purportedly a hoax or mistranslated or whatever. None hold water.

There have been many ancient manuscripts found, sufficient to authenticate the Bible as written. When the King James Bible was translated, there were several committees which worked independently then came back together to compare notes. Their translations differed in less than a dozen points, none of which changed the meanings of the passages significantly.

Only one ancient copy of the Iliad has ever been discovered, but no one has ever questioned that it is the true version or that Homer wrote it.

If nothing else survived but the words that Jesus spoke, it would suffice. "My words are spirit, my words are life."

I know all about the excluded books and the Esthenes and Gnostic Gospels and the Aquarian Gospels, etc. ad infinitum.

Beyond all the controversy is the experiences that I and others I know or have known have had which have led us to not just believe that there is a God, but to know that there is a God beyond a shadow of doubt. I don't expect that those who have not had such experiences will believe that God exists, nor that they will believe that we have had such experiences.

Just as everyone dies alone, everyone is on his or her own in the pursuit of spirituality. Nobody can do it for you. Of course, if you aren't looking for the holy grail, you ain't gonna find it. I don't know where you stand on this issue, but most persons lack the spark of divinity that leads them to God, and ultimately it is God who finds the seeker.

"Broad is the way and wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many go in thereat; but narrow is the way and strait is the gate that leads to eternal life, and few there be that find it." Being in the majority is not necessarily being on the winning side.

Jesus performed many miracles -- healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind, restored limbs to the maimed, and raised the dead, but that didn't make believers out of all the witnesses to these events. He marveled at their unbelief. Some villagers ran him out of town. Some persons laughed him to scorn.

People are still laughing him to scorn. It matters not a whit.

ARMINIUS:

I live in Georgia, too. In Whitesburg, which used to be a one horse town before the horse died.

Getting back on track. In my halcyon days, I bartended for a few years, so I read a lot about brewskies. I still have a few books on the subject. I recommend AROUND THE WORLD IN A GLASS (I think that's the name) which covers the history of beer, wine, whiskey and coca-cola, tracing their impact on cultures.

Somewhere in all that reading, I read a theory that the unleavened bread that the Israelites were so fond of was actually a crude form of beer. Who knows? Interesting conjecture, no?

Arminius wrote:

"Never Again,

It is readily apparent to anyone with a shred of decency that there is nothing whatsoever clean about you."

Anon,

"You know nothing about what Jesus said. You are knee-jerking to a mindless dance fed to you by some preacher who wears a thousand-dollar suit. You have all the compassion of a starving sewer rat.

May God forgive your hatred. I can't."
*************************************************

Arminius

I am amazed that you stated:

1. that I was "knee-jerking to a mindless dance fed to you by some preacher who wears a thousand-dollar suit,
2."had hatred
3. "have all the compassion of a starving sewer rat."

To which you are unable to "forgive me" of. If I am the bad party here that what does that make you by the things you said to me???

It was an oversight on my part that you were talking about a husband and wife relationship issue;I missed reading one of the lengthy posts.

You should treat people like you want to be treated. Thanks again or your "nice comments."

Mama bear, "So what you're saying is that someone who refuses to take personal responsibility for a wrong can still be forgiven? Even if they won't admit wrong-doing and make amends for their actions, your god will forgive them for their "sins?""

But if that person won't take personal responsibility, then how can they provide evidence of "sincere repentance" before they die?"
********************************

Yes, God will forgive someone's sin even if they have not asked the one they wronged to forgive them. God doesn't hold (his) forgiveness in abeyance until someone makes amends with everyone that they hurt.

Take for instance if someone was on their deathbed and made a sincere decision to ask God for forgiveness of their sins, God would not withhold forgiveness from them. Also, if the person you wronged died and you can't make amends to that person but you can with God. However, while someone is still living God will require that amends be made if possible. The reason is that someone cannot "harbor" lasting anger against someone else and walk before God in "right standing."

In an ideal world we hurt someone, acknowledge it, ask their forgiveness and hope that they forgive us. All is well, not quite that easy, here is why. We are humans and hurts, pain, and suffering take time to work through. While I may be willing to deal with God on a personal level and ask forgiveness for a wrong, I may not have worked through being hurt over a wrong done against me, or feeling that I was justified in wronging someone who hurt me.

At the end of the day one thing remains sure, God knows the heart of a person, no one and I mean no one can fool or elude God.

John Stephens wrote: "It should be noted that two of the more important "prophesies" regarding Jesus, his virgin birth and Nazareth hometown, are regarded by many Bible scholars to be based on mere mistranslations and/or misreadings of the Hebrew Bible."

Really, you mean that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus?? That's weird, and what faith are these Bible scholars from?? Non Christian?? Atheist??

John Stephens:

--"You seem to infer that the game is rigged because the Hebrews had scripture since the time of Moses. If all the prophets from Genesis to John the Baptist colluded on a scam, and if countless thousands were killed for their faith in this scam (torn apart by wild beasts, crucified, burned alive, etc.), it is the greatest scam ever seen on earth, divine in its concept, awesome in its completion. Four thousand years of magnificent collusion. You have to admire anyone pulling that off."

I agree that anyone purporting such a "magnificent collusion" would be totally unreasonable; which is why I don't subscribe to it. I think it's much more reasonable to conclude that the Gospel writers, being knowledgeable about Messianic prophesies, wrote their stories so that it appeared that Jesus fulfilled those prophesies. In short, I think the Gospel writers had a pious agenda.

It should be noted that two of the more important "prophesies" regarding Jesus, his virgin birth and Nazareth hometown, are regarded by many Bible scholars to be based on mere mistranslations and/or misreadings of the Hebrew Bible.

While I agree with some historians that much of the nature and scope of the early church persecution has been exaggerated, the mere fact that people die for a belief doesn't prove it's truthfulness, i.e. Jonestown.

Thanks

Cause I'll tell you what I think about Wiccan standards.

I think the least of us spends more time living up to our *standards* than do the 'greatest' of the book-peddlers who seek to rule us all do.

I think it's time to wake up.

I think, actually, that those pushing their books and rules are so far detached from even those who bend knee to their words, ...that they are in utter ignorance of any goodness or divinity to the world.

I think, in fact... that they are the hopeless ones... those who have led us toward ruin and are too proud to let *go* of their illusory mastery over others and the world.

Some say Pagans lack standards.

I say, it's the book-pushers who have no standards.... you make your book say whatever you think you want it to, and lok for someone to blame when it invariably steers you wrong.

*I* think the world is better. I think *we* are better.

And, yes, I think 'God' is better.

She certainly did OK by me, no thanks to certain folks who have some particular ideas...

People who would literally rather see the world end than consider they may be wrong in their spiteful little heads.

You wanna talk about standards. They don't really begin where your *nose* ends, but it'd be a start.

Said it before, I'll say it again. You monotheists are clearly bugging. My people ain't the ones you need to be worrying about, especially considering what you do when worried.

" scooby-due:

Why doesn't the Wiccan religion have a set of standards and rules like the other major religions. In my opinion that religion originated when mankind was lost and abandoned to their own devices."

I submit that if you could last a *day* by *our* standards, the supposed debate in our nation would have been very different, long since.

Mama bear wrote "Never Again, please clarify this: "Well, your theory doesn’t work for people that "never” or “refuse” to take personal responsibility for doing wrong to others. Also, your theory is not conclusive regarding the term “forgiveness.” Nor does it negate that forgiveness must still come from God for their sin. Only God has the power to forgive sin. God forgives sin when sincere repentance is evident."

So what you're saying is that someone who refuses to take personal responsibility for a wrong can still be forgiven? Even if they won't admit wrong-doing and make amends for their actions, your god will forgive them for their "sins?"

But if that person won't take personal responsibility, then how can they provide evidence of "sincere repentance" before they die?

Mama Bear you asked me to clarify part of my post and then you answered your question to me. Sorry, but what good would my clarifcation do after you set your own clarification of my comment.

So, what do you want me to answer? I think it would be helpful if you read the post that I was responding to before you asked me to clarify. Okay? {:~}

Arminius wrote:

Never Again,

It is readily apparent to anyone with a shred of decency that there is nothing whatsoever clean about you.

Arminius

Thank you~!

Never Again, please clarify this:
"Well, your theory doesn’t work for people that "never” or “refuse” to take personal responsibility for doing wrong to others. Also, your theory is not conclusive regarding the term “forgiveness.” Nor does it negate that forgiveness must still come from God for their sin. Only God has the power to forgive sin. God forgives sin when sincere repentance is evident."

So what you're saying is that someone who refuses to take personal responsibility for a wrong can still be forgiven? Even if they won't admit wrong-doing and make amends for their actions, your god will forgive them for their "sins?"

But if that person won't take personal responsibility, then how can they provide evidence of "sincere repentance" before they die?

Lep!

My claymore is handy. Rally your Cajun buddies, and I will rally Clan Scott. As we say in the South, YEE-HAH! And as my ancestors yelled, going to war, A Bellendaine!

Arminius
Fighting mad

Arminius:

Your claymore, my cane knife - how can we lose?

Lep!

Keep up the good fight, I'm with you all the way. I wish Wiccan and Jihadist were here.

Arminius

Never Again,

It is readily apparent to anyone with a shred of decency that there is nothing whatsoever clean about you.

Arminius

Never again:

In that case, you can kiss it yourself - have fun, dearie.

Arminius, well said, Now you know how I feel.

Lep lady, don't worry about KMA and where it has been. I can assure you that it is cleaner then anything you have to offer.

Se ya, it is time for real fun!

Anon,

You know nothing about what Jesus said. You are knee-jerking to a mindless dance fed to you by some preacher who wears a thousand-dollar suit. You have all the compassion of a starving sewer rat.

May God forgive your hatred. I can't.

Arminius

Anon:

As for the Amish, I don't see their act as being pious for show, but as a sincere effort to offer comfort and support to others who were also grieving.

And I'll pass on the offer to KYA - no telling where it's been.

Lep lady, KMA, without the lipstick please.

Lep,

You move me. Your husband is a remarkable man. And you are a remarkable person. I'm kinda humbled here.

With respect and love,

Arminius

Right, just like I said "religious act, a self-satisfied one at that."

What good and what purpose did it serve other then an outward appearance for them of being "good people?” Which Jesus strictly denounced that type of public display of self-righteous acts for self-serving accomplishments?

I didn't see that as a good act, I though how little do they know scripture and how God determined where the soul of a person goes after death.

Have a good evening, I am going out with friends. Thank God!!!!

Anon:

You're free to skip anypost you don't care to read.

Anon:

**You know what stuns me is that you think as a Christian it is scriptural to pray for someone's soul after they are dead. A little too late don't you think? God determines where you go before you die so to pray for someone soul is nothing more then a religious act, a self-satisfied one at that.**

It was an act of kindness and grace toward the family of the gunman whether it accomplished anything for him or not. And I have been to Christian funerals where prayers were said asking God to take the soul of the deceased into his presence, so apparently it wasn't assumed that it was instantly at its final destination at the moment of death.

lep lady, "My first husband was abusive and adulterous. When I found lipstick on his underpants while sorting laundry, I tried to forgive, but I couldn't. Even so, I stayed with him. I left after he almost killed me in a drunken rage one night - ironically enough, it was on Good Friday. When I mentioned in my divorce deposition that he had thrown a portable television at me, and barely missed me, he replied that he did not throw it at me, because if he had been throwing it at me, he would have hit me. Not once during the divorce did he ever admit to me that he had done anything wrong, or ask for my forgiveness - not that I think I could have given it by that point. And yet, the way I understand Christianity, if he repents before God, he is forgiven by God, and he is no longer responsible before God for ever having hit me, shoved me, cheated on me, or forced himself on me."

Why don't you two exchange e-mail addresses, phone#s and get together. I don't want to know the specfics about you sorry a** ex and your indepth personal life. Same for Arminius guy.

Now I don't mind that you two connect, at all, go for it. But you both are making me sick with the back and forth on the posting board. Since I have an engagement tonight I don't care if you wear yourself out f_ _king each other but I for one do not want to keep reading about you personal life.

"But, being Christian, I believe that it takes both the person and the Divinity. If I harm another person, which I have, verbally, I apologize to them and ask forgiveness. I also ask forgiveness of God. If I have harmed one of His children, then I have offended Him. That's just how I am.

Let me relate a bit of recent history both for you and for Never Again. A few years back, there was a multiple murder by a disturbed person up among the Amish. He killed six or so schoolgirls - murdered them in cold blood. Then killed himself. The Amish? They not only forgave him, they went to his funeral, prayed for his soul, and gave support to his family and the families of the victims, too, of course. This totally stuns me."

You know what stuns me is that you think as a Christian it is scriptural to pray for someone's soul after they are dead. A little too late don't you think? God determines where you go before you die so to pray for someone soul is nothing more then a religious act, a self-satisfied one at that.

Arminius:

I understand about all of us (even my s-o-b of an ex) being children of the divine. I'd like to think that if I were in the place of the Amish townspeople that I could recognize the fact that the gunman's family suffered the same loss of a child that the families of his victims did, and be able to sympathize with his family at that level - not blame the fathers (mothers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins) for the sins of the sons, so to speak.

A couple of good things did come out of that relationship. After leaving him, I made up my mind that I was never going to be treated that way again. Although I still have moments when I'm back there. The first time my husband and I made love, he touched me i a way that reminded me of my ex. I recoiled, shrieked, and almost vomited on the handsome naked man in my bed. He was understandably perplexed by my reaction, and I explained to him what had caused it. He took me in his arms, pulled me close, and aslked if I would prefer to just be held the rest of the night.
And I met the man who would become my daughter's dad during that time. He was a friend of a friend, and we had a rebound fling that resulted in my becoming pregnant with her. By the time I found out I was pregnant, the fling was over, but we're still on friendly terms, and he adores his daughter. And I can't imagine my life without her, rough though it's been at times.

I'll give you a rain check on that hug, and I expect you to cash it in at some point.

Lep,Dear Lady,

As I see it, we are all God's children. That puts us together with each other and with God. The basis of forgiveness is repentance. That means a turning away from the thing you have done wrong, and renewing your life, renouncing the wrong you have done. This includes the wrong you did to a fellow child of God. It does NOT mean an immediate 'Get out of Hell Free' card! You must clean up your act! As Jesus said, "As you do to others, so you do to me". This is a core belief of Christianity that the fundies forget, immersed as they are in their sad belief that they are the only ones who will be 'saved' because they have puked endless praises to hell fire and damnnation and knee-jerked a mindless dance to the old testament rules. They have not received the true message of Jesus.

So if you ask forgiveness of God, you must also ask forgiveness of the person you hurt. Even if that person is dead. And you must turn your life around to the right path. This I believe. Am I good at it? Hardly....

Take care. Damn, I would like to meet you in person and give you a gigantic hug. And pop a Guinness with you.

Arminius

p.s. - I have an amusing story about Cajuns that I met in the Army. Another time.

Arminius:

I remember reading about the Amish response to the killing. One of the girls killed was a distant cousin of one of my fellow UU church members.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with asking forgiveness from a deity. And I do understand your view that if you harm one of God's children, you offend God. I'm a mother - if you hurt my child, I don't just get "offended" - you haven't seen fireworks until you've witnessed a pissed-off Coon-ass hissy fit.

What I am saying is that there seems to be an idea in Christianity - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that as long as you seek God's forgiveness, it isn't necessary to seek forgiveness from the individual you have harmed. Or that if the individual cannot (or will not) forgive you, it doens't matter because all that matters is that God does.

I keep hearing the chorus to a song by the lovely and talented Iris Dement about a lover who stepped out of line one too many times:
Yes, Jesus loves you,
but I don't.
And God amy forgive you,
but I won't.
And I won't even try.

My first husband was abusive and adulterous. When I found lipstick on his underpants while sorting laundry, I tried to forgive, but I couldn't. Even so, I stayed with him. I left after he almost killed me in a drunken rage one night - ironically enough, it was on Good Friday. When I mentioned in my divorce deposition that he had thrown a portable television at me, and barely missed me, he replied that he did not throw it at me, because if he had been throwing it at me, he would have hit me. Not once during the divorce did he ever admit to me that he had done anything wrong, or ask for my forgiveness - not that I think I could have given it by that point. And yet, the way I understand Christianity, if he repents before God, he is forgiven by God, and he is no longer responsible before God for ever having hit me, shoved me, cheated on me, or forced himself on me.

Hi, Lep,

Good reply to Never Again. I definitely agree that the individual who has caused hurt must apologize - personal responsibility, yes. I totally respect your viewpoint.

But, being Christian, I believe that it takes both the person and the Divinity. If I harm another person, which I have, verbally, I apologize to them and ask forgiveness. I also ask forgiveness of God. If I have harmed one of His children, then I have offended Him. That's just how I am.

Let me relate a bit of recent history both for you and for Never Again. A few years back, there was a multiple murder by a disturbed person up among the Amish. He killed six or so schoolgirls - murdered them in cold blood. Then killed himself. The Amish? They not only forgave him, they went to his funeral, prayed for his soul, and gave support to his family and the families of the victims, too, of course. This totally stuns me. I cannot imagine anything more Christian. And I am quite sure I could not have done it. If my daughter had been killed by someone, if I could not destroy the killer myself, I would certainly piss on his grave. May God forgive me.

Arminius

Never again:

So if I wrong you, and ask your deity to forgive me, he forgives me on your behalf and I don't need to ask you for forgiveness?

That doesn't work for me. David Berkowitz is supposedly forgiven by God for the string of murders he committed. But he is not forgiven by his victims - he can't be, since they're dead, making it impossible for him to ask them for forgiveness.

Yes, my religion teaches personal responsibility for one's actions - that's why the "Harm none" part of it is so critical. What harm you do, you must take responsibility for. And if you don't actively take responsibility for it, it WILL come back to you and bite you in the arse.Period. No loophole.
I can't steal your car, torch it, tell Jesus I'm sorry (even if I really am), and then everything is hunky-dory. I still owe you a car. And even if I replace your car and ask for your forgiveness, you are not obligated to give it, no matter how sincere my request.

lepidopteryx wrote:
Never again:

"Not sure what sin you're referring to, but in my faith, we don't ask forgiveness from the gods - we ask it from those we have wronged. Only the one who is wronged can forgive.

If you harm my child, I cannot forgive you. Only she can.
If you harm me, my husband cannot forgive you. Only I can.
If I harm another, a god cannot forgive me. Only the one I have harmed can."

Wrong, your theory is based on forgiveness of one to another as a personal choice. What you are talking about is taking personal responsibility for committing a wrong against someone and seeking his/her forgiveness on a personal level. Well, your theory doesn’t work for people that "never” or “refuse” to take personal responsibility for doing wrong to others.

Also, your theory is not conclusive regarding the term “forgiveness.” Nor does it negate that forgiveness must still come from God for their sin.

Only God has the power to forgive sin. God forgives sin when sincere repentance is evident. Otherwise, one who knowingly wrongs another or provokes them to sin and fails to take responsibility for that wrong is subject to God according to:

Matthew 18:6, (6) But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Athena,

You will be welcome, and a pint or three will be ready! I'd really like to talk face-to-face with a Pagan, the religion is endlessly fascinating. Lep has invited me down to her area, and I would love to go, but can't. More's the pity, not only is she a most interesting and likable lady, apparently she can really cook! And likes Guinness, after my own heart.

Arminius

Arminius

Arminius - I'd love to have you as a neighbor, and to come over for a pint every so often!

Athena,

Good reply about Semiramis. That was one of the most outrageous made-up-on-the-spot stories I have ever heard.

I'm with you on the LGBT folks. They make good neighbors and friends. I am convinced now that Pagans do too. I have never been comfortable having fundies for neighbors.

Arminius

My apologies. I got an extra : in there by mistake. The Wikipedia link should have been
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis .

Either way, the claim is a false one. Look at the paintings on the cave walls in France, which pre-date any evidence of a "flood", if there was one. They have pictures of GODDESSES and shamans on them, not Jesus or Yahweh. The Earth Goddess was around before Yahweh was ever conceived of. It's your Bible and your Hell. You do what you want, just leave us alone.

We Pagans generally view death as a natural part of life, and know that we will be reincarnated into the next life - much as the seed germinates, grows, blossoms, then dies, only to be reborn the next spring.

Jekyll - if the only LGBT people that you know are mentally ill, you need to get out more. Most LGBT's who are out of the closet are warm, kind, loving people who I would rather hang out with then a bunch of judgmental Christians! Ones that are in the closet may have all of the pathologies that come with trying to keep a Big Dark Secret from others and one's self. (See: Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, etc.)

Alex, I don't know what elephant you're referring to -- or even that it is necessarily "white," as opposed to purple or black. But nowhere in our Constitution does it indicate that the Presidential Oath of Office is to be sworn on a bible. The exact wording of the oath does not include "So help me God" (or Allah or Zeus).

In fact, Lincoln was asked to include "God" in his swearing-in but refused because it is not in the Constitution. Numerous presidents have not sworn on a Bible, or any other book, for that matter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States)

Why is it so important to you that you re-write history to incorporate Christianity? Why do you ask others to defer to your religion? You've seen what good is accomplished in theocracies like Iran and Iraq. Why would you want to duplicate those atrocities here in America by mandating that we honor your religion above all others?

Spidy2-

A question:

If your God is so wonderful, why do people have to be frightened into His arms? "Love Me or die" is spoken by an abuser, not by a God. At least the ones I recognize.

Never again:

Not sure what sin you're referring to, but in my faith, we don't ask forgiveness from the gods - we ask it from those we have wronged. Only the one who is wronged can forgive.

If you harm my child, I cannot forgive you. Only she can.
If you harm me, my husband cannot forgive you. Only I can.
If I harm another, a god cannot forgive me. Only the one I have harmed can.

James D Jenkins wrote:

"The fact that so many people are still "Religious" points to the reality that you can take the caveman out of the cave and teach him science, but getting him to give up his barbaric cavemen beliefs is still a challenge six thousands years after! "

At least those cavemen never assumed they belong to the monkey tribe. Despite their being cavemen, they are more intelligent than those who believe they have monkey grandpas despite the fact that there is no proof that monkey DNAs turned into Human DNAs.

no amount of trust will cover this multitude of sin; forgive is divine, right?

ask it from god then, as said i will never live up to your standards.

tc

The fact that so many people are still "Religious" points to the reality that you can take the caveman out of the cave and teach him science, but getting him to give up his barbaric cavemen beliefs is still a challenge six thousands years after!

I guess these people like having their own personal Santa Claus, even if he is fictional!

I sure hope they evolve soon as the evil spawned from these beliefs (Christian, Jew, and Muslim) has the whole world in turmoil!

Alex:

Actually, the oath of office is NOT administered on a Bible. It is expressly forbidden for the oath of office to be sworn on any book.The official oath takes place in chambers and there is no book. The placing of the hand on a Bible (or Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Qu'ran as with Keith Ellison, or a law book as with John Adams), is purely for the sake of publicity, and in today's world, a photo op.

Thinkaboutit wrote: "By the way, Huck -- there is NO verse in the Bible prohibiting abortion.

I will post details on that next.

Interesting, not many people, even those who know and study the bible would agree with your statement. This is a very controversial subject, however, you are totally correct.

God remained silent on the issue of self-inflicting demise of an embryo/fetus aka abortion. I wrote a college term people on this very issues and my mine reference outside of scripture was an article written by a Christian Psychologists. His article was full of truth and rather impressive.

Isn’t it ironic that people condemn abortion but when a woman has a miscarriage they say it is an act of God. Now, I guess what I hear them saying is that God can commit abortions via miscarriage but humans cannot have an abortion themselves. What is the difference? It is okay for God to practice being an abortionist, but not people.

I do not believe in abortions as a means of birth control but there are certainly times in a woman’s life that merit having one. Thank you for having the courage to address this topic.

SM2,

Once there were three people in a fishing boat..a Christian pastor, a Jewish Rabbi and a Wiccan Priestess.

They had been fishing for half a day when the Pastor says he is hungry. He realizes the lunchs had been left on shore so he drops off of the boat and up to his chest in lake water, he moves to the shore. After a while he comes back...soaking wet he pulls himself back into the boat. The Rabbi says...well were is our lunches? the Pastor says..oh I forgot them. So the Rabbi hops down off the boat and up to his ankles he goes on shore and brings back the lunches. The Rabbi and the Priestess eats and and afterward the Priestess stands up and say's...well fellows, you all can relieve yourselves anywhere but I need a convient bush. So the Wiccan Priestess steps down and walks to shore...shortly she comes back and the men are amazed. The Pastor says..." You did not get wet!" the Rabbi says...oh you found the rocks..?" the Priestess said..."What rocks?"

terra

I argue these point with my evangelical family on a regular basis. They are so confident that their interpretation of God is the right one, that they throw any form of logic or rational debate right out the "proverbial" window. They can't even bring themselves to believe that people of different beliefs are not doomed, even though they may have been indoctrinated into those beliefs by their parents, families, clan or religious leaders and have never had the chance to learn alternative theologies. It sure seems that "blind faith" is difficult to overcome.

you guys/gals + star keep dancing around the white elephant in the room. This country was founded on Judeo christian beliefs. Any reading of American history would point this out.While we do try to keep some formal endorsement of religion out of government, its unrealistic to think one does not influence the other. The oath of office is administered on the "bible" , Judeo christian holidays are part and parcel of American life. Those in the minority should respect the beliefs of the majority instead of trying to equate them with there own. If we were in a muslim country , I would certainly respect the wishes regarding how Islam is intertwined with there way of governing. To ask "which god" is naive at best. No ones forcing anyone's beliefs on anyone but its clear what the predominant religious views of this country are.

Time to resuscitate the 1960s doctrine of Pataphysics, which was based on the simple principle that all belief systems are equal. It always made sense.

"They knew that the divine reveals her/himself to each person with a unique face,.."

No, this is not true. Most of the founders were Christian. Christians know that there is only one way that the devine has revealed himself and that is through Jesus Christ. All else is just your own imagination. They and we today just respect your right to believe your foolishness. We are not Muslims who want to kill you. We love you but you need to know that you are sadly mistaken. You can believe what you wnat but ... there is only one way to salvation, period. And that is Jesus Christ.

Act 4:8-12 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

The Constitution framed by deeply religious men? Where did she get that idea? It was framed by 18th century Enlightenment rationalists, some of whom were Deists, believing in an order that had been set in motion by a God but was not superintended closely by that God. This is sometimes called a clockwork universe. Others of the framers were agnostics or atheists. Others were nominal Christians who rarely attended church. Not much of this bears much relation to anything that could be called deeply religious in the current sense of the term, whether pagan or non-pagan.

"Love your neighbor also means warning them that there's a cliff at the end of the road that they are driving."

Who says we're in a car? if we're in a helicopter, the so called 'cliff' is a piece of cake. and ironically, we get to the same destination.

And we get to steer. :)

The Bible is like an action packed pocket book. I've read the book and I know the losers and the winners in that book already. We're now in a page where the most of the action will occur. But the story is made up already. You guys are chosing the losing side. You may not believe it but it's there. It's just a matter of waiting it out.

It's really a pitiful scenario for those who bet on the wrong side.

Love your neighbor also means warning them that there's a cliff at the end of the road that they are driving. Noah built the Arc in preparation for the flood. As Noah had seen the dangers coming and warned the unbelieving people, Im doing the same thing - warning all unbelievers of the imminent danger that's coming their way.

Dear Starhawk et al,

Whose gods, indeed! Thank-you for stating so eloquently what shouldn't need saying. Why would anyone need to amend the Constitution to reflect biblical standards? Have they read the Constitution? Do they know that its First Amendment already protects their rights, as it does those of other belief systems?

I've been a practicing Pagan for some 30 years and I can safely say that I am secure in my beliefs. I've read the holy books of many faiths, and while some of their teachings have enriched my practice, my own concept of the Divine remains unchanged.

Christianity enjoys more priviledges than any other religion in this country. Christians can openly wear their religious symbols without fear of harrassment. They can worship in public. They are given paid leave to celebrate their holy days. They can freely raise their children in their own faith without fear. They can privately pray in any public space, including public schools and government buildings. They are mainstream America. What more do they want?

I am beginning to suspect that they are moved by fear. Why else would they feel so threatened by the secular or by beliefs that differ from theirs?
Surely Christians who are secure in their beliefs can accept that differences will always exist, without feeling threatened or resorting to repressive legislation.

Blessings,
Peregrine

exactly what part of loving your neighbor as yourself is spidey following?

there's nothing in the bible that says anything about china or any other country.

there's no proof of an afterlife.

Guys, you have to prove first that your gods or its followers can walk on water before you can bet on it. It's such a lopsided mismatch.

Remember that your betting it with your life.

My God, thru the bible can give us early warnings like China and the U.S doing battle a few years from now. Thru the bible I also know what's the next scenario.

Unless your gods can teach you that, why bet on it? It's not a wise bet especially if what is at stake is your soul frying in hell.

Cheers to "BUTTERFLY"!

Yep! Modern "H2O" sure tastes better than Biblical "water'. buuuuurrrp. heeecup! Haa.

Spidey:

We have no PROOF that Jesus literally walked on water, turned water to wine, or multiplied loaves and fishes.

It's entirely possible (and much more logical) that those stories are myths intended to teach the importance of compassion (Jesus going to Peter and comforting him in his time of fear), hospitality (a glass of water in the fellowship of a good friend is as much a delicacy as a glass of the best wine), and generosity (a small meal shared without grudge is as satisfying as a royal feast).

Spidey 2:

"For me it's a pitiful scenario. And it's not a harmless game coz once they lose, they burn. "

Your mythology, your hell, you burn in it!

Even the earliest biblical writings were henotheistic, that is,they acknowledged the existence of other gods. The word "Elohim" for example, is plural and refers to many, not one single all-exclusive deity.

Abraham had a covenant with one of the gods of the Fertile Crescent, vowing that he and his descendants would worship that god and only that god. His covenant didn't apply to the other tribes in the area, so why would you assume that the whole world should be bound by the covenant between one group of Middle Eastern nomads and their god?

If you choose to worship the god of Abraham, fine, that is your choice,and you enter that covenant freely and in full acceptance of the terms, including laws, definitions of sin, and eventual consequences.

I, however, choose to worship other gods.

Blessings,
Peregrine

Semiramis was a warrior-queen of Assyria. The idea that she was the wife of Nimrod and progenitor of the Goddess religion is the brain-child of a Fundamentalist minister.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis:
Alexander Hislop imagined Semiramis as the originator of a cosmic symbol; in his book The Two Babylons, Hislop attempted to demonstrate that Semiramis and Nimrod, are identical to Isis and Osiris, or Astarte and Tammuz. Semiramis goes on to become the Blessed Virgin Mary according to Hislop's version of the tale; most of the world's mythical figures are retellings of the tale of Semiramis and Nimrod. This mythography is supposed to demonstrate that Roman Catholicism is in fact paganism. Hislop's story continues to be circulated among some fundamentalist Protestants today in the form of Jack Chick tracts, comic books and related media. Minister John Hagee, in a May 2006 sermon entitled "Counterfeit Christianity: Symbolism over Substance", also seemed to accept this account.

Dan wrote:
"The founders were Christian and while they were against an official religion, like the C of E under the crown, they would be stunned by this turn away from Christianity. This is a country founded on Christian ideals and the vast majority or the people in this country are Christian."

What "turning away," precisely, do you see, and from which exact version of Christianity?

There are more Christian broadcasting channels on TV and radio than there have been in 60 years. There are more Christian churches in the USA than in any other country in the world. The coins say, "In God we Trust." The pledge references God. We have days off for the Christian holidays, Easter, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, but for no other religion. Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists are jamming their interpretation of Christianity down everyone's throat, all day long, everyday, everywhere. There are mega-churches that seat 20K people. The Armed Forces are being Christianized. No candidate for public office dares to run without making a spectacle of his or her Christian beliefs. Our foreign policy is infused with fundamentalist Christian ideology about Israel, the destruction of Temple Mount, and the End Times.

I've been around this vale of tears for 62 years and am a thinking/sentient creature aware of trends in politics and religion. There's never been a more militant, vocal, in-your-face, suffocating, dominating, shrill, and ultimately contradictory "Christianity" in the USA before in my lifetime than there is now.

I think you and Bill O'Reilly must surely be experiencing a collective hallucination.

What's "American" is toleration of religious and other diversity, which means saying "Happy Hannukah" and "Happy Holidays" and "Happy Solstice" and "Merry Christmas." I hope you're not suggesting that acknowledging others' faiths respectfully is "turning away" from Christianity.

Att: S P i D E R M O N,2,3,4 et al;

Did you knoweth that tiny Jezeus-Christ was reading Batman & Spidermon Storry right from his crib!????

Trivia: Do ye knowth bout the 3-Wise_guys whom went to visit little tiny Jezeus? Well, did ye knowth that they (3-wise-guys who was guided by Polaris the N.Star) ) witnneseth little infant Jesus acsually Rabbi-reading your comic scripts from Craddle or from mainjer on hay???

Hay, did you know that just because little Jezeus was born in a barn, that it does not make him a Jack-ass?!

Stay tuned for the "WiNGY THINGY" story! Ya Ya!

John Stephens,

Actually, most biblical scholars accept 4 BCE as a better date for the birth of Jesus. Or maybe a year or two earlier. It is pretty well established that King Herod died in 4 BCE. But there are other problems as well.

Arminus

NEAL:

There is, in fact, an uncertainty as to exactly when Jesus was born. But, from the time commonly accepted until the nation-state of Israel was 1948 years. (EST. 1948 Anno Domini)

You seem to infer that the game is rigged because the Hebrews had scripture since the time of Moses. If all the prophets from Genesis to John the Baptist colluded on a scam, and if countless thousands were killed for their faith in this scam (torn apart by wild beasts, crucified, burned alive, etc.), it is the greatest scam ever seen on earth, divine in its concept, awesome in its completion. Four thousand years of magnificent collusion. You have to admire anyone pulling that off.

history knows no such things. There is evidence of the settings in the bible, but no evidence of the folks inside.

Is there anybody outside of Jesus Christ who has walked on water, turned water into wine, multiplied the fish and bread thru spoken words only, etc? We all know and history know that He did all those things. I still have to see a pagan worshipper or their god do things that Jesus did.

It's like betting on a boxing match between Ali and 40 pound little boy. You would think that those who would bet their lives and all their belongings on the boy is crazy. It's quite similar for those who are betting their future on pagan gods as against Jesus Christ.

For me it's a pitiful scenario. And it's not a harmless game coz once they lose, they burn.

It's a pitiful scenario and I hope those who are into it would consider their ways.

"Do you make this all up as you go along?"

No. For us it's about looking at the WORLD as somehow conscious, alive-in ways we don't always yet understand scientifically- and establishing a connection to and learning from Nature as Teacher and Mother. It's about finding those myths that really can teach us something about life and
ourselves, regardless of their 'historicity'. And those stories don't have to be biblical.

It's about recognizing that not only do our actions amongst ourselves have consequences but what we do to the wider web we are all a part of impact us as a species.

Our faith is directly tied to our own experiences, as are many others. Perhaps most importantly it's about working for a common cause with those who are not like us, and accepting and loving them for who they really are.

Sorry, I find it difficult to take you all seriously. Do you make this all up as you go along?

Starhawk
You remark;
"To assume that any one individual or tradition knows all there is to know about God—or Goddess—is a form of idolatry, for it limits our conception of the great creativity that moves the worlds."

To assume that any individual knows anything about Gods-or Goddesses is kinda silly, when for all we know they are simply creatures of our imaginations, no more real than Hoppalong Cassidy or Batman.
How totally infantile this thread is.

Great artical. I am a athiest, but was raised Catholic and had a Catholic education until college. If you are Christian you must agree that the body of Christ remains broken,otherwise there would only be one Christian faith in the world vs the hundreds we currently have. If a faith that has one savior but many demonations can not agree what the word of God is, how can multiple faiths come together and agree to amend the constition to reflect the word of God? Which "word" would we amend it to? Our founding fathers in their collective wisdom addressed this by the seperation of church and state.It has kept America strong and united as a people, any attempt to Americanize a particular version of faith by amending the constitution is, well un American.

Laus Deo!

Two seemingly insignificant, unnoticed words. Out of sight and, one might think, out of mind, but very meaningfully placed at the highest poin t over what is the most powerful city in the most successful nation in the world.

So, what do those two words, in Latin, composed of just four syllables and only seven letters, possibly mean? Very simply, they say ' Praise be to God!'

Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848, when James Polk was President of the United States , it was not until 1888 that the monument was inaugurated and opened to the public. It took twenty-five years to finally cap the memorial with a tribute to the Father of our nation, Laus Deo. 'Praise be to God!'

From atop this magnificent granite and marble structure, visitors may take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with its division into four major segments. From that vantage point, one can also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles l'Enfant ..a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape, with the White House to the north. The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west.
A cross you ask? Why a cross? What AB out separation of church and state? Yes, a cross; separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution. So, read on. How interesting and, no doubt, intended to carry a profound meaning for those who bother to notice.

Praise be to God! Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50 landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings the memorial stones share a message.
On the 12th Landing is a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore;
On the 20th is a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians;
On the 24th a presentation made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6. Praise be to God!

When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited within it were many items including the Holy Bible presented by the Bible Society. Praise be to God! Such was the discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy 'One Nation, Under God.'

&nbs p; I am awed by Washington 's prayer for America Have you ever read it? Well, now is your unique opportunity, so read on!

'Almighty G o d; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Aut hor of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.'

Laus Deo!

When one stops to observe the inscriptions found in public places all over our nation's capitol, he or she will easily find the signature of God, as it is unmistakably inscribed everywhere you look. You may forget the width and height of 'Laus Deo ', its location, or the architects but no one who reads this will be able to forget its meaning, or these words: 'Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain.' (Psalm 127: 1)

It is hoped you will send this to every child you know; to every sister, brother, father, mother or friend. They will not find offense, because you have given them a lesson in history that they probably never learned in school. With that, be not ashamed, or afraid, but have pity on those who will never see this.

The early Jews were polytheistic, but not in the way that most people think. The early Jewish people, worshiped G-d, the many aspects of the nature of G-d. Including the female aspects of G-d. Amy Grant, G-d bless her, sang a song called El-Shaddai, in the Hebrew, the many breasted one. Sounds much, like Diana, the Goddess. For those, who among you, choose to put G-d in your male-centric, male dominated little basket, there are many things of which you do not know and which you should learn. G-d, is not as you would say, just "Father," but also Mother. We, the people, need to learn that to elect someone based upon their "Far Right Christian" beliefs only gets the US into trouble and spending the taxpayers money, that the government does not have title to.
The preamble to the Constitution of the United States does not give the power to the government, to go out into the world and spread "Democracy" as Duhhhhhbya would like. Neo-Cons have been the death of the middle income people of the US, those who are the backbone of the taxpaying portion of our country. How in the name of all that is holy and sacred, can the American public be duped into believing that G-d is on our side just because some man in the White House says it's so.
Hasn't the electorate of the US had enough of the self-serving and obviously for profit, not prophet presidencies.
We the American public, must shake off the politics of fear and come once again to believe that all women and men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that "among" these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is supposed to be a government of by and for the people, not of by and for the corporations that can afford the price of admission to see those in power. America give yourselves a chance, during the next election cycle, put those in office who will listen to the people not the corporations. A good book for those who read is Jennifer Government.

Halo,
What amkes you think I worship Apollo or Zeus?

JOZEVZ,
The first city(first New York) was Catalhoyuk that had been built in BP(Before Present)9000 in Anatolia when The Civilization had begun.

ATHENA,
Not Egyptians,but Sumerians had invented beer(Goddess Ninkasi) before Osiris.

LEPIDOPTERYX,
*And I dont base my belief on prophecies*,but lets not forget,Apollo,Son of God Zeus,was also *Cult of Prophecy* at Delphi.

Amen! Sister.

The Constitution never mentions God. Only now in the latter 20'th & early 21'st centuries are religious revisionist seeking to impose their dogmas on America.

Armand

John Stephens wrote:

--"First of all, nice Spandex outfit, Dude."

You failed to mention his tin-foil hat. ;)

--"The most significant prophecy related to end-time events is the rise of the modern nation state of Israel. From the time of Adam, the son of God, until Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, was 1948 years. From the time of Jesus, the son of God (often called the second Adam) until the founding of the nation state of Israel, was 1948 years. No coincidence."

Please name *one* Bible scholar who knows exactly when Jesus was born.

--"The really amazing thing is, beginning in Genesis, a prophet would foretell something about the Messiah, then pass away. Many years later, another prophet would rise, comment on the Messiah, and pass away. That continued for four thousand years, then Jesus fulfilled every prophecy."

I agree, that would be truly amazing, *if* the Gospel writers *didn't* have access to the Hebrew Bible, which, of course, they did. Please name *one* prophet who predicted Jesus would rise from the dead in 36 hours.

--"A mathematician calculated those odds. It is the equivalent of covering the entire state of Texas two feet deep in silver dollars, marking one and tossing it into the pile, then having a blind-folded man pick out the marked coin on the first attempt."

Remind me not to consult your "mathematician" before next Sunday's game.

I would defend a belief that does not sacrifice the victim to any extent but not paticipate to any great extent.

I would defend a belief that does not sacrifice the victim to any extent.

The founders were Christian and while they were against an official religion, like the C of E under the crown, they would be stunned by this turn away from Christianity. This is a country founded on Christian ideals and the vast majority or the people in this country are Christian.
To pretend that religions with such a minority like Islam, or Judaism, or as you point out pagans are going to be harmed by Christian ideals is to forget that is those ideals that created this country and made it a haven for those other religions.

I would defend a belief that does not sacrifice the victim to any extent.

All religions are a distraction from reality eventually when they become complex as law and politics, one law altered extended sub paragraphed see Kramer vs. Kramer etcetera. Modified and then mystified and those are all facts. It has been said before and makes plenty sense. Quote and unquote where applicable.

These events laid the groundwork for all of the pagan religious systems of antiquity, as well as many alive today. Semiramis, in particular was the model and original of every goddess and female cult figure in the ancient and modern worlds (either directly or by derivation); and thus it essential to know her story in order to discern what is factual legend and what is merely myth.

by Bryce Self

Well said, and I will add only this commentary as an extension of the logic of "whose god?"

In choosing "whose god," historical humanity as too often come to war with itself. And is even warring now, around the world.

And perhaps, in choosing a god, and in bringing that god to bear in human political affairs, humanity will really come to know its god...in its own eventual self-annihilation.

Scooby:

Just because Wicca doesn't have a single book that is purported to contain all spiritual knowledge, doesn't mean that there are no standards or rules.

To give you just two:

The Wiccan Rede - "An it harm none, do as you will." Obviously, it is impossible to live without ever harming anythingin any way - just to eat, we must kill plants and animals. And if your life is threatened, of course, you are not forbidden to defend yourself, any more than the Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill." forbids self-defense. But we are forbidden to harm maliciously or needlessly.
Also, the word "will" is critical. It doesn't simply mean "do what you want." Will refers also to the impact your actions will have on the world around you - the force of your will. So the Rede is a divine mandate to carefully consider what impact your actions may have on others beforehand.

There is also the Rule of Three - whatever you do comes back to you threefold - in other words, Karma.
If I deliberately set out to harm another, I harm myself in the process. If I deliberately set out to help others, I help myself on the process.

Why doesn't the Wiccan religion have a set of standards and rules like the other major religions. In my opinion that religion originated when mankind was lost and abandoned to their own devices.

ATHENA:

Thanks for the informative feedback.

I find the concept of god and goddess rather fascinating. Although Judaism and Christianity frequently place the emphasis on God as a male, and the male as predominant, consider the following.

In Genesis, God is spoken of as the Hebrew Elohim, which is plural. "Let us make man in our image." "So God created man. Male and female created he them." So, women are as much in the form of God as are men. Man is the singular nominative of mankind.

"By wisdom God created the earth..."

In the book of Proverbs, Wisdom is consistently spoken of in the female pronoun. Even when it is obvious that it speaks of the Son of Man (who was the creator of the physical world), it is in the female pronoun.

It's as big a mystery to me as to anyone else, but I surmise that female is the creative aspect of God.

God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, believers are brothers and sisters, and the church is the Mother.

I am satisfied through much diligent research that the three wise men (not kings) who travelled to see the young child Jesus, then about two years old, were Zorastrians from Persia, who studied the stars to interpret future events. When the Jews were held captive in Persia, they spoke the Persian language and Jewish wise men studied with Persian sages. "The heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork."

There is much we have lost of the ancient wisdom of ancient peoples. We have a lot of technology at the expense of a lot of sprituality.

BTW Genesis should not be taken literally. It is both allegorical and prophetic. Adam and Eve were not the first humans on the earth, as evidenced by the fact that their daughters married the sons of men. There was no inbreeding.

I want to welcome Starhawk, whose work has been an important part of my spiritual development, and to thank all Wiccans for your lovely, liberating, and reverent world view. Merry Meet indeed!

To me, the notion that any of us has the only spiritual key defies the larger and more important Book of Life, which, time and again, in a myriad ways, shows that the whole is made more magnificent by diversity, and the collective wisdom is enhanced when all points of view are considered.

It's clear in the evolution from monarchy to democracy, it's clear in the huge diversity of
world perspectives on the Divine, clear in the various books and in the religions that don't rely on books, clear in the aeons of Wondering about the nature, wishes, and will of the Divine.

Surely, by its very nature, the Divine cannot be encompassed by anything humans can discern. Otherwise, surely we commit a huge and irreverent contradiction: We make the Divine so small and simple that it can fit in a book that humans can discern.

Besides, the Divine is still speaking! If not, why bother to wake up in the morning? If Life is not a continual personal dialog with the Divine, what is its purpose?

That Godde doesn't fit into our human scale is clear, in turn, in the composition of the universe--incomprehensible--and in the continuity of life: no one generation (far less one person) can hope to come to terms with Life's complexity, and that is as the Divine wishes it to be.

The Divine I worship doesn't exclude any of us from the circle of love, and delights in our varied expressions of reverence and ceremony. It's as if the Universe itself were created to show the glory of diversity in harmony, for that's what Earth and our galaxy demonstrate. It was. I find this eternally enriching and liberating, eternally mystifying and appropriately humbling.

Blessings,
Pico
www.wildchihuahuas.blogspot.com

By some sort of cosmic circumstance I have delved into a little bit of Egyptian mythology. I have discovered two entities of ancient Egypt both depicted in the form of snakes one being Apep,the destoyer, patron of evil and darkness and Wadjet the Serpent Goddess, Protector of Rulers and perhaps a symbol of furtility or bounties of earth.

Apep is being described by at least one modern writer as the "Blackhole" threat to the cosmos, a force of "evil" which tempts man into an existence of nothingness. Apep has been credited with temporary victories over Ra as witnessed through an eclipse of the Sun. Have read that Apep has never been worshipped but rather Egyptian mythology contains prayers and spells to overcome and protect against Apep even in the afterlife as noted in the "Book of the Dead".

On the otherhand, Wadjet has been worshipped as Protector of Rulers, blessings for childbirth and for bounty as fruitfulness of the delta of the lower Nile. I have also read that Wadjet commonly depicted as a golden cobra is also depicted as a mongoose in animal form, a threat to serpants.

Now some writers studying ancient Egyptian mythology claim that Apep is actually a banished God, first made of primorial spittle and made to slither the earth attempting to block the light of day punishment for some ungodly act I guess ? Of course Christians equate serpants with Adam and Eve and that tree of Knowledge thing, the first act of disobedience defying God's Instructions.

However if everything is pre-ordained, Adam ate the apple and Apep slithers according some cosmic plan if one happens to believe that everything on this earth happens for a reason. Apep is said to cause earthquakes, a bad thing maybe but just how badly would the earth be out of balance without tetonic platte shifting ? Or do hurricanes hurl salt ions into the upper atmosphere in order to replensh earth's atmospheric layering protections against certain over exposures caused by the Sun's reys ? I dunno, I just mention hurricanes as bad weather events are equated to Apep too.

So how about this one. Does man's primitive desires need some sort of check and balance or that protection is needed against those ego needs equated with survival (but going astray time to time) that the Goddess Wadjet is honored for protecting Rulers from their enemies while exhibiting the qualities of motherhood ? Just a thought or two, thank Someone free-thinking has not been totally banished in the United States of America. Maybe the Goddess derives her power through sucking the venom out of snakes.

Thank-you all for your thoughts.

Spiderman2:

First of all, nice Spandex outfit, Dude.

Along with Zechariah, I believe it was Micah who said that day will burn as an oven. Peter said, "In the day that the Lord is revealed, the heavens shall depart with a great noise, and the elements being on fire will melt with a fervent heat."

Could be nuclear, but one might consider what John saw in a vision. "I saw as it were a mountain burning with fire cast into the sea." Watch the Science and History channels to see computer animated scenarios of a meteor the size of a mountain striking the earth. Fiery destruction of Biblical proportion. BTW there's a big one headed our way in 2029. It will pass between the earth and the orbiting satellites on the first pass on Friday 13th, then swing back around in seven years again on Friday 13th. Either time, it could strike the earth.

I concur with your belief in the unerrant accuracy of Biblical prophesy. The Bible is the only holy book in the world the validity of which is predicated on prophecy. "I am the Lord, there is no other. There is none like me, knowing the end from the beginning." "The testimony of Jesus Christ is the Spirit of prophecy."

The most significant prophecy related to end-time events is the rise of the modern nation state of Israel. From the time of Adam, the son of God, until Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, was 1948 years. From the time of Jesus, the son of God (often called the second Adam) until the founding of the nation state of Israel, was 1948 years. No coincidence.

The really amazing thing is, beginning in Genesis, a prophet would foretell something about the Messiah, then pass away. Many years later, another prophet would rise, comment on the Messiah, and pass away. That continued for four thousand years, then Jesus fulfilled every prophecy.

A mathematician calculated those odds. It is the equivalent of covering the entire state of Texas two feet deep in silver dollars, marking one and tossing it into the pile, then having a blind-folded man pick out the marked coin on the first attempt.

love your books though i am more buddhist than pagan.You are absolutely right about separation and the utter hubris of the theocrats-whose agenda is surely about worldly power more than spiritual values.

Did Jesus wished to be crucified on the cross? There are questions that are very hard to answer and it's a bad idea to rebel against the One who holds the key to the doors of heaven and hell.

Humility and not pride should govern us when thinking about God. Our minds are limited and it's not capable to fathom hard questions.

Im spiderman2. Starhawk is blocking my post that's why im using anonymous.

see you later guys on some other blogs.

IF GOD IS PERFECT WHY DID HE CREATE JEFF DAHNER? IF WITCHES AND DEMONS ARE EVIL WHY DID GOD CREATE THEM?
COSMO MOGNIC

Re: I’m also Jewish by birth and ancestry.

How shameful is that?

You not only mock those who believe in the ONENESS of GOD.

Then you go ahead and tell the "world community" you are Jewish thus mocking the people of the book (Torah).

I feel sorry for the day you will face GOD and be held accountable for your words.

This is something that we all must handle in our own ways. However it is alarming the more that we push "God" out of our country the more that we see corruption and unruliness. Do you want to follow some religion that promotes killing and destroying our country in the name of their god or is it more humane in that stand point to have a God that promotes loving his enemy more then hisself in order to show what His love is all about. The most almarning fact of all is that our world reconizes that Jesus Christ his birth and this is something that overwhelmingly supports the belief that our forefathers had. I think that we need to continue to follow the lead of our forefathers because we have become a world superpower and a remarkable country to live in not just by chance. Any easy way to understand the greatness of this country is how many people desire to come to our country for many of the same reasons that the first settlers sought our land. Search the "lost boys" look at how many Mexicans, Asians, and several countries have thousands trying to become citizens daily. That is because most of our country believe "IN GOD WE TRUST" such a simple phrase with a powerful meaning. God Bless this country is what I will continue to pray along with millions.

You guys don't also know this but the U.S and China will battle each other in the near future. I hope you guys will consider your beliefs if that happens.

A big part of the prophecies in the Bible would happen in this generation. It would be like as the days of NOah when mass extermination will take place.

The scary part is not the extermination but the next episode. The burning in hell.

If the Bible accurately predicted this generation's events, it would not be mistaken to accurately state about hell.

So be careful guys. Just wait a few years and the battle would start as the Bible predicted.

Anon, The Bible also said that the average person like you cannot understand the Bible coz it is "spiritualy discerned".

It follows that all your interpretations are false. There is a spiritual way of interpreting the Bible.

Everything that's happening right now and the immediate future are written in the Bible and you won't know it coz as the Bible said, they are spiritually discerned. The Spirit of God didn't give you the key so it's useless for you to read the Bible.

Spidey:

How do you know that the verse you quoted is referring to nukes? Everyone knows how awful a death burning alive would be, and it's a common practice to take something that we know is awful and magnify it to describe the idea of a divine punishmnet.

Biblical prophecies are often in vague symbolic language. There's no objectively provable fulfillment of any Biblical prophecy.

As for Jesus being the fulfillment of OT prophecy, the NT writers were Jews, and were quite familiar with OT prophecies. Everything in the NT was written decades after the death of Jesus. If the NT writers believed that he was the fulfillment of the porphecy, then that belief would have colored the way they told their stories.

And I don't base my beliefs on prophecies and their fulfillment or lack thereof.

Why am I not afraid of going to hell? For the same reason I am not afraid of the frumious bandersnatch - I don't believe it exists.

Spiderman says "Im just curious why people believe in pagan gods when I still have to see what fulfilled prophecy have they stated if there are. Yeah, witches has some power as the bible states also but the same Bible says they're gonna fry someday in hell"

Fulfilled prophecies?
Like how DEMONS are the cause of mental illness?
Like how the earth was created days (or eons) before the sun, moon, stars, and the rest of the universe?

I'm curious why don't you believe what the Bible actually says???

EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC CONFLICTS IN THE BIBLE

(1) Earth was created before rest of Universe: According to Genesis, Chapter 1, the earth and heaven were created on Day 1, and the sun, moon, and other stars were created on Day 4. [Modern astronomy holds the earth is an ORDINARY planet that was created billions of years later, not earlier than the sun and most of the universe!]

(2) Earth does not move: Is the earth a STATIONARY body in the universe, as opposed to revolving around the sun, which in turn wheels around our galaxy? According to Chronicles 16:30," the world stands firm, never to be moved" (See also, Psalms 93:1,96:10, and 104:5).

(3) Sun revolves around the Earth: According to the Old Testament, Joshua ordered the sun to halt, implying the earth is fixed in space with the sun revolving around it-- in order to give the hebrew army more sunlight for taking "vengeance on their enemies" (Joshua 10:12-14). Modern astronomy teaches the earth and planets revolve around the sun which spins in a massive galaxy, one of billions.

(4) Age of the Earth: *How Old is the Earth? Geology teaches that the earth is billions of years old - as opposed to being created in six days about six thousand years ago.

(5) Belief in witchcraft and miracles: *The Old Testament states witches exist and should be executed. (These verses were thought to be responsible for the witch hysteria in Europe and New England.)

*The New Testament believes in "false Messiahs and prophets" who have real powers, equal to those of Jesus (but not from the true God, instead from the Devil).

*At no time, did the gospel writers assert that the powers of OTHER Miracle workers were mere "tricks".

-- For example, when the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out devils with the aid of Beelzebub, Jesus replied, "And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, BY WHOM DO YOUR CHILDREN CAST THEM OUT?" (Matthew 12:27, Luke 11:19. That is, Jesus is acknowledging that the disciples of the Pharisees could ALSO cast out devils. (also see Mark 9:38-9)

* "False" prophets could also perform great miracles, and Jesus is quoted by Matthew as concerned that "the very elect" might indeed become deceived by them: "Then if any man shall say unto you. Lo here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect... Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth..." (Matthew 24:23-6)

(6) Belief in Exorcism for Mental Illness: The New Testament describes the cause of mental illness to be from demons and repeats the commonly held ancient view that cures can only come from casting out these demons.

--"They brought to [Jesus] all who were ill or possessed by devils...He healed many who suffered from various diseases, and drove out many devils." (Mark 1:32-4; Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40-1)

--"So all through Galilee he went...casting out the devils." (Mark 1:39, Matthew 4:23)

Where Is Huckabee going to get his Biblical Citation against Abortion????

There is no law, or commandment explicitly forbidding abortion in the Bible. Nowhere is there a record of a person being punished for attempting an abortion (which surely must have happened in a culture that stressed virginity).

Now there are two references in the Old Testament where a fetus has died-- But in neither case was the fetus accorded the status of a human; Nor was there even a hint of a view that the fetus might be a human. Here are the citations:

(1)In Numbers 5:11-13, a pregnant woman was charged with carrying another man’s child. To test her fidelity, she was forced to drink a "bitter water", which would not harm her if innocent; but would cause a guilty wife great pain and miscarriage-- "Her womb will be easily fertilized, but she shall have miscarriages…”

Analysis: The woman was condemned to have miscarriages if found guilty of adultery. This shows the Hebrews did not view the fetus as a human yet, and ending its life through a forced miscarriage was not murder.

(2) In Exodus 21:22-25, a pregnant woman had a miscarriage AFTER being caught in a fight between her husband and another man. If the woman was hurt, then the penalty was “a life for a life, eye for an eye…”, but if the woman was not hurt there was a fine.

Analysis: Again, the “eye for an eye” statute did not apply if the woman miscarried, but was otherwise unharmed.
Based on citations from the Exodus verse above, etc, Jewish rabbinic tradition has concluded that a fetus was not yet human and therefore Jewish women may have abortions.

What do Pro-lifers say of the above? They ignore it of course. Instead, Pro-lifers like to point to other OT verses where God describes “knowing” an individual in the womb and then “interpret” this from their own personal views. Closer examination however will show that these citations are poetic references implying an awareness by God (not the fetus). The verses do not state if God watches over every fertilized egg, or whether a fetus is “human” at all stages. (Again, pro-lifers will generally be happy to fill in these unaddressed areas with their own interpretations.)

There is a verse -- Genesis 2:7-- which indicates human life begins with the act of breathing. (God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.")

Indeed, the Hebrew word for a human is "nephesh", which means breathing. This is consistent with the view that a fertilized egg does not become human until a later phase—and the scientific view of roughly “when” a fetus is viable and a human-like brain has begun forming.

Let's say, Huck gets to pick HIS God -- Jehovah in the OT and NT.

Which biblical laws is he going to add to the Constitution. Here are a few to choose from.

* Death as the penalty for working on the Sabbath. Since there is NO biblical authority for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, the new amendment should be to apply the death penalty to those who work on Saturday.

* Death as the penalty for not honoring one's parents. (This might make some conservatives happy).

* Let's bring polygamy and slavery back. There are no laws outlying these in the Bible. (Same with Torture -- wait Dubya is trying to make torture constitutional again already.)

* Rape is ok too, if the rapist pays 40 shekels to the victims father and the victim is a virgin.

By the way, Huck -- there is NO verse in the Bible prohibiting abortion.

I will post details on that next.

"Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." Zechariah 14:12

How accurate. There's no other phenomenon on earth that is capable of consuming flesh so fast that a person still stands on his feet as it happens. The heat must be very intense. How did the prophet knew it when there were no nukes in his time coz only a nuke can do such a thing with it's intense heat radiation?

The same book, whch correctly prophesied about the nukes, says that all the unbelieving will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8)

Im just curious why people believe in pagan gods when I still have to see what fulfilled prophecy have they stated if there are. Yeah, witches has some power as the bible states also but the same Bible says they're gonna fry someday in hell.

Aren't you guys afraid of what you're doing? I've seen the accuracy of the Bible, even knowing what would take place a few years from now just by reading it.

If pagan gods do exist, does starhawk know the future as the Bible do? I assume she does not coz if she knows, she would fear the God of the Bible.

Jesus said " Fear Him, and I say it again Fear HIM". It's not just 5 seconds of burning but forever.

2500 years is such a long shot to make a very accurate prediction but it did.

Welcome to the fundmentals of religious and spiritual freedom practiced for thousands of years by profound thinkers: Hindu Pundits. "They knew that the divine reveals her/himself to each person with a unique face" is so true. Divinity created diversity. Divinity granted each individual faculty to think, discover her or his own spirituality through experience, need, greed, breed and deed. If gods wanted us to standardize god, we would not be diverse. We think we worship god, when the fact is we worship our concept of god. As Swami Vivekanand said that there are as many gods as there are people. I go a step further: there are as many gods as imaginations allow.

I'm a freelance monotheist, formerly Christian.

The thing is, Huckabee and the Christofascist Right do understand the constitutional issues and US history. They just disagree strongly and want to overturn separation of church and state and to revise history. They have been organizing for 20 or more years.

If you have not done so, PLEASE visit the COR website and get acquainted with the 17 worldview documents. These are the short form of the central coordinating strategy and objectives. As you will see, they've accomplished much of it already.

Only one perspective counts: Theirs. They are deadlier than cyanide to everything we hold dear: religious freedom, civil rights, women's equality, GLBTQ emphatically, freedom of choice, the environment (dominion theology). When they have 2 to 4 guys on the Supreme Court, 1 in the White House, and a bunch in Congress and the state houses and lower courts, they are no longer a lunatic fringe. We are ONE SUPREME COURT SEAT from going down their road.

Keep that in mind when you vote for president.
Pico de Gallo
www.wildchihuahuas.blogspot.com

Dan Feld:

Confused? Not so.

Jewish is an ethnic as well as a religious designation. So even if she no longer practices Judaism as a faith, Starhawk is still Jewish.

And early Jews WERE polytheistic, so they have that in common with both ancient and modern Pagans.

I was brought up Christian, and am now Pagan, but that doesn't mean that I jettisoned EVERYTHING from the life of Ieshua or even from the OT. So a portion of my path is Christain, even though I am not.

It continually bothers me that the most vociferous spokespersons for the Christian god seem to tell us that they have a monopoly on Values. My values of love and family and respect go deeper than any religious sensibilities. I have lived morally, spiritually and ethically for my entire life; I consider myself pagan, drawing form many spiritual forms. I have to dig deep for my choices; I do not trust any one book to give me all the answers.

"I’m a Pagan. We have many Gods,...I’m also Jewish"

Better Huckabee than this confused lady.

Athena,

A good argument can be made that beer was invented by the Sumerians. But maybe by both them and the Egyptians. It is pretty ancient.

Anchor Steam is good stuff! But try Arrogant Bastard - it will restore your faith in America and humanity in general.

I agree about the Huck - seems to care about folks not blessed with gobs of money. But anybody connected with dominionists - apparently he is - will never have my support. Anyway, I am not conservative.

Arminius

Not so much. Remember, the Egyptians invented beer back in the day as a offering to Osiris. And, of course you have Bacchus, the God of wine. And all of those wonderful mead-drinking Celtic Gods.

We Pagans like good beer and good conversation.

I'm glad to see that you like Sierra Nevada, Arminius! I get it every time I go out to the West Coast. I know that you can find it here in Maryland, but it's fresher out there. Also, I tried Anchor Steam the last time I was in San Francisco. Yum!

One thing that I do like about Huck is that he's actually talking about people who are poor and middle class, and have been hurt by the economic downturn. I think that he really does care about people other than the rich - which is why the Republican establishment doesn't like him. However, his Dominionist leanings scare me.

Blessings...to my favorite dead author, Henry James. Well to tell you the truth, you have to share that honor with Pearl S. Buck and James Michner. ; )

terra

John Stephens,

I have heard that Washington state is the place for beer. The microbrewery movement may have even started there. California has a good rep too. Georgia, where I live, is far behind, alas.

There are some pretty fair Italian beers - I think Peroni is one. And, oddly enough, there are some good Mexican ones - not Corona, but Bohemia, for an example.

Oh, yeah - check this site out:
http://www.arrogantbastard.com/

Boy are we off subject!

Arminius

Hi, Henry James,

Thanks for the compliment! I am in full agreement about Starhawk. I would love to hear her speak, if she does such things.

No, the Huck is a pretty good dude. But he may be headed down a bad path.

Arminius

ARMINIUS:

I was trying to be a wit and only got it half right. Thanks for the tips on beer. I was stationed in the Bavarian Alps, Bad Toelz, where each little bierstube has its own distinct brew, which lends a whole new meaning to pub crawling and bar hopping. The only thing I experienced anywhere like it was when I lived in Gig Harbor, Washington State, where there was a harbor (Puget Sound) pub with thirty (30!) micro-brewery beers ON TAP! That, along with the exquisite coffee, made me think I had died and gone to heaven (there must surely be both there, or dare we call it heaven?).

You're absolutely right about French biere (ack!). They should stick to wine, where they excel. Never tried Itai.

I shall endeavor to find the others. Thanks and prost ex.

Hail to thee, Good Arminius, my favorite Christian (and there are lots i love a lot)
and Terra, my favorite Pagan Gazelle.

Starhawk's elevated humanity and high level of discourse continue to translate into a lovely feeling on her threads.

I sense that Huckabee is a good man. He just has a VERY limited perspective. Starhawk helps us all expand our perspectives.

John Stephens,

Yes, I was being charitable about American yellow beer. If I spoke the truth, I would be banned forever from this site for a long string of expletives. And don't get me started on light beer - what an abomination!

I can also attest to the high quality of German beer, having spent a year there, courtesy of the US Army. The Germans apparently learned how to brew from Bohemia, where there is good stuff indeed - Pilsner Urquel, for example. The Germans taught the Belgians and the Brits, who are also very good at it. I don't think the French and Italians ever really caught on.

There are good American brews. If you like ale (I do), there is Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, about the best pale ale you can find anywhere. My personal favorite, though, is Arrogant Bastard Ale - yes, that's really the name; their motto is "You're Not Worthy". It simply has to be tried to believe how good it is.

Raising a glass,

Arminius

An update on Ghandi's anti-Jewish commentary here recently-

From today's news:

"Gandhi's grandson quits N.Y. peace center
By Ben Dobbin

Associated Press

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A grandson of Mohandas Gandhi has resigned from a peace institute after drawing condemnation for saying in an online forum that Israel and Jews "are the biggest players" in a global culture of violence.
Arun Gandhi, the fifth grandson of the revered pacifist, said yesterday the board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, based at the University of Rochester, had accepted his offer a day earlier to step down as president.

Gandhi cofounded the institute with his wife, Sunanda.

He was on a panel of scholars, writers and clergy who discuss a new topic weekly on the Washington Post's "On Faith" page and his comments, posted Jan. 7, drew a torrent of criticism.

He wrote that Jewish identity "has been locked into the Holocaust experience - a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of [how] a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends.

"The Holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. . . . The world did feel sorry for the episode, but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger."

Describing Israel as "a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs," Gandhi asked whether it would "not be better to befriend those who hate you?"

"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity," he added.

Gandhi later apologized "for my poorly worded post," saying he should not have implied that Israeli government policies reflected the views of all Jewish people.

"I do believe that when a people hold on to historic grievances too firmly it can lead to bitterness and the loss of support from those who would be friends," he wrote in a follow-up.

The school declined immediate comment on the controversy, saying the institute's board "is separate from the university."

Hi, John! Welcome! There's a very good page about Pagan basics at http://www.witchvox.com/_x.html?c=basics. However, the short version is:

A Witch is a practitioner of a nature-based, nature-revering or “folk” belief system. Witches believe that our planet should be revered, and respected, as the manifestation of Deity. Not all Witches follow the same belief system. There are many different belief systems, only some of which will be discussed here – for the sake of brevity. Some Witches practice what is often referred to as the "Old Religion". This system is rooted in beliefs, which pre-date the monotheistic belief systems, and it follows the agricultural seasonal cycles. The Earth is a living thing and therefore a gift, for us, from the God and Goddess. Many Witches believe in a polytheistic deity structure usually based upon the local gods and goddesses of their area of origin. Most Witches feel that a monotheistic belief structure is only half of the whole. If based upon only one all-powerful male God, and often presided over by only male clergy, it is unbalanced and only half-effective. Worship, for Witches, is centered on both the male and female personifications of Deity. The most widely known sects of witchcraft are Wicca and Druidism. “Wiccan” is often used, by the misinformed, as a description for all Witches. This tendency is likely due to the increased exposure of Wicca, thanks to many movies and TV shows of recent years. All Wiccans are Witches, but not all Witches are Wiccan. Think of it this way – All Baptists are Christians, but not all Christians are Baptist.

Thanks for inquiring, and keeping an open mind!

ARMINIUS:

You are a charitable bloke indeed, calling this American yellow swill, beer.

I have quaffed the nectar of the gods in Germany. All else pales by comparison, but Guinness, him stout.

Unfortunately, our government worships one god to the detriment of us all...

Money.

Portions of history notwithstanding, monotheism and tolerance are not intrinsically mutually exclusive at all.

It's entirely possible for a monotheist to recognize all the various human conceptions of gods and goddesses as being some of the infinite aspects, manifestations, or avatars of a single Creative Source.

And here is precisely why we ought to respect all faith traditions and stay openminded: The earnest seeker can learn something of spiritual value through study of each of these manifold aspects.

Being a Hawaiian kid brought up in both the Christian and the Huna tradition, I know somewhat whereof I speak. And I have the deepest respect for Goddess Pele as well as Mother Mary.

As a Christian, I often call unbelievers pagan. I suspect that I err in doing so.

Please post a synopsis of Pagan beliefs and dispel the fog of my ignorance with knowledge.

Ta, Love.

How utterly refreshing this forum is so far! You've shown me how the open exchange of ideas without criticism can create a real synergy between participants.

This is how America was meant to operate: free flowing ideas, with respect and tolerance for all points of view. Good things come from such energy.

I had almost forgotten what that felt like. You've all given this quiet witch some hope. For that I thank you.

Anonymous said: "Monotheism has a unifying power ..."

Really? And what happens when two people who believe in two different monotheist gods -- each thinking that theirs is the only one true god -- meet?

How about polytheism which says that there are many gods and you worship your gods and I worship mine and we agree to disagree?

Monotheism has blood on its hands. Even today, Islam is doing what the Christians did long before but have grown up since the Dark Ages: killing those who don't believe in their one true god.

Monotheism has a unifying power because it does away with the many gods and goddesses needed to represent different aspects of the one God.

Religion and politics is best kept apart. All are agreed on that.

One thing that many of us may have never pondered is that polytheism =includes= monotheism. But monotheism does not include polytheism.

(Of course, if your god is actually 3 people, then maybe it's not exactly monotheistic?)

Proverbial horns of a dilemma!

Blessings to all,
Sage

Arminius,
As far as the site said, the copy in Nashville is built to mimic the ancient site.

I know the outside of the Parthenon looks like the original. I was very interested in the creation of the sculpture back in early 90's. All I can say is the ancients sure knew how to be impressive.

I have never had the chance to go in the Parthenon, always in too big a hurry going else where. I did read that they had to stop people from making offerings of incense and libations to Her...it makes me imagine the incense filled halls and whispers of the People as they prayed to Athena. She was the Goddess of Wisdom, the Home and War.

lol..and of course the Deities of Justice and Liberty are females.Justice and Liberty are neccessary for civilization, just like us wimmin..; ).

terra

As an open minded Rastapiscopalian, it's a pleasure to post early before all the fundies track mud through here.

I don't think any single one of us has a monopoly on either wisdom or righteousness, thus we all have something to learn from our fellow pilgrims along the way. Perhaps, in fact, the most important lesson is that we ought to feel humble when we consider our interdependence.

Thanks to all who share their spirituality here, and especially to you this week, Starhawk!

Now, are we ready for another round of "Kumbaya"?

Hi, Terra,

I was about to add Justice, ya beat me to it! And I had forgotten the Parthenon in Nashville. I have seen it up close, impressive. I was never able to find out if they built it as the original, with all the geometric visual balances.

Interesting how Lady Liberty and Justice are female. There must be a lesson in there somewhere. Does this old man want to know..... ?!? Hell, yes.

Arminius

Merry Meet George,
Welcome to On Faith..there are a few of the Old Religion here. This is a good forum with diverse beliefs and people, we get into some really good discussions...we also get a chance to pratice the Rede. lol...

Well Met and Blessed be..
terra

Athena,

Yes, by damn, we DO have a Goddess! Thanks for reminding me! Oh, Lord, grant me a Guinness instead of this poor yellow American beer! I'll raise it anyway.

Thanks! Great handle, by the way.

Arminius

And Themis, Goddess of Justice
There is the Parthenon in Nashville with a copy of Athena, holding Nike the Goddess of Victory.

http://www.nashville.gov/parthenon/Athena.htm

This is an interesting site.

terra

The U.S. does have a Goddess - Libertas, or Lady Liberty. She stands in New York harbor welcoming all of us to Her shores!

Arminius - I'll raise a Guinness to you, my friend.

I would love to see an exercise in a school somewhere where students would have to pick one of the old god/desses and try to rewrite the laws of this country to fit it. I wonder what the outcome of it would be. Maybe by trying that some kids (and maybe their parents?) would realize what an impossible task that would be?

Thanks again Starhawk for your well reasoned posts.

George,

I am Christian, but I have learned something very valuable on these blogs: Paganism/Wiccan is a very gentle, benign religion. I have some very good web friends here that are Wiccan. They have earned my respect and friendship.

Arminius

I too practice the "Old Religion" and am very concerned about the path our country seems to be taking. I have long been out of the "Broom Closet" and living in Austin Texas it is not a problem but I know others in different parts of the country that have to remain hidden.
We don't eat babies, do blood sacrifices or any of that Hollywood stuff. We simply are respectful of our planet and the great Goddess who birthed all of the following religions before Men decided to reshape them to their personal desires and needs.
Lets keep religion out of government and just make our government a more constituent friendly operation and that will solve a great many woes.
Let the politician do what is right for the people and not the corporations.
Namaste
George Mulder

Gary,

The Huckster & Co cannot fathom the diversity of religion because they do not recognize that it exists. To them there is only one true religion, Christianity. Worse, there is only one true version of it, theirs. Even worse, they have the attitude of only 'us and them'; black and white, no grays. If you are not with them 100%, you are obviously the enemy. (Sound familiar? Ref the current administration.)

I am Christian, but quite liberal. I stand steadfast against the fundamentalists.

But if one of the old gods were chosen for the state religion, perhaps Aphrodite would be interesting.....

Arminius

I cannot understand why some candidates (aka, Huckabee) cannot fathom the diversity of religion that exists in our country. Why should we be subject to the religion of one person when it is not our belief? This is not a theocracy, as much as some wish it was, and as long as one has the right to choose ones own religion, I will never vote for a person who wishes to impose their own religion on others.

I love your perspective Starhawk! Which of our gods should we make the national god? It's shocking to me that I might have to follow someone else's god because they are the national leader... can you all imagine if you were required to follow the Norse rules of Odin? Keep religion out of government!

Starhawk greetings,
I am glad to see you here again, it's been a while and you have been sorely missed. And as always your post is one of sence and reason. (Shame on you, a Witch talking logic!)

We could learn a lot from crayons:
some are sharp, some are pretty,
some are dull, some have weird names,
and all are different colors....but
they all exist very nicely in the same box.

terra

Though shooting Huck's idiocies down
is like
shooting fish in a barrel
(Henry said idiotically)

Starhawk maintains her perfect record
of speaking
absolute sense here.

The (fairly) good news here is
that virtually every sane and heard voice
in the country

is labeling Huckabee's idiocy for what it is.

And BTW
could the country survive another president who doesn't (or won't admit) that he believes in evolution.

Starhawk,

As always, a pleasure reading your thoughts on these matters.

Which god/gods/goddess/goddesses indeed. No matter which one(s) were chosen, it would constitute an establishment of religion.

Of course, we all know that Huck means his God. Of course, we also know that to do as Huck wants would void the First Amendment prohibition against establishment of a national religion.

Not only that, but what flavor of Christianity would be at the forefront of Huckabee's administration? Southern Baptist, Evangelist, Jehovah's Witness, etc.? There is much more mutiny within the ranks of the faithful than outside of it. If these folks can't agree on what Jesus ate for breakfast, who thinks they can agree on issues that matter?