Crossing Huckabee Off My List

Dear GKC -

Sorry, I confused you with a post by our friend, John Stephens.

Merry merry to you!

GKC writes:

"It has been said that when one gets to heaven, one is in for two big surprises. The first is, that you're there. The second is, the others who are there."

And who said that, I wonder?"

I'd comment on this Mr. Mark but you have me mistaken for someone else.

John Stephens – thanks for the long response. In your earlier post, you mentioned that “Jesus rescued me from the sea” but from your recent post it sounds like you determined that after the fact, having prayed to a “generic god” when you were actually in danger. It sounds like you’re convinced you were saved after calling out to god. I wonder if you’ve given thought about the role of god in getting you into this precarious position in the first place or why god decided to save you while many other people were dying in accidents at the same time. Do you assume that if you had not called out to god that the weather would not have changed in your favor?

It also sounds now as if you didn’t read the religious books after your accident, but rather “gazed upon” them, before choosing the Bible, inherently knowing it was the right book. I wonder if you already knew more about the bible and had been exposed to christianity before.

You mention miracles as visions that come true. If that’s the case then I’ve experienced miracles too, but I just thought of them as flashes of insight, or luck, because not everything I think about actually comes to pass.

You mention what you’ve learned in your studies about the three wise men, but where did you learn there were three of them? Not in the bible. In Matthew, the only gospel in which the wise men’s visit appears, it doesn’t specify three or any number of wise men, just the three different types of gifts they brought. And do you comment that they were able to “interpret the future” by studying the stars. That sounds like astrology.

Frankly, John, the more I think about what you’ve said here, the less it adds up. It sounds more like you “believe in belief” than that you came to your beliefs after serious study.

GKC writes:

"It has been said that when one gets to heaven, one is in for two big surprises. The first is, that you're there. The second is, the others who are there."

And who said that, I wonder?

As no one has ever returned from the dead, let alone been to heaven to experience what "big surprises" lie in store for god's elect who end up there, this amounts to yet another piece of junkyard philosophy thrown out to the fantasy-believing masses, another of those Biblical bromides that ministers love to float out to their congregations, bromides that are guaranteed to bring nodding agreement from the faithful. Yes, they're all clued in to a secret that is a mystery to the rest of us. Get enough people to nod their heads, and I guess it must be true - at least by Biblical standards of evidence.

Why do the religious fall for these idiotic bon mots? Why do Xians so fear death? As Christopher Hitchens has remarked, the great thing about being dead is that the dead person doesn't know they're dead. Think about it. Everyone around that person knows they're dead and may suffer because of it, but the dead person is painlessly unaware of their state of affairs.

It's like Alfred Hitchcock said - there's no terror in the actual gunshot, it's the tension leading up to the gunshot that provides the terror. And so it is for life and death.

I nominate the following three phrases - all overused to the point of making one gag - be stricken from the Xian lexicon:

1. It has been said...

2. Traditions says...

3. I just believe...

Merry Xmas to all!

REASONABLE NOT HATEFUL wrote:
Congrats to you too!

"Want to know ignorance Mr Mark? Read your posts and then find a mirror.

My hat is NOT off to you.

Enjoy CHRIST-mas day."

I think your final sentence here qualifies as an example of taking your Lord's name in vain as you have flung his name at me as if it were some back alley epithet.

Well, I forgive you for your transgression, though you may need to ask forgiveness of your god for breaking his second (or third, depending on your religion/sect) commandment.

Merry Christmas to you.

E Favorite:

Since you phrased it that way, it makes me reconsider my position or the way I express it. I did not mean MR MARK in particular, but those who scoff or laugh at God in general. I am reminded that shooting at others sometimes puts one at risk of richochets. Je m'excuse, as the French say en Francais.

There were no men involved in the rescue. It was just me and the deep blue sea. I had studied the religions of the world before the incident. I prayed to the generic god, something like, "Well, god, whoever you are, it's your ocean, your sharks, and I'm your boy, so I commend myself into your hands." BOOM! Big time shift in the weather and circumstance and I was immediately conveyed to land perhaps two miles away.

As soon as I returned to my seaside cabana, as I gazed upon all the religious textbooks on the shelves, I perceived the lie in each and every one. When I gazed on the dusty Bible, sadly neglected in the corner, I knew the answer to my future lay within, and so it proved to be true.

Studying reasons not to believe strengthens one's faith, at least in my experience, because I don't believe in blind faith. Blind faith is for fools and madmen. I discovered this method of learning many years ago in college. I made it a point to read those authors with whose premise or prejudice I disagreed. One is therefore forced to examine why one believes what one does, and discover the truth for a certainty. One discovers also that persons with whom one disagrees often has much of value to teach one.

Let me toss in a couple of things just for grins. One may well assume that miracles are an exclusively Christian thing. Wrong. Most all religions experience miracles. I cannot explain it. Native Americans like Crazy Horse had visions that came true. I've had visions that come true. What else do we have in common? I don't laugh at Indian medicine men. I respect other cultures no matter how much I feel alien to them.

This is how close one can come to a miracle and miss it entirely: When Paul was knocked off his ass on the road to Damascus, and saw the resurrected Jesus in a vision, he heard Jesus speak with him. The Bible says, "Some said it thundered." So, Paul hears Jesus and others hear thunder. Some have faith and some don't. God reveals himself to some and remains hidden to others. Incidentally, that's another reason I believe in the authenticity of the Bible, because it speaks of doubters, those who fell from the faith, and many reasons not to believe. "Behold, I shall perform a miracle that you will not believe." Ask any cop and he will tell you how very unreliable eyewitnesses can be. Ask five witnesses to the same event and you sometimes get five versions. Thus, the discrepancies in the accounts in the Bible assure me of authenticity, unlike the Koran or the Book of Mormon, both written by one author and therefore consistent in all aspects.

My studies over the years leave me satisfied that the three wise men (not kings -- a wise man by Biblical definition is one who revers God) who traveled from the East to the young child Jesus (about two years old at the time) were Zorastrians from Persia. They, like ancient Jews and others of other cultures -- such as the Mayans, studied the stars and could interpret the future therein. Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees (Iraq) and his family worshipped idols. There were no Jews before Abraham. So, from the Gentiles come the Jews, and from the Jews comes salvation to the Gentiles. It's almost like the grand design of the Hindu goddess Shiva, who creates and destroys for her own amusement. Surely God has a sense of humor (after all, He's Jewish).

My point is this. When my stalwart buddy challenged me about the narrowmindedness of so many Christians (he is not particularly religious but spends time with Hindu wise men, like the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, when the occasion presents itself), I dug deeper into the Bible. When one delves more closely, one sees that God is far more inclusive than exclusive. In other words, God is a lot greater than we give him credit for, and loves far more people than we might imagine. In the grand final scenario of The Revelation of Jesus Christ, ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH shall go up to Jerusalem every year to worship.

It has been said that when one gets to heaven, one is in for two big surprises. The first is, that you're there. The second is, the others who are there.

That's why Jesus said to pray for your enemies, do good to those who harm you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. The effectual and fervent prayer of a wise man avails much. You might save the soul of a dispicable human being, such as myself.

Finally, Christians are commanded to judge those within the church and those outside the church God will judge. In other words, mind your own business. That is where my battle lies, with the lies perpetrated by ersatz Christians led by the spirit of antichrist. I have no quarrel with those outside the arena.

Dear RNH -

I'm sorry if I've upset you so. You seem to be "pissed off for Christ."

As I've said many times here, Christianity doesn't threaten my world view. I used to be a Christian. I have rejected the Christian world view. The Christian world view is only a threat to me and others when it appears in its radical, theocratically minded version. Beyond that, Christianity has no more power to threaten my world view than does a loaf of stale bread.

You call me an elitist. Really? My world view is that we are all evolved from lower life forms over billions of years, that we as biological organisms have a typical life span of 70-odd years, at which time we die and decay to our base elements as does every other life form on the planet. I believe that we have but a brief time on earth to live, and that when we die, that's it. It doesn't matter if we're human, canine, fish or fowl, we are biological life forms all, and we share the common elements of birth, existence and death.

I also believe that in among the mundane facts of our existence there's plenty of room for love, life, happiness, sorrow and the entire range of what living is all about for us as human beings.

You - on the other hand - believe that you are so important that the entire universe was in a very real sense created solely with you in mind. That the very cosmos and the billions of stars therein are here for one purpose and one purpose only: so that YOU may have a personal relationship with the supernatural being who created it all. Moreover, you believe that while every other biological form on earth dies, YOU will never actually die, but will go on to live in some afterlife with the supernatural being who created the cosmos just for your benefit. Most imaginatively, your uniqueness isn't confined to the rational thought available to your species and no other species on earth, your belief actually separates you from your non-believing human compatriots to the point where you are entitled to an eternity of bliss that is not available to them for the simple reason that they don't happen to believe in your brand of religious dogma.

And I'm the elitist? OK. If you say so.

Merry Christmas to you.

Dear GKC -

I'm sure you know -as do I - that there are different excuses for why the geneaologies of Jesus differ between Matthew and Luke. Beyond the excuses, the best explanation is that both writers just made it all up to suit their stories. Writing at separate times and in separate places, they didn't have the opportunity to get together and get their stories straight.

The biggest problem for Luke is this: he traces Jesus' lineage back to Adam. That means that Luke believed the myth of creation wherein Adam was created by god from dust. One cannot argue that Luke was viewing Adam as some proto/every-man. He saw him as a real living person, the first person created by god. To believe Luke, you must toss out evolutionary fact that men evolved from lower life forms.

Stipulating that there was a lineage that pre-dated Adam, and that Luke chose to ignore it, rather destroys your premise that Jesus lineage is traced back to Adam (the first man) to show that Jesus is the Messiah of the whole world. We're looking at an infinite regression here, another concept that was foreign to Luke and other Biblical writers. There is - in fact - no way to trace anyone's lineage back to a first source.

If the lineage is all allegory and symbolism, why bother with it to begin with? Obviously, it's not meant as symbolism but as fact. Unfortunately, you can't base facts on myths.

So once again, we're faced with the need to willfully disbelieve established scientific fact (evolution) to believe in the "truth" of the Bible (Adam created by god). Luke is no exception. It's not his fault, he didn't know any better. The same can't be said for people living now who have full access to scientific facts but choose to ignore them because it upsets a worldview based on fables.

Thanks for the chat.

Congrats to you too!

You've rejected the greatest LOVE there is in the whole universe in one sentence . Christianity clearly threatens your world view, and you just can't stand that fact that Christians everywhere recognize the love of Christ.

Want to know ignorance Mr Mark? Read your posts and then find a mirror.

My hat is NOT off to you.

Enjoy CHRIST-mas day.

God bless you.

As part of that careful investigation, Luke traces the lineage of Jesus all the way back to Adam. Problem is, Luke's "carefully from the very first (Adam)" lineage differs radically from the version given by the writer of Matthew. Why is that, and what does that do to your citing of Luke as a reputable source?"

Yes. That's because it is very possible to trace one's lineage by two different routes. It depends on which ancestory you want to highlight and how much intermarrying has taken place. Similar things most likely happened in the little country of Israel when it came to tracing ancestry. The purpose behind Luke's particular geneaology is to emphasize that Jesus is Messiah of the world and not just of Israel. All creation will benefit from the appearence of Jesus the Christ in the world.

So to answer your question, yes, I have no reason to believe that Luke is not a reputable source.

REASONABLE NOT HATEFUL writes:
"Errors of religious ways.

Spoken like a true elitist.

John 3:16 is still there for you. Rejecting faith IS rejecting knowledge."

Amazing. You've captured the fear, ignorance and guilt of the religious experience in 4 short sentences. My hat's off to you.

Dear GKC -

There you go again.

You quote the writer of Luke who says of his gospel, "after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."

As part of that careful investigation, Luke traces the lineage of Jesus all the way back to Adam. Problem is, Luke's "carefully from the very first (Adam)" lineage differs radically from the version given by the writer of Matthew. Why is that, and what does that do to your citing of Luke as a reputable source?

You write: "With your historical methods of ancient history, we would have to wipe out all of it!" That's a pseudo-argument that I often hear advanced by Xian apologists, but it's simply not true.

Many ancient histories are buttressed by empirical evidence that sits outside of any textual account. Case in point - Masada. While it is now believed that Josephus' account of the siege was simply a retelling of a siege that happened elsewhere, there is physical evidence at the site that a siege took place, including a huge ramp the Romans built to attack the fortress. So, we can pretty safely say that someone was holed-up at Masada and that the Romans eventually built a ramp and eventually conquered the site, but there's no evidence to support Josephus' story that the Jewish rebels committed mass suicide.

Similarly, one could aver that Hadrian was a mythical figure, but then there's the problem of that damn wall of his. One could aver the the Egyptians used the Jews as slave labor to build their cities, but there's all of those very specific Egyptian written records that say otherwise, supported by the evidence found in archaeological digs where entire Egyptian worker cities have been excavated - and without a Jewish slave in evidence.

Where, pray tell, is the archaeological evidence to support the Exodus? Perhaps it went up to heaven with Elijah...or maybe it's buried in Syria next to Saddam's WMD? Where is the evidence that a city called Nazareth existed before the 4th century?

As far as, "the four Gospels are biographies of Jesus," they're biographies in the sense that other mythical gods have their biographies. You know, there are truthful biographies and fanciful biographies. If you doubt that, check out the biographies written about GA Custer over the past century or so. You'll see a radical shift in how biographers have treated this historical figure as their books moved from hero worship to fact as their basis.

As far as, "biblical writers didn't intend for 21st century readers to find these books in the fiction section at Barnes and Noble." That only proves that they were written by men, not god. The NT writers had no concept of the world that science has since revealed. They wrote at a time when the word of two or three witnesses was enough "proof" to get someone in hot water. I think you'll agree that such a low bar for establishing "truth" only guarantees that one can manufacture their own truth if they can get three people to tell the same lie.

Gotta run. Thanks for the chat.

"I guess you prove the maxim that faith is the ability to believe things even when they've been disproved. I'm a bit at a loss to know why you would elect to cite Biblical fables to make your points when you know them to be just that - fables. If "all is symbolism, " then why cite the Exodus as some kind of empirical proof that nations tremble before god?"

This is so painful, Mr. Mark! With your historical mlethods of ancient history, we would have to wipe out all of it! Like it or not, these events were recorded and the historian's job is to not discount it based on whether or not a garbage dump was found in the middle of the Wilderness of Sin.

Like it or not, the four Gospels are biographies of Jesus -the genre which tells the history of the person of Jesus Christ. And these are based on the news media of the day - storytelling which had many of the checks and balances you are looking for today but choose to refuse to acknowledge.

While these biographies (and other books of the Bible) utilize the use of symbolism and parable, the biblical writers didn't intend for 21st century readers to find these books in the fiction section at Barnes and Noble. They actually meant them as history at their core. The responsibility of the careful biblical exegete in thinking like someone living during this time period, is to differentiate what is meant as historical and what is meant as parable/non-history.

To use the patronizing phrase "biblical fables" tells me that you aren't even in the ballpark of serious historical research of this time period. Even the deconstructionist New Testamenent Scholars today, biased as they are by their own post-enlightenment worldview (but aren't we all!)but who at least maintain some level of credibility, would not make such an uninformed statement.

In some church, during the Season of Advent, inevitably someone who doesn't believe Jesus existed found her way to a pew on a Sunday morning and heard these words read from Luke's biography of Jesus, "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."

And hopefully, that little reading openened the door for that person to take the next step and begin to check out the rest of the biography of Jesus as told by Luke. And hopefully, that biography will become good news "gospel" for her.

Errors of religious ways.

Spoken like a true elitist.

John 3:16 is still there for you. Rejecting faith IS rejecting knowledge.

Israel, Jacobs family started with five people back in Haran and grew to about 100
people in fifty years. This 100 includes the seventy of Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 . That is a growth rate of about 6% per year. At that rate there would be several million descendants by the time of Exodus, 430 years later.

Can there be prosperity or population growth while suffering persecution?
Yes, some of the highest growth rates occur in regions where life endures harsh conditions.
This occurrence can also be observed in plant life. When forests, grasses and crops suffer adverse growing conditions the plant senses it is in danger of perishing and produces as much seed as possible to preserve life.

What I have never understood is something that happened with Mr. Wayne Dumond. He's raped and killed. I have not. All he had to say was that he was saved and he gets let out of prison. I'm Jewish so I am not "saved," therefore, no pardon for me. Yet, a lot of Christians say I'm going to hell, yet Mr. Wayne Dumond's sins vanish? Look what he did when he got out. Guess he wasn't "saved" after all.

Also, it's fine and good to have Jesus in the White House and government, as Huckabee and other "true Christians" want. So, does that mean Huckabee will only be for Christians? What happens to the rest of us? Does that mean that if we another Katrina or Malibu that only Christian people will get emergency aid or will be allowed to stay in the shelters because non Christians deserve what we get?

Also, what if a Christian (like Huckabee's own son) commits a crime against a non Christian. Do they get jailed or does being Christian give them a free pass.

Will we eventually all have to become Christian if we want the right to be US citizens? If so, does that mean non Christian's children will be taken away from them and raised by good Christian parents?

You can say I'm overreacting but if you look at history and what's happened in other countries when religion is involved, you'll see I'm not.

And what scares me the most is that a lot of you see absolutely nothing wrong with any of that.

John Stephens – I’ve read the exchange between you and Mr Mark with great interest. I wonder why the Jesus who saved you from drowning would be laughing at Mr Marks graveside.

After Jesus saved you, I wonder why you didn’t go straight to Christianity, instead of first studying other religions. I wonder if you were praying to Jesus when your sailboat was sinking, or to gods of other religions. I wonder how exploring reasons not to believe strengthens your faith.

I know this is a lot. I’d appreciate hearing about whatever you choose to address.

Thanks

Dear JS -

Thanks for your very civil response.

I guess you prove the maxim that faith is the ability to believe things even when they've been disproved. I'm a bit at a loss to know why you would elect to cite Biblical fables to make your points when you know them to be just that - fables. If "all is symbolism, " then why cite the Exodus as some kind of empirical proof that nations tremble before god?

I have no problem with you assigning some supernatural power to your rescue at sea, though I wonder if humans played any part at in all your rescue. I imagine they did, so I wonder why they get no equal billing in your rescue along with Jesus.

We obviously have very different views of the world. You see faith as a gift from god, I see it as an over-rated and destructive commodity. You see faith as a razor thin line that divides us, I see knowledge - real knowledge - as the canyon that separates us. Faith is but the poor man's excuse for knowledge, and it's a pretty poor excuse.

You are correct that my mind is now closed to religion, but that doesn't mean it wasn't at one time open, lock, stock and barrel. But to call man's mind "carnal" is quite wrong. Perhaps one day your faith journey will allow you to see the errors of your religious ways.

Good luck to you.

I'd like to add in passing that I spent many years looking for God, and am satisified that I have found all that I was looking for in life.

I wish you well and hope you likewise fulfill your dreams.

Mr. Mark,
Thanks for the extensive response. I have heard all this before, many, many times. My best friend doesn't believe any more than you do and he has been dogging me for years. It has only strengthened my faith to explore all the reasons ostensibly not to believe. Here, read this, he says. Here, read that.

I do not have a minister. Christ is my high priest.

My journey began over thirty years ago when my sailboat sank off the coast of Florida and Jesus rescued me from the sea. You won't believe that any more than you believe the story of Jonah, but it certainly altered my consciousness, and set my feet on my current path. I had an extensive library of holy books from around the world. I quickly focused on the Bible and set the rest aside.

I discovered an old country preacher, now deceased, who introduced me to the Holy Spirit. Prayers and fastings followed, then visions and understanding. The Bible is a book of mysteries which cannot be understood by the carnal mind of man. Without the Holy Spirit, its truths remain hidden, as in Genesis, where angels with a flaming sword turned every which way to guard the way into the garden of Eden. All is symbolism, revealed only to the believer.

You will most likely never believe because your mind is closed to it. I will most likely always believe because my mind has been opened to it.

Faith is a gift of God. Faith is the razor thin line that divides us.

JS writes:

"It isn't dreck, it's James. It's a quote from the New Testament. You probably missed the title of the blog: On Faith. Perhaps you'd be more at home on a godless blog for unbelievers."

Actually, I feel right at home at both On Faith and at atheist sites. It's easy when you've got truth on your side. And quoting the NT as some authority on anything is a bit risible, isn't it? Poor old Jesus couldn't even get the story right about the mustard seed, which is NOT the smallest of seeds and NEVER grows into a tree. According to the Bible, the earth is flat, bats are birds, unicorns exist and so do fire-breathing dragons. And I'm supposed to believe something written in James for the sole reason that it's in such an unreliable book?

"Obviously, you have neither seen God nor heard his voice. Otherwise, you'd understand what it means to have the fear of God, as did Moses and many Jewish prophets. "

A few things:

1. Moses never existed. Most Biblical scholars now concede Moses was a fictional character, as were the prophets.

2. As the Bible says that no man may look upon god and live, I would assume that you haven't "seen god" either. Perhaps you're using the word "seen" in the Mitt Romney sense of the word? As far as hearing her voice, that voice you hear is your own. I happen to know that as I've been there and done that myself. The mind is a powerful thing, and there's nothing more powerful than self delusion.

"Upon exiting Egypt, the entire nation of Israel, about 600,000 persons, were terrified at the awesome manifestations of God."

Wrong again. The Jews were never held as slaves in Egypt, they weren't forced into bondage and rigorous labor and there never was an Exodus. Modern archaeology has found no evidence whatsoever to support the Biblical fable. Modern Biblical scholars - especially Jewish scholars - concede that the exodus never occurred.

BTW - you have your numbers wrong. That 600,000 figure accounts only for the adult males (12:37 "And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children."). Women and children didn't count in the OT, remember? Add in the woman and children and the number would have been more like 1.5-million, an number that would have been larger than the entire population of Egypt at the time. So, who's the one who needs to brush up on their Bible knowledge again?

Do you really believe 1.5-million people wandered in the desert for 40 years and left no evidence that they had done so? No pottery shards, no garbage dumps? More importantly, do you really believe that the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years when the trip from Egypt to the promised land was no more than TEN DAYS JOURNEY BY FOOT?

One other note: Exodus 1:5 states that when the Jews first entered into Egypt they number only 70. That's right, seventy. Do you really believe that it was possible for that number to grow from anywhere from 600,000 to 1.5-million in a few hundred years? Do you really believe that with the death rate in ancient times and an average life span of 35 years that the Jews could have grown to such a huge population, and in a land where they were supposedly slaves?

"Of course, every one of the millions of persons in the world who believe in God are wrong and you alone are right. You're smarter than Jesus and wiser than Solomon."

Are you trying to draw some kind of authority by playing the numbers game? OK. We can do that as well. There are 2.1 billion Xians in the world. There are 1-billion atheists. It's hardly me-against-millions. It's more like me against you and your minister.

There are 6-billion people in the world. 3.9-billion of them don't believe the teachings of Xianity. So, are you telling me that the 3.9-billion who don't believe your fairy tales are wrong and that the measly 2.1-billion who do are right? Using your own logic, Xianity can't possibly be right because you're outnumbered nearly 2-to-1 by people who don't believe what you believe.

There's no "you alone" when it comes to disbelieving the Bible.

BTW - I AM smarter than Jesus and Solomon. I'm also stupider than them. How can that be? Well, I do exist and they were both mythical characters. I sort of win/lose by default.

"Incidentally, all men bow before God at the grave. God always has the last laugh."

Thank you for that statement. I sometimes forget about the unseemly thirst for retribution that fuels the world's religions, none more so than the Judeo-Xian versions. Fear of one's own death coupled with the fantasy that everyone who did wrong to one during their life will get an eternal comeuppance from god is a powerful sedative on the intellect, even if it is a blight on one's humanity. Only religion can fuel such a sense of self importance and self loathing at the same time.

Yes, god loves you, but he'll be the one laughing the "last laugh" as he sends your soul into eternal hellfire. Tell me, do you fill your children's heads with such abusive malarky?

I'm always amazed that religionists feel the need to vehemently defend their gods when those gods are supposedly all-powerful...that is, unless there's chariots of iron involved! Then, the gods (at least Yahweh, that is) lose their power to defeat Caananites.

Sorry, but your invisible bogeyman doesn't scare me. When you put away childish things like Xianity, you'll know why that is so. The good news - you're not that far away from disbelief! Think about it - you already disbelieve in every single god invented my man except for Yahweh. I just go you one step further and lump your god in with the rest of them. Someday, you may do so as well. That is, if you can get past the fear and guilt that Xianity serves up to keep its adherents in line.

Sally Quinn , You are a stupid person for writing this article. Who cares what religion you practice. This country was brought up on the value of Christian beliefs. You should thank god that you live and know a little something of these beliefs. Are you a citizan?? Could you imagine being brought up in something different? We are a tolerant people and county because of our Christian beliefs. We should tell and change the world about Christian values. I was brought up in the Baptist faith, went to church school in a Catholic church and played on the Methodist basketball team on Saturdays. I didn't like going to church but when I look back now, I'm glad I did go and learned what I did learn. Get over it and join the crowd. We are a christian country first and that's the way it will always be. My wish is that the muslimn community would go to their place of worship on Sundays only. Could you imagine how differant we christians and the rest of the non muslim world would think of them. I'm sure we would think of them as normal, without this praying all of the time. Sorry, I think it's just plain silly

Mr. Mark,

It isn't dreck, it's James. It's a quote from the New Testament. You probably missed the title of the blog: On Faith. Perhaps you'd be more at home on a godless blog for unbelievers. Obviously, you have neither seen God nor heard his voice. Otherwise, you'd understand what it means to have the fear of God, as did Moses and many Jewish prophets. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise knowledge and instruction."

It's hardly childish to fear God. The Roman soldiers who crucified men were calloused brutes who could not be dissuaded by the fervent pleas of the condemned. When some of them saw an angel of God, though, they messed their pants and fell down like dead men in abject terror.

Upon exiting Egypt, the entire nation of Israel, about 600,000 persons, were terrified at the awesome manifestations of God.

Of course, every one of the millions of persons in the world who believe in God are wrong and you alone are right. You're smarter than Jesus and wiser than Solomon.

It is virtually impossible to find what you're not looking for. God is looking for persons who are looking for God. Since you're not looking, you'll no doubt never see. All you can do is laugh at men who have seen.

Incidentally, all men bow before God at the grave. God always has the last laugh.

Susan Ticklebalkel or whatever reminds me of the "former Republicans" or "former Bush supporters" or "former conservative" plants who are used to call in to radio programs and the Today Show and all MSM to show how the liberal point of view is really winning even the hard core opponents of liberalism. what is "liberation" theology that she's a speicalist of? is it have someting to do with homosexuality being OK since we live in the post-Rocky Horror Picture Show era? To quote a famous liberal, "I smell a rat."

GK: "Far from "proving the impossible," I am raising the historical question of what made Christianity unique in the context of 1st & 2nd century Messianic movements. And based on that historical analysis, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a plausible explanation for the rise of Christianity. Furthermore, and historically speaking, it is highly unlikely for a Jewish movement like the early Christians in that time period to have used resurrection language regarding Jesus, unless they thoroughly believed it to be true. Based on this analysis, while not 'proving' that Jesus' resurrection actually happened, it does at the very least, provide a historically viable option for why the Christian faith grew. And that viable option again, is that Jesus actually did rise again from the dead."

Your analysis seems to ignore the role played by Hellenistic influences in the development of the early Christian church. The NT was mostly originally written in Greek by authors seemingly more Greek than Jewish. Numerous Gospel passages downplay the importance, or even necessity, of OT dietary and purification laws. The entire debate regarding the necessity of circumcision in itself would seem to place the Christian movement in a very unique position indeed relative to other Jewish Messianic movements. Judging from the audiences Paul was preaching to in Asia Minor, it would seem for every Jew who heard the word there were at least as many, or more, Greeks. Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus and Rome quickly surpassed Jerusalem as centers of the faith. The Gospel of "Mark" goes out it's way to explain/excuse why the Jews rejected or were ignorant of Jesus as the Messiah. The Gospel of "John" is judged by some Bible scholars as being downright anti-semitic.

It would seem, therefore, that almost from the very beginning there was a conscious attempt to move Christianity away from Judaism and toward a Graeco-Roman mythological tradition which was very comfortable with notions of resurrected deities, and whose cultures dominated the world scene. That would seem to be a much more viable explanation for the spread of Christianity than a resurrection which is *never* attested to in any reliable, non-Biblical, contemporary, Jewish historical texts. (And if such texts had ever existed one can assume they would have been preserved by a Christian church eager to use them as proofs for the very opinion you advance.) If the resurrection of Jesus offered such irrefutable proof to the Jewish community that it was compelled to accept Christianity and propel it into a dominant world religion, why did/do so many Jews continue to reject it?

JS writes:

"He that is a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

What dreck. Does anyone actually believe these cynical bromides?

There's more profundity in, "tastes great, less filling."

Can't we all grow up and move on from such childish fears and guilt?

Just watched Huckabee on FTN, offering an excuse for the cross in the shot. According to Huck, it was pure chance...no one realized it at the time...it was shot at the end of a long day of taping...etc.

Hmmm. One must believe that some higher power was involved here. How else to explain how that cross image was so perfectly captured in frame to the left of Huckabee? The proportions between the cross and Huck's face were also just about perfect.

Had the bookshelf been any closer or further away, or had the camera stopped a hair short in its pan from right to left, the cross image wouldn't have worked as well, and it's glow wouldn't have bathed Huck's face in quite the same way.

BTW - I've got a bridge for sale in Manhattan.

The true test of whether or not the Huckabee bookshelf really is a cross is whether or not it keeps vampires at bay. I see none in the add, so it seems to be working, and therefore a real cross.

Y'all need to get over this mindless pursuit. Politicians will say or do anything to get elected. They are absolutely shameless in their pursuit of power. By the time any of them attain the level of presidential candidacy, they are all corrupted by the system.

"He that is a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

YES DEAR YOU ARE VERY SMART, LETS FACE IT RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!!

Jess: “ Now we would run from them [the founding fathers] as candidates for public office for their faith.”

In the current political/religious climate, I think it’s more likely that some of them would have never achieved prominence because of their blasphemous religious views.

- George Washington would be lambasted for not taking communion, then simply not attending church, after his pastor told him it looked bad for him not to take the sacrament.

- Jefferson might be labeled as a heretic for tearing all the miracles (which he didn’t believe in) out of the New Testament to form a slim volume, known as the Jefferson bible.

- Adams and Franklin (and Jefferson) might be publicly castigated for not believing in the trinity.

- Thomas Paine, an open atheist, would have never been respected for his inspirational writings (See “The Age of Reason” and Common Sense.”)

Please, Jess, as a home-schooler, it's especially important for you to get your history straight

I agree with both it is a cross, and a bookshelf. I have seen those type of bookshelves in ads for target and walmart and often thought they look like crosses I even kind of liked it. Maybe it was done on purpose, maybe not. I don't whatch much TV so I didn't see the ad there, but I would rather see a cross in an ad then someone bash another candidate to win votes. I am a stay at home - homeschooling mother of 3. I love Christ, and as I look at a country so divided it saddens me, but as time goes on I think it will only get worse because America is no longer a Christian nation. When I visited Wahington D.C. as a teen I was encoraged by the faith of our nations founders. Now we would run from them as candidates for public office for their faith. The song "God Bless America," would not be allowed because of "seperation of church and state." I can not lead a nation back to it's founding Americans don't want that any way. So will this ad keep me from voting for Huckabee? I would love to be able to vote for a "good" candidate republican or democrat. The reality for me will be one issue abortion. Voting is the public office where my faith goes with me, and that can not be seperated unless because of my faith someday I am no longer allowed to vote.

Mr. Mark,

The pleasure is mine.

GK

Dear GKC -

Thanks for your additional response.

Perhaps I overstepped in my verbiage when I used the phrase "hang your hat" on the story of the virgin birth, but as you spent so much time offering apologiae for it, I thought the phrase was apt.

Indeed, going back through your numerous posts in this thread, you rather make my point for me. Your statements like, "The historical support for the Christian virgin birth story is the great risk the evangelists took in using such a story about Mary when in their culture, any rumors of improper sexual relations would have made her into a laughingstock. Why take that risk if it wasn't true?," seem to offer great support for belief in the virgin birth, as does, "The Jewish tradition went to great pains to distance itself from pagan myth stories and yet, we find a virgin birth story told within a thoroughly Jewish context. The historian asks the question, "why is that so?"

It seems that you are making statements that strongly argue for a belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, even though I would disagree with your statement that the virgin birth story in Isaiah is "a virgin birth story told entirely within a thoroughly Jewish context," as that context is NOT present in the original Hebrew but only in the mistranslation of the Septuagint and the further mistranslation-based musings of Matthew.

Thanks again for the chat.

Hello all still reading here. the Archbishop of Canterbury just yesterday made a public statement that the three Kings are legend, that stars don't behave the way the star of Bethlehem supposedly did and that you don't have to believe in the virgin birth to sign up with the anglican church. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3076008.ece

This info is not news to scholars like Susan or to anyone with seminary training, but I can't help but think it will cause a stir among the people in the pews.

Here's another link to a story in the Australian press: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/three-wise-men-just-legend-archbishop/2007/12/20/1197740452480.html

"I hope you’re listening, Susan T – to see what can happen when someone gets locked into proving the impossible."

I never posted that I was attempting to prove the impossible.

Far from "proving the impossible," I am raising the historical question of what made Christianity unique in the context of 1st & 2nd century Messianic movements. And based on that historical analysis, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a plausible explanation for the rise of Christianity. Furthermore, and historically speaking, it is highly unlikely for a Jewish movement like the early Christians in that time period to have used resurrection language regarding Jesus, unless they thoroughly believed it to be true. Based on this analysis, while not 'proving' that Jesus' resurrection actually happened, it does at the very least, provide a historically viable option for why the Christian faith grew. And that viable option again, is that Jesus actually did rise again from the dead.

And remember, I entered a dialogue with you because of this statment you directed toward Dr. Thislethwaite - "Please be straight with people. When you talk about biblical scenes, make clear that they are myths and symbols; parables with universal meaning, perhaps, but NOT factual events. You know that's the case."

Based on the resurrection narratives and the context of my historical analysis above, I thoroughly disagree with your statement.

Respecting your decision to end the dialogue,

GK

"Historical Evidence: The growth and spread of Christianity. Historically, self-proclaimed Jewish Messiahs who were executed by the Romans led to the cessation of their respective movements. Christianity continued and flourished following the death of Jesus. Why? The resurrection of Jesus.”

If this is accurate, then Mohammed REALLY moved a mountain, and the PROOF is the spread of Islam...1.5 Billion can't be wrong, right?

GK Chesterton: “Obviously, you can come back at me and say exactly what you did in your post, that the resurrection of Jesus was spread as a lie.”

Not only have you shown no evidence for your original position, you’ve shown your reading comprehension isn’t good enough to understand what you’ve just read and is posted for all to see. Exactly what I said is, “Just because some people think something happened and a lot of people say something happened, is not evidence that it happened. That’s just spreading rumors.” Your gross misrepresentation of my words makes it impossible for me to respect your biblical analysis. I decline further conversation with you about this.

I hope you’re listening, Susan T – to see what can happen when someone gets locked into proving the impossible. I hope it will make you think twice before helping to produce a whole new generation of biblical defenders like GK. I know you don’t teach the stuff he’s pushing here – but the clergy who come out of your school have a hand in perpetuating it to their congregations.

So, I'll ask you again: do you still hang your hat on the reality of Jesus being born of a virgin, or not?

No. (Not that you asked that same question to me before.) The resurrection of Jesus is where I hang my hat. The virgin birth story makes sense when you first begin with the resurrection and go backward. Two of the gospels do not even contain the virgin birth stories so I don't think it makes sense biblically to hang your hat there.

GKC wrties:

"Actually, the Septuagint (Greek version of the OT) uses the word, 'virgin.') But you are quite correct about the Hebrew version where it clearly uses the word meaning, young woman or girl. Even so, you can easily see where that Hebrew word can include a virgin connotatioin even though there was also a separate word for virgin."

Thanks for responding to my specifics.

Well, yes, the Septuagint uses the word "virgin." That's the mistranslation I was speaking about. You didn't think I meant that the Hebrew was translated from correct Hebrew to incorrect Hebrew, did you? No, the mistranslation of the words "young woman" to "virgin" happened when Isaiah was translated by Jewish scribes from Hebrew into the Greek of the Septuagint. The mistake most likely came from the Jewish scribes believing the Greek word "parthenos" was the equivalent of the Hebrew "almah." It wasn't and isn't.

There's another problem with the translation into Greek of this passage, and that is that it changes the birth from present tense to future tense. Most importantly, this particular text has nothing to do with prophecy about some future event but of events that were happening during the reign of King Ahaz. The ONLY way this passage can appear to be prophetic is through a combination of mistakes in translation. The fact that Matthew uses these mistakes in translation and builds upon them to form the basis of his account of Jesus' birth amounts to little more than a Biblical game of telephone gone horribly off the tracks.

You then wrote:

"OT scholars are good at reminding people who focus on the NT, to not do so at the expense of the historical context of what those passages meant in their original OT setting."

With this in mind, I would remind you that the passage we've been discussing in Isaiah had a completely different context in the OT than it does in the mistranslated Septuagint OT, and that the entire virgin birth fable of the NT is built on a mistranslation of the word "almah" combined with an accompanying erroneous shift to future tense.

As far as your statement that, "you can easily see where that Hebrew word can include a virgin connotatioin even though there was also a separate word for virgin" - no, I can't see that (easily or otherwise). And - most certainly and in the context of the Hebrew OT - neither would traditional Jews who NEVER attributed births to virgins.

You're really gaming the system here. Using your logic, one could just as easily assert that one could see where the word "cow" in the OT included a connotation for the yet-to-be-coined words "Salisbury steak." Taken IN CONTEXT of who wrote Isaiah and for whom it was written (ie: Jews who didn't believe in virgin births), the word almah as used in the OT contains absolutely NO connotation of a virgin, and certainly not of a virgin birth.

So, I'll ask you again: do you still hang your hat on the reality of Jesus being born of a virgin, or not?

Thanks for the chat.

"Regarding the mythical precedents to Jesus – the similarities are overwhelmingly evident. Virgin births and resurrections are not an original idea. Anyone who can Google can find out in 5 minutes. Also, you can find out the way I did – taking a church-sponsored adult-education class taught by a PhD theologian."

The historical support for the Christian virgin birth story is the great risk the evangelists took in using such a story about Mary when in their culture, any rumors of improper sexual relations would have made her into a laughingstock. Why take that risk if it wasn't true? You at least have to factor this into the equation and you can't help but to have to deal with that possibility.

Which by the way, is my point regarding the resurrection - from a historical standpoint, the birth of Christianity forces us to ask the question, "why didn't Christianity go the way of the other self-proclaimed Messiah" movements and just die out like they all did? Why was Christianity unique? By "resurrection" they didn't mean, "a warm fuzzy feeling that Jesus is still alive in their hearts" they strictly meant, "bodily resurrection." Furthermore, "resurrection" doesn't simply mean "coming back to life." It's a Jewish hope (although not all Jews believed in the resurrection) that after death, a person would receive a transformed physical body not subject to sin and death.

Obviously, you can come back at me and say exactly what you did in your post, that the resurrection of Jesus was spread as a lie. But my point to you is that you have to reconcile this with the robust Jewish concept of the very meaning of the word, "resurrection." Historically speaking, it would have been natural for James, the brother of Jesus, to become the Messiah, upon Jesus' death and that didn't happen. This is yet another reason to pause from a historical standpoint and ask, "why not?"

As for the other Messiahs, see Simon bar-Giora (1st Roman revolt AD 66-70) and Simeon ben Kosiba (2nd Roman revolt AD 132-135.)

GK Chesterton: “Answer: The resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Historical Evidence: The growth and spread of Christianity. Historically, self-proclaimed Jewish Messiahs who were executed by the Romans led to the cessation of their respective movements. Christianity continued and flourished following the death of Jesus. Why? The resurrection of Jesus.”

So, assuming what you say about other messiahs is accurate (which I think it’s safe to say, most believing Christians never heard about), all this indicates to me is that Jesus had better PR. Just because some people think something happened and a lot of people say something happened, is not evidence that it happened. That’s just spreading rumors. Your deduction is conjecture dependent on a supernatural event – resurrection from the dead. On those grounds, anything can happen. I can declare myself ruler of the universe, because I believe I received a heavenly mandate. If I can convince enough people that it happened, then it did! With enough power behind me (the Roman empire) and a top-notch campaign staff (Paul), I’m in!

You seem to know a lot about these other Messiahs. I’ve been trying to find out about them. What are your sources?

As to your questions, I was comparing Aesop’s fables to the bible only in terms of their relative antiquity -- that the fables preceded the Bible, and unlike the bible, are not now thought to be fact, in contrast to how fundamentalists perceive the bible.

Regarding the mythical precedents to Jesus – the similarities are overwhelmingly evident. Virgin births and resurrections are not an original idea. Anyone who can Google can find out in 5 minutes. Also, you can find out the way I did – taking a church-sponsored adult-education class taught by a PhD theologian.

If people are determined to believe, of course, they will. “Faith” is all that’s needed

"Consider that it is a FACT that the entire dogma of Christ being born of a virgin stems from a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14. The word "almah" means "young woman." The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah," and it doesn't appear in the verse in question.
That mistranslated verse in question reads in the KJV as: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." But that verse being in the Bible, one mistake will hardly suffice. The second mistake of the verse is that nowhere in the NT is Jesus "called...Immanuel."
So, may I ask you a few questions, GKC? Do you believe that the word was mistranslated? If so, what does that do to your belief in the virgin birth? If you believe the word wasn't mistranslated, why not? What evidence can you present that it was correctly translated?"

Actually, the Septuagint (Greek version of the OT) uses the word, 'virgin.') But you are quite correct about the Hebrew version where it clearly uses the word meaning, young woman or girl. Even so, you can easily see where that Hebrew word can include a virgin connotatioin even though there was also a separate word for virgin.

I also reiterate my previous position (which you reject outright) that when NT writers quote from the OT, they do so with the bigger themes of creation, covenant, and the future fulfillment of both in mind. While specific details of those quoted OT verses are needed for the connection with the role of Jesus, to not also appreciate the historical time period of those OT texts is not a faithful use of scripture in my opinion and by most biblical exegetes. OT scholars are good at reminding people who focus on the NT, to not do so at the expense of the historical context of what those passages meant in their original OT setting.

Regarding your point about Immanuel: That's because Immanuel is more of a description than it is a proper name. Matthew creatively reminds us that Jesus is Immanuel at the end of his gospel with that wonderful final verse.

GK Chesterton -- "are you going to provide evidence for an actual biblical scene that is based on factual events, or not?
This is the third time I'm asking. I don't think I'm the only one here who notices that you haven't answered my question."

Answer: The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Historical Evidence: The growth and spread of Christianity. Historically, self-proclaimed Jewish Messiahs who were executed by the Romans led to the cessation of their respective movements. Christianity continued and flourished following the death of Jesus. Why? The resurrection of Jesus.

Now, you can answer my questions E Favorite. Have fun.

Dear GKC -

Thanks for responding, but I find your answers to be particularly weak and unconvincing, availing themselves of religion's all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card, ie: when the going gets impossible on the obvious mistakes/silliness of the Bible, play the symbolism card.

More to my point, you just can't bring yourself to directly answer my very specific questions which are directed specifically to you about the mistranslation in Isaiah 7;14. I find this discouraging and sad, though the way you avoided answering my question with an attempt to redirect the question into a context that had no bearing on said question is an all-too-familiar ploy of the Xians who blog on this site.

Ergo, I won't bother with giving you another opportunity to answer my very specific questions and will walk away from this particular exchange believing that your position is that the NT writers took advantage of what they knew to be a mistranslation in Isaiah because it advanced a new fable they were foisting upon the world.

I look forward to some later discussion on a different topic.

Dear GKC -

Thanks for responding, but I find your answers to be particularly weak and unconvincing, availing themselves of religion's all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card, ie: when the going gets impossible on the obvious mistakes/silliness of the Bible, play the symbolism card.

More to my point, you just can't bring yourself to directly answer my very specific questions which are directed specifically to you about the mistranslation in Isaiah 7;14. I find this discouraging and sad, though the way you avoided answering my question with an attempt to redirect the question into a context that had no bearing on said question is an all-too-familiar ploy of the Xians who blog on this site.

Ergo, I won't bother with giving you another opportunity to answer my very specific questions and will walk away from this particular exchange believing that your position is that the NT writers took advantage of what they knew to be a mistranslation in Isaiah because it advanced a new fable they were foisting upon the world.

I look forward to some later discussion on a different topic.

"I would say that when approaching the Bible as an historical document, a very high degree of skepticism is in order. Wouldn't you agree?"

Since we live in a miracle denying worldview due to our post-enlightenment era, even by applying the phrase "a very high degree of skepticm" to the Bible already stacks the deck.

Actually, I think it would be helpful to have a healthy dose of skeptism of our own modern day worldview so that we don't impose our own mindset on a world and culture that looked at things a lot differently. For example, even the word, "miracle" is a misrepresentation of Israel's belief in a monotheistic faith that believed this God who created the world also was intimately connected with the world and yet, was also transcendent and separate from the world. The idea of miracle for most people today is that God only shows up once in a while in some dramatic fashion. That's not what the biblical world view of God's relation with the world is. Israel believed that God was present and active in the world in a much more dynamic way than our modern day notions of "miracle" convey.

"So, may I ask you a few questions, GKC? Do you believe that the word was mistranslated? If so, what does that do to your belief in the virgin birth? If you believe the word wasn't mistranslated, why not? What evidence can you present that it was correctly translated?"

Good question, Mark. When it comes to the New Testament writers looking back into the Old Testament to try to make sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, they found scriptures which were pointing to the larger picture of the day when YHWH would return to Jerusalem and renew the covenant with Israel. So when they quoted a scripture like the one you are pointing out (Isaiah 7:14), they were able to see hints that this scripture was looking forward to Jesus, even though the exact wording and details didn't always match up. And yet, the New Testament writers couldn't avoid seeing the correlation. But their main focus was on studying the portions of OT scripture which pointed to the overall Jewish hope which included the return of YHWH and His covenant renewal with Israel. In short, I honestly don't sense the NT writers, as some have supposed, of trying to "sneak" OT scriptures into the NT in order to manipulate the story of Jesus. I see them simply trying to make sense of a reality (the life, death, resurrection of Jesus) that took them all by surprise in how God went about fulfilling his covenant.

Thanks for the Christmas greeting! Blessings to you.

GK Chesterton -- are you going to provide evidence for an actual biblical scene that is based on factual events, or not?

This is the third time I'm asking. I don't think I'm the only one here who notices that you haven't answered my question.

"Please provide evidence for an actual biblical scene that is based on factual events. E.g., the loaves and the fishes, the wedding at Cana, the raising of Lazarus, walking on water. Aesop’s fables predates the NT, and no-one presumes that they are based on factual events. Same with Ulysses, etc."

You are comparing Aesop's fables to the Bible? You've got to be kidding me. What literature or historical scholarship lumps those two entities together? That's not even worth addressing. The four gospels are 1st century biographies. The literary genre itself is evidence. I'm still shaking my head over your correlation between those two pieces of literature. Wow!

You also say: “Regarding the birth story of Jesus, I find it amazing that you immediately disregard it because there are other virgin birth stories in the ancient world. Why would you come to this kind of conclusion?”

It’s easy to disregard. It’s based on a physical impossibility – and it’s a typical myth, as evidenced by the numerous other mythical virgin birth stories that precede it."

Typical? How so? The Jewish tradition went to great pains to distance itself from pagan myth stories and yet, we find a virgin birth story told within a thoroughly Jewish context. The historian asks the question, "why is that so?"

GK Chesterton -
I asked: What evidence can you provide that any biblical scene is “based on factual events?"

You answered: “The very fact that these are stories that have been written down are part of the historical process. Of course, it's up to the careful reader to differentiate parables from historical events.”

Please provide evidence for an actual biblical scene that is based on factual events. E.g., the loaves and the fishes, the wedding at Cana, the raising of Lazarus, walking on water. Aesop’s fables predates the NT, and no-one presumes that they are based on factual events. Same with Ulysses, etc.

You also say: “Regarding the birth story of Jesus, I find it amazing that you immediately disregard it because there are other virgin birth stories in the ancient world. Why would you come to this kind of conclusion?”

It’s easy to disregard. It’s based on a physical impossibility – and it’s a typical myth, as evidenced by the numerous other mythical virgin birth stories that precede it.

The christians worship a corpse on a bronze age execution device, all these arguments about who's shoving this device down whose throats seem to be missing that point.

You folks are sick.

GKC writes:

"it's important to know the ancient world and world views inside/out to help us know if the biblical account is rooted in historical events rather than simply dismissing biblical accounts as untrue simply because "it's the bible."

Granted, just as one shouldn't believe that anything said in the Bible is historically accurate simply because it is in the Bible. Your "biblical account rooted in historic events" is another man's "biblical accounts rooted in religious fantasy."

I would say that when approaching the Bible as an historical document, a very high degree of skepticism is in order. Wouldn't you agree?

GKC writes:

"Regarding the birth story of Jesus, I find it amazing that you immediately disregard it because there are other virgin birth stories in the ancient world. Why would you come to this kind of conclusion?"

Consider that it is a FACT that the entire dogma of Christ being born of a virgin stems from a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14. The word "almah" means "young woman." The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah," and it doesn't appear in the verse in question.

That mistranslated verse in question reads in the KJV as: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." But that verse being in the Bible, one mistake will hardly suffice. The second mistake of the verse is that nowhere in the NT is Jesus "called...Immanuel."

So, may I ask you a few questions, GKC? Do you believe that the word was mistranslated? If so, what does that do to your belief in the virgin birth? If you believe the word wasn't mistranslated, why not? What evidence can you present that it was correctly translated?

Thanks.

Merry Christmas.

"So, yes, there are factual events detailed in the Bible, but those factual events in and of themselves do not have the power to bestow upon imaginary events the mantle of truth and fact."

That's why when reading the bible, it's important to know the ancient world and world views inside/out to help us know if the biblical account is rooted in historical events rather than simply dismissing biblical accounts as untrue simply because "it's the bible."

I have never cared for the Christian symbol of the cross. What's with using a Roman vehicle of torture and death to memorialize someone whom they say was delivered from death (through the resurrection) and is very much alive...?

"What evidence can you provide that any biblical scene is “based on factual events?"

The very fact that these are stories that have been written down are part of the historical process. Of course, it's up to the careful reader to differentiate parables from historical events.

Regarding the birth story of Jesus, I find it amazing that you immediately disregard it because there are other virgin birth stories in the ancient world. Why would you come to this kind of conclusion?

I just spoke to Jon Cohen regarding their story because I wanted him to know that I don't care what Huckabee's religion is except that I don't like anyone's religion shoved in my face by anyone! What really worries me is the story about Huckabee's son torturing, cutting the throat and hanging a stray dog when he was 17 years old and daddy Huckabee's response that seemed to say "boys will be boys". I wonder how Huckabee would have handled the vick case since he doesn't see anything wrong with his son killing a poor dog.
He doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

I just spoke to Jon Cohen regarding their story because I wanted him to know that I don't care what Huckabee's religion is except that I don't like anyone's religion shoved in my face by anyone! What really worries me is the story about Huckabee's son torturing, cutting the throat and hanging a stray dog when he was 17 years old and daddy Huckabee's response that seemed to say "boys will be boys". I wonder how Huckabee would have handled the vick case since he doesn't see anything wrong with his son killing a poor dog.
He doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

I just spoke to Jon Cohen regarding their story because I wanted him to know that I don't care what Huckabee's religion is except that I don't like anyone's religion shoved in my face by anyone! What really worries me is the story about Huckabee's son torturing, cutting the throat and hanging a stray dog when he was 17 years old and daddy Huckabee's response that seemed to say "boys will be boys". I wonder how Huckabee would have handled the vick case since he doesn't see anything wrong with his son killing a poor dog.
He doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

GK Chesterton writes to E Fav: “Do you actually espouse that there is not one factual event in the entire biblical record?”

Can we agree that some of the best fiction is set in times, places and situations that have historic veracity? Tens of thousands of stories, novels, plays and movies have been set in NYC, but that doesn't mean that the stories told in those novel, plays, movies etc. are actually true. Hitler really existed, but his meeting up with Indiana Jones (and even autographing Jones Pere's Grail Book) in a Hollywood movie doesn't provide even an iota of proof that Indiana Jones actually existed.

And so it goes with the Bible, a tale of imaginary events, places and people set in and surrounded by the very real trappings of real events, places and people, all to give the Bible stories - in the immortal words of W.S. Gilbert - "artistic verisimilitude."

So, yes, there are factual events detailed in the Bible, but those factual events in and of themselves do not have the power to bestow upon imaginary events the mantle of truth and fact.

A cross made of skis trivializes (and comes close to mocking) the crucifixion of Christ. It also says all you need to know about Vail, Colorado.

Enemyofthestate wrote:

"Far more troubling to me, should he be elected, is that he plans to shove Jesus in the country's face for his entire term."

I really doubt you'll have to worry about it. I can't tell exactly how, or when, or why, but I'll bet anybody on this blog my last bottom dollar that sooner rather than later Huckabee's inexplicable rising star will implode. By March or April he'll be the 2008 version of Howard Dean.

The fact that Huckleberry had a cross prominently displayed in the background of his overtly religious message really shouldn't surprise anyone. He is THE Christian candidate, after all.

Far more troubling to me, should he be elected, is that he plans to shove Jesus in the country's face for his entire term.

forget the cross (though someone had to hang all the greenery to eliminate all but the cross lines). how about the remark we missed - that his rise in the polls is attributable to the same power that fed the multitudes with the loaves and fishes? I would like to hear Huckabee explain how he thinks God has personally chosen him to bring his message to the electorate and is performing a miracle in Iowa by inspiring voters to hear him.

Sometimes a bookshelf is just a bookshelf. Especially when it has red and gold tree ornaments on it. I don't remember tree ornaments on any cross I've ever seen. Nor do I remember Baptists displaying crosses or any other religious icons in their homes. I think they regard all such as skirting too close to graven images.

I like Mike Huckabee because Hillary or Obama or Edwards would squash him like a bug in the general election.

-- The writer is a Christian, Episcopalian and yellow-dog Democrat.

GK Chesterton - your'e right -it's in the other Thistlethwaite thread that I make a specific statement about Jesus birth. Here it is, in brackets:

[Susan T: "the wonderful and mysterious narrative of how it is that God was born"

"Mysterious narrative" is a long way from "true story" but I bet believing Christians who read this will think that's exactly what you mean.

I know you can't possibly mean that -- you're too accomplished of a biblical scholar to think that.

You know that even if there were an actual Jesus, the birth story itself was added to the gospels much later and is completely based on earlier pagan myths (e.g., Mithras, Osiris, Horus). I wish that scholars who are so quick to publicly agree on the likelihood of Jesus’ existence were just as likely to collectively and publicly agree that Jesus’ birth story is myth.

If your christian commitment is strong enough to withstand that kind of information, why not share it with other Christians?]

Still, I’ll stand by my original statement about “biblical scenes” being “myths and symbols” which does not contradict my comment that there are “some references to actual historical people (e.g., Caesar).” and “very thin evidence or no historical evidence for any of the Bible stories in either the NT or the OT.”

What evidence can you provide that any biblical scene is “based on factual events?”

GK: Wasn't it Paul who said women should be subservient to the men and hold no positions of leadership in the church?

No. There is a passage in which Paul tells the women of a particular church to not speak, but it's not totally clear why he says this especially in light of the fact that he recognizes women as leaders in the church in other places, particularly at the end of the Epistle of Romans in a listing of church leaders. One possible explanation is that because women began to take a more prominent role through the Christian faith within the context of Judaism, that there was a language barrier in public worship since most women were not accustomed to participating in a worship setting and were unfamiliar with the language being used in worship. The thought is that the women may have been disrupting worship by constantly asking what was being said because of the language barrier, thereby disrupting worship.

That being said, we really don't know the full context of Paul's words, although this doesn't dismiss us from research and study. That's why you hear people make judgments about Paul being anti-women without trying to understand what was happening in that cultural setting.

Thanks for your inquiry.

I think Mike Huckabee is trying to be the kind of citizen that Thistlethwaite wants him to be. He is doing his best to keep his religious views out of the public policy debate. Now he is criticized for that too.

GK: Wasn't it Paul who said women should be subservient to the men and hold no positions of leadership in the church?

"Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity."

Oh please, Concerned. There are other ways to refute Daniel's off the mark comment without making an of the mark comment as well.

Your answer is to delete anything you don't like from ancient history is amazing!

Regarding the I Corinthians 10:11 passage, Paul was addressing a culture in which the sexes were defined by their hair or clothing style. The only women who appeared in public without a head covering were prostitutes.

And remember, this is the Paul who said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28 And this is the Paul who wrote, "...husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." - Ephesians 5:28 (an amazing statement in light of the context of the 1st century regarding husband/wife relationships.)

But of course, if you keep on looking at history without taking off your 21st century glasses, why should I expect you to understand these things?

You go, Paul.

Daniel,

You have been "Pauled" when it comes to women and you need to read some history about brother Paul e.g. see the discussion of the relative passages in Professor Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul and in Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul.

I would rate the passages as flawed first century CE thinking/conduct and such passages should be deleted from Paul's and pseudo Paul's epistles.

Professor Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10)."

Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

As per many NT exegetes to include Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists, there is "No Historic Reason for the Season".

There was no Virgin birth. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/026_Jesus_Virginally_Conceived

And there was no Star of Bethlem. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/369_Star_of_Revelation

"Gerd Lüdemann

Commenting on the infancy narratives overall, Luedemann [Jesus, 124-29] concludes that Luke and Matthew represent "two equally unhistorical narratives." He cites the occurrence of a miraculous heavenly sign at key points in the life of Mithridates VI in a history written by Justinus (active in the reign of Augustus, 2 BCE to 14 CE). "

So nativity scenes on government property in the UK or the USA or wherever are basic representations of fiction and are equivalent to having representations of Santa Claus and his reindeer and/or Yule trees. No harm, no foul!!

The Republican party has allowed itself to be gradualy taken over by religious fanatics. It's no surprise they now present extreme religious candidates such as Bush, Huckabee, and Romney. This is what the party sold their soul for. Short term gain, long term disaster.

GK Chesterton: “Do you actually espouse that there is not one factual event in the entire biblical record?”

"No, I don’t espouse that, and that’s not what I said. I said Jesus’ birth story is myth."

Here's what you said:
"Please be straight with people. When you talk about biblical scenes, make clear that they are myths and symbols; parables with universal meaning, perhaps, but NOT factual events."

I strongly disagree with your above blanket statement that biblical scenes are not based on factual events.

And in that same post, there is no mention of the birth story in particular unless you are referring to some other post you may have made on this thread.

And yes, I know of the good work of Marcus Borg quite well as well as other biblical scholars who take quite different positions but I appreciate the reference.

Susan,

Unless I miss my guess, Mike Huckabee was never on your list, so logically you can't actually cross him off.

It is your privilege to choose who you think is the best man, or woman. But did the famous commercial really change your mind? Or are you being silly?

When Huckabee compared pro-choice to the Holocaust, I crossed him off my list as a human being, let alone a candidate for president/

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

One of the reasons for our success as a nation has been the fact that our leadership recognized our survival depended upon the idea that no one religion should dominate the nation into becoming a theocracy. They had seen what happened in Europe when the one true religion was the Roman Catholic Church!

We have been most fortunate in our history that most of our representatives have not allowed their own religious beliefs to override what is in our national interests. However, I have noticed lately that many of the candidates running for President, as well as many in congress, have been catering to the religious right and have made decisions based upon fundamentalist ideas rather than what is good for the nation.

Those members of congress who are Christian, have voted more towards the right wing of the Republican Party, and have indicated extremist ideas that are detrimental to our remaining a secular society united by common “American” beliefs and values. They have become very divisive rather than uniting the country, and have contributed to the vehement rhetoric that seems to pervade our public discourse. They would rather pander to those evangelicals who have taken up the mantle of representing “true” American values. However, those same values allowed Christian Cavalrymen to massacre Native Americans, institute slavery, and lynch African Americans by white Christian mobs in the Bible Belt of the 20th Century.

Those members of congress who are Jewish, will probably never vote against any resolution that might be detrimental to the state of Israel. They have passed legislation that continues to supply Israel with US money and military aid, even if that aid ends up killing Palestinians and bulldozing Palestinian homes. However, the Jewish community in the U.S. has generally voted Democrat, and expressed liberal views. These progressive ideals have aided greatly in our passing needed legislation that has been beneficial to American citizens. Many Jewish college students rode buses and marched in the South during the fight for civil rights in the 1960’s. Unfortunately, when it came to our foreign policy toward Israel, the powerful Jewish lobby raised very little objection to the spying by Jonathan Pollard, nor the attack on the USS Liberty.

Those members of congress who are Muslim, would probably support any legislation that might benefit the Palestinians. This is readily understandable considering the powerful Jewish Lobby, and our support for the state of Israel. Is it any wonder that the Arab Muslims in the Middle East think that we have been at war with the Palestinians through our proxy Israel? Little discussion is given to the proliferation of nuclear weapons by Israel or the major world powers, only those states we consider the “Axis Of Evil.”

Now it seems that we have a congress more divided than ever, and a nation more divided than ever. The dialog on both sides is dripping with vitriolic slander and innuendo, indicating a new low level of discourse not only in the media, but the nation as well. It seems that the Republicans do not want to give up their right wing Christian extremist base in order to pass needed legislation that would be beneficial to the nation. Gridlock and stalemate is the name of the game, with a Democrat majority in congress unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Daniel,

You wrote:

"you are so annoying. You shouldn't even be behind a pulpit, it just shows how liberal you are. You must completely ignore what the Bible has to say about Elders and who should be selected to lead a congregation. Women and Theology just don't mix, it always leads to liberal theology because women are so emotional they just let their emotions cloud rock-solid theology that has existed for thousands of years. Everything is experiential and based on feelings. BORING! no wonder your denomination is dead."

Daniel, And what a fine Christian you are with that bigotry and stinging sarcasm. Are you actually familiar with the Gospels ? Or, for that matter, the letters of Paul? James?

Daniel, let me clue you in on something, and you'd best be sitting down. Here it is: Jesus is a liberal.

GK Chesterton: “Do you actually espouse that there is not one factual event in the entire biblical record?”

No, I don’t espouse that, and that’s not what I said. I said Jesus’ birth story is myth. I actually learned that in a church-sponsored adult education New Testament Class taught by a University Biblical studies professor. I already knew it, though, based on my own research. There are many other myths in the Bible and there are some references to actual historical people (e.g., Caesar). There is very thin evidence or no historical evidence for any of the Bible stories in either the NT or the OT – and people have been looking for centuries.

If you’re interested in learning more about how seminary students are taught, follow this link to an essay of Marcus Borg’s describing his seminary education.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Borg_bio/borg_bio.html
He is not my only source. I’ve talked to numerous clergy and a couple of seminary professors. This is the standard drill in non-fundamentalist seminaries, including Roman Catholic ones.

Hard to believe, I know, that they would know this and preach something else. I would love everyone reading this to print out Borg’s piece and show it to their pastor and get their reactions.

I realized the ugly extent of Huckabee's lying when I read the details of how he pushed to have a rapist freed in Arkansas during his term as governor.

The man had raped a 17 year old distant cousin of Bill Clinton. Conservatives (including friends of Huckabee) proclaimed the man innocent and made him a cause celeb. (See -- the girl wasn't competent to know who really raped her.)

Huckabee announced early when governor that he wanted to free the rapist. He backed off after there was a big backlash in Arkansas. (Some other victims had shown up to accuse the rapist.) Huckabee went to the Pardon Board and told them he believed the rapist was innocent and should be freed. (Members report he urged it, Huckabee doesn't think he really urged them.)

Today Huckabee blames the Pardon Board and Bill Clinton for the release of the rapist and the tragedy of his next victims.

Outrageous. Huckabee is a BIG LIAR. I like him on some issues, but I don't think he is FIT for President...

All he had to say was that he was sorry ... instead he goes for the BIG LIE....

"PAGANS are behind Huckabee & are trying to compromise this WAPO site for him!"

Sounds like JJ's scared of the shadows again. :)

My problem with Huckabee is his record.

It indicates that he's not actually a Republican, but is really a Right-to-Life Democrat.

On almost everything except abortion, his policies as governor of Arkansas align with the Democratic agenda.

Daniel,

Shame on you, shame! What kind of non-thinking knee-jerk person are you?

You're damned right the Rev'd Thistlethwaite is liberal. This means she cares about God's children, not just drooling genuflecting to old testament rules.

Why, oh why, are you afraid of women? Did not our risen Lord accept them totally?

What planet did you say you were from?

Abolish & Embargo the VATICA & their BANKING empire in USA:

Josev How fun! you're back!

Isn't this the most boring waste of reading time ever?

you are so annoying. You shouldn't even be behind a pulpit, it just shows how liberal you are. You must completely ignore what the Bible has to say about Elders and who should be selected to lead a congregation. Women and Theology just don't mix, it always leads to liberal theology because women are so emotional they just let their emotions cloud rock-solid theology that has existed for thousands of years. Everything is experiential and based on feelings. BORING! no wonder your denomination is dead.

"Please be straight with people. When you talk about biblical scenes, make clear that they are myths and symbols; parables with universal meaning, perhaps, but NOT factual events. You know that's the case."

Just curious E Favorite: Do you actually espouse that there is not one factual event in the entire biblical record? Putting your bias against religion aside, most of the intellectual community would disagree with such a position. As a Christian, I don't have a problem in reconciling the parts of the bible that are historical and the parts that are of parable/story form. To elevate one over the other or to dismiss one over the other is a dichotomy that is unnecessary and serves no real purpose. To invite the President of this seminary to do what you suggest would be be a disservice to the intellectual community not to mention to an institution that is training future leaders of the church.

All Huckabee is doing is what Bush did in 2000 and 2004, sending messages to the evangelical based using key phrases, words and symbols. the difference now is that Americans are aware of this and are understanding them as they happen.

My favorite Bush attempt to placate the evangelical based was when he was asked who his favorite political philosopher was during a December 2000 republican political debate. He answered "Jesus", which must have made the evangelicals just pleased as punch. But Jesus was no "political philosopher", to the contrary. Maybe that is why Bush, and now Huckabee, are so messed up trying to bring Jesus into politics. Its a bad fit and one Jesus always avoided. But then there are those 30% who still think Iraq attacked us, WMD are still to be found, and Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. They are the ones Huckabee is after with his Jesus references, and the sad part is he might pull it off, for the republican primary anyway. A sad time for America, and Jesus.

I am not a Christian so I do not come to argue theology but mere common sense. I regard the Reverend Thistlethwaite's commentary as inane. The background is obviously the typical livingroom bookcase of millions of American homes. To see it otherwise and draw conclusions from delusions reflects unfavorably on the Reverend and the Institution she heads. Some people are so possessed by hate that they will conjure up any delusion and weave meaningless nonsense from it.

As a GOP political consultant, who's produced many media ads, I'll tell you that Huck and his ad team obviously wanted the cross effect in the ad. They're not that stupid! It may have even been a coincidence, initially, as Huck claims, but the cross is so obvious that no decent adman or political consultant would ever allow the cross to remain if they didn't mean to "brand" their ad with it. The don't call it "The Bible Belt" for nothing!

Rev Huck has also totally rejected his former stand of accepting the children of illegal aliens for education rights in college. He has accepted the support of the leader of the 'Minutemen', who support the possibly violent rejection of any illegal alien. Go figure, the git is a power politician.

Just now watched one of Huckabee's toadies on tucker carlson (I watched it today!). Tucker asked him about Huckabee's foreign policy experience, and who is advising him.

The toadie goes on about how this war on terror is basically a theological war, and thus Huckabee is uniquely positioned to be able to handle it.

If that doesn't call for a holy sh!t I've never seen anything else that does.

We heard from the vile ann coulter today, she referred to Huckabee as the republican jimmy carter. Krauthammer and Novak have attacked him for ... for not being one of them.

Now that's the kind of noise I like to hear. The neocons and other wackjobs in the party elite are really ticked off at huckabee for taking the attention of the goobers away from their own con job.

"Gomer Pyle with a Bible" ... who said that?

Perfect.

Minister Huckabee sold his soul to the tobacco industry. Such conduct gets a BIG NO VOTE as a leader of humankind.

Minister Huckabee sold his soul to the tobacco industry. Such conduct gets a BIG NO VOTE as a leader of humankind.

PAGANS are behind Huckabee & are trying to compromise this WAPO site for him!

Shame Shame Pagans & Wiccan & Witch-xes & ...!

Speaking for Jesus is difficult. But the author doesn't say whether we need a Jesus Society or a "Secular" one. Mitt is recommending a religious one as opposed to a secular society. The other candidates are confused. If I choose a religious society am am I becoming a Taliban or are Methodist, or a whatever? Religions have created so much mayhem and murder in the last few centuries so what does that leave us as alternatives? I am sick of this.

Speaking for Jesus is difficult. But the author doesn't say whether we need a Jesus Society or a "Secular" one. Mitt is recommending a religious one as opposed to a secular society. The other candidates are confused. If I choose a religious society am am I becoming a Taliban or are Methodist, or a whatever? Religions have created so much mayhem and murder in the last few centuries so what does that leave us as alternatives? I am sick of this.

This is a sad column. More of the same white noise which passes for polital discussion these days.

Ms. Thistlethwaite, is it necessary to be so judgemental? A cross made out of skis is sufficient reason to leave a worship service? Must you also write off Mr. Huckabee as "a politician first, last and always" because of a single (albeit, funny) reply in which he declines to speak for Jesus?

Mr. Huckabee is trying to run a positive campaign and has been doing so quite successfully. Few other candidates are running positive campaigns. I found Huckabee's Christmas TV spot refreshing. Likewise, his previous ads have been positive in nature. (The one with Chuck Norris was the best ad in my short memory.) He emphasizes his positive qualities and hasn't stooped to smearing his opponents.

Thank you, Mike Huckabee, for trying to buck the trend of today's politics by running a positive campaign. Keep doing the same. It's worked so far and will keep working. Your supporters love you for being a positive person with a great attitude.

VOTE: ((( Peace Love Rockn Roll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 08 YEA!. Thank You ALL. ))))))))))

"Huck, if it a bookshelf, where are the books?"

If he were being completely truthful, I'm sure The Huskster would have to say that he doesn't need to read any books other than "The Good Book", and that all that fancy learnin' didn't never do nobody no good nohow.

I agree completely about Huckabee. He seems to be a nice enough person, and would probably be competent in the job -- but I just don't trust him and I'm not sure why.

all this rhetoric is follishnes and an intent denial to dismiss truth. The Demo-wacks have had control over congress for 2 years now and have done NOTHING but fund pork barrel projects and have not come close to making any kind of real progress that the promised their poor demo-wack supporters. There credibility is SHOT! and as for Huckabee... People fear that he will win, which he is... At this point I will vote for anybody other than a Demowack. i am so frustrated that I have changed party position and will vote Repub this year.

christmas is the celebration of the birth of jesus christ and if anyone do not want to celebrate it then don't but remember, each time you give a gift to someone else, you are mimicking the 3 wise men that gave gifts to jesus at his birth and most importantly, you are mimicking the giving factor that God gave his only begotten son to the world. So whether you formally ccelebrate or deny it, each gift given is a reflection of God Giving Christ to the earth as a gift. and i am happy to have received a merry christmas wish from a governmental official.. which that does not happen at all now a days! I am so proud of Huckabee i do not know what to do. He is a man of principle and he surely just sealed the deal with my vote. He will win and big he will, and while the pundits try to demise him, or his other political rivals try to make him look bad. They may want to look at the mirror at themselves. You got flip flopping mitt, dead fred, pimped out guiliani , no brain mccain, and PAUL IS DEAD!

And as for the Dems: you got Hell-ary that have sold her soul to the left party lobbyist in america, and you got chronic smoking Obama? which neither one has ANY experience in foreign policy. If it was not for Hell-ary having bill clinton last name, she would not even be known.

Huckabee is the sure winner and will win big. I can not wait for romney to get out of the race. i bet he will go back to hiring illegals to work in his yard. check more out about him at www.massresistance.org he is the biggest flake since kellogs!

More on Romney’s Leadership check out these links:
www.massresistance.org and http://rightsmart.blogspot.com/

all this rhetoric is follishnes and an intent denial to dismiss truth. The Demo-wacks have had control over congress for 2 years now and have done NOTHING but fund pork barrel projects and have not come close to making any kind of real progress that the promised their poor demo-wack supporters. There credibility is SHOT! and as for Huckabee... People fear that he will win, which he is... At this point I will vote for anybody other than a Demowack. i am so frustrated that I have changed party position and will vote Repub this year.

christmas is the celebration of the birth of jesus christ and if anyone do not want to celebrate it then don't but remember, each time you give a gift to someone else, you are mimicking the 3 wise men that gave gifts to jesus at his birth and most importantly, you are mimicking the giving factor that God gave his only begotten son to the world. So whether you formally ccelebrate or deny it, each gift given is a reflection of God Giving Christ to the earth as a gift. and i am happy to have received a merry christmas wish from a governmental official.. which that does not happen at all now a days! I am so proud of Huckabee i do not know what to do. He is a man of principle and he surely just sealed the deal with my vote. He will win and big he will, and while the pundits try to demise him, or his other political rivals try to make him look bad. They may want to look at the mirror at themselves. You got flip flopping mitt, dead fred, pimped out guiliani , no brain mccain, and PAUL IS DEAD!

And as for the Dems: you got Hell-ary that have sold her soul to the left party lobbyist in america, and you got chronic smoking Obama? which neither one has ANY experience in foreign policy. If it was not for Hell-ary having bill clinton last name, she would not even be known.

Huckabee is the sure winner and will win big. I can not wait for romney to get out of the race. i bet he will go back to hiring illegals to work in his yard. check more out about him at www.massresistance.org he is the biggest flake since kellogs!

More on Romney’s Leadership check out these links:
www.massresistance.org and http://rightsmart.blogspot.com/

I hear the comments that "No evangelical is going to buy so called religious empowerment a 2nd time around, this time it will be different..."

Well.. I guess that is what the donkey says every time it sees the carrot dangling in front of its nose.

The NeoConMen who now run the Republicommie party certainly think so; they consider evangelicals to be suckers! Read on the evidense is there: Actions speak the truth when words lie.

And as the NeoConMen say "Never give an evangelical sucker an even break!"

Huckabee is just another NeoConMan puppet like Bush.

Of course there is no fool like fool who wants to be fooled and I sure a few Huckabee carrots can fool those who like being suckers to "Git along little donkeys!"

The NeoConMen are an anti religious Trostkyite entriest group, do not believe me use Google look into their roots. Irving Kristol, the founder of the NeoConMen admits it: "I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory." Look at the history of the other founders of the NeoConMen: Burnham and Chambers look into the history of Willi Schlamm.

ACTIONS SPEAK THE TRUTH WHEN WORDS LIE!
Consider the actions of the NeoConMen:

20 years of the NeoConMen in power and 2 terms of NeoConMen controlling President, Congress and Senate and they have not enacted a single real pro evangelical law, not a one! Oh they dangled lots of carrots; like Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program; 8 billion dollars that never ever materialised. Guess that went to pay the Dick Cheney Halliburton Social Security Cheque, for hard up billionaires, who wreck their own company.

The fact is that NeoConMen consider evangelicals to be: "boorish," "ridiculous," "goofy," "nuts," not me saying that, it is straight from the horse’s mouth; according to David Kuo, a conservative Christian, former assistant to President Bush and Deputy Director of Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program, in his book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction.

As David Kuo points out NeoConMen were "cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain," ignoring issues such as poverty, and limiting faith-based grants to organizations that are "politically friendly to the administration." For those who became part of the Republicommie NeoConMen team 8 billion dollars was promised but only about 21 million was paid out. And all the recipients of the 21 million made a big fuss about how good Bush was to the Christian evangelicals and used the cash for their bid for control of their particular church group.

The main people the Republicommies gave money to, were people like Rev. Ted Haggard who was there to run the Republicommie owned church. Of course he was more interested in paying 200 NeoConMen Republicommie dollars a go, by cash in envelopes, to give a gay rent boy oral sex and snort methamphetamine.

Interestingly the NeoConMen removed this budget from the oversight by congress to keep anyone from blowing the con.

The Christian Evangelicals were after all NeoConned!

Any sensible Evangelicals will be looking into starting their own party and I say, well then good for them.

As to American conservatives they need a Real Conservative Party to put America’s economy back on the straight and narrow; and such a Real Conservative Party needs A real conservative leader like Michael Bloomberg.

Because pretty soon the Democratic Party will realise that a Clinton/Obama President and Vice President would be a dream ticket for the Democratic Party, with Democrats at their convention shouting “16 Years! 16 years! 16 Years!

Rev'd Thistlethwaite,

Up to now, I have agreed with all that you have said.

I agree now with most of your analysis of Rev Huck. But I disagree with your following statement:

"Huckabee is managing to offend me both as a Christian and also as a citizen who thinks that separation of church and state protects the church as much as it does the secular sphere."

I firmly believe that you know better than this. The wall between church and state was established to protect both. A state religion in America (or any other country) would only augment one faction of a religion against all other factions, or against all other religions. It would therefore allow persecution.

Dear Ms. Thistlethwaite,

I am a Divinity School Student, and I couldn't disagree with your post more. First of all, I have watched the Ad many times. He is simply saying "Merry Christmas." What gets me is the ad would have been offensive regardless of whether a cross was present or not. So, why are people pretending that it is about a cross? It really is about the fact that he had the nerve to mention the word "Christ" in an ad.

Second, it is Christmas and Christmas means "Christ mass." Christmas is about the adoration of the Christ-child. So, it does not seem inappropriate for a "Christian" to wish other "Christians" a Merry Christmas.

Third, every person has beliefs about the divine. For some those beliefs shape how they see the world. For others, it is just another label to add to the many labels we have to choose from. So, I think we should ask, "What difference does his faith make?"

Well, when he was governor, they built roads, educated and provided health care for children. Now, maybe he expresses his faith differently than many, but it is not a bad thing that he actually talks about the poor. He actually talks about struggle; he talks about those who are servers and bag handlers. If his faith drives him to "provide" for the least of these, then that does not seem to be so bad to me. Of course, I guess it is better to be like Mitt Romney and just pander to the same crowd without being "offensive" (and also leave of those who are less fortunate).

We just need to get over the whole faith thing. Some people are Christians and express it in certian ways:)
Happy Holidays to you all!

Dear Ms. Thistlethwaite,

I am a Divinity School Student, and I couldn't disagree with your post more. First of all, I have watched the Ad many times. He is simply saying "Merry Christmas." What gets me is the ad would have been offensive regardless of whether a cross was present or not. So, why are people pretending that it is about a cross? It really is about the fact that he had the nerve to mention the word "Christ" in an ad.

Second, it is Christmas and Christmas means "Christ mass." Christmas is about the adoration of the Christ-child. So, it does not seem inappropriate for a "Christian" to wish other "Christians" a Merry Christmas.

Third, every person has beliefs about the divine. For some those beliefs shape how they see the world. For others, it is just another label to add to the many labels we have to choose from. So, I think we should ask, "What difference does his faith make?"

Well, when he was governor, they built roads, educated and provided health care for children. Now, maybe he expresses his faith differently than many, but it is not a bad thing that he actually talks about the poor. He actually talks about struggle; he talks about those who are servers and bag handlers. If his faith drives him to "provide" for the least of these, then that does not seem to be so bad to me. Of course, I guess it is better to be like Mitt Romney and just pander to the same crowd without being "offensive" (and also leave of those who are less fortunate).

We just need to get over the whole faith thing. Some people are Christians and express it in certian ways:)
Happy Holidays to you all!

Dear Ms. Thistlethwaite,

I am a Divinity School Student, and I couldn't disagree with your post more. First of all, I have watched the Ad many times. He is simply saying "Merry Christmas." What gets me is the ad would have been offensive regardless of whether a cross was present or not. So, why are people pretending that it is about a cross? It really is about the fact that he had the nerve to mention the word "Christ" in an ad.

Second, it is Christmas and Christmas means "Christ mass." Christmas is about the adoration of the Christ-child. So, it does not seem inappropriate for a "Christian" to wish other "Christians" a Merry Christmas.

Third, every person has beliefs about the divine. For some those beliefs shape how they see the world. For others, it is just another label to add to the many labels we have to choose from. So, I think we should ask, "What difference does his faith make?"

Well, when he was governor, they built roads, educated and provided health care for children. Now, maybe he expresses his faith differently than many, but it is not a bad thing that he actually talks about the poor. He actually talks about struggle; he talks about those who are servers and bag handlers. If his faith drives him to "provide" for the least of these, then that does not seem to be so bad to me. Of course, it guess it is better to be like Mitt Romney and just pander to the same crowd without being "offensive" (and also leave of those who are less fortunate).

We just need to get over the whole faith thing. Some people are Christians and express it in certian ways:)
Happy Holidays to you all!

So the cross is offensive!

When Simeon saw the Christ Child eight days after he was born,his prophecy was his "sign" (the cross) would be spoken against. Yet it still pierces my soul to know.

Huckabee would get absolutely pounded in the Presidential Election. I'm keeping my finger crossed that he wins the Repub primary and tries to leverage his Gomer Pyle with a Bible schtick versus Edwards / Obama / Clinton in the general election. Heck - a good portion of the Republican party would decline to vote for a fiscally liberal holier-than-thou heartland evangelical who can't probably couldn't fill out in a blank map of the names of relevant middle-eastern countries...
...and as far as using a cross as an obvious prop in a political ad - shameful.

I agree that the son who cruelly kills animals are often showing the effects of abuse. The fact that his father then used his power to cover it up and to fire the policeman involved only shows that probably more is being covered up than disturbed boys hanging dogs and then slitting their throats.

As to the story about "Render unto Caesar", when Christ was asked if they should pay taxes, he asked the man if he had a coin, with Caesar's head on it. As a good Pharisee, he should only carry Hebrew coins, and not one a coin with a graven image. The man was impious, anda collaborator. By producing the coin, Christ shows to the world this man is a hypocrite, even when the man isn't clever enough to realize his hypocrisy has been revealed.
Much like Mike Huckabee, who wants to be known as a Christian, but the he denies his association with the cross, and with a lie, even. Shame on Huckabee for his hypocrisy and his cover-up that has been revealed, and sadness from the community on his family for so much mental illness among their children.

Rumicat, beautiful point on the death penalty.

Anyone catch the three ornaments? This one may be a stretch compared to the cross, but any chance the politician's staff put these in view to signify the trinity and differentiate him from a certain wannabe evangelical running for president whose angel maccaroni might not permit the trinity? Probably not. But funny to think about.

Brad, you should be very afraid. Because there are lots of liberals and young people in America.

Re-read your New Testament. Jesus most thoroughly chatised the Pharisees who preached loudly but didn't practice. Huckabee is like the Pharisees. He preaches loudly but leaves himself plausible deniability in an effort to appeal to those Liberals and young people.

That, Brad, is not true Christianity. If it were, Jesus could have spared himself a lot of suffering.

I like my crosses made out of dogwood only. No skis for me. Any kind of wood other than dogwood is not acceptable. And the dogwood tree must be felled on a April 4 by twins, but not identical twins. They must be fraternal twins wearing matching hats. But one hat should be blue and the other should be red. Enough legalism?

heathen's greetings! whats the problem? seems about normal to me. from wayne dumond to all of the smirks. if i was a christian i'd take him personal. fortuneatly i'm not. so i guess i can head to pub. i can use the front door, not
"baptist door" (the back door) as we say here in indiana. although most of the christions around seem to take their dates to the towns at least 50 miles away. i don't believe in jesus but i kinda think he needs some new pals.

Amen

Personally, I only attend services at churches with authentic crosses that people have actually been crucified on. C'mon! It's a symbol. And church's have used culturally relavent materials for centuries. Skis might be a little bit of a stretch, but hardly sacreligeous.

I'm sure this has already been pointed out, but it's obviously not a bookshelf -- it's a windowpane. That's aside from whether or not it's a subliminal cross. Just wondering if the writer actually viewed the video?!

ALL!

Pre-Apocalyyptic ancient religion Systems are Stupid! Zero in TRANSFINITY Apocalyptic!
Apocalyptically defined:

They are ALL rendered, Apocalyptically thinking, as Weapons of Mass Destruction! a.k.a WMD!

Please: Put down your Pre-Apocalyptic "Competing for a G-D" belief(s), Faith(s) or Religion(s) SYSTEMS!

MAGNIFY, Uphold & make Honorable the Holy Cosmic O.ne U.niversal R.eligion Book of TRANSFINITY (Reality)! A/K/A/ "OUR-BOT"! or 'HOUR-BOT" for 'H' is plugged-in for HOLY, to satisfy the reluctant, but potential good HUMATE-KINDS! Ya Ya!

Three comments:

1. Definitely a cross...OMG! (but what did you expect from a guy giving a Holiday/Christmas Message?)

2. You left Church because of a Ski-cross? I can't stand it when people don't take their faith seriously! I never set foot in a church unless I know the person getting married but I will have to remember that little trick.

3. I wish all could keep their religious views to themselves, especially politicians. The world has enough religious people wanting to convert the world to their faith. Huck F&ckaby!

Great insights. You put your finger on just what has been troubling me about Huckabee...

Bethesda, Jesus may be unclear about what christians should legally do about state sanctioned death, but his teaching make it absolutely clear that christians should have compassion, even for those who have committed murder. Compassion would include keeping people alive long enough to accept christ and be brought into the church. Any christian who supports state sanctioned death is denying a key teaching of his/her faith and has twited christ's teaching to satisfy a personal longing for revenge.

Surely, he ought to know that Bible totint and talking-up Jesus in Israel has been against the law since, what is it, the mid sixties. Even though not strongly applied the law also claims that crosses are not Kosher either. Take a window for example--the cross bars show-up as a cross and even an artist depicting such knows of the New World Order stuff. Maybe not today, but the long-term plans for such is in print, in law, and capable of enforcement. Well! Talk about those freedoms we tout as enviable, but mum here. I do understand--do You?

Yep an artist might know of such and dedicate his work to make-em-mad. I ought to know. www blackholeconcepts com The new generation stuff not portrayed--yet.

Everyone who sees it thinks it's a cross, bookshelf or not. So Huckabee is suggesting the spot was just made and not reviewed. If he and his people reviewed it, they had to see that the "bookshelf" looked like a cross, and decided to leave it in. What a liar he is. Did he blame Bill Clinton yet?

I'm with you on the cross made of skis. What is that about!

However, I would note that the Jesus and the death penalty question is a trap. If he answers it honestly, he is going to offend a large group of people. Christians themselves would disagree about what Jesus' answer would be.

The Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by askng Him whether the Jews should pay taxes to the Romans. If he answered, yes, then the Jews would hate him becasue they hated the Romans. If he answered no, he would be arrested by the Romans.

He answered" "Render unto Caeser those things that are Caeser's and unto God those things that are God's."

A clever answer, packed with hidden meaning, for sure. Nevertheless, he didn't directly answer th question.

I don't think Huckabee is required to direclty answer theological questions that are at their root a trap.

Will Ayatollah al-Huckabee institute American-style Sharia when he takes power?

It makes no sense to me that the major issue surrounding Huckabee's candidacy is the one issue expressly forbidden by the Founders in the Constitution.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Wasn't it Jesus who first preached the separation of church and state, when he said 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, render unto God the things that are God's'?

I agree that tbe separation serves the churches. Tying church to state confuses secular and divine missions and authorities. Church leaders often become corrupted by their association with power. (Which Jesus also warned about in his eye-of-a-needle metaphor; riches are just one form of secular power.) History shows how it corrupted Christianity and led to it's fragmentation into warring churches.

There is a great deal of confusion among Christians and their religious leaders, particularly the Catholic bishops, on what to expect of the government and Christian politicians. Sometimes it seems they expect secular officials to carry out the evangelizing mission, to implement some ideal Christian social order, where the churches have failed.

What is needed is a theology of church and state. I have found the writings of David T Koyzis and Paul Marshall good introductions to the subject. Both authors illuminate the primarily Catholic theory of Subsidiarity (The Church is the highest authority between humans and God) and Separate Spheres (Protestant/Calvinist - each role (parent, official, priest, etc.) carries distinct responsibilities and the necessary authority to fulfill them; these authorities are directly answerable to God rather than a Church representing his authority on earth).

Koyzis' strength is his analysis of political ideologies and his connection of ideology to idolatry, taking something good in God's creation and turning it into a God itself. Marshall is good at testing the limits of state and church authority and responsibilities. What is the basis of human rights, and to what extent can they be assigned as mandates for governments to fulfill? How far can politics go in addressing abortion? He looks at the evolving separation of church and state authorities as a fulfillment of the "cultural mandate" given to Adam and Eve, ands balances theology against the pragmatic limits of politics.

But what I really don't get is why Huckabee would deny putting a cross in his Christmas message - it makes neither Christian nor political sense.

You left a service because the cross was made of skis? That's like leaving a shopping mall becuase the stockings on Santa's elves were green & white stripes instead of red & white.

Many religions believed their gods came from virgin births and performed "miracles". Anyone who really believes that stuff today is a childish superstitious fool.

All religions are a mistake. Their followers believe the most ridiculous things,people swallowed by whales or flying up into the sky, but I am evil for not falling into lockstep.

As a friend said, "They got it off a piece of paper in a jar in a cave in a desert. That's where these people get their information."

All religious leaders are snake-oil salesmen (plus a few women). They are no better, and most do more damage than palm readers and astrologers and should be taxed as such.

May all the pro-war, pro-torture, faux Christ-ies like BUsh, Falwell, Perkins, Sun Yung Moon, Ronald Reagan, burn in their imaginary hell.

Susan
Huckabee is using God and Jesus as Karl Rove did in the pass for Bush. Now for a Religious man I wonder why Huckabee squashed his son David's charges of torturing and killing a dog. That young man needs to take responsible for his actions and learn killing animals is wrong. Then Governor Huckabee even fired the Chief of Police because he spoke up. We're seen Bush use Religion to comment crimes at will now Rev. Huckabee wants to do the same thing. The Pastors in the Republican Party are all about the money and not the word of God. Take a look at how many meeting Pastors had with Dick Cheney.
Now Huckabee has hired a supporter who paid Pastors in New Jersey to suggest the church members not vote so a Republican could win.

Anyone who has read the bible or even knows anything about God or Jesus know both had nothing to do with the politics of the World.

"PAGANism" is not a Religion.." said by our Prez, Mr. G.W. BUSH, from the Executive Branch. But on the Other Hand,

The Local Fed Court(s) only see Wiccaan(s) in 'Sincerity' form and thus must be 'nice' in respect of the Pagan(s) trying to put "the People' to a 'religious Test' of the Provoking kind!

Amrica & this 'Holy Cosmic Space-Ship, of which Momma Poppa NEBULAE begott Us & U.S. et al, and so [today!, aka APOCALYPSE now, ya ya.] needs less RELIGION , un Sweet Sweet U.S. of A., and thus more APOCALYPTARIAN HUMATES that 'must-replace:

ALL, EVERY & ANY "Pre-Apocalyptic Ancient Religions & of their Man made old folk Lores & man made [zero Fiat-Lux made] EPOCHS!

ABOLISH, All Forighn 'Stae Sponsored Religions in Sweet Sweet U.S. of A.!

EMBARGO, ALL Greek & Roman "Ancient State-Religions" [i.eg., PAGANism, Catholicsm, Protestantism, Pentecostism, CHARISMATICS? etc..!]

WE "the People" need LESS foriegn Religion in AMERIC, never More!

WHEEREFORE: For same reason The U.S. Gov can restrict & minimized the Holyt Cosmic American Cosnstitutional right to file for a "HUMATE WRONGS against a HUMATE RIGHT via the 'HABIUS CORPUS"

Then the U.S.A. Government 'shall restrict & lessen respect for Imported & Forign "NOT MADE IN AMERICA , as RELIGION (system(s)!

Kick or Abolish-out all foerign Religions on Space Ship & start in Sweet Sweet America 1st!

CATHOLICS 1st, since they are the richest of them All on Earth, & the biggest MURDERERS of Earth!

HISTORY isd O.U.R. JURY! Ya Ya! Do not be in denial!

I think a Christian could view a cross made of skis, in a town where skiing was the predominant entertainment and money-making activity, as trivializing the instrument of torture and symbol of sacrifice. It's not a cutesy logo, it's something someone was hung up on until they died. How about a church in Amsterdam putting up a cross made out of two huge marijuana joints? Whoopee!

As always people try to think they know why the middle of the road is the swing voter. You don't the real reason why America is mad is because last year in 2006 we voted to start bringing the troops home along with the fact that we wanted to change the direction of the country. The GOP refused this command by its masters WE THE PEOPLE. Now they will face not our dissatisfaction but our rage because WE THE PEOPLE decide the direction of this country.

So while Mike wants the religious right we the swing voters will swing and yet another cycle will go by and many in this country will believe it was about Right or Left.

What is irritating is that Huckabee want to be seen as a good christian, and if he did make that "it's only a bookshelf" remark, it was clearly a blatant lie! NO WAY they would frame the shot as they did and NOT want it to signify a cross.

If it was an coincidence, it's a good thing he didn't have a swastika shaped bookcase in the background...

o yeah- thats a cross- i like lindas dog whistle description. apt.

What is irritating is that Huckabee want to be seen as a good christian, and if he did make that "it's only a bookshelf" remark, it was clearly a blatant lie! NO WAY they would frame the shot as they did and NOT want it to signify a cross.

If it was an coincidence, it's a good thing he didn't have a swastika shaped bookcase in the background...

You are offended because you are not a true Christian. You are a religous person who thinks your obedience to works and tradition give you a relationship with God through Jesus. You get offended by ski poles in the form of a cross? You are the people who scare the daylights out of the liberals and young people of America.

I for one am rooting for Huckabee. He's probably as close as we're going to get to a generic evangelical Christian presidential candidate, and as such he embodies a referendum on evangelical political power, and evangelical religious belief, in America.

I think we'll see the referendum play out first in the Republican ranks where there is a schism between religionists and corporate power (although Romney is a strange blend of both, which could blur the lines). Next, if Huckabee wins the nomination, which I hope he does, the election themes will be clear - from the secular perspective it will be reason vs. superstition; from the religious perspective it will be righteousness vs. worldliness (or some such nonsense). Anyway, I feel strongly that the whole issue of religion in America needs to come to a head and Huckabee might be the guy to make that happen.

As to the cross, in these posts I try to note the bad faith (i.e. blatant dishonesty) that is epidemic among those of faith. Although the not-subliminal cross was just a typical political move it still shows the hypocracy of morals that is religion.

I am not sure I care one way or another if he is a man of faith. If it is a bookshelf made to look like a cross, or it is just a bookshelf, it makes no difference to me. I wouldn;t vote for the guy anyhow... I am all for Ron Paul, (and I happen to be Mormon...yup, that's right... no Romney for me)

My concern in both the men is that they bounce all over the place on issues, not just religion. Paul is nuts, but he has stuck to his guns the whole time.

I am not apposed to having a religious guy in the white house, whith prayers and such... heaven knows we can use all the help we can get. But when you can;t get any further into a platform than a guy's religion, maybe it is time to look at another candidate.

Spot on.

That's "Fortunate Son", not prodigal son.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X90T5sY5c2o

thank you for your honesty. i've just finished reading chris cillizza's post where he claims not to believe that the 'cross' was intentional.

he's either a liar or a fool.

of course, it was a deliberate dog-whistle to the mouth-breathing faithful huckabee's rallying. and it's contemptible that that righteous, christian, holier-than-thou man lies about it. it's enough to make the baby jesus cry.

VOTE: (((( Peace love Rockn Toll nRap Mitt_ROMNEY for Prez 08 YEA! )))))))))))))))

Whyzerzomanymororzizazzizzanzerizorziz ??????

Excellent perspective. Thank you.

A cross made out of branches or a cross made out of skis, maybe the point is that christianity is supposed so inspiring that it is resilient to the mode of representation. I would think that someone in charge of a theological seminary would get this point. If your cross has to made out of driftwood, or plywood or a particular species of 2x4 maybe your faith is resting on some rather fragile presumptions. At the very least you are seriously lacking in a sense of humor, and in my general experience ideas that don't stand up to humor just don't stand up in general.

Oh please. These hysterics about a "floating cross" are just the latest in a frenzy of flummery about Mike Huckabee. Our elitists' hatred for this underfunded upstart is palpable (Chris Matthews is the worst).

I am not a big fan of Mike Huckabee for president; I have serious concerns with his grasp of Middle East affairs and the "experts" he relies on for advice in that area. However, I rise to his defense today because there is a coordinated attack on him in the media (and I assume among his political opponents) regarding his involvement with Wayne DuMond's parole, various endorsements, and now this cross business.

For example, the entire truth about the duMond affair is intentionally not being told in an effort to impede Huckabee's surge against establishment Republican front-runners. I've met Mike on two occasions and we've corresponded once. While we may disagree on an issue here and there, he deserves better treatment than he's getting right now. Besides, he plays a mean bass guitar in an amateur rock-and-roll band; you should hear his "Capitol Offense" band's version of CCR's "I ain't no Senator's son" (you probably won't while all the Republicans, and too many of the Democrats, are competing to see who can bang their war drums the loudest).

The whole truth about the life and death of Wayne DuMond is a lot weirder and uglier than anything I've seen or read in the last few weeks. All we're hearing is that Huckabee paroled a convicted rapist who went on to rape and murder as soon as he was released. The real truth reads more like "To Kill a Mockingbird" or one of Tennessee Williams' plays. It involves small-town police corruption, accusations of rape by the daughter of a prominent businessman (and relative of Bill Clinton), and vigilantes raping and castrating the accused (a decorated Vietnam veteran).

Here's a detailed account from the Village Voice (March 2001):
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0110,harkavy,22841,1.html

I feel sure Huckabee regrets the crimes that followed DuMond's release, but he doesn't deserve the smear job (is this the establishment version of Kerry's swift-boating?) that's happening to him right now. What we're hearing and reading now in our so-called "news" media is the same kind of partial-truth reporting that lulled the American people into allowing the Bush cabal to start an illegal war. It's the same kind of reporting that propagates ugly stereotypes about Muslims and Palestinians and even Arkansas politicians who dare to defy the rich and mighty.

The video seems clearly to say 'I'm more religious and more dogmatic than I can openly admit' and that is indeed very disturbing, an act of contempt both towards an officially secular society and also towards believers who will accept that a faith communicated by this rather dishonest means is an honest and sincere faith. Mind you, a theologian who is so touchy, so near to offence at every minute, that she won't accept a cross made of skis - a cross made of skies would be a nice idea - is also rather alarming.

I am glad to see I am not the only one feeling this way . It is a cross and to say it was inadvertant would take a liar, a smooth oiled well practiced liar. How dumb does Huckabye consider the average American to be?

Elmer Gantry was fiction. Unfortunately, Huckabee is not.

Mortifus writes:

"Funny how willing the christians are to see Mary or Jesus in a mudstain running down the side of a building, and how quick they are to Not see the religious imagery when it actually is there."

An excellent point, especially in regards to Huckabee who sees evidence of god/Jesus all around him.

Does anyone with even a single working brain cell believe that the cross image in Huckabee's ad wasn't put there intentionally? Everyone knows the amount of work that goes into producing film & TV footage, the amount of takes and retakes that are done, the examination of and cleaning up of that footage before it airs. Are we to believe that a campaign so based on Jesus wouldn't have noticed that cross, even if its appearance was pure happenstance?

Don't think so, Huckabee's risible defense notwithstanding.

Perhaps Huckabee is one of those Xians who firmly believes that it is OK to LIE for god. You know, guys like St. Paul:

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)"

and Martin Luther:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

Looks like Huckabee believes firmly in the Xian tradition of telling "useful & helpful" lies "for god".

Huck, if it a bookshelf, where are the books?

Huckabee is dishonest, and his act is wearing thin. He did the same thing when he pretended to know nothing about the Mormons, when in fact he was a keynote speaker at a Southern Baptist conference in Salt Lake City designed to convince the Mormons they were going to hell if they didn't convert to the Baptist faith. I don't know how much longer Christians will put up with a guy who abuses his identity as a Christian just to win votes. It's disgusting. Please Huck, for the good name of Christians everywhere, drop out of the race.

Susan - I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about Huckabee. Now please go the next step and apply it to yourself.

Please be straight with people. When you talk about biblical scenes, make clear that they are myths and symbols; parables with universal meaning, perhaps, but NOT factual events. You know that's the case. You teach the all the details to student clergy in your excellent seminary. But then they go out and teach simple bible stories-as-fact to their congregations.

I think there has been and always will be an important role in society for clergy (for lack of a better word). I think you can keep the good parts of your role if you're willing to give up deceiving people about the veracity of bible stories. People can learn on their own these days and more and more people are doing it. The more people like you resist, the less likely you will be to weather the storm when people realize just how disingenuous you’ve been.

Huckabee, as a modern American republican politician, would be an utter fool to ignore the innate plasticity and gullabiity of the republican electorate as regards to their religion.

He is taking full advantage of the generic southern christian bigotry against all things non-white and non-christian, even going so far as to maintain that his only real rival for the christian presidency is actually not a christian.

Amazing how well it works when you plan it out this way.

You can tell everybody the sun is out at midnight, the lions will eat straw, the earth is only 6000 years old, and that the cross in his television advertisement was only inadvertant.

Funny how willing the christians are to see Mary or Jesus in a mudstain running down the side of a building, and how quick they are to Not see the religious imagery when it actually is there.

Crewsin: the point is that Huckabee is denying it's a cross, hence the reference to Peter. this ain't no shadowy figure with a rifle behind the brush on the grassy knoll in the Zapruder film. it's a cross, and if it's just an accident, then pigs will fly within the week. If Huckabee wants to run as a christian leader, fine, just don't pretend you aren't.

"Were you offended by the cross (at the vale service) or by the fact it was made of skies ?"

The cross was not made of skies.

The article is clear, it was because the cross was made of SKIS.

Susan,

Were you offended by the cross (at the vale service) or by the fact it was made of skies ?

Susan: As we say here in the South "just take a powder" (named for a BC powder headache remedy manufactured in Chattanooga). It'll be ok. Seems I remember somewhere in the New Testament about the cross being offensive to them who are perishing. Maybe that is what is happening (in the political sense) to Mr. Huckelbee's opponents.