Yes, We Can

Hi Notsogreatscot,

To continue on with the theme of the universe and Chance, Rachel Tulloch an apologist from RZIM Canada says we all make assumptions about "the nature of the universe" with the language we use. "...[W]hen we say natural, we usually mean impersonal or unintentional - something that happens without the will or influence of a person. If we assume that everything is 'natural' until proven otherwise, we assume that at least some of the universe came to be for no reason at all, with no personality or intention guiding the process." (In Context RZIM CANADA / Winter 2008)

And yet we use that very personality and mind with intent and logic in the process of science.

So what you, if you are an atheist (actually I should establish what you believe. Are you agnostic, atheist or some other belief?), would say is that the universe is natural in its makeup. But as a scientist you cannot measure the very thing you use to measure the universe itself (science) for your consciousness is not something that is measurable. It is outside the realm of science in that it is not empirical data, just as I mention before, neither is the law of logic of which nothing would make sense without it being used.

Again, the Christian can make sense of all of the necessary preconditions for life, order, intent, personality, mind, will, truth, knowledge, information, laws, logic, morality, death, love, justice, purpose and meaning. Please make sense of these things.

Again any explanation outside of God does not and is incapable of making sense of the very things you take for granted every day. Therefore one proof for God is the impossibility of the contrary, the impossibility of an explanation that does not self-destruct.

SCOT: "Can anyone ever answer the question of why we are here in this way?"

Only One, the Creator. Anything else is just human subjective opinion.

SCOT: "I don't think so, but that is irrelevant for the many questions that we CAN apply this method to. More emphatically, it has no bearing whether YOUR answer to the question of why we are here is valid or invalid. So once again we are back to YOU needing to defend YOUR answer on it's own merits."

Because God is the necessary condition for intelligibility. Scot, it is not a matter of having Tuna with good taste, but having Tuna that taste good. You need something of more value than the idea of personal taste to feed on, something of substance and real value.

Peter Huff also wrote: "Since God speaks truth, what He reveals through His Word is absolutely true. That is the presupposition I work on"

SCOT: "Once again A = A, because A says so."

I can appeal to no higher authority than the Creator of the universe. To appeal to anything lesser would be to place that as my highest authority. Why would I want to do that?

Peter Huff also wrote: "I must ask you how you know in fact that anything of what you believe is true? (You can't without first assuming the Christian God"

SCOT: "I believe that if I sit here at my computer, hold a penny out at arm's length and drop it, it will fall to the floor. Furthermore, I believe that if I repeat this experiment 1000 times, the penny will fall to the floor each time. I could repeat this experiment for someone of any faith you can name, and they would likely believe the same thing regardless of their assumption about God because no assumption about God is required."

Sure there are assumption about God that are required in order to prove anything. First you have to assume that what happened in the past and present will happen in the future to make the prediction that if you drop the penny to the floor 1000 more times it will actually drop on each of those occasions.

Here is the rub, in a universe that came about by a random, chance happenstance why is it assumed that what happened in the past and present will happen again in the future? If this universe was not planned and has no purpose then why do you keep borrowing from the Christian worldview that says that God sustains the world so that there will be spring, fall, winter and summer. What holds everything together? Chance? How does Chance predict anything?

SCOT: "That is how science works. You repeat the experiment (or observation) enough times to convince reasonable people with varying presuppositions that you understand it well enough to predict the outcome."

It works not because Chance is governing it but because God is governing it so therefore by thinking God's thoughts after Him we can know the way things are. Genesis 8:22; Colossians 1:16-17

SCOT: "Is it ever absolute truth? No, we humans can never repeat the experiment an infinite amount of times, so you can never prove that you can predict the outcome every time."

As I said, for you there is no absolute certainty. You can never be sure of anything. It could all change tomorrow in a chance universe.

Your second post Notsogreatscot,

Peter Huff wrote: "that man is the measure of all things, that you can make sense of existence, truth, knowledge, reality, morals without God"

Actually you have not quoted the context properly,

ME: "First of all, you and I work on two different presuppositions, yours being that absolute truth cannot be grasped, that God cannot or did not give us His Word of truth, that man is the measure of all things, that you can make sense of existence, truth, knowledge, reality, morals without God."

SCOT: "No Peter, that is a straw man that you have imposed on me."

Actually, you have imposed it on yourself by your lack of ability to make sense of things, as you keep stating over and over again.

SCOT: "I never claimed to be able to make sense of existence."

That is just the point Scot. You are on an On Faith Forum making truth claims and hopefully trying to speak sensibly, yet denying the Christian worldview without being able to back up what you say with anything more than a subjective opinion that has an inability to explain anything. To you it is a matter of taste, not a matter of truth. I keep pointing you to the God of the Bible as the necessary precondition for intelligibility, life and truth and knowledge and sensibility and logic. That is why your worldview is silly, and by that I am not implying in any way that you are not an intelligent person, you are just not functioning on all four cylinders when you have a worldview that does not have the ability to make sense of metaphysics, epistemology and axiology and yet I would presume you are looking for answers being on an On Faith Forum, since you cannot offer any solutions.

You keep reinforcing exactly what I have been stating all along, without God it is impossible to make sense of anything. He is the precondition of intelligibility.

A worldview that starts without God is a worldview built on chance, possibility and probability, not one built on reality and certainty, and unless it borrows capital from the Christian worldview...you know the rest of the story by now.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

Peter Huff wrote one more thing: "So Scot, if you can't grasp absolute truth, then how do you know it exists?"

SCOT: "I don't know if absolute truth exists, I just don't deny the possibility that it exists. I find it to be entirely possible that Heisenberg was right, and in the act of measuring it, we change it, so we can never know exactly what it was."

Your position just shows that your worldview cannot make sense of it, cannot know exactly what it is, whereas the Christian worldview can. The Christian believes the Bible is the Word of God and therefore the highest standard of appeal, in that God has spoken to us on numerous issues. That is what I have been saying all along. God is the objective, omniscient, immutable, ultimate standard. That is a necessity for the absolute.

You have no standard for absolute truth to measure it. In order for there to be absolute true would there not have to be a standard to judge whether it is absolute or not by? So far you have just been able to show me that absolute truth to you is a matter of taste. You chose to believe that it is a possibility. It is just like saying that the Boston Bruins are your favorite hockey team. It is your preference, your opinion. Mortimer Adler pointed out matters of taste differ from matters of truth.

So on this matter we will say that you have a worldview that has no answers, no understanding, just a possibility of or not.

Christianity 1 Your worldview 0

Peter Huff wrote one more thing: "So Scot, if you can't grasp absolute truth, then how do you know it exists?"

I don't know if absolute truth exists, I just don't deny the possibility that it exists. I find it to be entirely possible that Heisenberg was right, and in the act of measuring it, we change it, so we can never know exactly what it was.

Peter Huff wrote: "that man is the measure of all things, that you can make sense of existence, truth, knowledge, reality, morals without God"

No Peter, that is a straw man that you have imposed on me. I never claimed to be able to make sense of existence. In fact I pretty explicitly said that I don't believe that we are meant to be able to do so. You claim you can, so have at it. Once again, my beliefs are irrelevant to your ability to defend your own claim.

Peter Huff also wrote: "Since God speaks truth, what He reveals through His Word is absolutely true. That is the presupposition I work on"

Once again A = A, because A says so.

Peter Huff also wrote: "I must ask you how you know in fact that anything of what you believe is true? (You can't without first assuming the Christian God"

I believe that if I sit here at my computer, hold a penny out at arm's length and drop it, it will fall to the floor. Furthermore, I believe that if I repeat this experiment 1000 times, the penny will fall to the floor each time. I could repeat this experiment for someone of any faith you can name, and they would likely believe the same thing regardless of their assumption about God because no assumption about God is required.

That is how science works. You repeat the experiment (or observation) enough times to convince reasonable people with varying presuppositions that you understand it well enough to predict the outcome. Is it ever absolute truth? No, we humans can never repeat the experiment an infinite amount of times, so you can never prove that you can predict the outcome every time.

Can anyone ever answer the question of why we are here in this way? I don't think so, but that is irrelevant for the many questions that we CAN apply this method to. More emphatically, it has no bearing whether YOUR answer to the question of why we are here is valid or invalid. So once again we are back to YOU needing to defend YOUR answer on it's own merits.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

Two corrections, the post was November 14, 2008 11:47 PM for the first question I posted you and the Bible verse was Romans 3:21-31.

Part 2

Peter Huff also wrote: "God is the One who possesses absolute truth and He has made it known to mankind"

SCOT: "For you to make this statement implies that you do in fact possess absolute truth. (You do own a bible don't you?) So... your original challenge remains. Can you convince me (or anyone else lurking out there) that your truth is indeed absolute, beyond claiming that it is "self-asserting", and without reference to anyone else's beliefs?

First of all, you and I work on two different presuppositions, yours being that absolute truth cannot be grasped, that God cannot or did not give us His Word of truth, that man is the measure of all things, that you can make sense of existence, truth, knowledge, reality, morals without God.

I can make sense of all these things with my starting presupposition "In the beginning God", that absolute truth does exist and that we can know it by thinking God's thoughts after Him, that God is the measure of all things - a timeless, changeless, objective, ultimate, universal, absolute, omniscient, benevolent, just and pure Being - and without Him everything is relative, subjective and meaningless. He is the foundation that life and everything rests on.

Now if you can't show me that you can make sense of your worldview, then I must ask you how you know in fact that anything of what you believe is true? (You can't without first assuming the Christian God and you have not been able to show me to date).

Since God speaks truth, what He reveals through His Word is absolutely true. That is the presupposition I work on, by His grace and mercy to me. For instance the statement, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." is obvious that we have all broken His laws, since in the context of the passage God's righteousness in regards to the law and man is being discussed (Romans 321-31). Likewise, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12) is plain enough also. They are absolute truths of God. Because He is pure in nature sin will be judged in righteousness. If you understand language you can understand what is being said. That means no other religion, no other religious leader, no other means than God has appointed - His Son.

PS. Answer my first question (four posts ago) and send me one of your own and we will see how well you can make sense of things. We'll take one question each at a time and find out what its foundation is, and in this way you will see that no other worldview can make sense of this world as it really is, unless of course you borrow capital from the Christian position.

Hello Notsogreatscot,

Peter Huff wrote: "So when you assert that there is no way of knowing absolute truth you have stated a contradiction for what you have stated is an absolute truth or it is a false premise and makes your whole statement self-contradictory and false.
So it is a self-refuting statement."

SCOT: "WRONG!!!!!!! Just because we fallible humans can't grasp it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...."

So Scot, if you can't grasp absolute truth, then how do you know it exists?

Peter Huff wrote: "So when you assert that there is no way of knowing absolute truth you have stated a contradiction for what you have stated is an absolute truth or it is a false premise and makes your whole statement self-contradictory and false.
So it is a self-refuting statement."

WRONG!!!!!!! Just because we fallible humans can't grasp it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can't understand the weather perfectly, but that doesn't mean that the weather doesn't exist.

You can look at a glass of water and say - two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen - good for me to drink. I look at the glass of water as a chemist and see that it has some impurities, but still safe for you to drink. God could look at the glass and know that it has precisely this many water molecules, and this many molecules of this impurity and that many of that impurity, but by the way it is still safe for you to drink.

God might also look at the glass and remember creating the uncertainty principle (discovered by Heisenberg), so that we humans can never know the precise numbers of each type of molecule in the glass.

Peter Huff also wrote: "God is the One who possesses absolute truth and He has made it known to mankind"

For you to make this statement implies that you do in fact possess absolute truth. (You do own a bible don't you?) So... your original challenge remains. Can you convince me (or anyone else lurking out there) that your truth is indeed absolute, beyond claiming that it is "self-asserting", and without reference to anyone else's beliefs?

Part2

SCOT: "Claims of your source of truth being "self asserting" get zero credit. What I believe - or more accurately - whatever straw men you create about what you think I believe, bear no relevance to YOUR claim. Therefore my beliefs are out of bounds."

I have news for you Scot, we all assert when we claim to speak of truth, but without an objective, absolute standard there is no way to find truth for truth has its basis in the absolute. Both you and I base our outlook of this world on core values and core beliefs. They both oppose the other, so unless you believe that A = A at the same time and in the same way then one of our positions is false because they are both contradictory. A cat is a dog is a contradiction just as a STOP light cannot both be red and green at the same time.

So when you assert that there is no way of knowing absolute truth you have stated a contradiction for what you have stated is an absolute truth or it is a false premise and makes your whole statement self-contradictory and false.
So it is a self-refuting statement.

Whether truth is true only to your circumstanced (i.e. you are the only Scot that lives at such and such an address in such and such a city or such and such a person taught you philosophy at such and such university in 1986) or a mathematical truth that two oranges and two apples equal four pieces of fruit in a specific fruit bowl or water is made up of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen, nevertheless, they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way; so truth to be true must be absolute.

So, I would suggest that we explore each of our worldviews on vital issues of metaphysics, epistemology and axiology. Are you willing to go there? If not what I continue to say is holding true for you cannot make sense of any of the issues we have been talking about unless you presuppose God, and not just any god, but the God of Christianity.

Your worldview is silliness and you cannot make sense of it. I propose ten questions each, with follow-ups to look at and compare how each worldview can make sense of this world. Then we will see what is at the center of your/my belief and just how it does make sense of things. Are you game? If so then answer my previous post for my first question on my part and post your own first question. Hopefully Susan will allow us the time it takes without deadening this forum?

Hi Notsogreatscot,

Peter Huff wrote: "You don't have any answers to give which makes your position utterly silly."

SCOT: "Peter - YOU are the one who claims to possess absolute truth. YOU are the one who needs to defend that claim."

God is the One who possesses absolute truth and He has made it known to mankind. Without His unlimited, all-knowing, unchanging mind we are left with a world of chance and change in which truth is nothing more than one idea opposed to another idea. Truth needs a foundation upon which to rest. So, unless you think God's thoughts after Him, or read of what is truth as He has revealed it, it is just one preference as opposed to another and nothing can be made sense of. But the fact that we can make sense of things points to God.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

Busy day, busy weekend. Please check back in Monday since I think we pretty well have the forum to ourselves. Let's take a closer look at both our views in a side by side comparison and contrast to establish which can logically be made sense of.

So the first question for you is where does logic and rationale come from in a chance material universe?

PS. I was a hockey fan during the Oiler reign but lost interest in hockey when Peter Pocklington sold the franchise and the team was broken up. Give Montreal its due for it has more cups than any other hockey team. It is no longer in its glory days though.

Peter Huff wrote: "You don't have any answers to give which makes your position utterly silly."

Peter - YOU are the one who claims to possess absolute truth. YOU are the one who needs to defend that claim.

Claims of your source of truth being "self asserting" get zero credit. What I believe - or more accurately - whatever straw men you create about what you think I believe, bear no relevance to YOUR claim. Therefore my beliefs are out of bounds.

Have at it. Maybe you can fare better than the Canadiens did against the Bruins last night, but I doubt it.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

Peter Huff wrote: "That is just the point Scot, I have been proclaiming that the Scriptures as a revelation of God are the only standard to make sense of this world."

SCOT: "Proclaim away - you don't need any answers from me to do that."

You don't have any answers to give which makes your position utterly silly. That is the point I strive for whenever I come on a forum and an unbeliever is pushing his/her opinion of which he/she has no idea of why it is what it is and yet wants others to buy into their position.

You make qualitative moral statements and judgments without being able to account for the standard as being valid, if there is one at all, other than yourself. You push an opinion that I would hope you believe to be true, and yet when I ask you for your standard for truth and for judging truth you are unable to supply an answer that can make sense of truth.

Atheist's push the opinion that this (everything) came about by a Big Bang (the current acceptable theory), a cosmic accident of mere chance. I push for an answer to the absurdity of such thinking and get nothing in reply. What a great foundation to rest their beliefs on - thin air. I ask how Chance can produce life, order/structure, purpose, predictability, knowledge, and the like and all I get is silence as they sweep the issue under the proverbial rug.

Now since they can't account for anything, where do they, and you, get off in dismissing the Christian faith? You have nothing to offer in return, but you continue to borrow from it as you try to make sense of this world (and you wouldn't be On Faith if you did not think that either you had an answer or where looking for a solution to the issues of life.

If you have the answer, share it and we will see if it makes sense by putting it to the test. If you are looking for the solution I can point you to the One who has the answers and who is the standard and source for truth and life and goodness and knowledge.

But to just come on the forum to make noise and then retreat with your tail between your legs as soon as your worldview is pried into shows exactly what your position is about - nothing.

SCOT: "If you can't make a case for your beliefs without presenting them in counterpoint to mine (or anyone else's for that matter) then you have a pretty weak case."

Scot, you have that backwards. You are the one who has demonstrated the lack of ability in what you believe in to make sense of it. You are so afraid of putting to the test what you believe because it will be found to be exactly what it is - nonsense. It is a deception on/from your part to keep dodging the questions for they will show that your worldview has no explanatory power. Avoid answering the questions at all costs. Sad, but true.

Peter Huff wrote: "That is just the point Scot, I have been proclaiming that the Scriptures as a revelation of God are the only standard to make sense of this world."

Proclaim away - you don't need any answers from me to do that. If you can't make a case for your beliefs without presenting them in counterpoint to mine (or anyone else's for that matter) then you have a pretty weak case.

CCNL wrote: "give credence to Jesus being not deity but a simple preacher man"

This sounds like standard 17th century Unitarianism to me. Nothing unique, and certainly nothing that Dr. Crossan invented or would want to take credit for.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

SCOT: "When you can defend your view on it's own merit, without attacking the views of others, rather than simply claiming your view to be absolute truth, then we might have more to talk about."

That is just the point Scot, I have been proclaiming that the Scriptures as a revelation of God are the only standard to make sense of this world. In doing so I have constantly asked you to explain how from your perspective you can make sense of anything and you have not been able to show me how. You have gone out of your way to avoid my questions, and this has only confirmed what I previously thought, that you have no answers. So what I have been saying all along is proving to be true, you cannot make sense of this world.

You want to be heard and to pontificate your views, but why should anyone believe what you have to say? What is your standard, your measure, your highest reference point, your ultimate authority, the foundation on which your worldview rests, that I can judge what you say as true?

I can't blame you for not wanting to go there because it will expose the lack of substance that your worldview can offer in speaking of truth or in making sense of life.

You're doing what someone does who does not want to listen to valid objections; you are raising your voice in a loud cacophony so as not to let what is being said sink in.

I have tried to answer as many of your concerns and questions as have been raised, to the best of the ability that God has given me, but I do not see you doing the same for me with my questions and concerns.

Without answering these question in a manner that can make sense of them you are showing the folly of what you believe. That is fine, but I am going to reveal it for what it is.

Farnaz - just for fun! Yeats seemed to like wine, but Joyce is a man after my own heart.
It's funny to see pictures of those two all dressed up like proper upper-class gentlemen -
while something all together different lurked just below the surface.

PS. A real black and tan is half Guinness and half Harp ale - I drank the real stuff aplenty during my years in Chicago.....

BYGMESTER FINNEGAN, of the Stuttering Hand, freemen's maurer, lived in the broadest way immarginable in his rushlit toofarback for messuages before joshuan judges had given us numbers or Helviticus committed deuteronomy (one yeastyday he sternely struxk his tete in a tub for to watsch the future of his fates but ere he swiftly stook it out again, by the might of moses, the very water was eviparated and all the guenneses had met their exodus so that ought to show you what a pentschanjeuchy chap he was!) and during mighty odd years this man of hod, cement and edifices in Toper's Thorp piled buildung supra buildung pon the banks for the livers by the Soangso. He addle liddle phifie Annie ugged the little craythur. Wither hayre in honds tuck up your part inher. Oftwhile balbulous, mithre ahead, with goodly trowel in grasp and ivoroiled overalls which he habitacularly fondseed, like Haroun Childeric Eggeberth he would caligulate by multiplicables the alltitude and malltitude until he seesaw by the neatlight of the liquor wheretwin 'twas born, his roundhead staple of other days to rise in undress maisonry upstanded (joygrantit!), a waalworth of a skyerscape of most eyeful hoyth entowerly, erigenating from next to nothing and celescalating the himals and all, hierarchitectitiptitoploftical, with a burning bush abab off its baubletop and with larrons o'toolers clittering up and tombles a'buckets clottering down.

Cheers!

Farnaz - Hallelujah! I'm glad you didn't have to drive all the way to PA, or even Long Island, for beer - although I've enjoyed Northport and environs several times.

Be sure and try the Yuengling Black and Tan for a change of pace, and a Guinness-like experience.....that's my personal favorite!!

Who sez we don't have libatious (sic) fun On Faith?!

_______________________

Straight from the Emerald Isle - see a true and uncommon archetypal hero of the dark brew below:

'Bigmaster Finnegan, tippler, freeman builder / freemason [Ger. mauer = wall] lived broadly and without constraint in his torch-lit cottage in prehistory, before the Bible was written or enacted [Adam]. (One yesterday / day of yeasty beer drinking he stuck his head [Fr. tete = head] in a tub in order to wash the features of his face / watch his future fate [bobbing for apples], but before he took it out again, by the might of Moses, the very water had evaporated / turned to a viper [the sea parted], and all the Guiness had run out / Genesis people had made their exodus [from Eden/Egypt]; so that ought to show you what a man of the pentateuch / punch-and-judy showman [God] he was!)...........'

Hi Farnaz2,

When you ask "What theology?" you would have to scan the previous Susan Jacoby forum to find out how CCNL came to his conclusions about God from mangling the text and reading into it to portray the kind of god of his imagination.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/10/i_vote_for_reason/all_comments.html

Or we can be like Susan Jacoby and simply skip all of the myth, hallucinations and embellishments of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

-Conjuring Fluff

-Life of Fluff

-Vivat Fluff

-The Secret Life of Fluff

-What a Friend We Have in Bagel

Yes we can!!

We can go into the Muslim mosque and find a call to violence against infidels and oppression to women.

We can go into the Jewish synagogue and find myths and more calls to violence via the trumpets of Jericho.

We can go into the Catholic/Christian church and find blood and body and pretty, wingie thingies but no Virgin Mary.

We can go into Hindu temples and find cows and the lower class/castes cleaning up the dung.

And We can go into a Buddhist temple and find tributes to an obese male figurine.

Or We can be like Susan Jacoby and simply skip all the traveling!!!

-Fluff and the Victory of Flour

-Marginalized Fluff

-The Death of the Croissant: From Akron to Boise

-Fluff: A Pastryfic Biography

-The Bagelitis Gene

-Reclaiming Fluff

-The Biscuit Delusion

-The Portable Muffinist

-Bagel Explained

Sadly, the great Jihadist does not wish to sign in; hence one must look to other threads for her posts. The following list, appearing on JB's thread, should be of interest to anyone wishing to know more of Bun-Bun's (CCNL's) Muffinism.

- The Muffinated Crossanized Christian

- The Bunthelogy of Crossanism

- Fluff Is Not Great

- The Fluff Delusion

- Letter to a Crossanist Nation

Actually, I think that in her haste to comment, the erudite J left one out:

-Bun-Bun's Epistle to Croissants

Arminius and Persiflage,

Success! Eureka! My revered life-mate has located Yeungling right here in the five boroughs!

The honor of the epicenter is restored!

Farnaz :)

" peterhuff Author Profile Page:

Hi CCNL,

The website link you gave shows many liberal scholars such as the crowd from the Jesus Seminar - Funk, Borg, Crossan, etc. No wonder your theology is twisted into a pretzel."

Peter,

What theology?

Bun-Bun,

These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants.

What is an "uninspired Torah reading"? Kindly explain. During which of whatever "uninspired Torah readings at Sabbath services" were essays read by congregants? Where and when did these perusals take place?

Names and dates, please.

"Crossanized" Christians are those who review the contemporary books/articles/net sites of the historical Jesus and NT exegetes and concludes the reviews are well researched and that the analyses therein give credence to Jesus being not deity but a simple preacher man embellished by the likes of P, M, M, L and J into some kind of messiah. Common sense and reality are quite apparent in the works of these exegetes.

Peter, Peter, Peter,

You missed the following orthodox Christians and a listing of some their books on the referenced site:

Brown, Raymond E, Catholic priest whose books were all approved by the RCC

1977: The Birth of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: Geoffrey Chapman

1994: The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels. (2 vols) Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York:

Wright, N.T.- Episcopal Bishop and On Faith panelist

1992: Jesus and the Victory of God. London: SPCK.

Meier, John P. Catholic priest and Professor at Notre Dame

1991- A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus. (3 vols.) Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.

1991: I: The Roots of the Problem and the Person.

1994: II: Mentor, Message, Miracles.

2001: III.Companions and Competitors

And since you did not mention it, you did not read the first referenced site:

What you missed:

"Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation."

These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at Sabbath services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For instance, an essay on Ancient Near Eastern Mythology,'' by Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern scholarship, it seems unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which probably grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was probably borrowed from the Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.

Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.''

CCNL wrote: "That is what good "Crossanized" Christians do"

I'm still waiting for your response to exactly what you believe a '"Crossanized" Christian' is.

Peter Huff wrote: "I replied to your lasts posts that were addressed to me on our last Susan Jacoby forum."

Yes, but you didn't say anything new.

When you can defend your view on it's own merit, without attacking the views of others, rather than simply claiming your view to be absolute truth, then we might have more to talk about.

Hi CCNL,

The website link you gave shows many liberal scholars such as the crowd from the Jesus Seminar - Funk, Borg, Crossan, etc. No wonder your theology is twisted into a pretzel.

Hi, Farnaz,

Keep up the search - is not NYC the place where you can get anything? Yuengling is worth the effort, it makes America proud. Do a web search for places that sell it.

Persiflage,

Thanks for the info. and directions. If need be, I shall travel to the birthplace of American liberty, which fittingly stocks, in abundance, Yeungling.

At present, epicentrically speaking, I think there may yet be hope of finding in this great cosmopolis or environs that great brew. I shall bravely carry on whilst breath and will remain.

Cheers to you!
Farnaz

Peterhuff,

Using a Calvinist philosopher/generalist to support the myths and embellishments of the OT and NT? Other than citing a few verses from poetic Psalms, he does not cite, from our reading of your references, any specific comparisons amongst the four gospels to substantiate his claim that the gospels are in harmonious agreement.

Pink unfortunately died in 1952 and was therefore not privy to the thorough historical and archeological analyses in recent years of the OT and NT that has shown the lack of archeological and textural proof of the claims of the OT and the lack of attestations in the NT gospels.

e.g.
www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

Hi Farnaz - it's peculiar that S. Carolina has Yuengling, whereas our great cosmopolitan epicenter of the New World does not!

But here's the solution - If you only knew an adventurous liberal with a patriotic streak, a fine appreciation of good beer, and a residence in Philadelphia, that good buddy would gladly make a border run with a case or two of Ben Franklin's favorite brew (hyperbole, maybe).

If all else fails, you may have to take a trip to the land of the Liberty Bell your own self, so here's how......

NYC to Philly:

That's if you take the scenic route, because Philadelphia (PA) is about 100 miles south of New York City, and DC is about 150 miles south of Philly. Depending on your choice of routes, you might leave New York City by way of the George Washington Bridge, across the Hudson River into New Jersey, with a view of the Palisades on the Jersey side. From there, you would travel south on New Jersey's Garden State Parkway, through the industrial centers of North Jersey, to the farmlands of South Jersey. Passing through some historic sites of the Revolutionary War, you would leave the Parkway at the Camden area exit (the city of Camden, much further down the highway after the exit, is one of home sites of Walt Whitman) and pass the Garden State Park and racetrack on the way to the Jersey side of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, which would take you into Philadelphia.

Begin looking for a state beer outlet.......

____________________

Hopefully CCNL will be a gentleman and will do the right thing - and none of that will be necessary!

In the immortal words of our beloved (and possibly teetotaling) Jihadist,

Cheers!!

Hi CCNL,

Here are a couple of links for you concerning our discussion on the other Susan Jacoby forum.

The link is from one of my favorite authors, A.W. Pink. He was a man that God used to help me in understanding the sovereignty of God as revealed in Scripture.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/inspiration.intro.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/inspiration.ch7.html

From the last link,

"The unity of the Scriptures is further to be seen on the fact that they are entirely free from any real contradictions. Though different writers often described the same incidents—as for example the four evangelists recording the facts relating to our Lord’s ministry and redemptive work—and though there is considerable variety in the narrations of these, yet there are no real discrepancies. The harmony existing between them does not appear on the surface, but, often, is only discovered by protracted study, though it is there nevertheless. Moreover, there is perfect agreement of doctrine between all the writers in the Bible. The teaching of the prophets and the teaching of the Apostles on the great truths of God’s righteousness, the demands of His holiness, the utter ruin of man, the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the way of salvation, is entirely harmonious."

Supplement:
There is only a small step (as has been shown through history) from denying "meaning" to other people's lives to liquidating those "meaningless" lives!

The typical Christian presumptuous impertinence: Telling others if their lives have meaning or not.

I can assure these guys that my life has at least as much meaning to me and a lot of other people as theirs. Their superstition doesn't supply the least bit of meaning to my life!

Peterhuff,

It is called Reality!!!

Hi CCNL,

You are confused. You are anti-God and anti-religion then suddenly you defend life as if there is some meaning to it that only God can supply.

It is almost as if you are schizophrenic, caught between two polar opposite personalities, unsure of how to make up your mind as to which is real.

On the one hand you tear apart the Christian religion and on the other you make a case for it by making a case that abortion is wrong. How do you explain this?

To reiterate is to educate:

Hmmm, so a growing baby is considered by some to be nothing more than an infection? Talk about having no respect for life!!!!!

And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing womb-babies or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

Persiflage,

You are most eloquent. I, however, cannot locate Yeungling, with which, I am certain, my aesthetic sensibility would be heightened immeasurably.

Best,
Farnaz

CCNL - welcome to your new reality. Being a kind of secular Catholic humanist with theological leanings, you will notice that humans on a large scale ultimately make decisions that are at variance with local ethical and/or religious persuasions - such as those that you share with your fellow and more doctrinaire Catholics, et al. 'What is' is not always pretty, but we all live with less preferred realities.

Humans make life and death decisions on a daily basis - free of all supernatural influences, to the best of our knowledge. Women abort spontaneously an untold number of times globally, per day. Infants (and other humans) die an untold number of times daily.

Nature is bloody in tooth and claw, says our Christian (Catholic) mystic, William Blake.

We all continue to work on a more perfect world to the best of our abilities. Your harangues and those of your fellow Catholic absolutist Mary Cunningham are really not helpful, but by all means use whatever forums might be at your disposal to pummel 'sinners' with your self-righteous message(s).

Like the Catholic Church itself, you've made yourself a non-sequitur in rational discussions by virtue of your wearisome redundancy.

Again it is not the Jewish, Pagan, atheist or even Catholic voting blocs anymore.

To wit: It is,

"The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year. They easily put President-elect Obama in the Blood Red House!!!!" ???

(35+million abortions in the last 35 years i.e Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973. Each abortion involved three people, one was killed and two lived i.e 70+million voting adults.)

Oh...Keir Gazelle is me..Terra

I wish they would design a new site, this really is not very good.

terra

Wiccan I took your Fluff test..I got a -45. I not only scare the Fluffies, I eat them for dinner.

In fact when I first got a computer and found a Pagan message board...many years ago...I was thrown out after a week. How did I know that there were Fluffies...I was called a Wiccan Fundie. LOL. I thought I was in a alternate universe for Pagans.

Now Bun-Bun would fit right in...he certainly has his own imaginative view of things.

Hi Notsogreatscot and CCNL,

I replied to your lasts posts that were addressed to me on our last Susan Jacoby forum.

Bun-Bun? You all make it dangerous to eat and read On Faith at the same time. I laughed so hard I started choking on my waffle. I have a pretty simple way of dealing with his ramblings: I give them all the time they deserve. In other words, I scroll on by. It works for CCNL, Spidey, and all that ilk who never contribute anything useful to this dialogue.

Shawn

Why is it important? Hello....how is it not important? People who think he is the Antichrist need to be deported..........or read their bibles again.

Yes We Can??? But How Did We???

The fastest growing voting demographic: The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year. They easily put President-elect Obama in the White/Blood-Red House!!!!

What the Hel are you babbling about, CCNL?

Well at least that Wiccan spell for dodging voodoo darts is partially effective.

Welcome back Mosquitoes!!! The gang of four is in "itch mode"!!!! Good job!!!!!!!!!!!!

Arminius,

Last thoughts for tonight on Bun-Bun: Have you noticed how BB always uses several exclamation points and/or question marks? Is't possible that the Bloviating Bigot, Bun-Bun, is shell script as the great poet, Pseudo, surmises?

Farnaz

Well Arminius, the pastryfic mosquito Bun-Bun posted true to icky form. You're probably asleep, whither yours truly.

Sleep well, my friend.

Darn, where did we put that Wiccan spell for dodging voodoo darts?

Mosquitoes!!! get up, time to draw some blood from the gang of four!!!! And this time stop at at our local "unCrossanized" Catholic Church for a partial drop.

Farnaz,

Bun-Bun's post on R. Waskow's essay was over the top, off the wall, off topic, weird... take your choice.

At first, over a year ago. I gave Bun-Bun the benefit of the doubt, and tried to communicate with him. Eventually I realized that he was only on the blogs to cause division and conflict. You eventually realized that too. No problem. We just keep going here, for the reasons we came: to learn, and to make friends. And now we know that we can neither learn from Bun-Bun, nor be a friend with him.

Arminius,

You've got to see CCNL's post on R. Waskow's essay, which I think a bit over the top, but never mind. I understand where Waskow's coming from.

The point is, how could I have been so horribly wrong about gooey ick sticky Bun-Bun?

Arminius, Wiccan,

I fear that Bun-Bun is keeping abreast of developments, as it were, and shall refrain from posting until either the wee hours of the morning or the not-so-wee. :(

Farnaz

Wiccan and Farnaz,

I'm dying for him to post again, so we can all inform him of his new name! (shame on me....)

Wiccan,

Truly you are inspired! I just don't know if I could type it without laughing!

Farnaz

And I can't wait until he gives us his learned opinion of Aleister Crowley.

The sad part, Arminius, is that CCNL could take the test and STILL not have a clue!

Wiccan, friend,

'Bun Bun' - I love it! I'm choking with laughter.

Well, since you asked, dear friends, "Fluff" or "Fluffy" doesn't seem to have the dignity commensurate with a man of CCNL's erudition. I was thinking along the lines of "Bun-Bun".

Farnaz,

Yes, the input of Wiccan would be extremely important.

But let me lapse into Christianity here, if you would be patient. To Christians, Jesus is the Christ, the anointed, and He is also a deity to us. (Let's NOT get into the Trinity here, please!) Therefore, calling myself a Christian is not inappropriate. Therefore, calling the Demented Donut a Fluffy might not be inappropriate. Somehow, Fluffite or Fluffian does not sound proper.

Arminius,

I'm no theologian, but I fear taking the name of CCNL's god in vain, even part of the name. Hence I had to discard Fluffanite, for instance.

I wonder, though, if, given the import of the question, we should see what others, particularly the brilliant Wiccan, have to say...What say you, Arminius?

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Fluffy Muffin, perhaps?

Farnaz,

The Bagel is not 'Fluff', but 'Fluffy' can be a noun or adjective describing a follower of 'Fluff'.

Arminius,

Pleez, do not take in vain the name of CCNL's Muffinist god, Fluff. A human such as CCNL could never be Fluff.

Farnaz

Wiccan, Farnaz, et al,

Right you are! I took the test, laughed a lot, and scored 2 points because I didn't know who the hell Thelema is. BTW, I was honest with my answers, but it soon became apparent that 0 was the proper answer for all.

CCNL shall now be known as 'Fluffy'.

Wiccan, Arminius, and Everyone:

Went to your link, Wiccan, and you are a GENIUS! Everyone, please click on the link Wiccan posted.

Ever wonder about the Confused Croissant's Muffinist theology? CCNL's god, Fluff?

Get the facts of CCNL, the truth behind the obvious lunacy! Click on the link on Wiccan's post!

Cheers!
Farnaz

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

Weird you say?? No, we gave Susan Jacoby some advice on how to increase her income and how to reduce her taxes. That is what good "Crossanized" Christians do:))

And please tell us next time you have three toilets to fix. Many of us are part-time plumbers and give free advice as good "Crossanized" Christians do :))

CCNL-

Again with buying spells? Please take this test. I'm sure it will help you.

http://www.geocities.com/not_all_there_93/fluffytest.html

CCNL

That was a little weirder than usual.

Susan, Susan, Susan,

Apparently you are in need of a lottery winning Wiccan spell. As noted previously, they are available from on-line Wicca Witches for a mere $500.

Remember though that the state and federal taxes are paid before the lottery officials give you the money.

"Your lottery winnings might also be subject to state income tax. Thus, depending on where you live, your total tax bill could exceed 50%. You don't get any capital gains rate break for lottery winnings, nor is there any income averaging to help lower your tax bill."

And Susan maybe you should ask your publisher for more money? A gal with your talent should be making more than $250,000/yr. Or do you give a sizeable amount of your earnings to charity in order to increase your deductions thereby keeping your adjusted income below $250,000. Of course with a flat tax you would not have to delve into all the nefarious ways to increase deductions.

And calling someone a "Flat-Earther"? For shame and so "un-Christian"!! Ooops we forgot!!!

I never have understood all this back and forth about the taxes. We are really in deep, deep debt now, with the wars that Bush borrowed to pay for, and now the deep economic hole we have fallen into. Somehow, someway, all this is going to have to be paid for, isn't it?

Isn't it? Are the poor going to pay for it all? They can't; they don't have the money; the poeple with the money are the ones who are going to pay most. This will all work itself out, no matter how people may fight over it; those that have the money will have to pay.

That is not socialism; that is just the reality of the creditors collecting their debts.

In always figured that winning the lottery was a "capital gain" on a dollar that you invested in your state. Since the Bush tax cuts on capital gains haven't expired yet, seems like you shouldn't have to pay anything at all.

The $250,000 number is a red herring anyway. The real disparity is between CEOs making $170,000,000 and their minimum wage employees making ~$17,000.

Susan Jacoby

CCNL's ideas about the graduated income tax being a disincentive are genuinely hilarious. I don't make $250,000 a year either, but I would certainly be pleased to do so, and if it meant paying a higher marginal tax rate, I'd still have more money left than I do now. Sometimes I wonder if people who don't understand this are mathematically challenged. I love the notion of millionaires sitting around and saying to themselves, "Hmmm, I guess I don't want to make another million because I hae topay all that tax on it."

That's the practical part. But there's a moral issue as well. "To whom much is given, of him much shall be expected" is a principle upon which secularists and people of faith ought to agree. We owe our country, and our fellow citizens, something for providing the conditions that make success possible. It's not that individual effort is less important but that individual effort gets you a lot farther here than it would in many other countries. Really, you Flat Taxers are members of the Flat Earth Society.

--Susan Jacoby

Well, frederic, I suppose that one thing about all these folks voting to hurt themselves and the poor, in favor of the very rich few, who they rather outlandishly claim to expect to be among, is that if you can 'blame the liberals' for you sitting on your arse, or maybe just not being that *good* at what you do, you get to feel entitled to something, have someone else to blame, but don't actually have to put the effort in, do you?

Probably that's what it's all about.

Same with blaming gays and non-Christians for marriages that don't work, or for kids who just don't seem to respond as they're 'supposed to,'
or for disasters you didn't want to pay to prepare for, or economic crashes that are the result of the very things you thusly *demanded...*

All I see in Joe the Plumber is a man who didn't have a plumbing license, didn't vote, but felt perfectly all right to claim it's the possibility of the rich people he isn't no longer getting a four percent tax cut that is responsible for him not being wealthy.

To me, it is entirely beyond any concept of moral, religious or otherwise, that guys like ccnl and his friend Joe the plumber would even take the word "flat tax" into his mouth.

The plumber whose livelihood depends on practically everything from roads, police, schools, bridges, firemen, to hospitals etc. etc. to even make a dime, refuses "morally" to pay a tiny bit, a couple of hundred bucks more to his country after making a quarter million. (Of course, he only dreams all this up; with this attitude, he will stay, at best, where he is now, a little less even, after having paid his taxes, poor guy, and maybe paying a few dollars to hopefully get his plumbing license.)

The funniest hypocrisy is their brandishing "Christianity" as their source of "justice".
This is the exact disastrous attitude that has brought the US to the brink of an abyss.

But, here's something that actually relates. Last year, an openly-Pagan man *did* hit the Powerball. Conservative talk radio was all aflutter about how 'The government shouldn't support these kinds of people,' ...then without taking a breath, launched into the usual spiel about poor oppressed lottery winners paying income tax on their millions in winnings.

Conservatives tend to identify with the rich, think one day they'll *be* the rich, and vote for selfish interests that aren't even theirs yet.

Yeah, you might hit the lottery. If you end up having to suffer with only a hundred million rather than 150, I weep for you.

" CCNL

"One can only hope Paganplace wins the Power Ball lottery so she can really see a tax bite. Hmmm, is there a Wiccan spell for winning the lottery???"

If magic worked that way, I wouldn't *need* to hit the Powerball. Silly.

One can only hope Paganplace wins the Power Ball lottery so she can really see a tax bite. Hmmm, is there a Wiccan spell for winning the lottery???

Actually there is: "Big Win Lottery Spell - This spell is designed to get you that big win that you have always dreamed of. Do you know that you would do something amazing if you had money? This spell will be customized to fit your specific needs. This spell is cast with the assistance of my coven. A total of 42 hours is put into this spell to achieve exact results! Very Powerful!" And it cost you only $500 at:

"If you desire love spells, money spells, lottery spells, ... I am a High Priestess in the Wiccan religion and all of my spells are very powerful. ...
www.witchescorner.com/ "

Yes CCNL is really out of it.

Somehow, I doubt that he makes $250,000 a year either.

Yet he is so clingy to those Reptilican, oops, I mean, those RepubliKlan, oops, I mean those Republican rich people, with all their blonde hair, (not that there is anything wrong with being blonde).

I have to say that I am not worried, bothered about, or interested in the flat tax. It is not likely to happen. It is not on anyone's agenda; it is not even on anyone's radar.

It is one of those things that if you are really worried about it one way or the other, then you haven't got much to worry about.

" CCNL

"Apparently Paganplace does not make over $250,000/yr and now will never have the incentive to do so???"

Uhhh, yeah, fear of a slight tax increase in the event of making it big is all that's holding me back from up and just becoming rich. Right.

Frankly, I'd stand better chances of making *thirty* grand a year if the health plan improves my situation, and means it wouldn't be risking what health care I have and rely on to stay alive.

If becoming rich were an ambition of mine or a likely possibility in the *first* place, it'd be a greater disincentive to try for it cause my dear one might get everything taken away from her when I die: thanks to the anti-gay marriage laws which even make separate legal contracts between us dubiously secure.

I don't know how you read the notion *I'd be dumb enough to not go out and make money, were I able, and if that were what I wanted, just because I wouldn't get Bush's ill-advised tax cuts.

A flat tax is the most regressive tax out there: twenty five percent of a rich person's food budget really isn't much to them, but to regular folks, that'd be putting the screws to them and suppressing economic activity just when that's the *last* thing we need right now.

I'm glad we don't have to worry about *that* crazy idea, except, apparently as some kind of diversion from doing something that'd a) work and b) ever happen.

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

Think "Flat Tax"!!!!!

And get estimates from a number of plumbers next time!!!!

CCNL

I do not make over $250,000 a year, and I do not know anyone who does. (The doctor maybe?)

I suppose it depends on the family you were born into, the culture in which you were raised, and the crowed that you ende up running with. Anyway, most everyone I know makes a living, but $250,000 a year; that is beyond comprehension.

I know that my plumber charged me $2,000 to work on my 3 toilets; so, I suppose, I cannot help but have a little angst at the thought of ever employing a plumber for anything, and would try to do all but the most complex plumbing jobs myself.

But what if I were a little old lady? Then what would I do? I would have to depend on the kindness of Joe the Plumber, which I do not think would be very dependable.

What does the recent election say about the US?

That we have made great strides in equal rights. After electing a special needs President eight years of ago, we have now elected the first African-American.

Apparently Paganplace does not make over $250,000/yr and now will never have the incentive to do so???

The Flat Tax is the only fair tax. It works very well for the State of Pennsylvania. And it would cut IRS and Federal tax preparation expenses (and time) by over 75%.

Tis nice though as USA taxpayers to know that we now own a part of most of the major banks, brokerages, houses, condos, apartments, shopping malls and office buildings in the country. And will soon own part of GM, Ford and Chrysler. And don't forget to throw-in all the Federal buildings/monuments/museums and equipment in DC and various states, all the National Parks (and their resources), off-shore drilling rights, broadcast airwaves, Amtrak, TVA, USPS, FAA, FDA, CDC, Internet, Interstates, and the best, largest and mightiest military in the world. I wonder what Yellowstone National Park would sell for in the open market???

Right, so lets vote for a black president because it makes our hearts feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and because it will make a good paragraph in a history book 100 years from now. PATHETIC! Obama is the most unqualified and inexperienced candidate to EVER run for president, let alone be elected! He won the presidency because he feasted on the hatred that the nation showed towards Bush. In essence, he won due to the ignorance and pure hate of this country, and that it utterly despicable. I hope he truly cleans this nation up, but to be honest, he won't. His morality is too relative to bring this country back to it's foundation--Christ. God help us.....but first, He must judge us.

Globalone: (did you read the below from me?)

"Barack Obama said the following, and I quote, “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”"

That's not saying that he wants to *take away* anything the richest *have,* just to stop funneling money from the poor to the subsidized, and disproportionately-favored richest among us, who themselves are lamenting they seem to have run out of people they can squeeze any more out of. Then whine to the taxpayers for trillions in 'bailout.'

"How else am I to take that comment?"

As not continuing ineffective Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest few who sit on the money rather than build things, while actually giving tax relief to those who will use that money to make our beloved businesses work again?

" My assumptions could be wrong, which is why we have a forum such as this to discuss."

See below for some practicalities.

"Second, what "loopholes" are you referring to?"

Ask someone who makes a *career* of them. Some of the *very* wealthiest in America actually end up paying *no* taxes at *all* because of them.

"Third, I'm curious as to what you mean when you use the phrase "fair share" as it relates to taxes. Under Barack Obama's tax plan, 44% of the country will pay zero taxes. Zero."

On their depressed wages, you mean. We all pay taxes on everything.
Well, apart from those rich enough to not.

" That means that 56% of the country is supplying 100% of the tax revenue. Does that sound "fair" to you?"

Yes, it does, actually. Cause they get ninety percent of the wealth on a publicly-subsidized system.

If the poor and people struggling to stay in the 'middle class' get tax relief, they put that money to *work* and *spend* it in their communities, and, guess what...

Join the prosperous income-tax payers and excise tax payers, and maybe even, if so fortunate, capital gains-taxpayers. Why, they might even have something left over at the end of their lives to become estate-taxpayers.

It's kind of like the opposite of 'trickle down' promises. Just. Real. If you like free enterprise, well. There's money to be made, if anyone has any. That's the general capitalist idea.

(continued)

'Fair.' Conservatives think life's 'unfair' if they win the Powerball and have to pay taxes on a hundred-thousand percent return on their unlikely investment of a dollar. But still vote as if they might be the rich guy one day.

Fair? Does that sound *realistic* to you? :)

"Finally, your view on Obama's "tax relief" is completely wrong. I understand the claims he is making, unfortunately, the numbers don't add up. The effective marginal tax rate under Obama's plan is actually HIGHER for middle class America than under current law."

A campaign statement repeatedly-refuted. But this is what Congress is for. We'll see how the brass tacks work out.

"But herein lies the genius of Obama. He fooled most people into thinking that a "tax credit" was really a "tax cut". To that end, we now have nearly half the population receiving refund checks even if you have no income-tax liability."

That's *income.* The government loses *revenue* if people can't keep working and paying into Social Security and property taxes and income taxes and all the rest, and buying things and employing others in the process.

Bush wasn't afraid to try buying us off with a few hundred bucks, to salve the tax cuts for the very richest.

A few hundred bucks is a big deal in the real world. People who juggle billions don't do any different if they get another million in tax cuts to sit and speculate on in a doomed credit market.

" In other words, there is an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant.""

The Bush administration has in *real* terms transferred *so much public wealth to the very richest among us* that we're more economically-stratified than we've seen since the Great Depression.

This isn't a transfer of wealth. This is feeding less of what we all make *next* year to the 'tycoons.'

And 'welfare' isn't a dirty word, if you want people to sell things to: see 'Promote the general welfare'

Freedom,

Thank you for the suggestion. I will try and read the article this evening.

Bear,

Thank you for your response.

Barack Obama said the following, and I quote, “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

How else am I to take that comment? My assumptions could be wrong, which is why we have a forum such as this to discuss.

Second, what "loopholes" are you referring to?

Third, I'm curious as to what you mean when you use the phrase "fair share" as it relates to taxes. Under Barack Obama's tax plan, 44% of the country will pay zero taxes. Zero. That means that 56% of the country is supplying 100% of the tax revenue. Does that sound "fair" to you?

Finally, your view on Obama's "tax relief" is completely wrong. I understand the claims he is making, unfortunately, the numbers don't add up. The effective marginal tax rate under Obama's plan is actually HIGHER for middle class America than under current law.

But herein lies the genius of Obama. He fooled most people into thinking that a "tax credit" was really a "tax cut". To that end, we now have nearly half the population receiving refund checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, there is an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant."

Our War on Terror and Aggression will continue under President Obama because the Worst Book Ever Written, aka the koran, did not change with the election as noted by the 15 Iraqi citizens killed in Baghdad overnight in the continuing centuries-long blood feud between the Sunnis and Shiites continues.

The world has just become a better place!!!

Leaders from all over the world have expressed their delight at an Obama presidency. There are great hopes that Obama will be a unifier on many fronts, as I believe he can be.

CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA!!!!

Gaby

Globalone:

"When you can point to a single piece of legislation in the next four years that brings together the ideas and values of both parties, I will join in your celebration."

Don't you see, Globalone? This is a historic opportunity to stop *thinking* in terms of Republicans v Democrats. And work proactively on *shared* goals, not spend all our energies on what the Republican party has wasted our time with trying to hold power with their coalition of Big Money, Big Religion, and the military hawks.

The GOP may be trying to use that filibuster and the usual divisive tactics, but there's a lot we can do that everyone wants. (continued below)

(continuation of the above. I think they clipped the post size limit just a leeetle too much. )

If business feels a pinch in the coming years, it's not cause of Obama stepping in to clean up the mess the GOP made with unsustainable, irresponsible, and deregulated policies.

We have an opportunity here to rebuild our industry, infrastructure, and human resources. To do it right, and carry it into the future in some way other than funneling dwindling real national wealth to a finance 'industry' that produces nothing by shuffling debt around and taking a cut each time. A way that *works* and builds a future, rather than looks on it with helpless dread and selfish apathy.

The wealthy won't suffer, they never do.

Maybe opportunity for *all* is back.

I may not be expecting to make the millions 'Joe The Plumber' said he'd give up on if he took a four point tax hike on the wonderful fruits of instantly starting a small business and clearing a quarter million a year... (but somehow I imagine you can't keep a talent for plumbing that commands such a paycheck down for long,)

...But I *have* been working to bootstrap what's left over of a disability check into something that might.. well, break even while contributing a bit more to society than sitting here yapping at you all day wishing I had better health care....

You know, maybe make some nice things a middle class not struggling might like to have in their homes plumbers like to repair when they aren't empty from some foreclosures....

I mean, before a decade of lack of health care just caught up with me... I *was* one of those somewhat rare gals in the trades, if in the 'shadow economy' of those of us who had to work ourselves off the street, with just enough help to keep a room somewhere and scrounge for the rest... So *nearly* got hired on by the merits of my work by a regular contractor who just couldn't get help good enough for his reputation...

(Actually, I was in fact offered the job, I just couldn't take it, cause the job that impressed him was about the last energy I had.)

The contractor didn't get his help, I didn't get my health care, ....I ended up starving it out to get my benefits back in an adversarial system.... and his lifestyle from a booming business of eight years ago probably took a much bigger hit from lack of clients and middle class income than it ever could from no longer getting the Bush tax cuts.

He probably had to let go a few of the 'Kids who don't think and don't intend to stay' he was employing, too.

Bet they aren't in the market for plumbing upgrades right now, either.

The *middle class* is a much better place to put our investment than the very wealthiest. For the poor, too. And especially for those who get rich on a consumer economy.

It's interesting - now that the GOP is on the skids, aka the party noted for single-handedly decimating the economy beyond recognition through gross mismanagement, total lack of judgement, a complete absence of long-range planning, mind-boggling incompetence, and pandering to the corporate rich guys, it's supporters still fear for their remaining wealth! Four more years of the same, and your worries would have been over for good.

On the other hand, we are fortunate enough to awake to a new day, with an alternate reality ahead. You might just get your money back one of these days - along with other benefits only apparently evident to democratic voters!

Wake up and smell the coffee - drop the Folgers and try Jamaica Blue Mountain for a change.......

Globalone,
I can only assume from your posts that you make over $250K a year. Obama does not plan to take your money and give it to the poor. If you make over the amount, you may be taxed more; and loopholes that are not available to the working poor may be closed.
The rich people in America have more money now than they have had since the 20s. In '29 many people lost their life savings and the poor suffered more than the rich. They do pay taxes; but with tax shelters and tax laws and good lawyers, they probably don't pay their fair share.
Read whatever you want. You believe that the world will go to hell in a handbasket now. What are you going to do, when that does not happen? When your pile of securities is safe? Aren't you tired of seeing the big CEOs with their golden parachutes making money while their workers and stockholders are left holding the bag?
All Obama has said he wanted to do was bring tax relief to the middle class.
This is a historic moment in History. Now it can really be true that in America, anyone with hard work can be elected President.

Globalone,

You wrote:

"I will, however, do my part to research and understand the dynamics of socialism. I have started by reading "The Case for Socialism" by Alan Maass. If anyone has a similar book to recommend, please let me know."

Here is a good article to read from Scientific American, October 2006:

"The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state

Globalone

Could you be any more shallow?

Forget the word "socialist." Can't you just be happy for YOUR country? Unclench yourself, relax, and be happy, for a chanage.

Wiccan,

When you can point to a single piece of legislation in the next four years that brings together the ideas and values of both parties, I will join in your celebration.

Until then, I can only prepare for what is inevitably a large scale assault on the earnings and wages my wife and I have struggled and sacrificed to attain.

I will, however, do my part to research and understand the dynamics of socialism. I have started by reading "The Case for Socialism" by Alan Maass. If anyone has a similar book to recommend, please let me know.

Thanks.

What the election says to the world via predictions for the next four years in no particular order:

- US taxpayer investments in banks, brokerages and the auto industry will help pay off the national debt.

- President Obama and his family will become “Crossanized” Christians.

- Religions will continue to converge and be downsized as historical/archeological analyses, common sense and reality spreads amongst the “pew sitters and bowers”.

- The killing rate of womb-babies in the USA will remain at one million/yr but the rate will become more difficult to ascertain as RU-486 becomes more available without prescription.

- The rate of STDs/yr in the USA will remain constant at 19 million per year.

- Oil prices will moderate as the world turns more towards nuclear, wind/wave power and natural gas to generate energy.

- The globe will continue to get a bit hotter not because of green house gases but because of the small by continuing increase in the size of the Sun which will consume the Earth in about four billion years.

- The Federal Government will become more dominated by the people as e-mails to Senators and Representatives become the driving force for Congressional voting.

Arminius, your "we and we" was validated last night.

To the haters on BOTH sides: Get over yourselves. Stop demonizing those who don't agree with you. The world changed last night, and there's no going back.

There's too much work to be done for nursery school fights. "My way or the highway" was blasted to bits. We are all in this together, and everyone is necessary and valuable. So let's grow up and get to work.

The Lord is saying, "Well, would you look at that", and the Lady is saying "I always knew they could do it." Brightest Blessings on us all!

This is by far the best thing that has ever happened to my country in my lifetime.

There are no words to describe what a wonderful thing has just happened.

Yes we can! Yes we did! It's a bright and clear morning, full of jubilation, laughter, and tears of joy. I'm an old white guy, a man of the South, but I am so very much honored to have lived long enough to be a part of this. My son and I voted together for Obama, and that was a proud moment.

We've got work to do, people! Roll up your sleeves, it ain't gonna be easy. But Yes We Can!

The election says many important things but the important one is that the President's last name is not Clinton. God Bless America!!!!