Goodness just feels good; no gods or devils need apply

DILd-

There has never been a "Gay" gene found.

Please provide that proof to me.

It is a anomaly in our society. I don't think it is a good one. Nevertheless, I support civil unions and rights for gays. I do not support calling their relationships "marriage" . Simply said, we should tolerate gays and the rights they should have , without encouraging the behavior as the preferred behavior.

THat is the best I can do.

You can judge me all you want. In the end, there is only ONE that can judge me. Your judgement means nothing.

Pamsm:

Glob alone is a Baptist. As a former Baptist, I can assure you that "a forum for discussion and free exchange of ideas" is possible for Glob ONLY when the discussion and ideas agree with his/her own.

US-Conscience:

"against the backdrop of a totally Holy and Righteous God ..."

...except that such a mythical creature exists nowhere except in your imaginings.

Jacoby writes "yes, there really are atheists who are very fine people, who don't eat their young, starve their grannies to death, or commit hate crimes."

That reminds me of this story: A girl sees a sheep on a hill and thinks 'oh how nice and white that sheep is'. Then it begins to snow, and all of a sudden that same sheep, against the backdrop of white snow, doesn't look so white anymore. In fact it looks down right dirty and yellow.

Compare yourself against the backdrop of society and you'll look pretty good every time, but against the backdrop of a totally Holy and Righteous God and you'll look a lot different than you might imagine.

Until you realize that your not good ( for goodness sake ) - that you - YES YOU - have broken Gods moral laws, you've told lies, you' ve lusted, you've taken things that arent yours ( like your bosses money when your at work but responding to chat comments on the internet ) you covet things you dont have, you've dishonored your parents and above all you dont love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul. Your not good at all, your a hypocritical, lying, theiving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart and you have to face God on judgment day !!!

We will all ultimately glorify God - thats our purpose in life.

For those who self righteously rely on their own goodness and vain wisdom - you will glorify God through his justice.

For those who humbly admit their guilt, turning from their self centered idolotry and reaching for the forgiveness that is offered in the shadow of the cross of Jesus alone: you will glorify God through his mercy and grace.

Daniel12:

"Superior as to morality Russell man when he is no different physically from his hunter-gatherer forebears who most certainly had religion...."

Careful boy. You'll shoot in your pants again.

Arminius:

"And I am here to ask unpleasant questions."

You are drunk again.

Globalone says:
"Rarely does a forum for discussion and free exchange of ideas culminate in anything remotely seen as progress when people resort to name-calling and slander."

Who resorted to name-calling and slander? All I did was ask a question.

Arminius, I really have to go. Again, God bless you, and this time I'll add nonGod, as well.

Goodnight.

Again, you overlook, do you not, Arminius?

"Should I include Arminius in the rescue plan? But, if I did, what would happen to all the deserving Jews he mentions in his post? (Also, the deserving poor, a related topic, from a literary perspective.)"

(Who are these deserving Jews, the "moral" Jews, as opposed to the immoral--there are millions of Jews, ARminius--Don't reply: Again, this is rhetoric. Think about it.)

Arminius,

You are here to ignore me, to talk at me. Read my post to you on Berlinerblau, re: Berryman's
"The IMaginary Jew."

Then, if you can engage what I say, please let me know. I'm talking about the parts you failed to address in my earlier post, choosing instead to fix on that which was, to me, peripheral.

Let me know....

I'm not interested in fighting with you or in your takes on me.

None of what I"ve posted is about me.

I explain this in the post to which I refer.

I can't be any clearer.

Farnaz, you wrote,
"So....if I am here to bring truth, justice, and love, to save the Jews (hopefully, the ones who should be saved) and rescue all of mankind, then why is Arminius here, I wonder..."

Sorry, but I have seen NO truth, justice, or love from you. So what is your plan to 'save all of mankind'? Does it start with my elimination? And who else will follow?

I am not your enemy. I only oppose you when you say things that are only hatred, not 'truth, justice, and love'. And I am here to ask unpleasant questions.

I find it highly amusing to read all the criticisms of the moral shortcomings of religion as if man in one generation became utterly different, a creature not only capable of greater morality than the religious, but capable of being separate from religion and with the perfect mind to evaluate religion--as if this superior animal of today was not at all formed by thousands upon thousands of years of ancestors who became what they were in religious ages. No, today we have a superior type of man who just appeared out of the blue, who owes nothing to religion and in fact owes it to himself to separate himself from all ages past because he is obviously so superior as to morality. Why not call this type of man Russell man? In fact we should have the paleontologists step in and declare Russell man superior as to cranial capacity. What makes it all the more amusing is that Russell man criticizes religion on one hand but then agrees man is really not much different from his hunter-gatherer forebears, that the difference has been culture and not physical make-up. Superior as to morality Russell man when he is no different physically from his hunter-gatherer forebears who most certainly had religion....

Onofrio,

I just checked back in on Berlinerblau. I think Arminius is having a nervous breakdown. I mean, it's a blog. I am here to defend the Jewish people against annihilation by the enemies of God and mankind. Also, to bring Justice and peace to all of humanity. Especially, D12.

In the process, I have met some great warriors. This is good since Joshua, I am not. (I am also not Beowulf, which is both here and there.)

So....if I am here to bring truth, justice, and love, to save the Jews (hopefully, the ones who should be saved) and rescue all of mankind, then why is Arminius here, I wonder....

Should I include Arminius in the rescue plan? But, if I did, what would happen to all the deserving Jews he mentions in his post? (Also, the deserving poor, a related topic, from a literary perspective.)

The answers lie in the nexus between math and religion.

"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
~Bertrand Russell

What utter nonsense refuted by basic knowledge of history! For millennia religion has existed and has obviously been man engrossed in moral questioning of himself. One of the biggest differences between religion and science is that religion deals with moral man while science deals with physical reality. The words of Russell, who by the way was a science man and not a man engrossed with moral problems other than trying to seduce as many women as possible, have been uttered against a thousands of years old background of preparation for these words. Furthermore it can be demonstrated that these words are at best premature and at worst false. There is absolutely no track record for Russell's assertions. No one knows if atheism is a superior moral response to the world than religion. There is no track record concerning atheism (I am being fair and not mentioning Russian Gulags, Chinese great leaps forward, Khmer Rouge mass murders, French revolution terrors, Latin American leftist regimes). It has been religion which prepared the ground for moral man of today. One cannot at all say one would be a moral atheist without millenniums of religion. All moral assertions such as Russell's have been uttered against a vast background of religion. The progress he speaks of religion being against is merely progress for the past five hundred years or so--really nothing of man's history. All the rest of human progress has been during religious ages. To be able to question religion is something very new in human history. By far the life of man as a moral animal has been in religious ages. How ridiculous for Russell to separate morality from religion as if no morality existed without atheism. The very men in the time Russell uttered his words were men formed to tolerate these words by thousands and thousands of years of religious ages. Must be nice to criticize religion after religion first has created a world in which these words can be uttered. What nonsense.

I hope ColinNick comes back soon.

Onofrio,

I don't despise your "evil white humanity." "People of color use "whiteness" as a metaphor as do whites since White Studies emerged.

It's a complex notion, you will agree, racializing a la postmodernism, redirecting seer and seen. Whiteness comes under the gaze.

Universalism is restless with color, with whiteness, troubles it, knocks on the door sometimes loudly, but we don't know how to let it in yet.

We cannot give it form.

So Dan likes Bruno so everyone else now must not. Kids....

Onofrio,

"You are blessed indeed."

Yes, we are blessed. I think she is an old soul.

Differences between math and religion. Religion was long settled in place before math began to be really thought about and used. Religion was and still is man's attempt to determine what existence expects of him. Religion deals with historical and moral circumstances and interprets existence in such fashion. An easy example is of course first a belief in God, then that God sent his son, and that the primary response of man to existence must be a moral one--one is in relationship to God and seeks to divine what will get one in good graces with God.

In comparison to math religion seems not to mirror actuality. Perhaps the introduction of historical figures in religion does not mirror actuality, but a certain aspect of religion has been arrived at after years and years of modification. That part is the reasoning that everything cannot have come from nothing and that there must be some sort of intelligence behind things. Furthermore the primary response to this intelligence must be a moral one for the simple reason that the most existential and personal situation of man is why it is evil exists and how it must be overcome. In total, and at its most simplistic, the religious view says there is an intelligence behind things and that if the evil in the world can be overcome, it can be overcome only by divining what the intelligence behind things expects of man.

The mathematical view on the other hand, deals with no moral problems at all. What the mathematical view does is simply give deeper insight into physical reality--most famously problems of extension in time and space such as trajectory. A better mirroring of reality yes--provided we consider reality merely a physical problem to be solved with no moral component. Furthermore math deals with only partial aspects of reality. It operates in the absence of posits and non-posits of concepts such as God.

So which is the more faithful mirror of reality? Religion. Math does not come even close. Math can describe things with ever greater clarity and force but ultimately the response of man to himself and the world is not a mathematical response but an issue decided by the total man. It is a moral response. And this moral response exists whether we believe or not believe in God. For example, if we believe we try to be right with God. If we disbelieve we have the moral situation of existence being ultimately futile because there is no intelligence behind things. Both moral situations asking us how we should act, demanding that we act. That at its most simple is the difference between math and religion.

Onofrio,

You and Schaum and Colin are very clear, it seems to me, on Otherness, perhaps for some of the same reasons, surely for different ones. But there are common denominators.

What you know, you brought with you. Quite frankly, I was astonished by what you saw of the poster whose missive I paste below and his religious/ethnic understanding re Judaism and Jews. He had said some wretched things in the past. What he said when you first came on the scene was barely offensive, yet you saw what I had been denying to myself for a long time. Saw it and called it.

Schaum got Arminius immediately and not only Arminius. Schaum has second sight. He is my brother. I am his sister from another planet, who has dim vision.

Colin is magnificent. I actually dreamed I went to Wales and stopped by in BC to tell him about Joshua Fishman, who was still there telling Welshmen to SPEAK WELSH, still their, yelling SPEAK WELSH, kipa and all, to a mesmerized group in shirtsleeves.

I once dreamed of you, too, Onofrio. I asked if it were possible that I was simply not born with your brilliance and talent (don't read this, D12), and, if so, would my life still be worth living.

You said something characteristically modest, and we both disappeared. Faded.

Haven't a clue.

PS. I accidentally posted to you again awhile ago on Berlinerbau's thread. Did you read it? 'Twas about, Dottir. If not, no rush.

Farnaz,

Just caught up with your post, re your lovely girl.

You are blessed indeed. She sees things aright, I trow.

Farnaz,

"But you and Schaum understand. Perhaps, then, the real question is why you do, not why they don't."

Why I do? If I *understand* anything in this regard, it is because you have helped me. Much still to learn.

I daresay a prior condition for both Schaum and myself would be deliberate apostasy from Christmongery.

BTW, I wouldn't count myself in Schaum's league, re understanding. Am an attendant lord (sorry, TSE, I know...but am *stealing* ;^) )

"Of course, they, Christians, Catholics see no racism in their posts, see me as a racist."

I am as christoblanco as they, and clearly I'm too thick to twig that you've been despising my evil, white sub-humanity all along. I have to laugh, can only laugh...

ONOFRIO, SCHAUM, and COLIN (Colin, help please. Wise comments are urgently needed.)

FROM ARMINIUS on Berlinerblaus' thread (I swear to nonGod):
------------------
Well, Commissar Farnaz, I sadly see that your hatred has dug a hole in your self-generated cesspool and achieved new depths of depravity. And, of course, all your arse-kissing minions are cheering at your vitriol. That last makes me really sad, I had hopes at least for Onofrio. No longer, he's an arse-licker like the rest.

Your assorted putrid hatred and ad hominem attacks turn my stomach, and, if I did not already know many decent and moral Jews, I would surely become antisemitic, simply because of you. But I won't, even though you already believe I am, just because I have called you out on your insecurity-bred acid throwing attacks.

Posted by: arminius3142 | November 30, 2009 9:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
--------------
PS. I'm not replying. I've had it for this evening. Made another mistake too. I posted a note to you, Onofrio, a nice one about my daughter. I was rereading it when Arminius's came up.

Thanks Onofrio, really. I honestly don't know how Garak, Whistling AIP, Patrick3, et al, keep up this level of vitriol. Ditto, several whom we have fequently seen on this blog.

I might include, in my pondering, a couple for whom you have unlocked your word hoard. Three, in fact.

Of course, they, Christians,Catholics see no racism in their posts, see me as a racist. I, you see, am in denial. One actually posted this, despite her tiredness of the Jews, her exhaustion with their control of the economy, etc.

Once a few weeks ago, I actually wished I had not been born Jewish. With everything I saw in Iran, with the attack on my girl, I never had such a desire. Never wanted to be anything but brown either and still don't.

A writer that Susan Jacoby thinks she knows (she's a nice white Catholic atheist lady--Susan--smart, probably good--I like her) Philip Roth, over whom we battled, wrote heart-breakingly about how being Jewish in America had destroyed him.

It is this sort of thing that most cultural Christians cannot understand.

But you and Schaum understand. Perhaps, then, the real question is why you do, not why they don't.

PS. ONOFRIO, I accidentally posted this on Berlinerbau's thread. Just above the posting of another antisemitic regular at WaPo, Lufrank.

Oh well.

Onofrio

I don't know how to break it to you but most American Protestants probably do not know who Martin Luther was; if they had to guess, they would say he was a black civil rights leader from the 1960's.

Most American Protestants think that 2,000 years ago, there was Jesus, and now, we're here. And what happened inbetween? Duh, never occurs to them.

Most Americans are doing good if they can remember that Columbus discoverd Ohio in 1776.

Farnaz,

I just viewed your fusilades on Berlinerblau, v the grendels.

Bravissima.

Yet expending such heat saps the spirit.
Rest ye; they'll keep. When fires are low, it's time for the well honed icicle - straight to the heart.

This I am still learning.

I'm exhausted. I thought Schaum posted a beautiful passage about Christ but I can't fine it.

ONOFIO,

For St John and many of his followers, the Catholics are the spirit, the Jews the hateful flesh.

Sick, sick, sick.

Ditch religion. All of it. PLease, before we go mad and kill one another.

My Dearest Schaum and Onofrio,

I have exhausted my rhetorical hate-supply.
I forgot to mention Garak as among the Nazis who post here (Nazi is his favorite word to use with Jews).

Well, Garak's precarious self-restraint is lost. I just blue my w*d. Cannot summon more vitriol.

Would like to know how I have done with Garak, because I was running on empty.

Could you please read the exchange of viciousness on Berlinerblau's thread and tell me honestly if I held my own?

Pleeezzzz

I can't explain. It's a Farnaz thing.

Farnaz,

Re John of the Cross

Note the concurrence of sarcophobic religiosity and antisemtism. It's in Chrysostom too - he keeps arraigning Jews for being bon vivants (gluttons and drunkards in his economy), and for enjoying their feast days too much (the horror).

As I've raved afore, Jews remind the ouranically obsessed Christian sarcophobes of the body and the earth.

Schaum,

Re: Gay marriage

Dominick Crossan, former Catholic priest, and beloved of ccnl1, supports gay marriage.

Also, Dominick Crossan is not antisemitic, in any sense, in any part of him. Wrote a beautiful essay on MOses for Pope Bennie (formerly of the HItler Youth), lover of Cardinal Pedophile Protector Lavada.

Said essay was strictly in the Judaic tradition. I will post it.

Globalone,

"I'm not trying to "dodge" anything."

Yes you are.

"You can quote homilies from anyone you wish."

You asked "How did "Christians" contribute to the extermination of the Jewish population?"

I answered you with chapter and verse, from two seminal Christian preachers. They are not *fringe* figures.

Folk like Chrysostom and Luther exerted their spiritual authority toward libelling and demonising Jews - the necessary preconditions for antisemitic atrocity. Their inspiration: Christian scripture, and Christian glosses on Jewish scripture.
If you read these sermons fully, you will see how they deploy the words of Paul, the Gospels and the Tanakh itself against Jews. Examine their language - they dehumanise and abominate Jews and attribute to them the most wicked motives. This is exactly the sort of thing one hears repeated in the self-justification of antisemites.

With regard to Christianity: just because you haven't heard it from your Baptist pastor, doesn't mean it ain't so.

Globalone,

The allies (Brits and US) have given endless excuses on why they did not bomb the tracks. Use google. The fact is they could have.
Their focus was on their targets. The flyers had no clue about the camps because the Brits and the Americans kept it from the people.

Google using key words. Also, try United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The Japanese in Shanhai. Ripped the children out of the bellies of Chines women. Tore their breasts off. Slaughtered their children in front of them.

Google Iris Chang, may God rest her soul.

Google Japan in the Philippines.

Onofrio,

Remember Frederick? He could not understand how the Nazis found so much material in St. John of the Cross, responsible for who knows how many mass murders before the Holocaust.

You see, some people just cannot understand. Schaum says it's denial. Maybe, but Mary Cunningham can't understand, either. Do you see? Regardless of who they are, antisemitic or not, some just cannot see.

I wonder what MC's position on gay marriage is? I'm not baiting you, Mary, if you're out there. HOnestly.

But there is a blindness among many religious people, not only Christians of whatever denomination.

Dearest Schaum,

I have nearly depleted my rhetorical hate-speech supply on Berlinerblau's thread.
A couple of WaPo's resident Catholic neo-Nazis, and neo-Nazi Others have appeared already, viz, AIPAC (Other, probably Catholic), Patrick3 (Catholic).

Soon we shall here from Whistling (Nazi, not neo, Other, origins unknown), Xavisev (Orthodox), Maddog (Muslim), ChrisFord (Catholic, Nazi wannabe), Robert James (Catholic, but with some moral sense), etc.

Some new nazis have appeared, along with two fake Jews (Onestring and Byrd3).

Justilthen (Buddhist, you can take the Catholic out of the church, but...) and our favorite Catholic bigot victim (intelligent, but evil) have not yet appeared.

A host of others will soon show.

Interestingly, their language is remarkably restrained, unimaginably so. Never say that Nazis can't learn, Schaum.

You, too, can use the rhetoric of hatred, on whatever issue you choose. It's what they understand. It stops them for awhile, at least.

You know WaPo's and OnFaith's game, no?
Stir hatred against Muslims, then Jews, then Fundamentalist Christians, then Gays.

Interesting who is excluded.

You know, I'm beginning to think that maybe I no longer like a "good fight," as you put it.

Globalone,

Never heard of Chrysostom? I presume you have heard of Martin Luther.

From his sermon 'On the Jews and Their Lies', delivered in 1543>

From Part II:

Accuses Jews of falsifying Scripture:
"They [Jews] are real liars and bloodhounds who have not only continually perverted and falsified all of Scripture with their mendacious glosses from the beginning until the present day."

...

Attributes genocidal intent to Jews:
"The sun has never shone on a more bloodthirsty and vengeful people than they are who imagine that they are God's people who have been commissioned and commanded to murder and to slay the Gentiles. In fact, the most important thing that they expect of their Messiah is that he will murder and kill the entire world with their sword. They treated us Christians in this manner at the very beginning through out all the world. They would still like to do this if they had the power, and often enough have made the attempt, for which they have got their snouts boxed lustily."

From Part III:

Compares Jews to devils:
"Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in-which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously."

Compares Jews to inimical serpents:
"And where you see or hear a Jew teaching, remember that you are hearing nothing but a venomous basilisk who poisons and kills people."

And this is just a sample. You should study the whole sermon. Nazis found plenty of grist for their mill in Luther's invective. They were just lustily boxing those bestial Jewish "snouts"...

Ono,

I'm not trying to "dodge" anything. You can quote homilies from anyone you wish. But in the 9 years I have been attending my current Baptist church, not a single time has a quote attributable to this person been mentioned in a sermon. Not a single time has my pastor based his sermon on these teachings.

I am interested to hear my pastor's thoughts on this person as well, if he has any at all.

"As an aside, it is widely known how savage and barbaric the Japanese were in regards to their prisoners of war. They frequently used Chinese prisoners for bayonnet practice. Given that the country is predominantly Shinto or Buddhist, does that indict either theology?"

Did I spell denial correctly?

Onofrio:

"It's no use trying your "I'm not a Catholic" dodge. Chrysostom is revered by Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions alike."

Indeed!

Globealone:

The first detailed information about Auschwitz reached the Allies in June 1944, in a report from two escaped prisoners forwarded by Jewish underground activists in Slovakia. The information included a request to bomb the camp and the rail lines leading to it from Hungary, as masses of Hungarian Jews were then being deported to the camp. The Allies had command of the skies by that time, and air bases in Italy brought the Allied forces in the West within range of parts of Poland. From the spring to the autumn of 1944, Allied aircraft flew over the camp several times on a mission to photograph German industrial plants a few kilometers away. In the late summer these plants were bombed, but the extermination camp Auschwitz-Birkenau was never bombed.

The Allies explained their decision not to bomb the camp in several ways. They said it was technically impossible for them to reach the camp. The fact that they bombed other targets very nearby indicates that this was not true. They argued that such bombardment would not slow down the murder operation and would divert forces from decisive battles and endanger the airmen. The only way to rescue Jews, they said, was by winning the war. Their main arguments, then, were "rescue through victory" and "no diversion from the war effort." Whether a bombing mission to the extermination camp would have succeeded or failed is an open question. However, it is clear that the Allies did not marshal the same energy and determination to rescue the Jews as the Nazis did to murder them.

Globalone,

A revered father of the Church, a SAINT, no less, uses the full force of his eloquence to characterise Jews as beasts, demons, and worthy of slaughter.

It's no use trying your "I'm not a Catholic" dodge. Chrysostom is revered by Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions alike.

Globalone,

Ever wondered how *good Christians* could so dehumanise Jews that massacre is permissible? More from "the Golden Mouthed" St John Chrysostom:

Homily 1:
IV.2)...Indeed the synagogue is less deserving of honor than any inn. It is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews, as I shall try to prove at the end of my homily.

VI.3)...is not the dwelling place of demons a place of impiety even if no god's statue stands there? Here [i.e. the synagogue] the slayers of Christ [i.e. Jews] gather together, here the cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, here the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. Does not greater harm come from this place since the Jews themselves are demons?

VI.4) So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men.

Farnaz,

Please don't spend any time re-writing your previous posts. I'd be better off digesting what you've noted thus far and doing some reading on my own.

In regards to your comment, "Although allied planes flew directly above concentration camps and the tracks leading to them, they did not bomb them; it just wasn't on their minds"

Is there some sort of testimony from Allied Commanders attesting to this statement? Or, perhaps, some other factual support?

Unless they were flying at a particularly low altitude, I'm not sure how a pilot and/or crew could identify a concentration camp. Second, they certainly didn't have the weaponry to smart bomb a camp without wiping out most of the prisoners as well.

As an aside, it is widely known how savage and barbaric the Japanese were in regards to their prisoners of war. They frequently used Chinese prisoners for bayonnet practice. Given that the country is predominantly Shinto or Buddhist, does that indict either theology?

Globalone,

"How did "Christians" contribute to the extermination of the Jewish population?"

So spoiled for choice. Here's just a sample of what SAINT John Chrysostom, revered father of the Church, had to say in his eight sermons against *the Jews*, delivered in Antioch, AD 387:

Homily 1:
II.5) When brute animals feed from a full manger, they grow plump and become more obstinate and hard to hold in check; they endure neither the yoke, the reins, nor the hand of the charioteer. Just so the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer". And still another called the Jews "an untamed calf".
II.6) Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them".

You can (should) read all eight of these gems from "the Golden Mouthed" here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html#HOMILY_I

Paganplace:

Kind of startling, isn't it, that the Grand Dragon David Duke actually made it to Washington as a member of congress.

Michael Kelly writes of Jesus' attitude towards a same-sex couple as described in Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2:

"One day a Roman Centurion asked him to heal his dying servant. Scholars of both Scripture and Ancient History tell us that Roman Centurions, who were not permitted to marry while in service, regularly chose a favorite male slave to be their personal assistant and sexual servant. Such liaisons were common in the Greco-Roman world and it was not unusual for them to deepen into loving partnerships....Jesus offered to go to the servant, but the centurion asked him simply to speak a word of healing, since he was not worthy to welcome this itinerant Jewish teacher under his roof. Jesus responded by healing the servant and proclaiming that even in Israel he had never found faith like this! So, in the one Gospel story where Jesus encountered people sharing what we would call a 'gay relationship,' we see him simply concerned about — and deeply moved by — their faith and love."

Kelly implies that Jesus' sensitivity towards the gay couple might have arisen from his own bisexual or homosexual orientation.

""For Those Who Don’t fully comprehend the Powerful Role of Jewish Supremacists in the Change of American Immigration Policy!

"Jewish Supremacism" by David Duke.""

You do realize, of course, that I've got a sneaking suspicion that Grand Dragon or whatever David Duke never particularly cared for me, *anyway,* never mind telling me who to blame if Christians can't have a fricking holiday without making it a 'war on somebody' these days?

David Duke?

Really?

My Gods.

If you don't want any more Yuletide cheer, these days, its no skin off the rest of our noses if you just let it go.

I don't think you ever 'got' it, anyway.

Pretty lights, though.

For Those Who Don’t fully comprehend the Powerful Role of Jewish Supremacists in the Change of American Immigration Policy!

"Jewish Supremacism" by David Duke.

Read chapter 13: http://www.davidduke.com/general/my-awakening-chapter-24-the-jewish-role-in-immigration_2518.html

Awww! Look at this box!

'Peace on Earth' was all it said. What a ripoff!

Buy something!

Blame someone!

Be sanctified!

Phbbbbt!

Globalone,

Protestants prefer to call themselves Christians, while Catholics assert that, they, too are Christians.

For most Jews, it's six of one, half dozen of the other where antisemitism is concerned.

Protestants insist, almost invariably, that the bigger problem with Jew hatred resides with the Catholics and if the Orthodox are on their radar, mention them as well.

Globalone, the last post was meant for you. Sorry I forgot to address it.

I don't understand how Christianity can be "responsible" for the Holocaust when you're looking at a relatively small sample size of people.

Some countries in which ordinary citizens pre-occupation slaughtered hundreds, in some cases thousands of their Jewish neighbors, along with some countries in which they slaughtered during occupation, even while the Germans did what they could to stop them:

Yugoslavia
Czecoslovaki
Poland
Ukraine
Hungary
Lativia
Lithuania
Russia
Greece
Rumania
Holland (mainly turned over Jews then stole their stuff)
Norway (Like Holland)
Belgium
Austria

As for the US, the Roosevelt administration, in cooperation with the New York Times, kept from the American people what was occurring in Germany. Although allied planes flew directly above concentration camps and the tracks leading to them, they did not bomb them; it just wasn't on their minds.

The British kidnapped a man en route to report on anhilation occurring in his country. His family was in the Ghetto. Zionist partisans on the train caught up with him before the Brits did to tell them he would be seized. He didn't believe them.
He was held by the Brits until the end of the war. Thousands perished as a result including his parents, family, wife, children, etc.

Antisemitism in the US and England was unabated throughout the war and continued after.

Worse, perhaps, than today, in some ways, since then we had no legal recourse.

This has all been thoroughly documented here on this blog by me in lengthy essays with bibliographies attached.

You could google it or if you can wait at least a coupe of weeks I will write it all again.

Farnaz:

"And the explanation is?"

Denial.

Globalone

What abaout the French Wars of Religion which lasted more than 50 years during the 16th century? What about the Thirty Years' War in Germany in the 17th century, the most destructive war in Europe until the 20th century?

I assume that you don't know anything about these wars between Protestant snd Catholics, so if you're interested in learning, you can do a google search, or use Wikipedia, or any other reference that you care to.

During the Civil War, the national churches split in two with the southern churches supporting the Confederacy and slavery. Many of these churches did not reunite until the 20th centure; some of them remain split, to this day, (the Southern Baptists, for example).

At one time, all Christian Churches opposed birth control by any means. At one time, many southern churches supported the legal public separation of races and opposed inter-racial marriage.

During the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts, non-Catholic Christians tortured and execuated a large number of people on false charges that they practiced witchcraft.

I am sure you have a loop hole of some sort, that let's Christians off the hook for each on of these examples.

So, what do you say?

Schaum, clarification of previous post:

The ordinary people, churchgoers, had also slaughtered Jews for gnerations. Pick your country. (There are few exceptions)

Schaum,

So, then, what you are saying is that there were the Christians/Catholics in almost every European country who participated in the slaughter--I mean ordinary people--and some soldiers who had for generations slaughtered Jews--and then their were the Christians/Catholics who stood by.

Am I getting it right? The majority of Christians/Catholics were either murderers or bystanders.

So...then, as so many have been at pains to say, the Holocaust was merely a high point of Christianity/Catholicism.

Yet, oddly enough, it is not viewed as slavery is, as a part of majority history.
Isn't that strange? These EuroChristians, AmeriChristian killers' and bystanders' progeny do not see the Holocaust as part of their history.

And the explanation is?

Farnaz,

Was the German extermination of the Jewish people approved by the majority of Christians around the world?

The U.S. and Britain, both of which were considered overwhelmingly Christian at the time, fought together to defeat Germany.

I don't understand how Christianity can be "responsible" for the Holocaust when you're looking at a relatively small sample size of people.

Further, it's not the fault of the theology if people exploit it for personal gain. You can't just claim to be Christian, you actually have to try and act like one. That's not a referendum on Christianity, that's an indictment on the individual.

Sadly, after 2000 years of christers and their 'influence', callous indifference is the accusation to be laid at the door of virtually all of their cult. In fact, had it not been for the abject passiveness of almost the entire world community on the eve of World War II, Hitler could not have gone ahead with his mass extermination of the Jews. At the Evian-les-Bains conference in France, specifically convened by President Roosevelt in July 1938 to discuss the lot of European Jewry, only three of over thirty nations (Denmark, the Dominican Republic, the Netherlands) volunteered to take in a few thousand Jews. Nazi informers reported back to Hitler: 'You can do what you like with the Jews, nobody wants them.'

Farnaz:

"How did "Christians" contribute to the extermination of the Jewish population?"

It is difficult to imagine anyone with two functioning brain cells asking a question like that.

Schaum,

It's no use. Until people are ready to understand, they will not understand.

Schaum,

Some priests wrote to Saint Pius, begging for help, documenting atrocities. Their letters would make you cry. They are screaming.

Saint Pius' reply:

We're still waiting.

Bottom line: Religons have myths worth preserving, as Dennett argues.

Ditch the rest. Ditch it, and let civilization and humanity progress.

Schaum,

A young German Catholic woman, without any antisemitism, tried to save Jews, and succeeded. One day, in desperation, when the Jews's were imperiled, she stole away to her priest, begging for help.

Seeing her distress, he tried to reason with her: "They're JEWS, Christina. Get hold of yourself."

She lived, God bless her, and so did the woman she shielded. She went through unimaginable hell, prostituted herself to save them.

Part of a very small minority. Extremely small. She took nothing from them, wanted nothing from them, but to keep them alive. She succeeded. The four women lived to old age.

Schaum,

And yet they try to exculpate their religion. Even atheists do this. They say "it's not the religion, it's the people."

The most logical of atheists have said that on this thread.

That is like saying it's not fascism; it's the people. And, indeed, fascists say this.

Most, though not all, Christians fail to realize the darkness of their theology (ideology).

It's not Christian/Catholic people. It's Christianity/Catholicism.

At a war-crimes trial in 1958 a former Lithuanian minister was asked why he remained silent in the face of the terrible shootings he witnessed. His reply was that he believed the scripture verse was being fulfilled for the Jews: 'His blood be on us and our children.' Horrific though it is that this scripture could be used to justify such callousness, similar views have been expressed by Christians of other nationalities.

When a papal ambassador was asked to intervene in the deportations from Slovakia to Auschwitz, considering the innocent blood of Jewish children, his reply was: 'There is no innocent blood of Jewish children in the world. All Jewish blood is guilty. You have to die. This is the punishment that has been awaiting you, because of that sin [the crucifixion].'

ARchbishop Valerian Trifa,

If Globalone is right and there is a hell, you are either there or somewhere worse. If there is justice, you are in the unimaginable.

The unimaginable means you fully grasp with your heart, assuming you've been given one, and your soul, assuming likewise, the anti-God, man, and beast piece of walking virus you were in life.

US government, shame on you forever for keeping that filth safe and protected, polluting American soil. Shame on you for giving him the option to find a country that would take him rather than face trial, when trial became inevitable.

God bless you young Jews, who supported a lonely man, who lost everything to Trifa, supported him when he was reaching the end of his life having spent it struggling for JUSTICE.

God bless you for your sit in. God bless you for refusing to leave. God bless every other clergyman who finally saw the justice of their cause and supported the sit in.

God bless you all. Trifa God damn you for eternity.

Amen
Selah

Globalone,

Last post was for you.

I'm a little confused about the Holocaust. How did "Christians" contribute to the extermination of the Jewish population?

I don't know what you mean. The Europeans were not Hindus, not Muslims, not Buddhists....
Both proto-nazis and nazis drew from a variety of sources, among them the New Testament, the Church fathers, and most especially Martin Luther.

Those who slaughtered the Jews were Lutherans, for the most part, but other Christians were involved. I'm omitting the Catholics for now. Germany was 48% Lutheran, 48% Roman Catholic. The majority of Hitlers main men, as it were, were Lutheran.

Christian Orthodox, among them Valerian Trifa, an Orthodox Priest, actually fomented slaughter. Trifa, if there is any Justice in the Universe you are suffering somewhere.

However, the rampage goes beyond Trifa to all the Orthodox nations, in which ordinary church-going folks left home to round up Jews and slaughter them. Then the jolly Christians stole their stuff, got drunk, slept and went to church. We have photographs of them engaged in these delightful rituals.

Of course, we must not forget Salonika. We must not overlook Holy Mother Russia, which managed to hold famous pogroms as Jews were serving in there army.

Btw., none of these good people were directed by the Germans in their activities, although Salonika was occupied. The others began before occupation, merely continuing their historic blood fest. It's how they do.

The Germans tried endlessly to stop them because they were inefficient.

And the slavs, the Germans intended to kill anyway. Irony, there, I guess.

Proof that you weren't a Jew was your Baptismal certificate. Get it?

Baptismal certificate. And those of your parents and grandparents.

But, hey, during wars, things get messy, and the Germans could only recognize German Jews. So mostly they had to rely on the local Christian nationals.

I don't want to hurt you. These are the horrible facts, and this is a sketchy presentation.

Btw., Protestantally speaking, one recalls certain other horrors. For example, Good Queen Bess's wholesale slaughter of 100,000 Irish Catholic men, women, and children.

The seventeenth century slaughter of Jews was carried out by Christian Orthodox.

Sorry for the rambling. Am doing too many things at once.

Globealone:

"But you'll have to excuse me from engaging in similar classless debate"

I'm afraid that its a little late for you to be taking the high road. You already do engage in exactly what you decry. You are a hypocrite.

Thanks Farnaz. You have given me a good list from which to start my holiday reading.

I'm not Catholic, so I'm very unfamiliar with those events that might be unique to the Catholic faith.

I'm a little confused about the Holocaust. How did "Christians" contribute to the extermination of the Jewish population?

"you are in no position to determine or dictate (what a christer you are!) what is/is not appropriate in or for this forum. You bring your bigotry here, you can expect to get pummelled."

Rarely does a forum for discussion and free exchange of ideas culminate in anything remotely seen as progress when people resort to name-calling and slander.

I welcome counterpoints to my views and other arguments contrary to my position. I have changed my stance on a number of topics after carefully considering the arguments of others.

If you find some sort of joy in slandering people or verbally "pummeling" them, then please have at it. But you'll have to excuse me from engaging in similar classless debate.

When Christ Was Gay:

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html

Globalone,

Where do I start, example-wise? Should I begin with Constantine? Some of the less palatable events of the Middle Ages? The First Crusade? Subsequent Crusades? The blood libels? The endless deporations of Jews from one European country after another? The Christian Orthodox atrocities of the seventeenth century? 100,000 slaughtered? Womens' bellies ripped open and live cats sewn into them? The inquisition? Which lasted through the latter half of the nineteenth century? Begun by Isabella, the Catholic (so dubbed by the Pope)? The pogroms straight through the twentieth century? The Holocasut? The events in Europe in the late 1960s? Eastern Europe through peristroyka? Today?

I've just mentioned a few highlights. Detailing would take months, at the very least.

I haven't yet gotten to the heathen, savage Indians, for example. Other peoples.

It would probably take years.

And then there are all those raped little girls and boys; that began in the Middle Ages.

Globalone, there are good things that Christianity has done, as well. Take what is good in it. Allow adults to love one another and wed. Love one another, Globalone, or die. Remember?

"Worth re-posting. In large part, horribly, horribly true."

Farnaz, could you provide me with some examples? Thanks.

Globealone:

"FYI: I will choose to ignore future comments from you."

Hmmmm....a case of the hit dog howling, I'd say. Actually, you are in no position to determine or dictate (what a christer you are!) what is/is not appropriate in or for this forum. You bring your bigotry here, you can expect to get pummelled.

Farnaz:

"Did someone say math "resembles" religion? "

Nobody said that, m'dear. Its a conclusion I have drawn, after attempting to mathematically model religion. Logical impossibility, I think.

"Find yourselves looking at young boys, maybe?"

That is sick and perverted and is completely unwarranted in this forum. Not to mention the fact that it also clearly indicates your lack of character.

Sad, really.

FYI: I will choose to ignore future comments from you.

"I'm fairly certain that you don't keep slaves, and that you don't insist on stoning to death those who work on Sundays, or commit adultery, or diss their parents. Probably you've worn clothes made of blended fibers; probably your wives aren't afraid to speak in church, or to go there when they're having their periods"

You would be correct on all accounts. But not because of a decision on my part to ignore certain scripture or determine for myself what I will or will not follow. There is a time and a reason for the Old Testament and a time and a reason for the New. Once you learn the meaning of each, you will understand why those "laws" are not applicable today.

Schaum,

Math "resembles" the universe, and no one knows why. It does not resemble religion.
--------------
Did someone say math "resembles" religion? Don't know why, probably lack of sleep, but this puts me in mind of Nelson Goodman.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:2cKmIQzI_TcJ:www.math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/0503/0503-006.ps+nelson+goodman+math&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
------------------
Btw., there is no apriori synthetic knowledge.

I'm just sayin'

DITLD

"Otherwise, I would not reccomend this movie to most people."

I agree. "Bruno" would appeal to people who are essentially brain dead.

I saw the movie Bruno. I think it's shock value probably made the star alot of money. Otherwise, I would not reccomend this movie to most people.

Back in 72 or so I had a physics teacher who said how amazing it was that math can be used to describe the world. I said then, as I say now, that mathematicians have chosen to develop the part of math that can be used as a description, starting from 1+1=2. If the world was completely different, a different math would have been developed. You can define addition in many other ways, but none of these are as convenient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number, scroll down to the Peano axioms.

Ultimately, math is manipulation of symbols. There is no reference to the real world in math. If math could not be used to describe any aspect of reality, it could still exist as it is.

Modeling the “real” world with math is much the same as modeling the world with paint. You just push (symbols or paint) around until what you end up with resembles the real world. That's your model. Math isn't any more intrinsically related to the “real” world than paint is. Both work to model the real world in their own contexts.

Yet I find it impossible to make a mathematical model of the unreality of religion. Unreality simply does not yield to mathematics. All aspects of reality can be described in mathematical terms. But I have found no way to do this with religion.

Math is reality. Religion is not. One can easily say that aspects of math can be described in "realistic" terms. Math resembles the universe because it is part of it.

Math "resembles" the universe, and no one knows why. It does not resemble religion.

Has anyone seen Bruno by Sacha Baron Cohen?
I consider the man a genius. He goes so deeply into comedy that he goes right back to being serious. I consider him more than a comedian. He is an anthropologist, sociologist, philosopher.

In Bruno he places himself in many dangerous situations, for example modifying Orthodox Jewish wear to really gay "Orthodox" wear and getting chased by Orthodox Jews. In another situation in Texas, I believe, he sets up the situation to seem as if he is fighting against someone in the audience who calls him gay, but the guy is in on the joke and after fighting a bit both men begin kissing each other and fondling and disrobing each other. The Texas crowd goes bonkers, people screaming and throwing stuff and some people crying.

I worry for the man. He just does it all. A really daring person willing to place himself in dangerous situations for art. I recommend his movies to everyone. In another situation he goes hunting with some hunters and says things around the campfire such as it's nice night to think about men's bodies. And in the middle of the night he goes to one of the hunters tents and asks if he can come in and sleep with him.

Many funny but dangerous situations. I definitely will see every movie he puts out. Again, I recommend his movies.

Re: My previous post

I did not mean to say that I endorse the homophobic interpretation of NT passages, since very strong counter-arguments exist.

However, I do not wish to get into a sciptural debate on the topic of same-sex marriage since it is IRRELEVANT.

Consider, better, other Biblical precepts. For example, do not have sex with your sister. ("She is your sister!") Do not have sex with other members of your immediate family.

Do not steal other people's stuff, histories, identities, RIGHTS.

Re: Thou shalt not steal.

Theft of property may cause death, but so may other kinds of theft. The ancient Israelites were aware of this. Tanakh is internally interpretive. If you wish to reference it, learn, first, how to read it. Then read the work of secular and religious Tanakh and Talmud scholars

Thou shalt not steal steal another's human rights, his happiness. No, you may not.

More and more literate Christians/Catholics are aware that the Tanakh has NOTHING to say about "homosexuality," a point I'm tired of making, quite frankly. But, here is is again.

The social fact (construct, notion) of homosexuality didn't enter Western discourse until the nineteenth century. The redactors of Tanakh were anxious to end male rape, at the time all the rage in the region, particularly of losing armies after battle. On this, see any Oxford Study Bible.

Perhaps due to a recent surge in Christian/Catholic biblical literacy, those Christians/Catholics who are homophobic are now more and more leaving Tanakh out of their howlings, and, instead, referring to their New Testament, viz,

Romans 1:26-27.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Timothy 1:10,11.

I notice they do not include the Gnostic Gospels in their discussions of gayness, but, hey, I'm not a Christian/Catholic.
-----------------
I hope this does it since I'm heartily sick of the Hebrew Bible being used by the uninformed to batter gays. (And tired of having to explain it, having done so ad nauseum.)

The point, Counterww and Globalone, as I'm sure has been brought to your attention before, is that there are a great many things either espoused or demanded in the bible, that you choose to ignore.

I'm fairly certain that you don't keep slaves, and that you don't insist on stoning to death those who work on Sundays, or commit adultery, or diss their parents. Probably you've worn clothes made of blended fibers; probably your wives aren't afraid to speak in church, or to go there when they're having their periods.

So why latch onto this one biblical prohibition? I think it's because it frightens and maybe disgusts you (as sex with women is disgusting to most gay men).

Perhaps you're a bit insecure about your own sexuality? Find yourselves looking at young boys, maybe?

Gay people don't choose the sex that turns them on, any more than you did. If there's a God, then he must have made them as they are (actually, it's a brain development thing that depends on hormones being produced by the fetus at a particular point in gestation).

Live your own lives, stop trying to tell others how to live theirs - and depriving them of rights and freedoms that our constitution guarantees to all.

"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
~Bertrand Russell

Posted by: Pamsm | November 30, 2009 12:12 AM
-------------
Worth re-posting. In large part, horribly, horribly true.

Gee, I mean Nejad is saber-rattling. The economy has reached the lowest level since 1929. We have a pedophile-shielding priest in charge of world-wide pedophile priest problems, folks don't have health care, jobs, homes, the pres is kissing up to the indited war criminal president of Sudan, I mean, what do Christians/Catholics have to worry about other than who should be permitted to love?

Yup, that's the big Christian/Catholic problem. All the wrong adults loving one another.

Good stuff from DITLD and Onofrio.

Globalone and Counterww,
If you can manage to pull your heads out for a minute, here are a few quotes that you might want to think about:

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people you do."
~Anne Lamott

"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."
~John Stuart Mill

"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
~Bertrand Russell

Counterww

If you really do have a gay friend, as you claim to, then you can easily find out the truth about sexual orientation, and what if feels like to be gay, by simply asking him.

If you do not want to ask him because you are afraid that his answers might change your beliefs, or if you just cannot bring yourself to ask him out of social embarrassment, then I would suggest that you just forget the whole thing, live and let live, and stop worrying yourself and other people about it.

Triple Amen,
O Dan in the Den!

I am a little suprised at the Christian reaction to my defense of gay people. I am a suprised at the weakness of the arguments.

Counterww thinks:

Gay people are horning in?

We need to promote heterosexuality?

Globalone thinks other people should not say what God thinks; then he goes on to tell us what God thinks, believes, wants, likes, and hates, and admonishes anyone else for who has a differing opinion?

They don't hate the sin, just the sinner.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

What non-sense, snarky, mean, and wholely invented, off the top of the head, to obstruct and block the progress of gay people.

I suppose this anti-gay Christian agenda is to force a renewed silence into gay people, but that is never going to happen.

Anti-gay Christians are childish, seeking to promote their own personal animosity towards gay people. all dressed up in a perverted glory to God, and with arguments limp, feeble, and silly.

What religion!

Counterww

I don't hate the word "lifestyle" except when it is ignorantly misapplied to gay people. For being gay is not a "lifestyle;" it is a sexual orientation, as integral to the personality as heterosexuality is.

It would be easier to persuade you to stop being a Christian than it would be to change a gay person into a straight person.

You say that you have no problem with gay people, you just do not want them to get married.

Therefore, you lied; you do have a problem with gay people. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I agree with Onofrio, why out of all that is in the Bible, which is an immense book, are you fixated on homosexuality?

That is one GIGANTIC ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM peculiarity about many religious people.

Do I need to spell it out?

You know, anyone could be gay. ANYONE. You do not know who is or who is not. So don't be so shocked, when there is speculation on who may or may not be gay. It is people like you, with your animus towards gay people that promote this kind of childish curiosity, and whispering campaigns.

Anhyone could be suspect; even you.

Globalone,

Thee:
"Are you asserting that to "love" your neighbor prevents you from holding them accountable? I "love" my children; therefore, I cannot judge their actions nor the words they speak? If so, that is completely ridiculous."

Who are you, Christmonger, to speak of "ridiculous"?

What's completely ridiculous: Calling a God "loving" who tortures the vast majority of his "images" forever.

What's completely ridiculous: Calling a God "sovereign" who is incapable of devising a universe free of evil, or, at least, creatures immune to evil.

What's completely ridiculous: A male-only three-bit Godhead, of which gendered humanity is supposed to be the image, i.e. where is She-god?

What's completely ridiculous: Holding Bronze Age stories (Eden, Flood, Babel) to be factual.

What's completely ridiculous: The notion that human beings "fell" from primal perfection, deserve Hell for it, and that every newborn child inherits the guilt.

What's completely ridiculous: That the supreme being insists on one's eternal torture unless one believes that a certain dead man walked out of a tomb, showed off his wounds to a select few, and disappeared into the clouds.

What's completely ridiculous: That people still won't hold Christianity ideologically culpable for the historic oppressions and slaughters it has catalysed.

Counterww,

C'mon, admit it, you have a huge *man-crush* on the Galilean, right?

Why is it that so many Christian men are either repressed gays or porn addicts?

Counterww,

"SCHAUM- to assume Jesus was gay sure shows your bias and error. He came to earth to die for us and pay for our sin once and for all. Sexuality and pursuing it in any manner- was not in his mission. You have a twisted view of Christ."

So you're saying Jesus was straight by default. Given that

1) Jesus was fully (heterosexual) man (correct Christology)

2) Sex is God's "good gift" to human beings (standard Christian rhetoric)

would Jesus not have had good, wholesome, vital (indeed divinely perfect) sexual desires for women?

Did he ever get an erection? You know, a bit of morning wood dreaming of those sweet Marys and their teary ministrations, their fragrant, loosened hair cascading over his naked feet? Or was he completely ABOVE it all, unaroused, analytic, detached?

Eternally phallically flaccid...

Christian men adore Jesus with extravagant lover's talk in contemporary choruses. Must be tough going for a red-blooded, she-lovin' dude like yourself, to direct all that eros toward a heavenly MAN...

Counterwww:

"Open your eyes and look at the people that do charity work for people."

You should open your closed little mind and consider WHY people do charity work for other people. It satisfies a need they have in themselves...which obviates altruism. Sorry. As usual, you lost again.

Counterwww:

Your assumption that Jesus was not gay illustrates your bias and error.

I will just quote one thing that is in the NT-

"6 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

It is obvious from this passage as to what the "natural use" is and the anatomy of the two forms of the human body and how they fit together, male to female. You don't go around trying to plug a plug into anything but the socket it was designed to fit in.

As for your trying to draw inference, that is impossible. You can't draw inference very well from a forum. We are here to debate and exchange ideas. I don't think you are an awful person, just misguided and quick to judge who , especially Christians, are and what their motives are.

As for how I relate to gay people- i could care less what anyone does BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. I don't really want to know their what they do sexually, and think that most gays just like straights can do fine work in the workplace and lead productive lives in their own way , fashion, and manner. However, when they bring their "orientation" or lifestyle(a word you hate, tough!)

to change the definition of Marriage to something it should not be, I do what many Christians do- exercise my right to object and influence society away from such foolhardiness. Civil unions and rights, sure. Approval of their behaviors and lifestyle in marriage? I draw the line.

SCHAUM- to assume Jesus was gay sure shows your bias and error. He came to earth to die for us and pay for our sin once and for all. Sexuality and pursuing it in any manner- was not in his mission. You have a twisted view of Christ.

And to think people cannot be altruistic illustrates your twisted worldview and what you think of people. Open your eyes and look at the people that do charity work for people.

http://jmreligion.wordpress.com/

Interesting...

I disagree with the argument that our repressed religious needs are responsible for our tendencies to celebrate holidays such as New Years. I celebrate New Years because everybody else celebrates, and it's more enjoyable for me to partake in such festivities, rather than make a point of not doing so. I obviously am not the first to deny an alleged "sacred substance" as such.

Globalone

If you want someone to account for the existence of gay people, whom you consider an "abomination," then your demand for accountabilty should be directed at God.

People like you have no more understanding of gay people than Helen Keller had any concept of water, until her eyes "were opened." How, I wonder, and wonder, can your eyes be opened?

Dan,

"But beyond that, Christianity does not instruct us "not to hate" our neighbors; it instructs us to love our neighbors. I will not ask you if you love gay people, because I know that would force you into some religious gymnastics and deal-making with Jesus"

Are you asserting that to "love" your neighbor prevents you from holding them accountable? I "love" my children; therefore, I cannot judge their actions nor the words they speak? If so, that is completely ridiculous.

One of my closest friends went through a period in his life when he got caught up in watching pornography. My love for him never wavered, but I did not hesitate to express to him how destructive his behavior could be. I held him accountable for the life he was leading and I would expect nothing less from him in return.

My original point that Ms. Jacoby's assertion that, "Something has gone very wrong with anyone who derives pleasure from the pain of others", is foolishness still stands. Causing pain and misery in others is just as natural a behavior as caring for those in need. Human beings have a dual nature, both altruistic and genocidal and they are, IMO, born of the same evolutionary strategy that produced human beings.

Claiming that goodness is merely an expression of acting naturally ignores the true challenge for our species in a nuclear age, how to ameliorate our desires for blood vengeance, especially in a world in which other groups of people desire our blood. Atheism has little to offer to this challenge, especially if they cling to outmoded notions that human beings are inherently good.

Counterww:

"I don't respect your assertions of hate which are misguided and irrational."

Actually, your hatred and brand of bigotry are easily inferred from your comments, which consistantly display your venom, loathing and...well, hatred. Such inferences are entirely rational. If you feel you are being misunderstood, it is you who need to modify your behavior and carefully consider your public comments.

For my money, you are just another hate-filled christer who has a closet full of masks.

Onofrio:

I have always assumed, based on public and private behavior, that Jesus was gay.

Counterww

You are right, I do not know anything about you except what you post here. You give off a very anti-gay vibe. If that is not the vibe which you wish to communicate, then it is up to you to revise your attitude towards gay people, which seems pretty negative, to me.

Many things you sas indicate profound ignorance. For example, you referred to your friend's "lifestyle." To me, that is a hostile word. There is no lifestyle to being gay. It is complex aspect of personality. There are gay florists, but there are also gay nerds, gay scientists, gay businessmen, gay soldiers (fighting for you) and every other kind of gay "lifestyle" under the sun. Your charterization of it as "lifestyle" is your attempt to marginalize gay people.

Your friendship with a gay man reminds me of the racist who proves his not racist by citing that he has a black friend.

Forgive me if I say that I am skeptical of your claims that you do not hate gay people. But beyond that, Christianity does not instruct us "not to hate" our neighbors; it instructs us to love our neighbors. I will not ask you if you love gay people, because I know that would force you into some religious gymnastics and deal-making with Jesus, to avoid answering in simple and plain English.

Actually, it makes me uncomfortable and sad to watch Christians squirm their way around this subject which they do not understand and cannot handle within their limited paradigm of belief.

You are perfectly free to dwell in your small and circumscribed world.

I do not see how my expression of views contrary to yours interferes with your freedom of belief or speech.

Counterww,

How do you know Jesus was straight?

DITLD-

You nothing about me, and to make the assumption that I hate gays is a big one on your part(just as I posted on a different topic)

They are not fighting for their very survival- they are fighting to marry and trying to make "families" like they are just like men and women that want to marry. They can't- I support civil unions and rights that are just the same as in marriage. I just don't want gays to be called married. Call it a partner, call it anything else, but its just not the same.

YOU are the hateful one, sir, everytime a Christian on this forum calls out homosexual marriage as something that is bad for society, YOU assume that Christians hate gays. Far from it. We realize the gays accentuate their sexuality over a relationship with God, and realize that the plan for mankind was diversity- man and woman together. Not man and man , or woman or woman, but man and woman. This does not preclude civil unions or even rights in the workplace. I work with a gay man at work and keep my politics to myself at work. Ilike the guy alot even though I don't agree with the behavior or the lifestyle. I just don't bring up that topic as it is not applicable.

HOWEVER , AGAIN- I have the right to vote, influence Congress, and give my money to those that would fight against gay marriage, and I will continue to do so as my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do so. You can cry all you want, but we all have this right in this country.

I have met enough people that I know some think they are gay from birth, others immerse themselves into it after having successful heterosexual relationships. It is not something we want society to strive for. It is a deviation from normal behavior. But still I am willing to give in to civil unions etc as I don't think that it is my right to deny those rights. I just want marriage to be held to a higher standard then what gay marriage could offer, and believe it is detremental to society to encourage it.

Hate has nothing to do with it.

I realize you are upset due to the swearing on you part. All I can say is, you need to get a grip and stop assuming who people are and are not on this forum, and realize this is a place we get to disagree and walk away after booting down. It is a place we get to exercise the bill of rights, and I respect your right to disagree with me. I don't respect your assertions of hate which are misguided and irrational.

Pamsm:

"There was a similarly shocking investigation into decades of unchecked child abuse in Irish schools, workhouses and orphanages run nationwide by 19 Catholic orders of nuns, priests and brothers..."

Ummm. More examples of loving behavior perpetrated by representatives of a "loving god"...who, himself, evidently just doesn't give a s**t. Edbyronadams speaks of the "peccadilloes" of the roman catholic corporation, but he is silent on the "loving god's" peccadilloes. The omnipotent/omniscient "loving god", who declines to use his power to protect, preserve and defend innocent children from the "good religious persons" who act in the name of the "loving god", is surely the worst of criminals -- with much for which to be held accountable.

Per Catholic abuse - a new tidbit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112600992.html

As we approach this Christmas holiday season, how about these words of wisdom, from ... I forget who, but someone wise:

"Less is not enough.

More is better.

Too much, is just right!"

Colin,

Re: my previous post

If you want to go to BC-SNAP, you must paste the link in your address bar.

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the information about Floge. Klimt was reported to have had, how shall we put it, enormous sexual appetites, which, he, in no way, concealed. At any time, one would come to his home, find him in a robe and sandals, in the company of three women, often models.

At all events, he struck up a lifelong, very close friendship with Floge, an interesting figure in her own right, which, her family says, was Platonic.

http://www.helium.com/items/744601-artist-reviews-emilie-floge-and-gustav-klimt
----------------
I've been going through my bookmarks looking for histories dealing with pedophile priest abuse, but it will take me a bit longer.

Meanwhile, I did find the link for SNAP US (Survivors' Network for those Abused by Priests), which lists several books. There's also a SNAP in BC, which might give you vendors closer to home!

At all events, here are the links for both.

/snap_regional_offices/snap_local_mexico_canada.html

http://www.snapnetwork.org/
---------------------
Also, Schaum, I think posted a title awhile back....
-----------------
Am reading a novel that is tougher than I'd thought it would be, but great!

Farnaz;

Emilie Floege's name is also spelled Floge in a 1960's book I have, which was printed in Austria,and she was apparently the wife of Klimt's brother Ernst. Quoting here from the book;
"After Ernst's death, his beautiful wife Emilie Floge, became Gustave Klimt's close companion and life-long friend and the subject of one of his finest portraits".

I've never actually read a biography of Klimt, so I can't say more about his life.

Schaum;

Enjoyed your post of Nov 26 10;50pm

The mind boggles.

Balsamic

I don't think Schaum hates you; he hates the sin, not the sinner.

And while I'm thinking of it, asserting (unproven, as all your assertions are) that someone "hates" simly because he finds you ridiculous, is not only absurd, it is defensive and infantile. If you can't take the heat, you might want to find another kitchen to haunt.

Balsamic:

"I'm offended. "

OK. You are offended. I can live with that.

Balsamic:

I think YOU have been seen for what you are!

Schaum,

I never espoused any belief or disbelief in any diety.

I simply pointed out the fact that all the good things government does today (schools, hospitals, orphanages, help for the poor) were once done by religions whose adherents were believers in a loving God.

You're just so eager to hate that you must attack anyone who says anything positive and true about religion. That sort of hate is legal in our country and acceptable to some others here, but not to me.

It's my hope that others will see your hatred for what it is, too.

Farnaz, of course, you're right. I get carried away sometimes fighting Christians like we do on this site. There must be good Priests.
I would be interested in the books you mentioned, about the church in the middle ages. It makes sense that pedophilia has always been around. It must have been absolute hell in those days when victims had nowhere to turn, and maybe didn't have the same concept of 'victim' that we have today. Maybe it was a regular part of growing up. Just another cross to bear.

Read about Abelard and Heloise who lived back in the 12th century. Wonderful story, but also a glimpse of how the church dominated the western world back then, and what a terribly restrictive world it was. I would expect that clerical pedophiles of that time could get away with it, no problem, when the church ruled.

Gotta go, and thanks.

Farnaz:

"How come you didn't post this when CCNL1 was blogging on this thread?"

Short-sighted, I guess. Goodnight. I'm going to bed. MUCH too much wine today.

Hi Schaum:

RE: exorcism

How come you didn't post this when CCNL1 was blogging on this thread?

:{

Colin,

I knew a woman, a devout Catholic, who was one of the most morally good people I have ever known. When the scandal broke, it almost broke her.

She had faced the shortcomings of the Church squarely in the face, never looked away, never blinked, hoped against hope that Pius would not be canonized.

But that was the past, you see. The pedophile priest thing was not. For Christine, the Church and Christ had been anchors. She had had some of the worst imaginable experiences, and the Church had kept her sane, she felt. I think she was right.

She recognized, like other Catholics, that JUstice was the missing factor in the Church's understanding of the good. I recall her telling me that those who grasped it did so despite the Church.

When the pedophile scandal broke, justice became a topic of discussion. Her very conservative Church began Bible study classes. Things started to change. And Christine stayed with the Church.

She died last year, quite suddenly, and her husband told me that she had her rosary beads in her hand.

I know another man, who was abused by a priest, now in jail where he belongs. This man left the Church and with other former Catholics formed a prayer group of sorts. One of the members had also been abused, but his abuser died before he could be arrested. For him, the road back has been more difficult, I'm told, but he is on the way.

My priest friend sometimes joins them.
--------------
Colin, I think we need to give up these organized religions. Keep the beautiful myths, teach them in school, and (you'll like this), study Voltaire!

Colinnicholas:

"The medieval ritual of driving out evil spirits from the possessed was restored during the rule of John Paul II in the Vatican. Special courses for practicing exorcists were set up at a school for Catholic priests in Rome seven years later. The courses proved to be extremely successful and more vacancies were announced six moths later.

"The Vatican published an official document in October 1998. The document had an awe-inspiring title De Exorcismus et supplicationibus quibusdam (Concerning Exorcisms and Certain Supplications). The document stipulated rules and regulations applicable to exorcism. It was written in Latin and contained 84 pages. Speaking to the press, the Vatican representative Cardinal George Arturo Medina Esteves said that the text of the ritual had been kept largely intact since 1614. Cardinal Esteves stressed the importance of the document in today's world because Satan is a reality. The existence of the Devil is not an assumption for a believer to accept or deny; the Devil is an important component of the creed and Catholic doctrine. Cardinal also promised that the “guidelines” on exorcism would be soon available in authorized versions translated into various languages. Those in need can already use a Latin version for “the Devil understand Latin,” as the cardinal put it."

Balsamic:

In the name of your loving god, stop whining. When you hold ridiculous points of view, you can expect to be ridiculed.

Colin,

No, it isn't about schadenfreude. For me, it's about fear, fear of how corrupt we can be. There is documentation showing that the RCC pedophilia problem goes back to the Middle Ages. There are a few well-regarded books on the subject. If you haven't read them, I could probably dig up the references.

On why some priests don't blow the whistle. In part, I think it's due to fear, fear and moral confusion. I'm not making excuses for them....

I don't know how many Catholics are going on as if it's business as usual. Many are, it would seem, but I think they don't recognize the enormity of the problem. Some think it's been addressed. I see this among some Catholics.

There are some I know, very decent people, who are disgusted but remain with the Church.

There is corruption within every religious institution. What distinguishes the RCC is centralization and celibacy. They are both enormous obstacles.

Colin, you know there have been great, great priests. My father was twenty minutes away from Oscar Romero when he was murdered. May that great soul rest in peace.

There was also Merton. When my mother was a student here, she greatly admired the Berrigan brothers.

I met two extraordinary priests when I taught at Jesuit institution. One of them is still a very close friend of ours. He has a kind of detachment that is difficult to describe, but it is that detachment, I think, that is keeping him in the priesthood. He's a very, very good man.

Counterww

I do not respect your anti-gay bigotry which you call "religious belief."

Yes, in your rude and nasty little eyes,gay people are irrelevant; that is the problem, isn't it?

You think merely by existing, gay people are "horning" in? This betrays your true feelings, that you wish to erradicate gay people from existence. I think you should expect any kind of reaction to that degree of malevolence towards your fellow man.

You have a lot of nerve to cite Constitutional principles to promote your corrossive and toxic campaign against gay people. When people are fighting for their very survival, your mere legal principles, distorted and promoted in bad-faith and with a predetermined anti-gay agenda are worthless, silly, and absurd.

I do not respect religious hypocrites who pose as Christians, when they are in reality, wolves in sheep's clothing, which would include you, seeking to attack and devour the innocent.

Yes, the agenda of gay people is to obstruct the anti-gay angenda of people like you. So what? Get over it.

You said you need to encourage NORMAL heterosexuality. So, tell me, how do you do that? Everyone will just be gay, if their "heterosexuality" is not encouraged? You are a moron with $ H ! T for brains.

Just what is your problem? Gay people are not out to get you; you are the threatening one. Take a look in the mirror.

You are as far away from Christian as anyone can possibly be.

You are a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a person who believes in God, who is a very, very bad person.

Farnaz.

Apparently the Vatican actually has school for Exorcists. A school for Exorcists!! Maybe they'll exorcise those priests; rid them of Satan - who's obviously behind it all - and re-employ them overseas, all clean and pure again.

why didn't the pope think of this?

Farnaz.

That last post was directed at you.

If I was a catholic, like M.Cunningham for instance, this would do it for me. How can decent catholics carry on as usual? Doesn't pedophilia revolt them like it does us?

If you're a pedophile the church is the place to be. It's a magnet. When so called straight priests don't blow the whistle, then maybe they're not so straight. Anyone who was not a pedophile would be revolted and would blow the whistle, wouldn't they?

I don't think for one minute that clerics raping little children is a recent phenomenon. I think its more that in the modern world the media finds things out; things that previously were hidden from people outside the church are finally being found out.

Why would it be something that just started in the last 50 or 100 years? There is every reason to assume that it was ever thus, when priests had to answer to nobody, and could do whatever they liked - without ever being found out. What happened in the church stayed in the church. Like Vegas.

It's not about schadenfreude is it? It's just the satisfaction that they've finally been found out.

Yes I followed the links and read about Lavada. Comes the time, comes the man.

Hi Colin,

I read the article you posted, but I wanted to think a bit before I said anything. Now, that I've thought I don't know what to say! It's so perverse it beggars the imagination. How does can the Church justify, indeed, defend equivocation?

I don't know if you read about Lavada's attempt to destroy Conly, the whistleblower priest, whose ordeals are described in detail on the Angels website.

Lavada, who bankrupted one archdiocese, before being sent to San Francisco, to bankrupt that one, said that his efforts with respect to Conly had nothing to do with his whistle blowing. LOL.

Of course, he wasn't lying. He was simply being mentally reserved. In other words, Conly breached Church protocol by going to the authorities when Lavada was protecting the Salesians, obstructing justice. He should have gone to....Lavada.

MOral insanity. Perversion.

The Salesians were then the largest priest pedophile ring in the US. There were at least 20 lifelong pedophiles.

Now, Lavada is the number 2 man in Rome. It is to him that disaffected Anglicans will apply. It is he who will oversee pedophile priest cases worldwide.

It's worth noting, too, that this Lavada creature also marshaled San Francisco Catholics to march against same sex marriage, protested it again and again. HIde pedophile priests from the law, but don't let gay couples marry.

That this entity, the RCC, which knows nothing of the word "justice," never has, should attempt to impose its will on the legislature of this country, on the Supreme Court, on the presidency, makes me physically ill.

I hope to nonGod that a federal lawsuit will one day prevent religious institutions from lobbying.

We are in real danger here, Colin. And no people are better able to describe it than former Catholics.
------------------------
Change of topic:

When in your Klimt book you come to Emile Floge (spelling?), can you post on what you learn of Klimt's relationship with her?

Farnaz

Farnaz; Enjoyed the Klimt site. Bookmarked it. Excellent.
The City of Angels site is tough going. Godamit, they even shut up the little girl who wanted to tell somebody what had happened to her.
A priest is supposed to be the one person you can trust more than anybody else. What a joke. They must know there is no God; nobody watching them. If they thought there was a God looking down on them they could not behave so disgustingly, unless they figure God looks the other way too.

Now I have to cook.

HI Colin,

AMAZING Klimt site.

http://www.iklimt.com/

Hi Colin,

Thanks for your reply! More in a bit. I want to share this with you. Although, like you, I am of the atheistic persuasion, this works for me. For me, it is a ride on that great spiritual wave of the universe!

-0 Lord, how can we know Thee? Where can we find Thee? Thou art as close to us as breathing and yet art farther than the farthermost star. Thou art as mysterious as the vast solitudes of the night and yet art as familiar to us as the light of the sun. To the seer of old Thou didst say: Thou canst not see my face, but I will make all my goodness pass before thee. Even so does Thy goodness pass before us in the realm of nature and in the varied experiences of our lives. When justice burns like a flaming fire within us, when love evokes willing sacrifice from us, when, to the last full measure of selfless devotion, we proclaim our belief in the ultimate triumph of truth and righteousness, do we not bow before the vision of Thy goodness? Thou livest within our hearts, as Thou dost pervade the world, and we through righteousness behold Thy presence.

Hi Farnaz;

Just got back from the shops. Picked up a beautiful book on Klimt for just 15 bucks.
I love his work, and his devotee Egon Schiele. I'll go through it later.

I really messed up trying to copy/paste that article from today's Irish Times. I'm not very good at these things, but God knows I try, and he's just a figment of our collective imagination; so I guess nobody knows how hard I try, 'cept me. It ain't easy being an atheist.

Before I follow those links you put up, I just wanna say hello. The book I'm actually reading (despite my earlier post)is called 'A Brief History of Mankind' by Cyril Aydon. A 400 page breeze of a book. Just plucked it off the shelf and couldn't put it down. Maybe subconsciously that big Quixote book scares me. Can't read it in bed or in the bathtub.
More when I've checked out your links.

If it wasn't for the Wampanoag helping out those illegal aliens, we'd all be working today and not enjoying turkey and football.

DILD-
if there is anyone's respect I consider irrelevant, it it is yours.

Gay couples motivation is also irrelevant- in the end they want to change bedrock principles and horn in on it . It is not a overall benefit to society.

I know you don't respect Christians very much, you have made that very plain over the years along with many on this forum.

The idea that I need to gain your respect to exercise my constitutional rights is laughable.

I still have the constitutional right to oppose gay marriage.

If you think that the gay rights movement does not have an "agenda" you are a fool. We need to encourage NORMAL, heterosexuality on a monogamous level in this country. This will lead to a more stable society. Just because people have failed at it does not mean we should change marriage or that marriage as it as always has been defined should not be aspired to.

I don't expect you to respect my constitutional right to claim a certain position and use my political influence, dollars, and votes to get what I believe which is the best for the people in my opinion. I realize the most liberals(you always deny you are one, but you really are) only scream about the constitution when it benefits them. if the stance is something they are against, they will usually look the other way when it comes to constitutional rights.

Colin Nicholas,

I've posted before on Cardinal William Lavada, prefect for the CDF (if you can believe it), but here are links. (Why, I keep asking, is he not in jail? And many American Catholics are asking the same.)

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=37124

http://cityofangels4.blogspot.com/2008/03/salesian-religious-order-holds-world.html

Hi Colin Nicholas,

I missed your earlier posting to me--Sorry! Which book are you currently reading?

I don't know if you saw this article in today's WaPo....It's on the Irish Catholic Church abuse horror. I can't summon words for this, so here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112600992.html?hpid=moreheadlines

I thought it was quite amazing how these religious folk learn to deceive.

Stephen Potter used to write books on how to win without actually cheating, which I thought was wonderful.

So now we have - how to lie without actually lying. I used to lie like that when I was five years old.

part 2

Example of how they experienced the use of such ‘mental reservaton’ by Church authorities in Dublin were supplied to the commission by Mrs Collins and fellow abuse victim Andrew Madden.

In Mrs Collins’s case, the Dublin archdiocese said in a 1997 press statement that it had co-operated with gardai where her complaint of abuse was concerned. She was upset by it as she had reason to believe otherwise. Her support priest Fr James Norman made inquiries and later told gardaí he that when he did so, the archdiocese replied “we never said we co-operated fully” - placing emphasis on the word ‘fully’ - with the gardaí.

In Mr Madden’s case, Cardinal Connell emphasised he did not lie to the media about the use of diocesan funds for the compensation of clerical child sexual abuse victims.

He explained to Mr Madden he had told journalists “that diocesan funds ARE (report’s emphasis) not used for such a purpose; that he had not said that diocesan funds WERE not used for such a purpose. By using the present tense he had not excluded the possibility that diocesan funds had been used for such purpose in the past. According to Mr Madden, Cardinal Connell considered that there was an enormous difference between the two.”

In May 1995, Cardinal Connell denied that diocesan funds were used in paying compensation to abuse victims. When it emerged on RTÉ in September that year that Ivan Payne was loaned €30,000 by the archdiocese to pay compensation to Mr Madden, Cardinal Connell still insisted this was not compensation by the archdiocese. He threatened to sue RTÉ, but did not do so.

Apologies for that double post. tIt was supposed to be parts 1 and 2, but I lost part 2, and can't seem to relocate it.
It'd all about how to be honest without actually telling the truth.

Later.

irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Thursday, November 26, 2009, 16:06
Church 'lied without lying'
reservation¿ as method whereby clerics can `lie without lying¿

PATSY MCGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent
One of the most fascinating discoveries in the Dublin Archdiocese report was that of the concept of “mental reservation” which allows clerics mislead people without believing they are lying.

According to the Commission of Investigation report, “mental reservation is a concept developed and much discussed over the centuries, which permits a church man knowingly to convey a misleading impression to another person without being guilty of lying”.

It gives an example. “John calls to the parish priest to make a complaint about the behaviour of one of his curates. The parish priest sees him coming but does not want to see him because he considers John to be a troublemaker. He sends another of his curates to answer the door. John asks the curate if the parish priest is in. The curate replies that he is not.”

The commission added: “This is clearly untrue but in the Church’s view it is not a lie because, when the curate told John that the parish priest was not in, he mentally reserved the words '…to you’.”

Marie Collins, who was abused by a Dublin priest, “was particularly angered by the use by the Church authorities of ‘mental reservation’ in dealing with complaints,” the report said.

It continued that Cardinal Desmond Connell had explained the concept to the commission as follows:

“Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realizing that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying. It really is a matter of trying to deal with extraordinarily difficult matters that may arise in social relations where people may ask questions that you simply cannot answer. Everybody knows that this kind of thing is liable to happen. So mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying

irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Thursday, November 26, 2009, 16:06
Church 'lied without lying'
reservation¿ as method whereby clerics can `lie without lying¿

PATSY MCGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent
One of the most fascinating discoveries in the Dublin Archdiocese report was that of the concept of “mental reservation” which allows clerics mislead people without believing they are lying.

According to the Commission of Investigation report, “mental reservation is a concept developed and much discussed over the centuries, which permits a church man knowingly to convey a misleading impression to another person without being guilty of lying”.

It gives an example. “John calls to the parish priest to make a complaint about the behaviour of one of his curates. The parish priest sees him coming but does not want to see him because he considers John to be a troublemaker. He sends another of his curates to answer the door. John asks the curate if the parish priest is in. The curate replies that he is not.”

The commission added: “This is clearly untrue but in the Church’s view it is not a lie because, when the curate told John that the parish priest was not in, he mentally reserved the words '…to you’.”

Marie Collins, who was abused by a Dublin priest, “was particularly angered by the use by the Church authorities of ‘mental reservation’ in dealing with complaints,” the report said.

It continued that Cardinal Desmond Connell had explained the concept to the commission as follows:

“Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie. On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realizing that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying. It really is a matter of trying to deal with extraordinarily difficult matters that may arise in social relations where people may ask questions that you simply cannot answer. Everybody knows that this kind of thing is liable to happen. So mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying.”

I'm offended.

One person responding to my posts wrongly implied that I hold beliefs that I never disclosed. Rhetorically, that's called knocking down a straw man. It's just rhetorical trick, but when a person implies that another holds views that are antithetical to freedom, it's insulting.

Another responder believed that it was okay to make a joke of my screen name. It isn't. Ridiculing another person's name, even his or her screen name, is an attempt to use humor in an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the person's assertions. It also reveals a tendancy to belittle people who don't share one's views, and everyone knows that's wrong.

I can't control what others choose to say. But I can comment upon it. I believe their commments to be not a hatred directed at me as a person (because they don't know me), but instead a hatred of religion that they harbor either knowingly or unknowningly.

Ah, sanity. Susan's stock and trade.

I don't know what to do with the God question but I find all this amusing, more than anything else.

If anything (along the lines of what Susan Thistlewaithe wrote), it throws a note of irony into the midst of the religious joke that Christmas has largely become in America.

Tomorrow is Black Friday, when money and power rule. Black Friday is the most important day in our national preparation to celebrate the birth of Jesus. The man can't catch a break where Fridays are concerned - the rich and powerful crucified his body on Good Friday, and today his spirit is done in far more insidiously on Black Friday.

Spend 10 minutes with the Gospel of Mark and the tragi-comic irony of Christmas in America becomes evident.

I don't know. I enjoy the songs and symbols, the lights in the dead of winter, the Hannukah menorahs, prayers and potato latkes, the quiet on my grandparents' street on Christmas afternoon. To seriously trouble myself pondering the metaphysical reality that may or may not lie beneath it all would be to miss the point.

Maybe it's something like what Abraham Joshua Heschel meant when he described the Sabbath as "architecture in time." It's a time which is, somehow, almost a place. Maybe I'm a Pagan at heart, marking the winter solstice. Everybody have a happy thanksgiving.

Farnaz:

"Further, John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, with the cooperation of William Bradford, Governeor of Plymout Rock cordoned off the Pequot Indians--men, women, and children--and burned them alive, burned them to death"

Yeah, nothing says "We Are Believers In A Loving God" like the smell of roasting human flesh. Or hanging "witches". Or murdering Aztecs in the name of god. Or telling the ignorant and disadvantaged that using condoms will actually increase the spread of AIDS. May fates preserve us from Believers In A Loving God.

Blasmaic

I don't really understand your complaints or what your point is. Is your point that things were better in the good old days?

There may be individuals or small groups that are anti-religious, but there is no generally organized campaign to erradicate religion. There is no organized "Secularism" that compares to religion; there is just alot of people disinterested in, and ignoring church.

There is a church on every street corner in America, and you are free to go to any one of them that you like, aren't you? The problem is that church's are having a difficult time sustaining themselves. But even that should not interfere with your own personal religous practice and belief. Does it?

And even you think gay people are an abomination, so what if they do eventually acquire equal status and the right to marry? How is that going to infringe upon your right to attend the church of your choice, and believe as you do and sit with your friends in Sunday School class and chat about the meanng of this verse or that verse?

There is no government sponsored scientific attempt to get rid of religion. Science is neither a philosophy nor a political movement. Sometimes, a scientifc consensus conflicts with a traditional church doctrine, but that is the church's problem to square, not science's.

So what if some people want "in God we trust" removed from the money. Is that going to restrict the practice of your religon? Is it really worth fighting over to maintain the name of "God" on the money? IT'S MONEY! for crying our loud. Is it really appropriate, in the first place, to have "God's" name on the money, much less argue over keeping it there?

Farnaz:

"D12's latest put me in mind of his earlier Faustian opining."

Hmmm....ok. I was thrown by the fact that it doesn't occur unntil May Day eve... When I have to start editing his writing before I can read it, usually in the middle of the first paragraph, I just stop reading. Amazing that one individual can use so many words to contribute absolutely nothing to a conversation for which he is perpetually five minutes late.

From D12's muse:

WALPURGIS-NIGHT

THE HARTZ MOUNTAINS. DISTRICT OF SCHIERKE
AND ELEND

FAUST and MEPHISTOPHELES

MEPHISTOPHELES

A broomstick dost thou not at least desire?
The roughest he-goat fain would I bestride,
By this road from our goal we're still far wide.

FAUST

While fresh upon my legs, so long I naught require,
Except this knotty staff. Beside,
What boots it to abridge a pleasant way?
Along the labyrinth of these vales to creep,
Then scale these rocks, whence, in eternal spray,
Adown the cliffs the silvery fountains leap:
Such is the joy that seasons paths like these!
Spring weaves already in the birchen trees;
E'en the late pine-grove feels her quickening powers;
Should she not work within these limbs of ours?

MEPHISTOPHELES

Naught of this genial influence do I know!
Within me all is wintry. Frost and snow
I should prefer my dismal path to bound.
How sadly, yonder, with belated glow
Rises the ruddy moon's imperfect round,
Shedding so faint a light, at every tread
One's sure to stumble 'gainst a rock or tree!
An Ignis Fatuus I must call instead.
Yonder one burning merrily, I see.
Holla! my friend! may I request your light?
Why should you flare away so uselessly?
Be kind enough to show us up the height!

Farnaz,

"Walpurgisnacht dream"

Goethe's Walpurgis? A tasty tumult...

Traumdeutung?

Blasmaic

Thee:
"Wherever people were in need, it was believers in a loving God that were there to help."

Maybe so, but that blade cuts both ways. Schaum's 5-point Thanksgiving back-story and Farnaz' Winthrop and Bradford reminders show that sincere believers in a *loving God* are capable of appalling atrocities.

In the mottled moon, sharp or fat, a precise ibis ledgers crime and kindness wrought by every tribe on earth. Under the rubric *believers in a loving God*, a debit empties every credit.

No balsam in your Blasma.

Walpurgisnacht dream

Part one.

The American Humanist Association's Godless holiday campaign? That the message is that one can be good without God?

The first problem we see with this is when we examine the concept holiday. In ancient times certain times of the year were set aside for both days of reverence and days of riotous celebration. And we can see a trend in at least Western civilization along the lines that as religion would become less important to a civilization (typically as more urban centers of such were created and increased in size) the days of reverence would come to be more and more similar to the days of riotous celebration.

In other words, as Western civilization becomes more and more sophisticated religion declines and no one really reveres on even the more sacred days but rather celebrates wildly. In other words the days on which we are expected to be good tend to be less and less demanding that we be good. The holy days are no longer so distinguished from days of riotous celebration (the less holy days) and we just end up with holidays in which we carouse. What makes it even more interesting is that in ancient times the days of carousing as distinguished from the days of reverence were religious days themselves! But they were considered days in which the devil has his due so to speak.

Part two.

A reversal of the natural order would occur in ancient times on the days set aside for carousing. These days were considered a release from the rules which would be paid special attention to on the days of reverence. People were all too aware that on the days of carousing they really were getting just those days, that as a day of carousing ended tomorrow would bring renewed expectation of following rules. And of course on the days of reverence there was no question one had to be respectful--or potentially be ostracized or worse.

So now we can see with clarity what exactly is wrong with the humanists having days on which we celebrate being good without God. In America (I assume we are speaking of America) the days on which we truly revere are clearly the days in minority in comparison to the days on which we carouse--and this is in no small part due to the days of reverence becoming days of riotous carousing. Christmas and Thanksgiving are no longer days on which we contemplate the divine and celebrate morality, although we are expected to give presents on the one day and give thanks on the other.

Part three.

No, even the days on which we are supposed to be in contemplation of the divine and be good are days on which the last question on our minds is how to be good and in mind of God. To put it simply and unfortunately in embarrassing light to the humanists, who thinks about being good on holidays in reverence of God let alone good and in mind of no God? We open a beer on holidays, eat too much, watch the football game or snooze on the couch--do anything but think how we can be good. Tomorrow is work so today we drink!

In fact there is something quaint and quite religious about these humanists. They like the religious fundamentalists actually believe there are special days set aside on which we are supposed to be good! The one just says good in the name of God while the other says good without God...So tell me, who will be more successful, the humanists or the religious in calling for the days to be good? Answer: if the human race cannot even be good in the name of the divine anymore, it is quite foolish that people will begin talking about special days set aside to be good without God.

Part four.

I predict this Godless holiday campaign will have many followers--from those all too happy that now we have holidays without God.--Happy because we can now really lean back on the couch and swig beer. No God there at all! Great! Party! And in moments of drunken maudlinness "there is no God, oh Jerry, dude, I love you man, I got your back, you got mine, dude, I love you man!" The conversation will be extremely profound. A study in metaphysics. Everyone most certainly gentle when not raging and barfing in the backyard. "We are all humanists now, crack open another beer! Global warming man! Gotta cool down! Another brewski dude!

But it could very well be the humanists are ahead of their time. It could very well be that we are in the middle of a process: First, as in ancient times, religious days set aside for both reverence and carousing. Days on which God was celebrated solemnly and days on which God allowed carousing occurred. Then gradually as religion declined both days of carousing and reverence lost their religious reason for being in the first place and came to be similar in that man would just be celebrating a holiday, hanging out drinking beer--a day off work. Finally, the secular humanist future: days on which we are solemn, good and grateful without God. But evidently these secular humanist days will have to be created against a background of modern man preferring to party on all holidays. Can the secular humanists succeed? If so, we will have the general pattern continued of history being interesting. And if not? We will have the general pattern continued of history being interesting.

Schaum,

Where is the hate, except in your heart and in your words?

Where are my religious beliefs detailed here that cause you to call me a "christer," whatever that is?

Everything good that government does was once done by a religion in America, and is still done by believers in many other parts of the world.

Schools, hospitals, orphanages, poor houses, bread lines, cemeteries, you name it. Wherever people were in need, it was believers in a loving God that were there to help.

Facts are stubborn things.

Schaum:

Re: Walpurgisnacht

D12's latest put me in mind of his earlier Faustian opining.

Farnaz:

"And a happy Walpurgisnacht to all!"

Yeah??? Where? Certainly not in Germany.

And a happy Walpurgisnacht to all!

The brightness of Onofrio. Atheism a succubus and then in next moment hag he questions. Says what a versatile femme. Succubus is illusion, no real beauty as in muse. Succubus illusion behind which lies hag. Try watching a vampire movie. Vampire young illusion brought about by drinking of blood. Vampire actually old...True vampire was actually young once, but like atheism now old. Atheism now no longer of use to science. Metaphysical view and nothing more which sucks faith from man. Succubus.

There was no mixing and mangling of metaphors in piece questioned. The arts and sciences have the muse. Muse which constantly draws onward in faith--as in eternal feminine of Goethe. Atheism has no muse. More like succubus if anything. Atheism once no succubus, and actually perhaps once working for the muse in clearing ground of so much superstition and religion and making way for science. But atheism now clearly succubus. The arts and not even science now needs atheism against religion to exist. The arts having needed less atheism than science to be free. The sciences needing more atheism. But now atheism unnecessary. Atheism a succubus, still pretending to be young and in need but actually bloodsucker of faith saying nothing, nothing is behind existence. No mixing and mangling of metaphors at all. Perfect consistency and clear view. Stop wasting time complaining about mixed metaphors or whatever and just criticize the view postulated concerning if you can.

An original view: The least profound people are those that can tolerate only views which square with them completely, and these views have to be presented in the most flattering light to the listener. A more profound person is one who can listen to views which do not exactly square with him, but still these views have to be presented in a flattering light to the listener. A still more profound person is one who can listen to views which do not square with him and these views do not have to be presented in a flattering light to the listener. And the most profound people of all are those that can listen to what does not square with them from a person spitting and cursing in their face. The best people have managed here on on faith is to be the person willing to listen to what does not exactly square with him but these views have to be presented in a flattering light to the listener.

Blasmaic:

As expected, you are unable to cite any authorities or proofs for your idiotic assertions.

Smarter than anyone here? Well, if "smarter" means "shooting onself in the foot with great accuracy" I would agree with you. In actuality, you are merely another hate-filled, superheated christer. You are a yawn a minute. Enjoy your evening.

Schaum, no I am not anyone other than one person posting under one pseudonym... and I am smarter than everyone here.

Everything good that government does was once done by a religion in America, and is still done by believers in many other parts of the world.

Schools, hospitals, orphanages, poor houses, bread lines, cemeteries, you name it. Wherever people were in need, it was believers in a loving God that were there to help.

This simple fact causes so much difficulty for athiests that the new trend in evolutionism is gin up theories of how acts of charity toward strangers is an evolutionary strategy. Behind that effort though lies a deeper, more cynical plan to replace religious belief with a blind religious faith in whatever the state-sponsored scientists say.

For the love of God, people!!

What about Jamestown?

We (Virginians) were robbed of our heritage.

We were first. It's all because of the Civil War. Our side lost. The North rewrote history, and Plymouth, MA got all the PR and fame, and Jamestown was kicked to the curb (ta-da-dom) and forgotten.

Don't punish us because we chose the wrong side in the war. We didn't know. We thought slavery was good. It says so in the Bible. We didn't know we were gonna loose.

Any one of you would have done the same thing!

I suppose the question is "can a person be good without God?"

Implicit in the question is a mean spirited assumption that people who believe in God are therefore good, and better than people who do not believe in God.

Just with the single example of the Pilgrims in Plymouth rejoicing at the misfortune of the Indians, which they caused, shows that people who believe in God and not necessarily good. The whole premise of the question is blown.

There are lots and lots of other historical examples of people believing in God who are not good. But also, it is just common knowledge, sense, and experience that mere belief in God does not make a person good, just as not having a belief in God does not make a person not good.

So, it's a dumb question, isn't it?

On Same-sex Marriage:

Students Discuss Their Research Papers

One of my students, a lesbian, is writing on censorship on college campuses. She mentioned a case in which a student wore a tee shirt on whose front was a quotation from the Bible and on the back, "Gay Marriage: Never in America."

The student, she said, was escorted off campus and instructed to change his attire. He filed a grievance. My student was critical of his treatment, arguing that the language on his shirt did not constitute "hate speech" and that he should have been left in peace.

A small minority of students disagreed with her. Of the remainder, some agreed although they, themselves, confessed that they would have been discomfited at the sight of the student in his "protest" shirt. Others saw no problem with it.

I then asked how they would feel if they saw on our campus someone wearing a tee shirt with a line drawn down the front, a black woman to the left, a white to the right. On the back, they would see the words, "Bring back segregation." All but one of the white students were silent. The one who was not said he thought that would be going "too far."

The black students were irate. One woman said she would punch him in the mouth. Another said, "That would affect ME."

I, then, asked what they would say if someone wore a tee shirt with a line drawn down the middle of the front, a lesbian to the left and a heterosexual to the right.
On the back would be the words, "Defend Marriage in America"

The same woman who had said that "racial" segregation would affect HER said, "Boy are we f**ed up." I said nothing since I thought her language fit the occasion.

Schaum, et al,

Since I've already posted on this, I'll be brief. The Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock, along with the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony were among those who distributed blankets infected with Small Pox to the AmerIndians.

In other words, they purposefully acted to commit mass murder. Further, John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, with the cooperation of William Bradford, Governeor of Plymout Rock cordoned off the Pequot Indians--men, women, and children--and burned them alive, burned them to death.

While Governor Bradford watched the horror, he praised God and read from the Bible. This is his testimony, as given in his journal.

The journals of Winthrop and Bradford are available on the web.

Schaum

I am not sure about gonorrhea, but I think that syphilis was unknown in Europe until soon after Columbus discovered America, and it is widely believed that it came from America to Europe. It is the Indian's revenge.

Also, I am from Virginia. Our history lessons about Thanksgiving were different. Jamestown was founded in 1607. Due to a vigorous Indian society and the lazy gentlemen colonists, it took a little longer to dislodge the local inhabitants. So, we were taught, the first Thanksgiving was in 1619 at Berkely Plantation, in Virgina, before the Pilgrims had even arrived in America, at all.

DITLD:

An excellent point! Thank you for making it.

Farnaz:

"Gay couples do not want to marry to cause any harm to you; they want to marry because they love each other."

Heterosexual marriage is obviously an unstable and unnatural condition: 50% of first marriages end in divorce; 67% of second marriages end in divorce; and 74% of third marriages dissolve in divorce.

The Huffington Post reports that, in the half-decade since gay marriage was made legal in Massachusetts, "data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008" and "The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two."

Clearly, gay marriage in Mass has had a positive effect on ALL marriages in that state. The Roman Catholic Corporation should rejoice.

Schaum

Don't forget this:

Europeans brought smallpox, measles, and influenza to the New World and to the Indian inhabitants, who had no immune defenses against these European diseases. No one can blame the Pilgrims for inadvertently bringing diseases to the Indians.

But the Pilgrims gave thanks to God for these diseases that were destroying the Indians. I do not see how any Christian, nor anyone else, can defend that practice, although I would be intetested in hearing some of their arguments.

Blasmaic:

"It is the intent of non-believers to wipe the secular calendar clean of all reference to religion."

Please cite your authorities and proofs for this absurd assertion.

I'm beginning to think you are no brighter than Daniel12. Perhaps you ARE Daniel12 ....

5.

Any goodwill that may have existed was certainly now gone and by 1675 Massachusetts and the surrounding colonies were in a full scale war with the great chief of the Wampanoags, Metacomet. Renamed "King Phillip" by the White man, Metacomet watched the steady erosion of the lifestyles and culture of his people as European laws and values engulfed them. The syphilis, gonorrhea, smallpox and all types of "white man" diseases took their toll. Forced ultimately into humiliating submission by the power of a distant king, Metacomet struck out with raids on several isolated frontier towns. The expedient use of the so-called "Praying Indians" (natives converted to their version of Christianity), ultimately defeated the great "Indian" nation, just half a century after the arrival of the European.

When Captain Benjamin Church tracked down and assassinated Metacomet, his body was quartered and parts were "left for the wolves." The great "Indian" chief's hands were cut off and sent to Boston and his head went to Plymouth where it was set upon a poke on Thanksgiving Day, 1767. Metacomet's nine-year-old son was destined for execution, the Puritan reasoning being that the offspring of the "Devil" must pay for the sins of their father. He was instead shipped to the Caribbean to serve his life in slavery.

In the midst of the Holocaust/Genocide of the Red Man and woman, Governor Dudley declared in 1704 a "General Thanksgiving" not to celebrate the brotherhood of man, but for:

[God's] infinite Goodness to extend His Favors... In defeating and disappointing.... the expeditions of the Enemy [Indians] against us, And the good Success given us against them, by delivering so many of them into our hands...

Counterww

Gay couples do not want to marry to cause any harm to you; they want to marry because they love each other.

You are the one who is paranoid.

And it is a dangerous paranoia because it motivates harmful actions against innocent people who mean you no ill will.

As long as your religion promotes an anti-gay agenda, it is not worthy of anyone's respect; so stop demanding and expecting respect; assume that you will be treated the way you treat others.

4.

During this period a day of thanksgiving was also proclaimed in the churches of Manhattan. The European colonists declared thanksgiving days to celebrate mass murder more often than they did for reverence, harvest or friendship.

In 1641 the Dutch governor Kieft of Manhattan offered the first "scalp bounty". His government paid money for the scalp of each "Indian" brought to him. A couple of years later, Kieft ordered the massacre of the Wappingers, a "friendly tribe". Eighty were killed and their severed heads were kicked like soccer balls down the streets of Manhattan. One captive was castrated,` skinned alive and forced at points to eat his own flesh while the Dutch governor watched and laughed. Then Kieft hired the notorious Underhill who had commanded in the Pequot War to carry out a similar massacre near Stamford, Connecticut. The village was set on fire, and 500 "Indian" residents were put to the sword.

In their victory, the settlers launched an all out genocide plot against the remaining Native people. The Massachusetts government, following what appeared to be the order of the day, offered twenty shillings bounty for
every "Indian" scalp, and forty shillings for every prisoner who could be sold into slavery. Soldiers were allowed to enslave and rape any "Indian" woman or enslave any "Indian" child under 14 they could kidnap. The "Praying Indians" who had converted to Christianity and fought on the side of the European troops were accused of shooting into the treetops during battles` with "hostiles." They were enslaved or killed. Other "peaceful Indians" of` Dartmouth and Dover were invited to negotiate or seek refuge at trading` posts and were sold onto slave ships. Colonial law further gave permission
to "kill savages ("Indians") on sight at will."

3.

The Puritans embraced a line from Psalms 2:8, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee,
the heather for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of he earth for thy possession."

Contrary to popular mythology the Pilgrims were no friends to the local Indigenous People ("Indians"). A company of Pilgrims led by Miles Standish actively sought the head of a local chief. Standish eventually got his bloody prize. He beheaded an Indian named Wituwamat and brought the head to Plymouth where it was displayed on a wooden spike for many years.

In about 1636, a force of colonists trapped some seven hundred Pequot Indians near the mouth of the Mystic River. English Captain John Mason attacked the Indian camp with "fire, sword, blunderbuss, and tomahawk." Only a handful escaped and few prisoners were taken.

"To see them frying in the fire, and the streams of their blood quenching the same, and the stench was horrible, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice to the great delight of the Pilgrims, and they gave praise thereof to God."

The Puritan fathers believed they were the Chosen People of an Infinite God and that this justified anything they did. They were Calvinists who believed that the vast majority of humanity was predestined to damnation.

2.

The "Indians" who attended were not even invited. The pilgrims only invited Chief Massasoit and it was Massasoit who then invited ninety or more of his "Indian"
brothers and sisters to the affair to the chagrin of the indignant Europeans. No turkey, cranberry sauce or pumpkin pie was served, no prayers were offered and the "Indians" were not invited back for any other such meals. The Pilgrims did however consume a good deal of brew on that day. In fact, each Pilgrim drank at least a half gallon of ale a day which they preferred even to water.

The peace that produced the Thanksgiving Feast of 1621 meant that the Puritans would have fifteen years to established a firm foothold on the coast. Until 1629 there were no more than 300 Puritans in New England, cattered in small and isolated settlements. But their survival inspired a wave of Puritan invasion that soon established growing Massachusetts towns north of Plymouth; Boston and Salem. For ten years, boat loads of new settlers came.

As the Europeans' numbers increased, they proved not nearly as generous as the Wampanoags. On arrival, the Puritans discussed "who legally owns all this land? "Massachusetts Governor Wintrop declared the "Indians" had not "subdued" the land, and therefore all uncultivated lands should, according to English Common Law, be considered "public domain." This meant they belonged to the king. In short, colonists decided they did not need to consult the "Indians". When they seized the new lands, they only had to consult the representative of the crown (meaning the local governor).

Blasmaic:

"Jacoby provides us with no Thanksgiving message. That's because Thanksgiving is at its root a religious holiday. "

1.

Whose thanksgiving have you been celebrating?

In mid-winter 1620 the English ship Mayflower landed on the North American coast(at Plymouth Rock) delivering 102 Puritan exiles. The original Native people "Indians") of this stretch of shoreline had already been killed off in great numbers. In 1614 a British expedition had landed there. When they left they took 24 Indians as slaves and left smallpox, syphilis and gonorrhea behind. That plague swept the so called "tribes of New England",destroyed some villages totally.

The Puritans landed and built their colony called "the Plymouth Plantation" near the desired ruins of the Indian village of Pawtuxet. They ate from abandoned cornfields grown wild. Historical accounts tell us that only one Pawtuxet named Squanto had survived. He had spent the last years as a slave to the English and Spanish in Europe. The Pilgrim crop failed miserably, but the agricultural expertise of Squanto produced 20 acres of corn, without which the Pilgrims would have surely perished. Squanto spoke the colonists' language and taught them how to plant corn and how to catch fish. Squanto also helped the colonists negotiate a peace treaty with the nearby Wampanoag tribe, led by the chief Massasoit.

These were very lucky breaks for the colonists. Thanks to the good will of the Wampanoag, the Puritans not only survived their first year but had an alliance with the Wampanoags that would give them almost two decades of peace. In celebration of their good fortune, the colony's governor, William Bradford, declared a three-day feast after the first harvest of 1621. It later became known as "Thanksgiving", but the Pilgrims never called it that.

"Show me that people who believe in God behave in a more moral, compassionate fashion than anyone else, and then I'll explain to you, one more tiresome time, why being an atheist doesn't lead me to commit murder."

Weak stuff. Prove to her that religion is a positive moral force for good, and she'll "explain" that atheism doesn't not cause homicide.

She cannot assert that athiests act more selflessly than religious people. At least she's honest. Everything that government does that is "good" is something that religious institutions used to do for us, and something that they continue to do for others in the developing world. Schools, hospitals, orphanages, medical assistance, food assistance and alms for the poor -- all are originally sectarian institutions.

Jacoby provides us with no Thanksgiving message. That's because Thanksgiving is at its root a religious holiday.

It is the intent of non-believers to wipe the secular calendar clean of all reference to religion. See, it isn't enough that prayer is removed from public schools. Secularists want crosses removed from monuments in the wilderness that no one sees. Someday too, Thanksgiving will be yet another sign of an oppressive theocracy, and it will have to be ended for the good of all.

Jacoby may deny that such is the intent of secularists, and that's okay for her to do. In the animal kingdom where humans are the smartest of all animals, deception is as natural a survival mechanism as a cameleon's camoflage.

Typical Farnaz-

AGAIN- Christians have the right to influence government. EVEN to the degree when they believe that society needs to encourage marriage, REAL marriage (man and woman, that is what it is) and fight against something that does not lead to society's benefit.

No one wants to impose their religion. You are just paranoid.

Yet again, during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are.
-------------------------
Are they "charitably inclined"? I thought they were shopping until they dropped, busily patronizing union-busting Walmart's, that great trampler on the human rights of workers worldwide. I don't see this activity as "charitable," but, hey, that's only me.

The ads are mere propaganda that answers to an argument that no one has made. The claim is not that atheistic lack of morals but a lack of moral premise, lack of ethos.
It is also a reprinting of their ads from last year: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-atheist-charity-huge-success.html

Yet again, during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are.

We revisit the wrong question, viz, "Can we be good without God?"

In fact, the question should be, "Can we be good WITH Organized Religion?

Witness the recent gathering of what I will call the Gang of Three, Christian Evangelicals, the RCC, and the Christian Orthodox, to perpetuate segregation and the denial of equal rights to gays. These Manhattan Declarers, gangsters wish to impede progress, legislate discrimination at the Federal level, imposing their "religion" nationwide, in what amounts to partial establishment. Their god supersedes the Constitution, over-rides it, tramples it in the dust. THEIR god and no one else's.

Is their goodness WITH Organized Religion?

There seems to be a confusion on the part of some about Darwin's Theory. Its essential element is the postulation that Natural Selection is, as it were, the designer in the evolution of life rather than an intelligent designer. This was the reason religious types were aghast when The Origin of the Species was published. They were content with evolution guided by a creator, but could not accept the naturalistic thrust Darwin's ideas.
Even though the science of biological evolution has changed tremendously since Darwin's time, Natural Selection is still at its core, backed up by more confirming data than perhaps any other scientific theory. This is the reason Darwin is honored as one of the giants of science.

Daniel12,

Thee:
"But why use metaphors? Those are lost on certain people..."

You don't use metaphors; you mishandle, mix, and mangle them. And that is lost on you.

As for "Beautiful groom, lovely bride", the ιερός γάμος is not news, Dan-le-Douze. Nor is conjunctio, nor the philosopher's stone.

Thee:
"Priest molesting boys ruins faith."
Ruins far more than *faith*, fool!

h star equals i ps 1 equals i star star equals i an. h*ps1star*an. Oops, made a mistake, h star equals y not i ps 1 equals i star star equals i an.

Priest molesting boys ruins faith. Sam Harris not like such priest for writing book against religious. Total package of Sam Harris considered. Everything in his ken and not forced into defense of atheism. No scientist he, merely use of science to thrust home vision (or rather non-vision, for as atheists tell us they are not positing anything but removing, that the religious have to provide proof for positings) of atheism. Thousands of great scientists changing our lives for the better, building faith. Sam Harris neuroscientist poking in brain to say "ah! I have found a way to discount religion, so much for faith!".

Dennett almost as repellant, somehow finding in Darwin proof that life can organize from the bottom up without a designer rather than be decided from the top down by a designer. When of course Darwin demonstrates no such thing. Yes that complex forms develop out of simpler, but this proof there is no designer? Some philosopher! Scientific theories hang in space and time as beautiful as Calders but like Calders cannot demonstrate conclusively either way whether big designer or not and like Calders scientific theories demonstrate only creator of theory. Calder makes Calders. Scientists make theories. Neither conclusively proves either way designer.

So now I can spell the man's name right and it passes? What about...Ah, h*ps1star*an, that does not pass. Must be a faith which terrifies the atheists and religious alike to not be allowed to mention. I think I like this religion even more. Occult science which marries religion and science? No one wants that wedding? I can see why atheists and the religious would try to prevent that wedding. Beautiful groom, lovely bride. But why use metaphors? Those are lost on certain people....

I have not had to wait until old age. I found Goethe when young. Terrific example of a complete man.

In old age the great man finally found a religion he could believe in, one which had as its stated project to treasure, admire and honor all that is best and most perfect in life, and insofar as such must have a close connection to the Godhead, pay it reverence.

Strange, seems like the name of the great man, 6oethe cannot be mentioned nor the Pagan-Jewish sect the h*ps1star*ans.

h star equals i ps 1 equals i star star equals i an. h*ps1star*an.

Project treasure, admire, honor all that is best in life, and insofar as it must have a close connection to the Godhead, pay it reverence.

Pagan-Jewish sect.

h*ps1star*an. Religious sect.

6o*the, h*ps1star*an. M*self as well.

Yes, blocking posts.

Blocking posts now, are we?

Onofrio:

I told you a long time ago, this puppy is profoundly ignorant. He makes Sarah Palin look like an intellectual.

Schaum,

"Science does not "believe"..."

Down, Schaum! The Jeenyus of Dan le Douze has refuted you (November 24, 2009 1:26 AM):

"Science believes in a beautiful woman, strives to cure, to beat even death."

Who are we to carp and cavil, when such supra-Goethean gems of insight gleam amidst our grit?

And there's an embarassment of riches:

"Science is a lover and moves on--wants a positive woman."

Science: a pronged and primed true believer, seeking not proofs but female prey.

C'mon Schaum, you know it makes sense...

Colinnicholas:

"I forgive you, my son. Abracadabra.Omnipomni."

Grassyass.

Jack112229:

"The sciences have a long history of changing their conclusions just as the theologies do. Atheists, also, just believe"

Science does not "believe"...science seeks proofs. When theories are formed which cannot be refuted by facts, they remain intact until such time as new facts dispute, or otherwise alter, theories. Then science is quick to make changes to accommodate the new expansion of knowledge, or 'truth' if you will.

This is NOT true of theologies. They RARELY admit error and make changes. That is because they are belief-based, rather than knowledge-based, and frequent changes in belief-based theologies quickly destroys the credibility of a given theology, and its ability to control people.

And, actually, atheists do not "believe". They disbelieve, finding nothing to support a belief in a god.

You have mixed apples and oranges, illogically. However you are right: no one can ever "know" anything. We can only THINK we know. That is the glory of science over theoogy: it is willing -- anxious, even -- to change to accommodate and incorporate new knowledge which expands the larger body of what can be known with certainty.

Schaum:

I forgive you, my son. Abracadabra.Omnipomni.

Susan;

It's like the religious do good things to impress Jehovah. If they knew he wasn't up there they'd go to pieces and do all the terrible things from which only the fear of god has so far held them back. Maybe it's better if they never find out.

Daniel12,

Thee, re Sam Harris:

"Essentially what we have here is a man no better than a priest molesting boys."

So, publishing atheist tracts ≡ sexual abuse of minors.

Have you any idea how F****D up your moral compass is, to make that equation?

Colinnicholas:

""unselfish concern for others"."

No, I do not agree. It is not possible to have any 'concern' for others that does not also answer a need which you have...if only to fulfill your programmed need to be a 'good person who has concern for others.' It is impossible to undertake any action that is perfectly unselfish. And what is wrong with that? Altruism, like god, is just another man-made myth. The fact that altruism, like god (and santa claus and unicorns and papal infallibility) have dictionary definitions does not mean they really exist.

Forgive me, Colin...I've had this discussion ad nauseam with people who have tried, and universally failed, to prove that such a thing as altruism exists...and I am weary of it.

If one works on "knowing" vs "believing" and the process of logic, one will see that all is an act of believing. The sciences have a long history of changing their conclusions just as the theologies do. Atheists, also, just believe. There are 26 Bibles with a new one coming out soon. There are the translations from one language to another
In logic, moving from premises to conclusions does not mean you are correct, it just means you have followed the rules of logic.
So what we are left with is the act of believing: in Atheism, in theologies and in science.

Schaum;

My Oxford says that altruism is (1) "a regard for others as a principal of action."
and (2) "unselfish concern for others".

Doesn't say "providing you don't feel good about doing it."

If the definition of altruism was that it was "acting in a way causing personal pain,discomfort and financial loss = so that unknown others will benefit", then I'd agree with you. There's not much of that around.
The reciprocal altruism among chimps and bonobos and some other animals is well documented. It's reciprocal - someone benefits - but it's still altruism. Don't you agree?

Navin!:

"If one acts for justice without expectation of reward, that is altruism"

This is not an argument, it is a presupposition. It is not possible to "act for justice", or for injustice for that matter, without a reason, a motivation. In serving that motivation, you are participating in and fulfilling your own belief system...hardly an altruistic enterprise!

Part one.

Atheism is not exactly my favorite view of life--and I do consider it a view, which is to say metaphysics--and I consider it pessimism, but I have to admit that if a person can be good while holding this view then it is admirable. But let me be clear what I mean by atheism--clear and simple. I mean that life is fundamentally futile, that for all good and order and beauty that life at bottom is random, no real design, an amoral universe.

If a person can be good while holding such a view, well then that perhaps deserves to be called heroism--certainly something of stoicism, a tragic yet tolerant outlook, a willingness to make good of what exists. I might have to even revise my views of atheism completely. Truly understood it should make a person treasure every positive moment and accomplishment that exists, for such can only perish in the end. In such a world long suffering is the primary virtue. And fast behind lies honesty, intelligence, capacity for beauty whether self-created or appreciated in others.

But how many atheists are such beings? And can the human race as a whole shift to such a view and live up to it as mentioned? My negative views of atheists lie along the lines that they are not really being honest about their view with themselves and others, or that atheism is just not being thought through. Let me give a couple examples of atheism by two prominent atheists today to demonstrate what I mean.

Take philosopher Daniel Dennett. He states that Darwin demonstrated that life does not need a creator to exist and evolve. That life can well up from the bottom, self-organize, and does not need any top down creation from some God or designer. But Darwin demonstrated no such thing. Darwin demonstrated that yes, life does evolve from primitive forebears to more advanced forms, but this is not a statement in any way proving that life does not need a designer or God. Dennett essentially is more concerned with his own atheism than anything else and makes science serve his atheism.

Part two.

Darwin's view is a view which hangs in space and time--a process of which we do not know the beginning or end. Why in Darwin's time DNA was unknown! Darwin did not know even that let alone whether life needs a God or not! This is an example of my misgivings of atheists. Dennett is supposed to be a philosopher, supposed to easily see something as obvious as this, and yet he does not. I cannot believe he is stupid, so he must be serving his pet metaphysics.

Darwin's dangerous ideas was not that he demonstrated life does not need God to evolve but that species evolve and are not created in whole, complete, as was the typical belief by the religious going from the Bible. Furthermore the danger was increased in that a profound reflection on the origin of man was made--that man might have become what he is by passage from primitive forebear to more complex form. That was the dangerous idea and dangerous enough. No need to exaggerate and say it was demonstrated that life does not need God and self-organizes from the ground up. But exaggerate Dennett does.

The second example is Sam Harris. He too makes science serve his pet metaphysics. So much so that apparently he is engaged in science to primarily debunk religion. At least so far as I have heard he is into neuroscience and worked on demonstrating that religious beliefs are founded on just brain processes. Essentially what we have here is a man no better than a priest molesting boys. The priest in molesting boys destroys faith in the boy. Sam Harris, like the priest twisting religion to his own perverted use twists science--which has always existed primarily to fulfill man's hopes, help him understand and do better for his life--to serve the metaphysics of nothing behind existence. Sam Harris works to destroy faith as much as the child molesting priest does. And it is all the more infuriating in that he is so smug.

Part three.

A couple examples. Now compare them with my first two paragraphs. Can we even say the prominent atheists of our time are capable of being good without a belief in God? Do we not see that at least two of the prominent atheists are far more concerned with pushing atheism than anything else? And what happens when we add Dawkins to the mix? Is he not merely a bulldog of Darwin in a time when defending Darwin is no real danger? What originality does Dawkins possess? Is he not a "scientist" rather than scientist in that he did nothing original? And what original have Dennett and Harris done?

The best of the big four modern atheists is obviously Christopher Hitchens. He just states that he is an atheist. And he is always charming so far as I know. No forcing of science like the others to serve his purposes. Sure he draws on disciplines to make his case, but one never gets the feeling he forces anything. He more than the others lives up to the idea of atheist in the first two paragraphs I have written.

And I would wager that out there are many far more admirable atheists than at least three of the four men mentioned. That is a cause of hope. I hope atheists understand that for their view to live it must be entered into with nobility. The best of it must be made clear. No dragging of this and that in support of the view but the view explicated from THE INSIDE OUT, THE SUBJECTIVE FEELING AND SIGHT OF BEING AN ATHEIST. Then I would wager more than a few people will say it is possible to be good without God.

Altruism is possible, though difficult. If one acts for justice without expectation of reward, that is altruism.

Yes, when we feel happy, satisfied by our actions, we are not being altruistic. In sanskrit the word is Samana - sameness / equipoised. In good times and in bad times, one is steady in the knowledge of doing good for the sake of doing good - detached/egoless and renounced of the results.

Not easy, but doable.

hariaum

Colinnicholas:

"Are you saying here that if I enjoy being altruistic then I'm not being altruistic, for the very reason that I enjoy it?
How am I supposed to feel before I can claim that I am being altruistic?"

I am saying that altruism -- an utterly selfless act for the good of another entity -- does not exist. It is a myth. There is no selfless act, no action from which the doer does not also benefit. One benefit to be had from doing good things is to feel good about doing good things. That obviates altruism as an explanation for doing good things.

Further, I see no reason why there SHOULD be such a thing as altruism. What is in any way negative about feeling good as a result of doing good? I think feeling good is an excellent motivator.

Hi Farnaz;

Hope you are having a happy day. I'm about to embark on Don Quixote in the translation by Edith Grossman, which is the ONE to read, according to Harold Bloom. It weighs a ton.

Have another waiting to be read called "The Drunkards Walk; How Randomness Rules Our Lives", by Leonard Mlodinow, the same Leonard Mlodinow who co-wrote "A Briefer History of Timw" with Stephen Hawking.
What he is saying here is that chance is important.Really important. Maybe I should read this one first.Just a couple of hundred pages compared to Quixote's more than nine hundred.

Schaum;

I have nothing but respect for your views and agree with most of them.

Are you saying here that if I enjoy being altruistic then I'm not being altruistic, for the very reason that I enjoy it?
How am I supposed to feel before I can claim that I am being altruistic?

Globealone:

"But there is an answer to evil. And it is the only one whereby death is defeated. Sad that you have not been witness to the powers of the Holy Spirit working through someone.

There is no evil; only confusion resulting in confused behavior. The Holy Spirit 'working through someone'? Please! You get better results with ExLax.

Susan Jacoby:

"Goodness isn't altruistic at all. It feels good to do good. It feels good to comfort a mourner, to feed someone who is hungry, to say something encouraging to someone in a state of despair."

Ipsi dixit.

"And when the inner man or woman is twisted, no deity wielding a lightning bolt or the threat of the eternal flames of hell can rescue human beings..."

But there is an answer to evil. And it is the only one whereby death is defeated. Sad that you have not been witness to the powers of the Holy Spirit working through someone.

Hi Colin,

Thanks for your post. No problem.
Just wanted to make sure my post hadn't gotten squished, as it were!

Farnaz

DITLD,

Thanks for that one! Cannot wait to tell it!

Farnaz

Farnaz.

Caught your last comment on the previous thread. Actually I had responded tp your earlier copmments about my travels. I wrote at length but as I was about to press submit, I changed my mind and hit cancel.
It was too much about me and made me feel sick. I'll find another way.

I've got a couple of things happening right now, but I'll be around later.

Susan; I loved you last post to EBA.

By "last comment," I actually meant the first comment by EDBYRONADAMS, which I read last because it's at the bottom of the page.

I'll answer that last comment, which shows only too well that religion has nothing to do with goodness. Sexual abuse is not a "peccadillo," the definition of which is a venial or petty sin. It is a terrible crime and, in the language of theology, a mortal sin. And I have not felt any inner glee at this revelation of the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic Church, because for every one of these crimes, there is a victim who has been scarred for life by the memory of assault, and betrayed trust, on the part of the representative of a religion that the victim had mistakenly regarded as sacred. If there were no victims, I would feel glee at the discomfiture of the church hierarchy, which covered up these crimes. Not peccadillos. Crimes. But there are victims.

Farnaz

A man was driving on a winding country road. Suddenly, a car came creening around a curve at a high speed, and whooshed by him. And as the on-coming car passed, the drived yelled out the window, "PIG!"

The man in the first car was appalled. "That guy was driving wrecklessly, and he called ME a pig!" he exclaimed. "The nerve of that guy. He's a menace to the public. I hope someone gets his license number and calls the police."

Then as he drove around the curve, sputtering and fuming at the other driver's discourtesy, he hit a pig.

How much glee do most people feel when they hear of a terrorist bomb factory blowing up? How much when they read of Maj. Hasan's paralysis?

Schadenfreude at the misfortune of those we consider enemies is just as natural as a feeling of happiness in helping others we consider members of our own tribe.

None.

"Something has gone very wrong with anyone who derives pleasure from the pain of others, and that something has to do with the inner man or woman."

How much inner glee has Susan Jacoby felt about the sexual abuse peccadilloes of the RCC?