All Comments (25)

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

Google is the best search engine Google

Amazon's review for Stroebel's books starts out: "The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to "determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God."

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

It's not about proving that the Bible is true.

BGONE

"The standard for proving literary hoaxes is to find the original information used by the hoaxers. That has been done in the case of the Bible. It's a proved hoax removes the opinion part or your concern. It's not my opinion no more than it's my opinion a criminal found guilty in a court of law is guilty."

Just curious? You say "that has been done in the case of the Bible" Hmmmm....By whom? When? Where? By what means? Can you support this claim?

I would suggest possibly "The Case for Christ" written by Lee Strobel.

Mentioning God or praying should NOT be anathema.
When Bush answered the question who is the world's greatest philosopher, he said, "Jesus
Christ" in such a way that it repelled me.

But when Al Gore in the early '90s (I think in his acceptance speech of the V.P. nomination) told of his praying for his son when he was hit by an automobile, I thought it quite moving and NOT inappropriate.

Maybe it's just which one of the two I favored.
But if Gore had been a little more "open" with his religious beliefs, he might have taken his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election, and then it would not have mattered about Florida.

I have one problem with this essay.

How is being a Christian in any way relevant to the political sphere? Christians, like any group, have never been homogenous in terms of beliefs. In fact, to a critical listener, a politician's claim of "being a Christian" says no more about the politician's life than "driving a ford", "having freckles", or "enjoying basketball" does.

The only people who respond to that assume that Christians are "good", and may reduce political issues to oversimplified moral judgments, as well.

Invoking the name of God (which uncritical people associate with "Their" or "The" God), is just another way to impair rational thought among certain members of the voting constituency. It shouldn't be allowed. Period. I know we don't uphold the Constitution anymore, but I think the Separation of Church and State applies to the campaign trail, as well as the office itself.

I agree, but would frame the issue this way:

People who find comfort in any political candidate's religious beliefs are stupid, weak and lazy by nature. Candidates who use their religious beliefs or practice public piety should be recognized as a disgrace and insult to rest of us.

RER:

The standard for proving literary hoaxes is to find the original information used by the hoaxers. That has been done in the case of the Bible. It's a proved hoax removes the opinion part or your concern. It's not my opinion no more than it's my opinion a criminal found guilty in a court of law is guilty.

The Bible is such an important document. Nothing as earth "rounding" as proving it to be a hoax will be immediately accepted just like there are still holdouts for a flat earth. It's a fact and nothing will ever change that so it's just a matter of time until the information leaches out to the general "shocked" public.

Visualize what it means to Americans politically. Without it the bishop that made a vote for Kerry a sin must be found to be purely political and therefore not entitled to tax breaks because of his actions. With the Bible being God's word he's a vicar, God's attorney with the power to sign God's name and literally did just that. It was as if God said a vote for Kerry was a sin.

We are looking at a real David vs Goliath with a no name person from an unknown university alone against all the evangelicals, the Catholic church, Church of England, north, east, south and west Baptist, Church of Christ, Mormons, the works. In short the most powerful men alive, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the pope, the archbishop of Cantebury and even the president with trillions of dollars. He can't possibly lose because he does not have to win or even survive. The information, the stone from David's sling is now all over the world already.

Dear Reverend Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Separation of Church and State. I see no reason to change that. On the basis of current events I see no reason what-so-ever. God Bless you and yours Always.

BGONE

Yes, I know you didn't use the Bible to prove anything. My mistake. I thought you were actually trying to make and prove a point. I see from your reply that that is the farthest thing from your mind.

If you want to engage in a serious, lucid, rational discussion, then you really have to stop making unsupported statements as if they were absolute truth. "The Bible is a proved hoax. It'll take a while but people will figure it out." This is your opinion - it is not fact.

Sometimes it's not only bishops who say silly things...

chirdh should be church above

RER:

I did not use the Bible to prove anything. The bishop that made a vote for Kerry a sin used the Bible as his source of authority to terrorize people into voting "against" Kerry. I pointed out the place in the Bible where the bishop claims God granted him that authority. Why not let the bishop decide? God gives him the authority if the Bible is God's word. Why bother with elections? Sound like a Muslim country? The Bible is a proved hoax. It'll take a while but people will figure it out.

Did Bush "pay back" religion with massive tax dollars, 4 to 5 billion is what I've heard? We know for sure the government granted one Philidephia chirdh 2 million to hold political rallies under some kind of smoke screen. That's a violation of his oath of office, an impeachable offence.

This is a wonderful conversation simply because it illuminates the issue of authenticity, which I believe is the most desirable element of one's religious tradition and beliefs, and politics. One need not participate in any organized or unorganized religion to develop character, understand the complex realities of our world, nor pledge to care for the welfare of every citizen and individual in one's country. This is character. And how one develops character is ultimately derived from one's life experience. If that experience involves religion, wonderful; if not, wonderful. We should not pretend that simply because of one's allegiance to a particular tradition, he or she will abide faithfully to this tradition. I do not recall where in the bible it says anything regarding "tax not the rich for theirs is the kingdom of your land..." Thus, let us search out the genuine and applaud the source of all that is, rather than ceasing at one's tradition. This will tell us nothing of how the individual has been transformed by the divine. Instead, let us look to one's character and authenticity when he/she speaks of a religious tradition and when he/she acts in light of that tradition.

A candidates beliefs are very important to voters. Although religious orientation is not important, the beliefs of a candidate are if they are influenced by the hatefulness of their religion. Case in point is Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon. The Mormons believe, although they will not admit it, that dark skin is a curse of God for the "fence-sitters" who, in the pre-existence, did not choose sides in the war against Satan and God. Furthermore, Mormons have used electroshock therapy at BYU and in private referrals on their gay members, sometimes as young as 15. To *cure* their gays, a sensor is placed on the penis and the subject is exposed to both heterosexual and homosexual pornography. If arousal occurs with the homosexual pornography the subjects are tortured with high voltage electroshock causing burns and tissue damage. If Romney believes in this bigotry and in these atrocities, he can not be the President.

PS: I am not grammatically illiterate. The Post eliminates quotation marks and apostrophes.

"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly hath neither job nor hobby."

II Mumbleonians 4:21

Here are the quotes:

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

These two passages are used by the Catholic Church to justify their doctrine. You could easily have a topic devoted to these passages. In the first passage, Jesus is addressing Peter. In the second - all the disciples including Peter.

I would use a more relevant quote for this topic:

Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

BGONE -

In your post in response to Cal Thomas, you made the following statement: "The Bible is a proved hoax. Anything can be prove with a hoax but it's not wise to do that."

In your last post for this topic, you quote the Bible in an attempt to prove your point - "There's something un democratic about that punctuated by the Catholic bishop making a vote for Kerry a sin, (see the Gospel according to Matthew 16:19, 18:18)."

Atheists frequently make a strong point on this BLOG about their love and use of reason, logic and the way that these lead to truth and wisdom. Which of these three - reason, logic or wisdom - do you consider your statements above to represent?

Religion craps on our collective head, and we're expected to say, "Thanks for the hat." The fundamental operational assumption of all religions seems to be that people are inherently and unavoidably flawed and must constantly seek to redeem themselves in the eyes of a diety who displays the manners and ethics of a spoiled child. This attitude is displayed most clearly in (as far as I can tell) every religion's treatment of women. Christianity is institutionally afraid of women, Judaism is trans-generationally intent on keeping power from women, and Islam is nothing but a veneer of a belief system used to justify ancient tribal paternalism.

As far as we know there is no god.
And there is no "reason" to think there is one.
Religion is groupthink; the chances are that what you believe is what your group believes.
If you belonged to a different group,your belief
would likewise be different.
Just a thought.....

There's a bright side I would like to point out. The press does it's job and no truly unqualified candidate for president will get past them. So we can say that "both" candidates are qualified for the job and be confident that's so. Then it becomes a popularity contest for the most part. I've decided to vote for the candidate that has the least money to spend getting my vote.

Mr Bush didn't get my vote for that reason. He courted the radical right and had to else he loses. Now he's got something tender stuck in the ringer and his supporters, the radical right can take the blame. It's odd how I can support him while they resort to talking to God and distance themselves as best they can. They don't seem to realize by their definition of God what people do doesn't count, (God is Almighty?). If God doesn't want it then it doesn't happen. God must want it whatever it is.

All that clouds the real issues. When something is in the ringer the thing to do is get it out. Quickly. Should we be in Iraq? He passed muster with the press so if we shouldn't then it's their fault. Dan Rather did get fired? Oops! He's the one that said he wasn't qualified. I could be wrong you know.

Maybe the press hanging on every word the pope, America's pastor Billy and Pat Robertson say is a problem when they decline to notice there's opposition that goes well beyond, "I don't believe." I was less than thrilled to see three presidents kneeling before a dead pope, dutifully reported by the free press. There's something un democratic about that punctuated by the Catholic bishop making a vote for Kerry a sin, (see the Gospel according to Matthew 16:19, 18:18).

Perhaps the free press should notice that the ones they court are against the free press while the ones ignored, defacto cesored are the free press supporters. Is there a rebutal to Pat Robertson's conversations with God? There's a really good one for the conversation Moses had with a supernatural being that lives in fire. Fire, where Chris Matthews, a press man deluxe said Mr Bush's feet are right now.

It seems its not really faith at all that is poisonous- but hypocrisy- a persons faith doesnt disappear when they enter public life- but balance in everything-

just as faith shouldnt be forced on anyone- neither should a denial of ones faith be forced on anyone either.

"That said, where it is authentic to a candidate to talk about his or her faith publicly, this is part of who they are and the American voter will want to know that."

Actually, the media seem to portray anyone who is not a right wing fundamentalist as somehow insincere if they talk about their personal faith. And yet, somehow Ronald Reagan became some sort of religious icon to a lot people. The great and very unfortunate success of the religious hard right is that for a very long time they managed to convince the punditocracy that theirs was the only faith that mattered in politics. Perhaps the Terri Schiavo affair marked the death knell of that, but I for one remain skeptical.

Religion and politics remains a poisonous mixture for reasonable discourse.

This is an awesome essay! Certainly a person's faith is a vital part of their character and they should not hide this part. However, the candidate that flaunts their faith as a reason to vote for them is not a genuine person as it is difficult to believe such a candidate is sincere in his/her faith. For example, one of the candidates for Senate in the last election here in Tennessee recorded an ad in a church. I feel this hurt him significantly. People did not believe he was a serious person of faith. A true believer usually practices their religion in more of a humble fashion.

The essay doesn't seem to me to address the issue of women's treatment by religion but that subject seems to me to be kind of worn out anyhow. Good deal.

Faith is already a political wedge issue evidenced by the dismissal from the congregation of those who voted for the wrong candidate, 2004 election. The problem, if there is one is to reverse that process. Of course that's nothing more than political bossism that's been a part of the scene from the beginning. We notice it more when God becomes the deciding political factor that causes some people to say God needs people to get His way. And that leads to saying it's not God as advertised who favors a particular candidate but God's representatives that need people to get God's way.