Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, February 14, 2009

Jeanne Caldwell, a Christian schoolteacher from Roseville, Calif., has filed suit against UC Berkeley over the web site Understanding Evolution, claiming that it is supported by government funds and violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

reinheitsgebot

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Probably bankrolled by the JCLU.

"Probably bankrolled by the JCLU." Do you mean the ACLJ, with that smug Sekulow asshole? The folks trying to perpetrate Jesusnet and a flat earth suggest that putting the very foundation for science onto a publicly financed website causes a problem? Gimme a break. herm

I expect to see all the conservative frivolous lawsuit haters here any minute now....

Or is this teacher also demanding ALL religious websites be taken down? Dobson won't be happy.

time -- some losers have too much of it.


Or is this teacher also demanding ALL religious websites be taken down?

Why of course not, GOD made The Internets, I found out on The Googles. The internets is a Pipeline direct to The Gods..


Fire the S.O.B.!

The internets is a Pipeline direct to The Gods..

Only through the Books of Paypal, Visa and Mastercard, according to the talibaptists. "The Lord loveth a cheerful sucker, err, giver."

NG3 only the publicly funded religious websites. If she is consistant that is.

I would agree with her except by trying to pull this stunt it has the risk of branding science as religion and if that happens well no more gov funding of science or research. I supose some of the religious right thinks thats a good idea but not the rational ones.

The internets is a Pipeline direct to The Gods..

-------------

And it's made of tubes too...

I laugh out loud reading this story.

On my knees praying

"Lord why did you create such stupid people?"

the bible thumpers are suing for the right to be ignorant, though they do have that right, they will lose big time! That their beliefs don't jive with science is their problem not UC or the gov!

recently UC was sued for not giving science credit to bible thumping books, UC won that (actually was laughed out of court)

Evolution is now past of the Church just because some religious leaders celebrated Darwin's birthday?

He will lose his suit (as he should).

The definitive book on the topic is:
The Language of God by Francis S. Collins... a great read.

I don't understand why we have to take down all the crosses and nativity scenes though... I don't blame her for being angry about that though she is barking up the wrong tree here

HAT,
all the crosses and nativity scenes do not have to be brought down, but if they are allowed up, then any other religious sign must be allowed, also. It is not about removing all religious elements from public life; it is about giving favor to one over another.

At issue is one page, out of 840 on the Web site, that says Darwin's theory and religion can co-exist. The page - titled "Misconception: 'Evolution and Religion are Incompatible' " - also features a drawing of a smiling scientist holding a skull and shaking hands with a smiling cleric holding a book with a cross on it.

Caldwell says UC's government-funded assertion contradicts a religious belief that evolution and religion are incompatible and amounts to a state position on religious doctrine. This violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment barring Congress from making any law respecting the establishment or exercise of religion, she says.

What a wanker. Wait, could this be Takitez?

seriously confused woman

science is not religion

the courts are not supposed to indulge trivial cases, but they do

Considering the Theory of Evolution is based on a dogma and equivalent to a mystery religion --- like Buddhism with no god.

Science is not religion. Science is not evolution.

This only proves my asshole displacement theory, when one asshole goes away, another takes it's place..............it's like the steady state theory, they seem to be constant and are uniformly distributed.......

another example why the intelligent designers don't even understand the language they use to make their arguements.

Evolution is science, not religion. Lunatics.

Macroevolution is mytholgy --- it is belief based. Anyone talking about evidence doesn't know science.

I'm not sure the suit will work, but its good to let the world know that evolution is still an unsettled theory and will never (ever) be accepted in full --- there are too many holes to belive in this mythology.

It's kind of funny how Takitez and his fellow troglodytes spam every evolution thread with the same hogwash, yet they don't realize that their arguments are completely incoherent and were stale within a few years of Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species.

Anyone talking about evidence doesn't know science.

And what do you know of science? Disprove evolution for me. There's a nobel prize waiting for the person who does that, you know.

Gravity's a theory too but, I don't see anyone bitchin' about that..........You think there's an agenda here?

Forget evolution and all those "holes." No history is ever complete. Genetics indicates a close relationship between humans and the lower order of mammals. That can not be disputed and there's plenty of valid evidence to support it.

"...there are too many holes to belive in this mythology."

How's that moon is a light thing coming along?

Hans

Also:

"There may be greater genetic variation between different yeasts of the same species than between humans and chimpanzees."

www.sciencedaily.com

There may be greater genetic variation between different yeasts of the same species than between humans and chimpanzees.

I saw that one after I had posted my 2 for today. Cool.

Aggie, if you're into that sort of stuff, you should check out the interview with Randolph Nesse I linked to.

"all the crosses and nativity scenes do not have to be brought down, but if they are allowed up, then any other religious sign must be allowed" #15 | Posted by ProxmiresGhost

Not true. The ACLU has had many Christian crosses, statues, town logos etc removed only on the assumption that someone might be offended using the supposed wall between religion and state as their argument. The offer for additional displays etc does not come into play unless you are talking about temporary Christmas displays etc.

I hope she wins. I LOVE IT.

I hope she wins. I LOVE IT.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I think I do.

Prove it.

I think I do.

#34 | Posted by chickenrancher

It's a good thing no one pays you for your thinking ability.

It's a good thing no one pays you for your thinking ability.

They could, but he wouldn't be making much money.

Considering the Theory of Evolution is based on a dogma and equivalent to a mystery religion --- like Buddhism with no god.

And a kielbasa sausage is equivalent to a penis with no balls...

Its funny how the Catholic church can embrace evolution but these protestant baptist wing nuts just keep spouting the same crap.

Richard Dawkins admitted that the Earth was probably seeded by an intelligent life force... but not God... no chance. Aliens are far more likely than God.

Evolution nuts are just as nutty

Richard Dawkins admitted that the Earth was probably seeded by an intelligent life force... but not God... no chance. Aliens are far more likely than God.

Somehow I doubt that. You might be referring to the deposition of organic matter in meteor impacts in the first few million years after Earth formed. Nothing "alien" there. Comets and meteors frequently carry of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and such. There's direct evidence for this. Slam them into a planet, and you've got enough energy to make a whole bunch of different molecules. Give it a billion years or so to make some interesting self-replicating starting materials, and you've got life. "Seeding" just refers to the deposition of organics on earth from non-living sources. If you mix the whole chemistry set together, something interesting is bound to happen. Nothing fantastic here.

Evolution nuts are just as nutty

Hmm, which is nuttier? People who believe in processes which have been exhaustively tested and never refuted? Or people who believe in supernatural creation by an entity who has never revealed herself to anyone who isn't already completely convinced that she exists?

Hmm, which is nuttier? People who believe in processes which have been exhaustively tested and never refuted? Or people who believe in supernatural creation by an entity who has never revealed herself to anyone who isn't already completely convinced that she exists?

Hmmmmm, which is nuttier? People who maintain evolutionary processes have been exhaustively tested and established as conclusive, OR people who say, "Please demonstrate, via exhaustive testing, how one a single celled organism like an amoeba can morph over time into a multicellular organism like a human being?"

"Processes exhaustively tested"??? LOL..LOL! Funny how the religious person is laughed at when bold assertions are made which cannot be proven, but when the scientist does the same, many a bonehead accepts it at face value....cuz it's science don't ya know.

God?

Yes, my child.

Is it true that a million years is but a second to you?

Yes, that is true.

Is it true then that a million dollars is a mere penny to you?

Yes, that is also true

God?

Yes?

Can I have a million dollars?

In a second.

Religious nuts who doubt God's ability to create the earth and heavens in any way that He chose to are the ones that show a lack of true faith. They believe so fervently that the words in the Bible are the words of God that they don't stop for a moment to consider that very real men wrote those words, and that those words have undergone hundreds of translations.

I would recommend reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It's an eye-opener.

"Funny how the religious person is laughed at when bold assertions are made which cannot be proven, but when the scientist does the same, many a bonehead accepts it at face value....cuz it's science don't ya know."

Sure, hand waving absolute statement made about an all powerful being are definitely equivalent to evidence based, repeatedly observed natural phenomena. One thing I've noticed when debating religious people is that God is constantly getting new, never described before powers (which must exist, since he's all powerful!) to explain his actions. In the case of evolution, whenever new evidence is presented, it still turns out to be plain old evolution.

At least to me it's absolutely clear which side has the better argument.

"Hmmmmm, which is nuttier? People who maintain evolutionary processes have been exhaustively tested and established as conclusive, OR people who say, "Please demonstrate, via exhaustive testing, how one a single celled organism like an amoeba can morph over time into a multicellular organism like a human being?""

Definitely the latter. Demanding a recreation of the entirety of the development of life is not only asinine, but rather hypocritical considering the ease with which they accept religious dogma.

What's ironic, however, is that were science to "demonstrate, via exhaustive testing, how one a single celled organism like an amoeba can morph over time into a multicellular organism like a human being," the fundies would then claim it was actually evidence FOR intelligent design since the scientists are intelligent beings that just created all life and humans.

Some people are just too stuck in their own stupidity to be helped.

They believe so fervently that the words in the Bible are the words of God that they don't stop for a moment to consider that very real men wrote those words, and that those words have undergone hundreds of translations.

I would recommend reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It's an eye-opener.

#43 | Posted by ProudLiberal

Did you even read Ehrman's book? If you did then you would know his task was to get at the earliest manuscripts. His whole point of the Complutensian comma in John's gospel was to demonstrate that the earliest manuscripts didn't have it.

You would have ignorant readers here believe that Ehrman regards the scripture texts as untrustworthy because of "hundreds of translations", but you misrepresent Ehrman with your idiotic post, and completely missed what he was doing in the book. Shame shame!

Sure, hand waving absolute statement made about an all powerful being are definitely equivalent to evidence based, repeatedly observed natural phenomena.

#44 | Posted by jpw

Obviously you missed what I said, or chose to ignore it, so let's try again:

Please demonstrate, via exhaustive testing, how a single celled organism like an amoeba can morph over time into a multicellular organism like a human being?

Further, please reference the sources which document this "repeatedly observed natural phenomena." I'd like to read them. Thanks!



"Obviously you missed what I said, or chose to ignore it, so let's try again"

I saw what you wrote and addressed it in a different post, but let's try again:

"Demanding a recreation of the entirety of the development of life is not only asinine, but rather hypocritical considering the ease with which they accept religious dogma.

What's ironic, however, is that were science to "demonstrate, via exhaustive testing, how one a single celled organism like an amoeba can morph over time into a multicellular organism like a human being," the fundies would then claim it was actually evidence FOR intelligent design since the scientists are intelligent beings that just created all life and humans.

Some people are just too stuck in their own stupidity to be helped."

To add to the above, making ridiculously unattainable standards for proof doesn't mean you're right.

"Further, please reference the sources which document this "repeatedly observed natural phenomena." I'd like to read them. Thanks!"

You wouldn't read them if I linked them. There have been many examples linked here before and I'm not inclined to waste my time. If you'd really like to read them, look them up yourself. (And no, my not linking examples does not mean I'm wrong. It means I don't feel like reinventing the wheel yet again...)

Further, please reference the sources which document this "repeatedly observed natural phenomena." I'd like to read them. Thanks!

If you knew the first thing about the subject matter, you would realize that you've missed the boat completely. I could link you to dozens of articles describing evolutionary processes at work, but delusional morons such as yourself aren't worth my time. I know, because I've been down this exact same road with you and several of the DR's equally dim stars.

You are far too closed-minded wouldn't read anything I post, and judging from your knowledge of biology, you wouldn't understand them if anyhow. Your mind has been infested by myth for far too long- all you do now is regurgitate the same old defunct arguments. Here's a word of advice- go back to cleaning out the rattlesnake cages at your church. At least you would know what you were doing.

Your god is dead. I ate the body.

I feel deep pity for Bart Ehrman --- he is a classic case of someone claiming to be wise has become a fool (Romans 1:22). Based on his opinion, he considered allegations without evidence and argued himself to become an agnostic. Along with him, I feel sorry for Dan Barker and Oprah Winfrey. I hope they repent before its too late --- because all of them are on their way to hell! No kidding!

Hell is real: spiritlessons.com

"because all of them are on their way to hell! No kidding!"

Yeah! Who wants to go to hell when you can spend eternity with Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker?

According to the rules, if, before you die, you confess your sins before God, ask for His forgiveness, and accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you spend eternity in heaven (paradise).

Few know beforehand exactly when they're going to die, but death-row inmates know exactly when they're going to die (not suicide) and can, therefore, game the system to ensure that they're forever in the good graces of the Lord for all eternity.

Now, since we cannot know if any of their victims died in such good graces, it is entirely possible that one or more of them are, to this very day, suffering damnation in the bowels of hell for all eternity.

While their tormentors and murderers are living in heaven for all eternity.

Strange and unusual.

But those are the rules.

Hans

"spiritlessons.com"

A Web site!

Ooooo! That confirms it!

Hans

I hope, you don't end up in hell, Hans. Despite your sarcasm and disdain for God, I hope you will repent someday and turn around.

Right now you are here (Romans 3:18) and you too are on your way to hell.

"Right now you are here (Romans 3:18) and you too are on your way to hell."

Did God tell you that?

Or just more of your "privilege of rubbing it on liberals' nose"?

Real Christian like.

And, still, no reply to the Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker in heaven for eternity, while some of their victims are (no doubt) burning in hell for all eternity.

Hans

What Jesus said about hell is credible enough.

In mercy, because God really does not want anybody to go to hell, Jesus has been granting certain individuals revelations to emphasize the realities of eternal life and eternal destinations. You may choose to ignore it to your own eternal sorrows!

Example: Iranians are turning to Christ by the thousands (by seeing dreams and visions of Jesus and heaven and hell). It is sad that people in the most privileged nation (America) are truning away because of arrogance and erroneous teachings infiltrating the nation (Oprah promoting demonic teachings of Tolle, etc). Europe is now the Dark Continent, spiritually speaking --- dropping into hell like flies.

Before they were executed for murder, Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker confessed their sins to God, asked for His forgiveness, and accepted Christ as their savior. Because they followed the rules they are living in heaven, paradise, for all eternity.

Meanwhile, since we cannot be sure that all of their innocent victims followed the rules before they were viciously murdered, there's the likelihood that some of them are suffering in hell to this very day.

So, the tortured and murdered are condemned to hell for all eternity, while their torturers and murderers are forever dwelling in paradise in God's love. Heck, Ted and Karla Faye might even take a few moments during their eternity in heaven to look down into hell to watch their innocent victims being further tormented by Satan.

And they say God has no sense of humor!

Hans

God's justice will be perfect and Hans does not have to worry about it. But since you are using your pitiful logic to fault God, I fear you might be hardening your heart to guarantee yourself into going to hell!

I hope you will repent!

Right now you are in Romans 3:18 and in danger of hell! O what a brave soul, this Hans.

spiritlessons.com

Iranians are turning to Christ by the thousands (by seeing dreams and visions of Jesus and heaven and hell).

Source?





Aww hell, who am I kidding?

"God's justice will be perfect and Hans does not have to worry about it."

Again noting about the fact that Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker are dwelling in the House of the Lord for all eternity, while there's the possibility that one or more of their victims are suffering in hell for all eternity. Ted and Karla knew how to game the system and followed the rules.

Not a word from the Drudge's voice of God.

He's too busy getting his kicks out of "rubbing it on liberals' nose".

Like a good little hypocritical "Christian" who's so certain he'll spend eternity laughing at the heathens like Hans burning in hell.

Real "Christian" there.

And alcohol has no bones and so it doesn't choke, which makes it easier to drink.

Hans

Takitez, you never answered my question of the other night, so I'll ask again:

Have you ever posted on the Drudge Retort under any other name?

"Because you are to liberalism what takeitez is to Christianity, jackass."

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2009-02-13 11:31 AM

so Satan rebelled and became the source of all evil

so Eve got Adam to eat the forbidden fruit condemning all mankind by rebelling againts god!

when's the next rebellion against this incompetent god? will all the heaven people be sent to hell?
god seems to formant a lot of rebellion, now the spaghetti monster has not had these kinds of failures so lets get on his bandwagon, plus he gives free pizza for eternity!

1. you don't believe in G-d,
a. at the end of your life, if G-d exists, you go to hell. (bad situation)
b. at the end of your life, if there is no G-d, you cease to exist. (bad situation)

2. you believe in G-d,
a. at the end of your life, if G-d exists, you go to heaven. (good situation)
b. at the end of your life, if there is no G-d, you cease to exist. (bad situation)

which option did you choose?

"Demanding a recreation of the entirety of the development of life is not only asinine, but rather hypocritical considering the ease with which they accept religious dogma."

#48 | Posted by jpw

Well then idiots like yourself shouldn't make asinine statements about evolutionary process being "exhaustively tested and never refuted" or "evidence based on repeatedly observed natural phenomona." Can you substantiate these statements, or is this just scientific bravado at its best?

You know your type gets their panties all in a bunch when religious folk make statements like yours. But it's ok for the scientist to make such asinine statements....cuz it's science, don't ya' know?

"Further, please reference the sources which document this "repeatedly observed natural phenomena." I'd like to read them. Thanks!"

You wouldn't read them if I linked them. There have been many examples linked here before and I'm not inclined to waste my time. If you'd really like to read them, look them up yourself. (And no, my not linking examples does not mean I'm wrong. It means I don't feel like reinventing the wheel yet again...)

#48 | Posted by jpw

Thanks for confirming that you don't know what you're talking about. It's all bravado!

You are far too closed-minded wouldn't read anything I post, and judging from your knowledge of biology, you wouldn't understand them if anyhow. Your mind has been infested by myth for far too long- all you do now is regurgitate the same old defunct arguments. Here's a word of advice- go back to cleaning out the rattlesnake cages at your church. At least you would know what you were doing.


Your god is dead. I ate the body.

#49 | Posted by ZombieHunter


Blah blah blah blah blah!

More bravado from another pseudo-intellecutal!

Well I see someone took philosophy 101. Good for you.

I disagree with:
"b. at the end of your life, if there is no G-d, you cease to exist. (bad situation)"

If there is nothing after death, it is neither good nor bad since to you, there is nothing.

The only bad situation here is living your life in fear of some eternal damnation and fire that turns out to not be true, in which case you've wasted your only shot at life and what little time you had available to you.

"Well then idiots like yourself shouldn't make asinine statements about evolutionary process being "exhaustively tested and never refuted" or "evidence based on repeatedly observed natural phenomona.""

I've never said it was exhaustively test. There wouldn't be continued research into the field if it were exhaustive. However, evolution has never been refuted and there is no evidence to the contrary. There have been multiple reports of observed evolution in the literature. Like I said, me not taking the time to do YOUR research doesn't indicate those reports don't exist. If anything your demands show your own laziness.

"Thanks for confirming that you don't know what you're talking about. It's all bravado!"

It's not bravado. My acceptance of evolution is a conclusion based on years of studying biology that goes beyond a few links. However, should you be anything but intellectually dishonest, you would conduct some research yourself before spouting off on a topic in which you are clearly ignorant.

"You know your type gets their panties all in a bunch when religious folk make statements like yours."

Statements like mine? You mean evidence based statements from multiple years of research by hundreds if not thousands of people.

"But it's ok for the scientist to make such asinine statements....cuz it's science, don't ya' know?"

No, it's not OK for scientists to make statements without supporting evidence, but you've not shown this to be the case. You've shown nothing more than your own ignorance and unwillingness to educate YOURSELF.

"(And no, my not linking examples does not mean I'm wrong. It means I don't feel like reinventing the wheel yet again...)"

I even preemptively responded to your post you predictable schmuck.

Stop reading answers in Genesis and read real scientific literature, then we can talk.

"What Jesus said about hell is credible enough." I know it's late on Sunday and this thread will soon come down, but I'd sure like the old DR's leading bible scholar to document that assertion for me - chapter and verse. Where, exactly, did Jesus discuss hell? herm

Danforth, I do not answer to inquisitions like that. If you suspect something tell me so and I'll supply an answer.

spiritlessons.com

Youtube Mickey Robinson --- those whose minds are open.

Herm, just google Hell and find something from there --- you will come across quotes of Jesus on hell.

You would have ignorant readers here believe that Ehrman regards the scripture texts as untrustworthy because of "hundreds of translations", but you misrepresent Ehrman with your idiotic post, and completely missed what he was doing in the book. Shame shame!

Well then the ignorant readers need to pick up the book and read it for themselves but we know that won't happen, eh?

Yes, I did read it. I think what was more telling than Ehrmann's research was his transformation from a fundamentalist Evangelical who believed every word of the Bible as it was written to someone who was more willing to question its contents.

Since you and I have both read it we know that some of the changes were subtle and some were not. I'm not arguing the New Testament in any form. I just don't believe we can always take a literal translation of its contents without some sort of context of the culture and times in which is was written.

And since we're calling each other names here in such a Christian way - let me reiterate:

Hey idiot! I believe in God - I'm just not willing to dismiss evolution as a theory. THAT was my point.

Richard Dawkins admitted that the Earth was probably seeded by an intelligent life force... but not God... no chance. Aliens are far more likely than God.

What does evolution have to with the creation of life?

I would recommend reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. It's an eye-opener.

Urantia Book. I've still not settled myself on one side of the 'belief fence' yet, but the book is well written and explains things better than the bible.

PLUS! It was hand delivered by the Seraphim! Oh JOY!

Apparently, Intelligent Design is not a theory that was dreamed up as a means to get Creationism taught in schools.

Either way, the book teaches that "religion" is a personal thing and is not something you can explain to others.

a. at the end of your life, if G-d exists, you go to heaven. (good situation)

If your belief in God is based on your desire to save the ass of your immortal soul from the fires of Hell, don't you think it's time for some self examination?

The teacher is very wrong in her law suit. Evolution is a product of Intelligent Design. It could never be that Intelligent Design is a product of evolution. Intelligent Design has alway been. It has always existed. In a way, by teaching evolution, Intelligent Design is being thaught. The history of mankind is rich with the names and memories of those that have come forth to rationalize. Take Abraham, David, and Solomon for instance. Later, Saul of Tarsus, aka, St. Paul. And much later, in the history of our great Nation, those who wrote our Constitution, and our Declaration of Independence. The fear of God (I.D.)is the beginning of wisdom.

I wish these Middle Eastern religions would disappear from the minds of sensible Americans forever. Maybe they already have?

They are the mechanization of insane men.

The word of God? Ha! Laughable!
More like the word of man, pretending to talk to God.

This is absurd. The website is not making an religious claim but an historical one.

Whether the fundamentalist agree with evolution or not does not change the fact that other mainstream Christian denominations, among other religous groups, have no problem with evolution. The website is simply asserting that fact.

If the person has issue with a religion accepting evolution or not, he or she needs to take it up with that religious group not at a website that reports that social and historical reality.


Cheers


Oh, well, yeah Grendel, if you want to be rational about the whole thing!

Maybe someday this debate will be behind us. Guess it'll be awhile for my Christian brothers and sisters to give up this pointless argument that only seems to drive people away with their nuttiness.

#78 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-02-16 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag: CAN I GET AN AMEN?

"Here's a word of advice- go back to cleaning out the rattlesnake cages at your church. At least you would know what you were doing.

Your god is dead. I ate the body."

#49 | Posted by ZombieHunter

FF!!

It may be ironic for evangelists, but I wonder how many people they could convert if they didn't make them choose between evolution and faith, a choice which as far as I can tell isn't even biblical?


Before they were executed for murder, Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker confessed their sins to God, asked for His forgiveness, and accepted Christ as their savior. Because they followed the rules they are living in heaven, paradise, for all eternity.


Meanwhile, since we cannot be sure that all of their innocent victims followed the rules before they were viciously murdered, there's the likelihood that some of them are suffering in hell to this very day.


So, the tortured and murdered are condemned to hell for all eternity, while their torturers and murderers are forever dwelling in paradise in God's love. Heck, Ted and Karla Faye might even take a few moments during their eternity in heaven to look down into hell to watch their innocent victims being further tormented by Satan.


And they say God has no sense of humor!


Hans

#56 | Posted by Hans at 2009-02-15 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Hans, I understand your disdain for that aspect of the situation, however there is no garauntee that those individuals were completely honest and truthful with what they were saying. It is not simply that if they call on the name of Christ that they will be spending eternity in Heaven. Anyone can say something and not mean it, it is not the statment of the words that accomplishes anything.

If they were not truthful, they would be receiving the punishment that was coming to them.
There is a classic verse in the scriptures that speaks on the fact that many will claim to have done great works in the name of Christ, yet they never truly knew him. There is also a verse that makes it clear that Satan and the demons know and recognize Christ as the Lord and Savior, however they tremble in fear and have not salvation because they do not want that. Just stating the words does nothing, simply knowing the fact does nothing.

There is no garauntee that they are going to spend Eternal life in Heaven, if they were not genuine in their statement, they are not given the benefit.

There is no cop out. They may wait until the end of their life, but they may also simply be saying it without believing it in hopes that just by saying it they will reap the benefits, which is not the case.

You're simply wrong, Expr. There is a set number of the elect, known by God before the world was created, no more and no less. Religion is useless because there is nothing man can do to save himself, and those that are not part of the elect can never be saved.

Hans is here: Romans 3:18.

Ehrmans is here (including Oprah, etc): Romans 1:22. (I heard Ehrmans consider himself an agnostic, that is why).

As for Ted Bundy, Carla and the millions of incidences that puzzles us, let God be true and every man be found to be defective in judgment (Romans 3:4). And when God condemn someone to hell, He will be justified, and when God justified someone He will be be justified (Romans 3:26).

No place for a long discourse here: but to those Christian friends who are being influenced by anti-Christian ideas floating about, I call on you to 1 Corinthians 2:5. (Maybe Jesus Christ is too small in your eyes and therefore you are afraid of offending liberals who hates God; remember, Jesus is worshipped by millions and millions of angels and heavenly beings in heaven, Revelation 5).


I Corinthians 1:24.

Spiritually: Europe, THE DARK CONTINENT. Romans 1:22.
spiritlessons.com

"Danforth, I do not answer to inquisitions like that.

Why? It's a simple question. And I know, as a Bible follower, you'd be truthful.

If you suspect something tell me so and I'll supply an answer."

I 'suspect' you've posted on the Drudge Retort previously under a different name. Have you, and if so, under what name(s)?

Hans is here: Romans 3:18

And Takitez is here: Romans 2:1 and here: Romans 14:1-4 and 14:10, but not here: Romans 14:22.

Hehehe.... Dan, you cannot put a guilt trip on me on this one because I'm under no obligation to reveal private information about me.

Why don't you expose it for liberals to enjoy if you have something under your sleeve.

spiritlessons.com

"...I'm under no obligation to reveal private information about me."

What moniker (or monikers) one has used on the DR is "private information"?

Strange.

Unless someone is hiding something.

Hans

Takitez is here: Romans 5:1; 8:1.

Although I see this coming at me many times: Revelation 12:10 --- Satan accusing me and disturbing me, because in the power of God I'm pulling people away from the path of hell.

So I have a bit of the calling of evangelism in me. But I'm not ready to reveal my website here.

"spiritlessons.com"

A Web site.

Dedicated to a bad acid trip.

How "original."

Hans

"Dan, you cannot put a guilt trip on me"

Telling the truth would be a guilt trip?!?

"I'm under no obligation to reveal private information about me. "

What would be private? I'm not asking for a real name or an address. I'm merely asking if you've you ever posted on the Drudge Retort under any other name, and if so, what name(s)?

"Takitez is here: Romans"

And Bob Dole is here: Viagra

Posted by Bob Dole

"So I have a bit of the calling of evangelism in me."

"Because you are to liberalism what takeitez is to Christianity, jackass."

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2009-02-13 11:31 AM

Hans

Let me offer an example why I decline to answer your inquisition:

Pilate asked: What is truth? And Jesus did not answer (John 18:38).

John 14:6.

BTW, I'm not Bob Dole for sure. My background has British/Japanese/American/
Indian connection.

I choose the Thomas Jefferson quote:


"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences."

I like this quote, but I have no idea who said it:

Any idea thought to be above quetion is too filled with pride to be considered holy

Oh, this is priceless:

Let me offer an example why I decline to answer your inquisition:

Pilate asked: What is truth? And Jesus did not answer (John 18:38).

Posted by takitez at 2009-02-16 01:18 PM

But I guess we should expect that the Drudge's voice of God would compare himself to Christ.

Hans

I am simply a servant of Christ, and I am admonished to learn from Him and follow His examples (Matthew 11:28-30).

And I am happy to be under Romans 5:1; 8:1.

I am called to get on this: Acts 1:8 (power).

"Pilate asked: What is truth? And Jesus did not answer (John 18:38)."

That's a false comparison. I wasn't asking for a philosophical dissection of the truth. I was asking you to tell the truth. Big difference.

"I am simply a servant of Christ..."

...who compares himself to Christ.

Real "Christian" behavior.

Hans

And one of my favorite quotes:

"Don't be so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good"

Posts #93,94,95....

It was not as if Jesus and Pilate were on a leisurely conference discussing matters. Jesus knew Pilate was not really interested and he would not have understood the spiritual implications in such a time pressure. Hence Jesus kept silent.

Maybe Jesus wanted Pilate to think on what He just said in John 18:36-37.

The treasures of God are hidden to the proud, arrogant, self-righteous, skittish, and shallow. They are revealed to the broken-hearted, humble, repentant, and genuine seekers (Matthew 11:25-27; John 4:23-24; Jeremiah 29:13).

I choose the Thomas Jefferson quote:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences."
#95 | Posted by rosemountbomber

I think that you can probably question and still believe, questioning with your mind while believing with your heart.

Too bad neither believers nor doubters entertain this notion. Believers treat their belief as if it were knowledge and thereby overplay their hand, and doubters think that the lack of evidence precludes existence and thereby belief as well...

"Misconception: 'Evolution and Religion are Incompatible,'


The teacher has a greivance that the UC website is funded by the gov't and the gov't isn't supposed to establish one religion over another--keeping it separate from church and state.

Like what the ACLU does on every issue--nativity scenes on public property and the like.

So she alleges that the gov't funded site is not able to put out photos of scientists talking to giving whatever to holy men.

If it was just a private or commercial website--she would not have a case. They are not funded by the gov't.

But the fact that the UC is doing it--she is making a case--at least making an arguement.

The treasures of God are hidden to the proud, arrogant, self-righteous, skittish, and shallow. They are revealed to the broken-hearted, humble, repentant, and genuine seekers (Matthew 11:25-27; John 4:23-24; Jeremiah 29:13).
#102 | Posted by takitez at 2009-02-16 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag: Self-retorting retort

She actually has a valid point although one must strain to see it. features a drawing of a smiling scientist holding a skull and shaking hands with a smiling cleric holding a book with a cross on it. This does specify a religion since Jews and Muslims are not that big into the Cross.

I think that you can probably question and still believe, questioning with your mind while believing with your heart.

Too bad neither believers nor doubters entertain this notion. Believers treat their belief as if it were knowledge and thereby overplay their hand, and doubters think that the lack of evidence precludes existence and thereby belief as well...

#103 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Awesome post.

2 of my band mates are agnostic, and they happen to be the ones that write the lyrics. When I auditioned and got in, I was asked if agnostic themed songs would offend me as a christian. I simply said go ahead and write them if that's where you're at in life, and that any Christian with a shred of honesty would admit to being at least a little bit agnostic.

I think having a drawing of a guy holding a cross is somewhat less a statement than printing 'In God We Trust' on every bit of money we have.

Get real, people. This is just a publicity seeking bitch and her lawyers trying to do a bit of evangelical work.

Thanks.

I'm not questioning those who have questions. I'm simply pointing out that the particular incident between Pilate and Jesus should not be extrapolated into the context of Thomas Jefferson's quote.

I have questions of my own and I hope to get them answered when I get to heaven, if not on earth.

But when it comes to spirituality post #102 has a message: read 1 Corinthians chapter 2 to get a better picture.

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God..." (v. 14), for example.

"spiritlessons.com"

Wow - this is apparently where poor site design and coding go to die...it looks as if it were put together by a schizophrenic 14-year-old...not to mention the content itself.

"HEAVEN IS SO REAL, GUIZE!!!"

Well, that proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt...

"spiritlessons.com

...Dedicated to a bad acid trip."


#90 | Posted by Hans

That clears it up...lol.

This does specify a religion since Jews and Muslims are not that big into the Cross.
#106 | Posted by kanrei

That doesn't mean that the school is violating separation of church and state. You can talk about a religion or discuss issues common to the religion without advocating for it.

"So she alleges that the gov't funded site is not able to put out photos of scientists talking to giving whatever to holy men.


If it was just a private or commercial website--she would not have a case. They are not funded by the gov't.


But the fact that the UC is doing it--she is making a case--at least making an arguement."

So by that token, then a liberal has a legitimate argument that "god" should be removed from all US currency, no leaders sworn in on the bible(or any other religious document) I always thought they should be sworn in on a replica constitution(since that is what they are supposedly there to represent), and "god should be removed from pledge of allegiance since schools are gov't funded.


LM


" 1. you don't believe in G-d,
a. at the end of your life, if G-d exists, you go to hell. (bad situation)
b. at the end of your life, if there is no G-d, you cease to exist. (bad situation)


2. you believe in G-d,
a. at the end of your life, if G-d exists, you go to heaven. (good situation)
b. at the end of your life, if there is no G-d, you cease to exist. (bad situation) "

The above is incomplete because it doesn't include an option for believing in different gods. In choice 2 are you believing in the Christian god, the Jewish god, the Islamic god, one of the gods from a polytheistic faith, Buddah, etc etc. What's the punishment if you are a good person but believed in the wrong god... whoops you go to hell.

So, please tell me:

Is this fundie 'GOD' an extortionist or a terrorist? If I don't 'believe' in him I get punished? He causes terrible catastrophies like floods and storms to punish the wicked and non-believers?

What's the real deal here and why the hell isn't he in Gitmo?

#116 | Posted by axe at 2009-02-16 03:40 PM
Obama closed it down. He got a job as a cabbie in New York.

So we've got Pascal's wager and Takitez' ravings about hell. The former needs a bit of tweaking to be accurate, and then it loses its persuasive power. The latter, well, just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. For every dude on spiritlessons.com talking about hell, there's a dude on youtube visiting it after smoking salvia or DMT. I went to hell once. It was cold, there were no left turns, and the football team just went 0-16. Hell is real. It's called Detroit.

Is this fundie 'GOD' an extortionist or a terrorist? If I don't 'believe' in him I get punished? He causes terrible catastrophies like floods and storms to punish the wicked and non-believers?

What's the real deal here and why the hell isn't he in Gitmo?

We can't find a 6'4'' dude on dialysis, what makes you think we can find some invisible entity that doesn't offer any evidence of his own existence. It's not like god puts out a videotape every 9/11 saying, "...and it is the duty of every good Christian to donate money to their Church, and if you don't like what I have to say, I'll cut your fucking head off..."

Zombie,

God's interaction with the world is really a form of divine pedagogy.

The analogy is relevant to how one raises children.

One reveals truth to a child, but certainly at a level and a depth that is consistent with a child's ability to comprehend.

Children need strict rules, an unwavering concept of right and wrong, and routines and rituals to provide a sense of order and to create an important part of the relationship that the child has with the parent figure. That characterizes our spiritual past in relationship to the divine.

Most of the time the child doesn't understand the reasoning behind the rules, nor does he or she understand that the punishment for breaking the rule is actually built into its breaking. What children fail to realize is that as virtue is its own reward and just as importantly--vice is its own punishment. The gates of Hell are locked from the inside.

It is difficult to explain such a thing to a child; so it is difficult to explain to a people whose intellectual and spiritual development is still in that stage. Moreover, children tend to believe that their pain and suffering is overwhelming and can hardly comprehend adult reasoning and understanding for it. Can a child of two really comprehend the importance of vaccination? All they comprehend is the emotional and physical pain that it will bring.

The human race is only now emerging from our childlike understanding of the universe and of God. As the rules change for children as they grow, so do the rules change for us in our relationship with the divine. Concepts that were simply explained to us become much more nuanced and the simplistic explanations while containing truth are in actuality greatly layered and variable. God is teaching us and we are learning for ourselves.

Of course such growth is not immediate and complete at any one time. As a child clings to the past ways while at the same time anticipating a future life, so too do we intellectually and spiritually cling to past ideas while anticipating and dealing with the new. The conflict over evolution represents this well as some faiths have no problem with it; while others cannot accept it.

To be sure, there is comfort found in simpler notions; the truths that are simply imparted are often difficult to give up in favor of more mature complexities. And lest we look down our nose at those who are at the earlier stage, bear in mind our much we prize childhood and long for its simplicity.

Do heaven and hell exist? I would affirm yes. Gardens of Eden and raging fires provide visual metaphors for a mind that needs and desires them. These metaphors are as true as metaphors can be.

As a culture we are in our adolescent years, and like all adolescents we reject the values and authorities of the past. We see them as outdated, irrelevant, hollow-- and we are preoccupied with sex.

Eventually, centuries from now, if teenage suicide doesn't occur, our culture will emerge with great appreciation of the wisdom of our fathers and mothers. We will take from it the important things and move ahead into intellectual and spiritual maturity.

Cheers

Eventually, centuries from now, if teenage suicide doesn't occur, our culture will emerge with great appreciation of the wisdom of our fathers and mothers. We will take from it the important things and move ahead into intellectual and spiritual maturity.

Cheers

#119 | Posted by Grendel

But when has such "inevitable progress" ever occurred with humans? People were saying similar things after WWI, but then came WWII.

Always we end up destroying each other. New generations come and go, but never arrive at any kind of maturity...intellectual or spiritual. And the same will hold true with this present generation which looks to messiah figures like Oobonga to bring them their garden of eden. In the end, there will be another revolution. This time, it will destroy us all.

Sometimes I begin to wonder what goes on in the mind of someone who spells Obama, "Oobonga", but then I realize I don't really want to know.

But when has such "inevitable progress" ever occurred with humans? People were saying similar things after WWI, but then came WWII.

I never said progress was inevitable. Not all children who enter their teenage years survive it or necessarily grown beyond it.

Cheers

Zara,

Yes, this site is not the best in terms of design, etc (even typos here and there). Even my biz partner commented likewise; but I told him not to let that distract him from the content --- that the people there were not making these stories up: they really had divine revelations.

Good presentation (post #119), Grendel.

Right now our understanding of heaven is even less than the understanding of a five year old on the economy of the US.

And unfortunately, the understanding of some of the dangers of hell and its eternal nature is equivalent to a helpless little chick chirping innocently before a cobra.

spiritlessons.com

"that the people there were not making these stories up: they really had divine revelations."

People who take acid can be said to have had "divine revelations" and feel they are real ("people not making these stories up").

Most people call them hallucinations.

And few people dedicate an entire Web site to theirs. Especially people who have had a bad trip.

Hans

"Do heaven and hell exist? I would affirm yes."

Ah, yes. The heaven where Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker are dwelling for all eternity.

Hell, where, certainly, some of their innocent victims are being further tormented (like their own earthly death) for all eternity.

Because Ted and Karla Faye followed the rules, while there's no guarantee that their innocent victims did.

Those are the rules.

Hans

Ah, yes. The heaven where Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker are dwelling for all eternity.


Hell, where, certainly, some of their innocent victims are being further tormented (like their own earthly death) for all eternity.


Because Ted and Karla Faye followed the rules, while there's no guarantee that their innocent victims did.


Those are the rules.

Perfect justice is balanced against perfect mercy for each individual. How God does this is beyond human understanding, but we have faith in his ability to do so perfectly.

In general, a wise person makes no judgements about who is in hell or heaven; best to leave that to an even wiser being.

In regard to the rules, the law was made for man; not man for the law. I belief that gives us mere mortals some inkling as to what divine mercy and judgment is all about.

Cheers

"Perfect justice is balanced against perfect mercy for each individual. How God does this is beyond human understanding, but we have faith in his ability to do so perfectly."

Doesn't work that way, Grendel.

The rules are: confess your sins before God, ask for His forgivenes, and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Follow those rules and you're heaven bound.

No "perfect justice." No "perfect mercy." You follow the rules and you're heaven bound. Period.

Either those are the rules, or there are no real rules and everything is up to God when you get to heaven.

"In general, a wise person makes no judgements about who is in hell or heaven; best to leave that to an even wiser being."

In specific, takitez needs to read those words. I can't remember anyone so willing to claim who is in (especially) hell. Ask him about John Lennon if you don't believe me.

Hans

The rules are: confess your sins before God, ask for His forgivenes, and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Follow those rules and you're heaven bound.


No "perfect justice." No "perfect mercy." You follow the rules and you're heaven bound. Period

Doesn't work for you? I can live with that. I apparently can't get you to see that many people's understanding of the relationship with the divine is much more sophisticated than the rule book metaphor that you seem to believe that all Christians adhere to.

I believe I understand the angle you are coming from though. I think you need to have religious belief be so rigid and inflexible; that way you can dismiss it out of hand rather than deal with the sophisticated questions and issues and the personal and moral challenges that it actually raises.

Cheers

"Preach the gospel continually; when necessary use words" St. Francis of Assisi."

Hans I wouldn't call it playing by the rules. I consider it trying to change ones life by becoming a Christian. While true it's quite possible both Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker are in Heaven. Their being in heaven had nothing to do with playing by a set of rules but everything to do with becoming a sincere child of G-d. While to You and I it would seem totally asinine for G-d to grant Heaven to either Ted Bundy and Karla Faye but not to a victim of their barbarian. They had a chance to become a Christian and a child of G-d. By rights no one deserves Heaven. But by Grace from G-d people can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. That's G-d's way.

Larry

"I apparently can't get you to see that many people's understanding of the relationship with the divine is much more sophisticated than the rule book metaphor that you seem to believe that all Christians adhere to."

Grendel, either the rules are 1) confess your sins before God; 2) ask for His forgiveness; and, 3) accept Jesus Christ as your Savior...

... or they're not.

Or is that just a starting point? In which case the rules really don't matter because it is all up to God in the end. Which, quite frankly, makes more sense.

" I think you need to have religious belief be so rigid and inflexible; that way you can dismiss it out of hand rather than deal with the sophisticated questions and issues and the personal and moral challenges that it actually raises."

And hate filtered through a smile isn't pretty, Grendel.

Cheers.

Hans

" I think you need to have religious belief be so rigid and inflexible; that way you can dismiss it out of hand rather than deal with the sophisticated questions and issues and the personal and moral challenges that it actually raises."


And hate filtered through a smile isn't pretty, Grendel.

No, not hate at all. I gave an honest impression of why I believe you see a certain belief system in such a narrow way. You can simply disagree and no doubt you do. I can accept that. That you characterize my impression as hate, however, suggests more about you than me.

In regard to your rebuttal: I think Larry handled it nicely and better than I could.

Cheers

Thank you, Larry. You're the only one brave enough to answer my comment about Ted Bundy and Karla Faye Tucker.

"Hans I wouldn't call it playing by the rules. I consider it trying to change ones life by becoming a Christian."

And I maintain that in order to be a Christian you have to follow the rules as the Bible has laid out: 1) confess your sins before God; 2) ask for His forgiveness; and, 3) accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. And do so before you die, otherwise you're bound for hell.

Those are the rules.

Hans

"No, not hate at all."

Oh, I consider condescension a form of hate.

But that just me.

Cheers.

Hans

How God does this is beyond human understanding, but we have faith in his ability to do so perfectly.

God is teaching us and we are learning for ourselves.

Like I keep saying Grendel, your use of logic and language is sloppy to the core. No two statements could be more polar.

Do heaven and hell exist? I would affirm yes.

Of course you know where they are? Or don't you? If god is in heaven, then where is hell? Are we in heaven now? Does god stay out of hell? If he does then he's not omnipresent.

"A word means what I want it to mean." - Lewis Carrol.

Oh the fun I have watching people mangle language.

"No, not hate at all."


Oh, I consider condescension a form of hate.


But that just me.


Cheers.

Hans,

While it may have been forward to offer a bit of unsolicited psychological analysis, my intention was not to condescend but to challenge you to examine why you refuse to see Christianity as something more than a simplistic set of spiritual traffic rules and regulations.

Religious people are frequently told that their spiritual notions are due to some emotional or psychological weakness--a need for a crutch, etc. I have become so numb to that kind of free psychological counseling, I perhaps underestimated how others might respond in kind.

I am left with two possibilities. Perhaps I hit a nerve and you have reacted defensively. Perhaps I have misread your tone and intention and the entire situation. I certainly will accept that reasonable possibility and take you at your word that I have.

If I have truly offended you, I sincerely apologize.

Cheers

"While it may have been forward to offer a bit of unsolicited psychological analysis..."

Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Grendel's "Cheers" is just his polite way of saying "Fuck you"?

Hans

Yeah I find "cheers" annoying.

Like I keep saying Grendel, your use of logic and language is sloppy to the core. No two statements could be more polar.

Do heaven and hell exist? I would affirm yes.

Of course you know where they are? Or don't you? If god is in heaven, then where is hell? Are we in heaven now? Does god stay out of hell? If he does then he's not omnipresent.

"A word means what I want it to mean." - Lewis Carrol.

Oh the fun I have watching people mangle language.

#134 | Posted by Ray

Mangles language? Hardly!

Could it be Ray, that your understanding of things is synonymous to a child's "concrete understanding" of language?

Tell a 6 year old child that his parent is like a river, and the child will scratch his head. Such language is beyond his ability to grasp. Such langauge is analogical, perhaps metaphorical....something a 6 year old cannot get his mind around, for his is a concrete understanding. Tell him his parent is like a river, and the 6 year old will think just that: Dad is a river.

I'm sure the child could accuse the speaker of "mangling the language" but we should expect such from Junior....cuz he just doesn't understand the deeper meanings of language.


"Tell a 6 year old child that his parent is like a river...One reveals truth to a child, but certainly at a level and a depth that is consistent with a child's ability to comprehend...Children need strict rules...The human race is only now emerging from our childlike understanding of the universe and of God. As the rules change for children as they grow..."

Cheers.

Hans

Religious people are frequently told that their spiritual notions are due to some emotional or psychological weakness--a need for a crutch, etc. I have become so numb to that kind of free psychological counseling, I perhaps underestimated how others might respond in kind.

May I offer a kinder explanation, Grendel. Thinking logically and precisely takes a lot of study, focus and practice. I see the same fallacies not only in religion, but in politics, economics, health, medicine and science too.

I maintain that's why this economic collapse is going to be severe and long.

#138 | Posted by TheOneBS

Your example is irrelevant. If you don't see the fallacies of logic and language I just named, then your language skills are just as sloppy as Grendel's.

Like I keep saying Grendel, your use of logic and language is sloppy to the core. No two statements could be more polar.

I will be the first to admit that my ability to convey my thoughts are sometimes not up to par. Yet in my defense, I offer the complexity of what I am trying to convey against the amount of time in which I write my responses. I do not have the time to pore over my posts like a school boy crafting draft after draft of an essay.

In regard to what you think are polar opposites. The first statement was in response to understanding how divine mercy and justice work. The second was merely a reference to the purpose of revelation and theological pursuits within human experience.

Polar opposites? No.

That we can never fully comprehend God does not mean we cannot understand anything about God.

Of course you know where they are? Or don't you? If god is in heaven, then where is hell? Are we in heaven now? Does god stay out of hell? If he does then he's not omnipresent.

Let me just take one of these questions as emblematic of the problem with them.

Does God stay out of hell? This question reflects a understanding of God and heaven and hell in terms of human experiences. In short heaven and hell in the question are conceived as points in time and space which can be occupied by a being who apparently takes up space. God, however, does not occupy time and space and the spiritual cannot be characterized by this understanding of physical and temporal space. These questions illustrate the limited understanding we have of God.

People with faith know that they do not know it all, but trust that divine. It is a question of faith.

Cheers

Has anyone else come to the conclusion that Grendel's "Cheers" is just his polite way of saying "Fuck you"?


Hans

I can apologize, but I can't make anyone accept it. That is your choice.

Cheers

It is throwaway tag that means what it says. If you are annoyed or insulted by it, then look within.

Your example is irrelevant. If you don't see the fallacies of logic and language I just named, then your language skills are just as sloppy as Grendel's.

#141 | Posted by Ray

And you fail to see that not everything in life is governed by the dictates of logic. I wonder if you've ever been married? I wonder if any of your marriages have survived your strict adherance to logic? Do you live in a corner?

Grendel

Your writing skills are excellent and easy to read. Religious jargon in general is so discombobulated, it contradicts itself at every turn.

"Supernatural" means not natural.
If it's not natural; it doesn't exist.
You can't comprehend god, because he doesn't exist.
But you say he exists, which is in contradiction to the meaning of "supernatural."

If you can't comprehend god, then you can't turn around and say god teaches. Deny it all you want; there it is.

If you have faith, then you have no evidence; it's all made up by the standard of what feels good.

God, however, does not occupy time and space and the spiritual cannot be characterized by this understanding of physical and temporal space. These questions illustrate the limited understanding we have of God.

That's a load full, real Hegelian. Christianity has a lot in common with schizophrenia. That's it for me for the night.

And you fail to see that not everything in life is governed by the dictates of logic. I wonder if you've ever been married? I wonder if any of your marriages have survived your strict adherance to logic? Do you live in a corner?

#144 | Posted by TheOneBS

This man hates logic. That's common for neurotics.

I have two grown children and I'm a grandfather of two. Both turned out healthy and productive. I gave them the gift of teaching them how to think logically.

Ray,

God is not supernatural. He is supersensory--beyond our senses.

If human beings never had the ability to see or hear, do you think a person could ever convince anybody of the reality of the stars?

Good night.

If you can't comprehend god, then you can't turn around and say god teaches. Deny it all you want; there it is.

That we will never fully comprehend the universe doesn't mean we can't comprehend any of it.

That we can never fully comprehend God does not mean we cannot learn something about him.

This is not really a hard concept. That you cannot see it baffles me.

Cheers

God is not supernatural. He is supersensory--beyond our senses.

Same thing. Non-existence is beyond the senses, whether you call it supernatural or supersensory or anything else.

You can't communicate with god. Period. End of story. Your inner voice is not god.

When people say they hear voices, they are crazy. When they say they hear God, they are Christian.

This is not really a hard concept. That you cannot see it baffles me.

That's the problem of being a realist. Too rational for my own good. Good night.

PS - I'm playing with you. We know we can't change each other's minds.

"If human beings never had the ability to see or hear, do you think a person could ever convince anybody of the reality of the stars?

Good night.

#147 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-02-16 10:08 PM"

That's true - I knew stars were real the first time I heard them.

TheOneBS

PS - I'm playing with you. We know we can't change each other's minds.

Yes, but as always I enjoy the discussion and look forward to future ones.


PAX

You can't communicate with god. Period. End of story. Your inner voice is not god.

When people say they hear voices, they are crazy. When they say they hear God, they are Christian.

Nice one, ray.

That's true - I knew stars were real the first time I heard them.


TheOneBS

#151 | Posted by mOntecOre

Funny you should say that Montecore. The ancients believed that the stars, the spheres, made music when when then moved through the heavens.

Check out:

www.crystalinks.com

The new age stuff is a bit goofy, but it does provide some accurate information about the ancient beliefs.

Cheers

#114 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel

Great points there LM.


I would not advocate she take this road.

I would rather have her write her own piece in rebuttal to the one she is offended by and submit to the UC to publish it.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable