More evangelicals are starting to care about the environment and not just a few social issues. The crossover is being led by Florida megachurch pastor Joel Hunter and others and is seen as a sign of how dramatically public opinion has shifted on global warming, the Washington Post reported. “I did sense this is one of these issues where the church could take leadership, like with civil rights,” Hunter explained. “It’s a matter of who speaks for evangelicals: Is it a broad range of voices on a broad range of issues, or a narrow range of voices?”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
402 Comments
Good luck getting John Hageee or Pat Robertson to sign on to that bandwagon.
That’s not going to happen. Christians have too much invested in the “God will destroy the Earth with fire” prophecy to try to prevent it and usurp God’s will.
On the other hand, it does fit in well with Christians who feel that they know better than God about how to handle power and their fellow human beings.
Wow! The evangelicals are taking up Global Warming and help to combat it.
They’re smart indeed! A place to recruit more members, since many in the Global Warming Doom us all Camp are already religious in nature, it shouldn’t be hard to convert them into Evangelicalism.
Can you say, “Al Gore with a Bible in Hand.”
Al Gore has been a bible thumper for a years! Can’t you pay even a little attention?
oops
Al Gore has been a bible thumper for years! Can’t you pay even a little attention?
I don’t watch him much, sorry! Because he doesn’t interest me!
But I forgot! You’re right! He’s with Fred Phelps!
You compare Al Gore with Fred Phelps? You cannot do that.
There cannot be two people in the world that are right every time, all the time.
No hud! Just that they are buddies! Good buddies!
Gee Joe, you get caught in a mistake and you behave like a 5 year old.
You must be one of those Republican whiners.
Actually, I have a pretty good telephone friendship with Phred Felps. He knows I think he’s crazy as a hoot owl and I know he thinks I’m going to burn forever in brimstone and fire… but we kinda get along on some level.
I got to know Phred before he went on his “God Hates Fags” jag. I was around when he established “Westboro Baptist Church” as purely a tax scam. I was in contact with him when the IRS challenged his tax status because he allegedly didn’t have a “theology.”
He’s sure got a “theology” now, doesn’t he.
Thing is, despite what happens on fora such as WEBlog, people who disagree on issues can still discuss issues and be civil with one another. Phred’s recent stuff associating the Iraq War with “God’s Will” is so extreme I can barely deal with it. But Phred — who might even believe the crap he spews — can be remarkably subdued when cameras aren’t focused on him.
He’s a lawyer, after all. And was pretty good at it before he was disbarred. His kids have mostly bought into his horse shit, and I think he kinda respects that I have not.
Okay, we don’t have a Hitler around anymore, but Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Phred Felps, and a whole lotta other people have somehow manipulated philosophies that tap biases and prejudices that have garnered a following.
Some people still listen to and believe Rush Limbaugh, f’r cryin’ out loud!
“Kansas” still comes on this forum and tries to claim some credibility! Go figure.
You’ve gotta admire in some way how some people work the system.
If I thought for a moment Phred Felps were a threat, I’d seriously consider the old “If you could kill Hitler in prison in 1922, would you do it?” debate.
But real life doesn’t usually work that way. I can read “Kansas” posts and see the absurdities. Sometimes I point them out. Most of the time I don’t bother because it’d be too obvious and too redundant.
But unlike my occasional phone calls with Phred, “Kansas” cannot deal with people who disagree with him/her unless s/he resorts to ad hominem, deception, nick-changing, and assorted rants.
“More evangelicals are starting to care about the environment and not just a few social issues.” –Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Phillip, you are such a predictable automaton. The ignorance of that statement is stunning on a least a couple of levels.
Then let’s see you come up with something better, Out.
It must be really challenging to present different issues everyday in order for the bloggers to insult and tear each other apart, right Phillip?What difference does it make if the editorials are profound or not, Outlander? They all generally end up the same way, beginning as a discussion and then melting down into an insult fest. No wonder we can’t stop war.
OK Phillip, if you really don’t know what I’m talking about, consider this. Your statement contains two assumptions:
1. Evangelicals don’t care about the environment.2. All evangelicals do are about are a few social issues.
Evangelical Christians make up 25 to 30% of the US population. That adds up to about 75 to 100 million diverse people that you attempt to casually characterize. This is from Wikipedia, which I think sets it out pretty well:——”Evangelicals today are as varied as ever. Some work entirely within their own denominations; others pay less heed to denominational differences and may be members of less formal and locally based, independent churches. Many churches have grown to large sizes and are often called megachurches. There is a long-standing evangelical tradition of taking to needy areas for practical assistance (e.g. medical, educational) along with the gospel, though eschewing attempts, at home or abroad, to influence society by means other than the gospel.
Others, particularly in the USA, are engaged in attempts at social improvement through political means. Evangelical activism might be expressed in literacy training, inner-city relief and food banks, adoption agencies, marriage counseling and spousal abuse mediation, day-care centers for children, and counsel and care for unwed mothers, or any number of other help and advocacy works.
The popular perception seems to locate all of evangelicalism on the ‘right’ of political controversies, such as abortion, or the expansion of the legal definitions of “family”, “marriage”, or “civil union” to include same-sex couples. This supposed uniformity is not actually the case; however there is some correspondence between theological and religious conservatism, and social conservatism.”
——-
Now in regard to the environment, it seems to me that liberals think that a person cannot be considered an environmentalist unless they sign on to all of the global warming hysteria, and place animal rights on the same level as people’s rights. But the Bible teaches us that God gave man the world to rule over, and therefore we are accountable to him to be good stewards of what he has given us. Most evangelicals I know are common sense people who are as concerned about the environment as any other reasonable person.
So Phillip, please try to think of Evangelicals as what they are, a diverse group of generally well-meaning people trying to do God’s will, instead of trying to shoehorn them into a little pigeonhole.
Outlander,
I don’t think his statement is “ignorant.”
I think it’s just “wishful thinking.”
I have yet to see evangelicals’ sudden concern with stewardship of the environment translate into policy initiatives. I have yet to see evangelicals’ sudden concern with the plight of the poor and homeless translate into education, housing, and mental health assistance.
So yes, Outlander, on that level, I’ll agree with you that Brownlee’s statement is inaccurate.
Tom: There is nothing “sudden” about it. Open your eyes.
Speaking of Global Warming- I havent heard yet what spin the preachers of the Church of Global Climate Change are putting on the fact that NASA quietly revised their ranking of “hottest years” after being shown a mistake in their calculatins by a Canadian scientist.
Outlander,
Where are the policy initiatives? Where is the political force of the modern evangelical community in pushing those initiatives become law?
Here in Kansas, I see lots of hand-wringing over marriage and abortion, but I’m not seeing that crowd get involved in doing things like:
- Stopping Holcomb- Protecting the Ogallala Aquifer- Building windfarms- Opening a permanent shelter in Wichita- Funding adult basic and vocational education- Providing counseling and medication to the mentally ill and homeless that wander Wichita’s streets
What I do see is:- Attacking gay and lesbian Kansans with constitutional amendments, and more recently, a bill to ban domestic partnerships- Repealing two statutes protecting pregnant women from violence, while at the same time declaring a fetus to be a “person”- Attempting to usurp the Kansas Supreme Court over the education issues (sanity prevailed there, thankfully)- Etc.
Let’s see some actual action. Less talk, more do, Outlander.
” Stopping Holcomb- Protecting the Ogallala Aquifer- Building windfarms- Opening a permanent shelter in Wichita- Funding adult basic and vocational education- Providing counseling and medication to the mentally ill and homeless that wander Wichita’s streets”
I didn’t realize that was the sole province of the evangelicals. Anyone can do the above, i don;t see agnostgics/atheeists/etcetceect stepping up to the plate either
Littlejohn,
There are people in the Legislature who try to speak out on these issues all the time. But they don’t have the votes to get anywhere with them.
The fact is, the radical “conservative” steamroller in the Legislature prefers to deal with social issues; stewardship issues get ignored. They had to be _ordered_ by the Kansas Supreme Court to deal with education, remember? And when they had to go back in special session to comply with the Court’s order, the most radical among them tried to pass a Constitutional amendment limiting the power of the Court instead of doing what they were sent back to Topeka to do.
Why should agnostics/atheists step up to the plate to do what tax-free churches should be doing?
Tom, I didn’t realize that evangelicals were in charge of the government! As if evangelical Christians as a group (a 25% minority)were responsible for fixing everything on your wish list. And as if you knew what they were doing individually on the issues.
And of course you intentionally ignore and misrepresent the myriad of good things that are being done by Christian groups.
Tom, you are not a reasonable person to debate because of your personal grudge. Sorry.
Outlander,
Evangelicals may be only 25% of the national population, but they’re the majority in the Kansas Republican Party, and that party controls the Kansas Legislature.
Tom, I understand what you are saying. Evangelicals, more than other Christian groups, speak out more on Christian morality, what is right and wrong based on the Bible, and what people should or shouldn’t do because it is against the Bible. They preach. And preach. And preach.So to have any credibility, they must practice what the Bible says.Asking about those things is asking Evangelicals if they are practicing all the Bible says or if they just like to preach select parts of it.
Brian,
I know of many congregations, and their pastors, who speak as loudly as they can on social justice and stewardship issues. Unfortunately, those voices are drowned out by the shoutin’ and hollerin’ by the social “conservatives” who have a steady stream of legislation written to force their views of personal morality on others.
If evangelicals were in charge of the legislature there would be no;
Gambling- (no casino to vote for, no dog track to close
Abortions- (Dr Killer/Tiller) would not be performing late term abortions and the state wouldn’t be wasting precious resources trying to prove what everyone already knows. Just look at the before and after pictures of women he’s serviced.
Teaching evolution as fact- whether or not this is a school board issue, I’m sure the legislature would be able to find a way to ensure that Kansas student know that the “theory” of evolution is just a guess, not a fact, and is just as important as other theories of the beginning of man, earth or matter in general.
Problem with prayers no matter where they’re said- Evangelicals believe in prayer big time. They’d be for everyone having the right to pray, at school, on the job, at home, where ever.
Actually things would be a lot different if Evangelicals were in charge. Not necessarily better, just different. One groups mandate is another groups tyranny. That means your group too.
“I havent heard yet what spin the preachers of the Church of Global Climate Change are putting on the fact that NASA quietly revised their ranking of “hottest years” after being shown a mistake in their calculatins by a Canadian scientist.”
Posted by: Heckler | August 13, 2007 at 09:14 AM
It wasn’t a “mistake in their calculatins”. NASA thought that NOAA would provide corrected data, but NOAA didn’t.
Explanation, and before/after graphs here,http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf “The effect on global temperature (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.”
And it’s the climate reality deniers who are putting out the “spin”. Some examples listed at,
‘Global warming totally disproved again’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php
‘Did NASA report that 1998 was the warmest in the US?’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/so_who_exactly_reported_that_n.php
‘Fox’s Angle misrepresented NASA correction to claim 1934 is now “hottest year” on record’ http://mediamatters.org/items/200708120001?f=h_latest
Cosmos
So the spin is,” really doesn’t make much difference, infinitesimally small”??
Fine. Then all the hype we heard in the press about all these really hot years being within the past 2 decades doesnt mean shit either.
Sean,
You confuse “winning every vote” with “controlling the Legislature’s agenda.” If you look at the past few years, you’ll see anti-gay and anti-woman, anti-choice bills being regularly introduced and worked through committees, especially on the House side. Many of those bills pass the more radicalized House, but die in the Senate.
Did you know that this year’s passage of “Alexa’s Law,” which claims a fetus is now a “person,” repealed two long-standing statutes protecting pregnant women? Women’s rights groups, on the other hand, couldn’t even get a hearing on a bill that would have created _enhanced_ legal protections for pregnant women.
Good posts outlander,
too bad there are not very many people around here anymore that you can actually have a real discussion with these days.
“Speaking of Global Warming- I havent heard yet what spin the preachers of the Church of Global Climate Change are putting on the fact that NASA quietly revised their ranking of “hottest years” after being shown a mistake in their calculatins by a Canadian scientist.”
Because the entire concept of global warming hinges on the fact that the hottest year ever was in 1998.game over, everyone go home.
Lawl.
Hey Nathan,You would be a good person to answer my questions. I don’t suppose you could head over to the evolution thread and try for a serious discussion with me?
Heckler, and Tara,
Are you unable to understand the difference between the U.S (lower 48 states) and GLOBAL?
This is the GLOBAL graph, and it has “infinitesimally small” changes,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
Notice anything about the last 2 decades?
Don’t be the person in the 3rd frame of this cartoon.http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/truth-shall-set-you-free.html
Oh please. Evangelicals are as loony as the day is long. I don’t watch big brother, but I watched it the other day…do you really think those people are a good representative of religion? That’s the crazy crap we see from a whole mess of them that believe they should dictate how the rest of us live…under their rules.
I think it’s funny if it did happen, we’d suddenly have a whole mess of Catholics really angry at how their faith was being diminished. All you have to do is live in a town where YOUR religion is in the minority- then you see the in-fighting between the sects. THIS is why we have freedom of religion and freedom from having to deal with YOUR religion.
Just look at the Muslim infighting- the persecution of Christians in Iraq right now. Or even the Ireland fights between Christians. That is what religion does. Everyone thinks they have God on their side, and they justify all bad behavior because of it. And Evangelicals are notorious for being hypocrites…wanting to ban something they do themselves. Talk about self-hatred. I think religion screws with people’s mental health more than anything.
We who have no religion look at all of you FUNDIES the same way you look at someone of another religious belief. You’re welcome to your religion, as long as you keep it to your damn self.
Political_Mom,
Secular Humanism is just as bad and has just as long of a history of bad too.
Could it be that people, no matter what they believe, can be and often are bad?
Wow…
Imagine that, people do bad things.
But please continue to live in your ignorance fueld by your own hatred for something you obviously don’t understand.
“That’s the crazy crap we see from a whole mess of them that believe they should dictate how the rest of us live…under their rules.”Posted by: political_mom
You must be talking about the social democrats in Congress. Stealing money from the rich to give to the poor, deciding who my doctor will be with socialized medicine, and the fairness doctrine.
Yep socialist democrats.
cosmos,
i should have said, “Because the entire concept of global warming hinges on the fact that the hottest day in the US was in 1998″
Since that’s wrong, the whole theory is bunk, don’t you see?
/sarcasm
Pmom, great post by the way.
But please continue to live in your ignorance fueld by your own hatred for something you obviously don’t understand.Posted by: Nathan | August 13, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Nathan,
I got through the first four sentences of your post, and was starting to think, Wow, Nathan can be reasonable!! And then you had to go and spoil it with a nasty, vicious attack on PMom’s character.
Why do you do this?
Tom-
While I agree that nathans lst sentence was unncessary, since Nathan has identified himself, I believe, with CHristians and Evangelicals, I would presume these comments by PMom was part of the reason for his answer
“Evangelicals are as loony as the day is long”
“And Evangelicals are notorious for being hypocrites…wanting to ban something they do themselves. Talk about self-hatred. I think religion screws with people’s mental health more than anything.”
I would suspect that nathan would take umbrage at such remarks. His comments were still without merit. But Political Mom’s bias was showing quite heavily, no?
Well,
Pmoms remarks were ignorant.
Pmoms remarks were full of hatred.
Pmoms remarks indicated she doesn’t understand.
I apologize if lumping them all in one sentence seemed like a personal attack rather than the truth.
Littlejohn,
Touche.
But Nathan does this with _everyone_ who disagrees with him. It’s fairly constant, in tone and style. He’ll go along nice and reasonable in a post, and then, in the last sentence, ::SLAP!:: in the face of whomever he’s addressing.
I guess I shouldn’t let it bug me, but hey, it does.
Tom,
No different than the way you post either.
Tom-
I agree that we would all be better off without the mischaracterizations of individuals and groups, the personal attacks upon posters here, and the out and out spiteful and sometimes hateful things said here. It is getting tedious, and serves no purpose than stroking the pleasure centers of those who engage in such behavior. WHy we cannot disagree, without being hateful, I don;t know, it seems to be a curse upon the species.
Nathan,
How many times on Saturday did I repeatedly say “Please explain the collapse of Basra following the British withdrawal,” only to have my integrity and personal motives attacked?
That went on for what, two hours, before you answered the question with something other than invective?
Tara,
Sorry that I didn’t get your sarcasm.
Also funny… for the U.S (48 states) 1998 went from being 0.01 degrees C. warmer than 1934, to being 0.02 degrees cooler.
It’s a statistical TIE, before and after the corrections.
Littlejohn,
The whole “scorched earth” strategy does get old, tiresome, and painful.
Tom,
You kept loading your posts with false assumptions about me which I was not going to concede to by only answering your question.
Tom,
You kept loading your posts with false assumptions about me which I was not going to concede to by only answering your question.
This thread is a bit insulting.
Phillip does start off with some really bogus assumptions:
“More evangelicals are starting to care about the environment and not just a few social issues.”
He starts of with “care about the environment” and then talks about globabl warming.
For as long as I have been a Christian I have cared about the environment. I don’t think humans are the cause to some big global warming problem though. Phillip unfairly lumps caring about the environment with fighting globabl wamring.
Then he says we only care about a few social issues. Once again, a false assumption.
The perception of caring is driven by the vocality of Evangelicals as a group on the issues.Which issues are Evangelicals most vocal about?
Someone should tell George W. Bush, our Evangelical in Chief, that caring about the environment does _not_ involve spraying depleted uranium all over a nation that didn’t attack the United States, that wasn’t the source of the terrorists that attacked the United States, and didn’t harbor the terrorists that attacked the United States.
Brain,
Go to church and you will see that we are most vocal about loving and caring for your neighbor.
It is the media which highlights only the most controversial issues not the evangelicals only talking about them.
Tom,
Depleted Uranium used in munitions has been tested and tested and tested. It is a very effective weapon with minimum risk.
Most of the weaponry we are currently using doesn’t even invole DU rounds.
Most of those rounds are used for armor penetration which is not currently happening.
Does this mean the religious right is becoming mainstream? Does this indicate that if religious zealots are willing to promote the issues which are important to democrats, we could see a switch in parties, or parties embracing religious views?
Will there be a religious left?Will this lead to “leftnuts”?
Whom is embracing whom? Is the left reaching out or are the religions crossing over?
Will the republicans loose the close association it has with Christians?
And finally, will religion and Christianity drop from the forefront of politic’s and become relegated back to the Sunday morning affair it used to be?
“we are most vocal about loving and caring for your neighbor.”
….. if Nathan is an example of this, the whole world is in trouble.
“I don’t think humans are the cause to some big global warming problem though. Phillip unfairly lumps caring about the environment with fighting globabl wamring.”
Posted by: Nathan | August 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Because you prefer to believe deceivers like Steven Milloy, instead of credible scientists.
Fighting global warming IS caring about the environment.
Cosmos,
Is fighting global warming the only thing you can do to care about the environment?
Of course not. So implying that caring about the environment is fighting global warming is unfair.
I can do many things to care about the environment without believing we are causing some global warming problem.
WS Clark,
Between the two of us, you are more vile, rude, mean, and cruel than I have ever been.
So is duck hunting. As a matter of fact, contributing to Ducks Unlimited does a lot more for the environment than purchasing carbon credits to reduce your “carbon footprint”.
It’s hard for me to say “carbon footprint” without rolling my eyes.
Nathan,
Fighting global warming is part of caring about the environment.
Not fighting global warming is not caring about the environment.
Ducks Unlimited,
‘The Waterfowler’s Guide to Global Warming’http://www.ducks.org/Hunting/RetrieverTraining/83/Page1713.aspx“Ducks, geese and other migratory waterfowl could face substantial population declines during this century in North America from a warmer climate and shrinking wetlands habitat caused by global warming, according to scientific research presented in a recent report by the National Wildlife Federation.”
Cosmos,
Is recycling caring about the environment?
Yes.
So, if I recycle, but I don’t fight Global warming, you are saying I don’t care about the environment?
What if I recycle, use energy effecient bubls, conserve energy, conserve water, car pool, volunteer planting of trees, and even support clean regulation on factories output and disposal of waster but don’t support fighting global warming… I don’t care about the environment?
LOL
Cosmos, in some respects I agree with you but we are worlds apart on the global warming part. I do all that I can to protect the environment, turn off lights when leaving a room, don’t let the water run unnecesarilly, drive a hydrid, etc… but refuse to bye into the “we are destroying the globe argument”.
We just spent a week in Alaska and Canada. Even the natives up there don’t feel it is anything we are doing. The glacier trails on the mountains left by many melting glaciers over the years are proof that climate change has been around a long time.
I even had some very good conversations with the locals about ’socialized medicine’. A topic for another day but very revealing.
recent report by the National Wildlife Federation.”Posted by: cosmos
Hey Cosmos, everyone is taking up that claim and adding those comments for nearly every aspect of life these days. You can pick up nearly any news article or journal and read those same exact remarks. That may sound very sincere, but it is no guarantee for truth.
It’s just the latest fad. It will go away.
I spent 22 years in Alaska before moving to Kansas so you must have spoken to some naive natives. Even now the robin has set up a habitat above the Arctic Circle where it’s never been before. The polar bears are facing extinction due to lack of an ice shelf. An entire village had to be relocated due to rising sea levels.
UAF has a great arctic research division and they’ve collected mountains of data showing an effect on the environment from climate change. Perhaps you ought to go to more reliable sources.
Doug, I went to the people who lived there and had for years. People who had relatives before them who had lived there for years. They think it is a natural phenomenum.
Where is your backing for the statement that polar bears are facing extinction?
Which village was this that was relocated? And as for the UAF artic division, that is exactly what I said. Climate change is recognized by the natives because they and their ancestors have seen it.
I guess we might have used some of the same sources just viewed the results differently.
I am hoping to see some of the local churches rally their congregations and shift their protests from Tiller’s to local factories that pollute the ground and river water in our State.
That will demonstrate that something else is important.
DD, nobody steals from the rich to give to the poor. If anything, it’s the poor who get shafted by everyone else, so give me a break.
And HOW would Universal Healthcare dictate which doctor you see? See, you make no sense. IF anything it would give you MORE freedom as you wouldn’t have to deal with what your ‘plan’ covers.
Nathan, my comments are informed, because I’ve LIVED it. I still live it. My daughter came home one day and said that some girl at school told her she was going to burn in hell for not believing in Jesus and that she’d better get right with God. Completely unprovoked.
As far as my remarks, if you’re not that type of Christian, I guess you’d have no reason to be offended by what I said, now would you? So how many of you fundies I’ve been referring to are thrilled that this war has cost the lives and homes of millions of Iraqi Christians?
Ya know, they’re the minority there. I bet they’d be thrilled to have freedom of and from religion.
we are most vocal about loving and caring for your neighbor.”
….. if Nathan is an example of this, the whole world is in trouble.
Posted by: WSClark | August 13, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Perhaps they’ve redefined what LOVING your neighbor really means? Kindof like how they redefined the whole riches thing huh?
One of many articles about polar bears facing extinctionhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35233-2004Nov8.html
Alaskan villages being relocated:http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31200/story.htm
Climate change research at UAF:http://www.cgc.uaf.edu/
Heresay is not scientific evidence.
Interesting comments LTP considering I haven’t give you a post in the topic to take offense with. Feeling paranoid today old chum?
=============================cosmos’s misaligned data that have been proven to be in error because of their mean temperature data was calculated wrong.
This means all data pointing to 1998 as the hottest year for trend purposes is in error.
Also, note that some of the hottest years in existence were in the 1930s where there wasn’t this horrific climb in CO2 levels.
What this incorrect data also shows that the claim of “peer-reviewed” science is hog wash. If these GW Alarmist can’t do a very fundamental mathematical check on their own temperature data how can we trust any of their so-called peer review science.
You will see a lot of spin from cosmos on this, but the fact is,
the GW Alarmist have been caught in a lie and their credibility is hardly worth trusting.
Political Mom,
Have you even met an Iraqi Christian? I have.
I ahve met no Christian who is “thrilled” at the loss of life or damage or destruction caused.
This is yet more of your completely unsubstantiated claims against Christians.
you offer little more than anecdotal evidence like your daughter being told she was going to hell.
I don’t agree with that, and that is not what we as Christians should tell people.
Have no doubt though, we do believe that the only way to ensure you don’t go to hell is to have faith in Christ.
There is a tactful way of telling people this and I hardly see some kid at school who most definately went about it in a rude way as evidence of all Christians.
There is no such thing as freedom from religion. There is freedom of it, but not from it.
I have every right to go out and share my faith with other people. It is also part of my freedom of speech.
Political Mom,
“Perhaps they’ve redefined what LOVING your neighbor really means? Kindof like how they redefined the whole riches thing huh?”
Who is this “they” you speak of?
Political MOm-
My teenaged daughter was once told that she was white trash because she didn;t own any $400 necklaces. That from a daughter of a Professional Baseball player. I guess I should hate all Profesisonal baseball players, huh
It wasn’t just the kid at school for crying out loud Nathan, that was merely ONE example of many. Even had some Baptists once leave me a pamphlet that said something like “are you going to hell”. Come one. And although your nicer way of putting it SOUNDS better, it’s still the same story. Believe as we do or you’re going to pay.And almost EVERY religion does it. They have to use that fear factor. They put up their interpretation and hope you buy their spin.
Political Mom,
Honestly then, if you don’t believe in hell, then why do you even let it bother you that we believe not having faith in Christ will lead you there?
It has nothing to do with fear. It is truth.
Why are you so intimidated by it if you don’t even believe it?
Why does it bother you that Muslims want to take over what you can believe? I mean, if you don’t believe it anyway, why does it bother you?
Would your church mind if we began broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer over the tornado sirens? Many cities are starting to do this, so I am curious what Wichitans think.
Would your church mind if we began broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer over the tornado sirens? Many cities are starting to do this, so I am curious what Wichitans think.
Posted by: brian | August 13, 2007 at 02:24 PM
I would mind only if they did not allow Christian prayers over the same sirens. Is that the case? Or do they allow every group to do so? ANd which cities in the US? I
Political Mom,
Notice the change you made?
“take over what you can believe?”
The issue was not about taking over what you can believe but being able to share what you do believe.
I have a problem with anyone saying what we can believe.
I have no problems with you having the ability to not believe in Christ.
*Anything* coming over the tornado sirens, other than the “run like hell for your basement” warning, is wrong. Those damn things give me panic attacks as it is.
Brian,
Which “many cities” are doing this???
I would have a problem with it in many regards.
TOm-
yeah,I guess you are right about that. They can be pretty unnerving. And emergency communicaiton equipment should be reserved for just that.
Oh lord, it’d be all religion all day long- and probably into the night as well.
Nathan, then my problem isn’t with you and you had no reason to be offended. My issue is with those who want to dictate what others do based on their religious beliefs. If that’s not you (but I seriously doubt it), then we’ll be just fine.
“My issue is with those who want to dictate what others do based on their religious beliefs.”
So, if it;s for other reasons than religious beliefs, it’s okay?
This is why I’m angry at fundie christians…because they use the majority status to try to dictate every policy out there.
If you’ll notice, I support people to believe in any religion they want to- as long as they’re not doing the same thing.
I support Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindu…whatever. As long as they don’t try to tell others what to do, and determine the policy.
I don’t agree with how fundy Muslims treat women. I think it’s demeaning and abusive. But I’m also not hearing them trying to force others to wear scarves and stuff, so far, they only want to live in peace. Now, if they start changing that, you’re gonna see me get just as angry with them.
Yes, LJ, if you have a legitimate argument that isn’t religious based because YOU think the bible says..go for it.
There isn’t any reason to deny sound argument or difference of opinion.
It’s like this whole casino deal. People had (what I considered overblown) arguments for not wanting casinos based on finances..crime..blah blah. That was ok.
“Even had some Baptists once leave me a pamphlet that said something like “are you going to hell”. Come one. And although your nicer way of putting it SOUNDS better, it’s still the same story. Believe as we do or you’re going to pay.”
Okay. I am tired of this little tirade going on without answering.WHile I do not agree with this style of evangelism, let me ask youi one simple question. If I believe that there is a hell, and if I believe that the only way to keep out of hell is believing in something, would I not be remiss in telling you? Whichis more compassionate? Letting you go to hellwith my silence, or speaking up? Which one speaks to love? Bearing your hatefilled bs to bring you a message or eternal life? or silently watching you go to hell? Are you willing to answer that?
Nathan,
What part of my post “Fighting global warming is part of caring about the environment” do you not understand?
If you do not support fighting global warming, then you’re not caring about that part of Earth’s environment.
Just like if you did NOT recycle, then you would NOT be caring about that part.
Political Mom,
Your statments made no distincition on who they were going after:
“Evangelicals are as loony as the day is long.”
“That’s the crazy crap we see from a whole mess of them that believe they should dictate how the rest of us live…under their rules.”
“And Evangelicals are notorious for being hypocrites…wanting to ban something they do themselves. Talk about self-hatred. I think religion screws with people’s mental health more than anything.”
“Perhaps they’ve redefined what LOVING your neighbor really means? Kindof like how they redefined the whole riches thing huh?”
I do take offense at your statements.
You repeatedly post things which are not true and are usually comletely unsubstantiated about Christians.
Don’t try to back pedal your way out of it.
You were quite clear and saying “evangelicals”
If you come to my door and say “I believe this”, you are perfectly within your right to do so…and I’m perfectly within my right to tell you to stuff it. You’re not doing a public service to people no matter what you think. It’s not like the house is on fire and you’re trying to warn them to get out. Even if you think it’s the same thing it isn’t.
I’d more or less liken it to watching someone eat a cheeseburger and you going up to them and telling them the fat contents and how they’ll plug your arteries and die. It’s one thing for my doctor to tell me when I go see him. Quite another to have someone make a nuisance of themselves while I”m trying to enjoy my burger. If I want to be sold on religion, I’ll come to you and ask, ok.
Even worse, if you go to school and say “I want to hold prayer vigil in the middle of the hallway for all the students to pray for those who are going to hell”…then we’ve got a problem. To me that’s obnoxious and hostile to others.
Cosmos,
The part i didn’t understand was where I was supposed to assume you meant part when you said:
“Not fighting global warming is not caring about the environment.”
It pretty much said that if I wasn’t fighting global warming then I didn’t care about the environment.
Now that you have clarified your post by adding “part” then I understand.
NATHAN WE ARE WAITING FOR YOUR REBUTTAL ON THE EVOLUTION THREAD
The Anti-Nathan Dude,
First, Why not post under your real name? It seems obvious you are someone who is a regular, why choose such an inflamatory name?
I am writing a response. It will take time. You wrote several pages worth of material.
“the only way to keep out of hell is believing in something, would I not be remiss in telling you? Whichis more compassionate? Letting you go to hellwith my silence, or speaking up?”
Littlejohn,
There are those in this country who shout it incessantly at those they think don’t believe, don’t believe correctly, or don’t believe sincerely enough. It’s the constant “in your face” that puts non-Christians, moderate Christians, etc., on edge.
I gave my rebuttal THE ANTI-NATHAN DUDE.
All of your theories have been shot down in blazing glory. You should really get more education on Evolutionary Science before you try to argue it. :)
Environmentalist whackos are trying to stop our border fence, claiming it threatens bird stopovers and other tender green things. Enough!
Tom,
I suppose I just don’t see it. I don’t see all these in your face Christians telling people they are going to hell.
Perhaps it is happening somewhere, but they are definately the extreme minority in Christianity.
I wonder if Evangelicals confront Jews about religion. They could explain to them that Judaism is based on old info and that a new prophet has came to simplify and overrule the books upon which the Jewish base their faith.Does this conversation ever happen?
Nathan,
I get it all the time.
Terry Fox screamed it at me in a spittle-sprayed tirade in the middle of the Capitol rotunda.
A certain state Senator told me matter-of-factly the same thing this last session.
Missionaries from a local church told me so on my doorstep last year.
I’ve had it yelled at me on sidewalks while giving interviews with media.
I’ve gotten it in my email.
I’ve gotten it on the phone.
I get it on this blog.
Jesus was a Jew. Christianity was started by Paul. Constantine wasn’t Christian. Why were so many gospels left out of the Bible?
I’m sure you can find the answer to those questions SolDev without having Nathan having to look them up for you.
Do some research and the answers are easily found.
I’d more or less liken it to watching someone eat a cheeseburger and you going up to them and telling them the fat contents and how they’ll plug your arteries and die. It’s one thing for my doctor to tell me when I go see him. Quite another to have someone make a nuisance of themselves while I”m trying to enjoy my burger. If I want to be sold on religion, I’ll come to you and ask, ok.
Posted by: political_mom | August 13, 2007 at 02:49 PM
So, would all the liberals, or all the dogooders, and all the rest please shut upo and quit trying to ban certain foods, and trans fats, and yadadadaaSame thing. But I guess okay since it’s not religious
——————————–Littlejohn,
There are those in this country who shout it incessantly at those they think don’t believe, don’t believe correctly, or don’t believe sincerely enough. It’s the constant “in your face” that puts non-Christians, moderate Christians, etc., on edge.
Posted by: Tom | August 13, 2007 at 02:52 PM
I agree. As I said in my post, I do not agree with this style of evangelism. Although the question I asked was not anwered. Not really.——–wonder if Evangelicals confront Jews about religion. They could explain to them that Judaism is based on old info and that a new prophet has came to simplify and overrule the books upon which the Jewish base their faith.Does this conversation ever happen?
Posted by: brian | August 13, 2007 at 03:03 PM
Actually, yes it does. Primarily by what is called messianic jews.
“This means all data pointing to 1998 as the hottest year for trend purposes is in error.”Posted by: Kansas, aka troll | August 13, 2007 at 02:08 PM
The troll Kansas thinks(sic) like the person in the 3rd frame of this cartoon,http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/truth-shall-set-you-free.html
“Also, note that some of the hottest years in existence were in the 1930s where there wasn’t this horrific climb in CO2 levels.”
The troll believes this graph shows the 1930s having “some of the hottest years in existence”?GLOBAL Temperature: Land-Ocean Indexhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
“What this incorrect data also shows that the claim of “peer-reviewed” science is hog wash.”
The troll believes that the simple mistake of NOAA providing some uncorrected station data is “”peer-reviewed” science”.
Explanation, and before/after graphs here,http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf
“the GW Alarmist have been caught in a lie and their credibility is hardly worth trusting.”
The troll Kansas is the one with ZERO credibility.
Nathan,
Global warming (climate change) is also a VERY important part of Earth’s environment.
The changes probably will cause severe problems, and also be irreversible.
“Although the question I asked was not anwered. Not really.”
Littlejohn,
I guess I don’t see the constant “reminders” that I’m doomed to eternity in Hell to be compassionate. So in that sense, I can’t answer the question you posed.
No cosmos, but nice try.
Your claims of peer-reviewed science is now trashed.
They couldn’t even catch a mathematical calculation error.
It’s back to square one for your kind cosmos, your credibility is zero now.
You were lying all along.
I don’t know how I could have answered your question any MORE specifically. I answered and then some.
And I’m not one of the liberals saying trans fats should be banned, I’m not one saying smoking should be banned nor alcohol, and I’m even for legalizing pot. There are regulations and regulation agencies to protect people from UNKNOWINGLY poisoning them. But that’s all. I’m all good with jumping off a cliff as long as you’re informed of the consequences.
Ah yes, a single mathematical error invalidates the entire system of peer-reviewed science.
I guess that means calling bats “birds” invalidates the entire message of the Bible?
Or could it be that both statements would be equally ridiculous?
“They couldn’t even catch a mathematical calculation error.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
It was not a “mathematical calculation error”.
NASA thought that NOAA’s station data would continue to be corrected — but it wasn’t.
The troll can’t understand the simple, inconvenient truths.
guess I don’t see the constant “reminders” that I’m doomed to eternity in Hell to be compassionate. So in that sense, I can’t answer the question you posed.
Posted by: Tom | August 13, 2007 at 03:17 PM
Actually, I think you did. You seem to believe that not pointing it out to you is more compassionate, because you find the opposite to be true. You consider telling you your fate to not be compassionate.Well, okay. It is certainly your priviledge. I disagree, though I disagree about their methods as well. It is generally counterproductuctive, as well as kinda rude, to tell strangers, who have not asked, what they do not want to hear.
I’m all good with jumping off a cliff as long as you’re informed of the consequences.
Posted by: political_mom | August 13, 2007 at 03:23 PM
And while I disagree with their methods, are they not simply “informing you of the consequences?”
cosmos is now a known liar as he posted time after time about the 1998 temperatures as being accurate.
Let’s see how he likes being called a liar like he has done to me.
Don’t trust anything cosmos posts, he is a known liar.
Tom,
I don’t agree with yelling at people they are going to hell. I don’t agree with that method of enaging people. It is the extreme minority of Christians who would do such things.
However, I wonder how many of these encounters you have had were simply people trying to tell you about Christ and heaven and hell and your oversimplification of saying they were telling you were going to hell?
Nathan,
How can I possibly oversimplify “You’re going to spend eternity in Hell!” ?
Tom,
It is not the statement, but the delivery.
I can’t change that you must have faith in Christ to be saved.
I can however love you and share the truth with you.
It is much different than hatefully yelling that you are going to hell as you described earlier.
That is the difference.
“All of your theories have been shot down in blazing glory.”Posted by: Kansas
Haha i don’t think so
Tom, I have to tell you that I love you more than the people who know and love you, and that your love for your partner (which has absolutely zero effect on my own life) is going to make God angry and he’ll not only kill you, but also make you suffer for eternity -because you aren’t doing what someone else says God thinks. Since you are homosexual, you should denounce yourself and just submit to what my God wants from you.
Gee. It really doesn’t sound so very loving God does it? Sounds kindof crazy, doesn’t it?
Terry Fox screamed it at me in a spittle-sprayed tirade in the middle of the Capitol rotunda.
A certain state Senator told me matter-of-factly the same thing this last session.
Missionaries from a local church told me so on my doorstep last year.
I’ve had it yelled at me on sidewalks while giving interviews with media.
I’ve gotten it in my email.
I’ve gotten it on the phone.
I get it on this blog.
Posted by: Tom | August 13, 2007 at 03:04 PM
I am sorry that some have taken this approach. I apologize on thier behalf.
Oh and Tom, I also cannot stand by and allow you to post messages on a message board, because the rays emitted from the screen are highly toxic. I have a book that says it’s the truth, so it’s my duty to tell you the GOOD NEWS that you will be saved if you stop using a computer.
“cosmos is now a known liar as he posted time after time about the 1998 temperatures as being accurate.
Let’s see how he likes being called a liar like he has done to me.”
Posted by: Kansas, aka troll, aka LIAR | August 13, 2007 at 03:30 PM
Since YOU ARE a known liar, you first need to find my “time after time” posts that make that claim.
Like I have, for your LIES about the Sierra Club, lasers, etc..
Sounds kindof crazy, doesn’t it?
Posted by: political_mom | August 13, 2007 at 04:14 PM
It certainly does. Your misrepresenatation or caricuration of what I said is certainly crazy. but, youi sais it, it sounds kinda crazy
Like I have, for your LIES about the Sierra Club, lasers, etc..
Posted by: cosmos | August 13, 2007 at 04:19 PM
So you agree then cosmos, you are a known liar.
Littlejohn,
No one should have to apologize for the bad behaviors of others (unless it’s the behaviors of kids or obnoxious spouses). But I appreciate your kind words in the spirit given.
Tom
“you are more vile, rude, mean, and cruel”
Without a doubt, Nathan, you are the most hateful person that I have ever encountered – on this blog or anywhere else.
In my fifty-five years, I have yet to come across anyone as hateful as you. If you are the face of Christianity, then the whole world is in trouble.
Seriously.
And that is not a joke or a trolling statement.
I am serious – no flaming or joking.
You are a truly hateful man and I feel very sorry for you.
WSClark: Missed you. Who have you been lately?
BTW, your characterization of Nathan is laughable.
Joe Biden Says Democrats Have Been Too Fearful to Discuss Religion
NASHUA, N.H. — White House hopeful Joe Biden said Monday that Democrats lost the last two presidential elections in part because they let themselves be portrayed as anti-God.
Democrats have been too afraid to talk about faith, Biden said at a Rotary Club luncheon. But what voters really want to know is whether a president believes in something bigger than themselves and whether he or she respects the faith of others, he said.
“No one ever accused Bill Clinton of being a citadel of virtue, even from the start. How was it that he got 58 percent of the Catholic vote? How was it that he got almost half the evangelical vote?”
It wasn’t because they thought Clinton believed as they did, the Delaware Democrat said.
“When he sat next to you in a Catholic church or a fundamentalist church, he respected your views,” he said. “Fair or unfair, when Al Gore sat in that church, when John Kerry sat in that church pew, the perception was: ‘Maybe he doesn’t really respect my view.”‘
cont’d athttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293141,00.html
Posted by: Nathan | August 13, 2007 at 04:01 PM
It is not the statement, but the delivery.
***No, it’s not the delivery. People should really mind their own business, and leave each person to deal with their God, in whatever form they believe or not, in their own way.
I can’t change that you must have faith in Christ to be saved.
***That’s what Christians say. Muslims say something else. Jews yet another thing. Hindus, Buddhists, etc, all have a different view of the path to salvation.
I can however love you and share the truth with you.
***See my first point, above.
It is much different than hatefully yelling that you are going to hell as you described earlier.
***Relentlessly pushing your version of faith on someone with a different faith tradition is beyond rude. It speaks to an arrogance that typifies the modern, radicalized evangelical.
***Has anyone noticed that I never, _never_ discuss my faith on this blog? And that I never criticize others for the beliefs they hold dear? The only time I offer criticism of someone’s faith is not of their faith per se, but in the specifics of having a dogma forced on those who believe differently from the person pushing the issue.
Tom,
So basically, what you are saying is that you just don’t like Christians or Christianity. Period.
That is fine.
I would say that 99% of the time I never initiate anything about my faith on this blog.
Usually what happens, is people like Political Mom or others say something which is a complete mischaracterization of Christians or Christianity and I respond.
I don’t think I have seen anyone on this blog shove our religion down anyones throats. What most of us do is spend a good deal of time dealing with people who lie, mischaracterize, or simply say bad things about Christians or Christianity.
Once again, it is an extreme minority who “relentlessly” go out and talk about their faith with any one particualr individual.
If/when I have ever spoken with anyone about Christ and they don’t want to hear it, I leave them alone.
So, I don’t know who these people you are talking about who harrass you are.
WS Clark,
I offered a couple of weeks ago to settle this with you when once again you were saying that I said bad things about Tracy.
What will it take?
You seem to have this passion with letting me know how awful you think I am.
Because of a few disagreements on a blog?
Once again, you have said far worse things about me and to me than I have ever said about you or anyone else.
But please feel free to keep following me around….
Nathan, forget about WSClark.
This is what happens when humans don’t have Christ in their life and have no forgiveness in their life.
People like WSClark will never relent until he gives himself to Christ, which it doesn’t look hopeful, but one can only pray.
The Evangelical Christians are the first ones to scream freedom of speech when non-Christians ask them to stop their preaching.
The same Constitution that guarantees the evangelical Christian the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, also guarantees the non-Christians the very same freeedom of speech and freedom of religion. Even if that means no religion.
So the problem I have with all these screaming Evangelicals claiming to be the only ones that absolutely knows the one true way to Heaven, is your freedom of speech and freedom of religion stops at my face. That is when MY freedom of speech and freedom of religion (even if that means NO religion) comes into play.
Get it now?
How very arrogant and condescending of Kansas to look down on WS Clark simply because he/she disagrees with his personal religious beliefs.
I find it ironic that Christians take the name of Christ but yet Jesus never once yelled and screamed or even arrogantly announced that someone was without hope just because that person disagreed with him. Jesus used love and compassion in his ministering – not threats.
Maidmarion,
I don’t think I understand your point.
You do not have the right to scream your religion in my face when I ask you to stop. That is my Constitutional right. How hard is that to understand?
So you agree then cosmos, you are a known liar.”
Posted by: Kansas, aka troll, aka LIAR | August 13, 2007 at 04:37 PM
No, I’m not a liar, but you are.
mainmarion,
read WSClark entry at:http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/evangelicals-ca.html#comment-79383391
This is not the first time he has attacked Nathan without cause.
No one has screamed anything at you maidmarion.
You’re assertions are the result of taking the comments and opinions of others as personal. When they have your name in them, then you can take them as personal.
I don’t see anything here with your name in it to accuse you of anything.
lol cosmos,
Nice try, but you have promoted the inconsistent data points U.S. temperatures as being part of peer-review science.
Evidently that was not in fact true as it has been proved wrong and inaccurate.
Troll,
I’ve NEVER posted that temperature data sets = “peer-reviewed” science.
Land-surface air temperature data sets are “observations”, and have a margin of error. They’re also subject to “data” (not “science”) errors — like when NOAA did not include the corrections.
And they vary. In the IPCC’s AR4, the CRUTEM3, and NCDC data sets show a larger warming trend during the last few decades than GISS (Hansen).
And Lugina et al is very similar to GISS.
The troll Kansas can’t refute that this graph was NOT noticeably changed by last weeks corrections,
GLOBAL Temperature: Land-Ocean Indexhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
so he instead makes false personal attacks on me.
what you are saying is that you just don’t like Christians or Christianity.Posted by: Nathan | August 13, 2007 at 05:52 PM
When you find the place I said that, please paste it in.
Otherwise, I’d ask that you be man enough to apologize for your insult.
Thanks.
I see cosmos is still avoiding the truth and backpedaling, sad.
Like I said, Nathan and LJ, if you’re not that kind of Christian, then you have no reason to be offended.
Kansas, aka troll,
What’s “sad”, is you seem to believe that your posting LIES about global warming, and me, improves your credibility.
It doesn’t. It makes you look more dishonest, and more foolish.
Political Mom,
Then why did you say:
“Evangelicals are as loony as the day is long”
“And Evangelicals are notorious for being hypocrites…wanting to ban something they do themselves.”
Your comments were quite clearly directed at anyone who would call themselves an Evangelical.
Tom,
Sorry.
Nature’s own Global Warming — Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for “global warming,” Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of “Burning Ice” (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.
The issue of “global warming” brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects (”inputs” and “outputs”) and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.
When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.
http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.htmlhttp://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.html
Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional “assumption” may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.
Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux. But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc. You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.
People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming “effect” is due solely to “greenhouse” gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually cooling:
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/121699text.htmlhttp://ees5-www.lanl.gov/IGPP/Debate2.html(some of these links may not be working due to computer changes since 9-11)
Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there is still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.
There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway. This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources. This is “tampering” with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.
In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews. Peer Reviews are “supposed” to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors. But this does not always occur. In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted “certain” results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing. In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.
Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?
When it comes to Nature’s greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring. Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth’s past, long before humans were ever around.
Let me give you some web sites that describe the characteristics and issues with the Earth’s Burning Ice and the natural abundance of methane greenhouse gases:
General information on chemistry and biology of Methane Hydrates:–> http://www.at-sea.org/missions/extremes/preview.html
–> http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD5.3/sassen.html
–> http://ench1.ench.ucalgary.ca/~hydrates/
–> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/
–> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/
–> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/geochem/gas_hydrates.htm
–> http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Margin/Marg-Hydrates.htm
–> http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/NaturalGas/hydrates/index.html
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheets:–> http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/hydrates/
–> http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
–> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs021-01/
–> http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/
Germany’s research:–> http://www.mpi-bremen.de/deutsch/biogeo/mumm2.html
–> http://www.gashydrate.de/
In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around. There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth’s geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates.http://www.terradaily.com/news/deepimpact-05r.html
Study breaks ice on ancient Arctic thaw:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_Breaks_Ice_On_Ancient_Arctic_Thaw_999.html(previous periods of global warming)
And then there is the aspect of climate change from meteors:http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzo.html
Outgassing of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from volcanoes:http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/
Inaccuracies in measurements of climates:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Snow_Inaccurate_Temperature_Archive.html
Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warminghttp://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html
Green plants also cause Global Warming:http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2006/060113/e-list.html#Wi1http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Forgotten_Methane_Source.htmlhttp://www.terradaily.com/news/Could_Forests_Worsen_Global_Warming.htmlhttp://www.terradaily.com/news/Extinctions_Linked_To_Climate_Change.html
Farming Provides Wildlife Habitat And Reduces Global Warminghttp://www.terradaily.com/reports/Farming_Provides_Wildlife_Habitat_And_Reduces_Global_Warming.html
Prehistoric warming helped preserve fossils:http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzi.html
Ancient tropical warming and nature’s greenhouse gaseshttp://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzj.html
Volcanic impacts on ocean levels:http://www.terradaily.com/news/oceans-05y.html
Climate change and massive flooding:http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Role_Of_Massive_Floods_In_Climate_Change.html
Late Pleistocene Americans Faced Chaotic Climate Change Environments:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Late_Pleistocene_Americans_Faced_Chaotic_Climate_Change_Environments.html
Global Warming evidence from 55 million years ago:http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzzb.html
Tropical ice cores shows two abrupt Global Climate shifts:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical_Ice_Cores_Shows_Two_Abrupt_Global_Climate_Shifts_999.html
How continental splits resulted in global cooling:http://www.terradaily.com/news/antarctic-05q.html
Earth’s burping from wobbling also affects climate:http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzt.html
Geomagnetism as one factor in rain / weather:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Magnets_Help_Explain_Rain_Patterns.html
None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!
It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.
But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us. Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities — their words, not ours.
Tom,
So, if Christians believe that you must have faith in Christ to be saved from hell and no matter how they tell you that you still lump them in with those who would yell and scream you are going to hell….
I just assumed you simply didn’t like Christianity at all.
So I assume then, that since you deny your dislike, you do indeed like Christians and Christianity?
You are right Nathan, I apologize. I sometimes insert EVANGELICAL to mean the holy roller bible thumpers.
I sometimes forget that Evangelical is not the same thing.
Better?
Political Mom,
When you stop using names like “holy roller Bible thumpers” perhaps.
Your posts are continualy full of completely unsubstantiated mischaracterizations of Christians and Christianity.
Excellent post Catherine, saving this page so I can read your links.
Thank you. :)
Nathan,
I really don’t care what you and your best buddy Kansas/Republank think of my religious/spiritual beliefs, as they are none of your business. I don’t need your version of salvation.
What I find disgusting is your condescending attitude towards anyone that doesn’t agree with your self-proclaimed view of righteousness and morality.
You dismiss anyone that doesn’t fall into lockstep with your views as being ignorant, lacking in understanding or simply stupid, then you complain about the lack of civility and reasonable discussion on the blog.
You and Republank play the same game – anyone that disagrees with you is stupid and, if they protest about your name-calling, you call them whiners or trolls.
Same story, every day.
You disgust me, Nathan. I know much more about your trolling habits than I will post here, but I know that a member of your family felt it necessary to apologize for your disgusting entries.
You claim to be a good Christian, Nathan, but I stand by my statement that, if you are the face of Christianity, then the whole world is in trouble.
Look in the mirror, Nathan, your image is far, far from being Christ-like.
My my, judgmental aren’t you WSClark?
“People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming “effect” is due solely to “greenhouse” gases.”
Posted by: Catherine | August 13, 2007 at 08:01 PM
Due “soley” to GHG’s? You need to do some research — climate scientists also include components such as solar irradiance, land use, and aersols.
You don’t seem to have read the reports athttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
“But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor,…”
There’s no correlation between solar activity and the last two decades of observed warming.
But the observed warming does match the effect of human-added GHG’s.
And the warming of Earth by natural causes in the past does NOT prevent humans from causing warming now.
“My my, judgmental aren’t you WSClark?”
….. and you are not, Republank?
Hypocrite.
WS Clark,
Once again, what will it take to settle this like men?
There are several things which can happen here:
1. You can continue to follow me around and say how horrible I am.
2. You can tell me specifically what has you so upset and we can come to terms.
3. You could just ignore me.
So what is it WS Clark?
I have tried and tried to reason with you several times.
The only family member you could be talking about is my father. I don’t know exactly what he might have apologized for on my behalf. Perhaps if you would tell me what has you so upset?
*Bumper Stickers for Your SUV*
Honk if you’re high and mighty.
Fe fi fo fum, I smell the oil of a hybrid scum.
Proud sponsor of OPEC.
Be Green, drink more Heineken.
My gas tank is bigger than your gas tank.
Is that a car or did you swallow a KIA?
Get out of my way or the last thing you’ll see are my massive 21 wheels driving over you.
Honk if you have more than three Gas Cards.
Six inches of snow? So?
Stop gawking, you know you can’t afford this.
Leg room…Got any?
GPS, Satellite Radio, Exxon Platinum – Life is good
Hood ornament? No, that’s a Toyota that got in my way.
Objects may appear smaller in your mirror, – especially your compact car – so get out of my way.
My Hummer is bigger than yours.
Drink cup holder? No, I have a table in here.
Size matters.
Gas hog. Your point?
SUV? Yep, but I can afford to buy carbon credits.
Go Green. Get a job that pays more than minimum wage.
“Once again, what will it take to settle this like men?”
What do you want to do, Nathan, are you challenging me to a fist fight? Pistols at ten paces? Knives? Bow and arrows?
“You can tell me specifically what has you so upset and we can come to terms.”
My 9:00PM post detailed my feelings towards you – you are a hypocrite that uses your faith to belittle others.
To me, you are no better than the moneychangers in the Temple.
Answer your questions?
(As for your family member’s apology on your behalf – I will not post the details of your trolling in deference to the object of your attacks.)
In a post about NASA’s recent data correction and “GW Alarmist”, the troll Kansas posted,
“Also, note that some of the hottest years in existence were in the 1930s where there wasn’t this horrific climb in CO2 levels.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/evangelicals-ca.html#comment-79365626
So tell us Mr. “Kansas values”, did you get your claim “some of the hottest years in existence were in the 1930s” from this NASA graph?
GLOBAL Temperature: Land-Ocean Indexhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
or from this one?U.S. Temperaturehttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
The U.S. there = only the lower 48 states.
And Kansas, remember that you posted “GW Alarmist” — not “USW Alarmist”, or “USLower48W Alarmist”.
cosmos = 1 trick pony….boring…
Republank – No trick pony.
Beyond boring.
So the troll Kansas can’t figure out which graph he got his “hottest years” claim from??
again cosmos puts words in my mouth by making up statements. This is a common practice that cosmos does.
His next statement will be Kansas cannot prove this or that or Kansas have been proven to be lying about XXX because he cannot prove this and that.
Pathetic cosmos, you are one pathetic human being and totally obsessed with this GW stuff. You truly a sick man that needs to get a life.
“My my, judgmental aren’t you WSClark?”
“Pathetic cosmos, you are one pathetic human being and totally obsessed with this GW stuff. You truly a sick man that needs to get a life.”
Hypocrisy much, Republank?
Nathan,
One of the reasons I don’t discuss people’s faith here, including my own, is because I’m not going to get dragged into the “I’m a better Christian than you are” game.
Everyone here has their views of God, of creation, of morality, and of their place in the universe. I would submit that there are as many views of “truth” on this blog as there are posters.
I would further argue that everyone’s individual views are so deeply and strongly held that no amount of screaming “You’re going to spend eternity in Hell!” is going to make a single bit of difference.
To get to your question: I find it pretty well loaded. “You deny your dislike” carries a supposition that’s fairly offensive. It’s clear that you’ve decided that I “dislike” Christians, without even knowing whether or not I _am_ a Christian.
I don’t “dislike” Christians, Nathan, any more than I have a blanket dislike for persons of any particular faith or faith tradition. I like and dislike individuals based on who they are, and how much respect they have for people who may not be of the same faith. I like and dislike individuals based on whether or not they try to force their version of ultimate truth on me and others.
I _always_ try to respect others in their deeply held beliefs. How and why we believe are among the most intensely personal part of who we are as individuals. If you (generic “you”) are the kind of person who can’t respect someone for having a faith not exactly like yours, then, in my view, you can’t respect others at all.
How about some comments to WSClark Tom?
He has showed up once again with no other agenda than to disrupt the Blog and cast aspersions on other Bloggers.
It was much better with him gone.
Troll,
As you are so fond of telling others, no one has appointed me Blog Monitor.
Unless you think you have. If you indeed have appointed me blog monitor, my first official act is this:
Leave. Don’t return. Thanks.
Tom, bad answer.
By the way, Nathan has a father, he doesn’t need a lecture from you on how to behave or act in accordance with your guidelines.
Let’s hope Nathan doesn’t follow any of your advice, but keeps his faith and his own parental guidance and his time in the Marines as the most significant contributors in his life.
“He has showed up once again with no other agenda than to disrupt the Blog and cast aspersions on other Bloggers.”
…… and this is from a poster that has admittedly posted under under folk’s nics, called me a Heebie (intending an anti-semitic slur) with his very first post addressed to me and has repeatedly accused me and others of being gay?
This is the poster accusing others of disrupting the blog?
What a flaming hypocrite!
Troll,
At 8:02pm, Nathan asked me a question. I answered it.
Not only has no one appointed me the blog monitor, I doubt you’ve received any such appointment either.
Now run along and go back to your cranial-rectal inversion.
‘Nite y’all, it’s been fun – not – but whatever……….
The two Blog Trolls WSClark and Tom have added nothing significant to the Blog today but anarchy and divisiveness.
WS Clark,
Why does everything have to be a fight with you?
When I said lets settle this like men, I simply meant lets act like men, not children.
What will it take to settle this?
You seem to be more interested in following me around and telling me how horrible I am rather than come to some conclusion.
I completely disgree with your characterization of me, but I doubt it will make a difference….
Tom,
Yes I do assume you are not a Christian. Fair? Maybe. Maybe not.
I assume that because you find it offenseve that Christ is the only way to salvation. Which is exactly what a Christian believes.
I respect peoples beliefs.
Once again, about 99% of the time you will find me only talking about my faith here when people are mischaracterizing it or attacking it or telling lies about it or saying bad things about it.
This is a blog where people come to debate things. When I do, it is just that, a debate. I am not out on the street corner of the local Muslim get together screaming that they are going to hell.
“you find it offenseve that Christ is the only way to salvation”Posted by: Nathan | August 13, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Nathan,
Where oh where do you come up with this? This is the second time on this thread you have completely mischaracterized what I’ve written.
Can you find anyplace where I’ve said what you just claimed? If you do, can you paste it in for me?
“again cosmos puts words in my mouth by making up statements. ”
Posted by: Kansas, aka troll, aka liar | August 13, 2007 at 10:00 PM
So just tell us the source for YOUR claim: “Also, note that some of the hottest years in existence were in the 1930s”… in YOUR post complaining about “the GW Alarmist”.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/evangelicals-ca.html#comment-79365626
Or did you just fabricate your “hottest year” claim out of thin air, like you did re your LIE about the Sierra Club?
Nathan,”I assume that because you find it offenseve that Christ is the only way to salvation. Which is exactly what a Christian believes.”
I of course can’t speak for Tom, but I don’t find your belief offensive, just absurd- along with most of the rest of your statements here. If your computer has taught you anything, it should have taught you that there are many paths to any objective.
Tom,
I am confused.
Why have you been talking about Christians who share the truth of Christ being the only way to salvation being the same as those who yell you are going to hell then?
You have been going on about how you have been:
“I get it all the time.”
“Terry Fox screamed it at me in a spittle-sprayed tirade in the middle of the Capitol rotunda.”
“A certain state Senator told me matter-of-factly the same thing this last session.”
“Missionaries from a local church told me so on my doorstep last year.”
“I’ve had it yelled at me on sidewalks while giving interviews with media.”
“I’ve gotten it in my email.”
“I’ve gotten it on the phone.”
“I get it on this blog.”
Then when I asked you if the delivery made a difference you said:
“No, it’s not the delivery. People should really mind their own business, and leave each person to deal with their God, in whatever form they believe or not, in their own way.”
I apologize if I am drawing the wrong conclusions here.
So we are clear:
You are not offended by either:
1. The fact that Christians not only believe Christ is the only way to heaven and salvation from hell
2. Christians are also out preaching it?
Jed,
I have learned that you have been greatly hurt by Christians but refuse to tell us who, when, or where.
You have constantly used your personal anecdotal stories to bash Christians and never tell us who it is doing this.
Nathan,A. Most of those who offended me personally weren’t wearing their nametags.B. When I am referring to friends who have been hurt, I don’t wish to expose them to more abuse.C. It wouldn’t serve any purpose.
So we are clear:
You are not offended by either:
1. The fact that Christians not only believe Christ is the only way to heaven and salvation from hell
***Don’t you pay attention? I respect the right of all people to hold whatever faith they find true, and that provides the greatest comfort to them.
2. Christians are also out preaching it?
***Don’t you pay attention? I don’t want anyone, of any faith, telling me that _my_ faith is wrong, or inadequate, or insufficient. I object to the arrogance of “there’s only one way to believe in God, and if you don’t believe my way, you’re going to hell” How hard is this to understand?
Tom,
I understand…. up to this:
“I object to the arrogance of “there’s only one way to believe in God, and if you don’t believe my way, you’re going to hell”"
So, you don’t find it offensive that Christians preach Christ is the only way to salvation, but you do find it arrogant and object to it?
Good. Grief.
So-called “Christians” who approach me, unsolicited, and attempt to push their view of Christianity on me are offensive and unwelcome.
One look in the Yellow Pages should show you that there are many ways to interpret the Bible, or whatever scripture you happen to choose. Christianity is so divided, there are deep, bitter disputes over which _translations_ to accept.
Believe what you want, Nathan. I will believe what _I_ want. Keep your beliefs out of my face. I’ll keep my beliefs out of your face. Respect each other’s right to believe however the other chooses.
In that way, we get to live in peace.
How many more ways do I have to say this?
Nathan,By the way, I don’t recall having said that I have personally been “greatly hurt” by christians- some threats, but that’s about it. Mostly it’s been friends of mine who were injured or killed as a result of good christian hatred.
Tom,
Ok. And what I have been saying from the very beginning is that Christian who go around pushing our beliefs on people like you say are the extreme minority.
Jed,
I don’t believe you.
But either way, who ever it was, they were not following the teachings of Christ.
Nathan,
My personal experience says otherwise.
Who do I believe? You? Or my lyin’ eyes?
who ever it was, they were not following the teachings of Christ.Posted by: Nathan | August 14, 2007 at 12:06 AM
This is precisely the arrogance I find so, so incredibly offensive, Nathan.
Who are you to judge whether or not someone is following the teachings of Christ? Who are you to decide who is and is not a “true” Christian?
There are many ways to interpret the teachings of Christ. Again, I point you to the “Churches” or “Religion” section of your Yellow Pages. Look and the number of different Christian denominations, and contemplate how each has its own way of interpreting the Bible. Contemplate how even different congregations within a denomination often disagree, or how even parishioners in the _same_ congregations can disagree.
Please try to accept that others of deep faith may not agree with you, but that makes neither they nor you less sincere in their faith.
Tom,
I believe you might truly have encountered some people who were rude.
But you have already indicated you see no difference in those who yell that you are going to hell and those who simple share the truth of Christ with you.
So how many of these encounters were the former and later?
Tom,
It is pretty much common sense that people who are injuring and killing people who Jed has as friends are not following Christs teachings.
About 99 percent of all Christians would agree with that.
I would have a hard time finding someone who is a Christian in disagreement.
You can think it is arrogant all you want. What I believe is well rooted in the scripture.
There are not “many ways” to interpret the teachings of Christ… well at least not if you are calling yourself a Christian.
I am not deciding who is and who is not a “true” Christian either. I said that they were not following Christs teachings.
I have studied many of the Christian denominations. I have been a member of several of them. The disparities of scriptural interpretation you put forth is simply not true.
Most of the differences have little to do with our ultimate faith in Christ and his teachings.
We can disagree on things. It is healthy to do so. But the basics of not killing people and injuring them not being part of Christs teachings is pretty simple.
Nathan,
If the witnessing is unsolicited and unwelcome, it’s rude and offensive. It doesn’t matter what level of volume, it doesn’t matter when or where.
I’ve now worded this in every way imaginable. If you still don’t get it, I have no further way to try to reach you.
Tom,
I agree with you when someone has clearly indicated they are not interested they should be left alone.
Kansas,
After you give your source for “some of the hottest years in existence were in the 1930s”, would you also please explain:
1) Why a very minor correction, for the U.S. (lower 48 states ONLY) re 1998 going from being 0.01 degrees C. warmer than 1934, to being 0.02 degrees cooler, is significant?
That’s only an 0.03 deg change, and the U.S. is less than 2% of Earths total surface area.
2) Why a (roughly 20 times greater) rise in GLOBAL temperatures of about 0.6 deg C since the late 1970’s is insignificant?http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
Thank you, in advance.
“But Atwater is burning in Hell now and hopefully Rove will follow him.”
Posted by: Kev | August 13, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Tom this was posted by one of yours, or atleast he hold himself up as a demo.
Do you find this offensive? I do. Should you and pmom jump his case for saying that someone is burning in hell?
If not, why not?
I hold that he is every bit a vitriolic as Fred Phelps and you would never call him an evangelical would you.
What I am saying is that we all have the right to speak our minds on this blog. Pmom coming down on Christian as nut cases and other uncomplementary names offends me.
Ksgrm,
I’m going to tell you the same thing I told the troll earlier: No one has appointed me Blog Monitor. I’m not responsible for policing what other people say to each other.
Okay?
Nathan,Of course you don’t believe me. You’ve made it plain many times over that you’re going to believe what you’re going to believe, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. I’ve never had any illusions about convincing you of anything, but that doesn’t mean I won’t call you on it when you’re peddling bullshit.
Nathan,”But either way, who ever it was, they were not following the teachings of Christ.”
I never said they were; I said they were following the teachings of various of the christian churches.
Jed, Nathan said it nicely but I won’t be quite so nice – you have made some serious accusations about Christian churches and mentioned that people have died because of it. You need to back of these accusations or back off them. I would think this is you were accusing any church of this. I don’t believe any of this ever happened.
KsGrm?? You ever hear what the good Christians did in Central and South America, and Mexico?? The Conquistadors??? Believe or be executed??? THIS didnt hurt non believers??? And much of the same in “christianizing” Africa… and even Hawaii!! Surely you know your history of missionary zeal…. ummm over zealous is more accurate…. It has happened countless times in the history of Christinity… It is time to finally end this kind of encroachment… And I would say the same for Islam…
Chas,
The main difference being that you mention historic events of Christianity and compare them to current events in Islam.
Besides, the conquistadors were not there to convert people in the name of Christ. They were there for power and greed.
You confuse people who abuse their power to further their own goals and say they are doing it in the name of Christ with actually doing it for Christ or according to his teachings.
Also, we are talking about a specific Church or group of them Jed refuses to give us the names of to actually support his claims of murder…
Jed,
Did you ever report these things to the Police?
Nathan,Oh yes, the police had the reports. the first two, back in 1959 and 1961 weren’t even investigated once they found out the victims were gay. The later ones were investigated, arrests made and convictions obtained.As I recall, one set of bashers had several local preachers lined up as character witnesses, but the judge wouldn’t allow it. They were convicted of assault and battery before the victim died from complications arising from the beating. Another friend in Texas was set on fire by a gang of teenagers screaming “abomination” and “You’ll burn in hell too.” They were sent up for life, whatever that means in Texas. A transsexual friend in southern Missouri was left in a permanent vegetative state from a beating after buying a house next door to a church. A deacon of the church was convicted of battery. The list goes on. I’m not about to name names of course; I don’t out my friends, alive or dead. I never have and never will, thank you!The root of the problem is that when high-profile christians, like your friends Jerry, Pat, Joe, Terry etc,. make statements blaming gay people for terrorism, teenage pregnancies (I really wonder about that one), the condemning of our whole nation to hell, etc., they are knowingly inciting the fringe christian crazies to go out and do violence of one kind or another to gay people. Every one of those christian campaigns against gay people has signaled an increase in gay bashing.Actually Nathan, I have no particular problem with Christ, it’s christians with their long history of murder, torture, theft and lies in the name of Christ that I oppose. In essence, they have devolved into a huge number of large and small street gangs, complete with turf wars that have lasted for centuries and a chip on the shoulder for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their particular theology or pay tribute. Deny it all you want, but you’re still a gang member.
Jed;I think I’ll stick with a “gang” who’s activism is “expressed in literacy training, inner-city relief and food banks, adoption agencies, marriage counseling and spousal abuse mediation, day-care centers for children, and counsel and care for unwed mothers, or any number of other help and advocacy works.” Whose goal is to help people live a good life of service and then have eternal life through Christ.
That’s my kind of gang Jed. Sorry you are so bitter. Wish there was something I could do to persuade you.
Out,So your gang has good PR; it’s still a gang.
Bible verses that even fundamentalists don’t take literally…Here are some verses which come directly from the Bible that even fundamentalists do not take literally for today, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their pre-existing prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Take a look for yourself…”Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)This verse says that women can’t speak in church. Period. It is completely ignored today. Applying this verse to the modern day church would be ancient, absurd and nonsensical.When it comes to the verses about homosexuality, however, fundamentalists suddenly insist that they must be interpreted literally, word for word!When it comes to this verse, however, they admit the facts. They acknowledge that it was only meant for that day. The truth is that the Apostle Paul wrote this verse because, during his time, women and men sat on opposite sides of the church aisle. Women would yell questions across the aisle to their husbands, causing a disruption of the service.It would be all too easy for a fundamentalist who disliked women to use this verse to exclude women from participating in the service, just as fundamentalists who dislike gay people currently misuse those seemingly anti-gay scriptures to exclude people who are gay.Realizing that a particular scripture was only relevant for its time (and should not be applied literally to our modern day) is an interpretational option that is conveniently ignored when it comes to the verses which discuss homosexuality.”Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)Upon visiting any fundamentalist church, you will discover that more than a few women have short haircuts. This verse, however, indicates that women should have long hair, as their “head must be covered.”It has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? Arab fundamentalists require women to put a veil over their heads and punish them if they do not. The fact of the matter is that the length of your hair has nothing to do with your spiritual condition.”If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin…” (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)”But if … evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones…” (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)If a man discovers that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, all the men in town can murder her by flinging stones at her young female body as she screams in pain.Is this the word of God? Hardly.The command to stone to death a young girl who is not proven to be a virgin on her wedding night is simply an ugly man-made rule of murder that found its way into the Biblical text.WHY are fundamentalists so afraid to admit the obvious, that such verses like the one listed above are simply not the Word of God? How mature is one’s faith if one cannot even admit that a verse which commands that young girls be stoned to death isn’t the Word of God?Here are the facts . . .The belief in Biblical times was that if a woman was indeed a virgin, she would bleed on her wedding night because her first sexual intercourse would result in the breaking of the hymen, the thin tissue that covers the vagina. This blood was considered the “evidence” of her virginity that the scripture speaks of.Medical science has since discovered that the hymen is often already broken in many young girls because of their participation in athletic sports and things like horseback riding. Quite tragically, this indicates that many girls who actually were virgins on their wedding night were nonetheless stoned to death because they were ignorant of this scientific fact. Little did many young girls in Biblical times know that their wedding nights would end in their own murder.”If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)While fundamentalists insist (due to their pre-existing bigotry) that all seemingly anti-gay scriptures be taken literally, without exception, they admit that the above verse was not meant to be taken literally even though the words above were spoken by Jesus Himself.This proves that fundamentalists are willing to say that certain scriptures weren’t meant to be believed literally, even those which contain the actual words of Jesus Christ!
“One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)If you were born to an unwed mother, the Bible says that you shouldn’t be allowed in church. Do “Bible-believing” fundamentalists follow this rule? Nope. They acknowledge that this verse was meant for a different time.Yes, even fundamentalists acknowledge that certain scriptures were only meant to be applied to the particular time and place in which they were written.When it comes to those scripture verses which seem to speak against homosexuality, however, they suddenly and indignantly demand that every word be followed to the letter and applied to our modern day!The idea of refusing membership in the church to a child born to an unwed mother is seen as being unreasonable today, even though the scripture instructs it. The idea of quoting scripture to abuse people who are gay and lesbian is just as unreasonable and antiquated.”Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)”Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)”Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back .” (Titus 2:9)”Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. ” (1 Peter 2:18)Slaves should obey their masters? Hardly. Slavery was one of the most offensive institutions to ever befall humanity. Sadly, the scriptures condoned it, and, as you can see from the above verses, demanded that slaves obey their masters…even cruel ones. Are those verses the “Word of God?” Of course not. They are merely reflective of cultural biases which found their way into the Biblical text.
“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avengeditself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stoppedin the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day.”(Joshua 10:13 NIV)The great astronomer Galileo was jailed by religious authorities when he asserted that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, as the above verse suggests. If the Bible were the “inerrant, literal Word of God,” as people like Jerry Falwell claim, surely God would have known that it was the Earth, and not the sun which had stopped.In February of 1616, religious authorities asked a commission of theologians, known as the Qualifiers, about Galileo’s claim that the Sun is at the center of the planets’ motions and does not move, and that the Earth is not at the center and does move.On February 24, 1616, the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”.ConclusionWhen it comes to the scriptural verses which seem to be against homosexuality, fundamentalists boldly declare their belief in the “infallible, inerrant Word of God”, demanding that every single word be taken literally, without exception. But when it comes to the awkward verses listed above, they become much less sure of themselves. So much less sure, in fact, that they don’t follow what their own Bible says.”Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”(Matthew 22:37-40)
“Besides, the conquistadors were not there to convert people in the name of Christ. They were there for power and greed.” (Nathan)
FIRST, I wasnt comparing Christianity and Islam… Just the FACT that both religions have a bloody thirsty history when it comes to proselytism, and conversion practices… Islam still does… in some places…
SECOND – If you think the Conquistadors werent attempting to convert people, you havent read your history… It was CHURCH monks/priests who destroyed the ancient Mayan, Aztec, and Incan religions, so we have virtually nothing left of what they were all about… And they did it to wipe out FALSE religions… Nathan, THAT is a historical FACT….
I know that the governments behind those invasions were after gold, and power…
Excelent post Paul.
Nathan should watch the movie”The Mission”.Not only is it historically correct, it is also a great message for christians.
Paul: Your post if chock full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
But I do agree with the message in regard to not judging the sins of your neighbors. We are ALL sinners and worthy of eternal separation from God. It is not our sins that condemn us. Everyone has them. Rather it is our failure to accept God’s gift of forgiveness and eternal life in the person of Jesus Christ.
Well, so much for the “Altar Call” Blog… gotta go now!!
Jesus was Jewish. Jesus was born in the spring. Dec 25th is a pagan holiday to celebrate the birth of one of its ‘gods’. Paul began Christianity. Constantine was not a Christian. Christianity was merged with the local pagan ‘faith’ to quell the Christian uprising. The bible was put together by men. Scriptures and gospels were purposefully left out. The bible has been translated time and time again. The original text was poetic/cryptic in nature.
Who is to say which version of the bible is correct? The neatest trick? The Bible states that the Bible is correct and the only Word of God.
I don’t see the misrepresentation or inaccuracies in Paul’s post, and his basic point is right on. Most Christians pick and choose what part of the Bible they follow and what part they ignore, many others use it as a weapon to judge and hurt others.GREAT post Paul!
Mary,
Of course you agree with Paul… duh.
You have the same disdain towards Christians and you to have been known to mischaracterize the Bible and what Christians believe.
Paul,
Christians do not pick and choose. You seem to be unaware of the New Covenant and Old Covenant.
You also ignore context. Well, actually you didn’t ignore context when talking about women in church, you gave some of the reason why that verse doesn’t apply.
Paul, only recently in human history did we begin to find slavery wrong. Slavery used to be a common practice and was part of the culture. The Bible didn’t “condone” slavery. Those verses about obeying your mastery were for the betterment of the slaves relation with God not for the betterment of the relation of the slave to his master. It is about honoring God in all that you do.
The Biblical verse about the sun is such a stretch.
Today, people commonly say that the sun rises in east and sets in the west. So does that mean that when we say that we actually believe that it is the Sun moving and not the earth? Why do we not say that the Earth rotates towards the sun or away from the sun to be more accurate?
It is not a scientific description of what is exactly happening then anymore than when we say the sun rises or sets is today.
You purposefully dig through the Bible and try to take things out of context to further your own bias against it and support your mischaracterizations of Christians.
I noticed you left out the verse which you think we should also ignore:
1 Corinthians 6: 8-11
8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
So tell us Paul, how are we supposed to regard those verses then?
Gee, wouldn’t it have just been better if God had wrote “it is evil to hold slaves”
If we read the Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 8, Verse 8 it says this:8 ” ‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
So there you have it Nathan.You are free to believe any set of conflicting scriptures you wish to believe.
Paul,
The issue is not whether or not I am free to believe something, but rather your failed attempt to claim Christians pick and choose the verses they follow.
Who are you to judge whether or not someone is following the teachings of Christ? Who are you to decide who is and is not a “true” Christian?Posted by: Tom | August 14, 2007 at 12:13 AM
There are not “many ways” to interpret the teachings of Christ… well at least not if you are calling yourself a Christian.Posted by: Nathan | August 14, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Again and again it’s just so obvious.
Here’s a pretty obvious trend among self-identified evangelicals who write here. They:1) Write from a demonstrably subjective viewpoint,2) Apparently believe wholeheartedly that their opinions are solidly objectve, bulletproof in fact.3) Display no awareness that #2 is made false by #1.
For example, see the evolution discussion the other day when Tara sketched this out very clearly with respect to “kind” versus “species.” Or when Tom has to explain over and over that all you gotta do is open the yellow pages to see that there are all kinds of Christians. It’s laughable seeing one brand pointing a finger at the other brand and exclaiming some universal truth at the other’s expense.
Maybe that’s one of the reasons evangelicals like Republics. Both groups insist their opinions are reached only through searing, rigorous analysis and are perfectly, objectively reached, and neither realizes how starkly hypocritical this makes them.
And maybe it’s why the Republics eschew Youtube.com debates: it’s gotta hurt when a special snowman might publicly slap you upside your kind head with your very own hypocrisy.
Ouch.
How about these Nathan?
Jesus was Jewish. Jesus was born in the spring. Dec 25th is a pagan holiday to celebrate the birth of one of its ‘gods’. Paul began Christianity. Constantine was not a Christian. Christianity was merged with the local pagan ‘faith’ to quell the Christian uprising. The bible was put together by men. Scriptures and gospels were purposefully left out. The bible has been translated time and time again. The original text was poetic/cryptic in nature.
Who is to say which version of the bible is correct? The neatest trick? The Bible states that the Bible is correct and the only Word of God.
Pedant,
I use the scripture. I argue from it. That is the reason why I “believe wholeheartedly that their opinions are solidly objectve”
If you disagree, or anyone for that matter, all you need do is show me in the scripture.
It is that simple.
I am not pulling this stuff from thin air. Christianity has a base and it is the Bible. It is where I draw all my arguments from in support of what I believe.
That is how I can say following Christ doesn’t involve murder.
Rather simple.
Pedant,
I use the scripture. I argue from it. That is the reason why I “believe wholeheartedly that their opinions are solidly objectve”
If you disagree, or anyone for that matter, all you need do is show me in the scripture.
It is that simple.
I am not pulling this stuff from thin air. Christianity has a base and it is the Bible. It is where I draw all my arguments from in support of what I believe.
That is how I can say following Christ doesn’t involve murder.
Rather simple.
Jesus was Jewish. Jesus was born in the spring. Dec 25th is a pagan holiday to celebrate the birth of one of its ‘gods’. Paul began Christianity. Constantine was not a Christian. Christianity was merged with the local pagan ‘faith’ to quell the Christian uprising. The bible was put together by men. Scriptures and gospels were purposefully left out. The bible has been translated time and time again. The original text was poetic/cryptic in nature.
Who is to say which version of the bible is correct? The neatest trick? The Bible states that the Bible is correct and the only Word of God.
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 14, 2007 at 01:25 PM
Several significant problems here, or so whats
1) Jesus was Jewish.Yeah, no kidding. So it was prophesied, and so it was accomplished. So what?
2) Jesus was born in the spring.Most likely true, though not certain. So what?
3) Dec 25th is a pagan holiday to celebrate the birth of one of its ‘gods’.
Yes, the celebratoin of the pagan god was coopted into a celebration of the birth of jesus. to appeal to the pagans. Likely true, but so what? No theologian that I know of stands on Dec 25th as the actual day Jesus was born
4) Paul began Christianity.
Wrong here. Paul wa an apostle. Another jew. He didn;t start anything, he carried the message given him by God.
5) Constantine was not a ChristianBy whose standards? I believe he so proclaimed himself, but I could be wrong
6) Christianity was merged with the local pagan ‘faith’ to quell the Christian uprising.
Wrong. many aspects of the local pagan faith were absorbed into the local Christian community, in order to appeal to the pagans
7) The bible was put together by men. Scriptures and gospels were purposefully left out. The bible has been translated time and time again.Both items true enough.
8) The original text was poetic/cryptic in nature.What?
9) Who is to say which version of the bible is correct?
Good question. how much do you think they differ?
Sol,
“The bible was put together by men.”
Are you talking about the cannonization or the actual writers?
“Scriptures and gospels were purposefully left out.”
Yes and No. It is true certain documents didn’t go in. Those documents which were demonstrably proven to not warrant such inclusion.
“The bible has been translated time and time again.”
Ture. Whats your point?
“The original text was poetic/cryptic in nature.”
Some of it, not all of it.
“Who is to say which version of the bible is correct?”
Which versions are you talking about?
“The neatest trick? The Bible states that the Bible is correct and the only Word of God.”
Not a trick. Just the truth.
Nathan
“The bible was put together by men.”Canonization
“Scriptures and gospels were purposefully left out.”They were left out for political reasons. It’ll take me a while to find those links.
“The bible has been translated time and time again.”"The original text was poetic/cryptic in nature.”The problem is in the translation. How many times has the message been changed through bias, misunderstanding, or there not being a translation from the language of origin to English?
“Who is to say which version of the bible is correct?”Which versions are you talking about?”The neatest trick? The Bible states that the Bible is correct and the only Word of God.”Not a trick. Just the truth.
You prove my point on both.
And you forgot these Nathan…
Jesus was born in the spring. Dec 25th is a pagan holiday to celebrate the birth of one of its ‘gods’. Paul began Christianity. Constantine was not a Christian. Christianity was merged with the local pagan ‘faith’ to quell the Christian uprising.
LJ
What is Christmas and when/why do you celebrate it?
4) Paul began Christianity.Wrong here. Paul wa an apostle. Another jew. He didn;t start anything, he carried the message given him by God.
Do some research. Paul started it in people’s houses. He started Christianity.
5) Constantine was not a ChristianBy whose standards? I believe he so proclaimed himself, but I could be wrongYou are incorrect. It is said that he converted on his death bed. Miraculously, there were only priests present at the time.
6) Christianity was merged with the local pagan ‘faith’ to quell the Christian uprising.Wrong. many aspects of the local pagan faith were absorbed into the local Christian community, in order to appeal to the pagansYou said the same thing I did. Look at what was happening in Rome at that time. It was done for politics and to quell the masses.
8) The original text was poetic/cryptic in nature.
Translation becomes difficult. How far off is the message from the original gospels to today’s bible?
Sol: It seems to me that you show just superficial knowledge on this topic.
Peter and the other disciples were preaching about Jesus before Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. Have you read the account of his conversion? Paul was a great man, but God started Christianity.
The Gnostic Gospels were judged not reliable and/or not inspired (by God). That is why they were not included.
What day Jesus was actually born on has no significance. It’s celebrated on December 25th.
This has turned into a yes it is, no it isn’t type of thread. Certainly nothing compromising the Bible or its reliability as the Word of God has been demonstrated.
So Sol, you can go on believing what you want about the Bible and we can all do the same.
Google search = Paul + Christianity.
Top hits…The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianityhttp://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul.htm• He is second in importance only to Jesus in forming and developing Christianity. Almost half of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to him.http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14275_1.html
“The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that has raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life.”George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/
Christianity, they go on to say, was founded by Paul and not by Jesus.http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/jes-paul.htm
The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianityhttp://www.amazon.com/Mythmaker-Paul-Invention-Christianity/dp/0062505858
Paul: The Founder of Christianityhttp://atheism.about.com/library/books/full/aafprPaulFounder.htm
The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that has raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life.”George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/
Christianity, they go on to say, was founded by Paul and not by Jesus.http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/jes-paul.htm
The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianityhttp://www.amazon.com/Mythmaker-Paul-Invention-Christianity/dp/0062505858
Paul: The Founder of Christianityhttp://atheism.about.com/library/books/full/aafprPaulFounder.htm
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 14, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Try using something other than atheist sources. Give me a break.
Sol,
“How far off is the message from the original gospels to today’s bible?”
Not significant enough at all if any.
You are playing games Sol.
Instead of actually trying to give us an example of what you think is different bewteen translations you simply say the question it’s self is the proof.
How am I supposed to address your point when you refuse to be specific in it?
You are being vague and in doing so are not presenting an argument I can address.
COnstantine as christian
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/special/131christians/constantine.html6) Christianity was merged with the local pagan ‘faith’ to quell the Christian uprising.Wrong. many aspects of the local pagan faith were absorbed into the local Christian community, in order to appeal to the pagansYou said the same thing I did. Look at what was happening in Rome at that time. It was done for politics and to quell the masses”
Actually, I said the exact opposite
“
All great sources Sol. (Not really!) But have you read the Bible accounts? I would suggest you start there rather than relying on questionable web sites. In the Bible you will find the Word. Read “Acts”, my friend. It contains the history of the beginning of the Church. Then the Gospels. Then start in on Paul’s writings. That will start you down the right road.
I am not sure what Sol’s point is even if he is arguing about the technicality of Paul being the founder of Christianity.
Christians are followers of Christ.
So, whether or not Paul more organized this following into what began as Christianity doesn’t change the fact that all those who followed Christ before Paul were indeed what we consider to be Christians.
Sol is being so vague in what he is trying to prove here.
What is your point Sol? You keep asking questions as if the questions are the proof of something.
Sol,
This is a perfect example:
“The bible was put together by men.”
Ok. So what is your point?
As the number of Christians grew, Roman leaders blamed the cult of the Christians for any disaster or difficulty in the Empire, claiming that the gods were taking vengeance for the neglect of temple sacrifices.
Execution awaited anyone admitting to belief in Christianity or refusing any part of the test.
The next year, Constantine and his Co-Emperor, Licinius, issued from Milan a joint “Edict of Tolerance” which granted freedom in the exercise of religion. In wording carefully chosen not to offend either Christians or pagans, the edict encouraged everyone to invoke “the deity enthroned in heaven” for favor and protection for the Emperors and their subjects.The Roman Emperor had become a Christian, although the depth of Constantine’s conversion is open to debate. After all, prior to his vision, Constantine had served as chief prelate of all pagan ceremonies in the Empire. After his conversion, Constantine continued to recognize the sun god, Sol Invictus, and even Christians in Rome were observed invoking the sun god on the steps of St. Peter’s Basilica. The image of Sol Invictus remained on Constantine’s official coins, and in 321, he decreed that dies Solis, the day of the sun, be the official day of rest for the Roman Empire. To this day, Christians still worship on “Sunday.”
In addition to syncretism within the culture, the Christian church also wrestled with doctrinal controversy. Arius, a theologian from North Africa, proposed that Jesus was a created being of similar substance to God the Father, but not identical. Since this differed from the Gospel of John, (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” ) a controversy erupted which pitted bishop against bishop.
http://www.cbn.com/special/DaVinciCode/GRobertson_Christianity_PaganRome.aspx
My point Nathan is that men are fallible. Men are corruptible. Men in tense situations do not always do the right thing. There was a lot going on in Rome when the Bible was put together. Read above.
A teenage couple were out on a date and made love in the back seat of the car. As they were driving toward their homes, the boy commented, “You know, that’s the first time in my life I ever committed a mortal sin.” Just after saying this, the boy drove onto a dark, unguarded railroad crossing, and a train struck the car. The boy was killed instantly. The girl survived to tell the story.
The moral of the story, is that God had sent the boy to hell for a single mortal sin. He was trying to make the point that sin is so bad, so horrible in God’s eyes, that even one can send you to hell for all eternity.
If he was trying to scare us, he succeeded with me. But as the years went by, I started looking at that story differently. First, of course, I began to suspect that it had been invented … that it never really happened. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say it had. Who is to say that the boy had given full consent of his will to a deliberate mortal sin? Isn’t it possible, even likely, that he acted in a moment of passion, only realizing afterwards that what they had done was said by the church to be a “mortal sin.” In that case, of course, no mortal sin was committed, even by the church’s standards.
But again for the sake of argument, let us say that the boy had indeed freely and willingly and deliberately committed what he knew at the time to be a mortal sin. Is it not possible that his seemingly boastful pronouncement of his guilt was really an attempt to hide inner remorse? Isn’t it possible he had repented?
In short, isn’t it presumptuous and judgmental for us to pretend to know the eternal fate of this young boy? How does he know that boy went to hell? Isn’t it possible that God, who (according to our teachings) is infinitely merciful, found a way to save that young man? (If, of course, he ever really existed.)
It is dangerous, I think, for anyone (clergy or not) to pretend to know that God has condemned any particular human soul. Because of God’s promises, we express confidence that the souls of our dear departed rest with God in heaven. God has given us the church and the sacraments, and has promised salvation to those whom we have entrusted to him.
But do we really expect the merciful and loving God to obey us when we consign someone to hell for breaking our rules? If God really paid attention to the anathemas hurled back and forth by the churches over the years, heaven would be a very empty place.
Fortunately, our God is bigger than that.
Evangelical Protestants often teach that no one can be saved unless they explicitly accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior. According to this view, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and such are going to hell, to say nothing of agnostics and atheists. At various times, Roman Catholics and Orthodox have mutually condemned each other, as have Roman Catholics and Protestants. For hundreds of years, it was official Roman Catholic doctrine that there was no salvation for those outside the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.
Do we really believe that God is so limited, so weak, so ineffective that he can’t find a way to save Abraham Lincoln even though he was Protestant, or to save Mother Teresa even though she was Roman Catholic, or to save Mahatma Ghandi even though he wasn’t Christian at all?
No, our God is bigger than that.
This habit of trying to put God in a box and telling him what he can’t do isn’t new. It goes back a long time. It certainly existed long before the time of Christ, probably dating to the Garden of Eden.
In the Book of Acts, we see this phenomenon happening within the infant Christian church. Some Christian teachers were telling Gentile converts that they could not be saved just by becoming a Christian. They also had to be circumcised and follow all of the Mosaic Law prescribed by the Pharisees. (Of course, those teaching this were themselves Pharisees who had become Christian.)
“Unless you are circumcised according to Mosaic Law, you cannot be saved. Unless you do this, you cannot be saved. Unless you follow our rules, God cannot save you.” The church was no more than ten or twenty years old, and already they were trying to put God in a box!
This matter was deemed to be so important that the church met in Jerusalem to discuss the issue, and the results of that meeting are recorded in the Bible. Arguments were presented on both sides. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas made powerful arguments against requiring Gentile converts to become Jews first and follow the Jewish Law. A consensus was reached, and the final decision was made by James. His words were adopted unanimously and put in writing. A letter was sent to the Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and the instructions were conveyed by word of mouth by Paul, Barnabas, Judas Barsabbas, and Silas. This is what it said: “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours too, not to lay on you any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary.”
From that time on, you didn’t have to be circumcised to be a Christian. As a matter of fact, Paul took it even further. You didn’t have to even be circumcisable. Even women could be Christians. The first bishops, meeting in synod in Jerusalem, let God out of the box.
God has come to you. You have touched God. You have consumed God. You have fused with God and become one with him and with each other. God has blessed you in every aspect of your lives. Don’t let anyone tell you God can’t come to you because you haven’t followed their rules. Don’t believe anyone who tells you that they have God trapped in their box and he can’t bless you without their permission. It isn’t so.
When you run up against these legalisms, these man-made rules that have grown up over the centuries, just remember the words of that synod of bishops over 1900 years ago:
“It is the decision of the Holy Spirit, and ours as well, not to lay on you any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary.”
Of the many hundreds of Jewish laws, the apostles asked their people to follow just four: (1) Do not eat meat sacrificed to idols, (2) Do not drink blood apart from meat, (3) Do not eat strangled animals with their blood trapped inside, and (4) Do not engage in promiscuous sex. (By the way, we now know that blood and sexual fluids are the primary means of transmission of many deadly diseases, so there was good reason for these prohibitions.)
Now, nineteen centuries later, those four common-sense requirements have become thousands of volumes of rules, canon laws, and procedures. It’s at least as bad as the Jewish Law of the first century. As Paul said to that synod of bishops, “Why should we bind Gentile Christians with laws which none of us have been able to successfully follow?”
Or as St. James said to the same group, “If we follow those four rules, we’re doing well.”
How big is your God? I guess it’s a matter of faith. There’s a little story that I think says a lot about faith and about the size of our God.
The fields were parched and brown from lack of rain, and the crops lay wilting from thirst. People were anxious and irritable as they searched the sky for any sign of relief. Days turned into arid weeks. No rain came.
The ministers of the local churches called for an hour of prayer on the town square the following Saturday. They requested that everyone bring an object of faith for inspiration.
At high noon on the appointed Saturday, the townspeople turned out en masse, filling the square with anxious faces and hopeful hearts. The ministers were touched to see the variety of objects clutched in prayerful hands — holy books, crosses, rosaries.
When the hour ended, as if on magical command, a soft rain began to fall. Cheers swept the crowd as they held their treasured objects high in gratitude and praise. From the middle of the crowd one faith symbol seemed to overshadow all the others: A small nine-year-old child had brought an umbrella.
How big is your God? Is he a little god, unable to forgive you, unable to love you the way you are, unable to help you change into the person you should be? Or is he the real God, the infinite all-merciful, all-loving, all-powerful God who can make you a saint if you let him?
Who is it that you worship? The God of the universe … or the god of the box?
Outie,
That is my point again. How many times has the bible changed since it was put together? I will agree to disagree on what books made it into the bible, but you have to see that even there the bible was manipulated. How many other times during translation/re-writes (King James) was the text manipulated?
And the trick to all this is that the Bible says the Bible is right. Can you not see the conundrum in that?
Paul, that was AWESOME. That’s EXACTLY why I ascribe to no particular religious belief…but yet, I DO in fact, believe in God.
I know, it’s hard to explain, but you really did a good job.
“How many times has the bible changed since it was put together? I will agree to disagree on what books made it into the bible, but you have to see that even there the bible was manipulated. How many other times during translation/re-writes (King James) was the text manipulated?”
How many? and How much? and what about? Minor or major differences?
I think it is a legitimate question, but one that was asked without any knowledge of the same, in order to put down the validity of a document that the poster seems to know little about–and if I am wrong there, please accept my apology in advance
“How many other times during translation/re-writes (King James) was the text manipulated?”
Sol: Would that not be pure speculation? We have very ancient texts that verify the accuracy of the translations through the years.
Paul,Again. Outstanding post.
LJ, I am a recovering Catholic.
Outie,
where?
Once again, Sol, you are not bringing anything other than a question to the table.
What is your point?
If you think the Bible has been distorted, altered, or manipulated then lets see your proof or reasoning.
Asking the question is just that… a pointless question.
“Asking the question is just that… a pointless question.”
There can be no proof without the original documents. The fact that books were left out and that the Bible has been translated and that there are many versions of the Bible is proof that the Word has been altered.
God created us to worship and praise him. I believe that. How hollow is blind faith? How meaningful is it to worship Him without understanding. Questions bring forth knowledge and understanding. If you can’t handle a simple question, how hollow is your faith Nathan? You believe because someone told you to?
Sol-
You may be a recovering Catholic. That says nothing about your scriptural knowledge. But, in the spirit of cooperation, I will acknowledge that you have a basic knowledge of scripture.
As to Pauls’ post,
he says one thing, then talks about particular rituals (he has some very valid points, by the way), then makes a different point, forgetting the first.
“God has given us the church and the sacraments, and has promised salvation to those whom we have entrusted to him.”
And once again Nathan, you pick one point and ignore the rest.
Atta boy. Easier for you like that isn’t it?
“God has given us the church and the sacraments” and man has corrupted them.
Exactly where in religion is the place for politics?
Again, as to Paul’s post, he makes some very good points, ones that Christians would be well to consider. It is not our ability to judge whether or not one is going to hell, aside from the one thing that is mentioned, belief in Christ. Even that may be condidiotnal. Actions, sins, etc, do not earn your way to heaven, or suddently, because you commited some sin, keep you out. If you are a christian, then you will be well. a perfect score of Performance is not required. And how shall you know whether or not you are a christian, By your fruits, which include the fruits of the spirit. Do not worry about anothers sins, particularly those outside the church. THey do what they do.ANd one final point. The “rules of living” if you will, or the Christian faith, are Gods Laws because they are good. Not the other way around
LJ,
You are basing your arguments (it would seem) on a book that I am calling suspect. I am referencing the history surrounding the foundation of Christianity and the Bible being put together. By having several sources to your one, and that source is possibly suspect, don’t you find your arguments a little weak?
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htmSol: The above link is to an evidence supported argument about the reliability of the New Testament text. BTW, I am a former Catholic too.—–
“If you are a [C]hristian, then you will be well.”
So are you saying you have to believe that Christ is the son of God and that He is our salvation?
What about the American Indians who had absolutely no way of knowing about Christ? They seem to have been pretty good people. They took very good care of what God gave them. But by this standard the will go to hell.
Doesn’t seem quite fair does it. I believe that God is excessively fair, so that doesn’t really add up in my book.*******************************
Thanx Outie. I’ll have to get to that tomorrow. Y’all have a good evening.
You are basing your arguments (it would seem) on a book that I am calling suspect. I am referencing the history surrounding the foundation of Christianity and the Bible being put together. By having several sources to your one, and that source is possibly suspect, don’t you find your arguments a little weak?
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 14, 2007 at 03:35 PM
which single source? I have many. I also have copies of several documents written about christianity throughout the ages?
You are referencing George Bernard Shaw? okay. I can referenceIgnatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc. Your point is? Is this a duelling reference kind of thing?
Sol,
I asked you to be specific several times and you have not.
Yes asking a question is the beginning to understanding.
I am asking you what your point is?
You seem to believe that merely asking the question is the proof.
It is not.
Paul,
No response to our comments after you said Christians pick and choose verses?
Your second post was nice, some of it true, but you mix things together which I don’t agree with.
To answer your Question:
I worship Jesus. The son of God. Who was sent to die for all our sins.
Yes, I believe that you must have faith in him to be saved. It is not a man made rule. It is the words of Jesus.
I think you are right about not condemning people to hell.
There is a difference in recognizing the things which are sin and come between God and you and pointing them out and condemning someone to hell.
Only God truly knows what is in ones heart or if one has repented for the sin he has done. I don’t presume to know that nor should anyone else.
However, it is clear that certain things are a sin. Certain things you shouldn’t do. They are not meant to be rules or regulations on your salvation.
You must only have faith in Christ to be saved. However, out of our love for Christ we strive to follow his teachings and obey him.
Simply beeing good as you describe the Indians is your subjective standard. You say they were good, but by whose standards? Your’s or God’s?
Good, is whatever you feel like today. Good could be something completely different next year, next week, next centry.
There is what God commands and there is what makes you feel good.
I will stick with what God commands.
God gives us the choice. It is free will that we have to choose to follow Him and have faith in Him.
You say that we are arguing God is too weak to save good people.
That is far from the truth. We believe that God gives everyone the opportunity to choose to follow him. He is full of grace, compasion, and love for all.
All he asked for is our faith.
So, God is not in a box. The question is:
Are you going to choose to believe in Christ or are you going to choose to be in the box of your own emotions of what makes you feel good?
Note, sorry I confused who called the Indians good in my response to you Paul. Substitute them with Mahatma Ghandi.
Kansas,
What’s your source for YOUR global warming claim: “note that some of the hottest years in existence were in the 1930s”?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/evangelicals-ca.html#comment-79365626
When I was in the 3rd grade, Sister Mary Basil told us that if we committed a mortal sin, God would do something like burn our legs off or kill our parents..amazing that I still have my legs!!I’m also a recovering Catholic..actually I think all religion is pure bulls**t.But I understand the need for some to have very specific rules to follow, otherwise they just wouldn’t know what to do.
“Are you going to choose to believe in Christ or are you going to choose to be in the box of your own emotions of what makes you feel good?”Actually, Nathan, doing the right thing often doesn’t feel good and following the right path usually means it’s the hardest road to travel. But, being a sheep is easy, you don’t have to think much about what’s right and what’s wrong, because all the answers are provided for you.
Mary,
I choose to follow the path Christ has called me to. There is nothing which indicates it is an easy path to follow nor that you have to be a sheep to do so.
I am sorry you have such a bad history with religion.
All I have ever done is try to reason with you that Christians do alot of good, that you should look to Christ and not use bad Christians as an example. Also, that Christianity isn’t nearly as bas as you would make it out to be.
I don’t fault you for what you believe or don’t believe or go out of my way to say how bad it is.
Yet you have a such a disdain towards Christianity that you feel you must say as much bad about it as you can whether it is true or not.
I certainly can identify with ‘recovering’ catholics, as my own religion in childhood put a great deal of guilt upon me. You can be a good person and do the right thing with or without religion. Morality doesn’t have to come from a rule book for some of us.
Nathan. You say you have to live by this make believe rule book and deny your own idea of what feels good. Why does it have to be something told to you like that.
Let me give you an example. There is no rule in law or the bible that says if your mother slaved all day to cook a nice cake for a sick friend…and you eat the cake for yourself. There is no reason to feel guilt for doing it, the bible doesn’t say so..the law doesn’t say so. But you DO feel guilty. Why? Because it hurt your mom’s feelings. THAT is what guides some people….empathy. Some people don’t feel it.
You go to war, and you can shoot someone and you find it to be acceptable. But if you do shoot someone, it’s going to stay with you no matter what justification you use. Because it feels wrong. Even if you know he was going to take your life and it was saving yours. It still feels bad. Christians DO pick and choose what to justify, which verses mean more…you choose your interpretation.
Political Mom,
Of course Christians make choices on things.
Of course certain verses touch each of us in different ways.
Interpretation can also be broad or specific in regards to which particular verse we are talking about.
I would never presume to say that only Christians can have morals or do good things.
You say the Bible is a make believe book.
That is a very derogatory thing to say. Not very truthful either.
You may not agree with what the Bible says, but you need not agree with it to recognize that it has a very solid history.
It was a book comprised of the writings of 40 authors in 66 books spanning 1500 years.
It is hardly a “make believe book.”
I don’t think it’s a history book Nathan. There are quite a few things that have been proven opposite of historical record.
Political Mom,
That is fine. My point was that it is far from being a make believe book and you know that.
Poor Nathan – he get’s his feelings hurt when someone tells him that the Bible is a “make believe” book. Could it be that this book is essentially the “christians” GOLDEN CALF?
Get over your self and your religion Nathan. Why you’re at it, get over your superiority complex about serving in the military. While I’m going off, get over your gun-nut paranoia and realize the world isn’t a better place because you “pack heat”.
I do so detest you RW conservative, psuedo-christian, bush apologists.
Now I’m ready to start my day.
Nathan, specifics.
Why is Christ’s birthday celebrated on Dec 25th instead of the spring when he was born?Why does that date so closely relate to the pagan beliefs?What was the basis for determining if a gospel was ‘divinely inspired’ and allowed into the bible?How do you explain that Christianity evolved around Paul?Paul was man and flawed. He advanced HIS beliefs and formed a religion. How can you explain why his teachings should be followed?As the Bible progressed from its original form to today’s form do you believe that the exact same message exists? Given the link by Outlander, have the original scripts been matched to the current text to seek validity? If so, by whom? If not, why not?Given the history of the time period when Christianity emerged i.e. the torturing and killing of so many Christians by the Romans, can you not see the ‘If you can’t beat them, join them’ mentality? And in order to ‘join them’ AND maintain power, that the religion could have been bastardized in order to quell the people?
Look, I think I understand where you are coming from. I had blind faith when I was a practicing Catholic. The Catholic guilt set in when I began to question the politics of the Catholic hierarchy. Then I started thinking ‘why do I have to feel guilty about being curious’? Then came ‘just how much does God appreciate a bunch of –robots- repeating what they have been told to say?’
I thought about the way my son loves me. I want him to love and respect me because he is my son. I also want him to love and respect me because of the man I am.
I apply the same logic to my relationship with God. As I matured, I went from blind faith, to questioning, to better understanding. I don’t think I could live with myself if I just stayed at the same level. I believe what I have been told to believe.
I can’t ‘prove’ God. But there is enough history surrounding Jesus and the Bible to take an analytical look. I am secure enough in my faith in God to look behind the curtain. My faith is strengthened because I pick apart and look at each aspect of my faith.
For Nathan.Nathan is proud and righteous.And others who act like the Pharisee.
Luke 18:10-13 [+ 9,14][9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: 10) “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11) The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12) I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.' 13)But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' 14) I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Good luck Nathan.May you find humility before you pass on.
“Yes, I believe that you must have faith in him to be saved. It is not a man made rule. It is the words of Jesus.”
“Simply beeing good as you describe the Indians is your subjective standard. You say they were good, but by whose standards? Your’s or God’s?
Good, is whatever you feel like today. Good could be something completely different next year, next week, next centry.”
“Are you going to choose to believe in Christ or are you going to choose to be in the box of your own emotions of what makes you feel good?”Posted by: Nathan | August 14, 2007 at 05:05 PM____________________________________________________________The American Indian. Mexicans. Incans. Eskemos. And a very broad list of others. By your above statements Nathan, these people could not have been saved as there was no way possible for them to have known about Christ.
What happens to them Nathan, in your opinion? They had no choice. It was through no fault of their own that they didn’t not know of Jesus’ existence much less sacrifice.
Mr. VB you are on the right path.Love your neighbor as yourself.Who is your neighbor?A Muslim, Buddhist, Athiest, Hindu, etc.
Sol,
First of all, both outlander and I have responded to your “questions.”
I have asked you several times to be specific and make your points.
In response to your new question:
“What happens to them Nathan, in your opinion? They had no choice. It was through no fault of their own that they didn’t not know of Jesus’ existence much less sacrifice.”
I do not know what happened in their lifetime. I wouldn’t presume to know that they absolutely had no knowledge of Christ or his sacrifice.
I believe that at some point in everyones life they do indeed get the opportunity to make that choice.
Paul,
I have responded to all your posts so far. Each time you never bother to directly respond to what I have written.
You make false accusations about Christians.
And now you compare me to the Pharisees. ( unjustly I might add)
It appears you are more interested in flaming Christians rather than supporting your accusations or responding to my posts.
You’re dodging Nathan.
“I wouldn’t presume to know that they absolutely had no knowledge of Christ or his sacrifice.I believe that at some point in everyones life they do indeed get the opportunity to make that choice.”Posted by: Nathan | August 15, 2007 at 10:52 AM“Yes, I believe that you must have faith in him to be saved. It is not a man made rule. It is the words of Jesus.”Posted by: Nathan | August 14, 2007 at 05:05 PM
Durring the time of Christ’s life and several hundred years after, there was absolutely no way for the mentioned people to have known about Christ. So by your faith, these people could not be saved and will burn in hell.
Nathan
A) I asked you these questionsB) You complained about not being specific enoughC) You have answered exactly none of the questionsD) Please refer to http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/evangelicals-ca.html#comment-79553785
SolDevVB,
“there was absolutely no way for the mentioned people to have known about Christ.”
Really? How do you presume to know this?
I don’t even make such presumptions.
I am not the one dodging either. I have been more than patient in answering everyone here.
I am still waiting for you to respond to what either outlander or myself said to all your original “questions.”
Posted by littlejon:
1) Jesus was Jewish.Yeah, no kidding. So it was prophesied, and so it was accomplished. So what?
2) Jesus was born in the spring.Most likely true, though not certain. So what?
3) Dec 25th is a pagan holiday to celebrate the birth of one of its ‘gods’.
Yes, the celebratoin of the pagan god was coopted into a celebration of the birth of jesus. to appeal to the pagans. Likely true, but so what? No theologian that I know of stands on Dec 25th as the actual day Jesus was born
4) Paul began Christianity.
Wrong here. Paul wa an apostle. Another jew. He didn;t start anything, he carried the message given him by God.
5) Constantine was not a ChristianBy whose standards? I believe he so proclaimed himself, but I could be wrong
6) Christianity was merged with the local pagan ‘faith’ to quell the Christian uprising.
Wrong. many aspects of the local pagan faith were absorbed into the local Christian community, in order to appeal to the pagans
7) The bible was put together by men. Scriptures and gospels were purposefully left out. The bible has been translated time and time again.
Both items true enough.
8) The original text was poetic/cryptic in nature.
What?
9) Who is to say which version of the bible is correct?
Good question. how much do you think they differ?
“Saved?”
For what?
Sol,
I will answer your questions in good faith that you will actually respond to mine…
“Why is Christ’s birthday celebrated on Dec 25th instead of the spring when he was born?”
This was already answered by littlejon. See above. My question for you is so what?
“Why does that date so closely relate to the pagan beliefs?”
Answered by littlejon.
“What was the basis for determining if a gospel was ‘divinely inspired’ and allowed into the bible?”
(In a few short words, because it would take rather long to post every aspect)The same basis anyone would determine validity in truth in documents. You would examine it’s dissemination and accuaracy.
“How do you explain that Christianity evolved around Paul?”
Paul was chosen by God. He was one of the people God used to spread His word.
“Paul was man and flawed.”
True. We all are.
“He advanced HIS beliefs and formed a religion.”
You know this how?
“How can you explain why his teachings should be followed?”
They are not “his” teachings. They are God’s.
“As the Bible progressed from its original form to today’s form do you believe that the exact same message exists?”
Yes.
“Given the link by Outlander, have the original scripts been matched to the current text to seek validity? If so, by whom? If not, why not?”
The most classic example would be the dead sea scrolls.
“Given the history of the time period when Christianity emerged i.e. the torturing and killing of so many Christians by the Romans, can you not see the ‘If you can’t beat them, join them’ mentality? And in order to ‘join them’ AND maintain power, that the religion could have been bastardized in order to quell the people?”
I am not following you here.
Seems like more speculation on your part.
To any and all here who are interested:This is the earliest known, and closest translation of the creed.
We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made.Consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.
If you subscribe to this creed, you are a Christian.Everything else is superfluous.
Have a very nice day.
“”Why is Christ’s birthday celebrated on Dec 25th instead of the spring when he was born?”This was already answered by littlejon. See above. My question for you is so what? “The foundations of Christianity were bastardized by blending them with Paganism.
And why do you rely on someone else’s answers? I asked you.
“He advanced HIS beliefs and formed a religion.”You know this how?
Paul says:Rom.13[12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
Jesus says:Luke.21[8] Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name,saying, . . . `The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.
Paul says:Rom.9[15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[16] So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.[18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.
Jesus says:Matt.5[7] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Paul says:Eph.1[7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his graceRom.4[25] who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Jesus says:Matt.6[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Paul says:Rom.3[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.Rom.5[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Jesus says:Matt.12[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
Paul says:1Cor.4[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.Phlm.1[10] I appeal to you for my child, Ones’imus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.
Jesus says:Matt.23[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Paul says:Rom.10[4] For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.
Jesus says:Matt.5[17] Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Paul says:
1Cor.12[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers,Eph.4[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,1Tim.2[7] For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.2Tim.1[11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,
Jesus says:
Matt.23[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
“I am not following you here.Seems like more speculation on your part. “
It’s not speculation Nathan it is fact. Do you read any history? Do you not know what was going on during Constantine’s rule and 100 years prior?
Sol,
What is your point in those comparisons?
Well, “Paul,” I appreciate your sharing.
Where’s the stuff about gay marriage, life-begins-at-conception, slaves should be subserbient to their masters, and women should not speak in church?
What? Jesus did say any of that stuff?! And the creed doesn’t mention it?
What about all the other religions that pre-date “Christianity” that have a ressurection theme of redemption. Were they God’s rough drafts, ’til He got it right?
And if “God” is all-powerful, why even piddle with this “Satan” guy?
The whole idea of the Bible being “God’s unerrant word” is a johnny-come-lately concept, culturally speaking. It cropped up in the mid-19th Century and is pure unadulterated hooey.
“Christians” should get back to Christ. Not Paul, not Peter, not the Corintheans… *Christ.*
If you live according to *HIS* teachings, life’ll be tough sometimes (as when you love your neighbor as yourself, and render under “Caesar” that which is “Caesar’s” — sounds like he’s pro-tax to me). You may have to turn the other cheek and go the extra mile and when things get tough, pray that “this cup be passed” from your lips when faced with adversity.
Fact is, virtually no one in the world today ascribes to the teachings of Jesus. Was there one “Christian” in the wake of 9/11 who stepped up and said, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do”? Nope. Not a one.
So what we’re left with is Paul’s and Peter’s and the Popes’ and Luther’s and Falwell’s and Swaggart’s and Rove’s manipulations of “Christianity” designed to achieve political power.
If it were meant to be part of Jesus’ ministry, gaining political power would have been a done deal. If *HE* couldn’t achieve it, just who could?
Here’s a “creed” that’s unadulterated by politics:
Love your God.Love your neighbor.
All else is bullshit.
Nathan,
I give up. You won’t answer direct questions. You rely on other people’s answers. You refuse to see evidence when it is presented to you in your chosen format.
If you are comfortable believing and regurgitating what has been piped into you, bully for you. If you ever decide to look at things from a historical prospective and take your blinders off, let me know.
I don’t feel contempt for those who practice any religion, Nathan, not even the Christians.What I do feel contempt for are those who believe that they have the only pathway to everlasting life. I can’t stand the arrogance of those who insist that they “know the truth”, when there is no way anyone can “know the truth”. I have wonderful Christian friends and family. I also have wonderful Hindu, Buddist, Jewish, and Pagan friends. I respect their right to believe as they choose, so long as they don’t judge others for nopt believing the way they do or think they’re the only ones who deserve an afterlife.You choose to believe that Christ is the true God, good for you. Your belief is just as valid as those who believe in their own God, however they see God. There is no difference. They may feel as passionately about their beliefs as you do yours, but still it is just a matter of faith, nothing else.Many of the people who have had the biggest influence in my life are Christians, and I respect them and their beliefs whether or not I agree with their dogma.
Sol,
This is precisely why I don’t get into the “I’m a better Christian than you are!” fights.
LTP,
“sounds like he’s pro-tax to me”
LMAO
Great post. I’ll second that.
Sol,
I answered everyone of your questions.
I think it unfair for you to say I have not.
you then post a bunch of verses comparing Paul to Jesus.
I simply asked what your point was. I could assume many things, but I would like to hear it from you, what your point was in those comparisons.
Then you go into deragatory comments about my belief.
SolDevVB,”there was absolutely no way for the mentioned people to have known about Christ.”Really? How do you presume to know this?Posted by: Nathan | August 15, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Uhm let’s see. Because trans Atlantic voyages had begun yet? Because the internet wasn’t around. Because you couldn’t ‘Phone a Friend’ yet? Because there is no historical evidence of an Angel appearing before anyone and letting them know. Because CNN didn’t have embedded reporters.
Please give an example of how an American Indian might have heard of the workings of Christ 100 years after his death.
Tom, you’re right. Mankind has been fighting and killing “with God on our side” ever since we walked upright. It’s time we quit using religion as an excuse to destroy each other, but don’t hold your breath.
“”Why is Christ’s birthday celebrated on Dec 25th instead of the spring when he was born?”
This was already answered by littlejon.”
Nice answer. Does LJ always field you questions?
“”Why does that date so closely relate to the pagan beliefs?”Answered by littlejon.”
Whoops, it appears so.
Saul of Taursus, later Paul was a persecutor of the early Church. He presided over the stoning of the Apostle Steven. He was determined to put down the blasphemy of Christianity.
Then, when he met Jesus in his supernatural conversion on the road to Damascus, his life changed 180 degrees. He became the disciple to the Gentiles (non-Jews). Determined that he was called to spread the gospel throughout the known world, the rest of his life was spent in the service of Christ.
Rather than a reason to disbelieve Christianity and the Bible, for me in particular, Paul is and fabulous reason to believe. His complete turnaround from a hater of the Church to a champion for it is remarkable. Clearly inspired and chosen by God, I think, to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. It would certainly follow that his writings would be also be inspired of God.
Paul suffered terrible hardship in his journeys and was willing to die for a faith he once persecuted.
No Sol, Paul is not a impediment to belief. His life is a great reason to believe.
Please give an example of how an American Indian might have heard of the workings of Christ 100 years after his death.
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 15, 2007 at 01:02 PM
Sol,
That’s the basis for the Mormon’s beliefs: That Christ, after his crucifixion, ministered to people in the Americas.
Christianity overtook the pagan holidays as a way of appealing to the pagans at the time of Christianity’s first take over of government. It was a smart way to integrate religion into tradition, by slapping them together on the same holidays.
And so it stands!
Tom’s right! The Mormons believe that the Native Americans are the loss tribe of Israel and that Jesus also came to them to spread his word.
America has the second or what is called the New Jerusalem that is suppose to be located near Kansas City, Missouri.
Mary,
“What I do feel contempt for are those who believe that they have the only pathway to everlasting life.”
That would be Christians.
Sol,
I am talking about an all powerful God.
When I say that I believe everyone gets that choice, I believe that at some point God provides it to them.
Sol,
So, what was the point you were trying to make in your comparisons?
I know the promise of everlasting life sounds great and gives people hope, especially since the mental picture of the afterlife is one that is filled with love, peace and happiness, since the current world (reality) we live in is so cruel and difficult.
That is fine if you believe in an afterlife. It does make you feel better (opium for the masses, so they say), and I personally see nothing wrong with somebody believing in heaven and/or an afterlife.
But the reality and truth is, that when you die, it’s lights out, you had your run, it’s game over. There is no after or everlasting life.
You just die and cease to exist.
Would someone define “recovering Catholic”? Is this like a recovering alcoholic, who is still an alcoholic, but trying to stay away from it?
Look at the differences Nathan.
Sorry, Joe, but life’s a bitch…and then you reincarnate.
LOL
Nathan,
You still haven’t provided a medium on how the American Indians could have known about Christ even 100 years after His death. Magic?
Paul (of the Bible)=Power play. Sorry, but that’s how I see him. How easy for him to say he converted, and then claim glory.
SolDevVB,
Allow me to be more clear, since simply asking you to explain yourself is too little.
In your comparisons are you trying to show disparity between what Christ said and Paul said?
Are you trying to show that Paul was going against Christs own words?
Were you trying to show that Paul was creating the Christian church as we know it?
Were you trying to say Paul was a deciever?
What?
A simple explanation would be nice. What were you trying to prove or show?
Sol,
We are not talking about majic. We are talking about an all powerful God who through him all things are possible.
Matthew 19:26
26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
In your comparisons are you trying to show disparity between what Christ said and Paul said?
Yes
Are you trying to show that Paul was going against Christs own words?
Yes
Were you trying to show that Paul was creating the Christian church as we know it?
Yes
Were you trying to say Paul was a deciever?
Wouldn’t go that far, maybe just power hungry.
Original question –”He advanced HIS beliefs and formed a religion.”You know this how?
Matthew 19:2626 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
I believe the same thing Nathan. In prior post you have stated that unless you receive Jesus as your redeemer, you can not be ‘Saved’. And you still have not shown how the American Indian could have known about Christ even 100 years after His death. The God is all powerful explanation is a little hollow isn’t it? I agree that He is, but that doesn’t explain how there is not one shred of evidence that the American Indian had any knowledge of Christ. And as He swept through the Middle East so quick, logically there would be SOME evidence of the life of Christ here.
Rox??? Are you serious?
I can just see your scenario. Here’s Paul. “You know, I really hate those Christians. But, you know, just for kicks, I think I’ll give up my life as an important, respected pharisee and just go around and preach the same stuff I just killed this guy for preaching. I’ll leave everything behind and use my intellect to champion ideas I hate. That way, I can be despised by everyone I know.
Hey I might even get to suffer great hardship, thrown into prison multiple times for years, shipwrecked and eventually killed.Yep, that sounds like fun. Let’s do it.”
Did you know all of that happened to Paul? Is it logical that anyone would do that?
Paul’s life is a great reason to believe.
Thank you.
Before I begin, you fall for the same problems that many people who try to discredit the Bible do.
1. You don’t look at context.
You pull verses from all over and then compare them in an attempt to prove something without ever addressing the context that you were taking them from.
2. You don’t look at the original Greek or Hebrew.
You attempt to do a simple word to word comparison in the English language without looking at the meaning of the word in it’s original Greek or Hebrew.
Those are a couple for starters. Allow me to go verse by verse ans show you.
Rox! I love it! That made me laugh!
:D
Paul says:
Rom.13[12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
Jesus says:
Luke.21[8] Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name,saying, . . . `The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.
Lets look at some obvious things with Luke 21:8. Espeically the part you left out:
Luke 21:8
8 And He said, “See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near ‘Do not go after them.
Notice the part you left out:
“saying, ‘I am He”
Paul never claimed to be God or the savior in Romans 13:12.
It is not clear that Paul was saying the end times were here when he said the day is at hand in Romans 12:13.
In Romans 13 he is calling for subjection to the government. He even says in verse 9 that:
…if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
Paul is hardly in contrast to Jesus teachings here.
Paul says:Rom.9[15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[16] So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.[18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.
Jesus says:Matt.5[7] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
I am not sure what the disparity is between these verses.
We have Paul quoting what God says to Moses and we have Jesus saying that the merciful shall obtain mercy.
Since Jesus is God, if he says the merciful will have Mercy it stands in support of God having mercy on whom he shall have mercy…
Perhaps you can claify what exactly you think the disparity is here. I don’t see it.
Paul says:Eph.1[7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his graceRom.4[25] who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Jesus says:Matt.6
[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Again, I don’t see the disparity.
Jesus was telling us that in forgiveness we will find it also for ourselves.
How can we as imperfect men seek forgiveness from God when we ourselves are unwilling to extend that same forgiveness to those who have transgressed against us?
Jesus did indeed die for our sins. Paul was doing nothing more than telling us this in Ephesians.
Do you not believe that Jesus died for our sins?
John 3:16-18
16″For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17″For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18″He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Mark 10:45
45″For even the Son of Man (did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
So posting a link to the place you cut and paste from is meant to do what?
I can go on all day long showing the problems with such so called disparities.
The question is, can you defend them or cut and paste more?
A couple of days ago, I made a comment about the internet being bad in some ways. One of those ways is the way that fringe ideas that otherwise would never see the light of day can appear to have legitimacy.
Sol, you found one of those sites.
Riddle me this Sol. If Paul’s writings were really in opposition to the teachings of Jesus, why would they have been included in the Bible?
The correct answer is, they wouldn’t have been.
Outlander,
Forgive my wording here, but these comparisons are such juvenile attmepts.
Any person with even the most basic comprehension skills can see the obvious problems.
When you break out the ol’ Greek Hebrew Key Work Bible it gets even worse.
Half of the so called disparities are not even disparities. You would have to stretch things so far and isolate verses so far out of context to get them to be in opposition.
Nathan: It appears to be the website of someone trying to sell a book.
I agree that those so-called contradictions are amateurish attempts to create conflict where none exists.
Thanks for taking the time to address them.
I would continue, but seeing now as they were not even Sol’s points to begin with, I don’t see the point.
I didn’t think he had cut and pasted them, I was under the assumption they were points he came up with and wanted addressed.
Rule Number 1
Always ask the person what they are seeking from their questions.
As usual, the questions are meant more to stifal the asked than to incur any actual understanding on the part of the asker.
OK. I give on the scripture and give kudos where they are due. You know the Bible. Bully.
Now, how about those pesky American Indians?
Sol,
We are not talking about majic. We are talking about an all powerful God who through him all things are possible.
Matthew 19:26
26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Posted by: Nathan | August 15, 2007 at 01:43 PM
Wow.
I’ve been away from the computer for a while but I expected I’d get some feedback on my earlier post, the one that suggests “Christians” get back to Christ. Not Paul, not John, but to what Thomas Jefferson isolated out of the “scriptures” as those things Jesus actually said.
“Nathan” isn’t interested. “outlander” just ignores it. Push today’s “Christians’” noses into what Jesus is recorded to have acutally said, and they run away from Him. To Paul, to Peter, to any number of “Johns” (Maybe that’s why the term “john” is attributed to clients of hookers!)
Living up to Jesus’ teachings and example and life is far more difficult that adopting Paul’s prejudices or the institutional dogma that claims it’s based on Peter, the first “Pope.”
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians and women who believe in abortion rights. Where was the *Christ*-ian who stepped up and turned the other cheek?
(I’m not saying I’m capable of doing that, but someone who believes…truly believes in Christ… would have come forward and forgiven the enemy. WWJD? and all that…)
What passes for “Christianity” has become a bastardized version of the Republic Party agenda. The Republic Party has become a bastardized version of what passes for “Christianity” these days.
But don’t confuse either with what Jesus actually *said*. That’d complicate things.
Now, how about those pesky American Indians?
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 15, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Sol-This is a valid question, one that does not have any pat answer. There is great debate among may christians about what happens to those who never have a real opportunity to hear the gospel, or understand it’s message. There are those who absolutely believe that they are hellbound, in accordance with scripture. It was drives some to missionary work, and evangelic zeal that all may have the opportunity to accept or reject salvation. There are others that God provides, somehow, an opportunity if man does not. Quite simply, it is a mystery, because we “:see thru the glass darkly”
OK. God is all powerful. Given. Using that as an answer to a question is hollow. I already pointed that out. Is this the best you can do then?
“What passes for “Christianity” has become a bastardized version of the Republic Party agenda. The Republic Party has become a bastardized version of what passes for “Christianity” these days. ”
Oh Please. Your obvious anti republican,anti-christian bias is showing.
LJ,Thanx. But does that sound like God (the God I follow anyway) ? That He would tell us that unless you come thru My Son, you may not enter the kingdom of heaven. And then double back and say…’Weeeel, except for YOU folks.’
Doesn’t pass the logic test.
SolDevVB,
Littlejohn is right. There are those who believe that if you never accepted Christ off to hell you go.
Others, like myself, believe that God does give you that choice at some point.
It is not a hollow response.
Your question presents the most extreme circumstances and when I respond with the most extreme answer you tell me I am being hollow?
It is a legitimate answer to your question.
LJ,Thanx. But does that sound like God (the God I follow anyway) ? That He would tell us that unless you come thru My Son, you may not enter the kingdom of heaven. And then double back and say…’Weeeel, except for YOU folks.’
Doesn’t pass the logic test.
Posted by: SolDevVB | August 15, 2007 at 03:03 PM
that isn’t anything like i said. What I said was “I don;t know”
Sol-
And neither do you.
LTP….I made it pretty clear.If you believe and subscribe to the above creed (the earliest known to the established church) you are a christian.
Everything said between here and there is nothing important.
And let’s revert back to celebrating Christ’s birth on Dec 25th. So what you ask. You have no idea why that is relevant? You accept that pagan traditions were melded with the Christian religion. You accept that the birth of Jesus is… well not noteworthy enough to keep true? That his birth should be celebrated … whenever?
So if the Christian’s gave up celebrating the birth of Christ on the correct day, you honestly don’t see the problem with that?
The point being, what else was sacrificed for politics?
What day is the Sabbath?
Sol,
Lets get back to Rule number one.
Why are you asking us these questions?
Do you truly seek answers or are you merely trying to stump us?
Because the way you patronize our responses and seem quick to jump on me for failure to response it seems like the the later of the two.
Actually the books of the Bible was cantonized by the Council of Nicea in 323 by Emperor Constantine and then revised in 787.
The First Council was to address the Christianity split among the Catholics, Orthodox and the Judeas.
The Christian controversy at that time was to figure out and decide if Jesus, God and Holy Spirit were three different entities or the same homogenius one. Also they decided on which books would better facilitate the decided practice of Christianity.
Many books written in the time period of the New Testament were thrown out as a result, which belonged into the earlier version of the bible before the Council decided. The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas were thrown out, because they didn’t fit the Holy Trinity concept of the “new” Christian decision.
The oldest book of the New Testament is Revelations, written by John the Elder is often touted as the apostolic account of the second coming of Christ, but what John the Elder was really writing about was the rise of Christianity against the Roman Empire of the time, which was slowly starting to happen. The “666″ number was actually the short and satirical name of the Roman Protectorate of Asia Minor at that time.
Basically the Book of Revelations was a plagiarism on the Book of Daniel of the Old Testament. But with a “current political” event twist. It was directed at the Romans, not for the far future. It was a political commentary and satire.
Even Martin Luther express that the Book of Revelations has no relevance to be in the Bible, as it is not “neither apostolic nor prophetic” and “Christ is neither taught nor known in it”
Christianity has a lot of holes guys! Not because it’s not the “only” religion people should believe in, it’s because it is created by man for man. Not because it’s the actual word of God.
OK so we get a big fat “I don’t know” on the folks that have no way knowing Jesus. Outstanding.
LJ,
Take a logical look at this. Jesus prophesized in the Middle East. Took off so well and entire religion was born. One that people fought and died for for centuries. But when America was discovered, not a trace.
Does this pass the logic test for you? Do you think the American Indians had clue one about the life of Jesus or that he ever existed?
I am asking to see what you, Nathan, have to say about this.
Sol-You don’t want to know an answer, you are only trying to prove the ignorance of others. It is a waste of time either way. You say you believe in God. Fine, believe in him however you want. Take what you want, leave the rest. You are not answerable to me, nor me to you. If you wanted a serious theological discussion, we would have had it. So, time to move on. As I stated, I don;t know. BUt then, you probably know everything about how everything works, I suppose.
OK so we get a big fat “I don’t know” on the folks that have no way knowing Jesus. Outstanding.
Sol,
Now you are being condescending.
Since we are merely speculating, I could theorize many reasons for why whole groups of people came to not know God.
Of course we have the Tower of Babel.
I already told you, I believe that at some point every individual will be given the choice to reject or accept Jesus.
It doesn’t neccisarily have to show up in the entire culture and leave a nice pretty picture for us to see.
That is why we say we don’t know.
There are not answers to everything and every little detail.
Agreed Littlejohn.
That is more hollow than ‘God is almighty’. When you follow blind faith and blind faith alone, you don’t have much to stand on as evidenced. “I don’t know “ and “God is almighty” fit the bill for both of you, yet you demand evidence from anyone questioning your beliefs. Nice double standard fellas.
Paul founded the Christian faith. He did not follow the Judea/Christian pattern that Jesus taught, he founded the religion AROUND Jesus.
Constantine adopted the faith (in some form or fashion) for political reasons.
The Christian faith has been bastardized by manipulating the bible and melding in the pagan religion.
Because I said so. I don’t know. God is almighty.
“Paul” offered:
“…If you believe and subscribe to the above creed (the earliest known to the established church) you are a christian.
“Everything said between here and there is nothing important.”
And that creed was written, what, 300 or so years after Jesus died?
I’ll do you one better.
I go back to the best evidence we have of what Jesus actually said.
Living up to Jesus’ teachings is hard as hell; I’ll grant you that. Everything said since then — including your “creed” — softens His message.
You love your little creed and it cooks for you. Groovy.
But don’t confuse what you beleive in with what Jesus was trying to teach you.
Well Sol,
You could have saved us all some trouble if you would have simply told us what you thought from the beginning instead of pretending like you wanted to have someone address your questions.
The Tower of Babel was before Jesus Christ. That was in Genesis. But of course, there is no archaeological evidence that the Tower of Babel actual ever existed. And knowing the Book of Genesis, it was just a story tale.
The written language of the New Testament Bible was done in Greek, but Jesus never did or could speak Greek!
Jesus Christ, or Christ means Messiah, and Messiah is a generic term that Hebrews called anointed ones. Jesus of Nazareth was one of many people who were labeled Christ in that time period and before. If you were a priest or part of the royal family, you were called Messiah or Christ. Prophets were also called Messiah, which Jesus was considered one of many.
Question would be concerning about all the human beings that lived before Jesus was born. They “in the Christian eyes” are considered in purgatory. Meaning their spirit is still buried until the second coming of Jesus. Why weren’t they escaped during the 1st coming?
Anyways! Many grave sites around Israel have open holes or pipes to the burial ground hoping to one day that Jesus does return again, that their souls can escape hell. Which hell means “earth” or “ground”.
The afterlife and the return of the soul to the afterlife came directly from the Egyptian culture, during the days of the Pharaoh rule.
Christianity isn’t nothing more than a spin off of other religions and cultures. That is why you see so many different sects of Christianity with their own practices and rituals. Same goes for other religions like Islam and many others.
“That is more hollow than ‘God is almighty’. When you follow blind faith and blind faith alone, you don’t have much to stand on as evidenced. “I don’t know “ and “God is almighty” fit the bill for both of you, yet you demand evidence from anyone questioning your beliefs. Nice double standard fellas”
For the record, I don;t think I demanded evidence from you. I amswered your questions, to the best of my ability. As I said, believe what you want. I really don;t care. I could cut and paste stuff from websites all day long, it wouldn’t matter to you, and your understanding of my illogic no longer concerns me. Believe as you wish. It’s a free country.
And Nathan you could have saved much time if you had broken out the “I don’t know” “God is almighty” a little sooner. It’s not called ‘Blind Faith’ for nothing. Thank you for re-establishing it.
I don’t know. God is almighty.
LJ,
Please cut and paste if the American Indians were ’saved’ or damned.If saved, how. If damned, why.
“If you were a priest or part of the royal family, you were called Messiah or Christ.”
Whoa, we haven’t even cracked this one open yet. Marry, the mother of Jesus, was of which royal blood line?
“Rox??? Are you serious?”
Yes, a little. I’ve never felt at ease with Paul or his preaching. And, yes, I can see it. The greatest con man. Do I believe it? I can’t say that I do. Can’t say that I don’t, either.
But it did get your attention, didn’t it? >evil grin<
Regarding the number 666, many may have missed this.
“While many Bible have footnotes saying the number translated from the original Greek could be 616, experts say new photographic evidence of an ancient fragment of papyrus from Revelation indeed indicates the number is indeed 616, instead of 666.”
from a May 8, 2005 article.http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44169
SolDevVB,
In only one of your most extreme questions did I answer not that God is almighty, but that through him all things are possible.
You ask a question on how a group of people like the Indians would have been able to choose Christ.
I offer you that I believe that at some point in everyones lives they will be given that choice.
If one person was born on a desert Island and never encountered one single living being how would he come to know Christ?
It is obvious that there is no human answer. I can only say that I believe that at some point God would give them the choice.
It is not a cop out.
It is not hollow.
Yet you choose to dismiss everything I have said as if it were simply: Well God is almighty.
You are being quite patronizing when I and others here have been patient with answering your questions.
“The Christian faith has been bastardized by manipulating the bible and melding in the pagan religion.”
It certainly can appear that way. The Dec. 25th date has been mentioned, but that’s a mere nothing compared to the many others things that were “adopted” by the Christians from the Pagans. “Adopted” is a pitiful term, considering exactly what was taken. Most everything involving Christmas and Easter, the two major Christian holidays were originally Pagan beliefs. Then there’s the 12 disciples, virgin birth, rising from the dead, etc. Easier to use what’s there than think of something original?
I’ll give it to the Christians for using their noggins. What a grand way to sway some to their new religion.
Or you could simply believe that they are going to hell.
Is that better?
The Bible doesn’t say that if you were never preached to about Christ by a human then you are going to hell.
It says you must have faith in Christ to be saved.
So that is why some Christians believe that if you never got the word then you will not be saved and others like myself believe that at some point God will give them the opportuinity to choose.
others like myself believe that at some point God will give them the opportuinity to choose.Posted by: Nathan | August 15, 2007 at 04:52 PM
Nathan,
Do you have a scriptural reference or authority for this? If so, could you please cite it?
Thanks.
Tom,
Do you believe what the scripture says anyhow?
Nathan,
I’ve made it clear to you that I will not discuss my faith on this blog. What I believe, or whether or not I believe, is not going to be an issue here – I’m not going to play the “I’m a better Christian than you are!” game, not with you, not with anyone here.
I asked politely. I even thanked you in advance. You’ve made a claim about what you believe God will do, and it’s not one I’ve ever heard nor read before. Will you please answer my question? Again, I thank you in advance.
Tom,
I don’t think I am playing any games about saying I am a better Christian.
No where in this thread would I have indicated such.
It doesn’t matter how politely you ask when you add things like this being whose the better Christian game.
I don’t think I am playing any games about saying I am a better Christian.Posted by: Nathan | August 15, 2007 at 05:33 PM
I didn’t say you were. I said _I_ am not going to engage in it. My post says what I will and will not do. It does not prejudge what I think you may or may not do. And my original post, the one you dismissed with your implied criticism of my faith (or lack thereof), was completely devoid of any commentary.
Again:
Nathan,
Do you have a scriptural reference or authority for this? If so, could you please cite it?
Thanks.
Posted by: Tom | August 15, 2007 at 05:12 PM
Mary:”I don’t feel contempt for Christians, what I do feel contempt for are those who believe that they have the only pathway to everlasting life.”
Nathan:”That would be Christians.”
Nathan, I know many Christians who don’t believe everyone is going to hell except for them…I have no contempt for them. I also think they are true Christians.
Unless you get the atheists (Chinese) and hindus (India) on board, it’s all a waste of time.
“I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” John 14:6
Those words of Jesus are what is known as a “hard teaching”; because they are difficult to accept. But there they are. It doesn’t matter what you or I think or personally feel is fair, it is what Jesus said. He makes the rules. So if a a person repeats that Mary, they are being true to the teachings of the Master.
Now we do look in areas of things unsaid in the Bible to find ways around this blunt statement. Those speculations are all readily available to read and may have some merit. For instance, no one thinks that children would ever be condemned.
Tom,
Sorry, wasn’t avoiding you. I couldn’t remember the verse and was looking for it.
Here are some verses which help:
Romans 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Mary,
I believe you. There are many more liberal churches who water down many of the controversial issues for whatever reasons.
Outlander is right, there are a few verses here and there you can come up with, but they still skirt the bold statements made by Christ himself and many others which pretty clearly indicate Christ is the only way.
I believe you have to ignore much of the entire concept of the New Testament and the Old even to ignore that Christ is the only way.
Of course, human feelings are a hard thing to overcome. It is tough to reist the flesh of wanting to be accepted and to feel good resisting the truth of the Gospels. Of course that is the story of mankind. Resisting God’s will.
And I suppose you still think to get to the FATHER..you have to go through…the FATHER.
Trinity is silly. No basis for it whatsoever.
Political Mom,
Do you think anything about the Bible or Christianity is true?
Of course you think the Trinity is silly.
You spent a good part of this thread bashing Christianity in general.
There is nothing in the bible to support the trinity. And, no. I don’t believe in any of it or we wouldn’t have 500 different teachings of it.
Political Mom,
You do see the paradox in your statements?
On one hand you claim the Bible doesn’t support the Trinity yet claim you don’t believe in any of it.
So, even if I did show you the Biblical support of the Trinity it wouldn’t matter because you don’t believe it.
LOL
But you can’t show support of the Trinity. I was just pointing out the absurdity of the whole thing.
Political Mom,
What is absurd is that you are arguing about a point which you wouldn’t believe anyway.
So, Nathan, gonna try to prove it or not?
Political Mom,
Have you heard the saying:
A matter of futility?
Didn’t think so.
Nathan! You mention the fact that no one thinks children should be condemned to hell. What would be the cut-off date for that? What does the bible pick the day a child has crossover to adulthood and therefor is on their own to accept that Jesus was the son of God?
Why is it then that many Christian sects teach that children are born into sin and the only way to save their souls is to dip their head in water and recite a few passages of the bible? Hence the phrase “born again”.
Why is it that the only way to be “saved” by Jesus is to get your head dipped in water?
I’m not being critical of your religion. They have their traditions and rituals, but you have to understand that to other people, like me, find it quite strange and really unnecessary.
For instance, with Christmas Trees. That comes from on old folklore that a sick person should walk in between a split trunk of an evergreen tree, because it will give you health and a spiritual life. People back then viewed evergreen trees is having magical powers of life, because they always were green and never appeared dead like other trees.
That was incorporated into the Christian tradition! And now is a steady symbol of Jesus Christ, the perceived God that grants it’s believers everlasting life.
That was incorporated into the Christian tradition! And now is a steady symbol of Jesus Christ, the perceived God that grants it’s believers everlasting life.
Posted by: Joe Williams | August 15, 2007 at 11:37 PM
You definitely go to a different Church than I do then Joe. :)
Your Church doesn’t put up a Christmas Tree during the Christmas Holiday season?
No, haha!:)
Let’s look at angels. The common image of an angel is one of human form with wings. Why would God put wings on a human form?
For one thing, humans do not possess the chest muscles to even begin to be able to fly. But they are angels right, so they can fly regardless and they don’t need chest muscles, just attach the wings to the their backs?
But one of the most crucial aspects of flight is the tail. So why didn’t God put a bird tail on angels? And why wouldn’t you have wings that were attached to your chest muscles, when that is the way it is on birds?
Well then you can say it’s like an insect and doesn’t need the chest muscles, but the wings can carry the mass itself by flapping at a rapid rate. Then why didn’t God give angels the wings of an insect, like fly wings, instead of that of a bird?
Because angels are mythological beings created by the imagination of man. If God created all creatures on earth and we now know pretty much how each components work within a biological animal or insect, why did he stray so far off the physical world and that of physics and made angels completely off the mark?
Then I learned about Angels is that the were ministering spirits.
There are reference to wings in the Bible, but it doesn’t say they are for flying.
I think the Angels you are talking about are the representations of artists.
How can one draw a spiritual being?
LOL
Just when I thought things couldn’t possibly get any better than Political Moms paradoxical arguments about the Trinity.
Thanks for a good laugh Joe! My friend and I needed it.
Laugh all you want Nathan. It doesn’t matter to me.
I don’t care what you believe in. Whatever floats your boat.
Kansas! Daniel 9:21 reference the Angel Gabriel flying.
But those artist renditions of angels all come from Christians. It’s painted on the ceilings of old churches, it’s on Christian paintings and everything.
It’s not me doing the referencing of angels with wings, it’s Christians.
You guys have been indoctrinated so long to believe in the mythology of the Christian religion. Which is perfectly fine with me, because for the most part, it’s a harmless belief.
Noah’s Arch, Jonas and the Whale, the burning bush. You guys really believe it’s true and really happened. The Bible makes reference to so many direct interaction of God to Man, but since Jesus died, not a single sign of God has ever appeared. Faith right!
Faith is what Democrats have that they honesty believe that Rich Politicians who have a “D” after their name is going to save them and save the world.
Believing the Bible is the word and action of God is like believing that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is the word of God.
All you have to do is stand back and look at religion from the outside, and then you will understand.
You guys are like children with their beliefs that Santa Clause is real, the Easter Bunny is real, the tooth fairy is real and so on. You cannot convince a child that those mythological characters don’t exist. They believe they are real from the bottom of their hearts, because they have been told and indoctrinated to believe it as such a very young age.
Eventually they do find out that it was really mom and dad putting the presents under the tree, hiding the eggs and swapping out your teeth for a quarter.
Eventually you will find out that the Bible was just an anthology of short stories from various story tellers.
Joe,
You can’t be serious about this stuff can you?
Really?
I mean, I am rolling on the floor!
I’m serious Nathan.
You been indoctrinated to fear the Lord right? Fear the Lord! He’s watching you. Believe in him or you will go to hell.
Oh come on! You don’t believe an invisible man in the sky do you?
Do you honestly believe that a person name Jonah got swallowed by a whale and was in the belly for three days and three nights talking to God?
You have to be freakin kidding me dude!
Honesty! I don’t care if you believe the story tales as true events. It makes no difference to me. It’s so silly and childish, but what do I know! I’m a non-believer who is too weak to understand the power and faith of an invisible man.
I understand you have your fear. You were taught that only good things come to those who believe and you will be rewarded in heaven for your faith and belief.
Just like Muslims believe in receiving a reward for killing non-believers in jihad!
If believing in fairy tales helps you become a better person, so be it. Just don’t forget to chip in for the Pastor’s new BMW next time you are in worship house!
Do you speak in tongues?
If you can’t understand why an Arab man wants to kill you so badly, just remember that the Arab man believes in his faith as strongly as you do.
So if you believe that your faith cannot be broken, because your strong spiritually and have the power of Christ next to you, just remember, that the man charging towards people with a suicide belt bomb strapped to him feels the same way.
Joe,
Your post is a good list of common misconceptions and blatant mischaracterizations of Christians.
I already know them, but I am sure some of our other readers here may not have been aware of them.
Good work on compiling such a comprehensive list.
The Bible doesn’t say that if you were never preached to about Christ by a human then you are going to hell.It says you must have faith in Christ to be saved.So that is why some Christians believe that if you never got the word then you will not be saved and others like myself believe that at some point God will give them the opportuinity to choose.Posted by: Nathan | August 15, 2007 at 04:52 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/evangelicals-ca.html#comment-79608795http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/evangelicals-ca.html#comment-79610519*********************************************
Dodging and subject changes.************************************************
So, even if I did show you the Biblical support of the TrinityPosted by: Nathan | August 15, 2007 at 10:55 PM
********************************************************************Please do.
Joe; Interesting rant. Of course you can believe what you will. And if you are wrong my friend, you get to find that out in an unpleasant manner.
On another note, I remember you mentioning running for office someday. Yet here you are building this incredible ammo depot for any future opponent. Why? Have you given up on your political aspirations?
I have already ran for office twice Outlander.
Yeah! It may be ammo, but at least I’m real and telling the truth.
Again! Your post shows how so much you are indoctrinated.
First! The fear of “if your wrong, you will suffer dire consequences.” Basically you are telling me I’m going to hell.
Another thing is that you are assuming that in order to be an elected public official, you have to believe in Christianity and never criticize the Christian religion. I’m sorry Outlander, but that is against the Constitution of our great nation.
Yeah! It’s ok for you and politicians to criticize the Islamic faith, but if somebody ever criticizes Christianity, then they cannot be elected to office. Such tyranny dude!
Thanks for some ammo! And thanks for threatening me with your religion. It’s pretty typical. But I understand that not being a Christian puts me in jeopardy in not getting elected or losing a job or not getting a promotion or whatever. But I’ll never feel like a victim. I have my convictions.
But since I’m wrong in going to hell, I guess I’ll join the billions of people who also don’t believe in Christianity. Hell is going to be a busy place.
Enjoy your streets of gold in heaven. Although, why would God care about gold and why would you pave a street with gold?
Joe, when we go to hell together, wanna continue to argue on whether or not you’re a liberal LOL.
Sure! The Devil can be the moderator. ;)
Joe,
It is not that you criticize Christianity.
It is that you go out of your way to blatantly label Christians and Christianity with the most extreme mischaracterizations and misconceptions.
You also do it with little tact.
Kind of difficult to get elected when you are mocking 2/3 of your voting base.
Has nothing to do with you being “real and telling the truth.”
You are purposefully being rude and obnoxious.
“Yeah! It may be ammo, but at least I’m real and telling the truth.”
Nah Joe, it’s the truth AS YOU HOPE IT WILL BE. Which is fine, unless you ever want to hold public office in Kansas. Despite your civic minded attitude ideas, I wouldn’t vote for you for anything because of your narrow mindedness and your expressed hostility to Christianity. Neither would the majority of Christians, once they learn of your bigoted attitude. And they will learn of it.
You’ve shot yourself in the foot. Just pointing it out.
No hostility. It’s only your imagination.
When have I ever expressed hositility. Actually, you Outlander and Nathan are the ones that are expressing hostility.
Narrow minded about Christians? You are narrow minded about non-Christians. All I’m doing is asking questions about what is in the bible and Christian traditions. As I say again! Majority of Christians and believing in Christianity is harmless, so it doesn’t matter. If it helps you become a better person, than good for you.
But your hate and hostility towards non-believers really shows through. You cannot answer the questions about your own faith and passages in the bible. You never question your own beliefs. You don’t have to, but I do!
Just remember! That Mitt Romney thinks you two are going to hell, because you aren’t true Christians. So what do you think about that?
Also! What do you mean by closed minded of Christianity? You mean, not believing?
An open mind to you is that I should allow the fact that everything in the bible is the literal translation of God and that if I don’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God, I’m going to hell? I have to keep that in mind in order to be open?
I do have an open mind about Christianity. I was involved, studied and took it all in for many years of my youth. Now! I have made a decision that it isn’t for me.
That is open minded as it gets. I gave Christianity a chance. Now! If you want to keep an open mind, how about questioning Christianity? If it passes and you still believe, good for you!
Joe,
Both Outlander and I have spent the better part of this thread answering questions.
Don’t pretend like Christians don’t answer questions. There are Christians like Ravi Zacharias who have spent the better part of their lives doing nothing but answering questions.
You purposefully mischaracterize and distort what Christians believe, label us as: “indoctrinated” and being controlled by our fear.
You belittle our faith by saying it is “It’s so silly and childish” “If believing in fairy tales…”
You do not simply “question” Christianity. You have clearly gone out of your way to mock, ridicule, distort, and mischaracterize Christianity.
Don’t even pretend like you are just asking questions.
Joe: I notice an awful lot of statements you made about Christianity are flat wrong. The Christmas tree and Easter stuff is a prime example. This indicates to me that you have not gotten into it in any depth in your alleged study.
I have also noticed though that you like to get involved in these type of threads. It would be my guess that you are trying to convince yourself that you have made the right choice in denying God. One problem is that you do it by denigrating other’s beliefs. Why would you do that?
You would have Christians deny the words of Jesus just because those words hurt your feelings about the afterlife. I won’t do it.
Joe, it is you that needs to reexamine your understanding of Christianity. You have doubts. I would urge you to do so.
This thread went retarded about 300 posts ago. Please for the love of God shut up!!!!!!
Well, Outlander, it is legitimate that so many Christian traditions are stolen from pagan. That’s factual.
I’d sure like to hear your explanation for them then.
Political Mom,
Perhaps if you would outline which specific traditions you are speaking about and what specific question you have in regards to them, both outlander and I could respond.
Ignoring the “tabloid” jesus (little “J”)
The most commonly repeated challenges by non-Christians are:
-The Creation Story-Moses, his exodus and the Ten Commandments-The Epic of Gilgamesh (the Flood Story)-The Resurrection Story-There is no Trinity-All gods are the same (buddha, muslim God, etc.)
etc. etc.
Just a few of the hundreds of challenges I’ve read about. Of course, being Christian I know the answer to all of these. However, not going to answer them here as this thread is getting maxed out.
Besides, I’m not going repeat information readily available on the Web and of course in Christian Churches. :)
I’m sorry Nathan and Outlander, but the belief in Christianity is based on indoctrination and fear.
People don’t become Christian by osmosis. They have to be taught and they have to fear the consequences on not stepping inline with the Christian rituals and practices.
It is true that Christians coincide their traditional holidays of that of pagan holidays.
You guys really think that, lets say Evolution is a conspiracy theory and not true. You believe in the young earth. You believe in a world wide flood and one family and a pair of all the animals on earth rode a boat. You believe that a man got swallowed by a whale and lived in the belly for three days and was spit back out, because he prayed to God. You believe in a burning bush. You believe in spirits flying around with bird wings. You believe a chariot of fire riding across the sky. You believe that a 7-headed beast will rule the world. You believed that it rained bread. You believe somebody can walk on water and rise from the dead. You believe a staff turned into a serpent. You believe that horn players tumbled a city to the ground. You believe that great giants roamed the earth. You believed a virgin woman conceived a child. I can go on and on.
You have no idea about your own faith. You go to church and listen to somebody read a few passages of the bible, shake peoples hands and then go home. You probably have never read the bible all the way through.
The reason why people went to church to listen to somebody read the bible, is because they were illiterate and couldn’t read nor could they afford to have a bible of their own. It was like that for many, many centuries. Only in the second half of the 20th Century was the bible widely circulated and printed in different languages. So how can a person read the word of God, when 99.9% of people who has ever lived since the dawn of Jesus death couldn’t read, millions upon millions of people never heard of Christianity and so on.
There is no disputes. One can only believe and have blind faith in such things because of indoctrination. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. It’s quite harmless for the most part. Like a child believing in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Does no harm.
But I’ll accept that my agnostic ways puts me in an extreme disadvantage, because people like you look down upon people like me. That is the difference between you and me. I don’t look down on Christians. To me, they are just as equal as me. Not superior, not inferior. Believing in Christianity doesn’t make you dumb or naive. It’s just the way you were taught! But that belief you have, you are taught that is supersedes anything and anybody else. Jesus comes before your family! Jesus comes before your spouse. Jesus comes before your children. Jesus comes before your life and the life of others.
So agnostics like me are seen as inferior by many religious people. People like me don’t get hired for jobs, promoted, elected or whatever, because I’m not Christian. It’s Relgiousism, is much like racism. Although it’s against the law to discriminate based on race, creed, religion, sex and you get the picture. But to people like you, it’s perfectly fine to trample on me.
That’s fine! I accept it. I know that’s the way it is in our society. I can fake being a Christian like most people do, but I rather not.
Just remember! Mitt Romeny thinks you’re going to hell! You aren’t Christian to him! What do you think about that? Or are you going to ignore that question
Joe,
When you write half a page of insults towards us after your several other posts of little more than insults you then dare say we are ignoring your question about Mitt Romney?
If I wasn’t in such a state of disbelief that someone could think the things you do and refuse to be reasonable in this discussion the way you have demonstrated I might just be inclined to respond to your question.
You continue to show your inability to be reasonable here.
You do not post seeking answers to your questions. You post here to do little more than mock Christians and Christianity and present the most blatant distortions and mischaracterizations of Christians and Christianity.
It’s not insults. It’s a critique!
It’s not distortions or mis characterization. It’s straight off the bible and you know it. You just can’t deal with it or know how to.
I’m asking you to be reasonable.
It’s only mocking in your eyes, because I’m critiquing your faith and asking “is this what you believe?”.
The insults are coming from People of your faith saying that I’m going to hell.