See other Religion Articles
Title: The Christian Paradox
Source:
Harpers
URL Source: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
Published: Sep 28, 2005
Author: Bill McKibben
Post Date: 2005-09-28 23:36:45 by crack monkey
Keywords: Christian, Paradox
Views: 3043
Comments: 197
The Christian Paradox How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005. What it means to be Christian in America. An excerpt from this report appeared in August 2005. The complete text appears below. Originally from August 2005. By Bill McKibben. SourcesOnly 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up. Asking Christians what Christ taught isn’t a trick. When we say we are a Christian nation—and, overwhelmingly, we do—it means something. People who go to church absorb lessons there and make real decisions based on those lessons; increasingly, these lessons inform their politics. (One poll found that 11 percent of U.S. churchgoers were urged by their clergy to vote in a particular way in the 2004 election, up from 6 percent in 2000.) When George Bush says that Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher, he may or may not be sincere, but he is reflecting the sincere beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture. * * * Ours is among the most spiritually homogenous rich nations on earth. Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish. It is true that a smaller number of Americans—about 75 percent—claim they actually pray to God on a daily basis, and only 33 percent say they manage to get to church every week. Still, even if that 85 percent overstates actual practice, it clearly represents aspiration. In fact, there is nothing else that unites more than four fifths of America. Every other statistic one can cite about American behavior is essentially also a measure of the behavior of professed Christians. That’s what America is: a place saturated in Christian identity. But is it Christian? This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion—say, giving aid to the poorest people—as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then? In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it’s not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It’s also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it’s that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention. And it’s not as if the numbers are getting better: the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that the number of households that were “food insecure with hunger” had climbed more than 26 percent between 1999 and 2003. This Christian nation also tends to make personal, as opposed to political, choices that the Bible would seem to frown upon. Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers. We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations (which at least should give us plenty of opportunity for visiting the prisoners). Having been told to turn the other cheek, we’re the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest. Despite Jesus’ strong declarations against divorce, our marriages break up at a rate—just over half—that compares poorly with the European Union’s average of about four in ten. That average may be held down by the fact that Europeans marry less frequently, and by countries, like Italy, where divorce is difficult; still, compare our success with, say, that of the godless Dutch, whose divorce rate is just over 37 percent. Teenage pregnancy? We’re at the top of the charts. Personal self-discipline—like, say, keeping your weight under control? Buying on credit? Running government deficits? Do you need to ask? * * * Are Americans hypocrites? Of course they are. But most people (me, for instance) are hypocrites. The more troubling explanation for this disconnect between belief and action, I think, is that most Americans—which means most believers—have replaced the Christianity of the Bible, with its call for deep sharing and personal sacrifice, with a competing creed. In fact, there may be several competing creeds. For many Christians, deciphering a few passages of the Bible to figure out the schedule for the End Times has become a central task. You can log on to http://RaptureReady.com for a taste of how some of these believers view the world—at this writing the Rapture Index had declined three points to 152 because, despite an increase in the number of U.S. pagans, “Wal-Mart is falling behind in its plan to bar code all products with radio tags.” Other End-Timers are more interested in forcing the issue—they’re convinced that the way to coax the Lord back to earth is to “Christianize” our nation and then the world. Consider House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. At church one day he listened as the pastor, urging his flock to support the administration, declared that “the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.” DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.” The apocalyptics may not be wrong. One could make a perfectly serious argument that the policies of Tom DeLay are in fact hastening the End Times. But there’s nothing particularly Christian about this hastening. The creed of Tom DeLay—of Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind books, of Pat Robertson’s “The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today”—ripened out of the impossibly poetic imagery of the Book of Revelation. Imagine trying to build a theory of the Constitution by obsessively reading and rereading the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and you’ll get an idea of what an odd approach this is. You might be able to spin elaborate fantasies about presidential succession, but you’d have a hard time working backwards to “We the People.” This is the contemporary version of Archbishop Ussher’s seventeenth-century calculation that the world had been created on October 23, 4004 B.C., and that the ark touched down on Mount Ararat on May 5, 2348 B.C., a Wednesday. Interesting, but a distant distraction from the gospel message. The apocalyptics, however, are the lesser problem. It is another competing (though sometimes overlapping) creed, this one straight from the sprawling megachurches of the new exurbs, that frightens me most. Its deviation is less obvious precisely because it looks so much like the rest of the culture. In fact, most of what gets preached in these palaces isn’t loony at all. It is disturbingly conventional. The pastors focus relentlessly on you and your individual needs. Their goal is to service consumers—not communities but individuals: “seekers” is the term of art, people who feel the need for some spirituality in their (or their children’s) lives but who aren’t tightly bound to any particular denomination or school of thought. The result is often a kind of soft-focus, comfortable, suburban faith. A New York Times reporter visiting one booming megachurch outside Phoenix recently found the typical scene: a drive-through latte stand, Krispy Kreme doughnuts at every service, and sermons about “how to discipline your children, how to reach your professional goals, how to invest your money, how to reduce your debt.” On Sundays children played with church-distributed Xboxes, and many congregants had signed up for a twice-weekly aerobics class called Firm Believers. A list of bestsellers compiled monthly by the Christian Booksellers Association illuminates the creed. It includes texts like Your Best Life Now by Joel Osteen—pastor of a church so mega it recently leased a 16,000-seat sports arena in Houston for its services—which even the normally tolerant Publishers Weekly dismissed as “a treatise on how to get God to serve the demands of self-centered individuals.” Nearly as high is Beth Moore, with her Believing God—“Beth asks the tough questions concerning the fruit of our Christian lives,” such as “are we living as fully as we can?” Other titles include Humor for a Woman’s Heart, a collection of “humorous writings” designed to “lift a life above the stresses and strains of the day”; The Five Love Languages, in which Dr. Gary Chapman helps you figure out if you’re speaking in the same emotional dialect as your significant other; and Karol Ladd’s The Power of a Positive Woman. Ladd is the co-founder of USA Sonshine Girls—the “Son” in Sonshine, of course, is the son of God—and she is unremittingly upbeat in presenting her five-part plan for creating a life with “more calm, less stress.” Not that any of this is so bad in itself. We do have stressful lives, humor does help, and you should pay attention to your own needs. Comfortable suburbanites watch their parents die, their kids implode. Clearly I need help with being positive. And I have no doubt that such texts have turned people into better parents, better spouses, better bosses. It’s just that these authors, in presenting their perfectly sensible advice, somehow manage to ignore Jesus’ radical and demanding focus on others. It may, in fact, be true that “God helps those who help themselves,” both financially and emotionally. (Certainly fortune does.) But if so it’s still a subsidiary, secondary truth, more Franklinity than Christianity. You could eliminate the scriptural references in most of these bestsellers and they would still make or not make the same amount of sense. Chicken Soup for the Zoroastrian Soul. It is a perfect mirror of the secular bestseller lists, indeed of the secular culture, with its American fixation on self-improvement, on self-esteem. On self. These similarities make it difficult (although not impossible) for the televangelists to posit themselves as embattled figures in a “culture war”— they offer too uncanny a reflection of the dominant culture, a culture of unrelenting self-obsession. * * * Who am I to criticize someone else’s religion? After all, if there is anything Americans agree on, it’s that we should tolerate everyone else’s religious expression. As a Newsweek writer put it some years ago at the end of his cover story on apocalyptic visions and the Book of Revelation, “Who’s to say that John’s mythic battle between Christ and Antichrist is not a valid insight into what the history of humankind is all about?” (Not Newsweek, that’s for sure; their religious covers are guaranteed big sellers.) To that I can only answer that I’m a . . . Christian. Not a professional one; I’m an environmental writer mostly. I’ve never progressed further in the church hierarchy than Sunday school teacher at my backwoods Methodist church. But I’ve spent most of my Sunday mornings in a pew. I grew up in church youth groups and stayed active most of my adult life—started homeless shelters in church basements, served soup at the church food pantry, climbed to the top of the rickety ladder to put the star on the church Christmas tree. My work has been, at times, influenced by all that—I’ve written extensively about the Book of Job, which is to me the first great piece of nature writing in the Western tradition, and about the overlaps between Christianity and environmentalism. In fact, I imagine I’m one of a fairly small number of writers who have had cover stories in both the Christian Century, the magazine of liberal mainline Protestantism, and Christianity Today, which Billy Graham founded, not to mention articles in Sojourners, the magazine of the progressive evangelical community co-founded by Jim Wallis. Indeed, it was my work with religious environmentalists that first got me thinking along the lines of this essay. We were trying to get politicians to understand why the Bible actually mandated protecting the world around us (Noah: the first Green), work that I think is true and vital. But one day it occurred to me that the parts of the world where people actually had cut dramatically back on their carbon emissions, actually did live voluntarily in smaller homes and take public transit, were the same countries where people were giving aid to the poor and making sure everyone had health care—countries like Norway and Sweden, where religion was relatively unimportant. How could that be? For Christians there should be something at least a little scary in the notion that, absent the magical answers of religion, people might just get around to solving their problems and strengthening their communities in more straightforward ways. But for me, in any event, the European success is less interesting than the American failure. Because we’re not going to be like them. Maybe we’d be better off if we abandoned religion for secular rationality, but we’re not going to; for the foreseeable future this will be a “Christian” nation. The question is, what kind of Christian nation? * * * The tendencies I’ve been describing—toward an apocalyptic End Times faith, toward a comfort-the-comfortable, personal-empowerment faith—veil the actual, and remarkable, message of the Gospels. When one of the Pharisees asked Jesus what the core of the law was, Jesus replied: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Love your neighbor as yourself: although its rhetorical power has been dimmed by repetition, that is a radical notion, perhaps the most radical notion possible. Especially since Jesus, in all his teachings, made it very clear who the neighbor you were supposed to love was: the poor person, the sick person, the naked person, the hungry person. The last shall be made first; turn the other cheek; a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle. On and on and on—a call for nothing less than a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of love. I confess, even as I write these words, to a feeling close to embarrassment. Because in public we tend not to talk about such things—my theory of what Jesus mostly meant seems like it should be left in church, or confined to some religious publication. But remember the overwhelming connection between America and Christianity; what Jesus meant is the most deeply potent political, cultural, social question. To ignore it, or leave it to the bullies and the salesmen of the televangelist sects, means to walk away from a central battle over American identity. At the moment, the idea of Jesus has been hijacked by people with a series of causes that do not reflect his teachings. The Bible is a long book, and even the Gospels have plenty in them, some of it seemingly contradictory and hard to puzzle out. But love your neighbor as yourself—not do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but love your neighbor as yourself—will suffice as a gloss. There is no disputing the centrality of this message, nor is there any disputing how easy it is to ignore that message. Because it is so counterintuitive, Christians have had to keep repeating it to themselves right from the start. Consider Paul, for instance, instructing the church at Galatea: “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,” he wrote. “‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” American churches, by and large, have done a pretty good job of loving the neighbor in the next pew. A pastor can spend all Sunday talking about the Rapture Index, but if his congregation is thriving you can be assured he’s spending the other six days visiting people in the hospital, counseling couples, and sitting up with grieving widows. All this human connection is important. But if the theology makes it harder to love the neighbor a little farther away—particularly the poor and the weak—then it’s a problem. And the dominant theologies of the moment do just that. They undercut Jesus, muffle his hard words, deaden his call, and in the end silence him. In fact, the soft-focus consumer gospel of the suburban megachurches is a perfect match for emergent conservative economic notions about personal responsibility instead of collective action. Privatize Social Security? Keep health care for people who can afford it? File those under “God helps those who help themselves.” Take Alabama as an example. In 2002, Bob Riley was elected governor of the state, where 90 percent of residents identify themselves as Christians. Riley could safely be called a conservative—right-wing majordomo Grover Norquist gave him a Friend of the Taxpayer Award every year he was in Congress, where he’d never voted for a tax increase. But when he took over Alabama, he found himself administering a tax code that dated to 1901. The richest Alabamians paid 3 percent of their income in taxes, and the poorest paid up to 12 percent; income taxes kicked in if a family of four made $4,600 (even in Mississippi the threshold was $19,000), while out-of-state timber companies paid $1.25 an acre in property taxes. Alabama was forty-eighth in total state and local taxes, and the largest proportion of that income came from sales tax—a super-regressive tax that in some counties reached into double digits. So Riley proposed a tax hike, partly to dig the state out of a fiscal crisis and partly to put more money into the state’s school system, routinely ranked near the worst in the nation. He argued that it was Christian duty to look after the poor more carefully. Had the new law passed, the owner of a $250,000 home in Montgomery would have paid $1,432 in property taxes—we’re not talking Sweden here. But it didn’t pass. It was crushed by a factor of two to one. Sixty-eight percent of the state voted against it—meaning, of course, something like 68 percent of the Christians who voted. The opposition was led, in fact, not just by the state’s wealthiest interests but also by the Christian Coalition of Alabama. “You’ll find most Alabamians have got a charitable heart,” said John Giles, the group’s president. “They just don’t want it coming out of their pockets.” On its website, the group argued that taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor “results in punishing success” and that “when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual.” You might as well just cite chapter and verse from Poor Richard’s Almanack. And whatever the ideology, the results are clear. “I’m tired of Alabama being first in things that are bad,” said Governor Riley, “and last in things that are good.” * * * A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America—founded in 1989 in order to “preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history”—proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be “making permanent President Bush’s 2001 federal tax cuts.” Similarly, a furor erupted last spring when it emerged that a Colorado jury had consulted the Bible before sentencing a killer to death. Experts debated whether the (Christian) jurors should have used an outside authority in their deliberations, and of course the Christian right saw it as one more sign of a secular society devaluing religion. But a more interesting question would have been why the jurors fixated on Leviticus 24, with its call for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They had somehow missed Jesus’ explicit refutation in the New Testament: “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” And on and on. The power of the Christian right rests largely in the fact that they boldly claim religious authority, and by their very boldness convince the rest of us that they must know what they’re talking about. They’re like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track. But their theology is appealing for another reason too: it coincides with what we want to believe. How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep, instead of insisting that we had to share. How satisfying it would be if we were supposed to hate our enemies. Religious conservatives will always have a comparatively easy sell. But straight is the path and narrow is the way. The gospel is too radical for any culture larger than the Amish to ever come close to realizing; in demanding a departure from selfishness it conflicts with all our current desires. Even the first time around, judging by the reaction, the Gospels were pretty unwelcome news to an awful lot of people. There is not going to be a modern-day return to the church of the early believers, holding all things in common—that’s not what I’m talking about. Taking seriously the actual message of Jesus, though, should serve at least to moderate the greed and violence that mark this culture. It’s hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85 percent of us who are Christians woke up to that fact, then the world might change. It is possible, I think. Yes, the mainline Protestant churches that supported civil rights and opposed the war in Vietnam are mostly locked in a dreary decline as their congregations dwindle and their elders argue endlessly about gay clergy and same-sex unions. And the Catholic Church, for most of its American history a sturdy exponent of a “love your neighbor” theology, has been weakened, too, its hierarchy increasingly motivated by a single-issue focus on abortion. Plenty of vital congregations are doing great good works—they’re the ones that have nurtured me—but they aren’t where the challenge will arise; they’ve grown shy about talking about Jesus, more comfortable with the language of sociology and politics. More and more it’s Bible-quoting Christians, like Wallis’s Sojourners movement and that Baptist seminary graduate Bill Moyers, who are carrying the fight. The best-selling of all Christian books in recent years, Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life, illustrates the possibilities. It has all the hallmarks of self-absorption (in one five-page chapter, I counted sixty-five uses of the word “you”), but it also makes a powerful case that we’re made for mission. What that mission is never becomes clear, but the thirst for it is real. And there’s no great need for Warren to state that purpose anyhow. For Christians, the plainspoken message of the Gospels is clear enough. If you have any doubts, read the Sermon on the Mount. Admittedly, this is hope against hope; more likely the money changers and power brokers will remain ascendant in our “spiritual” life. Since the days of Constantine, emperors and rich men have sought to co-opt the teachings of Jesus. As in so many areas of our increasingly market-tested lives, the co-opters—the TV men, the politicians, the Christian “interest groups”—have found a way to make each of us complicit in that travesty, too. They have invited us to subvert the church of Jesus even as we celebrate it. With their help we have made golden calves of ourselves—become a nation of terrified, self-obsessed idols. It works, and it may well keep working for a long time to come. When Americans hunger for selfless love and are fed only love of self, they will remain hungry, and too often hungry people just come back for more of the same. About the Author Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, is the author of many books, including The End of Nature and Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape. His last article for Harper’s Magazine, “The Cuba Diet,” appeared in the April 2005 issue.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-156) not displayed.
.
.
.
#157. To: Tauzero, all (#155)
Ah, well I was assuming some special dork-modifiers. And maybe monetary tribute to the proper dieties (oops) But getting back to topic, AFAIC human doo-doo and cow doo-doo are nasty on an equal scale. Any perfect, beautiful, eloquent Almigthy that needs to illustrate the point of human frailty vis-a-vis butt mud has a barbaric, uncouth following that I need to part of.
And savings on car insurance!
My theory on the dung thing is fecal vitamins. Works for rats...
Okay, then I'd take issue with the manufacturer. GAD as usual, I lost my reciept!! GEEEZ I hate it when that happens. (I think the book of Job is the most ancient writings of the Bible, and came from todays's Yemen, and has characteristics of Arabic origin).
Any more receipts are rarely necessary, but in this case the guys at the customer service desk are getting mighty pissy towards me. I recommend you just go with the program...
Very good...........LOL
When you're ready to be grown up on a thread like this, I'll be happy to continue to respond to you as best I can. I'm still working on trying to have the patience of Job; Starwind seems to be there.....but me.....I'm tired of biting my tart tongue! Good evening.......and good wishes.
Are you Job?
Actually, this type of thread isn't a "having a good old time" thread for me, and I couldn't care less if you think you're "winning". Your debate style proved your credibility was near zero. Starwind actually took the time and effort to meticulously respond to you, and you were, to put it coarsely, a dick. As I stated early on, I personally don't see the Genesis story absolutely precluding the pre-existence of some prior world construct. Similarly, while many Christians fret and worry over timing of the return of Christ, AFAIK, that could be at the heat death of the universe. I'm thoroughly convinced of the life, death and ressurection of Christ as the redeemer of man. Any other of the details I can sort out by study, or they'll reveal in time. What does what Badeye think have to do with the price of tea in China? Did he chase you off of LP?
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
Are you Chinese by chance? The reason I ask is that several years ago I received a book from the now deceased Dr. Ensminger, who was a prominent professional in the field of agriculture, teaching, as well as an author of numerous books. Dr. Ensminger had received the ok from the Chinese government to visit China to view, review, and study their agriculture industry. In this book, he and his wife wrote about what all they had found. One item of note was a 'stacked' system of cages with beast or fowl in each level. And they only fed the ones in the top cage; the rest of the cages below ate what fell their way--perhaps a bite of grain that fell out of the upper feed tray....but mostly it was the dung from the previous layer. Amazingly, all the animals were healthy and grew well. And even the lowest level of critter's dung was of value..........it was all washed out and down to ponds which contained fish. And if I recall correctly (its been some 15 years since I read the book) the mulberry trees used by silk worms received nutrients from the water of the pond.
Yeah -- Riley is my slave name. (I'm Irish.) It wasn't intended as a serious answer. For all I know it's a cosmic inside joke. Besides, there are much worse things in the OT than this bit about dung. I dunno why someone would harp on it, unless they just like running their mouth.
Starwind actually took the time and effort to meticulously respond to you, and you were, to put it coarsely, a dick. All Starwind ever does for the first 3 or so posts is put up a link and tell you to read it. Bullshit. I don't link to http://athiests.org to refute anyones point. And then if they don't read it I start calling them an idiot. I break it down in pithy, readable points. I play on my terms. I know that makes me a dick and I give no apologies. As I stated early on, I personally don't see the Genesis story absolutely precluding the pre-existence of some prior world construct. And this interested me. Prior to original sin, everything was in harmony. Green Herbs were as meat unto all creatures. Notwithstanding the Malthusian problems of creatures that go forth and multiply and never die, fight or kill in a finite space (the borders of Eden are referenced in Gen), the point is man (which "man" btw, Sapiens who are the dozenth type of hominid) created the dischord and thereby cursed everything. So if this pre-existence did contain warring creatures then the world wasn't so perfect and original sin doesn't hold water. Unless someone can reconcile it for me. I'm thoroughly convinced of the life, death and ressurection of Christ as the redeemer of man. Good for you. I was once thoroughly convinced of the existence of Santa Claus until my intellect developed and could sort out the problems of one man delivering goodies to all of humanity (roughly Jesus' gig too, btw). What does what Badeye think have to do with the price of tea in China? Did he chase you off of LP? Because a number of 4umers were acting like textbooks bots: they see a buddy under fire, drop in and deliver a few blows on his behalf and leave. You are the only one, Starvind included who has even attempted to address the "Original Sin" point and I'm still waiting for that reconciliation that has you convinced. Out of curiousity.
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link, but even when it is broken down into "pithy, readable points" 2 or 3 times for you, you still don't read it! LOL! The problem is not that you're an admitted dick who plays by his own terms, the problem is you're an illiterate, lying admitted dick who plays by his own terms. And since your terms preclude reading more than 2 or 3 pithy points in front of your nose (and being honest about what you've read), your whining isn't taken seriously. You've demonstrated you're simply sucking bandwidth and trolling for a flame war.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Not true. I have read and absorbed your last link and deduced that when one "snaps a brown-eye" then one should listen carefully for the voice of God. For this is one vehicle in which he's chosen to teach the faithful. That's the purpose behind the whole "human poo vs. cow poo cooking fuel" parable, correct? And nothing but the poo-challenge would have driven the point home.
Well....at least your new 'friend' has given up on eating shit and is concentrating on the area of original sin. :) The internet highway would end before his every question, objection or complaint could be answered--I was going to say satisfactorily, but that would be when Hades goes into its glacial period.
Opps! I spoke too soon, it seems! LOL.
and is concentrating on the area of original sin. Well it is arguably the most important tenants of Christianity and nobody seems to know what to make of the fact that evidence disputes it. has given up on eating shit None of my spiritual/philosophically-based texts even make reference to poo, but if it works for you, more power to ya.
You lied in your post #34: You lied again in your post #40 Then in post #91 your were given 1 pithy, readable proof that you had misread Ezekiel, but you ignored it. Then in your post #92 you lied about what Ezekiel said. You ignored again the 1 pithy readable correction in post #95. Then in your posts #135 & #136 you continue to ignore those 1 pithy readable corrections. You ignored the entire chapter and commentary in post #138. You were given another 1 pithy readable explanation in post #139 which you again ignored in your post #140. And in your post #148 you ignored having all that laid again for you in post #142. Your ignore or distort the answers you'r given and then you lie about it. e It wasn't until your post #152 that you finally gave up and stopped denying that Ezekiel wasn't eating dung. No. You still don't get it. God isn't using Ezekiel to teach the faithful. God is using Ezekeiel to warn the faithless.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Schroeder is an unmitigated quack, let link to reviews of his works at http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html Schroeder claims that Genesis 1:1 refers to the era prior to quark confinement, i.e., the first hundred-thousandth second of the universe; and he claims that this era precedes the first day of Genesis. Moreover, he claims that the line which says that the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters (RSV) refers to the inflationary expansion of the universe prior to the era of quark confinement. The interpretative links here are incredibly tenuous: any one-time phenomenon which occurs before the era of quark confinement could, with equal plausibility--or better, with equal implausibility--be taken to be under description: for example, according to standard theory, at the end of the Planck era, gravitational radiation comes out of thermal equilibrium with the rest of the universe; and there is also a symmetry-breaking phase which shatters the electroweak force well before the era of quark confinement. (Of course, there are also delicate questions about the correct translation of the original texts which need to be discussed: if--as my RSV version of the Bible has it--Genesis 1:1 is committed to the existence of water in the earliest phase of the universe, then there is no question of trying to reconcile this with Big Bang cosmology. Given the role that water played in other early cosmological myths and speculations, it seems very plausible to suppose that the references to water in Genesis 1:1 and 1:6-1:7 are intended literally. A similar problem arises with the very first sentence of Genesis: if heaven and earth really are created in the beginning--i.e., in the era prior to quark confinement--then they exist at that time. On p. 8, Schroeder reads the opening sentence in a way which makes it clear that he takes 'the earth' here to refer to our planet. Yet later, when he gives the mapping onto Big Bang cosmology, it is clear that he can't understand the reference to 'the earth' in the opening sentence in this way. If you allow yourself unconstrained and inconsistent interpretation of a text, you can read anything you like into it.) Schroeder claims that Genesis 1:11 tells us (correctly) that life appeared immediately after the appearance of liquid water. (The most recent evidence is that life appeared 3.8 billion years ago, almost immediately at the time that liquid water appeared.) Even by his lights, this claim must surely appear dishonest. After all, it does not say in the account of the third day that God made vegetation immediately after he made the dry land appear; all that we are given is a list of things in the order in which they were done on the third day. On his account, the third day covers a time span of 2 billion years; as far as I can see, his interpretation leaves it open that vegetation could have appeared at any time in that 2 billion year period. Note, in particular, that there is just as much reason to hold that God made the birds--or, as Schroeder would have it, the flying insects--immediately after he made the sea creatures on day four--but that is in sharp disagreement with the evidence. (The same point also applies to the creation of man on day five; that it would be inconsistent with other aspects of Schroeder's interpretation to say that God made man immediately after he made the other animals is surely evidence that he should not say that Genesis 1:11 tells us that life appeared immediately after the appearance of liquid water.) Schroeder claims that dinosaurs are mentioned in Genesis 1:21, since there is a reference there to big reptiles. (The RSV says 'great sea monsters,' but I'm prepared to accept that Schroeder has the translation right.) How is this a reference to dinosaurs? Well, "the biggest reptiles were the dinosaurs"! This is pretty dire. Why not argue as follows: there are references in Genesis to animals; dinosaurs were animals; so there are references to dinosaurs in the Bible?! Or as follows: throughout the Bible, there are references to the things of this world; dinosaurs are among the things of this world (in the relevant atemporal sense); so these are references to dinosaurs in the Bible?! (Surely it is far more plausible to think that the 'big reptiles' which the writers of this text had in mind are crocodiles, large lizards, and the like! Indeed, a list which seems to say exactly this is given in Leviticus 11:30.) Schroeder's claim that archaeopteryx is mentioned at Leviticus 11:18 and Leviticus 11:30 is no more plausible, but also for a different reason: why on earth would anyone bother to proscribe the eating of something which had been extinct for around 150 million years? Schroeder claims that prehuman hominids are referred to--or, at any rate, alluded to--in several places in the Bible. Questions about interpretation come up in every case. At Genesis 12:5, Schroeder takes "Abraham took ... the souls they had made..." to entail that possession of a soul requires belief in a universal, noncorporeal God. (Why not just read it as "Abraham took ... the people they had converted..."? This is much closer to the RSV version, and would surely fit within permissible bounds of translation.) Schroeder notes that Genesis 1:26 talks about 'making' mankind, whereas Genesis 1:27 says that God 'created' man, and insists that, since both verbs characterize our origins, there must be an essential difference in their import. (But why not think that the words are interchangeable, and chosen for purely stylistic reasons, or for no reason at all? After all, it is not unusual for many words to be interchangeable in a given context.) Schroeder notes that an exact translation of Genesis 2:7 would give "man became to a living soul," and then observes that Nahmanides speculated that the redundant 'to' might indicate that the addition of soul transforms one kind of complete creature into a quite different kind of complete creature. (But why rest weight on Nahmanides opinion? There are, after all, other possible explanations of the origins of that redundant 'to' during early transcriptions of the text. Why suppose that it has any significance at all?) Schroeder claims that a careful reading of Genesis 4:25 and Genesis 5:3 reveals that there was a period in which Adam had sexual relations with nonhuman creatures. The allegedly crucial point is the appearance of the word 'again' in Genesis 4:25: "Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son." Isn't the "again" superfluous, and doesn't it tell us that Adam had been playing the field? (I can't see it. We might just as well infer that they'd been struggling for 130 years to have a child to replace the one they had lost. They tried yet again.) And so on. It is very hard to resist the conclusion that Schroeder is trying desperately hard to find anything at all which can be twisted to support the case that he wants to make. So much for the kinds of questions which I might raise about Biblical interpretation. Since I have no claims to expertise on these matters, I shall not put any more weight upon them. At the very least, I think that it is clear that many of Schroeder's claims stretch credulity--and also that it is hard to find a good motivation for them. Given the concession that the text cannot be given a straightforward literal interpretation--not least because, as Schroeder points out (pp. 10-11), it is multiply inconsistent--what harm could there be in supposing that much of it is best interpreted as myth? Reconciling science and Bible does not require finding science in the Bible; rather, it requires reading the Bible in ways which generate no inconsistencies with the well-established teachings of science. Moreover, this position is consistent with--though it does not require--the further claim that the teachings of the Bible are morally authoritative. (Schroeder assumes without argument that morality must have a Biblical foundation--see, e.g., pp. 1, 2, 4, 18, 40, 81-2, 137. This seems to me quite wrong; but I shan't try to dispute it here.) No. You still don't get it. God isn't using Ezekiel to teach the faithful. God is using Ezekeiel to warn the faithless. Through the vehicle of filth and in a way that certainly could have been done in a more eloquent manner. But then, look at the types this mythology appeals to.
Proof that you are a moron and don't read a link and continue to lie about it. No where on this thread did I mention Schroeder or his writing about Genesis, nor did I offer that in my first post to you. I offered an essay about a verifiable prophecy of Jesus Christ: Here's something for you to think about. The Bible contains a prophecy given from God and written over 500 years in advance that foretold of the Messiah Prince that would come 483 years following a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, a Messiah who would then be "cut off" and have nothing. That 500+ year-old prophecy was fufilled with the baptism of Jesus Christ in 26 AD (exactly 483 years after Artaxerxes I decreed in 458 BC that Jerusalem be rebuilt) and with His subsequent crucifixion (being cut off and having nothing). And unlike fictional literature, it is true and verifiable. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news) Starwind posted on 2005-09-30 21:20:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Well, naturally. Half-elf rangers are limited to level 16 (assuming normal prime requisites.)
#158. To: tom007 (#156)
Think of the tax advantages.
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#159. To: Moldi-Box (#157)
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#160. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#152)
How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16.
#161. To: tom007 (#160)
GAD as usual, I lost my reciept!! GEEEZ I hate it when that happens.
#162. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
#163. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#146)
#164. To: Starwind (#149)
#165. To: Moldi-Box (#150)
If I was getting my ass handed to me like you said earlier then you and your clique would be enjoying this and having a good old time. The way I see it, someone's getting rubbed the wrong way. What really bothers you?
Fine, then why, sir did bloody warring animals, insects and organisms precede man if the concept of original sin is correct and applicable?
#166. To: Tauzero, Moldi-Box (#159)
My theory on the dung thing is fecal vitamins.
#167. To: rowdee (#166)
Are you Chinese by chance?
New Orleans. Bridge. Liquor Store! Say it with me!
-- Dora the Looter
#168. To: Axenolith (#165)
#169. To: Moldi-Box, Axenolith, rowdee (#168)
All Starwind ever does for the first 3 or so posts is put up a link and tell you to read it. Bullshit. I don't link to http://athiests.org to refute anyones point. And then if they don't read it I start calling them an idiot. I break it down in pithy, readable points. I play on my terms. I know that makes me a dick and I give no apologies.
#170. To: Starwind (#169)
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link
#171. To: Starwind (#169)
#172. To: Starwind (#169)
#173. To: rowdee (#171)
#174. To: Moldi-Box (#170)
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link
Not true.
Liar. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
The only thing I saw on that link was you tap-dancing around legitimate questions that hoist doubt onto the creation story. If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)? Yes it did. Uh oh. That's a big f**cking problem. I read more of the link and if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned. One poster brought up repeated questions about the creation
For this is one vehicle in which he's chosen to teach the faithful. That's the purpose behind the whole "human poo vs. cow poo cooking fuel" parable, correct?
#175. To: Starwind (#174)
You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
#176. To: Moldi-Box (#175)
Schroeder is an unmitigated quack, let link to reviews of his works at http:/ /infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html
#27. To: Moldi-Box (#21)
Something to think about.
You lied in your posts #34 & #40 that you had read the link I gave you. You're still lying.
The proof of your lies are in your above post #175 wherein you erroneously refute work done by Gerald Schroeder. But nowhere in the link I gave you is either Schroeder's work discussed, nor anywhere in that essay nor it's sublinks, but that hasn't stopped your fixation on Schroeder and Genesis and your blind arrogance.
Had you actually read God's Signature of Authenticity and the thread, you'd know that. But like the liar you are, you're just blowing more smoke and hoping no one will notice.
You have assumed God's Signature of Authenticity is about something else. You have assumed (without checking your facts, as you inevitably forego) that my link was something about Schroeder's work on Genesis 1. when in fact (had you checked) my link was about Dan 9:25-26.
The Daniel 9 prophecy about the Messiah is not the Genesis 1 account of the 6- day creation.
And this is now the 3rd time that has been pointed out in several pithy readable posts (which you claim is all you need, on your terms no less - lol).
You lie and you're too incompetant to recognize the difference between words like Daniel and Genesis or Prophecy and Creation, and you're too lazy to read, think or even do a simple search to see what is or isn't on a thread.
You are a lying, illiterate, admitted dick.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#177. To: Starwind (#176)
No where on this thread did I mention Schroeder or his writing about Genesis, nor did I offer that in my first post to you. I offered an essay about a verifiable prophecy of Jesus Christ: Ah, you'll forgive me (WWJD?) for confusing that with your other link: http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=6940&SC=1&EC=40#C1 In fact I didn't regard the "God's Signature" link because I don't see anything to corroborate the Baptism, except the Bible itself and maybe the Jews for Jesus faq page :) Oh, and a link to http://www.jeramyt.org/ who appears to be some sort of ecclesiastical gay-rights activist. I would note your own web page http://star.wind.mystarband.net/ has all of 13 hits which is pretty sad considering such important material, but I digress. Despite the pissing contests and theories, I think if you were as secure in your position as you think you are you wouldn't be getting so upset at people asking questions. I'm perfectly calm despite posters like Red and Assnolith chiming in to say what a fuckhead I am. It funny how quickly a devout Christian like you can disregard all the tenants of your impossible to follow religion. Let's take a look: Matt 5:22 "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (you failed this one) Matt 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (this one too) Luke 6:29 "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;" (hate to tell you) Matt 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (to be fair, you might have heard "Blessed are the Cheesemakers") So for all you're high minded ideals, your are a belligerent and impatient hypocrite and I've amply pointed this out through your own behavior. I've seen you insult other posters on similar threads too, btw. But if you can live with the glaring discrepancy between what you claim to believe and how you really act, fine. But "No man can serve two masters" (Matt 6:24) and if you serve the Lord as vigorously as you serve your own ego then you must be doing fine. Kindest Regards, MB
Proof that you are a moron and don't read a link and continue to lie about it.
http://www.jeramyt.org/pride-rt.gif
#178. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee, axenolith (#177)
Right. You didn't read it. You assumed you knew and then you lied, repeatedly, to cover up your assumption. Its only taken what, a few dozen posts for you to finally figure that out and admit it? And now the excuses for your lying about why you didn't read it, but you did lie repeatedly that you had read it, and your reasons for lying don't matter one wit, because they can't be believed, now can they. And you're still wrong. The corroboration is there. But because you didn't read it, you're still lying about having looked. The issue, as you well know, is not that you ask questions, its that you lie repeatedly, knowingly, deliberately, even calmly about the facts and the answers. You are a liar. The fact that you lie so calmly suggests you are a pathological liar. When you stop lying and start being genuine in your questions, you'll get respect. Not before. Probably say something like: Pro 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly. Only you and Dude Lebowski. And we both know why, don't we Dude. It's in the thread above, and the other threads where you boastfully backed yourself into a corner.
Ah, you'll forgive me (WWJD?) for confusing that with your other link: http:/ /www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=6940&SC=1&EC=40#C1
In fact I didn't regard the "God's Signature" link because I don't see anything to corroborate the Baptism, except the Bible itself and maybe the Jews for Jesus faq page :)
I think if you were as secure in your position as you think you are you wouldn't be getting so upset at people asking questions. I'm perfectly calm despite posters like Red and Assnolith chiming in to say what a fuckhead I am.
WWJD?
Do you not know that it is written?
So for all you're high minded ideals, your are a belligerent and impatient hypocrite and I've amply pointed this out through your own behavior. I've seen you insult other posters on similar threads too, btw.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#179. To: Starwind (#178)
ROTF........ Why did I just know it would come down to something like this........the whining about you and your ilk being hypocrits for reacting so nastily! I admire you for not bringing up the little detail that 'this thread has been going on for 6 days now. Not exactly 'quickly' to my way of thinking. Nor did you bring up casting pearls before swine--but then that would have been misconstrued as well by our friend. Quirks, Quarks, Quantums, Primordeal (sp) soup, perhaps other 'goodies' that can't be seen or experienced but to some appear more believable than a living God who created it all, the evidence, or footprints, of this being all around us, and in us. The scriptures weren't written for, nor meant to be, a textbook for the scientific community, the medical community, the agrarian community, etc., though there elements of them to be found--I think that is what is being overlooked by many. I don't see God as worrying about time; it's an element that apparently means little to Him. Things will occur on his time schedule/frame. Just as Huldah had prophesied to Josiah, God was angered at Judah and they were going into judgment BUT because he did right in Gods' eyes and followed the ways of David, that Josiah would not live to see this happen. IIRC, he lived something like 11 or 19 more years before he died. And even after he died, there were men of God warning the people and kings to turn back to following God's commandments and statutes--and it was another 20 years or so after his death. Much like the parent that tries to talk to the recalcitrant child, eventually patience is lost and out comes the paddle. Thank goodness, God has much patience with his people and gives us chances.
#180. To: Starwind (#178)
Fantastic. Another nice illustration, apparently teaching down to his base, the Hebrew's God makes vomit and poo articles with which to teach his students. Can you find one about snot and we'll hit the trifecta of nasty? That's fitting. And you can have it. A hypocrite like you who preaches out of one side of his mouth while holds a stick behind his back is no shining example. It's funny how even angry assholes (you) who put up a Jesus website assumed salvation applies to them, when clearly only 144,000 names will be written in the book of life. Oh, well. C'est la via. Take care my hypocrite "friend".
Pro 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly.
#181. To: rowdee (#179)
You're right. It is in us. Evolutionary evidence, a long painstaking process of trial and error. Not instant creation. A distinct tailbone like the lower forms, Appendages like a chimpanzee (with whom you share nearly 99% of your DNA makeup btw), body hair from when it was our clothing, the appendix is an evolutionary throwback (unless you would argue that God had spare parts and a purpose in mind for this), if you've had wisdom teeth removed you should know they grew in impacted because the jawbone was once longer. There's no denying it unless you're a tool.
more believable than a living God who created it all, the evidence, or footprints, of this being all around us, and in us.
#182. To: Moldi-Box (#181)
what a great handle. And you are right. If this planet was 1,000 miles further from the sun, we would not be here to argue about this. Me, I have joined the Flying Spaghetti Monster cult. Say Ramen, and bless his noodly appendages.
#183. To: Mekons4 (#182)
LMAO. Thanks for the link.
Me, I have joined the Flying Spaghetti Monster cult. Say Ramen, and bless his noodly appendages.
#184. To: Starwind, Rowdee, Axenolith, *Raelians* (#0)
New ping list fellas PM me if you want on!
*Raelians* Like the Bereans but with better social events and more evidence to support our cause.
#185. To: All, Moldi-Box, Dude Lebowski, Rowdee, Axenolith, Elliott Jackalope, Steppenwolf, Tauzero, Jethro Tull, christine, Zipporah, Flintlock, Red Jones, lodwick, crack monkey, Phaedrus, TommyTheMadArtist, Jhoffa_, Dakmar, scooter, tom007, Mekons4, *Bereans* (#178)
I want to apologize, to God especially, and everyone on this thread for my contributions to the unseemly flame war into which it devolved. The Bible teaches (Pro 15:1) "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger". This simple truth was very much in evidence on this thread. This thread could have been an enlightening, informative discussion of viewpoints both pro and con, but instead became a non-discussion of the ridiculous and meritless, and my harsh words perpetuated the rancor. As a professed believer in and follower of Jesus Christ I should set a better example than I did. I should and could have made the same points in exposing Moldi-Box/Dude Lebowski's erroneous Bible interpretations and other misrepresentations, but done so without being caustic and vitrolic in my language. I encourage all to *not* follow my example above. I have often said to others, "it isn't what you say so much as how you say it". In this regard I failed to follow my own counsel. In the future when the situation warrants, I will likewise expose error and deception, but I will be more gracious in the process. Again, I apologize to all.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#186. To: Starwind (#185)
I think this confirms your human credentials Mr. starwind. Humility is a plus. Arrogance & pride are a negative. Why did god choose Moses to communicate with when he gave 'the law' to the hebrews? Because Moses was the most humble person.
#187. To: crack monkey (#0)
Theological discussions always get my eyes red, make me giggly and give me the munchies while I stare at inanimate objects.....
"I want the American people to know that our dreams are gone, our work was in vain. There will be no future for our children and our grandchildren in the new Iraq. The future is for the clerics. This is not the democracy we dreamed of. "--Dr. Raja Kuzai
#188. To: Starwind (#185)
I find your posts interesting from the perspective of watching blind dogma in action; you don't owe me an apology. Just remember: you'll never get into Valhalla on your knees!
I want to apologize, to God especially, and everyone on this thread for my contributions to the unseemly flame war into which it devolved.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#189. To: Starwind (#185)
fuck off.. Just kidding. I was thinking after your post: Someone goes to all the effort you did, 5 paragraphs, mentions proverbs in context, explains in detail how they feel and it only takes an asshole 2 seconds to type a flame.
"When the government FEARS the People, there is liberty, but when the People fear the government, there is tyranny."
#190. To: Starwind, all (#185)
No need to apologize, Starwind. I find the back and forth, on both sides, quite civil and very interesting.
#191. To: Starwind (#185)
Starwind, as long as you always speak the truth as you see it, you'll never have reason to apologize to me.
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#192. To: Starwind (#185)
Frankly, I see nothing to apologize for. However, I am not your conscience-- God and you will handle that. My problem is having very little patience, since my youngest daughter forced me to use them all up. I think I learned that in struggling to grow some more patience that one way for me personally to deal with such as this is to refuse to respond. The other way, of course, is to merely tell them to go F* themselves. :( Not a smart or wise choice--especially on a thread like this. Folks like this delight in jerking chains, trying to break that last thread of patience, etc., and then jump one's ass for stumbling. Whatever ya do, Starwind, please keep posting. :)
#193. To: crack monkey (#0)
Jesus was a typical man - they always say they'll come back but you never see them again. God meant for us to be rich...LOL
A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America—founded in 1989 in order to “preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history”—proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be “making permanent President Bush’s 2001 federal tax cuts.”
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend.
#194. To: Starwind, All (#185)
The Bible teaches (Pro 15:1) "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger". This simple truth was very much in evidence on this thread. This thread could have been an enlightening, informative discussion of viewpoints both pro and con, but instead became a non-discussion of the ridiculous and meritless, and my harsh words perpetuated the rancor. As a professed believer in and follower of Jesus Christ I should set a better example than I did. I should and could have made the same points in exposing Moldi-Box/Dude Lebowski's erroneous Bible interpretations and other misrepresentations, but done so without being caustic and vitrolic in my language. I encourage all to *not* follow my example above. I have often said to others, "it isn't what you say so much as how you say it". In this regard I failed to follow my own counsel. In the future when the situation warrants, I will likewise expose error and deception, but I will be more gracious in the process. Again, I apologize to all. That's big of you. And I sure didn't expect it. If I may reciprocate by offering my apologies for what people here considered being antagonistic... I guess it boils down to us all being in search of answers. I'm glad you found yours.
I want to apologize, to God especially, and everyone on this thread for my contributions to the unseemly flame war into which it devolved.
#195. To: Starwind (#185)
no problem, your forgiven. Can I have a dollar?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S. Burroughs
#196. To: Starwind All, Moldi-Box, Dude Lebowski, Rowdee, Axenolith, Elliott Jackalope, Steppenwolf, Tauzero, Jethro Tull, christine, Zipporah, Flintlock, Red Jones, lodwick, crack monkey, Phaedrus, TommyTheMadArtist, Jhoffa_, Dakmar, scooter, tom007, Mekons4, *Be (#185)
Again, I apologize to all. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news) Starwind posted on 2005-10-07 16:04:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Well, I have to respond that I have not followed this thread much. But this is the third time in six years of netting that someone has had the sense and humility to say "maybe I was wrong" etc. Rather than scratching like mad cats to cover the hastely made comment, whatever that was. Starwind, I do not even know what the issue is, but I commend you highly for this act of great introspection. By doing this you have pissed off your enemies, and amazed your friends. Koudos.
In the future when the situation warrants, I will likewise expose error and deception, but I will be more gracious in the process.
#197. To: Starwind (#185)
You didn't offend me in the least, so no need to apologize to me. Everyone is free to believe what they want, that's per God's permission to have free will. My belief in God is unfazed. My belief in Jesus is unfazed. My belief in organized religion is non-existent, because of the lies, their agendas, and the fact that none are to be trusted. NO FAITH CAN BE TRUSTED SO LONG AS THEIR AGENDAS GO AGAINST GOD, OR THE FREEDOM OF ALL PEOPLE.
 | So many morons, so few bullets. |
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest