A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

“You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone”

Posted by 1minionsopinion on December 2, 2009

A petition is going around in California to ban divorce.

The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.

California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.

While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.

“It’s a worthwhile conversation to have,” said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. “I don’t think it’s just a frivolous thought.”

It’s set up by a comedian who wanted to satirize the sanctimonious codswallop behind the ban on gay marriage and point to some statistics that really do exist as proof that “traditional” marriage is in trouble with or without allowing gay marriages. Gay marriage can’t possibly “destroy” traditional sacred marriage any more than people in those marriages can now.

This is a crosspost from my blog, but I’m going to add here that same sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2004.

On Dec. 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa has exclusive jurisdiction to decide who has the right to get married in this country – but that religious groups are not obliged to perform unions against their beliefs.

The decision means that same-sex marriages performed in seven provinces and one territory are legal and must be recognized. Same-sex marriages are not performed in Alberta, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, but the Nunavut government will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Prime Minister Paul Martin said the government will proceed with legislation legalizing same-sex marriage across the country early in 2005.

By June of 2005, it was a reality.

This isn’t a topic I usually keep tabs on, but as far as I know, it hasn’t destroyed the sanctity of any heterosexual marriages. Divorce rates peaked in Canada in 1987, long before any gay rights activists were active on the marriage promotions. They currently sit at 38%, which is lower than the American average.

91 Responses to ““You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone””

  1. dorian said

    let canada be a good example for america. how is it that across the border you are more progressive? healthcare, same-sex unions not an issue? based on those things alone, it seems your society has evolved at a faster rate. is it the european influence, the iroquois legacy, the water?

    Like

  2. 1minionsopinion said

    Ahaaa.. oh, we have a collection of fundies up here too, just not vocal in my province. I read a blog called Dr Jim’s Thinking Shop and Tea Room – he’s a religious studies prof in Lethbridge Alberta, which is quite close to both Drumheller, land of the dinosaur fossils, and a creationist museum close beside. Judging by this latest “Know Yer Nuts” post, Manitoba also has Creationist stuff happening. Funny how it skipped this province altogether…

    http://drjimsthinkingshop.com/2009/11/14/know-yer-nuts-5-c-a-r-e-ministries-more-instant-magic-earth-poofists/

    Like

  3. dorian said

    and oh, i think a proposition 9 for a ban on divorce is in order. an excellent idea. divorce is without a doubt defiling the “sanctity of marriage”, is it not? look at those divorce statistics! why scapegoat the gays? married people have been defiling their holey matrimonial unions for ages! they get nasty, costly divorces and tear their families apart and traumatize their progeny.

    lots of fun stuff in dr. jim’s site. thanks!

    Like

  4. princessxxx said

    yes, the main argument is that marraige is somehow sanctified and holy.

    NO MORE DIVORCES, SUFFER, DIRTY HETERO STINKSHITS.

    Like

  5. dorian said

    i guess the concept of proposition 9 (divorce ban) is to put your feet in the others’ shoes. how does it feel to be picked out as the cause of something like marriage or an entire country’s failure? so easy to put the blame on those that are different from the majority. that is why we have discrimination laws in place. it ain’t the immigrants, the jews, the gays, rock music, lack of religion, the internet, etc, etc…

    Like

  6. 1minionsopinion said

    yes, Jim loves his lolcats and scantily clad women. And he knows a lot about the bible, too. I check his site every day.

    Like

  7. kay~ms said

    “It’s set up by a comedian who wanted to satirize the sanctimonious codswallop behind the ban on gay marriage and point to some statistics that really do exist as proof that “traditional” marriage is in trouble with or without allowing gay marriages. Gay marriage can’t possibly “destroy” traditional sacred marriage any more than people in those marriages can now.”

    This situation reminds me of how my car is always such a mess… and how there are always a certain couple of people who are always contributing to that mess when ever I give them a ride… yeah, my car is a mess, (“so why does it matter to leave more?”) but do I need the situation made worse? If I can’t even manage to control the mess I have, I certainly don’t need anyone making it worse.

    The comedian’s argument is not an argument at all.

    Like

  8. princessxxx said

    oh right kay, marriage is just like your car.

    just because your car (marriage) is a mess,
    doesn’t mean that gays that get married are going to move in and dirty your home. geez louise.

    unless of course, your husband leaves you for another man,
    happens all the time.

    my suggestion, instead of fretting over gay marriages,
    why don’t you go clean your car.

    Like

  9. “my suggestion, instead of fretting over gay marriages,
    why don’t you go clean your car.”

    Bravo Princessxxx!!! And Kay, if you need help, I re-recorded a cover of the Beatles song last night.

    Princess’s comment reminds me of a famous zen koan. I cut and paste from a wikipedia article:

    Case 7: Zhaozhou washes the bowl
    A monk asked Zhaozhou to teach him.
    Zhaozhou asked, “Have you eaten your meal?”
    The monk replied, “Yes, I have.”
    “Then go wash your bowl”, said Zhaozhou.
    At that moment, the monk was enlightened.
    This kōan is beloved of students, perhaps because it seems to negate the need to understand obscure doctrines. Wu-Men comments in verse “Because it’s so clear / it takes long to realize”, and straightforward it may seem, but this kōan is an idiom and the student is assumed to be aware of its cultural context. If one does not know this context, the kōan cannot be understood from the traditional reference point.
    The meal of consideration is a traditional meal of rice. It was customary for monks to maintain samadhi (the practice which produces complete meditation) while eating this meal, and so Zhaozhou is not asking whether the monk has eaten: he asks instead whether the monk was able to remain in samadhi throughout the meal. The monk affirms, and then realizes he has already received the teaching. This kōan is one of the 12 Gates taught in the Kwan Um School of Zen.

    Like

  10. okay, it is a bit contrived when I cut and paste the explanatory article from wikipedia, but the similarity of “go clean your car” to “go wash your bowl” and the similarity of the subject of teaching and learning, that’s what struck me.

    Like

  11. 1minionsopinion said

    Right, gay people getting married can’t mess up your marriage unless you’re married to someone secretly gay who wants out once he or she realizes gay marriage is now legal and he can actually marry the person he or she really wants to be with. It won’t affect married heterosexuals in anyway, nor any heterosexuals who want to marry – unless the gay couple gets the best church and reception place the very same weekend you wanted it…

    Like

  12. 1minionsopinion said

    Huh.. how come that’s not a romantic comedy being done yet? God, that’d be a funny funny movie…

    Like

  13. princessxxx said

    someone write the screenplay now.

    “THE GAY WEDDING PLANNER”

    and instead of jennifer lopez,
    maybe it could be mario lopez.

    Like

  14. kay~ms said

    All of you missed my point. It really had nothing to do with my stance on gay marriage. The comedian was alluding to the reasoning that so what if gays getting married tarnishes the sanctity of marriage.. it couldn’t be any more damaged than it is now because of the divorce rate.

    And that is what led to my car analogy… yes, it can make it worse. Just because it is already bad, that doesn’t then make it ok to make it worse.

    These “arguments” are so common… like when 1minion pointed out the issue of children not getting adopted in response to my argument that we should resort to adoption instead of abortion… what does that have to do with the fact that abortion is wrong? Just because people are not adopting that doesn’t then make abortion “right”. It is still an injustice to the life that is getting aborted.

    Just because divorce is so prevalant that doesn’t then argue that gay marriage is “right”. The argument is whether gay marriage is right.. not “well it is already bad so then that makes this ok”. No it doesn’t. That’s elementary school logic.

    Like

  15. dorian said

    gay marriage is right. divorce isn’t.

    grreat idea, P!

    Like

  16. obama the antichrist said

    its sad how christians are apart of the higher divorce stats and especially among conservatives…its ironic and contradictory…and yet instead of taking care of their marriage they fight to prevent gays from marrying…pathetic freaking pathetic!

    Like

  17. 1minionsopinion said

    Gay marriage CANNOT make the current state of heterosexual marriages worse. They can’t. Not because people are getting divorced left right and center, but because gay marriage rights have nothing to do with how well a hetero marriage works.

    Inviting people into your car makes it dirty. That’s a terrible grade school level argument that makes no sense. You aren’t inviting gay people into your marriage like you would offer people a ride in your car.

    You don’t even have to willingly be friends with a gay couple if you don’t want to be.

    But a gay couple should be able to get married.

    Divorce is a reason marriages are failing. Gay people in love is not a reason marriages are failing. I believe that was the comedian’s point with this.

    Like

  18. 1minionsopinion said

    The only way to prove gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of hetero marriages is to legalize gay marriage and test the theory.

    These anti groups can think they’re right. They can assume they’re right. They can believe they’re right, and they can demand everyone else agree they’re right, but they can’t prove they’re right.

    Like

  19. dorian said

    time and time again it’s proven that tolerance belongs to those who see that human kindness and consideration is unconditional. people sometimes allow religious and/or political dogma to take over their lives and clouds over their ability to be compassionate.

    Like

  20. hey Obama The Antichrist, I really appreciate your posts. It is refreshing to hear from a Christian who isn’t all about spreading lies and hatred.

    Like

  21. kay~ms said

    “hey Obama The Antichrist, I really appreciate your posts. It is refreshing to hear from a Christian who isn’t all about spreading lies and hatred.”

    Geez.. I guess you’re talking about me… could you expand on this TBG? It would not only be appreciated, it would be a suprise… every time I’ve received accusations like this from you and other liberals none of you seem to be able to explain / justify your accusations. ( and I could back up that accusation ).

    Like

  22. kay~ms said

    “Gay marriage CANNOT make the current state of heterosexual marriages worse. They can’t. Not because people are getting divorced left right and center, but because gay marriage rights have nothing to do with how well a hetero marriage works. ”

    On the surface it would certainly seem so… but once again 1minion, it seems that you are not getting the point.

    Yes, on a personal level, what one couple does shouldn’t affect another (their marriage in this case). But, again, the point is made on a societal (broader) level.

    There was a time when divorce was not very common. And that is not the case now… why? One major reason is because of a loss of moral values. A loss of respect for the sanctity of marriage. People don’t take marriage as seriously as we once did. The vows are not taken as seriously or sometimes those parts (till death do us part) is even left out. Divorce is no longer a big deal. This is a societal aspect of the institution of marriage. This view affects society and the sanctity of marriage.

    As I’ve said previously, I don’t really know for sure if the sanctity of marriage couldn’t survive if (just) two people of the same sex could be “married”. That is, rewriting the definition of marriage to include just 2 people of the same sex. (but I would like to point out again here that no one is stopping a gay couple from entering into a union for life, that is not the issue, the issue is whether we should have a complete rewriting of a basic structure of society.)

    What I do believe is that if we do rewrite the definition of marriage it will open up a whole new problem of where to draw the line. People have rights, that is what this issue is all about. But the way I see it, gay couples DO have equal rights as unionized couples or if not, they should. To say that people have a “right” to redefine what marriage means because they have a “right” to marry whoever they want, then, again, how can we say no to the man who wants to marry TWO women or two men? or 100? Isn’t that his right to marry who or “whoever” he loves? How can we say that he isn’t in love with two women? How can we deny him that “right”? Rights is defined as equal treatment under the law or government. Changing the definition of a word is not the way to acquire that… it is a way of pushing one particular group’s beliefs onto society.

    So, to summarize, yes, weakening the sanctity of marriage CAN make the institution of marriage worse… changing the defintion of marriage WILL make it worse. It will further weaken society as a whole. Just as has been shown by the high divorce rate that we now have thanks to the very damaging liberalistic (anti Biblical) beliefs and views that have permiated (poisoned) society over the years.

    Like

  23. dorian said

    ban premarital sex. ban divorce. ban abortion. punish all who espouse “anti-biblical beliefs and views”.

    kay, if just those above-mentioned wishes of yours comes true, your world would be a very small and lonely world.

    Like

  24. If you’re not opposed to gay couples being able to be legally joined in unions with the same rights as married couples, then why does it make any difference at all whether or not one calls such unions marriages or not?

    I agree with Dorian. The world would be a small lonely place if so-called Christian values were enforced everywhere. I say so-called because too many so-called Christians spend more time trying to force their narrow-minded parochial views on everybody else than they do about setting an example by a positive lifestyle and attitude.

    It’s also funny kay that you assign “liberal” as a synonym for bad or wrong. As I pointed out in another post to another thread of this blog, it is the liberals you hate so much who actually follow the teachings of Christ a lot closer than the conservatives who proudly proclaim themselves as Christians.

    Like

  25. also Kay, when I praised OTA as an example of a Christian not spewing lies and hate, I was NOT referring to you. If the shoe fits though, wear it.

    Like

  26. kay~ms said

    Who said to “ban” premarital sex? or divorce? You are imposing a false idea that Christians want to force our values onto society… Christians don’t propose that, I’ve already stated that. God gave us free will; again, if He wanted us to be forced to follow Him, He wouldn’t have given us free will in the first place, Christians understand this. “punish all who espouse anti Biblical views?” How? You are twisting things again.

    Yes, we do want to ban abortion. And that isn’t based on Christian values, it is proposed on the basis that it is a violation of human rights.

    “kay, if just those above-mentioned wishes of yours comes true, your world would be a very small and lonely world.”

    A lonely world because people don’t have sex before they get married? People who have lots of sex with different people are some of the loneliest of all.

    Most people who get divorced are some of the loneliest people of all.

    People who terminate their child end up missing that child for the rest of their lives.

    Your liberal views only help prove my point.

    Like

  27. kay~ms said

    TBG said: “also Kay, when I praised OTA as an example of a Christian not spewing lies and hate, I was NOT referring to you. If the shoe fits though, wear it.”

    OH… that is so funny… after I posted my comment about that I thought about adding ” I advise you to just take the easy way out and say that it wasn’t directed at me, that is what all of the liberals do here anyway… take the easy dishonest way out when I back you into a corner and ask you to actualy back up your all too common self – righteous, anti Christain accusations.”

    That is so funny… I actually thought, “no, he won’t do that”… wow.

    If you weren’t talking about me then who? If you weren’t talking about me I would think you would have made that clear considering I am the ONLY Christian on this blog other than OTA.

    You guys are a trip.

    Like

  28. dorian said

    kay, you’re delusional and egotistic.

    forgive the kid who picked on you in the playground already!

    Like

  29. kay~ms said

    You are so funny Dorian!

    But seriously, isn’t this a blog? Where people debate? I don’t think that was a legitimate response to my point. That was just yet another accusation … and again, without anything tho back it up I should add… come on you guys.. get with the program here…

    Oh.. what? You weren’t talking about me… “it was someone else with the name Kay”. yeah, ok.

    Like

  30. Don’t be so full of yourself, Kay. Sad as it is, the fact is that many who profess to be Christian spend more time spewing lies and hatred and trying to force their beliefs onto other people than they do trying to actually follow the teachings of Christ. I actually wasn’t referring specifically to you in that post you won’t let go, but now that I think of it, it does seem to fit. You sure are quick to make assumptions and pass judgement.

    Like

  31. Kay, you do get rather hostile at times. I know a few choice phrases that switch you into this mode. I also know what fuels this mode. I am not feeling up for this debate.

    Everyone quit harrassing Kay, that’s my job😛

    This is why I support gay marriage in America. Every citizen has the right to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There are more people being open about being gay. It’s not like its a life style choice. Some guys just are not attracted to the opposite sex, there is no choice involved. Unless of course you like both then I guess it would be a choice, but that is beside the point. Guys who are heterosexual do not wake up, shower, brush their teeth and say “Well, today I think I am going to be gay.”

    The only fear most have towards gay marriage is the fear that those relationships will have a lower divorce rate.

    And people are not getting divorces because of low moral values, but the fact most people do not understand their own emotions, and what these emotions feel like. Most people only get married because they got pregnant. Or they thought they loved each other, and found out they did not. Or they just didn’t want to work at it. Or they didn’t want to compromise. Very few actually get divorced because of infidelity. Less people are looking at the pros and cons of this very serious life commitment. Less people are saying is this person right for me? Less people are planning. More people are just doing spur of the moment things.

    Becoming a Theocratic nation will not fix this. Actually the thing many preachers(making America into a Christian Theocratic Government) including Bill Keller, is saying should happen will destroy this country. The divorce rate in Europe is lower than in America. This does not mean Europeans have better morals than Americans. (While there are many more Europeans that do have a stronger moral fiber, than Americans.)

    I also must say not all christians are conservative, there are many that are liberal minded. (Liberal-Minded is different than having a Liberal Political view point. When I say liberal minded it means more of a free thinker. One who is willing to see things at multiple angles and understand those views.)

    Like

  32. princessxxx said

    obama the antichrist, i appreciate your posts, too.

    IMO, you have the right attitude. you have your christian beliefs and you understand that others do not have those same beliefs and yet you come across as non-judgemetal and having an understanding.

    that, i believe, is the christian way.

    you remind me of my aunt, the finest christian lady you would ever want to meet. she loves everyone and you can see it in the way she treats others regardless of their lifestyles.

    and kay, i appreciate your comments, too. they’re fun.

    and divorce, that is as old as the bible. nothing new here.

    my christian parents divorced after 30yrs of a miserable marraige,
    my gay uncle was with his patner for 40+yrs, until he died.

    Like

  33. dorian said

    based on all of what’s written and said by those on the extreme right of fundamental christianity, it seems that the word “liberal” encompasses all that is not fundamental christian.

    Like

  34. princessxxx said

    and if you are dyxlecsick, it’s practically “labial”

    Like

  35. If Dorian is correct in his theory about the definition of the word liberal, then liberal means what is rational, sane, respectful of others, and good for the planet and humanity’s future. Cool.

    Like

  36. dorian said

    sounds nice. that’s a good aspiration. to be liberal!

    it looks like the world governments are finally taking global warming seriously. they can no longer deny the effects. even san francisco had flooding. a lot of businesses and homes suffered a lot of loss. we insure for fire and earthquake but not for floods.

    Like

  37. I don’t understand how anyone can be against what is rational, sane, respectful of others, good for the planet and humanity’s future, but it takes all kinds to make a world I suppose.

    It is my sincere belief that if some of those who are so against some subjects knew what I know, that perhaps they would change their minds. Maybe not. There is much insanity out there…

    Like

  38. Enkill_Eridos said

    Are we going to make this into a history of the church lecture? Oh by the way, for my French Culture paper I did it on the Crusades (more specifically the Order of the Poor Knights of the Temple. they later were known as the Templar Knights.) You may ask of what relevance is this to anything on this post. Well the whole history of the organization responsible for creating a global bank and credit system, is very interesting. Particularly the end, not going to spoil it for those who remotely think that this would be an interesting topic. But I will give you a hint, the end came for that order because of one Christian King’s zeal, greed, and ambitions. That king even went against the pope and bullied the pope into making a decision. I mean the whole history of Christianity is interesting. The Church has done a lot for the peoples of the world, even during the crusades. The Catholic Church set the ground work for the hospital system we have today. But there was a lot of horrible things done, for every good they did before and after the fall of Rome there are horrible incidents. There is a lot more bad than good, but the Church is trying to atone. But there are those few zealots and fundamentalists that like to act as though all of these horrible things were God’s will. Kay said it herself. Killing, raping, looting and razing is not condoned in the Bible. But that does not mean the Church has not done these things. The Catholic Church is not the only branch of Christianity that committed these horrible acts. They just did the most of it because the Catholic Church once really did rule the world under pretty close to a one world government. Under these horrible things the Church did, the second most horrible thing was the Vatican’s slaughter of scientists for going against Church teachings. It may be the root of the religion vs. science hostilities. Of course I must be the only one seeing history repeat itself through Islam. Islam is doing what the Christian Church did in 1000 A.D. There is still residual anger with scientists and mainly fundamental Christians. This can be seen in Bill Keller’s lectures about science. We are talking about fixing a flawed system. (It is flawed because it is based on man’s understanding of something that is almost impossible to fully understand.) Of course most zealots and fundamentalists refuse to even consider the possibility that God gave us the sciences to better understand him. This maybe because science is believed to have originated from the Middle East.

    Like

  39. E_E said “Killing, raping, looting and razing is not condoned in the Bible.”

    Not exactly true, E_E. The Old Testament has many places where the “chosen” people are instructed to kill, rape, loot and raze others who are not “chosen.”

    It is good that many churches are trying to atone for some of the misdeeds done in the past in the name of Christ. Unfortunately, there are still some Christians today who are just as full of lies and hatred as any of the worst from the past.

    Like

  40. The fundie position on modern science is one that may make or break those denominations in the near future. It used to be the official position of Christianity that the sun goes around the earth because that is what the Bible teaches. Those few nutjobs who held to the flat-earth position within the past century would use selected Bible verses to “prove” their point.

    Evolution is as much a proven fact as gravity is. There is as much evidence evolution happens as there is that gravity happens, in spite of Kay’s denial. MOST Christian denominations accept the FACT of evolution, or at least say whether or not it happened is not directly relevant to the message of the Bible. There are a few nutjobs like Bill Keller though who insist that if the book of Genesis is not literally true, interpreted the way THEY interpret it, that we might as well throw the whole Bible away.

    (sound of trash can lid opening, heavy thud, then trash can lid closing) Oh well. It seemed like such an interesting book.

    Like

  41. dorian said

    kay was the one that said “Killing, raping, looting and razing is not condoned in the Bible.”, according to e_e.

    e_e, our first bankers, unfortunately, gave loans to a most dangerous client who found a way to zero out his loan balance. why not post your templar paper onto the sanctuary site? i’d love to read it.

    Like

  42. A more complete quotation from E_E’s post reads: “Kay said it herself. Killing, raping, looting and razing is not condoned in the Bible. But that does not mean the Church has not done these things.”

    Yes, E_E is quoting Kay, BUT seems to agree with her that the Bible does not condone these things even though the Church has done them. My point is that the Bible not only condones these things, there are places where the Bible COMMANDS these things. Has anyone else read the Bible?

    Like

  43. dorian said

    oh. i missed that. if you know of specific passages, TBG, share those with us??

    Like

  44. I admire and respect E_E greatly for what I have learned about him the past few months, the nature of his service, his opinions on various subjects, etc.

    While I most definitely disagree with Kay on many subjects, I also admire and respect her for her tenacity and passion.

    My apologies to both of you if you take anything I have said as personal attacks.

    Like

  45. Okay, right off the top with a quick Google search here are some selections about Rape in the Bible

    Here are some about other Bible Atrocities including some of the commands to kill every member of a city.

    Granted, these two sources are both unabashedly anti-Christian. However, look up the verses. Go to a Christian website if you want and look them up. They say what they say.

    There’s more. Do you really want to know? Read your Bible, lol!

    Like

  46. dorian said

    TBG, thanks but i think what you linked here are enough scary atrocities for the day. i might throw up all the ice cream i ate. had my share of leviticus from the fundie links sent to me by friends appalled by the whole fire and brimstone cults. i’m used to seeing scripture on christmas and birthday cards from family and the only times i’ve read the bible as an adult is when i’m picked to read passages before family dinners! i do have a couple of pocket size bibles here. my pastor aunt and uncle sticks one in my pocket everytime they see my heathen face.

    Like

  47. Enkill_Eridos said

    I have read those parts, and I was quoting Kay. I know these things are in the bible, written back before civilized thinking. In a time when the world was a bunch of fedual war lords, and crimes varied between these areas. Humanity has been at war with itself since the first humans made tools, solely for the purpose of taking a human beings life. Since that moment humanity as a whole justified it through religion. Like I said religion is based on flawed perception of something much greater than our current understanding. We are talking about “inspired” writings. Things people saw in dreams, or things that a voice inside their head told them to write. If I started writing something that I believe God told me to write, how many people would be the first to say I was wrong. How many people would hate me because I would not admit that I was wrong. I would be labeled as insane. And of course a persons own feelings couldn’t possibly have affected the English translations. The fact is there are differences in the Old Testament and Original teachings and scriptures. By all accounts if Jesus is the Messiah then the Old Testament is no longer a valid covenant. Meaning it shouldn’t really be followed. Of course the Commandments should be followed but the laws are no longer valid.
    Not to mention that the direct Hebrew-English translation of the Torah is different from the KJV. That and the Talmud (mostly ignored by Christianity) does explain about those instances where the “chosen” are commanded to kill. Of course the Talmud does state that Angels are both the messengers and executors of God’s Will. Mankind has no right to kill in the name of God, this is according to the complete Hebrew teachings. Honestly if an angel appeared before me I would crap my pants, because very rarely has an Angel appeared before a man in scripture with good news. The fact there are seven angels of death each whose sole purpose was to kill certain people, of course the seventh lesser known angel is also known as The Angel of God’s Wrath. Quite literally this angel in scripture, is the embodiment of the wrath of God. According to scripture. I do not agree with her completely, there are times when man is commanded in the Bible to kill and make war. But most Rabbi’s I talked to in this matter said that the scripture was talking about that time. Israel believes, and this belief has historical evidence, that the Muslims stole Jerusalem from them. Jerusalem to the Hebrews is the land given to them by God. Of course the Muslims in that area say the same thing. Do I think God wants mankind to kill in his name? No not in all cases. Do I believe that God wanted the Crusades to happen? No, it was senseless genocide.

    Like

  48. I do not think you are wrong if you said that God told you to write what you write, E_E. Other people’s reaction to this varies according to what culture you are in. For example, if Jesus had been born in India he would not have been crucified. When he said “I and the Father are one,” his friends would have said “Congratulations. You finally figured it out.”

    Like

  49. E_E mentions angels in the Bible as embodiments of God’s will. I have read of God’s wisdom personified in the Bible too (as a female character!), and there are hints of the creation being playful instead of so dang serious the way many churches present it.

    Alan Watts talked about the physical universe, made as it is of vibrations of various frequencies, being the music of the harps the angels play. Dante wrote of the angels’ laughter. Once you’re with God, that’s it! You’ve reached the point and the point has no point other than being the point and they just go out of their minds. When children think of singing Hallelujah forever they usually think oh what a drag. But that’s because the preachers don’t get it across because they don’t swing. Hallelujah is a jazz word, like scat singing, sheer exuberance.

    I read the Bible from a Hindu context and see the same messages in it as taught by Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. However, the Bible was written by Bronze Age goat herders from a patriarchal society. That flavors its content considerably and makes it less relevant to people of other places and times.

    Like

  50. dorian said

    “…However, the Bible was written by Bronze Age goat herders from a patriarchal society. That flavors its content considerably and makes it less relevant to people of other places and times.”

    how about relevance to this age?
    that’s why some religious and/or spiritual leaders get the word across better than others. they make an effort to make things relevant to today, so of course people will listen.
    straight from the mouths and minds of autocratic, patriarchal goat herders from the bronze age just won’t cut it anymore. that’s why so many are taking their leave from religion.

    Like

  51. Enkill_Eridos said

    God is actually genderless, Elohim (Which is a word used in Hebrew for God, the English translation in the bible labels it as the Holy Spirit.) is actually a feminine noun in Hebrew. It is a plural feminine word that expresses divinity. It has been a while since my formal Hebrew training and studies so I may be wrong. The word is actually forbidden to be spoken or written in the Hebrew religion because it is a name for God.

    At one time mankind regarded the females of our species as equals. We revered the actions that brings life. As a whole species. The Hebrews were not always monotheistic. They were polytheistic before the time of Moses. Unfortunately a lot of that polytheistic teachings were told orally and to my knowledge little was written about them. The new monotheistic religion that became Judaism may have retained its polytheistic roots. Much like what Christianity did, rites, rituals, and holidays may have been converted to fit this so it wasn’t that much of a shock. So that old familiar traditions could have remained alive just with different names and a different story.

    Like

  52. Enkill_Eridos said

    Dorian I do agree, religion(Christianity in particular) is getting empty and hollow among its “faithful”. This maybe for the lack of practices that promote spiritual growth. Actually anything that promotes spiritual growth is labeled as witchcraft in Christian teachings. This too maybe another reason people are leaving for practices that promote such things. Islam I believe will reach a point where its faithful will say (and no doubt some are saying it but they probably get “silenced” pretty quickly) that Islam’s teachings need to be updated for today. Society has changed since the Bronze Age, many cultures are accepting this. Buddhism and Hinduism are being updated, to fit with today’s society in those parts of the world. The more stricter world religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism will need to change with the times as well. Christianity is making efforts to try, progress is slow. Many profess that the whole 2012 thing will bring about the destruction of the Earth. Phrases like “This date is the end of the world as we know it.” Does not mean Destruction, it means a new beginning. The Mayan and Aztec perception of time is circular not linear. Cycles happen throughout nature, The seasons, years, months, hours. They ended the calender at 2012 and didn’t have a chance to finish the new calender, due to a mysterious illness probably caused by Spanish conquistadors.

    Like

  53. kay~ms said

    TBG said: “Okay, right off the top with a quick Google search here are some selections about Rape in the Bible

    Here are some about other Bible Atrocities including some of the commands to kill every member of a city.

    Granted, these two sources are both unabashedly anti-Christian. However, look up the verses. Go to a Christian website if you want and look them up. They say what they say.

    There’s more. Do you really want to know? Read your Bible, lol!”

    Here is a link that helps explain God’s point of view for all of you who insist on judging Him.

    http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-cruelgod.html

    And I would like to know why all of the Athiests here are so quick to accept the “bad” things but fully reject the good things about God?

    Why are all of the non Christians here so quick to point out Christian faults but make no mention of the good things that Christians do? Which far outweigh the bad things?

    Even OTA is quilty of this…”its sad how christians are apart of the higher divorce stats and especially among conservatives…its ironic and contradictory…and yet instead of taking care of their marriage they fight to prevent gays from marrying…pathetic freaking pathetic!”

    OTA, what do you base “especially among conservatives” on? I couldn’t even comment on this post of yours because it was so twisted.

    Of course you all “commended” him for these comments.. they are anti Christian comments. Anything that is anti Christian is “commendable” it seems.

    If OTA is a Christian, he’s a very confused one… his arguments on abortion are a prime example.

    Like

  54. Enkill_Eridos said

    OTA is against abortion. https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/cavemans-response-to-fox-news-post-by-tothewire/ number 62 where he plays the devils advocate. If I remember correctly OTA is very against abortions, when I made a comment on one of the reasons why McCain and Palin were a bad reason to be elected. It was that they would make all procedures related to abortions illegal. He went against that saying something like They should be. My stance of course went to further explain why those procedures should not be made illegal. Its on the blog somewhere, I just don’t feel like finding it.

    But I point out the bad because collectively there have been more bad done by the Christian religion than good. Historical proof does not lie, there was a reform in the early 20th century. And before that good was done. Ways to keep a sick man alive was perfected by the torture that members of the Inquisition performed. There was good that came out of that. People where clothed and fed as long as they became members of the Church. The Church itself ruled as a one world order, back when the world was flat and heaven was above the physical earth and the fires of hell was below, and when the Conquered lands of Rome was the extent of the world. When the earth was proved round, this was changed to inside the earth.

    Also I must point out that many of the killings were apart of stories. The bible does not actually command for “holy wars” which I believe was the context of my paraphrasing.

    Like

  55. Enkill_Eridos said

    Also when I judge Christianity I AM NOT judging God, just the flawed religion based on a flawed understanding, created by flawed people. We are all flawed and imperfect, and to be so arrogant as to say I understand a perfect being without being a perfect being, is impossible.

    Like

  56. 1minionsopinion said

    Everybody is capable of goodness. Everybody is capable of being a dick. Everybody is capable of being generous. Everyone is capable of being a miser. Anyone who wants to be kind can be. Anyone who wants to be rotten to humanity can be.

    Should they be? Nobody should be rotten. Not Christians, not atheists, not humanists, not other religious believers, nobody.

    Will they be?
    Probably.

    Atheists tend to pick on the worst examples of Christianity because the best examples tend to stay out of the news, usually.

    Anyone, regardless of faith or philosophy, can choose to do right by their fellow human beings. It doesn’t require a god and it never has. But people like to believe it matters, so they make it matter.

    Which can be good.

    So long as people are doing what’s good, rather that what’s convenient or easiest regardless of how it might actually benefit others. Be a positive influence on the world, no matter what.

    Like

  57. Enkill_Eridos said

    This is all another example of how the Church’s views should be separate to Federal and State Laws.

    Like

  58. Kay says: “Of course you all “commended” him for these comments.. they are anti Christian comments. Anything that is anti Christian is “commendable” it seems.”

    OTA’s comments were not anti-Christian. The extreme religious right which is a fringe group somehow thinks that anything to the left of them, even a tiny bit, is evil and wrong. Well as I pointed out (and I am neither the first nor the only one to notice this), those wacko nutjobs on the extreme right are so full of their own lies and hatred that they can’t even see how FAR from Christ they are. Look at the log in your own eye first, etc. The liberals you are so fond of badmouthing are much closer to the spirit and teachings of Christ than Bill Keller ever was.

    Like

  59. OTA seems to represent mainstream christianity more than the extreme nutjob wacko far far far far FAR right. MOST Christians are more like OTA than like Bill Keller, and it is a shame that the fringe view is so vocal and controls the Republican party to such an extent that it shames Christ and Christianity, not to mention humanity.

    IF more Christians were not so small-minded, narrow-minded, intolerant, and basically ignorant as people like Bill Keller, then more people would be tempted to follow Christ. When people like Bill Keller are said to be representatives of Christ, that really makes Christ look bad.

    Like

  60. (pulls logs out of own eyes)

    OUCH! hey, I have them too!

    Like

  61. oh and for proof Bill Keller is ignorant, look at that dullvotional of his about evolution you recently posted. That’s about as retarded as seriously arguing that the earth is flat because the Bible says so, and has the same authority and validity.

    Like

  62. Enkill_Eridos said

    That actually depends because again you are talking about a multifaceted term. I don’t think Kay knows the difference between a political liberal and one who is liberal minded. Liberal minded or free thinking people are now welcomed into the Church. Much of Christianity is accepting that science is not trying to disprove God, but is finding that the process of God was more intricate than once thought. These are the conclusions of Liberal Minded or free thinking peoples. Most are Conservative in their political thought. A conservative christian can also be a free thinking person. So the political black and white terms are actually not how things are. This black and white thinking is the representation of the Old Superstitious way of thought, and how things used to be. Let’s talk about the progress that has been made since the ordered killing of physicists and other types of scientists. They did not say God didn’t exist, just that the church’s teachings at the time was wrong. They had physical proof the Church was wrong. Instead of rexamining and changing those teachings. They were killed as heretics. Now the Church is saying that way of thinking was wrong and that other views should be examined. This is progress, but is it enough?

    Like

  63. Good points E_E. It is sad to think that people who stood up for TRUTH were killed by those enforcing the status quo of what they were TOLD is true even if it ain’t…

    As for my recent three posts in this thread: ha ha I’m like an evil twin of Kay lol…some of the same faults but a mirror image!

    What we don’t like about somebody else usually reflects what we don’t like about what is inside ourselves, and it is always easier to project the badness onto others rather than recognize its existence within oneself.

    What I like and respect about you Kay are your tenacity and passion. I want to believe you really mean well, but you seem seriously misinformed on some subjects and very strongly opinionated towards an extreme position on some other subjects.

    I find it hard to believe myself that I am a moderate centrist just left of center according to a detailed test I took last year about my political beliefs. I would have thought I was much further to the left, although nowhere near as far to the left as Bill Keller is to the right. Oh well…

    Like

  64. kay~ms said

    EE, I do understand the difference between liberal minded and politically liberal (which is not a lot btw). I am liberal minded about some things. But what I have found is that the majority of liberal minded people do not have views that are in line with the Bible. Their views go against Christian values on many things. Liberal minded people in general do not put God’s will first. And that is why many are also politically liberal. I’m really not interested in the technical definition of politically liberal, I just care about the views that go against God’s will.

    As to OTA, I don’t think he is sure about his stance on abortion.. because I’ve had debates with him where he has pointed out that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances. Yeah, I know, he was playing “devil’s advocate”. He didn’t make that claim the first time we debated the issue.

    TBG, yes Ota’s comments about Christians and divorce were very anti Christian.. he made statements or implications that are just not true and then deemed them hypocrites on top of it. Christians have a right to take a stance against something if they feel it is against God’s will.. whether they are perfect or not. I think his point was that if someone is in a bad marriage then they are not allowed to have an opinion about anything concerning marriage from a social perspective.

    And TBG, yes I was going to ask you to elaborate on Bill’s ignorance… you pointed out his stance on how the earth was created…

    Bill is aware of the science, he has just chosen to believe a different explanation than you. You don’t know how it all really happened.. you don’t know if Bill’s stance is wrong. How can you know that for sure? You are the one who is being ignorant for insisting on pure science as the answer to our existence when as I’ve pointed out over and over our existence is not logical. Science CANNOT explain how it all began. YOu are the one who is being ignorant (and arrogant) for calling others ignorant for not believing what you have decided to believe. You don’t know for sure! None of us do.

    Like

  65. So letting someone die so a baby has the chance to live is a Christian Value? If the mother dies the fetus will die, if it cannot support its own life. Make abortion procedures illegal, this is what will happen. A detached placenta, the baby and mother will die without termination. If the fetus is not viable (cannot live on its own.) It will die before the mother and the mother will die of septic shock. Ectopic Pregnancy, it is fixed through a surgical abortion procedure. These are life threatening instances, this could make someone die. How is one life worth more? There are many more conditions that are life threatening where the baby would not survive outside the womb. If abortion procedures were made illegal you would be condemning mothers with these things? If you yourself got an ectopic pregnancy would you allow yourself to die knowing that you will die well before the baby even has a heartbeat? If you can no longer get pregnant and your daughter was put in the position that she probably will not survive long enough to have a live birth, would you have the same stance then? In abortion the anti-abortionists do not talk about these things. They do not talk about the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by terminating a pregnancy. They do not say how many married couples would become single parent families due to a serious complication in a pregnancy. Abortion just does not effect those who do not want a baby. It also effects those that do, but because of no fault of their own, they are given the choice to rob their living children of a mother or to stay alive. Especially when the likelihood of viability (fancy way of saying the fetus can live outside the womb.)is low. Where are the Christian Morals there? What are Christian Morals to you? Live peacefully. Love thy neighbor even when that neighbor is your enemy. Give to the needy. Comfort and help those incarcerated and help them see the errors of their past. Help those people stay straight. Don’t cheat on your wife. Be a good example, even when you do not have children. DO NOT MOLEST CHILDREN. Those are all good Christian Morals. These are things I live by, these messages were in the Bible and shown to me at an early age by two of the most faithful men ever to live. These are all Christian Morals that even priests and ministers break. So tell me how the liberals underminded this? Especially when I saw it in Conservative Christians. Or how about the fact Conservative Christians do get divorced? How some marriages actually end because of one or both parties unwillingness to compromise with each other?

    I assure you “Christian Morals” are not the best morals there are. Especially when those that profess to have Christian Morals do not act like it. Words and actions are two very different things. You can say one thing, but do the opposite. Christianity has become like the Pharisees that Jesus was against. The same actions that they committed Jesus did not like, is being committed by the Christian Church today. Not all of them, but it does happen. Talk about Christian Morals all you want. That’s fine. Talk is easy and cheap. It’s the action that tells the whole story. Good Works shows you are faithful and you truly believe.

    When you pass someone on the street asking for change. Or if someone asks for food, or somewhere to sleep. The Christian thing is to give that person a safe place to sleep. A hot meal or some change. Now I am not saying let the man or woman sleep in your home. Allow them to take a shower, wash their clothes and let them sleep in your backyard in a tent. Or just allow them to take a shower and wash their clothes. Those actions tell a lot.

    Kay I don’t care to hear if you do these things, or the good things you do. You shouldn’t do them for approval or tell a story in an instance you do. I will go with that you probably do. But most Christians do not. Most Christians will condemn an action knowing that action will cause emotional pain. But they will do nothing to help that person emotionally. Most Christians will even refuse to give someone that is homeless any money. Even if they see children and a wife by a car that is obviously lived in. These are things I have seen people do while entering a Church. Refusing the needy outside of a church. I have seen it. How is that an example to that family? Should that person even want to become a Christian after that? It’s actions like this that is undermining Christianity. NOT LIBERALS. You are doing it to yourselves and want to shift the blame. Because actions speak way louder than words.

    Like

  66. science doesn’t need to explain how it all began in order to describe what is here now, and that includes evidence of past processes such as evolution and gravity that still exist.

    There IS a difference between Bill’s opinion and mine. My opinion has tons of evidence of many different types supporting it, evidence that has been observed and measured by millions of people and can be checked and verified. His opinion is based on an INTERPRETATION of a Bronze Age book that teaches the earth is flat, really. you want to believe the earth is flat? You are entitled to your opinion. But it is NOT correct to say that opinion has as much evidence supporting it as the spherical earth model.

    Either the earth is billions of years old and we are cousins to chimps, or God made it LOOK that way. Why would God lie to us in his creation? Doesn’t it make more sense to reason that maybe, just maybe, the book of Genesis isn’t supposed to be taken literally? Or perhaps, maybe it is all a crock of shit.

    Like

  67. Also Kay, not all liberals go against God’s will. Many so-called liberals (and I’d guess you’d label me as one according to YOUR definition of that term) sincerely want to do God’s will, not their own. I know I do, whether or not you believe it. I may get frustrated and impatient sometimes and say things I regret, but that happens when I see bullshit and have people trying to cram it down my throat.

    Also, as E_E points out, many conservatives who so proudly call themselves Christian show by their actions that they are doing the very things Jesus says not to do, and not doing the things Jesus said to do. Like I said, there are many liberals, even many atheists, who follow the teachings of Jesus in how to treat others a LOT closer than many conservative self-proclaimed Christians.

    A rose by any other name, etc. Does it really matter if one calls a gay union marriage or not if they are to have all the same civil and legal rights as a hetero couple? WTF? What difference does that make, really? A rose by any other name, does it really matter if you pray to Jesus, or practice enlightenment according to Buddhist principles, or whatever, if one is sincerely getting rid of one’s ego and is sincerely surrendering one’s will to God’s will? Jeesh…

    Yeah E_E nailed it. It isn’t liberals or atheists that are destroying Christianity. The Christians are doing it to themselves.

    Like

  68. dorian said

    come to think of it, the good christians i know don’t talk much about what is right or wrong, and least of all, about the good things they do. i just see them helping others out like it was the most natural thing to do. no IFs or BUTs. just unconditional love. and come to think of it, some of them aren’t even christian.

    Like

  69. Enkill_Eridos said

    The bible teaches that is how a person should live. Its not that they don’t talk about the good things they do because you are not supposed to boastful. Being boastful cheapens the act, going from selfless to selfish. I see those people as true christians. Those that really are following God’s Will, as Kay would put it.

    Like

  70. kay~ms said

    EE, once again, I don’t care about labels, whether it’s “liberal” or “Christian” or whatever. You are right, it is based on actions and ideals. If a person has Christian ideals but does not follow thru with actions then they are wrong. They do NOT represent Christianity or Christians in general.

    When you and everyone else here constantly talks about the shortcomings of Christians.. what exactly is your point?? The only thing that can be deduced from that is that Christians are not perfect and we need Jesus and His gift just as much as everyone else.. and a true Christian KNOWS that.

    And I disagree with your statement that Christians in history have done more bad than good. As 1minion pointed out.. we hear more about the bad than the good. And all of the people here have perfectly proven my point. As I pointed out earlier, none of you references the good that Christians do… it’s always the bad and the shortcomings.

    You said: “I assure you “Christian Morals” are not the best morals there are. Especially when those that profess to have Christian Morals do not act like it.”

    Could you be more specific? Which Christian morals are not “the best”?

    And once again.. I don’t care how many times I have to point this out… when those that profess to have Christain morals do not act like it… IT DOES NOT DEFINE Christianity (or “Christian Morals”). It only reveals that person’s shortcomings as a Christian… NOT any shortcomings of Christianity.

    As for your points about abortion… of course, if the mother is going to die and then that means that the baby will certainly die then obviously that would be an exception. The goal should be to make every effort to save both…

    All of those things you listed are what I also consider Christian morals but I will add to that not terminating an innocent life.

    You said: “It’s actions like this that is undermining Christianity. NOT LIBERALS. You are doing it to yourselves and want to shift the blame. Because actions speak way louder than words.”

    I’m not blaming liberals for the deterioration inside the Christian church. I am blaming liberals for turning our country into a nation that is deteriorating morally by turning away from God and Biblical values.

    YOu said: “Most Christians will even refuse to give someone that is homeless any money. Even if they see children and a wife by a car that is obviously lived in. These are things I have seen people do while entering a Church. Refusing the needy outside of a church. I have seen it. How is that an example to that family? Should that person even want to become a Christian after that? ”

    It’s very possible that these people give inside the church (every week) knowing that the money goes towards shelters for homeless people. And the ones outside can go to these homeless shelters to get the help that they need. It’s very possible that these people have no more money to give at that point. It is possible that these people are good people for the most part, they mean well but fall short sometimes and do not always act as a Christian should. They could have very likely felt horrible afterwards and sincerely regretted not helping that family by the car. And it is also very possible that there are people who call themselves Christians but are not true Christians in their hearts and that is why they do not help. But once again, they do not define all Christians or Christian doctrine.

    I guess the point here is that we shouldn’t make judgments about people when we do not know all of the circumstances and especially we shouldn’t attach our judgments to the entire group that they are a part of.

    And, in the same way, you could say that we shouldn’t make judgments about God. We don’t know all of the circumstances of the situations where it seems like He is unmerciful. God knows much much more than we do.

    Like

  71. It is impossible to be truly selfless as long as one thinks of oneself as a skin-encapsulated ego separate from the universe instead of as an expression of the universe. The same act can be selfless or selfish depending on how one defines oneself. Trying to get rid of one’s ego is the biggest ego trip there is. Self-reference invites paradox. Be transparent to transcendence instead.

    Like

  72. kay~ms said

    I have a comment in moderation.

    Like

  73. kay~ms said

    TBG said: “Either the earth is billions of years old and we are cousins to chimps, or God made it LOOK that way. Why would God lie to us in his creation? ”

    Why couldn’t God have used an old planet to create the earth we have today? That could still make Genesis true and also not make God a “liar”. How do you know that it didn’t happen that way? Your evidence would be true but it would be from a world that used to exist and was destroyed. God used it to form the earth that we have today. What you choose to believe as “fact” is just one of many choices of what could have actually happened.

    You acknowledge that science doesn’t prove how it all started. So you really can’t deny the possibility of this explanation.

    Like

  74. Enkill_Eridos said

    And niether of you can deny that both explanations maybe apart of each other. That is not possible for God to be the catalyst that did this. That God could not have shown Moses the whole entire process of creation. That there is no way Moses percieved Creation the way God percieved it and Moses just put it in terms he could understand. That it is not possible for God, a being that is labeled in the scriptures as a being outside of time and space as humanity knows it. God percieves time very differently, he is a being that can be everywhere and do everything at the same time. He is all powerful, yet he could not have possibly been doing all of this at a rate that would seem slow to us as we percieve time. This kind of logic actually undermines and lessens God. To say that he could have had no hand in creation through evolution or slight changes over time. That is lessening God. I mean there are too many variables for life to be a random occurance. I mean the conditions have to be right there has to be two major opposing forces, space debris that comes together a Gas giant and a yellow sun. I believe that God created all things. I also believe that Moses witnessed an event that was beautiful, and breathtaking. But also beyond his comprehension. I believe God knew this and emphasised the parts he could understand. The way a multiple celled organism works is profoundly complex. That they just magically appeared to me is illogical. So is saying it all was a series of right time right place random events. I mean this is a process that had to have taken a huge amount of concentration. I would think it completely possible that both are right and the combination of the two would fit both in religion and science. I don’t care about TBG’s views or Kay’s views on my explination. I already know the most likely responses. I also know the most likely responses to my next point.

    It was highly disrespectful for the both of you to suddenly change the topic of debate. It is not your call, it is 1minion’s call. She never tried to steer this topic into a debate between creationism and evolution. Continue your debate here:

    https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/bill-kellers-devotional-for-11-06-09/

    It is where this whole mess started so go debate on this topic there. This is also not an abortion debate topic, the steering into abortion was also disrespectful. Management is tired of this kind of behavior. I know I was wrong because I am absentminded and forgot to actually state the purpose of my statements before and after the statements. Even though I thought it was realavent that to show where I came to my conclusion. I now understand I must state the purpose of each opening statement on a topic with a clear purpose in both the beginning and end.
    Again creationism vs. evolution is here:
    https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/bill-kellers-devotional-for-11-06-09/

    Like

  75. Enkill_Eridos said

    The this is not possible for God comments where sarcastic. Just to clear up future confusion.

    Like

  76. kay~ms said

    EE, 1minion’s last comment was “off topic” so she must not care. I, for one, don’t mind if someone goes off topic on any of my posts. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal.

    And I don’t think abortion is off topic here… aren’t the liberals claiming a violation of civil rights if abortion is banned?

    The next thing you know we’ll be having debates on what is off topic and what isn’t. And where to have those debates.

    And I don’t know if it’s just me (I’m sure you all will say it is) but it seems like every time someone complains about this “off topic” violation thing.. it’s when I’m winning the debate.

    Like

  77. Kay you are SO full of yourself it’s pathetic.
    Winning? HA! Your best argument to explain the evidence for evolution is that God used stuff from an old planet when he created this one to make it LOOK like the earth is old and evolution happened? that is so weak it is practically retarded, yet you think you’re winning? Sheesh, no wonder you’re a fundie.
    Fundies are the village idiots of any society, no matter which religion they belong to.

    Like

  78. Kay, I read somewhere (I think) that you like the movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” I suggest you watch the scene of the Black Knight again. It’s also on YouTube. You’re JUST like him!

    Like

  79. Umm, what kind of drugs do you take, because I really want some. Maybe it will help me understand your un-understandable logic. How are you winning exactly? And I never said 1minion complained. If 1minion says its okay then I will apologize. But this discussion went from gay marriage to Evolution vs. Creationism. Abortion is not completely off topic. (Which I am against it becoming illegal, because I respect the sanctity of all life. Not just those that are unborn.) I am just trying to give 1minion the opportunity to say I don’t mind. And the “liberals” and some conservatives are complaining that if abortion is made illegal so will the procedures associated with it. If that happens people will lose their lives, or surgeons will start losing their license for following the Hippocratic Oath. Now I am not saying all abortions are right. Nothing makes me more angry than hearing someone say they had an abortion because they got drunk, or because they can’t afford it. Pregnancy due to a violent sex crime or incest is a different matter. But, again I digress. I would like to know where Evolution vs. Creationism fits into with civil rights?

    Like

  80. I’d like to see you post any Biblical support for that “explanation” you propose to account for the age of the earth and for evolution.

    There is NO conflict, none at all, when you recognize that the Book of Genesis is NOT meant to be taken literally, but some people are just so stupid that taking things literally is the only way they can get it, and they think everyone else is just as stupid as them so it has to be the same for everyone because they are really insecure otherwise…is your faith that weak?

    Try reading Genesis as an allegory. It is a beautiful statement of God’s love when read that way. If read the way fundies read it, it makes God out as either a trickster or a liar. That’s just the way it is.

    Like

  81. I thank you Kay, for having a different opinion than me, because if not for you and people like you I wouldn’t know what I know. We need each other, even if some people don’t realize that.

    As for this blog, I may be banned now for making what amounts to a personal attack. It isn’t you personally I am attacking though Kay, it is the retarded belief system you and others like Bill Keller subscribe to. And I wouldn’t care at all what anyone believes if they didn’t try to legislate ignorance in public schools or jeopardize the safety of the planet because they figure we’re in the end times anyway.

    Like

  82. well E_E, evolution v. creationism indirectly affects civil rights when it crosses over into the education of children in public schools. Sane, rational, intelligent people want their children to learn the truth about what we have learned about life and how it developed on this planet. Wacko nutjobs are upset about this because it conflicts with their INTERPRETATION of a Bronze Age book.

    The civil rights of sane rational parents and their children are being attacked by the wacko nut jobs. OTOH, the wacko nut jobs think THEIR civil rights are being infringed upon because their children are being taught truth even if it conflicts with the wacko nutjob beliefs.

    There is an easy solution of course. If they don’t want their children to learn that the earth is NOT flat, then don’t send them to public schools! Problem solved, and then those kids can grow up to dig ditches, pick up garbage and flip burgers.

    Like

  83. The biggest problem most creationists have with evolution is that they THINK it excludes God. It doesn’t. Evolution is neither for nor against God. If even after learning that creationists still have a problem because evolution doesn’t specifically say that it is the God of the Christian Bible that started everything, well, too bad. That is outside the realm of science. Send your kids to church to learn that stuff, not public school science classrooms.

    Some people seem to think that if science doesn’t have all the answers that means science doesn’t have ANY answers. Wrong! I post again the opening line from a few posts back:

    “science doesn’t need to explain how it all began in order to describe what is here now, and that includes evidence of past processes such as evolution and gravity that still exist.”

    Like

  84. kay~ms said

    TBG, if you will read my comments on this, I never said I subscribed to that belief of God using a pre-existing planet. I don’t know if that was the case or not and I never said that I agree with Bill Keller’s view concerning Genesis… that the earth is 6000 or so years old. I actually don’t know what to believe. My point was that you don’t know that it didn’t happen that way and therefore you shouldn’t be calling other people ignorant who don’t believe what you have chosen to believe. You never did address that point that I presented to you. Why not? You think it’s “practically retarded”?… please explain. Could it be “practically retarded” to you because you are an atheist? I think that is the case.

    Like

  85. TBG: But that isn’t the issue, gay marriage and other civil rights issues are being voted away. Next up saying “interracial” (it is not really a correct term since there is one race just different ethnic backgrounds and colors of skin.) marriages will be on the chopping block because of similar things. It is the parents responsibility to teach religion not the schools. Science is academic and should be regarded as such, in schools. The parents that have a cow are just too lazy to do their job. Sex ed shows this. So evolution vs. creationism is not a civil rights issue. Unless you are speaking of schools teaching the bible is wrong. But I don’t remember my biology teacher in High School or College say such a thing when those teachers actually addressed the topic.

    Okay, I give up. It seems either of you do not understand the word moderation…so..I will not take more aggressive action until 1minion says otherwise.

    Kay: Niether of you actually addressed my point of view, which makes me think you two only want to debate with each other.

    Like

  86. 1minions opinion was actually not off topic, she was just putting her two cents in to why people just vote other people’s civil rights away just as I was…

    Like

  87. Kay the Black Knight says: “TBG, if you will read my comments on this, I never said I subscribed to that belief of God using a pre-existing planet.”

    uh, Kay, in post 73 of this thread YOU said:
    “Why couldn’t God have used an old planet to create the earth we have today? That could still make Genesis true and also not make God a “liar”. How do you know that it didn’t happen that way? Your evidence would be true but it would be from a world that used to exist and was destroyed. God used it to form the earth that we have today.”

    Now you’re saying you didn’t say that? WTF?

    By the way, I am NOT an atheist. That is another example of your misunderstanding my position. I believe in the same God you do, but obviously not the same way you do. As for Bill Keller, I thought you believed everything he said hook line and sinker. You sure seem to quote and praise him a lot.

    Like

  88. Okay E_E, I will NOT reply to any more posts in THIS thread no matter how tempting it becomes, no matter what idiocy Kay spews forth in her attempt to rationalize an interpretation that is NOT supported by the evidence of the world God created.

    If I have any comments directly relevant to the proposed ban on divorce in California, then I WILL post them to this thread. I personally think it’s a grand idea. If they say “’til death do us part” then that should be enforced. If either party wants a divorce, line them both up against the wall and shoot them!
    (sarcasm alert)

    Like

  89. Before writing that last comment saying I wouldn’t post any more to this thread, I had written another comment earlier that is still in moderation as I write this. So not counting this one, and assuming the pending comment is not deleted by some admin, there will possibly be one more post by me to this thread that mentions evolution.

    After that, Kay can post as many as she wants here, and when I don’t answer, can proudly fly back to her flock and proclaim victory like the pigeon playing chess that knocks over the pieces and craps on the board.

    Like

  90. https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to-his-election-and-nobel-peace-prize/#respond

    This topic however is both new and very inviting for this discussion…

    Like

  91. kay~ms said

    uh.. TBG.. you are using EE as an excuse to not address my points.. that is pretty obvious. I believe the issue is whether 1minion minds if we go off topic on this post. That is what EE stated anyway.

    I propose that these are the two main points that you want to avoid…

    My point that God could have used an existing planet that was destroyed to create the earth that we have today. Which would not make God a “prankster” for planting evidence and it would also make Genesis true in the literal sense.

    You don’t seem to want to address this. Because you really dont’ have an argument and it calls you out on your constant accusations that anyone who doesn’t believe what you do is ignorant and a “village idiot”. You are the one who is being ignorant here… that is my contention based on what I’ve just explained.

    And the other point is that you are an atheist. I visited your site (which doesn’t seem to be accessible now via your post name) and you clearly are an atheist based on what I read there. You have argued against Jesus’ deity here so you do not believe in the same God that I do. I tried to pinpoint exactly who you believe in and you’ve never really addressed that either. What I’ve gathered so far is that you believe you are a god and you believe in yourself. You are very similar to the Mormons who contend that they believe in the same God as Christians… and they clearly do not. You (and all liberal narcisistic “free thinkers”) like to take the Christian God and mold Him into the god that you want (but convieniently call yourself a “believer” to gain acceptance)… that is how cults begin… narcisism, ego and arrogance is always at the root of these “religions”.

    And as to my comment #73… where did I say that I subscribe to that view??? The point I was making was that there are other views on how it all began that you cannot (and haven’t btw) argue against. And THEREFORE you shouldn’t call others arrogant and village idiots for not believing what you have chosen to believe.

    To me, a village idiot is someone of great arrogance who makes accusations against others but cannot back them up.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: