Jesus is Not A Republican (Nor a Democrat)

"...the use of torture under any circumstances is a moral issue, not a public-relations dilemma."

I don't know, Faithful Progressive. Promoting policies and agendas that are directly opposed to Jesus' teachings is quite popular these days. It is very politically-correct to defend the reputation of Caesar and Imperial Rome at all costs. Here are the favorite rhetorical tactics for doing so:

1) Swiftboat anyone who fails to conform to your opinion with steady streams of condemnation,

2) Flat out deny that torture, etc. is even happening through nitpickery and obfuscation,

3) Defend the power of Caesar and the Roman Republic at all costs; work daily to silence those who dare follow Jesus' teachings.

The Bible contains no where near "2000 references to the poor", and it certainly does not place the "responsibility for the poor" on the believer; at least not in the way you insinuate. There is a big difference in the Biblical admonitions to help the poor as we have opportunity and taking "responsibility" for their plight or their permanant well being either.
One of the most effective and Biblically prescribed ways to help the poor is by teaching those who are willing to hear God's wisdom and methods of changing their circumstances.
Since the time of Christ, it has been Bible-believing Christians who have given more financial aid to the poor of this world than anyone. This Nation, through Christian influence, has poured far more financial aid into other countries -- even our enemies-- than any other Nation, ever, by far.
And for those who despise the rich... ONLY the rich can help the poor. Being wealthy is not a sign of wickedness or righteousness, anymore than being broke is a sign of either. The devil has his rich slaves and his poor slaves. And God Almighty has His rich servants and His poor servants.
The generosity which resulted from Christian influence in this Nation, could not have come to fruition without the prosperity, which also resulted from Christian influence and God's wisdom.
God has always had a plan for the prosperity of His people and an intended result... "And you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers..." (Deut. 8:18).
And the New Testament echoes the same... "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need" (Eph. 4:28)
God's word has a whole lot more wisdom, exhortation, admonition, and instruction concerning how to come out and stay out of the 'poor house' than it does, temporarily assisting the poor, with money, medicine, housing, etc. It is still the hand of the diligent that maketh rich and the sluggard who comes to poverty.
It's the "responsibility of the believer" to both act on, and proclaim what he believes to others so they can believe and act -- and be blessed.
Quit complaining and decrying the plight of the poor unless you're willing to put an honest effort and godly faith in changing your own circumstances enough to help someone yourself. You brag about how low you are on the poverty levels and you spue your disdainful rhetoric on those who have given more to the needy than you could ever know, much less accomplish in your own wasted lifetime.
If the shoe doesn't fit, leave it alone. If it does....
EH

Well, Eddie, you've illustrated #1 and #3 pretty well.

I suppose you've never heard of wide-scale economic policies like NAFTA and its low-wage/low-benefit economy that requires cheap, exploitable labor...
Gonna try for #2 now?

Hi,

The allegations of torture are complete nonsense. Remember the Quran flushing fiasco? False; yet it incurred about a dozen casualities worldwide.

"and it seeks to replace science curricula with theology"

Not even an attempt to accurately represent intelligent design. I would say this statement borders bearing false witness.

The likes of this place are beginning to remind me of what the liberal theologian N. T. Wright was quoted as summarizing:

"To liberal Christians who cheer his opposition to the war in Iraq and his advocacy of greenhouse gas restrictions, he must break the news that he parts company with them on issues such as gay marriage, and wonders whether their (liberal) politics shapes their faith, rather than their faith shaping their politics."

If the torture allegations & worldwide discussions are "complete nonsense," try bbc.com archives & don't blame me or anyone else: Bite the bullet, with chagrin.

Now, if the "intelligent design" statements "border on false witness," how about some fact-checking? You may start with at least a dozen posts I entered on this site BEFORE you showed up with false motives: I wish there were an index function on this site to facilitate such. No hurrahs for Al Mohler in this regard or any other. It is shameful of his role in the fundamentalizing of SBC institutions & this the flagship seminary for over a century. And how can you disavow Judge Jones' 140 page decision denying "i.d." as Science, which of course it is not? Do you align with Phyllis Shaffly & say he disappointed Bush's "evangelical base" who thought they had bought his decision? Do courts only provide "blind justice" if it supports your underhanded cause? Want to talk about "bearing false witness"? Beware before you ask for the brickbats.

Now. Eddie Hughes, another recent interloper, lacks a lot before chronicling the "responsibility of the believer" with his shared biblical literalism & bibliotry. I don't qualify as poor, by a long shot, but I surely am attune to both their needs & public policy that does not make their plight better. Indeed, the 1890 fixation on Horatio Alger's "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," while admirable for those who can, also damns those whose context disallows that application to them: the indigent, those with a terminal disease & lacking insurance, those with a retarded child {or child now an adult), any auslander, anyone with a heavier than average burden [even tho' Xns are admonished to bear one another's burdens], & the list goes on. A 1953 court decision altho' well intended has left the retarded & homeless to fend for themselves or a parent's benevolence that damns him for life of drudgery. Have you ever walked in another's shoes to know their affliction? Or is it just G-d's will, in your perverse theology or rationalizations? No, even in allegedly the most prosperous of nations, many are left out who in other EU countries would have a much better chance. Our system leaves a lot to be desired for many left behind [pun intended but humanized]. What if NeoCon Eddie were in need? Would his rant be so pious? Or just the piffle it is now? And how about "the Nation, through Christian influence" notion---a guised dominionism that is glorified far more than in fact it is? Give credit for something & be accurate, but do NOT attribute our history to a funDAMentalist rendering, unless you want to take your position by Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell the morning after 9/11:whattasham. o, I know you have announced joining the Virgina Beach concentration of self-standing, self-appraising fundamentalists, whose inclusion in any salvation is nil: woe be unto thee. And in your 6/25/06 post under an adjacent posting, you indicated your construction work as an example of no need for no one in the U.S. if you could do it: where did that cast your education for theology [bible colleges are NOT colleges] or other faith ascendancies? Sounds like an imposter to me, as indeed are ALL fundamentalists which are the PLAGUE of America.

A word to interlopers: you don't have it in you to make intelligent, educated comments to progressives, much less liberals. It's surely not a biblical calling you have. I will not engage in your subcultural rant, but a partial answer once is enough. Be gone, be gone! The demands of Christianity are far above thee, beginning with the basics.

Eddie , you are the true light, this site needs, in its counter points, and its un twisting of the twisted thing alleged here , However I see that they have already ganged up on you and are using that "Infantile #1,#2,#3" that Bob Bowers came up with, when he had no answer for the truth, as Tenoch did the same because he has No valid answer to your truth He says #1.
Eddie "The Infamous REVEREND C HANDER," Activist, agitator since his teens , when he first protested against Dwight Eisenhower which he blows up his chest in memory of each time he recounts, to his leftist followers. He is a self proclaimed 40 year Professor, seems to me he Ward Churchill's the minds of our children, in any event as you have just witnessed his venomous scorn, and mean spirited demeanor,
Eddie Reverend C Hander, has a knack to insult and offend..our tax dollars at work!, if " Reverend C Hander" was not as old as he is, I would swear his mentor was Ward Churchill and Sami alArian. and of course Michel Moore.
Eddie it is my guess "The Infamous Reverand C Hander"' is aligned with the The poor, I would think his mind set if genuine? would not have a net worth of a half to a million dollars or more,and as I am sure ,as Mr Chaney does give away his 3/4 of his salery each year.I am sure the equity in Mr. and Mrs. Handers house has been emptyed and given to the poor [or does he pay with his actvisim] kinda like, cleaning the Library grounds as a fine for drunk driving.Perhaps that is his "community service payment " to the poor insted of giving from pocket
The Good Reverand Comrad tells us of the poor that have no medical care, where in Mexico? perhaps!?, not in the USA, not out side of the left wing talking points.Every State has its own health care for the poor, I know tens of people who have been on it for ten years, AND GOOD REVERAND you do not have to be in this Country legally to get " HEALTH CARE", Every one in this country, can be treated by a Doctor for just about any illness.from NO CHARGE to Whatever depending on your financhal stratus.

Thanks, J..
It is interesting to me, how those like Hander cannot repudiate plain old-fashioned Biblical wisdom with simple terminology. They have to disguise the fact they have no answer, with their articulate attempt to discredit people like me.
I guess I should be honored, Mr. Hander, that you devoted such a long paragraph to discredit and insult me. You offered no intelligent rebuttal to anything I said, but I guess that is beside the point. Don't waste your time trying to discredit me -- I haven't any credibility with these readers anyway. It's God's Word you seem to be at odds with. Why don't you address Him directly?
For what it's worth... If you want to insult me -- if it's really that important to you, the least you could do is be accurate. I could provide you with a list of some of my short-comings and probably suggest more applicable insults, or names you could call me... I mean, after all, "troll", "interloper", and "Neocon" -- those are a bit overused. Besides, I am definitely not a "neocon". According to the dictionary (yes, I had to look it up), a "neocon" though somewhat against big government, supports social welfare programs and other liberal goals -- I do not support any of the modern politically liberal agenda.
But I am certainly not here to defend myself. My interest is in defense of Truth.
Neither am I here to repeat my former posts or illustrations you and some of the others like to refer to, but totally twist into something I did not say. My 6/25 post you referred to, for example, had nothing to do with people who did not have the same abilities to do the work -- it was about people who were lazy, plain and simple; and refused to do the work.
"What if neocon Eddie were in need?" That's actually pretty funny. You are so 'aclueistic' -- (there's a word for your buzzword list. You won't find it in the dictionary but you can figure it out). The truth is, it makes no difference whether I am in need, or overflowing with abundance. I've been in both situations -- several times. But my source has, for a long time, been the same. The Lord has used others to minister to me, and at times He has used me to minister (financially) to others... And we have "born one another's burdens" and still do. But my level of need, or your level of wealth -- neither one determines eternal truth. God's wisdom has always worked, for those who trust Him. It still works today -- It works in America and it works in Africa. And it works despite the concentrated efforts of those who would reduce it to just another system of philosophy which must be submitted to foolish scrutiny.
EH

Tenoch writes: I suppose you've never heard of wide-scale economic policies like NAFTA and its low-wage/low-benefit economy that requires cheap, exploitable labor...

TENOCH, It was Bill Clinton who signed : wide-scale economic policies like NAFTA and its low-wage/low-benefit economy that requires cheap, exploitable labor... NAFTA WAS SIGNED INTO EFFECT BY MR CLINTON SO Tenoch you must blame your left wing for that my friend, oupps

It seems that Mr. Balmer is simply bemoaning the fact that Republicans do not have a liberal agenda, as if a liberal agenda is Christian and should be the default position of everyone who is Christian.

Balmer is clearly a liberal and not clearly a Christian.

It seems to me that some Christians--either liberal or conservative--are capable of self-examination and growth and some are not. For example, many conservatives have become convinced that the hoarding of wealth undertaken by the rich nations and the elite in this nation does not square with the ministry and teachings of Jesus or the Jewish Prophets. Similarly, many Christians (of all political leanings) have come to see Care of Creation as an essential role for Christians that they have ignored.

With respect to liberal Christians, more and more of them are willing to speak out on the value of religious tradition and keeping alive the spiritual dimension life. Further, more of them are using the values that guide them as an organizing ethos for action. As ELCA Bishop Peter Rogness has written, not because they think they their line to God gives them all the right answers... "on lots of issues’ sense, but in a powerful, converging and unifying sense. Perhaps the time of claiming exclusive religious certainty that polarizes and vilifies is waning, finally, and a new movement stirs -- a recognition that at the heart of our faith (and, much to our surprise, we find it at the heart of virtually all faiths) is the simple claim that God is gently but surely guiding us to live lives of compassion and solidarity…"

FP

Arden

God bless you. Once again a most erudite and fact-filled post has been derided by those not qualified to shine your theological shoes. You provide facts and figures, and they stick out their tongues and make monkey-faces.

FP,

A very good post. I must be honest and say I have yet to see any of those conservatives who have acknowledged the evils of Mammon (wealth-hoarding/lust for power), but I will take your word for it that such a creature exists. As an amateur cryptozoologist I have long suspected as much. The rest of your post was well thought-out and presented. Bravo.

As for these "christian" churches that want to tow the Republican Party line, I would suggest that they are no better than the Russian Orthodox churches that for decades worked with the Soviet government to oppress their own flock. The thought of a church in ANY way condoning torture (torture of ANY of God's children, no matter how misguided they may be in their fundamentalism) is beyond abominable. I assume these churches also believe Jesus (if He were walking the earth today) would be attending pro-war rallies, preaching on the joys of gun-ownership, giving His blessing to usury and wealth-hoarding, and supporting an ammendment to raise a flag to a level of worship. The Devil truly does have the power to assume many "pleasing forms", and the one he has assumed for the Religious Right is a golden calf that justifies all of their prejudices, greed, and idolatries.

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Dameian, let us untwist some facts, this is from the National Census::my reason for cutting and pasting, is to show nothing has been added or twisted,

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.

What Is Poverty?
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the "Poverty Pulse" poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in 2002 asked the general public the question: "How would you describe being poor in the U.S.?" The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs.2

But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.3 While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.

Ownership of Property and Amenities Among the Poor
Table 1 shows the ownership of property and consumer durables among poor households. The data are taken from the American Housing Survey for 2001, conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Census Bureau, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy.4

As the table shows, some 46 percent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a half-acre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States.5

Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Over three-quarters have air conditioning; by contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own microwaves; a third have automatic dishwashers.

Poor households are well-equipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. One-quarter own large-screen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty.

Housing Conditions
A similar disparity between popular conceptions and reality applies to the housing conditions of the poor. Most poor Americans live in houses or apartments that are relatively spacious and in good repair. As Chart 1 shows, 54 percent of poor households live in single-family homes, either unattached single dwellings or attached units such as townhouses. Another 36.4 percent live in apartments, and 9.6 percent live in mobile homes.6

Hunger and Malnutrition in America
There are frequent charges of widespread hunger and malnutrition in the United States.12 To understand these assertions, it is important, first of all, to distinguish between hunger and the more severe problem of malnutrition. Malnutrition (also called undernutrition) is a condition of reduced health due to a chronic shortage of calories and nutriments. There is little or no evidence of poverty-induced malnutrition in the United States.

Hunger is a far less severe condition: a temporary but real discomfort caused by an empty stomach. The government defines hunger as "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food."13 While hunger due to a lack of financial re-sources does occur in the United States, it is limited in scope and duration. According to the USDA, on a typical day, fewer than one American in 200 will experience hunger due to a lack of money to buy food.14 The hunger rate rises somewhat when examined over a longer time period; according to the USDA, some 6.9 million Americans, or 2.4 percent of the population, were hungry at least once during 2002.15 Nearly all hunger in the United States is short-term and episodic rather than continuous.16

Some 92 percent of those who experienced hunger in 2002 were adults, and only 8 percent were children. Overall, some 567,000 children, or 0.8 percent of all children, were hungry at some point in 2002. In a typical month, roughly one child in 400 skipped one or more meals because the family lacked funds to buy food.

Not only is hunger relatively rare among U.S. children, but it has declined sharply since the mid-1990s. As Chart 2 shows, the number of hungry children was cut by a third between 1995 and 2002. According to the USDA, in 1995, there were 887,000 hungry children: by 2002, the number had fallen to 567,000.17

Among the poor, the hunger rate was obviously higher: During 2002, 12.8 percent of the poor lived in households in which at least one member experienced hunger at some point.18 Among poor children, 2.4 percent experienced hunger at some point in the year.19 Overall, most poor households were not hungry and did not experience food shortages during the year.

When asked, some 89 percent of poor households reported they had "enough food to eat" during the entire year, although not always the kinds of food they would prefer. Around 9 percent stated they "sometimes" did not have enough to eat because of a lack of money to buy food. Another 2 percent of the poor stated that they "often" did not have enough to eat due to a lack of funds.20 (See Chart 3.)

Poverty and Malnutrition
It is widely believed that a lack of financial resources forces poor people to eat low-quality diets that are deficient in nutriments and high in fat. However, survey data show that nutriment density (amount of vitamins, minerals, and protein per kilocalorie of food) does not vary by income class.21 Nor do the poor consume higher-fat diets than do the middle class; the percentage of persons with high fat intake (as a share of total calories) is virtually the same for low-income and upper-middle-income persons.22 Overconsumption of calories in general, however, is a major problem among the poor, as it is within the general U.S. population.

Examination of the average nutriment consumption of Americans reveals that age and gender play a far greater role than income class in determining nutritional intake. For example, the nutriment intakes of adult women in the upper middle class (with incomes above 350 percent of the poverty level) more closely resemble the intakes of poor women than they do those of upper-middle-class men, children, or teens.23 The average nutriment consumption of upper-middle-income preschoolers, as a group, is virtually identical with that of poor preschoolers but not with the consumption of adults or older children in the upper middle class.

This same pattern holds for adult males, teens, and most other age and gender groups. In general, children aged 0-11 years have the highest average level of nutriment intakes relative to the recommended daily allowance (RDA), followed by adult and teen males. Adult and teen females have the lowest level of intakes. This pattern holds for all income classes.

Nutrition and Poor Children
Government surveys provide little evidence of widespread undernutrition among poor children; in fact, they show that the average nutriment consumption among the poor closely resembles that of the upper middle class. For example, children in families with incomes below the poverty level actually consume more meat than do children in families with incomes at 350 percent of the poverty level or higher (roughly $65,000 for a family of four in today's dollars).

Table 5 shows the average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals as a percentage of the recommended daily allowance among poor and middle-class children at various age levels.24 The intake of nutriments is very similar for poor and middle-class children and is generally well above the recommended daily level. For example, the consumption of protein (a relatively expensive nutriment) among poor children is, on average, between 150 percent and 267 percent of the RDA.

To read more so I am not accused of lewaving out anything here is the site this came from

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

call it poverty, does poverty mean poverty? as we think of it?

the material is from the government census

heritage.org... I checked on them- looked at their financiers and so on.

They are tied hand and foot to the dominionists- I'd say that they are part of the pseudoscience portion of dominionism.

Figures someone like you would quote them (I read some of the stuff they said and they are full of ****).

And as to what you "cut and pasted"... yeah, why don't you buy the Brooklyn Bridge while you're at it.

poverty, There is NOT ONE RESEARCH group, not one poverty advocate that disputes the numbers I posted, what they do is just not acknowledge it, because they know the data can not be disputed, and Bobbie until you have numbers to dispute those numbers you have no intellectual valid reason to dispute that study, except," I CAN'T PLAY ANY MORE, MY MOMMIES IS CALLING ME"

OF COURSE I CUT AND PASTED, with the likes of twisters who will try and say oh this didn't mean that, and oh no one ever said that, its all there black and white, cut and pasted. You should cut and paste Bob, oh but then you can't, because many times you miss quote much of what you write, and cutting and pasting would show that , you could not say. , " Some fundamentalist said this, when in his qoute he really said the opposite
Just as who ever it was posted the statement that there was 2,000 quotes or times poverty was mentioned in the Bible, which is a total untruth.

Let me ask you a Question Bob.Would Jesus rather someone die of starvation, as long as he were saved, or would Jesus rather someone eat his whole life long and not be saved? I know i asked you to answer that but I know you will not, you will probably come back with some silly, question that can not be answered, just please answer the question, it is not a trick question,

Bob you say look at heritage finiancers, who are they Bob, so now we dis believe things upon who it comes from, does that hold true with anything Homosexuals say , Homosexual Doctors,Homosexual Researchers,We should dis count it because a Homosexual finances research on AIDS,Cant have it just one way Bob,Denounce it if you can prove it is untrue not because a CHRISTIAN FUNDED IT, and I do not know that any Christiand did, I am taking your word for it, which by your standerds I should not,and Bob that letter, was money.

I reject any "god" that would demand an either/or situation.

If YOUR god demands that a person starve to death to go to heaven- then I reject YOUR god.

Teyose (the person you call Jesus) cares about more than just "saved souls"- and YOU SHOULD TOO!!!

By the way... that IS a trick (or should I say trap) question. You won't deceive me.

Bob, Good Trickery AGAIN, change my question, into your question then say I refuse to answer a Question you did not even ask,

Bob God is not Requiring anything I AM ASKING YOU A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

My Question did not even come close to saying God Requires/you added that/so you could seem insenced and not answer.

I again did not even come close to say Jesus would require that, I asked you if it came down to, being saved or starving,

It is no trick question, Jesus was more concerned about saving mens souls then feeding man kind, you can see this by things he said and did to save mankind, he came to save mankind , he died to save you and I, he did not come to feed us!!! or he could have snapped his fingers and made renewable food for all the world, and guess what, He Woulden't even have to have died for that!!

J (or Joseph, or whatever),

Actually the post that I just left for Gary and Eddie on the Payday Someday subject is a perfect answer for this. Rather than re-type it here I'm going to ask that you check it out under that topic.

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

JOSEPH WROTE: It is no trick question, Jesus was more concerned about saving mens souls then feeding man kind, you can see this by things he said and did to save mankind, he came to save mankind , he died to save you and I, he did not come to feed us!!! or he could have snapped his fingers and made renewable food for all the world, and guess what, He Woulden't even have to have died for that!!

KEITH: Hi Joseph. Thanks for entering the lions den:-) We leftists (not trying to speak for everyone here, I call myself a leftist Christian) can sometimes be pretty hard on you guys, but one of the points of this board is to eliminate the kind of demonization that we Christians too often engage in and practice is the only way we can learn to talk to each other. Anyway, to get to the point.

I agree that Jesus came to save our souls not to provide food for every hungry person on earth. Thta was *Jesus* job, but he assigned *us* with the task of feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty and visiting the prisoners. In fact, he said that when we treat the afformentioned generously or selfishly, we were treating Jesus himself that way. Jesus defined being a Christian according to that standard; he specifically dismissed theological correctness as the standard. Jesus described the lost souls with parables about rich people who ignored the hungry, religiously self righteous who *judged* sinners instead of offering them unconditional love, and people who let legalistic "adherence" to the law trick them into ignoring the true law, namely loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. To the extent that we fail to follow Jesus' commandments toward our neighbors in need, that is the measure of how lost we are. Jesus provides us with a way out of the darkness and his way is distinct from holding the right theological opinions.

your friend
Keith

Eddy you need to study the Bible a little better To change us true Christians go back to your Republican conclave and quit trying to lead poor people to hell. On the covenant in Deut 8:18 was made with Moses and it was the milk and honey covenant and ended when the rich got the big head forgot all of Gods law about taking care of the poor and he ended the land of milk and honey and turned it into desert and filled it full of Arabs .
And on Eph 4: 28 you miss read it Eph 4: 28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need.
29 Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear.

But he was a liberal

Keith, Hi , Its pretty simple to me, as a kid I grew up Catholic, Then began reading the bible a couple times a day until I have tread it several times, I do not need anyone to tell me what Jesus Meant or said, not a Priest not a Preacher, Reverend, only the Bible, nor a secularist Professor. Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
I do not find Jesus assigned us to feed the poor, nor visit prisoners in jail ,He was telling us if we did these things [each one of us from our heart it would show the true love of Jesus. and thus our love for him,
However he stopped Marry from being stoned to death for adultery, does that mean Adultery is ok with Jesus, and that all laws against Adultery should be taken off the books, it did not even mean Jesus was against stoning adulterers, or he would have preached " NO MORE STONING " which he did not, because he believed in the Mosaic Law, HE did not come to change the Law But to for fill it. He stopped marry from being stoned because she confessed to him she believed He was the Messiah, and because she did that[ believed in Him,and Repented," He said GO and sin no more", and because she was then sinless, he told her accusers let he that is without sin cast the first stone, why those words were so significant, was because now marry was without sin, and they were not.
Jesus gives unconditional love, but not unconditional salvation, otherwise Hitler would be in Heaven today.
Jesus talked about forgiving thy Brother, that is the family who believes in Jesus and the Bible, he would not specified who to treat how, He said do not Charge a Brother Interest, how ever you could a non Jew, No one needs to make up things Jesus wants us to do, He was a Jew and believed in the book He Inspired the Torah, the Jewish Laws are our laws and how we are to treat people, however as Damien likes to use Leviticus as a stumbling block it is not, Leviticus was a set of rituals,. Theological Correctness as you call them.
The parable of which you speak was to show us if we treat someone badly God will punish us as the servant that would not forgive a debut after being forgiven a debut, Jesus used Money to make a point, the point was forgiveness, not money. We are not to make others give, we are to give, we are not to sanction Governments to feed the poor for us, because then we are forcing others to conform to something they may not want to.
Keith just as you oppose giving your taxes to the Government that goes for the war in Iraq, A atheist and many others, may not want to be forced to feed the poor because Jesus told you to do so, and as we know the left is all inclusive and would not want to step on minorities rights.
Jesus never asked us to give any one unconditional rights, Jesus did not give unconditional rights, he first asked belief in himself as GOD, then he required REPENTANCE

Bob Bowers writes :I reject any "god" that would demand an either/or situation.

Well Bob, Jesus, God Or Teyose Demands You "either" Repent Of Your Sins "or" you will require and have eternal damnation!.

Now Bob I call that a Either/or Situation

If one keeps committing the same sins without repentance, the Lord knows your heart, and I suggest He knows that you are unrepentant if you keep on sinning, And a Sin is not a arbitrary word , a sin is a defiant act against God and the laws he commanded us to live by after the first time , sin is a act not a word.

Bob it seems to me you want a God where anything goes as long as you love your friends. Perhaps you believe, you are forgiven for every thing you ever do, simply because you root for the poor , ask the Government to give more. and say you know Jesus.

I think it is much more than that Bob, First you must forgive your perceived enemies, the white man and the other Christians who do not agree with you, you can not be forgiven if you do not forgive, and that is another either/ or situation.

Monte, Jesus wants us to prosper, to who much is given, much is required, And as it is so America Prospered, and America gave to the world, as Christians did, oh yes some who claimed to be Christians did evil things, that is expected with free will. You speak of Usury, well Jesus said do not charge your "BROTHER" interest, but you were allowed to charge others interest, and that is for a believer, it does not apply to credit card companies, or the secular world.

I see a lot of bitter people here, alot of people who blame others for their own short comings , many who blame their boss's or the Fundamentalists, or the white man ,to blame is to not forgive, and to not forgive, is to be not forgiven.

ARDEN
"If the torture allegations & worldwide discussions are "complete nonsense," try bbc.com archives & don't blame me or anyone else: Bite the bullet, with chagrin."

The BBC is biased.

ARDEN
"Now, if the "intelligent design" statements "border on false witness," how about some fact-checking? You may start with at least a dozen posts I entered on this site BEFORE you showed up with false motives: I wish there were an index function on this site to facilitate such. No hurrahs for Al Mohler in this regard or any other. It is shameful of his role in the fundamentalizing of SBC institutions & this the flagship seminary for over a century. And how can you disavow Judge Jones' 140 page decision denying "i.d." as Science, which of course it is not? Do you align with Phyllis Shaffly & say he disappointed Bush's "evangelical base" who thought they had bought his decision? Do courts only provide "blind justice" if it supports your underhanded cause? Want to talk about "bearing false witness"? Beware before you ask for the brickbats."

You are assuming your position to be correct. This is a circular argument, not a debate.

The issues surrounding intelligent design and the issues involved in the legal case be found at the discovery institute (http://www.discovery.org/) where a number of prominent scientists and professors comment and contribute to the debate.

In any case, prior to the discovery of hubble's law (the big bang) it was widely believed in the secular scientific community that the universe was eternal. Do the philosophical implications of a limited, expanding universe automatically mean that it can only be left to theological discussions?

Arden:
"A word to interlopers: you don't have it in you to make intelligent, educated comments to progressives, much less liberals. It's surely not a biblical calling you have. I will not engage in your subcultural rant, but a partial answer once is enough. Be gone, be gone! The demands of Christianity are far above thee, beginning with the basics."

You heard it from the top, Eddie. We are not the enlightened people we thought we were. In fact, we are a plague. It's a good thing we have liberal friends to make us look cool in the eyes of the world.

My advice to Arden: IF you really want to see an example of refusing to address an argument, perhaps you can understand the irony of this website's own stated values not listing a single contended verse in regards to homosexuality.

Well, talk about having been so brainwashed with fundamentalist nonsense that the TRUTH has not a chance? Rob, I have dealt with the likes of you for a lifetime, and I have seen too many innocent people literally 'crack' in the classroom for not being able to jibe the illicit data on which they grew up with academic evidence. Why are they 'innocent'? Because they trusted to be shepherded by those who led them into a corner or on a precipse. That's who I have helped to salvage 'religion' from their bad experience when they'd want to just abandon it altogether: it happens whenever that first glimpse of light cuts through the closed doors of fundamentalism: that's why fundies want to have their flock of innocents socialize ONLY with that ill church's own, for FEAR that a normal soul will rub elbows with them somewhere & all is then lost: what a sorry way to treat TRUST: what a sorry lot who deceive as a means to maintain recruitment: sad souls who resist the light in any form when only prooftexting from bad paraphrase translations suffices for the evil that they do. Their 'absence OF G-d' can only promise an 'absence FROM G-d' when the chips are down. Keep your evil amongst yourselves only: proselytizing is a great sin unlike any other, which you practice frantically so as to disallow any light to fall upon you. Evil incarnate. No wonder those who reach a 4th grade reading level reject such nonsense as you peddle, but what a bad name for religion you leave in your wake. And abroad? That is what gets us labeled as kooks & whackos.

You failed basic freshman (college) source assessment if you think the BBC is biased and the Discovery Institute websource is not. Fox (faux) News & christian radio & marginal psuedoreligious cable on DirectTV [SkyAngel] are no doubt your favorites. And as for trying to dismiss Judge Jones' 140 pg. condemnation of "intelligent design" as a 'circular argument'? It only sheds light on your steeped in evil ways: sad enough for yourself alone, a sin of massive proportions [yes, sins have weight] when you deceive others & damage their psyches conveying wrong is right/right is wrong. Your circular circulation within your circles of ignorance is profane.

I have no problem with science & a limited, expanding universe: why should I? My faith is not make-or-break on any shibboleth, and when I have to make an adjustment for new data, I can do it easily since my belief was not in the prior data as an end never to be changed. NEW black holes have recently been discovered: all that does is establish the permanence of Evolution as a principle & a precept of function. Einstein's legacy is that matter is eternal: the universe gets its eternity from the eternity of matter, but there is nothing there that guarantees the FORM of anything as eternal. Only theological discussions possible for such? I never backed myself into such a corner, nor would I. Change happens, even at this nanosecond, and change happens too, hopefully, in the matter of spiritual grown & necessary accomodations to circumstance along the way. I am not threatened by such since it's an open invitation to adventure & growth. As with the variety of testifiers in Judge Jones' court, each was allowed standing, but in the end, each did NOT have equal standing---something your rigidity does not have the flexibility to comprehend. Judge Jones got it not just right but amazingly so & authenticated the cardinal principle of separation of church & state within his ruling: more than could have been hoped for.

Hic habitat felicitas aeternititas.

Arden, one thing I find revealing is that Judge Jones found (and clearly referred to) the use of deception on the part of the supporters of "Intelligent Design". The rector of the church we used to attend had one of the ID speakers come to give a presentation, and I caught the man in a number of flat-out deceptions, using bad science, and using brainwashing techniques.

It seems to fit a pattern with fundamentalists.

Most of the students I encounter are people who have already learned just how much they were deceived, and rejected the church.

Others came from homes were faith wasn't a big deal (or that were not fundamentalist), and the preaching they hear just turns them off and hurts them. I have to remind people that I am a Christian with some regularity- the stereotype of "Loudmouth Offensive Stupid Bigot=Christian" has been reinforced so often on campus that those of us who are NOT fundamentalist are not recognized as Christians.

The really sad part is when a lot of these people finally realize how much they were lied to and brainwashed, they not only reject the church, they also reject Jesus.

Arden:
"Keep your evil amongst yourselves only: proselytizing is a great sin unlike any other, which you practice frantically so as to disallow any light to fall upon you. Evil incarnate. No wonder those who reach a 4th grade reading level reject such nonsense as you peddle, but what a bad name for religion you leave in your wake. And abroad? That is what gets us labeled as kooks & whackos."

Your sharp language is all the evidence I need for my position.

Arden:
"You failed basic freshman (college) source assessment if you think the BBC is biased and the Discovery Institute websource is not."

A few members of the discovery institute were involved in the trial that took place. Nobody took the opportunity to accurately represent them so I figured maybe they should speak for themselves.

Arden:"I have no problem with science & a limited, expanding universe: why should I? "

The big bang was and is the most astonishing discovery in favor of intelligent design. You said ID wasn't science, I have proved to you that it is.

There is a reason the Bible teaches us to believe God's Word -- to have 'faith' in that which was written. Even in Paul's day there were those who were scientists, "falsely so called". The reason they were "falsely so called" is the same today, as it was then. "Science", contrary to popular understanding, is NOT a 'study' or a 'search for knowledge'... It IS knowledge, gained though experimentation and research. Evolution is a theory. The ONLY evidence presented in support of evolution is hearsay evidence -- that which somebody else says exists, i.e., Arden's 'new black holes'. By this, I am not denying the existence of the black holes or anything else some consider supportive of the theory of evolution. But Arden has never seen these things for himself, he has to choose to believe what others tell him, despite the fact there is a likely an agenda on the part of those who publish their evolution-supporting discoveries. Nobody has 'knowledge' of evolution, therefore it is not 'science'. Choosing to believe it, doesn't make it true.
The 'evidence' for creation, on the other hand was provided by God and is readily available for all to see. That evidence is creation itself. It's that which reveals itself as no accident -- no result of multiple 'mutations' -- but rather, a complex and intricate handiwork. The world around us which can be seen by all, according to Scripture, reveals the existence and attributes of the Creator, and leaves humanity "without excuse" when it comes to faith in God. The foundation of all true faith, is first and foremost, believing that ALL things were called into existence by the Word of God -- so that everything that can be seen was made from something that cannot be seen (Hebrews 11:3). It did not 'evolve' from some other form. From nothing, it came, when God said, 'Let it be'.
We know this to be true, not through lab work or controlled experimentation, thus, our knowledge is not scientific... But it IS knowledge -- knowledge and understanding gained through faith "Through 'faith' we 'understand'...
Proven scientific discoveries have never cast a shadow of doubt on the Biblical account of creation, but have only confirmed it. Everything from the fossil record, to DNA, to the continued discovery of NO life on other planets; does nothing but add confirmation to that which was written in Scripture, and the Divinely unique condition of the earth and its inhabitants.
As far as picking and choosing what portions of the Bible our 'progressive' friends wish to believe... If you cannot believe the marvelous handiwork of God, provided as clear evidence of Who He is, His character, and His pending judgment on those who oppose Him (Roms. 1:20) -- you will forever be an alien to true faith.
The message of creation is that there is a Creator. And if there is a Creator, then those who were created will one day give an account to Him and face His judgment. Thus, the agenda of the evolutionist is, and always has been... Replace the truth of creation with the idea of evolution and thus, do away with the necessity of preparing to face the Creator... And if I don't have to face my Creator, then there will be no judgment of my sins... And if I don't ever have to face judgment, then I can live however I please... I can 'do those things which are pleasing in my own eyes' rather than God's.
It was that primary goal -- the removal of God from their consciousness -- which led to the worship of the creature, rather than the Creator. It led to the rejection of the knowledge of God, gained through the evidence of creation and a turning to "the lie" of evolution instead. And it also led to unbridled sensuality, resulting in sexual sin and perversion (homosexuality); once their minds were free from the thought of pending judgment.
This is all explained in Romans, chapter 1. It's sad but amazing, how that which happened in the days of darkness, before the light of the Word of God was available; was written so long ago and so accurately portrays the condition we live in today -- not because the Word is unavailable, but because so many are rejecting sound doctrine and 'turning aside to fables'.
EH

Eddie, your understanding of science, theory, and so on is wrong. Completely wrong.

I've defined Theory (as used in science) enough times that it should be unnecessary to define it again. If you reject science, then you need to stop using your computer (it comes from science), stop using any sort of appliances, no cars, no planes, and so on. They all are products of science (the same science that the understanding of evolution comes from) and therefore, by your arguement, against the bible.

As for me, I am a social scientist. When I study evolution, it STRENGTHENS my faith in God and Teyose. If you'd take the time to talk to a lot of scientists, you'd find that they think like I do.

Your way of thinking??? I would not want to have anything to do with any sort of God such as you describe. That God is a liar, a deceiver, and abusive. Any "god" who would leave so much overwhelming evidence for evolution so as to TRICK people isn't worth worshipping.

I see God's handiwork IN evolution. And it is still happening, and one of the principles, speciation, is being observed taking place RIGHT NOW among the Darwin's finches in the Galapagos Islands. Also, human beings have been changing (evolving) in the last 10,000 years. The human face (on average) has shrunk by between 10 and 20% during that period.

Change is part of evolution.

By the way... if Rob S wants to talk about the Big Bang, he'd better not reject the rest of science- it was ONLY through science that we came to a knowledge of it. And, the SAME science that discovered the Big Bang also puts the age of the universe at several BILLION years old. If you cannot accept the age of the universe, then you have to reject the Big Bang- it is the SAME PHYSICS used to determine the approximate age of the universe that discovered the Big Bang.

You see, Scientists report on how things were done, the Bible is about WHY and NOT HOW.

Dr. Ken Miller, evolutionary microbiologist (and one of the people who showed the fallacy behind "intelligent design" has written a very good book, "Finding Darwin's God". I would recommend it to anyone who wants to learn the TRUTH about ID and evolution.

This site is getting overrun with Brownshirts. Why don't we show them that, as of yet, they don't own everything in this country and throw them off the site? Otherwise, we can just give them the site and we Christians can just start meeting in the catacombs again.

You are right about one thing, Mr Bowers... It is 'unneccesary' for you to define 'theory' again. But again, I do not reject 'science'. And my definition of 'science' is not my own, but came out of the dictionary, so at least one other credible source agrees, that science is "knowledge" not theory, study, or a quest for knowledge.
And there is no 'overwhelming evidence' supporting evolution. If you have to go to the Galapagos Islands to find your evidence, I wouldn't call it 'overwhelming'... By the way, have you been there?
The 'overwhelming' evidence all around us testifies of creation and confirms the Scriptural "how" (not just 'why') thereof. It's sad, but it comes as no surprise that you call the God of creation a "liar". Your choice to be 'overwhelmed' by, and put your trust in 'evidence' that you have never seen -- described to you by men who (in general) have proven to be liars indeed, rather than the God who cannot lie -- is way beyond my understanding.
As far as your declared refusal to have 'anything to do with' the God I 'describe'... I'm afraid you have no choice in the matter. Soon enough, you will meet Him. And He will owe you no explanation as to why He does not meet your standards. On the contrary, you may have some explaining to do; not as to why you didn't believe me, but why you rejected what He clearly spelled out for you, both in Scripture and in the works of His hands.
EH

You know, it's funny that you call scientists liars, when at the Dover trial the CREATIONISTS were PROVEN to be lairs!!!

That is part of the reason "ID" lost.

Gpope, my sentiments exactly.

I come here to find and share with people who think like I do, not to have some fundamentalist start getting in my face.

I've had enough of that in real life!!!

It so reminds me of what Teyose said about the Pharisees- not going in and not letting others in as well.

I've been posting to a webserver about the problems with dominionism and the threat it poses to freedom. Others there are starting to listen- and one of them grew up in Polk County (I call Polk County, Florida BIGOT CENTRAL, but it is also Domininionist central!).

Thinking about that- the tie between bigotry (racist, sexist, and homophobic) and dominionism is fairly clear, so why should I be surprised?

I will be glad when my education is done, and I can get away from this area!!!

Thanks for noting that the "Brownshirts have arrived" above, for indeed they have. Fundamentalists are clueless that in their extremism, they help document NeoFascism again & again. Our biblical literalist & creationist also establishes 'social climbing' within their own subworld: from part-time construction dayworker to a pulpit, from W.Va. to Virginia Beach wannabe, pious piffles dropping along the way to defining things as his narrow intellect can see fit. Yes, Science [capital letter} is Knowledge [capital K], as Chaucer demanded in his Canterbury Tales in late Medieval times, but it's hypostatic philosophy for establishing the best that can be known, with interchangeablity at the apex. The same is true for Religion [capital] v. religion. The small letter kind is what we see in the dusty trails of trolls that have taken up temporary residence here at CAP: form without substance, trapping without essence, literalist babble cherrypicked against a thin line of invisibility running throughout the whole. Substance, essence & the organizing principle of content are BEYOND the pale of literalism, which is why they repeat their drill and shout louder. Touche! Give them the rope the better with which to hang themselves, only they never recognize that!

It gets quite interesting when they disagree with each other, thereby giving their claims for infallibility the scuttle. One now claims the 'big bang' shows support for i.d. in the wake of the Jones/Dover sweeping decision, the other spouts a literal creationism but claims, when pressed, that it includes the 'how' also. In a narrow deductionism, his creationism comes to interchange for the 'Creator' & anyone who can't make that leap will answer to his maker at a judgment sooner than he'd expect! And all follows that it's simple, simplistic, with all modern evidence, even application to our modern world, denied if it doesn't repeat the template he has deduced for it. No wonder any educated lad or lassie has nothing to do with it, including any 4th grader who has arrived at grade level. Enslaving that child at that narrow level is tantamount to child abuse, but fundies do not see their folly nor what they brand/paint the rest of us with worldwide: freaks & kooks. No wonder at all why we & CAP tries to disassociate us from them. We ain't like them, no way! And hurrah!

There's an intelligence quotient necessary for literary, historical & text/MSS assessment. One's Faith is bettered in learning where belief can be centered and where it cannot. It's not confounding, but it is edifying & enlightening!
'Jesus ONLY' with a literal bible does NOT match modern knowledge, but apply the effort for something other than a one second conversion for inculcation, and it can be a thing of beauty which results in a joy forever [look up the poetry!]. When these Brownshirts are 'left behind,' the surprise will be theirs. Without an earth rending to accompany this "still, small voice" of reason, they'll miss it & not know!

I do not take it as insult to be known as a "secularist Professor", as called above. And when I provided a full answer and bringing us BACK to the post, the interloper did not appreciate it since I did not answer "Scripture to scripture," which of course I'd never do! That's prooftexting, something a Mainline Protestant would not do! Literal to Literalist is what the problem is! We are a strident voice for intelligence without yet abandoning Faith while deeping it all the while. Good work, All! The Brownshirts, Trolls & interlopers will get their due!

Bob, the reason you're able to alternately refer to it as "Bigot Central" and "Dominionist Central" is because the two go hand in hand. I was raised in Mississippi, and saw firsthand, and, in a very real way, how destructive these people who worship the pink-skinned, blue-eyed jesus tend to be. And they all came armed with scripture to justify their violence.

Arden,

Once again, jolly good show! Yes, let the literalists/inerrantists have enough rope to hang themselves. Like the Pharisees before them, they understand (what they THINK is) the Letter of the Law, but without understanding The Spirit. To them, their Faith will collapse without a book, because to them, The Bible is a sort of magical fairy tale book that ITSELF is God in some form (for ONLY God is infallible, and therefore if a man-made thing is said to be infallible, even The Bible, it needs must be admitted that one has said the thing is, essentially, God). Yes, idolatry surely, and hypocricy compounding it as they blithely ignore scriptures which are incompatible with their greed, prejudice, and malice. Multiple passages condemning usury as unlawful, a sin, and an "abomination" before God, yet they vainly grasp at the one passage they think lets them have an out. Of course the one passage also suggests that while one might be allowed usury of a "stranger" (all of the other passages don't even allow for THAT), it also insists that one may not practice usury on a "brother", which is precisely what every Christian banker/credit card company does when he/she/they charge outrageous interest and fees, enslaving other Christians. And while they with great enthusiasm will quote a favourite passage or two from Leviticus, don't expect them to observe the rest! Yes, idolatry in the form of flag-worship and Nationalism, avarice and worship of Mammon...Well, The Bible is "without error" according to their need to justify that which Jesus certainly would never approve. Hypocricy most foul and dangerous. Nothing new there. As I've pointed out in past posts, biblical literalists/inerrantists used The Bible to justify The Holy Inquisition, slavery, segregation,Manifest Destiny, opposition to interracial marriage, war, and even genocide. Herr Hitler was frequently heard to spout scripture in his attempt to validate hatred and murder of the Jews (and gypsies, and homosexuals, among others).

One cannot help but wonder what their concept of Jesus as "The Living Word" and "The Incarnate Word" or God is, or IF they even actually believe such a thing, for surely for them to acknowledge such would require them to place The Master ABOVE biblical "infallibility" as the supreme ruler by which everything else in The Bible must be measured against. Considering the countless numbers they have driven screaming from Christianity with their odious, perverted, and narrow-minded "patchwork" version of it, that millstone must have a "ponderous" chain (as Dickens might suggest), a chain they continue to work on day by day.

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Yeah... there are two things that breed hatred- ignorance and injustice.

The first causes an unreasoning and illogical hatred of "the other" and is very difficult to get rid of (education and experience do the trick), the second is more logical and can be cured with justice and God's love.

I'm familiar with both- Sue says that years ago I was rather like the trolls in my thinking, and I fight against hatred all the time (within myself) because of undealt-with injustice.

What is funny is that the troll-like thinking and the injustice largely have the same source- fundamentalism.

I thank God that I learned the truth, and with much spiritual healing, have left the troll-like thinking behind. I also pray for justice, because nothing interferes with faith as much as seeing injustice heaped upon injustice.

J I see a lot of bitter people here, alot of people who blame others for their own short comings , many who blame their boss's or the Fundamentalists, or the white man ,to blame is to not forgive, and to not forgive, is to be not forgiven.
Now if you can talk the Republican party to quit blaming every thing on some one else; I will believe some of what you and how about BCV with your Bible quotes

Matthew 12
Jesus' Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Exodus 22
22 "Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.
25 "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest. 26 If you take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, return it by sunset, 27 because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can your neighbor sleep in? When he cries out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.
Matthew 19
21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 14
Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand
13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.
15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food."
16 Jesus replied, "They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat."
17 "We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," they answered.
18 "Bring them here to me," he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.
Matthew 15
Jesus Feeds the Four Thousand
29 Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down. 30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. 31 The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel.
32 Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way."
33 His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?"
34 "How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.
"Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."
35 He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. 36 Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. 37 They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 38 The number of those who ate was four thousand men, besides women and children. 39 After Jesus had sent the crowd away, he got into the boat and went to the vicinity of Magadan.