Archive for Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Another sin

June 27, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

Commenting on the views of the new presiding-bishop designate of my church, Cal Thomas writes, "If homosexual practice is not sin, what is?"

Well, gosh, I would have thought that the killing of innocent people qualifies, but that's a practice Mr. Thomas advocates. If a terrorist is operating from a Palestinian area, and the poor terrified locals don't manage to turn him over, Thomas would have everyone living there killed with bombs.

Must be because I'm an Episcopalian that I see something wrong with HIS views.

Anne Haehl,

Lawrence

Comments

drewdun 8 years, 9 months ago

Cal is God's second son. He knoweth this. Everyone who reads his column knoweth this. Process, accept and move on.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

"Everyone has a say on the LJW. Doesn't mean what they have to say is intelligent"

No kidding. This from one who advocates amending the Constitution to allow for harvesting of organs from incarcerated felons, and amending the Constitution to allow for retired military personnel yo have the equivalent of five (5 - count'em) votes, instead of one person/one vote.

A shining beacon of retrograde, fascist "intelligence."

BTW, Jesus is dead. That illegitimate Galilean twit wasn't god when he was alive, and he's never coming back.

craigers 8 years, 9 months ago

BTW, Jesus is alive. The Son of God was alive on this earth and will come again.

Just thought I would be like xeno and add a little jab to those who disagree with me.

adavid 8 years, 9 months ago

craigers is right jesus is alive he's tied up in my basement i've been feeding him my fingernail clippings.

Jamesaust 8 years, 9 months ago

"Cal Thomas writes, "If homosexual practice is not sin, what is?"

Mr. Thomas seems to believe that 'homosexual' is a verb not a noun, that it is a word defined not by the creature created in the image of God but rather wayward heterosexuals at their worst.

"If ... is not ... [than] what is?"

And here Mr. Thomas reveals his Phelpsidite views. Of ALL sins in HIS Bible the worst of all is the one the actual Bible records Jesus never having wasted a breath upon.

craigers 8 years, 9 months ago

adavid, that's just wrong. I would rather starve than eat fingernails. That's like eating the shells of sunflower seeds. Yuck!!

craigers 8 years, 9 months ago

I see what you are saying Jamesaust, but the whole bible is God's word, so that argument about Jesus not having words written in red about it is very shaky. But then again if you don't accept the bible as the authoritative word of God, then you would only see the quotes as being authoritative.

temperance 8 years, 9 months ago

Quick! Someone needs to inform Chuck Hagel (R) and John McCain (R) that they belong to a counterfeit religion and that they're not True Christians!

Perhaps the letter could've been crafted in a more persuasive manner, but I think the main point was this: Faced with a full range of sinful acts, why is homosexuality The Extra Super Biggest Sin that freaks y'all out so much? Here's a bigger sin: voting to repeal the estate tax for millionaires while voting to keep the minimum wage stagnant.

Xeno Thanks for your earlier post & the heads up. You're right! Some people here seem unable to type without adding a cup full of ad hominem.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

Hate is good. Hate ignorance, stupidity, religious superstition . . . and kill it when and however you can.

Jesus was a man, period. Not God. It is impossible for a human being to also be God. Utter, inconceivable blasphemy against that which is God.

The fact of Jesus' illegitimacy was the single most formative nuance of his youth; it led him toward a path of ruin as an adult.

And any contention that the bible is "the word of God," is laughable nonsense. It is a hodge-podge of Jewish drivel. Sometime down the road, when I have more time, I'll tell you all the story of Butch Jones in the joint, and his take on the bible.

KWCoyote 8 years, 9 months ago

Judas Iscariot, the evildoer who betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, felt so bad and guilt-ridden afterward that he returned the money to the temple and went out and hanged himself.

He also felt fine after betraying Jesus, used the money to buy a nice piece of real estate, and was admiring it from a height when he had an untimely accidental fall to his death.

I know Judas died both ways shortly after the crucifixion, as the infallible Word of God says so. He died two different ways, by a guilty suicide and a klutzy accident, and it takes an exceptional individual to do that. Most guys can only manage to die once.

You don't need a PhD in archeology or Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to figure this out. It's been right there in your Bible all along, clearly translated for your convenience and enlightenment.

Jamesaust 8 years, 9 months ago

thanks craigers.

But I think anyone who believes that every word of Christ must be devalued so that it can be equal to every random (and often meaningless) statement from some other part of the Bible is frankly bonkers. (Don't eat crustaceans, don't sleep on mountaintops, don't weave two materials together as cloth, and, oh yeah, love on another.) Frankly, it reminds me of these people who spend years memorizing every word of the Quran but seem to fail to understand any of it.

How exactly is any random quote equivalent to the instruction of the Son of Man? "And I looked, and, behold, on the right side there arose one feather, and reigned over all the earth" II Esdras 11:12 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." Luke 16:18

I believe a safer course is to accept the WORDS of God as the WORD of God and consider the remainder to be commentary (some of much, much less value). Goodness knows, those words are filled with enough mystery to fill up even the most ravenous theologian. Its certainly more direct than saying 'what I believe is true is what I believe to be true' - surely the most arrogant approach to truth available.

bankboy119 8 years, 9 months ago

First: I don't see anybody saying the homosexuality is a greater sin than anything else right now. If they are then that's going against the teaching in the Bible, that a sin is a sin is a sin.

Second: James, the crustaceans and cloth are from the Old Testament and old covenant. The new covenant was established in the New Testament. If you look at only the Old Testament we should all be sacrificing doves and goats every week as well.

craigers 8 years, 9 months ago

Jamesaust just because we don't think the message to be completely relevant to us doesn't devalue it. Some of the historical writings in the Old Testament record genealogy, temple building plans, etc but that doesn't mean they are any less important than what Christ said orally. Sometimes people think that the, it, a, an among many other words themselves might be just meaningless but when you put them in a sentence, they are crucial. In the same sense you must understand all of the "drivel" around the words of Christ to get an accurate picture of what God is saying to His people and all humanity. What do they say 90% of our conversations are communicated non-verbally?

Jamesaust 8 years, 9 months ago

Thanks all for the pointers on the new convenant and the value of temple building plans but this doesn't deal with the subject here.

Mr. Thomas, engaging in an attack upon a Christian sect he doesn't subscribe to (apparently), has chosen to identify a leader of that church as not only a sinner but apparently a practicioner of the 'sin beyond all sin' based on nothing particular at all - certainly not upon any recorded indication of Christ.

This is a particularly bizarre approach from an apologist for torture. It seems to me to be a crystalization of the waywardness of Christianists that it turns out that the holiest of the holyier-than-thou crowd, none other than the (self) annointed of God, takes a moral stance 100% contrary to Christ himself but then has the audaciousness to opine upon the exceptional depravity of a bishop he doesn't even know.

thusspokezarathustra 8 years, 9 months ago

I love it when people claim, "the whole bible is God's word". Yet it would appear from the many denominations that Christians can't agree as to what God's words actually mean. Cal Thomas proves this wonderfully in his article. The test of truth in the natural world is that something can be proven yet those with faith seem content to believe first & wait for the facts proving it to come later. Xenophope is right there is no proof that Jesus was divine there is only faith & faith is not a rational argument. Just remember that the men who flew those planes into the World Trade Center were not lunatics but men of pure faith, so convinced in the rightness of their actions they were willing to sacrifice their lives & kill others. Their application of faith may have been extreme but the logic behind their motivations was the same as those who believe the bible is the word of God. The reasons for believing were the same-Faith.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

.22 short:

"The Sanhedrin couldn't find it. The Romans couldn't find it."

Oh well, then. Hosanna in the highest.

Ever occur to you that the Sanhedrin, the Romans, could've cared less about finding the dead Galilean's body? They killed him, They nailed his ass to a cross and killed him. He died, period. His carcass was a piece of rotting meat. Not God, not magically transported "up to heaven." Dead. Maggot-food.

Once the Galilean was dead, they quickly forgot about him, probably the same day.

How do you ever expect anyone to respect anything you post when you so obviously believe in complete and utter nonsense? You're like a child who is told something by his mother, and believes it all his life, right or wrong, simply because his mommy told him it was so.

Grow up. Be an adult. Jesus is dead, has been for two thousand years. He was not God when he was alive, not ever. And he's never coming back.

If I had the capacity to feel pity, I would feel it for you and your ilk, for you are some genuinely pathetic wretches.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

rightthinker:

You crack me up, dude. " An extremely slight chance righthinker maybe, just maybe could be wrong."

Democrats are catching up with Republicans mining money from corporations. I read that somewhere recently; they had all the statistics (I don't feel the need to post citations to substantiate everything I say) and what it said was that Dems are becoming more effective at getting money from formerly Republican-dominated corps.

Maybe the major corporations are hedging their bets inre the midterms and '08.

temperance 8 years, 9 months ago

hippychick: On point #6, I would point to the obvious synergy between Fox News and the current administration (see: Snow, Tony). The current attacks on the Washington Post and NYT also make your point. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece on that last point here: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

And, why do your "friends" on the other side of the aisle keep bringing up your son? Did he do someting bad? Did you do something bad to him? I just don't get this style of argument/discourse (new here). Do they find it cathartic?

thusspokezarathustra 8 years, 9 months ago

What a ridiculous argument! The lack of a dead body proves that Jesus was divine? Wouldn't that be stronger proof against the existence of Jesus all together? I know the faithful will cite historical documents stating the existence of Jesus. But isn't it curious that suddenly "facts" become so important during this argument but are thrown out the window when the Bible as a whole is considered? Is there any proof that the stories of the Bible aren't more than just that. . . stories? I have seen plenty of literature about Santa Claus & he's done some miraculous things, I was even told he existed, so does the fact that no one has ever found his dead body prove that he's divine?

craigers 8 years, 9 months ago

thus spoke, your argument concerning the authenticity of the bible doesn't really hold water. Just because men can't agree on the interpretation? I guess we should throw out almost all of our laws in this country. People are going to disagree on interpretation but that doesn't void the authenticity of the Word of God (The whole bible).

Godot 8 years, 9 months ago

"and what it said was that Dems are becoming more effective at getting money from formerly Republican-dominated corps."

Oh, goody! I can't wait to see the libs reverse course and begin berating the critics of Walmart, Big Pharma, BIG OIL, tobacco, and (gasp!) Halliburton.

After all, if what the libs claim is true, (and they should know) contributions equal access which equals acquiesence.

That reversal will require a major re-training; get ready for a request for more funding for the critically needed re-education progrom.

craigers 8 years, 9 months ago

swbsow, they were questioning the authenticity based on whether everybody could agree on the interpretation which can't be done on anything.

thusspokezarathustra 8 years, 9 months ago

That's exactly the point. Our laws can be changed & amended the bible can't, it's the infallible word of God. In other words our laws can be wrong but the bible cannot. If it is infallible it must be consistent & universal. But clearly the very existence of denominations who claim they are right & the other denominations have got it wrong disproves this. Universal laws of nature such as gravity do not change based on how they are interpreted. Gravity is the same in Kansas as it is in Missouri as it is in Saudi Arabia or anywhere on earth. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say that gravity is infallible but it is universal & consistent which is why it's something you can base your day to day life on.
The Bible is neither universal or consistent but it's infallible? Which version is actually the word of God? King James? Latin Vulgate? Greek Liturgy? Why does the story of the adultress that includes the famous quote,"let he who is without sin cast the first stone" not appear in any of the original texts but shows up hundreds of years later? Did Jesus come back to add stuff to the infallible Bible?
The argument that logically can't hold water is that the Bible is the word of God, you can't even prove his existence.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

Godot:

It probably never occurred to you, but many major corporations are not pleased at the financial excesses of your troglodyte administration. Interest rates have been climbing, and will continue to climb because Republicans can't control their pork barrel spending.

Interest rate hikes may make our treasury bonds more attractive to foreigners, but interest rate hikes are bad for the domestic economy.

Democrats are the party of fiscal conservatism (see Clinton, William Jefferson, President - 1993-2001) and scores, literally hundreds of major corporations want the federal government to exercise probity and fiscal restraint.

Enjoy. And still, no one is waiting for you.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

The four books of the "new" testament (mark, luke, matthew, john) are so rife with contradictions, errors, obvious additions, and ridiculously prophetic imagery, that you walk out of a comparative religion class wondering how you ever believed - and how any sane person could believe - such rubbish.

thusspokezarathustra 8 years, 9 months ago

Not to mention the books that got excluded from the bible such as the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Nicodemus or the Apocalypse of Peter. What divine mechanism deleted these books from the word of God but preserved only those with the "true word of God"?

Terry Jacobsen 8 years, 9 months ago

The fact that none of them were written by the people they were purported to be named after. These books were not written until 200 years after these peoples deaths.

Do a little historical research.

craigers 8 years, 9 months ago

The bible interpretation isn't a hard thing to do when you take it literally. When you do that, the interpretationis pretty straight forward and hard not to agree on. All the denominations that decide to start taking the teachings of the bible figuratively (Unity, Plymouth is starting to, etc) will break off and will not interpret the same as those who adhere to the principles of the the bible and take it literally. I would discuss this more, but it is like every other conversation we all have here. The lines are drawn and I won't be convinced any other way than the bible being the word of God. Infallible? Absolutely.

The Roman soldiers would have been killed if they let a prisoner or any body they were guarding get away. The thought that they just forgot about Christ because they didn't care was absurd. The Romans would have taken the soldiers life.

thusspokezarathustra 8 years, 9 months ago

Craigers,

"All the denominations that decide to start taking the teachings of the bible figuratively (Unity, Plymouth is starting to, etc) will break off and will not interpret the same as those who adhere to the principles of the the bible and take it literally."

You actually believe the the Bible can be taken literally? Yet you can answer none of the questions regarding the discrepencies of the different translations. Do you handle snakes? Drink strychnine? A literal interpretation of the Bible would require that you do so to prove your faith. Do you still sacrifice animals as it tells you to do in Leviticus? Do you practice the Eucharist or are you protestant? Which side is right? Why? Can you answer any of the challenges to your assertion that the Bible is the word of God. Do you have any proof other than your claim that you believe what you say?

"The lines are drawn and I won't be convinced any other way than the bible being the word of God"

I don't doubt your faith. Faith just doesn't prove anything so you should refrain from entering into rational discourse with statements like the Bible is the word of God. Your refusal to be convinced otherwise is not supporting proof of anything except your willingness & ability to ignore facts.

thusspokezarathustra 8 years, 9 months ago

75X55- Here's why they haven't found the body.

Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus (discovered, incidentally, in Jerusalem). It is not surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular crucified criminal a customary burial.

The Romans didn't care about his body or there were thousands of son's of God popping up all over Jurusalem.

Of course your own scripture seems in disagreement over what happened to Jesus' body.

John's account also recounts that Mary told them that a third party had taken the body and she didn't know where they had put it. The third party is not identified, and Brooke Foss Westcott, amongst others, considers there to be three possibilities as to who Mary is meant to be referring to:

* Grave robbers, as grave robbery was a problem in Palestine during the era
* Jewish leaders, though it is unclear what motive they could possibly have
* Grave keepers, merely moving the body to another tomb - aside from putting the body somewhere, the Greek word tihenai also can be translated as buried.

Perhaps if the word of God (Bible) were actually clear on this matter you & your fellow Christians wouldn't be so confused.

thusspokezarathustra 8 years, 9 months ago

75x55, Only 1 crucified remains were found of the hundreds of crucifixions that occured does that make them all divine? Where is your evidence the Romans were concerned with the body? Since I have proven evidence to the contrary police detectives would discount your claims.

Yes I would expect some level of disagreement but not the level of disagreement that is observed in the Bible. They can't even agree on who was there. Was it Mary Magdelene, Mary mother of James? Was Salome there? Joanna? What about the other women of Galilee? Your scriptures can't even agree on that.

If someone you knew died & the body disappeared would the detectives believe the people that said the body was ressurrected & went to heaven or the people who said it was stolen?

You are the one who is stretching since you've failed to provide evidence for anything you say, only conjecture.

I'll state it again, using your logic, hundreds of crucifixions only 1 remains found that's a lot of "son's of God" walking around Jerusalem. You sure you're praying to the right one?

Also check this out, "The existence of an "empty tomb" is not necessarily a proof of Jesus's resurrection, and many people who don't even believe that Jesus ever existed would be able to agree that Jesus' body was not found in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

In the Gospel accounts (John 19:39-42) we see the intervention of influential followers of Jesus such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who wish to take Jesus's body down from the cross and lay him in a tomb, rather than just let it be eaten by wild animals. In the Gospel of John the account is marked by a sense of urgency to do this before the coming festival of the Sabbath, during which rest would be observed and no work would occur. These account for Jesus being placed in an individual tomb, whose location was known by his followers. It has also been suggested that Joseph of Arimathea may have moved the body after the Sabbath and intentionally not told the apostles."

Still stretching?

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

zarathrustra:

You're pretty much wasting your time with this bunch of Christian looneys. They really believe their dead Galilean was "God," and that his dead, mutilated body was "lifted up" to heaven. Where is that, by the way? How does a human carcass get there? Hmm.

Can't "stretch" their brains; they haven't got any.

thusspokezarathustra 8 years, 9 months ago

Sad but true. Unfortunately I'm masochistic when it comes to countering ignorance.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.